Monitoring and evaluation

Inavailability of data could hinder the achievement of a project's intended results. While gender data was available in major programs like the Emergency Subsidy Program, such data was unavailable for others. Of the six outputs in the gender monitoring matrix, two were not achieved as the following data were unavailable: (i) the number of micro, small, and medium enterprise beneficiaries under the small business wage subsidy program and those registered to women; and (ii) thenumber of micro, small, and medium enterprises that benefited from tax relief and those registered to women

A program's design and monitoring framework (DMF) needs to be agile and flexible. A key aspect of a crisis is that it rapidly evolves and at the outset more is often unknown than known. The DMF therefore needs to be realistic and subject to change when new evidence emerges, or the context evolves. Hence, during the implementation and monitoring of the program, the DMF should be revisited and updated as needed.

A more nuanced iteration of the project design and monitoring framework (DMF) i.e., accurately differentiating outcome and output indicators, would be beneficial to facilitate better project results assessments. As observed by this validation, impact, outcome, and output statements in the DMF were vague and similar, and did not provide sufficient guidance to focus performance targets that would have provided better evidence for achieving the goals of the impact, outcome, and output statements.

The practice at appraisal is to provide baseline information and the design and monitoring (DMF) outcome and output targets based on project inputs. In the case of this project, the DMF targets need to be project related. It used a target for the impact indicator that linked project output to the development of other projects. While it is possible to reasonably forecast results, the external capacity development may impact the outcomes.

A design and monitoring framework could become more useful and informative for assessment if it could include quantifiable indicators for capacity building when the requirement is identified during program appraisal.

A midterm review mission is critical for large complex projects as it allows assessing the consequence of time and cost overruns and accordingly updating the DMF.

The project focused on the expansion of the transmission and distribution systems in seven towns while the executing agency availed funds from other government-funded schemes to concurrently implement a far larger project for a similar expansion of the transmission and distribution system in the remaining areas of the state. Obtaining information related to complementary physical investments, especially during the loan review missions, could help facilitate a better assessment of the project's development impact.

The outcome performance indicator of a loan project that is deliberately designed to establish a reasonable cause-effect relationship between outputs and outcome can ensure a logical appropriateness and continuum of the design and monitoring framework results chain.

Estimation of the project cost requires a greater anticipation of potential cost overrun/underrun that may arise during implementation. During appraisal, a more in-depth examination and consideration of factors related to currency depreciation permits a more robust and realistic cost estimates. Under this project, a substantial loan amount was cancelled due to the rupee depreciation. A careful financial planning and cost projections coupled with risk mitigation measures and monitoring allows for better utilization of loan proceeds.

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.