Module 2 Developing a Logic Model 1 Nov 2004

Module 2 2-1

GGlloobbaall MM&&EE IInniittiiaattiivvee

j:\cc69\nmm\website docs\new\pm&e core course\module 2 logic models 1\module 2 developing a logic model 1 nov 2004.doc

MMoodduullee 22 PPrroojjeecctt IIddeennttiiffiiccaattiioonn aanndd DDeessiiggnn:: DDeevveellooppiinngg aa LLooggiicc MMooddeell –– PPaarrtt 11

2-2



2-3



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LOGIC MODELS, THEORY OF CHANGE AND RESULTS CHAIN ......................... 7 WHAT IS A ‘LOGIC MODEL’ AND A ‘THEORY OF CHANGE’?........................................................... 7 WHY LOGIC MODELS?................................................................................................................. 8 A RESULTS CHAIN ....................................................................................................................... 9

2. DEVELOPING A PROJECT LOGIC MODEL.............................................................. 10 TWO OPTIONS FOR STEPS 1 AND 2 – PROBLEM ANALYSIS OR VISIONING..................................... 10 PREPARATION ............................................................................................................................ 11

Identify the relevant stakeholder group(s)............................................................................ 11 Clarify the Scope of the Investigation or Analysis................................................................ 11

3. OPTION 1: DEVELOPING A RESULT CHAIN USING PROBLEM TREE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 12

STEP 1: ANALYSING THE PROBLEM AND DEVELOPING CAUSE EFFECT MODEL ............................ 12 STEP 2: ANALYSING POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AND GENERATING A MEANS-ENDS MODEL ......... 13 USING A RESULTS CHAIN TO SORT PROBLEMS ............................................................................ 14

4. OPTION 2: DEVELOPING A RESULTS CHAIN USING VISIONING AND FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 14

STEP 1: GENERATING A VISION AND IDENTIFYING DRIVING / HINDERING FORCES ...................... 15 STEP 2: IDENTIFYING CHANGES REQUIRED IN ORDER TO REALISE THE VISION ............................ 17 STEP 3: ANALYSING ALTERNATIVES STRATEGIES AND PRIORITISING RESULTS........................... 18

Making Strategic Choices ..................................................................................................... 18 Using SWOT Analysis ........................................................................................................... 18

THE ADVANTAGES OF VISIONING ............................................................................................... 19

3 EXERCISE 2.1 - IDENTIFYING COMPONENTS OF A RESULTS CHAIN............ 21

4 OPTIONAL EXERCISE 2.2 – CONSTRUCTING A CAUSE-EFFECT MODEL ..... 23

5 EXERCISE 2.3 - CRAFTING A VISION ........................................................................ 25

6 EXERCISE 2.4 – FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS................................................................ 26

7 EXERCISE 2.5 –DEVELOPING A MEANS-END MODEL FROM THE FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS DATA......................................................................................................... 28

8 EXERCISE 2.6 – MAKING STRATEGIC CHOICES................................................... 30

2-4



Notes:

2-5



Learning Objectives:

At the end of Module 2, participants will:

Be familiar with the concepts of a logic model, a theory of change, a results chain, results-based planning approaches and the project management cycle.

Be able to develop a simple results chain

Be able to develop a cause-effect model

Be able to develop a means-ends model

Analyse risks and assumptions

Prioritise results

Use checklists to finalise the intervention logic model

Approximate Duration:

6 hours

Overview: In this module:

Presentation: Logic Models, Theory of Change and Results Chain

Exercise 2.1: Identifying Components of the Results Chain

Presentation: Generating a Project Logic Model

Optional Exercise 2.2– Analysing Cause Effect Models

Presentation: Visioning and Force-Field Analysis Part 1

Exercise 2.3: Crafting a Vision

Exercise 2.4: Force Field Analysis

Presentation: Visioning and Force-Field Analysis Part 1

Exercise 2.5: Developing a Means-End Model from the Force Field Analysis Data

2-6



Notes:

2-7



Logic Models –

Basic Concepts

11.. LLooggiicc MMooddeellss,, TThheeoorryy ooff CChhaannggee aanndd RReessuullttss CChhaaiinn WWhhaatt iiss aa ‘‘llooggiicc mmooddeell’’ aanndd aa ‘‘tthheeoorryy ooff cchhaannggee’’?? The word logic means “reasonable to be expected”. The word model means “represents reality but isn’t reality”. Behind every project is an explicit or implicit theory of action (change). That is, a set of beliefs and assumptions held by those who plan the project about how actions taken will lead to changes that will achieve the objectives of the project.

A logic model is a graphic representation of a project’s theory of action and the assumptions on which the logic is based. It is a logical chain of if-then relationships. If x then y, but only if z holds true. (Exhibit 2.1).

Exhibit 2.1: Logic model1

Global M&E Initiative1-22

Causal effect in logic models

And these conditions hold true





If If If If If

Inputs Activities Outputs Immedeffects

Outcomes Impacts

Results Implementation

Then Then Then ThenThen

A logic model can also be described as a plausible graphic representation of how a project is supposed to work, representing the full chain of events that links:

1Modified from Kellog Foundation 2001. Logic Model Development Guide and Eric Oldsman (2002)

2-8



Inputs to outputs Outputs to short-term effects Short-term effects to long-term outcomes Outcomes to impacts Analysis of the conditions necessary for change

Some texts refer to this as project theory; others refer to it as intervention logic. While the labels may differ, the concept is the same.

WWhhyy LLooggiicc MMooddeellss?? Logic models provide a systematic and visual way of sharing and validating the understanding of how the project is expected to work2. They help to identify elements of projects that are critical to success and elements that may be weak. There are two common reasons for project failure: failure in project theory or failure in implementation. In reality, failure is often a combination of both (Exhibit 2.2 below).

Logic models also provide a solid base for project evaluation. Evaluations require a clear articulation of how the project expects to use resources to deliver results. Poorly defined models limit the ability to identify and measure intervening variables on which the results depend. Moreover, without a theory of causation (if x then y), it is difficult to explain why results were or were not achieved.

Exhibit 2. 2 Logic Models and Project Success3


Logi

c m

odel

Implementation

Failure in Logic Total failure

Failure in implementation

Cor

rect

In

corr

ect

Successful Unsuccessful

Highly successful project

Logic Models and Project Success

2 Carter McNamara, 2002. Guidelines and Framework for Designing Basic Logic Model 3 Source : Ray Rist – Using Logic Models to Evaluate Programmes. IPDET (International Program for Development Evaluation Training)

2-9



A logic model is closely related to the concept of a “Results Chain”.

AA RReessuullttss CChhaaiinn A project uses resources to implement activities and produce outputs (defined in IUCN as products or services). Individuals and institutions use the products or services to bring about short-term and medium-term changes. (Exhibit 2.3 below). In the longer term, these changes in individuals and institutions should lead to changes in the condition of people and resources, or impacts. It is these changes that are called results in the results driven approach. Some institutions refer to these changes as outcomes. A Results Chain is a visual tool to help make explicit the conversion of inputs to outputs leading to results and changes at higher levels.

Exhibit 2.3 A Results Chain4


The Results Chain

What we invest

TimeStaff, Technology PartnersEquipment Materials

Inputs

Long-term results

Condition

Improved well-being for peopleImproved conservation status for resources

Medium-term results

Action

Behavior Practice Decision makingPolicies Social action

Short– term results

Learning

Skills Awareness Knowledge Attitudes Opinions Motivations

What we produce

Management plansPolicy recommendationsTrained people

What we do

Train FacilitateMeetings Workshops

Impacts Outcomes Immediate effect

Outputs Activities

Implementation Results

Results are defined as describable or measurable developmental changes occurring in three categories as a result of the project:

Learning, where individuals acquire new insights, skills, attitudes, opinions, etc.;

Action, where the new knowledge is acted upon to change behaviour, institutional practices, decision making processes and policies; and

4 Modified from CIDA, 2000. RBM Handbook on Developing Results Chains. The basics of RBM as Applied to 100 Project Examples.

2-10



Condition, where the action starts to impact on the condition of people and the environment.

These are also called immediate effects, outcomes and impacts. Results at each level aggregate to contribute to the results at the next level. This is known as a Results Chain. Recognizing that not all changes are linear in nature and depending on the nature of the project, immediate effects may be realised within 1-2 years, outcomes in 2-4 years and impacts in 5-7 years. Some results may happen sooner or take longer than this time frame, depending on the nature and scale of the intervention.

A logic model includes an explicit analysis of the conditions that must hold true for results to be delivered, and for change to happen. That is for activities to lead to outputs, for outputs to lead to immediate effects; for immediate effects to lead to outcomes and for outcomes to lead to impacts. This includes making explicit the assumptions and beliefs that lie behind the project design.

22.. DDeevveellooppiinngg aa PPrroojjeecctt LLooggiicc MMooddeell55 Projects logic models are developed by building on the information gathered and analysed during a situation analysis, in a four-step process, as follows:

Step 1: Analysing problems and developing a cause-effect model; or developing a vision and identifying the driving / hindering forces. (two complementary approaches to the same step)

Step 2: Identifying potential solutions to problems or changes needed to achieve the vision, and generating a means-end model;

Step 3: Analysing alternative strategies and prioritising results;

Step 4: Analysing conditions necessary for success - Risks and assumptions

Step 5: Developing indicators and identifying means of verification

Steps 1 to 3 constitute “Developing Logic Models Part 1” and are covered in this module. Steps 4 and 5 constitute “Developing Logic Models Part 2” and are covered in module 3.

TTwwoo ooppttiioonnss ffoorr SStteeppss 11 aanndd 22 –– pprroobblleemm aannaallyyssiiss oorr vviissiioonniinngg Projects are developed to solve a perceived conservation and development problem. Problem analysis involves identifying the major problems and establishing cause and effect relationships among them so as to ensure that the project design addresses the 'root causes' as opposed to symptoms. A clear, comprehensive problem analysis provides a sound foundation on which to develop a relevant, focused result chain. The problem is therefore analysed in detail to determine which problems cause which effects. There are two options for doing this analysis. Both involve sketching links visually:

5 Modified from the following sources: 1) AusAid 2000: The Logical Framework Approach. AusGuidelines. 2) Richard Cardwell, July 2002. Project Design Handbook for Care International. 3) Bill Jackson 1997. Designing Projects and project Evaluation Using The Logical Framework Approach. IUCN – The World Conservation Union. 4) ITAD 1996. The Logical Framework Approach. A project management tool.

2-11



Problem tree analysis

Visioning and force field analysis

Both are accepted planning techniques. Whichever option you choose, the exercise should build on the information generated during the situation and stakeholder analysis, and should be undertaken as a group learning activity that involves stakeholders who can contribute relevant technical and local knowledge. This is best done with carefully selected participants in a workshop that provides an appropriate forum for analysing the problem and proposing solutions.

It may occasionally be useful to undertake the process separately with different stakeholder groups to ascertain different perspectives and priorities for the project context. This is necessary for example where gender is an issue, particularly where women may not express themselves in front of men.

PPrreeppaarraattiioonn

IIddeennttiiffyy tthhee rreelleevvaanntt ssttaakkeehhoollddeerr ggrroouupp((ss))

A situation and stakeholder analysis should be completed prior to this exercise. Decisions should have been taken regarding the most significant issues the project should address, and which stakeholders to involve in the project. For the planning phase of the project, these decisions can be further refined by deciding on the specific representatives who should participate in the planning to ensure that the group is well informed. Who can help to analyse and discuss the main issues? For example, if the potential project involves coastal resources management then a marine scientist, a community development specialist, and terrestrial ecologists must all participate.

Participants need to be informed if they are to be useful and productive. They should know why they are doing the analysis, what the process involves, and what information they are expected to contribute. The important point to remember is that to effectively identify, analyse and organise ideas to design a project, the group must be representative and technically competent.

CCllaarriiffyy tthhee SSccooppee ooff tthhee IInnvveessttiiggaattiioonn oorr AAnnaallyyssiiss

Sharing the findings of the situation analysis and any constraining factors around the selection of issues to be addressed by a project with stakeholders will help the group focus and structure the direction of the analysis - you cannot deal with a limitless range of issues. It will also be important to learn from what others may have done in the geographic or thematic area. It may therefore be useful to commission several papers that describe the situation, and to share/discuss the information with the stakeholders as part of the problem analysis exercise. This ensures that the group's planning is well rooted in the situation analysis which will help them to identify appropriate issues and to focus the analysis.

The first method of developing a results chain to be explored is Problem Tree Analysis.

2-12



33.. OOppttiioonn 11:: DDeevveellooppiinngg aa RReessuulltt CChhaaiinn UUssiinngg PPrroobblleemm TTrreeee AAnnaallyyssiiss This method seeks to establish the core problem that the project seeks to address. It then establishes other related problems as causes or effects in order to determine the key objectives that the project should set for itself.

SStteepp 11:: AAnnaallyyssiinngg tthhee pprroobblleemm aanndd ddeevveellooppiinngg ccaauussee eeffffeecctt mmooddeell Keeping in mind the situation analysis, the first step is to brainstorm and create a list of all the negative statements related to the thematic or geographic issue/area of interest. Next, discuss the main problems and agree on the core problem – usually linked to the highest number of negative statements. All the main problems and the core problem are then printed on cards and displayed on the wall for all participants to see. A discussion might be necessary to establish consensus on the definition of the core problem if it requires further clarification.

Exhibit 2.4: An Example of a Problem Tree

Global M&E InitiativeGlobal M&E Initiative3-18

Problem Tree ExampleDegradation of W etlands Resources

Poor resources management practices

Lack of inform ation to support resource planning

Inadequate skills to

engage in improved resource

management

Inadequate legal and

policy environment

to support improved

management

Lack of alternative

viable econom ic generating activities to

improve livelihoods

Core problem

Level 1Effects of Level 2

Level 2Causes of Level 1

Effects

Causes

Once the core problem has been agreed, all other problems should be ordered according to whether they are a cause or an effect of the core problem, whether they lead to or result from the core problem. This ordering process should be used to clarify or discard unclear statements.

2-13



If more than one cause leads to a problem, they are placed side by side. Similarly if multiple effects result from a single cause, they are placed side by side. Vertical links are drawn to show cause-effect relationships, and horizontal links to show joint causes and combined effects. The end result of this process is a problem tree with the causes below the effects, thereby making a cause-effect model (exhibit 2.4).

Once the process is completed, the tree should be reviewed to ensure that the related streams of cause and effect are as accurate as possible and to check the completeness and logic of the cause-effect structure. To review, take a card from the top of the problem tree and work backwards through the diagram asking the question, “what leads to, or causes that”. The exercise should be repeated for all top cards. In addition, the model should be checked for clarity, logic, sufficiency and simplicity, using the following guiding questions.

Clarity: Are the statements clear and unambiguous?

Logic: Are the links between each statement logical and reasonable?

Sufficiency: Are actions at one level sufficient to support results on the next level? Will the achievement of a level help support the attainment of the level above it?

Gap analysis: Are there missing levels/objectives? Should other positive actions and/or statements be added? Is the detail adequate?

Simplicity: Is the overall structure a simple, robust, clear version of reality? If it is too complicated, it is likely to be less useful for providing direction to subsequent steps in the analyses.

The accuracy of the cause-effect relationships should be cross-checked with informed stakeholders who have not been involved in developing it.

SStteepp 22:: AAnnaallyyssiinngg PPootteennttiiaall ssoolluuttiioonnss aanndd GGeenneerraattiinngg aa MMeeaannss--eennddss MMooddeell

Once the cause-effect model has been completed, solutions to the problems have to be proposed. In its simplest form, the means-ends model involves transforming the negative statements from the cause-effect diagram into positive statements. Here it has the same structure as the cause-effect model, but with the problem statements (negatives) turned into statements of potential solutions (positives).

In reality however, planning is an iterative process. The elements of both problem analysis and stakeholder analysis will need to be revisited regularly as new information and ideas come to light. It is recommended that a simple means-end model be drafted at the planning workshop, and used as the basis for further analysis rather than a fixed blue-print of the project. The draft revisited after some time and checked for clarity, logic, sufficiency and simplicity, using the guiding questions outlined in the section above.

A means-end model is a diagram that shows the hierarchy of relationships between a set of solutions, derived from the problem tree. It is also known as an objectives tree.

2-14



UUssiinngg aa rreessuullttss cchhaaiinn ttoo ssoorrtt pprroobblleemmss The notion of cause and effect has been criticized for its linearity. The analysis of cause and effect is based on the assumption that it is possible to link causes of problems to their effects in a liner manner. This is a simplification of reality that makes the problem tree analysis seem reductionist. To address this problem, IUCN has modified the problem tree analysis by using the results tree as the basis of sorting out problems generated during the brainstorming session (exhibit 2.5). This process can be improved even further by developing a vision before identifying the problems to be solved. The vision acts as a beacon, a guide to an ideal situation to be attained. The problems then are the barriers between the current situation and the ideal (see sections below on visioning).

Exhibit 2.5: Using the results chain to cluster obstacles

Level in the results chain

Examples of obstacles

Impacts Problem statements related to actual condition of resources and people

Outcomes Problem statements related to behavior, practice, decision making, policies, social action, particularly for institutions

Immediate effects Problem statements related to skills, awareness, knowledge, attitudes, opinions, motivations

Outputs Problem statements related to absence of outputs such as management plans, communication strategies, information, assessments etc.

Inputs Problem statements related to lack of/inadequate inputs such as no money, no skills, no technical know-how, no facilities etc.

44.. OOppttiioonn 22:: DDeevveellooppiinngg aa RReessuullttss CChhaaiinn UUssiinngg VViissiioonniinngg aanndd FFoorrccee FFiieelldd AAnnaallyyssiiss The visioning and Force Field Analysis6 method is very similar to problem tree analysis, but uses a vision to be attained rather than a core problem to focus the problem analysis and project design. A vision is an expression of the large-scale changes that the project team, partners and relevant stakeholders hope to see happen in the project area7. It describes the desired human and ecosystem conditions that are expected to exist in the project area in the long term (10 to 15 years). Developing a vision helps stakeholders to make explicit their different values, beliefs

6 Lewin K. (1951) 'Field Theory in Social Science', Harper and Row, New York; Thomas J. (1985) 'Force Field Analysis: A New Way to Evaluate Your Strategy',

Long Range Planning, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 54-59.

7 Definition adapted from Earl, Sarah et al. “Outcome Mapping –Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs”. IDRC. Pp 33,Alejandro Imbach, 2001 - Finding the Way and Ortiz Natalia, pers comm.

2-15



and expectations of the future they expect to see and therefore construct an integrated concept for the project that is enriched by their different experiences and backgrounds.

Force Field Analysis is a practical method for assessing whether a proposed change can get needed support by identifying opportunities that can support movement towards the change and obstacles to the change. In addition it helps identify actions to reduce the strength of the obstacles. Forces that help us achieve the change are called "driving forces." Forces that work against the change are called "hindering” forces." Such forces include resources, cultural practices and their trends, institutional policies, traditions, values and norms, relationship between and among organisations and resources including dependencies on resources and vested interests, natural resources management and use practices (past and present), regulations, policies and organisational structures, technical know-how, technology, information, costs and other natural phenomena and events. The analysis helps us to look at the big picture by analysing all of the forces influencing the change and weighing the supporting and hindering factors objectively, and developing an action plan to strengthen the positive factors while reducing the effect of the hindering factors. The process involves listing, discussing, and evaluating the various forces for and against the proposed change.

The two simple steps:

Step 1: Generate a vision and identifying driving and restraining forces

Develop a vision

Identify forces supporting achievement of the vision as well as forces hindering its achievement

Step 2: Identify changes needed to reduce negative effect of the hindering forces and strengthen the positive forces (means – ends model)

SStteepp 11:: GGeenneerraattiinngg aa vviissiioonn aanndd iiddeennttiiffyyiinngg ddrriivviinngg // hhiinnddeerriinngg ffoorrcceess The first step is to brainstorm a vision for the area given the situation described in the situation analysis report. The following question can be used to guide this visioning: “Given the situation described during the situation analysis, what is our vision for the geographic/ thematic area in say 5-10 years?” (The time set is dependent on the project and anticipated available resources).

Care must be taken to include views of all relevant stakeholder groups, including social or gender categories. This may require “role playing” where some participants “put themselves in the place” of any group that might be absent, and “think like them”. This is less than ideal and every effort should be taken to ensure fair representation of all relevant stakeholder groups.

Write the agreed vision on a card and put it at the top of a wall or flip chart paper and identify forces supporting achievement as well as forces hindering achievement of the vision by using the following process.

Using the template in Exhibit 2.6:

Divide the wall or the paper into two columns. Label the first column “Driving Forces", and the second column "Restraining Forces."

2-16



Brainstorm a list of driving and restraining forces and record them on the wall or the chart in the appropriate column and level.

Analyse the brainstormed driving and restraining forces by asking the following questions:

Is this issue valid?

How do we know?

How significant are each of them?

What is their strength?

Exhibit 2.6: A modified Force Field Analysis template

Vision

Driving Forces – “forces in favour of” Hindering Forces – “forces against”

Driving forces related to the actual condition of resources and people e.g. the forest is still largely intact in terms of biodiversity, low pollution levels

Hindering forces related to actual condition of resources and people e.g. loss of biodiversity, degraded land and forests, poverty

Driving forces related to performance of institutions e.g. the Ministry has very good policies, strong department of environment, functional community environment management committees etc.

Hindering forces related to performance of institutions e.g. behavior, practice, decision making, policies, social action etc.

Driving forces related to capacity institutions /organizations and individuals e.g. high levels of awareness of the importance of collaborative resources management among all groups, traditional land use and cultural practices that support wise use and conservation, department of environment has an environment that promotes use of improved skills to improve performance, existence of an export market for handcraft etc.

Hindering forces related to capacity institutions /organisations and individuals e.g. inappropriate attitudes, inadequate skills, poor motivation, the department of agriculture has no facilities or resources to undertake extension, the forestry department has no skills to facilitate collaborative forestry management, community resource user groups have no capacity to engage in financially viable enterprises, etc.

Driving forces related to the presence of important outputs e.g. the forest has a recently drafted management plan, some information for village level management planning is available from another department, community groups and the department of environment have trained person power, etc.

Hindering forces related to absence of outputs such as management plans, communication strategies, information, assessments, lack of trained people, etc.

Driving forces related to the presence of inputs e.g. community willingness to contribute in kind, availability of project offices and staff, donor

Hindering forces related to lack of/inadequate inputs such as no money, no skills, no technical know-how, no facilities etc.

2-17



funding, etc.

SStteepp 22:: IIddeennttiiffyyiinngg cchhaannggeess rreeqquuiirreedd iinn oorrddeerr ttoo rreeaalliissee tthhee vviissiioonn This step is similar to step 2 in problem analysis. In this step, we develop a set of actions needed to address the hindering forces and strengthen the driving forces. In order to do this we need to ask ourselves questions such as which forces can be altered and which ones cannot be? Which ones will bring rapid change if altered and which ones can only be altered slowly?

What changes would occur at the immediate, outcomes and impacts levels if the hindering forces have been reduced and driving forces strengthened? Exhibit 3.7 can be used to organize the analysis.

Exhibit 2.7: Identifying changes to contribute to the vision

Vision

Changes that should occur to eliminate or weaken the hindering forces and to strengthen driving forces

Condition of resources and people: Forests biodiversity conserved, degraded land rehabilitated, quality of water improved, productivity of the land restored etc.

Institutions: Department of environment implementing the “new” natural resources management policies. Functional community environment management committees implementing the collaborative forest management plan, wildlife authority managing the national park in accordance with the Park Management Plan, etc. Natural resource based enterprises profitably trading along on sustainable alternatives

People: High levels of awareness of the importance of collaborative resources management among relevant groups, resource groups with skills that support wise use and conservation, department of environment has an environment that promotes use of improved skills to improve performance, the country has policies that promote integrated natural resource management and utilisation, community resource user groups have capacity to compete in financially viable enterprises, etc.

Outputs available: Revised forest management plan, updated information for village level management planning, trained person power for community groups and the department of environment etc.

Inputs available: List the inputs required to produce the outputs above and run a project such that the changes being sort in the vision are attained.

Means

Ends

2-18



SStteepp 33:: AAnnaallyyssiinngg aalltteerrnnaattiivveess ssttrraatteeggiieess aanndd pprriioorriittiissiinngg rreessuullttss Step 3 is the same regardless of the option adopted

There is always more than one way to bring about change. The aim is to find the best way while meeting specified criteria (budget, time-frame, strategic objectives). In the previous step, a draft means-end model can be developed using either a problem analysis or visioning technique. Regardless of which approach is used, the process will probably generate a discussion on the potential merits or difficulties associated with different possible project interventions.

Planning is not a linear process but rather an iterative, creative process. The choice of interventions is based on the understanding of the situation which increases over time during involvement with the project. Selecting a design option often involves significant leaps of thinking which cannot be neatly slotted into a 'stage' in the planning process. The options identified in the means-end model need to be discussed further, and final selection made based on criteria that have been agreed by all stakeholders. Some issues that must be considered during the selection process include:

Should all or some of the identified problems and/or desired changes be tackled?

Which strategy will best support participation by both women and men?

What combination of interventions is most likely to bring about the desired results and promote sustainability of benefits?

What are the likely capital and recurrent cost implications of different possible interventions, and what can be realistically afforded?

How can negative environmental impacts be best mitigated or avoided?

Where does IUCN have the best comparative advantage?

MMaakkiinngg SSttrraatteeggiicc CChhooiicceess There are two sets of tools available for making strategic choices: a set of IUCN criteria for making strategic choices, and a SWOT analysis. The IUCN criteria are described in Module 1. A SWOT analysis is an examination of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the implementing unit in relation to the proposed interventions.

Using SWOT Analysis

All stakeholders work in an environment that affects the selection of interventions. Two important aspects of the environment are whether it is internal or external and whether it is positive or negative (Exhibit 3.2 below).

Exhibit 3.2 SWOT Table

Environmental factors

Internal External

Positive Strengths Opportunities

Negative Weaknesses Threats

2-19



How to use the SWOT analysis

Treating IUCN and the implementing partners as the units of analysis, list all potential strategies. For each strategy, list the combined strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

Strengths include those positive factors internal to all stakeholders such as availability of technical capacity, skills, knowledge of local situation, etc.

Weaknesses include all those negative factors internal to the stakeholders such as poor resource management practices, poor administration procedures, and inequitable distribution of benefits from resources, etc.

Opportunities are all those positive factors external to the stakeholders such as favourable policies for collaborative resource management, availability of donor funding for the strategy, availability of technical skills and partners, etc.

Threats are all negative factors external to the stakeholders such as competition for donor funding, unfavourable policy environment etc.

The point is to see whether the stakeholders have enough combined strength to overcome their weaknesses, exploit the opportunities, and avoid the threats.

The result of this exercise is a set of agreed project interventions for which further design will be undertaken. The next steps in the process of developing the logic model are described in Module 3.

TThhee aaddvvaannttaaggeess ooff vviissiioonniinngg While there are arguments supporting both problem analysis and visioning, it appears that many people prefer visioning for the following reasons:

A vision offers an opportunity for a more open-minded analysis8: The process of imagining an ideal future is not restricted by the characteristics and problems of the present situation. Using a vision as the focus of analysis allows participants to consider a broader range of features such as opportunities lost, new focuses, or completely new situations and their relationships.

Visioning contributes to a shared course of action: All stakeholders in the planning group will have a different vision of the ideal, influenced by personal experience, basic technical training, etc9. Visioning offers them an opportunity to expose and share individual visions, to draw up a more comprehensive and integrated group vision. Sharing a vision and working together to achieve it is more stimulating than simply solving problems. The same argument can be extended to sharing understanding about problems facing the stakeholders as a group. Each stakeholder will have a different view of the problems, depending on their experiences and level of understanding of the whole system. The process of problem analysis, especially of the

8 Alejandro Imbach, 2001. Finding the Way 9 Alejandro Imbach, as above

2-20



causes and effects, forces individuals to expose their views, share with others and agree on a common understanding.

Acknowledges positive forces and builds on them: Force field analysis provides an opportunity to analyse the good things happening that can be strengthened to support the initiative.

In reality good planning is not dependent on the use of one or the other approach. What matters is the diligent and reflective application of either approach, ensuring that planning is based on the best information available and that it is participatory. The best plans come out of a mix of visioning and a sound problem analysis. Indeed, the best visions are born out of clear understanding of the current problems, and the best core problem identification is based on a good vision of the ideal. Whatever method is adopted, the planning process and the product will be improved by the following:

Planning is based on a sound situation analysis and therefore the best information available. Be prepared to refine and revise the product as new information comes to light.

Ensure stakeholders participate in the analytical process;

Emphasize the importance of the process as much as the product. It is indeed important to note that the entire process of generating the results is as important as the product itself. The exercise is a learning experience for everyone involved. While it provides an opportunity for different viewpoints to be aired and discussed, one should not necessarily expect full consensus among stakeholders on many of the issues. The process quite commonly generates very heated debates, and on occasion, makes it appear quite impossible to develop a consensus among the stakeholders. The most brilliant ideas often emerge at this point.

Whatever method is used, it is recommended that a simple draft plan be produced at the planning workshop, but only as the basis for further analysis rather than the blue print of the project. This draft should be set aside for some time and verified later for the following:

Clarity: Are the statements clear and unambiguous?

Logic: Are the links between each statement logical and reasonable?

Sufficiency: Are actions at one level sufficient to support results on the next level? Will the achievement of one level help support the attainment of the next level higher up?

Gap analysis: Are there missing levels/results? Should other positive actions and/or statements be added? Is the detail adequate?

Simplicity: Is the overall structure a simple, robust, clear version of reality? If it is too complicated, it is likely to be less useful for providing direction to subsequent steps in the analyses.

2-21



55.. EExxeerrcciissee 22..11 -- IIddeennttiiffyyiinngg CCoommppoonneennttss ooff aa RReessuullttss CChhaaiinn

Time: 40 minutes

Instructions: 1. Working on your own, complete worksheet below 1 below (10 minutes).

2. Share your results with your partner (10 minutes).

3. We will discuss the results in a large group (20 minutes).

Worksheet 1: A results chain is the logical arrangement of changes that a project can bring about: Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Immediate Effects, Outcomes and Impacts.

In the following list, identify the appropriate category for each component:

Project Aim: To improve the management and utilisation of forests in order to improve the conservation status of the forest and the livelihoods of its dependents.

Project Component Input Activity Output Immediate

Effects Outcome Impact

1. Design in-house course contents and training schedules

2. Implement training program including facilitating study tours, training workshops, etc

3. Trained people (farmers, forest department, other institutions)

4. Undertake a gender analysis and formulate a strategy for integrating gender into project activities.

5. Prepare training guidelines.

6. Stakeholders with improved forest management and utilisation systems

7. Women empowered to participate effectively in village management committees.

2-22



Project Component Input Activity Output Immediate Effects

Outcome Impact

8. Forest Department staff and partner agencies skilled in community based participatory techniques of forest management.

9. Forest Department and partner agencies capable of actively facilitating joint forest management.

10. Training program and manuals.

11. Identify non-Forest Department partner and support organisations and their training needs.

12. Improved livelihood and conservation status of forests in Kuntang Province of Brazil.

13. Identify and screen trainers and training institutions.

2-23



66.. OOppttiioonnaall EExxeerrcciissee 22..22 -- CCoonnssttrruuccttiinngg aa CCaauussee--EEffffeecctt MMooddeell

Time: 50 minutes Instructions:

1) Reading alone, study the contents of ‘jumbled up’ cause-effect model below. (5 minutes)

2) Working in groups, arrange the contents into a coherent cause-effect model, using the result-chain to organise the analysis. (15 minutes)

3) Analyse the cause-effect model and using worksheet 2 below, comment on its clarity, logic, sufficiency and gaps, and simplicity (10 minutes).

4) We will discuss this in the large group (20 minutes).

“Jumbled” Problem statements Problem Statements

Degraded forest resources and poor living conditions of the dependant communities

Inappropriate management and utilisation of forest resources

Lack of knowledge on which to base planning and collaborative management

Lack of knowledge on the extent of the forest

Lack of knowledge on the status of forest resources (no resource surveys)

Stakeholders lack skills to engage in improved planning and management of forest resources

Lack of knowledge on patterns of resource use and harvest levels, and whether the forest can support such levels

National level policies not supportive of joint forest management

Resource users have no skills required for planning

Resource users have no skills required to engage in joint forest resource management

Department of forestry staff have no skills required to facilitate planning and implementation of joint forest resources management

Lack of knowledge on socio-economic factors affecting forest resource use

Department of forest has no funding to update skills of the staff

Stakeholders lack awareness of the importance and potential of improved planning, especially joint forest management

2-24



Problem Statements

Policy makers lack awareness of importance and potential of joint forest management in improved resources management

Confused mandates of various government departments over forest resources

Staff of forest department are not aware of the importance of joint forest management in ensuring sustainable use and conservation of the forest and their role in making sure it happens

Weak natural resources management institutions

Resource users engage in inappropriate harvesting and processing techniques

Conflicting inter-sectoral policies have negative impact on forest management

Resource users lack awareness on the importance of joint forest management and their role in making sure it works

Local level traditional institutions absent or very weak

Worksheet 2: Clarity: clear and unambiguous statements

Logic: clear, reasonable and logical links

Sufficiency: actions at one level sufficient to support result on the next level

Gap analysis: are there missing results?

Simplicity: simple structure

2-25



77.. EExxeerrcciissee 22..33 -- CCrraaffttiinngg aa VViissiioonn

Time: 50 minutes

Instructions: To craft a vision for the case study provided.

1) Working in your group, develop a vision for the case study you chose to work with in exercise 1.1 as follows:

a. Remind yourself of the situation described in the situation analysis (5 minutes)

b. Think individually and craft your own vision for the area in the next 10-20 years. Write your individual vision on a piece of paper (5 minutes)

c. Turn to your two neighbours and discuss your visions. Combine the three visions into one (10 minutes)

d. Combine the “three-some visions” into one group vision and write it in the worksheet below (10 minutes)

2) We will discuss this in the plenary (20 minutes)

Group Vision Worksheet:

2-26



88.. EExxeerrcciissee 22..44 –– FFoorrccee FFiieelldd AAnnaallyyssiiss

Time: 1hr 30 minutes

Instructions: Use the Visioning and Force Field Analysis method to generate a cause effect model for the case study selected in module 1 as follows.

1) Working in groups, construct a modified Force Field Analysis Diagram as described in this module (2 minutes)

2) Brainstorm a list of factors hindering the stakeholders in the selected case study from achieving the vision (15 minutes).

3) Brainstorm a list of positive factors that stakeholders in the case study can build on to achieve the vision (supporting factors) (15 minutes).

4) Use the levels of the results chain to organise the information generated - Use worksheet 1 and 2 below

5) We will discuss this in the large group (30 minutes).

Worksheet 1 – Modified Visioning and Force Field Analysis diagram

Driving forces Hindering forces

Vis

ion

2-27



Worksheet 2 – Using the results chain to organise information from visioning and Force Field Analysis

Level in the results chain

Factors supporting achievement of the vision

Negative statement or factors hindering achievement of the vision

2-28



99.. EExxeerrcciissee 22..55 ––DDeevveellooppiinngg aa MMeeaannss--EEnndd MMooddeell ffrroomm tthhee FFoorrccee FFiieelldd AAnnaallyyssiiss DDaattaa

1hr 30 minutes

Instructions: Use information generated in exercise 2.4 to develop an action plan for realising the vision as follows:

1. Working in groups, analyse the validity of the statements recorded in exercise 2.4 as described in this module (5 minutes)

2. Convert the hindering forces to positive statements, remembering to state them in a results language – in other words, state what is expected to change if the hindering force has been removed (30 minutes). The negative statements were organised along the result chain, so the exercise will yield a draft results chain – worksheet

3. Analyse the resulting results chain for clarity, logic, simplicity etc. (20 minutes). Record your findings in worksheet 2 below.

4. We will discuss this in the large group (30 minutes).

Worksheet 1: The results chain

Level Expected result

Impacts

Outcomes

Immediate effects

Outputs

Activities

2-29



Worksheet 2:

Clarity: clear and unambiguous statements

Logic: clear, reasonable and logical links

Sufficiency: actions at one level sufficient to support result on the next level

Gap analysis: are there missing results?

Simplicity: simple structure

2-30



1100.. EExxeerrcciissee 22..66 –– MMaakkiinngg SSttrraatteeggiicc CChhooiicceess

Time: 30 minutes

Instructions: 1. Working in groups, prioritise the results/ interventions identified in exercise 2.5 by

completing the SWOT worksheet 1 (15 minutes).

2. For each result, assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

3. Determine where the implementing unit has combined strengths to overcome the weaknesses, exploit the opportunities and avoid threats.

4. We will discuss this in the large group (15 minutes).

Worksheet 1

Result Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Part 2: Based on the SWOT analysis, list the results to be included in the project

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

2-31



Test your understanding 1. Define logic model and results chain. Use examples to explain why they are important in

the planning process.

2. What are the steps of generating a project logic model?

3. Describe the preparatory stages of developing a project logic model

4. What are the two options available for developing a project logic model?

5. How can a results chain be used in this stage of planning? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the results chain at this stage of planning?

6. What is a vision? How do you go about generating a vision?

7. How does Problem Tree Analysis differ from Force Field Analysis?

8. Why is it important to make strategic choices in the planning process?

9. What tools are available for strategic decision-making?

10. Describe a SWOT analysis and explain how it is used in strategic decision making.

2-32



Module 2 Developing a Logic Model 1 Nov 2004

Documents

Transcript of Module 2 Developing a Logic Model 1 Nov 2004