L
ogical Framework is believed to originate from Mathematics / Operations Research. Here it is used as an analysis tool to estimate (actually calculate) the contributions and interrelationships of different components to an higher objective and is still used to determine the strategy choices / options in planning.
It was the basis of its application in many other environments among which the American Army is mostly referred to. Following the introduction of the Logical Framework PLANNING TOOL by USAID, GTZ combined this planning tool (WHAT should be done) with an ANALYSES phase (WHO & WHY) and introduced META Plan communication techniques to make this analysis process a participatory process. This was around 1975 and they called it ZOPP (Ziel Orientiertes Project Planung).
Other donors followed suit like e.g. DFID (as you correctly recall) and adopted this ANALYSIS & PLANNING tool and called it OOPP, GOPP, PIPO (in French), or LFA (Logical Framework Analysis) being a participatory process in workshops with stakeholders leading to a plan visualized in a Logical Framework MATRIX.
It was Helmut Eggers, a German national familiar with ZOPP, and Head of Unit of the Evaluation Unit in DG VIII who had carried out a study (with 5 stagiaires) to analyze the lessons learnt from 700 Evaluations and who approached MDF in 1991 to assist in the introduction of this ANALYSIS & PLANNING tool. Poor planning apparently appeared to be a key issue.
Soon after we started training desk officers in Brussels and Delegations we noted the problem that THOSE WE TRAINED WERE ACTUALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO PLAN projects! Those people being in an administration in Brussels but also in the Delegations were actually supposed to ASSURE THAT OTHERS WOULD PROPERLY PREPARE PROJECTS. In other words they are supposed to WRITE Terms of Reference determining the methodology for better Identification, Formulation, Monitoring and Evaluation. After each of those phases they are supposed to CHECK whether the process had been followed correctly.
This was a REVOLUTIONARY discovery for us all and made us MODIFY the LFA ANALYSIS & PLANNING approach into a TOOL FOR QUALITY CONTROL to be used for desk officers!
We – together with Helmut Eggers – called it then Project Cycle Management (PCM) in 1993, a term not earlier in use at that time as far as we know.
As from 1995 we assisted Sida (with Berit Rylander being the ‘engine’), FINNIDA, Italian and Spanish Cooperation, followed by many other donors, International NGOs (Red Cross, WWF, etc.) and other European Directorates General (e.g. EDF) to adopt this application!
We noted that many donors started referring the tool as Project Cycle Management, however in many cases we missed the underlying change in the design of the tool from a PLANNING tool to an QUALITY CONTROL tool – a fundamental difference in its application.
I hope you understand why we actually claim the origin of having introduced Project Cycle Management into the European Commission. If you (or anybody else reading this) have other information about its history we would be very pleased to hearing about this.
We can inform you further that we expanded the traditional Logical Framework MATRIX describing WHAT should happen with the introduction of an other Logical Framework MATRIX, which we call the HOW matrix which describes the plan for internal capacity building of the organizations that are responsible for the implementation of the WHAT matrix. The absence of focus on the organizational capacities in the traditional Logical Framework Matrix has been one of the criticisms on the LFA.
You can download further information on this very interesting approach from our web site.
Want to know how you can learn more about PCM and its tool LFA?
Leave your name and email and tick the right box of your interest and we will get back to you as soon as possible!