IFC

Two questions: What is the definition of strategic client for IFC? and, 2) To effectively manage strategic client relations, the relationship manager has to have empowerment and credibility with the client and within IFC. How are we supporting, from a model, incentive, capacities and capabilities point of view this?

Add new comment

World Bank Group Processes and Reforms

kmilhollin — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:00:53 +0000

IFC Supported Investment Operations by Industry Group

kmilhollin — Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:23:56 +0000

Why Do We Do What We Do?

ieg_admin — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:27:56 +0000

Why Do We Do What We Do? ieg_admin Tue, 09/02/2014 - 16:27

Comments

As an evaluator am interested in your content.

Many thanks, Isaac, for your interest in our blog. I hope it is useful and look forward to comments and suggestions from you and other readers.

It would of great value in evaluating the Bank's projects and programs not to forget the full picture and ensure the link between them and the overall strategy. Projects are not executed in vaccum. Their evaluations need to verify/ validate their alignment with the overall strategy/ plan.

Thanks, Kassem, for your comment. We recognize that projects are linked to the broader country goals and strategy. When we review country strategy completion reports, these different dimensions come together and the link between projects, sectors and the broader strategy is reviewed. At the project level, the strategic relevance is validated, which includes the alignment to the overall strategy.

I still believe that procurement experts have a major role to play in the achieving of any success in project execution. Procurement is the channel through wish a good intention remains good or goes bad. An evaluation on accessing the fairness of quoted budgets matters a whole lot and effort should be made to have the right persons execute projects so that the expected result is met conveniently.

To meet accountability needs means identifying the key commitments made and the work program would be relatively invariant and focus on completion evaluation. New priorities would be added with new programs and commitments. Lesson learning would be limited because programming would have shifted already and new generation phases would have been launched already. For the purpose of lesson learning, to be relevant IEG would have to engage in midterm reviews and have a forward looking selection. Completed programs that reflect another generation of programming (favored under the accountability selection) would be discarded. The focus would shift to emerging topics and evaluating pilot initiatives. How does IEG select according to these two conflicting mandates?

Charles, good points, just as in your last contribution on VfM. You raise questions that accompany us, as evaluators in general (not just in IEG) all the time: if we come in earlier, there might be more learning, but we cannot assess results and it would impede our impartiality for later evaluation. As you would know, in the WBG we are fortunate to have a multi-layered evaluation system, that includes self-evaluation by Management where mid-term evaluations take place. At the level of country engagements, we are in the process of looking at our role in these exercises similar to the validation we do for projects and country strategies at the end point. But even then, this would be possible only on a select basis. For projects, it is really the accountability of Management to undertake mid-term evaluations and take corrective actions, something President Jim Kim is very keen to seen, while we will continue to ensure results reported by Management are validated and independently evaluated to assess outcomes that would not have materialized during implementation. And, to keep contributing the latest agenda, just as we did with recent evaluations of, for instance, PPPs, Health Finance, or Procurement, we conduct major evaluations that cover a 10 year period (including up to the year when the evaluation takes place) and are timed to feed into corporate processes to help learning from the past for the future direction of the WBG. It is this combination of different evaluation tools that helps us play a range of roles, while maintaining the independence that is essential for our mandate.

Daniel, Indeed you are correct to point out that procurement modalities have a major role to play in determining the success of project execution. This is one reason why IEG has just undertaken a major evaluation of the World Bank's procurement system. Good procurement goes beyond fair budgets for goods or services needed for a project. It means achieving the best value for money, in an efficient and transparent manner, and with fair opportunities for all suppliers to participate. You can find the complete IEG evaluation at http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/world-bank-group-and-public-procurement

Add new comment

Measurement Mantra

ieg_admin — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:10:30 +0000

Measurement Mantra ieg_admin Fri, 02/14/2014 - 14:10

Comments

For the second point raised - At the Country Level - I would like to add some discrepancies. In a poor country with non existent State and skeleton infrastructure, if any project is delivering same quantifiable result as in a developing nation with a proper democracy and well developed infrastructure; is it justifiable to equate both the evaluations (outcome and impact studies) on similar numerical data. Do we not need a more qualitative appraisal based on the baseline surveys and the other socio-cultural factors for a specific nation which could be later "shuffled" in a unified manner by giving proper weightage to various differentials. An old man dying of hunger in Los Angles and a pauper dying in some suburbs of India - can both be equated as mere numbers.

Niraj, you are right: if we just boil it all down to aggregate numbers we will lose a lot of the richness we need in order to understand change processes, and I would argue enjoy life. You might have seen my blog "Embrace all evaluation methods – can we end the debate?" (Nov 2013) in which I argue for using a variety of methods to understand complex development phenomena better and hence be able to make better choices. The other point of my blog above is that if policy-makers make the right choices, namely those appropriate for the country at a given point in time -- something country strategies are supposed to do -- and progress is measured against those yardsticks, we measure the degree of progress that each country makes in achieving its own goals and compare that with the degree of progress of other countries. This is rather different to ranking countries in terms of their absolute outcomes. Does this make sense?

Add new comment

¿Quién evalúa al sector privado?

ieg_admin — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:57:00 +0000

¿Quién evalúa al sector privado? ieg_admin Tue, 11/26/2013 - 16:57

Add new comment

Qui évalue le secteur privé ?

ieg_admin — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:57:00 +0000

Qui évalue le secteur privé ? ieg_admin Tue, 11/26/2013 - 16:57

Add new comment

Who is Evaluating the Private Sector?

ieg_admin — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:55:43 +0000

Who is Evaluating the Private Sector? ieg_admin Tue, 11/26/2013 - 16:55

Comments

I enjoy what you guys are usually up too. This kind of clever work and coverage! Keep up the very good works guys I've added you guys to my personal blogroll.

Many thanks, glad the blog is working for you. And: more to come on evaluating the private sector. Caroline

Add new comment

Evaluation of the International Finance Corporation's Global Trade Finance Program 2006-12

ieg_admin — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:57:09 +0000

Keywords

Organization Tags

Evaluation old nid

5762