Expand voluntary evaluations that respond to learning needs of management and teams. These include impact and process evaluations, retrospectives, and beneficiary surveys and need not be project-specific but can cover multiple interventions in a given sector, country, or region, depending on learning needs. Building on recent progress, further enhance the manner in which impact evaluations respond to learning needs through greater regional and thematic selectivity and enhance the uptake of findings from impact evaluations. Ensure that information technology systems capture and make accessible knowledge from self-evaluations (applies to the World Bank and IFC).abc
Corporate requirements specify the scope, timing, and content of self-evaluations in a way that supports reporting more than it does learning. For example, most self-evaluations continue to be project-specific, with similar approach and depth, regardless of the learning potential. Mandatory and voluntary self-evaluations are not used strategically to meet knowledge gaps and approaches to using them for lesson learning are fragmented, further fueling staff perceptions of low importance. There is scope to strengthen Bank-wide oversight and the regional and thematic selectivity of impact evaluations, the uptake of findings from impact evaluations, and the use of information systems for capturing, classification, and availability of Bank Group mandatory and voluntary self-evaluations. IFC has a fragmented approach to lesson learning with no clear framework for capturing, storing and acting on lessons and no high-level champion for this has emerged.
World Bank Management agrees that voluntary self-evaluations such as impact evaluations are an important way to assess effectiveness of the interventions. Making the existing IEs more easily accessible to staff through a centralized repository would be an important first step to promote the wider use of this wealth of information. While it is not feasible or necessary for every operation to have an embedded IE, there is a need for a more systematic approach and for guidance on IEs to boost learning and development effectiveness. Management will establish a working group to discuss options and a way forward.
IFC Management agrees with the recommendation that an evaluation program should be developed in response to knowledge gaps identified by IFC business specialists and operational teams or clients. IFCâs Development Impact Unit has developed a framework of evaluations to (a) increase the relevance of evaluations for IFC and its stakeholders, (ii) improve insights and operational learning and (c) improve communication of evaluation findings. A platform is being built to give operational teams access to the most relevant and up-to-date lessons, and IFC is developing guidelines and training on how to prepare such lessons.
IFC Action 5.1: Identify knowledge gaps in evaluative evidence.
IFC Action 5.2: Develop an evaluation program that responds to priority areas among these knowledge gaps.
IEG commends IFC for its active program of voluntary self-evaluations. The planned/initiated exercises to create theories of change, map out the evidence, and identify knowledge gaps in evaluative evidence based on the theories of change are promising. IEG looks forward to hearing more about the results as the exercises conclude. Hopefully, the findings of these exercises will help IFC expand voluntary evaluations that respond to learning needs of management and teams.
Action 5.1: In FY17, the IFC Sector Economics and Development Impact (CSEDR) initiated the following two exercises:1. Sector-specific theories of change (ToC) for IFC investments based on expansive scanning of Board papers, industry strategies and sector notes, and evaluations. 2. Rapid evidence mapping built to understand which of the ToC links are well researched and proven. The methodology is based on the UK Government guidelines for rapid evidence mapping. This effort will cover about 20 sub-sectors. Action 5.2: Based on the ToC and evidence mapping exercises, the next step for FY18 and beyond, will be to develop a more strategic evaluation agenda. In the meantime, IFC continues to complete, have active, on-going and pending evaluations that address knowledge gaps in some priority areas (e.g. Sytematic Review of FCS PSD, Laureate Peru Higher Education Impact Evaluation, Estimating the Development Impact of Airports Projects, HBL Gender Intelligence Survey, MicroCred MFS Encouragement Design, Port Multipliers, Agri Commodity Trades, Assessing the Net Benefits of Modern Food Retail in Emerging Markets, Assessment of the Impact of IFC Investments in the Development of Oil and Gas Sector of Ghana, Case study: Development impact of IFCâs engagement in Izmir Cities, Evaluation of IFCâs Corporate Governance Program, Assessment of Comprehensive Japan/ IFC Trust Fund). IFC has also been very active in the development of the WBG evaluation framework expected to be finalized by CY17.