Quality in Design and Monitoring Frameworks (DMFs) | Asian Development Bank

Quality in Design and Monitoring Frameworks (DMFs)

Evaluation Document | 1 March 2006

This paper assessed, compared, and noted trends in the design and monitoring frameworks of ADB project and program loans, regional technical assistance loans and grants, and advisory technical assistance loans and grants from 2000 to December 2005.

The project/program design and monitoring framework (DMF) is the principal tool of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for establishing quality-at-entry for its projects and programs. The DMF summarizes a proposed project/program design and is contained as an appendix in a key loan document - the Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP) to the Board of Directors of ADB. The DMF also forms the basis for subsequent project/program monitoring of implementation activities and evaluation of results. The information contained in the DMF is also transcribed in other ADB project performance management system (PPMS) documentation - namely the project administration memorandum (PAM), project/program performance reports (PPRs) and technical assistance performance reports (TPRs), project completion reports (PCRs), and project/program performance evaluation reports (PPERs).

During this consultation, the quality of ADB project and program loans, regional technical assistance (RETA) and advisory technical assistance (TA) loans and grants frameworks over a period of several years - from 2000 to December 2005 - was assessed, compared, and trends noted. The prime focus in the review was the design summary statement for the project/program and TA at three levels: (i) impact (i.e. goal), (ii) outcome (i.e. purpose), and (iii) outputs; and related performance indicators and targets. Assumption and risk statements associated with each project/program proposal in both the DMF and RRP text were also reviewed, as well as the data source statements in the DMFs.

In order to compare "like with like", this study looked exclusively at DMFs - not DMFs and PPRs as in previous studies. The study also expanded the review to include assumptions and risks, and data sources. Otherwise the process, analytical procedure and rating scale used in this assessment was essentially the same as that used in similar ADB studies conducted in previous years.


  • Executive Summary
  • Background and Scope
  • Findings
  • Summary Conclusions
  • Recommendations
  • Appendixes