Organization
World Bank
Report Year
2015
1st MAR Year
2016
Accepted
Yes
Status
Active
Recommendation

Ensure attention at project inception to evaluability through (1) developing standards for baseline measurement, (2) explicit linking of the baseline to indicators relevant to project objectives, including any that refer to poverty or inclusion impacts, and (3) robust planning for monitoring data required for expost evaluation.

Recommenation Adoption
IEG Level of Adoption by Year: mar-rating-popup NNTNTNT Management Adoption by Year: mar-rating-mng-popup MNTNTNT
CComplete
HHigh
SSubstantial
MModerate
NNegligible
NANot Accepted
NRNot Rated
Findings Conclusions

Deficiencies in the M&E design for projects are most frequently identified as shortcomings in Bank support at entry. Often what gets measured are the project milestones (mainly outputs or intermediate outcomes) but often not the final outcomes. Early attention to project evaluability should strengthen M&E planning and execution.

Original Management Response

WB: Partially Agrees. Management agrees with the overall thrust of the recommendation to strengthen the project's M&E framework, but finds the specific actions recommended hard or impractical to translate into monitorable actions.
Establishment of key monitoring indicators that reflect intended project outcomes, with baseline values, at the outset of the project is critical to assessing project impact and monitoring progress. To the extent feasible, such data monitoring should be collected throughout the project implementation in a routinized and transparent fashion. Project should also have to state, at the decision review stage, how it plans to track key indicators and outcomes throughout the project's life.
Strengthening the project's M&E framework and its implementation is a major agenda which will continue to be addressed through enhanced guidance and training for staff, and signaling from corporate and front line management.

Action Plans
Action 1
Action 1 Number:
0377-01
Action 1 Title:
Action 9a: Revision and harmonization of the list of the Corporate Results Indicators (CRI).
Action 1 Plan:

Action 9a: Revision and harmonization of the list of the Corporate Results Indicators (CRI).
Indicator: Number of CRI
Baseline: 200+ Core Sector Indicators (CSI) currently tracked
Target: The revised and harmonized list of CRI will comprise of no more than 30 indicators. The indicators will clarify purpose, governance, accountability, and set out a quality control process, being directly relevant to corporate reporting and external commitments in the WBG/WB Corporate Scorecards and IDA Results Measurement System.
Timeline: FY17.

Action 2
Action 2 Number:
0377-02
Action 2 Title:
Action 9b: Develop guidance and good practice notes for Task Teams on development and use of indicators to track project outcome
Action 2 Plan:

Action 9b: Develop guidance and good practice notes for Task Teams on development and use of indicators to track project outcomes.
Indicator: Guidance and good practice notes in place on the development and use of Results Framework Indicators.
Baseline: Lack of clear guidance for developing project indicators and clarity regarding use of indicators to articulate the results of project interventions.
Target: Guidance and good practice notes issued, complemented by a list of indicators, on which task teams can draw for results frameworks, with standardized definitions and methodologies for each practice/sector.
Timeline: FY18.

Action 3
Action 4
Action 5
Action 6
Action 7
Action 8
2019
IEG Update:
No Updates
Management Update:
No Updates
2018
IEG Update:
No Updates
Management Update:
No Updates
2017
IEG Update:
No Updates
Management Update:
No Updates
2016
IEG Update:

Action 9a: As stated by management, a set of 25 CRIs have been defined and are in the process of being adopted. IEG notes however that there is no indicator that refers to poverty or inclusion impacts (as highlighted in the original recommendation) or a discussion of how the proposed CRIs may contribute to measure poverty and inclusion impacts. The Procedures are very clear on who is supposed to propose, review, advise, clear and communicate the indicators and their future revisions, but are not as specific in assigning specific responsibilities at the level of implementation. The quality control process is not defined at this stage, except for the Procedures indicating that "PGs and Global Practices (GPs) [have] direct responsibility for quality assurance procedures" and that OPCS is coordinating the overall quality control.

Action 9b is at a very early planning stage. Management has shared the TORs referring to an activity, which is about to start, aimed to generate information and evidence on good practices that can be integrated into the CPF module of the RMES Applied Results Measurement Training and used in preparing a good practice note on monitoring CPFs.

The negligible rating is due to the fact that the CRI indicators haven't yet been rolled out and Action 9b has yet to start.

Management Update:

Action 9a: Twenty-five Corporate Results Indicators (CRIs) have been identified for the purpose of corporate reporting and external commitments. Guidance and Procedure notes have been prepared for the CRIs, documenting the purpose, governance, accountability, and set out a quality control process. The CRIs are undergoing the final clearance by management, and are scheduled to be formally disseminated to staff in September 2016, with implementation beginning in January 2017.

Action 9b: The action is still in the early design and planning stage. The team to work on this activity will be assigned and the deliverables, work breakdown structure and task implementation schedule will be discussed and agreed by the end of October 2016.