PROJECT MANAGEMENT:LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

COURSE UNIT: CSO549-PROGRAMME PLANNING IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

What is the Logical Framework?

It’s a summary of worksheet from presentation of the project development hypothesis and analyzing a project design.

It has four horizontal raw s ; goal, purpose, outputs and inputs. Narrative Indicator

(Targets)Means of verificatio

n

Assumption

Goal

Purpose

Outputs

Inputs


The logical framework is primarily Used…

Device for project planning Used during evaluation to reexamine

original design and determine whether outputs are being produced.

Finally for completed projects, whether this achievement is making a significant contribution to the higher goal, as originally planned.

Logical framework establishes the practical limits of project management responsibility.


We hypothesize that by transforming inputs into outputs we will achieve our purpose, and, in turn, contribute to realize the goal.

GOALPURPOSEOUTPUTSINPUTS

If Inputs, then Outputs

If Outputs, then Purpose

If Purpose, then Goal

Limitation

All aspects of planning are defined by the project planners

Data collection and analysis for evaluation is done by persons or committee conducting evaluation

Logical framework methodology is programmatically and technically neutral; has no security that the project will achieve goals

No guidance on equitable income distribution, employment opportunities, access to recourses etc

Its just a systematic device for making explicit the key elements of project as conceived by the project designers

Logical Framework Elements

GOAL -

Term characterizing programming level beyond the project purpose. The higher objective to which the project is intended to contribute.

The reason for dealing with the problem which the problem intends to solve.

It identifies a desired result to which an entire program may be directed.

Goals are established at the top management levels

OBJECTIVES (GOALS AND PURPOSE)

Logical Framework Elements

PURPOSE -

Specific result desired of the project

It should be explicitly defined purpose that contributes to the goal.

It’s the most important level upon which to focus attention when establishing project objectives

In this respect, the relationship between

the project goal( the end) and the project purpose( the means) is causal and partial.

Logical Framework ElementsTHE OBJECTIVE

Whether at the goal or purpose level must be explicit.

Ex) Poor objective : Establish an improved credit system

Good objective : Establish a national system of self-

sustaining credit unions capable, by 1985, of providing 30% of ruthinia’s small farmers with their production credit needs.

Narrative Indicator (Targets)

Means of verificatio

n

Assumption

Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs

CLARIFICATION OF MEANS AND –END LINKAGE

COEXISTING OBJECTIVES Multiple objectives may be

embodied in the statement of project purpose

Are acceptable where two competing objectives can coexist

Relation between the two objectives is a trade-off which should be anticipated and clearly stated in the project design

Identify trade-off relationship and establish the trade-off point, device separate indicators for both employment and production; example page 64, establish targets and monitor progress towards each.

UNACCEPTABLE MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES

Means-End linkage often disgust as a single objective.

Not acceptable because it comprises a hierarchical Means –ends relations,

Accomplishment of one is not synonymous with attainment of the other

Two objectives be separately stated and defined their relationship giving each their own level eg purpose and sub purpose.

This helps the intended cause effect become clearer: Example page 65


OBJECTIVES FOR “NON PROJECTS”

Are general activity which doesn’t take the classical forms of a development project eg participant training, food distribution.

In such a situation, the project designer must make expected results as explicit (verifiable) as possible


OUTPUTS

Are specific results expected to be produced by managing project inputs

May be physically qualitative eg Kms of a road or qualitative, eg farmers cooperative functioning properly(behavior)

CLARIFICATION OF MEANS AND –END LINKAGE Narrative Indicator

(Targets)Means of

verification

Assumption


INPUT

Those things provided by AID, cooperating country or other donors.

Are expected to produce specific, definable outputs

Are usually various combination of personnel, supplies and equipment, training fund, contract service.

Can be provided directly by AID or intermediaries, contractors, participating agencies or voluntary agencies ,donors ,cooperating country ,loans ,grand funding. (Example pages 67-69)

CLARIFICATION OF MEANS AND –END LINKAGE Narrative Indicator

(Targets)Means of

verification

Assumption


INDICATORS AND TARGETSINDICATORS Unit of measurement which facilitates concise, comprehensive and balanced judgement about a situation Is subject to interpretation;

change to right or wrong directions results to good or bad.

Can be quantitative or qualitative; Qualitative indicators expresses; Simple measures Cumulative figure Ratio Both project indicators and targets

help focus discussion on evidence rather than on opinions



n

Assumption


TARGETS

INDICATORS AND TARGETS

An explicit statement of result desired for an indicator over any specified time period at any level (output , purpose and goal) A planned performance standard which

actual performance may be sequently compared and measured eg

Magnitude Target; audience Time In cases where quantitative measures

are not possible, objective measurement of a it change is possible by defining the indicator in behavior terms. (Page 71)



n

Assumption


TARGETS


Where it’s not possible, identify and select objective observer.

Have him participate both at pre and post measurement for comparative purposes.

Use accredited observer to compare the status of the indicators within a project.

Use indirect or Proxy indicators when it is not possible to measure change directly.

Verify their relationship that underlie the indicators and target. Singular indicators doesn’t give a comprehensive picture of change; multiple indicators are often needed.

(Examples pages 71-74)

Objectively verifiable indicators


Help both the proponents and an informed skeptic to agree that the progress has or hasn’t been as planned.

It means that one must be able to obtain the data from reliable source



n

Assumption


GOAL-Objectively Verifiable Indicator


May be quantitative or qualitative or behavior or a mixture.

Measures of achievements to indicate a causative relationship between project purpose and goal

Singular projects wouldn’t be the total cause of goal achievement other non-project factors have significant influence.



n

Assumption


PURPOSE


End of Project States (EOPS)

A description of conditions that are expected to exist when the project is successfully concluded.

Can either be qualitative or quantitative behavioral.

Project which have institutional purpose(EOPS) should reflect the performance of the institution eg. Service, effectiveness, efficiency



n

Assumption


INDICATORS AND END OF PROJECT STATUS(EOPS)

State the project infinite, verifiable terms

Define the conditions which will exist when the project purpose has been achieved

Formulate objectively verifiable indicators

We can’t measure outputs to verify whether the purpose has been achieved: divide the overall goals into smaller, intermediate targets.

Both the indicators to provide explicit targeting

OUTPUTS-OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS

Objectively Verifiable Indicators of each output are the quantities, or conditions identified in the narrative summary, with the level of attainment planned.

These should be identified as cumulative annual(or other appropriate time interval) numbers, percentages, ratios, qualitative assessments, or other appropriate increments.

Indicator

Base Line Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4…

A. 0 5 8 10 14…B. 15% 16% 18% 25% 40%...C. 6/1000 6/1000 5.5/100

05/1000 4/1000

D. UNSATIS. POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTE. F F D C B...F. No Data Situation

StudiedAnalyze

dReport

Submitted

For example :

INPUTS-OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS

List the major input categories by programmed budget, in thousands (or millions) of dollars and/or level of effort, by year, for the life of the increments.

Input Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4USAID INPUTS # $000 # $000 # $000 # $000Technical Assistance

(Direct Hire)(Consultants)

12 person-months etc.4 person-$100

Participants 1 person-$20Commodities - $4,000

Lcal Currency Support

- $1,000

For example :



n

Assumption


“PIVTAC”-THE SIX-STEP TEST FOR INDICATORS

PLAUSIBLE A believable or genuine measure of the

project level? Should vary with progress achievement,

but not vary significantly with changes in unrelated factors.

INDEPENDENT Separate, discrete, and distinct from

measures at other levels? No indicator may be used for more than

one level.

VERIFIABLE Objectively verifiable. Impartial,

tangible, or material? Could both a skeptic and an advocate of

the project be expected to agree on the facts shown by the indicators?

TARGETTED Explicit or specific including the

quantity, type, the time, and if appropriate, the target audience, or place?

ACCESSIBLE

Are the information sources which are listed – reasonably available or accessible?

Are additional special studies, or surveys required?

(If so, are funds and skilled personnel available to conduct them?)

COMPREHENSIVE Are all major aspects measured, so that no additional indicators are needed?

CONSIDERATIONS IN ESTABLISHING TARGETS

Is te degree of change significant? Another way of asking this is, “How much of a difference makes a difference”

The range of progress expected should be defined in advance.

Change observed can then be labeled unsatisfactory, adequate, or satisfactory.

The meaning of unsatisfactory must be given in terms of a standard.


Establish that change has occurred and indicate the character, direction, and rate of change;

Permit comparison of the actual change against that which was planned;

Permit assessment of the impact of this change on higher goals;

Compare a project’s performance with that of similar projects;

Allow the examination of the relation of input to output and of cost to benefit.

ADVANTAGES


Force the establishment of unrealistic targets, or the setting of targets more precisely than perhaps they should be set, given the uncertainties of the cooperating country situation;

Required quantitative measurements when much of the project’s concern should be with qualitative improvements in human knowledge and skill, institutional capacity, etc.;

Subject the project to comparison with other projects and programs which are not comparable due to significant differences in cultural, economic, political, or other characteristics.

DISADVANTAGES


When it is practical, quantitative measures are preferable to qualitative measure.

However, the central issue in evaluation is not so much one of quantitative vs. qualitative measures, but rather that indicators of change be objectively verifiable.

QUANTITATIVE VS. QUALITATIVE MEASURES

MEANS OF VERIFICATION

State the kinds and sources of data needed to support the indicators cited as measures of goal achievement.

GOAL – Means of Verification

State the specific types of evidence which will be used to verify conditions marking the End-of-Project Status, and the source (documents, and organizations) from which they will be obtained.

PURPOSE – Means of Verification


Means of verificati

on

Assumption

Goal Purpos

e

Outputs

Inputs


State the source, and kinds of data required to verify each indicator. (This may be existing agency or ministry reports, or new reports which will be generated as a direct byproduct of the project’s existence.)

OUTPUTS – Means of Verification

US-AID reports usually provide sufficient accounting and recording for AID-provided inputs.

However, other inputs (such as those provided by the cooperating country, other donors, voluntary agencies, and third countries) should have confirming data sources shown.

INPUTS – Means of Verification


Means of verificati

on

Assumption

Goal Purpos

e

Outputs

Inputs


The Relationship Between Targets, Indicators & Means of Verification

MEANS OF VERIFICATI

ON

Sources of data,

Method of collection And Analysis

INDICATORS

Ways of Measuring progress Toward targets

TARGETS

Planned results at the

GOAL PURPOSE & OUTPUT

Example of Logical FrameworkLogical Fram ework for Sum m arizing Project Design

Project Title: Serbia Competitiveness Project Dates: 2007-2011 Funding: $14.7 million (semi-fictional E GAT training program version)

NARRATIVE SUM M ARY O BJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS

M EANS O F VERIFICATIO N ASSUM PTIONS

Program Goal: Economic Growth enhanced.

Economic growth rate of better than 4%

Positive trend in small business share of GDP

Calculations involving existing sets of data on national and SM E economic performance

Project Purpose: Competitiveness of Serbian SM Es in twelve target sectors sustainability increased.

E nd of Project Status: Sales revenue from SM Es in

target sectors increase by 10% Share of SM E products in target

sector exports increased by 15% Ten percent increase in

investment in target sector SM Es Jobs in target sector SM Es

doubled.

Firm specific baseline and post intervention data for a sample of SM Es in target sectors and for comparison first in the sector that were not assisted.

Affecting the purpose-to-goal link: No significant internal/external

economic shocks Political stability Changes in profile of larger

industries and their contribution to GCP remains relatively stable

Outputs: 1. M anagement practices in target

SM Es improved. 2. SM E participation in market

expansion/exporting expanded 3. Regulatory environment for SM E

firms improved 4. Awareness of private sector

opportunities in 12 target sectors, and this project, increased.

Scores on management status rating system improved by two ratings on average

20% increase in the number of SM Es engaged in deliberate market expansion activities

At least 3 of 5 target laws/regulations changed

10% increase in SM Es demonstrably aware of opportunities in their sectors

Standardized, participatory firm level management and financial management assessment system

Annual competitive environm ent awareness survey.

Affecting output-to purpose link Steady or growing domestic

and/or international demand for target sector products

Stable or increasingly favorable prices for inputs and final products

Stable or improving transportation costs

Inputs: Activities and Types of Resources 1. Sales and marketing assistance to

SM Es in target sectors, e.g., trade shows, promotional campaigns, market research.

2. Education & Training – executive education, financial management, etc.

3. Policy advice & reform advocacy 4. Public and media outreach

Level of Efforts/Expenditures for each Activity

Project records concerning the provision of inputs

Affecting input-to-output link: No significant change in

government attitude toward private sector

PROJECT MANAGEMENT:LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT MANAGEMENT:LOGICAL FRAMEWORK