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

OVERVIEW
for this evaluation comes from a wide range
of available documents and data sources,
including relevant Bank management
assessments of the matrix, portfolio data,
human resources data, and budget data. The
evaluation draws on findings of previous IEG
assessments, including Country Assistance
Evaluations (CAEs), Country Assistance
Strategy Completion Report (CASCR)
reviews, and sector and corporate evaluations
to identify matrix issues that had a bearing on
the evaluation questions.
The portfolio review covers the period 1991-
2010. The analysis of trends in the sector and
thematic composition of the portfolio are
based on data from 5,280 lending operations
and supplements approved in fiscal years (FY)
1995-2010, with a total commitment amount
of $422 billion. The analysis of cross support
and budget support covers FY02-10, since
comparable data prior to FY02 does not exist.
The commitment amount for projects during
this later period, when the fully developed
matrix system was in place, is $213 billion.
Data on country programs is based on the
analysis of all 96 CASCRs available as of
December 2010, spanning all Country
Assistance Strategies (CASs) for 80 countries
since introduction of the matrix system.
Given the absence of baseline data, the
evaluation undertook comparative analyses of
findings from the universe of CASCR reviews
to assess the responsiveness and effectiveness
of country programs; time series data on
budgets, staffing, and cross support, and
thematic composition of the portfolio;
incentives and constraints of regional matrix
systems; data from manager interviews, a staff
survey, and focus groups; and perceived
strengths and weaknesses of the matrix system
compared with those of the pre-1997 system.
Limitations of the Evaluation
Attribution of impacts to the matrix is
problematic because of changes in the
external environment and the overlapping
effects of other elements of the renewal
strategy—decentralization, business process
renewal for budget and human resources
management, restructuring of network Vice
Presidential Units (VPUs) in 2006, and the
quality assurance mechanisms outside the
sectors and networks—that have evolved in
parallel but have a bearing on the matrix
system. Isolating the effects of the matrix
system from these overlapping reforms is not
feasible. While focusing primarily on matrix
issues, the evaluation has acknowledged and
dealt with these collinear effects to the extent
that they have had an impact on the
effectiveness of the matrix system.
Strategic Alignment
Alignment of client priorities with sector
and corporate priorities is a relevant
objective for maximizing the Bank’s
development effectiveness. Central to the
question of alignment of sector and corporate
priorities with country programs is the relative
power of country directors and sector managers
and the differences in scope, time frame, and
audience between sector and country strategies.
By design, the country-based model is more
responsive to short-term client demands within
the three- to four-year time frame of a CAS
than to longer-term sector and corporate
priorities that take into account and should
benefit clients with the global perspective of
the Bank. In contrast, sector and corporate
strategies are generic because of their global
coverage and longer time frame, inhibiting
alignment with country programs.
Responsiveness and Effectiveness of Country Programs
The Bank’s record of delivering
responsive and effective country programs
is moderately satisfactory or better twothirds
of the time. On aggregate, CAS
outcomes since the introduction of the matrix
system (covering country programs from
FY1998-FY2008) have been moderately
xviii