Search

Displaying 1 - 15 of 31

Lesson
Guidance for completing CPRO DMFs underscored the dynamic nature of a crisis operation and the need to be prepared to strengthen, amend or add DMF indicators during implementation. The fact that this was not followed reflects a built-in lack of flexibility with DMFs (and perhaps the difficulty of making changes in accordance with existing Project Administration Instructions).

Project Number: 54178-001
Project Name: COVID-19 Rapid Response Program
Report Date:
Lesson
The design and monitoring frameworks (DMFs) of the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Option (CPRO) extracted aspects of the government’s response plan that were important to ADB and restricted the number of indicators and targets in order not to burden the government. However, this made demonstrating outcome-level achievement difficult because it relies too much on one or two indicators and targets (weak horizontal logic) and is narrowly and inadequately supported by a minimal number of outputs (weak vertical logic).

Project Number: 54178-001
Project Name: COVID-19 Rapid Response Program
Report Date:
Lesson
It is important for output performance indicators to be strengthened to address project changes during implementation and measure overall achievements beyond the revised project-benefit levels. Specific to this project, the design and monitoring framework could have provided additional measures to assess what those child-targeted income support have intended to achieve.

Project Number: 54214-001
Project Name: Shock-Responsive Social Protection Project
Report Date:
Lesson
The indicators for measuring the accomplishment of the program can be further improved by identifying more precise indicators. For instance, in addition to approval dates of policy-based actions, the inclusion of simplified monitoring and reporting arrangements under the indicative program monitoring framework should be considered as appropriate.

Project Number: 52018-001
Project Name: Disaster Resilience Program
Report Date:
Lesson
It is important that performance indicators are results-oriented rather than process-oriented. .The performance targets set out in the design and monitoring framework (DMF) were more process- than results oriented in terms of targeting developing systems, and producing reports, assessments, and reviews. The completion of a report or review or assessment, for instance, was judged as an accomplishment. Instead, the indicators should have reflected the actual implementation of the recommendations.

Project Number: 49409-001
Project Name: Strengthening Institutional Framework and Management Capacity Project
Report Date:
Lesson
When designing results frameworks, the use of policy actions as results indicators should be minimized. If the indicator measures the reform success by the completion of the policy actions, it provides little information on the success of that policy action and undermines the relevance of the policy action for no result is achieved other than itself.

Project Number: 53248-001
Project Name: Second Public Efficiency and Financial Markets Program
Report Date:
Lesson
In designing the design and monitoring frameworks (DMFs) for the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Option (CPRO), the approach was to extract aspects of the government's response plan that reflected ADB priorities and offered points of engagement with the government, and to restrict the number of indicators and targets so as not to burden the government. However, an unintended consequence is that this can weaken the logic and evidence base of the DMF, making it difficult to satisfactorily demonstrate the achievement of the program outcome.

Project Number: 54193-001
Project Name: COVID-19 Active Response and Expenditure Support Program
Report Date:
Lesson
Weak indicators for outcomes and outputs hamper the tracking of project successes. If the project’s indicators had been more specific, measurable, and/or evaluable, problems could have been identified earlier and possibly addressed. This would have likely allowed for mid-course corrections or modifications.

Project Number: 45098-001
Project Name: Project Preparation and Start-Up Support Facility
Report Date:
Lesson
Impact indicators in the results framework need to have casual connection to the program’s outputs and outcomes. The civil service and budgetary reforms supported by the program will contribute to more efficient public administration and budget expenditures over time. However, they can only contribute at the margin to poverty and maternal mortality reduction, which were the impact indicators for the program. These indicators were not aligned with the impact statement, which aimed for improved service delivery.

Project Number: 46059-001, 46059-002
Project Name: Governance and Capacity Development in Public Sector Management Program - Subprogram 2
Report Date:
Lesson
Greater effort early on to define targeted outcomes and using a well-structured framework can yield a better tool to assess program results. The results framework presenting clarity in project design, well-defined outcomes, and outputs with appropriate targets and indicators, is imperative in monitoring project achievements. This is necessary to help provide clear assessment and guidance on how to systematically track progress especially on how success will be assessed.

Project Number: 48458-001, 48458-003
Project Name: Expanding Private Participation in Infrastructure Program
Report Date:
Lesson
Clarity in project design particularly in identifying outcomes and outputs correctly with appropriate targets and indicators are essential in monitoring project achievements and determining how success will be assessed. A well-conceived results framework can effectively assess how economic resources and inputs (e.g., expertise, funds, etc.) are converted to results, for example. This could help facilitate a project’s focus on interventions and specific expected outcomes. Moreover, a program–logic diagram can help in this approach.

Project Number: 39452-013
Project Name: Strengthening Governance Management Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Outcome could have been extended for a longer period than just one year, with stronger monitoring and evaluation (M&E) required. The program outcome was to maintain social welfare expenditure at least at MNT339 billion in 2017. A 1-year time horizon was too short. Even though social welfare expenditures increased in the following years, a 5-year time horizon may have been more appropriate to encourage sustainability. Furthermore, a stronger M&E system is required for social welfare programs since output 2 focused on improving their targeting.

Project Number: 50302-001
Project Name: Social Welfare Support Program Phase 2
Report Date:
Lesson
The impact level of the DMF could be connected to the results chain.

Project Number: 44253-016
Project Name: Local Government Finance and Fiscal Decentralization Program
Report Date:
Lesson
A plausible linkage between outputs and outcome and from outcome to impact needs to be carefully addressed In designing the project results chain.

Project Number: 48065-002
Project Name: Public Sector Enterprises Reform Program (Subprogram 1)
Report Date:
Lesson
Output performance measures of public sector and management programs could be improved through the inclusion of (1) anti-corruption measures, especially if the risk of corruption is high in the program and the country rates poorly on perceptions of corruption; and (2) strengthened internal and external audit functions to provide more transparency and accountability to government processes.

Project Number: 44253-016
Project Name: Local Government Finance and Fiscal Decentralization Program
Report Date: