Effective Results Frameworks for Sustainable Development

1. Introduction to results frameworks

1.1. Results frameworks and their importance in development practice

As they strive to maximise the positive impacts of their individual and collective actions on people and the planet, governments and international partners need robust results-based approaches to navigate complex development challenges, build resilience and mitigate risks.

Results frameworks are key to implementing such results-based approaches. They provide conceptual and visual clarity on how to get from inputs to outcomes and impacts. In so doing, these frameworks, including the Sustainable Development Goals, play a crucial role in addressing local and global challenges.

What is a results framework, in a nutshell?

A results framework is a structured tool used to define, monitor and assess the performance and impact of policies, programmes or projects. They explicitly articulate (typically, in a graphical or tabular manner) how a strategy or intervention will achieve the desired objective(s), including causal relationships and underlying assumptions and risks.

A results framework generally includes indicators (with baseline, targets, data sources, means of verification and other metadata for each indicator) for the full results chain: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts. In some instances, results frameworks only describe the desired outputs, outcomes and impacts, leaving flexibility in defining the inputs and activities that will lead to these results.

Ultimately, results frameworks enable development actors to define, collect and analyse information to measure the change they are producing in the world, and assess how well a project or programme is performing against planned targets. It thus helps establish an evidence-based approach to monitoring and evaluation.

While it may seem a technical exercise, a well-designed results framework reflects a strategic intention and ensures that resources and efforts are directed towards interventions that have the highest potential for creating positive change. These frameworks facilitate evidence-based decision-making, learning and adapting, accountability and communication (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Key uses of results information

Source: OECD (2021[1]), Managing for Sustainable Development Results: Development Co-operation Fundamentals, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/managing-for-sustainable-development-results_8e326a5d-en.html.

Ultimately, investing time and effort into developing and using results frameworks can lead to more effective, efficient and sustainable solutions to development challenges, making a tangible difference in the lives of those affected. This guidance toolkit walks the reader through the types and components of a well-developed results framework, to help them design, monitor and use results frameworks for greater impact on sustainable development.

Box 1.1. A short history of results frameworks

The evolution of management tools in development heavily borrows from industrialist practice. Taylor’s Scientific Management approach (1910s-40s) influenced the early days of development practice and aid delivery with its emphasis on efficiency and productivity, specialisation and professionalisation, the introduction of standards and replication of best practices, and data-driven decision-making. Management by Objectives (1950s-60s) promoted setting clear, measurable objectives and evaluating performance against them. Additional project management techniques sprang from that root, emphasising planning, scheduling and controlling activities for large or complex projects (e.g. the Critical Path Method).

Driven by the need for greater accountability, transparency and effectiveness in development projects, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) developed the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) in the 1960s, which became the foundation for results frameworks. The LFA provided a systematic method for organising and presenting project objectives, inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes, clarifying the logical (causal) relationships between them. This ground-breaking innovation offered a coherent approach to project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Over time, and as a reaction to criticisms that LFAs were too rigid and linear, they evolved into what is now known as results frameworks, which have become widely used in development practice. Results frameworks emerged as a more flexible and dynamic tool, underpinned by the theory(ies) of change underlying a programme or project. Approximately 88% of low- and middle-income countries have developed national results frameworks (OECD/UNDP, 2019[2]), and 97% of all bilateral and multilateral development partners extensively use results frameworks at project, portfolio and corporate levels (Guerrero-Ruiz, Schnatz and Verger, 2021[3]). Compared to logframes, results frameworks are more flexible in their structure, rely on standardised terminology, provide more detailed monitoring and evaluation plans, and can be applied to guide decisions not just for single projects, but for broader programmes, portfolios and policies (i.e. scalability).

This increased flexibility is due to the emphasis on using theories of change (ToC) in the formulation of results frameworks. Comprehensive descriptions and illustrations of how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context, ToC encourage the use of approaches that seek relevance, acknowledge complexity and uncertainties, adapt to context and change, and offer the ability to test and review ‘hypothetical’ causal linkages and underlying assumptions during implementation. With variations, both results frameworks and theories of change quickly became popular managerial tools in development practice from the early 2010s.

More recent trends in public management practice have led to softening the more rigid, linear, top-down aspects of results-based management further – including how results frameworks are developed and used. For example, governments and development agencies have experimented with innovative methods that emphasise the local, bottom-up definition of problems, solutions and expected results (OECD, 2015[4]), or that stress the latter parts of the results chain (i.e. outputs, and even more so, outcomes and impacts), giving implementers greater freedom to adapt original plans and activities as needed (Guerrero-Ruiz, Schnatz and Verger, 2021[3]). Thanks to these adaptations and innovations, the fundamental focus of results frameworks as a management tool, which is to drive positive development impact, remains steadfast.

1.2. Overall criteria for designing and implementing effective results frameworks

As development challenges become increasingly complex and intertwined, in the context of increasing pressures on development co-operation budgets, ensuring positive individual and collective impacts is all the more important.

Results frameworks can serve as a useful managerial tool to guide the action of each development actor. However, to ensure they support sustainable development effectively and bolster impact, these frameworks need to be designed and used with specific criteria in mind. Effective results frameworks should thus:

1. Foster alignment and coherence for sustainable development across individual and collective efforts. The framework should consider the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainable development, and ensure that all development policies and interventions remain coherent and support governments and institutions in delivering results on the ground (Chapter 2).

2. Remain flexible and adaptable to context changes. They should allow for the possibility of adjusting inputs, activities and short-term outputs, while staying focused on achieving longer-term outcomes and positive impacts.

3. Strengthen ownership and ensure all development efforts work in the same direction, be driven by strong evidence and delivered in a consistent and effective way. This will, in turn, help to overcome the current fragmentation of development efforts, thereby building synergies, avoiding overlapping or even inconsistency between development programmes, and maximising collective impact at global and country levels (Chapter 4).

4. Help generate and use timely and reliable data, ideally by harmonising indicator choices, reducing the use of parallel monitoring systems and encouraging internal and collective efforts to expand the availability of (and capacity to analyse) results data for informed decision-making, learning and reporting (Chapter 5).

5. Be used in ways that promote a culture of results and learning, with leadership and staff actively using the results information to foster and communicate their impact at institutional and individual levels (Chapter 6).

6. Stay lean and fit-for-purpose, focusing on servicing end-users of the results information in the most efficient, user-friendly manner.

Figure 1.2. Effective results frameworks: Benefits

1.3. Key components of results frameworks

The results framework serves to gather information on how a project, programme or policy intervention is translating inputs into outcomes and impacts.

1.3.1. Underlying structure or logic

Most results frameworks (e.g. at programme and project levels) have an underlying structure which describes how change is hypothesised to happen. The logical framework approach or the use of theories of change are the most common methods of structuring results frameworks, but other methods are emerging in development practice (Figure 1.4, Part A).

Typically, the underlying structure comprises a set of assumptions, risks and external factors that describe how and why the development intervention is intended to produce results. It generally includes indicators (with baseline, data source, means of verification, etc., for each) that reflect how inputs and activities will produce outputs, which then will lead to specific outcomes and impacts.

Note that, in some instances, a results framework may rely on a different logic for structuring the results. On the one hand, a designer may decide to only reflect the desired outputs, outcomes and impacts in order to leave full flexibility over identifying the inputs and activities that will lead to these results. On the other hand, he or she may prioritise the ‘representativeness’ of the set of results to be pursued and monitored, such as, for example, when designing a corporate results framework that may cover a number of ‘headline results’ that are considered sufficiently representative of hundreds or thousands of individual projects. See Chapter 3 for further information.

1.3.2. Main components

While there is no “one size fits all” approach, given that organisations operate in varying environments and are subject to different governing processes, some key elements contribute to the development of effective and useful results frameworks:

The results chain is a fundamental component of most results frameworks. It is the causal sequence of a development intervention that stipulates the different stages leading to the achievement of the desired objectives. In general, the results chain is formulated using indicators, starting with input indicators, which then link to activities and outputs, and culminate in outcomes and impacts (Figure 1.3). Each element of this framework contributes to the next, and the links between each element are as important as the results themselves.

Figure 1.3. The results chain

Source: OECD (2023[5]), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management for Sustainable Development (Second Edition), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/glossary-of-key-terms-in-evaluation-and-results-based-management-for-sustainable-development-second-edition_632da462-en-fr-es?mlang=en

An indicator can be a quantitative or qualitative factor or variable of interest related to the intervention and its results, or to the context in which an intervention takes place. An indicator provides simple, verifiable and reliable means for tracking changes and the performance of a development intervention (OECD, 2023[5]). Selecting indicators can be a difficult task; it is therefore important to apply specific criteria during the selection process, which will be detailed in the following chapters.

Each indicator in the results framework comes associated with the following elements:

• A target, as the intended, usually quantitative, value for the indicator. The target is generally set at the beginning of an intervention and is expected to be achieved by a specific point in time with available resources.

• A baseline, as the original value for the indicator at the beginning of the intervention.

• Means of verification, as a description of how the change in the indicator will be assessed. Occasionally, only sources are listed. In other results frameworks, responsibilities are described.

• Assumptions, as the enabling conditions that are presumed to be true or in place at the beginning of the intervention. The expectation is that these assumptions will hold true during the implementation of the intervention or, if these assumptions change, adequate action will be taken.

• Risks, as the factors that could materialise during the intervention and derail the results chain. The expectation is that implementers will adopt mitigating actions to avoid or reduce the impact of these potential risks on the results chain.

Other supporting elements that contribute to the effective design and use of results frameworks include:

• Situation or context diagnostics, which allow for a thorough understanding of the problem, actors, capacities, possibilities and risks.

• Stakeholder analyses and engagement plans, which serve as a systematic tool for identifying, understanding and planning ways to engage with relevant individuals, groups or organisations who have a stake in a project, initiative or strategy, and are essential for the successful design and implementation of the results framework.

• Capacity development plans (when needed), which should focus on addressing the capacity constraints of key implementers and related stakeholders.

• Risk-management strategies, which should describe potential risks for the intervention and provide a more detailed account as to how these risks are being (or could be) mitigated. These strategies are a particularly useful complement in highly volatile or fragile contexts.

• Monitoring and evaluation plans:

  • Monitoring refers to a continuing process that involves the systematic collection or collation of data (on specified indicators or other types of information). It provides the managers and other stakeholders of an intervention with indications as to the extent of implementation progress, achievement of intended results, occurrence of unintended results, use of allocated funds and other important intervention- and context-related information (OECD, 2023[5]). Monitoring requires establishing baselines to describe the situation prior to an intervention, including targets and indicators to assess whether performance is on- or off-track (OECD, 2014[6]).

  • Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of a planned, ongoing or completed intervention, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the intervention’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. It also refers to the process of determining the worth or significance of an intervention (OECD, 2023[5]).

Finally, for a results framework to be effective, other elements, such as providing sufficient guidance, staff time and resources for the design and use of the framework, and fostering a results culture within the organisation, are also necessary. Figure 1.4 provides a visual summary of the core components needed for effective results frameworks.

Figure 1.4. In focus: Understanding results frameworks

A schematic representation of key approaches and components relevant to the design and effective implementation of results frameworks

1.4. Types of results frameworks

Governments and development agencies (and the individuals working within these organisations) have different needs for results information and data, depending on their role and level.

These distinctive needs typically lead to three broad categories of results frameworks:

• Overarching level (e.g. a national development strategy or a corporate/agency-wide framework)

• Portfolio level (e.g. a sector, thematic, or country-level programme), and

• Individual intervention level (e.g. a single project).

Figure 1.5. Types of Results Frameworks

At all levels, results frameworks typically follow the structure of a results chain, linking inputs to activities, outputs, and finally outcomes and impact (Vähämäki and Verger, 2019[7]).

Ultimately, the formulation of a results framework and the selection of indicators should be guided by the specific objectives and applications of the results information at a particular level. The methods for collecting, processing and reporting this information back to stakeholders should also align with these objectives to ensure relevance and effectiveness.

Take, for example, a country aiming to achieve sustainable development. The sustainable development strategy establishes actions across multiple sectors. Government intends to use the results information to guide policy decisions and prioritise budget allocations, but also to demonstrate progress to citizens and international partners and gather support and legitimacy. The results framework would thus include headline indicators across sectors, that would ideally try to be representative of government action in all relevant sectors, while adding up to good metrics of sustainable development. Or it may rely on global frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), to ensure that indicator selection aligns with sustainable development.

1.4.1. Overarching results frameworks

Umbrella frameworks offer a way to ensure that a government’s or organisation’s strategic priorities are translated into expected results. They provide a common framework to anchor other subsidiary frameworks (e.g. at sector or project level) to overarching strategic priorities.

• For governments:

Country results frameworks are often part of national development strategies or sector planning documents. They help monitor mid-term and long-term strategic goals, and strengthen the accountability, transparency and coherence of action across government and with other domestic and international partners. When these frameworks also integrate the SDGs and other international frameworks, they can additionally be used to track progress towards sustainable development.

• For development co-operation partners:

Corporate results frameworks are umbrella frameworks that allow development partners to ensure that their development co-operation policies and strategies are results-oriented, e.g. Switzerland’s international co-operation strategy 2021-2024. Although there is not a set structure for corporate results frameworks, development partners have typically structured them in three tiers, closely tracking the results chain (Figure 1.6). Corporate results frameworks provide an anchor for the development of portfolio- and project-level results frameworks.

Figure 1.6. Typical structure of corporate results frameworks

Note: To learn more, go to Chapter 3.

Source: (Zwart, 2017[8]), Strengthening the results chain: Synthesis of case studies of results-based management by providers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/strengthening-the-results-chain_544032a1-en

1.4.2. Portfolio-level results frameworks

A portfolio-level results framework is a strategic tool used to plan, monitor and evaluate the collective outcomes and impacts of a set of related interventions, projects or programmes under a common theme, such as a government's sector programme, a development agency's operations in a specific country, or an organisation's thematic initiatives. It provides an aggregate view of progress and performance, to enable improved decision-making, learning, accountability and communication about the aggregated results. (For further information see Chapter 4).

1.4.3. Project-level results frameworks

A project-level results framework outlines the intended results of a specific project and tracks progress towards these results. For example, for a government road project, the framework would map inputs (materials, labour), outputs (kilometres of road built), outcomes (improved transportation), and impact (economic growth). In a women's empowerment project, the framework might detail inputs (training resources), outputs (number of women trained), outcomes (increased decision-making), and impact (improved gender equality). Chapter 4 expands on this matter.

1.5. Overview of this guidance toolkit

This introductory chapter covers basic details for understanding results frameworks and their use as a management tool in development practice.

To learn more on any particular aspect, please consult the following chapters:

• Chapter 2 – Integrating sustainable development in results frameworks – Key considerations

• Chapter 3 – Designing overarching (country and corporate) results frameworks

• Chapter 4 – Designing programme- and project-level results frameworks

• Chapter 5 – Strengthening monitoring systems

• Chapter 6 – Using results information

• Chapter 7 – Monitoring cross-cutting issues: Leave No One Behind (LNOB)

• Chapter 8 – Monitoring climate adaptation and resilience

• Chapter 9 – Measuring the results of capacity building and locally led initiatives

References

[3] Guerrero-Ruiz, A., J. Schnatz and C. Verger (2021), “A baseline survey of the guiding principles on managing for sustainable development results”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 93, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f8974d89-en.

[5] OECD (2023), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-based Management for Sustainable Development (Second Edition), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/632da462-en-fr-es.

[1] OECD (2021), Managing for Sustainable Development Results: Development Co-operation Fundamentals, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/managing-for-sustainable-development-results_8e326a5d-en.html.

[4] OECD (2015), Building capability by delivering results: Putting Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) principles into practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://bsc.cid.harvard.edu/publications/building-capability-by-delivering-results-putting-problem-driven-iterative-adaptation-pdia-principles-into-practice/.

[6] OECD (2014), “Measuring and managing results in development co-operation: A review of challenges and practices among DAC members and observers”, OECD Development Perspectives, No. 2, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c7762fac-en.

[2] OECD/UNDP (2019), Making Development Co-operation More Effective: 2019 Progress Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26f2638f-en.

[7] Vähämäki, J. and C. Verger (2019), “Learning from Results-Based Management evaluations and reviews”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 53, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3fda0081-en.

[8] Zwart, R. (2017), “Strengthening the results chain: Synthesis of case studies of results-based management by providers”, OECD Development Policy Papers, No. 7, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/544032a1-en.