The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...
The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...
The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
CHAPTER 4<br />
DELIVERING QUALITY SERVICES<br />
reviewers are heavily tilted toward fiduciary and safeguards issues, which are<br />
managed by their own unit. It is telling th<strong>at</strong> staff and managers complain about the<br />
excessive focus on fiduciary and safeguard m<strong>at</strong>ters and rel<strong>at</strong>ive in<strong>at</strong>tention to other<br />
aspects of quality in regional review processes.<br />
QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS NEED TO BE STRENGTHENED<br />
4.35 In line with the recently observed decline in development outcomes, most<br />
managers believe the quality of the portfolio has not improved since the<br />
introduction of the m<strong>at</strong>rix system. Half of the sector managers and country<br />
directors/managers interviewed for this evalu<strong>at</strong>ion said th<strong>at</strong> quality of lending and<br />
AAA is not significantly better than during the pre-m<strong>at</strong>rix period, possibly reflecting<br />
recent pressures on quality. Among the remaining managers interviewed, more<br />
think quality has worsened, particularly for AAA, r<strong>at</strong>her than improved. This may<br />
be a reflection of the growing volume of NLTA, which has had weaker quality<br />
review procedures than ESW. <strong>The</strong> majority of staff whose Bank careers began prior<br />
to the m<strong>at</strong>rix system also do not report a noticeable improvement in the quality of<br />
supervision and AAA, while 39 percent feel it has worsened. While these perceived<br />
changes may not be due to the m<strong>at</strong>rix reforms, <strong>at</strong> the very least it indic<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong><br />
quality assurance systems are under strain and have not prevented quality<br />
deterior<strong>at</strong>ion, particularly in recent years.<br />
4.36 Available tools for quality enhancement are not being used effectively by<br />
sector units. <strong>The</strong> two main tools available to sector units are independent peer<br />
reviews and QERs. Sector managers value QERs much more than peer reviews for<br />
improving quality. Peer reviews in regional oper<strong>at</strong>ions are not well managed. For<br />
the most part, task team leaders select their own peer reviewers, sometimes even<br />
from their own unit. In contrast, peer reviewers in DEC and IEG are selected by<br />
managers to ensure high quality and global expertise. In regional oper<strong>at</strong>ions, due to<br />
delivery deadlines, peer reviewers are aware th<strong>at</strong> substantive criticisms <strong>at</strong> the<br />
decision meeting or <strong>at</strong> meetings of the Oper<strong>at</strong>ions Committee—where oper<strong>at</strong>ions<br />
receive internal approval to move forward with appraisal and to request Board<br />
approval—are neither welcomed nor likely to be addressed. QERs have the potential<br />
to be more effective because they are considered a nonthre<strong>at</strong>ening venue to obtain<br />
high-quality technical advice. But they are now considered optional, they are often<br />
undertaken too l<strong>at</strong>e, and their use is uneven across Regions and sectors. More<br />
system<strong>at</strong>ic and timely use of QERs would significantly enhance quality of lending<br />
oper<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />
4.37 <strong>The</strong> potential of the m<strong>at</strong>rix is not being fully exploited to enhance<br />
oper<strong>at</strong>ional quality. In most Regions, the concept review meetings—where teams are<br />
authorized to prepare an oper<strong>at</strong>ion—and decision meetings for investment projects<br />
73