The Logical Framework Approach (LFA)

The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is a management tool mainly used for designing, monitoring and evaluatinginternational development projects. It is also widely 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), based on a worldwide study performed by a team from Fry Consultants, Inc. headed by Leon J. Rosenberg.Throughout 1970 and 1971, the tool was implemented across 30 countries, under the guidance of Practical Concepts Incorporated (PCI).The method is widely used by bilateral and multilateral donor organizations like AECID, GTZ, Sida, NORAD, DFID,UNDP, EC and the Inter-American Development Bank. Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) offer training in the method to ground level field staff.

In the 1990s, it was often mandatory for aid organisations to use the method in their project proposals, but its use in recent years has become more optional. Terry Schmidt, who was involved in PCI's worldwide training programs, is now extending its use to the private sector. Dr Robert Madams, from ADH Training & Consulting, has also used a modified version of the method in the corporate sector in a number of countries.

The Logical Framework Approach is sometimes confused with Logical Framework (LF or Logframe). Whereas the Logical Framework Approach is a project design methodology, the LogFrame 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 [1], for the thorough description see for example AusGuideline 3.3 The Logical Framework Approach cited in "External links" section.

The Logical Framework takes the form of a four x 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 theMeans 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.

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 importance in clarifying the extent to which project/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.

The LFA can also be useful in other contexts, both personal and corporate. When developed within an organization, it can be a means of articulating 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: "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/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 implemented all the activities foreseen and produced the outputs required of us, 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) and so the goal has not been attained.