2. In plain language…
RBM helps us to connect what we do to what we want to achieve
RBM also tells us how we’ll know if we’ve achieved it
What is results based management?
A management strategy that aims at ensuring:
• that activities achieve desired results
(Performance monitoring is a critical element)
• How well results are being achieved
• What measures are needed to improve the process
3. Results
Goal
Impact
Outcome
Outputs
Activity
Indicator
RBM Terminology (UNDG Approved)
Changes in a state or condition which derive from a cause-and-effect
relationship. There are three types of such changes (intended or unintended,
positive and/or negative) which can be set in motion by a development intervention
– its output, outcome and impact.
The higher-order objective to which a development intervention is intended to
contribute
Positive and negative long-term effects on identifiable population groups produced
by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. These
effects can be economic, socio-cultural, institutional, environmental, technological
or of other types
The intended or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an
intervention’s outputs, usually requiring the collective effort of partners.
Outcomes represent changes in development conditions which occur between the
completion of outputs and the achievement of impact.
The products and services which result from the completion of activities
within a development intervention
Actions taken or work performed through which inputs, such as funds,
technical assistance and other types of resources are mobilised to produce specific
outputs
A tool to measure evidence of progress towards a result or that a result has
been achieved.
4. Advantages of RBM
• Improved focus on results instead of activities
• Improved transparency
• Improved accountability
• Improved measurement of programme
achievements (performance rather than
utilization)
• Enhanced strategic focus
5. Challenges
• Difficult to apply causal logic
• Difficult to learn
• Difficult to integrate
• Difficult to revise (... or reluctance to revise? )
• Difficult to measure
• Difficult to ‘attribute’
(at outcome level, the UN is partly accountable but not wholly
responsible) Go to typology
6. Linking analysis with results
Impact: (e.g., corruption reduced)
Outcome: (e.g., improvements in the performance of
government institutions as well as monitoring my
citizens)
Output: (e.g., tangible changes in any elements in the
capacity of government institutions and population
(information, attitudes/motivation, risks, resources)
7. Linking Analysis to results:
Translating the problem tree into results
Causality Analysis Results chain
(Problem tree) (UNDAF matrix)
Immediate causes Impact (long-term)
Underlying causes Outcomes (medium-term)
Root causes Outputs (short-term)
8. 1. To effectively analyze problems and their causes, using
evidence and lessons including key institutions/capacity gaps
4. To establish performance monitoring and evaluation systems
(including risk management)
5. To capture and monitor actual results vis-à-vis targets
6. To clearly identify issues/bottle necks, generating lessons
regarding what works/ what doesn’t work
2. To develop right indicators that measure capacity changes and
performance improvements
3. To determine baseline and setting targets
Linking analysis with results: Why results frameworks
are relevant for anti-corruption in UNDAF?
UNDAFs?
10. Result Chain – Quick Recap
Inputs
Activities
Outputs
Outcomes
Impact
Indicator
Resources available - money, staff, facilities, equipment, technical expertise
What is done with the inputs - holding seminars, producing manuals
Services or products produced as a result of activities – 100 staff trained
s Changes, effects due to the activities and outputs – higher skill levels
Long-term results – quality of government services, less corruption
Measure progress towards a result over time that indicates positive, negative,
no change with respect to progress towards a stated target
12. What is an indicator?
A tool to measure evidence of progress towards a result or
that a result has been achieved.
13. Types of Indicators
Quantitative statistical
measures:
• Number of
• Frequency of
• % of
• Ratio of
• Variance with
Qualitative judgments or
perceptions:
• Alignment with
• Presence of
• Quality of
• Extent of
• Level of
14. Considerations
Indicators do not exist in a vacuum – they should
always be related to results
Need a balance of quantitative and qualitative
Some results are more suitable for indicators than
others
It takes time to get indicators right
15. A Key Challenge:
Is it possible to meaningfully measure corruption, which has
no universal definition, but has different forms, typologies,
manifestations, determinants, causes and symptoms?
“What gets measured, gets managed.” - Peter Drucker. So,
the UN should demonstrate results, results and results.
16. 80 90888682 84 96 98 00 02 0492 94 06
International Country
Risk Guide
Corruption Perception
Index
Governance
Matters
7876
CPIA
(WB)
1974
Freedom in the
World
Afrobarometer
Bertelsmann
Transformation
Index
Bribe Payers Index
BEEPS
CIRI
Human Rights
Database
Commitment to
Development
East Asia
Barometer
GAPS in
Workers’ Rights
Gender
Empowerment
Measure
Eurobarometer
Global
Accountability Report
Global
Competitiveness
Index
Global Integrity
Index
Index of
Economic
Freedom
Journalists
killed
Media
Sustainability
Index
Opacity
Index
Open
Budget
Index
Polity
Press
Freedom
World
Governance
Assessment
Are there enough tools and methodologies?
YES
17. Are these existing corruption and anti-corruption indicators
helpful?
It depends -
Recall
considerations
18. Understanding the tools and indicators
Global Indices:
CPI; WB Governance
Indicators, Freedom House
Indicators
Regional indices: Latin
Barometer; Afrobarometer
Country level indices
21. 1. No indicator is perfect and thus standard; all have
advantages and disadvantages. However, global
perception or cross-country indicators are not useful for
tracking progress at the country level.
2. In terms of quality and usefulness of data, it is advisable
that the country-based and nationally-owned corruption
measurement/assessment indicators be used.
3. Similarly, experience-based indicators (victimization
surveys) are advisable over the perception indices.
However, victimization surveys data are expensive, too.
22. 1. The perception data (e.g., score cards) at the country level
has been often used as a proxy.
2. If the country level data/indicator are not available, regional
surveys such as Afrobarometer or Latin Barometer can also
be useful.
3. The selection of indicator mainly depends on anti-corruption
outcomes and outputs, availability of data and the cost
associated with gathering data.
23. DOs and DON’Ts of capturing adequate or
satisfactory results
Bad Good
No supporting indicators, programme
logic or data
Increase evaluability of anti-
corruption projects, prospective
evaluations
Weak, activity-oriented indicators Focus on a few good results oriented
(outcome and output) indicators, and
disaggregate data
Major cause-effect (attribution) leaps
from output to impact level
Stop reliance on macro-level global
indices (CPI) and develop country
level indicators
No evaluation/logical framework to
capture results
Mixed methods. Pragmatic approach
to statistical design (best fit) and
strong qualitative support
Worst: Claiming impact when there is
no result chain or framework
Adapt impact evaluation methods to
characteristics of anti-corruption
projects
24. Performance Indicator Selection Criteria
Validity - Does it measure the result?
Reliability - Is it a consistent measure over time and, if
supplied externally, will it continue to be available?
Sensitivity - When a change occurs will it be sensitive
to those changes?
Simplicity - Will it be easy to collect and analyze the
information?
Utility - Will the information be useful for decision-
making and learning?
Affordable – Do we have the resources to collect the
information?
25. Illustrative example of the results chain of an
Anti-corruption initiative (adapted from a country example)
Stakeholder dialogue regarding corruption issues, review of current audit
mechanism and gaps, assessment and development of the capacities of
supervisory body, budgetary and funding support; etc.
(money, staff, facilities, equipment, technical expertise)
Government
supervisory
functions and audit
processes are
established
Anti-corruption
institutions/ supervisory
bodies are enforcing the
law
Media has
channels to publish
corruption related
information
Information regarding
incidences of corruption
is accessible to the
public
Public government officials, citizens, etc. have reduced their
engagement in corruption practices
Reduced corruption
and increased public trust towards
public institutions
Citizens have
mechanism to
report on
corruption
incidences
Government agencies are
exchanging information
about corruption incidences
Corruption data
management
system is put in
place
Knowledge, Innovation and Capacity Group, BDP, UNDP (April, 2013)
Inputs
Activities
Outputs
Outcomes
Impact
27. • Currently many UNDAFs restrict the aspect of anti-
corruption to the objective of governance / human rights
/ democracy. Anti-Corruotion is hardly an output in case
of MDGs, environment, conflict prevention, disaster
reduction, etc.
• Although corruption is identified in some of the UNDAFs
documents, the RBM is very weak.
Anti-corruption in UNDAF’s
28. Anti-corruption in UNDAF’s
Option 1 A: UNDAF RESULT MATRIC WITH OUTCOME LEVEL ONLY (Mongolia)
Strategic priority - Governance and Human rights
Outcomes Indicators, Baseline, Target
Outcome 1: Representation, accountability and
transparency of governing institutions strengthened
Output 1.1. Enabling policy environment created for
effective decentralization and increased functional
capacity of local governments to deliver service.
Capacity of local governments to deliver services
Output 1.2.
Increased capacity to implement the UN Convention
Against Corruption
Compliance with UNCAC provisions on
corruption prevention
Output 1.3. Increased civil society participation in key
national processes and strengthened state-citizen
engagement for accountable and responsive governance
Feedback mechanism of state-CSOs-state Social
dialogue between government, workers and
employers
Bad or good?
29. What is the underlying vision behind the
reform/policy? What are the objectives pursued?
Which results do we expect to see?
What is the logic underpinning the reform/policy
design? (from inputs to outputs, outcomes and
impact)
What are the preconditions for success? Which
behavioural assumptions are being made? How
will political, cultural or economic factors affect
potential for change?
Key questions you need to consider when
formulating the results matrix
31. Reduction in
corruption
Corruption
cases are
investigated to
required
standard
Substantiated
cases are sent
to court and
prosecuted
Other law
enforcement
inst.
cooperate.
Witnesses
are willing
to come
forward
Sufficient
resources and
mandate
Donor
demands
for outputs
Legislative
obstacles
Result Chain with Risks and Assumption
32. Group Work 2 (15 minutes)
1. Put together a coherent, logically sequenced result
chain to introduce a Code of Conduct (CoC) in
ministries (yellow pieces)
2. Identify where indicators fit at the right level of results
in the chain.
Inputs Activities Outputs Outcome Impacts
Output
indicators
Outcome
indicators
Impact
indicators
33. Key messages
• Corruption and anti-corruption measurements and
assessments provide useful information for country
analysis, which is an integral part of UNDAF process.
• Corruption and anti-corruption measurements and
assessments also strengthen results by providing
indicators to measure, monitor, and report on change.
• However, it is also important to make sure that the
appropriate indicators are used to measure progress and
results.
Editor's Notes
The Afrobarometer is a research project that measurespublic attitudes on economic, political, and social matters in sub-Saharan Africa. It is carried out through a partnership of the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA),the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD), and the Department of Political Science at Michigan State University.Afrobarometer results are based on face-to-face and house-to-house interviews of individuals and are considered reliable and generalizable. As of October 19, 2006, Afrobarometer data and publications had been cited 216 times.
From UNDAF Guidelines, p15-16. See note on pros and cons of the different options.UNDAF Option 1B. Options: UNCTs have two options for the level of results in the UNDAF results matrix The UNCT, with the government, determines which option responds best to the country context. UNCTs have the flexibility to either keep the UNDAF results matrix at the outcome level (Option 1a), or develop a fuller results matrix, that includes outputs (Option 1b). Both options include indicators, baselines, targets, means of verification, risks and assumptions, role of partners and resources. The results chain and accountability system have to be agreed upon by all stakeholders. If a UNCT chooses Option 1b, and is not preparing an UNDAF Action Plan or a similar common operational plan, the results chain would then be: Outcomes & Outputs (UNDAF) ← Outputs & Key Actions (CPAPs/Project documents) ← Activities (Annual Work Plans). This option represents the conventional format of the UNDAF results matrix. Key Benefits:Transparency: Overview of the full extent of UN commitments in the country; Accountability: A detailed UNDAF results matrix provides the UNCT with a clear accountability framework since the division of labour between agencies only becomes apparent at that level: usually, only one agency is accountable for each output. Issues to consider:Transaction costs: Developing a realistic, coherent and logical results framework that includes both outcomes and outputs may be a difficult and time-consuming process. Yet, as experience has shown, this investment in the initial planning stage will greatly facilitate effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation throughout the programming cycle.Prioritization: Previous UNDAF generations had the tendency to contain far too many outputs and indicators in order to be useful as effective management tools. The UNCT needs to prioritize its results at every level (outcomes, outputs, activities) in line with its capacities and comparative advantage and without compromising the flow of the results chain.Regardless of the option chosen, agencies are accountable for their respective contributions towards the achievement of outcomes. Agencies are fully accountable for their respective outputs. Outputs can be shared by two or more agencies and their implementing partners only if they indicate an opportunity for joint programming. Outputs can be adjusted, where necessary, to take account of changes in the development environment, including changes in availability of resources. (See One Budgetary Framework)
In the area of anti-corruption, it is better to highlight risks and assumptions, because most of the time failure of many anti-corruption interventions is because of the enabling environment (such as political, economic, social, political and institutional factors), they influence the results.
