Results and Impact Management
System (RIMS)
Implementation Workshop
Bamako
8-11 March 2005
Focus on results and impact of
development interventions
General context
IFAD is committed towards achieving Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) and recognizes the need to better document the
impact of its operations on the MDGs
General consensus on the need to improve accountability of
donors’ funds, including IFAD’s
Managing for results and impact: articulation to the programmes
and country performance evaluation system (PR and PBAS)
Development and approval of a “Framework for
Results and Impact Management System for IFADSupported Country Programmes (RIMS) in
December 2003
What is RIMS ?
 A systematic methodology and set of common
indicators across programmes and regions to
measure and inform on the performance and
impact of projects
 It is based on a comprehensive system of
concepts , definitions and indicators for results and
impact
 It provides flexibility in the monitoring of results
and simplicity in the evaluation of impact
 It allows to share information among various
stakeholders
RIMS in the context of a
Project/Programme
Management
Information System
MIS
M&E
Monitoring &
Evaluation
RIMS
IMPACT
Results & Impact
Management System
Impact
Measurement
N.B. the performance of RIMS will depend largely on that of the Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems
Logical progression from results to impact
1st LEVEL
RESULTS
2ND LEVEL
RESULTS
[OUTPUTS]
[OUTCOMES]
IMPACT
Looking at RIMS indicators in light of Logical
Framework matrix…
Narrative
Summary
Objectively Verifiable
Indicators*
Goal (impact)
(incl. RIMS 3rd level
results indicators)
Purpose
(Outcomes)
(incl. RIMS 2nd level
results indicators)
Outputs
(incl. RIMS 1st level
results indicators)
Means of
Verifications
Assumptions
Activities
*OVIs are likely to include other indicators that are not specified under RIMS
Reporting in the context of RIMS:
What does it mean for project stakeholders?
RIMS implies a significant shift in focus from level 1
(physical and financial progress) to level 2 (changes in
behaviour) and level 3 (impact) …..
Practically what it involves :
 The selection of common RIMS indicators is done jointly IFAD and project- those (from the RIMS list of about 50, by
type of project and component) that are relevant to a particular
project (in LF)
 Data/information on selected indicators to be conveyed to
IFAD, by project, annually – to be aggregated and reported to
April Executive Board each year
 The selection and reporting on a set of indicators including four
mandatory indicators for all projects:




# of households with improvement in HH assets
Prevalence of child malnutrition
# of Hs that have improved food security
# of persons receiving project services
Reporting in the context of RIMS:
What does it mean for project stakeholders?
 On results indicators, information required: annual
(AWPB targets and achievements); cumulative
(project targets and achievements with reference
to Appraisal)
 Information on impact indicators to be captured
through surveys three times during the project life:
at start-up, mid-term and completion (methodology
piloted in the framework of PRODAM II - Senegal
in December 2004)
Which projects are concerned by RIMS?
 All projects approved since January 2004 have to
fully incorporate RIMS (RIMS indicators are part of
the LF and the 3 impact surveys are programmed)
 Projects with the MTR taking place after January
2004 have to select RIMS indicators, including
those of impact, and programme the impact surveys
(midterm and completion)
 Project which have already carried out the baseline
survey will incorporate RIMS impact indicators at
MTR
 Project which were past midterm as of January
2004 will do there best to report on results and
impact based on their LF indicators….
Where do we stand today in PA ?
18 out of the 20 concerned projects have agreed on list of
Twentyindicators
projectsand
have
reported
onin1st
level indicators
reported
on 1stthis
levelyear
results
2004
Country
Project Acronym
Benin
PDRT and PADPPA
Burkina Faso
PAMER
Cameroon
PPMF and PADC
Cape Verde
PLPR
Ghana
REP and RFSP
Chad
PSANG
Guinea
PPDR-HG
Mauritania
PASK and PADCM
Niger
PDSFR
Nigeria
RTEP and CBARDP
Mali
FODESA
Sao Tome & Principe
PAPAFPA
Senegal
PADV, POGV II and PRODAM II
Preliminary lessons learned
CPMs and project management teams of the targeted 20 first projects (out of
some 50) were able to agree on a set of RIMS indicators (on average 14 out
of the list of 50) to report in 2004
Projects did not appear to have particular difficulties with reporting on 1stlevel results because enough RIMS indicators were among the indicators
they already monitored
To a large extent, annual programme of work and budget targets were
identified and, where possible, cumulative appraisal targets were estimated
However:
Appraisal targets MAY NOT be the best measure of project performance
This year sample confirmed that AWPB targets tend to be overestimated in
the early stages of implementation
Aggregation might not be so easy as there always remains rooms for
interpretation of the indicators and possible double counting (e.g groups,
training)
The way forward: work in progress…
Mainstreaming of RIMS as an integral part of project M&E systems for
all new projects
Finalization of methodology for impact assessment surveys, including
the completion of pilot impact surveys (standard survey questionnaire
and software – June 2005) and of 2nd level indicators. Reporting on
these starting in 2006
Clarify the role of CIs in the process (RIMS is an instrument for
supervision or an object of supervision?)
Continued exchange of information with, and feedback from, projects
and development of adapted training material
Stock taking exercise in 2006, including
reviewing the list of indicators to better
represent today’s projects/programmes, weed
out inconsistencies, eliminate duplication, etc.
and refine reporting methodology that better
links project results to outcomes, objectives and
goals
The way forward: next steps in PA…
The success of IFAD RIMS depends entirely upon the
appropriateness and strength of project M&E, able to
provide support for a results and impact oriented
project management.
There is still plenty of room for improvement there and
that is where PA wants to concentrate in the near
future….
Regional TAG in preparation for 2005 to strengthen
management for results and ME as management tool with
project teams
Specific country initiatives (e.g. Senegal)