See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234138341

Improving the Efficiency of Logical Framework Approach as a Project

Monitoring and Evaluation Instrument

Article · November 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 4,754

1 author:

Florin Tache
Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies
22 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Florin Tache on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Revista EconomicČ Supplement No. 2/2012
Management: New Coordinates and Challenges

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH AS A

PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

TACHE Florin
Faculty of Management, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania
E-mail: florin.tache@yahoo.com

Abstract: The paper focuses on important features of Logical Framework Approach (LFA) due to
which the mentioned classical project management tool is lasting for more than 40 years in project management
practice, proving to be a more requested instrument than ever by different international financing bodies. The
article emphasizes the main elements of building a Logical Framework Matrix (LFM), highlighting its
connexions with the process of project monitoring and evaluation. Also, the paper presents the main causes of
recurrent failures of the method, and some improvement measures, so that LFA could become more powerful as
a project management tool.

Key words: Logical Framework Approach (LFA), Logical Framework Matrix (LFM), project
management, project monitoring and evaluation, project planning.

JEL Classification: H43, M19, O22.

1. Introduction
The Logical Framework Approach (also regarded as Logframe Approach or simply LFA) is a
project planning, monitoring and evaluation tool, which was initially used within development
projects, and afterwards, becoming a wide accepted tool within project management processes.
The method was firstly adopted as a project planning and appraisal tool for the development
projects promoted by USAID (United States Agency for International Development), in late 1960’s.
The beginnings of the method are closely related with the emergent theories in management amongst
which the most representative was the management by objectives (MBO) theory. Since then, the LFA
(and its main outcome – the LFM) has been intensively promoted, coming to play a central role in the
planning, monitoring and evaluation interventions (projects) during the last 40 years.
Under the recent circumstances of a more and more dynamic business environment, the
method has undergone several recurrent failures, which made it vulnerable for the main stakeholders
of the project. In this context, it is necessary to identify a set of strategic activities aimed to ensure the
compatibility of the method with the main elements of companies’ corporate culture (stakeholders’
commitment, corporate social responsibility, organizational culture, business ethics, environmental
commitment, social awareness).
Thereby, many authors have tried to improve the Logical Framework Matrix, either by
building more complex structures (Couillard, et al, 2009), either by combining the method with other
instruments and techniques for project monitoring and evaluation.

2. Background Research
Even if the LFA has become universally known, it is far from universally liked. It has been the
subject of much criticism over the years, concerning both the theoretical basis of the approach, and the
way it is applied in practice (Bakewell & Garbutt, 2005).
During its evolution, the LFA has come to encompass some of the best-known project
management instruments and management techniques, such as stakeholders’ participation,
participatory monitoring and evaluation features, problem tree development, solution tree
development, SWOT analysis, cost-benefit analysis, culminating with the development of the Logical
Framework Matrix (LFM) which was initially used for communicating the theory of change within the
project stakeholders. Nowadays, LFM is used for breaking down the logic of the project strategy into a
chain of conditional causalities (Crawford & Bryce, 2003).
From a managerial perspective, LFA involves several characters which provide a full and
complete overview on a project (Walsch, 2000) during its entire lifecycle, as follows:
x a system for analysing a project’s potential problems and constraints;
x a system for assessing a project management’s team needs and expectations;

390
Revista EconomicČ Supplement No. 2/2012
Management: New Coordinates and Challenges

x a system for providing an objective – resources causality;

x a system for selecting the most suitable implementing alternative;
x a system for effective project evaluation, appraisal and monitoring.
As shown, LFM involves a systemic approach upon the main components of a project
(regarding objectives, goals, results, activities, outputs and resources) (Gasper, 2000), on which are
being made certain assumptions and are being analysed certain risks.
Under these circumstances, it is useful to distinguish between the LFM - the matrix which
summarises the main elements of the project and connects them to each other – and the LFA – the
overall process by which the elements which go into the matrix are formulated (Dale, 2003).
Nowadays the Logical Framework Approach was adopted as a planning and monitoring
method both by the European Union and the main worldwide financing bodies. Regarding the projects
financed within European Union’s operational sectoral programs, the management authorities has
already connected the projects’ assessment criteria (impact, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and
sustainability) with the main elements of the matrix, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Connecting LFM with EU project assessment criteria

SUSTAINABILITY
Source: (Adapted from European Commission, 2004)

3. Building the LFM: The Vertical and Horizontal Logic

The LFM is a table which summarizes 16 different categories of information, usually arranged
as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Logical Framework Matrix format

391
Revista EconomicČ Supplement No. 2/2012
Management: New Coordinates and Challenges

Source: (Adapted from Bakewell & Garbutt, 2005)

Besides the logical succession of placing the information into the matrix (given by the
numbers mentioned in each cell of the LFM), there are three main issues which are important for a
project’s stakeholder (and also for the financing bodies, which request more and more frequently a
LFM before providing financial support for a project): the narrative summary, the vertical logic
and the horizontal logic.
The Narrative Summary, as shown in Figure 3, represents the strategic background of the
project, explaining the logical succession of a project’s stages: financing ensures the attraction of
resources within the project; the existence of resources ensures the progress of the activities; the
completion of the activities generates the expected outputs; the outputs lead to the attendance of the
expected outcomes; finally, the achievement of the expected outcomes leads to the achievement of the
overall objective of the project.

Figure 3: The narrative summary of a project

Source: Author
The Vertical Logic, as shown in Figure 4, describes the causal link between different levels of
the project, stating foremost a hierarchy of objectives (Bell, 2000), according to which inputs ensure
the completion of the activities, activities deliver outputs, which contribute to outcomes, which help
bring about the overall goal of the project. The whole succession is viable, only if the assumptions
specified on the last column of the LFM are being matched. Moreover, the vertical logic illustrates the
strategic project management process, which involves the advancement from a lower strategic level to
a higher strategic level within project structure. Also, the vertical logic provide useful information
about the steps a project should follow from the stage of an idea to the final completion.
Figure 4: The vertical logic within a Logical Framework Matrix

392
Revista EconomicČ Supplement No. 2/2012
Management: New Coordinates and Challenges

Source: Author
The Horizontal Logic, as shown in Figure 5, describes both how progress against each
objective can be assessed (indicators and means of verification) as well as the external factors
(assumptions and risks) which might affect whether the reaching of the objectives will contribute to
the next level. The horizontal logic does not focus on project progress but on cooperation relations
established at each strategic level of the project.

Figure 5: The horizontal logic within a Logical Framework Matrix

Source: Author

4. The Logical Framework Approach and the Monitoring and Evaluation Processes
The monitoring process is being regarded by one of the most important project financing
bodies, World Bank, as the continuous assessment of project implementation in relation to agreed
schedules and use of inputs, infrastructure and services by project beneficiaries unlike the
evaluation process, which is regarded as the periodic assessment of relevance, performance,
efficiency and impact assessment (expected and unexpected) of the project in relation to stated
objectives.
There are three main types of monitoring processes which are susceptible to be associated
with the life cycle of a project or program (Sadler & Davies, 1998), and especially with the
monitoring of the social and environmental non-quantifiable objectives.
The first category of monitoring refers to baseline monitoring, which is regarded as the
measurement of economic, social and environmental variables during a representative pre-project
period to determine existing conditions, ranges of variation and process of change (Reeve, 2002).
The second category of monitoring is regarded as impact monitoring, encompassing the
quantification of the variables during project development and operation, to determine changes that
may have been caused by the project (Sadler & Davies, 1998).
The last category of monitoring is regarded as compliance monitoring and takes the form
of periodic sampling and/or continuous measurement of different economic or social parameters
(Wiersma, 2004).
Even if we consider previous models of project life cycle, such as Stackenbruck’s system
life span (Stackenbruck, 1981), or Cavendish and Martin’s contract project life cycle (Cavendish &
Martin, 1982), or more recent approaches, such as PMI Standard Committee’s sample generic
project life span or Cooper, Edgbert & Kleinschmidt’s Stage-Gate process (Cooper et al, 2001),
monitoring should be taken into account in each of every major stage of project development,
including also pre-project and post-project stages.
Comprehensive monitoring might be used as a holistic component of responsible life cycle
environmental management of large investment projects. The main components of a monitoring
process include, but are not limited to: establishing baseline conditions, documenting, managing
experienced impacts, evaluating the effectiveness of measures and validating impact prediction
techniques (Archibald, 2003)
393
Revista EconomicČ Supplement No. 2/2012
Management: New Coordinates and Challenges

Similarly, evaluation processes involve the application of rigorous methods to assess the
extent to which a project has achieved its defined objectives (Pollack, 2007), while being regarded
as a set of activities aimed to determine as systematically and objectively as possible the relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency and impact (both intentional and unintentional) of a project in the context
of its stated objectives. Just as the monitoring process, the evaluation can be divided into three types
of evaluation: ex-ante evaluation; mid-term evaluation and ex-post evaluation, proving the
continuity of the mentioned process.
If analysing the Logical Framework Matrix, it can be easily noticed that beside the first
column of the matrix (the narrative summary, which has already been discussed) and the last column
(the assumptions column, which encompasses the degree of risk and uncertainty of the project), the
second and the third columns of the matrix provide the project monitoring and evaluation
background through LFM.
Therefore, the second column includes all the objectively verifiable indicators (benchmarks
and key performance indicators) which are susceptible to be used in project monitoring, while the
third column, which includes the means of verification, is supposed to provide the most suitable
mechanisms for performing an objective and independent evaluation of the project.
Despite its apparently popularity and easiness to use, the LFA is neither the best nor the
most used instrument for performing the monitoring and evaluation of a project. According to
Gasper (2000), a major pitfall is hoping to define an approach as essentially good or essentially bad.
In a previous paper, Gasper (1997) stated as a result of many empirical studies, that LFA declines as
a project moves from project design through the ex-post evaluation.
Under these circumstances, the author will emphasize the main elements which generate the
lack of efficiency of using the LFA as a tool of monitoring and evaluation of the project, along with
a set of solutions for strengthening the power of this instrument within project management.

5. Improving Logical Framework Approach within Project Monitoring and Evaluation

Processes
According to the recent theoretical approaches of LFA, there are four main situations
generating the lack of efficiency in the process of using LFA as a powerful project monitoring and
evaluation tool.
The first situation is called logic-less framework approach syndrome, and states that some
LFAs or LFMs are not relevant, as they are not paid the necessary attention. Thus, LFM for example
is used only because the investors demand it, while, in reality, project managers believe this is a
useless and time consuming management tool.
As a consequence, they work anachronistically, by developing the LFM only after the entire
project has been designed. Therefore, instead of using LFM as a project planning, monitoring and
evaluation tool, project managers tend to use it as an abstract of a project which has already been
articulated. Under these circumstances, the LFM not only is illogical, but irrelevant as well.
In order to eliminate the logic-less framework approach syndrome, the author highlights
three possible ways of action, as follows:
ƒ developing the LFM by specialists who entirely believe in Project Cycle Management
(PCM) or Goal Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP) - which is an advanced version of
LFM;
ƒ motivating staff to apply correctly the principles of project management during each
stage of a project lifecycle;
ƒ promoting participatory project management and involving all the stakeholders in
building up the LFM.
ƒ promoting the use of information technology in developing LFM, by importing certain
information from Microsoft Project or other dedicated project management software;
ƒ providing training for project managers, in order to make them understand the benefits
of applying correctly LFA principles and the improvements in project monitoring and
evaluation, which are brought about by the correct use of LFA.
The second situation is called jamming framework approach syndrome, and states that some
project managers tend to overestimate the role of the LFM and to encompass in a single 16-cell
diagram a lot of information, which slows down the logical path of the project.
This case is specific for complex projects, where the LFM developers’ posses strong
394
Revista EconomicČ Supplement No. 2/2012
Management: New Coordinates and Challenges

theoretical skills for developing a LFM, but the lack of practice does not make them capable to
understand which are the most important information and which are susceptible to be included in
each cell of the matrix. In order to eliminate this syndrome, the author emphasizes some possible
ways of action, as follows:
ƒ developing the LFM by specialists who posse both theoretical and practical
background in project management, especially in PCM, ZOPP or LFA;
ƒ asking an external project management expert if he is capable to understand the
vertical and the horizontal logic of the project, only by analyzing the LFM;
The third situation is called logic-lack framework approach syndrome, and states that some
LFA developers tend to omit some critical features which will very probably affect the project. In
this case, most omissions refer either to resources or the assumptions of the project.
The situation is critical, as many projects may fail recurrently if critical elements are not
taken into account when implementing the project. In order to eliminate this syndrome the author
adds to the previous statements regarding the jamming framework approach syndrome some other
possible ways of action, as follows:
ƒ developing participatory management approach during the entire project lifecycle;
ƒ using the participatory management and evaluation of the project;
ƒ defining key performance indicators and benchmarks for each activity of the project;
ƒ connecting each activity with one or more specific outputs, and analyzing if the
succession of these outputs builds up the full logical path of the project;
ƒ combining LFA with other project planning and monitoring tools, such as Program
Evaluation and Review Technique or Critical Path Method.
The fourth situation is called logic-lock framework approach syndrome, and states that LFA
developers are not flexible enough to see the LFM as a helpful instrument for their activity. Not all
projects can be summarised in a 16-cell matrix and not all LFM should have the same configuration
as shown in theory. Each project manager should adapt the LFM according to his specific needs, so
that he attains a logical flow of the project.
By approaching LFM as a rigid structure, many LFM developers get locked in a dangerous
pattern, which don’t allow them to use the LFM as a helpful project management tool. In order to
eliminate this syndrome we add to the previous statements, considered to be universally valid, some
new features, which should be taken into account when building-up a LFM:
ƒ stimulating innovation and creativity within project management team;
ƒ organizing brain-writing meetings;
ƒ developing flexible LFM formats, which allow project managers to use their creativity
in order to achieve better results; one of this flexible LFM formats is represented by
LFM-M, developed by Couillard et al (2009), who suggested a seven-step approach
leading to the development of the Logframe-Millennium (LF-M), a five-column and
four-line matrix describing major project commitments and providing an overall
understanding of the project.

6. Conclusions
Since 1969, when the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) was firstly developed by
Practical Concepts Incorporated and used by USAID, this instrument became a core component of a
larger set of project management tools, used both for project planning, as well as for project
monitoring and evaluation.
Despite several recurrent failures, LFA still plays the central role in project management
lifecycle, providing a convenient overview of a project objectives, results and activities.
The literature has identified certain weaknesses of applying the method, which has
generated, over the years, contradictory points of view regarding the method’s effectiveness.
If we assume that there are four main sources of failure in using LFA in the project
planning, monitoring and evaluation processes, we could identify some alternatives for preventing
further LFA failures, in order to improve its performance and relevance as an essential tool for
effective project management.
In our opinion, a further analysis is requested, in order to identify which are the critical cells
of the matrix, which usually generate failures, and afterwards in order to recommend some actions

395
 Revista EconomicČ Supplement No. 2/2012
Management: New Coordinates and Challenges

for reducing their incidence.

We also recommend developing a software which allows the development of LFM’s as well
as the import of relevant data from other project management software applications used within the
project management process.

7. Acknowledgements
This work was co-financed from the European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational
Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013; Project Number POSDRU/107/1.5/S/77213
„Ph.D. for a Career in Interdisciplinary Economic Research at the European Standards”.

8. References
x Archibald, R.D. (2003) Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, 3rd Edition,
Project Management Institute, PA, John Wiley and Sons Ltd Publishing House, San Francisco,
United States of America.
x Bakewell, O., & Garbutt, A. (2005) The Use and Abuse of the Logical Framework
Approach, SIDA, Stockholm.
x Bell, S. (2000) Logical Frameworks, Aristotle and Soft Systems: A Note on the Origins,
Values and Uses of Logical Frameworks, in Reply to Gasper, Public Administration and
Development, 20(1), p. 29-31.
x Cavendish, P. & Martin, M.D. (1982) Negotiating and Contracting for Project Management,
Project Management Institute, PA, John Wiley and Sons Ltd Publishing House, San Francisco,
United States of America.
x Cooper, R.G., et al, (2001) Portfolio Management for New Products, Cambridge, MA.
x Couillard, J., Garon, S., & Riznic, J. (2009) The Logical Framework Approach – Millenium,
Project Management Journal, 40(4), p.31-44;
x Crawford, P., & Bryce, P. (2003) Project Monitoring and Evaluation: A Method for
Enhancing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Aid Project Implementation, International
Journal of Project Management, 21(5), p. 363-373.
x Dale, R. (2003) The Logical Framework: An Easy Escape, a Straitjacket, or a Useful
Planning Tool?, Development in Practice, 13(1), p. 57-70.
x European Commission. (2004) Project Cycle Management Guidelines, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/multimedia/publications/publications/manuals-
tools/t101_en.htm.
x Gasper, D. (2000) Evaluating the Logical Framework Approach Towards Learning-Oriented
Development Evaluation, Public Administration and Development, 20(1), p. 17-28.
x Gasper, D. (1997) Logical Frameworks: A Critical Assessment Managerial Theory,
Pluralistic Practice, The Hague, Institute of Social Studies, available at
http://repub.eur.nl/res/ pub/19007/wp264.pdf.
x Pollack, J. (2007) The Changing Paradigms of Project Management, International Journal
of Project Management, 25(3), p. 266-274.
x Sadler, B., & Davies, M. (1998) Environmental Monitoring and Audit: Guidelines for Post-
Project Analysis of Development Impacts and Assessment Methodology, Centre for
Environmental Management and Planning, Aberdeen University, Aberdeen.
x Stackenbruck, L.C. (1981) The Implementation of Project Management, Project Management
Institute, PA, John Wiley and Sons Ltd Publishing House, San Francisco, United States of
America.
x Reeve, R.N. (2002) Introduction to Environmental Analysis, John Wiley and Sons Ltd
Publishing House, San Francisco.
x Walsch, A. (2000) Introduction to LFA. Global Environment Facility Council, Berlin.
x Wiersma, G.B. (2004) Environmental Monitoring, University of Maine, CRC Press
Publishing House, Orono, Maine.

396

View publication stats