The Logical Framework has its origin in the science of ‘Operations Research’ and is mentioned in context of planning techniques used in the American army in the ‘50’s. Around the 60’s it was introduced as a planning tool in development operations by the USAID. Realising the fundamental limitations and dangers of a planning tool as such, the GTZ added the analysis phase using METAPLAN techniques to the Logical Framework matrix tool in the ‘70’s.

Logical Framework matrix is basically a 4 rows by 4 columns visual planning tool presenting objectives, related activities and corresponding assumptions and pre-conditions of an intervention in the 1st and 4th columns. The 2nd and 3rd columns are used to specify the objectives with indicators and means of verification.
The presentation in the matrix can be modified by placing the results next to each other (in the 1st column) with the corresponding indicators and list of Activities underneath each of the corresponding Results.

The term Logical Framework Approach or Analysis is used interchangeably. It consists always of the two Analysis and Planning phases. LFA used in a planning situation is synonymous to GOPP.
LFA is often confused with the Logical Framework matrix, which is just the visualisation of the end product of the planning.

GOPP stands for Goal-Oriented Project (or Participatory) Planning. Other names are OOPP (Objective-Oriented Project Planning) or, in French, PIPO (Planification d’Intervention Par Objectifs), or, in German, ZOPP (Ziel Orientes Projekt Planung). Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) is probably more frequently used as a term. All are based on similar principles and steps or procedures: 1. for WHO?, 2. WHY?, 3. WHAT and WHAT NOT?, 4 by WHOM? and 5. HOW?.

Metaplan is a communication technique – comprising coloured cards, marker pens and large sheets of Kraft paper – for visualising, analysing and recording ideas and information in meetings and workshops. Because each fact or idea is written separately on a card, the resulting information and/or ideas can be easily read and remembered, and can be organised on the charts to show differences and relationships.

Project Cycle Management (PCM) is a combination of concepts, techniques, instruments and practices that enable desk officers / project cycle managers to take the right decisions to steer different projects and programmes through the phases of the project cycle.
The management software can be classified as follows:
• Management concepts.
e.g. the concepts relevance, feasibility, and sustainability imply certain analytical processes.
• Management techniques:
A skill, which can be used in order to perform a task in the project cycle management either more efficiently of more effectively. e.g. the assessment technique for project proposals, project planning by objectives.
• Management instruments:
Aides or guidelines to support a particular task in project cycle management e.g. the Basic Format, format for Terms of Reference.
• Management practices:
A certain way or procedures of taking decisions in the project cycle by those who are responsible for the process, whether planning or implementation, e.g. observing the phasing of the project cycle, increasing beneficiary involvement.

The principle of starting the planning from an analysis of real existing problems as perceived from the point of view of those who suffer from the problems most is considered as the strength of the technique. This starting point provides the ‘anchor’ of each plan and avoids plans to serve ‘suppliers’ as against ‘beneficiaries’. This ‘anchor’ assures the ‘relevance’ of the proposed intervention.

• Primarily the moderator and the quality of the Terms of Reference determines the success of Logical Framework Analysis workshop. He / she has the task of guiding participants through each procedure in the workshop, in order to reach a well thought through objective. Open-minded communication with each person present in the workshop and representing a specific point of view is a complex process, requiring a strong and determined, but flexible, creative, objective and independent person. An ‘outsider’ is required to act as professional moderator. Mismanagement of such a workshop could create chaos, conflicts, disappointments and demoralise participants.
• An LFA planning workshop needs the presence of representatives of key stakeholders / beneficiaries with the required information on the actual problematic situation on the one hand and with the right mandate to take operational decisions on the other.
• The communication method applied in a GOPP workshop limits the participation to an optimum number of 15 persons.

By definition, ‘planning’ is formulating ideas to be materialised in the future. Thus – ‘Planning’ is ‘dreaming’ – and has thus the inherent risk of planning for illusions.
Other planning techniques – e.g. LENS – start from a common ‘vision’ or ‘mission’ and aim at resolving perceived obstacles that may be in the way. These obstacles, however, are ‘dreams’ in themselves, as these may occur in the future, which one can anticipate,based on experience.

In principle, LFA can be used to analyse a problem situation and design corresponding objectives and solutions in whatever circumstance or environment. It can be used in each phase of the project cycle for both designing and assessing logic of an intervention. During implementation it can be used to make transparent agreements on the management and monitoring of the project.

A complete list of organisations that adhere to LFA is not available. Sometimes individuals use the tool, but it has not yet officially been adopted by the institution. Please inform us if you know of others not listed.
Norad – Norway; Sida – Sweden; Danida – Denmark; WWF for Nature; EC – DG Development; EC – EuropeAid; Min. of Health – Cameroon; Italian Regional Development organisations – Calabria; EC – DG XIII?; DG IS – Belgium; International Federation and National Societies of Red Cross and Red Crescent;

LFA is often made obligatory by donors because it is assumed that using the tool makes better quality proposals in the sense that their design is more relevant (to the beneficiaries), more feasible and have greater potential for sustainability. Moreover, proposals are more to the point and transparent as the documents are supposed to follow a well-designed format making it easier for the administrators to assess and manage the documents

In EU jargon, by ‘beneficiary’ is meant the Government party, which has signed the contract for a particular project with the EC.

‘End-users’ of development projects are the people whose problems are being addressed by the project, and should not be confused with staff in the implementing agencies or even the donor or client (‘opdrachtgever’).

‘Target groups’ are specific intermediary actors who carry out the activities and provide the services to the ‘beneficiaries’. Often the ‘target groups’ are addressed by the projects in order to strengthen the organisations responsible for the implementation of the project activities.

‘Recipients’ is an overall encompassing term referring to all those who receive benefits from the project intervention. These are beneficiaries, target groups as well as suppliers themselves.

‘Suppliers’ are all those institutions that contribute a service to the ‘End-users’. Some may carry out activities selected by the project and are responsible for the delivery of ‘results’ to the beneficiaries or target groups. Others will just have to provide those services without involvement of the project and as such provide ASSUMPTIONS. The scoping of the project determines which services will be provided by the project (= IN the intervention) and which are OUT of the intervention and will show as an ASSUMPTION.

A facilitator is any person who guides a group of people through a thinking, analysis, planning or decision making process. As such, a facilitator can use any type of techniques and procedures and may facilitate any type of process. Often an objective has been set though this might not even be necessary.

A moderator is an independent facilitator who applies a variety of participatory well-tested GOPP- or LFA-related procedures in a workshop with a group. A moderator will:
• be flexible in applying the analysis and planning procedures in accordance with the needs in the workshop,
• stimulate the full participation of all participants,
• not express his / her own opinion or take a position about the subject during the discussions,
• remain independent by not showing clear affiliation with either one of the participants,
• will keep his / her patience irrespective of the situation, remain friendly and keep smiling.

A process consultant proposes effective procedures in solving problems, getting teams and groups to take good decisions, focusing groups on their targets and goals, and making agreements about the work to be done.

A standard format for all documents all through the project cycle assures that all required information is being addressed whenever it becomes available or is being verified through the phases. A standard format makes the writing of the document easier, transparent and more legible for project cycle managers.

A ‘workshop’ is an event of one or more days whereby participants contribute and share fundamental information.
In the case of an LFA workshop the external facilitator or moderator is responsible for the procedures and NOT for the content. An important role of the facilitator is, firstly, his/her ability to encourage participants to express their opinions or ideas. In a second instance it is his/her role to have these ideas/opinions clearer and more and more focused in order to obtain mutual understanding or even consensus. A ‘seminar’ is mainly intended to provide additional knowledge, skills and attitude to participants. The presenter or trainer is responsible for the content and often also the process.

Identify the stakeholders of the ‘Entity’ to be addressed in the workshop.
The ‘gap’ to bridge in the workshop is discovered by analysing what actual existing problems or perceived obstacles are in the way of each stakeholder in order to collaborate in reaching the desired state.
The desired mental state is what is required to obtain commitment to the further process of the project. (i.e. at the end of the workshop their position must be clear as to whether they contribute resources in terms of time, information, funds, materials and staff, or not.)
Once the ‘gap’ is clear the steps in the workshop procedures need to be determined and their feasibility determined: e.g. nr of participants to be invited, scope of the ‘entity’ to be estimated, nr of problems to be expected to be generated in the available time, the complexity of the issue, the dispersion of ideas and perceptions.

The LFA planning method places the organisation under study within its organisational context. It firstly identifies all the important ‘parties involved’ or actors and differentiates between ‘suppliers’ and ‘recipients’. In this organisational context it identifies their functional relationships. Next, the approach focuses on those relationships and studies problems and obstacles that are obstructing the optimal functioning of them and between them.

A stakeholder analysis is essential to get a ‘picture’ of the interests, positions, roles and responsibilities of the different actors that play a role in the project or programme.

A stakeholder analysis lists all possible parties that might be affected by or affecting the project in one way or another. If sub-groups – like e.g. gender, children, handicapped, part- or fulltime employees, – could have a different interest or perception these must be included as well. All the stakeholders that are listed should be placed in a specific category, defined by their role in the project of which the most important differentiation will be: suppliers and recipients / beneficiaries. E.g. SUPPLIERS: custom officials, container terminal, marketing agents, RECIPIENTS: exporters, clients, workers.
The last part of this analysis is to estimate the functions of each stakeholder in terms of what they are supposed to SUPPLY to the project entity and what they are supposed to RECEIVE from the project entity. This step is important to set the mind of workshop participants for the next procedure in the GOPP. This procedure deals with an identification of problems, challenges, obstacles and causes of constraints in their functioning in relation to each other.

A gender analysis often brings another dimension into the analysis by looking at the reality from another angle. Perceptions, interests, beliefs, experiences and rationale differ between men and women and can lead to a fundamentally different analysis of the situation. Both problems and possible solutions may vary widely. Moreover, a solution that is preferred by one gender might affect the other gender negatively.

Gender analysis must be done at all stages in the planning process. Identification of gender sub-groups and their possible different perception must take place at the formulation of the ‘entity’, the identification of the stakeholders, the identification and discussion of problems and negative effects from proposed solutions.

A ‘problem’ is a description of a poor existing state or negative situation. A ‘problem’ is perceived as real by someone and can be shown or explained to anyone else. The one affected feels the ‘pain’ caused by the problem and is therefore strongly motivated to have it resolved.

A problem is often formulated as an ‘absent solution’. This is a formulation whereby the solution is already decided upon, but whereby the solution is formulated in a negative form, or as being ‘absent’. e.g. Lack of …. (credit), no …. (training), lack of …. (support), no ….. (proper building). Accepting such a problem formulation shortcuts the analysis which may discover the real problem and possibly an other solution. e.g. credit may be required to resolve the low productivity. However, low productivity may also be caused by poor selling and low market value. A more appropriate solution may be for example enhancing the market value by introducing diversification of products.

Logically a ‘needs analysis’ identifies ‘needs’. And needs are conditions, services or goods that are perceived to be basic requirements by the beneficiary groups. These ‘needs’ imply to be solutions to existing problems, but this relationship is not made implicit in the analysis. It is quite possible that the perceived solution is not the only or even the best solution to the problem.
In a ‘problem analysis’ the focus is on the ‘problems’ experienced by the beneficiaries. These are real and existing facts and there is no ’dreaming’ involved. This type of analysis focuses on the root problems or causes. Only when there exist clarity on these causes possible solutions can be identified. The ‘forking principle’ can be applied and several solutions can be identified and studied before a decision is made.

It appears to be quite difficult to acquire information on how and what beneficiaries experience their problems. They are simply not being consulted as initiators of projects or programmes tend to – often unconsciously – have the solutions (that fit their needs) already in mind. Any alternative may jeopardise their proposals and competence. E.g. A detective training centre (as proposed by the consultant because that could be delivered) may not be the best solution to improve the functioning of the Police Service.

By identifying al the possible causes to a problem one generates all possible alternatives where solutions could be introduced. Often the first solution one could think of is not the best solution to the problem situation.

‘Forking’ is a technique used to analyse other possible causes of a problem in order to identify other solutions than at first glance thought of. The technique is applied by searching for the problem supposedly resolved by a solution and identifying other causes of the problem. These other causes may offer other possible solutions.
For example: training detectives may contribute to reducing crime, but crime is also caused by e.g. darkness in the streets, which could be resolved by establishing street lighting. The last may be even more effective.
‘Forking’ has proven to be an important tool to widen the options of solutions from which to choose and to open up the pre-conceived ideas about the right solution. Such solutions do often not match local situations of the project environment.

The ‘diamond’ is the graphic representation of an objective tree showing the hierarchical levels of objectives, ranging from policy to means, institutions, activities, services and wellbeing of beneficiaries to wider and broader objectives in society. The objective tree allows us to determine those objectives the project chooses to achieve (IN) and those the project can not achieve (OUT). Moreover the tree allows to pitch objectives on the right level, whether an ‘Activity’, a ‘Result’ or the ‘Project Purpose’.

Participants acquire a more complete and coherent picture of the ‘puzzle’ of the reality, which they usually see in an incomplete and / or subjective way. This process binds the participants together, makes them understand each other’s reality better and reinforces the commitment to address the problems.
Cause – effect relationships create a coherent hierarchy of problems, which offer a means to prioritise them.

‘Risks’ are to be identified in a situation where a future improved situation, a dream (e.g. a plan) is to be tested on its feasibility. The plan forms the picture, which is being screened and its risks being studied. Risks are usually formulated as negative assumptions. This assessment is aiming to generate additional activities to minimise or avoid the consequence of risk factors.

A Logical Framework matrix is a visual planning tool presenting objectives of different hierarchy (Overall Objectives, Project Purpose and Results) and related activities of a planned intervention (IN) and their corresponding assumptions and pre-conditions (OUT). The matrix also shows the indicators and means of verification of the objectives.

The principle of the Logical Framework matrix is that all the Results plus the corresponding Assumptions lead to the Project Purpose. The key value of the LogFrame in development terms is the fact that the plan as visualised by the LogFrame is focusing on only one Project Purpose with preferably only one specific beneficiary group. Such a focused approach will enhance the effectiveness and success of the plan. It is not about doing a lot of different loosely connected things, but about synergy and combining strengths to create a situation around the lives of specific troubled people whereby they can help themselves out of the difficult situation. Designing a plan starts therefore with the identification of the focus beneficiaries and determining which services they need in order to survive.

In the LogFrame jargon many different terms are being used. However, these may have slightly different meanings, which could lead to confusion. Immediate objectives imply the connotation of a time factor and distinguish themselves from long-term objectives. However, the LogFrame is constructed on the basis of cause-effect and not on a time sequence.
Another difference is that the Purpose is supposed to be formulated from the point of view of the beneficiaries themselves, while (immediate) objectives can be formulated by someone else (the suppliers).
That may explain the other difference whereby the Project Purpose is singular while the immediate objectives is formulated already in the plural form.
Although the Immediate Objectives are supposed to give information about the Project Purpose, in proposals they often describe several objectives that are in fact Results or Activities.

The Project Purpose must be an objective which is a clear benefit to the beneficiaries; not only the supply of ‘services’ to them will be sufficient, but the utilisation of ‘services’ will have to be expressed in the Project Purpose. Therefore the Project Purpose must express clearly WHY the beneficiaries NEED the project / programme.
The beneficiaries must be able to create this benefit themselves out of the Results made available to them by the project.
Only the beneficiaries themselves are responsible for the reaching of the Project Purpose. The responsibility of the project stops at the reaching of the Results in the environment of the beneficiaries.
Examples of adequately formulated purposes are: Improved performance of beneficiaries, raised income of B’s, Survival of B’s ensured, Food consumption of B’s secured, B’s empowered,

The Project Purpose contributes to the Overall Objectives. As such, these can be many in number. Many different things can happen as a result of beneficiaries achieving the Purpose.
Overall Objectives are objectives that describe why the project is IMPORTANT to the beneficiaries, village, the society, the region, the country, the government, the donor, etc. These objectives reflect often the policy of the government or / and the donor and as such justify the commitment to the project.
Overall Objectives are often political statements.

Results describe the services, products, or deliverables in terms of objectives, which the beneficiaries will receive from the implementing agency through the project.
Examples of Results are: Reduced health risks of beneficiaries, Access to drinking water assured, Credit acquired by B’s, Competitive pricing guaranteed, Land rights for B’s secured.

The LogFrame is structured by 4 rows and 4 columns. In the first column the intervention logic is formulated by means of the Overall Objective in the top square, the Project Purpose in the second below and the Results in the third. The bottom square contains the Activities.
The 2nd and 3rd columns are used to specify the objectives with indicators and means of verification.
The presentation of the objectives in the matrix can be modified by placing the results next to each other (in the 1st column) with the corresponding indicators and list of Activities underneath each of the corresponding Result.

It may not be feasible to deal with all the results in terms of budget of time or human resources. It might therefore be necessary to prioritise those Results, which contribute most to the reaching of the Project Purpose.

‘Activities’ in the Logical Framework matrix are actions scheduled to be done by the project organisation and which are intended to deliver the results – services required by the beneficiaries. ‘Activities’ are usually expressed as an action (to …..).

Assumptions are important external factors which could affect the progress or success of the project, but over which the project management has no direct control. Assumptions need to be identified for the levels of ‘Activities’, ‘Results’ and the ‘Project Purpose’. Assumptions should be formulated as positive reached situations – like objectives. As these assumptions are critical for the success of the project / programme these must be monitored closely. The difficulty to monitor these assumptions, however is that it may be often very difficult to do as the expertise of the assumption is often not represented by the project staff.

Pre-conditions are assumptions that need to be achieved before the project can start.

Is the Condition important to reach the Project Purpose?

YES NO
Do not include in the matrix
Is the Condition likely to be realised on its own (without the project)?

Certainly: Do not include in the LF

Likely: Include the Condition as Assumption in 4th column of the matrix

Unlikely: Is it possible to redesign the intervention in order to influence the Condition?

YES NO

Redesign the intervention: The Condition is a ‘killer’
add Activities and/or Results Assumption.

From a technical point of view the intervention is not feasible, unless the political authorities find a solution to realise the Assumption or transform it into an acceptable Assumption. Reformulate the Project Purpose, if necessary.

A Management matrix is a Logical Framework giving information on the HOW to strengthen an implementing agency for the execution of a plan (WHAT). The beneficiaries are the staff in the organisation and the Management Purpose should reflect the satisfaction of the staff: e.g. enhanced professional organisation. The Overall Objectives refer to the effective and efficient implementation

Project Cycle Management (PCM) is a combination of concepts, techniques, instruments and practices that enable desk officers / project cycle managers to take the right decisions to steer different projects and programmes through the phases of the project cycle.
The management software can be classified as follows:
• Management concepts.
e.g. the concepts relevance, feasibility, and sustainability imply certain analytical processes.
• Management techniques:
A skill, which can be used in order to perform a task in the project cycle management either more efficiently of more effectively. e.g. the assessment technique for project proposals, project planning by objectives.
• Management instruments:
Aides or guidelines to support a particular task in project cycle management e.g. the Basic Format, format for Terms of Reference.
• Management practices:
A certain way of taking decisions in the project cycle by those who are responsible for the process, whether planning, implementation, monitoring or evaluation e.g. observing the phasing of the project cycle and increase beneficiary involvement

A project manager runs the actual project by carrying out the ‘Activities’ leading to ‘Results’ during the ‘Implementation phase’. The project cycle manager however assures the proper management of each of the six phases of the cycle. The project cycle manager steers these processes by formulation Terms of Reference for each of the phases and verifying the quality and adequacy of the implementation of the phases.

A project cycle manager has to assure that the procedures agreed upon applicable to each phase are correctly followed. He or she has to initiate each phase (ToR) and evaluate or appraise the actual compliance with the Terms of Reference using the document produced in each phase. For example in the identification phase the project idea has to be appraised in the light of the strategy / indicative programme. A Terms of Reference for the Identification process (e.g. planning workshop) has to be formulated. The identification document (pre-feasibility study) has to be appraised before the formulation phase can be launched.

A project manager has been contracted to assure the implementation of the project according to the Plan of Operations. He or she has to assure that the resources are mobilised in time and progress is being monitored and corrective action proposed.

Project cycle management can be introduced in an organisation as a function when the staff and decision-makers are convinced that as an alternative to previous working practices, project cycle management is required.
Staff will be convinced when evaluations have demonstrated the relationship between wasting resources (time, funds, human, material) in project implementation and the inadequate project preparation process. These lessons from evaluations should be transformed in concise guidelines on general procedures or sector specific aspects on how to manage the project cycle from identification to the evaluation and indicative programming phases.

The phases are: Programming, Identification, Formulation, Financing, Implementation and Evaluation.

A good project proposal should demonstrate in a limited number of pages (± 10) that the proposed project is relevant for the beneficiaries and society; is comprehensive and feasible in the prevailing circumstances (acceptable risks); and offers sufficient potential to sustain the benefits after external support has ended.
The project design ought to be summarised in the form of a Logical Framework matrix.

The Programming phase specifies the sectors and areas of a possible intervention, which are priorities in a country and may indicate project or programme ideas to be identified.
Indicative programmes focus more on the achievement of global objectives in macro-economic and social terms in specified sectors.

The main challenge is to match wider sector approaches and geographical focus of the donor with the policy frameworks of the recipient governments or institutions.
Often the choices of sectors are being made on other reasons – like political.

It is during this phase that project relevance is determined by analysing the problems of the beneficiaries and formulating their corresponding objectives. This is done by bringing beneficiaries and stakeholders together in workshops conducted by an independent moderator where problems and objectives are identified, discussed and prioritised. An elementary Logical Framework matrix is the result in this phase. All questions raised during this phase feed into the Terms of Reference of a feasibility study. Such workshops have the additional benefit of stimulating the commitment of implementing agencies and beneficiaries through their involvement in the initial planning process.

A difficulty is to identify the relevant beneficiaries and to involve them in the planning process. Fear of expressing themselves in front of local authorities, for example, and ignorance of and disappointment vis a vis previous interventions may keep them away from a workshop.
A major difficulty is that ‘solutions’ have already been thought of by implementers regardless of the real problems as felt by beneficiaries.

The relevance of the project for the beneficiaries states to what extend the project objectives address real and important problems of the beneficiaries.
The relevance of the project for other groups in society, in the region or nationally, becomes apparent from an assessment of the importance of the problems – from their point of view -addressed by the Overall Objectives. The relevance for society can explain why investment of public money in the project would be justified.

The ‘identification phase’ requires mainly the active participation of beneficiaries and other stakeholders in expressing and clarifying their problems. Thus the skills required to succeed are listening and analytical skills rather than technical expertise, i.e. ‘why is the project necessary?’. On the other hand, once the relevance has been established, the skills needed during the formulation phase are specific technical expertise addressing the feasibility of the project, i.e. ‘what should be done and how is the project going to be implemented?’.
The identification phase should disclose the information on the actual present situation of the beneficiaries, while the formulation phase requires information on the possible technical solutions.

For the identification of projects it is essential to get the problems of the beneficiaries in the open in a non-biased environment. A workshop guided by an external moderator is a frequent preferred option. He / she will basically listen and make people understand what problems exist and guide them towards possible solutions.

At the formulation phase it is vital to check whether the identification phase has taken place at all and if so, does the relevance of the project still hold as time may have lapsed since the identification was done and the situation may have changed.
If the relevance appears not be proven it must be re-established.
All the details of the project are defined on the basis of a feasibility study. The Logical Framework matrix is completed and refined on the basis of technical expertise. It is at the end of this phase that an ex-ante evaluation or assessment is initiated by the project cycle manager / desk officer, prior to the signature of a financing agreement.

The following three aspects can be appraised separately.
Firstly, the services stated in the Results can be examined in order to check whether they are sufficiently comprehensive so that the beneficiaries can realise the benefit stated in the Project Purpose. This can be done by verifying that the external conditions for success of the project have been identified and are sufficiently likely to be realised.
Secondly, the stated activities can be examined in order to see whether they are sufficient in order to deliver the required level of services described in the Results.
Finally, the implementing agencies can be analysed to determine whether they can mobilise the required resources and expertise in time and whether they will be able to manage the delivery process adequately.

A feasibility study is carried out during the Formulation phase. Questions generated by the assessment of the project proposal should feed into the Terms of Reference. The feasibility study verifies the relevance and tests the feasibility and sustainability of the intervention by identifying risks and obstacles. Analysing possible solutions to overcome or avoid those risks and possible obstacles will provide possible intermediate actions to develop additional solutions to adjust the present plan.

A cost-benefit analysis is a special form of cost-effectiveness analysis, which compares the monetary and socio-economic costs of several activities with the benefits generated (Results).

Effectiveness is the degree to which the services delivered by the project have enabled the beneficiaries to achieve the intended benefits. An evaluation of project effectiveness starts with an assessment of the extend to which the beneficiaries use the services provided by the project, and then assesses the benefits produced.

Sustainability is the extent to which the benefits for beneficiaries realised through a project continue after external assistance has ended. A checklist has been developed with the main factors, which the plan has to consider. These are:
– Policy support
– Appropriate technology
– Environmental protection
– Socio-cultural aspects
– Gender issues
– Institutional and management capacity, public and private
– Ownership
– Economic and financial rationale
In a planning session these above-mentioned factors are taken as assumptions and for each Result with Activities tested. Such a test may lead to additional Activities or even Results or remain as Assumptions to be monitored during implementation.

An ex-ante evaluation is a quality assessment of a project / programme proposal prior to financing. The assessment is carried out in a moderated workshop between different actors in the project and checks that beneficiaries’ problems are matched by realistic objectives / activities.
Relevance, feasibility and sustainability are verified.

A financing proposal is assessed by extracting problems and objectives mentioned in the document and comparing them to see how far these matches each other. The assessment technique verifies whether the project offers relevant solutions to existing problems as being felt by the beneficiaries and on whether the design of the proposed intervention has sufficient potential for feasibility and sustainability.

In an ex-ante assessment exercise it is required to get information in the open about possible risks and obstacles to implementation. Therefore those people should participate who possess that information: sector specialists, desk officers, evaluators and project implementers.

In the Financing Phase the formal contracting takes place. Project proposals are approved by financing committees and the official relationship with the implementing agency is established in a memorandum or financing agreement. Often tenders are launched for Technical Assistance components. Financing procedures are agreed upon by the contracting parties. (in EU terms the contract is signed with the Beneficiary Institution, which often is equivalent with the Consulting company or the Implementing Agency)

Delays in releasing funds are the biggest and most common ‘challenge’ in this phase. Obviously delays crop up when the proposal triggers fundamental problems and doubts about the quality of the implementation plan and the credibility of the implementation capacity of the beneficiary and or implementing organisation.

A financing agreement is a contract between the donor and the organisation responsible for the implementation of the project. It summarises the key chapters from the financing proposal and introduces administrative procedures.

The implementation phase is the period ranging from the signature of the financing agreement to the completion of the project. During this phase, all the ‘Activities’ are carried out and ‘Results’ from these ‘Activities’ delivered to the beneficiaries. Monitoring and mid-term evaluations take place during this phase.
Often the time lap between the planning, formulation of the financing proposal and the actual take off of the project implementation may require the organisation of a ‘start-up’ workshop to tune the different stakeholders and draft a detailed work-plan and Plan of Operations.
The implementation phase is further characterised by the organisation of the mobilisation of resources in accordance with the Plan of Operations and by the organisation of the monitoring system aiming at introducing corrective action.

Right at the start of the implementation phase it can become apparent that the actual project plan agreed upon is not opportune any more. Assumptions may have been perceived wrongly at the planning stage or due to the time lap the environment around the project may have changed. As such, the need arises to modify the activities or even the results. A start-up workshop may discover such requirements.

The problem may arise that the administrative procedures of the financing institutions do not permit the changing of the activities. Often these relate to budget items and Financing Control relates their control mechanisms to whether the activities have been carried out according to plan. More and more the need becomes apparent to treat the activities in a plan flexible or even relate only to Results to be achieved instead and have the activities only developed at the start of the implementation phase by the implementing agencies (re. process approach and SWAPs).

Monitoring allows the project management to regularly oversee the implementation of ‘Activities’. It collects, analyses and uses information for the purpose of management control and decision-making based on the logical framework and work-plans (e.g. GANTT charts). Monitoring is required to be able to redirect or adjust the intended activities. Moreover monitoring provides the information and justification to be reported on to the project cycle managers and the decision-makers, who should provide the approval for major redirections of the project

Monitoring of ‘Results’ is often sensitive as it provides information about the quality of the implementation of the activities. Implementers may be biased to carry out this type of monitoring objectively. Therefore it is advised to have the monitoring of ‘objectives’ carried out by external agencies.
Monitoring of ‘Assumptions’ may also be difficult to be undertaken by the project implementers as by definition these may deal with aspects outside the expertise of the project staff.

Monitoring of ‘Results’ is often sensitive as it provides information about the quality of the implementation of the activities. Implementers may be biased to carry out this type of monitoring objectively. Therefore it is advised to have the monitoring of ‘objectives’ carried out by external agencies.
Monitoring of ‘Assumptions’ may also be difficult to be undertaken by the project implementers as by definition these may deal with aspects outside the expertise of the project staff.

Monitoring of ‘Activities’ can be done by the project staff, while monitoring of objectives and assumptions should best be done by external agents. Embassies and Delegations are often well placed to act upon Assumptions not being met by other agencies.

Designing a monitoring plan is based upon the type of information that is required and by who in the chain of actors. It is important to establish the different levels of information demand and determine the precise detail of information required. With the introduction of a notion of the required timing of the information flow and the need for an analytical process higher up in the chain and the provision of this analysis and feedback down to the project management, a monitoring system can be designed. Often the effort and resources required to have such a system made operational and satisfying both the project cycle managers and decision makers as well as the project implementers is often underestimated.

Monitoring is the recording of the implementation of Activities, while evaluation aims more at measuring the achievement of objectives and studies the process of the preparatory and implementation phases. Evaluation can be mid-term and helps the project management to re-adjust the implementation of the project and can be at the end of the project (ex-post) to generate lessons for policy makers and newly formulated projects.