Institutionalizing corporate evaluations
Download
1 / 17

INSTITUTIONALIZING CORPORATE EVALUATIONS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 85 Views
  • Uploaded on

INSTITUTIONALIZING CORPORATE EVALUATIONS. Todor Dimitrov, Black Sea Trade and Development Bank ECG meeting, October 25 th 2013, IDB, Washington DC. Overview. Background, goals, resources Feasibility 7 planning factors (event, feasibility, amendments, focus, plan, leadership, follow-up

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' INSTITUTIONALIZING CORPORATE EVALUATIONS' - etta


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Institutionalizing corporate evaluations

INSTITUTIONALIZING CORPORATE EVALUATIONS

Todor Dimitrov,

Black Sea Trade and Development Bank

ECG meeting, October 25th 2013, IDB, Washington DC


Overview
Overview

  • Background, goals, resources

  • Feasibility

  • 7 planning factors (event, feasibility, amendments, focus, plan, leadership, follow-up

  • BSTDB Timeline (2006-2013)

  • Performance Management Policy

  • Conclusions

  • Q&A


Background
Background

  • Recent focus on overall results: MDG; MfDR vs. MbDR; performance measurement, RBM, etc.

  • 7 MDBs WG 2003/06 – COMPAS

  • Intention-reality gap: use of systemic CE is modest, not institutionalized

  • Consensus about CE need/benefits; methods exist, but a few coordinated implementations.


Goals
Goals

  • Share experience and lessons learned in conducting a pioneering CE, followed by a challenging institutionalization process

  • Why, when and how to institutionalize CE as part of an integrated evaluation policy

  • Reveal critical issues and establish long-term cooperation (harmonization?)


Resources and gaps
Resourcesand Gaps

  • CEs - ad-hoc, rarely policy based, institutionalized, and/or harmonized, despite available theory/practice

  • A critical mass of prerequisites for sound CE – conductive environment

  • Resource/cultural/maturity challenges: no silver bullets, incremental process, common terms/definition (BSC – beyond DAC 5), min. standards, harmonization and cooperation


Ce conductivity
CE-conductivity

  • Phasing: LT work, incremental efforts – years, credibility, sustainability

  • 5 phases: approach, identify key issues, WP, (data collection/analysis, reporting/action)

  • Simultaneously address 7 pre/planning factors


The 7 planning factors
The 7 planning factors

1. Future event - launching the CE

2. CE feasibility / infrastructure

3. Evaluation framework - amendment

4. Focus & scope of CE: snowball

5. Work Plan: timing, resources, resistance

6. Leadership commitment / continuity

7. Follow-up, replication, evolution


Future event ce launch
Future event – CE launch

  • New Strategy / Business Plan

  • Restructuring

  • Leadership change

  • Crisis management

  • Credit rating

  • Best: combination – time alignment

  • Promote, cascade, engage, leadership

  • Top-down & bottom-up, incentives, resistance

  • Participatory - process and culture shifts


2 ce feasibility infrastructure
2. CE feasibility / infrastructure

  • Assess conductivity: culture, climate, resources, motivation, policy framework

  • Framework and perception toward sharing and disclosing of information

  • Reveal / promote common denominators / drivers towards a shared willingness to learn and change

  • Peer partnerships


3 evaluation framework update
3. Evaluation framework update

  • Direct vs. indirect

  • Peer IFIs, GPS, sample study, promotion

  • Stand alone goal, even if CE postponed, suppressed or minimized

  • Cooperation links


4 ce focus scope snowball
4. CE Focus/scope: snowball

  • Observe existing minimum standards

  • Tradeoffs and compromises - CE institutionalization

  • Control scope/depth: avoid cost overruns, too many sensitivities, inability to follow-up/implement

  • Preparatory research – pre-evaluation

  • Demo-demand: cost-effectiveness, speed, BoD/BoG


5 work plan timing resources
5. Work Plan: timing & resources

  • Dedicated resources – unavailable

  • Expectations for “shoe-string” approach

  • Streamline, relocate, reinvent, prioritize, phase, distribute, engage, train

  • Finances and HR – timing, budgeting

  • Traps: underestimate follow-ups, timing

  • Institutionalize as priority per se

  • External partners – efficiency/credibility

  • WP – integrate and commit to re-evaluation


6 leadership process management
6. Leadership,process management

  • Articulate process, responsibilities, purpose, users – update, adapt

  • Top oriented, but with several rounds of dissemination/consultation

  • Inherent resistance within/outside

  • Leadership ownership/engagement - help stakeholders cooperate

  • The above favors an internal approach (external input)

  • Articulate expected empowerment and distinguish CE from rest of business

  • Detect and address skepticism at the outset


7 follow up replication issues
7. Follow-up,replication issues

  • Myths: internal is less rigorous, less independent and less followed-up

  • Open-up (new) suppressed perspectives and issues when relevant – incremental approach

  • Internal – realism, replicate, upgrade

  • Goals: (i) strategies to reflect CE, (ii) highlight overall mandate fulfillment

  • Gear/implant CE to major events / phases (vs. stand alone follow-up)


Timeline
Timeline

  • 2006 - Synthesis evaluations: repetitive issues (approval culture, cancellations, inefficiency…)

  • 2007 – New BP/Strategy – first CE (BSC)

  • 2008 – OM amendments towards replication

  • 2009 – MT review; BSC initiated as recommended

  • 2010 – BP/Strategy - further CE

  • 2011 – CE became part of strategy development

  • 2012 – Consultant/WG on BSC – draft, issues

  • 2013 – New inter WGs – PM/CE Policy approved


Pm policy 2013 2014
PM Policy 2013-2014

  • KPI framework - ongoing

  • CE every 4 years; 2 year updates, strategy related:

    • LT Strategy;

    • MT Strategy;

    • Teams appraisal;

    • Budgeting

    • Training


Conclusions
Conclusions

  • Substantial preparation

  • Careful use of a launcher event(s)

  • Critical mass of pre-conditions and leadership support - revisited

  • Irreversibility and distribution

  • Tailored methodology

  • Gradual institutionalization and replication – aimed opportunism

  • Ongoing learning, upgrading


ad