1 / 9

UNDERSTANDING EXCEPTIONAL PROJECTS

UNDERSTANDING EXCEPTIONAL PROJECTS. 2013 ARRI LEARNING EVENT Rome, 20 September 2013. INTRODUCTION. Since 2002, around half of projects evaluated by IOE have been rated as ‘moderately satisfactory’ overall.

brita
Download Presentation

UNDERSTANDING EXCEPTIONAL PROJECTS

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UNDERSTANDING EXCEPTIONAL PROJECTS 2013 ARRI LEARNING EVENT Rome, 20 September 2013

  2. INTRODUCTION • Since 2002, around half of projects evaluated by IOE have been rated as ‘moderately satisfactory’ overall. • What factors explain the smaller proportion rated as either exceptionally good or exceptionally poor? • In particular, what explains good projects in fragile states and poor projects in middle-income countries (MICs)?

  3. METHOD • Largely based on an analysis of a purposive sample of evaluations of 54 projects in 31 countries, plus interviews. • Explanatory factors separated into 3 groups: - context (where?) - design (what?) - management (who?) • Recognise limitations of the study.

  4. Findings - CONTEXT • General country classifications (MIC, LDC, etc.) explain little. • More poor projects, and fewer good projects, in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS) and in countries with low country performance ratings (CPR). • Strong association between factors in difficult contexts: good projects generally had good designs and good management.

  5. Findings – DESIGN • 93% of poor projects had poor designs. Only 21% of good projects had poor designs. • Common design criticisms: - poor fit with the context. - over-complexand over-ambitious. • 5 out of 6 exceptionally good projects with poor initial designs had good quality project management.

  6. Findings - MANAGEMENT • 90% of poor projects had poor management. • Common management criticisms: - problems with project staff. - weak implementation partners. - lack of sufficient IFAD support early on. - weak monitoring and evaluation. • Quality of project management team/director strongly associated with good or poor results.

  7. CPM INTERVIEWS • Quality of project management team and quality of implementing institution is key. • Understanding and fitting projects to the context is important, especially in fragile, post-conflict and post-emergency situations. • Quality of design has improved. Management and early implementation support now needs more emphasis.

  8. SUMMARY • Context, design and management all matter. Strong association between factors in all situations. • FCS are more challenging, but can be offset by good design and management. • Project design has improved but persistent flaws are still being identified. • Quality of project management, and early implementation support, are key.

  9. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION • Is there sufficient emphasis on the quality of project management? • Is IFAD’s policy and practice in fragile and conflict-affected situations sufficiently different? • How can the design and management capacity in middle-income countries be better accessed and deployed?

More Related