Objectives diagram and effect diagram

What is an objectives diagram and what is an effect diagram?

• What do they represent?
  • Objectives and effects: definitions
  • The role of a diagram in the planning process
  • The role of the objectives diagram and effect diagram in an evaluation
• Where does the objectives diagram come from?
• What shapes can an objectives diagram and an effect diagram take?
  • Tree shape or complex diagram
  • Vertical or horizontal diagram
• What is a logical link?
  • Definition
  • Verification of the logical nature of the diagram

Development assistance (in terms of projects, programmes and strategies) usually focuses on an objective to be achieved, or an intended effect.

The objective is expressed in terms of an intervention, whereas the impact is expressed in terms of consequence of the intervention.

Various glossaries of evaluations provide definitions for these two terms, such as in the OECD's glossary (Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Result-Based Management).

The objective of the external assistance covers a variety of aspects, from factual interventions (roads, training, etc.) to macro-economic and social changes. In evaluation, the term impact conveys the idea of wide-scope and long-term effects. By convention, medium term effects are called outcomes, and short-term effects results. The tool will refer to the term effect, so as to include the development assistance's range of outputs (results, outcomes and effects).

When the diagram is used as a structuring tool, the effects presented in the diagram are the effects intended from the assistance.

The diagram can also be used as an evaluation tool for the analysis of the programme's outcomes. The effects presented in the diagram are the observed effects.

At the planning stage, the assistance goals are usually expressed in terms of objectives. At the evaluation stage, the concepts of objectives and effects can be used either way.

The objectives system
Usually, a long term and global strategic objective, assumed to be a first level objective, is fulfilled through the completion of a range of second level objectives. This is true even where the first level objective is straightforward. Each second level objective depends on the completion of several third level objectives, and so on, down to operational objectives (the intervention projects).

Therefore, an objective is usually understood as a means to achieve a superior level aim, while depending on the completion of subordinate means or objectives.

The objectives system is the presentation of all the objectives of all levels with their respective links.

The effect system
The outputs of the implementation of a project, a programme or an assistance strategy include direct results, the short-term outcomes which are linked to these results, and the longer term impacts (direct and indirect). Such outputs can be called 'effects' and are linked together in a range of causal relations or synergies at the basis of the effect system.

The objectives tree
The need for a logical classification of the range of objectives in objective-based planning is at the origin of the drafting process of programmes and projects. The objectives system is usually presented as a system of roots and a trunk, hence its common name, the objectives tree.

Such tree-like illustrations, however, are subject to some basic rules:

• There can only be one first row objective, also called the global objective
• Each subordinate objective is related to one objective in the row above
• Interactions between objectives in the same row and feedback links (i.e. effects becoming causes and vice versa) are not represented

The level expresses the place of the objectives in the cause-and-effect system. In the diagram, the level is represented by the row.

When these rules are applied, objectives trees are a simplified illustration of the objectives system defined during the drafting of the strategy (or the programme).

In the context of the European Commission development assistance, objectives trees show the classification of objectives to be achieved in a geographical (region or country), sector-based or thematic strategy. They range from the European Union's long-term global objective, down to the activities carried out in operational programmes.

What actually happens in thematic, sector-based or geographical evaluations is more complex than that illustrated in objectives and effect systems. Indeed, strategies and programmes under evaluation do not systematically result from objective-based planning. Even if they do, the logical classification of objectives may result from decisions based on circumstances rather than from a rational selection derived from the fundamental issues.

This situation may result in:

• Two or more first row objectives which cannot be reduced to a single global objective
• Objectives of a given row which are linked to several objectives of the immediate row above
• Objectives of a given row which are related to an objective belonging to 2 rows above
• Interactive objectives at the same level

The use of standard objectives trees in evaluations assumes that the definition of the objectives is rational and the strategic scope can be reduced to a simplified illustration.

These limitations explain why the use of objectives diagrams, whose shape can fluctuate more, is favoured to strictly codified objectives trees.

The effect diagram
International development assistance has tended to evolve progressively in the fields of planning and management from an objective-based approach to a result-based approach. Thus, the evaluation must take into account the effect system linked to the programme or the strategy to be assessed, and organise it. The term effect diagram is used to describe the theoretical organisation of the effect system (outputs, short-term results and intermediate impacts) which leads to the overall intended impact.

The effect diagram displays the classification of the results, outcomes and impacts of what is intended from the implementation of the objectives system. Its tree-shape connects the actual activities which have been planned, and the outputs, which should produce direct results, to the medium term intermediate impacts and the long-term global impacts. The tree can also be read from the bottom to the top, the long-term overall impact being reached after the implementation of intermediate impacts, results, outputs and interventions.

To find out more:

• What are the advantages and limitations of the tool?

The objectives diagram comes from objective-based management whose use expanded during the 1960s in the economic sphere of the United States and in Western economies.

It was first adapted to the requirements of the United States Department of Defense and, in the late sixties, to the USAID country assistance management as a component of the logical framework.

Thus, the first well-known use of objectives diagram (including USAID), relates to the drafting of logical frameworks  (128 kb).

The objectives diagram belongs to a series of country assistance decision tools, and can be combined with the problem diagram in the context of Goal Oriented Project Planning (GOPP, originally called ZOPP in German for Zielorientierte Projektplanung).

At the start of the 1980s, GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) conducted a methodological revision of ZOPP, to be used as an educational tool to determine the stages of the participatory process which produces the logical framework.

The typical sequence can be illustrated as followed:

Analysis of the problems of a simplified sequence in the project cycle

In this context, the objectives diagram is:

• a useful tool for the drafting of projects
• a planning methodology tool, which comes from the problem tree and contributes to the logical framework
• a participative decision tool which embraces the main stakeholders of the project, whose determination is the first stage of the project cycle sequence

Following GTZ's initiative, various public donors and operators (agencies and NGOs) have used the problem tree as a component of project planning and management.

Its use as a participatory and appropriation tool has not always played the paramount role defined by the ZOPP designers, indeed, in many cases, the stakeholder analysis was insufficiently comprehensive and the participation procedures were extremely formal, resulting in the problem tree becoming a formal exercise, even a manipulation tool. The logical framework was therefore limited to rigid project management tool, ignoring the fact that it is first and foremost a learning and negotiation tool. As a consequence, emphasis was put on over-simplistic wording, forgetting that these corresponded to the educational objective of the tool.

The biggest criticism of the objectives diagram is the assumption that a consensus can be reached for development objectives and strategies among stakeholders (donors, operators and beneficiaries).

Inadequacies and modifications at the programme drafting stage should be examined during the evaluation, which should focus particularly on the drafting process of the objectives system and avoid tools requiring or yielding a simplistic representation of the system.

The standard objectives tree is subject to the following basic rules:

• A single global objective
• Subdivision of the objective of a given row into 2 or more objectives of a row below (level 2)
• Relation of a defined objective with a single objective of a row above (level 3)
• No horizontal links
• No feedback links (i.e. effects become causes and vice versa)

When trees are drafted in the context of objectives-oriented planning, the first row objective is usually called the "global objective". The lower row objectives have various names, but preferably "intermediate objectives". Several rows can be dedicated to intermediate objectives. The objectives located at the bottom of the tree are called "operational objectives".

The objectives diagram set out below is a complex objectives system:

• One of the intermediate objectives in row (2) is directly linked to the global objective and not to another intermediate objective (1).
• Two intermediate objectives in row (3) are interrelated.
• One of these objectives is linked to two objectives of the row above (intermediate 2).
• Row 2 of the intermediate objectives appears incomplete (lack of subdivisions to the lower row objectives).

Complex objectives diagram

Examples of more complex objectives systems can be found, having two global objectives and subdivisions of intermediate objectives, however, such objectives diagrams cannot present feedback links.

A structured presentation of the effect system (the most recent one) has taken into account the limitations of the tree shaped representation and adopted the flexible shape of the diagram. As a consequence, the systems of results, outcomes and effects can have the same degree of complexity as the objectives system, and can be illustrated by similar diagrams.

Effect diagram

Diagrams can either be vertically or horizontally oriented.
In their vertical shape, they read from top to bottom, or from bottom to top.
In their horizontal shape, they read from right to left, or left to right.

The objectives and effects illustrated in the diagrams are related to each other with horizontal or vertical links. These links are called "logical" when expressing an inference relation (induction or deduction) which has been validated by experience. They highlight the fact that:

• The adoption of an objective/effect at a certain row implies that of subordinated objectives/effects
• An objective/effect of a certain row can be deduced from an objective/effect of a row above (immediate or not)
• Two objectives/effects of the same row share a synergetic relationship

The logical nature of the links between objectives/effects are essentially based on experience and development theories (derived from this experience). Experience and theory can determine which subordinated objectives/effects should result from the implementation of objectives/effects of a certain level, in order to be properly fulfilled.

However, in terms of development, experiments do not always result in the same conclusions and, as a consequence, should not be considered universally applicable. This can be accounted for by the dependency of the objectives/effect on various factors, often not well-understood.

For example, even when experts agree on the relevance of a global objective, they may disagree on the definition of intermediate objectives, and in particular, operational objectives. The content of overall objectives such as poverty alleviation is continuously debated and evolving.

The logical links between objectives/effects (i.e. the logical nature of the objectives diagram and effect diagram) can simultaneously be checked with:

• Recognised experts who have worked in different countries and situations
• Designers and implementing managers of programmes included in the evaluation scope

These two groups of actors may validate the logical nature of the diagram unanimously or individually.

The evaluation should clearly present the process of the validation and its outcome.