Results-Based Management checklist 1.1 – How to assess and/or review a logic model
This checklist is a companion to the Results-Based Management for International Assistance Programming at Global Affairs Canada: A How-to Guide. It expands on the discussion on logic models in the How-to Guide and provides step-by-step instructions to help you review and assess logic models.
Assessment criteria: logic model structure
- Does the logic model use the Global Affairs Canada template?
- If yes:
- Is there only one outcome statement per cell/box?
- Is there only one ultimate outcome?
- Is there a reasonable/realistic number of intermediate outcomes? (ideal is 2-3)
- Is there a reasonable/realistic number of immediate outcomes per intermediate outcome? (ideal is 2)
- Is there a realistic number of outputs per immediate outcome? (ideal is 1-3)
- Are the output statements in one cell/box beneath their associated immediate outcome?
- Does the logic model fit on one page?
- If no:Footnote 1
- Does the multilateral or global organization have its own results-mased management templates and methodology?
- Does the multilateral or global organization use its own templates and results-based management methodology correctly?
- Is there a clear vertical logical relationship between each outcome and the outcomes (or outputs) that precede and follow it?
- Does the logic model (or results framework) as a whole present clear, horizontal complementarity (i.e. does each outcome describe a unique change that, when combined with other changes at the same level, will contribute to the change it is linked to at the level above)?
- Does the logic model (or results framework) as a whole present a clear, evidence-based blueprint that outlines the project’s theory of change?
- Does the project design as articulated in the logic model (or results framework) address the original problem identified?
- Is there a clear relationship between at least one or more of the intermediate outcomes of this project and at least one or more of the intermediate outcomes in the country/regional program-level logic model (if applicable)?
- Would someone external to and unfamiliar with the project understand what it aims to achieve, and how, by looking at the logic model alone?
Assessment criteria: outcome and output statements (General)
- Does each outcome statement include only one idea (one change)?
- Do the outcome statements avoid phrases such as “through,” “via,” “by,” “leading to” or “in order to”?
- Do the outcome statements begin with an adjective, drawn from a verb in the past tense, that clearly indicates the direction of the change expected (i.e. increased, improved, strengthened, reduced, enhanced)?
- Does each outcome statement address: What (change is expected)? Who (will experience the change)? Where (where the result will occur, i.e. location or site)Footnote 2 ?
Assessment criteria: outcomes (and outputs) by level
- Does the ultimate outcome describe a positive change in the state, conditions, or wellbeing of the ultimate beneficiaries of the project, and not the surrounding circumstances?
- Is the ultimate outcome realistic and achievable in terms of the change expected for the beneficiaries?
- Does the ultimate outcome integrate the relevant dimensions of the project such as equality, gender equality, environment, human rights, etc.?
- Is the ultimate outcome realistically grounded in the reality of the intermediate outcomes, i.e. is it clearly linked to the achievement of the changes described at the intermediate outcome level?
- Can the ultimate outcome be measured with the indicators identified in the performance measurement framework?
- Do the intermediate outcomes reflect a change in behavior, practice, usage, accessFootnote 3 , or performance for the intermediaries or beneficiaries?
- Are the intermediate outcomes realistic (i.e. fall within the scope, time, budget of the project) and achievable by the end of the project?
- Do the intermediate outcomes integrate the relevant dimensions of the project, such as gender equality, environment, human rights, etc.?
- Do the intermediate outcomes clearly contribute to the achievement of the ultimate outcome?
- Do the intermediate outcomes clearly stem from the achievement of the changes described in their associated immediate outcomes?
- Can the intermediate outcomes be measured with the indicators identified in the performance measurement framework?
- Do the immediate outcomes reflect a change in capacities such as skills, knowledge, awareness, etc., or accessFootnote 4 , attitudes, aspirations, etc., for the intermediaries or beneficiaries?
- Are the immediate outcomes realistic (i.e. fall within the scope, time, budget of the project) and achievable?
- Do the immediate outcomes integrate the relevant dimensions of the project, such as gender equality, environment, human rights, etc.?
- Do the immediate outcomes clearly contribute to the intermediate outcomes to which they are associated?
- Do the changes described in the immediate outcomes clearly stem from the existence of their associated products and services (outputs)?
- Can the immediate outcomes be measured with the indicators identified in the performance measurement framework?
- Are there between 1-3 outputs associated with each immediate outcome?
- Are the outputs direct products or services stemming from the planned activities of the project?
- Is each output statement written in the past tense and does it address the following: What (direct product or service has been produced or rendered)? In what (subject or topic)? For whom?
- Do the outputs associated with each immediate outcome clearly contribute to the change described in that specific immediate outcome?
- Can the outputs be measured with the indicators identified in the performance measurement framework?
Assessment criteria: theory of change/logic model narrative
Does the theory-of-change narrative:
- Explain the project design, focusing on what is not explicit in the logic model, explaining the linkages between each level, i.e. the assumptions between each step or level?
- Explain how planned activities and their associated outputs will contribute to the immediate outcomes, how the immediate outcomes will contribute to the intermediate outcomes, and how the intermediate outcomes will contribute to the ultimate outcome?
- Describe how participation of key stakeholders, including intermediaries and beneficiaries, will be encouraged throughout the project’s lifecycle?
- Use evidence and other information and approaches identified in the sectoral/thematic, environmental, gender equality and human rights analysis to support the assumptions and methodological choices made at each step?
- Describe how gender equality, environment and human rights are integrated throughout the logic model?
- Mention any key external factors, including risks (as identified in the risk analysis) that could influence the achievement of results?
- Identify other projects or actors that will contribute to the achievement of the expected outcomes (e.g. complementary programming within the program, Global Affairs Canada, and other actors, recipient-country government commitments, policies and programs, etc.)?
- Describe how the project will contribute to gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls?
Updated: July 2017
These tools will be updated annually as required. Enquiries or feedback on this check list should be directed to: Results-based Management Centre of Excellence (RBMce) Operational Direction and Coherence International Assistance Operations Bureau Global Affairs Canada
- Date Modified: