Diagrams & Visuals - Lesson 2.1: Logical Framework
Visual Reference
This page collects all 7 diagrams from Lesson 2.1 in one place for easy reference. Each diagram shows how your Theory of Change translates into an operational Logical Framework that integrates all Module 1 foundation work.
Diagram Navigation
Diagram 1: Theory of Change to Logframe Translation
This diagram shows the systematic translation from your community-validated Theory of Change (Lesson 1.4) into an operational Logical Framework. Impact becomes Goal, Outcomes become Purpose, while Outputs and Activities maintain their structure with added precision through indicators and verification methods.
graph TB
Start["🎯 COMMUNITY-VALIDATED<br/>THEORY OF CHANGE<br/><br/>From Lesson 1.4:<br/>Inputs → Activities → Outputs →<br/>Outcomes → Impact"]
subgraph Translation["🔄 SYSTEMATIC TRANSLATION"]
T1["Theory of Change IMPACT<br/><br/>Long-term systemic change<br/>you contribute to<br/>(5-10+ years)"]
Arrow1["⬇️<br/>BECOMES"]
T2["Logframe GOAL<br/><br/>Same impact statement<br/>Measured by 1-2 indicators<br/>Contribution not control"]
T3["Theory of Change OUTCOMES<br/><br/>Specific changes your<br/>project achieves<br/>(0-7 years)"]
Arrow2["⬇️<br/>BECOMES"]
T4["Logframe PURPOSE<br/><br/>Primary project achievement<br/>Measured by 2-3 indicators<br/>Direct responsibility"]
T5["Theory of Change OUTPUTS<br/><br/>What your project<br/>produces directly<br/>(0-2 years)"]
Arrow3["⬇️<br/>REMAINS"]
T6["Logframe OUTPUTS<br/><br/>Same outputs<br/>1-2 indicators each<br/>Complete control"]
T7["Theory of Change ACTIVITIES<br/><br/>Actions you implement<br/>using your inputs"]
Arrow4["⬇️<br/>REMAINS"]
T8["Logframe ACTIVITIES<br/><br/>Same activities<br/>Process indicators<br/>Implementation focus"]
T9["Theory of Change INPUTS<br/><br/>Resources you invest"]
Arrow5["⬇️<br/>INFORMS"]
T10["Resource Planning<br/>& Assumptions<br/><br/>Budget requirements<br/>Partnership needs<br/>Capacity assessment"]
end
Result["📊 OPERATIONAL LOGFRAME<br/><br/>Maintains ToC logic with:<br/>• Systematic structure<br/>• Measurable indicators<br/>• Verification methods<br/>• Explicit assumptions<br/>• Community grounding"]
Start --> Translation
T1 --> Arrow1
Arrow1 --> T2
T3 --> Arrow2
Arrow2 --> T4
T5 --> Arrow3
Arrow3 --> T6
T7 --> Arrow4
Arrow4 --> T8
T9 --> Arrow5
Arrow5 --> T10
Translation --> Result
style Start fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Translation fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style T1 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Arrow1 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style T2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style T3 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Arrow2 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style T4 fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style T5 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Arrow3 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style T6 fill:#FDBA74,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style T7 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Arrow4 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style T8 fill:#FDBA74,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style T9 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Arrow5 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style T10 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Result fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
The Logframe Maintains Your Theory of Change Logic
Notice how the Logical Framework doesn't replace your Theory of Change—it operationalizes it. Theory of Change elements (Green) systematically translate into Logframe structure (Orange) through clear transformation steps (Gold). Impact → Goal maintains attribution logic (you contribute, not control). Outcomes → Purpose focuses on direct project achievements. Outputs and Activities remain consistent but gain measurable indicators. The Operational Logframe (Dark Green) is your Theory of Change with systematic structure ready for implementation.
Diagram 2: Module 1 Foundation Integration into Logframe
Every piece of Module 1 foundation work integrates into your Logical Framework. Problem Tree analysis informs activities, stakeholder mapping guides monitoring, affinity synthesis shapes indicators, and Theory of Change provides the overall structure. This diagram shows exactly how all four lessons feed into a community-grounded Logframe.
graph TB
subgraph Module1["📚 MODULE 1 FOUNDATION<br/>(Lessons 1.1-1.4)"]
L11["📊 LESSON 1.1<br/>Problem Tree Analysis<br/><br/>• Root causes identified<br/>• Effects documented<br/>• Evidence (E) vs Assumptions (A)<br/>• Community validated"]
L12["🤝 LESSON 1.2<br/>Stakeholder Mapping<br/><br/>• Primary/Secondary/Tertiary<br/>• Power-interest analysis<br/>• Partnership commitments<br/>• Engagement protocols"]
L13["🧩 LESSON 1.3<br/>Affinity Synthesis<br/><br/>• Community priorities<br/>• Pattern recognition<br/>• Theme identification<br/>• Problem Tree refinement"]
L14["🎯 LESSON 1.4<br/>Theory of Change<br/><br/>• Change logic pathway<br/>• Outcome sequence<br/>• Explicit assumptions<br/>• Community vision"]
end
subgraph Integration["🔄 INTEGRATION ACTIONS"]
I1["Problem Tree → Activities<br/><br/>Root causes become<br/>intervention focus areas"]
I2["Stakeholder Mapping → Monitoring<br/><br/>Power-interest analysis<br/>informs who monitors what"]
I3["Affinity Themes → Indicators<br/><br/>Community priorities become<br/>success measures"]
I4["Theory of Change → Structure<br/><br/>ToC logic provides<br/>Logframe framework"]
I5["Evidence (E) → High Confidence<br/><br/>Evidence-based findings guide<br/>indicator selection"]
I6["Assumptions (A) → Risk Management<br/><br/>Assumptions needing validation<br/>become monitoring priorities"]
end
Logframe["📋 LOGFRAME STRUCTURE<br/><br/>GOAL: Community-validated impact<br/>PURPOSE: Evidence-based outcomes<br/>OUTPUTS: Clear deliverables<br/>ACTIVITIES: Root-cause focused<br/>INDICATORS: Community-informed<br/>ASSUMPTIONS: Explicit & testable"]
L11 --> I1
L11 --> I5
L11 --> I6
L12 --> I2
L13 --> I3
L14 --> I4
I1 --> Logframe
I2 --> Logframe
I3 --> Logframe
I4 --> Logframe
I5 --> Logframe
I6 --> Logframe
L11 -.->|Root causes| I1
L12 -.->|Stakeholder roles| I2
L13 -.->|Priorities| I3
L14 -.->|Change logic| I4
style Module1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style L11 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style L12 fill:#FDBA74,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style L13 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style L14 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Integration fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style I1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style I2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style I3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style I4 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style I5 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style I6 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Logframe fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Module 1 Foundation Pays Off
This is why we spent four lessons building foundation! Problem Tree (Red) provides root-cause focused activities. Stakeholder Mapping (Orange) determines monitoring roles. Affinity Synthesis (Gold) generates community-informed indicators. Theory of Change (Green) establishes the logical structure. Evidence (E) vs Assumptions (A) from Problem Tree create confidence levels—evidence guides high-confidence indicators, assumptions become risk monitoring priorities. The final Logframe (Dark Green) integrates all foundation elements into one systematic framework.
Diagram 3: SMART + Community Criteria Framework
Professional SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) provide the foundation, but community enrichment layers add the grounding that makes indicators truly meaningful. This diagram shows how each SMART element pairs with community context to create indicators that satisfy both funders and communities.
graph TB
Start["🎯 INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT<br/><br/>Creating measures that reflect<br/>both professional standards<br/>and community priorities"]
subgraph Professional["✅ PROFESSIONAL SMART CRITERIA"]
S["Specific<br/><br/>Who, what, where,<br/>when clearly defined"]
M["Measurable<br/><br/>Quantifiable or<br/>observable change"]
A["Achievable<br/><br/>Realistic given<br/>resources & context"]
R["Relevant<br/><br/>Directly linked to<br/>objectives & mission"]
T["Time-bound<br/><br/>Clear timeframe<br/>for achievement"]
end
subgraph Community["🤝 COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT LAYERS"]
C1["+ Community Context<br/><br/>Target demographics<br/>from stakeholder mapping<br/>Geographic specificity<br/>Local definitions of success"]
C2["+ Community Values<br/><br/>Quantitative metrics<br/>Qualitative observations<br/>Cultural appropriateness<br/>Community communication"]
C3["+ Evidence Base<br/><br/>Grounded in Problem Tree<br/>Referenced in research<br/>Validated by stakeholders<br/>Comparable contexts"]
C4["+ Stakeholder Validation<br/><br/>Prioritized by community<br/>Aligned with affinity themes<br/>Reflects local vision<br/>Addresses root causes"]
C5["+ Realistic Timeframes<br/><br/>Community insight on pace<br/>Seasonal/cultural cycles<br/>Milestone indicators<br/>Progress tracking"]
end
Enhanced["🎯 COMMUNITY-INFORMED<br/>SMART INDICATORS<br/><br/>Example:<br/>'At least 70% of program<br/>graduates aged 18-25 secure<br/>employment paying above<br/>locally-defined living wage<br/>within 6 months of completion,<br/>validated through follow-up<br/>with participants & employers'"]
Start --> Professional
S --> C1
M --> C2
A --> C3
R --> C4
T --> C5
C1 --> Enhanced
C2 --> Enhanced
C3 --> Enhanced
C4 --> Enhanced
C5 --> Enhanced
style Start fill:#F6F6F6,stroke:#737373,color:#2A2A2A
style Professional fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style S fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style M fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style R fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style T fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Community fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style C1 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C2 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C3 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C4 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C5 fill:#FDE047,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Enhanced fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
SMART + Community = Funder-Credible & Community-Grounded
Generic SMART indicators satisfy funders but lack community grounding. This framework shows how to enhance each SMART element with Module 1 insights. Professional SMART criteria (Light Green) provide the baseline structure funders expect. Community Enrichment Layers (Gold) add the specificity that makes indicators meaningful—demographics from stakeholder mapping, priorities from affinity synthesis, evidence from Problem Tree, realistic timelines from community insight. The result is a Community-Informed SMART Indicator (Dark Green) that satisfies both funder expectations and community validation.
Diagram 4: Assumption Categories and Risk Management
Theory of Change assumptions (from Lesson 1.4) become explicit risks in your Logical Framework. This diagram shows how to categorize assumptions (contextual, behavioral, strategic), make them testable, identify monitoring indicators, and develop mitigation plans. Assumptions aren't weaknesses—they're risks you're managing proactively.
graph TB
TOC["🎯 THEORY OF CHANGE<br/>ASSUMPTIONS<br/><br/>From Lesson 1.4:<br/>Beliefs about why<br/>pathway will work"]
subgraph Categories["⚠️ ASSUMPTION CATEGORIES"]
Cat1["CONTEXTUAL<br/>Assumptions<br/><br/>About Environment:<br/>• Political stability<br/>• Policy support<br/>• Economic conditions<br/>• Social cohesion<br/>• Climate/environment"]
Cat2["BEHAVIORAL<br/>Assumptions<br/><br/>About Stakeholders:<br/>• Target participation<br/>• Partner collaboration<br/>• Government support<br/>• Community sustains<br/>• Staff capacity"]
Cat3["STRATEGIC<br/>Assumptions<br/><br/>About Approach:<br/>• Activities effective<br/>• Sequence appropriate<br/>• Quality maintainable<br/>• Resources sufficient<br/>• Timing realistic"]
end
subgraph Operationalize["🔄 LOGFRAME OPERATIONALIZATION"]
O1["Make Testable<br/><br/>Vague: 'Community support'<br/>⬇️<br/>Testable: '70% of target<br/>households participate<br/>within 6 months'"]
O2["Identify Indicators<br/><br/>What data shows if<br/>assumption holds?<br/>• Participation rates<br/>• Partnership MOU status<br/>• Resource availability"]
O3["Plan Monitoring<br/><br/>How & when to track?<br/>• Data source<br/>• Frequency<br/>• Responsible party<br/>• Early warning threshold"]
O4["Develop Mitigation<br/><br/>What if assumption fails?<br/>• Backup strategies<br/>• Alternative approaches<br/>• Contingency resources<br/>• Exit criteria"]
end
Risk["📊 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN<br/><br/>Critical Assumption:<br/>'Sufficient job opportunities<br/>exist for graduates'<br/><br/>INDICATOR: # job openings<br/>posted monthly in target sectors<br/><br/>MONITORING: Monthly tracking<br/>via employer surveys<br/><br/>WARNING: <50% expected openings<br/><br/>MITIGATION: Activate employer<br/>partnerships, expand geography"]
TOC --> Categories
Cat1 --> Operationalize
Cat2 --> Operationalize
Cat3 --> Operationalize
O1 --> O2
O2 --> O3
O3 --> O4
O4 --> Risk
style TOC fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Categories fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Cat1 fill:#FEE2E2,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Cat2 fill:#FEE2E2,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Cat3 fill:#FEE2E2,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Operationalize fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style O1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style O2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style O3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style O4 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Risk fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
Assumptions Are Risks—Make Them Explicit and Testable
Funders don't fear assumptions—they fear hidden assumptions. This diagram shows systematic risk management. Three assumption categories (Light Red) organize your Theory of Change beliefs: Contextual (environment), Behavioral (stakeholders), Strategic (approach). Logframe Operationalization (Light Orange) transforms vague assumptions into testable statements with indicators, monitoring plans, and mitigation strategies. The Risk Management Plan (Light Gold) shows a complete example—critical assumption, indicator, monitoring approach, warning threshold, and contingency plan. This proactive risk management builds funder confidence.
Diagram 5: Generic vs Community-Informed Indicators Transformation
Weak generic indicators ("increased youth employment") lack specificity, validation, and community grounding. This diagram contrasts them with strong community-informed indicators that apply stakeholder demographics, affinity priorities, Problem Tree evidence, and local success definitions. The transformation shows exactly what changes.
graph TB
subgraph Generic["❌ GENERIC INDICATORS<br/>(Weak - Not Community-Grounded)"]
G1["'Increased youth employment'<br/><br/>Problems:<br/>• No target population detail<br/>• No success definition<br/>• No timeframe<br/>• No validation method<br/>• Not community-specific"]
G2["'Improved health knowledge'<br/><br/>Problems:<br/>• Vague outcome<br/>• No measurement approach<br/>• No community priority link<br/>• No cultural context<br/>• Not stakeholder-validated"]
G3["'Strengthened organizations'<br/><br/>Problems:<br/>• Unclear what 'strengthened'<br/>• No baseline reference<br/>• No community definition<br/>• Not measurable<br/>• Missing local context"]
end
Transform["🔄 COMMUNITY INTEGRATION PROCESS<br/><br/>Apply:<br/>1️⃣ Stakeholder mapping demographics<br/>2️⃣ Affinity analysis priorities<br/>3️⃣ Problem Tree evidence base<br/>4️⃣ Local definitions of success<br/>5️⃣ Cultural appropriateness"]
subgraph Informed["✅ COMMUNITY-INFORMED INDICATORS<br/>(Strong - Community-Grounded)"]
I1["'At least 70% of program<br/>graduates aged 18-25 secure<br/>employment paying above<br/>locally-defined living wage<br/>within 6 months of completion,<br/>validated through follow-up<br/>interviews with participants<br/>and employers'"]
I2["'Target households demonstrate<br/>adoption of locally-appropriate<br/>health practices prioritized by<br/>community health committees,<br/>with adoption verified through<br/>monthly community health<br/>worker assessments using<br/>culturally-adapted checklist'"]
I3["'Local partner organizations<br/>demonstrate enhanced capacity<br/>to design and implement<br/>community-prioritized initiatives,<br/>measured by successful completion<br/>of self-identified organizational<br/>development milestones validated<br/>by community stakeholders'"]
end
Generic --> Transform
Transform --> Informed
G1 -.->|Applies integration| I1
G2 -.->|Applies integration| I2
G3 -.->|Applies integration| I3
style Generic fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style G1 fill:#FEE2E2,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style G2 fill:#FEE2E2,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style G3 fill:#FEE2E2,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Transform fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style Informed fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style I1 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style I2 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style I3 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
Transform Weak Generic Indicators into Strong Community-Grounded Ones
Notice the dramatic difference! Generic indicators (Light Red) are vague, unmeasurable, and lack community grounding—they won't satisfy funders or reflect local priorities. The Community Integration Process (Light Gold) applies all five Module 1 elements to add specificity. Community-Informed Indicators (Light Green) are dramatically stronger—specific demographics (18-25), local definitions (living wage), validation methods (follow-up interviews), cultural adaptation (health committees), and community ownership (self-identified milestones). This is what funders mean by "measurable indicators" and what communities mean by "reflects our priorities."
Diagram 6: Logframe Quality Testing Flow
Don't submit your draft Logframe without systematic testing! This four-stage quality framework tests vertical logic (activities→outputs→purpose→goal), horizontal logic (indicators→verification), community logic (priorities→assumptions), and implementation logic (resources→timelines). Refinement loops show this is iterative—you may cycle through tests multiple times.
graph TB
Draft["📋 DRAFT LOGFRAME<br/><br/>Complete framework with:<br/>Goal, Purpose, Outputs,<br/>Activities, Indicators,<br/>Verification, Assumptions"]
subgraph Testing["🔍 FOUR-STAGE TESTING"]
Stage1["STAGE 1:<br/>Vertical Logic Test<br/><br/>Question: Do activities<br/>logically lead to outputs?<br/>Do outputs lead to Purpose?<br/>Does Purpose contribute to Goal?"]
D1{"Logic<br/>holds?"}
Fix1["🔄 FIX VERTICAL LOGIC<br/><br/>• Add intermediate steps<br/>• Strengthen connections<br/>• Adjust ambition levels<br/>• Clarify cause-effect"]
Stage2["STAGE 2:<br/>Horizontal Logic Test<br/><br/>Question: Do indicators<br/>accurately measure objectives?<br/>Are verification methods<br/>feasible and appropriate?"]
D2{"Indicators<br/>accurate?"}
Fix2["🔄 IMPROVE INDICATORS<br/><br/>• Make more specific<br/>• Add community context<br/>• Ensure measurability<br/>• Simplify verification"]
Stage3["STAGE 3:<br/>Community Logic Test<br/><br/>Question: Does framework<br/>reflect community priorities?<br/>Are assumptions grounded<br/>in stakeholder insights?"]
D3{"Community-<br/>grounded?"}
Fix3["🔄 INTEGRATE COMMUNITY<br/><br/>• Add community voice<br/>• Adjust to priorities<br/>• Incorporate local context<br/>• Validate assumptions"]
Stage4["STAGE 4:<br/>Implementation Logic Test<br/><br/>Question: Is framework<br/>realistic given resources?<br/>Are timelines achievable?<br/>Is quality maintainable?"]
D4{"Implementation<br/>realistic?"}
Fix4["🔄 ADJUST EXPECTATIONS<br/><br/>• Right-size scope<br/>• Extend timelines<br/>• Secure resources<br/>• Build partnerships"]
end
Quality["✅ QUALITY LOGFRAME<br/><br/>Meets all criteria:<br/>• Logical connections<br/>• Accurate indicators<br/>• Community-grounded<br/>• Implementation-ready<br/>• Funder-credible"]
Draft --> Stage1
Stage1 --> D1
D1 -->|No| Fix1
D1 -->|Yes| Stage2
Fix1 --> Stage1
Stage2 --> D2
D2 -->|No| Fix2
D2 -->|Yes| Stage3
Fix2 --> Stage2
Stage3 --> D3
D3 -->|No| Fix3
D3 -->|Yes| Stage4
Fix3 --> Stage3
Stage4 --> D4
D4 -->|No| Fix4
D4 -->|Yes| Quality
Fix4 --> Stage4
style Draft fill:#F6F6F6,stroke:#737373,color:#2A2A2A
style Testing fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Stage1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Stage2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Stage3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Stage4 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
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 D4 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Fix1 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Fix2 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Fix3 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Fix4 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Quality fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Systematic Testing Prevents Funder Rejection
Don't skip quality testing! Many proposals fail due to weak Logframe logic. This systematic framework catches problems early. Four test stages (Light Green) check different logic types—vertical (cause-effect), horizontal (indicators), community (grounding), implementation (realism). Decision points (Light Gold) ask: Does this pass? Refinement actions (Light Red) provide specific guidance when tests fail. Notice the feedback loops—you may cycle through tests multiple times before achieving a quality Logframe (Dark Green) that's funder-credible and implementation-ready.
Diagram 7: Module 2 Progression - Logframe as Operational Bridge
The Logical Framework serves as the operational bridge between Module 1's strategic foundation and the remaining Module 2 lessons. This diagram shows how Logframe activities become detailed work plans (Lesson 2.2), Logframe logic becomes proposal narrative (Lesson 2.3), and Logframe resources become realistic budgets (Lesson 2.4). You're ready to move from "what change we seek" to "exactly how we'll implement it."
graph TB
Foundation["🏗️ MODULE 1 FOUNDATION<br/><br/>Community-validated<br/>Theory of Change with:<br/>• Evidence-based analysis<br/>• Stakeholder relationships<br/>• Community priorities<br/>• Change logic"]
Logframe["📋 LESSON 2.1<br/>LOGICAL FRAMEWORK<br/><br/>Operationalizes Theory of Change:<br/>• Goal (Impact)<br/>• Purpose (Outcomes)<br/>• Outputs (Products)<br/>• Activities (Actions)<br/>• Indicators (Measures)<br/>• Assumptions (Risks)"]
subgraph Module2["🔧 MODULE 2 CONTINUATION"]
L22["LESSON 2.2<br/>Activity Design<br/><br/>Logframe Activities become:<br/>• Detailed work plans<br/>• Partnership protocols<br/>• Timeline specifics<br/>• Resource allocation<br/>• Quality standards"]
L23["LESSON 2.3<br/>Proposal Writing<br/><br/>Logframe provides:<br/>• Problem statement<br/>• Solution logic<br/>• M&E framework<br/>• Impact narrative<br/>• Credibility evidence"]
L24["LESSON 2.4<br/>Budget Estimation<br/><br/>Logframe informs:<br/>• Activity costs<br/>• Output specifications<br/>• Personnel needs<br/>• Resource requirements<br/>• Timeline-based phasing"]
end
Implementation["🚀 IMPLEMENTATION READINESS<br/><br/>Complete project package:<br/>• Community-grounded design<br/>• Systematic structure<br/>• Measurable framework<br/>• Compelling narrative<br/>• Realistic budget<br/>• Fundable proposal"]
Foundation --> Logframe
Logframe --> L22
Logframe --> L23
Logframe --> L24
L22 --> Implementation
L23 --> Implementation
L24 --> Implementation
Logframe -.->|Activities → Details| L22
Logframe -.->|Logic → Narrative| L23
Logframe -.->|Resources → Budget| L24
style Foundation fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Logframe fill:#FDBA74,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style Module2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style L22 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style L23 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style L24 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Implementation fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Logframe Bridges Strategy to Full Operationalization
This is the big picture! Module 1 Foundation (Light Lime) built strategic grounding through Problem Tree, Stakeholder Mapping, Affinity Synthesis, and Theory of Change. Lesson 2.1 Logical Framework (Light Orange) operationalizes that foundation into systematic structure with indicators and assumptions. Now the remaining Module 2 lessons (Light Green) build on Logframe: Activities → Detailed Work Plans (2.2), Logic → Proposal Narrative (2.3), Resources → Realistic Budget (2.4). The dotted lines show exactly how Logframe elements translate. The final package (Dark Green) is implementation-ready—community-grounded, systematically structured, measurable, compelling, and fundable.
Using These Diagrams
During Logframe Development: Reference these diagrams while building your framework. Diagram 1 guides translation from Theory of Change. Diagram 2 shows how to integrate Module 1 work. Diagram 3 helps enhance SMART indicators with community context.
During Quality Testing: Use Diagram 6's four-stage testing framework to systematically review your draft. The refinement loops show this is iterative—don't expect perfection on first pass.
When Explaining to Funders: Diagrams 4 and 5 demonstrate your proactive risk management and community grounding—key funder concerns. Diagram 7 shows how Logframe connects to full implementation planning.
When Presenting to Communities: Use these visuals to show how community input (stakeholder priorities, affinity themes, local success definitions) shaped every element of your Logframe.
During Quality Testing: Use Diagram 6's four-stage testing framework to systematically review your draft. The refinement loops show this is iterative—don't expect perfection on first pass.
When Explaining to Funders: Diagrams 4 and 5 demonstrate your proactive risk management and community grounding—key funder concerns. Diagram 7 shows how Logframe connects to full implementation planning.
When Presenting to Communities: Use these visuals to show how community input (stakeholder priorities, affinity themes, local success definitions) shaped every element of your Logframe.
Related Resources
- Understanding Logical Framework → Core concepts and structure
- From Theory to Framework → Translation guidance
- SMART Indicators → Community-informed indicator development
- Assumptions & Risks → Risk management strategies
- Quality Checklist → Systematic testing framework
- Step-by-Step Guide → Phase-by-phase implementation