Search

Displaying 1 - 14 of 14

Lesson
The formulation of a coherent results framework that logically links the inputs, activities, and outputs with the envisaged outcome facilitates better monitoring and measurement of project results. The quality of a design and monitoring framework is enhanced by outcome targets that are realistic and appropriately reflect the immediate changes of the outputs.

Project Number: 47305-002, 47305-004
Project Name: Horticulture Value Chain Development Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Establishing a project performance monitoring system (PPMS) allows better tracking of project results and implementation progress and risks. It will also allow a project to undertake necessary adjustments to address implementation issues and data gaps and would be useful during ex-post project evaluation, in terms of a more systematic aggregation and assessment of data and information collected via the system.

Project Number: 40534-013
Project Name: Second Crop Diversification Project
Report Date:
Lesson
The design and monitoring framework (DMF) should be reviewed and updated as necessary during implementation to ensure continued alignment with other aspects of the program. The outcome and output indicators in the program DMF had been developed at appraisal for achievement over a relatively short period of 24 months. However, when program implementation was extended by 23 months to November 2019, an opportunity was missed to update the targeted dates for the indicators, which were measured about 1 year after the extended program completion date.

Project Number: 45253-002
Project Name: Third Capital Market Development Program
Report Date:
Lesson
Having specific performance indicators dedicated to improving FI’s operational and financial management helps ADB foster its development objectives, while improving FI’s institutional capacity. Specifically, the performance indicators on safeguards compliance help ADB improve FI’s ESMS, thereby, mainstreaming ADB’s environmental and social objectives in infrastructure projects that FIs implemented.

Project Number: 46268-002
Project Name: Clean Energy Finance Investment Program (Tranche 1)
Report Date:
Lesson
The assessment of a program’s development effectiveness is difficult in the absence of a structured and aligned outcome indicators.

Project Number: 50145-001
Project Name: Countercyclical Support Facility Program
Report Date:
Lesson
Projects need to have robust systems for verifying results and for an MSME project, this would ideally include an end-of-project survey to independently measure impact.

Project Number: 43158-013
Project Name: Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise Development Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Develop, at the design stage, clear targets on the recipients of the project.

Project Number: 43158-013
Project Name: Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise Development Project
Report Date:
Lesson
The DMF needs indicators that measure the actual impact of the project rather than national or sectoral changes.

Project Number: 43158-013
Project Name: Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise Development Project
Report Date:
Lesson
A clearer link between the DMF, policy actions, and the GAP is necessary.

Project Number: 45230-001
Project Name: Women’s Entrepreneurship Support Sector Development Program
Report Date:
Lesson
For a program directly targeting women, GAP targets be integrated more into the program design and included in the DMF.

Project Number: 45230-001
Project Name: Women’s Entrepreneurship Support Sector Development Program
Report Date:
Lesson
Indicators that measure medium-term lending and sustainability could provide better measurements toward initiating a more sustainable access to SME medium-term lending.

Project Number: 44060-024
Project Name: Small and Medium Enterprise Investment Program (Tranche 2)
Report Date:
Lesson
The DMF for the Infrastructure Project Development Facility (IPDF) was not adequate to assess IPDF’s performance as an institution, with targets that were limited to the number of PPP projects. It should have included measures on the level of private sector investment in infrastructure in general, and specifically on PPP projects, together with some regional comparisons.

Project Number: 40009-013, 40009-023, 40009-33, 40009-43
Project Name: Infrastructure Reform Sector Development Program (Subprograms 1, 2, and 3, and an Infrastructure Project Development Facility)
Report Date:
Lesson
The DMF was reasonably well-designed and the performance indicators—with the exception of the initial program impact indicators—targets, and baseline data were precise and generally easily measurable. However, the PCR assessed the program against the DMF prepared for subprogram 3, which, like subprogram 2 had no indicators to measure impact, although these were included for subprogram 1.

Project Number: 48044-001, 48044-004, 48044-005
Project Name: Improving Domestic Resource Mobilization for Inclusive Growth Program
Report Date:
Lesson
Outcome indicator should be reflective of the policy actions and outputs delivered.

Project Number: 44251-013, 44251-034
Project Name: Financial Sector Deepening Program
Report Date: