- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Performance indicators
Mon, 11/24/2008 - 15:09 — Cristina Sette
The following text is drawn from World Bank (2004).
What are they?
Performance indicators are measures of inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and
impacts for development projects, programs, or strategies. When supported with sound
data collection—perhaps involving formal surveys—analysis and reporting, indicators
enable managers to track progress, demonstrate results, and take corrective action to
improve service delivery. Participation of key stakeholders in defining indicators is
important because they are then more likely to understand and use indicators for
management decision-making.
What can we use them for?
- Setting performance targets and assessing progress toward achieving them.
- Identifying problems via an early warning system to allow corrective action to be taken.
- Indicating whether an in-depth evaluation or review is needed.
Advantages
- Effective means to measure progress toward objectives.
- Facilitates benchmarking comparisons between different organizational units,
districts, and over time.
Disavantages
- Poorly defined indicators are not good measures of success.
- Tendency to define too many indicators, or those without accessible data sources,
making system costly, impractical, and likely to be underutilized. - Often a trade-off between picking the optimal or desired indicators and having to
accept the indicators which can be measured using existing data.
Cost
Can range from low to high, depending on number of indicators collected, the frequency
and quality of information sought, and the comprehensiveness of the system.
Skills required
Several days of training are recommended to develop skills for defining practical
indicators. Data collection, analysis and reporting skills, and management information
system (MIS) skills are required to implement performance monitoring systems.
Time required
Several days to several months, depending on extent of participatory process used to
define indicators and program complexity. Implementing performance monitoring
systems may take 6–12 months.
Source: World Bank (2004). Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods & Approaches. Washington DC, The World Bank. http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/b57456d58aba40e585256ad400736404/a5efbb5d776b67d285256b1e0079c9a3/$FILE/MandE_tools_methods_approaches.pdf
For more information:
- World Bank (2000). Key Performance Indicator Handbook. Washington, D.C.
- Hatry, H. (1999). Performance Measurement: Getting Results. The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page