Quantifying achievements to improve effectiveness in private sector development

Clare Battle

doi:10.3362/1755-1986.2009.020

Quantifying achievements to improve effectiveness in private sector development

Every development agency finds growing pressure to report the results that it is achieving. There are of course many responses to this pressure, including more focus on logframes and baseline surveys, but in practice, these tools are not helping managers to quantify their achievements, particularly where programmes are aiming to have market-wide impacts. As a result, the achievements of many of the best private sector development initiatives go unrecognized. The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development has therefore been addressing the question of whether programmes can measure their own results, turning results measurement from a short-term ‘event’ into a longer-term process. Credibility is assured through external certification of the measurement process used by the programme (rather than asking a short-term consultant to duplicate that measurement). The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development has been working with a number of programmes to test the concept of such a self-measurement and certification approach; the collaboration has involved detailed consideration of the minimum elements of a credible results measurement system, leading to the formulation of a common ‘standard’ for results measurement.

DCED (2009a) Quantifying Achievements in Private Sector Development: Control Points and Compliance Criteria, www.enterprise-development.org/page/measuring-and-reporting-results www.enterprise-development.org/page/measuring-and-reporting-results

DCED (2009b) Quantifying Achievements in Private Sector Development: Implementation Guidelines, www.enterprise-development.org/page/measuring-andreporting-results www.enterprise-development.org/page/measuring-andreporting-results

EES (European Evaluation Society) (2007) ‘The importance of a methodologically diverse approach to impact evaluation - specifically with respect to development aid and development interventions’, www.europeanevaluation.org/download/?noGzip=1&id=1969403 www.europeanevaluation.org/download/?noGzip=1&id=1969403

Global Reporting Initiative (2006) Indicator Protocols Set Economic (EC) http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/D2BC0DF8-FF2C-4BAB-B2B4-27DA-868C2A5F/2801/G3_IP_EC_ENG_and_cov.pdf [accessed 3 June 2009]. http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/D2BC0DF8-FF2C-4BAB-B2B4-27DA-868C2A5F/2801/G3_IP_EC_ENG_and_cov.pdf

HAP. (2004) Accreditation: the HAP way forward, http://www.hapinternational.org/pool/files/hap-accreditation-policy-13-12-04(1).pdf [accessed 3 June 2009]. http://www.hapinternational.org/pool/files/hap-accreditation-policy-13-12-04(1).pdf

HAP. (2007) The HAP Standard and Certification: Assuring humanitarian accountability and quality - Executive Briefing http://www.drc.dk/fileadmin/uploads/pdf/English_site/Microsoft_Word_-_Briefing_-_the_HAP_Standard_and_Certification.pdf [accessed 3 June 2009]. http://www.drc.dk/fileadmin/uploads/pdf/English_site/Microsoft_Word_-_Briefing_-_the_HAP_Standard_and_Certification.pdf

Katalyst Bangladesh. (2008) Impact Management System Manual - A Guide to: Monitoring, Impact Assessment and Reporting, Katalyst.

Miehlbradt, A. and McVay, M. (2006) The 2006 Reader - Implementing Sustainable Private Sector Development: Striving for Tangible Results for the Poor, ITC ILO, Turin.

Tanburn, J. (2008) 2008 Reader on Measuring and Reporting Results, ITC ILO, Turin.