From logframes to ToC?
PCM and LFA
2
The Logframe matrix
1. Project
Description
2. Verifiable
indicators
3.Sources of 4. Assumptions
verification
Overall
objective
To contribute to
an adequate
retention of
employees
Annual % of
leavers
reduced to 3%
HR records
Project
purpose
Employees feel
adequately
challenged at
work
Employee
satisfaction
score of 8,5
ES survey
administered yearly
by consultancy global
satisfaction score**
Employees wages
stay stable or increase
1. 80% less
serious
accidents*
1. 50% less
complaints
1. Safety records
2. Customer
service records
Employees are praised for doing
well
Employees understand the use of
their tasks
Results
1. Fewer
accidents in
the production
shop
2. Employees
get fewer
complaints
from clients
*serious = resulting in more than 5 days off work
** instrument example attached
4
Theory of change-1
• Theory of change:
• All preconditions of a key
outcome clear in terms of
timing and causality (blue
boxes):
• Those the intervention will
act on
• Those that are assumed
(assumptions) incl.
regarding what other
stakeholders will do
• Rationale (green boxes) behind
each arrow (why is a precondition important)
• Actions intervene throughout
the chain (red boxes)
Example courtesy of ActKnowledge’s Helene Clark
Theory of change-2
Simplified version
6
Theory of change-3
7
Theory of change-4
Source: Chen
© Benedict Wauters / Latitude C&T
Theory of change-5
Change model
Outcome
Intervention
Determinants
• Let’s compare logframes and ToC
11
Logframe is oversimplification (lack-frame)
Output
Results
Purpose
Visits of
teachers
to parents
Better
homework
+
More at school
Better studyresults
Global
Better
start
in labour
market
LFA
Theory of change
Teacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents
Action
Adapted from C. Weiss
Logframe obscures causality (logic-less)
Original example: World Bank, R.Rist, 2004
Action1
Action 2
Logframe obscures causality (logic-less)
Many logframes are
just retro fitting box
filling exercises where
there is not necessarily
a lot of logic behind
(“logicless frames”).
Original example: World Bank, R.Rist, 2004
Action1
Action 2
Logframe obscures causality (logic-less)
Outcome
Outcome
ACTIVITIES
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITIES
Outcome
Logframe cannot
show how
elements at each
level of the
intervention logic
interact with
each other (e.g.
how certain
activities can only
start as some
outcomes
already visible)
15
Logframe obscures causality (logic-less)
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Logframe cannot
show how
elements at each
level of the
intervention logic
interact with
each other (e.g.
how certain
activities can only
start as some
outcomes
already visible)
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
16
In LFA terminology is adding to the confusion…
Ultimate Impact
End Outcomes
Needs-based
Higher Consequence
Specific Problem
Cause
Solution
Process
CARE terminology1
Program Impact
Project Impact
Effects
Outputs
Activities Inputs
CARE logframe
Program Goal
Project Final Goal
Intermediate Objectives
Outputs
Activities
Goal
Purpose
Outputs
Activities
Outputs
Activities
Inputs
Strategic Goal/ Objective
Intermediate results
Activities
202E
Purpose
Outputs
Activities
Project purpose
Results/outputs
Activities
Inputs
PC/LogFrame
2
USAID Results Framework
3
Strategic Objective
4
USAID Logframe
DANIDA + DfID
6
CIDA + GTZ
Goal
7
Overall goal
European Union
9
FAO + UNDP
UNHCR
12
World Bank
AusAID
13
Intermediate Results
Final Goal
5
10
8
+ NORAD
Overall Objective
11
Project Purpose
Development Objective
Sector Objective
Intermediate Outcomes
Goal
Long-term Objectives
Scheme Goal
Outputs
Results
Interventions
Inputs
Inputs
Activities
Immediate Objectives
Outputs
Activities
Inputs
Project Objective
Outputs
Activities
Input/Resources
Short-term Objectives
Outputs
Major Development Objectives
Outputs
Inputs
Activities
Inputs
Advantages of ToC relative to Logframe
• Logic is more clear:
 Different strands of cause-effect linked to various actions
 Assumptions (also about other stakeholders) on equal footing to
actionable outcomes
• Not necessarily based on “problems”
• Less issues with terminology as relies on visuals rather
than categories
• Draws more heavily on research based theories (if done
properly)
• If alternative theories allowed, then greater likelihood of
learning and improving
• However, even harder to do than Logframe?
18
• However, some issues remain…
19
Issues with both LFA and ToC-1
• Both in LFA and ToC participation of relevant stakeholders is seen
as key to create common understanding and ownership, but in
practice, especially under time pressure, participation tends to be
problematic
 target groups themselves are usually ignored and participants in
meetings/workshops usually are not the decision-makers
 differences of opinion among stakeholders are bound to exist and it may
not be feasible to resolve them without resorting to abuse of power
 on the other hand stakeholders can be all too “happy to agree” as long
as there will be funding coming in for them
 These processes are very demanding (e.g. formulating problems
“correctly” in LFA is quite difficult as is formulating an outcome chain)
 It discriminates against people who cannot read or have impaired eyesight as the method relies heavily on visualisation
 the assumption is also that it is not too hard to find a facilitator schooled
in “LFA/ToC” AND in group dynamics; in practice, these people are quite
rare
Rogers and Funnel
Issues with both LFA and ToC-2
• although the logic of how the intervention
should work is much more elaborate,…
• … backwards re-engineering, in
someone’s office, AFTER a project has
been designed is unavoidable:
 ToC/LFA establish a parallel process to what
is already going on (strategic planning
processes, informal decision-making
processes within existing power structures)
21
Issues with both LFA and ToC-3
• the logic is linear:
 if we do A, B will happen, and then C, and so on = mechanistic, engineering
idea of cause and effect as if we can turn the key in the engine of
development and the wheels start turning
 it is assumes project actions set into motion a chain of events more or less
automatically without feed-back loops or delaying effects
• “assumptions, risks, etc.” very difficult to identify
 in LFA the assumptions column usually is a formality (fill the box)
• limited by the imagination and experience
• perception that too detailed a risk analysis might be seen negatively by funders
as it builds up a risky picture
 in ToC non-intervention pre-conditions have a bigger chance of being
identified due to seeing more of what happens in the outcome chain and by
drawing on multiple, science based theories, but still there are many
“chimney” ToC
 in any case so many factors (systemic view) involved which lie beyond the
scope of the planned initiative that will change the way things actually turn
out, that it is unlikely you can identify them all
22
Eternal peace
Europe 2020
Poverty reduced
Better income
Danger of
„Chimney thinking“
Employment
Better employability
Better skills
Training
Source: V. Kvaca
Action
Teacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Adapted from C. Weiss
?
• Ray Pawson (Realist evaluation) cautions:
 “We cannot contemplate, let alone observe and
control, every supposition that will find its way into a
programme…. enlightenment describes rather well
the working relationship between research and policy
(slow dawning…)… I think the aim should be to
produce a sort of ‘highway code’ to programme
building, alerting policy makers and practitioners to
the problems that they might expect to confront and
some of the safest measures to deal with them. …
remember A, beware of B, take care of C, D can
result in both E and F, if you try G make sure that H is
in place….”
R. Pawson, Nothing as practical as a good theory, Evaluation 2003, 9
26
Theories give us perspectives we can apply to
interpret reality and how it may function…
they can help us to devise numerous strategies,
depending on what perspective we adopt …
Theories are NOT comprehensive, air tight
plans, nor should we confuse them.
27