Using the Logical Framework

At the start of the Enterprising Communities project Viv Lewis, the programme manager, suggested to the team that they use a technique used extensively in overseas development called the logical framework or logframe. Logframes are used to ensure that a project is coherent between goals actions and indicators. The narrative summary in the left hand column is usually approached from top to bottom, i.e. starting with goals and ending with actions. The next step is to identify objectively verifiable indicators – including quantitative targets and the means by which these can be verified – usually expressed as the source of the data.

Building in assumptions that need to be met if the goal, purpose, or outputs are to be achieved tests the robustness of the approach. These assumptions may be internal to the project or external. An example of an external assumption might be that government policy in the relevant field remains stable and consistent. Assumptions are the reverse of risks, so that provided they are met the project or programme will be delivered.

Enterprising Communities used the exercise of completing the log frame as a way of ensuring that all of the team understood what the project was trying to achieve (the goal and purpose) and had co-created the methodology for doing this (the activities and outputs). The exercise was run over a whole day. Viv trained the rest of the team in the technique before developing it for the Enterprising Communities project.

Viv said: ‘devising the logframe helped all of us understand the project better. It enabled us to transform a project proposal written for us into something that could be delivered by us.’

The log frame went through a number of revisions. The final version is presented below.

Enterprising Communities: Working Draft Project Logical Framework

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumptions

GOAL

All people living in rural Cumbria have a vibrant and sustainable future		      

PURPOSE

An array of social enterprises tackling economic and social exclusion and appropriate to the diverse economies of rural Cumbria supported, and their contribution to rural economic regeneration demonstrated		 90 enterprise start-ups by end of project Members of local communities report +ve contribution from social enterprise
  • Project baseline and comparisons with regional statistics
  • Social audits of social enterprises
  • Enabling policy and business environment for widespread adoption of social enterprise exists
  • Private sector does not completely displace the social economy sector
  • Profile of Cumbrian economy does not change dramatically

OUTPUTS

  1. Functioning social enterprise interventions (e.g. consumer & worker co-ops, community business, intermediate labour market (ILM) activity, complementary currencies, community finance; housing co-ops, trusts etc.) involving socially and economically disadvantaged rural people developed
  2. A clear development path for social entrepreneurs developed, tried and tested in collaboration with CLEAN and other agencies
  3. Results and lessons learnt put into practice locally and regionally
  • Growth in proportion of self-sustaining social enterprises
  • Growth in meaningful work opportunities s created
  • Bespoke manual/reference sheets/training for social entrepreneurs
  • VAC/CLEAN commitment to maintaining development path after end of project
  • EC’s expertise recognised and used by other agencies
  • Increase in procurement for SE products and services from public, private and voluntary sector
  • Comparisons with project baseline disaggregated by gender, age, disadvantage and location
  • Worker survey directed to EC clients
  • Client/stakeholder satisfaction survey
  • Business plan, funding applications, manual updated
  • Number of referrals invitations to speak etc
  • Project baseline, % increase in sales by social enterprises
  • Business environment attracts and retains social entrepreneurs in sufficient numbers and generates a critical mass to support self-sustaining growth
  • Market for the goods & services produced by social enterprises is maintained
  • Continued existence of partner and collaborating agencies
  • No other single agency with large funding is set up to cover the work
  • Target institutions will uptake lessons learnt from project
Narrative Summary Project Budget Milestones Important Assumption

ACTIVITIES

  1. Criteria for client groups and ways of engagement developed
  2. Develop team’s skill to deliver project in the community
  3. Engagement (capacity building, sign posting, mentoring etc.) with new social enterprises
  4. Pilot and support a range of ILM initiatives
  5. Develop support programme for existing social enterprises
  6. Promote networks of social enterprises
  7. Establish participatory M&E systems
  8. Develop Directory of relevant support agencies, grant making bodies and existing networks
  9. Co-ordinate and develop accessible expertise to link social entrepreneurs with appropriate information
  10. Support revised Cumbria Social Economy Forum
  11. Collate published and unpublished literature on rural social enterprise
  12. Scoping studies/ mapping of existing social enterprise in rural Cumbria
  13. Action research to review and categorise types of rural economies in Cumbria
  14. Develop M&E systems to aid research learning
  15. Develop an advocacy and influencing strategy
  16. Dissemination of research locally, regionally and nationally in a variety of accessible forms to the widest possible audience (workshops, articles, case studies, website, newsletters, meetings etc.)
  • Staff £601k
  • Overheads £65k
  • Travel £76k
  • Office £35k
  • Consum. £3k
  • Training £15k
  • Misc. £52k
  • Draft operations manual May 2002
  • Annual individual personal development plans
  • Business plans, successful grant applications, start-up loans awarded, business registration, exchange visits to other SEs, micro enterprises become formalised, training completed, referrals to other agencies, network membership,
  • M&E system designed by June 2002, indicators developed with beneficiaries, monitoring reports
  • 1st edition August 2002 – regularly updated
  • Protocols for collaborative working developed and implemented.
  • Records of referrals
  • Revised ToR and CSEF model in place
  • Literature review in final draft by end May 2002
  • 1st edition end July 2002 – regularly updated
  • Design of action research by early of April 2002 and completed by July 2002
  • M&E system designed, production of case studies and papers complete documenting learning
  • Strategy completed by May 2002
  • Website developed and launched by Dec 2002 reports, published articles, visits by others to project to be completed by end of project
  • Openness and willingness to innovate and try out new ideas exists among potential rural social entrepreneurs
  • Appropriate grant funding, infrastructure (premises, communication technology etc) and other resources available to social entrepreneurs
  • Market exists for the goods and services produced by social enterprise
  • Training needs exist in disadvantaged communities
  • Collaborating agencies have interest in, and flexibility to broaden their remit to include social enterprise and customise their packages to meet the needs of new and existing social entrepreneurs
  • Good quality services and information are available and affordable to social entrepreneurs
  • No major disasters (e.g. reoccurrence of FMD) occur during the lifetime of the project
  • Project team composition remains relatively stable

Most funding agencies operating in the developing world including the World Bank, DFID and GTZ (the German equivalent) use logframes as a minimum requirement to ensure that the project design is coherent, that indicators have been identified and that key risk factors have been addressed. Logframes were also extensively used under the PHARE programme in the Eastern European transition countries prior to accession. However, logframes are rarely used within the UK domestic and European programmes. Enterprising Communities was the only project out of 95 funded by the Phoenix Development Fund to use the approach.

The value of the approach can be seen in the cells of the matrix. Each activity of the organization can be placed according to how it fits into the overall picture. It becomes easier to say that certain types of work are central and others are peripheral. Most importantly the relationship between the activities and the objectives is clarified. The activities table identifies milestones for each activity so that progress can be checked.

Many projects will include information at this level of detail in their project planning. However, few will be able to summarise all of this information on a single sheet of paper or on a wallchart. Moreover the matrix enables any gaps in information or design to be identified. Any empty cells are readily identified.

A gap in the Enterprising Communities approach was that the logframe was not formally revisited or revised as external conditions changed. It had served its purpose to clarify initial project design but was not used for project monitoring. To some extent this was because each donor had their own monitoring and reporting schedules which had to be followed. Anne Cunningham describes how they used it.

‘We used the logframe to clarify our collective view of how we could/should deliver our project targets – what we wanted to do and how we would go about it.
It was useful to define things collectively and get things down on paper as a starting point and point of reference. We did look at it again at approx 1 yr I think, but did not get back to review it after that.
I would have liked to have looked at those things as part of our winding up of the project and to have discussed achievements and outcomes, but we didn’t, so I will be interested to hear your findings in the final report.’