See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329800823

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using the Logframe in

Development Work?

Article · November 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 43,298

1 author:

Angkeara Bong
Council of Ministers
17 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The End of Poverty View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Angkeara Bong on 20 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research Paper

Public Policy and Management

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using

the Logframe in Development Work?

Angkeara Bong

Australian National University

13 November 2014
Paper Code: Pub20140004

CamEconomist
Advancing your knowledge
www.cameconomist.info

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of CamEconomist. CamEconomist accepts no responsibility for any
consequence of their use.

This paper can be downloaded from

www.cameconomist.info/research/public-policy-and-management/
 CamEconomist 2014

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using the Logframe

in Development Work?

The Logical Framework (Logframe) has played an important role in the project planning and
management over the last two decades. It becomes a standard approach which required by many
donors for grant applications (Hailey & Sorgenfrei, 2004, p. 1). It entails an analytical process
which logically sets out the objectives of the project to check whether these objectives have been
achieved (Bill, 2000, p.10). Although, it provides the useful set of design tools, which can be
used creatively for planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating projects, it also has some
limitations and risks (Gasper, 2000, p.25). Therefore, this paper discusses the advantages and
disadvantages of using the logframe in development work. Three main advantages of using
logframe such as improving project design, fostering project performance and facilitating project
management will be discussed. Then, three major disadvantages of using logframe such as vague
planning, absence of a time dimension, and improper use and static nature of the logframe will
also be discussed.

First, a major advantage of using logframe is to improve the project design and supervision. It
can help to achieve a structured project design process and provides a simple summary of the
development initiative key elements in a consistent and coherent way which clearly identifies the
broad outlines of the project. It improves the quality of project design due to better internal
consistency and logic, which provides a link between the design phase and the supervision phase
(Walsch, 2000, p.26). Therefore, the objectives set at the time of design being used for
supervision. It is linked to the higher level indicators of the purpose. For instance, it clarifies the
underlying causality intended in the project design and defines indicators to measure progress,
and identifies external factors and assumptions which will ultimately determine success.
Furthermore, it is a clear concise way of compiling information for the project and primarily
well-structured form and inherent logic. For example, the strategic policies which covers up to
40 pages or more of narrative could easily be contained in a few pages log frame and makes
information retrieval easier and straightforward, which the logic inherent in the log frame makes

Page 1
 CamEconomist 2014

it possible to crosscheck on the various hypotheses embodied in the details. Thus, it verifies the
feasibility of the given strategies of the projects.

Second, fostering project performance is one of another advantage of using logframe. It provides
a logic hierarchy of objectives and forces planners to identify critical assumptions and risks by
encouraging to discussions about the feasibility, and means of verifying progress (Bell, 2000,
p.30). The structured and logical approach to setting priorities and determining the intended
results and activities of the project are used for planning, designing, implementing and
evaluating the projects. The objectives should be fitted into the wider context which determined
by the strategies of the implementing and funding agencies. The external factors and assumptions
are also one of the important factors during the project design which determines project’s
success. The assumptions must be evaluated and the design modified in order to reduce the
chance of project failure. According to Earle, the results based management approach and its
associated planning tool brings logic, clarity and accountability into the planning, monitoring and
evaluation of the project (2002, p.10). Therefore, a number of other multilateral and bilateral
agencies including the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID), Asian Development Banks (ADB) and other
organizations use the log frame (Sartorius, 1991, p.135).

Third, another advantage of logframe is facilitating project management. The project monitoring
and evaluation information systems inform the management which the indicators describe
objectives in measurable terms and provide the basis for project monitoring, evaluation. It
establishes a framework that makes the underlying rationales and assumptions transparent and
helps changes by revising the design. The participation of the stakeholders involved in the
project design and management, which is an essential for the sustainability of a project (Phillip &
Bob, 2003, p.508). Thus, it provides a unifying framework for all the stakeholders involved in
the project with the consistent and explicit links between objectives and activities over time. It
clearly identifies a mechanism to separate out the responsibilities of each stakeholder who can
participate in the project management which should result in improved project designs. The key
project design is to tackle the causes of the constraint. Therefore, the problem analysis during the
project design needed to be addressed.

Page 2
 CamEconomist 2014

Although, it provides a convenient overview of project objectives and encourages attention to

possible higher-level justifications and the information needs of monitoring and evaluation, it
also has a number of limitation and risks of using it. Vague planning is one of the disadvantages
of using logframe. The objectives are multiple and not clearly related to the project activities
meaning that there is no clear picture of what a project would look like if it were successful.
Many important factors are outside the control of project manager which made it difficult the
management to accept responsibilities for outcomes. In the absence of clear project targets, the
project evaluators tends to use their own judgement as to what they thought was good and bad.
Therefore, the evaluation results would rather become the basis for arguments about what is
desirable and undesirable instead of project planning and improvement. Thus, it requires training
and particular attention to the internal logic of the logframe elements during the project design
and planning. However, the logframe often needs to be revised during the project
implementation, if not it tends to become either a lock-frame, a lack-frame, or logic-less frame
(Gasper, 2000).

The logframe matrix does not communicate the time allocated to strategy implementation. The
fixed timeframe of the project aims to set the goal achievement. Although the tool has proved
useful for project design and appraisal, the absence of the time dimension makes the tool
ineffective for project management, particularly monitoring purposes (Paul, 2002, p. 368). For
example, the activity monitoring is the ability to schedule tasks along a project timeline. The
logframe matrix requires the project planner to monitors the efficiency levels such as inputs,
activities, outputs and the effectiveness levels such as outcome and impact of the logic. The
assigning of indicators to measure performance at each level of logic is appealing. In practice the
selection of efficiency indicators is conceptually difficult and meaningless since these factors are
measurable in themselves, hence do not benefit from discrete measurable indicators.
Furthermore, the data that highlights variance between planned and actual implementation is of
more value for performance management and organizational learning purposes. For instance, a
shortfall in project outputs can provoke a project manager to initiate corrective action.

The logframe is fundamentally a static tool. That is, it presents a snapshot of the project strategy,
typically as foreseen during the design phase (Paul, 2002, p. 369). Thus, it makes a structural
problem within the aid industry that different groups of people tend to be involved at different

Page 3
 CamEconomist 2014

stages of the project cycle meaning that the project planners, the implementation and monitoring
team, and project evaluators tend to be separate actors, use a different language set and apply
different tools. This inhibits organizational learning and negatively affects the efficiency and
effectiveness of projects. If the logframe could be conceived as a dynamic tool to capture the
reality of evolving implementation strategy and lessons learned, it could serve to unify the three
main groups of project actors fostering consistent language and smooth transition between the
project cycle phases.

Furthermore, an improper use of the logframe is that the matrix is drawn up after the project has
already been designed. In this case the logframe is not used to guide the whole project of the
design process. Only the format used to summaries the findings of the logframe process is
applied to describe a pre-existing design, rather than create a logically solid one. Lack-frames is
also one of the logframes’ limitations, which is criticized that in complex and sometimes even
simple project settings the logframe can be too simple for describing the project design so that
important aspects are left out. In this case, the logframe matrix has no summary of a project’s
key aspects but rather a lack-frame. It might be complemented with additional important
information, but by doing this the idea of the matrix as a project summary providing a rather
quick overview of the most important aspects of a project is not exactly true. Moreover, lock-
frame is one of another risk with the application of logframe. It limits flexibility. Therefore, the
logframe matrix should always reflect changes and be flexible. To counteract the limiting effect
of a focus on problems during the initial situation analysis to a certain degree the analysis of
potentials can be included in the situation analysis. So, the logframe does not assume that the
nature of all problems can be readily determined at the beginning of the project process. The
problem might be that there is not enough information available on a situation that is undesirable
or critical. At this stage, it might focus on the reasons for the lack of information and the
objective of the project would then be to collect the information needed. Thus, the results that
can be achieved by applying the logframe depend on how this set of tools is being applied.

In addition, the logframe is sometimes used only because external funders demand it. It is
sometimes invented after a project has been designed, rather than used to guide the design
process by promoting logical thinking about the links between one level to the next and about the
role of external factors in affecting these connections. Gasper (2002) has aptly called this

Page 4
 CamEconomist 2014

practice the logic-less frame. By design, the logframe encourages a simplification of the real
world. There is always a danger that important aspects of a project will be left out.

Finally, the logframe is a project design tool that can be used to improve project design, fostering
project performance, and facilitating project management by setting the objectives, defining
indicators of success, critical assumptions and resources required for implementation. It provides
a simple summary of the key elements of the development initiative in a consistent and coherent
way which clearly identifies the broad outlines of the projects which adds clarity to the process
and serves as a summary of the interaction and analysis. However, there is little theory behind
the logframe and as a tool which has not been evaluated. The matrix becomes the design rather
than a tool to aid design. Hence, it has some limitation and risks such as vague planning, absence
of a time dimension, and improper use and static nature of the logframe which result in less
helpful as it moves from planning to evaluation and makes the tool ineffective for project
management, particularly evaluation purposes. It only works well for those who understands its
use and place in the development context and have the necessary skills to use it in that context.

Page 5
 CamEconomist 2014

References:

Bell, S. (2000), ‘Logical Frameworks, Aristotle and Soft Systems: A Note on the
Origins, Values and Uses of Logical Frameworks, in Reply to Gasper’, Public
Administration and Development 20, pp. 29-31

Bill J. (2000), Designing Projects and Project Evaluations Using, the Logical
Framework Approach, pp. 1-11

Gasper, D. (2000), Evaluating the ‘Logical Framework Approach, Towards Learning

Oriented Development Evaluation’, Public Administration and Development, Vol.
20, pp. 17-28

Earle, (2002), 'Lost in the Matrix: The log frame and the Local Picture', Paper for
INTRAC's 5th Evaluation Conference: Measurement, Management and
Accountability? 31rst March - 4th April 2003, the Netherlands

Hailey, J. & Sorgenfrei, M. (2004), 'Measuring Success: Issues in Performance

Management', Occasional Paper Series 44, p. 1, Oxford: INTRAC

Paul B. & Paul C. (2002), Project Monitoring and Evaluation: A Method for Enhancing
the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Aid Project Implementation, International
Journal of Project Management 21, pp. 363-373

Philip and Bob (2003), Program and Project Cycle Management: Lessons from South
and North, Development in Practice, 13:5, 501-514

Sartoruis, R. (1991), Logical Framework Approach to Project Design and Management,

Evaluation Practice, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 139-147.

Walsch, A. (2000), Introduction to the Logical Framework Approach, pp. 1-58

Page 6

View publication stats