Planning For Results

Module 2: Planning for Results
Module 2: Planning for

Results
1 Introduction
Who does not know, where to go, must not wonder, if

she arrives somewhere else.
Result-oriented planning first decides where to go, and only afterwards

delineates how to get there. This module describes the project planning
process and the project document from the perspective of results-based
management. The main contents of the module are:
2 1 Introduction
The five stages of results-based design and planning of projects with

situation analysis, vision of intended change, appraisal of alternative
solutions, design of strategy with cause-effect hypotheses and
finally design of the project organisation.
Project document and project agreement
The Module 1 “Management for Development Results” describes and

discusses different approaches to project planning and management, among
them Outcome Mapping. This document, Module 2, describes the planning
process according to the standard formats of SDC and largely follows the
LogFrame Approach. It proposes a certain sequence of suitable methods, but
as in development cooperation planning takes place in very diverse settings,
the planning processes have to be structured flexibly. In some cases we make
reference to management practices of NGOs and issues relevant in their
cooperation with local partners.
1 Introduction 3
2 Identification of New
Project Ideas
Reasons to start planning new projects can be manifold. Occasionally higher
budget allocations for a specific country or domain of intervention offer the
chance for new projects. Sometimes a change in the country’s strategy offers
new opportunities. In other cases, successful experiences call for a scaling up
in the partner country or a replication in another country. Often, calls for
proposals are grounds for developing new project ideas.
Ideas for new projects can come from different sides: from inside the
cooperation agency, from current or future implementing partners, from the
partner government, or from other donors. Sometimes communities turn to
government agencies or non-governmental organisations with particular
concerns. In other cases, NGOs identify problems and take the initiative in
launching new project ideas. It is not unusual for donor agencies or
implementing organisations to field specific missions for project
identification.
At this early stage of project development, the form of presentation and the
quantity of details says little about the quality of the project idea. A clear
vision hastily sketched on a board, can have more substance than a neatly
presented project folder full of details and supporting statements and
recommendations.
The starting point and “playing field” for developing project ideas is always
the livelihood of the target group. Poverty can be defined as the lack or loss
of a sustainable livelihood. If we do not understand the various strategies the
poor have to cope with or recover from crisis situations, as well as how they
maintain or enhance their capabilities and assets then we won’t be capable of
4 2 Identification of New Project Ideas

designing projects which they understand, accept and will ultimately benefit
from. Understanding the livelihood system and strategies of the poor means
interpreting their situation from at least two different perspectives: from
without and from within. A football game looks very different for a fan sitting
in the stands than it does for the players on the field. No less diverse are the
perspectives of a European project planner and a family living in rural
Mozambique. Understanding a problem includes at least three considerations:
WHAT is the problem about, HOW do people handle it and WHY do they
handle it in this way?
This playing field of project identification is always controlled and limited by

at least three different factors:
1. Since the adoption of the Paris Declaration with its principles of alignment
and harmonisation, projects explicitly have to match the priorities of the
partner country under the principle of results-orientation. Most countries
define their priorities in a national development plan, often called Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP).
2. The project idea should be in line with the country strategy and programme
of the donor organisation.
3. The ways an existing problem can be tackled and solved or an opportunity

can be used, always depends on the available financial, human and
organisational resources.
2 Identification of New Project Ideas 5

The aim of the project identification process is to:
Develop, together with (possible) stakeholders and beneficiaries, a

common understanding of the problems to be tackled and their
causes;
Identify opportunities and appraise their viability in the specific
context;
Elaborate on realistic project ideas that can contribute to achieving
the development goals of the target group, the stakeholders and the
partner country whilst ensuring that they are in line with the
priorities of the donor organisation’s own country strategy;
Spot existing strengths and potentials that a future project might
build upon;
Reach a decision on the basis of an entry proposal as to whether or
not the identified project should be pursued and the corresponding
means reserved.
6 2 Identification of New Project Ideas

2.1 Methods for Identifying New Project Ideas

The two most important steps in the project identification are the analysis of
the initial situation (problem and context analysis), and the elaboration and
prioritising of project ideas. As a rule, these steps are carried out in close
cooperation with the participating or affected communities, their
representatives or their organisations. All information collected must be
verified using appropriate methods (triangulation, crosschecking, comparison
with written sources, etc.).
If you only have a hammer, you tend to see each

problem as a nail.
Abraham Maslow
Usually, the process starts at the desk with a review of relevant information
about the context and of the related policies and strategies. When this
“homework” is done, the fieldwork begins. Project identification is an
iterative process in which we involve various stakeholders and actors. The
sequencing of the analysis and planning tasks as well as the choice of
methods and tools must be defined for each individual case.
Below we present a selection of methods used in project identification, which

can also be used in project planning, monitoring as well as reviews and
evaluations. They are listed in order of complexity:
Semi-structured interview: Interviews with a fixed set of (open) questions

are a good way of helping causes and results to emerge, of illuminating the
context, and of organising subject areas. This type of interview can record
subjective assessments, wishes, expectations, fears etc. The important thing is
that the selected interview partners are able to provide well-founded
information due to their specific expertise or experience.
2.1 Methods for Identifying New Project Ideas 7

facilitation, observation, notes). A focus group can be the first step towards
open dialogue and joint work on a new project.
Roundtable: Roundtables are organised as a means of bringing together as

many groups as possible that are affected by a particular problem or conflict,
or have, for whatever reason, an interest in the planning process. They can
help to facilitate the exchange of opinions between experts and the people
affected. Roundtables are a good tool for improving dialogue in conflict
situations.
Workshop: Workshops are in some ways similar to group interviews. They

differ from them, however, in that they involve a combined effort to jointly
carry out specific tasks such as context analysis, elaboration of project ideas,
etc. Roundtables can be built into workshops. Brainstorming and SWOT
Analysis are two other techniques widely used in workshops.
Brainstorming is a creativity tool, which was developed to elicit new,

fresh ideas and as such it is very suitable for looking for
opportunities and solutions to problems. It works best in medium-
sized groups of 8 to 20 people that are familiar with the situation
and have a genuine interest.
The SWOT analysis is a technique for analysing a specific topic. It is
commonly applied for context analysis and appraisal project ideas.
SWOT stand for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Forum: The forum process consists of a series of meetings and is in general

more formally structured than roundtables. Usually, representatives of the
different groups involved in and/or affected by a problem or planning process
sit at different tables and voice their ideas or project proposals. Each table
represents a particular social group or represents specific social, economic
or political interests. It is thus clear where each viewpoint comes from when
the proposals of the various tables are presented and discussed. Then, by
means of a structured process of prioritising and selection, the participants
agree on the projects they wish to see implemented.
8 2.1 Methods for Identifying New Project Ideas

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): The PRA approach, which was

originally developed
by Robert Chambers (IDS, Sussex, UK), is particularly suitable for
participatory context analysis that is carried out during the identification of
new project ideas. Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) and other
participatory methods of investigation, planning and monitoring that have
been derived from PRA, have become a staple part of most development
agencies’ work. To carry out poverty or beneficiaries assessments,
participatory methods should be applied.
Toolkit
Paricipatory poverty assessment
Beneficiary assessment
As the overview of methods and techniques shows, participatory project

identification always involves a great deal of communication. Even in the very
same context participants are far from equal in regard to their interests,
influence and power. Time pressure may lead us to forget important
stakeholders inadvertently causing negative attitudes towards possible future
projects. This is especially critical in regions with a manifest or latent
conflict. Regrettably, it is still common for women to be neglected. There is
also a good chance that false or unrealistic expectations are created. A
thoughtful preparation of the inquiries and a transparent communication of
purpose can help to lessen these risks.
2.1 Methods for Identifying New Project Ideas 9

2.2 Appraisal of Project Ideas

In the case of SDC, the documents produced during project identification are
the concept note (or planning plattform) and the entry proposal. Project
planning with the elaboration of a project document and a credit proposal
can only be done after the approval of the entry proposal.
Key criteria for evaluating new project ideas are the relevance for the
beneficiaries, local ownership and alignment with relevant national
development goals, as well as coherence with strategic priorities of donors
and implementing agencies.
10 2.2 Appraisal of Project Ideas

The result of the appraisal is an approval or disapproval of the entry

proposal. Often the approval points at critical issues and gives
recommendations. Sometimes it defines conditions for the planning of the
project.
Especially in new or fast changing contexts, a project identification mission

or the appraisal might come to the conclusion that a certain intervention
would be most relevant and meaningful, but too many variables are still
unclear for a precise project planning with a time horizon of several years.
The team might recommend starting a project with a socalled inception
phase, during which certain – undisputed and confidence building – services
are delivered and the situation is further explored.
As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to

enable it.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Careful planning is a key to success, but for many small organisations

planning is an expensive preinvestment they can hardly bear. Even for bigger
NGOs with considerable resources of their own, it is risky to participate in
calls for projects,
2.2 Appraisal of Project Ideas 11

especially when additionally to a project proposal a baseline study is

required.
The inherent “strive for success” principle of Management for Development

Results pressures development actors to produce “success stories”. Of course,
nobody intends to flop, because we invest the taxpayers’ and private
benefactors’ money. But on the other hand, those who do avoid risks at all
costs run the risk of missing the chance to make a real difference in the lives
of the beneficiaries. Development cooperation is a risky business. As in the
business world where not all start-ups succeed, so it is in development
cooperation where some projects fail or at least do not meet the (too) high
expectations. Project identification always implies an assessment of the trade-
off between risks and potential benefits.
12 2.2 Appraisal of Project Ideas

3 Project Planning with the

Logical Framework Approach
To gain a more precise understanding of the Logical Framework Approach, it
is helpful to distinguish between two concepts that in practice are often
described in the same terms and therefore can cause many
misunderstandings:
1. The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) as a systematic planning process

consisting of five stages.
2. The Logical Framework Matrix (LogFrame) as a logic model for a project

and presented as a table. It is the product obtained after completing the
stages 1 to 4 of the LFA planning process.
3 Project Planning with the Logical Framework Approach 13

The Logical Framework Approach was first used in international

development by USAID in 1969. It has become a widely used instrument,
forming the basis of results- and impact-oriented project cycle management.
At the beginning of the 1980s, in need of a coherent, simple and participatory

planning method, the German cooperation agency GTZ developed a range of
planning instruments known by its German acronym ZOPP (Goal-Oriented
Project Planning). This method consists of a sequence of steps, which can be
carried out in a participatory planning workshop. The final product of the
process is the socalled Project Planning Matrix, which corresponds to the
Log-Frame.
Criticisms of the rigid and dogmatic use of ZOPP led to a more flexible and
pragmatic application of the method in the planning practice of international
development agencies. Particularly interesting were efforts to integrate
approaches like Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory
Learning and Action (PLA) into project planning.
Today, we find the Logical Framework Approach and its adaptations in the
PCM handbooks of most bilateral and multilateral development agencies (e.g.
DANIDA, SIDA, DFID, EuropeAid/EU, World Bank, UNDP and many others),
as well as many international NGOs. When Management for Development
14 3 Project Planning with the Logical Framework Approach

Results became one of the five principles of the current international aid-
effectiveness agenda, the Logical Framework Approach received a strong
boost and a consequent result orientation.
3 Project Planning with the Logical Framework Approach 15

4 The Five Planning Stages

of the Logical Framework
Approach
A person who does not think and plan long ahead will
find trouble right at his door.
Confucius
Planning with the Logical Framework Approach is done in five stages. The
first three stages help to analyse the initial situation and agree on the
desirable outcomes of the project; the last two serve to design the project
strategy and organisation. The following table presents the five planning
stages, the tasks in each stage and a selection of suitable instruments.
16 4 The Five Planning Stages of the Logical Framework Approach

4 The Five Planning Stages of the Logical Framework Approach 17

This module describes the planning process and some of the key planning
instruments. All of them are suitable for participatory planning processes
involving different types of stakeholders. In order to assure a high degree of
participation, many of the instruments are best used in a workshop setting
with up to 12 participants. Such a workshop normally lasts four or five days
and requires professional facilitation and continuous visualisation.
4.1 Stage 1: Analysis of Initial Situation
Stakeholder Analysis
The first part of the situation analysis is the stakeholder analysis, which
provides an overview of:
1. The actors (organisations, groups, individuals) that are directly or

indirectly involved in or affected by the planned project;
2. The interests, expectations, potentials and possible resistance of
these actors.
The Stakeholder Analysis Matrix allows the analysis of different categories of

stakeholders according to different criteria.
1. List potential actors and try to find useful categories, such as

A. beneficiaries, users, target groups
B. donors, executing organisations, partner organisations
C. actors to be consulted or informed
D. opponents: actors who will be negatively affected by the project.
According to the specific necessities of the case, the categories might have to
be further divided into subcategories.
2. Agree on useful and relevant criteria for analysing these categories of

actors such as their relevance for the project, their potential to contribute to
18 4.1 Stage 1: Analysis of Initial Situation

solutions and the resistance which might be expected.

3. Facilitate the analysis.
A wide range of other possible approaches and practical tools for stakeholder
analysis are found in the literature. Regardless of the methods used, it is
important to take into account the different perspectives of the same social
reality. A mountain will look different from the other side. Likewise,
depending on their position, people in the same social environment experience
their lives differently: For instance a farmer and a shopkeeper, a woman and
a man, a child and an adult. They might have very different and maybe even
conflicting interests, obligations and ways of life. In a stakeholder analysis we
have to organise the people’s voice and participation appropriately (e.g.
representation of underprivileged groups).
Problem Analysis
A problem is a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and
needing to be dealt with and overcome. Problems are neutral descriptions of
concrete negative situations and should not be confounded with an absence of
4.1 Stage 1: Analysis of Initial Situation 19

the preferred solutions or a lack of money. The availability of money is never

a solution, but can be a means to make possible a specific solution.
The purpose of the problem analysis is to:
develop a common understanding of the main problems that the

project should help to solve.
make visible the cause-and-effect relationships between the
problems.
Problem analysis using the problem tree

The problem tree is an analytical instrument that is very suitable for
participatory problem analysis in workshop settings. This analysis is based on
simple, linear causality and identifies the causes and consequences of
problems. Although this linear logic is opposed to the principle of
interdependent causalities used in systemic thinking, it is precisely this
simplification, which makes this instrument suitable for participatory
workshop settings. Depending on the situation, other analytical tools like PRA
instruments, mindmaps, fishbone diagram or SEPO/SWOT analysis may be
used.
Steps
1. Identify or reconfirm the so-called core problem. This generally emerges
during the project identification process.
2. Identify the direct causes of the core problem. Arrange them below the
core problem on the pin board. Step by step, participants look for the causes
of these causes, and the analysis is thus continually refined.
3. Identify the effects of the core problem. Place them above the core
problem.

Hint
The problem-tree analysis focuses on problems related to and felt by
people. Sometimes it is helpful to write the names of the
stakeholders that are affected by a specific problem on the card.
Opportunity analysis using brainstorming

Although most projects aim to solve specific problems, potentials and
opportunities can be a good starting point. This is especially true if the
situation is very unclear and people are tired of digging deeper into their
problems. Solving problems is a driving force for change, tapping potentials
another. In such cases, conducting a brainstorming about opportunities can
be a great way to get the participants involved in a creative and active
thinking activity.
Brainstorming is a group creativity technique, published by Alex Osborn in

1953 to find solutions for specific problems. It is performed in three steps:
4.1 Stage 1: Analysis of Initial Situation 21

generate ideas, structure ideas and finally assess ideas. As the rules are very
simple, people without prior experience in workshop settings can also
contribute. During step 1 the following rules apply:
1. Criticism is NOT allowed during the activity. The secret of

brainstorming is the principle of deferred judgement. People tend to
have a “censor” in their mind that critiques and discards thoughts –
those of their own and those of others – as soon as they appear in
their mind.
2. Quantity is more important than quality. Often a “bad” idea fathers
several good ones.
3. Unusual ideas are highly welcomed. All contributions – even those
that sound silly or impossible – are recorded.
4. Hitchhike on the ideas of others. There is no individual copyright.
Brainstorming is a group effort.
One key to success is a swift facilitation of the process of generating ideas.

Osborne called the methods “brainstorming” and not “brainbreezing”. If the
pace is too slow, people fall into the trap of assessing their own ideas, and the
generation, especially of unusual ideas, decreases gradually and gets blocked.
The second key to success is the question. A good question is openended but
still clearly focused, significant for all participants and thought provoking.
In step 2, the “chaos” created so far is organised by grouping or clustering

the ideas that belong together or that are related. In step 3, the clusters and
the ideas are appraised and a decision is made as to which ideas should be
developed further. Sometimes the brainstorming ends after step 2 and a
separate group of people do the appraisal.
A calmer variation of brainstorming is “brainwriting”. Up to 8 people sit

around a big sheet of paper and write down their ideas. The same rules apply.
Hitchhiking is done by writing the new idea next to the one that triggered it.
Brainwriting works well in groups with a great deal of confidence.

At the end of a brainstorming or a brainwriting session, even the most

convincing ideas and opportunities have to be checked critically in regard to
the needs or demands that they propose to satisfy. Even brilliant solutions
that are not built upon real problems tend to lose attraction and ownership
during implementation, because they lack relevance for the stakeholders. If
we jump on solutions without examining them carefully, we might overlook
hidden agendas or particular interests of influential actors.
4.2 Stage 2: Appraisal of Alternative Approaches

In most cases, a single project does not have the means to «solve» all
problems depicted in the problem tree. The aim of step 2 is to identify
different possible project approaches and to agree on the most appropriate
one. How it is done is demonstrated using the example of the problem tree.
Steps:
1. Establish the possible cause-effect chains on the problem tree.

These «branches» might become the project approach.
2. Circle and label the different branches: e.g. training, production,
infrastructure, integrated approach, etc.
In our example, we identify three different project approaches, which

eventually could be combined:
4.2 Stage 2: Appraisal of Alternative Approaches 23

As research has shown that investments in drinking water supply or

sanitation without change of hygiene habits have little effect, awareness
raising is included in the left and central approaches.
Left: A project with two components: safe drinking water supply and hygiene
awareness.
Central: Again a project with two components: construction/maintenance of

latrines and hygiene awareness.
Right: A project with nutrition as the only component. This certainly would
need a more detailed analysis of the causes, as the reasons for
undernourishment of children can be very diverse. Thus, possible intervention
strategies might range from something as simple as regular deworming, to
something more elaborate like the delivery of school meals, to something as
complex as a fully-fledged agricultural development project.
If we select a combination of two or even three approaches the expected

positive change regarding the core problem will probably be bigger, but
obviously the costs will increase as well.
24 4.2 Stage 2: Appraisal of Alternative Approaches

3. Assess the different approaches using specific criteria and select an

approach or a combination of approaches. Assessment criteria could be:
Chances for success

Sustainability
Social compatibility
Available competencies
Institutional capacity
Technology level
Available means
Costs/benefits
Political acceptance
4.3 Stage 3: Consensus on Intended Change

This third planning step consists of creating a common understanding about
the intended change. How will the situation look like when the problem is
solved? Below, we present two methods for reaching consensus on the
intended change. Preferably, both of them are used.
Visioning
Companies and organizations use vision statements to communicate
externally and internally what they stand for and they work towards. By
definition, development projects intend to bring about change. Why should
they not use this tool for the same purpose?
As situations and composition of groups are diverse, there is no single best

methodology for creating vision statements. So we limit ourselves to some
basic considerations about this process:
As the word indicates a vision is something that we can see – a real

picture or a mental image, expressed for instance in an analogy.
4.3 Stage 3: Consensus on Intended Change 25

Drawings or sculptures created by the concerned actors can be

perfect starting points for formulating a vision statement – a
“picture” expressed in words.
A vision is a picture of a desired future connected to dreams, which
often are the positive imagined alternatives stemming from the
difficulties and needs that the people face in their present daily life.
A compelling vision statement satisfies both rational and emotional
needs.
A vision developed together and connected to everyone’s life,
creates ownership and can generate the motivational energy
required for bringing about the envisioned change.
A shared vision provides continuity and gives direction, purpose and
confidence on the bumpy road of project implementation. Recalling
the vision from time to time can be like recharging the battery.
The “natural enemies” of visions are traditions, fear of losing power
and control, self-righteousness of some actors, fear of ridicule,
shortterm thinking and naysayers.
Quite often the vision statement – or an abbreviated version of it –
serves as the statement of impact or the project goal, to which the
project wants to make a contribution.
If you want truly to understand something, try to

change it.
Kurt Lewin
Develop a Result Chain
The result chain is a tool for depicting graphically how change should come
about and consists of a logical sequence of cause-effect hypotheses for a
specific socio-economic context. Thus, creating a result chain is primarily a
matter of formulating cause-effect hypotheses: IF we do this AND the
26 4.3 Stage 3: Consensus on Intended Change

reduction as the ultimate goal. Nevertheless it is not always necessary to use

poverty reduction as the impact statement. For instance in our case of water
and sanitation, we can omit it, because there is a proven link between health
status and poverty.
To develop the result chain, we build upon whatever we have done so far:
problem tree, brainstorming of opportunities, result tree and visioning. We
also can make use of sector-specific literature (impact evaluations, studies,
etc.) about proven cause-effect relations. They all serve as the quarry from
which we source our “raw materials”.
Procedure
A result chain is developed step-by-step or level-by-level. In the sense of
results-based management we start at the top (or depending on the format at
the right side) with the effects we intend to bring about, and we end with the
outputs and their related activities.
In step two we selected the branch of the problem tree to follow: drinking
water and hygiene.
1. The incidence of diarrhoea will decrease, if more people consume safe

water in a safe way. Much scientific evidence exists on the correlation
between unsafe water and gastro-enteric diseases.
2. What must happen to ensure that people will use the safe water properly?
To achieve this result people need access to the water, the water needs to be
safe and the well and stored water cannot be contaminated through
unhygienic transport and storage.
3. For each of the outcomes of step 2 we ask the same question again: What
has to happen so that …? For instance, to make sure that people increasingly
access the well with safe water, the pump must be well maintained, the well
must not be overexploited and run dry, the water must be affordable for the
people and the well must be within easy reach of the households so that they
stop fetching water from other sources.
4.3 Stage 3: Consensus on Intended Change 27

4. And again for each outcome of step 3 we ask the very same question: What
has to happen so that ….? The maintenance of the wells and pumps is
something that has to be organised and supervised. In most cases this is done
by a water committee. An important activity of the project is to establish
these committees and train the members so that a strong committee, that
manages the infrastructure on behalf of the community based on approved
procedures, is in place once the project has ended.
5. When all outcome and outputs are in place, we check the intervention logic
regarding “missing links”. In our example we consider it meaningful to add
the outcome “general hygiene habits improved”, because cleanliness at home,
especially in the kitchen and in the storage and handling of foodstuffs, are
important for staying healthy. Moreover it is not difficult to complement and
combine the information campaign on hygienic handling of water with
concrete advice on other hygiene issues.
6. The result chain is not finished until we have spelt out our assumptions. For
instance the safe storage of water depends largely on people’s capacity to buy
containers with a lid, their discipline to keep them clean and if necessary
their disinfection. Or what if, for instance in the case of a drought, the water
committee does not have the power to regulate the quantity of the water per
family, the well might run dry. Or the unfair distribution of water might cause
conflicts.
28 4.3 Stage 3: Consensus on Intended Change

4.4 Step 4: Project Strategy
Perfection of means and confusion of ends seems to

characterize our age.
Albert Einstein
4.4 Step 4: Project Strategy 29

LogFrame matrix should not be a major problem anymore. The LogFrame is

a table that also depicts the causal links between the intervention and the
expected results. It shows on which assumptions the cause-effect hypotheses
are based and how the success will be measured.
The challenge is to select the outcomes because the LogFrame format

contains only one level of outcomes, whereas Result Chains usually have
several levels of outcomes. In most cases, we transfer the higher level or
«intermediate» outcomes to the left column of the LogFrame. Often the lower
level or «immediate» outcomes can be used as indicators.
Elaborate LogFrame Matrix

The LogFrame provides a comprehensive overview of the intervention logic of
a project. As such the LogFrame is an important means of communication
among stakeholders. It allows stakeholders to agree on the core components
of a project. Later on it will be the reference document for monitoring and
reviews/evaluation.
The LogFrame consists of four columns and four rows. The columns A and D
depict the cause-effect hypotheses and the columns B and C describe the
measurement of the project results. The rows 1 and 2 describe the intended
effects, the rows 3 and 4 the planned services and products. In the two
columns B and C of row 4, we describe roughly the inputs and resources
needed for implementing the activities.
30 4.4 Step 4: Project Strategy

A. Hierarchy of Results
The backbone of the LogFrame matrix is column A with the hierarchy of
results, which basically is the same as a result chain. This column describes
in a very condensed way, what the project is about in terms of effects and
services/products.

Effects (impact and outcomes)

The two top boxes of the left column describe the intended effects on the
beneficiaries or the target system. The changes in their behaviour (people
and/or organisations) should have a lasting impact on the life of the people.
Like any other result the impact statement should be expressed as concretely
as possible. If it is farfetched and abstract, it is very difficult to establish a
plausible causal relationship between impact and outcomes on one hand and
the outputs and activities on the other hand. For abstract impacts it is also
difficult to define concrete and measurable indicators.
The outcome statements describe the direct and often immediate effects as
well as the intermediate effects, which the project’s outputs are expected to
have on the beneficiaries and target system. Again, the outcomes should be
stated as concretely as possible so that they can be verified by means of
measurable indicators. Most projects aim at strengthening the capacity of
people and/or organisations. Therefore the intended changes at outcome level
often refer to changes and improvements in the skills and behaviour of target
groups, i.e. the performance of organisations as a result of putting into
practice the new knowledge or methods provided by the project.
Service Delivery, Products (outputs and activities)

The lower part of the LogFrame (levels of activities and outputs) defines the
expected outputs and the activities of the project. Outputs consist of services
and goods such as training events, manuals, better or new organisational
processes and structures in organisations, new technologies or methods,
better or new infrastructure for organisations such as equipment, buildings,
etc. Outputs may also be public infrastructure such as roads, bridges,
drinking water supply systems, dams, irrigation canals, and so forth.

Never confuse activity with achievement and effort

with effects.
Anon
The left bottom box lists the activities, which are needed to produce the
outputs. The implementing organisation must be able to take on full
responsibility for this ‘production process’. It is helpful to group the services
in categories. This way it is easier to establish a structured plan for
implementation of the project.
B. Indicators and C. Means of Verification

The LFA invites the planners to think about how to measure the progress and
success of the project. The columns B and C of the LogFrame contain
indicators for the three levels of results (outputs, outcomes, impact) and the
related means of verification. These indicators are the measuring stick for a
reliable assessment.
D. External Factors
Project planning always implies reducing the complexity of reality. The
discussion of the implicit assumptions is an opportunity for bringing back and
reflecting on at least some of this complexity. The careful analysis of the
context and in particular the recognition of possible risks is a major task in
project design. Risks are external factors that could have a negative influence
on the project. Some agencies also include internal risks in their LogFrames.
Risks converted into positive statements are called assumptions.
Example:
Risk: political unrest >> Assumption: political stability is preserved
Procedure for Elaborating the LogFrame

the intended effects can be created or how the expected change could be
made to happen. The LogFrame tells us what the concrete role of the project
in this change process will be. This means that we analyse the result chain
against the background of a specific context and the potential contributions
of the interested and potential stakeholders. Based on this analysis we define
which effects require which kind of intervention.
The LogFrame is elaborated in three steps.
1. Establish the relevant cause-effect hypotheses, including relevant

assumptions
2. Develop the indicators for measuring achievements
3. Determine the resources required for implementing the project.
1. Establish relevant cause-effect hypotheses

The column A shows the vertical cause-effect logic: IF > THEN. Starting from
the top we select those cards from the result chain that require attention from
the project.
Outcome(s) > Impact: The higher the goals at impact level are set, the
more difficult it will be to establish a plausible causal link between the effects
at the outcome level and changes observed at the impact level. If we are
overambitious, it will be difficult or impossible to attribute these changes to
the project activities. Usually these changes are partially caused by other
influences, too. This phenomenon is known as the ‘attribution gap’. Therefore
it is advisable to set modest impact goals and not to promise more than the
project will be able to deliver.
In our case, it is quite easy to identify the impact hypothesis: By having access
to and safely using safe water in combination with improved general hygiene
habits the incidence of diarrhoea in children will decrease. When we compare
the LogFrame with the Result Chain, you see that the top-level card of the
result chain has become the impact statement of the LogFrame. At the
outcome level we have two statements; one related to general hygiene and the

other to access and use of water, which is a combination of the three cards on
the upper left side of the result chain.
Outputs > Outcome(s): The hypotheses on the cause-effect relations

between outputs and outcome(s) are crucial. Will the chosen project strategy
be the cause of the intended effect? The causal link between outputs and
outcome should be as direct as possible and thus external influences should
play a minor role only.
Activities > Outputs: There has to be a definite causal link between

activities and outputs. The organisation implementing the project is
responsible for delivering at least the outputs, and must therefore have the

professional competence and capacity to carry out the planned activities

within the specified time-frame with the means available, thereby producing
planned outputs of a satisfactory quality.
There is always the question as to which level of detail we should plan the
activities. On one hand we need to know, as precisely as possible, what is
going to be done in the next three or four years, because we have to draw up
the budget based on these activities. On the other hand we lose the flexibility
to react sensibly to changes during project implementation.
In the LogFrame, we only depict the main activity lines. The activities
themselves are listed on an extra sheet, where we have enough space for the
quantitative data and calculations.
Cautions:
Chains of cause-effect relationships often have a chronological
order, but not always!
Output and outcome statements are written at the same level of
abstraction – hopefully as concrete as possible. This is different to
the old fashioned LogFrame, in which the terms specific objectives,
general objectives and goal/purpose mislead inexperienced planners
into writing the same thing three times, each time at a higher level
of abstraction.
In the result chain we try to depict the complete “picture” of causes
and effects. In the LogFrame we include only those outcomes and
outputs that the project itself will be responsible for. As a rule of
thumb we define about three outcomes with three outputs each.
Assumptions: When we are satisfied with this vertical causal succession of

results, we select those external factors that have a considerable influence on
each cause-effect link (horizontal logic).
Again we start with the assumptions written in the result chain. As not all
assumptions are equally important, we include only those in the LogFrame

that are critical for success and those that the project management must keep
an eye on. A simple question that helps to ascertain missing assumptions is:
What good excuses would I use if the project failed?
In some cases the assessment of the assumptions might lead to rethinking and
reformulating result statements, in other cases the assessment of the
assumptions might lead to the decision to stop planning and to forego on the
project. These so-called “killer assumptions” might reveal that in a given
context the intended project is not feasible.

Another way of assessing and then dealing with assumptions is depicted in the
matrix pictured below. We ignore assumptions that most probably will come
true and are uncritical. The opposite case – high importance for project
success and high probability of failing – calls for rethinking the project,
because of the small chance of success.

All other cases oblige us to have, to a greater or lesser extent, a closer look
at the assumptions. A high probability of failing and a medium importance (or
the other way round) demands the design of mitigating activities, which need
to be monitored permanently, and a contingency plan.
When we factor in the external risks – formulated as positive assumptions –

the simple vertical cause-effect logic in the hierarchy of objectives (if
activities, then outputs; if outputs then outcome; if outcome, then contribution
to impact) is complemented with a horizontal perspective. The integrated
logic model now looks like this: if activities are carried out and if assumptions
are correct, outputs are produced; if outputs are produced and assumptions
are correct, then the outcome is achieved; if the outcome is achieved and
assumptions are correct, then the project makes a contribution to the overall
objective. A consequent application of the cause-effect chain will increase the
overall coherence of the LogFrame.
It is quite common for planners to handle the LogFrame matrix like any
administrative form, filling in the boxes from left to right. When they finally
reach the far right column, they are short of time and in a hurry. This bad

practice brings about unrealistic or superficial assumptions and thus poor

cause-effect hypotheses. Poor risk analyses and expensive failures are often
the consequences.
2. Develop indicators for measuring achievements (see

module 3)
The module “Measurement of Results” deals extensively with the development
of indicators. Therefore, we limit ourselves here to one observation regarding
the intervention logic. When we develop the indicators and select the
instruments for measuring a result, we implicitly appraise the intervention
logic. Sometimes this leads to a more precise wording either of a result
statement or of an assumption.
At the planning stage we often define provisional indicators only. At the

beginning of and at some point during the project implementation the
indicators are refined and modified as part of the monitoring system.
The Complete LogFrame

A tangible output of the planning process carried out up to this point is a
complete LogFrame. It provides a comprehensive overview of the logic of a
project. As such the LogFrame is an important means of communication
among stakeholders. It allows stakeholders to agree on the core components
of a project. Later on it will be the reference document for monitoring and
evaluation/reviews and reporting.

The last task in developing a LogFrame is its critical review. You might use
the checklist below:

Write Impact Hypothesis

Desk officers and project managers must be able to tell the story of “their”
initiative in a brief and concise manner to different audiences. For many
people LogFrames and results chains are difficult to read and understand.
They are used to think in sentences and therefore prefer texts or stories.
Converting a LogFrame or a result chain into a plain text in a common every
day language that is free from our development jargon, is like translating it
from one language to another. It requires a sound understanding of the
intervention logic and the roles of the partners involved. Thus, writing such a
so-called “impact hypothesis” or narrative at the end of the development of
the project strategy is an opportunity for checking the rationality of the

project intervention.
Impact Hypotheses
3. Determine the resources

The required human, financial and material resources are derived from the
envisaged activities. They are expressed in the forms of the budget, job
descriptions for key staff and eventually material lists. Especially as regards
budgeting we need somebody who knows the local prices well. Results-based
management calls for a financial management that focuses on outcomes, and
a budget structure and accounting system that reflects the costs for each
outcome.

At the time of planning it may be possible to foresee with some clarity the
activities and required resources for the first year, but it is difficult or even
impossible to make such detailed forecasts for three or four years time. Those
who call for a detailed planning of activities and a “precise” budgeting, run
the risk that the implementers will carry out the project unaware of changes
in the context and in so doing miss opportunities. Results-based management
calls for a consequent orientation on outcomes and not on activities.
Sometimes planners forget to budget for project monitoring – an important

tool for Management for Development Results. Where it is placed in the
budget, depends on how the monitoring will be organised. Either it is
budgeted as an activity under the outcomes or as a separate budget line.
4.5 Stage 5: Project Organisation
There is more than one path through the palms to the

beach.
Hawaian Proverb
The design of the project organisation is the point where planning and
implementation meet. How we organise a project varies according to the
institutional context. When we design the organisational structure, we usually
distinguish between at least two important levels:
The strategic and political level,

The operational level.
The strategic and political responsibility is shared between the donors and
the governmental and non-governmental partner organisations in developing
countries.
The operational responsibility is in the hands of the organisations that are

commissioned to implement the development projects. In bilateral and
44 4.5 Stage 5: Project Organisation

In projects funded by NGOs, it is often difficult to separate strategic from

operational responsibility because the local partner organisations implement
the projects themselves. To ensure strategic leadership and control, a
clearcut separation between the different levels of responsibility is vital. The
Board members of the Management may have a say, but should not have a
vote. The controlled should not be the controller.
In practice, we find a wide range of organisational structures. The illustration

below provides an example of how a bilateral donor agency, a national
partner, and an international NGO as implementing organisation cooperate.
When designing the organisational structure of a project we also assign

responsibilities for controlling and steering the project. Therefore it makes
4.5 Stage 5: Project Organisation 45

sense at this point to discuss the mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation,
and to develop the Monitoring and Evaluation Concept (see module 4).
46 4.5 Stage 5: Project Organisation

5 Project Document and

Agreements
5.1 The Project Document

The completed LogFrame summarises the core elements of the future project
or programme. However there are a number of additional aspects that have
to be analysed and defined in order to complete the planning process and
prepare the final project document (ProDoc).
Contrary to the LFA there is neither a universally valid methodology for these
further planning steps nor a generally accepted format for project
documents. Therefore we describe the current, recommended practice of
SDC.
The ProDoc is the final product of the planning process. It contains written
evidence of all planning steps and describes in detail all aspects of the future
project.
The ProDoc serves several purposes:
5 Project Document and Agreements 47

It is the basis for the Credit Proposal, an internal 5-page document

of SDC.
It is also the basis for the cooperation and implementation
agreements signed by the key stakeholders and partners.
It is the “bible” for the implementation of the project and a key
reference for yearly plans of operation (YPO).
It is the reference document for monitoring and reviews/evaluations.
Context and Project Rationale

This first chapter of the project document (ProDoc) describes the previous
history and initial situation of the project. Important topics to be mentioned
are:
Project background, situational analysis, results of and lessons

learnt by previous project phases or relevant similar projects.
Reference to relevant studies and publications. Brief description of
planning process.
Country and local context, in relation to the project. Relevance of
the project with regard to the national context.
Relation to SDG, national development strategy and sector policy
frame-work. Coherence with partner strategies.
Coherence with donor (e.g. SDC Cooperation Strategy) and
implementation agency strategic framework.
Description of alignment with Government and national partners as
well as of harmonisation of procedures with other donors.
Project Description
This chapter contains the detailed description of the project. Main topics are:
48 5.1 The Project Document

Description of the intervention logic of the project: expected

changes at impact and outcome level, and description of outputs
and corresponding activities (implementation strategy). Justification
of development hypotheses (Impact Hypotheses).
Understanding poverty
Beneficiaries, area of intervention, intervention levels (micro, meso,
macro), relation to policy level.
Relevant stakeholders and partners. Approach for empowerment,
capacity development, and network management.
Exit strategy and issues of sustainability.
Methodological approach and implementation issues relevant to key
cross-cutting themes such as poverty reduction, gender equality,
human rights, good governance.
Risk management with regard to key assumptions.
Phase planning and timeframe (for multi-year projects: a rough
breakdown of activities and outputs for each year).
Povert Brief - Understanding Poverty
Project Organisation, Management and Administration

This chapter contains a detailed description of the organisational set-up and
the management arrangements for implementation. The aspects to be detailed
in this chapter of the Project Document include:
Cooperation arrangements between main partners. Supervision by

Steering Committee. Decision-making procedures for project
steering. Decision-making procedures for revision and adjustment of
project and budget.
Implementation arrangements with implementation organisation(s):
authority, responsibilities, tasks, human resources, procedures
(planning, budgeting, tendering and contracting, reporting)
Project organisation, networks
5.1 The Project Document 49

Security management system (if necessary).
Sourcing and Financial Management

This chapter describes all aspects related to financing and financial
management:
Summary of overall budget (a detailed budget is to be annexed to

the Pro-Doc).
Financial and other contributions of all actors of the project.
Financial management: procedures for budgeting transfer of funds,
cash flow management, accounting, financial reporting, and auditing
procedures.
Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation

The main elements to be included in the project document are:
Planned activities for providing baseline data (if necessary)

Monitoring procedures for outcome (and impact, if feasible)
monitoring.
Discussion of outcome indicators: rationale, problem of attribution,
data collection, and resources.
Reporting system for accountability: implementation, outcomes and
impact (if feasible).
Planned reviews and/or evaluations.
Annexes to the Project Document

In the annex we include all relevant additional information that is necessary
for the understanding of the details of the project and for the implementation
of the project.
50 5.1 The Project Document

Relevant policy documents (or summaries) with regard to the

overarching policy framework (PRSP, sector policies, etc.)
LogFrame, including indicators with baseline data and target values
Detailed activity-based budget and cash flow
Detailed description of management system, decision making, roles,
rules and regulations, mandate and terms of reference of Steering
Committee
Organisational set-up (organisational chart)
Terms of reference of national and international key project staff
Other information necessary
Rarely do the designers themselves get the opportunity to implement their

plan. Therefore it is of utmost importance that a project document and the
annexes are written in a concise language – brief and easy to understand.
They should convey the maximum of information on the minimum of space,
eliminating any possibility of misunderstanding.
5.2 Agreements
Unless both sides win, no agreement can be

permanent.
Jimmy Carter
In the cases of multi- and bilateral-cooperation, projects are implemented

under the umbrella of “framework agreements” between two or more
governments or between a government and an international organisation.
For each project a “specific project agreement” is signed. It defines the

mechanisms of cooperation between the partners involved, the working
conditions between the funding agency and the implementing organisation as
well as the strategic/political and operative responsibilities. These
5.2 Agreements 51
Decision-making mechanisms for all PCM steps and tasks (e.g. terms
of reference for the steering committee)
Key documents (including guidelines on format) for planning and
reporting
Financial management (disbursements, statements, audits, etc.)
Steering: monitoring, evaluation.
The strategic/political decision-making bodies are mainly responsible for the

medium- and long-term steering of the project (at the outcome and goal level),
whereas the project management team is above all in charge of the short-
term steering of activities and outputs.
Project organisation at the operational level: Organisation structures are

established within the project team to cope with the operational needs of
project implementation. It is recommended to strive for as much coherence as
possible between the various content areas of the project (project
components, which are mostly placed at the output level) and the
organisational structure of the project team. Occasionally the project team
will consist of units from different organisations.
If it is an ad hoc project organisation that has to be put together at the

beginning of the project, then it is advisable to foresee this as a specific
separate component in the project plan. The simplest way of doing this is to
include the establishment of the project organisation as a separate output in
the Log-Frame. The corresponding activities can then be planned into the
yearly plan of operation for the first year and the corresponding budget items
listed in the regular project budget.
52 5.2 Agreements
5.2 Agreements 53

Planning For Results

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning For Results

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 2: Planning for Results

Module 2: Planning for

Who does not know, where to go, must not wonder, if

Result-oriented planning first decides where to go, and only afterwards

The five stages of results-based design and planning of projects with

The Module 1 “Management for Development Results” describes and

4 2 Identiﬁcation of New Project Ideas

This playing field of project identification is always controlled and limited by

3. The ways an existing problem can be tackled and solved or an opportunity

2 Identiﬁcation of New Project Ideas 5

The aim of the project identification process is to:

Develop, together with (possible) stakeholders and beneficiaries, a

6 2 Identiﬁcation of New Project Ideas

2.1 Methods for Identifying New Project Ideas

If you only have a hammer, you tend to see each

Below we present a selection of methods used in project identification, which

Semi-structured interview: Interviews with a fixed set of (open) questions

2.1 Methods for Identifying New Project Ideas 7

Roundtable: Roundtables are organised as a means of bringing together as

Workshop: Workshops are in some ways similar to group interviews. They

Brainstorming is a creativity tool, which was developed to elicit new,

Forum: The forum process consists of a series of meetings and is in general

8 2.1 Methods for Identifying New Project Ideas

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): The PRA approach, which was

Paricipatory poverty assessment

As the overview of methods and techniques shows, participatory project

2.1 Methods for Identifying New Project Ideas 9

2.2 Appraisal of Project Ideas

10 2.2 Appraisal of Project Ideas

The result of the appraisal is an approval or disapproval of the entry

Especially in new or fast changing contexts, a project identification mission

As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to

Careful planning is a key to success, but for many small organisations

2.2 Appraisal of Project Ideas 11

especially when additionally to a project proposal a baseline study is

The inherent “strive for success” principle of Management for Development

12 2.2 Appraisal of Project Ideas

3 Project Planning with the

1. The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) as a systematic planning process

2. The Logical Framework Matrix (LogFrame) as a logic model for a project

3 Project Planning with the Logical Framework Approach 13

The Logical Framework Approach was first used in international

At the beginning of the 1980s, in need of a coherent, simple and participatory

14 3 Project Planning with the Logical Framework Approach

3 Project Planning with the Logical Framework Approach 15

4 The Five Planning Stages

16 4 The Five Planning Stages of the Logical Framework Approach

4 The Five Planning Stages of the Logical Framework Approach 17

4.1 Stage 1: Analysis of Initial Situation

1. The actors (organisations, groups, individuals) that are directly or

The Stakeholder Analysis Matrix allows the analysis of different categories of

1. List potential actors and try to find useful categories, such as

2. Agree on useful and relevant criteria for analysing these categories of

18 4.1 Stage 1: Analysis of Initial Situation

solutions and the resistance which might be expected.

4.1 Stage 1: Analysis of Initial Situation 19

the preferred solutions or a lack of money. The availability of money is never

The purpose of the problem analysis is to:

develop a common understanding of the main problems that the

Problem analysis using the problem tree

20 4.1 Stage 1: Analysis of Initial Situation

Opportunity analysis using brainstorming

Brainstorming is a group creativity technique, published by Alex Osborn in