| Long, complex, unreadable sentences, in the
narrative column of the Logical Framework |
- Often the result of compromises between many
different parties who have been negotiating the contents of the Logical
Framework. Net result: an unreadable document
- Sometimes the result of people not knowing that the
whole story does not need to be told in one sentence. The row below
should say what happens before (the cause) and the row above should say
what happens next (the effects)
- Sometimes the result of people forgetting there is a
column for indicators next door, where they can provide lots of
interesting detail about what is expected to happen at this stage
|
| Narrative statements without people in them. E.g
"Rice productivity increased" |
- Another reasons some many Logical Frameworks are so
unreadable, and so boring when they are readable, is that somehow their
authors have managed to leave out people. Instead
we have lots of abstract and disembodied processes. And then we wonder
why some people have difficulty understanding Logical Frameworks
|
| Means of verification that refer to reports and
surveys, but not who is responsible for generating
and / or providing this information |
- This problem is similar to the above, reflecting a
continuing aversion to making references to real people in Logical
Frameworks.
- One consequence is lack of clear ownership and
responsibility for M&E of the changes being described at that
level of the Logical Framework
|
| Insistence on there being only one Purpose level
statement in a Logical Framework |
- I have recent experience of colleagues insisting on
this. For reasons I have not yet established, beyond the "it is not
allowed" variety. Insisting on one Purpose and One Goal really is
pushing a very linear model of reality. It does not even allow for any
parallel but convergent events, such as those usually come through
problem tree analyses that sometimes precede the design of a Logical
framework
|
| Overly
simple indicators used to describe complex developments |
|
| Lists of indicators in no apparent order |
- "A (unsorted) list is not a strategy" A sorted list
can convey relative importance (most important indicator at the top),
or an sequence (starting from the bottom), or multiple alternative
routes to the objective in the narrative column.
|
| Broad generalisations at the Goal level |
- Sometimes arising from confusion of a temporal
hierarchy (A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D) and a nested
hierarchy (A is part of B which is part of C which is part of D). The
Logical Framework is supposed to be a temporal hierarchy, that tells a
story. Not a pile of broader and broader statements about the same thing
|
| Confusion over the meaning of different levels
in a Logical Framework. Between Activities and Outputs, Outputs and
Purpose level outcomes, and outcomes at the Purpose and Goal level. |
- Often cause by leaving people out of the picture, as
above.
- A workable rule of thumb, for seperating levels of
the Logical Framework
- Activities are things that "the project" can control.
The boundary of a project being defined by the reach of its contracts
(with staff, consultants, suppliers and sub-contractors)
- Outputs are the activities of the project (if
services), or their results (if goods), that people and
organisations outside the project can use e.g workshops,
publications, trainings, etc. Ask here: What is available to who, and
in what form?
- Purpose level changes (outcomes), are changes in
those people or organisations who have used those goods or services.
Normally the project would hope to influence these
(and learn about how it can have influence) but it would not be
expected to control events at this level
- Goal level changes (outcomes), are longer
term changes in those same people or organisations, or others
they have subsequently interacted with.
|
| Long lists of assumptions |
- Apparently designed to cover people's backsides
- Including many events that the project should be able
to influence
- ...which as such should be listed as one of the
outputs or outcomes. I.e. brought into the central narrative of the
Logical Framework
|
| Things the Logical Framework cant do very well,
even in the best of hands |
- Represent multiple parallel processes, as distinct
from a single process
- E.g. What people are doing at multiple project
locations, within a single national project
- Representing their interactions is even more
of a challenge
- Represent the interactions between multiple events at
the same level of a Logical framework.
- E.g. How different project outputs (manuals,
training events, newsletters, websites, etc) feed into each other
- Or, how different health outcomes feed into each
other, before finally contributing to Goal level changes e.g. reduced
mortality
- Represent the interactions between multiple outputs
and the many users of those outputs
- E.g., the range of communications products used
by a range of clients of a project . Many people will use multiple
products, but their usage patterns will vary. Many products will be
used by multiple users, but their user groups will vary.
All these processes can however be represented by
network models. See the new page on
developing network models of development projects.
|
