Managing for Development Results at ADB

Results Matter April 2008

A Preliminary Assessment of Managing for Development Results in ADB
J. Scott Bayley, Team Leader of the Study, Operations Evaluation Department

In 2007, the Operations Evaluation Department of ADB conducted a Special Evaluation Study (SES) titled Managing for Development Results in the Asian Development Bank: A Preliminary Assessment. The study focused on examining three issues:

1. Do staff think that ADB’s internal enabling environment is consistent with the known requirements of MfDR? If not, how can it be strengthened?
2. Is ADB making satisfactory progress in adopting MfDR?
3. What can ADB learn about implementing MfDR from other development institutions?

The study’s methodology included survey responses from 958 staff (41% response rate), 11 focus groups with about 150 participants, one-on-one interviews with some 50 staff including vice-presidents and directors general, consultations with six development organizations, and views of various documents.

ADB’s Compliance with the Known Requirements of MfDR
Investigations focused on senior leadership support, staff skills and training, organizational culture, management practices and incentives, capacity and resources, managing the change, and business systems and processes.

A salient finding was that staff view the role of senior management as a key enabler. At the same time, they believed that senior management’s support has not always been translated into practice, visibly sustained, or may have become diluted during the implementation process. Elsewhere, staff opined that ADB’s culture still emphasizes achieving loan approvals, disbursements, and lending targets as opposed to focusing more actively on development results. Also, staff identified management practices and incentives as an area in which improvements continue to be needed. In addition, they stressed the need to continue refining ADB’s business systems and processes and ensure that outdated or outmoded processes are removed as they are superseded.

The study revealed that many staff are uncertain about the nature of ADB’s wider results agenda and how MfDR interfaces with their work at the operational level: they sought greater guidance as to what MfDR is, and how it relates to their duties. On the positive side, the study suggested that most staff believe they have a clear understanding of the results they need to achieve, and that they have the knowledge and skills to be results oriented.

Assessment of ADB's Progress in Adopting MfDR
The study judged that ADB’s progress and challenges have been generally comparable to those of other multilateral development banks: this is confirmed by the performance data presented in the 2005 and 2006 Common Performance Assessment System (COMPAS) reports, documents on MfDR obtained from multilateral development banks, and consultations with the six development organizations.

ADB is in the early stages of transition along the continuum of awareness, exploration, transition, full implementation, and continuous learning, and has not yet reached that of full implementation. ADB has modified policies and introduced tools to support MfDR, developed new training courses, and undertaken preliminary work to support the development of a new corporate management information system. However, given that managerial decisions within ADB are not routinely informed by relevant outcome data, it has not yet achieved the full implementation of MfDR.

ADB’s progress reports to the Development Effectiveness Committee show that ADB is undertaking a number of actions to strengthen its capacity to manage for development results through (i) results-based country partnership strategies; (ii) results-based approaches at the project level; (iii) improvement of results monitoring and reporting in operations; and (iv) learning and development programs, practice notes, guidelines, as well as other publications on MfDR. Since 2000, there has been much improvement in the quality of design and monitoring frameworks prepared for project and program loans and for advisory and regional technical assistance (even if the quality of the frameworks for the former is considerably better than those prepared for the latter). But staff are divided in their assessment of ADB’s progress. This raises questions about the level of staff awareness and ownership of the agenda, and therefore how staff can engage more effectively.

Recommendations and Management Feedback
The SES sets out three potential scenarios for advancing MfDR in ADB and recommends that ADB pursues a course of action similar to described under Scenario 3: “Significantly Increasing Effort.” Management notes that the LTSF is currently being revised; the MfDR Action Plan (2006–2008) will be reviewed by end of 2008; and OED plans to conduct an indepth evaluation of MfDR in 2009. Therefore, under these circumstances, Management considers that Scenario 2: “Modestly Increasing Effort,” offers the most appropriate course of action at this time. It is a pragmatic response within ADB’s administrative capacity and resource constraints.

View entire document [ PDF: 421kb | 8 pages ] | About Results Matter