LOGICAL FRAMEWORK (LOGFRAME) METHODOLOGY

(A PRACTICAL APPROACH)

Herman H. Grant The Project Development Institute Caribbean Global Projects Inc. February 2007 Mail to: cgpi@caribsurf.com

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Logical Framework methodology, also known as logframe methodology, is a practical and relatively straightforward approach to planning, and could form part of an integrated system of project planning. The other components in the integrated system normally consist of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), the Linear Responsibility Matrix (LRM) Network Analysis and the Budget. Used together, this approach allows project planners to keep the logframe uncluttered, while linking it with the other detailed supporting statements. The Logframe has become popular, in the context of the conceptualization and management of development projects. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Practical Concepts Incorporated (PCI), and Team Technologies Incorporated were among the early designers and users of logframe, since the early 1970s. A number of other planners in Europe, have also contributed to the development and use of logframe. The methodology has found a number of practical applications in the development community, despite some differences in the actual name used in referring to it, and some differences in details and the flow of the horizontal logic, in its actual presentation.

THE METHODOLOGY Logframe is a tool for project design, monitoring and evaluation. Stakeholder consultation is a useful starting point in preparing the logframe. On the basis of frank and open discussions planners and stakeholders could work together to build commitment and project ownership among the target group that the project is designed to help. On this basis, it is possible to achieve the best chances for project success at the implementation and operational stages. Development projects respond to problems, needs or business opportunities. The process starts with an analysis of the development problem, based on consultation with the stakeholders.

Problem Analysis: The problem analysis is an important starting point in preparing the logframe. The analysis follows the following format:

Problem (Negatives) Effects: 1. 2. . . n Alleged Problem: (Problem Statement) Causes: 1. 2. . . n

Objectives (Positives) Ends: 1. 2. . . n (Solution to the problem): Means: 1. 2. . . n

The planner starts by researching the factual basis in terms of frequency and extent of the alleged development problem. Next, the planner discusses the development problem with the target group, in order to determine the most proximate causes or contributory factors underlying the problem. Stakeholders are also consulted about their assessment of the likely effects of the problem. The link between the problem analysis and the objectives analysis in column 1 (the narrative summary) of the logframe is then established by restating the causes as means, and the effects as ends. In this way, the logframe is grounded in the development problem

4 and presents a solution that responds directly to the problem.

The Logframe Matrix The logframe matrix is of the following general format: NARRATIVE SUMMARY GOAL: PURPOSE: PROJECT: MONITORING INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS For Achieving Goal: For Achieving Purpose: For Implementing the Project: For Procuring Inputs:

INPUTS:

Column 1 Inputs: The Narrative Summary, directly links from the Problem Analysis to the hierarchy of project objectives, and gives objectives at Input, Project, Purpose and Goal levels of the logframe. The Vertical-Logic in the Narrative Summary column states: if Inputs, then Project; if Project, then Purpose; if Purpose, then Goal. This set of linked objectives incorporates: a) the areas of Manageable Interest of the project manager; that is, the transformation of Inputs into the Project; and b) the development hypothesis; that is, the link between Project, Purpose and Goal. The Narrative Summary column provides an overview of the internal logic of the project in the link between Inputs, Project and Purpose. Beyond that, the Narrative Summary provides the next-step link between the project and the wider economy, by linking Purpose to Goal. This latter link indicates the major selling-point for the project in the wider economy. In terms of definitions and concepts, Inputs give a listing of the major components included in the project. For example: land, buildings, equipment, and civil works. In this approach, nouns are used at the Input-level. It does not include activities, or a mix of

5 activities and major components. (This particular approach is adopted, because the logframe is being developed in a context where the details and activities are included as part of the Work Breakdown Structure [WBS].) The Project-level indicates the delivery system that will be put in place when all the inputs are transformed to create the project. It indicates the capacity enhancement or new system that will deliver goods and/or services to final consumers. It might also indicate the name of the deliverables the contractor is required to hand-over at the end of project implementation. The Purpose-level indicates the expected impact to be delivered in terms of goods and/or services to the target group. There is usually a change in behaviour or efficiency as a result of operating the project facility developed at the Project-Level. However, it is almost never a physical system. The Goal-level indicates the quality-of-life change accruing to the target group as a result of the sustained attainment of Purpose-level objectives. Sometimes it might also be expressed in terms of the enhancement of programme or national development objectives. However, regardless of how the goal is stated, it should relate to a sustainable enhancement in the quality-of-life of the target group. Column 4: Critical Assumptions Critical Assumptions are conditions determined in the context of the environment in which the project will operate. At the project design stage, the assumptions are drawn from experience and focus on weaknesses, risks and threats that exist in the operating environment. They relate to conditions that are outside the control of the project manager, and later, outside the control of operations management. Usually the assumptions are stated in the positive and link the various levels of the logframe via the flow of the Horizontal Logic. The Horizontal Logic usually flows in one of two directions: Horizontal Flow #1 a) If these conditions hold, then the Inputs will be available for use in the project. These assumptions at the Input-level are conditions related to the procurement/vesting/availability/accessibility of the Inputs for use in the project. Given that the Input-level assumptions hold true, then the Inputs will be available for use in the project. b) Given that the inputs are available, and the Project-level assumptions hold, then the specified project facility will be completed on time and within budget. At the Projectlevel, the assumptions relate to conditions affecting project implementation. Examples at the Project-level include, industrial relations and climactic conditions. In general, these

6 assumptions could be included in the force majeure and Acts of God clauses that would be included in the contractors contract. c) Given that the project facilities are completed, the assumptions at the Purpose-level relate to conditions affecting project operations, These include conditions regarding the level of commitment of the target group to use the goods and/or services produced by the project; and the commitment of project managers and operators to operate and maintain the project facilities. d) Given that the Purpose-level objectives are met, the assumptions at the Goal-level relate to government policy support for the project, and the existence of complementary projects to ensure the sustainability of project impacts.

This is the flow of logic used in this approach. Alternative Horizontal flow: In an alternative approach, the Horizontal Flow of logic starts with the presumption that there will be no problem in obtaining Inputs, and hence the assumptions at the Input-level links the Input to the Project level. The flow of logic would therefore be as follows: Given Inputs and the assumptions linking Inputs-to-Project, the Project will be completed as specified. Given that the project is completed, and the assumptions linking Project-to-Purpose, the purpose will be achieved; Given Purpose, and the assumptions linking Purpose-to-Goal, then the Goal will be achieved.

Column 2 - Monitoring Indicators: Monitoring Indicators, otherwise known as Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs), or simply Indicators, set performance targets for determining the extent to which project objectives are met at each level of the logframe. In general, the Indicators should contain dimensions of quality, quantity and time, and measure what is important in the corresponding objective. At the Project level, the Indicators give a description and listing of the project facilities to be handed-over by the project manager at the end of project implementation. The indicator at this level should give a clear picture of the location and dimensions of the project production capability to be put in place. The Indicators at the Purpose level specifies the change in the behaviour or efficiency

7 improvement that the project is designed to deliver. This project impact should flow directly as a major benefit from the operation of the project facility. It is important to have baseline data for comparing project impact with the without project scenario. The indicators at Goal-level specify the sustainable programme, sector, or national impact of the project on the quality-of-life of the target group. This is the basic justification for designing, implementing and operating the project. However, sometimes a planner might find it easier to use impersonal long-term targets than to focus on the difficulty of identifying quality-of-life improvement targets at the individual level. Despite this temptation, the challenge of focusing on improvements for the target group should not be avoided. The project budget is used as the indicator at the Input-level. In preparing the base cost estimates it is also necessary to include appropriate contingency provisions to cover likely physical and price variations and financing charges during the implementation period.

Column 3 Means of Verification: The Means of Verification indicate how and/or where the evidence will be found to determine whether, and the extent to which the Indicators are attained. At the Project-level, the Means of Verification is based on project records and reports, and site inspection. The Purpose-level verification is usually available from sector reports, surveys, and project records. At the Goal-level, the Means of Verification is available from reliable, and regularly published official statistics and reports. In cases where surveys or other data-gathering are required, adequate budgetary provisions need to be made to meet cost at the project implementation and/or operations phase. The entity charged with managing project operations should make provision for this data gathering and analysis. Otherwise, there is a risk that it will not be done. CONCLUSION The completed Logframe matrix contains the essential relationships underlying project success. For illustrative purposes, a completed Logframe is indicated at Appendix 1. A summary guideline for preparing a Logframe is attached at Appendix 2. Unless the logframe is monitored carefully, the planning process would not gain optimally from using it in project design. In fact, the underlying weakness that lies in the linearity of approach that is embedded in the logframe methodology could be overcome by taking mitigating actions during project implementation and operations. It is at these stages that the unintended consequences of projects could be spotted with clarity. Project evaluation could also be based on comparing the targets included in the logframe with the actual project outcomes at each level of the logframe. Logframe therefore provides a useful basis for project design, monitoring and evaluation, and for learning the lessons of experience to inform future project planning.

*********************************************************** 3. BIBLOGRAPHY Practical Concepts Incorporated: Narrative of the Logical Framework, Washington, D.C. Commission of the European Communities Evaluation Unit: Methods and Instruments For Project Cycle Management No. 1, February 1993, Manual Project Cycle Management Integrated Approach and Logical Framework.