The Logical Framework Approach��Millennium

PA

PE

RS

December 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 31

INTRODUCTION ■

Early in the project life cycle, the project team members and corpo-rate sponsors must envision what is the expected contribution of the project to the business goal of the organization, what is the pur-pose of the project, what needs to be done to meet the stakeholders’

needs and expectations, and how the work is to be accomplished. Gaining aclear vision of the project and understanding the business goal have beenfound to be critical to project success. However, creating a clear vision andgoal setting remain major challenges for many project teams.

Over the last 35 years, the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) has beenused by many public and private organizations as a means of obtaining an overall project vision and of determining project goals and objectives.Since its first use in the early 1970s, the LFA has gone through periods ofgreat popularity, as well as periods when it was almost completely aban-doned. Lately, renewed interest in the LFA from many international devel-opment organizations has led to numerous publications proposingimproved processes for its implementation. While the LFA has proved to bea valuable tool for project design and evaluation, a few pitfalls make it hardto use with today’s project management framework and to integrate withother project management tools.

In this article, an updated version of the LFA is developed to improve thecompatibility of the LFA with today’s corporate culture, project managementframework, and tools. We propose to call the updated tool the LogicalFramework Approach–Millennium (LFA–M). In the first part of the article, a literature review is done to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current versions of the LFA. In the next section, the objective of the article isestablished, and a description of the methodology used to develop theLFA–M is provided. In the third part of the article, the content of the matrix,called Logframe, giving the results of the application of the LFA–M, is revisedto make it more compatible with today’s management framework and thenthe processes leading to the development of the Logframe are reviewed. In the fourth part of the article, case studies are provided to show how therevised approach can be implemented. Finally, a conclusion describes the potential benefits gained from using the LFA–M.

Literature ReviewThe LFA was developed in early 1969 by the consulting firm Practical ConceptsInc. for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as aproject design and evaluation tool (Practical Concepts, 1978; Sartorius, 1996).One of the main objectives of the LFA was to provide a common vision andunderstanding of the project. The result of the implementation of the LFA is a

The Logical Framework Approach–MillenniumJean Couillard, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaSerge Garon, Canadian Space Agency, Saint-Hubert, Québec, CanadaJovica Riznic, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT ■

The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) hasproved to be a valuable tool for project approval,design, and evaluation. However, a few pitfallsmake it hard to use within today’s project man-agement framework and to integrate with otherproject management tools. This article proposesan updated version of the LFA to improve its com-patibility with today’s corporate culture, projectmanagement framework, and tools. We proposeto call the updated tool the Logical FrameworkApproach–Millennium (LFA–M). The LFA–M is aseven-step approach leading to the developmentof the Logframe–Millennium (LF–M), a five-column and four-line matrix describing major project commitments and providing an overallunderstanding of the project. It was successfullyimplemented at the Canadian Space Agency andthe Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. TheLFA–M fits well within today’s project manage-ment framework and corporate culture and leadseasily to other project management tools.

KEYWORDS: Logical Framework Approach;project design and evaluation; stakeholders’involvement; integrated project managementapproach

Project Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, 31–44

© 2009 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com)

DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20117

32 December 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

The Logical Framework Approach—MillenniumP

AP

ER

S

four-column, four-line matrix, called thelogframe (LF). The four columns are:Narrative Summary, Objectively VerifiableIndicators, Means of Verification, andAssumptions. The four lines consist of:Goal, Purpose, Outputs, and Inputs. TheLF summarizes why the project should beundertaken, what it intends to do, whatare the outputs or end results of the proj-ect, what inputs are required to obtainthe outputs, and what are the assump-tions that must be fulfilled for the proj-ect to be carried out. The LFA has provedto be effective in many cases as a projectdesign and evaluation tool. However,many pitfalls have indented its use as aproject management tool.

A major shortcoming of the firstgeneration1 of the LFA was the lack of a clear process leading to the develop-ment of the LF. The terms used in the LF were considered confusing, such asthe difference between goal and pur-pose. The objectively verifiable indica-tors were often misunderstood and difficult to determine, leading to inade-quate measures of project success. The assumptions were also often ill-defined. Too much focus was put on theLF as a final result and not enough wasdirected on the dynamic nature of the project management activities,such as project design and projectplanning. Lack of stakeholders’ involve-ment often compromises the validity of the LF. Consequently, the LFA wasdeemed inflexible, complex, and diffi-cult to integrate with other projectmanagement tools (Coleman, 1987;Solem, 1987), and therefore, in the late1970s, the use of the LFA began todecline (Sartorius, 1996).

By the early-to-mid 1980s, a secondgeneration of the LFA was proposed to overcome some of the perceived pit-falls of the first generation of the LFA.Many of the improvements to the LFAwere initiated by a group named theGerman Technical Cooperation, or GTC(German Technical Cooperation, 1987,1989). They developed the LFA into amore practical, systematic, and partici-pative approach, called the ZOPPapproach (from the German, Zielorien-tierte Projektplanung) or, in English, theGOPP (Goal-Oriented Project Planning)Approach. The ZOPP approach pro-vides a more systematic structure forthe identification, design, evaluation,and management of projects, mostlythrough ZOPP workshops involving thegroups directly influenced by the proj-ect. The ZOPP approach is composed ofthe following six steps: (1) situationanalysis, (2) stakeholders’ analysis, (3)problem analysis, (4) objective analysis,(5) alternative analysis, and (6) activi-ties planning. The steps were devised toallow stakeholders participation in thedevelopment of the LF and to get earlyfeedback and approval. Many interna-tional development organizationsadopted similar approaches (CanadianInternational Development Agency,1985; Danish Ministry of ForeignAffairs, 1990, 1992; USAID, 1991).

This second generation of the LFAaimed at correcting some of the majorpitfalls of the first generation of the LFA by proposing a six-step methodolo-gy leading to the development of the LF and by allowing stakeholderinvolvement. However, the terms usedin the LF remained misunderstood andthe objectively verifiable indicators dif-ficult to obtain. Also, the methodologywas deemed rigid and not easy to inte-grate with other project managementtools (Cordingley, 1995; Eggers, 1994;Wiggins & Shields, 1995). Table 1 pres-ents the changes from one generationof LFA to another, their pitfalls, and themeans taken to correct some of them.

By the mid-to-late 1980s, a thirdgeneration of the LFA emerged from the

renewed interest of many internationaldevelopment organizations (AustralianAgency for International Develop-ment, 2003; Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency, 1997; DanishMinistry of Foreign Affairs, 1996; Depart-ment for International Development,2002; European Commission, 1999, 2004;German Technical Cooperation, 1996,1997; Great Britain Equal Support Unit,2005; International Planned ParenthoodFederation, 2002; Kellogg Foundation,2004; Norwegian Agency for Develop-ment Cooperation, 1999; Swedish Inter-national Development CorporationAgency, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2006; WorldBank, 1996, 2000). In addition, integrat-ed and easy-to-use software to imple-ment the LF became available such asTeam UP-PCM (Team Technologies,1993), and more emphasis was placedon training.

The third generation of the LFA pro-vided an aid to systematic thinkingwhile promoting creative and parti-cipative analysis. Its use yields manybenefits, such as getting a better under-standing of the project context and the stakeholders’ needs, establishing alogical ends-and-means structure goingfrom the project goal to purpose and tooutputs and activities, providing a com-mon basis for discussion and for projectdecisions, fostering commitment andparticipation among stakeholders, pro-viding a summary of the project in astandard and condensed format, keep-ing stakeholders informed and involved,identifying potential risk events thatmay jeopardize the project or its suc-cess, and establishing how the projectgoal, purpose, outputs, and activitiescan be evaluated and monitored. The LFapproach as it stands stresses the impor-tance of stakeholders’ involvement andplaces more emphasis on the processesleading to the LF than on the LF as a finalresult. This third generation of the LFA is now recognized widely as an effectiveproject design, evaluation, and manage-ment tool, as can be ascertained fromthe number of recent publications onthe LFA (Aune, 2000; Baccarini, 1999;

1The concept of generation was introduced in Sartorius,

1996. According to Sartorius (1996), the first-generation

LFA is characterized mainly by the logframe as a final result.

The second generation puts more emphasis on the team

process leading to the logframe, while the third generation

can be identified mainly by its application to international

research projects, the recognition of the need for better

training, and the availability of integrated and easy-to-use

software for its implementation. However, a slightly differ-

ent classification scheme is used in this article. The classifi-

cation is based more on the terminology used in the

logframe and the steps of the approach.


Dale, 2003; Earle, 2003; Gasper, 1997,1999, 2000).

However, there were problems. Forinstance, in a few organizations theword “inputs” was used instead of “activ-ities,” and for many project managersgetting approval was seen as an input.Terminology used in the LF is not famil-iar to today’s practitioners. While thecurrent LFA terminology was adapted tothe specific needs of organizations, it isnot readily related to the modern frame-work of project management. Identifyingthe project goal, the purpose, the out-puts, the activities, and the assumptionsremains a major challenge for manyproject teams. The difference betweengoal and purpose remains often difficultto understand. The objectively verifiableindicators are difficult to establish, andconsequently project success is oftenhard to assess. Determining good indi-

cators of physical achievement is con-sidered often difficult to achieve.Responsibilities with regard to projectsuccess remain unclear. Although thethird generation promotes the integra-tion of the LFA with other project man-agement processes and tools, no meansto achieve it was proposed. For example,the LFA could be used to support theselection process and the identificationof an appropriate general project man-agement approach. All of that has creat-ed some confusion, and many issues stillprevailed (Aune, 2000; Dale, 2003; Earle,2003; Gasper, 1997, 1999, 2000).

Considering the unsolved issues ofthe previous three generations as sum-marized in Table 1, the LFA needs to befurther updated so that it may:1. Support the corporate process to

select projects (better integrationwith other PM processes);

2. Facilitate analysis and decisions on general project managementapproaches at a high level (betterintegration with other PM processes);

3. Make the project scope and corporatemission evident and well related(clearer terminology and more evidentlinks between the levels of the LF);

4. Use terms that are consistent with today’s project managementframework—for example, risk iden-tification instead of assumptions(common terminology);

5. Foster stakeholders’ involvementand participation (major improve-ment of the second generation);

6. Lead the project team members into more effective project planningby identifying what needs to bedone, why it should be done, how itneeds to be done and with whatresources, which participants should

Table 1: Evolution of the three generations of the logical framework approach.

LFA Generation Main Feature Major Improvements Major Pitfalls

1st Generation The LF as the main result No tool available to give a complete • Unclear terminology proneoverview and understanding of a to wrong interpretationproject in a condensed format • Unclear links between levels

• No clear process leading tothe LF

• Lack of stakeholders’involvement

• Rigid approach• Aim perceived as filling

the boxes of the LF

2nd Generation The introduction of a team • Steps leading to the development • Unclear terminology proneprocess leading to the LF of the LF are proposed to wrong interpretation

• Better stakeholder involvement • Unclear links between levelsat each step through ZOPP • Rigid methodologyworkshops, allowing early • Unclear success measuresfeedback and resulting in more • No integration withrelevant LF other PM tools

3rd Generation The steps are better defined and • The steps leading to the • No common and unclearadapted to the organization development of the LF are better terminology

defined and adapted to the • Unclear links between levelsspecific needs of the organization • Unclear success measures

• Software and training are • Unclear responsibilities withmade available regard to project success

• No integration with otherPM tools and processes



AP

ER

S

be involved, project success meas-ures, risk events, and so on (betterintegration with other PM processesand tools);

7. Show responsibilities with regard toproject success (clearer responsibili-ties with regard to project success);

8. Allow integration with today’s proj-ect management tools (better inte-gration with other PM tools); and

9. Be flexible and suitable to differentproject management approachessuch as agile project managementand extreme project management(less rigid approach).

While the content of the LF haschanged very little over the years, theunderlying philosophy has changed. Atfirst, the LF was created to provide astatic overview of a project under theassumptions that a well-conceivedproject should change very little over itslife cycle and that it is the responsibilityof a project team to provide this clearvision of the project. Under this philos-ophy, a project has a life of its own. Thesecond generation of the LFA recog-nizes that project success dependsmostly on stakeholders’ perceptions. A project exists (and has value) onlywithin the realm of the stakeholders’needs and expectations. Consequently,it is the responsibility of the projectteam to manage the project such thatthe needs and expectations of thestakeholders will be met. In the thirdgeneration of the LFA, projects are perceived as complex undertakingsinvolving uncertainties, and conse-quently changes are inevitable. Projectsare thus perceived as changing entities.It is the responsibility of the projectteam to adapt to the changes. Based onthe above analysis of the strengths andweaknesses of the three generations ofthe LFA, the research objective is estab-lished in the next section.

Research ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to pro-pose a modification of the LFA that will foster its use in selecting projects,

in better understanding the context of a selected project, and in becomingthe precursor of choice for the projectcharter and a highly effective commu-nication tool. The revised version of the LFA must be consistent with today’sPM culture and terminology, and mustfacilitate integration with today’s proj-ect management tools. We propose tocall the updated tool the LogicalFramework Approach–Millennium(LFA–M). The LFA–M is composed ofsteps leading to the development of arevised version of the logframe that wepropose to call the Logframe-Millennium (LF–M). Thus, the LFA–M isthe process leading to the LF–M.

A three-phase methodology wasused to develop the LFA–M to meet theabove nine requirements. First, the LFwas modified to make it more consis-tent with today’s project managementframework by ensuring its compliancewith the terminology of the ProjectManagement Body of Knowledge, or,PMBOK (Project Management Institute,2008). Experts’ interviews were used tovalidate the content of the LF–M withregard to the PMBOK. Then, the stepsrequired for the development of theLF–M were established throughexperts’ interviews and focus groups.These steps were devised to allowstakeholders’ involvement and to makethe development of the LF–M more sys-tematic. Finally, in the third phase,through experts’ interviews the rela-tionships between the elements (orboxes) of the LF–M and other projectmanagement tools and documentswere determined, facilitating, amongother things, integration of the LFA–M

with today’s project management tools.Table 2 summarizes the three phases ofthe research methodology and theapproach used.

The Logical FrameworkApproach–MillenniumPhase 1: Modification of the LogframeThe proposed LF–M is a five-columnand four-line matrix. Table 3 provides ashort description of the informationthat should be considered by projectteams to develop the LF–M. The fivecolumns are: Project Commitments,Success Measures, Means of Verification,Risk Events, and Responsible Authority.The lines of the LF–M include four essen-tial project commitments: OrganizationalValue, Scope/Deliverables, Activities, andResources. The next sections describe allthe elements of the updated logframe,as well as the horizontal and verticallogics between them. It should benoted that the proposed LF–M containsmost of the information of the ProjectData Sheet as used in agile projectmanagement (Highsmith, 2004), but itis organized in a more logical fashionthat makes it easier to understand andto update.

The first line of the logframe, firstcolumn, gives the organizational value,also referred to as the business objec-tive of the project (at the CanadianSpace Agency [CSA], the businessobjective is called the programmaticobjective). It describes why the projectshould be undertaken by identifyinghow the client organization will benefitin the long run from the project (the“why”). The organizational value mustbe related to the organizational goals,

Table 2: The three-phase research methodology.

Phases of the Research Methodology Approach Used

1. Modification of the logframe Expert interviews

2. Revision of the LFA Expert interviews and focus groups

3. Relationships with other project Expert interviewsmanagement tools and documents


its mission, and its strategic objectives.For example, the expected contribu-tions to the client organization of aninformation technology (IT) financialsystem can include allowing the end-users to do more advanced financialanalysis, or to do them better, faster,and/or cheaper by providing new ways

to increase the productivity of thefinance department. The next columngives the success measures for theorganizational value and provides met-rics used to assess to what extent thebusiness objective is met and to whatextent in the long run the organizationwill benefit from the project. Success

measures can include, for example:increasing market share by 10% within5 years, reducing down time by 5% peryear, bringing one new product on themarket every year, increasing customerloyalty by 15% within the next 5 years.The next column presents the means of verification for the organizational

Table 3: Description of the components of the Logframe–Millennium.

Project Name: Project Manager:

Clients: Client Representative:

Project Sponsor: Date:

Success MeasuresProject Relative Priorities Means of Risk Events ResponsibleCommitments (E, F, A) Verification Risk Levels (L, M, H) Authorities

Organizational ValueThe long-term and Metrics to assess how the How the data required to Negative or undesirable The entity or thesustainable benefits long-term and sustainable assess the long-term and events that can jeopardize person who or contributions to contributions of the project sustainable contributions of the long-term benefits of ensures that thethe clients’ organization to the clients’ organization the project to the clients’ the project to the client’s project is andor to its strategic will be measured organization will be organization or cause the stays in line withobjectives or to its (business objective) obtained selection of the wrong the organizationalmission project value

Scope/DeliverablesThe means by which Metrics to assess to what How the data required to Negative or undesirable The entity or the the project will extent the deliverables assess the achievement of events that can jeopardize person whocontribute to the possess the required the required functionalities the achievement of the ensures that theclients’ organization functionalities and other and other quality attributes project scope project scope andby providing appropriate quality attributes to meet will be obtained quality are metresults or end products the stakeholders’ expecta-

tions (quality objective)

ActivitiesThe activities required Metrics to assess that the How the data required to Negative or undesirable The entity or theto produce the activities to produce the assess that the activities events that can jeopardize person whodeliverables as stated deliverables were completed were completed will be the completion of the ensures that allin the project scope (time objective) obtained deliverables on time the activities are

completed

ResourcesThe type of resources The quantity (expressed How the data required to Negative or undesirable The entity or therequired to carry on the in dollar value or days) of assess how many resources events that can make the person whoactivities (human resources required to were used to carry on the resources unavailable ensures that theresources, material, carry on the activities activities will be obtained or insufficient resources are facilities, equipment, (cost objective) made availablepermits, etc.) to carry on the

activities



AP

ER

S

value of a project identifying the datarequired to quantify the success meas-ures and how they will be obtained.These can include, for example, theannual report or a yearly satisfactionsurvey. The fourth column contains therisk events that can compromise thecontribution of the project to the orga-nizational value. For example, a changeof mission, end-users refusing to usethe new system, or a new improvedsystem becoming available from acompetitor could be significant riskevents. Indeed, even if a project isdelivered on time, on budget, andwithin the quality expectations, it isstill possible that the client organiza-tion will not benefit from the project.That has been the case for many ITprojects that took many years to com-plete but for which the needs hadchanged, or even worse, no longerexisted, and is also the case when thewrong project is undertaken. The lastcolumn identifies the entity or the per-son who is accountable for the projectbeing and staying in line with the corporate mission.

Moving to the second line of thelogframe, first column, the scope/deliverable of the project gives what the project intends to deliver to achievethe organizational value, and hence tocontribute to the client organization(the “what”). It can be, for instance,developing a new IT system, updatingan IT existing system, or buying an off-the-shelf IT system. While in thosethree cases the main deliverable is an IT system, the activities, the resourcesrequired to carry on the project, and therisk events are quite different. It shouldbe noted that more than one means canbe identified as contributing to theorganizational value. It is suggested toconsider each one of them as a differentproject. The next column shows thesuccess measures by listing the func-tionalities and other quality attributesthat the deliverables must possess tomeet the client needs and expectations.For example, a desirable functionalitycould be to enable end-users to obtain

a list of clients per region, per product,or per amount of sales. To generate a listof desirable functionalities, the featuresbreakdown structure (FBS) or the qualitybreakdown structure (QBS) can be used(Paquin, Couillard, & Ferrand, 2000). Thenext column contains the success meas-ures of the scope/deliverables. Theyassess to what extent the quality objec-tives, including technical performance,maintainability, availability, and so on,are to be met (at the CSA, generallyspeaking, the quality objective is referredto as the performance objective). Then in the next column, the means of verifi-cation indicates how the achievement ofthe quality objective is to be assessed. Ameans of verification can be, for exam-ple, an acceptance test assessing that thedeliverable possesses all the requiredfunctionalities. The fourth column isthe risk events that can jeopardize theachievement of the quality objectiveand can include, for example, incom-patible technologies or unproven tech-nology. Finally, the fifth column showsthe entity or the person who ensuresthat the project scope is met.

The activities associated with theattainment of the deliverables are givenin the first column of the third line ofthe logframe. The activities indicatehow the project deliverables will bedone (the “how”). The activities shouldcorrespond to the key work elements atthe second level of the work breakdownstructure (WBS). There should be oneactivity for each deliverable. Even at ahigh level, it is important to identify theactivities needed to achieve the deliver-ables in order to obtain an order-of-magnitude estimate of the type andamount of resources required. This pre-liminary LF can be done using high-level information prior to detailing theWBS. Then the preliminary LF can beupdated after the feasibility studies aredone or when the WBS is fully devel-oped. The preliminary LF could beused, for instance, to show to the stake-holders whether feasibility studies areneeded or not (if the LF was filled outwithout issue, then there is no need for

feasibility studies). The second columncontains the success measures estab-lishing when the activities must becompleted. The third column shows the means of verification indicatinghow the achievement of the time objec-tive will be assessed. Earned valuemanagement can be used to control the realization on time of the activities.The next column contains the riskevents that can have an impact on theexecution on time of the activities, forexample: the contractor responsible for the work goes bankrupt, one of the team members quits his job, or thematerial is delivered late. All of theserisk events can make the project acti-vities late. Finally, the last column iden-tifies the entity or the person whoensures that the activities are complet-ed on time.

Finally, in the first column of the lastline of the logframe, the resourcesrequired to carry on the activities are list-ed (the “how much”) at a high level (e.g.,total budget, total work or full-timeequivalent, key permits and contracts,materials, and contingencies). The suc-cess measures associated with theresources are shown in the second col-umn and give the quantity of resources(in dollar value or in hours) required incarrying on the activities. The wayresources usage is collected gives themeans of verification in the third col-umn. It can include an accounting sys-tem or timesheets. The risk events in thefourth column include all negativeevents that can jeopardize the availabili-ty of the required resources or that canmake the resources insufficient to carryon the activities. Inflation and dollardevaluation are among the risk eventsthat could have an impact on the costobjective. Finally, the entity or the personwho ensures that the resources are madeavailable and used efficiently is shown inthe last column.

To these elements, two columnswere added to better define the project:(1) the relative priorities of the successmeasures and (2) the risk level. The rel-ative priorities of the success measures


reflect an agreement among the stake-holders about the possible trade-offbetween them. It is proposed to use thefollowing scale: essential, flexible, andadjustable. Essential (E) indicates thatfailure to meet that success dimensionwill result in the project failure. Flexible(F) is assigned to success dimensionsconsidered as important but for whichsome variation is tolerated (for exam-ple, missing the commissioning date by1 week). The relative priority adjustable(A) is given to success dimensions thatare opened to negotiation throughoutthe project life cycle.

The risk level is a subjective assess-ment of the likelihood and negativeconsequences of the identified riskevents. It is proposed to use the follow-ing scale: low (L), medium (M), andhigh (H). A low score indicates theassumption that the risk in question,although it will still be monitored, willhave only minor effects on the projectobjective. A high score means that therisk that has been identified couldcause, were it to occur, a major impactto the affected objective and possiblythe cancellation of the project. Theassessment of the risk level may helpthe project team in selecting an appro-priate project management approach.

Phase 2: Revision of the LogicalFramework ApproachCompleting a logframe should be donesystematically. A seven-step approachcomposed of six precursors and therevised LF–M is proposed as follows:1. Analysis of the project’s context;2. Problem analysis/situation analysis;3. Stakeholder analysis;4. Options identification and selection;5. Identification of the main activities,

their schedule, and the requiredresources;

6. Risk identification; and7. Logframe write-up and validation.

The steps do not need to be per-formed in a linear fashion. It is alwayspossible to go back to previous steps asmore information is gathered through-

out the approach. For example, theoptions identification step might revealthat no affordable or technologicallyfeasible solution exists for the problemat hand. It might then be suitable tochange the scope of the project. Theprocess shall be adapted to each situa-tion and must remain flexible while fos-tering stakeholders’ involvement andparticipation.

The first step of the LFA–M consistsof performing an analysis of the pro-ject’s context. The purpose of this stepis to understand the mission of theorganization that the project must sup-port and the organizational strategiesused to support that mission. In addi-tion, the internal and external environ-ments of the organization must bedefined. With regard to the externalenvironment, questions such as the fol-lowing must be addressed: Who are thecustomers of the organizations? Whatare their expectations? What productsor services do we provide them with?Who are the competitors? To betterunderstand the internal environment,the following questions must also beconsidered: To deliver the products orservices, what are the operations per-formed by the organization? What typeand quantity of resources are used?Technique such as SWOT (analysis ofstrengths, weaknesses, opportunities,and threats) can be used to identify anarea for potential growth or improve-ment or a problematic area that needs tobe improved. In some organizations, theLF can be used instead of a SWOT analy-sis. However, the SWOT analysis is usedmore to identify worthwhile opportuni-ties or projects, and the LFA is used moreto give an overall understanding of theproject and to decide if the projectwould be the appropriate solution to acorporate need, and/or should be con-tinued.

The second step is the problemanalysis/situation analysis. It is usefulto describe the actual situation that isunsatisfactory and the desirable situa-tion that we want to achieve. The gapbetween the actual and the desirable

situations leads to the need statement.For example, the need to improve mar-ket share can lead to a new productdevelopment project or to a marketingproject promoting actual products in anew market. It is important to identifythe causes of the undesirable situationand its effects. The issue is to under-stand clearly the problem before pro-posing a solution. Many projects havefailed because a solution was identifiedprematurely even before a problemstatement was formulated. It is possibleto group the causes into categoriesleading to different projects. The analy-sis of the effects or consequences of theproblem helps in justifying that a proj-ect is needed. A Statement of CapabilityDeficiency (SCD) or a need statementmust be written and reviewed by thestrategic stakeholders. This statementshall indicate why a project is neededand what value the project is expectedto bring to the organization. It is impor-tant to formulate the need statement asclose to the “owner of the problem” aspossible and not provide solutions atthis stage. This need statement willhave a direct link with the first box (firstline, first column) of the LF–M.

The third step involves a stakehold-er analysis, and this will support thewhole LF–M but mainly the first andsecond rows. The purpose of this stepaims at identifying all of the entities orpersons who are or will be influencedby or exert an influence directly or indi-rectly on the project. It is important todetermine if stakeholders are in favoror against the project, to determinetheir ability and intent to influence, andthen to develop means of keeping orgaining their support. Stakeholders’involvement and support were found tobe critical project success factors. Aswell, stakeholders can limit the projectscope, its duration, and its budget andcan request regular progress reports toassess if the project should be terminat-ed or continued. This stakeholderanalysis will provide more assurancethat we have identified the correct mis-sion, need, project, and risk.



AP

ER

S

The fourth step, options identifica-tion and selection, aims to identify andselect an option. The aim of this step isto identify potential options to solvethe problem identified in the previoussteps and then to do a cost/benefitanalysis to select the most appropriateone. If the option selected is a project, itmust indicate the deliverables that willbe produced and how they will be pro-duced. Options can include: develop-ing a new system, updating an existingsystem, or buying an off-the-shelf sys-tem. The analysis of a given optionshould cover the project success meas-ures, its organizational value (program-matic objective: will the project deliver-ables help in serving the mission andhow well, and what is the businesscase?), the quality objective/perform-ance (feasibility of the deliverables), theschedule objective (hence, activitieslist), and cost objective and feasibility.Then, there should be a cost/benefitanalysis to compare the acceptableoptions. The benefits should relate tothe impact of the option on the chanceof achieving the mission, the quality ofthe deliverables, the cost, and the dura-tion of the project, as well as the riskinvolved. Essentially here, we are work-ing on the LF–M second and third rows.

Identification of the main activities,their schedule, and the requiredresources are achieved in the fifth step of the LFA–M. It aims to develop a reasonably detailed plan of activitiesand resources allocation for the select-ed option. This step aims to identify themain activities required to produce the deliverables and the resourcesrequired to carry on the activities. Theactivities can include: developing thesystem requirements, developing the system architecture, designing thesystem, coding the system, and testingthe system. The type and quantity ofresources required to undertake theactivities can then be assessed. Finally,a milestone chart indicating when theproject activities must be carried oncan be developed. This step will be themain contributor to the fourth row.

In the sixth step of the approach,risk identification must be performed.For each level (or row) of the LF–M, riskevents and, as much as possible, riskmitigations also must be identified. Thestakeholder analysis will contributehere also, since most risk events arerelated to communications, misunder-standings, or not sharing the need,hence, to people.

Finally, the logframe is written upand validated, using the informationobtained in the previous six steps.During this final step, the horizontaland vertical logic is verified and previ-ous steps are revisited if necessary. Theapproach ends with the concurrence ofthe logframe by the key stakeholders.

Phase 3: Relationships With OtherProject Management Tools andDocumentsThe revised LFA–M and the LF–M arewell adapted to today’s project initiationand management tools and documents.Table 4 illustrates this point by showingthe tools and the documents that can beused to further validate the elements ofthe LF–M. For example, the missionstatement and priorities, strategic plan,business case, and need statement canbe used to validate the identified organi-zational value of the project. In addition,the scope/deliverables can be confirmedusing feasibility studies, cost-trade-offanalysis, the product breakdown struc-ture, and the stakeholder analysis. Theactivities of the project can be brokendown further during the planning phaseusing the WBS as indicated in the projectplan. More relationships with other proj-ect management tools and documentsare given in Table 4.

Once the LF–M, a high-level docu-ment, has been agreed to by the stake-holders, it can be used to prepare othernecessary project documents. Figure 1illustrates the flow of documents toconsider. The left side of the figure re-presents the seven steps of the LFA–Mas described in the article, and the rightside shows a typical flow of projectmanagement–related documents. As

the flow of documents may vary fromone organization to another, Figure 1provides an example of how the LF–Mrelates to other project managementdocuments.

It all begins with the documentdescribing the mission and the priori-ties of the organization. The missionstatement and the related priorities canbe used to validate the need statement.The need statement will lead to a prob-lem statement. Because projects canhave significant impacts on many per-sons, entities, or organizations, a stake-holder analysis must be performedearly in the project life cycle to ensurethat it will benefit all of the stakehold-ers. A business case will determine therelevancy of the project by demonstrat-ing its expected contributions to themission or the priorities of the organi-zation. The feasibility studies and/orthe cost/trade-off analysis helps identi-fying options and selecting the mostsuitable one by comparing theirexpected benefits/contributions andtheir financial and technical viability.The proposed option will be used todevelop the scope statement.

The scope statement shall describethe work to be done to produce theproject deliverables. Completion datefor the deliverables can be determinedusing milestone charts. Risk identifica-tion at a high level must be done toassess the level of risk of the project.Using the information gathered in theprevious steps, the LF–M can be com-pleted and used as foreword to the proj-ect charter. After demonstrating thefeasibility and the viability of the pro-posed option, project approval shouldbe obtained, and detailed overallproject planning (including detailedrisk management planning) may beperformed. However, before writing anoverall project plan, quality assurance(QA) planning should be performed.

The goal of QA is to design a systemand the means by which it will be real-ized in such a way that the need forquality control is reduced to a mini-mum. QA also ensures that the activi-


ties and the appropriate resources toproduce high-quality deliverables areused. Consequently, the QA plan isdone before the overall project plan, asit must reflect the decisions made toensure that high-quality deliverableswill be produced. Then a risk manage-ment plan should be elaborated toidentify high-level negative events thatcan jeopardize the project success andappropriate risk responses.

The LF–M is an evolving documentthat needs to be updated as more

detailed and accurate information isobtained. A first iteration leads to thepreliminary version of LF–M. The pre-liminary LF–M can demonstrate theneed for more detailed analysis. For lesscomplex projects, the preliminary LF–Mcan be used instead of more formal feasi-bility studies, at least for project approvalin principle. A more complete and accu-rate LF–M can be obtained after the fea-sibility studies are done, the latter gener-ally including preliminary WBS, prelimi-nary budget, and so on. This last phase

ensures integration of the LFA–M withtoday’s project management tools, and,in fact, the LF–M could be treated as asupporting document for formal projectapproval submission.

Case StudiesThe LFA–M has been implemented suc-cessfully at the Canadian Nuclear SafetyCommission and at the Canadian SpaceAgency. The next paragraphs presentsome of the results of the implementa-tion of the LF–M in both organizations.

Table 4: The relationships with other project management tools and documents.

Project Success Measures Means of Risk Events ResponsibleCommitments Relative Priorities Verification Risk Levels Authorities

Organizational ValueMission statement and Corporate performance Annual reports (such Corporate risk Governance policiespriorities measures as departmental management Organizational break-

Strategic plan performance report)

Integrated risk down structure (OBS)

Business case management Project charter

Need statement Project risk Project approval andmanagement plan management frame-

Risk breakdown work

structure

Risk databaseregular reviews

Scope/DeliverablesFeasibility studies Technical performance User requirements Cost/trade-off analysis measurement tracking

Product breakdown Features breakdown Quality controlstructure (PBS) structure (FBS) learned quality method

Stakeholders analysis Quality breakdownstructure (QBS)

ActivitiesWBS project plan Milestones schedule Progress reports

Project schedule Gantt charts

Earned value

ResourcesResources allocation Budget Progress reports

Project plan Gantt charts

Human resource plan Earned value

Bill of material Contract agreements



AP

ER

S

The Canadian Nuclear SafetyCommissionThe Canadian Nuclear Safety Comm-ission is “an independent federal gov-ernment agency that regulates the useof nuclear energy and material to pro-tect health, safety, security, and theenvironment and to respect Canada’sinternational commitments on thepeaceful use of nuclear energy.” Its mis-sion is “to regulate the use of nuclearenergy and materials to protect health,safety, security, and the environmentand to respect Canada’s internationalcommitments on the peaceful use ofnuclear energy.”

The LFA–M was used for the proba-bilistic assessment of leak rate throughthe Steam Generator Tubes ResearchProject (Revankar & Riznic, 2007). Toprovide a concise and complete over-view and understanding of the project,the LFA–M was used. The logframe of the probabilistic assessment of leakrate through the Steam GeneratorTubes Research Project is given in Table 5.

Steps 1 and 2 of the LFA–M led to theformulation of the organizational valueof the project as shown in Table 5. It wasfelt that there was a need to predictmore accurately tube failures, leak rates,and, ultimately, risk of exceeding expo-sure dose—that is, all of the inspection

results are within the requirements of CAN/CSA Standard N285.4 on peri-odic inspection of power plant compo-nents, as well, all potentially leakingtubes are removed from service duringthe planned outage, at least with theprobability of 0.95 at 50% confidence.Through Steps 3 to 4 of the LFA–M, asolution to the problem was identified.Then, success measures with their rela-tive priority were assigned to each proj-ect commitment.

It was decided that this projectshould aim at updating the originallydeveloped methodology for probabilis-tic assessment of inspection strategiesfor steam generator tubes as a directeffect on the probability of tube failureand primary-to-secondary leak rate.Assessment of the conditional proba-bilities of tube failures, leak rates, and,ultimately, risk of exceeding exposuredose limits is an approach to steam gen-erator tube fitness-for-service assess-ment that has begun to be used increas-ingly in recent years throughout thenuc1ear power industry. The advantageof this type of analysis is that it avoidsthe excessive conservatism typicallypresent in deterministic methodologies(Revankar & Riznic, 2007). Thus, thescope/deliverables of the project include:obtaining the experimental data, devel-oping the probabilistic model, and

giving a seminar on the proposedapproach. QBS were used to identifythe required quality attributes for eachdeliverable (see Table 5 for moredetails).

Then, the main activities to obtainthe deliverables, as well as the resourcesrequired to carry them on were identi-fied in Step 5 of the LFA–M. A budget wasallocated to each of the project activities.Major risk events were identified duringStep 6 of the approach for each of thefour project commitments. A level of riskwas assigned to each commitment.Finally in Step 7, the logframe was writ-ten up and validated. The horizontal andvertical logic was verified, and concur-rence of the logframe was obtained fromthe key stakeholders.

The Canadian Space AgencyThe mission of the Canadian SpaceAgency is “to promote the peaceful use and development of space, toadvance the knowledge of space throughscience and to ensure that space scienceand technology provide social and eco-nomic benefits for Canadians.” Consis-tent with this overall mission statementand with its internal policies andprocesses, the CSA used the originalLFA format on space projects between1998 and 2003, and then modified theLFA format internally in a fashion similar to that of the LFA–M, so that itbetter matched the project objectivesand terminology in place. The CSA hasfostered the use of this new LFA formatas a precursor to many of its projectcharters since then. The CSA found that the LFA was a very good tool toensure proper connection betweensupported mission and project deliver-ables, and their respective high-levelrisks. It also found that the LFA wasmore effectively completed and usedwhen prepared in parallel with thestakeholder analysis, the business plan,and the concept analysis; the LFA isnormally updated when more detailedproject information is available, partic-ularly at the transition between majorproject phases. It is considered that

Validate needNeed Statement Mission and Priorities

Stakeholders Analysis

Risk Identification

Problem Statement

Scope Statement

Milestone Chart

LF-M

The seven steps ofthe LFA-M

Project Approval

Project Charter

Quality Assurance

Corporatelevel

Projectlevel

Business Case

Project Plan

Risk Management Plan

Validate problem

Best option

Flow of documents

Figure 1: The LFA–M and the flow of documents.


the LFA is an excellent communicationstool, with corporate- and project-levelpersonnel and with other stakeholders,and that it is an effective tool to ensurethat the focus is kept on what the proj-ect needs to accomplish. The LFA is agood trigger to the need to rewrite the

project charter (if, for instance, the LFAindicates that the corporate mission, theproject objectives, and/or deliverablesdo not match, in which case, also, thewrong resources would likely be assignedto the project, thus significantly compro-mising the project success).

Figure 2 is provided to illustrate theintegration of the LFA with the overallproject approval and managementprocess at the CSA (Canadian SpaceAgency, 2005). Here, the high-levelprocess flow would go from an identi-fied lack of capability (to meet the

Table 5: The logframe of the probabilistic assessment of leak rate through the Steam Generator Tubes Research Project.

Success Measures Risk EventsProject Relative Priorities Means of Risk Levels ResponsibleCommitments (E, F, A) Verification (L, M, H) Authorities

Organizational ValueTo be able to assess steam All of the inspection results E Station conditions Plants used at more L Project generator tube inspection are within the acceptance reports than nominal operat- leaderstrategy standard requirements ing capacity for a

Inspections reports long period of time To be able to predict the S99 reports and without inspec-worst-case structural All potentially leaking tubes tion of complete integrity margins with at were removed from service tubes populationleast a probability of 0.95 with at least a probability ofat 50% confidence of 0.95 at 50% confidence Degraded tubes not

removed from service

Scope/DeliverablesExperimental data on leak Accuracy (�3%), reliability E Tests of the data Undetected errors in L Project rates from fretted tubes, (�10%), robustness (3%), the data managerfrom pitting flaws, and parsimonious (� 80 of the Tests of the modelfrom crack flaws data used), meaningful (0% Test samples are not

of missing data) Acceptance tests representative of realProbabilistic model to assess degradation or flawsthe failure, the leakage, the Content validity (all key Peer review andprobability of detection, and parameters included), reports Unknown degradationflaw growth distributions of accuracy (�10%), reliability due to agingthe steam generator and to (�3%), and adaptability Presentation of resultsdetermine sample size (�15%) Low participation

Subjective evaluationon a Likert scale Model not well

Seminar on the new approach Validity (100% coverage), understoodusefulness (� 80% rating)

ActivitiesGenerate experimental data December 2008 A Acceptance tests Research team M ProjectDevelop probabilistic model December 2008 Progress reports assigned to too many managerOrganize the seminar May 2009 projects resulting in

late activities

ResourcesResearchers and assistants CAD$40,000 (data) F Costs reports Lower budget M Projectwith lab facilities (data and CAD$30,000 (model) allocated managermodel) CAD$2,000 Unable to find

good post doc

Presenter (transportation) students



AP

ER

S

corporate mission) to project imple-mentation, showing where the LFA–Mis mainly used, and the link with thestakeholder analysis (SA) and the proj-ect implementation plan (detailed proj-ect plan), or PIP. However, the LFA–M isused as a source of information for alllower levels of the operation, and isupdated (as a corporate tool) at keyproject phases.

ConclusionOver the last 35 years, the LogicalFramework Approach (LFA) has beenused by many public and private organ-izations as a means of obtaining an over-all project vision and of determiningproject goals and objectives. While theLFA has proven to be a valuable tool forproject design and evaluation, a few pit-falls make it hard to use with today’sproject management framework and tointegrate with other project manage-ment tools. Based on a literature review,the essential characteristics of an updat-ed version of the LFA were identified.

To meet these essential characteristics,the LFA–M was developed.

This article showed how the LFA–Mcan be used to support the corporateprocess to select projects, to facilitateanalysis and decisions on general projectmanagement approaches at a high level,to make the project scope and corporatemission evident and well related, to fosterstakeholder involvement and participa-tion, to help in planning the project, toshow responsibilities with regard to proj-ect success, and to allow integration withtoday’s project management tools. TheLFA–M is also flexible enough to be suit-able for different project managementapproaches such as agile project manage-ment and extreme project management.

The revised LFA approach was suc-cessfully used at the Canadian SpaceAgency and at the Canadian NuclearSafety Commission. The LFA–M fits wellwithin today’s project managementframework and corporate culture andleads easily to other essential projectmanagement tools. ■

ReferencesAune, J. B. (2000). Logical frameworkapproach and PRA: Mutually exclusiveor complimentary tools for projectplanning? Development in Practice, 10,687–690.

Australian Agency for InternationalDevelopment. (2003). The logicalframework approach. Canberra,Australia: AusAID.

Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical frame-work method for defining project suc-cess. Project Management Journal,30(4), 25–32.

Canadian International DevelopmentAgency (CIDA). (1985).Guide for theuse of the logical framework approachin the management and evaluation ofCIDA’s international development proj-ects. Gatineau, Canada: Author.

Canadian International DevelopmentAgency (CIDA). (1997). The logicalframework: Making it results-oriented.Gatineau, Canada: Author.

Canadian Space Agency (CSA). (2005).Project approval and managementframework (PAMF) policy (and associ-ated guidelines). Saint Hubert, Canada:Author.

Coleman, G. (1987). Logical frameworkapproach to monitoring and evalua-tion of agricultural and rural develop-ment projects. Project Appraisal, 2,251–259.

Cordingley, D. (1995). Incorporatingthe logical framework into the man-agement of technical cooperation proj-ects. Project Appraisal, 10, 103–112.

Dale, R. (2003). The logical framework:An easy escape, a straitjacket, or a use-ful planning tool? Development inPractice,13(1), 57–70.

Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.(1990). LFA for project preparation:Handbook on logical frameworkapproach. Copenhagen, Denmark:DANIDA.

Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.(1992). Guidelines for project prepara-tion. Copenhagen, Denmark: DANIDA.

ProjectInitiation

ProjectConcept

Need Statement

ScopeStatement

LFA SA

Corporate Mission

Project Objectives

Other Interest

Project Charter (PAD)

PIPProject

Implementation

Monitoring and Control

Figure 2: Integration of the LFA–M within the project approval and management approach at theCanadian Space Agency.

Note. Stakeholder analysis � SA; project implementation plan � PIP


Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.(1996). The logical frameworkapproach: A flexible tool for participa-tory development. Copenhagen,Denmark: DANIDA.

Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID). (2002). Tools fordevelopment: A handbook for thoseengaged in development activity.London: Author.

Earle, L. (2003, April). Lost in thematrix: The logframe and the local pic-ture. Paper presented at the INTRAC’s5th Evaluation Conference:Measurement, Management andAccountability, The Netherlands.

Eggers, H. (1994). Integrated projectcycle management: Roots and per-spectives. Project Appraisal, 9, 59–65.

European Commission. (1999). Projectcycle management training handbook.Brussels: EuropeAid Cooperation Office.

European Commission. (2004). Projectcycle management guidelines. Brussels:EuropeAid Cooperation Office.

Gasper, D. (1997). Logical frameworks:A critical assessment managerial theo-ry, pluralistic practice. ISS WorkingPapers, General Series No. 264. TheHague: Institute of Social Studies.

Gasper, D. (1999, January/February).Problems in the logical frameworkapproach and challenges for projectcycle management. The Courier, 173,75–77.

Gasper, D. (2000, February). Evaluatingthe logical framework approach:Towards learning-oriented develop-ment evaluation. PublicAdministration and Development,20(1), 17–28.

German Technical Cooperation(Deutsche Gesellschaft fur TechnischeZusammenarbeit [GTZ]). (1987).ZOPP: An introduction to the method.Eschbom, Germany: Author.

German Technical Cooperation(Deutsche Gesellschaft fur TechnischeZusammenarbeit [GTZ]). (1989).Managing on-site project implementation:A guideline. Eschbom, Germany: Author.

German Technical Cooperation(Deutsche Gesellschaft fur TechnischeZusammenarbeit [GTZ]). (1996). Projectcycle management and objectives-oriented project planning (ZOPP):Guidelines. Eschbom, Germany: Author.

German Technical Cooperation(Deutsche Gesellschaft fur TechnischeZusammenarbeit [GTZ]). (1997).ZOPP—A planning guide for new andongoing projects and programs.Eschbom, Germany: Author.

Great Britain Equal Support Unit(2005). A project cycle managementand logical framework toolkit—A prac-tical guide for equal development part-nerships. Birmingham, UK: Author.

Highsmith, J. (2004). Agile projectmanagement: Creating innovativeproduct. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

International Planned ParenthoodFederation. (2002). Guide for designingresults-oriented projects and writingsuccessful proposals. New York: Author.

Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logicmodel development guide. Battle Creek,MI: Author.

Norwegian Agency for DevelopmentCooperation. (1999). The logicalframework approach: Handbook forobjectives-oriented planning (4th ed.).Oslo, Norway: Norad.

Paquin, J. P., Couillard, J., & Ferrand,D. J. (2000, February). Assessing andcontrolling the quality of a project end-product: The earned quality method.IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 47, 88–97.

Practical Concepts. (1978). The logicalframework: A manager’s guide to a sci-entific approach to design and evalua-tion. Washington, DC: Author.

Project Management Institute. (2008).A guide to the project managementbody of knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide)—Fourth edition. Newtown Square, PA:Author.

Revankar, S., & Riznic, J. (2007,September 30–October 4). Assessmentof steam generator tube flaw size andleak rate models. Presented at the 12th

International Topical Meeting onNuclear Reactor Thermal HydraulicsNURETH 12, Pittsburgh, PA, AmericanNuclear Society.

Sartorius, R. (1996). The third genera-tion logical framework approach:Dynamic management for agriculturalresearch projects. Journal of AgriculturalEducation and Extension, 2(4), 49–62.

Solem, R. R. (1987). The logical frame-work approach to project design,review and evaluation in A.I.D.:Genesis, impact, problems, and oppor-tunities. (Working Paper 99).Washington, DC: USAID.

Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency. (1996).Guidelines for the application of LFA inproject cycle management. Stockholm:Author.

Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency. (2004). The logi-cal framework approach: A summary ofthe theory behind the LFA method.Stockholm: Author.

Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency. (2005). The useand abuse of the logical frameworkapproach. Stockholm: Author.

Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency. (2006). The logicalframework approach: With an apprecia-tive approach. Stockholm: Author.

Team Technologies. (1993). The logicalcycle management resource guide: Alogical framework approach.Washington, DC: Author.

United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID). (1991). Anagency-wide program performanceinformation system: A plan for designand implementation. Rosslyn, VA:Bureau for Science and Technology.

Wiggins, S., & Shields, D. (1995).Clarifying the logical framework as atool for planning and managing proj-ects. Project Appraisal, 10, 2–12.

World Bank. (1996). Performance mon-itoring indicators: A handbook for taskmanagers. Washington, DC: Author.



AP

ER

S

World Bank. (2000). The logframehandbook: A logical frameworkapproach to project cycle management.Washington, DC: Author.

Jean Couillard is a professor at the Telfer Schoolof Management of the University of Ottawa,where he has taught since 1983. He received aPhD in operations and decisions science in 1987and an MBA in 1979, both from the UniversitéLaval (Québec, Canada). He concentrates hisresearch in the areas of project management,project risk management, and quality manage-ment. His research has been published in severaljournals and magazines, including IEEETransactions on Engineering Management,Decision Support System: The InternationalJournal, the European Journal of OperationalResearch, the Project Management Journal, andGestion 2000. Currently, he is involved in thedevelopment and validation of a new approach,the Earned Quality Method, to assess and con-trol the quality of a project end product through-out its life cycle. He has served as a projectmanagement consultant and trainer for manyorganizations and institutions, including PublicWorks and Government Services Canada, theDepartment of National Defence, the RoyalCanadian Mounted Police, the National Research

Council Canada, Industry Canada, StatisticsCanada, the Canadian Space Agency, theCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CanadaPosts Corporation, Consulting and Audit Canada,and Interis Consulting Inc. He has developed andconducted many introductory and advancedproject management courses and workshops.

Serge Garon has served as the director of proj-ect management at the Canadian Space Agency(CSA) since 1999, where he has led a number ofspace projects and is responsible for the projectmanagement policy and infrastructure at theCSA. He has more than 25 years of experience inproject management at various levels, includingthat of director of shock trials for the CanadianPatrol Frigates project, deputy project managerfor the Canadian Forces Joint Space Project,deputy project manager for the Radarsat-2 proj-ect, risk manager for the Canadian Space StationProgram, and project manager forCommunication Satellites and other space proj-ects. He has published a number of papers onengineering and management, is a lecturer ofproject risk management on a part-time basis,and is a popular speaker at conferences bothnationally and internationally. He holds a BEngin chemical engineering from Laval University(Quebec City); an MSc in naval architecture from

University College London (England), whichincludes a submarine designer certificate; twosummer study certificates in engineering man-agement from the MIT; and a certificate of com-petency as shipboard chief engineer. He hasreceived a number of awards. He has a CanadianDecoration (CD) as a retired naval officer and isa Project Management Professional credentialholder, a certified European engineer, a char-tered engineer (England), and a professionalengineer (Quebec).

Jovica Riznic has a professional background inmechanical and nuclear engineering. He is cur-rently a technical specialist with the CanadianNuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). Prior to join-ing the CNSC, he was a visiting professor at theUniversity of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. He is alsoa professor of project management studies atAlgonquin College in Ottawa, Canada. He haswritten numerous peer-reviewed papers in aca-demic and professional journals, and has alsoauthored books, monographs, and other profes-sional publications. His teaching and researchinterests include knowledge management, engi-neering safety, risk and reliability, and projectmanagement. Currently he serves on the edito-rial board of the International Journal of NuclearGovernance, Economy, and Ecology.

The Logical Framework Approach���Millennium

Documents

Transcript of The Logical Framework Approach���Millennium

The Logical Framework Approach��Millennium

Transcript of The Logical Framework Approach��Millennium