/

Terminology – Logic of programming

Version n°3[1]– 08/04/2004 – P. Villeval – 2p.

This brief note aims at warning you on the differences of presentation and definition between the HI internal guideline “Logic of programming” and The Project cycle management (PCM) manual of the European Union[2]. This last manual is, today, one of our reference documents for the project management.

*******

The guideline «Logic of programming» was produced by the Methodology working group[3]. It was, and it is still, spread within Handicap International. For example, this manual is available on the HI handbook. It constitutes the chapter 4.

The process proposed in this internal guide is very similar with other manuals used within HI, especially the Project cycle management (PCM) manual of the EU.

We just would like to underline two differences in term of process:

1)The guideline «Logic of programming» recommends strongly to define the problem to solve as precisely as possible, not as a lake of solution (“there is no water” for example) but as the description of a situation (“during the dry season, it is difficult for people living far from border springs situated at the head of the river system to have regular access to drinking water”)

2)The guideline recommends to identify the indicators during the construction of the problem tree, rather than during the definition of the logical framework. It presents following advantages :

-Ease of identification;

-To allow the problem, the causes and effects to be qualified or reformulated;

-Guarantee the relevance of the project;

-Identifying the source of indicators to enhance our knowledge of the situation and the problems.

These 2 recommendations are very relevant according to our practice. We recommend you to implement them during the programming periods.

It exists also some differences of terminology and presentation between the HI guideline «Logic of programming» and the PCM manual. They are not so important. But, the experiences showed it can be confusing for project managers.

1)Pyramid of objectives

According to the Logic of programming (edited in 2000) / According to the PCM Manual
The pyramid proposes 5 levels:
 General objective (only one)
 Intermediary objectives (some)
 Specific objectives (some)
 Activities (some)
 Result per activity (some) / The pyramid proposes 4 levels :
 Overall objectives (1 or some)
 Project purpose (only one)
 Results (some)
 Activities (some)
The general objective, «It is the finality, the reason for the operation, the sense, and it must remain stable over the long term and continue beyond the project».
Intermediary objectives are «are the central themes, action policies, allowing the general objective to be divided into action sections and action phases»
Specific objective is «a part of an intermediate objective and mobilises the means necessary in order to obtain a precise and measurable result, within a given period, whilst remaining coherent with the general objective.» / An organisation contributes to overall objectives, but don’t reach them through its own project.
A NGO has to reach the project purpose. Sometimes (with ECHO or Europaid for instance), the project purpose is a contractual obligation: funder can shorten the budget if we don’t succeed to reach the project purpose.
Results are “the “products” of the activities undertaken, the combination of which achieve the Purpose of the project, namely a start of enjoyment of sustainable benefits for the target groups”
The «results», in “logic of programming”, corresponds to the «indicators » in the PCM manual.

2)Criteria & indicators

According to the Logic of programming (edited in 2000) / According to the PCM Manual
The guideline introduced concepts of «criteria» and «indicator» with usually admitted definition:
Criteria or «viewing angles» = «criteria of evaluation are «viewing angles» used to assess an action». Usually, the evaluation criteria are: effectiveness, efficiency, impact, strategy of intervention, viability and sustainability
Indicators = «variable used for measuring or assessing a state, an evolution» (Petit Robert) / The PCM manual introduces the concept of «Objectively verifiable indicators (OVI)».
Objectively verifiable indicators = “Measurable indicators that will show whether or not objectives have been achieved at the three highest levels of the logical framework[4]. OVIs provide the basis for designing an appropriate monitoring system” (EU, 2001).
Example proposed in the guideline :
If we look at a person, a ‘viewing angle’ can be the size, which is assessed with an indicator ‘number of centimetres’, another ‘viewing angle’ can be the weight which can expressed in terms of ‘the number of kilos’. / A objectively verifiable indicator is defined like the target to achieve.
For example, if a result is «Road network is expanded», an OVI could be « 1000 km of high priority feeder roads constructed until early 2005, to the MOT approved standard».

So, definition and the way to formulate an indicator is very different between the 2 documents. Of course, a project proposal to a funder must respect very strictly its frame and glossary. A document for the European union must have only one project purpose and indicators formulated as above.

Page 1 sur 2

[1] Note validated by Alexandra MEGE (BdL) and Eric DELORME, author of the internal guideline «Logic of programming»

[2] EU, March 2001, Manual Project cycle management, 44p

[3] This group doesn’t exist anymore today.

[4] i.e. Results, Project purpose, Overall Objective(s).