I agree with the pleasing crescendo of thought and evidence on adaptive programming, but am not sure, as some others here have also said, that logframes are necessarily the problem. How they are used certainly has been, but equally i have experiences of when they’ve not got in the way of a very adaptive approach to programme implementation.

One trend which seems to be emerging as to when this happens is the SRO or project manager. Those who ‘get it’ and are willing to engage, and act as a buffer between the programme and the politics (and in so doing reshaping their own accountabilities), work with the programme, and see that what is important is not the logframe but what it represents, mean that the LF follows the programme not the other way round.

This is of course about incentives, empowerment, support, as well as just good programme management. But this is often in spite of what bureaucracies promote or reward — it can be easier and better for PMs to let the LF rule as this then looks like they are ‘doing their job’, despite their job being the best development results possible.

Two interesting points you raise, yet interestingly don’t answer (being Mr Smart Rules) is the obvious prominence of the annual review (which can also be made more useful by PMs and country leads being involved more), and that adaptation is not ‘scored’ in the same way as outputs — so make this something that gets scored!

Of course LFs may tend towards planning, which over the longer term becomes unrealistic. Again the SROs role in working with the programme on revising this (as it should be) makes it a useful tool again, rather than a stick or a burden to change.

Our paths may cross in Nairobi soon anyway, will be moving there in three weeks for British Council.