Chapter
5.
The Logical Framework Approach
5.1
Introduction
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA)
is a key project management tool which assists CIDA officers and Canadian
and recipient country partners to conceptualize:
- the results anticipated from a
project;
- the underlying assumptions and
risks; and
- how progress towards these results
will be measured.
In keeping with Results-Based Management
(RBM) (see section
3.3), the bilateral LFA reflects the three levels of results (Output,
Outcome and Impact) in the results chain. Within the Bilateral branches, the
LFA1 is a key
building block during project planning helping to focus discussion on the
expected results, beneficiaries (target groups), the performance indicators
and potential risks. Thus the LFA itself is an integral part of project documentation
for project design and approval.
The logical framework remains a key document
during project implementation since it is used as a performance monitoring
and management tool (see section
9.4, section
9.8 and section
12.4).
As indicated in Chapter 10, for projects
up to $500,000, the LFA is the centrepiece of the Project Approval Document
(PAD) and is the primary source of information on project results, indicators
and risks.
This chapter provides a succinct explanation
of the use of the logical framework approach and presents the components of
the results-oriented LFA. Further information is available in 
The
Logical Framework: Making it Results-Oriented.
Note:
For all
LOB 8, Bilateral Responsive Mechanism projects, the Project Proponent must
submit an LFA with its proposal for CIDA review and approval.
5.2
Preparing the Logical Framework
The preliminary version of the LFA from
the Concept Paper stage (see section
7.3) is refined during Project Appraisal and "formalized" during Project
Design and Approval.
When conceptualizing a project, the LFA
is developed most effectively by asking some fundamental questions within
the project team and of the other key stakeholders, i.e. developing country
partners and beneficiaries:
- Why are we doing this project?
- What results do we expect to achieve
for the resources being invested?
- Who will the project reach out to in
terms of beneficiaries and what are the differentiated needs and priorities
of women, men and children from the target group?
- What are the assumptions and risks involved
in undertaking this project?
- How will progress toward the achievement
of results be measured?
The effectiveness of this approach depends
on the extent to which the responses to these questions reflect the full range
of stakeholder views on the intended outcomes of the project.
Developing a sense of ownership amongst
project beneficiaries and partners and a commitment to continuous performance
measurement from the very beginning will pay dividends in terms of improved
implementation later in the project cycle. The LFA methodology can help establish
a common ground for discussion and shared understanding which will form the
basis of shared responsibility for achieving results.
Stakeholder participation is an essential
ingredient in developing the logical framework because it helps build the
necessary level of understanding and (whenever possible) consensus to:
- set strategic objectives;
- define a chain of expected results;
- identify underlying assumptions and risks;
and
- select appropriate performance indicators.
Although producing a logical framework that
all stakeholders understand and agree with is the initial objective, the LFA
will not remain static throughout the life of the project and can and should
be updated as indicated in Section 5.3 below.
Please refer to Section 7 of
The
Logical Framework: Making it Results-Oriented for suggestions on steps
in the preparation of LFAs.
An explanatory LFA follows as Table 5.1.
The LFA is then followed by sub-sections which further explain each of the
four columns of the LFA.
Table: 5(1)The Results-Oriented
Logical Framework
| Country/Region |
w
|
Project
No. |
w |
| Project
Title |
w |
Project
Budget |
w |
| CEA/Partner
Organization |
w |
Project
Manager |
w |
| Related
C/RPF Dated |
w |
Project
Team Members |
w |
|
NARRATIVE
SUMMARY
|
EXPECTED
RESULTS
|
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT
|
ASSUMPTIONS/RISK
INDICATORS
|
|
Project
Goal (Program Objective)
The
program objective from the C/RPF to which this project is intended to
make a contribution
|
Impact
A long-term developmental result at the societal level
that is the logical consequence of achieving a specified combination of
outcomes (from more than one project and/or Recipient Country activities). |
Performance Indicators
Performance indicators
that will provide evidence that the project has made a contribution
to the achievement of the stated developmental impact.
|
Assumptions
The
necessary conditions that must exist for the cause-effect relationships
between outcomes and impact to behave as expected.
Risk Indicators
Risk indicators that will measure the status of the
assumptions identified above.
|
| Project
Purpose
The project objective
which addresses the priority development needs of the identified beneficiaries
and is achievable within the scope of project activities.
|
Outcomes
Medium-term development results benefiting
an identified target population that are achievable within the timeframe
of the project and are the logical consequence of achieving a specified
combination of outputs.
|
Performance
Indicators
Performance indicators that will provide
evidence that the project has achieved the stated developmental outcomes.
|
Assumptions
The necessary conditions that must exist
for the cause-effect relationships between outputs and outcomes to behave
as expected.
Risk Indicators
Risk indicators that will measure the
status fo the assumptions identified above.
|
| Resources
Listing by categories of resources (inputs
and/or activities) required to achieve the project purpose, planned
budget for each type of resource and total project budget.
|
Output
Short-term developmental results produced
by or for the benefit of project delivery partners that are the immediate
consequences of project activities and inputs.
|
Performance
Indicators
Performance indicators that will provide
evidence that the project has achieved the stated developmental outputs.
|
Assumptions
The necessary conditions that must exist
for the cause-effect relationships between inputs and outputs to behave
as expected.
Risk Indicators
Risk indicators that will measure the
status of the assumptions identified above.
|
- Resources: Inputs and activities (with
their $ value) that will be required to attain the Project Purpose through
the achievement of Outputs and Outcomes. This includes the contribution of
all project partners such that the total budget on the LFA agrees with the
budget on the PAD Cover Sheet (but excluding monitoring, evaluation and risk);
- Project Purpose: The statement which clearly
indicates the reason for doing the project and the expected program beneficiaries.
This is what the project intends to do as measured by the achievement of results
at the Outcome level;
- Project Goal: Within the Bilateral branches,
this is the specific link between a project and the Country/Regional Programming
Framework (C/RPF) that gives CIDA's country/regional activities strategic
coherence. The Project Goal is usually one of the C/RPF's objectives. The
project, other related projects, and other activities (often by the recipient
itself) will contribute to the achievement of the Project Goal (as further
defined in the Impact statement). A project can not achieve the Project Goal:
it can only contribute to its achievement.
Please refer to Section 5 of
The
Logical Framework: Making it Results-Oriented and the explanatory
LFA above for further guidance.
5.2.2 Expected
Results
The Policy
Statement on Results-Based Management in CIDA specifically calls
for "defining realistic expected results, based on appropriate analyses."
At the project level, the Results column in the LFA identifies the expected
Outputs and Outcomes which should be attributable to (caused by) project
activities. These key statements are the basis for the project budget, resources
required, the management approach, schedule, etc.
Project reporting by the Canadian Executing
Agency (CEA) to CIDA and by CIDA to Parliament (in summary form) is based
on the identified Expected Results at the project level.
Section 5 of
The
Logical Framework: Making it Results-Oriented, and the explanatory
LFA above provide further guidance for completing the Expected Results column.
5.2.3 Performance
Measurement Indicators
In an RBM context, the approved LFA can
be used as a performance monitoring and management tool (see section
12.2 regarding project management tools). However, its effectiveness
in this role is largely dependent on the identification of good performance
indicators.
Performance indicators are qualitative
or quantitative measures used to monitor progress made toward the achievement
of expected results, i.e. Outputs, Outcomes and, to the extent possible,
Impact.
It is important that project stakeholders
agree in the initial stages on the indicators that will be used to measure
project performance, making sure that there is constructive dialogue between
all stakeholder groups. Such involvement (using participatory techniques)
will facilitate the later involvement of stakeholders in on-going project
monitoring and enhance the potential for local ownership.
RBM emphasizes measuring the achievement
of developmental results, more so than management of process activities.
For example, at the Outcome level, the information collected on performance
indicators would be used as a basis for management decisions to keep the
project on track or get it back on track.
There are six criteria that should be
used when selecting performance indicators. Each one is presented with an
illustrative question in guise of an explanation:
1. Validity - Does it measure
the result?
2. Reliability - Is it a consistent
measure over time and will it continue to be available if supplied externally?
3. Sensitivity - When a change
occurs will it be sensitive to those changes?
4. Simplicity - Will it be
easy to collect and analyze the information?
5. Utility - Will the information
be useful for decision making and learning?
6. Affordability - Can the
project afford to collect the information?
Some thematic performance indicator guides
are available to assist Project Teams and other stakeholders in their discussions
on indicators. CIDA has produced
The
Why and How of Gender-sensitive Indicators: A Project Level Handbook
(as well as the more detailed
Guide
to Gender-sensitive Indicators, Indicators for Programming in
Human Rights and Democracy Development: A Preliminary Study and The
Design and Use of Capacity Development Indicators.
Project teams, in consultation with other
project stakeholders, should begin the process of identifying and selecting
performance indicators by preparing a comprehensive list. They then decide
how many indicators are needed and apply the selection criteria given above
to the list. Those that do not meet these criteria should be discarded. The
best performance indicators from those remaining should be used and the rest
kept in a reserve pool.
Performance indicators require baseline
data against which to measure progress (see section
9.8). Ideally, much of the basic data collected during project appraisal
(through the individual analyses described in Chapter 8) can be used
as baseline data. As performance indicators are identified and agreed upon,
the possible use of existing data as baseline data must be checked. A plan
for the collection of missing baseline data should then be developed and steps
taken to fill in the identified gaps as quickly as possible, and certainly
within the first year of the project. As performance indicators should be
gender-sensitive for all three levels of results on the LFA, the baseline
and subsequent data should be sex-disaggregated.
There is a regular flow of information collected
from performance indicators that informs the management decision making process.
This performance information is formally appraised, at least once a year,
by the Project Steering Committee and/or other stakeholders, and used to make
adjustments in the design or implementation of the project. In the RBM context,
changes to the officially approved LFA are inevitable and should reflect an
improved understanding of the causal relationships between the different levels
of expected results and the underlying assumptions (risks) made about them.
Therefore, the inputs, activities, outputs and related indicators in an LFA
should be modified regularly to reflect changes in the project as it evolves.
Note:
However, changes to the Project Purpose or Outcomes (change
in scope including a decrease in activities/outputs/outcomes with the same
budget) or significant increases to the resources/funding required (cost
increase) will be governed by Section 12.6.
Please refer to Section 6 of
The
Logical Framework: Making it Results-Oriented for further guidance
about Performance Indicators.
5.2.4 Assumptions
and Risks
Assumptions describe the necessary conditions
that must exist for the attainment of the expected results at the various
levels due to project resources and project activities (i.e., a cause and
effect relationship). However, all projects are subject to external
factors (risks) which are not within the control of project
personnel but which may affect the achievement of results and alter
the cause and effect relationship. Within the current LFA approach, risk indicators
are used to monitor and measure the status of key project assumptions.
Risks could range from macro issues (such
as the rate of exchange between the Canadian dollar and the local currency)
to national issues (such as the passage of important new legislation) to very
specific project-related matters (such as the creation of a particular institution
by the government or the availability of appropriate candidates for training).
Risk Assessment should be a part of all
analyses conducted on the project and should identify not only the possible
risk, but also its probability and its potential impact on the
project. The compilation of risk information from all the analyses will be
important in the Project Feasibility document (see section
9.2 and section
9.5), the LFA and the risk section of Annex A of the PAD (see section
10.2).
If significant project risks are identified,
the PM should consider requesting a Risk Allowance for the project as described
in section
10.7.
It is important to note that some items
can be initially identified as "risks," but are subsequently brought within
project activities so that they are no longer called risks or treated as risks
in the LFA. For some risks initially identified during project screening or
project analyses, the Project Team (and recipient) may decide that the project
should specifically address the matter(s) with project resources, i.e., bring
the matter into the manageable interests of the project. In such cases, these
initial "risks" are no longer considered "risks" as they are no longer external
factors, but rather another aspect of project operations. If there
is concern about managing the particular matter which has been brought within
the manageable interests of the project, the Project Team should consider
increasing the project contingency. The project's risk allowance can only
be used for "external" risks, not for internal, operational matters.
It is not usually possible to bring significant
external factors into the project's manageable interests either due to limited
project resources or to the very nature of the external factor. Therefore,
the project must monitor (not manage) risks through risk indicators
as described in section 5.3 o f
The
Logical Framework: Making it Results-Oriented.
For further information see Assessing
and Managing Risk: A Guideline for Bilateral Program Officers.
5.3 Amending the
LFA
The logical framework should be modified,
as required, throughout the life of the project in order to reflect changes
in the project as it progresses toward the achievement of the expected results
(see Chapter 12 regarding the management of operational projects).
LFAs should indicate the version number and date, and should be kept in the
key documents file/binder in chronological order.
Keeping the LFA up to date with the reality
of the project will considerably strengthen its usefulness as a management
and performance monitoring tool.
1Here
we refer specifically to the matrix form used in the logical framework approach
called the Logical Framework Analysis, logical framework, logframe, or LFA.