Search

Displaying 1 - 8 of 8

Lesson
Purposeful selection of outcome Indicators that are easily and regularly monitored is critical in crisis response projects. There is a high level of uncertainty surrounding the duration and impact of a crisis. Thus, choosing outcome Indicators that provide timely and crucial information on the progress of the crisis and the impact of policy measures can help manage a crisis, as it allows to quickly introduce new measures when the situation worsens.

Project Number: 54184-001
Project Name: COVID-19 Active Response and Expenditure Support Program
Report Date:
Lesson
Design and monitoring frameworks (DMFs) need to have all the necessary Indicators as well as flexible timelines to effectively be used as planning, monitoring, and evaluation tools. Given the breadth of the program, the DMF should have included at least one indicator for each reform area to better monitor the outcome and long-term impact of key policy actions. Although three new outcome Indicators were included in subprogram 3, these mainly covered financial inclusion and nonperforming loans.

Project Number: 51252-003, 51252-004, 51252-005
Project Name: Financial Market Development Program
(Subprograms 1; 2; and 3)
Report Date:
Lesson
Limited baseline data could lead to unrealistic performance Indicators and targets. Because this was ADB’s first TVET grant project in Timor-Leste, which introduced a new area of formalized skills development, baseline data for the targets were limited. This led to some unrealistic performance Indicators and targets. For example, the number of students and trainers to be trained appeared to be modest, whereas the target of 65% of graduates to find employment within 3 months of graduation was overambitious.

Project Number: 45139-001
Project Name: Mid-Level Skills Training Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Ensuring that Indicators are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) is essential to tracking and measuring project results. One project target output was not realistic. The indicator used involves a complex bureaucratic process and requires allocation of revenue budget from the government, which was beyond the project’s scope and administrative boundary.

Project Number: 42248-013, 42248-023
Project Name: Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project
Report Date:
Lesson
A well-designed RBL can make program implementation more efficient and reduce transaction costs during program implementation. This came about in this program with the disbursement-linked Indicators (DLIs) focusing on the main elements of the results chain and framework in the process highlighting the importance of teachers’ and managers’ capacity building and competency-based curriculum (CBC) development, which built a solid foundation for TVET’s sustainable development in Guizhou.

Project Number: 48101-003
Project Name: Guizhou Vocational Education Development Program
Report Date:
Lesson
Targets need to be specific and evidence-based and indicators well-defined and measurable to enable a reliable assessment of implementation progress and project accomplishments and performance at completion. This project suffered from weaknesses in indicators and the results chain. Examples were inadequate links between intended outputs and outcome, lack of specific targets (output 1 and outcome), and poorly defined target (output 3). One impact target was misplaced (project staffing) and another was deemed unachievable (number of WUCSs confirming receipt of water services).

Project Number: 43253-023
Project Name: Karnataka Integrated and Sustainable Water Resources Management Investment Program - Project 1
Report Date:
Lesson
A project specific DMF is key to reliably assessing the implementation progress and overall performance of each tranche project. The DMF for this project contained indicators that pertained to investments under other tranches of the multitranche financing facility (MFF). This made monitoring and evaluation of project progress and performance difficult, with results that hid the real picture and so prevented corrective measures from being undertaken during implementation.

Project Number: 42414-023
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program - Tranche 1
Report Date:
Lesson
Weaknesses in the design and monitoring framework (DMF) can lead to an inaccurate assessment of project achievements. The project DMF contained indicators that measured benefits that were not entirely attributable to the project, such as the number of tourist nights in Georgia rather than in the Batumi area. Some dimensions of the project’s outcome were omitted, such as the increased protection of coastal infrastructure assets. The reduction of storm-related damage should have been considered as part of project’s outcome performance indicators.

Project Number: 42414-044
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program - Tranche 4
Report Date: