Q: Is the LogFrame is the right tool for managing most NGO work?

1
Q Is the LogFrame is the right tool for managing
most NGOwork?

• A Not as it is used. We could do better, with
  better tools

2
Caveats

• Criticism here is of LogFrames only,
• One member of a wider family of logic models
• The LogFrame has mutated into many forms
• There is no one pure model
• My concern is with finding better alternatives
• Which are inter-operative
• My evidence ME consultancy gt1990, plus
• 3 UNICEF and 1 GTZ project in Indonesia, 3 DFID
  funded, 1 AusAID funded, 2006-2009

3
1. Criticisms of the structure

• Use of time as the main axis presents three
  problems
• Artificial, abstract, confusing distinctions
  between points in time (AgtOgtPgtG), where none
  exist in reality
• No feedback loops (these are not possible,
  because time cant go backwards)
• Complex linkages between row events are left out,
  even if a Problem Tree Analysis was done before
• Four rows only, and often only two are used

4
2. Criticisms of how they are used

• Goals that are generalisations of lower level
  events, rather than describe their results
• Long, complex, unreadable sentences, in the
  narrative column, trying to say too much
• A story line that is impossible to follow
• Frequent absence of references to who is
  involved, and too many descriptions of abstract
  change processes
• Overly simple indicators used to describe complex
  developments

5
3. Wider usage issues

• Accountability and Learning issues
• Excessive focus on horizontal logic. Even more so
  in the new DFID LogFrame layout
• Opportunities come from explicating and testing
  the Theory-of-Change (vertical logic). But who is
  interested?
• Introduction of weighting of outputs in DFID ARs
  is a positive development!

6
A healthy mutation?

• Develop a Social Framework, where
• Each row describes a type of actor
• The sequence of rows describes a chain of actors,
  forming a pathway along which influence takes
  place
• Assumptions column can describe how these actors
  are influenced by a wider network of actors
  surrounding them

7
Advantages

• Who is involved and responsible at each level is
  clear. This enables participation
• Two way influence process is built in
• What matters is the functioning of the whole
  chain ( distributed accountability)
• Relationships between two levels can be magnified
  to show detail, by related tools

8
Sources

• The Logical Framework A list of useful
  documents
• The Social Framework as an alternative to the
  Logical Framework
• This PowerPoint See BOND Debate
• All at www.mande.co.uk

9
Example Social Framework
Forest communities OVI MOV Assumptions
A Government
Other CSOs
In-country partner
UK NGO