Skip to main content
Evaluation Lessons
  • Home
  • Countries
    • Afghanistan
    • Armenia
    • Azerbaijan
    • Bangladesh
    • Bhutan
    • Brunei Darussalam
    • Cambodia
    • China, People's Republic of
    • Cook Islands
    • Federated States of Micronesia
    • Fiji
    • Georgia
    • Hong Kong, China
    • India
    • Indonesia
    • Kazakhstan
    • Kiribati
    • Kyrgyz Republic
    • Lao People’s Democratic Republic
    • Malaysia
    • Maldives
    • Marshall Islands
    • Mongolia
    • Myanmar
    • Nauru
    • Nepal
    • Niue
    • Pakistan
    • Palau
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Philippines
    • Republic of Korea
    • Samoa
    • Singapore
    • Solomon Islands
    • Sri Lanka
    • Taipei,China
    • Tajikistan
    • Thailand
    • Timor-Leste
    • Tonga
    • Turkmenistan
    • Tuvalu
    • Uzbekistan
    • Vanuatu
    • Viet Nam
    • Australia
    • Japan
    • New Zealand
  • Sectors
    • Agriculture, natural resources, and rural development
    • Education
    • Energy
    • Finance
    • Health
    • Industry and trade
    • Information and communication technology
    • Multisector
    • Public sector management
    • Transport
    • Water and other urban infrastructure and services
  • Themes
    • Inclusive Economic Growth
    • Environmentally Sustainable Growth
    • Regional Integration
    • Private Sector Development
    • Governance and Capacity Development
    • Gender Equity and Mainstreaming
    • Knowledge Solutions
    • Partnerships
  • About
  • Home
  • Countries
  • Sectors
  • Themes
  • About

Search

Displaying 1 - 3 of 3

Lesson
The establishment of a project performance management system (PPMS), which was not covenanted in the grant agreement, could have provided a useful source of data on which to develop an economic analysis model; identify, quantify, and value economic benefits; and assess the efficiency of the project. Because of the emergency nature of the project, baseline data could be collected during project implementation to enable data comparison after project completion.

Project Number: 52129-001
Project Name: Cyclone Gita Recovery Project
Report Date: 08 Dec 2023

Lesson
Design and monitoring frameworks (DMFs) for emergency assistance-type projects could be better designed with a focus on project outcome targets instead of project outputs. The latter are difficult to determine because of insufficient time to detail specific equipment requirements. Streamlining DMFs by avoiding repetition of indicators will also help in focusing the DMF.

Project Number: 52129-001
Project Name: Cyclone Gita Recovery Project
Report Date: 08 Dec 2023

Lesson
Actions that demonstrate the achievement of program policy matrix milestones should indicate what has been achieved, rather than the process of their accomplishment. For example, Cabinet approval is an inadequate indicator to demonstrate a successful policy reform in Tonga.

Project Number: 48361-001, 48361-002, 48361-003
Project Name: Building Macroeconomic Resilience Program
Report Date: 22 Sep 2022

Content type

  • Lesson (3)

Countries

  • (-) Tonga (3)
  • Armenia (2)
  • Azerbaijan (5)
  • Bangladesh (7)
  • Bhutan (5)
  • Cambodia (11)
  • China, People's Republic of (15)
  • Federated States of Micronesia (1)
  • Georgia (12)
  • India (41)
  • Indonesia (6)
  • Kazakhstan (2)
  • Kyrgyz Republic (2)
  • Lao People’s Democratic Republic (7)
  • Maldives (6)
  • Marshall Islands (1)
  • Mongolia (12)
  • Myanmar (1)
  • Nauru (2)
  • Nepal (7)
  • Pakistan (8)
  • Palau (1)
  • Papua New Guinea (8)
  • Philippines (9)
  • Samoa (1)
  • Solomon Islands (2)
  • Sri Lanka (2)
  • Tajikistan (2)
  • Thailand (5)
  • Timor-Leste (2)
  • Tuvalu (2)
  • Uzbekistan (9)
  • Vanuatu (2)
  • Viet Nam (7)

Sectors

  • Energy (2)
  • Public sector management (1)

Themes

  • Inclusive Economic Growth (1)
  • Private Sector Development (1)
  • Governance and Capacity Development (2)
  • Gender Equity and Mainstreaming (3)
  • Knowledge Solutions (2)
  • Partnerships (1)

Report Year

  • 2023 (2)
  • 2022 (1)

Report Source

  • Validation of self-evaluation (3)

Report Rating

  • Less than successful (1)
  • Successful (2)

Applicability

  • Program-level (1)
  • Results framework and methodology level (2)

Topics

  • ADB policy/ procedural adjustments (1)
  • Availability of baseline data (1)
  • Budgeting (1)
  • Capacity development (1)
  • Country context (2)
  • Culture, religion or ethnicity (1)
  • Design and/or planning (24)
  • Disasters (1)
  • Donor coordination (1)
  • Ecosystem (1)
  • Finance and financial aspects (6)
  • GAP (1)
  • Gender (1)
  • Implementation and/or Delivery (20)
  • Indicators (3)
  • Institutional (1)
  • Knowledge building (17)
  • Local contracting industry - Tonga (1)
  • Management (staffing, including consultants) (12)
  • Methodologies / approaches (9)
  • Modality (3)
  • Natural disasters (5)
  • Natural disasters : Policy and reform (1)
  • Organizational capacity (4)
  • Other (5)
  • Partnership (and cofinancing) (14)
  • Policy-based lending (PBL) (1)
  • Policy and reform (3)
  • Post-TA financial resources (7)
  • Procurement (3)
  • Project design (16)
  • Project management (1)
  • Replication and scaling Up (13)
  • Safeguards (2)
  • Safeguards - Tonga; Safeguards - LAR Tonga (1)
  • Sector issues (1)
  • Skilled human resources (2)
  • Skills transfer (1)
  • Social (1)
  • Stakeholder engagement (6)
  • Stakeholder participation (13)
  • Technical (2)
  • Undocumented underground installations (1)
  • Urban sector - Tonga (1)
  • (-) Monitoring and evaluation (3)

Subscribe to our mailing list

6 ADB Avenue,
Mandaluyong City
1550, Metro Manila,
Philippines

 

Phone: +632 632 4444
Fax: +632 636 2444

Other ADB Websites

ADB Compliance Review Panel
Asia Pathways (ADBI Blog)
Asia Regional Integration Center
Asian Bonds Online
Asian Development Blog
Open Access Repository
Statistical Database System

IED Social Media

LinkedIn

Twitter

YouTube

©2024 Independent Evaluation - Asian Development Bank

Footer

  • About