0015 - Planning Using The Project Planning Matrix (PPM) - Method

METHODFINDER
Practitioner's Guide:
Deutsche Gesellschaft fr
Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) GmbH
Concept and Layout: Dr. Nikolaus Schall / Michael Becker Copyright: Dr. Johannes von Franz / Dr. Nikolaus Schall
Planning Using The
Project Planning Matrix (PPM)
MethodFinders Practitioner's Guide:
Planning Using The Project Planning Matrix (PPM)
Method / Page 2 Copyright: Dr. Johannes von Franz / Dr. Nikolaus Schall
Brief
Description
The Project Planning Matrix (PPM) enables decision mak-
ers to identify project purposes and goals and plan for
project outputs and inputs. The technique is used for
planning projects, providing an objective basis to evaluate
projects and to state assumptions about causal linkages.
The PPM provides a one page overview of any project and it
is based on causal reasoning and thought (i.e. if a certain
activity is undertaken it will achieve a certain result).
IMPORTANT
ASUMPTIONS
The broader development
impact to which the project
contributes -- at a national
and sectoral level.
PURPOSE
Measures of the extent
to which a contribution to
the goal has been made.
Used during evaluation.
Sources of information
and methods used to
collect and report it
The development outcome
expected at the end of the
project. All components will
contribute to this.
ACTIVITIES / INPUTS
Conditions at the end of the
project indicating that the
Purpose has been
achieved. Used for project
completion and evaluation
and methods used to
Assumptions concerning
the purpose/goal linkage
The direct measurable
results (goods and services)
of the project which are
largely under project
managements control
Measures of the quantity
and quality of outputs and
the timing of their delivery.
Used during monitoring
and review.
and methods used to
the output/component
objective linkage
The tasks carried out to
implement the project and
deliver the identified outputs.
Implementation/work
programme targets. Used
during monitoring.
the activity/output
linkage
RESULTS / OUTPUTS
At the input/activity level, the resources required have to be
stated. The planner has to have an overview of the proposed
expenditure for each of the project components including the
expected income generated (i.e. from levies, local taxes, etc.).
RESOURCES NEEDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION
THEN
IF
THEN
IF
THEN
IF
H O R I Z O N T A L L O G I C
V

E

R

T

I

C

A

L

L

O

G

I

C

(
1
)
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE
INDICATORS
NARRATIVE
SUMMARY
OVERALL GOAL
MEANS OF
VERIFICATION
V E R T I C A L L O G I C (2)
Figure 1: Vertical and Horizontal Logic of the Project / Programme Planning Matrix
Proposed
Main Users
Provincial Planners, District Planners,
Project and Programme Planners.
Purpose of
the Method
During routine evaluation of development projects in the early
1970s a number of recurring factors were noted, including the
fact that:
There was a lack of clear statement on project objectives.
Projects tended to follow many different objectives that
were not always necessarily part of the main components..
There was a great deal of uncertainty about what the
projects should achieve in the long term, it was therefore not
possible to objectively compare planned objectives with
those actually achieved.
The management responsibilities were unclear. It was
difficult to define precisely who was responsible for what.
Evaluations did not have an objective basis because of the
lack of clear goal formulation, both at the planning level and
more particularly at the implementation level.
Lack of accurate prediction of time, personnel and the
resources required.
Project descriptions were often lengthy and difficult to
understand quickly.
As a direct result of these planning constraints the Logical
Framework technique was developed in order to:
1. Separate what project managers could expect to accomplish
from the postulated consequences of those accomplish-
ments.
2. Consistent with management by objectives, have clear
targets that would define success.
3. Enable project teams to iteratively improve project design
and focus.
4. Focus evaluation on improving future performance rather
than assigning blame.
5. Force a clear definition of success as a project end point,
defying the contractor and university driven culture by
which projects continued indefinitely.
6. Consistent with scientific method, define exactly how one
will verify success or failurea thing is not defined until
and unless you say how it will be measured.
The name of the technique has since changed to being termed
the Project Planning Matrix (PPM) and it is currently in use by
numerous international development organizations, private
sector organizations and in some cases also by commercial
companies.
Advantages
The PPM is simple to understand. It provides a structure for con-
cepts, ensuring that the decision-maker thinks through the funda-
mental aspects of a project design.
The PPM aids in evaluating projects since both initial goals and
final results are clearly delineated.
By explicitly identifying how the project is to be evaluated, the
decision-maker can make realistic estimates of project outcomes
and can identify problems, which might be encountered.
PPM is part of an overall logical planning sequence that includes a
problem identification, analysis of interest groups, objective analy-
sis, analysis of alternatives and finally a plan of operations and
monitoring and evaluation sequence.
Provides logical link between means and ends.
Places activity within broader development environment.
Encourages examination of risks.
Requires analysis of whether objectives are measurable.
It brings together in one place a statement of all the key components
of a project.
It separates out the various levels in the hierarchy of objectives,
helping to ensure that inputs and outputs are not confused with
each other or with objectives and that wider ranging objectives are
not overlooked.
It provides a basis for monitoring and evaluation by identifying
indicators of success and means of quantification or assessment.
Unfortunately, the PPM is often seen as the panacea for solving all
planning problems. It is basically an empty piece of paper that
simply contains a sixteen-cell matrix! The quality of the PPM is still
dependent upon the quality of work put in by those who use the
technique.
During the planning process the PPM does not take uncertainty
into account. Neither does it allow for consideration of potential
alternative actions.
A linear causal sequence is assumed which is an unlikely simplifi-
cation of the relationships among various project components and
elements in the environment.
Getting consensus on objectives.
Reducing objectives to a simple linear chain.
Inappropriate level of detail (too much or too little).
Oversimplification of objective.
Objectives become too rigid (blueprint).
Ignoring unintended effects.
Hides disagreements, rigid targets.
Downgrading of less quantified objectives.
Used for top-down control.
Can alienate staff.
Becomes a fetish rather than a help.
Finding measurable indicators for higher-level objectives and
social projects.
Establishing unrealistic targets too early.
Limitations
Principles and
General
Procedures
The PPM matrix should provide a summary of the project design and,
when detailed down to output level, should generally be no more than five
pages long. The PPM matrix has four columns and usually four or five
rows, depending on the number of levels of objectives used to explain the
means-ends relationship of the project.
The vertical logic identifies what the project intends to do, clarifies the
causal relationships, and specifies the important assumptions and uncer-
tainties beyond the project managers control (columns 1 and 4 in figure 1).
The horizontal logic defines how project objectives specified in the project
description will be measured, and the means by which the measurement
will be verified (columns 2 and 3 in figure 1). This provides the framework
for project monitoring and evaluation.
Some important terms:
Project description provides a narrative summary of what the project
intends to achieve and how. It describes the means by which desired
ends are to be achieved (the vertical logic).
Goal refers to the sectoral or national objectives to which the project is
designed to contribute, e.g. increased incomes, improved nutritional
status, reduced crime. It can also be referred to as describing the ex-
pected impact of the project. The goal is thus a statement of intention.
Purpose refers to what the project is expected to achieve in terms of
development outcome. Examples might include increased agricultural
production, higher immunisation coverage, cleaner water, or improved
local management systems and capacity. There should generally be only
one purpose statement.
Component Objectives. Where the project or program is relatively large
and has a number of components (output/activity areas) it is useful to
give each component an objective statement. These statements should
provide a logical link between the outputs of that component and the
project purpose.
Results / Outputs refer to the specific results and tangible products
(goods and services) produced by undertaking a series of tasks or
activities. Examples might include: irrigation systems or water supplies
constructed, areas planted/developed, children immunised, buildings
or other infrastructure built, policy guidelines produced, and staff
trained. Each component should have at least one contributing output,
and will often have up to four or five. The delivery of project outputs
should be largely under project managements control.
Principles and
General
Procedures
Activities refer to the specific tasks undertaken to achieve the required
outputs. Examples for a new community water supply might include:
further design, establishing water users committee and maintenance
procedures, site preparation, collection of local materials, tank construc-
tion and pipe laying, digging soak pits and commissioning. However, the
PPM matrix should not include too much detail on activities otherwise it
becomes too lengthy and potentially prescriptive. If detailed activity
specification is required, this should be presented separately in an activity
schedule/gantt chart format and not in the matrix itself.
Inputs refer to the resources required to undertake the activities and
produce the outputs, e.g. as personnel, equipment, and materials.
However, inputs should not be included in the matrix format.
Assumptions. Assumptions refer to conditions which could affect the
progress or success of the project, but over which the project manager
has no direct control, e.g. price changes, rainfall, land reform policies,
non-enforcement of supporting legislation. An assumption is a positive
statement of a condition that must be met in order for project objectives
to be achieved. A risk is a negative statement of what might prevent
objectives being achieved.
Indicators. Indicators refer to the information we need to help us
determine progress towards meeting project objectives. An indicator
should provide, where possible, a clearly defined unit of measurement
and a target detailing the quantity, quality and timing of expected
results.
Means of verification (MOVs). Means of verification should clearly
specify the expected source of the information we need to collect. We
need to consider how the information will be collected (method), who
will be responsible, and the frequency with which the information
should be provided.
STEP 1: Vertical Logic 1 - Defining Objectives and
Activities
1. The objectives are derived from the objective tree and related goal/
objective setting techniques and transferred into the first vertical col-
umn of the planning matrix, as follows:
start at the top of the matrix and work downwards
decide on one overall goal and one purpose
If necessary review the wording in the objective hierarchy and make
it more accurate
2. The objective describes the intended impact or anticipated benefits of
the planned programmes as a precisely stated future condition (i.e.
Completed..., Implemented..., Improved..).
The Purpose contributes to the overall goal.
3. The outputs are expressed as objectives which the implementing
agency/group must achieve and sustain. Their interrelated impact must
be appropriate, necessary and sufficient to achieve the objective.
4. Write down those inputs which are necessary to sustain the outputs,
noting that to ensure clarity:
that not too many detailed activities are listed, but rather that the
most essential activities necessary for achieving the programme
(output) are detailed;
in contrast to the objectives, the inputs are expressed in the present
tense (i.e. Plan project on population birth control, etc).
5. The inputs and outputs are given consecutive, related numbers.
The numbering CAN be used to indicate the sequence of events or the
priorities.
6. The narrative summary covers the operational MEANS ENDS Relation-
ships in the plan structure (IF THEN).
Principles and
General
Procedures
STEP 2: Vertical Logic 2 - Adjusting the If-Then Logic
with Assumptions
1. Examine whether the activities directly generate the set of results or
whether an additional event must also take place that is outside the
projects influence.
2. Some of the important assumptions can be derived from the means ends
relationships in the objective hierarchy and which were not incorpo-
rated into the project.
3. At each level, that is Input to Output, Output to Purpose and Purpose to
Goal, the same procedure as in step one above takes place. Each level
must contain the necessary and sufficient conditions (including assump-
tions) for the next higher level. At the lowest level, it may be necessary
to define PRE CONDITIONS, these may be necessary for implementing
the activities but they are outside the control of the project.
4. Important assumption are expressed in the same way as objectives,
namely as positive conditions:
Important assumptions are described precisely, so that the planner
can see whether these external conditions have taken place or not.
Only important assumptions are stated which are logically necessary
additional conditions.
5. Assumptions that are important and are probable are termed Killer
Assumptions and they cannot be planned for. Should these Killer
Assumptions occur the project plan must be amended or if there is no
alternative strategy, the plan may have to be abandoned.
Principles and
General
Procedures
STEP 3: Horizontal Logic 1: Defining Indicators
1. Indicators must be Plausible: Indicators should measure what is impor-
tant in the narrative summary statement. It is very easy to fall into the
trap of measuring what is easy rather than what is important. Some-
times what is important is also easy to measure, however one must
focus on importance first, then on measurement. Indicators, to the extent
possible, must correlate with what is being measured. The usefulness of
an indicator diminishes if there could be several other reasons for a
change in the indicator.
2. Indicators must be Independent: Indicators measure the change, which
through implementation of the plan is trying to happen. The indicators
are not the things that make the change. The question of independence
of indicators at different levels is difficult. Perhaps, while trying to
determine whether the indicators set are independent of the next higher
level, assistance can be rendered by asking the following question: Are
the indicators set, say at the purpose level, the things needed to create
the purpose or are they signs that the purpose has been achieved?
3. Indicators must be Objectively Verifiable: The prescribed statement
must be accurate enough to make the indicator objectively verifiable. An
indicator is objectively verifiable when different persons using the same
measuring process obtain the same measurements quite independently
of one another.
4. Indicators must be targeted: Indicators must be targeted in terms of
quantity quality and time (and where necessary location):
Quantity How much
Quality How well
Time By when
Location Where
Gender For whom
5. If any of these criteria are missing, one cannot be entirely objective
about whether one has been successful or not.
Principles and
General
Procedures
STEP 4: Horizontal Logic 2: Defining the Means of
Verification
1. Stipulate the sources of information to verify the indicator.
2. The means of verification column of the matrix contains an exact de-
scription of what information is to be made available, in what form and,
where necessary, by whom. The sources of verification should be allo-
cated numbers corresponding to those of the indicators.
3. Sources of verification which are external to the project, programme or
plan are reviewed as to:
How much information they contain which is specific to the region
and to the target groups,
How reliable, up to date and accessible this is,
Their composition and how they were obtained.
4. When suitable, external sources of verification cannot be identified; the
information necessary to verify the indicators may need to be collected.
For this purpose particular activities have to be planned.
5. Other, verifiable indicators must replace indicators for which it is not
possible to identify suitable sources of verification.
6. Indicators which, after careful consideration of the costs and benefits,
are too costly to collect the necessary baseline and additional data need to
be replaced by more suitable and cost-effective indicators. this may require
that the objective also has to be reconsidered and adapated accordingly.
Principles and
General
Procedures
STEP 5: Checking the Logic
Finally, one has to check that the vertical and horizontal logic holds true.
The following questions are helpful in doing this:
Is the objective statement clear?
Have the expected results been clarified with realistic and clear
indicators?
Is the source of evidence needed to verify the status of the indica-
tors available?
ZOPP Objectives-oriented Project Planning; A planning guide for new
and ongoing projects and programmes, GTZ GmbH, 1997
Logical Framework: A Critical Assessment, Des Gasper Institute of
Social Studies
The Logical Framework Approach, AusGUIDE, Ausguidelines, Australia,
2000
Objectives-Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP), Collaborative Decision-
making: Workshop-Based Method, World Bank, The World Bank
Participation Sourcebook.
Horses for courses: a stakeholder approach to the evaluation of GDSSs.
Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. (1996). Group decision and negotia-
tion, 5, 501-519.
References and
Sources Used

0015 - Planning Using The Project Planning Matrix (PPM) - Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0015 - Planning Using The Project Planning Matrix (PPM) - Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0015 - Planning Using The Project Planning Matrix (PPM) - Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

METHODFINDER

You might also like