More efficient project execution and evaluation with logical framework and project cycle management: evidence from international development projects

Figures & data

Figure 1. Baum’s project cycle (Baum 1978).

Figure 2. Example of logical framework.

Table 1. Sample description.

(a) Size of the NGO (total income × 1000 €)	N	%	(b) Size of the projects	N	%	(c) Number of projects	N	%
Less than 500 €	17	16	Less than 50,000	13	12	1–10	78	72
500 €–2,000 €	45	41	50,000–150,000	29	27	10–20	13	12
2,000 €–10,000 €	34	31	150,000–500,000	42	39	20–50	7
10,000 € +	12	11	500,000+	25	23	50+	8	7
NA	1	1	NA	0	0	NA	3	3
Total	109	100	Total	109	100	Total	109	100

Table 2. Variables description.

Variables	Original scale		Transformed scale
Dependent/Focus variables
• Level of knowledge of PCM	Categorical	Tool not known	Ordinal	1
		Low		2
		Medium		3
				4
• Level of knowledge of LF
		High
• Adoption of PCM	Calculated variable: Ratio between Number of projects adopting PCM (LF) and Number of projects
• Adoption of LF
• Evaluation of PCM usefulness	Ordinal	1: not useful at all	No transformation
		2: not very useful
• Evaluation of LF usefulness
		3: quite useful
		4: very useful
• Evaluation of PCM ease of use	Ordinal	1: very difficult	No transformation
		2: not easy
		3: quite easy
		4: very easy
• Evaluation of LF ease of use
Independent/explanatory variables
• Total number of projects	Number		No transformation
• Number of projects adopting PCM
• Number of projects adopting LF
• Size of the NGO	Categorical	Less than 500 €	Ordinal	1
		500 €–2,000 €		2
		2,000 €–10,000 €		3
		10,000 €+		4
• Size of the projects	Categorical	Less than 50,000	Ordinal	1
		50,000–150,000		2
		150,000–500,000		3
		500,000+		4
• Year of birth	Number		Log transformation
• Use of other Project Management standards	Categorical	PMBok (PMI)	(Binary)	1
		IPMA		1
		PRINCE2		1
		Others		1
		No one		0
• Type of adoption of PCM	Categorical	As is Picking only some tools and adapting them	No transformation

Table 3. Level of adoption (calculated as the ratio between Number of projects adopting PCM/LF and Number of projects).

	Adoption of PCM		Adoption of LF
	N	%	N	%
0% (non adopters)	10	10	6	6
1–25	10	10	7	7
26–50	16	16	13	13
51–75	17	17	14	14
76–100	49	48	62	61
Total	102	100	102	100

Table 4. Determinants of the level of adoption (Standardized regression coefficients).

	Adoption of PCM	Adoption of LF
Size	−.047	.025
Number of projects	−.105	.010
Size of the projects	.166	.315**
Year of birth	.114	−.063
Level of knowledge of PCM (LF)	.411**	.536**
Use of other PM standards	.056	.086
R-square	.261	.438

^* sig. < 0.050

^** sig. < 0.000.

Table 5. Evaluation scores for PCM and LF (scale from 1 to 4).

	PCM	LF
Evaluation of usefulness	3.27	3.35
Evaluation of ease of use	2.80	2.79

Table 6. Determinants of the evaluations (Standardized regression coefficients).

	PCM Usefulness	PCM Easiness	LF Usefulness	LF Easiness
Size	.034	.078	.026	−.033
Number of projects	.171	−.050	.033	.010
Size of the projects	.013	−.126	−.051	.053
Year of birth	.104	.101	.011	−.051
Level of knowledge of PCM (LF)	.086	.199	.227*	.313**
Use of other PM standards	−.145	−.090	−.135	.044
R-square	0.062	0.059	0.064	0.100
Total cases	90	88	93	91

^* sig. < 0.050

^** sig. < 0.000.

Baum WC. 1978. The World Bank project cycle. Financ Dev. 15:10–17.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar