logframes vs outcome mapping

I have been giving some thought to two different approaches to project design, management and M&E: result-oriented and actor-oriented. My analysis doesn’t portend to be academically grounded. It is just the point of view of a practitioner. For a deeper comprehension of the different approaches, a good starting point is the documents section of outcome mapping website.

Logical frameworks are the perfect example of result-oriented approaches. They identify cause-effect relationships that are expected to produce the results you want to see during and after the implementation. Actor-oriented approaches focus instead on how stakeholders are supposed to behave in order to achieve the intended goal. Outcome mapping is an actor-oriented approach. If I had to explain the difference to a running buddy, I would say that result-based approaches are like a coach who creates a strict training regime. If you follow his training advice, he predicts that you will be able to run a sub-3 hour marathon.  The actor-based coach focuses instead to train excellent marathon runners, who live healthy lives, are engaged with their running community and develop a passion for an active lifestyle. How long it will take you to run 26.2 miles, he doesn’t know.

Personally, I find that both approaches are valuable. Logframes are great because they let you understand a project at a glance, while outlining a blueprint for action very much needed by dysfunctional organizations (there are quite a few out there). Outcome mapping does a fantastic job accounting for uncertainty in the project and highlighting the importance of institutional relationships. So I find quite extraordinary that the two approaches are generally presented as mutually exclusive.

If you ask me, finding a combination of the two approaches that retains the strengths of each one while shedding the respective weaknesses seems a very attractive proposition. Such a synergy of results- and process- oriented approaches is quite common in other disciplines. It is common practice in the business world to set specific sales and profit targets since the elaboration of the business plan and then periodically measure them to receive feedback on performance. At the same time, business plans also contain analyses of competitors, suppliers and customers and precise strategies to affect their behavior in a way that benefits the business. Mixing results-based and actor- or process-based approaches is the norm in the private sector. Going back to the running coach example, setting a PR in a marathon is not just a question of running 40 miles per week, it also takes an adequate diet and a healthy lifestyle. On the other hand, eating well and going to bed early is not enough to break 3 hours on a 26.2 miles course if you don’t run long and fast enough.

A good starting point for looking at integrated approaches could be this:

Size of implementing organization	Big	Results, although mostly intangible, produce observable impact due to relative size of the organization compared to the sector. Actor-oriented approaches can be helpful for project design and M&E.	Results are concrete and straightforward to measure. Impact is a consequence of sheer size more than of planned strategy. Impact on different stakeholders is likely to be overlooked. Integrating an actor-oriented approach is advisable to analyze full extent of project impact (potential negative impact).
	Small	Sector-wide impact is hard to measure/achieve. Results are mostly intangible. Actor-oriented approach is key to project design, management and M&E.	Although results can be easily measured, sector-wide impact eludes implementers. The focus is on activities/outputs. Integrating an actor-oriented approach to project design is necessary to scale up impact.
		Soft	Hard
		Type of project

  

Notes:

I tried to be consistent and use OECD-DAC definitions.

The categories “big”, “small”, “hard” and “soft” should be considered as extremes in a continuum that includes the full range of intermediate states. A good example of a “hard” project is an emergency food distribution. A “soft” project would be an advocacy campaign.

I consider a project “big” when its budget and/or actors represent a significant percentage of the sector of operations. Examples: line ministries, UN agencies or major NGOs are directly involved in the implementation and the budget is a consistent part of the annual government budget in that sector. 

Who needs our money?

I recently visited, in quick succession, Eritrea and Uruguay on M&E missions. The two countries are probably at the opposite ends of the development spectrum. Eritrea is a food-insecure country that is ranked 165 out of 179 countries in the 2009 Human Development Index. Uruguay has quickly rebounded from the 2001 crisis. Over the last few years, in the middle of the current financial turmoil, the Uruguayan economy has posted amazing growth rates (8,5% in 2010, 6% in 2011). However, what I observed during my visit is that the two countries do have something in common: neither one needs western aid, as it is currently delivered.

Eritrea says so explicitly. There are several reasons to explain such attitude, but the main one is simple: following donors' procedures is too cumbersome. Keep your money and stop bothering us with estimates, tenders and audits.

Uruguay is simply too well off: unemployment stands at 6%; investments flow to the country; the breach between rich and poor is closing. From many points of view, Uruguay is just way more advanced than many European countries. I had to monitor a EU funded project aimed at promoting transparency in local administrations. What I saw would have been considered amazing for most Italian municipalities. How can Europe afford to spend so much money on great projects abroad when the economy is so bad? How can Europeans preach transparency in Latin America when corruption is so pervasive in many regions of the old continent?

In my modest opinion, current aid delivery methods and strategies are as good as dead. Beneficiaries are out; it is time for partners now.