Managing for Development Results at ADB

Action Plan on Managing for Development Results (2009-2011)

Appendix 2: MfDR at ADB: Summary of Implementation Assessments

1. Implementation assessments suggest that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) achieved many of its objectives under the earlier managing for development results (MfDR) action plan. [1] First, ADB has expanded its support for improving the capacity of its developing member countries (DMCs) on MfDR. It has helped build a strong regional network of results practitioners. [2] Second, ADB consolidated its results management system by adopting a corporate results framework in 2008. ADB has become more results-focused in designing and managing its country partnership strategies (CPSs), projects, and programs. ADB has often participated in and led global and regional partnerships on MfDR.

2. The assessments identified areas requiring attention. More progress in these areas is important to fully transform ADB into an organization where management decisions are driven routinely by results information.

A. Support Developing Member Country Capacity to Manage for Development Results (Outcome A1)

3. Achievements. ADB has expanded its support for improving DMC capacity to manage for development results and built a strong regional network of results practitioners. Since 2005 ADB has helped improve country systems for results-based development planning and management in 21 DMCs with eight technical assistance (TA) projects financed through the MfDR Cooperation Fund, an ADB-administered multidonor trust fund. [3] ADB implements a statistical capacity-building approach focusing on DMCs that are very weak at compiling statistics. The ADB-supported Asian Community of Practice on MfDR (CoP-MfDR) has grown rapidly since 2006, its membership more than tripling since inception and now numbering 80 members from 18 DMCs. It has helped members understand MfDR better and gain practical skills. The success of the Asian CoP-MfDR has encouraged the creation of two new regional CoPs, one for Africa and another for Latin America.

4. Challenges. DMC capacity to manage for development results remains generally weak. To use its resources effectively, ADB needs to develop a more strategic and longer-term approach to assisting DMCs. Better internal coordination is essential to avoid fragmented assistance. ADB needs to explore strategic partnerships, including financing partnerships, with other development institutions.

B. Enhance ADB's Results Orientation and Institutional Effectiveness

1. Improved Quality of Results-Based Country Partnership Strategies (Outcome B1)

5. Achievements. The results-based CPS has become a standard tool for designing and managing country assistance programs. All 20 CPSs prepared from 2005 to 2008 were results based. CPS quality at entry improved. According to quality-at-entry assessments in 2006 and 2008, the quality of results frameworks and performance indicators has improved. ADB prepared the CPS completion report-a new tool introduced in 2006-for nine DMCs and used their findings as inputs to new CPSs for these countries. ADB monitors CPS implementation status through the annual country portfolio review (CPR) and the CPS midterm review. The midterm reviews and annual CPR increasingly report progress toward results targets adopted in country results frameworks and sector road maps.

6. Challenges. To make CPS a key tool for managing ADB country operations, ADB needs to focus on improving its implementation. The results framework needs to be aligned better with existing country systems. Results monitoring and evaluation is not yet fully integrated into the CPR, CPS midterm review, or preparation of the country operations business plan. According to available assessments, [4] the weaknesses in CPS monitoring can be attributed to (i) a lack of incentives for country results monitoring; (ii) inadequate staff preparation and resources for results monitoring; (iii) inadequate knowledge, tools, and processes on results monitoring; and (iv) weak country monitoring capacity. To enable the monitoring of ADB's key sector outputs, it is important to integrate into country results monitoring selected sector indicators from the ADB corporate results framework. The country development effectiveness briefs that were introduced in 2008 need to be improved to become key accountability tools for ADB.

2. Improved Results Focus at Project Level (Outcome B2)

7. Achievements. ADB continued to ensure design and monitoring framework (DMF) quality by building staff capability and improving quality assurance mechanisms in regional departments. During 2005-2008, 795 staff members received DMF training. [5] Some regional departments have devolved quality assurance to divisions and resident missions. They have undertaken other initiatives to improve project quality, such as reviewing the DMF at various stages of project design and using problem tree analysis to support discussions on project concept clearance. Private sector operations have started to incorporate DMFs at the concept clearance stage.

8. Challenges. While DMF quality improved from 2006 to 2007, the overall satisfactory rating remains low. [6] The proportion of approved DMFs that the ADB Independent Evaluation Department (IED) rated satisfactory or better was 58% for projects and programs and 45% for advisory and regional TA in 2007, and 44% for projects and programs and 24% for advisory and regional TA in 2006. The low satisfaction rates are mainly attributed to the weak definition of impacts and outcomes, as most staff still followed the 1999 poverty-reduction strategy, which recommended the use of rather ambitious impact and outcome statements for individual operations. In addition to continuing with staff training, ADB needs to further improve DMF quality assurance in regional departments. To make the DMF a dynamic tool for managing ADB project performance, ADB needs to integrate DMFs more closely into its project performance management system, including the project performance and completion reporting processes. It is urgent to integrate into DMFs selected core sector indicators in the ADB corporate results framework to enable ADB-wide monitoring of its key sector outputs.

3. Institutionalized Results Reporting in ADB Corporate Management Systems (Outcome B3)

9. Achievements. ADB adopted a corporate-wide results framework and completed the first development effectiveness review in 2008. ADB management and heads of departments monitor ADB performance regularly. To support performance monitoring, ADB is developing an information technology-supported results dashboard. A working group is improving the methodology for preparing country briefs to better explain ADB's contributions to country development outcomes. Three progress reports on MfDR were submitted to the ADB Board of Directors' Development Effectiveness Committee.

10. Challenges. With the key processes for managing ADB's corporate results in place, ADB's major challenge is to ensure that results data and analysis start informing decision making across the institution. To sustain this process, ADB needs to focus on (i) institutionalizing regular results monitoring by senior management; (ii) communicating widely the objectives of its corporate results management system to raise staff awareness and commitment; (iii) improving staff incentives to increase results-orientation in work planning and implementation, including the alignment of performance management with the corporate results framework; (iv) refining indicators, tools, and processes based on experience and good practices; and (v) nurturing MfDR champions who will actively promote MfDR in ADB.

4. Increased Staff Knowledge on Managing for Development Results (Outcome B4)

11. Achievements. A comprehensive learning and development program on MfDR is in place. It covers training on MfDR concepts and principles for director level and above, CPS preparation for country team leaders, country portfolio management and review for country teams, sector road map preparation for country teams, and DMF preparation for staff in regional departments. Half of staff at the director level and above and 78% of resident mission staff have undergone MfDR training (IED's 2007 survey). About 800 staff members, from management to national officers, have been trained on DMF preparation. ADB has disseminated tools and good practices on MfDR through various means, including seminars, newsletters, the MfDR website and intranet site.

12. Challenges. While staff knowledge about MfDR tools--DMFs and results-based CPS--is increasing, staff understanding of the overall MfDR agenda remains low. [7] Based on IED's assessment, many staff members were uncertain about how ADB's results agenda and MfDR in general interfaced with their work. To fill this gap, ADB needs to start communicating more widely its MfDR agenda, covering corporate, country and project levels; linkages among them; and their implications for work management. ADB needs to continue improving its learning and development program on MfDR and compile and disseminate MfDR information more systematically and widely. Revitalizing the MfDR focal point network is vital for this process. ADB needs to upgrade its knowledge-sharing tools, including the MfDR website and intranet site, and use them more strategically.

C. Maintain Effective Results Partnerships (Outcome C1)

13. Achievements. ADB has actively supported global forums on MfDR. It participated in the multilateral development bank (MDB) Working Group on MfDR, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development-Development Assistance Committee Joint Venture on MfDR, and key joint activities of MDBs and other development partners such as the production of the common performance assessment system-MDBs' common performance assessment system-and MfDR sourcebook. ADB cosponsored the Third International Roundtable on MfDR in Hanoi in 2007 and the Third High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra in 2008. MfDR tools and good practices have been posted regularly on the website for wider knowledge sharing.

14. Challenges. MfDR remains an important theme in the global development community. Post-Accra, coordination on MfDR among development partners will intensify, particularly in developing country capacity on MfDR. Finding a more coordinated approach to developing county MfDR capacity is a prerequisite to pursuing effective partnerships at the global, regional, and country level.

Previous: Appendix 1 | Back to Action Plan Topics |

[1] These include (i) management's progress report on the MfDR action plan in 2007; (ii) a special evaluation study on MfDR by the Independent Evaluation Department; and (iii) assessments by ADB's MfDR focal points undertaken during the workshop in March 2009. See ADB. 2007. Managing for Development Results in ADB: Semi-Annual Progress Report to Development Effectiveness Committee. Manila (November); and ADB. 2008. Special Evaluation Study on Implementation of Managing for Development Results in the Asian Development Bank: A Preliminary Assessment. Manila.

[2] ADB has supported the Asian Community of Practice on MfDR since November 2005.

[3] The fund has contributions from Canada, Netherlands, and Norway totaling $2.9 million.

[4] Ongoing CPS implementation study (Results Management Unit of ADB Strategy and Policy Department), and CPR stocktaking exercise (Ruddi Vaes, September 2008).

[5] In 2009 COSO has added a project implementation component to the DMF training program.

[6] See ADB. 2008. Annual Report on 2007 Portfolio Performance. Manila (September).

[7] The challenges to increasing staff knowledge of MfDR are similar to those identified in a study by the ADB Regional and Sustainable Development Department. See ADB. 2009. Learning for Change in ADB. Manila (March).