Learn Logical Framework

Analysis
step by step guide

COACH ALEXANDER

2020
 Logical Framework Approach

Executive Summary
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is a highly e ective strategic planning and project management methodology with wide application. It
is particularly valuable for di erent kinds of Rural Development Projects. It comprises an integrated package of tools for analysing and solving
planning problems and for designing and managing their solutions (the approach). The product of this analytical approach is the logframe (the
matrix), which summarises what the project intends to do and how, what the key assumptions are, and how outputs and outcomes will be
monitored and evaluated.

Advantages

During initial stages, it can be used to test project ideas and concepts for relevance and usefulness

It guides systematic and logical analysis of the key interrelated elements that constitute a well-designed project

It de nes linkages between the project and external factors

During implementation, the logframe serves as the main reference for drawing up detailed work plans, terms of reference, budgets, etc

A logframe provides indicators against which the project progress and achievements can be assessed

It provides a shared methodology and terminology among governments, donor agencies, contractors and clients

Disadvantages

Focusing too much on problems rather than opportunities and vision

Organisations may promote a blueprint, rigid or in exible approach, making the logframe a straitjacket to creativity and innovation

Limited attention to problems of uncertainty where a learning or adaptive approach to project design and management is required

The strong focus on results can miss the opportunity to de ne and improve processes

Logical Framework Approach

 Logical Framework Approach

Introduction
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is an analytical process and set of tools used to support project planning and management. According
to the World Bank (2000), “the Logical Framework has the power to communicate the essential elements of a complex project clearly and
succinctly throughout the project cycle. It is used to develop the overall design of a project, to improve the project implementation monitoring
and to strengthen periodic project evaluation”. It provides a set of interlocking concepts which are used as part of an iterative process to aid
structured and systematic analysis of a project or programme idea.

LFA is best started early in activity design, and should be thought as an ‘aid to thinking’. It allows information to be analysed and organised in a
structured way, so that important questions can be asked, weaknesses identi ed and decision makers can make informed decisions based on
their improved understanding of the project rationale, its intended objectives and the means by which objectives will be achieved (EUROPEAN
COMMISSION 2004). A frequent problem with the application of the logframe approach is that the planning process and the preparation of the
matrix are carried out separately from the project proposal or the budget, resulting in inconsistencies between the contents of the logframe
matrix and the description of the project contained in the narrative of the main documents. Therefore, the application of the LFA should come
rst, and then provide the needed information for completing the other required documents.

There is a clear distinction between the Logical Framework Approach and the Logical Framework Matrix. The rst refers to the steps involved
in planning and designing the project. These steps include a stakeholder analysis, cause-e ect analysis, objectives analysis, and alternatives
analysis culminating in the design of the project. The matrix, which summarises the nal design of the project, usually comprises 16 frames
organised under 4 major headings.

Logical Framework Approach (Analytical Process)

Before starting with the activity design and the construction of the logframe matrix, it is important to undertake a structured analysis of the
existing situation. LFA incorporates four main analytical elements to help guide this process:

Logical Framework Approach

 Logical Framework Approach

Stakeholder Analysis: having identi ed the main problems and the cause and e ect relationship between them, it is then important to
give further consideration to who these problems actually impact on most, and what the roles and interests of di erent stakeholders
might be in addressing the problems and reaching solutions.
Analysis of Objectives: objective trees should be prepared after the problem tree has been completed and an initial stakeholder
analysis (learn more about it starting by the stakeholder identi cation factsheet) has been undertaken. This will give an image of an
improved situation in the future.
Analysis of Strategies: comparison of di erent options to address a given situation.

The Logical Framework Matrix (Logframe)

The results of the stakeholder, problem, objectives and strategy analysis are used as the basis for preparing the Logical Framework Matrix. The
Logical Framework Matrix (or more brie y the logframe) consists of a matrix with four columns and four (or more) rows, which summarise
the key elements of a project plan and should generally be between 1 and 4 pages in length. However, this will depend on the scale and
complexity of the project.

IF YOU WANT A PERSONAL COACHING ON THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH SIMPLY CLICK
THE IMAGE BELOW

Logical Framework Approach

 Logical Framework Approach

Typical logical framework matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)

Logical Framework Approach

 Logical Framework Approach

How to Prepare The Logical Framework Matrix?

First Stage ― TOP DOWN:

First stage of the preparation of the logframe matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)
Goal: starting at the top and using the information from the Objective Tree write the overall objective of the project. The overall
objective may be beyond the reach of this project on its own, for instances: “To contribute to improved family health and the general
health of the rive ecosystem”.
Purpose: it describes the desired outcome that the project will achieve. This should be clear and brief. Example: “Improved river water
quality”.
Outputs: describe the project intervention strategy. There may be several outputs. Example: “1) Reduced volume of wastewater directly
discharged into the river system by households and factories”.
Activities: these are the tasks that are needed to achieve these outputs. There may be several for each output. Statements should be
brief and with an emphasis on action words. Examples: “1.1) Conduct baseline survey of households and businesses; 1.2) Complete
engineering speci cations for expanded sewerage network, etc.”
Inputs: when required to do so provide additional information, such as the means and costs, which are needed to carry out these
activities.

Logical Framework Approach

 Logical Framework Approach

Second Stage ― WORK ACCROSS:

Second stage of the preparation of the logframe Matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)

Logical Framework Approach

 Logical Framework Approach

Objectively veri able indicators of achievement: starting from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy of the objectives, begin to work
across the logframe identifying the Objective Veri able Indicators for measuring the progress in terms of quantity, quality and time.
There are two kinds of indicators: 1. Impact indicators: related to the overall goal, helps to monitor the achievement and the impact of
the project. Example: “Incidence of water borne diseases, skin infections and blood disorders caused by heavy metals, reduced by 50%
by 2008, speci cally among low income families living along the river”. 2. Process (our outcome) indicators: related to the purpose
and results. These measure the extent to which the stated objectives have been achieved. Example: “Concentration of heavy metal
compounds (Pb, Cd, Hg) and untreated sewerage; reduced by 25% (compared to levels in 2003) and meets established national
health/pollution control standards by end of 2007”.
Sources and means of veri cation: the source of veri cation should be considered and speci ed at the same time as the formulation of
indicators. This will help to test whether or not the indicators can be realistically measured at the expense of a reasonable amount of
time, money and e ort. The SOV should specify how, who and when the information will be gathered.

Third Stage ― BOTTOM UP:

Third stage of the preparation of the logframe matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)

Logical Framework Approach

Assumptions: re ecting up from the bottom of the logframe, consider how, if each assumption holds, it will be possible to move to the next
stage of the project. Assumptions are external factors that have the potential to in uence (or even determine) the success of a project, but lie
outside the direct control of project managers. Assumptions are usually progressively identi ed during the analysis phase. The analysis of
stakeholders, problems, objectives and strategies will have highlighted a number of issues (i.e. policy, institutional, technical, social and/or
economic issues) that will impact on the project ‘environment’, but over which the project may have no direct control. In the case of the river
water pollution example, important assumptions might include issues related to: 1. Rainfall and river ow (beyond the project’s control, but
potentially critical in terms of changes in levels/concentration of pollutants found in the river); 2. Householders and businesses willingness to
pay for improved sewerage connections.

Applicability

The logframe is applied when planning, implementing and evaluating speci c projects and programmes within an action plan. It is valuable for
carrying out logical checks during project design as well as for monitoring progress and reviewing activities and output during project
implementation.

Using LFA for project or program design imposes rigour in assessing what is to be achieved and the assumptions behind what interventions and
activities will be required. Many international donors, such as the Asian Development Bank and the European Commission, require projects they
fund to be designed according to an LFA.

Alternative Versions to
Planning with the Logical Framework Approach is done in ve stages. The rst 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 ve
planning stages, the tasks in each stage and a selection of suitable instruments.
This module describes the planning process and some of the key planning instruments. All of them are suitable for participatory planning
processes involving di erent 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 ve days and requires professional facilitation and
continuous visualisation.

Stakeholder Analysis
The rst 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 a ected by the planned project;
2. The interests, expectations, potentials and possible resistance of these actors.

The Stakeholder Analysis Matrix allows the analysis of di erent categories of stakeholders according to di erent criteria.

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

A. bene ciaries, users, target groups
B. donors, executing organisations, partner organisations
C. actors to be consulted or informed
D. opponents: actors who will be negatively a ected by the project.

According to the speci c 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 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 di erent perspectives of the same social reality. A mountain will look di erent from the other
side. Likewise, depending on their position, people in the same social environment experience their lives di erently: For instance a farmer and
a shopkeeper, a woman and a man, a child and an adult. They might have very di erent and maybe even con icting 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 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 speci c 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-e ect 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 identi es 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 simpli cation, which makes this instrument suitable for participatory
workshop settings. Depending on the situation, other analytical tools like PRA instruments, mindmaps, shbone diagram or SEPO/SWOT
analysis may be used.

Steps
1. Identify or recon rm the so-called core problem. This generally emerges during the project identi cation 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 re ned.

3. Identify the e ects 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 a ected by a speci c problem on the card.

Opportunity analysis using brainstorming

Although most projects aim to solve speci c 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 nd solutions for speci c problems. It is performed in three
steps: generate ideas, structure ideas and nally 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 e ort.
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,
signi cant 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
con dence.

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 in uential actors.

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
di erent 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-e ect chains on the problem tree. These «branches» might become the project approach.
2. Circle and label the di erent branches: e.g. training, production, infrastructure, integrated approach, etc.

In our example, we identify three di erent project approaches, which eventually could be combined:
As research has shown that investments in drinking water supply or sanitation without change of hygiene habits have little e ect, 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- edged 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.

3. Assess the di erent approaches using speci c 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/bene ts
Political acceptance
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, are 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
de nition, 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:

FIND TIME TO GET PERSONAL ONE ON ONE COACHING ON LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH BY
CLICKING THE IMAGE ON THE NEXT PAGE
 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.
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
di culties and needs that the people face in their present daily life. A compelling vision statement satis es 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 con dence 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-e ect hypotheses
for a speci c socio-economic context. Thus, creating a result chain is primarily a matter of formulating cause-e ect hypotheses: IF we do this
AND the assumptions are correct, THEN we will get that. We place the cause-e ect hypotheses in an increasing order with the impact
statement at the top (or right side) and the outputs at the bottom (or left side). According to The 1976 Development Aid Act, all SDC nanced
projects should lead to poverty 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-speci c literature (impact evaluations, studies, etc.) about proven cause-e ect 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 e ects 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 scienti c 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 a ordable for the people and the well must be within easy reach of the households so that they stop fetching water from other sources.

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 foodstu s, are important for staying healthy. Moreover it is not di cult 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 nished 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 con icts.
 Perfection of means and confusion of ends seems to characterize our age.

Albert Einstein
The better and more carefully the preceding analyses have been carried out, the easier it is to develop a coherent project strategy. When we
have a good result chain, lling in the 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-e ect 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-e ect hypotheses and the columns B and C
describe the measurement of the project results. The rows 1 and 2 describe the intended e ects, 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.

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 e ects and services/products.
E ects (impact and outcomes)
The two top boxes of the left column describe the intended e ects on the bene ciaries 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 di cult 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 di cult to de ne concrete
and measurable indicators.

The outcome statements describe the direct and often immediate e ects as well as the intermediate e ects, which the project’s outputs are
expected to have on the bene ciaries and target system. Again, the outcomes should be stated as concretely as possible so that they can be
veri ed 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) de nes 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.

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 Veri cation
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 veri cation. 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 re ecting 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 in uence 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 stakeholder analysis and the result chain are the best basis for the elaboration of a LogFrame. The result chain provides the “theory” for
how the intended e ects 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 speci c context and the
potential contributions of the interested and potential stakeholders. Based on this analysis we de ne which e ects require which kind of
intervention.

The LogFrame is elaborated in three steps.

1. Establish the relevant cause-e ect hypotheses, including relevant assumptions

2. Develop the indicators for measuring achievements
3. Determine the resources required for implementing the project.

1. Establish relevant cause-e ect hypotheses

The column A shows the vertical cause-e ect 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 di cult it will be to establish a plausible causal link between the
e ects at the outcome level and changes observed at the impact level. If we are overambitious, it will be di cult or impossible to attribute
these changes to the project activities. Usually these changes are partially caused by other in uences, 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-e ect relations between outputs and outcome(s) are crucial. Will the chosen project
strategy be the cause of the intended e ect? The causal link between outputs and outcome should be as direct as possible and thus external
in uences should play a minor role only.
Activities > Outputs: There has to be a de nite 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 speci ed 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 exibility 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-e ect 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 di erent to the old fashioned LogFrame, in which the terms
speci c 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 e ects. In the
LogFrame we include only those outcomes and outputs that the project itself will be
responsible for. As a rule of thumb we de ne about three outcomes with three outputs each.
Assumptions: When we are satis ed with this vertical causal succession of results, we select those external factors that have a considerable
in uence on each cause-e ect 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-e ect 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-e ect chain will increase the overall
coherence of the LogFrame.

It is quite common for planners to handle the LogFrame matrix like any administrative form, lling in the boxes from left to right. When they
nally reach the far right column, they are short of time and in a hurry. This bad practice brings about unrealistic or super cial assumptions
and thus poor cause-e ect hypotheses. Poor risk analyses and expensive failures are often the consequences.

2. Develop indicators for measuring achievements

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 de ne provisional indicators only. At the beginning of and at some point during the project implementation the
indicators are re ned and modi ed 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 o cers and project managers must be able to tell the story of “their” initiative in a brief and concise manner to di erent audiences. For
many people LogFrames and results chains are di cult 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, nancial and material resources are derived from the envisaged activities. They are expressed in the forms of the budget,
job descriptions for key sta and eventually material lists. Especially as regards budgeting we need somebody who knows the local prices well.
Results-based management calls for a nancial management that focuses on outcomes, and a budget structure and accounting system that
re ects 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 rst year, but it is di cult
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.

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 multilateral international development work, projects are increasingly being mandated to specialised implementing organisations (in
Switzerland: Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation, Swisscontact, private consultancy companies) through calls for tender.

In projects funded by NGOs, it is often di cult 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 di erent 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 nd 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.
How to write a logframe: a beginner’s guide | Working in development

When designing the organisational structure of a project we also assign responsibilities for controlling and steering the project. Therefore it
makes sense at this point to discuss the mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation, and to develop the Monitoring and Evaluation Concept .

So, what is a logframe? (REFRESH YOUR MIND)

Logframes originated from a planning approach used by the US military (maybe this is why they’re seen as a bit rigid) and was later adopted by
USAid in the 1960s for development projects. It has since become a standard approach required by donors for any grant applications.

How to write a logframe: a beginner’s guide | Working in development

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

The simplest form of a logframe is a 4x4 table with 16 cells, although this isn’t a strict format. In the table you note down what you want to
achieve and how you’ll get there. In theory, writing a logframe should make it easier to plan and manage a project as you can see the sequence
in which the actions lead to your overall goal.

A standard logframe template looks like this.

Planning
Putting together a logframe is just one part of a project-planning process for development, but many criticise its xed approach and see it as a
top-down imposition from donors. Josiah Kaplan, a researcher from Oxford University, suggests you need to write the logframe with everyone
who might be involved in the project. He says: “Greater inclusivity leads to better and more nuanced project planning. It can be a good
opportunity to bring di erent actors around the table – within a single organisation, and with external partners and stakeholders – to
communicate and develop shared objectives.”

Before you start, get a load of stationery together – ideally a big sheet of paper with a lot of Post-it notes. Then, work out what your project
actually is: Who are the key people involved and how might they be a ected by the problem? You can do this with a problem tree analysis – in
the middle of your page write down the problem your project will tackle, and then “branch o ” possible causes of the problem until you’re
satis ed that you’ve found an overall cause and e ect narrative. Hopefully at this point your notes will look a bit like a tree.

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

Then change the wording into positive terms. For example, “lack of su cient water” would then become an aim to “improve water supply”.
Once you’ve done that you’ll have an objective tree, and you’ll be able to transfer those notes into the logframe.

Now you should have gathered answers to the following questions and be ready to write the logframe: What is the project is going to achieve?
What activities will be carried out? What resources, people, equipment will you need? What potential problems might you come across? And
how will the progress and ultimate success of the project be measured?

The structure of a logframe

A standard logframe is divided into four rows, which are your long- to short-term objectives ranging from top to bottom:

Goal (overall aim).

Outcome/Purpose (what will be achieved, who will bene t, and by when).
Outputs (speci c results the project will generate).
Activities (what tasks need to be done in order for the output to be achieved).
These are achieved and measured by the headings from left to right:

Project summary (explaining the objectives).

Objectively veri able indicators (how you’ll measure the achievements).
Means of veri cation (how you’ll collect the information for the indicators).
Risks and assumptions (external conditions needed to get results).

Writing a logframe
There’s no set way to complete the table but here’s how you might think about lling it in.

Start by writing your overall goal in the top left hand box of the table (between Goal and Project summary). Ask yourself: What do we intend to
do? How does this sit with the country development strategy, and are they compatible?

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

A guide from Bond (pdf) suggests you start lling in the table from the top with your objectives and then work down. But while you’re doing this
think “upwards”, as development consultant Greta Jensen suggests (try not to get too dizzy).

Jensen says the logframe is about setting your goals rst and then getting into the grassroots – what you actually need to do. You have to look
at all the boxes in the table as a sequence using an “if and then” logic.

As an example (pdf), if our goal is to create a community of happy children and adults in a village the “if and then” logic would be like this:

If we establish a community committee (activity) and people are enthusiastic (assumption) then we’ll have the capacity to build and manage a
playground (output). If we have a playground (output) and it’s easy to maintain (assumption) then children will have fun (purpose). If children
are having fun (purpose) and families continue to grow in the village (assumption) then we’ll reach the goal of a happy community.

When outlining your activities ask yourself: What can we actually do? What have we already got that we can use to reach the overall goal?
Then, what are we missing and what might we need?

Remember to think about what work you’re going to do with each of the target groups. For example, what work will need to be done with local
leaders as part of the project.

Once you’ve got your all objectives down on the table think laterally: how can you measure the progress of the project against the aims you’ve
set out? (You write these in the “Objectively veri able indicators” and “Means of veri cation” boxes.) Choose indicators that will let you
measure whether the di erent levels in your project have been achieved. Keep these at a reasonable cost and give them a deadline. Set out the
information required for the indicators in the “Means of veri cation” column. These could be sourced from documents, eld surveys, training
reports, among others.

The fourth column is called “Assumptions” – which essentially means a risk analysis. This is about being prepared for external circumstances
and how you’ll reduce the severity of those risks, so you must budget for that.

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

Jensen recommends understanding assumptions in three stages: risk analysis + mitigation = assumptions. She gives the following example: If
the risk is hurricanes, what can the project do to reduce the severity of this risk? One option is to ensure sta are trained in emergency
procedures. So in the assumption cell you put: “sta training and disaster management to minimise the impact of hurricanes”.

But remember, a logframe doesn’t mean the plans are set in stone (or wood). See this tool as exible to the project’s needs, and responsive to
everyone involved. As Jensen says, it has to be adaptable to re ect any changes on the ground.

INDICATORS, LOGICALFRAMEWORK AND

MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM

Indicators

What is an indicator?

An indicator is a means of measuring actual results against planned or expected results in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness. In other
words an indicator is an evidence that helps us to measure progress towards achieving results (Source: RBM hand book on developing results
chain, CIDA, December 2000). Actually indicators provide a standard against which to measure brought about by program activities. Therefore
an indicator is a “marker” which when used overtime, shows what progress has been made. Indicators must be directly related to result they
are measuring. Whenever possible it is important to ensure a balance between quantitative and qualitative indicators to ensure the validity of
ndings. Note that there can be indicator for measuring progress at every level: input, process, output, e ect and impact.

Example: (1) Number of learner capable of learning basic materials; (2) % of average attendance by gender, age and income; (3) The
application of information and knowledge by adolescent learner; (4) Number of women has business management skills (ability to run a
business as an entrepreneur)

Di erent types and characteristic of a good indicator

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

There are various types of indicators and their categories depend on their scope and purposes. Base on quantitative and qualitative aspects, the
indicators are of two types:

(i) Quantitative Indicators: Quantitative indicators are statistically measure the amount or value of inputs or resources available. Quantitative
indicators have numerical value, are measures of quantity such as –number of man and woman in decision making; position or level of income
per year by sex as compared to baseline level. Therefore “quantity” re ects a numerical condition such as –the number of learners, teachers,
costs, facilities or text books at a speci ed time. Examples of quantitative indicators can include-Number of household with homestead
vegetable garden; Number of latrine constructed; Average animal asset loss during annual oods in CHAR area.

(ii) Qualitative Indicator : Qualitative indicator re ects peoples judgment, opinions, perceptions and attitudes of a given situation or subjects.
They measure performance relative to given standards and norms. They are intended to measure the “quality” of the input, process and output
of the program. The term “quality” can mean di erent things depending on the context. The term refers to a perceived improvement in the
implementation of the (literacy) program. Example-The sense of well-being; the application of information or knowledge; the degree of
openness; the quality of participation; the nature of dialogue; class room in good condition or condition of class room; level of awareness.

Di erence between quantitative indicator and qualitative indicator is given below:

Whereas considering level of objectives to be measured as per logframe structure of a project, the indicators are categorized into ve levels:

Input Indicators: Input indicator describes resources that go into the project; such as amount of money spent; di erent logistic items procured
and used; number of hours of sta time.

Activity Indicator or Process Indicator: Activity indicator documents or records the number of activity conducted and /or completed. Such as
number of training event completed, number of group meeting held.

Output Indicator: Output indicator describes the goods and services produced by project activities such as number of training modules
developed; Number of women trained; number of NGO sta trained; Test score of learners; Percentage and position of women involve in new
CBOs; number of family planning service provided.

E ect Indicator: E ect indicator describes the changes in system or behavior as a result of achieving project outputs. Such as Farmer
practicing technique taught; Extent to which trained sta use their new skills; Changes of attitude about educating girls; couple practicing
family planning; number of people (F/M) who have access to and has been drinking potable water and using sanitation facility.

Impact Indicator : Impact indicatormeasures actual change in condition of identi ed problem, including in changes in livelihood status, health
and wealth of target households. Such as reduction of malnutrition rate, availability and access to essential foodstu ; utilization rate of various
health services; average income of IGA participating household; average score of consumer satisfaction of local government activities.

Types of indicator -subject of interest

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

Direct Indicator: Direct indicators refer directly to the subject they have been developed for.

Example: A good example of direct indicator, which might not be so easy to measure , is “the proportion of population below $ 1 per day “.

Indirect Indicator: Indirect indicators (or proxy-indicators) refer in an indirect way to the subject of interest.

Why indirect indicator?

The subject of interest (mainly qualitative subjects) cannot be measured directly. For examples behavioral change, good governance etc

The subject of analysis is too sensitive to measure, such as in the context of HIV/AIDS intervention “safe sex”, sometimes level of income etc.

The use of an indirect indicator can be more cost-e ective then the use of direct one. For example MUAC is cost-e ective measure of child
malnutrition compare to height and weight measurement.

Aggregate and operational indicators

Recently, a concept has been emerged of dividing indicators into two broad classes called aggregate and operational indicators. The distinction
is providing to be bene cial, because it helps clearly exactly what we are being measured, and it helps link interventions with indicators.

Aggregate indicators: Aggregate indicators are variables that broadly measure progress towards a goal. They are useful as an intermediate
step to de ning more speci c indicators. In fact, when a design team is trying to decide on appropriate indicators to measure an e ect or
impact goal, its rst thought is often an indicator that describes the expected changes in fairly general terms. The problem is that aggregate
indicators are not very speci c as to what will be measured, so that if two people were to independently measure the indicator, they might
measure di erent things and each di erent conclusion.

“Aggregate indicators are variables that broadly measure progress towards a goal. They are useful as an intermediate step to de ning more
speci c indicators”

Examples of aggregate indicators:

E ect goal: 50% of project farmers in the village community of Rajbari district will apply pesticide to potato, bean and rice eld, using safe
and proper technique, July 2012

Aggregate indicators:

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

1. % of farmers safely applying pesticides in their elds

2. % of farmers properly applying pesticides in their elds

Note that the rst indicator re ects the farmers whose behavior follows safe application of pesticides. The second re ects farmers who are
using their right pesticides with proper doges. Measuring changes for these indicators would provide excellent information as to whether or not
behavioral changes related to pesticide use are occurring. However, the terminology used in these indicators is not directly measurable. Other,
more speci c indicators may be needed.

Operational indicators: Operational indicators are more speci c, measurable indicators that help measure change at the level of aggregate
indicators. The rst step to identify operational indicators is to look at the operational de nitions for the word “safe use” and “proper use”.
Intervention related to pesticide use will include a number of project activities related to training farmers in speci c methods of pesticide
application and use. Eventually, the design team will require variables that measure the adoption rate of the methods the project is promoting.
These variables, then, are our operational indicators. Operational indicators re ect a subset of the aggregate indicators; they are more
speci c about what to measure and are based on criteria developed for the aggregate indicator. For each operational indicator, what will be
measured should be obvious.

Get development's most important headlines in your inbox every day.

Thanks for subscribing!

“Operational indicators re ect a sub-set of aggregate indicators. They are variables that are more speci c in terms of what o measure and are
based on the criteria developed for aggregate indicators”

Examples of operational indicators:

E ect goal: 50% of project farmers in the village community of Rajbari district will apply pesticide to potato, bean and rice eld, using safe
and proper technique, July 2012

Aggregate indicators:

1. a. % of farmers safely applying pesticides in their elds

2. b. % of farmers properly applying pesticides in their elds

Operational indicators:

For aggregate indicator (a):

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

% of farmer who properly use hand pump sprayers to apply pesticides

% of farmer who were protective clothing while applying pesticide

For aggregate indicator (b):

% of farmers who apply pesticides in the recommended dosage

% of farmer who apply the appropriate pesticides to control the identi ed pest or diseases

Note: The operational indicator chosen here are unlike the aggregate indicators presented above in that they are tangible, measurable
variables. Measurement here would result in indirect but likely to change at the aggregate level.

Characteristic of a good indicator:

Characteristics of a good indicator include the following:

“CREAM”

Clear: Each indicator must be clearly measurable (unambiguous de nition) and hence required a precise de nition. For example- nature of
Extension O cers and quality of Diplomats is not correctly measurable but we can measure quantity of production such as:

Relevant: Indicators should apply to project objectives at the appropriate level in the hierarchy

In general, indicators of activity towards the left of following diagram are more speci c.

Input……………..Activities……………….Output……………………E ect………………..Impact

DMore speci c Indicator

Economic : The information obtained should be worth of time and money. Monitoring information need to be timely. Further data collection can
be expensive and often required a lot of sta time. A tradeo between the ideal indicator and ease of collection is therefore important.

Adequate: The indicator must have adequate information. They must respect what they claim to be. Manager and other user need to be
involved in selecting indicators to ensure that they includes required information.

Monitorable: The indicator need to relate to action that management can take otherwise the data remain unused and therefore not worth
collecting.

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

Why we need indicator?

There are number of reasons why it is important to use indicators:

to determine progress towards achieving planned results;

to inform decision making for more e ective annual work plans of projects;

to improve a project’s performance and development impact;

to support sound resource allocation and decisions; and to mitigate the risk to the
achievement of results

Logical framework or Logframe

What is logical framework?

Logical framework (as sometimes called logframe) is a project matrix that makes a brief presentation of impact, e ect, output and activities
along with veri able indicators, means of veri cation and assumptions. It provides an at-a-glance view of the project plan for managers and a
basis for M&E needs and purposes. The logical framework was tested by the USAID in 1970 for evaluation of technical assistance project. The
logical framework approach (LFA) allows a step-by-step conceptualization of important project element. When we design a project using
logical framework, we make a series of predictions which we usually called hypothesis. This can be view graphically as follows:

Example of Logframe:

Project completion date: 31/12/2012 ; Date of this summary: 25/07/2010

Project title: Reduction of malnutrition at Nageswary Upazila of Kurigram district in Bangladesh

Project hierarchy with an example

A project has ve basic levels such as- input, activity, output, e ect and impact. Following example of child nutrition project will show project
hierarchy at ve basic levels:

Monitoring and Evaluation System

What is M&E system?

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

The monitoring and evaluation system is a planning and management tool of projects; it is actually the information system used to assess
project’s progress, performance and impact. Monitoring refers to regular collection, analysis and use of information within the project about
its progress. Evaluation refers to comparison of objectives with accomplishments and how the objectives were achieved.

The M&E system is very important in its ability to assist project sta , target population, and other stakeholders to develop the project
throughout its lifespan. As the logframe the structure of M&E system is also characterized by several levels. Each level relates closely to the
hierarchy of objectives in the logframe.

Essential components of M&E systems are as follows;

Selection of indicators

Collection of data based on indicators

Analysis of data

Presenting the information, and

Using the information to improve the work

Overview of structure of M&E information system

The following table shows how each level of objectives links with speci c monitoring and evaluation assessments.

Table: Overview of structure of M&E information system.

Some clear decisions during design an M&E system

De ning the aim of the M&E system: The system is not just the generation of information. It should be speci cally geared to the needs of users.
M&E system should be designed to meet speci c needs and those will vary according to the nature and aim of the project, concern stakeholder
like donor, direct bene ciaries. In order to assess the performance of M&E system to be designed it is important to set overall objectives of the
system before it is designed. Describing who need a monitoring system and what for. Who will use the information and for what purpose?

Identi cation of what is to be monitored: This is done in conjunction with users to determine the key information needs of each user. Project is
needed to ensure that all information speci ed is essential. The selection of indicator is a vital, which re ects progress towards meeting
objectives.

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

The collection and analysis of data: Information may be available from the existing sources and primary data collection would be undertaken
for the system. The total technique for data collection would be based on information and its resources. As the system involves some primary
data collection activities so arrangement must be made for processing and analysis.

Presenting and using the result: The ndings should be presented in a way that can assist the user to take appropriate decisions. The result can
be used for planning process, institutional learning and basis for further development. User required di erent information at varying
frequencies. In general the more the senior user, the more aggregated and infrequent the information needs to be.

Organization: Funds, sta and other physical resources available for M&E are identi ed. This help to assess what form of organization will be
appropriate for M&E and in particular, whether it will be appropriate to establish a speci c unit the project management structure.

Review the system with users: The ultimate user may have had little involvement in the design of the system. It is therefore important to ensure
their agreement to and support the system before its installation.

Step by step designing an M&E system

Step by step designing of M&E system is given below:

Step 1: Review Logframe

Step 2: Identify Indicator

Step 3: Select relevant data

We should keep in mind

Step 4: Design tools

Step 5: Select Methods and Techniques

Step 6: Conduct monitoring and collect data

v Decide technique of data collection

v Go to eld with tools or give the tools to the eld sta explaining how to use it

v Collect data applying appropriate techniques and put it in the tools

v Review the raw data

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

v Organize data and ready in the reporting form, and

v Send the report in the next level of ow

Step 7: Analyze data and generate report

Step 8: Circulate the report

Identify to whom we will circulate the report

Determine the time schedule for report circulation

Find and follow the route of report circulation

Send the report accordingly

Ensure the report has been reached to the proper person timely

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

ENROLL IN THE LFA IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT COURSE

ENROLL IN THE IMPACT EVALUATION COURSE IN PROJECT

MANAGEMENT

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

 Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

ENROLL IN THE PROJECT BASELINE COURSE

ENROLL IN KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN PROJECT

MANAGEMENT COURSE

Indicators,Logframe and M and E system

LOGFRAME BEGINNERS
GUIDE

2020