The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 4 DELIVERING QUALITY SERVICES 4.6 For project outcomes by year of approval, the most significant improvement in the share of Bank-financed operations with moderately satisfactory or better outcomes occurred before the introduction of the matrix. The share of operations with outcomes rated moderately satisfactory or better was 74 percent for those approved in FY91-96, and 76 percent for those approved in FY1997-2005; the difference is not statistically significant. The slight gain for projects approved during the early years of the matrix (FY1998-2001) was lost by projects approved after FY01. A downward trend commenced after that peak (Figure 4.1b). Using a three-year moving average, the share of operations approved in FY01-03 rated moderately satisfactory or better was 79 percent, compared to 70 percent among operations approved during FY04-05, a drop that is statistically significant with 95 percent confidence. This trend needs to be monitored carefully. Figure 4.1. Outcomes of Bank-Financed Operations at Exit by Fiscal Year 4.1a. By Fiscal Year of Exit share moderately satisfactory or better 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Launch of matrix system 3 year average 199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 4.1b. By Fiscal Year of Approval Percent moderately satisfactory or better 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Launch of matrix system 3‐year average Source: IEG ICR review evaluations (available in Business Warehouse) 63
CHAPTER 4 DELIVERING QUALITY SERVICES 4.7 In addition to assessing the outcomes of operations after they have closed, IEG assesses Bank performance in ensuring quality at entry and the quality of supervision. Supervision is more crucial for investment lending projects, which are typically active for six to seven years, than for development policy operations which are typically closed within a few months of approval. For this reason, the analysis is restricted to investment lending projects. 4.8 The quality of supervision and quality at entry have shown a declining trend since the introduction of the matrix. The quality of supervision peaked at 86 percent moderately satisfactory or better during FY97-99, falling to 78 percent during FY04-06, as shown in Figure 4.2, a difference that is statistically significant at 95 percent confidence. Bank performance in ensuring quality at entry peaked at 74 percent during FY96-98, falling to 67 percent during FY04-06, but this decline is not statistically significant. Figure 4.2. Investment Lending Quality and Outcomes by Fiscal Year of Approval Share of moderately satisfactory or better (3‐yr centered avg) 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Quality of supervision Quality at entry Introduction of matrix system Outcomes Source: IEG evaluations (available in Business Warehouse) 4.9 Three indicators offer additional clues to the quality of the portfolio, based on the information made available in real time to task teams and managers. Without candid information on the likelihood an operation will meet its objectives, Bank managers and government implementing agencies cannot allocate attention and resources to where they are needed. The net disconnect compares self-ratings to ultimate ratings in independent evaluations: it is the difference between the percentage of projects rated as moderately unsatisfactory or worse by IEG and the percentage rated as such by the Regions in the final Implementation Status and 64
Page 1 and 2:
The Matrix System at Work An Evalua
Page 3 and 4:
©2012 Independent Evaluation Group
Page 5 and 6:
Costs of Country and Sector Strateg
Page 7 and 8:
Table 3.6. Total Cross-Support Sold
Page 10:
Abbreviations AAA AFR ARDE ARPP BET
Page 14 and 15:
Glossary Term Anchor sector directo
Page 16 and 17:
GLOSSARY Practice managers (PM) Reg
Page 18 and 19:
Overview The Matrix System at Work
Page 20 and 21:
OVERVIEW rather than on the 1997 ma
Page 22 and 23:
OVERVIEW satisfactory or better in
Page 24 and 25:
OVERVIEW toward capacity building a
Page 26 and 27:
OVERVIEW Innovation in the field is
Page 28 and 29:
OVERVIEW Figure D. Outcomes of Bank
Page 30 and 31:
OVERVIEW modernization in the corpo
Page 32 and 33:
OVERVIEW management structure but t
Page 34 and 35:
OVERVIEW Structure Bank-wide matrix
Page 36 and 37:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE interest and ow
Page 38 and 39:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Management cons
Page 40:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE that reach far
Page 43 and 44:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54: CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Page 59 and 60: 2. The Strategic Alignment of Secto
Page 61 and 62: CHAPTER 2 THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT O
Page 79 and 80: CHAPTER 3 THE PROMISE OF A KNOWLEDG
Page 103: CHAPTER 4 DELIVERING QUALITY SERVIC
Page 107 and 108: CHAPTER 4 DELIVERING QUALITY SERVIC
Page 123 and 124: CHAPTER 5 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND
Page 145 and 146: 6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 147 and 148: CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND
Page 149 and 150: CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND
Page 152 and 153: Appendix A Matrix Management and Or
Page 154 and 155:
APPENDIX A MATRIX MANAGEMENT AND OR
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF CASCR REVIEWS
Page 164 and 165:
APPENDIX B EVALUATION METHODOLOGY a
Page 166 and 167:
APPENDIX C RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFEC
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
APPENDIX D EXPERIENCE IN THE TRENCH
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Appendix E Key Findings from Sector
Page 198 and 199:
APPENDIX E KEY FINDINGS FROM SECTOR
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Table E.1. Country Directors and Ma
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
# Other Questions Q # 7 APPENDIX E
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
APPENDIX F FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS:
Page 216 and 217:
APPENDIX F FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS:
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix G Comparison of the Six Re
Page 220 and 221:
APPENDIX G PROFILES OF THE BANK’S
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix H Working across Organizat
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX H WORKING ACROSS ORGANIZAT
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Appendix I Budgetary Incentives 65.
Page 240 and 241:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES Bud
Page 242 and 243:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES 72.
Page 244 and 245:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES com
Page 246 and 247:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES Fig
Page 248 and 249:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES mea
Page 250 and 251:
APPENDIX J WORKING ACROSS SECTORS A
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Appendix K World Bank Sector Strate
Page 258 and 259:
APPENDIX K WORLD BANK SECTOR STRATE
Page 260 and 261:
APPENDIX K WORLD BANK SECTOR STRATE
Page 262 and 263:
Appendix L International Finance Co
Page 264 and 265:
APPENDIX L IFC 2013 CHANGE INITIATI
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
APPENDIX M STAFFING DATA Note: Head
Page 272 and 273:
APPENDIX M STAFFING DATA Table M.7.
Page 274 and 275:
Appendix N Managers Interviewed Nam
Page 276 and 277:
References Barnett, Michael N. and
Page 278 and 279:
REFERENCES Sy, Thomas and Laura Sue
Page 280 and 281:
Endnotes 1 See Wapenhans 1992, 1994
Page 282 and 283:
ENDNOTES appropriately assessed by
Page 284 and 285:
ENDNOTES 46 The respondents to this
Page 286:
ENDNOTES 71 See Safeguards and Sust
show all

The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?