Results Matter October 2007
Findings and Recommendations of the Staff Survey on DMF
By Carmina Luna, Results Management Officer and Chang Ching Yu,
Senior Safeguards Specialist, Central and West Asia Department
In December 2006, a working paper was drafted to summarize issues on the Central
and West Asia Department (CWRD) application of the Design and Monitoring Framework
(DMF), and a workshop was held to discuss the issues. CWRD has since strengthened
its effort of using the Project Performance Monitoring System (PPMS), with DMF
as a key element, to improve project quality. To better assess and cater to
staff needs, a survey was conducted on 26 June–17 July 2007. The key findings
of the survey and recommendations for improvement are as follows.
Key Findings
Of the key benefits of DMF, majority of the respondents value DMF in providing
a logical structure for project planning, promoting an analytical project process,
communicating how project will achieve results, and establishing basis for performance
monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Few, however, see DMF as a useful tool
for facilitating a participatory approach in project development. This may be
because DMF, despite the heightened awareness among the development communities,
has not yet been accepted as the common language by executing agencies (EAs)
and beneficiaries.
Two other findings are worth noting. First, some suggest a need to develop
DMF for country portfolio by combining sector results matrices and establishing
a link between individual interventions and the sector results. This issue may
require further attention. Second, there is a view that DMF is only relevant
for project design, but not for quality assurance during project implementation.
This may be partly due to lack of linkage between DMF and the rest of the PPMS.
Challenges Faced by Respondents
As expected, the respondents face the greatest challenge in quantifying results,
information gathering, and problem tree analysis. Respondents reported conflicting
advice and approaches from the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) and others,
and the difficulty using DMF to communicate with DMC staff who generally do
not have knowledge or experience with DMF. Most respondents do not see the need
to update DMFs during implementation despite the recognition that they rapidly
become obsolete due to frequent changes in implementation plans.
Recommendations
To fully address these issues may require long-term and ADB-wide efforts. In
the short- to medium-term, CWRD should prioritize its efforts in the following
areas.
- Improving Technical Support. One approach is to convene “write shops”
at the earliest time possible, e.g., after the Fact-Finding mission or before
DMF preparation is started. The write shop can be arranged for a single project
or, in some cases, a cluster of similar projects.
- Improving Attendance for Regular Training. CWRD Project Administration Unit
(PAU) Network should monitor staff participation in PPMS and DMF trainings
provided by the Central Operation Services Office (COSO). The training can
provide broader technical support and regular knowledge update.
- Improving Linkages between DMF and PPMS. Presently there is a very loose
linkage between DMF and the project monitoring targets in the PPMS and, thus,
weak continuity and accountability of project performance targets. Although
this is an ADB-wide issue, CWRD may take a lead in improving the linkages
as a necessary step to use DMF as a project monitoring tool. Mission leaders
and analysts should be encouraged to closely monitor and report on project
performance indicators during project implementation.
View entire document
| About
Results Matter
 |
Topics 
Top of page
