Choose a Format
Word or Excel: Which to Use
Both formats hold the same logframe. They differ in what they make easy.
| Word layout | Excel layout | |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | Proposals, concept notes, reports | Working logframe, tracking, review |
| Layout | Landscape matrix, one row per result, indicators listed in the cell | One row per indicator, with separate baseline and target columns |
| Easy to do | Read and print; paste into a funder's document | Filter, sort, add rows, copy indicators into a tracking table |
| Harder to do | Add many indicators without a crowded cell | Read as a single picture of the logic |
| Can include | Guidance under each heading, indicator notes and a logic check table | A How to Use sheet, the Logframe sheet, a filled Example and a Checks sheet |
Many teams draft and test the logic in Excel, then paste the final matrix into Word for the proposal. When the program starts, the Excel version can become the base of the indicator tracking table. For a larger design that needs a picture of the change process first, use the theory of change or the logic model tool and then summarize in the logframe. The theory of change entry explains the pathway thinking behind the rows, and the results framework entry covers the activity-free version.
Setting Up Each Format
In Word. Set up a program summary, the matrix with rows for the goal, two outcomes, three outputs and activities, a section for indicator notes and a logic check table. Give each heading a short instruction in brackets. Add or delete rows as you need.
In Excel. Use four sheets:
- How to Use gives the steps in a few lines.
- Logframe is the matrix with a row for each level. Columns: level, results, indicator, baseline, target, means of verification, assumptions. Repeat a row for each extra indicator.
- Example is a filled logframe, like the one shown below.
- Checks holds eight yes or no questions to answer before you share the logframe.
For how to write each cell and the order to write them in, see how to write a logframe. This page is for the layout and the example.
Filled Example
Filled Example: A Vegetable Growers Program
The example is from a made-up program in four highland districts. It uses one goal, two outcomes, three outputs and a row for activities. Currency amounts are in thousands of local currency units, and every figure is invented.
| Level | Results | Indicators (baseline, target) | Means of Verification | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goal | Higher and more stable incomes for smallholder households | Median annual household income from vegetables (410, 700) | Household survey at baseline, midline and endline | Prices stay above the cost of production |
| Outcome 1 | Farmers produce more vegetables per hectare using improved practices | Share of trained farmers using at least 4 of 6 practices (12 percent, 60 percent); yield per hectare (8 tonnes, 11 tonnes) | Farm visits with a checklist (400 farmers); yield records | Rainfall is not far below average in two or more years |
| Outcome 2 | Farmers sell more of their harvest through groups at better prices | Share of harvest sold through groups (8 percent, 40 percent); price premium over the open market (0, 15 percent) | Group sales ledgers; market price survey each season | Buyers keep to contract terms; the road stays open |
| Output 1.1 | Farmers trained in improved practices | Farmers completing at least 5 of 6 sessions (0, 6,000, of whom 2,400 women) | Training attendance registers | Farmers can attend; trainers stay in post |
| Output 1.2 | Farmers have access to quality seed and tools | Agro-dealers stocking certified seed within 10 km of each village cluster (3, 15) | Dealer survey | Seed suppliers deliver on time |
| Output 2.1 | Farmer groups able to aggregate and market produce | Groups meeting five of seven management standards (4, 60) | Annual group scorecard | Members stay committed to selling together |
| Activities | Farmer field schools; dealer support; group leader training; buyer links | Inputs and budget lines in the work plan | Work plan; monthly progress reports | Funds are released on schedule |
What to Notice
- Results are changes, not actions. "Farmers produce more" can be tested. "Run training" is an activity and sits in the bottom row.
- Every indicator has a baseline and a target. Without them, the same number is a success or a miss depending on who reads it.
- Each source can be collected. The group scorecard needs a trained assessor, which the work plan must cost.
- Assumptions are conditions outside the program's control. "Trainers stay in post" is partly within control, so the logic check flags it for the risk register instead.
- Disaggregation is stated where it matters. Output 1.1 sets a target for women.
For a full definition of each indicator, use the indicator reference sheet.
Adapt the Columns
Adapting the Columns
- Donor format. Many funders publish their own matrix. Rename the levels (goal or impact, purpose or outcome) and keep the logic. Check whether the funder wants a risk column, a responsible party or annual targets.
- Results framework. If your funder asks for a results framework rather than a logframe, drop the activities row and keep the results and indicators. See the results framework entry.
- More indicators. In Excel, add a row for each indicator and leave the level and result blank beneath the first one. In Word, use the indicator notes section for definitions so that the cells stay readable.
- Targets by year. Add one target column per year to the Excel sheet. Keep the final target in a column of its own so the logic reads at a glance.
- Review. Run the Checks sheet, then ask someone who did not write it to read it from the bottom up. If the next row is not a clear consequence of the one below, the logic needs work. See the means of verification and assumptions entries for each cell.