{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02502274795268426, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007279344858962694, 'mean_word_length': 5.125348189415042, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Logical Framework Approach and PRA - mutually exclusive or complementary tools for project planning?

The overall purpose of project planning is to improve project performance. However, there is no general consensus with regard to how to undertake this. One planning system used by many donor agencies is the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) or 'logframe'. An alternative system is Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) which has further evolved into Participatory Learning and Action (PLA). LFA and PRA systems are considered by Chambers, the father of PRA/ PLA methods, to be mutually exclusive (Chambers 1996, 1997). This paper questions that view and proposes a method for how it is possible to combine the two methods. There are several pitfalls in project planning. One is the position that the plan should be fulfilled at any cost. However, circumstances (external factors) might change during project implementation, thus necessitating adjustments to the original plans (Hersoug 1996). If these factors develop negatively during the project period, the project may have to be terminated or redesigned in order to circumvent them. External factors may also develop favourably, thereby opening up new possibilities. If planning and implementation are viewed too rigidly, these opportunities will be foregone. The third pitfall is not to have any plan or to have a plan with few or no implications for project implementation. This causes frustration among project staff and beneficiaries because it is not known where the project is heading. Project planning is, therefore, a question of finding a suitable balance between stability and flexibility (Hersoug 1996). As a general rule, the more you know about the external factors which can influence a project, the more you can plan in detail. More realistic goals may also be established during project implementation. This is also in line with the current thinking that project implementation should be a learning process. Planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation are parts of a continuous project cycle. It is of special importance that the lessons learned during project implementation feed back into the ongoing planning process.