1. From logframes to ToC?

2. PCM and LFA 2

3. The Logframe matrix 1. Fewer accidents in the production shop 2. Employees get fewer complaints from clients Employees feel adequately challenged at work To contribute to an adequate retention of employees 1.80% less serious accidents* 1.50% less complaints 1.Safety records 2.Customer service records Employee satisfaction score of 8,5 ES survey administered yearly by consultancy global satisfaction score** Annual % of leavers reduced to 3% HR records Employees are praised for doing well Employees understand the use of their tasks Employees wages stay stable or increase 1. Project Description 2. Verifiable indicators 3.Sources of verification 4. Assumptions Overall objective Project purpose Results *serious = resulting in more than 5 days off work ** instrument example attached

4. 4

5. Theory of change-1 Theory of change: All preconditions of a key outcome clear in terms of timing and causality (blue boxes): Those the intervention will act on Those that are assumed (assumptions) incl. regarding what other stakeholders will do Rationale (green boxes) behind each arrow (why is a pre- condition important) Actions intervene throughout the chain (red boxes) Example courtesy of ActKnowledge’s Helene Clark

6. Theory of change-2 6 Simplified version

7. Theory of change-3 7

8. © Benedict Wauters / Latitude C&T Source: Chen Theory of change-4

9. Change model Intervention Determinants Outcome Theory of change-5

11. Let’s compare logframes and ToC 11

12. Logframe is oversimplification (lack-frame) Output Purpose Visits of teachers to parents Better study- results Better start in labour market Global LFA Theory of change Adapted from C. Weiss Action Teacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents Results Better homework + More at school

13. Logframe obscures causality (logic-less) Original example: World Bank, R.Rist, 2004 Action1 Action 2

14. Logframe obscures causality (logic-less) Original example: World Bank, R.Rist, 2004 Action1 Action 2 Many logframes are just retro fitting box filling exercises where there is not necessarily a lot of logic behind (“logicless frames”). Many logframes are just retro fitting box filling exercises where there is not necessarily a lot of logic behind (“logicless frames”).

15. Logframe obscures causality (logic-less) 15 Logframe cannot show how elements at each level of the intervention logic interact with each other (e.g. how certain activities can only start as some outcomes already visible) ACTIVITIES Outcome

16. Logframe obscures causality (logic-less) 16 Logframe cannot show how elements at each level of the intervention logic interact with each other (e.g. how certain activities can only start as some outcomes already visible) Outcome ACTIVITIES

17. In LFA terminology is adding to the confusion…

18. Advantages of ToC relative to Logframe Logic is more clear: Different strands of cause-effect linked to various actions Assumptions (also about other stakeholders) on equal footing to actionable outcomes Not necessarily based on “problems” Less issues with terminology as relies on visuals rather than categories Draws more heavily on research based theories (if done properly) If alternative theories allowed, then greater likelihood of learning and improving However, even harder to do than Logframe? 18

19. However, some issues remain… 19

20. Issues with both LFA and ToC-1 Both in LFA and ToC participation of relevant stakeholders is seen as key to create common understanding and ownership, but in practice, especially under time pressure, participation tends to be problematic target groups themselves are usually ignored and participants in meetings/workshops usually are not the decision-makers differences of opinion among stakeholders are bound to exist and it may not be feasible to resolve them without resorting to abuse of power on the other hand stakeholders can be all too “happy to agree” as long as there will be funding coming in for them These processes are very demanding (e.g. formulating problems “correctly” in LFA is quite difficult as is formulating an outcome chain) It discriminates against people who cannot read or have impaired eye- sight as the method relies heavily on visualisation the assumption is also that it is not too hard to find a facilitator schooled in “LFA/ToC” AND in group dynamics; in practice, these people are quite rare Rogers and Funnel

21. Issues with both LFA and ToC-2 although the logic of how the intervention should work is much more elaborate,… … backwards re-engineering, in someone’s office, AFTER a project has been designed is unavoidable: ToC/LFA establish a parallel process to what is already going on (strategic planning processes, informal decision-making processes within existing power structures) 21

22. Issues with both LFA and ToC-3 the logic is linear: if we do A, B will happen, and then C, and so on = mechanistic, engineering idea of cause and effect as if we can turn the key in the engine of development and the wheels start turning it is assumes project actions set into motion a chain of events more or less automatically without feed-back loops or delaying effects “assumptions, risks, etc.” very difficult to identify in LFA the assumptions column usually is a formality (fill the box) limited by the imagination and experience perception that too detailed a risk analysis might be seen negatively by funders as it builds up a risky picture in ToC non-intervention pre-conditions have a bigger chance of being identified due to seeing more of what happens in the outcome chain and by drawing on multiple, science based theories, but still there are many “chimney” ToC in any case so many factors (systemic view) involved which lie beyond the scope of the planned initiative that will change the way things actually turn out, that it is unlikely you can identify them all 22

23. Training Better skills Better employability Employment Better income Poverty reduced Europe 2020 Eternal peace Danger of „Chimney thinking“ Source: V. Kvaca

24. Adapted from C. Weiss Action Teacher engages in scripted dialogue with parents ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

25. Ray Pawson (Realist evaluation) cautions: “We cannot contemplate, let alone observe and control, every supposition that will find its way into a programme…. enlightenment describes rather well the working relationship between research and policy (slow dawning…)… I think the aim should be to produce a sort of ‘highway code’ to programme building, alerting policy makers and practitioners to the problems that they might expect to confront and some of the safest measures to deal with them. … remember A, beware of B, take care of C, D can result in both E and F, if you try G make sure that H is in place….” R. Pawson, Nothing as practical as a good theory, Evaluation 2003, 9

26. 26

27. 27 Theories give us perspectives we can apply to interpret reality and how it may function… they can help us to devise numerous strategies, depending on what perspective we adopt … Theories are NOT comprehensive, air tight plans, nor should we confuse them.