Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to discuss about the Logical Framework whether it is an overly simplistic and inflexible tool more appropriate for 'blueprint projects'. The history of Logical Framework started back in the 1970's with the purpose of adapting it as a planning tool for USAID projects overseas. It started to become very popular during these years of implementation that many international organizations started to use it as a mandatory tool for their development projects to provide assistance. Some of these organizations include: CIDA Canada, DFID United Kingdom, OECD Expert Group on Aid Evaluation, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), AusAID Australia and GTZ from Germany. Logical Framework is a design tool that if applied properly it can be practical for planning, designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating projects. Logical Framework is also important for activity schedule, budget, monitor and evaluates the impact and efficiency of the project. In Addition to that LFA is a great tool for people to involve in a project and especially stakeholders where all involved in the project share different ideas and opinions towards achieving project goal.(Grawler, 2005). Logical Framework has a matrix structure four by four and it has become very popular with the continuous expand to many international organization in the world. The log frame structure is composed of the following: Project Description, Performance Indicators, Means of Verifications and Assumptions. It starts from the bottom with Activities-or the tasks that need to implement the project, Outputs - or the measurable results that the projects aims, Objectives - the outcome expected to produce the results, Purpose - outcome expected at the end of the project, and finally the Goal - broader goal or sectoral goal that the project contributes to reach.(AusGuide, 2003). The second column is Objectively Verifiable Indicators of achievement for each level. This means that indicators need to be measured and they provide the criteria to assess the measure of the progress based on the objective terms. In order for indicators to be monitored successfully they need to be specified good so their achievement could be verified. Means of Verification in the third column provides information about the sources. This means that the person in charge of evaluation or monitoring the project will be provided with advance knowledge about the success of the project and it will assist for the project to be implemented. The last one is Important Assumptions where persons in charge of the project need to consider whether these assumptions made are realistic or not. It's also important for the project manager because it provides very important information about external factors that need to be monitored while they are in the process of implementation. Potts (2002, p.33,34).
Figure. 1 Logframe Matrix Structure
Project Description
Performance Indicators / OBI
Means of Verification
Goal: The broader
Measures of the extent
Sources of information
development impact to
to which a sustainable
and methods used to
which the project
contribution to the goal
collect and report it.
contributes - at a
has been made. Used
national and sectoral level
during evaluation.
Purpose:
Conditions at the end
Sources of information
The development
of the project
and methods used to
outcome expected
indicating that the
collect and report it.
at the end of the
Purpose has been
project. All
achieved and that
components will
benefits are
contribute to this.
sustainable.. Used for
project completion and
evaluation
Component Objectives:
Measures of the extent
Sources of information
The expected outcome
to which component
and methods used to
of producing each
objectives have been
collect and report it.
component's outputs.
achieved and lead to
sustainable benefits..
Used during review and
evaluation.
Outputs:
Measures of the
Sources of information
The direct measurable
quantity and quality of
and methods used to
results (goods and
outputs and the timing
collect and report it.
services) of the project
of their delivery. Used
which are largely under
during monitoring and
project management's
review.
control.
Activities:
Implementation/work
Sources of information
The tasks carried out
program targets. Used
and methods used to
to implement the
during monitoring.
collect and report it.
project and deliver the
identified outputs.
Source: AusGuide, 2003
Although Logical Framework was considered to be a great tool for development projects many NGO's argue that it lacks when it comes to implement it in various projects in different countries with different cultures. Therefore it is no surprise that many project managers hesitate to use it. It's usually the donors that ask for the LFA to be implemented, while on the other hand project managers suffer from the difficulties. According to SIDA: 'The success of any framework tool is based on how you use it rather than the content. It needs to be seen as a legitimate thinking process in itself, and it needs to be seen as our planning process because we need it, not as a process or hoop we go through to get money' (SIDA, 2005). In other words if LFA doesn't function in one region, then there should be done deep analysis to adapt the framework in order to engage partners in preparing the logical framework. According to Potts (2002, p36) if there is a tool that doesn't match somehow in the project, then the tool should be adapted to fit the project. Usually blueprint projects deal with preparing and implementing a plan and for this kind of job there are usually required specific tasks that chances are little or slip for any circumstances to be changed. This type is more appropriate for engineering projects. However, this is in contradiction with projects that are built to change people's behaviour, and their reactions about certain activities that a project would take place. Projects of this nature are more complex and project outcome is based on hypothesis during the process of building the project about the reaction of people about project activities and the tendency for error is bigger than in contrast with the engineering projects. Therefore adaptation or process for the project design would be more appropriate by simply including procedures of listening different kind of experiences from people that were in one way or another affected by the project.
In fact logical framework is very easy to be used with the participation of stakeholders. (Chap4, N.D) argues that by having stakeholders or beneficiaries many problems and opportunities could be analysed with cause and effect tree. By using this methodology project managers involve key stakeholders to address those concerns and issues unforeseen and creating a strong communication and understanding leads to finding their proper solutions. However identifying stakeholders is not easy with LFA terminology. It's such a huge bargain and it takes time and effort. Stakeholders are crucial and they will be able to identify the factors that are very important for the project to succeed as well as the best indicators for the project to progress. (Jensen, 2010).
Stages and involvement in project planning
Stage Activities / Who's involved
1 Project identification • Interview key stakeholders
• Identify wider stakeholders
• Start to analyse stakeholders
2 Problem / Situation analysis • Interview focus groups
• Facilitate participatory meetings
• Analyse stakeholders, problems and objectives
3 Visioning & participatory design • Facilitate the participatory development of a shared
vision and mission amongst stakeholder groups
4 Project planning • Compile Logical Framework to reflect the participatory process
• Check logic
• Work downwards - Think upwards!
5 Project proposal writing • Draw from Problem Analysis and Logical Framework
(Source: Jensen, 2010)
Logical Framework can be very useful to plan, screen and monitor usually small projects and it will give designers of the project a picture as to how the project is going to evolve. But, for larger projects and more complex it is not suitable for appraisals and evaluations and there isn't any sufficient guidance for the management to proceed with the project. 'Weaknesses that are tolerable in a sketch aid, if it is used for a certain range of purposes and with skill, become severe if it is extended to other roles and applied insensitively'. (Gasper, 2001). A great advantage of the logical framework is that it provides a summary of the work that the project will proceed and it is very consistent. Therefore many project managers involved with donor projects and that are fund of LFA tend to use it as an outline because it enables them to see how the project will evolve. But perhaps donors use LFA because it's a short summary for them to see is they were successful or not? According to (Dale, 2003) many donor organizations tend to use LFA as an easy escape for their funded projects. They are more concerned for the report that they will receive from project design NGO's rather than the results achieved in the field. If the LFA shows that they were successful in achieving their targets, on the other hand project planners may feel confident that they have performed really good job according to donor's standards and requests. Even though LFA provides some of the best tools to design a project, project managers can never rely on it as the best answer to design the project. Logical framework matrix can be more useful towards the end of the design cycle when all the information from the field is collected and carefully analysed, assessment of needs performed and the views of stakeholders have been taken. (E-skills, N.D). When we discuss about the outline of the LFA, this can be very dangerous because people tend to forget about the project as a whole in itself and they rely mostly on the logical framework, where in fact it is only a summary of the project. This causes many problems for the project because of the misunderstanding of the fact and they have a tendency to leave much valuable information out of the project (Roduner and Schlappi, 2008). However, if NGO's would provide useful trainings for their staff that deal with logical framework perhaps they would be more successful in adapting LFA in different circumstances.
High level of training would require high level of investment on education and this would suit only those large NGO's, while for small NGO's this would be a problem because of budget limitations.(SIDA, 2008). Due to this effect project managers face some very common issues to identify and monitor the project, the immediate objective of the project or its purpose and evaluate if the project can be delivered or not. These are very important components of the logical framework and at the same time very difficult to deal with. Project managers deal also with another problem to prepare the logical framework by not paying enough attention to identify risks and assumptions. These elements are outside control of the project, however they particularly influence hypothesis when it's about creating the project design. In order to preserve the benefits of the project investment it is highly necessary to identify assumptions, to monitor them and to take appropriate actions whenever it is needed. (Chap4, N.D). On the other hand even though it seems at first glance very easy and understandable to use LFA and it provides some of the best tools for designing a project in practice project managers found many weaknesses that were associated with logical framework. Some of their critiques are that LFA it usually starts with identifying problems. An approach like that often brings poor results because of the negative focus and this will result in reaching small or limited potential solutions. In some countries or cultures it is considered rude or inappropriate to discuss about problems and or even to criticize and in some situations where agreements about the problems cannot be reached it's a huge issue.(Jackson, 1997). Perhaps all these problems are associated with inflexibility and rigidity that logical framework promotes argues (DANIDA, 2005). Instead of paying more attention to the process LFA tends to concentrate more on results. By being used as a 'blueprint' tool in other words it cannot be changed after it's done, then adapting outputs and objectives to certain circumstances can be very difficult. Most of these critiques for failing to adapt logical framework in many projects are directed especially towards institutions that attempt to use it rather than the tool itself. As a result of this bureaucracy from particular institutions project planning leads towards inflexibility and rigidity.
Conclusion
Logical framework has been a very useful tool since the beginning when it was designed and adapted as a planning tool by the USAID. Many organizations and especially donor agencies required it and still use it as a fundamental tool to invest in many overseas and national projects.
It's worth mentioning that Logical Framework provided that is was used wisely and in many projects adapted to certain situations it can make a dialogue possible between beneficiaries, project managers and project financiers. Because it's one of a kind it offers a tool that project designers are able to identify problems, objectives and solutions. LFA if performed from the beginning to the end provides all the elements to have a clear picture for the project designers how the project will evolve and it reduces by many times complexity if the users know exactly how to adapt it.
Although in practise LFA was attempted to adapt in many different countries with different cultures and traits planning designers haven't been able to tackle the issue behind it due to lack of stakeholder participation and their views to contribute in the overall goal and bureaucracy of the donor organization by only viewing the logical framework as a project summary. Although the Logical Framework had some ups and downs from its foundation the newly used variations should be learnt and taught for the benefit from previous experiences so they can be adapted in the future to same circumstances. Like Gasper mentioned in his paper 'something is better than nothing'. If everybody is using it then perhaps there is something good on it.
If Logical Framework is used properly and in flexible manner step by step through consulting approach then it will provide the planning designer a strong analytical tool where the user will benefit in implementing the project and on the other hand stakeholders will be better off. Therefore I can conclude that Logical Framework is a flexible tool which is not more appropriate for 'blueprint project'; rather it is more appropriate for process projects.
