google-site-verification: googlefccb558c724d02c7.html

Translate

Sunday, December 27, 2009

The LFA Debate: A summary of the theory behind the Logical Framework Approach

-- Greg Armstrong--


[Edited to update links July 31 2016]

The first of three SIDA papers describes the strengths, and the sequence in using the LFA in results-based management.

SIDA's LFA Papers: 1-The Logical Framework Approach: A Summary of the theory behind the LFA method


Level of difficulty: Moderate
Primarily useful for: Project planners
Limitations: Some ambiguity in the definition of results
Length: 35 pages
Most useful sections: Relating problem analysis to activity design (p. 9-12)


Background: Evolution of a debate on the LFA


The Swedish International Development Agency published three papers online between 2004-2006 that illustrate in some ways the evolution of a debate that exists over the utility of the Logical Framework Approach for results-based project planning, management and evaluation of international development projects. While Results-Based Management is not invariably tied to the LFA, the general approach of a sequence of activities, short-term and long term results, with or without a formal framework, is common to most RBM approaches. In this, and two separate posts, I will review these three documents.
  • The first is The Logical Framework Approach, A summary of the theory behind the LFA method, which emphasises the strengths of the logical framework approach for RBM,
  • The second is a paper probing in some detail the weaknesses of the LFA, and
  • The third a proposal to link more qualitative methods with the LFA.
Other papers have been written on this subject, and from time to time in these reviews I will reference them.



A Logical approach to development planning




Kari Ortengren's 2004 paper, "The Logical Framework Approach: A Summary of the Theory behind the LFA Method" is a straight-forward explanation of nine steps in using the logical framework approach for designing a project, or programme.

The general presentation is unexciting, in comparison, to say, the 2005 Philip Dearden guide on using the LFA for multi-agency planning which I reviewed earlier, but that, I assume, is a function of the donor's format. While this paper is not quite as easy to read, it does make some good points about the sequence of project and programme design. And although it is not expressly noted here, in a subsequent paper in 2006 on applying the general approach to environmental project design, the author made the clear distinction between the Logical Framework Approach and the Logical Framework Matrix.


The matrix, of course, is the grid - the approach is the process by which the information in the grid can be developed -- and much more important than the matrix.



Problem identification - by stakeholders


The most useful part of this paper is its focus on problem identification. The paper notes - and many readers will recognise this from their own experience, that many projects appear to be started with a solution in search of a clear problem. By "clear" the writer appears to mean a problem defined in a way in which not just the bold problem statement is made, but in which there is a clear and detailed discussion of both the multiple causes, and multiple downstream effects of the problem.

In particular the paper is useful when it urges planners to avoid stating problems in terms of pre-ordained solutions. The writer urges us to avoid defining problems in terms of "absence" -- "absence of funding", or "absence of pesticides" for example, which more or less ignore what might be revealing causes of a problem, and limit discussion of alternative solutions.

"Lack of funding" as a problem statement, she notes, does not explore the possible details of the problem, which may be inadequate organizational capacity for financial control, planning, or other issues which could be directly susceptible to project intervention; and "Lack of pesticides" pre-empts discussion of alternative solutions by assuming pesticides are the only solution to crop failures.


The paper makes it clear that donors are not the best placed to conduct a problem analysis: "The problem analysis has to be made by the relevant stakeholders, including the owners of the problem, the people who know the situation, not by consultants or financing agencies." The paper does suggest, however, that donors and consultants can facilitate the discussion and exploration of problems.


Activity design



It is true that some projects become obsessed with activities, rather than with how activities relate to a problem, and prescription here - a reasonable one - is that...
"...the causes of the problem shall be treated by the activities, which are implemented within the framework of the project. The effects are handled automatically by treating the causes of the focal problem. Hence, no separate activities are needed for handling the effects."

This paper includes a short introduction to planning a project design workshop. The discussion lists seven major topics for discussion, the physical layout required and the time that should be allocated.



Limitations: Assumptions


There are two limitations here, although neither are serious, and both may be a product of the donor agency's prescriptions:

  1. Results are defined rather amorphously here, using the usual donor jaron - objectives, purposes, outputs, and this never makes life any simpler.
  2. Risks are usually discussed in guides or papers about results-based management or the Logical Framework Approach, but there is rarely any detailed discussion of assumptions.


Comment:  This paper mentions both identification of risks and discussion of assumptions in two pages. We could read between the lines here in the more detailed discussion of problem identification, to see the possibility for discussion of assumptions, but it would be useful if this were explored in more detail.

If assumptions are so central to project success - to sustainability but also to examination of whether interventions make sense in development terms, then much more detailed discussion of assumptions should be a priority for everybody - donors, implementing agencies and other participants.


In the rbm training workshops I have conducted I have found several times that clarifying assumptions about a problem, and about implicit theories of what works (and what does not work) in project interventions, often reveals fundamental differences of opinion among stakeholders about what a project or programme should be doing, why it should be doing it, and how we will know if it makes progress. Yet this paper, like most, really concentrates on assumptions about a situation - what else is going on in the environment, that might impede project implementation.


Without a discussion of assumptions about the development theory in project interventions, projects are unlikely to be learning events, unlikely to learn from failure or success, and unlikely to advance our understanding of development and what works.


The bottom line: This paper is moderately useful in its stated purpose - providing an outline of the Logical Framework Approach. It is most useful in discussions of problem analysis but there are more accessible guides to the process available.




 
Read the latest posts