About Managing for Development Results
Managing for development results (MfDR) is a management strategy that focuses on using performance information to improve decisionmaking. MfDR involves using practical tools for strategic planning, risk management, progress monitoring, and outcome evaluation.
Today’s results agenda has its roots in the Millennium Development Goals. When the international community agreed to focus on addressing seven specific aspects of poverty, the inevitable question arose: How will we know we have succeeded?
|Milestones | Principles | Areas of Action |
At the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico (2002), the international community agreed that it would be important to provide more financing for development – but more money alone was not enough. Donors and partner countries alike wanted to know that aid would be used as effectively as possible, and they wanted to be able to see that it was, in fact, making a difference. This threw into sharp relief the need to measure results throughout the development process, as well as the need to demonstrate that results were achieved. (See the statement issued at Monterrey by the Presidents of the multilateral development banks.)
Soon afterward, the World Bank convened an International Roundtable on Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing for Results (2002), at which development practitioners grappled with concepts, approaches, and
practical issues related to getting development results.
At the Second
International Roundtable on Managing for Development Results, in Marrakech,
Morocco (2004), more than 60 representatives of partner countries met with representatives
of bilateral and multilateral development agencies to discuss the challenges
of managing for development results (MfDR). Participants endorsed a set of
core principles on how best to support partner countries’ efforts to manage
for results, and agreed on a costed and time-bound action plan for improving
national and international statistics – without which baselines cannot be
established and progress cannot be measured.
At the Paris
High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2005), 60
partner countries and 60 donor agencies endorsed the Paris Declaration, committing
to specific action to further country ownership, harmonization, alignment,
managing for development results, and mutual accountability for the use of
aid. Please visit Aid Harmonization for more information.
In 2007, the Third
Roundtable on Managing for Development Results in Hanoi, Vietnam, focused on country-to-country learning. Representatives from 45 countries, 32 development agencies, and 30 civil society and private sector partners shared experiences and charted a course for continuing efforts.
At the Second Roundtable on Managing for Development Results, the international community agreed on five principles of MfDR:
- Focusing the dialogue on results at all phases of the development process
- Aligning programming, monitoring, and evaluation with results
- Keeping measurement and reporting simple
- Managing for, not by, results
- Using results information for learning and decisionmaking
The MfDR Core Principles form the foundation of managing for results. They are applicable at all levels and within a variety of interventions (national, sector, program, project and organization). They influence the use of specific strategies and tools at various phases of national and development programming.
There is significant synergy between the core principles and they should
ALL be considered at every phase of a development initiative, as the basis
for
deciding which specific performance management tools to apply. They do NOT
constitute a step-by-step, sequential recipe for MfDR. For more information
on how the Core Principles work in practice please see the 1st Edition of the
Sourcebook on Emerging Good Practice in Managing for Development Results.
Principle 1. Focus the dialogue on results at all phases of the development process.
In managing for results, it is important to have a coherent approach:
- ex ante, at the strategy and planning phase, when expected results are articulated and their likely costs and expected impact on poverty reduction and development are analyzed;
- during program/project implementation, when monitoring is needed to assess progress and identify necessary midcourse corrections;
- ex post, upon completion, when the results are assessed against objectives and other factors, and
- also when sufficient time has passed to be able to assess sustainability
Principle 2. Align actual programming, monitoring, and evaluation activities with the agreed expected results.
When partner countries, development agencies and other stakeholders focus on expected results and use associated results indicators, they can better align actual programming (including financial support), monitoring, and evaluation activities with the agreed results objectives. Partner country priorities and constraints must remain the starting point for development agencies’ support strategies, and the development agencies’ planned operations, analytic support, and technical assistance must be consistent with the partner country’s development strategy.
Principle 3. Keep the results reporting system as simple, cost-effective, and user-friendly as possible.
The indicator framework for managing for results should, to the extent possible,
- be simple;
- rely on country systems, supporting capacity building to the maximum extent
- be geared to learning as well as accountability functions;
- be harmonized to minimize system transactions costs and facilitate comparative analysis
The partner country and development agencies should consult on a short list of key indicators, preferably from a standardized list, for monitoring progress and assessing the achievement of results. It is important to take into consideration the chain of expected results. Managing for results aims at improved efficiency, it is therefore essential to be selective (and not to try to measure everything) and realistic (in terms of feasibility and cost) in choosing indicators. The results reporting system should remain pragmatic; start with whatever baseline data is available, including proxies; use meaningful qualitative indicators to complement quantitative indicators, or to compensate if quantitative indicators are not available; and include support for cost-efficient measures to improve data availability and country or project monitoring systems. The end goal should be a sound results-based management system that includes specific, quantifiable indicators connected to a timeline with baseline data and periodic assessments of project and program performance against defined targets.
Principle 4. Manage for, not by, results.
Managing for results involves a change in mindset from starting with the planned inputs and actions and then analyzing their likely outcomes and impacts, to focusing on the desired outcomes and impacts (for example on poverty reduction) and then identifying what inputs and actions are needed to get there. It also involves establishing baselines and identifying upfront performance targets and indicators for assessing progress during implementation and on program completion. Missing key targets should be a signal for partners to analyze together whether/why things have gone off track and how they could be brought back on track, if necessary. It should not be a trigger for the rigid application of penalty rules.
Principle 5. Use results information for management learning and decision making, as well as for reporting and accountability.
Information on results should be publicly available. While one of the goals of
managing for results is to use results monitoring information for reporting
and accountability (for both partner countries and development agencies), this
may potentially prompt behaviors that are overly risk-averse. Two approaches
can mitigate this possibility: (a) using reports on results in a positive way
for management learning and decision making, taking into account lessons for
better future action; and (b) when using reports for accountability purposes,
setting performance measures that reflect the level of responsibility of the
actor (whether a country, development agency, ministry, institution, NGO, and
other stakeholders) and results that the actor can reasonably achieve; this
approach recognizes that even with good performance in managing for results,
external factors may hinder the achievement of expected outcomes.
In the global community, action on MfDR is taking place in three broad areas:
- Strengthening Country Capacity to Manage for Results. The quest for development results begins with developing countries, which must manage their development processes to achieve the outcomes they want. They need to define the results they want to attain and—working in partnership with development agencies, civil society, and other stakeholders—design policies and programs to achieve those results. Countries need information on which to base this work, and statistical capacity and monitoring and evaluation systems to generate the information. The role of development agencies is to support developing countries in strengthening their capacity to manage for development results.
- Improving the Relevance and Effectiveness of Aid. For most development agencies, managing for development results means going beyond their traditional focus on input delivery and output quality to focus on the achievement of outcomes—that is, a more explicit consideration of the contribution that an agency makes to country results. To this end, agencies are introducing results frameworks into their cooperation strategies and programs, shifting their internal incentives to focus on sustainable country results, and developing reporting systems on results.
- Fostering a Global Partnership. Some of the greatest challenges in managing for development results can be best addressed through a global partnership—for example, a global effort is needed to support countries in generating reliable and timely data to assess progress on the Millennium Development Goals and other country goals; to strengthen international reporting mechanisms; and reduce the burden on countries of multiple, agency-driven reporting requirements and monitoring and evaluation systems. Through partnership, the international community can make it easier for developing countries to manage for results.