Logical Framework Approach: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:43, 22 January 2015

Revision as of 18:53, 28 January 2015

Line 1:

{{about|the management tool|the automated theorem proving approach|logical framework}}

{{copy edit|date=October 2013}}

The '''Logical Framework Approach (LFA)''' is a management tool mainly used for designing, [[Monitoring and Evaluation|monitoring, and evaluating]] [[international development]] projects. Variations of this tool are known as '''Goal Oriented Project Planning (GOPP)''' or '''Objectives Oriented Project Planning (OOPP)'''.

==Background==

The Logical Framework Approach was developed in 1969 for the [[U.S. Agency for International Development]] (USAID). It is based on a worldwide study by Leon J. Rosenberg, a principal of Fry Consultants Inc.<ref>[http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADW881.pdf Final Report, Contract csd-2510, July 24, 1970]</ref> From 1970 to 1971, 30 countries adopted the method under the guidance of Practical Concepts Incorporated (PCI), founded by Rosenberg.<ref>[http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaec576.pdf Practical Concepts Incorporated, "Guidelines for Teaching Logical Framework Concepts"]</ref>

It is widely used by multilateral donor organizations, such as [[Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo|AECID]], [[Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit|GIZ]], [[Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency|SIDA]], [[Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation|NORAD]], [[DFID]], [[UNDP]], [[European Commission|EC]] and the [[Inter-American Development Bank]]. Some [[Non-governmental organization|non-governmental organizations (NGOs)]] offer LFA training to ground-level field staff.<ref>[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/CARR/pdf/R&R-24-Winter-2012.pdf Fernando, Renuka. "Getting on With It: Monitoring and Evaluation in the Third Sector" Risk and Regulation. London School of Economics. Winter 2012.]</ref> It has also gained popularity in the private sector.{{Citation needed|date=June 2014}}. Terry Schmidt has been active in extending the LFA.{{Ciation needed|date = January 2015}}

The Logical Framework Approach continues to gain adherents which can be considered remarkable for a management tool invented more than 40 years ago. This phenomenon has been the subject of several doctoral theses, e.g. Daniel Martinez.

The Logical Framework Approach continues to gain adherents, which can be consideredthough remarkableit foris a management tool invented more than 40 years ago. This phenomenon has been the subject of several doctoral theses, e.g.{{Citation Danielneeded|date Martinez.= January 2015}}

In the 1990s, it was often mandatory for aid organizations to use the LFA method in their project proposals. However, its use has become increasingly optional in recent years.

In the 1990s, it was often mandatory for aid organizations to use the LFA method in their project proposals. However, its use has become increasingly optional in recent years.{{Citation needed|date = January 2015}}

The Logical Framework Approach is sometimes confused with Logical Framework (LF or Log frame). Whereas the Logical Framework Approach is a project design methodology, the Logical Frame is a document.

The Logical Framework Approach is sometimes confused with Logical Framework (LF or Log frame). Whereas theThe Logical Framework Approach is a project design methodology, whereas the Logical Frame is a document.

==Description==

The text below describes the document, not the global methodology of project design. For the brief description of the LFA as a design methodology, see for example the page [http://lgausa.com/logframe_approach.htm], and for the thorough description see for example [http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ausguide/Documents/ausguideline3.3.pdf AusGuideline 3.3 The Logical Framework Approach] cited in "External links" section.

==Description==

The Logical Framework takes the form of a four-by-four project table. The four rows are used to describe four different types of events that take place as a project is implemented: the project ''Activities'', ''Outputs'', ''Purpose'' and ''Goal'' (from bottom to top on the left hand side — see EC web site as under external links). The four columns provide different types of information about the events in each row. The first column is used to provide a ''Narrative'' description of the event. The second column lists one or more ''Objectively Verifiable Indicators'' (OVIs) of these events taking place. The third column describes the ''Means of Verification'' (MoV) where information will be available on the OVIs, and the fourth column lists the ''Assumptions''. Assumptions are external factors that it is believed could influence (positively or negatively) the events described in the narrative column. The list of assumptions should include those factors that potentially impact on the success of the project, but which cannot be directly controlled by the project or program managers. In some cases these may include what could be ''killer assumptions'', which if proved wrong will have major negative consequences for the project. A good project design should be able to substantiate its assumptions, especially those with a high potential to have a negative impact.

===Temporal logic model===

The core of the Logical Framework is the "temporal logic model" that runs through the matrix. This takes the form of a series of connected propositions:

*If these Activities are implemented, and these Assumptions hold, then these Outputs will be delivered.

*If these Outputs are delivered, and these Assumptions hold, then this Purpose will be achieved.

*If this Purpose is achieved, and these Assumptions hold, then this Goal will be achieved.

Line 26 ⟶ 25:

These are viewed as a hierarchy of hypotheses, with the project/program manager sharing responsibility with higher management for the validity of hypotheses beyond the output level. Thus, Rosenberg brought the essence of scientific method to non-scientific endeavors.

The "Assumptions" column is of great importanceimportant in clarifying the extent to which the project/ or program objectives depend on external factors, and greatly clarify "[[force majeure]]" — of particular interest when the [[Canadian International Development Agency]] (CIDA) at least briefly used the LFA as the essence of contracts.{{Clarification needed|reason = Too technical for the average reader.|date = January 2015}}

The LFA canis also be usefulused in other contexts, both personal and corporate. When developed within an organization, it can be a means of articulatingarticulate a common interpretation of the objectives of a project and how they will be achieved. The indicators and means of verification force clarifications as one would for a scientific endeavor:, as in "you haven't defined it until you say how you will measure it." Tracking progress against carefully defined output indicators provides a clear basis for monitoring progress; verifying purpose and goal level progress then simplifies '''evaluation'''. Given a well constructed logical framework, an informed skeptic and a project advocate should be able to agree on exactly what the project attempts to accomplish, and how likely it is to succeed—in terms of programmatic (goal-level) as well as project (purpose-level) objective.

One of its purposes/ in its early uses was to identify the span of control of 'project management'. In some countries with less than perfect governance and managerial systems, it became an excuse for failure. Externally sourced technical assistance managers were able to say we have implementedthat all the activities foreseen andhave producedbeen theimplemented outputsand all required ofoutputs usproduced, but because of the sub-optimal systems in the country, which are beyond the control of the project's management we have not achieved, the purpose(s) have not been achieved and so the goal has not been attained.{{Citation needed|date = January 2015}}

==Handbooks==

Line 49 ⟶ 48:

* [http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/multimedia/publications/publications/manuals-tools/t101_en.htm Project Cycle Management Guidelines] (European Commission)

* [http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/CARR/pdf/R&R-24-Winter-2012.pdf Fernando, Renuka. "Getting on With It: Monitoring and Evaluation in the Third Sector" Risk and Regulation. London School of Economics. Winter 2012.]

* [http://lgausa.com/logframe_approach.htm Example of the LFA as a design methodology]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Logical Framework Approach}}