Logical Framework (Logframe)

Those involved in international aid and development projects are probably familiar with this tool. It is used by a number of governmental and sponsoring organisations, such as USAID, the UK and Swedish aid agencies, the European Commission etc. In many cases, it is the approach required as a standard by donors for grant applications.

I have recently completed a very informative course on logframe planning with The Open University. The course gave me the motivation to research about the benefits and pitfalls of the logframe planning and to check for future developments. I thought it was useful to share some of the findings on the blog. In this article I am going to give an overview, mainly intended to non-experts. At the end of the article I am listing some references for those who would like to follow up the more technical aspects of the logframe preparation and explore where some of the ideas came from.

What is a “Logframe”?

A “logframe” (also known as “logical framework“) is, in its essence, a 4×4 table with 16 cells. The exact format and level of complexity may change, depending on the organisation and the sponsoring body.

It is developed through a process known as ‘Logical Framework Analysis’. As stated by USAID, it can be considered as ” a way of thinking about development projects… One page tool for summarising key elements of a project design and establish a basis for monitoring and evaluation”.

In this diagram, an example of logframe is presented, using the terminology that is provided in The Open University course.

It is a “logic model” with two distinct underlying logics. The vertical logic (from the Goal to the Activities) reflects and tracks the analytical and scientific backbone of the project. The Goal (‘Overall Objective’ for the EC or ‘Impact’ for the UK FCDO) is the overall project’s aim, what the project is intended to achieve. The Purpose (or ‘Outcome’ for FCDO) is what will be achieved with the project and who will benefit. The Outputs represents specific results that the project will generate. And finally the Activities (or ‘Inputs’ for USAID) are what tasks are needed in order for the outputs to be achieved.

The horizontal logic reflects (and directs) the management and accountability in the operations. The Narrative Summary is a short description of the project objectives. The Indicators are what will be used to measure the achievements while the Means of verification (or ‘Data sources’ for USAID) indicate how the information for the indicators will be collected. Finally, the Assumptions are the conditions required to get the results.

“The logframe is a visual summary of your project, which can be shared to explain what you intend to do and why. It also explains how you will measure the changes your work will deliver, and the sources of information you will use to do this measurement.”
Tearfund

How is a Logframe put together?

It is is difficult to provide a generic process for the preparation of a logframe. It depends on many factors, such as complexity (of the project and its context) the size of the organisation managing the project, the reach of the project and also on the sponsoring organisation. In the references at the end of the article I provide some useful links to specific sources where more details can be found.

In very general terms, it is said the logframe should be the logical result of the long and important process that includes a clear analysis of the problem that is intended to be tackled, with detailed “objective tree” analysis or applied “Theory of Change” principles. The grounding is a “cause-and-effect” logic on which the framework is solidly based upon.

The logframe should result from a collaborative and iterative effort that includes all the agents (the organisation responsible for the project, the partners, the sponsoring organisation and the project participants). “The best logframes are ones where stakeholders have had the chance to be involved and that use an approach that encourages people to participate“, states Tearfund. By operating in an inclusive manner, the experience and opinions of relevant partners, stakeholders and project participants are considered and there is a shared understanding of the key components of the project and of the results that have to be delivered. This will also result with a better buy-in that will help in the execution and monitoring of the project execution.

Tearfund advocates for a three-stage process:

Top-down- Statements: complete the ‘statements’ column;
Bottom-up – Assumptions: think about the assumptions using a ‘if-and-then’ logic approach – see diagram;
Work-across – Indicators and verification: identify the indicators, what you will measure and means of verification, how you will measure, for each objective.
Those interested may consult Tearfund’s publication for more details on their approach.

Key is the use of a process and methodology that every stakeholder is comfortable with and that (very importantly – we will see why…) allow changes to be made easily as and when new ideas are generated, new developments arise and the project context evolves.

All good and going well then?

Logframes have been used for decades in successful transformation projects worldwide. However, they have been subject to critical reviews, with the model effectiveness sometimes challenged. This is understandable as the ‘Logical Framework Analysis’ has been in use since the early 70s, and probably dated. Let’s have a closer look at perceived benefits and limitations.

As an example, Tearfund, in their publication, underlines some of the benefits, which are in keeping with those presented in other reviews. Some of the key benefits of logframes are about:

helping people to think in an organised and logical way;
helping identify weaknesses in project design;
ensuring that key things to be measured are identified early in the project, facilitating monitoring and evaluation;
ensuring that people involved in the project use the same terminology;
helping people to summarise a project design (conciseness), helping to easily communicate project ideas with others.

Tearfunds lists some of the limitations, such as:

logframes may work best for projects that lead to visible changes and have a simple ‘if-and- then’ logic;
they often infer that projects are linear, when very often they are not;
project management can become rigid unless the logframe is treated like a living document (which is difficult and time-consuming);
since the approach builds on analysing a problem, it might not be viewed as appropriate in cultures where people do not openly discuss problems;
the approach itself can be complex, very difficult to understand in some cultures;
it can be confusing when different donors use different terms formats and templates.

In another review, Gasper points to three recurrent failings. These may not only affect the project performance, but also inhibit the potential of the logframe from being fully exploited:

LOGIC-LESS FRAME: this is when the use of logframes is imposed by the sponsoring organisation and logframes are often “invented” after a project has been prepared. According to Gasper, “there is only an illusion of logic” because the logframe format is used to accommodate a pre-existing design, rather than to help create a logical design in an appropriate format.
LACK-FRAME: the logframe is too simple and omits vital aspects of a project, as not everything of importance can be captured in one table.
LOCK-FRAME: after a logframe has been prepared, it might tend to be fixed and not updated, therefore blocking learning and adaptation. Oversimplified plans (and matrices) become treated “as blueprints that dictate outcomes”, and as a control tool to ensure that the original outcome is achieved, with no flexibility.

And finally, in 2006 the PMI has presented an interesting review of the European Commission’s methodology of ‘Project Cycle Management’ (PCM, which includes the ‘Logical Framework Analysis’), with a comparison with international project management standards (PMBOK^® Guide, IPMA’s ICB, ISO 10006) and methodologies (such as PRINCE2 and TenStep^®). They concluded that while PCM/LFA is good in defining and managing aspects of the programmes and projects (lifecycle, project design, procurement, monitoring and evaluation, defining indicators & metrics and managing budgets), it lacks depth (or coverage) of other important areas of project management. Important gaps are in the management of human resources and project teams, quality management, monitoring of risks, complex scheduling, managing problems/issues, organisational aspects, procedures for adequate project approval and control. In summary, the use of a logframe was considered to be insufficient to ensure the project success unless is supported with other procedural intervention.

Conclusions

For decades logframes have helped organisations and agencies in delivering truly transforming projects worldwide. Logframes are tools for thinking about projects and, as all project management tools, they require discipline and training in the process. Logframes may not be easy to use, may not have an universal application and may lack in effectiveness with aspects of project management.

Projects nowadays are getting complex, being undertaken in contexts that are often not well defined and operating in circumstances in which a simple and easy “cause-and-effect” relationship does not apply. This complexity is being acknowledged and variations to the logframe approach are being considered. The report commissioned by the FASid presents not only the ‘Project Cycle Management’, but also two more approaches related to ‘Outcome Mapping and Social Network Analysis’. These approaches link the logical framework approach to methods that have been adapted more recently in order to deal appropriately with those complicated or complex situations.

Those organisations using logframes should be aware of the tool’s limitations and follow the new developments for the model refinement to ensure that the use of the logframes continues to be effective and fit for purpose.

This is where I have to stop as the recent model evolution is a complete new territory for me…. I hope this has been useful and interesting and, as usual, I will be more than happy to get comments and constructive feedback.

Marco Bottacini, Senior Portfolio Manager, GALVmed

Useful references

What is Theory of Change? (Theory of Change – link)
Logical Framework Approach in Project Planning (DTU – link)
How to note: guidance on using the revised Logical Framework (FCDO, UK – link)
A guide to Results-Based Management (RBM), efficient project planning with the aid of the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) (SIDA, Sweden – link)
Logical Framework (USAID – link)
Project Cycle Management Guidelines (European Commission – link)
How to write a logframe: a beginner’s guide (The Guardian – link)
How to write a logical framework (logframe) (Tools4dev – link)
Logframe planning (OpenUniversity – link)
Root5 – Project cycle management (Tearfund Learn – link)
What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using the Logframe in Development Work? (Ankeara Bong – link)
Logical Frameworks: Problems and Potentials (Des Gasper – link)
Comparison of the European Commission’s project cycle management/logical framework approach with international PM standards and methodologies: PMBOK, IPMA’s ICB, ISO 10006, PRINCE2 and TenStep (PMI – link)
Beyond Logframe; Using System Concepts in Evaluation (FASiD – link)

The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinion of GALVmed.