Organization
IFC
Report Year
2013
1st MAR Year
2014
Accepted
Yes
Status
Active
Recommendation

IFC's regional, country, industry sector, and Advisory Services business line strategies and initiatives should contain an explicit results matrix to assess strategic objectives, with relevant indicators to track progress and evaluate in a systematic manner, preferably embedded in periodic strategy updates. IFC should pilot approaches to improve the measuring and reporting of key results on the areas of critical institutional objectives that go beyond project performance, such as private sector development and poverty reduction.

Recommendation Adoption
IEG Rating by Year: mar-rating-popup S S S NYT Management Rating by Year: mar-rating-mng-popup S C NYT NYT
CComplete
HHigh
SSubstantial
MModerate
NNegligible
NANot Accepted
NRNot Rated
Findings Conclusions

9. Evaluation of IFC initiatives, strategies, and programmatic approaches.
- Despite the growing importance of initiatives, strategies, and programmatic approaches, IFC has not systematically evaluated such strategic interventions. Most evaluations are conducted at the project level, which are not, by themselves, sufficient to measure strategic impact on sector efficiency, market functioning, competitiveness, or poverty reduction.

Original Management Response

Agree: IFC already tracks the results of its geographic, industry and thematic strategies at two levels: 1) at the IFC corporate level and 2) at the WBG level. Going forward, IFC will pilot more systematic approaches to results measurement for internal IFC strategy updates/reviews.
At the Corporate level: IFC outlines its corporate strategy in the annual Road Map Paper, covering a three-year rolling period. This is a synthesis of regional, country, industry, and thematic approaches and their contributions to both IFC strategic priorities and corporate goals. It includes a Corporate Scorecard that tracks IFC's performance in each strategic focus area and corporate goal. IFC's regional, country, industry, and thematic objectives are therefore already tracked at the corporate level.
IFC also undertakes on an as needed basis an internal review/update of its strategic approaches in specific themes or geographical areas. IFC will pilot the establishment of results measurement frameworks in select internal strategy reviews/updates. These pilots will use existing IFC indicators, and will consider any additional indicators that may be needed for corporate-wide or WBG-wide initiatives. We will refine our approach as we learn from experience.
At the WBG level: IFC participates in the formulation of formal WBG-wide strategies at all levels, including the results measurement frameworks for such strategies. We believe that this is an effective and efficient way of tracking IFC's formal geographic or thematic strategies.

Action Plans
Action 1
Action 1 Number:
9.1
Action 1 Title:
Pilot approaches for tools and standard indicators for internal IFC strategy updates/reviews.
Action 1 Plan:

Action 9.1: Pilot approaches for tools and standard indicators for internal IFC strategy updates/reviews.

Indicator: A toolkit for internal IFC sector/ thematic strategy updates/reviews.

Baseline: No toolkit exist

Target: Piloted toolkit reviewed and revised based on experience and feedback Revised toolkit rolled out.

Timeline: FY15.

Action 2
Action 2 Number:
9.2
Action 2 Title:
Continue to conduct evaluations beyond project level
Action 2 Plan:

Action 9.2: Continue to conduct evaluations beyond project level.

Indicator: % of evaluations that are programmatic or at the sectoral/thematic/corporate level.

Baseline: % of evaluations that are programmatic or at the sectoral/thematic/ corporate level in FY13.

Target: 30%.

Timeline: FY15.

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

The toolkit (management action item) which covers sector/thematic strategy areas does not exist. However, IFC continued more thematic evaluation in some strategic areas cutting across number of projects (hotel industries, etc.). Thus, IEG considers the adoption of recommendation as substantial.

Management Update:
No Updates
2015
IEG Update:

IEG noted IFC’s efforts on evaluation beyond projects. IEG acknowledges evaluation handbook but the document was to explain evaluation policies and practices, and does not contain toolkit for internal sector / thematic strategy update / reviews. IEG rates “Substantial” because of the lack of toolkit which covers sector/thematic strategy areas.

Management Update:

All evaluation resources and the Evaluation Handbook are available on the IFC website at: http://ifcintranet.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/dept_int_content/development…

Of the 29 evaluations that started last year, 14 evaluations (48%) are considered to be either programmatic or at the sectoral/thematic/corporate level.

2014
IEG Update:

IEG acknowledges the establishment of Industry Strategy Toolkit is a portal intranet site (http://researchguides.worldbankimflib.org/industrystrategy) was launched by gathering the internal and external data that helps forming strategies. Last update was May 2014. IEG also recognizes IFC’s evaluation activities with one-third of them are in the "beyond project" level, as registered in the CDI’s evaluation database, with growing emphasis on sector and thematic focus in the forthcoming evaluations. IEG rates Substantial, as there are operational adaptations of recommendations.

Management Update:

9.1: IFC has now in place the Industry Strategy Toolkit as an instrument for developing industry and thematic strategies and making easier for teams to find information and guidance on how to use resources to deliver comprehensive strategies. Resources under the toolkit, is a one shop stop, a joint repository of information, tools and best practices to help with setting industry and themes strategies.

9.2: As of August 2014, there were 52 evaluations registered as "active" in IFC's evaluation database, and 19 (36.5%) were not focused at a project-level, but rather a thematic, regional, sector, or programmatic level. Moreover, more than 80% of the evaluations fthat CDI plans to financially support in FY15 are inancially supported by CDI in FY15 are also at this level (i.e., higher than the project-level). It is on this basis that we recommend the implementation status be "Active (To Be Made Inactive)".