Introduction
Monitoring and evaluation are crucial activities for effective management. In our view, good M&E is the basis of successful planning and budgeting and the challenge is to link these key activities effectively.
Outcome Mapping and Logical Framework Analysis
Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) has nestled itself deeply in the minds of many development practitioners. This is especially so with actors in those projects, programmes and organisations which receive funding from multi-lateral, bi-lateral and civil society/NGO-support donors for whom LFA (or components of it) is a standard tool used for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME). Being brought into contact with a new PME paradigm, inevitably makes them to compare that paradigm with LFA.
This was also the case with Outcome Mapping, as was manifested on the occasion of the MDF-OM course in Ede. Outcome, in fact, is a word from the language of the Logical Framework. As with LFA, outcome refers to desired changes which indicate progress toward large-scale development goals. However, on the nature of the desired change, both approaches differ fundamentally, and for Outcome Mapping users it is important to have a good understanding of the differences between the two frameworks.
Discussions have been going on and papers have been written about differences and resemblances between LFA and OM. We refer here to the 2001 document by Terry Smutylo: "Crouching Impact, Hidden Attribution: Threats to Learning in Development Programs", many arguments of which are repeated in the International Development Research Centre book "Outcome Mapping; Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs" (Sarah Earl, Fred Carden & Terry Smutylo). We also refer to the ongoing Outcome Mapping Learning Community discussions online (www.outcomemapping.ca) whereby OM-users worldwide share and discuss experiences, exchange lessons learned and best practices, and explore problems and issues.
You can download the whole article here ...
