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

OVERVIEW
management structure but these differed
across the Regions. SMUs were merged in
some Regions aggravating the span of control
issue for sector managers (Table 1). SDN also
introduced an unrealistic range of sector
responsibilities for sector directors and
country sector leaders/coordinators. Since it
is impossible for any individual to provide
technical support over such a large range of
sectors, a drawback that applies equally to
sector directors, the quality oversight over
SDN sectors in each CMU and the policy
dialogue with clients tends to be undertaken
by a generalist rather than a technical
specialist. This is less true of other networks
where the leadership role is exercised by
technical staff over a smaller range of sectors
that they are able to represent and oversee
more effectively. Finally, as evidenced by
IEG’s safeguards evaluation, in SDN
incentives are geared toward heightened
attention to safeguard issues compared to
other aspects of environmental and social
sustainability.
In contrast, FPD—created at the same time as
SDN through the merger of the two smallest
networks—recognized the constraints on
knowledge flows and quality. FPD was
restructured at the end of FY11 into Global
Practices designed to address these issues.
While it is too soon to evaluate the effects of
the reorganization, or to assess its replicability
across networks, FPD’s efforts to recognize
and confront these issues are to be
commended.
Recommendations
The many positive aspects of the 1997
reorganization in improving client
responsiveness and country-level outcomes
were not matched during more recent years by
similar achievements in balancing knowledge
and lending; country and sectors; and the
Regions and networks. The matrix system,
which was predicated on collaboration and
teamwork across Regions and sectors, left
intact or strengthened the incentives and
underlying organizational culture, maintaining
silos and competition among them.
Changes in the global environment—
diversification of client needs, a growing
acknowledgement of the importance of global
public goods and corporate priorities such as
governance and gender, demand for cuttingedge
knowledge for policy and program
advice to clients, among others—suggest that
a matrix system that marries a client focus to
technical excellence is even more relevant
today than when it was introduced.
Achieving the objectives of the matrix system
requires the removal of constraints to its
implementation and the establishment of clear
rules and incentives to improve development
effectiveness. The Bank-wide matrix, between
the network anchors and the Regions, has
become increasingly weak and needs
substantial strengthening, with some
rebalancing needed within the Regions also.
And the Regions need to be linked together
more systematically by strengthening the flows
of knowledge and expertise—such as among
middle-income countries and fragile and
conflict situations—to maintain the Bank’s
comparative advantage as a global institution.
The overarching IEG recommendation is
to make substantial changes to the matrix
system to realize its potential and reduce its
downside. This should be achieved by
restoring the creative tensions among the
Regions and networks while allowing
operational flexibility to support the
development challenges of its clients and
remaining responsive to external demands for
global leadership. To this end, the sector and
network architecture needs to be revisited and
revitalized, and the distribution of
responsibilities and accountabilities of sector
directors and managers need to be reconsidered
to ensure a balance between corporate sector
responsibilities and regional needs.
xxix