Designing Complex Development Programs

Chapter
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Program design  Logical framework approach  Theories of change approach  Participatory impact pathways  
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administration Science Quarterly, 45(1), 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abonyi, G., & Howard, N. (1980). A Boolean approach to interactive program planning. Management Science, 26(7), 719–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Anderson, A. (2004). Theory of change as a tool for strategic planning: a report on early experiences. Aspen Institute: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Coote, A., Allen, J., & Woodhead, D. (2004). Finding out what works. London: Kings Fund.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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).
  13. 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
  14. Bakewell, O., & Garbutt, A. (2005). The use and abuse of the logical framework a review of international development NGOs’ experiences. Stockholm: SIDA.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, R. (2004). Scale. Complexity and the representation of theories of change, evaluation, 10(1), 101–121.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Earl, S., Carden, F., & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  20. European Communities (EC) (1999). Project cycle management training handbook. Brussels: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Gasper, D. (1997). ‘Logical frameworks’: A critical assessment. Working Paper no. 278. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.Google Scholar
  22. Freeman, L. (2006). The development of social network analysis. Vancouver: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’ towards learning-oriented development Evaluation. Public Administration and Development., 20(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson, B. (2000). Project designing projects and project evaluations using the logical framework approach. Retrieved October 12 2011, from www.Management/logicalframeworkapproach.htm.
  25. 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
  26. Hogan, B., Carrasco, J., & Wellman, B. (2007). Visualizing personal networks: Working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods, 19(2), 116–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mason, P., & Barnes, M. (2007). Constructing theories of change: Methods and sources. Evaluation, 13(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Powell, S. (2011). Illogical frameworks, composite results and log frame bloat. Retrieved December 12 2011, from socialdatablog.com.Google Scholar
  35. Renger, R., & Titcomb, A. (2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 493–503.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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/
  38. 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
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams, B., & Iman, I. (2008). (eds.). Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology. Point Reye, CA: Edge Press of Inverness.Google Scholar
  42. William, B. (2011). Comments on a blog. http://www.cognitive-edge.com
  43. Weiss, C. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation, 87(Fall), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.World Vision, IncWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations