Adaptive development: great progress and some niggles..
Pete Vowles 🇰🇪🇬🇧

Thank you for a thoughtful message. I too have my reservations about the conventional use of logframes, particularly as they get used to monitor project delivery and not impact. I do, however, fear that changing the tool will not address the problem. We saw theories of change brought in to address the issue of linear logic and the over-emphasis on logframes. However, theories of change have also started to go out of fashion because they are being used much like logframes are or simply serve as the first paragraph in a grant application to demonstrate nuance in thinking. I believe we (the development, humanitarian and conflict and peace-building sectors) need to move from output-based, i.e. intervention-focussed, programme delivery and reporting to change-focussed programme delivery. You state this as your ‘niggle 4’ and I agree that we are measuring and recording things that do not tell us about what our work is achieving. If we shift to change-based measurement, for programme delivery it will mean monitoring changes from activities to adapt and course-correct. It will mean that we test our change pathway based on the relationship between what we do (our activities/milestones) and what change we see as consequence of what we did. This requires a change in why, what and how we measure rather than a technical fix with different tools. It requires transformation and not simply tinkering with indicators, forms or templates.

Like what you read? Give Deepti Sastry a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.