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 long process of debating, reviewing and approving the community budget (devoted mostly to program funding) bears full witness to this. An in-depth discussion of this topic here.

How to structure a project: a practical example and other tools

The previous section explains how the logical framework is the most widely used and effective tool for structuring a project.

However, as shown in that section, the logical framework is not a starting point, but a step in a more structured process that involves (in addition to other aspects) an in-depth analysis of the context and issues that the project intends to address.

Because the process can be difficult for first-timers, we provide below a practical example of how the logical framework and other related analysis tools can be used to formulate a design. The example given concerns the development of a hypothetical project to benefit a poor river community whose economic (fishing revenues) and environmental (citizen health) balance is threatened by river pollution.

The example is taken in its entirety from an official European Commission source, namely the “Project Cycle Management Guidelines” manual, which is the European Commission’s reference guide on these issues.

The "logical framework"

The nature and use and of the logical framework are explained in the previous section. For the sake of memory and clarity of exposition, we reproduce below an outline summarizing its main elements.

Stakeholder analysis

A first and indispensable analysis to be performed in the design of a project is that of the characteristics of the relevant “stakeholders,” where “stakeholders” is very broadly defined as those individuals or institutions that may influence or be influenced by the project.

This matrix provides an example of the aspects that can be assessed as part of such an analysis and how the information gathered about stakeholders can be organized effectively.

SWOT analysis

The preliminary analysis concerns, in parallel and as anticipated in the previous chapter (par. From analysis to logical framework), strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of what is believed to be the most salient aspect of the project

Taking up the case study of the river community, the matrix proposed below represents a SWOT analysis of informal fishing cooperatives (one of the stakeholders mentioned). In this case, the analysis pays special attention to their ability to represent the interests of their members and be an effective factor for change.

"Spider's web" diagram

The “spider’s web” diagram is another very effective tool frequently used in the project formulation stage.

Such a diagram makes it possible to visually represent the most relevant dimensions in the analysis of a given context and its stakeholders. It can be particularly useful to make a comparison between different subjects articulated on different dimensions, or to highlight differences between the current situation and the desired situation.

The example given (again related to the case study of the river community) is a “spider web” diagram representing the situation of the Environmental Protection Agency (one of the stakeholders mentioned) in terms of institutional and organizational capabilities.

Problem Tree

As illustrated in the previous section (par. From Analysis to Logical Framework) the process of formulating a project continues with the construction of a problem tree, a crucial step in establishing a logical framework.

The problem tree proposed below (again related to the river community case study-and far more articulated than the example provided in the previous section) is very similar to what might result from an in-depth context analysis and brainstorming, in any given territory and policy area.

The “tree” organizes the problems that emerged from brainstorming into a well-defined hierarchy. Problems that have a cause-and-effect relationship are arranged vertically with each other and connected by an arrow. Other problems (placed horizontally between them and at the same height) contribute independently and in parallel to a problem of more general scope (placed higher up).

The organization of problems on the basis of these “levels” and their cause-and-effect linkage is fundamental to the subsequent formulation of the project’s logical framework and intervention strategy.

Goal Tree

The goal tree proposed below takes up the same example. It represents a simple “positive reformulation” of the previous problem tree, with which it shares the substantive structure.

Intervention strategy

The choice of an intervention strategy constitutes, quite simply, the “focus” of the project on one of the areas of the problem tree thus identified.

This choice (rather than the integration of all elements of the problem tree within the project) is usually necessary because of issues of:

feasibility (it is impossible to focus on everything),
relevance (it is appropriate to focus on the elements most in line with the relevant program or call),
impact (you should focus on the priority issues for your beneficiary group),
efficiency (the path that allows the most efficient use of available resources should be evaluated).

Logical framework completed

Beginning with the choice of intervention strategy, the logical framework can be prepared: completing it in all its parts is an effective way to identify any elements of the project that have been designed unsatisfactorily and make appropriate adjustments. In fact, the logical framework is a dynamic working tool, which needs to be modified several times until it reaches its optimal arrangement.

The example below is a first “translation into a logical framework” of the problems and strategy identified in the previous paragraphs.

At a further stage, the logical framework allows for declining in greater detail, but in an orderly and consistent manner, all the elements necessary for the presentation of the project: division of labor among the partners, estimation of the necessary resources and related costs, timelines, stages and moments of verification of the activities carried out.

Another "other" model of logical framework?

In the context of this guide we have deliberately used the “classical” model of logical framework, which has long been developed and employed in the field of planning, not only at the European level.

However, as mentioned earlier, it is important to remember that for some years now the European Union has been flanking this a new model, which is met and requested as part of some projects. It is not a structurally different model:

the classical model is simpler but requires the same kind of considerations and thinking (hence its use in the context of this guide);
previous chapters already incorporate, in describing the elements necessary for a logical framework, all the aspects made explicit by this more extended model.

Some changes in the new model are terminological, others help and better detail elements already present in the classical logical framework model. The main changes between “classical model” and “extended model” of logical framework can be summarized as follows.

At the terminological level, results are also called “outputs” or “products,” the specific objective “outcome” and the general objective “impact,” but their nature does not change;
The possibility of providing more than one specific objective and of placing “intermediate” objectives alongside the specific objective is granted. However, this is especially true for particularly large and complex programs (the logical framework is also needed by the funding agency!) and it is still recommended to use only one specific objective whenever possible;
Particular emphasis is given to indicators, which must report (in addition to the nature of the indicator itself): the starting value of the indicator (baseline); the expected value at the end of the project; and the value actually achieved (last measurement available in the various reporting phases). Each of these three values must indicate a reference date or year. This approach to defining indicators is not only more rigorous, but also promotes the logical framework as a dynamic tool for evaluating project results: the value actually realized must be constantly updated in reporting and used to assess its progress against the set value-target.

The table below summarizes the main elements of this “extended” model of logical framework (you can consult its here an official model).