Should You Have Intermediate Outcomes in a Logframe?

Recently, on my M&E Academy forum, we had a lively discussion about whether intermediate outcomes are really necessary in a logframe.

One participant argued that they add unnecessary complexity, especially since many programme teams already struggle with the basic distinction between an output and an outcome.Their view was:

“Why confuse people further? Let’s link outputs straight to long-term outcomes or impact.”

And, I’ll be honest. I agree.

I've watched brilliant programme managers, people who understand their work inside and out, completely shut down when faced with a logframe that has four different outcome levels. They know their stuff is working. They can tell you exactly how and why. But ask them to fit it into our neat academic boxes? Forget it.

When Less Actually Becomes More

Consider Sarah, a programme manager I worked with in Uganda. She was running a fantastic girls' education project, getting results, adapting based on what she learned, engaging communities effectively. But her logframe? It was a beautiful disaster of complexity that no one on her team actually used.

We stripped it down. Activities led to outputs. Outputs led to one clear outcome: more girls completing secondary school. That was it. No intermediate outcomes about "improved learning environments" or "enhanced community engagement."

The result? Her team finally started using the logframe as they could finally see the logic. They could track their progress. Most importantly, they could have meaningful conversations about what was working and what wasn't.

The Real Cost of Complexity

Every layer we add to a logframe has a cost. Not just the time spent debating classifications, but the cognitive load we're placing on teams who are already stretched thin. When we ask someone to differentiate between an intermediate outcome and a final outcome, we're not just asking for a technical distinction, we're demanding they hold multiple levels of abstraction in their head simultaneously.

For teams already struggling with the basics (and let's be honest, most teams are still figuring out outputs versus outcomes), intermediate outcomes can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. They stop engaging. The logframe becomes donor paperwork instead of a management tool.

But Wait....When Complexity Actually Helps

Before you rush off to delete every intermediate outcome from your logframes, hold on. Sometimes they genuinely matter.

Take complex systems change work. If you're trying to shift how an entire health system operates, or change policy at the national level, those intermediate markers can be lifesavers. They help you see progress when the final goal is still years away. They help you course-correct when you realize your theory of change needs adjustment.

I worked with a team doing advocacy work around land rights. Their final outcome was policy change—but that could take a decade. Without intermediate outcomes tracking shifts in public opinion, stakeholder engagement, and political momentum, they would have been flying blind.

The key question isn't whether intermediate outcomes are good or bad. It's whether they're useful for your specific context.

A Better Way to Think About This

Instead of defaulting to what the textbooks say, start with these questions:

Is your team drowning in M&E complexity? If people aren't using your current logframe because it's too confusing, simplify. A framework that sits in a drawer helps no one.

Are you tracking genuine phases of change? If your intermediate outcomes are just arbitrary checkpoints or reworded outputs, ditch them. But if they represent real shifts that happen at different times, they might be worth keeping.

What does your team actually need to manage the programme? Sometimes the answer is detailed milestone tracking. Sometimes it's a simple north star they can rally around. Design for your reality, not for the ideal world described in evaluation textbooks.

The Art of Strategic Simplicity

Here's what I've learned after years of both creating overcomplicated logframes and watching simple ones work beautifully: clarity beats comprehensiveness every single time.

When you remove intermediate outcomes, you're not dumbing things down. You're forcing yourself to articulate a cleaner theory of change. You're making your assumptions more explicit. You're creating space for your team to think strategically instead of getting lost in taxonomies.

But you need to be smart about it. A simplified logframe doesn't mean simplified thinking. It means clearer thinking, better indicators, and more meaningful conversations about progress and learning.

Making the Call

So how do you decide? Start with your team.

Can they explain your current logframe to a newcomer without consulting notes?

Do they reference it in regular meetings? Do they use it to make decisions?

If the answer to any of these is no, you probably need to simplify. Strip it back to what matters: what you're doing, what you're producing, and what change you expect to see. Build from there only if you genuinely need the additional complexity.

Remember, the best logframe is the one your team actually uses. Not the one that looks impressive in a proposal, not the one that ticks all the donor boxes, but the one that helps real people do better work in the real world.

The Bottom Line

Intermediate outcomes aren't inherently evil, but they're not automatically good either. They're a tool, and like any tool, they should be used only when they serve a clear purpose. For most programmes, that purpose isn't clear enough to justify the complexity they add.

Your logframe should clarify thinking, not muddy it. It should enable action, not paralyze it. And if intermediate outcomes are getting in the way of those goals, it's time to show them the door.

The conversation in our forum is still going, by the way. People are sharing stories of both simplified frameworks that transformed their programmes and complex ones that were essential for navigating intricate change processes. Because here's the thing, this isn't really about intermediate outcomes at all. It's about designing M&E systems that actually serve the people using them.

And sometimes, the bravest thing you can do is admit that simpler might be better.