NOTES

[1] For more:

As we will see later, the model presented constitutes the “basic version” of the logical framework. In fact, it is possible (indeed, recommended) to add columns referring to the starting value of each indicator, the value that we aim to achieve, and the current value recorded at set times in the life of the project, for monitoring purposes. It is also possible to alternatively define the different levels of the intervention logic, i.e., in terms of impact (= general goal), outcome (= specific goal) and output (= expected results or tangible products); and to add “intermediate goals” to the intervention logic. However, since these changes do not change the layout of the “basic model” logical framework but only detail some aspects of it, we prefer to keep a simpler structure for illustrative and illustrative purposes.

[2] For more:

The upper right column of the logical framework is left blank: in fact, it carries the abbreviation “n.d.” (not available) in the proposed scheme. In a logical framework, the conditions indicate what is needed, along with what is provided by the project intervention logic, to accomplish what is provided at the next, more general level. The expected results are achieved due to the activities and the occurrence of certain conditions, indicated alongside the activities; the specific objective is achieved due to the results and certain conditions, indicated alongside the results; and so on. Since there is no level after the overall goal, there is no need to indicate conditions alongside the overall goal.

[3] For more:

The process of developing a logical framework does not necessarily follow the order of this description. The description provided in this chapter proceeds logically, from the most general level to the most particular level, from the definition of the intervention logic to the more specific aspects. The process for defining a logical framework, on the other hand, described in the next chapter, may follow a different order: it includes problem and solution analysis, context and stakeholder analysis, defining an intervention strategy, and others.
A logical framework can be read from top to bottom and left to right, from general to particular, as proposed in the description below. However, it can also be read from the bottom up and from left to right, from the particular to the general: this alternative reading order allows the chaining and coherence of the project logic to be followed from the most specific aspects. The examples below illustrate the main senses of reading a logical framework. Both senses of reading are useful and complementary to structuring a project.

[4] This will be further explored in a section on defining the intervention strategy. [5] For more:

The more extensive versions of the logical framework, which we will see at the end of the next chapter devote ad hoc columns to these dimensions, to make clear baseline and target-value of each indicator (with reference year of these values) and the value of the indicator at specific points in the life of the project(current value), emphasizing their importance. This increased attention responds to the consolidation of practices and processes in the world of Europrojecting and the need to monitor and prove as rigorously as possible the achievement of project objectives and results: an attitude that is incumbent on EU and national institutions, taxpayers, beneficiary communities and organizations active in the same field.

[6] The lengthy process of debating, reviewing and approving the community budget (devoted mostly to program funding) bears full witness to this. Here a in-depth discussion of this issue.

How to structure a project: the process and tools

The design idea: let's put it to the test

Access to community funding starts with the formulation of an initial project idea, which can arise from very different kinds of assessments. For example:

from responding to a specific need of businesses, civil society or institutions in an area;
from the realization of a scientific research, artistic product or business idea;
by the desire to intensify interchanges with other parties to expand the use of information, experience and best practices.

Establishing a good design idea is of paramount importance for the subsequent development of the project. It in turn requires a number of important preliminary activities:

The collection of context-related information;
The formulation of the rationale for the intended action;
The analysis of one’s degree of ability in presenting and managing the project;
The collection of information and analysis of what has already been done in the same field, in Europe and in the relevant territory;
reflection on the possibility of producing a significant impact on the beneficiaries, in line with what the funders require;
The reconnaissance of funding sources and the structuring of a sustainable project.

The European Commission (and more generally the set of actors working in the field of funded projects) has equipped itself with a set of methodological tools for the design of projects, their monitoring and the evaluation of their results.

The "logical framework" ¹

The soundness of a project idea can be assessed on the basis of the categories of the so-called “logical framework” of the intervention (logical framework), one of the most important tools for europlanning.

The development of the logical framework is one of the first steps in the design activity and allows much of the analytical work necessary for the formulation of the actual design to be summarized in a single document. This document then becomes the basis for evaluating its progress and achievements in execution.

The essential structure of the logical framework is given below. The different categories it uses are defined and analyzed in the following paragraphs.

The first column of the logical framework identifies the intervention logic, that is, the set of objectives, outcomes and activities that (at different levels) illustrate the project’s raison d’être and summarize its operational strategy. The subsequent columns of the logical framework serve to give concreteness to set goals, results and activities and form the fundamental basis for subsequent project monitoring ² .

The following constitutes a description of the different elements of the logical framework, provided with practical and concrete elements ³ .More specifically:

In the next section we provide some pointers and examples that define and enable the different levels of “intervention logic” (the “lines” of the logical framework) to be formulated;
Instead, in the following paragraphs we provide guidance and examples that define and enable the columns of the logical framework related to indicators, sources of verification and conditions to be formulated.

Structuring the logic of the intervention

Intervention logic: OVERALL OBJECTIVE

Definition: The project’s contribution to a broader policy and strategic impact. This is a contribution, not a goal that the project is called upon – alone – to achieve. The overall goal can also be referred to as “IMPACT.”

Example:

Promoting the economic and social development of Alpine areas.

Basic questions to ask:

What is the overall impact you wish to create on the population of the target area?
To what extent is this impact consistent with the priorities of regional, national, and European authorities, as well as with what has been achieved by other key actors operating on the ground?

Advice:

Identify the target area and population with some accuracy.
Verify that the objective corresponds to strategic and priority needs for the area and for the type of project in which you are participating (relevance), as well as to the objectives set out in the call for proposals.
Avoid duplication and encourage complementarity with other ongoing or already implemented interventions.

Intervention logic: SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE

Definition: The outcome resulting from the implementation of the project. This is an appreciable change in sufficiently broad terms, to which other projects and actions can also contribute, but produced directly by the project. The specific objective can also be referred to as “OUTCOME”

Example:

Create new employment opportunities in the tourism sector for young people in Alpine areas

Basic questions to ask:

What is the specific problem you want to address and solve through the project?
What need does the project address and what benefit should it bring to the target beneficiary groups?

Advice:

Identify with some precision the final beneficiaries the project targets (specific categories of the target area population that will benefit).
Verify that the objective corresponds to an actual and priority need for the beneficiaries it addresses (relevance), as well as to the objectives set out in the notice.
Verify that the realization of the specific goal actually leads to the realization of the general goal.
Verify that conditions exist for effective demand for what the project has achieved-that is, that there is a substantial number of beneficiaries and that they can positively accept what the project has achieved ⁴ .
Verify that conditions exist for an adequate offer to achieve the proposed outcome-that is, that the project has sufficient resources and capabilities to bring about appreciable change in the proposed terms.
Avoid duplication of other interventions – also with a view to not “overloading” beneficiaries, albeit with different actions.

Logic of the intervention: EXPECTED RESULTS

Definition: What the project produces in concrete and tangible terms. Each outcome is the culmination of a series of activities aimed at solving the central issue addressed by the project, in one of its main dimensions. Expected results can also be referred to as “OUTPUTs” or “PRODUCTS”

Example:

Improving the skills of young people in the tourism sector.
Stimulating youth entrepreneurship in the tourism sector.
Improve the employment absorption capacity of existing tourism facilities.
(Or, to give an example closer to the idea of “product”: giving visibility to youth skills and entrepreneurship in the tourism sector through a special platform ).

Basic questions to ask:

What are the tangible results the project must achieve (or the tangible products it must produce) in order to reach its goal?
That is, what are the dimensions of the problem you intend to address or the benefit you intend to provide?

Advice:

The same goal can be achieved by pursuing even very different results, but a selection must be made. Thus, the identification of expected results has strategic significance and determines the very nature of the project.
Check the relevance and effectiveness of choices. There must be a logical, clear, direct and meaningful correlation between the expected results and the specific objective.
Verify the achievability of each result described, since it is the tangible “product” of one’s work. If it requires too many resources or depends on too many exogenous factors, it should be reformulated.
Check the internal consistency of each outcome: each outcome should be the tangible response to one of the main aspects of the problem and be achievable with a coherent set of activities.
Outcomes are the basic pillars of the project, the elements that define its action strategy: choosing to achieve certain outcomes and not to achieve others is one of the main strategic aspects “told” by the logical framework. Thus, the results are not “binders” of more or less assorted actions.

Logic of intervention: ACTIVITIES

Example:

Courses in tourism for unemployed youth.
Promoting the teaching of languages, history/art/local culture and entrepreneurial skills in schools.
Creation of microcredit schemes for new youth activities in the sector.
Availability of help-desk and free common services for young entrepreneurs in the industry.
Joint creation of training programs and practical training/internship initiatives with companies/associations.
Strengthening the area’s social partners in managing labor supply/demand in the tourism sector.

Basic questions to ask:

What specific activities are necessary for the project to achieve each of the expected results?
Through what methods, with what resources, and at what stages is it to be implemented?

Advice:

Detail the activities broadly enough: activities are in fact the basic unit in the life of a project. Failure to consider an important activity may mean not calculating the time and resources needed and/or jeopardizing the achievement of an outcome.
Do not exaggerate in the opposite direction either. Activities must be in adequate numbers to ensure sufficiently clear and immediate monitoring of the project: too many activities can be a hindrance in this regard.
Consider further detailing activities into “tasks” (of a more “micro” and operational nature). This gives order and synthesis to the identified activities, without losing details that can be useful in quantifying time and resources.
Check the relevance and impact of activities in achieving results. Each group of activities must be aimed at and lead to one of the outcomes, a clear, meaningful and unambiguous way. This relationship is indicated by appropriate numbering (for example: result “R.2” –> activities “A.2.1., A.2.2. and A.2.3.”).
Try to visualize activities not only in terms of “what it takes to lead to a result,” but also in terms of time, i.e., how and in what steps the action is broken down over time. This lends greater completeness to the analysis and allows an organized plan of action to be established in steps, better time calculations to be made, and possible “bottlenecks” in achieving the result to be identified.
Verify the feasibility of activities (in terms of cost, resources, timing, number and extent of activities to be carried out, etc.). The declination of the project into activities serves precisely to better understand the real scope of the project and to organize its time and resources.
Verify the eligibility of the type of actions proposed for the purpose of the call in which you intend to participate. Picking up on the example given, if the call focuses on training activities, thought should be given to supporting service development activities or microcredit schemes differently.

Completing the logical framework

The logical framework includes a number of other elements that help provide concreteness and precision to the project description and help assess its expected impacts and feasibility.

We provide below guidance and examples that define and enable the columns of the logical framework related to indicators, sources of verification, means, costs and conditions to be formulated.

Other elements of the logical framework: INDICATORS

Definition: An indicator is that which gives a measure of the achievement of an objective or result. It is a complex element of the logical framework: 1) Indicators are defined differently depending on the level of the intervention logic to which they refer (see below); 2) must be objectively verifiable, that is, through accessible and reliable data sources; 3) may refer to quantitative or qualitative elements, but must still be measurable through abaseline and a target value at the time of project completion. ⁵

Example:

Impact indicators (i.e., related to the overall goal): Reduction in (youth) unemployment by X% in the target areas; Increase in (youth) per capita income by X%; Improvement in demographic trends (+X%) and tourism flows (+X%).
Outcome indicators (i.e., related to the specific objective): X% increase in youth employment in the tourism sector in the target areas; X% increase in the number of young people with a school or vocational diploma in tourism; X% increase in the number of new businesses started by young people in the tourism sector.
Output indicators (i.e., related to expected results): X new specific training programs put in place by the project, with X youth trained; X youth enterprises in the sector supported in the start-up phase; X% of youth in the area active at local companies.

Basic questions to ask:

Through what metrics can the achievement of project outcomes and goals be measured?
To what extent are these parameters measurable and verifiable objectively-and with as little effort as possible?
Is it already possible to define baseline and value-target of the identified parameters?

Advice:

Use relevant metrics (i.e., that actually give a measure of what is defined by goals and outcomes).
Use measurable parameters. In case it is essential to use qualitative parameters, precisely define the situation associated with each grade on the reference scale (e.g., “excellent,” “good,” etc.).
Use parameters whose measurement can be done easily and realistically. Use with caution (as they involve additional activities and resources) parameters whose measurement requires ad hoc research and data collection activities.
Use as much as possible parameters for which it is possible to indicate baseline and target-value already at the project design stage. If it is not possible to indicate such values (e.g., if doing so requires special research), these are probably indicators that are difficult to monitor and manage even during project execution.
Find a good compromise between relevance and reliability of data, simplicity and effectiveness of monitoring, using “proxy” parameters (i.e., different but closely related and easy-to-measure parameters) when the measurement of “primary” parameters is particularly complex.
Use different types of indicators depending on the level of “intervention logic”: impact indicators for the general objective (associated with the context of the intervention area), outcome indicators for the specific objective (associated with the consequences of the project on the beneficiary groups), and output indicators for the expected results (associated with the actual achievements of the project).
Don’t forget to include, along with the definition of the indicator, reference to its baseline and value-target (even if you use the “version-base” of the logical framework proposed in these pages).

Other elements of the logical framework: SOURCES OF VERIFICATION

Definition: Verification sources identify documents and sources of information useful for measuring the value of an indicator. In a broader logic, the methods, tools and frequency used for data collection can also be included in this part.

Example:

National and regional employment data and publications.
Statistics from chambers of commerce and employment centers.
Statistics from the Ministry of Education and individual educational/vocational training institutions.
Data collection and organization carried out on a semi-annual basis by the project team.

Basic questions to ask:

What are the sources through which information can be found regarding the achievement (or non-achievement) of the identified indicators?
What is their availability and reliability?
How are they intended to be consulted? Who can do it, how much time to devote to it, and how often?
Are these external sources or information produced as part of the project itself?

Advice:

Remember that a source of verification is, as a rule, a document or a physical, documentary medium that can be consulted (not only by the project implementer).
Use reliable and “first-hand” sources.
Limiting reliance on the use of data generated by the project itself (e.g., “windfall” questionnaires for beneficiaries).
Indicate how and when to monitor the indicators (and how to initiate corrective measures if necessary).
Keep verification sources and consultation methods in mind as early as when identifying indicators, as they may involve additional constraints, commitment and resources (see advice provided in the “indicators” section).

Other elements of the logical framework: MEANS

Example:

Technical Team – Vocational Training, Entrepreneurship and Microcredit, Employment Policy (Ms. A, B and C, Partners 1 and 2, X days of work).
Administration, monitoring and accounting team (Ms. / Ms. D, E and F, Partners 3 and 4, Y days of work).
Licensed teachers (Mr./Mrs. G, H and I, Partners 5 and 6, Z days of work).
Rooms and training materials for courses.
Facility to house the helpdesk.
Accreditations at educational and training institutions, associations, social partners, agencies and enterprises.
Etc.

Basic questions to ask:

What means and resources (human and financial) are needed to implement the project activities?
To what extent are these resources available from the organization or made available by project partners?
Analysis of the necessary means makes it appropriate to expand/change the partnership-or even redefine the scope of the project.

Advice:

Structure the partnership on the basis of complementarity and synergy of skills offered and means made available.
Carefully plan all necessary means, detailing them for each activity.
Do not overburden teams and partners in the provision of time and resources: it is likely that each person and each partner will not be exclusively dedicated to the needs of the project.
Discuss and share in advance with stakeholders any commitment made in terms of means to be made available.

Other elements of the logical framework: COSTS

Example:

Total resources needed: … €
Total costs co-financed by partners: … €.
Co-financing by institution X: … € …
Co-financing by entity Y: … € …
Income generated by the project: … €
Co-financing requested from the program/project: … €.
A gradual transition of the helpdesk/business support activity is expected: 1. free; 2. with vouchers; 3. fee-based (activities to be continued after the end of the project).
Etc.

Basic questions to ask:

What are the costs of the project, for the proposing organization, its partners, and the entity that will co-fund the project?
Are these costs proportionate to the results and the intended goal?
Are these costs that you can prove through a formal audit?
Do the costs for which co-funding is requested from the program/project relate to eligible activities as stipulated in the notice or regulation?
Is the use of resources sustainable for the proposing organizations?
Will the activities initiated or their benefits be able to continue after the end of the project in the absence of external intervention?

Advice:

Carefully consider which categories of expenditures are (or are expected to be) eligible/reimbursable under the call.
Carefully consider the co-funding quotas required by the notice.
Detail costs by activity.
Avoid duplicate funding (particularly of the same activity).
Use only reportable categories.
Provide mechanisms for technical and financial sustainability of project actions.

Other elements of the logical framework: CONDITIONS (ASSUMPTIONS)

Example:

Maintaining the conditions of tourist attractiveness of the area (preservation of cultural, environmental and territorial heritage).
Stability of social and employment conditions in the target area.
Maintaining the regulatory framework applicable to training, business creation and job placement activities.
Active cooperation from educational and vocational training institutions, trade associations, agencies, associations and enterprises.

Basic questions to ask:

Based on what external conditions does the action produce the desired effects?
What are the external factors (not determinable by the organization and its partners) that may have a negative impact on project activities and results?
How high is the probability of their occurrence and how significant is their impact?
Are there actions by the organization that can mitigate the effects?

Advice:

Provide a reasonable range of reasonable assumptions/conditions. It is advisable to think about everything, but avoid repetition and irrelevant conditions/hypotheses.
In formulating the conditions, also assess their likelihood, impact and possibilities for the organization to influence them (positively).
Conditions with too little probability and high potential impact imply a high level of risk. Their presence should lead to a revision of the project design.
Too high a number of conditions means that the achievement of goals and results depends largely on exogenous and uncontrollable causes, and should therefore lead to a revision of the project design.
In contrast, a fundamentally certain and low-impact condition may not be indicated in the logical framework.
A condition that the organization can influence to an important extent probably should not be considered as a condition, but as a project activity.
Conditions and risks are normally alternative descriptions of the same phenomenon (a risk is a condition that is not realized, and vice versa). Thus, it is an analysis of risks, but within the logical framework, their formulation in terms of conditions is required.

From analysis to logical framework

The development of a project proposal and its logical framework requires careful analysis. A good analysis of the needs, but also of the problems, possible solutions, and context, is a key aspect of making sure that the project has a sound rationale and (consequently) good reasons to be funded.

We provide here an initial summary description of the basic tools for gathering and processing the elements useful for structuring a logical framework. This topic will be taken up in the next chapter, more broadly and with practical examples.The most typical tool for this type of analysis is that of the “SWOT” matrix, an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, which analyzes strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in a given object of analysis.

SWOT analysis can be applied to different aspects of project activity in support of a good identification of any of the levels of the logical framework. For example:

To the territory on which the project wishes to intervene.
To the sector or thematic area of the project.
To the beneficiary groups targeted by the project.
To the design idea itself.
To the proposing organization.

L’SWOT analysis is the best known and most typical analysis tool, but there are many others: just as of late, the logical framework is not the only way to organize ideas for structuring a project.

The business model canvas, the business plan and the theory of change for example, although less used in the context of European projects, they can provide equally valuable insights to bring a good project to life. Each of these aforementioned instruments has equal dignity with the logical framework and deserves equal consideration.

However, we prefer to focus our analysis on the most widely used practices in the world of europlanning. A’special guide, promoted by a broad international partnership, deals more specifically with the various complementary and alternative tools to the logical framework.

In the context of European funds, the absolute most widely used tool for transforming the results of an analysis into a project logic (i.e., into a logical framework) is the so-called “problem tree” (associated with a “sister” tool, the so-called “solution tree“). The use of this tool is summarized in the diagram and example below. This process is taken up more extensively in the next chapter.

In the example below, the “problem tree” related to a hypothetical context analysis (alpine areas) is transformed into the corresponding “goal tree,” which forms the backbone of the “intervention logic” already proposed in the previous examples.

PCM logic

The use of the logical framework is usually associated with a more general approach known as PCM (Project Cycle Management), which defines the key-stages of a project as follows. It is no coincidence that PCM and logical framework are treated jointly in thespecial reference guide of the European Commission.

In PCM logic, each phase is linked to the previous one and lays the foundation for the next phase.

PCM logic can be applied to both proposing entities and funding entities.

To proponents, PCM logic suggests that the activity of prior analysis and the process of evaluating what has been achieved (evaluation, planning and identification phases) are key steps in the project management cycle-just like the formulation, financing and implementation phases on which we most often focus.

It may not be obvious to think so, but even the development of a program or call for proposals by a funding agency represents a design activity:

Programs and calls also fit into the steps of the PCM approach: for example, European programs are also evaluated, and the evaluation lays the foundation for the development of the next program.
Even European programs have to go a long, long way before they are funded. It is by no means a given that a European program will find the necessary resources for its implementation; ⁶ .
Programs and calls must also be structured based on a logical framework: like projects, they too have objectives, outcomes, activities and costs.

It is important to maintain this awareness while developing a project, seeking alignment between the logic of the program and that of your project. For example:

It is likely that what is an overall goal for our project represents a contribution to an outcome or activity, in the larger scale of a European program.
Our indicator monitoring and reporting activity contributes to a similar but much broader activity conducted at the program level, which can have great strategic and policy relevance for the funding agency.

The criteria for monitoring and evaluation

The monitoring and evaluation criteria (already mentioned in part in the explanation of the logical framework and explained in detail below) provide additional support for good project design. They, too, are jointly addressed in the European Commission’sspecial reference guide on project structuring and logical framework.

In addition to being indispensable dimensions for project monitoring and evaluation, these criteria are the conceptual basis used for the purpose of awarding funding: they are therefore a key aspect to be taken into account when designing the project.

Criterion: Relevance

Meaning: Appropriateness of the project’s objectives with respect to the goals set forth in the call and the priorities of the context in which it operates. Internal logic, consistency and completeness of the project planning process

Where it applies: In the transition from the target context (call objectives and identified problems) to the intended actions

Criterion: Efficiency

Meaning: Efficiency with which the resources and means used were converted into activities, in terms of quality, quantity and time. Evaluation of the quality and efficiency of the proposed approach compared with alternative approaches

Where it applies: In quantifying the resources and means used to carry out the planned actions against the expected results of the project

Criterion: Effectiveness

Meaning: Actual contribution of the results to the realization of the project objective. Evaluation of the impact of assumptions and risks on the achievement of results. Evaluation of expected benefits for beneficiary groups

Where it applies: In the transition from project results to the specific project objective

Criterion: Impact

Meaning: Effect of the project on its broader environment and its contribution to broader policy and sector goals (as summarized by the overall project objective)

Where it applies: In the transition from the specific objective to the general objective of the project

Criterion: Sustainability

Meaning: Assessment of the project’s ability to perpetuate the benefits produced by the provision of funding, to foster positive and permanent transformation, to create autonomous capacities and dynamics, and to encourage replication of the approaches used to other realities or on a larger scale

Where it applies: Across the entire project (on all dimensions of the logical framework)

How to structure a project: the process and tools