Project Logic Vs Theory of change - How I Use them
One of the questions that often comes up in my conversations with for-purpose organisations is:
“What’s the difference between a project logic and a theory of change?”
It’s a good question — and while there are formal definitions out there, the most useful answer I can give is how I use them in practice.
Diagram developed from information produced by Global Focus Denmark. https://globaltfokus.dk
Theory of Change: Seeing the Bigger Picture
I use a theory of change to map out an organisation’s activities and programs in the context of its broader objectives, goals, and aims.
It’s a high-level, strategic view that connects what you do with the change you want to see.
Importantly, I include assumptions about how each activity is expected to create change. Why? Because if the results don’t match expectations, these assumptions can help pinpoint why — and that insight can feed back into improving the program or even the entire program of work.
For me, a theory of change is less about day-to-day operations and more about change planning and strategy development.
Project Logic: The Nuts and Bolts
A project logic (or program logic) is more detailed and operational.
It maps the direct link between an activity and the intended impact, breaking it down into:
Inputs
Activities
Outputs
Outcomes
This is where I track KPIs, monitor outputs, and measure whether we’re delivering as planned.
I use project logic as an accountability and reporting tool — something concrete to share with management and funders to demonstrate exactly what’s been achieved.
How They Work Together
Think of it this way:
Theory of Change is the map for where you’re heading and why. Coined as the ‘helicopter view’
Project Logic is the instruction manual for how to get there and how to check progress along the way. Also described as the ‘road view’
When used together, they ensure your programs aren’t just well-intentioned, but also measurable, accountable, and adaptable.