A logical frame work approach is a management tool used in projects to create clear
objectives and build commitment and ownership among clients. According to World Bank
(2004) the LFA evolved as a core technique for managing the complete project cycle from
design to implementation, monitoring and evaluation. It was developed in the United States
for USAID and has been adopted and adapted for use by other major donors, (Greta 2010). It
has received both support and criticism from different scholars meaning that it has both
strengths and weaknesses. It has its strengths in that it has the power to communicate the
essential elements of a complex project clearly and succinctly throughout the project cycle.
Also LFA is a cause and “effect” model of project interventions to create desired impacts for
the beneficiaries. It forces planners to identify the critical assumptions and risks which may
affect project success, thus encouraging a discussion about project feasibility. On the other
hand LFA has its own limitations in that it cannot guarantee success, planners are required to
summarise complex ideas and relationships into simple phrases which may be unclear or
meaningless, (Tempus 2000). These will be shown in detail as the essay unfolds.
Strengths:
The objective of a project is stated clearly
To start by looking at the advantages of using a LFA in a project, according to Greta (2010),
by bringing stake holders together to discuss the problems, objectives and strategies, the
logical frame work approach encourages people to consider what are their own expectations,
and how these may be achieved. The stake holders are make to focus on their objectives and
making sure that their activities are working towards achieving their objectives. It also
facilitates common understanding and better communication among decision-makers and
managers and other parties involved in the project as they are brought together to work on
one sole objective. The advantage of the LFA is that it forces people carefully to think
through what they are planning to do. It encourages a useful thought experiment where we
can ask the ‘what if’ questions. People have to consider systematically how their proposed
activities might contribute to the desired goal through delivering outputs and outcomes. As a
result, many see the LFA as a useful way of encouraging clear thinking.
It provides the means of evaluation
Moving on, by stating objectives clearly and sending them out in a hierarchy of objectives,
the log frame matrix then provides the means of checking the internal logic of the project
plan, and ensures that activities, outcomes and objectives are linked, Greta (2010). These
means of evaluations are the ones which when done properly, forces planners to identify the
critical assumptions and risks which may affect project success, thus encouraging a
discussion about project feasibility. In stating indicators of achievement and means of
measuring progress, planners are made to think about how they will monitor and evaluate the
project right from the start. This can give hope to successful results among the stack holders
and other ordinary participants of the project as it preparers us for reproduction of successful
results.
Summarises the whole project
Moreover, the LFA has another advantage in that the Log frame summarises the objectives,
activates that will be done, the results, important assumptions and indicators into a document
of not more than three pages. Although this point will be crashed on the however side by
scholars like Tempus (2000), summarising helps in that it too many words in a plan makes one
lazy to read or find it unattractive to go through. All of this key information is brought together
in one document the logical frame work which provides a useful summery for those interested.
It is a tool to concisely describing the results of an LFA project design process. It summarises
the fundamentals of the project in a standard format. What the project is going to achieve, what
activities will be carried out and how the progress and ultimate success of the project will be
measured and verified will be found in the log frame (Greta 2010). It brings together and
presents all the key components of a project in a clear, concise, coherent and systematic way.
One donor commented that it reduced people’s tendency to ‘waffle’ – to write long and unclear
project documents, Greta (2010).
Defines the linkages between the project and external factors
It defines the linkages between the project and external factors. All the factors around the
project are analysed on what effect or risks they have on the project and these are found on
the assumption box in the fourth row. Risk regarding strategic impacts, risk regarding
program level impact, risk regarding design effectiveness and risk regarding implementation
and efficiency. Because of this, stakeholders and mangers are always alert on any danger that
can befall the project all the times. The plan and design phases take longer under the logical
framework approach in order to ensure proper operation. This also leads to more accurate
evaluations using proper metrics, giving way to larger financial returns due to the slower
implementation process, Oliver et al (2005).
Limitations:
It does not guarantee success
While the LFA has proven to be a useful planning and management tool some scholars have
continued to criticise it. Oliver et al (2005) says, although the logical framework has become
universally known, it is far from universally liked. It has been the subject of much criticism
over the years, concerning both the theoretical basis of the approach, and the way it is applied
in practice. It is not a comprehensive tool for either planning or management and does not
guarantee project success. By using the LFA as a management tool in your project does not
mean that the project will be successful but the way you will apply it and use it determines the
results. It said that the success of any framework tool is based on how you use it rather than the
content. It needs to be seen as a legitimate thinking process in itself, and it needs to be seen as
our planning process because we need it, not as a process or hoop we go through to get money,
World Bank (2004).
It is costly
Oliver et al (2005) criticises the LFA saying that it depends heavily on communication, as the
distance or geographical constraints can make it difficult to evaluate projects. Evaluators
often use financial metrics or other quantitative tools for the evaluation phase leading to more
expenses created by the project. When a project creates more expenses than its budgets or
what its donors could afford is likely to close down. Hence with such a weakness, the LFA
receives criticism from some scholars like Oliver et al (2005).
Summaries may be unclear
Planners are required to summarise complex ideas and relationships into simple phrases
which may be unclear or meaningless, Tempus (2000). It is common to find a one word
sentence in a log frame and most of the sentences are not more than five words. Some of the
information is likely to be lost as the planners summarise their views, ideas, activities and
results. World Bank (2004) says that NGOs reported great difficulties in communicating the
idea of the LFA to local partners in a way that they can easily use. They often found it
difficult to communicate this way of thinking to others. Some donors claimed that the main
problem was one of training. They reported that smaller NGOs, whose training resources
were more limited, struggle most with the LFA. In contrast, some NGOs suggested that it was
difficult to translate the concepts behind the LFA into other languages and the way of
thinking did not carry across in some cultures, making the inherent logic in the framework
difficult to grasp, Oliver (2005).
It requires more time on planning
Furthermore, Osmond (2003) says that for all its perceived benefits, the LFA is not a solution
in terms of business processes or project management. One significant drawback is project
inflexibility; the detailed plan and design phases may restrict a company or companies from
changing projects once they reach a certain point. Cost-benefit analysis is also a potential
disadvantage. Problems can then be comparable by rigid application of the log frame during
implementation without taking into account changes in the project environment which may
require redesign of the project. Unless the financial upside is quite high, a company may
experience low returns on invested capital. Systematic training and development is also
necessary under this tool, requiring more time to develop a company rather than actually
implementing the project. The process is time consuming and requires considerable training
in the concepts and logic of the approach.
Problems with ‘fill in the boxes’.
All too often the “fill in the boxes “ is used to complete the log frame matrix during project
design, lead to a poorly prepared project with unclear objectives and a lack of ownership of
the project amongst stack holders. If unrealistic targets have been set during planning, this
can be very demoralising to staff during implementation and throughout the life of the
project, Osmond (2003). Also the boxes are the ones that forces the planners to summarise
their sentences into short phrases that turn to be meaningless to some and stand a chance to
be interpreted wrongly by stakeholders in a project.
Needs to be supported by other tools
Lastly, for World Bank (2004), to be used effectively, the LFA must be supported by other
tools for technical, economic, social and environmental analysis. The LFA is only one of
several tools to be used during project preparation, implementation and evaluation, and it does
not replace target group analysis, time planning, impact analysis and others. The LFA is a
general analytic tool. It is policy neutral on questions of income distribution, employment
opportunities, access to resources, local participation cost and feasibility of strategies and
technology, or effects on the environment. Other tools mentioned above can be used to support
the LFA so that it brings out full and complete information for a project to function well.
Bornstein (2003: 398) says:
“Log frames produce confusion rather than clarity and generate assessment processes
unrelated to real project issues”.
Conclusion
The LFA as a tool of managing and evaluating a project from its start to the end has been
praised and at the same time criticised by a number of scholars. Some scholars like Oliver et
al (2005), Greta (2010) and Tempus (2000) view the LFA as a strong tool in that it has the
power to communicate the essential elements of a project, if forces planners to identify the
critical assumptions and risks which have the possibility to affect the project’s success and
more importantly, it summarises the whole project into a document of not more than three
pages which is easier to handle. On another hand scholars like Osmond (2003) and Bornstein
(2003) discredit the LFA as they view it as a tool which is costly, its summaries may be
unclear, it is time consuming and lastly it needs to be supported by other tools like target
group analysis, time planning impact analysis and others. On the whole, besides the its
weaknesses the LFA remains the strong tool to tackle a project as it continues to be adopted
and adapted for use by other major donors.
References
1. Bornstein, L. (2003) 'Management Standards and Development Practice in the South
Africa Aid Chain', Public Administration and Development, 23 :393-404.
2. Greta 2010 ALPS in Action: A Review of the Shift in ActionAid towards a new
Accountability, Learning and Planning System', ActionAid International.
3. Oliver Bakewell and Anne Garbutt 2005. SEKA Resultatredo visningsproject. The use
and abuse of the logical frame work aproach
4. Osmand Vitez 2003 Wise Greek conjecture corperation. What is the logical frame work
approach
5. Tempus (Trans European cooperation scheme for higher education) hand book. 2000
Objective oriented project design and management.
6. World Bank (2004) log frame methodology HandBook. A logical frame work
approach to project cycle management. Washington DC, USA.
Skip to main content
Search
Search


















Home

About
Work with us

Catalogue
Explore Perspectives
You are here
 Planning and Programming
 Decision Making
 Planning with the Community

Logical Framework
Approach
Author/Compiled by
Leonellha Barreto Dillon (seecon international gmbh)
Executive Summary
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is a highly effective strategic planning and project
management methodology with wide application. It is particularly valuable for water management and
sanitation projects, especially because water ― the resource base ― has diverse and competing uses. 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 (THE WORLD BANK 2000)
It defines 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 (WUR 2010)
A logframe provides indicators against which the project progress and achievements can be assessed
(WUR 2010)
It provides a shared methodology and terminology among governments, donor agencies, contractors and
clients (THE WORLD BANK 2000)
Disadvantages
Focusing too much on problems rather than opportunities and vision (WUR 2010)
Organisations may promote a blueprint, rigid or inflexible approach, making the logframe a straitjacket to
creativity and innovation (THE WORLD BANK 2000)
Limited attention to problems of uncertainty where a learning or adaptive approach to project design and
management is required (WUR 2010)
The strong focus on results can miss the opportunity to define and improve processes
Introduction
Factsheet Block Body
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” (see also participatory monitoring and
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 (EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2004).
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 identified 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 first, 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 first refers to the steps involved in planning and designing the project. These steps include a
stakeholder analysis, cause-effect analysis, objectives analysis, and alternatives analysis culminating in the
design of the project. The matrix, which summarises the final design of the project, usually comprises 16
frames organised under 4 major headings (SALDANHA and WITTLE 2002).
Logical Framework Approach (Analytical Process)
Factsheet Block Body
(Adapted from AUSAID 2005)
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:
 Problem Analysis: involves identifying what the main problems are and establishing the cause
and effect relationships which result in, and flow from, these problems (see also problem and
preference ranking, or problem tree analysis as methods for problem identification).
 Stakeholder Analysis: having identified the main problems and the cause and effect
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 different stakeholders
might be in addressing the problems and reaching solutions (see also stakeholder
identification).
 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
identification factsheet) has been undertaken. This will give an image of an improved
situation in the future.

Analysis of Strategies: comparison of different options to address a given situation.
The Logical Framework Matrix (Logframe)
Factsheet Block Body
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 briefly 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.
Typical logical framework matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)
How to Prepare The Logical Framework Matrix?
Factsheet Block Body
(Methodology adapted from BOND 2003; examples taken from EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2004)
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
specifications 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.
Second Stage ― WORK ACCROSS:
Second stage of the preparation of the logframe Matrix. Source: BARRETO (2010)

Objectively verifiable 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
Verifiable 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,
specifically 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 verification: the source of verification should be considered and
specified 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 effort. 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)

Assumptions: reflecting 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 influence (or even determine) the success of a
project, but lie outside the direct control of project managers. Assumptions are usually
progressively identified 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 flow
(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 specific 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 (PHILIP et al.
2008).
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 (WUR 2010).
Media PPT
Logical Framework (PPT)
Library References
Further Readings
Training Material
Important Weblinks
Perspective Structure
You Might Be Interested In




Advocacy - Influencing Leaders (DC)
EMPOWERS Approach
Sanitation 21 Framework
Operation and Maintenance
You want to stay up to date about water entrepreneurship?
Subscribe here to the new Sanitation and Water Entrepreneurship Pact (SWEP) newsletter!
Subscribe
Get regular updates on the latest innovations in SSWM, new perspectives and more!
Do you like our new look?
We'd love to know what you think of the new website – please send us your feedback.
Provide Feedback
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest updates on trainings, new articles or perspectives related to SSWM delivered directly to your
inbox! See our data use policy for details.
Subscribe






Glossary
Library
Using SSWM content
SSWM Data Use Policy
Contact Us
Key Resources
(C)SSWM 2020Follow us on 
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience
In order to offer you the best experience, we have set our website to use cookies. By pressing "OK, I agree" you agree
that you are happy for us to use store these cookies. To get more details or to change your cookie settings for our
website please see our data use policy.
More info
OK, I agree No, thanks