 |
The
IDS paper makes a number of references to Juliet Edington's
paper on the use of Logical Framework. This paper is based
substantially on experiences of one DFID funded programme
in Vietnam, implemented through ActionAid, Save the Children
Fund and Oxfam projects. I have some familiarity with that
project myself, and would like to provide an alternative perspective.
1. “Correspondence between all parties during the preparation
of the logframes, including that from the donor itself, makes
explicitly clear that the main driver behind the preparation
of the logframes was the necessity of meeting the bureaucratic
requirements of the donor” (Edington, 2001:9)
I think this was the case, but what does it mean? Is this
evidence of the "Disempowering nature of logframes" as the
IDS paper suggests? Does it mean the NGOs were innocent and
powerless victims of an oppressive and insensitive donor (or
planning tool)? Not quite, they jumped through the hoops,
and got on with their projects. What has DFID done about the
fact that some of the 3 NGOs no longer use a logframe for
their individual projects, as they were required to do when
DFID funding was first approved? Nothing! If anyone is relatively
powerless in this setting, my view is that is DFID. All this
para means is that some times tools like the logframe are
used for the most superficial reasons. What else is new?
2. “Produced by consultants, in consultation with senior expatriate
staff of the NGOs (all of whom have since changed), there
is no one currently involved in the project able to explain
what is meant by several of the statements it [the logframe]
contains” (Edington, 2001:9)
In this case Juliet is referring to the programme (all 3 NGOs)
logframe. The fact is that it is still being used annually,
by the M&E consultants (including myself ) to try to document
what has been achieved and what has not been achieved. I think
more than 90% of the original logframe contents can still
be related to current activities. There are very small number
of statements that are no longer clear in their meaning. And
so what? Is this a problem that is specific to a logframe?
I don't think so.
We have tried to get both DFID and the 3 NGOs to revise the
logframe mid way through the term of the project, not because
of readability problems, but because the strategy embodied
in the original logframe was now out of date, and did not
do the current programme justice. But neither party wanted
to so so. C'est la vie. We have also tried to get the three
NGOs to help us document their other achievements which lay
outside the terms of the original programe logframe, in order
to capture new developments. Their response in 2001 was negligible.
They are not particularly interested, they do not feel under
any pressure to report their achievements through this particular
means. So much for the oppressiveness of the logframe, or
the hand wielding it.
The IDS paper suggests that "...the near universal adoption
amongst agencies discourages partners from developing more
appropriate planning methods." Umm.... perhaps there could
be a different interpretation. Perhaps this widespread adoption
of the logframe by NGOs could be associated with a significant
element of consent and appreciation. I have recently being
doing some work with CIIR and WWF here in the UK. Staff of
both NGOs have told me how they are using the logframe as
a planning tool, on their own initiative, and that they have
found it useful. These two NGOs are not exceptions. In my
view they more like the rule, at least amongst northern NGOs.
Why is it that there are so few interesting alternative frameworks
being developed and hawked around? Is it because of the forces
of oppression, or just lack imagination and a lot of "satisficing"
going on within aid organisations?
Despite all these apparently pro-logframe comments above,
I do actually have some major concerns about the logframe,
but not because of concern about "NGOs as victims" You can
see some of my views in the Editorial section of MandE NEWS
at http://www.mande.co.uk
They relate to the serial view of change that is embodied
not only in the logframe, but also in other approaches to
documenting a "theory of change" (see "Using Logic Models
to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, & Action. Logic Model
Development Guide " December 2001 Published by and available
from the Kellog Foundation at http://www.wkkf.org/
(type in the word "logic", in the search field) ) We need
new ways of representing our theories of change that (a) recognise
the presence parallel processes (many actors acting at the
same time) and (b) the iterative nature of most formal and
informal attempts at substantial change (cycles of planning,
acting and reviewing).
I have one further comment to make, about the IDS comment
on the necessity of "wide participation by members of all
partner organisations in the processes of planning and production
of a logframe..." In my view this approach to participation
is like taking a stew as the ideal form of meal. I think we
need a more focused and discriminating approach. Perhaps a
logframe (or any other type of representation of a intended
process of change) should _grow_ outward in a series of steps,
from its original proponent, to their immediate partners,
then to their partners. Rather than be collectively cooked
up in one sitting.
I
look forward to further comments on the IDS paper, and my
own response. I have taken the liberty of publicising the
IDS paper on MandE NEWS, under New Documents, with a link
to the text at the Livelihoods-Connect web site.
Rick Davies (Dr)
Social Development Consultant
Cambridge, U.K.
Email: rick@shimbir.demon.co.uk
Phone: 44 (0) 1223 841 367
Mobile: 44 (0) 7855 766 354
Fax (to Email): 44 (0) 8701 640 239
Visit Monitoring and Evaluation NEWS at http://www.mande.co.uk/news.htm
|
