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
What is the Logical Framework?
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.
What is the Logical Framework?
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
CLARIFICATION OF MEANS AND –END LINKAGE
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
CLARIFICATION OF MEANS AND –END LINKAGE
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
Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs
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
Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs
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
Narrative Indicator (Targets)
Means of verificatio
n
Assumption
Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs
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)
Narrative Indicator (Targets)
Means of verificatio
n
Assumption
Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs
TARGETS
INDICATORS AND 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
INDICATORS AND TARGETS
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
Narrative Indicator (Targets)
Means of verificatio
n
Assumption
Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs
GOAL-Objectively Verifiable Indicator
INDICATORS AND TARGETS
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.
Narrative Indicator (Targets)
Means of verificatio
n
Assumption
Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs
PURPOSE
INDICATORS AND TARGETS
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
Narrative Indicator (Targets)
Means of verificatio
n
Assumption
Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs
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 :
Narrative Indicator (Targets)
Means of verificatio
n
Assumption
Goal Purpose Outputs Inputs
“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.
CONSIDERATIONS IN ESTABLISHING TARGETS
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
CONSIDERATIONS IN ESTABLISHING TARGETS
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
CONSIDERATIONS IN ESTABLISHING TARGETS
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
Narrative Indicator (Targets)
Means of verificati
on
Assumption
Goal Purpos
e
Outputs
Inputs
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
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
Narrative Indicator (Targets)
Means of verificati
on
Assumption
Goal Purpos
e
Outputs
Inputs
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
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
Top Related