Managing for Development Results at ADB

Action Plan on Managing for Development Results

V. Implementation and Monitoring

A. Supporting Change Management

50. A central challenge in implementing MfDR is changing organizational behavior and culture. To promote this process, ADB is pursuing a series of initiatives over the next 3 years. These include:
     
    1. strengthening direct Management guidance and supervision on MfDR (see below);
    2. improving communications through a common language on the MfDR vision and processes specified in the revised MfDR action plan;
    3. strengthening learning and development programs on MfDR, particularly for senior staff to facilitate good practices;
    4. aligning the PDP process and incentives with the adoption of MfDR techniques to empower staff for changes; and
    5. institutionalizing good practices to contribute to a results-oriented culture through the progressive introduction of guidelines, systems, and tools.
        

51. Management has stressed the importance of development effectiveness and is committed to give guidance on MfDR with a sense of urgency and to accelerate the change management process. Therefore, the Management Committee will, among other things, review progress under the revised action plan based on the MfDR Results Framework (Appendix 1), including monitoring indicators, and take appropriate action, as necessary, to overcome any impediments to progress, and resolve any implementation problems and issues. Vice presidents will report to the Management Committee on the progress of the revised MfDR action plan in their respective areas of responsibility.

52. Pursuant to existing arrangements, progress on the revised MfDR action plan will also be discussed with DEC through the normal semiannual briefings.

53. Strategy and Policy Department will continue to provide services to operations departments in relation to MfDR techniques and will support Management Committee oversight through consolidated monitoring and reporting on ADB-wide MfDR initiatives and action. Figure 5 summarizes the organizational responsibilities for MfDR in ADB.

B. Resource Implications

54. MfDR is a means of conducting business-a management style that seeks to base decisions on information from indicators and targets, and by adoption of appropriate systems and procedures, including results frameworks. As MfDR is an approach to improve planning, monitoring, and evaluating operations that generates costs as well as savings from efficiencies over time, it is difficult to quantify with precision all the incremental staff and budgetary resources required by ADB to institutionalize and mainstream MfDR in ADB and to assist DMCs in moving to results-based management.

55. During the past 3 years, about $4.9 million has been funded through ADB's internal administrative expense budget, primarily for the following:

    1. staffing of SPRU and a PPMS specialist in COSO to spearhead MfDR efforts in ADB, [21]
    2. consultations with other international financial institutions and OECD-DAC to benchmark approaches to MfDR,
    3. training and development of MfDR approaches to RB-CPSs, and
    4. consultants' services directly and indirectly related to MfDR, including the external review of ADB's action plan.
       
       
        

56. A significant amount of work remains to be done to mainstream MfDR, and ADB remains committed to the MfDR action plan. In the medium term (i.e., the next 3 years), it is anticipated that SPRU will continue to be the focal point for the MfDR action plan, which includes assisting DMCs in mainstreaming results at the country level and at project level.

57. By effectively using and adjusting the existing resources and processes for MfDR initiatives, additional cost requirements over the long term are expected to be minimal. In the meantime, quantifiable costs in the medium term (i.e., over the next 3 years) are estimated to reach about 1% of the total net internal administrative budget, which comprises

    1. recurring costs related to the operation of SPRU;
    2. incremental learning and development costs, primarily for the continuing focus on MfDR approaches to country programming, preparation of results-based sector road maps, and country portfolio reviews, as well as training for senior staff in MfDR approaches; and
    3. incremental staff time and services of staff consultants in operational departments to support the mainstreaming, preparation, and implementation of RB-CPSs.
        

58. Capacity-development technical assistance to build DMC institutional and statistical capacity to measure, monitor, report, and manage for results remains a key element of ADB's MfDR efforts. ADB will closely coordinate with other development partners and maximize synergies with the available resources from all donors for these efforts. Where feasible, joint work with other development partners will be encouraged. Finally, continued support for the CoP-MfDR, which is currently funded through a small-scale technical assistance, is also necessary to ensure continued dialogue among ADB, MfDR practitioners, DMCs, and development partners in results-based management.

59. Experience in the implementation of RB-CSPs, on which these estimates are largely based, has so far been limited. In practice, the implementation of RB-CPSs will depend not only on the resources provided by ADB, but also on the capacity of DMCs to absorb results-based management techniques and the availability of robust tracking indicators on the ground. These will need to be continuously monitored to determine the likely impact on ADB's staff and budgetary resources.

C. Suggested MfDR Results Framework

60. The MfDR Results Framework (Appendix 1) is proposed as a tool for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the revised MfDR action plan to Management as well as a means for communicating progress on key results to stakeholders. This framework-like other reporting tools developed for particular agendas or policies of the ADB-is limited in its scope, purpose, and time horizon, and therefore does not constitute a comprehensive corporate performance reporting system (unlike the Reform Agenda, the Work Program and Budget Framework, or the PRS), nor is it an attempt to capture ADB's contribution to longer-term development outcomes (unlike the PRS report).

61. The framework identifies key initiatives that contribute to the outcomes of each pillar of the MfDR action plan, together with a set of ten performance indicators for assessing progress toward these intended outcomes. To the extent possible, this set of indicators (and their target values) has been harmonized with those of ADB-wide results frameworks (including the Work Program and Budget Framework, the PRS, and the Reform Agenda) and the key initiatives are consistent with broader ADB corporate objectives. These indicators possess "SMART" features: they are

    1. Specific (associated to, though not necessarily the same as, the outcomes of the MfDR action plan),
    2. Measurable (quantified and readily available in ADB information systems),
    3. Achievable (based on an analysis of both baseline data and likely results of the key initiatives),
    4. Relevant (susceptible to a reasonable degree of control, and action to achieve the intended results), and
    5. Time-bound (limited to the 2006-2008 action plan period).

    The framework constitutes the principal reporting tool on the MfDR action plan, and the selected indicators will be incorporated and analyzed in semiannual reports to the DEC. This framework is intended to be a concise and efficient tool to track performance; but, as the emphasis of ADB's results agenda evolves and the information base is enriched, the framework can be refined and other indicators integrated.

[21] An authorized professional staff position and a national officer position at COSO have been utilized to meet the immediate requirements under the PPMS action plan.

Previous: Pillar 3 - Maintain Effective Results Partnerships | Back to Action Plan Topics | Next: Appendix 1