Available online at http://www.ajol.infolindex.php/njbas/indexNigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Science (2011), 19(2): 260-268

ISSN 0794-5698

Logical Framework Analysis (LFA): An Essential Tool for Designing Agricultural ProjectEvaluation

*ID.A. Barau and 2J.O. OlukosiITaraba Sate University P.M.B. 1167, Jalingo

2 Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria[Corresponding Author's Email: dradbarau@yahoo.com I

ABSTRACT: Evaluation of a project at any stage of its life cycle, especially at its planning stage, isnecessary for its successful execution and completion. The Logical Framework Analysis or the LogicalFramework Approach (LFA) is an essential tool in designing such evaluation because it is a process thatserves as a reference guide in carrying out the evaluation. The objective of this paper is to provide anoverview of the process and the structure of the Logical Framework Matrix or Logframe, derivable from it,and its role in proj ect evaluation. The paper is based mainly on review of relevant literature on this analyticaltool. The literature search shows that the LFA enables the evaluator to thoroughly scrutinize and ersure thatevery key factor that is needed for the success of a project is clearly identified (as listed in the matrix cells -demonstrated in Figure 4) and thus must be provided for both in quantity and quality, and also at theappropriate time in implementing the project. It helps the evaluator to check for consistency of both verticallogic (project inputs project outputs project objectives or purpose project goal) and horizontal logic(narrative summary objectively verifiable indicators means of verification) as well as the reasonablenessof the underlying assumptions concerning the (proposed) project - all of which must be established for thesuccess of the project to be ascertained.

INTRODUCTIONThe underlying objective in any project, irrespectiveof its nature or sectoral bias, is to improve thewelfare of the target beneficiaries. This could be interms of increased income generating capacity,improved access to qualitative healthcare facilities,improved productivity, water and electricitysupplies, et cetera; as the case may be. Whereas therequisite resources for the intended project mayappear to be available and the ultimate goals of theproject seemingly well defined, the processes andlinkages that must be established to facilitatesuccessful transformation of the resources to setgoals are, often, either not well thought out, norfully understood or taken for granted.

This is the bane of many development projects indeveloping countries of the world. In situationswhere volume of money voted and expended iserroneously used as an indicator of success ofproject, it is very easy to overlook the significanceof incorporating and assessing each variable in thetransformation linkages. For agricultural projects, inparticular, given the interactive complementaritiesof most recommended modem input packages,failure to plan effectively for the sourcinglavailability of each as at required time and in theright quantum/quality would imply that optimumyields cannot be attained or, at worst, result topartial or complete failure in output; irrespective ofvolume of money already expended. This is whyproject evaluation is so vital to ensure success. The

Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) is often used asa tool in the project evaluation process. It comprises"a set of interlocking concepts which must be usedtogether in a dynamic fashion to permit theelaboration of a well-designed, objectively-described and evaluable project" (PCI, 1979). Its usethus ensures that the evaluator is able to check forthe requisite consistencies in the logical linkages(both vertical and horizontal) for achieving theoverall goal of any given project.

The paper /focuses on the concept of the LFA, as atool of analysis, with the aim of highlighting itsusefulness and applicability in all facets of projectevaluation designs/implementation.

The project cycle and evaluation design: The five(5) conventional stages in the project cycle are: (i)identification, (ii) preparation and analysis, (iii)appraisal, (iv) implementation and (v) evaluation(Gittinger, 1982). The World Bank, on the otherhand, gives a slightly different terminology to thestages as:

(i) Identification, (ii) preparation, (iii) appraisal, (iv)implementation and (v) completion (Casley & Lury,1982). Notwithstanding the fact that the term"evaluation" is added as the final stage of the projectcycle in Gittinger's (1982) classification, it canactually be undertaken at any stage of the cycle. For

. instance, during the I st three stages of the cycle, aslisted above (when actual implementation has not

260

Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Science (2011),19(2): 260-268

commenced), an "ex-ante" evaluation can beconducted to determine the potentialviability/success of the project prior toimplementation. "Interim" evaluation, on the otherhand, can be undertaken while the project is beingimplemented but has not reachedcompletion/maturity. The "ex-ante" and "interim"evaluations are important as they provideopportunities for detection and correction of errorsin project design before implementation is embarkedupon or during implementation, respectively. This

1. Identification

(c) End of jXqect(Immediate uponcompletion )

or(d) "Ex-post"(Long period aftercompletion )

makes for more effective implementation withgreater prospects for success - both technical andcost-wise. Finally, "end-of-project" and "ex-post"evaluations are those done immediately uponcompletion of the project or the project has beenoperated for sometime before its completion,respectively, for purposes of assessing projectimpact and effectiveness. The inter-phase betweenthe project cycle and the different types ofevaluation is shown in Figure I.

(a) "Ex-ante"(Before ProjectImplementation)

2. Preparation and.Al!alysis

(b) "nterim" (While Project isbeing implemanted)

4. Implementation

Figure 1: The Inter-phase between the Project Cycle and Types of EvaluationSource(s): Concept Derived from Various Sources in Literature.

The LFA and its role in project evaluationdesign: The objective of an evaluation design isto facilitate systematic application of evaluationcriteria', namely: the rationale for the project;the efficiency of resource utilization; and theeffectiveness/impact of the project to the statedgoal, purpose (objectives), outputs and inputs aswell as the underlying assumptions of theproject (Barau, 1984; Cummings et al.; 1984;CIDA, undated). It is the LFA, when properlyconceptualized and represented in a form ofLogframe Matrix that enables the evaluationdesign to be achieved and applied in evaluatingany project of interest at whatever stage of itslife cycle. According to Gawler (2005), an"LF A is an analytical process for structuring andsystematizing the analysis of a project or

programme idea". He also stressed that theprocess ofLFA would allow a project to:"(i) involve stakeholders in the problem analysis

and design of the project;(ii) systematically and logically set out the

project or programme's objectives and themeans-end relationships between them;2These criteria are discussed in detail underAPPENDIX at the end of the paper

(iii)establish what assumptions outside thescope of the project may influence itssuccess; and

(iv) set indicators to check whether theobjectives have been achieved." He furtherstressed the importance of the LFA byarguing that it "provides a set of designtools that, when applied creatively, can beused for planning, designing,

261

Anthony And Olukosi: Logical Framework Analysis (LFA): An Essential Tool for .

implementing, monitoring, and evaluatingprojects. Logframes give a structured,logical approach to setting priorities, anddetermining the intended purpose andresults of a project. Used correctly,logframes can provide a sound mechanismfor project development.

Logical frameworks also lay the basis foractivity scheduling, budgeting, monitoring,and for evaluating the impact,effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance ofa project"

This derives from the fact that "LFA-basedproject assessment, when properly carried out,will:

(i) foster reflection among the projectimplementers,(ii) generate early warnings before things

go wrong and allow for correctivedecisions,

(iii) improve project monitoring andreporting, and(iv) facilitate and improve projectevaluation, both internal and external."(Gawler,2005)

The LFA must not, however, be set in concreteor rigid terms nor attempt to provide everydetail of a project. It should solely provide asummary of the key factors of a project thatwould guide planning, implementation orevaluation design towards ensuring success ofthe project (BOND, 2003).The Logframe Matrix derived from the LFA is atwo dimensional matrix having four rows andfour columns which can be used to summarizethe vertical logic and horizontal logic of aproject (CIDA, op.cit). It is, thus, a 4x4 cellsmatrix (Figure 2); the morphology/contents ofwhich are designed to provide details towardschecking for logical sequences (of events andresources in the transformation process) thatmust exist to ensure attainment of stated projectgoal. It is pertinent at this point to elaboratefurther on these linkages.(i) The vertical linkages (y-axis) can bedescribed basically as addressing the "why" and"how" the project will be implemented; that is,what are the anticipated results and the means

mobilized to obtain them (BOND, 2003; CIDA,op.cit). Using the Narrative Summary (NS)column as an example, the vertical logicaddresses the question of the requisite linkagesfor the overall success of the project, namely;given the overall project goal, what are thespecific objectives that must be achieved toattain the said goal? Similarly, what productsmust the project yield to achieve statedobjectives, and finally, what inputs must beacquired/employed to get the desired products?

(ii) The horizontal linkage (x-axis), on the otherhand, outlines the conditions under which, andaccording to what terms, the elements of thevertical axis can be achieved and verified. Inthis instance, for each of the cells in the verticallogic, as enumerated under the NarrativeSummary (NS), the LFA itemizes the pre-requisite parameters (indicators) which can beobjectively verified (OVIs) as well as the meansby which each can be verified (MaY). Finally,the horizontal logic lists the importantassumptions (external factors which couldinfluence the success of the project) underlyingthe project goal, purpose, products and inputs.This listing facilitates evaluation of thereasonableness of the assumptions against thebackdrop of the required linkages andconsistencies of the contents of the cells of thematrix. These can be assessed in the context ofsources and availability of human and materialresources, physical and institutional facilities,technical infrastructures, and otherdevelopmental indicators on which the successof the project is predicated.

In summary, the details of the cells of the LFAprovide the evaluator with every relevantinformation to use in assessing the potentials forsuccess or otherwise of a project. This it does bycompelling the evaluator to "account" for thekey factors required in each cell for the nextcell, dependent on it, to be achievable as per thegoal of the project. Similarly, verifiable andmeasurable indicators are provided to validatethe stated parameters in the cells of the NS. Thisis illustrated in greater details in Figure 3.

262

QC)\CM

IQ\CM

f-<rJ)~§f-<f-<.---~~~I :!o cU~::ErJ)......•rJ)<

..•U

-er3 ~

U

F PROJECT(S)hen PROGRAM

;.:.,M"-"0'\- Zt.J...0Of:: _

rJ)-<>I'"z UO -~~6U~

-----QM"-"<UCJI:<U'yrJ)

]c.c.<'1:1I:esCJ

'(;;es

=='-e-;I:I.=e...,I:es'i:<U~Z

'"U '"r3 '"..•U

F PURPOSE.hen GOAL

>(t::C<i::E..I(

6~E

1 1 1 1 1 1£~ujh

~>--~O.....l.....l'-'~1l1rJ)

~ ;S f31 ~u!:::f-<U~~-<•....•~Uo:l> .o Clz~>--f::~ _~::ErJ)I-~~bUZrJ)

N

U

r.3

Nr3

.s

F OUTPlfTS.hen PURPOSE

N

U

F INPUTS.hen OUTPUTS

u

rJ)~o~z.....l

rJ) _~rJ)

f-< f-<2:B3f-<rJ)f-<U Uf-<OU5UrJ)~~~U~~" ~f-<•....••....• ~ •....••...••....•::Jo 0 Of-<O~~0~o:l~~;:J~7~O~O,-,~O~i::

N

e=Q.O.;:

NARRATIVE SUMMARY OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (OVl) MEANS OF VERIFICAllON

IMPORTANT ASSUMTlONS

,l\ Concem irgLV Projects - program(or sector) link

....................................................................... .................................................................... ...................... I!D.gree towhi:h goal hes boon ",ached:

Goals Moo". for .ne~~volylQ>ntrib.Jtbn 0( projectto i"l>lementation et Prcgram Objectively verifiable coootions that wll determneor to nterventim sector that it supports. the deg",eto wt-ich goal hes boon ",oched. verifylrg OIII's

Pulp""OS Pulp""e ndcators called EOPS (End of Project Slatus)

Base motwe brplOducng the wtplts Objectively verifiab'e corditims hi sholAd ndcetethat the pu-pose was accar,,:~ished and ttet measure Same as wove

Ith8 irrp arta nt e leme nts cl t he pt.rpOse.

ConcemirgPurpose -goo,.nks

A Events or factors overY which project team hasIllIe contrd andthai arenecessary coodtions forreachnggoal

DEVELOPMENT HYPOlHESES

CoocemirgcJ OJtput- purpose Inks

Events orfactors overwhich project team hasIllIe contra and thai arerecessary coodtions forcttaining p.Hp05e.

M\0NOIJpuls Magnlude of outputs reanred to acco"1>lsh the

CcncrEte resuls expected troma SCU'ld managB'lleOt pUlposesofnpuls. Magnlude of ",suits and target dates of CD"1>ielion Same as wove

[Inputs Reeocrces and expenditures for each activity:

Activities and resources required fa producirg Oltputs. Types and cost of required resOtXces for each activty Same as aboveand tll'get date.

r\ Concemirg11,1' ill'Ut - outpJt links

Events or factors overwhich project leam hasIlIlecontrd andtha arerecessary condtions forproducirg outputs.

* These could include: i. Pre - & post-project reportsii. Past reportsiii. Interim evaluationsiv. External consultants' reportsY. Statistical surveys,

Figure 3: Logical Framework Matrix (Elaborated).J3ource: Adapted from CIDA (undated)

Anthony And Olukosi: Logical Framework Analysis (LFA): An Essential Tool for ••.••....

Figure 4, an extract from a paper by Barau (1984),provides a practical illustration of a Logframe of anLFA developed to be applied to undertake aninterim evaluation of a (then) proposed CIDA-assisted irrigation project in Northern Ghana. Theevaluation framework for the design was providedonly by the programme draft proposal and theLFAlLogframe (Fig. 4) that was developed from it.Consequently, the design was handicapped in termsof providing exact details of timing, quantity andquality of inputs, outputs, services and so on. Wherepossible, dummies (for example, letters such as XV/o,year Y, and so on) were, thus, used to represent thesevariables in the Logframe developed.For the said LFA Logframe (Fig.4), the NS lays outthe vertical linkage by showing that:

(i) to attain the proj ect' s goal of improving thestandard of living of the people in thenorthern region of Ghana (the project area),a number of specific objectives (projectpurposes) must be achieved as indicated;

(ii) the achievement of the said projectobjectives (such as improved foodproduction, effective marketing anddistribution systems for both inputs andfarm produce, amongst others), on the otherhand, is possible only if certain projectoutputs - such as establishment of farminputs procurement/distribution systems,farm credit input, produce collectingcentres, small irrigation facilities, amongother outputs - can be obtained fromexecuting the project; and

(iii) finally, the specified project outputs,necessary for achievement of projectobjectives, are dependent onavailability/utilization of the specifiedinputs.

Thus, by specifying these linkages in the Logframeof the LFA, the project evaluation design can thenbe developed and applied in assessing whether ornot the key elements so identified are beingachieved and thereby indicate whether the project ison track towards achieving its goal.

The horizontal logic of the LFA Logframe (Figure4) is established by identifying the practicalindicators of attainment of the parameters in thecells of the NS and how they can be verified. Itstates the expected roles of the Government ofGhana (GaG), CIDA and other donor agencies, therequisite technical manpower, infrastructures andinstitutions required, et cetera; for the project tosucceed. Finally, it states the important assumptionsunderlying the entire project planning andexecution.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONFigure 2 (which is elaborated in Figure 3 andpractically illustrated in Figure 4) shows that theLFA guides the project evaluator to strictlyscrutinize and ensure that the requirements of eachcell, as pre-requisites for the attainment of the nextcell (as well as achievement of the overallconsistency in the vertical logic) have been fullymet; being necessary conditions for the success ofthe project. Similarly, the conditions necessary for,and the terms under which the vertical logic can beachieved are outlined in the horizontal logic byspecifying the achievement indicators (OVls) andthe means of practically measuring them (MOV) aswell as the underlying assumptions.

Thus, the development and application of the LFAby the evaluator will check whether or not keyrequisite inputs have been identified by the projectmanagement and plans for theiravailability/sourcing, as well as other logisticsassociated with their acquisition, was adequatelymade. Similarly, the timing of input availability andother supporting infrastructures and personnel (bothlocal & international) are all addressed in the LFA.The nature and use of the products to achieveproject objectives and, ultimately, goals are alsoaddressed. In essence, therefore, the use of the LFAenables identification of any missing links, prior toor during implementation that could ultimatelyaffect the success of the project, thereby enablingremedial steps to be taken to avert failure. Thepoints raised above, therefore, clearly highlight theimportance and potential of the LFA to contribute tothe overall success of a project.

REFERENCESBarau, A.D. (1984). "A Design of Evaluation for the

Agricultural Project Component of theProposed Northern Region Rural IntegratedProgramme (NORRIP); Ghana" A TermPaper in Programme Evaluation Course (02-669); University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada;32 pages.

BOND (2003). Logical Framework Analysis.Guidance Notes Series; No. 4; March.

. www.gdrc.orglngo/logical-fa.pdfCasley, D.J. and Lury, D.A. (1982). Monitoring and

Evaluation of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Projects. The John HopkinsUniv. Press Baltimore and London. Publishedfor the World Bank; 145 pages.

Canadian International Development Agency(CIDA) (undated). Methodology Guide forProject Teams Responsible for ManagingEvaluations. CIDA's Evaluation Division,Canada; 138 pages.

264

Gittinger, J.P. (1982). Economic Analysis ofAgricultural Projects. Second Edition. TheJohn Hopkins University Press. Baltimore andLondon; 505 pages.

Practical Concepts Inc. (pC I) (1979). ProjectManagement System (PMS): An IntegratedSystem Approach to Managing The ProjectCycle. Washington D.C.

Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Science (2011), 19(2): 260 268

Cumrnings, H., Brown, J. and Spafford, G. (1984).Indonesia Water Sectoral Loan - An Ex-PostEvaluation (CIDA); 171 pages.

Gawler, M. (2005). ''Logical Framework Analysis".In the Series: Resources for Implementing theWWF Standards. www.arternis-service.comldownloads/logical- framework. pdf

265

Anthony And Olukosi: Logical Framework Analysis (LFA): An Essential Tool for .NARRATIVE SUMMARY (NS) I OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS I MEANS OF I IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS (lA)

(OVl) VERIFICATION (NOY)PRoJECT

GoAL

To improve the standard of living ofpeople in the Northern Region ofGhana. (This is the overall program~I to which this project contributesthrough improved agriculturalproductivity and generation of higherreal farm income).

1) Disposable income (as expressed in the Sources of Information andconsumption of some X basic commodities) Methods Employed:exceeds pre-project level and equal to or in 1) National and Regionalexcess of the national growth rate. Development plans

Increased rate of regional development and progress reports.expenditure to match the national average. 2) Agency reports.

3) External evaluation reports.4) Statistical surveys.5) Pre- and post - project

census documents.

2)

1) Ghanaian 'Government (GaG)places high priority on, and allocatessufficient funds for the project.

2) A good pre-project data base exists.3) Baseline data collection carried out.4) Other complementary projects in the

program successfully carried out toprovide some of the inputs necessaryfor the agricultural project tosucceed (e.g. training of extensionagents).

5) GaG appreciates the need for inter-sectoral co-ordination.

PRoJECT

PURPoSE(OBJECTIVES)

1) To increase and improve thereliability of agricultural output inthe target rural areas.

2) Achieve quantity and quality foodsupply all year round.

3) Establish effective marketing anddistributing system for agriculturalinputs and outputs.

4) Enhance production systems andpractices in line with goodconservation and resourceimprovement by supportingagricultural research institutes atDamongo, Pong Tamale andNyankpala.

5) A self-sustaining, transformed andefficiently integrated and productivelocal agricultural base.

Achievement Indicators

1) Increased agricultural output through increases inproductivity and acreage planted and harvested offood and cash crops.

2) Increases in net household incomes.3) Significant decrease in loss of productive top soil

through erosion.4) Adequate number of milling and other food

processing plants established half-way through theproject duration.

1) National and regionalinformation and reportingsystem.

2) Socio-economic studies.3) Interim evaluations.4) Design for pre-feasibility

reports.

1) Design studies in target areas largelyaccepted by GOG and incorporatedinto budgetary system.

2) Conducive and stable Ghanaianeconomic/political environment inwhich to plan and implementdevelopment projects.

3) Technical staff can be recruited andfor trained on time 'and in sufficientnumbers.

4) People trained through thedevelopment project remain in theproject areas.

5) Improvement in the homeenvironment to induce qualifiedGhanaians staying abroad to returnand manage the developmentprojects.

6) No major adverse changes in theagro-climatic conditions.

266

Ni2erian Journal of Basic and Applied Science (2011),19(2): 260-268PRoJECT

oUTpUTS

Increased number of/improvements in:1) Farm inputs procurement and

distributing units.2) Farm credit unions.3) Farm produce collecting centres to

facilitate evacuation to biggerregional and international markets.

4) Small irrigation facilities, especiallyaround the Lake Volta area.

5) Farmers cooperative organizationsand commodity marketing boards.

6) Extension services.7) Appropriate size crop and livestock

processing and storage plants.8) Provide rural all-season tracks to

link producing areas and the majorroads and thus to urban marketcentres; (an aspect of the programinfrastructure development that hasspecial bearing on the success of theagricultural project).

9) Processing and storage facilities for

1) Expanded acreage devoted to food and cash crops.2) Increase in average size of livestock per family.3) More farmers have access to, and use modem

inputs.4) Farmers can dispose of their produce easily and

profitably.5) Double cropping per year (rain-fed and irrigation

during the dry season).6) K - Kilometres of rural all-season roads

constructed by year Yn.7) X-percent increase in number of farm service

centres.8) 30 - 35% increase in local markets with facilities

to handle and store increased farm outputs half-way through the project duration.

9) 60 - 80% of farmers adopt and practise advancedeconomic and agricultural practices.

I) Project team's quarterly andannual reports.

2) CIDA project officers' on-going evaluations.

3) Consultant's studies.4) Project monitoring reports

(operational reviews andaudits).

5) Past reports.6) Follow-up interviews with

project participants.7) Project regular

reimbursements requests.

I) Human, financial and physicalresources are available as projectedin the plan of operation.

2) There is cooperation among, andcommitment by all governmentagencies, institutions and otherparticipants in the project.

3) Investment opportunities exist.4) Priorities can be established and

agreed to by cooperating projectsand regional development planningteams.

5) Incenti ves exist for farmers to investin more agricultural production.

6) There is support for "bottom-up"planning and people's participation.

PRoJECT

INpUTS

InclUdes:I) Personnel (management, sectoral,

planning, financial control); bothGhanaian_and expatriates,

2) Finance (budget).3) Personnel and equipment to

strengthen extension services (visits,radio programs and fielddemonstrati ons).

4) Farm inputs - fertilizers, seedscredit, livestock breeds, appropriateimplements and tools, spare-parts,fuel supply and other chemicals.

5) Vehicles, access roads, landimprovement machinery andconstruction equipment.

1) Team fielded early by year YI.

2) Preparation of detai led work plan early by year YI.3) Revised work plan, incorporating additional

information from field surveys ready early by yearY2·

4) External funding agencies and GOG sign programapproval memorandum (PAM) in mid - year Y2-

5) Funding commitments by CIDA, Germany, GOG,local support groups and NGOs made and fulfilledlate year Y2.

6) Construction Materials and equipment procuredby mid - year Y3

7) 'N' number of agricultural experts (AgricEconomists, Extensionists, etc.) withM.Sc./Ph.D), Planners, etc.) both Ghanaian andexpatriates available by late year Y2.

I Project information andreporting system.

2) CIDA records.3) Regional development

documents.4) Quarterly reports from

Project Team.5) External evaluation

reports.

I) Canadian expertise is available interms of quantity, quality andcommitment.

2) Local expertise and manpower isavailable, or could be readilytrained, in quantity, quality andcommitment.

3) Canadian, Ghanaian and otherdonors provide funds as projected inthe plan of operation.

4) Availability of necessary materialsand equipment both from local andoutside sources.

5) Local socio-economic/politicalconditions are favourable forprovision of inputs.

Figure 4: Logframe of the Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) for the Agricultural Project Component of the Proposed NORRIP Strategy, Ghana

267

Anthony And Olukosi: Logical Framework Analysis (LFA): An Essential Tool for .

APPENDIX?(a) RationaleThis criterion focuses on the choice of inputs,outputs, validity of the assumptions, and therelevance of the overall sectoral developmentprogramme. Key questions that could be raised inthis regard include, amongst others, the following: -i. Were the types of activities selected as

constituents of the agricultural project theappropriate ones, given the set-up of thelocal agricultural production system?

ii. Were the correct locations chosen forimplementation?iii. Were the assumptions valid? Did the types

of inputs identified appropriate in obtainingthe desired outputs?

lV. Did the agricultural project fit well withinthe general structure of the programme withrespect to achieving stated overall goal?How much local/grassroots participationwas involved in the design _ andimplementation of the project?

v. Were there alternative and more suitableprojects that could have been chosen? Werethese examined? etc.

(b) EfficiencyUnder efficiency, we are concerned with thetransformation of inputs into outputs. Accordingly,some of the key questions of interest here are: -i. Were the resources used in the most optimal

way possible? Could the resources havebeen used more productively in alternativeactivities?

11. Were local resources fully exploited in theproduction process? Would that havebeen more cost-efficient?

11l. Could the outputs have been realized usingother methods? Were such possibilities everassessed?

lV. Does the project management have adequatetrained personnel (e.g. extension agents,etc.) and other supportingfacilitieslinstitutions to ensure efficient useof available resources? etc.

(c) Effectiveness/ImpactFor most projects meaningful measures of theireffectivenesslimpact on the target population arepossible only at the very end of implementation andbest after some period of time well beyondcompletion. This notwithstanding, some elements ofthe effectivenessof a project can be assessed at theinterim_stage. For example, one should be able toassess the effectiveness of some already achievedoutputs in meeting stated project objectives(purposes). Any weakness in this vertical_linkage(output to purpose) might indicate potential problemin the overalllinkage from inputsthrough to projectgoal, implying inevitable failure of project toachieve its anticipated impact on the local targetgroup.

Thus, the interim assessment of effectiveness willaid in early identification of the potential causes offailure and thereby indicate the need for re-evaluation of the LFA and the revision of the projectoperational plan (POP) if need be.Questions in this section are based on a comparisonof expected outputs with actual outputs and, in somecases, unexpected outputs, and their effects onachieving project objectives. For

3 These were adapted from CIDA (undated)example, were the purposes of the projectachieved? Were needs for alternativeapproaches/issues/solutions identified? Wereany lessons learned that would be used toimprove the subsequent operation or otherphases of the project and/or for other futureprojects.

268