slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Managing for Development Results Susan Stout, Manager, OPCSRX PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Managing for Development Results Susan Stout, Manager, OPCSRX

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Managing for Development Results Susan Stout, Manager, OPCSRX - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 96 Views
  • Updated on

Managing for Development Results Susan Stout, Manager, OPCSRX The Third Norwegian Workshop Dialogue with WBG May 26-27 , 2005. Today’s Discussion. Agenda on Managing for Results Lessons on Results Results Management within World Bank

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

Managing for Development Results Susan Stout, Manager, OPCSRX


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
    1. Managing for Development Results Susan Stout, Manager, OPCSRX The Third Norwegian Workshop Dialogue with WBG May 26-27, 2005

    2. Today’s Discussion • Agenda on Managing for Results • Lessons on Results • Results Management within World Bank III. Frontiers in Results Management for the WB Group

    3. I. Agenda on Managing for Results

    4. New Partnership for Development • International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey called for: • Improved policies and stronger institutions in developing countries • More and better aid, plus action on trade and debt, by developed countries • Shared responsibility for getting country outcomes defined a global agenda on managing for development results

    5. Why is it important to focus on Results? • Knowledge and Information is Power • For implementing agencies, for consumers/recipients • Countries are in the driver’s seat, results provide the steering wheel • Goal is to improve quality of management and decision making –When accountability to client/consumer is strong, results are strong • Learning is fundamental to ‘scaling up’ and easing absorptive capacity constraints • Money not useful, or used, without ideas and data on results • Donors more concerned with accountability and results than ever • Results Agenda • IDA 13 and IDA 14 Commitments

    6. What do we mean by ‘Results’ ? • Results – sustainable improvements in country outcomes • If the intervention is successful, what will be ‘the difference’ for the primary target group ? Examples: • Children are learning more • Municipalities are more efficient • Firms are earning more • HIV transmission from IDU to general population reduced • Managing for results – using information to improve decision-making and steer country-led development processes toward clearly defined goals

    7. The “Art” of Managing for Results The ‘art’ of Managing for Results is defining outcomes that are: • meaningful to BOTH provider and client/consumer • measurable in a credible way • used in decision making

    8. Emerging Global Framework • Focus on results throughout the development process: • at thebeginning, for strategic planning • duringimplementation, for day-to-day management • near the end, for evaluation and feedback • Action for results focuses on three pillars: • in countries, where results are achieved • within agencies, for more relevant and effective aid • in partnership, for coordination and harmonization

    9. Results Agenda – Three Pillars • Pillar I: Strengthening country demand and capacity to manage for results • Pillar II: Enhancing development agencies’ contribution to country results • Pillar III: Fostering a global partnership on managing for results

    10. Emerging Good Practice in MfDR • Managing for results at a national level: Algeria, Chile, Tanzania, Timor Leste, Uganda, Vietnam • Managing for results in projects and programs: • Brazil Bolsa Familia Social Protection • Nepal Education Sector Planning • Kyrgyz Republic Disaster Hazard Mitigation • Madagascar National Environmental Action Plan • Malawi HIV/AIDs • Uganda Water and Sanitation • Yemen Social Fund

    11. II. Lessons on Results

    12. Some general lessons on ‘Results’ • “M and E” recognized as strategic, but … • donors better at saying it is important than ‘how to do it’ • “Indicatoritis” – indicators only part of the problem – put in decision making context • Incentives matter! Distinguish and balance “M and E” for reporting and for managing • use to guide budgeting and planning • Need to focus on “Who is doing the learning” • not just for reporting to donors, or to national level • goal is to improve quality, relevance, effectiveness of project implementation - create added value

    13. What are the characteristics of an effective monitoring system? • More than a list of ‘indicators’! • Clarity on who is going to use the information for what kinds of decision making • System is ‘usable’ for the level of decision making • Not every level needs every indicator! • The system is ‘operational’ – clear on who is to collect and report what data by when and to whom • Where capacities for monitoring and evaluation are limited, how will they be established? • Improved capacities to collect and use information itself a ‘result’

    14. Characteristics (2) • Use simplicity and common sense as guides • Better to do a few things well than all things perfectly • Strong link between what is measured and desired outcome • Some project outcomes are ‘inputs’ to others • Don’t try to solve all problems in one project • Qualitative data (e.g. of organizational/institutional change) as important as quantitative

    15. Moving Forward: Results Management in the World Bank

    16. Focus • Helping operational units ask: • Are we being effective? • How do we know? • AND • Are we helping our clients to be effective? • Are we helping them to know about their effectiveness

    17. Results Management Initiatives • Modernization of CAS Architecture • Results-Based CAS • CAS Completion Report • Results Orientation in Project Documentation • Revised PAD • Implementation Status and Results Report

    18. Initiatives, cont. • Development of Results Monitoring and Learning System • Link with Client Services Model (OETF) • IDA 14 Results Measurement System • Strategic Performance Contracts • Final Outcomes in KPIs • Indicators of Managing for Results • CAS • Project Level • Network and Sector level Results Frameworks and Sector Strategy Implementation Update

    19. Frontiers in Results Management for World Bank (Group ?) • Managing for Results as a Country System • Assessing national, sectoral capacities • Cooperation with other donors on capacity building • Assessing effectiveness of nonlending work • Moving beyond Number delivered to l) fit with distribution of strategic issues, 2) influence on country level decision making • Link with IFC on Technical Assistance?

    20. Frontiers, cont.’d • Building results management ‘into the line’ • Role of Country Leadership Teams • Cross Sectoral commitment to measurement capacities and utilization of information for national/local decision making • Address gaps in national, subnational statistical capacities • Global program or Bank driven?

    21. MDGs and Results/Evaluation • MDGs are indicators of overall direction • Risks of conflating MDGs with program and implementation progress indicators • Need scope for sectoral ‘inclusiveness’ around the MDGs • Water supply, rural roads examples • Pay attention to the common denominators • Absences of valid, reliable data on population, vital events at local level constrains ownership, credibility of MDG agenda

    22. MDGs and Evaluation, cont • Need to link work on institutions for local accountability and measurement systems for the MDGs • Investments in basic data infrastructure are undervalued, have public goods characteristics • Little work on C/E of different information systems • E.g. DHS per participant costs are 23 times higher than those for sample registration/household surveillance • Evaluations should help clarify the ‘links in the chain’ betw/ sectoral performance and macro-outcomes