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

APPENDIX G
PROFILES OF THE BANK’S SIX REGIONS
sector director is best placed to judge its technical quality and likelihood of success
at the decision meeting stage.
19. During the supervision stage, all four Regions assign the sector manager
accountability. This includes approval of implementation supervision and results
reports and mid-term reviews (only two Regions list this in their matrices).
20. There are two striking patterns in Table G.4. First, sector directors formally hold
very little accountability. Aside from the rather vague activity of business
development, only East Asia and the Pacific assigns accountability to sector
directors for operational work. In that Region, sector directors chair the decision
meeting for lending and non-lending operations. Second, sector managers are
assigned enormous responsibility. In addition to their large span of control of staff,
countries, and operations, they oversee the staff who prepare lending and nonlending
operations. While they are not accountable for the results of concept review
and decision meetings, sector managers are generally considered responsible for the
technical quality of these operations. And as the table shows, they are primarily
accountable for each of the key responsibilities during supervision.
QUALITY REVIEW PROCESSES
21. The processes for quality review vary modestly among the Regions, but there is
one constant theme: there are multiple layers of review. Operations under
preparation are typically reviewed by at least three sources. First, the sector
manager, or her designee (for example a sector leader or country sector coordinator),
provides comments on the technical quality of an operation. In some departments,
there is also a quality review unit (for example in the SDN department in Europe
and Central Asia) or point person who reviews one or more aspects of the operation.
Second, most country departments review operations for quality, typically led by an
operations adviser to the country director or senior operations officer. Third, central
quality units, discussed below, provide support to task teams and provide
comments at the review meetings.
22. Review meetings also include comments from peer reviewers. Except in a few
departments, peer reviewers are identified by the project team rather than the sector
manager, causing concern that their views are not fully independent.
23. The Quality Assurance Group (QAG) was introduced concurrently with the
matrix reforms to provide arms-length independent review of the quality of
operations during preparation and supervision. Assessments were agreed upon by a
panel of reviewers, but were not ready in time for review meetings. Since QAG was
moved into Operations Policy and Country Services (OPCS) in FY10, there is no
review of the quality of operations independent of regional management.
183