Logical Framework Approach

Compiled by:
Leonellha Barreto Dillon (seecon international gmbh)

Executive Summary
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is a highly effective strategic planning and
project management methodology with wide application. It is particularly valuable
for water management and sanitation projects, especially because water ― the
resource base ― has diverse and competing uses. It comprises an integrated package
of tools for analysing and solving planning problems and for designing and managing
their solutions (the approach). The product of this analytical approach is the logframe
(the matrix), which summarises what the project intends to do and how, what the key
assumptions are, and how outputs and outcomes will be monitored and evaluated.
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is an analytical process and set of tools used to support project
planning and management. According to the World Bank (2000), “the Logical Framework has the power
to communicate the essential elements of a complex project clearly and succinctly throughout the
project cycle. It is used to develop the overall design of a project, to improve the project
implementation monitoring and to strengthen periodic project evaluation” (see also participatory
monitoring and evaluation). It provides a set of interlocking concepts which are used as part of an
iterative process to aid structured and systematic analysis of a project or programme idea (EUROPEAN
COMMISSION 2004).
LFA is best started early in activity design, and should be thought as an ‘aid to thinking’. It allows
information to be analysed and organised in a structured way, so that important questions can be
asked, weaknesses identified and decision makers can make informed decisions based on their
improved understanding of the project rationale, its intended objectives and the means by which
objectives will be achieved (EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2004). A frequent problem with the application of
the logframe approach is that the planning process and the preparation of the matrix are carried out
separately from the project proposal or the budget, resulting in inconsistencies between the contents
of the logframe matrix and the description of the project contained in the narrative of the main
documents. Therefore, the application of the LFA should come first, and then provide the needed
information for completing the other required documents.
There is a clear distinction between the Logical Framework Approach and the Logical Framework
Matrix. The first refers to the steps involved in planning and designing the project. These steps include
a stakeholder analysis, cause-effect analysis, objectives analysis, and alternatives analysis culminating
in the design of the project. The matrix, which summarises the final design of the project, usually
comprises 16 frames organised under 4 major headings (SALDANHA and WITTLE 2002).

Logical Framework Approach (Analytical Process)

(Adapted from AUSAID 2005)

Before starting with the activity design and the construction of the logframe matrix, it is important to
undertake a structured analysis of the existing situation. LFA incorporates four main analytical
elements to help guide this process:

1. Problem Analysis: involves identifying what the main problems are and establishing the cause and
effect relationships which result in, and flow from, these problems (see also problem and
preference ranking, or problem tree analysis as methods for problem identification).
2. Stakeholder Analysis: having identified the main problems and the cause and effect relationship
between them, it is then important to give further consideration to who these problems actually
impact on most, and what the roles and interests of different stakeholders might be in addressing
the problems and reaching solutions (see also stakeholder identification).
3. Analysis of Objectives: objective trees should be prepared after the problem tree has been
completed and an initial stakeholder analysis has been undertaken. This will give an image of an
improved situation in the future.
4. Analysis of Strategies: comparison of different options to address a given situation.

The Logical Framework Matrix (Logframe)

The results of the stakeholder, problem, objectives and strategy analysis are used as the basis for
preparing the Logical Framework Matrix. The Logical Framework Matrix (or more briefly the logframe)
consists of a matrix with four columns and four (or more) rows, which summarise the key elements of a
project plan and should generally be between 1 and 4 pages in length. However, this will depend on
the scale and complexity of the project.

Typical logical framework matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)

How to Prepare The Logical Framework Matrix?

(Methodology adapted from BOND 2003; examples taken from EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2004)

First Stage ― TOP DOWN:

First stage of the preparation of the logframe matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)
 Goal: starting at the top and using the information from the Objective Tree write the overall
objective of the project. The overall objective may be beyond the reach of this project on its own,
for instances: “To contribute to improved family health and the general health of the rive
ecosystem”.
 Purpose: it describes the desired outcome that the project will achieve. This should be clear and
brief. Example: “Improved river water quality”.
 Outputs: describe the project intervention strategy. There may be several outputs. Example: “1)
Reduced volume of wastewater directly discharged into the river system by households and
factories”.
 Activities: these are the tasks that are needed to achieve these outputs. There may be several for
each output. Statements should be brief and with an emphasis on action words. Examples: “1.1)
Conduct baseline survey of households and businesses; 1.2) Complete engineering specifications for
expanded sewerage network, etc.”
 Inputs: when required to do so provide additional information, such as the means and costs, which
are needed to carry out these activities.

Second Stage ― WORK ACCROSS:

Second stage of the preparation of the logframe Matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)

 Objectively verifiable indicators of achievement: starting from the top to the bottom of the
hierarchy of the objectives, begin to work across the logframe identifying the Objective
Verifiable Indicators for measuring the progress in terms of quantity, quality and time. There are
two kinds of indicators: 1. Impact indicators: related to the overall goal, helps to monitor the
achievement and the impact of the project. Example: “Incidence of water borne diseases, skin
infections and blood disorders caused by heavy metals, reduced by 50% by 2008, specifically among
low income families living along the river”. 2. Process (our outcome) indicators: related to the
purpose and results. These measure the extent to which the stated objectives have been achieved.
Example: “Concentration of heavy metalcompounds (Pb, Cd, Hg) and untreated sewerage; reduced
by 25% (compared to levels in 2003) and meets established national health/pollution control
standards by end of 2007”.
 Sources and means of verification: the source of verification should be considered and specified at
the same time as the formulation of indicators. This will help to test whether or not
 the indicators can be realistically measured at the expense of a reasonable amount of time, money
and effort. The SOV should specify how, who and when the information will be gathered.

Third Stage ― BOTTOM UP:

Third stage of the preparation of the logframe matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)

 Assumptions: reflecting up from the bottom of the logframe, consider how, if each assumption
holds, it will be possible to move to the next stage of the project. Assumptions are external factors
that have the potential to influence (or even determine) the success of a project, but lie outside
the direct control of project managers. Assumptions are usually progressively identified during the
analysis phase. The analysis of stakeholders, problems, objectives and strategies will have
highlighted a number of issues (i.e. policy, institutional, technical, social and/or economic issues)
that will impact on the project ‘environment’, but over which the project may have no direct
control. In the case of the river water pollution example, important assumptions might include
issues related to: 1. Rainfall and river flow (beyond the project’s control, but potentially critical in
terms of changes in levels/concentration of pollutants found in the river); 2. Householders and
businesses willingness to pay for improved sewerage connexions.
Applicability
The logframe is applied when planning, implementing and evaluating specific projects and programmes
within an action plan. It is valuable for carrying out logical checks during project design as well as
for monitoring progress and reviewing activities and output during project implementation (PHILIP et
al. 2008).
Using LFA for project or program design imposes rigour in assessing what is to be achieved and the
assumptions behind what interventions and activities will be required. Many international donors, such
as the Asian Development Bank and the European Commission, require projects they fund to be
designed according to an LFA (WAGENINGEN UR 2010).

Advantages
 During initial stages, it can be used to test project ideas and concepts for relevance and
usefulness
 It guides systematic and logical analysis of the key interrelated elements that constitute a well-
designed project (THE WORLD BANK 2000)
 It defines linkages between the project and external factors
  During implementation, the logframe serves as the main reference for drawing up detailed work
plans, terms of reference, budgets, etc (WAGENINGEN UR 2010)
 A logframe provides indicators against which the project progress and achievements can be
assessed (WAGENINGEN UR 2010)
 It provides a shared methodology and terminology among governments, donor agencies,
contractors and clients (THE WORLD BANK 2000)

Disadvantages
 Focusing too much on problems rather than opportunities and vision (WAGENINGEN UR 2010)
 Organisations may promote a blueprint, rigid or inflexible approach, making the logframe a
straitjacket to creativity and innovation (THE WORLD BANK 2000)
 Limited attention to problems of uncertainty where a learning or adaptive approach to project
design and management is required (WAGENINGEN UR 2010)
 The strong focus on results can miss the opportunity to define and improve processes

References
AUSAID (Editor) (2005): AusGuidelines 3.3 The Logical Framework Approach. Sydney: Commonwealth of
Australia. URL [Accessed: 07.08.2010].

BOND (Editor) (2003): Logical Framework Analysis. London: BOND (Networking for International
Development). URL [Accessed: 06.08.2010].

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (Editor) (2004): Aid Delivery Methods, Project Cycle Management Guidelines .
Brussels: European Commission - EuropeAid Cooperation Office. URL [Accessed: 07.08.2010].

SALDANHA, C.; WHITTLE, J. (Editor) (1998): Using the Logical Framework for Sector Analysis and
Project Design: A User’s Guide. Manila: Asian Development Bank. URL [Accessed: 22.04.2012].

PHILIP, R.; ANTON, B.; BONJEAN, M.; BROMLEY, J.; COX, D.; SMITS, S.; SULLIVAN, C. A.; NIEKERK, K.
van; CHONGUICA, E.; MONGGAE, F.; NYAGWAMBO, L.; PULE, R.; BERRAONDO LOEPEZ, M. (2008): Local
Government and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Part III: Engaging in IWRM – Practical
Steps and Tools for Local Governments. Freiburg: ICLEI European Secretariat GmbH. URL [Accessed:
17.04.2012].

THE WORLD BANK (Editor) (2000): The Logframe Handbook: A Logical Framework Approach to Project
Cycle Management. Washington DC: The World Bank. URL [Accessed: 23.07.2010].

WAGENINGEN UR (Editor); PPM&E Resource Portal (Editor) (2010): Participatory Planning Monitoring &
Evaluation, Managing and Learning for Impact in Rural Development. URL[Accessed: 23.07.2010].

Further Readings
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (Editor) (2004): Aid Delivery Methods, Project Cycle Management Guidelines .
Brussels: European Commission - EuropeAid Cooperation Office. URL [Accessed: 07.08.2010].
These Guidelines have been prepared to support ongoing improvements in the quality of EC
development assistance. Part 2 offers an excellent description of the logical framework approach and
how to construct the logframe matrix.

AUSAID (Editor) (2005): AusGuidelines 3.3 The Logical Framework Approach. Sydney: Commonwealth of
Australia. URL [Accessed: 07.08.2010].
These guidelines present the Logical Framework Approach, with the analysis of the situation and how
to prepare the related matrix.

THE WORLD BANK (Editor) (2000): The Logframe Handbook: A Logical Framework Approach to Project
Cycle Management. Washington DC: The World Bank. URL [Accessed: 23.07.2010].
This handbook summarises the rationale and essential elements of the logframe for practitioners. In
its Annex #1, the document presents examples of logframe Matrixes of typical projects of the Bank.
Training Material

BOND (Editor) (2003): Logical Framework Analysis. London: BOND (Networking for International
Development). URL [Accessed: 06.08.2010].
This short tutorial presents a three stages process to prepare the Logical Framework Matrix, with
examples and tips.

SALDANHA, C.; WHITTLE, J. (Editor) (1998): Using the Logical Framework for Sector Analysis and
Project Design: A User’s Guide. Manila: Asian Development Bank. URL [Accessed: 22.04.2012].
The logical framework is presented as a conceptual and analytical tool for undertaking sector analysis,
project planning, and project management. This guide emphasises the basic concepts and underlying
processes inherent in applying the logical framework. This guide uses a simplified example from the
transport sector to illustrate these concepts and processes.

UNSO (Editor) (2000): Logical Framework Analysis. Presentation at the Capacity Building Workshop for
Dryland Management, Beirut Lebanon May 3-5 2000. UNSO (Office to Combat Desertification and
Drought) . URL [Accessed: 06.08.2010].
This presentation gives an introduction to the Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) and its uses, so the
readers will become familiar with the main steps in conducting LFA. It also gives the necessary
background for to prepare the Project Planning Matrix.

Important Weblinks
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ [Accessed: 27.05.2010]
This guide by AustralianAID presents a range of downloadable documents on every step of a project
cycle.

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/ [Accessed: 27.05.2010]

This website is essential in providing introductions to project and program management, as well as
providing a quick selection of key resources in relation to specific areas of the Logical Framework
Approach.

http://programs.online.american.edu [Accessed: 30.04.2015]

A short description of the structure an components of a logical framework.

The GOPP Method What is GOPP? GOPP (Goal-Oriented Project Planning) is an innovative tool for
project management in which interactive workshops involving all stakeholders in a project together with
an external moderator are held at different points in the project lifecycle. The GOPP method can be
freely used: it is not copyrighted or patented. It has been used in a wide variety of situations since the
1980s and has proved to be robust and effective in helping groups defining clear objectives and
designing related action plans. It is an excellent method for improving team effectiveness. GOPP aims: −
to improve the quality of the analysis made by the group of partners in the design phase of a project; −
to make the project more coherent and transparent by clarifying the responsibilities of each partner; −
to provide trust and self-confidence to project partners so to reduce the risk of lack of commitment or
failure during the implementation of the intervention; − to improve the capacity of the group of
partners to achieve more results in a limited time. How does it work? A successful GOPP session needs a
skilled and independent workshop facilitator or moderator. He ensures that the discussion is always
focused and makes sure that all the participants are involved in reaching decisions on an equal basis.
Ahead of time, he agrees with the client what is blocking the participants from making the desired
progress and determines which concrete workshop products can be delivered in the time available. The
moderator prepares a planning procedure which will lead the group through all the steps needed to
solve the issue or problem that blocks their progress and deliver the products. To assist the group , the
moderator also uses visualisation techniques. A GOPP workshop is normally attended by a maximum of
20 participants and it may vary a lot in duration, from 1 to 5 days. However, a 2-days workshop is
normally enough for reaching significant results with a group. Who can benefit from GOPP? Recent
applications GOPP may be useful whenever an analysis and decision-making process is at play within a
partnership or an organisation. Up to now, the situations in which it has been mostly used are the
following: − projects funded or co-funded by the European Commission; especially in the case where a
transnational partnership has to co-operate, the use of an external facilitator may be very useful for
overcoming language or cultural problems in meetings that are necessarily short; − local development
processes; GOPP may ensure more transparent results to spontaneous development processes initiated
by key-actors at a local level; − changing processes within organisations: the commitment and the
participation of stakeholders and workforce may be a success factor in enabling organisations to face
changing environment and establish higher development goals; − social and economic research: new
ways of interactive meetings or interviews with stakeholders or clients may be conducted within a
GOPP-like environment; − meetings, conferences, workshops: the use of more interactive group-work
sessions for involving conference participants in the discussion (round tables, small groups, thematic
workshops, etc.) is increasing now also in large conference or meetings.

2. Problem Analysis

Having carried out a detailed analysis of the key actors, participants were able to look into the problem
area.

Problem Analysis facilitates the identification of problems. The analysis begins by finding a core problem
which is not necessarily the most important problem but serves as a starting point and allows for an
indepth analysis.

In plenum, using the visualization cards, each participant had an opportunity to write down a proposal
suggesting the core problem.

Through a brainstorming exercise and discussions on suggested problems, the core problem was
identified as:

TREES, FORESTS AND WOOD PRODUCTS ARE BEING DAMAGED BY PESTS COMMON TO MORE THAN
ONE COUNTRY IN AFRICA

The immediate effects of the core problem are tree defects, tree mortality and environmental
degradation.
The immediate causes of the core problem were identified as:

· Inadequate flow of information

· Inadequate resources

· Inadequate pest management

· Introduction of new pests

· Inadequate policies

In group work using the nominal group process participants analysed the above problems in depth and
identified their causes. The results of group analysis were presented in plenum.

A full analysis of the problems is per Appendix IV - Problem Tree.

During the presentations, intensive discussions were held. Following are some of the highlights from the
discussions:

Inadequate resources:

An observation was made that the existence of an infrastructure does not necessarily constitute
adequate resources. For example, the presence of a toilet building does not necessarily include the
availability of running water or functioning electricity in it. One participant felt the need to de-
emphasize the importance of big infrastructure for things to get done. Using the above example, he said
the inverse could also serve a given purpose well, that is, adequate amenities/facilities such as water
and electricity being in place could greatly help to get work done without necessarily having big
infrastructure.

Inadequate pest management:

The issue of trained manpower was discussed. It was observed that it is one thing to train people and
quite another to retain them. There was consensus that one of the risks of any programme aimed at
strengthening an institution is the retention of trained personnel.

Introduction of new pests:

A participant said that one of the objectives of the network should be to stop the introduction of new
pests in the countries of its operation. But he was faced with the question of whether the network can
realistically achieve that objective. It was thought unlikely. The network could manage the pests but
could not stop their introduction altogether.

3. Objectives Analysis

The objectives analysis describes a future situation that would exist if all the problems were solved. The
instrument of objectives analysis calls for conversion of negatively stated problems into positive
statements or objectives. It must be noted that not all problems can be transformed into positively
formulated objectives.In groupwork, the statements of the tree were turned into positive statements
which are desirable and realistically achievable.The core problem,Trees, forests and wood products are
being damaged by pests common to more than one country in Africa

was translated into the objective

Damage to trees and forest products by pests contained within economically, socially and
environmentally acceptable levels

Results of analysis are as per Appendix V - Objectives Tree.