00:00:01 Introduction and recap

Eliza: Thank you, Sylvain, for the nice introduction. Welcome everyone. This is the second webinar of our webinar series. In the first webinar, we tried to provide the definition of the Theory of Change, the basic elements of a Theory of Change, and how we can develop one in a very simple way given the limited time.

In the second webinar today, we're going to focus on the Results Framework and Logical Framework. In the next two webinars, we will focus more extensively on two main components of the Logical Framework, which are the indicators and the measurement methods. In the last webinar, we will focus on how to develop a MEAL plan. Basically, this webinar series aims to walk you through some basic tools which are considered the foundation of the MEAL system design. We aim to keep it simple in order for all the audience to be able to follow and understand, and we hope that this is also a good revision for those M&E practitioners that already have sufficient experience on the ground.

00:01:41 Agenda for the session

In today's webinar, we're going to focus on the Results Framework: the structure and the definition, how the Results Framework is associated with the Theory of Change, and why we need the Results Framework. Next, we're going to move on to how to develop the Results Framework. We will look at some basic steps around this development, best practices, and how it differs in an M&E context.

Then we're going to move from the Results Framework to the Logical Framework, often called the LogFrame. We will understand the Logical Framework elements, why we need it, and how it is associated with the Results Framework. As I mentioned earlier, we will focus more extensively in the next webinars on indicator development and measurement methods, which also coincide with the elements that are included in the Results Framework.

00:02:53 Logic models: Theory of Change, Results Framework, and LogFrame

Moving forward to the Results Framework, before providing the definition, I would like to clarify that Theory of Change, Results Framework, and Logical Framework are considered logic models. They are considered logic models because they are tools that we start using, sometimes even without understanding exactly where they are in our discussions, when we start to develop a new project and a new intervention. Even in a proposal, though not quite structured, the Theory of Change, the Results Framework, and the Logical Framework exist.

Theory of Change aims to help us understand the long-term change that we want to see and that our projects will contribute to. It describes and illustrates the pathways of change, the underlying assumptions, and the supporting evidence. The Results Framework is a bit more focused; it explains and illustrates our project-specific hierarchy, or the causal logic that exists within our intervention. The Logical Framework builds upon the Results Framework and Theory of Change and provides high-level indicators, measurement methods, means of verification, and assumptions that need to hold true in order for the causal logic to work.

00:05:41 Defining the Results Framework

The Results Framework is a logic model that aims to organize the results of the project into a hierarchy. It identifies the 'if-then' relationships. There is a causal, or vertical, logic. Imagine that we have an output, such as delivering cash to beneficiaries; we need to do this in order to move to the next level, the Intermediate Result, and move up to the Strategic Objective.

To analyze the levels in detail:

Why do we need the Results Framework? First, it maps out the project logic, illustrating cause-and-effect relationships that are within the project responsibilities. It supports us to map out the vision and the direction that we are heading to. Also, it supports evidence-based decision making. It helps us put into statement boxes those components that are the direct responsibility of the project teams, which is an enabling factor in choosing the information we would like to collect for monitoring, evaluation, learning, or accountability.

00:11:32 Results Framework vs. Theory of Change

There is frequently confusion between the Results Framework and the Theory of Change. Both are designed to help us illustrate and describe the logic for a project. They help us show the long-term change and the expected pathway. However, the Theory of Change is not simply a narrative about the details of the Results Framework.

The main difference is that the Theory of Change includes assumptions and conditions that need to hold true in order for the long-term change to happen. They may include preconditions that are outside of our control, which is not something that the Results Framework includes. The Results Framework aims to describe what is actually within our project team's responsibility. Also, the Theory of Change enables the description of interconnectivity between statements, whereas the Results Framework tells a vertical story.

00:13:55 Practical example: The Homeland scenario

Let's use the example from the previous webinar. We have a fictitious country called Homeland that has received many migrants and refugees and is in the third year of a crisis. The government, in collaboration with NGOs, wants to identify the most appropriate intervention to enable people to build their future.

In this case:

This corresponds to the Theory of Change logic: "If refugees correspond to the labor market demand... and if vulnerable refugees can meet basic needs... then refugees will be able to engage in safe jobs." However, the Theory of Change might include a third "if" regarding government management of public services, which is outside the project's direct control and thus not in the Results Framework.

00:17:19 From Problem Tree to Results Framework

In an ideal world, before starting an intervention, we get assessment data to understand the context. We construct a problem tree to identify the core problem, causes, and effects. The Results Framework basically flips the coin. If the core problem is "refugees suffer from economic exclusion," we flip this to the positive side: "refugees have increased economic resilience." The causes become intermediate results, and the effects relate to the goal. This is the first step by which we identify the pathway of change.

00:19:43 Developing the Results Framework

When developing the framework, we usually follow these steps (though often with back-and-forth):

Best Practices: We need to be conscious and ask ourselves: Who changes (individuals, communities, institutions)? What is changing (behavior, knowledge, policy)? What is the direction of this change (increase, decrease, improve)?

Remember the vertical logic: going down demonstrates how we achieve the change; going up demonstrates why we are doing specific activities.

Emergency Context: In emergency contexts, we often use accepted standards like the Sphere Standards. These can be useful sources for indicators. Projects typically focus on the delivery of services, goods, and advice. We need to be flexible and ready to adapt, as donors often show flexibility in emergency contexts. Revising project interventions intuitively leads to revising the logic and the Results Framework.

00:26:09 The Logical Framework (LogFrame)

The Logical Framework is a logic model that describes key features of the project: objectives, indicators, measurement methods, and assumptions. It highlights the linkages between them and provides the basis for the development of the MEAL plan.

The objective statements in the LogFrame are the same as those in the Results Framework. The higher levels (Goal, Strategic Objectives) tend to be more strategic, while the lower levels (Outputs, Activities) are very concrete. Usually, lower levels are monitored more frequently (e.g., weekly data on activities), while upper levels are evaluated less frequently (e.g., every six months).

00:29:01 Assumptions in the LogFrame

In an ideal world, the vertical logic would always hold true, but in the real world, we have assumptions. There is a decision tree for identifying assumptions:

00:31:13 Indicators and measurement methods

Indicators are the heart of every MEAL system. By making the Results Framework concrete, we can develop relevant indicators. An indicator is a measure used to track progress, identify change, and assess performance. We must ask: What information do we need at each level? Why do we need it (donor compliance, progress tracking, variance analysis, learning)?

Measurement methods define how we collect this information. They can be quantitative (how many, percentage) or qualitative (why, how). Sometimes methods combine both. For example, if we see a reduction in training participants (quantitative), we need qualitative methods to understand why there is a reduction.

00:35:26 Summary: The relationship between the tools

The Logical Framework communicates the project's purpose and vision but differs from the Theory of Change and Results Framework by including more detailed information. It is the first time we describe indicators, measurement methods, and clearly write down assumptions regarding external factors. It brings us a step closer to the MEAL plan and supports the team in developing a common understanding and vocabulary.

Remember that the Theory of Change, Results Framework, and Logical Framework are living tools. The context changes, and we need to be open to revising them. Including programming teams, MEAL teams, and Information Management teams in their development ensures different useful perceptions are captured.

00:38:23 Questions and answers

Sylvain: Thank you, Eliza. We have some time for questions.

Question: Is it safe to say that Theory of Change equals Results Framework plus external preconditions beyond the project implementation team?

Eliza: Almost. I would add "plus better connectivity between the statements." The Results Framework goes vertically. The Theory of Change helps with horizontal relationships—questioning to what extent one strategic objective enables another. So, it is the external assumptions plus the horizontal interconnectivity.

Question: It would be good to understand how resilience is measured in this.

Eliza: That is a tough question. I would recommend going to IndiKit or searching for indicator lists commonly accepted in humanitarian and development sectors. Sphere generally focuses on emergency humanitarian indicators, so it might not include economic resilience specifically.

Question: In Theory of Change, if we have three 'ifs', can we say we have three assumptions?

Eliza: Broadly speaking, yes. More concretely, you need to differentiate between what is included in the Results Framework (intermediate results within your control) and what is outside of the Results Framework (preconditions/external assumptions).

Question: I have the impression that many confusions come from the fact that organizations are asked to have a Results Framework and Theory of Change. We could only stick to Theory of Change and identify the assumptions. I never get the rationale behind asking for the two.

Eliza: Practically, programming teams often cannot make the results very specific using only the Theory of Change because it is high-level. The human brain jumps easily from high-level goals to activities (e.g., "I want to help refugees" -> "I will do training"). You need the Results Framework to fill in the middle levels (Outputs, Intermediate Results) to ensure the logic holds. You need both to construct proper indicators later.

Question: When organizing a problem tree, I sometimes realize multiple causes leading to one consequence and a single cause leading to multiple consequences. Could you share some tips to make a more logical problem tree?

Eliza: The first problem tree is always messy because life is messy. Simplification happens through discussions when the project team starts considering pathways they can actually affect. You identify which areas you are going to target and then flip those specific areas upside down to create the positive framework.

Question: What do you think if effects of problems realized are converted to core problems, strategic objectives, and causes to outputs?

Eliza: Not exactly. The core problem is what you aim to solve. The effects are the result of the issue. You go towards solving the root cause (the problem) to reduce the effects. If you target the effects directly, you might miss the root cause.

Question: Goal is long-term and the project may not see it when the project is completed. Should there be indicators for the goal level?

Eliza: The most common use case is that indicators go up to the Strategic Objective level. For the goal, people often try to find ways to measure the extent to which the Strategic Objective contributes to the goal, rather than measuring the goal itself directly within the project timeframe.

Question: Do you have any tips on how to design a Results Framework for a global program, where the program will be implemented in more than one country, and where objectives and activities may vary?

Eliza: I would think in two different levels. First, you need the high-level global program vision to know where you are heading. Then, work with the countries on refining the Results Framework at their level. Finally, move to the intermediate level to "marry" the country-specific activities with the higher goal. It involves a lot of back-and-forth.

Question: When should we use the Theory of Change and when the Logical Framework? Should we use all of them?

Eliza: They include different sets of information. Theory of Change is macro-level/vision. Results Framework gets closer to the project intervention. Logical Framework includes indicators and measurement methods. You need the step-by-step approach to drive the discussion and build a concrete MEAL system. Skipping steps can lead to missing assumptions or collecting indicators without understanding their purpose.

Question: Are these logic models agile or rigid, and can they be changed once project implementation starts?

Eliza: They are meant to be living documents. However, it depends on what has been committed to in the proposal and the donor's flexibility. You need to feed back what you have committed and justify changes if the context shifts.

Question: Have you used the Results Framework to plan for measuring catalytic impact?

Eliza: If by "catalytic" we mean at an organizational or global strategy level, yes. Organizations with many projects often have a global strategy (Results Framework) and ensure country projects contribute to those strategic objectives.

Sylvain: Thank you, Eliza. I think we can end the session there.