The Why and What of Results Based Management

1. The Why and What of Results Based Management Susan Stout, Consultant, Monitoring and Evaluation Development Project: MEDP June 1, 2010

2. Overview of Presentation • Review context for MEDP and emerging focus on Monitoring and Evaluation in Turkey • A macro view of Why Results Matter • Basic Principles of Results Based Management

3. Context • Government of Turkey is committed to strengthen the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness (results) of policies and programs through better monitoring and evaluation and performance informed budgeting • Commitment articulated in Ninth National Development Plan, and in Public Law 5018

4. Context (2) • In 2007 SPO launched a Monitoring and Evaluation Development PlansandPrograms(MEDP) to begin the work of translating this commitment into action. • Formed Working Group of 3 line Ministries (Health, Environment and Forestry, Transport) to work with project team at PIAD/SPO to move forward • MEDP Team completed a Readiness Assessment and a review of Results Orientation of Core Planning Documents • Key next step is to build on these steps to articulate a develop understanding of Monitoring and Evaluation and a broad framework for system building

5. Why Focus on Results? • Goals motivate. • Being specific about what we mean by effectiveness helps motivate managers, staff and citizens • Performance measures are key signals • Since people want to do their best, even in the absence of a direct link to rewards, the simple act of generating feedback in the form performance measures can align resources and interventions

6. Managing for Results is key to good governance • Results and performance informed budgeting enhances transparency and accountability • Setting performance goals and monitoring progress will help GoT articulate and agree on strategic, and selective, priorities. • Specificity of performance goals and measures can help GoT leaders and enlist allies who share those goals. • Results management helps balance political pressures for spending with feedback on results • Changepublic mindset to focus on results and accountability • Can save moneyby identifying waste and inefficiency • Tracking effectiveness reveals what works and what doesn’t • Fuels replication and diffusion of sound policy and programs • Assures citizens that Government is working on their behalf • Measuring and managing for results can help build strong institutions at the country level • Encourages participation in the process of setting clear goals and reporting concrete progress, • Facilitates better informed deliberation among the public and its representatives.

7. Information on results links key drivers of public value… Authorizing Environment - Policy and Fiscal Priorities Public Value for Citizens The ‘art’ of Results Management is defining, and achieving, outcomes that are meaningful to BOTH provider and client/consumer, are measurable in a credible way and are used in decision making Operational Capacity of Government

8. The Power of Measuring Results • If you do not measure results, you can not tell success from failure • If you can not see success, you can not reward it • If you can not reward success, you are probably rewarding failure • If you can not see success, you can not learn from it • If you can not recognize failure, you can not correct it • If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support From Kuzek and Rist “Ten Steps” , 2008

9. at all levels Results should be Managed at all levels • Intergovernmental Transfers • Country fiscal/political institutions may/may not encourage to performance • Performance informed budgeting, and better M and E encourage better links between resources and results • Well structured M and E can create incentives for efficiency and feedback Citizens and Consumers ‘on the ground’ Local Administration Civil Society & Private Sector • Institution • Capacity to report and learn from Results • Focus on Results in key policy and project instruments (from NDP to detailed project feasibility studies) • Use of financial/knowledge instruments to collect and use information on results State/Provincial Government Line Agencies and Their Partners • Global • Better country system for monitoring and evaluation buildcredibility with outside resources • Better results management improves confidence in country capacity and is a key element of ‘good governance’ Central Ministries InternationalInstitutions

10. What is Results Based Management? • Focus is on Results/Performance • Feedback on whether goods and services are making a difference on the ground • Planning process emphasizes cause and effect, not just inputs and hopes! • Monitoring tracks progress toward results • Monitoring data informs project and program planning, management and reporting

11. Results: Key Questions What do we mean by results? • Sustained improvement impacts (goals), outcomes, outputs, and inputs How do we get better results? • By increasing attention to results in the strategy planning process and work planning processes • By measuring inputs, outputs and outcomes • By ensuring that data are used for management, learning and decision making – not just reporting and accountability.

12. The “Results Chain” Supply Demand

13. Results Chain

14. Impact (Goal) Outcome Outcome Output Output Output Activities Inputs Activities Inputs Activities Inputs Activities Inputs Causal logic – the results chain

15. Combined Programme Results lead to Strategic Results at the impact level Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result

16. Depends on Perspective

17. Results Chain Effectiveness Programme / Ministry level STRATEGY Efficiency Project / department level WORK PLAN 6months – 1 year After implementation immediate immediate 2 to 5 years 5 years or more Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact (Goal) National Level Indicators Project / Department Level Indicators

18. Aspects of results-based management Results-based Implementation Results-based Measurement Results-based Planning

19. A good results statement….. • States the most ambitious impact that an organization can effect • Expresses the highest level for which the project can reasonably be expected to be held accountable • May need to be qualified by using terms such as facilitated, improved, and supported to ensure that it is a realistic result of the project • Does not include the means of achieving them • Is as specific as possible • Describes changes in the conditions of people • Sets precise criteria for success • In its simplest form, a result is the objective restated as an accomplishment Source: Kusek and Rist, 2005

20. Link between the M&E plan and national Strategic Plans

21. Some Broad Lessons on RBM • Building a results management system is primarily a leadership and managerial challenge • The technical aspects of improving monitoring and evaluation requires a supportive enabling environment • Clear signals from top leadership on commitment to results management • Incentives for use of information – link to resource planning and allocation • Coordination across multiple players

22. Lessons (2) • And technical issues matter as well: • A unifying framework on approach, common language and terminology which is used to facilitate coordination, monitoring of M and E itself • Mobilization of sectoral expertise – among planners, at line agency level and with statistical and academic resources • Clear and close relationship with core planning and budgeting processes and documents

23. Lessons (3) • Beyond leadership, commitment and appropriate technical work, key issues include: • PATIENCE • Introduction of results based management and M and E TAKES TIME, a realistic time table • ADAPTATION • While much to be learned from global and other country experience, system design must be adapted to national capacity and systems – one size does NOT fit all