 | |
Action Plan on Managing for Development Results
III. Lessons
-
Despite positive developments, MfDR approaches have yet to be systematically
institutionalized within ADB, and, as such, they are not yet widely used
as management tools to improve decision making.
-
This should not be surprising. It has been a common experience among comparable
public sector institutions that implementing results-based management is
a time-consuming and complex process. Most commentators agree that the transition
to a "learning organization" may take up to 10 years to accomplish.
Therefore, making the transformation to a results-orientation is challenging
in virtually all organizations. This is particularly true for MDBs, considering
that development results will always be influenced by a variety of factors
in the DMCs. MDBs, including the World Bank, have faced, and continue to
face similar issues in relation to mainstreaming MfDR, such as: (i) increasing
the use of information on outcomes in the decisionmaking process; (ii) improving
staff knowledge of, and skills in results management; and (iii) recognizing
that MfDR requires the demonstrative leadership of senior management, a
flexible and proactive organizational culture receptive to change, and staff
incentives that prioritize the use of results in managing performance.
-
Some of the more important lessons of experience are presented below.
A. Pillar 1: DMC Level
-
Awareness Building Towards Capacity Development. MfDR
practitioners at international financial institutions now agree that the
most challenging issue in MfDR is to find practical ways to assist governments
in implementing results-based approaches and in operationalizing MfDR in
a sustainable manner. In some cases in the past, awareness-building activities
were limited to participation in international meetings. Many participants
perceived MfDR only as part of a donor-driven agenda and did not have incentives
or ownership to apply MfDR principles or to sustain interest in MfDR back
in the DMC. It is unrealistic to expect that such traditional approaches
to training will fix weak MfDR capacity in a sustainable manner in all DMCs.
Therefore, ADB needs to focus on potential champions and key practitioners
and give them concrete support in their capacity development actions. Experience
suggests that the RBCSP is a primary instrument with which ADB can directly
encourage and facilitate DMCs to apply MfDR in their own development process.
This points to the fundamental importance of MfDR capacity assessment by
regional departments during CSP processing.
- Focused, Systematic, and Results-Oriented Capacity Development.
Experience since the Second International Roundtable on MfDR in Marrakech
(February 2004) suggests that DMC capacity development in MfDR will require
making a long-term commitment, building on experiences, and adjusting to the
specific local context to customize the MfDR approach. MfDR capacity-development
initiatives must also be linked with governance and public sector management
reforms and, like any other development process of this kind, must be demanddriven,
properly sequenced, well coordinated with other development partners, and
aligned with country readiness.
B. Pillar 2: Institutional Effectiveness at ADB
-
Need for Management and Senior Staff Leadership. Management
leadership, backed by action, incentives, and resources, is critical in
mainstreaming MfDR. All managers must be accountable for improving MfDR.
This was highlighted in the Universalia Report, and is the subject of a
number of key recommendations in that report. Without commitment from managers,
there is a risk that MfDR will stay at the rhetorical level and not provide
practical guidance in new ways of doing business. The MfDR approach must
be embedded in ADB's business process with appropriate guidelines, but with
an emphasis on learning and development so that staff can see MfDR as a
valuable feature of their own work. It is particularly important to ensure
that directors general and directors manage for outcomes.
-
From Measurement to Management. Improved effectiveness
of ADB's operations will depend on the actual use of MfDR approaches as
management tools. Success, in turn, will depend on usefulness: if an MfDR
instrument, such as a results matrix, is actually used to improve decision
making, then it will drive management. This has certainly been the experience
in implementing ADB's first pilot RB-CSP, the Nepal RB-CSP. Results orientation
was not about following a predetermined plan or being controlled by targets
for reporting or declaring attribution; improving MfDR entailed a focus
on results by adopting "outcomes" as the basis for planning, monitoring,
and evaluation.
- Change Management. Implementing effective approaches to
MfDR involves changes in approaches, attitudes, practices, institutional culture,
management, the use of knowledge, and incentive systems. As noted in the Universalia
Report, change management is a process that requires continuous learning and
a long-term perspective. In particular, the complexities involved in changing
the institutional ethos should not be underestimated. ADB has so far been
in an early phase of MfDR implementation, and the progress made in ADB is
in line with the experience of other MDBs. However, as the Universalia Report
notes, the challenge now is to scale up MfDR actions in a more coherent way,
particularly through Management guidance and direction, enhanced learning,
particularly among senior staff, and some mandatory training. This also requires
implementing MfDR selectively, building on the achievements to date, defining
well ADB-wide responsibilities and accountability for MfDR, and improving
communications.
C. Pillar 3: Global MfDR Partnership
- Continued Knowledge Sharing, but with a Focus on Specific Issues.
All the MDBs (and many other organizations) are facing similar challenges
and technical issues in the complex and challenging task of implementing MfDR.
Sharing of knowledge and experience among MDBs has proven to be one of the
most powerful learning avenues available to ADB. For example, not only are
we sharing extensive information about planning and implementing MfDR approaches,
but we have worked closely with the World Bank Results Secretariat and colleagues
in the other MDBs on most aspects of the MfDR agenda, WB staff participated
in ADB's "internal" learning program on results-based country programming,
ADB staff are now invited to attend the WB's Country Assistance Strategy Academy,
and we have specific arrangements for joint processing of RB-CSPs and WB's
results-based country assistance strategy in a number of DMCs (e.g., Bangladesh
in 2005, Viet Nam in 2006). ADB staff from SPRU was invited to share its experience
on MfDR with International Fund for Agriculture Development, which is also
moving to a results orientation. As noted in the Universalia Report, participation
at this global level is time- and resource-intensive, and it has perhaps led
to a perception that ADB has allowed a disproportionate focus on these external
links. While the global MfDR partnership is extremely valuable and reliance
on this network in the early years is justified, limited resources dictate
that we may not be able to sustain such a heavy external involvement in future
years, and we need to seek ways to nurture this valuable partnership without
jeopardizing attention to the work under Pillars 1 and 2.
Previous: Achievements | Back
to Action Plan Topics | Next: The Revised Action Plan
|
|
Topics 
Top of page