xxx
IEG Findings and Conclusions
IEG Recommendations
Acceptance by Management
Management Response
IFC Advisory Services
Biennial Report on Operations Evaluation
5. Need to revisit standard indicators. Among PCRs completed in 2010, 90 percent fell short of using relevant standard indicators. Standard indicators in Advisory Services are not always adequate to track project results as per project objectives. In some cases, poor core indicators linked to poorly articulated objectives have led to weak impact measurement. Moreover, the increasing reliance on standard indicators that are only weakly related to project objectives could transform the self-evaluation process into a monitoring exercise focused on checking achievement of standard indicators rather than analyzing achievement of objectives and understanding the factors behind success or failure.
Revise the standard indicators based on appropriate results chains or theory of change of business lines, strategies, and project objectives.
Agree
Many revisions and improvements to indicators have occurred since the cohort of projects examined by IEG in this BROE: • All Advisory Services business lines revised their M&E frameworks, including standard indicators, in FY10 and FY11. • Revised approach in FY10 to ensure teams were setting realistic project objectives. • Quality at Entry review was started across all projects from FY10 to ensure linkages with objectives and indicators. Recent years’ data shows improved use of standard indicators. A Working Group of Global Business Line Directors was established in 2012 to oversee a review of standard indicators. As part of this process, emphasis is being placed on aligning Advisory and Investment Services metrics wherever possible. This will take into account the results of the indicator harmonization exercise with other DFIs.