One of the great inventions of The New Development Paradigm (TNDP) is the LogFrame. It provides a link between a concrete activity (which we can control) and a desired effect within the broader system (which we can influence at best). As a framework based on logic it overcomes the limitations of acting out of ideology or belief, but does not negate the role of culture.

My understanding is that it was created by USAID in 1969, the same year as the landing on the moon. It provides a format that sets out the logical relationship between an ‘Activity’ (Space program) an ‘Output’ (such as ‘Moon Landing’) and an ‘Outcome’ (such as ‘Americans feel good about themselves’). The ‘Outcome’ being the important part of TNDP. In between the ‘Output’ and ‘Outcome’ is the ‘Strategy’, which in simple terms is the thinking behind the logic. In this instance it might have been ‘Demonstration of US technical capability’.

In it’s original format, each layer of logic contained both a method of measurement and also the assumptions behind each.

Over the years the LogFrame has become both a core element of International Development Programs, and also highly reviled. I’ve been wondering if the derision is because a common (but unstated) ‘assumption’ is that other peoples values are the same as ours. In other words, there is an assumption that no longer having to go to the river to collect water, but having a water point within 300m will be a cause of great happiness. It does not allow that perhaps something more important would be having the opportunity to talk with friends whilst walking to the river.

Some examples of how the logic stacks up, but only if the assumption is that the values of those providing the service or describing the logic and the beneficiary are the same.

Consider five scenarios each starting with the same goal or outcome: ‘Having a happy family”. In each case the logic is a reflection of the ideology or values of the person developing the plan.

• Water Engineer: Achieve your Goal of a happy family, with having easy access to fresh water (Strategy). This requires a reticulated water system (Output) and you should volunteer to dig the trenches this afternoon.
• Health Advocate:To achieve your Goal of a happy family, requires that they have access to a good health service (Strategy). This means having a doctor in town (Output) and you should sign this petition for one right now. (Action)
• Politician (elected representative):To achieve your Goal of having a happy family, requires them to be well represented (Strategy). Thus you should elect me to represent you, (Output) and an action you could take is to vote for me today.

In each case the logic works well. The problem is that none of them are ours.  I was advised by a colleague the other day that ‘being happy’ was such a Western concept. For Africans, she told me, survival is what is important.

By structuring the log frame in response to a different reality to ours this then helps explain the logic behind something that we might find illogical. An example being how a beneficiary gives away half the free seeds and fertiliser provided by an Aid Agency that was to ensure that the family would have enough food for the whole year.

Facilitator: The logic of the facilitative approach is based on the assumption that your values are different to mine. The Technology of  Participation process, (which evolved out of reconstruction activities in the aftermath of the Chicago Race riots of the early 1970’s), enables the logframe to be developed by the one who owns the problem. The role of the facilitator is to ask the questions in an order that generates the answers by participants.

If there is a need to put the LogFrame developed this way into a funding proposal or report, simply change the answer provided to the Strategy Question from a negative to a positive and call it ‘Strategy’ e.g.: ‘Enhance and build on my social capital’ could have come from the answer ‘I owe a lot to my friends and neighbours’.

Tea break at the Sugar Project review meeting

A characteristic of the Opera House design was that at the time of the award, nobody knew how to build it, not even the architect. In a similar vein, when JFK said that he wanted an American on the moon, nobody knew how to do that either. In both cases though there was sufficient understanding of science and technology for society to be confident enough that such ambitious goals could be achieved.

Project vision developed at the previous workshop

Concern Universal’s goal of “A world where justice, dignity and respect prevail for all.” is a different kind of problem, or challenge, to putting a man on the moon, and also requires a

Discussion at the Sugar Project review meeting

different kind of thinking to achieve it. Whilst it requires a different kind of thinking, I believe the process of incremental learning developed in the science and technology world, is still applicable.

Break out group at the LDSP planning meeting

An aspect of all contemporary Donor Aid programs is that the donors demand regular Monitoring and Evaluation reports of projects and programs, both to ensure accountability but also to facilitate learning and change. I recently attended the Sugar and LDSP (Local Development Support Program) projects quarterly review meetings. I was impressed by the desire to explore the ‘so what?’ question in response to a list of outputs achieved, the real discussions on gender issues, and the use of facilitators in the meetings. The next step is to build on these capabilities, become even more inclusive, get a step closer to the desired goal.

The competition winning drawing for the Opera House design.

There is always a gap between the image and the reality, but you need to start with an idea of what you are designing to achieve. The Sydney Opera house didn’t just appear as a finished design, it started as a description of an idea with considerable work and adjustment before the final reality.

On a visit to Maputo a few years ago I asked my friend Muchimba what her vision for Maputo would be if it achieved it’s goal of being ‘developed’ in 20yrs time. Her answer was:

“Well built houses, calm, not the noise and stress of ‘developed’ cities. People with dignity and good health.”

 Interestingly there is considerable overlap between Muchimba’s vision and Malawian’s criteria for a high quality of life:

 Enough food, harmonious relationships, good health and housing.

Morning commuting traffic past our house. Note the ‘Walk & Talk’ facilitation technique plus lots of smiling and laughing.

Neither mention freeways or self managed super schemes, which may or may not be successful strategies to reach the vision.  What I do find really strange is how whilst far from the ideal in many ways, contemporary Blantyre also illustrates some aspects of what the developed cities of the West might be missing out on.

Buying veg from the urban agriculture producer retailer.