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

Endnotes
1 See Wapenhans 1992, 1994; and Pincus and Winters 2002.
2 This request was reiterated at an informal meeting of the Board on March 16, 2010, where
Bank management presented its proposed matrix reform.
3 Board briefing on Change Management, January 1996.
4 The Wapenhans Report (1992) and first QAG reviews, which cover projects approved
before 1997, indicated that about one-third of Bank projects were not likely to have
satisfactory outcomes.
5 On the sector side, primary responsibility for management of the Sector Boards, which
govern the sector groups and sector staff, rests with sector managers and not with sector
directors.
6 The term “anchor” is also used loosely sometimes to refer to the network VPU, which
consists of the vice president’s front office and the sector anchors within that VPU.
7 “Assessment of the Strategic Compact.” Internal World Bank document. March 13, 2001.
8 The remaining staff are in other central units including Administrative and Client Support,
Communications, Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships, Controller’s unit,
Corporate Finance and Risk Management, Corporate Secretariat, External Affairs, General
Services, Health Services, Human Resources, Independent Evaluation Group, Information
Solutions Group, Information Management and Technology, Integrity Vice Presidency,
Internal Audit Vice Presidency, Legal and Treasury.
9 The International Development Research Centre recommends using four measures to
assess performance of development organizations: relevance, efficacy (or effectiveness),
efficiency, and sustainability/financial viability (Lusthaus and others 1999). The first three
dimensions are more pertinent to the assessment of the World Bank’s matrix system. To the
extent that it is relevant, the fourth dimension is endogenous to the first three. This
evaluation will therefore focus on the first three dimensions.
10 While related staffing implications of those three dimensions may be touched upon, the
evaluation will not attempt to assess the full spectrum of human resources management
issues.
11 See Thomas Sy and Laura Sue D’Annunzio. “Challenges and Strategies of Matrix
Organizations: Top-level and Mid-Level Managers’ Perspectives.” Human Resources
Planning, vol. 28, No. 1, March 2005: 39-48.
12 Previous assessments include the “Assessment of the Strategic Compact” (2001), the QAG
Assessment of Sector Boards (2004), Organizational Effectiveness Task Force findings
(November 2004), and Bank management’s recent diagnostic (December 2010).
13 Past IEG evaluations have identified significant organizational and institutional
constraints emanating from the matrix system that are likely to affect development
effectiveness. These include: (a) difficulties in linking corporate and sector strategies with
239