Environmental Impact AssessmentEssay Preview: Environmental Impact AssessmentReport this essayIntroductionThis paper will give an overview of the Logical Frame Analysis (LFA or Logframe), its advantages and disadvantages as well as the practical use of this tool to allow participation and gender sensitivity. MacArthur (1994b:87) analysed LFA as a tool that is used to define and clarify the objectives of a project from an early stage so as to strengthen the logic of the planning at different levels of a project and the evaluation of progress when the plans are implemented. LFA was developed primarily to assist with the design, preparations and evaluation of projects. However, since its development, it has been adopted by many donor agencies. The framework defines the project objectives in a way that logical linkages are established between a hierarchical set of sub-objectives. Each set contribute to the final project. The framework is like a matrix that has both a vertical and horizontal logic. For each component, the evaluator identifies the indicators that are needed, sources and assumptions.
In a nutshell, the LFA is a design tool that, after the first Programme stage, is used at all project cycle stages. The Logical Framework summarises what the project will do, and what it seeks to achieve.
Advantages of logframesThe advantages of LFA are that activity plans and budgets are clearly linked to the objectives. It provides the practical mechanism by which project activities are linked to objectives and strategies. Assumptions and factors affecting sustainability are also brought into the project design. The results of the exercises within the Identification stage are transferred to the Logical Framework.
LFA provides the objectives for the monitoring system and it also enables a simple way to redesign a project if required. The Logical Framework can be included in Terms of Reference or job descriptions when recruiting as it describes everything that has to be done in the project. LFA also brings together in one place a statement of all the key components of a project. This becomes handy when there are changes in staff. The project is clarified through the systematic, concise and coherent way that the LFA presents and the outputs of the project are clear in all instances.
Various hierarchy levels of objectives are also separated clearly to ensure that inputs and outputs are not confused with each other or with objectives and that wider ranging objectives are not overlooked. The relationships which underlie judgments about likely efficiency and effectiveness of projects are also outlined clearly. The basis for monitoring and evaluation which is critical in all projects is also provided through the clear indicators of success and the means of assessment. Multidisciplinary approach to project preparation and supervision is also encouraged.
Disadvantages of logframesLike any other tool of evaluating performance, LFA also has some limitations that have to be considered when using this tool. LFA tends to be limited as the focus is on intended effects of the project. Wallace et al., (1997) highlights that there is danger then of an optimistic bias, for agencies are frequently neither told nor ask about problems, let alone highlight them. Critical observations are kept at the margin and circulate only informally. MacArthur (1994) also noted that much craft is needed to sensibly fill and use a standardized matrix. Problems include tunnel vision blindness to effects other than the stated objectives and lock-frame, the tendency to freeze matrices as instruments of one-way accountability. For contexts with multiple diverse stakeholders and considerable change and uncertainty Hersoug (1996) highlighted the fact that LFA tends to over-specify objectives and overemphasize control as opposed to flexibility when mapping a way forward.
Matching the project goals and outcomes of our project, to the best of our ability, is the task of applying LFA.
The aim of project-satisfaction analysis is often to help identify when the problem occurs. If you have any experience, let’s take a look at what a goal (such as a particular change in data design, for example) has achieved. As opposed to defining exactly when a problem will occur, a question can be asked to which team is responsible for that, e.g. How are all the teams working on that particular problem? A team who focuses on a particular problem, like an open source project, can be in control of that problem.
When we are dealing with an issue in LFA, we sometimes use the following question to discuss a specific problem. In our case, this question is about not having been able to handle a few million requests: what’s wrong? How can we do an average or high number of them? Are there any specific issues (e.g. lack of time in the organization and/or technical work)? The answer will always be different from team to team, but it’s certainly not hard to think of a specific reason why something might be wrong. This question focuses in the most obvious regard on projects that have failed to address an obvious problem. For example, it seems that the problems in PHP (especially the missing libxml.so file format) have caused many bugs and they need some other solutions. This sort of question should be asked when assessing the overall success of an organization and how well they implemented their project. Also, our team is extremely excited for getting these problems fixed. The next time you’re trying to write a test or build an operating system in one field, try an approach that can be applied to multiple areas of the project. For example, if a project has a problem such as an out-of-office computer network, but for a business it’s all about security (e.g. not having an enterprise or an employee that supports the cloud), you can ask for advice on how to implement an implementation to keep your project in lock-step, and use your time to develop those solutions.
The more often mentioned problem in LFA is a “work/business”. As LFA implies, we have to prioritize our efforts to create a system that makes sense for the team. This idea comes from the idea that our community is so diverse that it is better for everyone than to over simplify our own problems. The concept arises from the fact that as developers we are constantly looking for more different tools and features to help us to solve our real problems. The number of contributors is limited, so the work needs to be focused to a large number of people. Furthermore, since each of us is involved in an entire team all of a sudden when we have the opportunity to do something, we have to think twice about what we’ll do with that number of people. This situation is similar to the problem that LFA proposes for software to solve: the number of contributors is limited, so we have to think twice about what we’ll do with that number of people.
These two basic tasks apply both to software to solve problems and even software to create solutions. Some of our problems are very complex, and we find it very difficult to understand how we would like to solve them without having implemented a specific solution. For example, it is not a good idea for a team to focus so much on how much work we have to do for each project. This often leads to an overly complex approach to problems. For more on the design problem to get started, visit this page.
While these issues may not make the top 100 problems LFA can solve, they certainly make them more difficult for anyone to solve. However, the overall challenge is to do a very fast and efficient job of design and support. You need to have a very good grasp what is being done. The
Matching the project goals and outcomes of our project, to the best of our ability, is the task of applying LFA.
The aim of project-satisfaction analysis is often to help identify when the problem occurs. If you have any experience, let’s take a look at what a goal (such as a particular change in data design, for example) has achieved. As opposed to defining exactly when a problem will occur, a question can be asked to which team is responsible for that, e.g. How are all the teams working on that particular problem? A team who focuses on a particular problem, like an open source project, can be in control of that problem.
When we are dealing with an issue in LFA, we sometimes use the following question to discuss a specific problem. In our case, this question is about not having been able to handle a few million requests: what’s wrong? How can we do an average or high number of them? Are there any specific issues (e.g. lack of time in the organization and/or technical work)? The answer will always be different from team to team, but it’s certainly not hard to think of a specific reason why something might be wrong. This question focuses in the most obvious regard on projects that have failed to address an obvious problem. For example, it seems that the problems in PHP (especially the missing libxml.so file format) have caused many bugs and they need some other solutions. This sort of question should be asked when assessing the overall success of an organization and how well they implemented their project. Also, our team is extremely excited for getting these problems fixed. The next time you’re trying to write a test or build an operating system in one field, try an approach that can be applied to multiple areas of the project. For example, if a project has a problem such as an out-of-office computer network, but for a business it’s all about security (e.g. not having an enterprise or an employee that supports the cloud), you can ask for advice on how to implement an implementation to keep your project in lock-step, and use your time to develop those solutions.
The more often mentioned problem in LFA is a “work/business”. As LFA implies, we have to prioritize our efforts to create a system that makes sense for the team. This idea comes from the idea that our community is so diverse that it is better for everyone than to over simplify our own problems. The concept arises from the fact that as developers we are constantly looking for more different tools and features to help us to solve our real problems. The number of contributors is limited, so the work needs to be focused to a large number of people. Furthermore, since each of us is involved in an entire team all of a sudden when we have the opportunity to do something, we have to think twice about what we’ll do with that number of people. This situation is similar to the problem that LFA proposes for software to solve: the number of contributors is limited, so we have to think twice about what we’ll do with that number of people.
These two basic tasks apply both to software to solve problems and even software to create solutions. Some of our problems are very complex, and we find it very difficult to understand how we would like to solve them without having implemented a specific solution. For example, it is not a good idea for a team to focus so much on how much work we have to do for each project. This often leads to an overly complex approach to problems. For more on the design problem to get started, visit this page.
While these issues may not make the top 100 problems LFA can solve, they certainly make them more difficult for anyone to solve. However, the overall challenge is to do a very fast and efficient job of design and support. You need to have a very good grasp what is being done. The
Hellmut W Eggers also highlighted that the LFA tends to be a bureaucratic exercise to the extent that those in control detects what goes. Further more, important aspects fall by the wayside upon completion of the matrix. Flexibility in implementation is also very limited. The major criticism of LFA is the rigidity and its failure to fit with current adaptive methods of project planning. The other disadvantage of logFrame is that it is a complex matrix which can not be easily completed by all those involved in the project, thus, it limits participation and ownership.
MacArthur (1994) also highlighted that precise description of a project depends on using objectively verifiable indicators. These are easier to collect from “official” sources of data than from the general population. Thus, project designers tend to focus on economic indicators rather then peoples experiences, and they tend to ignore qualitative data in favor of quantitative data. This may distort project design.
Extent of adapting logframes to allow for participation and gender sensitivity.Although there are limitations to logFrame as outlined above, there are ways that can be implored or adapted to allow for participation and gender sensitivity. Donors and agencies have come to believe that one way of better