- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- Working Papers
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Reports
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Logical framework approach
Mon, 11/24/2008 - 15:18 — Cristina Sette
The following text is drawn from World Bank (2004).
What is it?
The logical framework (LogFrame) helps to clarify objectives of any project, program,
or policy. It aids in the identification of the expected causal links—the “program
logic”—in the following results chain: inputs, processes, outputs (including coverage or
“reach” across beneficiary groups), outcomes, and impact. It leads to the identification
of performance indicators at each stage in this chain, as well as risks which might
impede the attainment of the objectives. The LogFrame is also a vehicle for engaging
partners in clarifying objectives and designing activities. During implementation the
LogFrame serves as a useful tool to review progress and take corrective action.
What can we use it for?
- Improving quality of project and program designs—by requiring the specification of
clear objectives, the use of performance indicators, and assessment of risks.
- Summarizing design of complex activities.
- Assisting the preparation of detailed operational plans.
- Providing objective basis for activity review, monitoring, and evaluation.
Advantages:
- Ensures that decision-makers ask fundamental questions and analyze assumptions
and risks.
- Engages stakeholders in the planning and monitoring process.
- When used dynamically, it is an effective management tool to guide implementation,
monitoring and evaluation.
Disavantages
- If managed rigidly, stifles creativity and innovation.
- If not updated during implementation, it can be a static tool that does not reflect
changing conditions.
- Training and follow-up are often required.
Cost:
Low to medium, depending on extent and depth of participatory process used to
support the approach.
Skills required:
Minimum 3–5 days training for facilitators; additional facilitation skills required for
use in participatory planning and management.
Time required:
Several days to several months, depending on scope and depth of participatory process.
Source: World Bank (2004). Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods & Approaches. Washington DC, The World Bank. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/b57456d58aba40e585256ad400736404/a5efbb5d776b67d285256b1e0079c9a3/$FILE/MandE_tools_methods_approaches.pdf
For more information:
- World Bank (2005). The Logframe Handbook, World Bank: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2...
- GTZ (1997). ZOPP: Objectives-Oriented Project Planning: http://www.serd.ait.ac.th/ump/html/books%5Czopp_e.pdf
- Constructing a logical framewor: http://www.kar-dht.org/logframe.html
- Example of a project logframe matrix (IFAD): http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/annexb/index.htm
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page