1. AEA Conference Session on Logic Models and Systems Logical Framework: Limitations and variations to improve their quality San Antonio November 12 th 2010 Richard Hummelbrunner ÖAR Regionalberatung Graz, Austria

2. Logical Framework Planning and monitoring tool in international development A matrix that integrates two types of logic:  a vertical logic as a hierarchy of objectives – activities deliver outputs, which contribute to outcomes, which help bring about the overall goal;  a horizontal logic showing how progress against each objective can be assessed (indicators and means of verification) and the external factors (assumptions and risks) which might affect the achievement of objectives at the next level

3. Example of Logical Framework HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS Goal Longer-term project impact Measurable indicators for Goal Data sources for verifying status of Goal-level indicators Assumptions/risks between (project) Goal and Overall Goals Outcomes Short-term impact and direct effects of the project Measurable indicators for Outcomes Data sources for verifying status of Outcome -level indicators Assumptions/risks between Outcomes and Goal Outputs The deliverables of the project Measurable indicators for Outputs Data sources for verifying status of Output-level indicators Assumptions/risks between Outputs and Outcomes Activities Work packages and resources needed to accomplish each Output Activity Plans Budget Summary Data sources for verifying status of budget and Activities Assumptions/risks between Activities and Outputs

4. Logical Framework: Beauty Formalized structure and clarity, common terminology Simplicity: convenient overview of the main features of an intervention, and information needed for monitoring & evaluation Useful for those who require – and prefer – clear and simple descriptions of an intervention (senior officials, funders or supervisors) Reflects a management style marked by (central) authority and control  few but precisely structured and quantifiable objectives  assuming that actors dispose of all the relevant information  and operate in rather stable environments  But in development aid it is difficult and dangerously misleading to assume – or attempt imposing – this sort of clarity and order!

5. Logical Framework: Truth Requires consensus on one theory of change, one logic, one truth Several recurrent shortcomings / limitations (acc. to Des Gasper):  ‘logic-less frame’ : When logframes are imposed they are often invented after prepared, format is used to accommodate a pre- existing design, rather than creating a logical design  ‘lack-frame’ : Too simple, lacking vital aspects of an intervention, Ignores alternative paths to get to the same goal  ‘lock-frame’ : Tends to be fixed, blocks learning and adaptation. Oversimplified plans as blueprints and control tool Terminology and language not universally applicable  Logframes fail in messier realities, lead to confusion rather than clarity

6. Logical Framework: Justice Often imposed externally (by donors), tends to be applied in an over- standardized, rigid and top-down manner. Logframe are used to hold aid recipients accountable, often turning ‘lack- frames’ into ‘lock-frames’ – against all logic! Power imbalances, low trust and existential distances between ‘partners’ in aid programmes contribute towards the ‘lock-frame’ syndrome Donors fear a loss of accountability and control if receivers are allowed to modify what has been agreed Participation has been severely hindered due to cultural alienation  In cross-cultural contexts logframes lead to the domination of an external concept, ignoring local perspectives, traditions or skills

7. Logical Framework as monitoring and evaluation tool Limited utility, since focus is on achieving intended effects via intended routes. Reinforces "tunnel vision" by ignoring context and other effects Assumes quasi-automatic and ‘linear’ progression of effect, irrespective of actors involved or contextual conditions Reinforces a climate of control, interventions are made auditable preference of measurable variables and short-term effects Can lead to an obsession with indicators and their quantification, (mis)using them as substitutes for stated objectives Logframes are a serious hindrance in situations where relations between intervention and context are entangled or hard to foresee, intended routes are not well understood or not based on prior experience  Logframes are inherently easy to misuse, important to know when not to use them - or when to supplement them with other methods!

8. Variations to Logical Framework: Project Cycle Management Developed in the 1990s as reaction to initial critique on logframes Based on three principles: 1.Express the project purpose in terms of sustainable benefits for the target group, clearly distinguishing project - people affected 2. Use of a ’Basic format' with criteria for achieving sustainable benefits (e.g. Background, Assumptions, Sustainability factors) 3.Devise a mechanism to guide sound decision-making throughout the entire project cycle, conceptualized in five phases Logframe is one of PCM's three technical tool and in practic often has a (too) dominating role, overriding some of PCM´s expected benefits Some logframe weaknesses become even more visible and acute (e.g. rigid planning, problem orientation, linear causality)

9. Project Cycle Management Five stage Project Cycle

10. Logical Framework and Social Network Analysis (R. Davies) Each level in a logframe can be associated with types of actors Conceive connections between levels/actors as networks (not linear) Use of SNA to move from Logical to Social frameworks:  time stages of logframe (e.g. from Activities to Goals) are replaced by a sequence of actors (e.g. beneficiaries, partners, project staff), connected by their relationships  Relationships are potential impact pathways along which decisions, information, money etc. are passed (both ways) Use of SNA to move beyond simple logic models, e.g. by connecting events which take place at different levels Use of SNA tools alongside logframes or logic models, applied to aspects that cannot be easily captured by them

11. From Logical to Social Frameworks

12. Logical Framework and Outcome Mapping (OM) OM is an approach for planning, monitoring and evaluating social change initiatives, complex social change processes:  Recognizes the importance of perspectives  Assumes multiple, often non-linear causes leading to change  Monitors contributions to change by interventions Fusion of Logframe and OM, to integrate logframe´s results-oriented focus with OM´s process-oriented learning pathways:  Focus: Orientation towards an overall goal and explicit consideration of changes in behaviour of project partners  Possible to determine and display the distribution of roles and responsibilities of development actors directly in the logic model

13. Outcome Mapping and Logical Framework Fusion Model (Ambrose, K. and D. Roduner)

14. Logical Framework Improving the quality Variations can be used to improve some of the quality problems:  Beauty can be enhanced by integrating multiple inter-relationships  Truth by incorporating different perspectives and focus on learning  Justice by improving conditions for wider stakeholder participation or acknowledging the value of various views/skills Use and appropriateness of Logframe should be matched with situation:  in simple situations most appropriate (but not as blueprint!)  in complicated situations apply with much caution, complement with other methods that are better suited for these conditions  in complex situations best not used at all, as fundamental assumptions are not appropriate and logframe will not work  Base the utilization of LFA on rational choice and sound evidence!

15. Thank you for your attention! Richard Hummelbrunner ÖAR - Regionalberatung Alberstrasse 10, 8010 Graz, AUSTRIA T: +43/664 255 6208 hummelbrunner@oear.at www.oear.at