Logical Framework Approach
Annex 5: Developing a Logical Framework Matrix
On this page
LFM terminology
The LFM sets out important information related to the Goal, Activity Objective and Outputs (see Diagram 10). All of the major development agencies use the LFM. While it is presented in a fairly standard way, the terminology used varies from agency to agency. This can sometimes be a problem for partners. Some of the common variations are:
| NZAID | Other |
|---|---|
| Goal | Overall Objective |
| Activity Objective | Purpose or Outcome |
| Output | Result |
| Project Description | Intervention Logic |
| Indicator | Objective Verifiable Indicator (OVI) |
| Source of Verification (SoV) | Means of Verification (MoV) |
There may also be confusion over the terms ‘risks’ and ‘assumptions’. Risks are negative statements (‘a bad policy will not change’) while assumptions are positive statements (‘the policy will change to a good one’).
Developing the Logical Framework Matrix
Preparation of the LFM is an iterative process where the thinking and information produced at a later stage may mean rethinking and modifying parts of the LFM that have already been developed. It is also important to recognise that the LFM is a living document. It should be modified - with the agreement of all partners - as new information comes to light throughout the Activity cycle.
The LFM is only intended to provide a summary of the Activity design. So, unless the LFM is for a programme with a large number of components, it should be less than 4 pages long. In some cases it might be better to document the activities/tasks separately in an indicative work-plan (or Gantt chart) whilst maintaining links to the related outputs by keeping to a clear numbering system.
- Diagram 10. the sequence for developing a LFM
- To develop the LFM begin at box 1 and follow the numbers.
Completing the activity description (first) column
The first column of the LFM is derived directly from the objective tree and summarises the ‘means-to-end’ logic of the proposed Activity. (This is sometimes known as the ‘intervention’, ‘vertical’, or ‘if - then’ logic.)
The lower levels of the hierarchy need to be completed successfully in order to achieve the activity descriptions above:
| If… | Then… |
|---|---|
| adequate inputs/resources are provided | activities can take place |
| activities are carried out | the outputs will be delivered |
| the outputs are delivered | the project objective will be achieved |
| the project objective is achieved | this should contribute towards the Goal |
This logic is refined and qualified by the assumptions/risks in the 4th column. The vertical logic can also be reasoned in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions:
- Achieving the Activity objective is necessary but not sufficient to attain the goal, (because there will be other initiatives contributing to this same sectoral or national level goal)
- Producing the outputs is necessary but may not be sufficient to achieve the Activity objective (because there may still be assumptions involved)
- Carrying out the activities/tasks is necessary and sufficient to deliver the required outputs.
Completing the Assumptions/Risks (fourth) column
This column identifies the key assumptions and risks that link each level of the hierarchy of activity descriptions (see Diagram 10). These are factors outside the Activity management’s direct control but which may require a management response later in the Activity cycle (e.g. policy dialogue with government if expected policy changes do not come about).
Completing the Indicators (second) column
An indicator is defined as ‘a quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect the changes connected to an intervention or to help assess the performance of a development actor’.
One approach is to use ‘SMART’ criteria for indicators. See NZAID Monitoring Guideline for other approaches:
- Specific to the objective it is supposed to measure
- Measurable - either quantitatively or qualitatively
- Available at an acceptable cost
- Relevant to the Management Information System
- Time-bound - linked to the expected completion target
Good baseline indicators are essential if Activity progress is to be monitored. It may be appropriate to invest in baseline data collection in advance of Activity implementation.
The following points are also important when developing or appraising indicators:
- Indicators for one level must be more than just the sum of the indicators for the level below, e.g. the indicator at the Activity objective level should not be merely a summary of the indicators used for the output level
- It is often necessary to have more than one indicator for each objective to measure both quantitative and qualitative aspects
- ‘Proxy indicators’ can sometimes be used as indirect measures of achievement
- More information is not always better or necessary
- Indicators developed during the identification and design stages may need to be modified when more information becomes available during implementation
- Always take into account our partners’ information and data-gathering capabilities and be prepared to strengthen these.
Completing the Source of Verification (third) column
The information for the Source of Verification (SoV) column should be developed at the same time as the indicators.
The SoV should explain briefly:
- How the data will be collected (e.g. administration records, Knowledge, Attitude and Practice surveys, etc.
- Who should collect/provide the data (e.g. project staff, independent survey teams, etc.)
- How often the data will be collected (e.g. monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.)
When developing the SoVs it is important to consider existing information systems and the needs of different levels of management. Try to use and strengthen existing SoVs wherever possible.
Conducting detailed sample surveys are usually very expensive. Simpler SoVs including the use of ‘proxy’ indicators may be appropriate. For example, rather than trying to survey increased household incomes it may be sufficient to observe changes in household assets (e.g. use of improved roofing material).