Diagrams & Visuals - Lesson 2.2: Activity Design

Visual Reference

This page collects all 9 diagrams from Lesson 2.2 in one place for easy reference. Each diagram is also embedded in its corresponding child page with contextual explanations. Use this page to quickly review visual concepts or compare different frameworks showing how Logframe activities translate into detailed, community-centered implementation plans.

1. Logframe to Detailed Activity Design Flow

This diagram shows the translation process from concise Logframe activities into detailed, operationalized work plans. Each Logframe activity expands into multiple sub-activities with specific implementation details, community integration steps, and partnership strategies.

graph TB
    Logframe["📋 LOGFRAME ACTIVITIES<br/>(Lesson 2.1)<br/>Concise statements like:<br/>'1.2 Develop market-responsive<br/>curriculum with employer input'"]

    subgraph Foundation["🏗️ FOUNDATION INTEGRATION"]
        F1["Problem Tree<br/>(Lesson 1.1)<br/>Root causes this addresses"]
        F2["Stakeholder Mapping<br/>(Lesson 1.2)<br/>Partners needed"]
        F3["Affinity Themes<br/>(Lesson 1.3)<br/>Quality standards"]
        F4["Theory of Change Logic<br/>(Lesson 1.4)<br/>Outcome pathways"]
    end

    subgraph Design["🎨 DETAILED ACTIVITY DESIGN"]
        D1["Break into Sub-Activities<br/>(3-5 per Logframe activity)<br/>• Conduct employer focus groups<br/>• Facilitate curriculum workshops<br/>• Pilot curriculum modules<br/>• Refine based on feedback<br/>• Finalize with QA protocols"]
        D2["Specify Implementation Details<br/>• Resources needed<br/>• Partnerships required<br/>• Timeline and dependencies<br/>• Quality standards"]
        D3["Integrate Community Strategies<br/>• Asset-based approach<br/>• Culturally appropriate methods<br/>• Community rhythms/timing<br/>• Partnership typology"]
    end

    Result["✅ COMPLETE ACTIVITY DESIGN<br/>Ready for implementation<br/>Feeds into: Proposal (2.3) & Budget (2.4)"]

    Logframe --> Foundation
    Foundation --> Design
    F1 --> D1
    F2 --> D1
    F3 --> D1
    F4 --> D1
    D1 --> D2
    D2 --> D3
    D3 --> Result

    style Logframe fill:#FDBA74,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style Foundation fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style F1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style F2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style F3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style F4 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style Design fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style D1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style D2 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style D3 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style Result fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px

Foundation Integration

This diagram shows the critical connection: Logframe activities don't emerge from thin air—they're informed by all Module 1 work. Problem Tree root causes (1.1) guide focus areas, Stakeholder Mapping (1.2) identifies partners, Affinity Themes (1.3) define quality standards, and Theory of Change (1.4) ensures logical sequencing. Each Logframe activity typically expands into 3-5 sub-activities with 5-10 weeks of work. Budget accordingly.

→ Explore detailed design process in Step-by-Step Guide

2. Asset-Based vs Deficit-Based Approach

This comparison diagram contrasts two fundamentally different implementation philosophies. Asset-based approaches build on existing community strengths, resources, and capacities, while deficit-based approaches focus on fixing problems and providing external resources. The choice profoundly affects sustainability, local ownership, and cost.

graph TB
    Start["SAME LOGFRAME ACTIVITY<br/>'Strengthen youth livelihoods'<br/>Two implementation approaches"]

    subgraph Deficit["❌ DEFICIT-BASED APPROACH"]
        D1["START WITH PROBLEMS<br/>'Youth lack skills'<br/>'No training infrastructure'<br/>'Limited employer connections'"]
        D2["EXTERNAL SOLUTIONS<br/>• Build new training center<br/>• Import training equipment<br/>• Hire external trainers<br/>• Create certification program"]
        D3["IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES<br/>• High costs ($150,000+)<br/>• Dependency on external funding<br/>• Community sees as 'aid project'<br/>• Struggles to sustain after project ends"]
        D4["LIMITED SUSTAINABILITY<br/>Training center closes when<br/>funding ends; youth return to<br/>unemployment; community<br/>capacity unchanged"]
    end

    subgraph Asset["✅ ASSET-BASED APPROACH"]
        A1["START WITH ASSETS<br/>'Existing apprenticeship networks'<br/>'Skilled master artisans'<br/>'Local business ecosystem'"]
        A2["STRENGTHEN & CONNECT<br/>• Train master artisans in pedagogy<br/>• Connect apprentices to certification<br/>• Support artisan business development<br/>• Create inter-artisan learning networks"]
        A3["IMPLEMENTATION ADVANTAGES<br/>• Lower costs ($40,000)<br/>• Builds local ownership<br/>• Community sees as investment<br/>• Strengthens existing systems"]
        A4["HIGH SUSTAINABILITY<br/>System continues organically;<br/>artisans train next generation;<br/>community capacity permanently<br/>increased"]
    end

    Start --> Deficit
    Start --> Asset
    D1 --> D2 --> D3 --> D4
    A1 --> A2 --> A3 --> A4

    style Start fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style Deficit fill:#FEE2E2,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style D1 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
    style D2 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
    style D3 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
    style D4 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
    style Asset fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style A1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style A2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style A3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style A4 fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:2px

Cost and Sustainability Reality

The Nigeria Youth example illustrates the dramatic difference: deficit-based training center costs $150,000+ and closes when funding ends. Asset-based apprenticeship strengthening costs $40,000, builds permanent local capacity, and continues organically after project completion. The cheaper approach is also more sustainable. This isn't about budget constraints—it's about community ownership and long-term impact.

→ Learn asset identification strategies

3. Community-Centered Activity Design Framework

This framework breaks down community-centered design into four integrated components: Co-Design Process, Asset Integration, Cultural Appropriateness, and Partnership Strategy. All four must be addressed systematically for activities to be truly community-centered (not just community-consulted).

graph TB
    Start["🎯 LOGFRAME ACTIVITY<br/>TO OPERATIONALIZE"]

    subgraph CoDesign["💬 CO-DESIGN PROCESS"]
        CD1["2-3 Iterative Cycles:<br/>1. Co-design with community<br/>2. Pilot/test activity<br/>3. Validate with stakeholders<br/>4. Refine design"]
        CD2["Decision Point:<br/>Ready for full implementation?<br/>If NO → loop back with learnings"]
    end

    subgraph Assets["🏗️ ASSET INTEGRATION"]
        AS1["5 Asset Categories:<br/>• Human (skills, leaders)<br/>• Physical (buildings, equipment)<br/>• Social (organizations, networks)<br/>• Economic (businesses, markets)<br/>• Cultural (traditions, practices)"]
        AS2["Integration Actions:<br/>• Map assets to activities<br/>• Identify leverage points<br/>• Design asset-strengthening approaches"]
    end

    subgraph Culture["🌍 CULTURAL APPROPRIATENESS"]
        CU1["Timing Alignment:<br/>• Agricultural cycles<br/>• Religious observances<br/>• Economic seasons<br/>• Educational terms"]
        CU2["Protocol Respect:<br/>• Community decision-making norms<br/>• Gender/age considerations<br/>• Language and communication styles<br/>• Traditional authority structures"]
    end

    subgraph Partnership["🤝 PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY"]
        PA1["Power-Interest Mapping<br/>(from Lesson 1.2)"]
        PA2["Partnership Typology:<br/>• Low/Low → Informing<br/>• Low/High → Consulting<br/>• High/High → Co-Design<br/>• Primary → Community-Led"]
    end

    Result["✅ COMMUNITY-CENTERED<br/>ACTIVITY DESIGN<br/>Culturally appropriate, asset-based,<br/>co-designed, strategically partnered"]

    Start --> CoDesign
    Start --> Assets
    Start --> Culture
    Start --> Partnership

    CD1 --> CD2
    AS1 --> AS2
    CU1 --> CU2
    PA1 --> PA2

    CD2 --> Result
    AS2 --> Result
    CU2 --> Result
    PA2 --> Result

    style Start fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style CoDesign fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style CD1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style CD2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Assets fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style AS1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style AS2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style Culture fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style CU1 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style CU2 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Partnership fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style PA1 fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style PA2 fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Result fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px

Four-Component Integration

Community-centered design isn't just one thing—it's the systematic integration of co-design process, asset integration, cultural appropriateness, and partnership strategy. Miss any component and activities risk being extractive, unsustainable, or culturally inappropriate. Use this framework as a checklist: have you addressed all four components for each activity?

→ Deep dive into each component

4. Power-Interest Grid to Partnership Strategy

This decision tree translates your Lesson 1.2 stakeholder power-interest analysis into specific partnership approaches for activity implementation. The grid placement determines engagement level: don't try to "inform" stakeholders who should be co-designing—it creates resentment and undermines sustainability.

graph TB
    Grid["STAKEHOLDER FROM<br/>POWER-INTEREST GRID<br/>(Lesson 1.2)"]

    Q1{"Power Level?"}
    Q2A{"Interest Level?"}
    Q2B{"Interest Level?"}

    Strategy1["LOW POWER / LOW INTEREST<br/>📢 INFORMING STRATEGY<br/>• One-way communication<br/>• Project updates/newsletters<br/>• No active participation required<br/>Example: General public"]

    Strategy2["LOW POWER / HIGH INTEREST<br/>💬 CONSULTING STRATEGY<br/>• Seek input on design<br/>• Advisory committees<br/>• Decision remains with org<br/>Example: Beneficiary families"]

    Strategy3["HIGH POWER / LOW INTEREST<br/>📊 MONITORING STRATEGY<br/>• Keep satisfied and informed<br/>• Regular progress reports<br/>• Minimal active involvement<br/>Example: Government regulators"]

    Strategy4["HIGH POWER / HIGH INTEREST<br/>🤝 CO-DESIGN STRATEGY<br/>• Shared decision-making<br/>• Active partnership<br/>• Joint planning and implementation<br/>Example: Community leaders,<br/>Employers (Nigeria Youth case)"]

    Primary["PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS<br/>👥 COMMUNITY-LED STRATEGY<br/>• Community controls decisions<br/>• External partner supports<br/>• Ultimate accountability to them<br/>Example: Youth participants<br/>(Nigeria Youth case)"]

    Grid --> Q1
    Q1 -->|Low Power| Q2A
    Q1 -->|High Power| Q2B

    Q2A -->|Low Interest| Strategy1
    Q2A -->|High Interest| Strategy2

    Q2B -->|Low Interest| Strategy3
    Q2B -->|High Interest| Strategy4

    Grid -.->|Are they directly<br/>affected by the issue?| Primary

    style Grid fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style Q1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style Q2A fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style Q2B fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style Strategy1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Strategy2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Strategy3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Strategy4 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Primary fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:2px

Partnership Mismatch Consequences

Engagement level mismatches cause project failure. Trying to "inform" stakeholders who should be co-designing (high power/high interest) creates resentment and active resistance. Conversely, forcing co-design on low interest stakeholders wastes everyone's time and creates consultation fatigue. Use your Lesson 1.2 power-interest grid to match strategy to stakeholder—this isn't optional, it's essential.

→ Explore partnership typology in detail

5. Activity Sequencing and Phasing Timeline

This 12-month implementation example shows how activities are sequenced across four phases, with explicit integration of community rhythms. Implementation timelines must flex around agricultural cycles, religious observances, economic seasons, and educational terms—not vice versa. Build in buffer time for unexpected community priorities.

graph TB
    subgraph Phase1["PHASE 1: FOUNDATION (Months 1-2)"]
        P1A["Partnership Finalization<br/>• MoUs signed<br/>• Roles clarified<br/>• Community orientation"]
        P1B["Resource Mobilization<br/>• Staff hiring<br/>• Equipment procurement<br/>• Space identification"]
        P1C["⚠️ AVOID: Planting season<br/>(Low community availability)"]
    end

    subgraph Phase2["PHASE 2: CORE IMPLEMENTATION 1 (Months 3-5)"]
        P2A["Training Delivery<br/>• Curriculum rollout<br/>• Cohort 1 enrollment<br/>• Master artisan training"]
        P2B["Initial Service Provision<br/>• Apprenticeships begin<br/>• Mentorship matching<br/>• Equipment distribution"]
        P2C["✓ ALIGN: Post-harvest period<br/>(High community availability)"]
    end

    subgraph Phase3["PHASE 3: REST & REFLECTION (Month 6)"]
        P3A["Community Feedback<br/>• Focus groups<br/>• Stakeholder consultations<br/>• Data analysis"]
        P3B["Activity Refinement<br/>• Curriculum adjustments<br/>• Partnership tweaks<br/>• Process improvements"]
        P3C["⚠️ AVOID: Major religious<br/>observances"]
    end

    subgraph Phase4["PHASE 4: CORE IMPLEMENTATION 2 (Months 7-10)"]
        P4A["Expanded Delivery<br/>• Cohort 2 enrollment<br/>• Advanced training<br/>• Business support"]
        P4B["Capacity Building<br/>• Trainer of trainers<br/>• Local facilitator development<br/>• System strengthening"]
        P4C["✓ ALIGN: Dry season<br/>(Optimal for travel/gatherings)"]
    end

    subgraph Phase5["PHASE 5: CONSOLIDATION (Months 11-12)"]
        P5A["Impact Documentation<br/>• Outcome measurement<br/>• Case studies<br/>• Lessons learned"]
        P5B["Ownership Transfer<br/>• Handover to local systems<br/>• Sustainability mechanisms<br/>• Ongoing support planning"]
        P5C["⚠️ AVOID: Holiday period<br/>(Reduced availability)"]
    end

    Rhythms["🌾 RHYTHM INDICATORS:<br/>Agricultural cycles (planting/harvest)<br/>⭐ Religious/cultural observances<br/>💰 Economic cycles (market seasons)<br/>📚 Educational cycles (school terms)"]

    Phase1 --> Phase2 --> Phase3 --> Phase4 --> Phase5
    P1A --> P1B --> P1C
    P2A --> P2B --> P2C
    P3A --> P3B --> P3C
    P4A --> P4B --> P4C
    P5A --> P5B --> P5C

    Rhythms -.-> P1C
    Rhythms -.-> P2C
    Rhythms -.-> P3C
    Rhythms -.-> P4C
    Rhythms -.-> P5C

    style Phase1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style P1A fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style P1B fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style P1C fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
    style Phase2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style P2A fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style P2B fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style P2C fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Phase3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style P3A fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style P3B fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style P3C fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
    style Phase4 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style P4A fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style P4B fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style P4C fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Phase5 fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style P5A fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff
    style P5B fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff
    style P5C fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
    style Rhythms fill:#FDBA74,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px

Timeline Flexibility

A project that respects community rhythms may take 12 months instead of 9, but achieves far better participation, ownership, and sustainability. Time "lost" to community rhythms isn't lost—it's invested in cultural appropriateness and long-term success. Build buffer time for unexpected community priorities (funerals, festivals, weather events). Phase 3's rest period allows for organic feedback integration and reduces burnout.

→ Learn timeline planning strategies

6. Resource Mobilization Framework

This framework shows five resource mobilization strategies, from traditional donor funding to asset-leveraging partnerships. Diversifying resource sources increases sustainability and reduces dependency. Community asset integration (Strategy 5) often provides the highest return on investment.

graph TB
    Need["RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS<br/>(from detailed work plan)"]

    Strategy1["STRATEGY 1: DONOR FUNDING<br/>Traditional grants/contracts<br/>Pros: Predictable, significant amounts<br/>Cons: Dependency, reporting burden<br/>Timeline: 3-12 months to secure"]

    Strategy2["STRATEGY 2: GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPS<br/>Public sector co-funding<br/>Pros: Scale, legitimacy, sustainability<br/>Cons: Bureaucracy, political risk<br/>Timeline: 6-18 months to formalize"]

    Strategy3["STRATEGY 3: EARNED REVENUE<br/>Fee-for-service, social enterprise<br/>Pros: Independence, market discipline<br/>Cons: Equity concerns, limited scale<br/>Timeline: 6-24 months to viability"]

    Strategy4["STRATEGY 4: COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS<br/>Time, skills, space, materials<br/>Pros: Ownership, sustainability<br/>Cons: Limited financial resources<br/>Timeline: Immediate, ongoing"]

    Strategy5["STRATEGY 5: ASSET-LEVERAGING PARTNERSHIPS<br/>Use existing community/partner assets<br/>Pros: Cost reduction, ownership, speed<br/>Cons: Requires strong relationships<br/>Timeline: 1-3 months to negotiate<br/><br/>Nigeria Youth Example:<br/>• Employer provides training space<br/>• Master artisans volunteer mentorship<br/>• Community center hosts workshops<br/>• Reduces cash needs by 40%"]

    Mix["DIVERSIFIED RESOURCE MIX<br/>Reduces dependency, increases sustainability<br/>Example: 40% donor + 20% government +<br/>15% earned + 10% community + 15% assets"]

    Budget["INFORMS BUDGET<br/>(Lesson 2.4)<br/>Cash vs in-kind breakdown<br/>Funding timeline<br/>Sustainability projections"]

    Need --> Strategy1
    Need --> Strategy2
    Need --> Strategy3
    Need --> Strategy4
    Need --> Strategy5

    Strategy1 --> Mix
    Strategy2 --> Mix
    Strategy3 --> Mix
    Strategy4 --> Mix
    Strategy5 --> Mix

    Mix --> Budget

    style Need fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style Strategy1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Strategy2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Strategy3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Strategy4 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Strategy5 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Mix fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Budget fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:2px

Asset-Leveraging Power

Strategy 5 (asset-leveraging partnerships) often provides the highest return on investment. The Nigeria Youth example shows how employer-provided space, artisan volunteer mentorship, and community center access reduce cash needs by 40%—while simultaneously increasing local ownership and sustainability. This isn't about being cheap; it's about being strategic. Every dollar not spent on overhead is a dollar invested in impact.

→ Explore resource mobilization in Step-by-Step Guide

7. Quality Standards Framework (Community + Professional)

This dual-track quality framework balances professional standards (donor requirements, technical quality, evidence-based practice) with community-defined quality (cultural appropriateness, accessibility, relevance). Both are essential—professional standards without community validation create culturally inappropriate services, while community preferences without professional standards risk ineffective interventions.

graph TB
    Activity["ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION"]

    subgraph Professional["📊 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS"]
        PS1["Donor Requirements<br/>• Compliance with grant conditions<br/>• Reporting and documentation<br/>• Financial accountability<br/>• Safeguarding protocols"]
        PS2["Technical Quality<br/>• Evidence-based methods<br/>• Professional credentials<br/>• Sector best practices<br/>• Quality assurance systems"]
        PS3["Impact Standards<br/>• M&E framework alignment<br/>• Outcome measurement<br/>• Theory of Change logic<br/>• Indicator tracking"]
    end

    subgraph Community["👥 COMMUNITY-DEFINED QUALITY"]
        CS1["Cultural Appropriateness<br/>• Respectful of traditions<br/>• Linguistically accessible<br/>• Gender/age sensitivity<br/>• Protocol adherence"]
        CS2["Practical Relevance<br/>• Addresses real needs<br/>• Timing works for community<br/>• Accessible location/format<br/>• Useful outcomes"]
        CS3["Community Ownership<br/>• Local decision-making<br/>• Asset-building approach<br/>• Sustainability planning<br/>• Community accountability"]
    end

    Integration["QUALITY INTEGRATION ACTIONS<br/>• Regular community feedback loops<br/>• Stakeholder validation sessions<br/>• Adaptive management based on both tracks<br/>• Balance when standards conflict"]

    Validation["DUAL VALIDATION REQUIRED<br/>Activity meets professional standards AND<br/>community-defined quality criteria<br/>(from Lesson 1.3 Affinity Themes)"]

    Activity --> Professional
    Activity --> Community

    PS1 --> PS2 --> PS3
    CS1 --> CS2 --> CS3

    PS3 --> Integration
    CS3 --> Integration

    Integration --> Validation

    style Activity fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style Professional fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style PS1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style PS2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style PS3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Community fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style CS1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style CS2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style CS3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style Integration fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Validation fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px

Dual Validation Requirement

Professional standards without community validation create culturally inappropriate services. Community preferences without professional standards risk ineffective interventions. Both are essential. Your Lesson 1.3 Affinity Themes provide community-defined quality criteria—integrate them explicitly into quality assurance systems. When standards conflict (e.g., donor timeline vs community rhythm), use adaptive management to find solutions that honor both tracks.

→ Use the comprehensive quality checklist

8. Adaptive Management and Feedback Loop

This continuous improvement cycle shows how real-time feedback from implementation informs ongoing activity refinement. Adaptive management isn't a failure to plan—it's intelligent responsiveness to what you learn during implementation. Build in quarterly reflection cycles with stakeholder input.

graph TB
    Implement["IMPLEMENT ACTIVITIES<br/>(Based on initial design)"]

    Monitor["MONITOR IN REAL-TIME<br/>• Output tracking (are activities happening as planned?)<br/>• Outcome observation (are changes occurring?)<br/>• Process quality (is implementation culturally appropriate?)<br/>• Stakeholder feedback (what do participants/partners say?)"]

    Analyze["ANALYZE FINDINGS<br/>• Compare actual vs planned<br/>• Identify implementation challenges<br/>• Recognize emerging opportunities<br/>• Listen to community insights"]

    Decision{"Does activity design<br/>need adjustment?"}

    Refine["REFINE ACTIVITY DESIGN<br/>Possible adjustments:<br/>• Timing/sequencing changes<br/>• Partnership approach modifications<br/>• Resource allocation shifts<br/>• Quality standard refinements<br/>• Curriculum/content updates"]

    Document["DOCUMENT LEARNINGS<br/>• What worked? Why?<br/>• What didn't work? Why?<br/>• What surprised us?<br/>• What did community teach us?<br/>• How did we adapt?"]

    Continue["CONTINUE AS DESIGNED<br/>(Still monitor for changes)"]

    Feed["FEED INTO:<br/>• Proposal reporting (Lesson 2.3)<br/>• Budget adjustments (Lesson 2.4)<br/>• Future activity design<br/>• Organizational learning"]

    Implement --> Monitor --> Analyze --> Decision
    Decision -->|YES| Refine
    Decision -->|NO| Continue
    Refine --> Document
    Continue --> Document
    Document --> Feed
    Feed -.->|Next implementation cycle| Implement

    style Implement fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style Monitor fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Analyze fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
    style Decision fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
    style Refine fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Document fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
    style Continue fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
    style Feed fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:2px

Adaptive Management vs Poor Planning

Adaptive management isn't a failure to plan—it's intelligent responsiveness to what you learn during implementation. Build in quarterly reflection cycles with stakeholder input. Document all adjustments transparently for donors (they want to see learning, not rigid adherence to flawed plans). The most sustainable projects are those that evolve based on community feedback and real-world implementation experience.

→ Learn adaptive management practices

9. Module 2 Progression - Activity Design in Context

This meta-diagram shows how Lesson 2.2 (Activity Design) connects to the full Module 2 journey. You've moved from strategic Logframe (2.1) to detailed activity plans (2.2), which now feed into donor-ready proposals (2.3) and realistic budgets (2.4). Activity design is the bridge between strategy and execution.

graph TB
    M1["MODULE 1 COMPLETE<br/>Foundation established:<br/>• Problem analysis (1.1)<br/>• Stakeholder relationships (1.2)<br/>• Community insights (1.3)<br/>• Theory of Change (1.4)"]

    L21["LESSON 2.1<br/>LOGICAL FRAMEWORK<br/>Strategic activities defined<br/>Indicators established<br/>Assumptions identified<br/>SMART outcomes specified"]

    L22["✅ LESSON 2.2<br/>ACTIVITY DESIGN<br/>Detailed work plans created<br/>Sub-activities specified<br/>Resource requirements identified<br/>Partnership strategies defined<br/>Community-centered approach integrated"]

    L23["LESSON 2.3<br/>PROPOSAL WRITING<br/>Will use:<br/>• Detailed activity descriptions<br/>• Implementation timelines<br/>• Partnership strategies<br/>• Community engagement approach<br/>• Quality assurance systems"]

    L24["LESSON 2.4<br/>BUDGET ESTIMATION<br/>Will use:<br/>• Resource requirements per sub-activity<br/>• Timeline for phased costs<br/>• In-kind contributions identified<br/>• Partnership cost-sharing<br/>• Asset-leveraging savings"]

    Complete["MODULE 2 COMPLETE<br/>Operationalized Theory of Change:<br/>Ready for donor submission,<br/>community presentation,<br/>and implementation"]

    M1 --> L21
    L21 --> L22
    L22 --> L23
    L22 --> L24
    L23 --> Complete
    L24 --> Complete

    style M1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style L21 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style L22 fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
    style L23 fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style L24 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
    style Complete fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px

Activity Design as Bridge

Lesson 2.2 is the critical bridge between strategy (Logframe 2.1) and execution (Proposal 2.3, Budget 2.4). Without detailed activity design, proposals are vague and budgets are guesswork. With it, you can write compelling proposals that demonstrate feasibility, create realistic budgets that account for true costs, and communicate clearly to donors and communities how strategic intentions become concrete actions. You're 50% through Module 2—the operationalization is taking shape.

→ Return to Lesson 2.2 index page

Usage Guidance

These 9 diagrams serve different purposes in community-centered activity design:

Foundation & Translation (3)

Diagram 1: Logframe to Activity Design Flow
Diagram 2: Asset-Based vs Deficit-Based
Diagram 9: Module 2 Progression

Community-Centered Design (3)

Diagram 3: Four-Component Framework
Diagram 4: Partnership Strategy Decision Tree
Diagram 7: Dual Quality Standards

Implementation Planning (3)

Diagram 5: Phased Timeline with Rhythms
Diagram 6: Resource Mobilization
Diagram 8: Adaptive Management Loop

How to Use This Page

For Learning: Review all 9 diagrams sequentially to understand the complete activity design process
For Implementation: Use specific diagrams as decision tools (e.g., Diagram 4 for partnership strategy, Diagram 5 for timeline planning)
For Proposals: Reference diagrams to explain your implementation methodology to donors
For Community Presentations: Use visual diagrams to communicate complex processes simply

Related Lesson 2.2 Resources

→ Community-Centered Design → Partnership Strategies → Implementation Logistics → Step-by-Step Guide → Quality Checklist → Real-World Examples