All XPSRs should be delivered on time and their quality improved through better management oversight, guidance, and clearance, plus the involvement of senior investment officers in conducting XPSRs.
2. Declining quality of self-evaluation reporting (XPSR). - ï The quality of XPSRs has declined by three measures: (1) XPSR's rated as "good practice" dropped from 50 to 25 percent between 2007 and 2011 (2) in 2011, staff assigned higher self-ratings for development outcome and IFC work quality in 20 percent and 18 percent of XPSRs, respectively, as compared with independent assessments, and the gaps between the self and IEG ratings have been increasing in the last four years (3) for the first time in 2010 IFC did not complete 6 XPSRs during the program year. Possible reasons are (1) less experienced junior staff drafting self-evaluations without sufficient oversight, (2) a larger XPSR program following IFC's portfolio growth over the last five years, or (3) portfolio staff also working on new projects, which takes precedence.
Agree: IEG's relabeling of Best Practice XPSRs to Good Practice has caused confusion. There is no evidence to support the assertion that 25% of XPSRs being considered Best Practice (now relabeled as Good Practice) is not a good achievement. The widening gap between self and IEG ratings could be a result of tougher IEG ratings over these four years, rather than "softer" self ratings.
We agree that all XPSRs should be completed and delivered on time. We also look forward to a more timely completion of all IEG's EvNotes. We agree that the likely causes of the ratings variance are (i) a larger XPSR program, and (ii) investment staff giving new project processing or immediate portfolio concerns precedence over XPSR completion. We propose that we work with IEG to limit the number of XPSRs per staff, without losing representativeness. This will have the added benefit of spreading the learning to more staff. In addition, we propose that we work with IEG on a training program for investment officers on how to write high quality XPSRs, including clarity around the way in which IEG decides whether an XPSR is good practice or not.
Action 2: Review of XPSR content and process to improve quality and efficiency.
Indicator: A proposal for revised XPSR framework and process that enhances operational learning.
Baseline: Existing XPSR framework and process.
Target: A proposal for revised XPSR framework and process agreed by Management.
Timeline: End of CY13.
XPSR delivery was uneven and there are still 6 XPSRs from 2016 not yet delivered. This is despite of the fact that the XPSR template was streamlined and facilitated auto-completion of portfolio information from the other IFC databases.
Management rated "High" two years ago. IEG rated "Moderate" two years ago and "Substantial" last year. In 2015, an automated XPSR template is introduced and it is mainstreamed in 2016 XPSR cycle. Nevertheless, 7 XPSRs were not delivered on time in 2015 cycle. Based on these, IEG maintains "Substantial" rating for this year. Since there is no updates from Management, IEG cannot comment on implementation progress and status
Management rated "High" last year. IEG rated "Moderate" with following comments: IEG acknowledges that IFC has assessed the XPSR contents, process and discussion on streamlining, and worked with IEG to have an agreement of "quick win" XPSR approach to be applied starting in the 2014 XPSR cycle. Additional tools such as an automated XPSR template are under preparation. Based on this initial action in some operational work so far, IEG rates "Substantial".
Since there is no updates from Management, IEG cannot comment on implementation progress and status.
IEG acknowledges that IFC has assessed the XPSR contents, process and discussion on streamlining, and worked with IEG to have an agreement of "quick win" XPSR approach to be applied starting in the 2014 XPSR cycle. Additional tools such as an automated XPSR template are under preparation. Based on this initial action in some operational work so far, IEG rates "Medium"".
CDI, together with CPM and Industry Departments completed an assessment of XPSR content and process and presented the findings and recommendations to Operational Directors in January 2014. As a result, Senior Management requested the relevant departments to work with IEG to streamline the content and process of the XPSR to improve quality and efficiency, reducing burdens for operational staff as well as enhancing learning. IFC and IEG have reached agreements on the streamlined XPSR and the new template is being used for the 2014 XPSR program. We have also completed the IT requirements for an automated XPSR template that is expected to be released in November 2014.