Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


Annex 13 - The logical framework

An interdisciplinary team carrying out a thorough description of a commodity system will be able to identify the priority problems in each component of the system (see Chapter 5), and with these, establish objectives which will lead to a project profile (see Annex 12). Since most people have limited experience writing projects, or profiles of projects, there is a need for a method of determining whether the project profile is logically conceived or not. The logical framework format is a valuable tool which does just that.

The Logical Framework (Rosenberg & Posner, 1979) was developed for the United States Agency for International Development as a tool to help conceptualize a project and analyze the assumptions behind it. Since the development of the Logical Framework, it has been adopted, with various adaptations (GTZ, 1983), by a large number of bilateral and international development organizations. The Logical Framework has proven extremely valuable for project design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

As was seen in the preparation of the project profile, there is a logical interrelationship between the overall Problem, the Goal, the Specific Objective, the Expected Outputs, and the Activities. The Logical Framework facilitates an analysis of these interrelationships and their relationships with the surrounding environment.

From the analysis of the project profile (see Annex 12), it is evident that there is a logical interrelationship as follows:

Goal
­
Specific objective
­
Expected outputs
­
Activities

However, projects cannot be considered in isolation since they are affected in one way or another by the surrounding environment, people, institutions, politics, climate, and others. Since most of these external factors are outside the control of the project' certain assumptions have to be made. Some assumptions can be derived from the Objectives Tree. Given these assumptions, a more realistic graphical portrayal of the situation is the following:

The graphic

The assumptions should be worded as a positive condition (agricultural policy will be changed to favor fruit crops; farmers will have access to credit). Only important assumptions which are likely to occur should be included. Those which are almost certain to occur or almost certain not to occur should be avoided.

If the assumptions related to the activities to be implemented prove correct, then the next higher levels, expected outputs, is achieved. Similarly, if the assumptions corresponding to expected outputs prove correct, then the specific objective will be achieved. Finally, if the assumptions corresponding to the specific objective are correct, then the final goal will be achieved. In the case of the assumptions corresponding to the goal, these, when achieved, will sustain the goal over the long term. This demonstrates the vertical logic contained in the Logical Framework.

But how does one know if they have achieved the next highest level or not?

To answer this question, the Logical Framework includes Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs). These OVIs specify the evidence which will tell you if an expected output, specific objective, or goal is reached. They define target and support groups (who?); quantify (how much?); qualify (how well?); set times (by when?); and determine location (where?). As an example:

Indicator:

small farmers increase crop yields

Quantify:

300 farmers with less than 5 acres of land increase production by 25%

Qualify:

quality of product is equal to or better than 1988 harvest

Time frame:

July 1988 to December 1989

Location:

Southeast Agricultural District

The details in the indicators permit outsider to measure to what degree the objectives have been achieved. Thus, they provide a basis for monitoring and evaluation. To be objectively verifiable, the OVIs must permit different persons using the same measuring process to obtain the same results independently. Inserted into the matrix, the Logical Framework continues to expand as follows:

To use the indicators, a source of information to verify each indicator should also be identified. In other words, what is the evidence that the objectives have been met? In the Logical Framework, this column is referred to as the Means (Source) of Verification (MOV). The MOVs should identify: what information to collect? in what form? who is to collect it? and with what frequency? In selecting the sources of information, some important questions to ask are:

· Is the information available on a regular basis?
· Is the information reliable?
· Is the cost of collecting information within budget?
· Are there persons available to collect information?

If there are no reliable sources to verify the indicator, then other verifiable indicators must be found.

With the addition of the column for MOVs the Logical Framework is complete as shown below. The relationships indicated by the arrows are the logic of the framework. It is important to note that the assumptions are outside the control of the project but must be recognized as influencing its outcome.

The Logical Framework is sometimes referred to as a Project Planning Matrix (PPM). It provides in a one or two page format a summary of a project:

· Goal/Specific objective answers the question why a project is being proposed.
· Expected outputs tell what the project is expected to achieve.
· The Activities specify how the project is going to achieve the desired results.
· The Assumptions identify which external factors are crucial for the success of the project.
· The OVIs specify how the success of the project can be determined.
· The MOVs identify where the information required to assess the success of the project can be found.

Once a project has been introduced into the Logical Framework and analyzed for its logical consistency, it can be considered acceptable for submission to potential donors. The following, as an example, is the Barbados paw paw project (Annex 12, Profile #1) placed in a Logical Framework format.

Logical Framework (Project Planning Matrix - PPM)

Project Title: Institutional development for fruit production Country: Barbados
Estimated Duration of Project: 18 months Date PPM prepared: September 9, 1989

Summary of Objectives/Activities

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Means/Source of Verification

Important Assumptions

Goal: Increase the domestic supply and exports of good quality fruit from Barbados

National production and exports of paw paw and two other priority fruits will increase by 10% between July 1989 and July 1992

1. Ministry of Agriculture national production statistics.
2. Ministry of Trade export statistics.

1. Market prices will remain favorable.
2. Satisfactory marketing infrastructure will be in place.

Specific Objectives: Improve the specific production and marketing services available to fruit producers in Barbados.

1. Annual increases in the number of farmers in Barbados growing fruit on a commercial scale.
2. Improved institutional structure for services in credit, technical assistance, research, nurseries, and distribution of farm inputs.

1. Ministry of Ag. annual survey of farmers.
2. Comparison of organizational charts and number of employees in key divisions of Ministry of Ag. each year: 1989, 1990,1990,1991, 1992.
3. Annual budgets of Ministry of Ag.

1. Agricultural policy will be modified in favor of fruit crops.
2. Fruit farmers will have access to credit and technical assistance.

Expected Outputs:
1. Improved planting material available.
2. Established research.
3. Tech-packs for paw-paw and other fruit.
4. Effective mechanism for production and distribution of planting material.
5. Well-trained MOA staff.
6. Effective system for distribution of farm inputs and planting material.

1. Number of farmers receiving improved planting material.
2. New research structure and full staff in operation.
3. One tech-pack published each year 1990-1992.
4. Same as #1.
5. Noticeable increase in the productivity of MOA staff in research and at nurseries.
6. Three farmer organizations with input supply centers and planting material.

1. Interviews with farmers.
2. Ministry of Ag. budget and annual reports.
3. Published documents.
4. Interviews with farmers.
5. Periodic evaluations of staff members.
6. Annual reports of each farmer organization documenting volume of sales through input outlets.

1. MOA must prioritize crops and facilitate imports of plant material.
2. MOA to restructure research/extension divisions.
3. MOA to hire graphic arts specialist.
4. Extension agents will coordinate closely with farmer organizations.
5. Additional necessary staff will be hired.
6. Complementary project to strengthen farmer organizations financed.

Activities:
1. Import/reproduce improved varieties of fruits.
2. Research & validation of production/ postharvest.
3. Prepare/distribute tech-packs.
4. Establish pest/disease free nurseries.
5. Train MOA staff in proper techniques for production of planting material.
6. Develop distribution program through farmer organizations for farm inputs and planting materials.

1. Cost of materials and transportation - $3000.
2. Cost of inputs - $6000; technical assistance -$20,000.
3. Publications - $20,000.
4. Equipment - $45,000; materials - $75,000.
5. Technical assistance -$25,000; per diem - $8,000; materials - $7,000.
6. Training - $9,000; travel costs - $6,000; materials -$5,000.

TOTAL $229,000.

1. Vouchers.
2. Vouchers, contracts.
3. Vouchers, contracts.
4. Vouchers.
5. Contracts, vouchers.
6. Vouchers.

1. Planting material can be imported.
2. Adequate MOA staff will be assigned to research.
3. Sufficient resources to hire consultants and editing service.
4. Full support from MOA, allocation of land and staff.
5. Active participation in training of MOA staff.
6. Full-time managers working in three farmer organizations.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page