My Review

PH 195 [Second Semester, AY 2014-2015]
Logical Framework Approach:

A review for BSPH students
Carl Abelardo T. Antonio, MD, MPH
Asst. Professor of Health Policy & Administration
<ctantonio@up.edu.ph>
COLLEGE OF PUBLIC HEALTH UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA

SEAMEO-TropMed Regional Centre for Public Health, Hospital Administration, Environmental and Occupational Health
2
PH 195 || Review: LFA || CT Antonio || 17 Mar 2015
Learning outcome
At the end of this session, senior public health
students should be able to:
1. Appraise the health and support environment
situation in a given community
2. Justify the choice of a priority problem using the
Prioritization Matrix
3. Analyze the underlying causes and effects of an
identified problem using the Problem Tree
4. Formulate solutions/strategies to the identified
problem using the Objectives Tree
5. Propose a project plan using the Logframe and
Gantt Chart
3
Overview: Project Planning

Preparatory
Data
gathering
Situational
analysis
Problem
identification
and
prioritization
European Integration Office, 2011.
Analysis
Stakeholder
analysis
Problem
analysis
Objective
analysis
Alternatives
analysis
Planning
Developing
the Logical
Framework
matrix
Activity
scheduling
Resource
scheduling
4
5
Environmental factors
affecting health states
A complex of
environmental
factors not only
influences the
health of the
people, it also
affects the health
services.
Varkevisser et al, 2003
6
Data gathering for analysis:

Where to get information?
Primary data sources
Survey
Focus groups
Key informant interviews
Secondary data sources

Administrative documents
- Institutional/organizational profiles
- Annual reports
- Policy instruments/issuances
Databases/information systems
- Field Health Service Information
System
- LGU Scorecard
- Surveillance data
Literature
- Guidance documents from WHO,
DOH, PHIC, etc.
- Original researches and reviews
7
Problem identification
A problem is a perceived difference or
discrepancy between what exists and the ideal
or planned situation.
Benchmarks:
International standards (e.g., MDGs)
National targets (e.g., National Objectives for
Health)
Development objectives (e.g., CHDP goal)
8
Problem prioritization:
Using the Prioritization Matrix
Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue n
Rank
Total
Criteria n
Criteria 4
Criteria 3
Criteria 2
PROBLEM
Criteria 1
SCORE
9
Steps in problem prioritization (1/2)

1. Group agrees on criteria for prioritization and
their corresponding weights, if applicable.
2. Group identifies problems/issues based on
situational analysis.
3. Individually, group members rate each issue
for each prioritization criteria. Scoring system
to rate each issue should have been defined in
Step 1.
10
Steps in problem prioritization (2/2)

4. Individual ratings are tallied, and scores for each
issue are added, resulting to a total score.
5. The issues are the ranked, according to the score
they received.
6. Group members discuss the results of the first
round of voting.
7. Discussion may be followed by a second round of
voting and discussion, if warranted.
11
Problem prioritization criteria

Relevance
Avoidance of duplication
Timeliness
Political acceptability
Feasibility
Applicability
Ethical acceptability
12
Example: Definition of criteria

Criteria
Relevance
Feasibility
Definition
Problem affects a great

number of people or of the
most serious problems that
are faced by a population
Availability of human,
financial, material and
technical resources required
to solve the problem
Scoring scale
1 = Not relevant
2 = Relevant
3 = Very relevant
1 = Study not feasible

2 = Study feasible
3 = Study very feasible
13
14
Stakeholder analysis
Stakeholders are individuals or institutions that
may directly or indirectly, positively or
negatively affect or be affected by a project.
Basic premise: Different groups have different
concerns, capacities and interests, and that
these need to be explicitly understood and
recognized.
European Integration Office, 2011; Ginter et al, 2013; Wholey et al, 2010.
15
Basic stakeholder identification and

analysis
Stakeholder
1
2
3...
Interest in Project
What will this
stakeholder get out of
this project?
European Integration Office, 2011; Ginter et al, 2013; Wholey et al, 2010.
Step 1: The group brainstorms

the list of potential stakeholders
(individuals or groups).
Step 2: For each stakeholder,
group members enter as many
possibilities in terms of their
interest in the project. The
assessment must be done from
the stakeholders point of view.
Step 3: The group members
identify and record issues with
stakeholders regarding the
project.
16
Problem analysis
Problem analysis identifies the negative aspects
of an existing situation and establishes cause
and effect relationships between the identified
problems.
17
Problem analysis: Problem tree

Step 1: Identify sub-problems or
situations related to the chosen
problem
Step 2: Select an individual starter,
a focal problem for analysis.
Step 3: Look for related problems
to the starter problem: identify
substantial and direct causes/
effects of the focal problem.
Step 4: Begin to construct the
problem tree by establishing a
hierarchy of cause and effects
relationship between the problems.
Step 5: Connect the problems with
cause-effect arrows clearly
showing key links.
18
Analysis of objectives
The analysis of objectives is a methodological
approach employed to:
Describe the situation in the future once identified
problems have been remedied;
Verify the hierarchy of objectives; and
Illustrate means-ends relationship in a diagram.
19
Analysis of objectives: Objectives Tree

Step 1: Reformulate all negative
situations of the problems analysis
into positive situations that are
desirable, realistically achievable
Step 2: Check the means-ends
relationships to ensure validity and
completeness of the hierarchy.
Step 3: Work from the bottom
upwards to ensure that cause-effect
relationships have become meansends relationships.
Step 4: Draw connecting lines to
indicate the means-ends
relationships.
20
Analysis of alternatives
The Objective Tree usually shows different
clusters of objectives that have an inherent
means-end linkage.
Out of these possible strategies of intervention
the most pertinent and feasible one is selected
on the basis of a number of criteria.
21
Prioritization criteria for alternatives

Strategic: Expected contribution to key policy objectives (e.g. such
as poverty reduction or economic integration, complementarily with
other ongoing or planned programmes or projects
Social/distributional: Distribution of costs and benefits to target
groups, including gender issues, socio-cultural constraints, local
involvement and motivation, etc.
Financial: Capital and operating cost implications, financial
sustainability and local ability to meet recurrent costs, foreign exchange needs, etc.
Economic: Economic return, cost-benefit, cost effectiveness, etc.
Institutional: Contribution to institutional capacity building, Capacity
and capability to absorb technical assistance
Technical: feasibility Appropriateness, use of local resources,
market suitability, etc.
Environmental: Environmental impact, environmental costs vs.
benefits
22
Analysis of alternatives: Alternatives Tree
Step 1: Identify differing means-ends

ladders, as possible alternative options
or project components.
Step 2: Eliminate objectives which are
obviously not desirable or achievable.
Step 3: Eliminate objectives which are
pursued by other projects in the area.
Step 4: Discuss the implications for
affected groups.
Step 5: Make an assessment of the
feasibility of the different alternatives.
Step 6: Select one of the alternatives as
the project strategy.
Step 7: If agreement cannot be directly
reached, then: Introduce additional
criteria, or; Alter the most promising
option by including or subtracting
elements from the objectives tree.
23
Linking Analysis and Planning phases
Once complete, the objectives tree provides a summary picture of the desired
future situation, including the indicative means by which ends can be achieved.
A well-developed objective tree should compose the first column of the matrix.
24
25
Logical Framework Matrix

Intervention Logic
Objectively
verifiable
indicators
Purpose
Intended situation at the
end of the project
Results
Targeting:
Quality
Quantity
Timing
Target
group
Place
Risks /
Assumptions
What information to be
made available
Goal
Long-term societal
benefits not achieved by
the project alone
Means of
verification
Attributes:
Specific
Measurable
Available
Relevant
Time-bound
Independent
Tangible products
resulting from project
activities
Where, in what form the

information should be
collected
Who should collect/
provide the information
When/how regularly it
should be provided
Activities
Means
Costs
Specific tasks to be
undertaken during the
projects lifetime
Resource requirements
for each activity
Breakdown of budget for

each activity
European Integration Office, 2011; AusAID, 2003; Practical Concepts Incorporated, 1979.
Assumptions are external

factors that have the
potential to influence (or
even determine) the
success of a project, but
lie outside the direct
control of project
managers.
26
Activity scheduling: Gantt Chart

Tasks
Activity 1
Duration
6 days
Task 1.1.
2 days
Task 1.2.
2 days
Task 1.3.
2 days
Activity 2
4 days
Task 2.1.
3 days
Task 2.2.
1 day
Activity 3
4 days
Task 3.1.
2 days
Task 3.2.
2 days
Wee 1
1
Week 2
4
|------------------------------------------|
|--------------------|
|--------------------|
27
References
AusAID. AusGUIDElines: the logical framework approach. [Canberra]:
Australian Agency for International Development; 2003. Link
European Integration Office. Guide to the logical framework approach: a key
tool for project cycle management. Belgrade: Republic of Serbia
Government; 2011. Link
Ginter PM, Duncan WJ, Swayne LE. Strategic Management of Health Care
Organizations, 7th ed. NJ: Jossey-Bass; 2013. 476 p.
Practical Concepts International. The logical framework: a managers guide to a
scientific approach to design & evaluation. Washington, DC: Practical
Concepts International; 1979. Link
Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE. Handbook of Practical Program
Evaluation, 3rd ed. California: Jossey-Bass; 2010.
Varkevisser CM, Pathmanathan I, and Brownlee A. Designing and conducting
health systems research projects. Volume 1: Proposal development and
fieldwork. Amsterdam (The Netherlands), Ontario (Canada) and Brazzaville
(Congo): KIT Publishers, International Development Research Centre, and
World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa; 2003. Link

My Review

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

My Review

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PH 195 [Second Semester, AY 2014-2015]

Logical Framework Approach:

COLLEGE OF PUBLIC HEALTH UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA

Overview: Project Planning

Varkevisser et al, 2003

Data gathering for analysis:

Secondary data sources

Steps in problem prioritization (1/2)

Steps in problem prioritization (2/2)

Problem prioritization criteria

Varkevisser et al, 2003

Example: Definition of criteria

Problem affects a great

1 = Study not feasible

Varkevisser et al, 2003

Basic stakeholder identification and

Step 1: The group brainstorms

European Integration Office, 2011.

Problem analysis: Problem tree

European Integration Office, 2011.

Analysis of objectives: Objectives Tree

European Integration Office, 2011.

Prioritization criteria for alternatives

Analysis of alternatives: Alternatives Tree

European Integration Office, 2011.

Step 1: Identify differing means-ends

Linking Analysis and Planning phases

Logical Framework Matrix

Where, in what form the

Breakdown of budget for

Assumptions are external

Activity scheduling: Gantt Chart

Potrebbero piacerti anche