AEA Conference Session on Logic Models and Systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Cycle Management Five stage Project Cycle

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

From Logical to Social Frameworks

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

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

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

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