170 likes | 286 Views
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
E N D
INSTITUTIONALIZING CORPORATE EVALUATIONS Todor Dimitrov, Black Sea Trade and Development Bank ECG meeting, October 25th 2013, IDB, Washington DC
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 • 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 • 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?)
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 • 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 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • KPI framework - ongoing • CE every 4 years; 2 year updates, strategy related: • LT Strategy; • MT Strategy; • Teams appraisal; • Budgeting • Training
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