Strategic Project Management Made Simple

by TO MÁ S TO MÁ S TO MÁ S TO MÁ S J . A RAG ÓNJ . A RAG ÓNJ . A RAG ÓNJ . A RAG ÓN • 01/29/2013

Updated templates

• LogFrame template as MS Word Document (exported from LibreOffice)

• LogFrame guidelines as PDF Document (exported from LibreOffice)

• LogFrame template for group facilitation MS Word Document (exported from LibreOffice)

Introduction

“Strategic Project Management Made Simple: Practical Tools for Leaders and Teams” (SPMMS) by Terry Schmidt is a book I highly recommend if you

are juggling many projects and feel like you or your team(s) may be losing strategic focus. SPMMS unifies strategic planning, logic models, and project

management! It is based on the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) which is commonly used outside the USA, especially in Europe. LFA is also known by

“objectives-oriented project planning” (OOPP), and it is used in “results-based management” (RBM).

In addition to SPMMS, I recommend downloading (for free) the “Guide to the Logical Framework Approach: A Key Tool for Project Cycle Management,

2nd Edition“. This guide gives an up-to-date review of LFA, and complements SPMMS (note: terminology differs slightly). If your reading time is limited and

you could only read one publication, read SPMMS — Terry’s book is comprehensive and relevant to the USA experience with many good examples.

The power of the LFA is that it is based on answering Four Critical Strategic Questions (FCSQs):

1) What are we trying to accomplish and why? (strategic intent & alignment)

2) How will we measure success? (performance & improvement)

3) What other conditions must exist? (assumptions & risks)

4) How do we get there? (project management)

Simply answering these FCSQs every time is great! It can be used for small projects like planning a meeting. However, for important projects a systems

approach is more effective and powerful.

A systems approach

For systems approach, the information is organized into a 4 x 4 table called the Logical Framework Matrix or “LogFrame” that provides a high-level planning

and summary tool for every project. The LogFrame links a strategic goal (impact) to project objectives (outputs and outcome) and project activities.

Logical Framework Matrix (LogFrame), Including Color Legend (Four Critical Strategic Questions), Vertical logic (curved arrows), Horizontal logic (Success Measures), and Zig-zag logic (straight arrows).

The Goal is the high-level strategic goal to which the project purpose contributes. The Purpose is the expected behavioral or system change from producing

the project results (outputs). The Results are the project outputs or deliverables produced by the project activities. The Activities are tasks that are

necessary and sufficient to produce project results (this is the realm of project management). Activities and Results are generally within the control of the

project team, while Purpose and Goal are beyond their direct control.

The LFA was the precursor to Logic Models which are very familiar to public health program evaluators. The LFA applies causal (logical) thinking to planning

and may appeal to epidemiologists.

LFA enforces alignment (vertical) logic:

medepi.commedepi.commedepi.commedepi.com

Inputs > Activities > Results (Outputs) > Purpose (Outcome) > Goal (Impact);

LFA enforce performance (horizontal) logic:

Measuring successful completion of Activities, Results, Purpose, and Goal;

and LFA enforces causal (zig-zag) logic:

1. IF Activities + valid Assumptions THEN Results (outputs) are produced.

2. IF Results + valid Assumptions THEN Purpose (outcome) is achieved.

3. IF Purpose + valid Assumptions THEN Goal is contributed to.

NOTE: Results and Outputs are synonymous; Purpose and Outcome are synonymous. In SPMMS, Schmidt calls “outputs” “outcomes,” which is not common

usage in public health. When you read his book, substitute “outcomes” with “outputs.”

The vertical, horizontal, and zig-zag logic forces one to systematically consider the multiple, interacting dimensions of planning, implementing, and evaluating

projects (i.e., a systems approach). Vertical logic enforces alignment from strategic goal to project activities, and vice versa. Project activities and results

answer how questions, and project purpose and goal answer why questions. For example, looking up: Why are we doing this project (activities and results)?

Answer: To achieve a purpose that contributes to the strategic goal. Looking down: How will we contribute to this strategic goal? Answer: By executing project

activities that produce results (outputs) that achieve a purpose (expected change) that contributes to the strategic goal.

Horizontal logic enforces performance monitoring, corrective actions, and quality improvement. More specifically, for project monitoring we ask: Are

we on track? (Monitor activities and results.) For project review we ask: Are we on the right track? (Review the validity of LogFrame components.) For

project evaluation we ask: Did we succeed? (Evaluate purpose and goal.) For each (monitoring, review, and evaluation), we can incorporate continuous

quality improvement.

Zig-zag logic enforces causal thinking (IF-THEN thinking). What activities and valid assumptions are necessary and sufficient to produce (cause) results?

What external factors outside our direct control (assumptions) might impact producing results? What results and valid assumptions are are necessary and

sufficient to achieve (cause) our purpose? Under favorable assumptions, what level of achieved purpose will contribute to the strategic goal? In causal

thinking we must incorporate external causal factors outside our control. (In epidemiology we call them “confounders.”) Dealing with Assumptions enforces

valid causal thinking.

Anticipating probable changes in assumptions enables us to do risk planning. We can either manage risks (risk management) or manage consequences

(consequence management). With risks, we can either ignore, eliminate, reduce (mitigate), or transfer risks (e.g., purchase insurance). With consequences,

we can either ignore or reduce (mitigate) consequences.

From a causal view, producing Results differs from achieving Purpose or contributing to a strategic Goal. We generally have complete control of the project

Activities that produce Results; however, we do not have complete control of how project Results will achieve Purpose (change in behavior or systems).

Likewise, we do not have complete control of how well the Purpose, even if achieved, will contribute to the strategic Goal. Beyond producing Results (which

we control), we can design projects to incorporate Assumptions and optimize the chances of achieving Purpose and contributing to Goals. This systems

approach of aligning strategic focus to project management is the brilliance and simplicity of the LFA!

I was recently told by a physician colleague that this method is “too complicated” for our public health staff, including planners. I disagree — most of our staff

that plan and lead projects have undergraduate and graduate degrees (e.g., MPH). The LFA fits below strategic planning and above project management.

The LFA is both a planning tool and a summary tool for planning, tracking, improving, communicating, and defending projects. For those that find LFA too

complicated, stick to the Four Critical Strategic Questions. However, if you read SPMMS, the author demystifies LFA (i.e., “made simple”) and you will wonder

how you got along without this simple tool.

Here is another way of thinking about LFA projects: project teams manage Activities, which produce Results (outputs) to achieve a Purpose (outcome),

which contributes to a Goal (strategic, longer term impact). Keeping your “eye on the prize” for every project enforces strategic focus. Project teams directly

control activities and outputs, but not outcomes and goal. We use project activities and output to cause (achieve) outcomes which contribute to a goal.

LFA was invented by Leon Rosenberg for USAID in the early 1970s and is currently used worldwide but, ironically, is uncommon in the US (Read his review

of SPMMS). In my opinion, US project management methods tend to be task-oriented which facilitate work breakdown structures (WBSs), network diagrams,

and Gantt chart schedules (see project management tutorial). These are very powerful technical approaches. However, LFA is objectives- or results-

focused which is not only more powerful, but easier to implement because we only implement activities that directly (or indirectly) produce outputs or achieve

outcomes. This helps us to prioritize and target our limited resources.

A few caveats:

• Use only one Goal for each LogFrame.

• Use only one Purpose (or cluster of related outcomes achieved by producing project outputs) for each LogFrame.

• Use Assumptions to link to external project goals, proposes, results, and activities that impact your project.

• Design your project Activities to produce Results that are necessary and sufficient to cause (achieve) the Purpose (expected change).

• Use vertical logic to enforce strategic alignment.

• Use horizontal logic to enforce performance monitoring, correction, and improvement.

• Use zig-zag logic to enforce causal thinking.

• Work the LFA in multiple directions (especially Assumptions) to enforce a holistic, systems approach.

I have adapted the LogFrame to accommodate planning and tracking projects. Here is a guide and template that you can adapt:

• LogFrame template as MS Word Document (exported from LibreOffice)

• LogFrame guidelines as PDF Document (exported from LibreOffice)

• LogFrame template for group facilitation MS Word Document (exported from LibreOffice)

The template can seem intimidating at first glance because I tried to be comprehensive. The most important feature is to ask and answer the four critical

planning questions for all your important projects. Simpler is better.

Your binder of LogFrames is now your Project Porfolio with every project linking to organization strategic goals.

LogFrame Humor

Share this:

Like this:

One blogger likes this.

Related

Professionals Ac…

6 Responses »

pmpguy44pmpguy44pmpguy44pmpguy4401/29/2013 • 4:00 am

Very interesting indeed. I have never heard of this matrix before, but I will give it a further look. I think it’s a tool I could use. Thanks a million. I will

reblog this post.

Reply ↓

pmpguy44pmpguy44pmpguy44pmpguy4401/29/2013 • 4:01 am

Reblogged this on Project Management Best Practices and commented:

This looks like a very useful tool.

Reply ↓

JamesJamesJamesJames02/10/2013 • 10:32 pm

Hi Tomas! This is a useful tool. I will make more research about this. Thanks for sharing!

Reply ↓

Greg Cutcher05/28/2013 • 8:31 am

Thank you for this summary, template and guidelines Tomas. I attended your CASPER LFA instruction and look forward to using this approach. I

especially like the Four Critical Strategic Questions–useful for many situations.

Reply ↓

Trackbacks

1. Strategic Project Management Made Simple | Project Management Best Practices

2. Thoughts on Health Leadership | medepi.com