1 / 31

IFAD’S RESULTS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK Kevin Cleaver, Associate Vice President, Programmes Gary Howe, Director, Strategic

IFAD’S RESULTS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK Kevin Cleaver, Associate Vice President, Programmes Gary Howe, Director, Strategic Planning April 2010. Content of presentation.

phong
Download Presentation

IFAD’S RESULTS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK Kevin Cleaver, Associate Vice President, Programmes Gary Howe, Director, Strategic

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. IFAD’S RESULTS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK • Kevin Cleaver, Associate Vice President, Programmes • Gary Howe, Director, Strategic Planning • April 2010

  2. Content of presentation • Results areas and indicators that IFAD uses in managing its operations, resource mobilization, human resources, risks and efficiency • Measurement and reporting of results • Baseline results • Targets for 8th Replenishment

  3. IFAD uses its loans and grants for Improve basic foods and staples Include cash crops: exports are growing Integrate livestock to match rising demand Develop private Agro-processing & mktg

  4. RMF 2007-09: A snapshot of achievements compared to the 2005 Independent Evaluation of IFAD

  5. IFAD’s second Results Measurement Framework:the Results Chain Outcome more relevant to IFAD Objectives Attribution to IFAD Strengthens Level 1: Macro outcomes Level 2: IFAD Country programme and project outcomes Level 3: IFAD Country programs and project outputs Level 4: IFAD Country programme and project design and implementation support Level 5: IFAD’s Institutional management & efficiency

  6. RMF in the context of IFAD: Operating Model

  7. Level 1: Macro and sectoral Outcomes Baseline figures and global targets that IFAD will monitor Source: 1/. United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2008 2/. World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2009

  8. Level 2: IFAD Country programmes & project outcomes • Project performance measured at Project start-up and at completion by: • Relevance – consistency of the project objectives with the priorities of poor rural people • Effectiveness – how well projects perform in delivering against their objectives; and • Efficiency – how economically resources are converted into results. • Sustainability, the net benefits sustained beyond the implementation period [1] High-level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, final report of Roundtable 4. Accra, Ghana, 2008. [2] OE identifies them as ‘impact’, involving anticipated effects as well.

  9. Level 2: IFAD Country programmes & project outcomescontd … • Replication and scaling up, to add value to successful innovations and • Gender equality and women’s empowerment, integration of women’s as well as men’s concerns, so that women and men benefit equally. • Poverty impact - the changes that have been perceived to have occurred in the lives of poor rural people. • Food security, availability, access to food, and stability of access • Physical and financial assets, for income and crisis coping • Empowerment, as an end in itself, as well as a means of reducing poverty

  10. Level 1: IFAD Country programmes & project outcomes: 2009 Baseline Values and 2012 Targets

  11. Level 2: Data Sources and Reporting • Data obtained from the project completion reports and project evaluations (summarised in ARRI) • Evaluation instruments use a six-point scale. 6= highly satisfactory, 5 = satisfactory 4= moderately satisfactory, 3= moderately unsatisfactory 2= unsatisfactory, 1 = highly unsatisfactory • Broadly, ratings of 4 and above are taken as acceptable and 3 or below as unsatisfactory • RMF targets are set mostly as percentage of projects rated 4 or above at start-up determined by QA findings and at completion

  12. Level 3: Project Outputs • At the third level, RMF reports on outputs • Project outputs are reported on an absolute basis such as hectares of land brought under irrigation, number of active savers and borrowers. • Key outputs are aggregated and reported • against IFAD’s six strategic areas • using the RIMS system • reporting on a sex-disaggregated basis, where applicable

  13. Level 3: Project outputs against: Baseline Values and Targets Indicator Baseline year Baseline value Target 2012

  14. Level 3: Project outputs against: Baseline Values and Targets contd …

  15. Level 3: Data Sources and Reporting • RIMS is IFAD’s trademark definition of key impact indicators, which it suggests be included in project M&E systems • RIMS operates at three levels of the results chain: outputs, outcomes and impact, based on the data from the Project M & E system • By providing common definition of indicators, RIMS permits aggregation of outputs across all IFAD projects, as presented in previous tables

  16. Results and Impact Management System (RIMS) Results and Impact Management System (RIMS) • About 40 IFAD projects have established baselines for impact assessment using special RIMS surveys • RIMS was developed prior to the development of the self and independent evaluation systems: indicators are therefore not fully aligned • Management will review RIMS in order to bring about full coherence among results system • RIMS helps define indicators to be included in M&E systems; it does not substitute M&E system.

  17. Level 4: Country Programme and project management • At the fourth level IFAD measures the performance of country programmes and projects at entry and during implementation • The main focus is on: • Quality at entry of country programmes for income, food security, empowerment of women and men • Adherence of aid effectiveness agenda in terms of country ownership, alignment and harmonisation • Quality at entry of projects for effectiveness, poverty impact, sustainability, & innovation, learning & scaling up • Better implementation support, measured by time elapsed for Board approval to 1st disbursement, % of problem projects and pro-activity, time-overrun, and delay in processing withdrawal applications etc.

  18. Level 4: IFAD Country Programme: Baseline and Targets

  19. Level 4: Project Implementation Support Baseline year Baseline value 2012 target Source Indicator

  20. Level 4: Data Sources and Reporting • How undertaken: • The QA at entry rating is done independently by the consultants • The client survey, which reports on the perception of in-country stakeholders (‘clients’) comprising of representatives of governments, donor agencies and civil societies, undertaken annually, ensures anonymity of the respondents • Non-rated absolute numbers, such as average time elapsed, co-financing levels are generated through PPMS and WATS. • For day to day management monitoring in real time, Operations Dashboard has been developed. Brings data from different systems in a user-friendly interface.

  21. Level 4: Data Sources and Reporting(cont’d)

  22. Level 5: Institutional management and efficiency • Level 4 deals with what IFAD does operationally to achieve field level impact through its country programmes – in projects and at the macro-level of the MDGs • Level 5 addresses how well IFAD manages its resources to support these operations – specifically, how well: • It focuses its workforce on the operational area • It engages the commitment of its workforce • It creates a diverse staff drawing on experience and capabilities • It achieves efficiency in expenditures • It manages risks

  23. Level 5: Baseline and targets Baseline value (%) 2012 target (%) Baseline year Source Indicator

  24. Managing to achieve results and impact • The RMF targets are not just a basis for reporting, they are the points of orientation for the management of IFAD • Since 2007, IFAD has operated a comprehensive corporate planning and performance management system (CPPMS) that concentrates on the elements of performance directly managed by IFAD. • The CPPMS is IFAD’s system for managing to achieve the results. • It establishes objectives for all managers • It focuses on what managers can actually manage and be directly accountable for • Focuses on Levels 4 and 5 – on what IFAD directly manages, on the activities that lead to development and institutional efficiency results • Project development and implementation support • The institutional platform for project-related work

  25. The results management matrix - 1 • At the corporate level, management to achieve results revolves around targets and performance indicators for four activity clusters: • Cluster 1. Country programme development and implementation • Cluster 2. High-level policy dialogue, resource mobilization and strategic communication • Cluster 3. Corporate management, reform and administration • Cluster 4. Support to Members’ governance activities • Each of these groups has sub-clusters with specific targets (what we call Corporate Management Results – CMRs), e.g. Cluster 1 has: • CMR 1 Better country programmes; CMR2 Better project design; and CMR3 Better project implementation support

  26. The results management matrix - 2 • Each CMR includes an objective the achievement of which will contribute to better performance against the RMF targets • Each CMR has a basis for measuring performance - a number of Key Performance Indicators, e.g., • CMR 1: Adherence to aid effectiveness agenda • CMR 2: % of projects rated satisfactory or better at entry for effectiveness • CMR 3: % of problem projects in the ongoing portfolio

  27. The results management process • Each year every department prepares a plan organizing all activities around the CMRs they directly contribute to (according to function) – according to corporate level priorities • Every division prepares their own plan indicating their planned contribution to achievement of the corporate and departmental CMRs • Every individual prepares a work plan organizing their contribution to achievement of divisional plans • Performance is reviewed on a quarterly basis on corporate, departmental and divisional basis in performance conversations covering every department and every division, focused on: • progress towards results • risks that need to be dealt with in achieving results • resource management issues • The objective is identification of management actions (including financial and human resource deployment) that need to be taken in real time to keep performance on track

  28. The performance conversation process - By 2nd week after close of qtr - Division Directors & staff - Review performance and risks - By 3rd week after close of qtr - Department Heads & Division Directors - Review performance and risks (department risk registers) - By 4th week after close of qtr - Operations Management Committee & Executive Management Committee - Results, resources and risks report (corporate risk register)

  29. Anchorage in day-to-day management systems - 1 • This system is not designed to produce reports to the Executive Board. The reports on progress (RIDE) is produced from the information that IFAD needs and generates to manage itself for results on a day-to-day basis. • The key to the effective functioning of managing for results is accurate information on outputs and inputs. The Management Information System is being constantly upgraded: • The CPPMS brings together all plans, KPIs and risk reports within the Peoplesoft system • Budget and financial information is drawn from the Peoplesoft financial and budget systems • Loan and grant information is drawn from the Loan and Grant System (to be replaced in 2011)

  30. Anchorage in day-to-day management systems - 2 • Project performance and supervision data are drawn from the PPMS, supplemented by: • Project Status Reports On-line • PMD Management Dashboard (reports) • Human resource management data are drawn from the Peoplesoft HR database, supplemented for reporting and analysis by a new HR dashboard • Although all of these systems contribute to tracking performance against RMF, none are specifically for that purpose. They are all dedicated to normal processes of outcome, output and input tracking.

  31. Bringing efficiency under scrutiny • The results-based management system has been focused on development impact, and the monitoring system in this area is very robust – contributing to a major up-turn in IFAD’s project performance • There are still issues in management for development results – particularly data quality • The key issues for further elaboration lie in the efficiency area • IFAD has been raising its overall efficiency – and has actually cut administrative budgets in real terms • It needs the efficiency drive to be based on detailed and accurate understanding of work load and volumes – to set more realistic targets and performance indicators • This work is under way, and we expect more comprehensive indicators to be in place by the end of the 2nd Quarter 2010

More Related