Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing Complex Development Programs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation

  • 833 Accesses

Abstract

Approaches to designing development programs vary. Some emphasize stakeholder involvement; others focus on a program’s environment; still others emphasize the sequence of change depicted in program results (change frameworks). This chapter examines the use of such change frameworks as the Logical framework approach (LFA), Theory of change approach (ToCA), and Participatory impact pathways approach (PIPA) for designing complex development programs and the extent to which such frameworks enable stakeholders to explicate and question implicit assumptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administration Science Quarterly, 45(1), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abonyi, G., & Howard, N. (1980). A Boolean approach to interactive program planning. Management Science, 26(7), 719–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S., Douthwaite, B., Thiele, G., Mackay, R., Co′rdoba, D., & Tehelen, K. (2010). Participatory impact pathways analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation. Development in Practice, 20(8) 946–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, K. & Roduner, D. (2009). A conceptual fusion of the logical framework approach logical framework approach and outcome mapping. OM Ideas Paper No. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. (2004). Theory of change as a tool for strategic planning: a report on early experiences. Aspen Institute: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bury, B. (2011). Response to Steve Powell on illogical frameworks, composite results and logframe bloat. Retrieved on December 12 2011, from socialdatablog.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekhar, A. G., Kinnan, C. & Larreguy, H. (2011). Informal insurance, social networks, and savings access: Evidence from a lab experiment in the field. MIT Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H., & Anderson, A. (2004, November). Theories of change and logic models: Telling them apart. Presentation at American evaluation association annual conference. Atlanta, Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coote, A., Allen, J., & Woodhead, D. (2004). Finding out what works. London: Kings Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douthwaite, B., Schulz, S., Olanrewaju, A. S., & Ellis-Jones, J. (2003). Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems, 78, 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Cook, S., Davies, R., George, P., Howell, J., et al. (2007). Participatory impact pathways analysis: a practical application of program theory in research-for-development. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 22(2), 127–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Thiele, G., & Mackay, R. (2008). Participatory impact pathways analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation ILAC Brief May 17 2008 The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative (www.cgiar-ilac.org).

  • Hummelbrunner, R. (2010) Beyond logframe: Critique, variations and alternatives in Nobuko Fujita, beyond logframe; Using systems concepts in evaluation, Foundation for advanced studies on international development, Tokyo, pp. 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakewell, O., & Garbutt, A. (2005). The use and abuse of the logical framework a review of international development NGOs’ experiences. Stockholm: SIDA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R. (2004). Scale. Complexity and the representation of theories of change, evaluation, 10(1), 101–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R. (2005). Moving from logical to network frameworks: A modular matrix approach to representing and evaluating complex programs, in Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike site available online at: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:cs98bp1tuXgJ:www.mande.co.uk/docs/MMA.doc+network+software+Visualyzer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

  • Deprez, S., Van Ongevalle, J. (2006a). Building reflection and learning into educational programmes, introducing outcome mapping—the case of St2eep. Conference Proceedings, International Conference on Strengthening Innovation and Quality in Education, Leuven, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deprez, S., Van Ongevalle, J. (2006b) Outcome mapping: Learning the way forward—an alternative way to plan, monitor and evaluate programmes. Conference Proceedings, Environmental Education Association of Southern Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, S., Carden, F., & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Communities (EC) (1999). Project cycle management training handbook. Brussels: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasper, D. (1997). ‘Logical frameworks’: A critical assessment. Working Paper no. 278. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. (2006). The development of social network analysis. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’ towards learning-oriented development Evaluation. Public Administration and Development., 20(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, B. (2000). Project designing projects and project evaluations using the logical framework approach. Retrieved October 12 2011, from www.Management/logicalframeworkapproach.htm.

  • Judge, K. (2000). Testing evaluation to the limits: The case of english health action zones’. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 5(1), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, B., Carrasco, J., & Wellman, B. (2007). Visualizing personal networks: Working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods, 19(2), 116–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, B., Mulroy, S., & Sime, C. (2002). Theories of change and community involvement in North Staffordshire health action zone. In L. Bauld & K. Judge (Eds.), Learning from health action zones. Chichester: Aeneas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. A., Casillas, W., Brown, J. U., & Trochim, W. (2011, November). Using systems thinking in evaluation capacity building: The systems evaluation protocol. Paper Presented American evaluation association annual conference, Anaheim CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibel, B. (2000). Outcome engineering toolbox: User manual. Retrieved June 15 2011, from Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Web site: http://www.pire.org/resultmapping/homepage.htm.

  • Leischow, S. J., Best, A., Trochim, W. M., Clark, P. I., Gallagher, R. S., Marcus, S., et al. (2008). Systems thinking to improve the public’s health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 196–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P., & Barnes, M. (2007). Constructing theories of change: Methods and sources. Evaluation, 13(2), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, S. (2011). Illogical frameworks, composite results and log frame bloat. Retrieved December 12 2011, from socialdatablog.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renger, R., & Titcomb, A. (2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 493–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard, R. F. (2009, November). The logic model and systems thinking: Can they co-exist? Paper presented at the American Evaluation Association Conference. Orlando FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockwell, S. K., & Bennett, C. F. (2000). Targeting outcomes of programs. Retrieved July, 2011 from University of Nebraska, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. http://deal.unl.edu/TOP/

  • Rowlands, J. (2003) Beyond the comfort zone: some issues, questions, and challenges in thinking about development approaches and methods. In D. Eade (ed.), Development methods and approaches: Critical reflections. A development in practice reader (pp. 1–20). Oxfam GB, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. M., Cabrera, D. A., Milstein, B., Gallagher, R. S., & Leischow, S. J. (2006). Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 538–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B., & Iman, I. (2008). (eds.). Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology. Point Reye, CA: Edge Press of Inverness.

    Google Scholar 

  • William, B. (2011). Comments on a blog. http://www.cognitive-edge.com

  • Weiss, C. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation, 87(Fall), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2009). Interactive community planning-upgrading Urban communities. Retrieved September 23 2011, from http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/issues-tools/tools/ZOPP.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. World Vision, Inc, 300 I Street NE, Washington, 20002, DC, USA

    Apollo M. Nkwake

Authors
  1. Apollo M. Nkwake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Apollo M. Nkwake .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nkwake, A.M. (2013). Designing Complex Development Programs. In: Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4797-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation