1 / 9

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

Q: Is the LogFrame is the right tool for managing most NGO work?. A: Not as it is used. We could do better, with better tools. 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

kaden-ballard
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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: M&E consultancy >1990, plus • 3 UNICEF and 1 GTZ project in Indonesia, 3 DFID funded, 1 AusAID funded, 2006-2009 Rick Davies at BOND

  3. 1. Criticisms of the structure • Use of time as the main axis presents three problems • Artificial, abstract, confusing distinctions between points in time (A>O>P>G), 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 Rick Davies at BOND

  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 Rick Davies at BOND

  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! Rick Davies at BOND

  6. A healthy mutation…? • Develop a SocialFramework, 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 Rick Davies at BOND

  7. Advantages • Whois 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 Rick Davies at BOND

  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 Rick Davies at BOND

  9. Example Social Framework Rick Davies at BOND

More Related