 | |
Action Plan on Managing for Development Results
II. Achievements
- The current action plan outlines ADB’s commitments to MfDR (Box 1)
and is organized
into three pillars focusing on results orientation at the level of the developing
member countries
(DMCs), at the institutional level in ADB, and through global partnership.
ADB has been
implementing the current action plan as an integral part of its Reform Agenda.
The findings of
the Universalia Report indicate that, overall, there has been steady progress
in implementing the
MfDR agenda in ADB. Indeed, there has been progress in relation to virtually
all commitments
on MfDR made during the ADF IX replenishment. While some commitments were
accomplished
at the early stages (such as establishment of a results unit, SPRU), most
tasks are ongoing in
accordance with the phased approach endorsed at ADF IX. Appendix 2 provides
a detailed
update on the status of implementation of the ADF IX commitments on MfDR.
|
Managing for Development Results (MfDR) has evolved through the efforts
of both national governments and development agencies to reduce poverty,
support sustainable and equitable economic growth, and better define and
measure development outcomes. Development effectiveness means that countries
and agencies are better able to achieve their collective development outcomes,
and that they have the right tools at their disposal to monitor progress
toward those outcomes, report on them, and use the lessons to continuously
improve performance. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
- Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) (2002) defines “outcomes”
as the medium-term effects or results of a development intervention: the
observable behavioral, institutional, and societal changes usually resulting
from coordinated interventions. The Second International Roundtable on
MfDR in Marrakech (2004) defined “results” as “sustainable
improvement in country outcomes,” and “managing for results”
as “a management strategy focusing on performance and the achievement
of outputs, outcomes, and impact.”
Source: OECD-DAC Joint Venture on Managing for Development Results, 2005.
Sourcebook; Emerging Good
Practice in Managing for Development Results.
|
A. Pillar 1: DMC Level
- To strengthen the capacity of DMC officials for MfDR, workshops and country
consultations have been conducted, and a Community of Practice on MfDR (CoP-MfDR)
including practitioners from 11 DMCs has been established. DMCs are generally
aware of the importance of MfDR in the global debate on development effectiveness.
Various technical assistance projects have been designed to support capacity
development for MfDR in concerned DMCs and to help build statistical capacity
in close coordination with other development partners.[6]
In addition, ADB’s MfDR Cooperation Fund (Box 2), inaugurated with contributions
from Canada, Netherlands, and Norway, operates to support capacity development
in DMCs, though demand has been less than originally anticipated. ADB has
also conducted learning programs in DMCs to introduce and explain MfDR approaches,
as part of results-based country strategy and program (RB-CSP) processing
missions and in conjunction with the Asian Development Bank Institute, to
train government officials.
|
The MfDR-CF was established in April 2004 as a multi-donor umbrella facility
to promote results-based management techniques within ADB and its developing
member countries (DMCs). As of 31 December 2005, accumulated Fund resources,
provided through grants from Canada, the Netherlands, and Norway, amounted
to $2.9 million. A portfolio of eight to ten initiatives is expected to
be financed with current resources. As of June 2006, four technical assistance
projects (TA) in Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
Nepal, and Viet Nam had been approved; three other TAs in Afghanistan,
Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, to be financed by the MfDR-CF, are being processed.
Fund proposals are reviewed by a committee representing the regional
departments. Results Management Unit (SPRU) of the Strategy and Policy
Department is responsible for administering the Fund and reporting to
donors. The Fund is positioned to support TA projects that aim to enhance
the results-orientation of public sector management in DMCs, more specifically
by introducing changes in processes and/or products related to national
or sectoral budgeting and planning systems. This orientation of the Fund
constitutes a niche not yet addressed through any other thematic trust
fund administered by ADB, for which a core number of selected TA initiatives
could be pilot-tested to improve knowledge and lessons in MfDR capacity
development. Another benefit of the Fund is the potential for synergies
between Fund-supported TA projects and the formulation of ADB country
strategies and programs, i.e., the MfDR-CF could possibly be used to strengthen
DMC capacities to deliver and monitor the development results of assistance
programs of the Asian Development Bank.
Preliminary lessons and experiences from TAs financed by the MfDR-CF
are expected to emerge in 2006–2008 and will be reported in annual
progress reports. In the meantime, the Committee and SPRU are reviewing
the Fund design and performance with the Fund contributors.
|
B. Pillar 2: Institutional Effectiveness at ADB
-
ADB’s main efforts in MfDR have centered on the initial work to mainstream
RB-CSPs. In fact, the MfDR agenda hinges on the effective management of
country programs for results. There has been progress in designing CSPs
to be better managed for development results. To date, the Board has endorsed
eight RB-CSPs, namely, those for Nepal, Cambodia, Philippines, Bhutan, Mongolia,
Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, and Papua New Guinea. Moreover, since August 2005,
all new CSPs have had to adopt a results framework, which is the design
centerpiece of RB-CSPs.[7] At the project level, the design
and monitoring framework (DMF) was introduced as part of the enhanced project
performance management system (PPMS) to improve results orientation in project
design and performance monitoring. Guidelines for preparing DMF were developed
to provide technical guidance. Central Operations Services Office (COSO)
has been leading this work on project-level results management. While much
more needs to be done, there has been steady progress at ADB in both important
areas of country-level and project-level outcomes.
-
As an institution that strives toward results-orientation and that values
transparency and accountability, ADB must assess and report its performance
to a variety of audiences (Board, Management, donors, civil society, and
so on) and for a variety of purposes (country operations, individual projects,
work programs, budget and financial statements, corporate policies or strategies,
administration of funds, etc.). It is thus not surprising that results chains
or frameworks that depict cause-and-effect relationships and that usually
include indicators to monitor progress toward the intended results are now
commonly developed and used as management tools for monitoring and reporting
on performance at virtually all levels and in all areas of work. The corollary
is also true: no one, single, overarching results framework can capture
performance across all areas and at all levels. We can expect to see a proliferation
of results tools, such as results matrices and scorecards, in any results-oriented
organization. To make the corporate-level planning process more results-oriented,
results frameworks have been designed as part of a number of recent strategy
and policy documents and, importantly, have been included in the enhanced
Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS), the Work Program and Budget Framework
for 2006-2008, and the Reform Agenda.[8] A "learning
culture" is being promoted in ADB through knowledge management initiatives
and practice notes, though real, systematic progress remains somewhat muted.
-
The new Human Resources Strategy[9] (HRS) was intended
to usher in a more resultsoriented performance management system. A number
of the actions under the HRS enable and reinforce the results agenda of
ADB. In 2005, for the first time, work plans were required at department,
division, and individual staff member levels, with individual work outputs
cascading down from the divisional and departmental work plan. The new staff
performance management system, the Performance and Development Plan (PDP),
states the work plan outputs for which an individual staff member is responsible,
with associated indicators (quality- and time-specific) and the expected
behavioral standards. Approved in January 2005, this allows the assessment
of staff performance with a focus on achieving results. Further, the Learning
Plan component of the PDP focuses on individual staff learning and development
needs to enable them to perform more effectively and efficiently. On the
basis of these plans and the priorities identified for the organization
as a whole, ADB's learning and development program is being developed.
-
An output-focused core competency framework applicable to various levels,
defining the expected skills, knowledge, and behaviors that are critical
to the key organizational processes, was established. Jobs at ADB were further
classified into broad categories called job families, then into job profiles.
The job families and profiles included work output and results expectations,
accountabilities, and skill and knowledge requirements. The PDP process
was linked to ADB's compensation and incentives system to enable financial
rewards to reflect performance.
-
A key purpose of the HRS is to strengthen the leadership and accountability
of senior staff. The accountability of departments and the responsibility
of managers for budgetary and staff resources are being reviewed more regularly
against work program accomplishments. To support a manager's role, results-management
learning modules are now part of managerial improvement.
- In addition, and as noted in the DEC report on MfDR, departments and offices
in ADB have adopted specific organizational arrangements to enhance their
ability to better manage for development results.[10] For
example, all departments have nominated MfDR focal points and this network
is becoming more active. South Asia Department (SARD) has taken initiatives
to enable the department to focus on development effectiveness, including
MfDR approaches. SARD has recently introduced a department-wide system to
appropriately monitor and report the results of ADB operations. On the other
hand, taking advantage of the flexibility offered under the current action
plan, other departments have preferred to integrate MfDR approaches into existing
work plans and operational procedures.[11]
|
The first COMPAS report was published jointly by the African Development
Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank
in May 2006. The report presents information collected through an innovative
new system intended to provide consolidated data on how MDBs are organized
and managed for development results, and how they may improve their contributions
over time. COMPAS is designed to provide information for managers and
shareholders of the MDBs.
As the first annual iteration, the 2005 COMPAS Report provides an initial
basis for the systematic collection of consistent and comparable information.
The establishment of COMPAS has been praised by the donors and other MDBs
and is considered to have a great potential as a collective and consolidated
source of data on how MDBs contribute to development results.
Data show that all MDBs have made sound progress in implementing MfDR.
The awareness of results is increasing, and frameworks, systems, and procedures
are being put in place. The independent evaluation function is being strengthened.
The degree of institutionalization, however, varies among MDBs at present
and seems to be related to how established the MfDR approach is in each
organization. It will necessarily take time to design and implement new
procedures and systems. A common challenge is to go beyond systems and
procedures and to actually use results information for learning and decision
making. This first COMPAS report also reveals that the information available
from MDBs on MfDR is still incomplete.
On the basis of the initial experiences, the system will be further refined
and strengthened. In line with the original idea of rotating the editorship,
the Inter-American Development Bank has taken the lead in preparing the
2006 report, with ADB providing continuity and support in the process.
|
- SPRU continues to play the central role in supporting MfDR throughout ADB.
Apart from providing specific technical advice for RB-CSPs, and assisting
with the design of results frameworks for economic, thematic, and sector work
(ETSW) and corporate-level planning, SPRU has researched, designed, and published
MfDR tools for use in mainstreaming MfDR in ADB, including a basic guide to
MfDR in ADB, a capacity assessment tool,[12] a "Lesson
Note" on ADB's first pilot RB-CSP, the Nepal RB-CSP, and maintains ADB's
MfDR Web site and the MfDR intranet site for staff.
C. Pillar 3: Global MfDR Partnership
- ADB is perceived to be an active member of the emerging global partnership
to encourage MfDR among development stakeholders. ADB helped to convene the
Second International Roundtable on MfDR (Marrakech 2004), and is now proposing
to co-sponsor the Third International Roundtable on MfDR (Hanoi 2007). ADB
continues to serve as the inaugural Chair of the MDB Working Group on MfDR
and the co-chair of the OECD-DAC Joint Venture on MfDR. Importantly, ADB has
initiated the joint development of the MDB Common Performance Assessment System
(COMPAS; see Box 3). It has also actively participated in global initiatives
such as the annual contributions to the Global Monitoring Report, and, with
the World Bank, OECD-DAC, and others, contributions to the development of
the definitive tool for practitioners in this field, namely, the Sourcebook
on Emerging Good Practices in MfDR. The MfDR Sourcebook has been developed
jointly by concerned international practitioners as a mutual learning tool,
built around the Marrakech Core Principles on MfDR.
Previous: Introduction | Back
to Action Plan Topics | Next: Lessons
[6] Examples include TA 4581 (ADB, 2005. Technical
Assistance to the People's Republic of China for Developing a Results-Based
National Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for Key Projects. Manila); TA 4612
(ADB, 2005. Technical Assistance to the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam for Results-based
Monitoring of Poverty Reduction and Growth. Manila); TA 4624 (ADB, 2005. Technical
Assistance to the Lao People's Democratic Republic for Capacity Development
for Monitoring Development Results of the National Growth and Poverty Eradication
Strategy. Manila); TA 4765 (ADB, 2006. Technical Assistance to the Kingdom of
Nepal for Operationalization of Managing for Development Results. Manila); TA
4801 (ADB, 2006. Technical Assistance to Kyrgyz Republic for Development of
a Monitoring and Evaluation System at Oblast Level. Manila); RETA 6096 (ADB,
2003. Technical Assistance for Supporting the Sector Approach and Results-Based
Management in ADB Operations. Manila [in the People's Republic of China and
Philippines]); RETA 6089 (ADB, 2005. Technical Assistance for Strengthening
Results Based Management for Sector Agencies. Manila [in Cambodia and Mongolia]);
RETA 6256 (ADB, 2005. Technical Assistance for Results-based Project Design
and Management. Manila [all DMCs]); and RETA 6262 (ADB, 2005. Technical Assistance
for Enhancing the Development Effectiveness of the Greater Mekong Subregion
Economic Cooperation Program. Manila).
[7] This is a requirement under the enhanced
Poverty Reduction Strategy.
[8] ADB, June 2004. Review of the Asian Development
Bank's Poverty Reduction Strategy; ADB. 2005. Work Program and Budget Framework
(2006-2008); ADB. August 2004. ADB's Reform Agenda Today, Achieving Results
Together.
[9] ADB. October 2004. Human Resources Strategy.
[10] The
updated DEC report is available for ADB staff in the MfDR Intranet
[11] While this type of innovation and creativity
has helped with the introduction of MfDR across ADB, it has been perceived to
be ad hoc.
|
|
Topics 
Top of page