Concept Note For an IEG Category 1 Learning Product on Lessons from Joint WBG Projects March 10, 2016 CONCEPT NOTE LESSONS FROM JOINT WBG PROJECTS IEG Category 1 Learning Product Introduction and Context 1. The World Bank Group (WBG) Strategy (WBG, October 2013) outlines how the World Bank Group will work in partnership to help countries end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity in a sustainable manner. Working as One WBG is central to the WBG Strategy. Intra- WBG collaboration occurs at many different levels: in strategy, in policy, and in operations. It touches on work at corporate, regional, sectoral levels, and in country programs and specific projects. In today’s WBG, informal consultation happens routinely among and between management and operational staff of the three Bank Group institutions. 2. The Strategy envisages increased collaboration across the institutions – World Bank (WB), International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The Strategy envisages an increase in the number of joint projects, and a review of the WBG portfolio of products and services to improve synergies and eliminate overlap. At the country level, the new Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) and Country Program Framework (CPF) have begun to mainstream joint diagnostic and business planning. Efforts to align policies and practices and promote changes to the operational cultures of each agency have been initiated. Additionally, the WBG Corporate Scorecard tracks metrics for institutional collaboration. 1 3. Joint WBG projects represent the highest form of internal collaboration whereby at least two of the three WBG institutions combine instruments and resources to deliver solutions to clients. Jointness is a means to an end and the rationale for joint WBG projects is based on three premises: (i) complementarity -- the instruments, resources and assets of the three institutions complement each other in the particular settings and contexts; (ii) commonality -- the WBG institutions can work on common development challenges, countries, or types of clients; and (iii) comparative advantage -- the institutions combine their resources based on their respective competencies or efficiency (transaction costs) vis-a-vis internal or external partners. Objectives of and Rationale for the Learning Note 4. This Learning Note will draw from existing IEG evaluations to synthesize lessons from the WBG experience with joint projects. The Note will seek to: i) identify core characteristics of joint projects as well as the push-pull factors at play; ii) recognize challenges in the design and implementation of these projects; and iii) identify key value-added aspects associated with joint projects. In so doing, this Note will seek to provide insight into the enablers and inhibitors of 1 joint WBG projects that may contribute to enhancing WBG development effectiveness through joint projects. 5. As such, the proposed analysis of this small subset of Bank Group projects 2 aims to contribute to deeper understanding of how the One WBG approach has worked at the basic operational level. It will complement the lessons on Bank Group collaboration at the country strategy level, which was the subject of a 2015 IEG learning note, “Past and Future – Bank-IFC Cooperation at the Country Strategy Level.” 3 What does ‘Joint WBG Projects’ mean? - Definition of Terms and Evaluation Scope 6. Before distilling lessons from IEG evaluations about what has, or has not worked in joint WBG projects, a common understanding of ‘joint Bank Group projects’ and Bank Group ‘collaboration’ is required. 7. How does the Bank Group define “Joint WBG Projects”? IFC defines a joint project with the WB as a project with “shared World Bank and IFC objectives and [with] co-financing by the World Bank through one or more of the following: (a) loan, equity, other financial product; (b) Advisory Services (AS) or technical assistance; (c) resources provided through grant or financial allocation; and (d) joint staffing or cross-support for AS projects.” 4 In this regard, joint IFC-WB projects differ from “IFC-WB Complementary Projects”, which IFC defines as an “IFC project having shared objectives with [an] interdependent or parallel World Bank project requiring active coordination. It does not include IFC-World Bank Joint Project.” 5 8. Delving more deeply for clarity about WBG jointness, the IDA-IFC Secretariat (in a 2009 document, ‘Models of Collaboration’) 6 classified joint Bank Group projects into three types. These are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1. Typology of Joint WBG Projects 1. Joint Financing of a 2. Sequenced Projects with a Single Project Shared Objective & Strategy 3. Distinct, Parallel Projects with a Shared Objective & Strategy • Uses combination of Bank, IFC • Shared objective or strategy leads to • Sub-type 1: Shared objective & strategy and/or MIGA products and separate projects using a range of leads to separate, parallel but coordinated instruments to co-finance a single WBG products/services. The projects projects. project. are sequenced one after the other. • Sub-type 2: Shared objective & strategy leads to distinct, parallel but interdependent projects, e.g., separate projects to support a reform program. Sources: IDA-IFC Secretariat. “Models of Collaboration – Working Across World Bank Group Boundaries.” September 2009; “World Bank Group Strategy 2013.” October 2013. Note: The 2013 Bank Group Strategy defined joint WBG projects as Type 1 and Type 2 only. 2 9. Type 1 category joint projects involve contemporaneous or, at least, adjacent co- financing of a single project with some mix of Bank, IFC and/or MIGA products and instruments. Examples include the Bujagali Private Power (in Uganda), the West Africa Gas Pipeline (traversing Nigeria, Ghana, Benin and Togo), the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline projects, the risk-sharing facility IDA/IFC Africa MSME Pilot Program, and the Kenya Private Sector Power Generation Support Project. 7 10. Type 2 joint projects comprise a set of separate but sequential projects having common shared objectives, or strategy, and using a range of WBG instruments or products. Examples include the Haiti Telecommunications Regulations project (a WB-supported sector reform program). A PPIAF grant followed afterwards to implement the new regulatory and legal framework. The Haitian government later chose IFC Advisory Services independently as advisor on TELCO’s privatization and on the overall liberalization of Haiti’s telecom sector. Another example: the development and reform of the St. Lucia water sector, which provided the government with a spread of Bank and IFC products or services over nine years. 11. Type 3 joint projects do not receive combined financing from different Bank Group agencies in a single transaction or operation. Nonetheless, Bank, IFC and/or MIGA teams collaborate by agreeing on a shared objective or strategy. This facilitates distinct but interdependent and even coordinated projects – all characteristic of the programmatic approach by Bank Group operations. One oft-cited Type 3 example occurred with the Bank Group’s support for Yemen where Bank and IFC teams worked collaboratively to improve the country’s investment climate. The Bank jumpstarted its programmatic support with an Investment Climate Assessment (ICA), which in time, led to a framework for eliminating some private sector development constraints. Foremost, the ICA entailed a comprehensive review of Yemen’s corporate tax policy and incentives. 8 The WB co-financed (with UK’s DFID) a FIAS tax incentive study (and conducted joint mission), which built consensus around a fact-based picture of effective taxation. Contemporaneously, the IFC AS team mobilized DFID support and expertise for a multi-year technical assistance supporting policy and administrative reform. The WB Institutional Reform Development Policy Grant (IR DPG), which supported modernization of Yemen’s income tax law followed. The parallel support led to a strong, high-level WB- Government of Yemen dialogue that supported enactment of income tax law and executive regulations. The ensuing dialogue brought in IFC AS support for Business Start-Up Simplification and Yemen Investment Climate (Tax) projects in 2007. IFC AS extended additional assistance to various investment climate projects approved in 2008, 2009, and 2010. 9 In this instance, the Bank’s macro level support to investment climate reform was complemented by the IFC’s narrow, short-term and practical interventions. The Bank’s ‘Port Cities Development Project’, approved in 2003, and its follow-on ‘Second Port Cities Development Project’ (2010) rounded out the WBG’s programmatic approach and intra-WBG collaboration. 10 12. Strict application of the above typology can be challenging. The three project types can, and do, overlap. Boundaries become blurred. There are examples of Type 1 joint projects that were approved as separate, distinct, parallel (Type 3) projects but effectively implemented as a 3 single project because of the unified set of activities for implementation that aim to accomplish similar development objectives (cf. Gittenger’s definition of a ‘project’ in Endnote 1). 13. Different perspectives on time horizon also influence the joint project category type. The Umeme Limited (Uganda) was approved by the Bank and MIGA Boards in 2005, as a Type 1 joint project supported by an IDA PRG and loan and by a MIGA PRI. Yet the same project may also be categorized as a sequential joint project (i.e., Type 2) after the IFC extended separate loans to the company in 2009 and 2013. More formal, categorical clarity emerged in the 2013 WBG Strategy paper, which consolidated “joint WBG projects” into two types: co-financed (Type 1) and sequential (Type 2) projects. 11 14. This Learning Note will concentrate its review on co-financed or Type 1 projects with formal Board approval and supported by at least two of the three WBG institutions. For joint projects supported by IFC Advisory Services, the formal Concept Note approval provides the basis for determining ‘jointness’. The definition of Type 1 projects is aligned with the IFC definition of jointness as presented above. Type 1 projects are approved as “joint” by the Board signifying clarity of planned intent. Thus, Type 1 projects are unambiguously “joint” and, as such, this sub-set provides a robust base for analysis. Review of sequential as well as parallel projects, often described as ‘upstream-downstream collaboration’ in IEG evaluations, will be proposed in IEG’s work program for the next fiscal year (FY17). 12 Finally, the focus on Type 1 projects is motivated by the explicit intent of the 2013 WBG Strategy on increasing the number of joint projects. Joint WBG Projects: A Portfolio Snapshot 15. Within the Bank Group portfolio, co-financed projects form a rare category. Despite intent in the 2013 WBG Strategy paper to increase co-financed Bank Group projects – especially in infrastructure 13 – the number and loan volume of Type 1 joint Bank Group projects still accounts for a small share of the Group’s combined portfolio. The Strategy paper noted that of the 400 IFC investment projects approved annually, an estimated 20 are joint projects with the WB, representing about 5 percent of IFC annual commitments but only one percent of Bank lending. Joint projects, broadly defined, between IFC AS and the Bank is slightly higher. About 15 to 20 percent of IFC advisory services projects involve some coordination/collaboration with the World Bank. The team expects that the number and volume of joint WBG projects will be smaller again after we limit the projects under review to those defined as Type 1 joint projects only (see definition above). 16. IEG’s initial portfolio review indicates that approved, co-financed, joint projects (across the three institutions) in the past 20 years (FY95 to FY15) – but evaluated during FY00 to FY15 -- represent a small number of total WBG projects approved or committed. Table 1 presents the number of Type 1 joint WBG projects approved and evaluated in the past 20 years. IEG will share the list of projects with counterparts in OPCS, IFC, and MIGA for verification during the report preparation. 4 Table 1. Number of Type 1 Co-Financed Projects by the Bank Group Approved FY1995-FY2015 (Evaluated in FY00-FY15) Bank Group Institutions & Products Type 1 Joint Projects Type 1 Projects Evaluated Approved/Issued by IEG (Population) All Three Bank Group Institutions 9 2 (Lending/Investments/Guarantees) WB Lending and IFC Investments 19 2 MIGA Guarantees and WB Lending 6 2 IFC Investments and MIGA Guarantees 38 18 IFC Advisory Services and WB AAA 10 2 IFC Advisory Service and WB Lending 18 10 WB AAA and IFC Investments 2 0 WB Lending, IFC Investments and IFC 1 1 Advisory Services Total 103 37 Note: Table 1 presents the mutually exclusive project count of Type 1 joint Bank Group projects approved in the past 20 years, evaluated during the period FY00 to FY15. The numbers are net of overlapping project ID number entries by each WBG institution for the same ‘project’. The 103 Type 1 joint Bank Group projects corresponded to 233 project ID numbers from the WB, IFC and MIGA project portfolio data sets. Sources: IEG Portfolio Review of WB, IFC IS, IFC AS, and MIGA Guarantee Projects and Evaluation Ratings Databases. 17. As of end FY2015, thirty seven Type 1 co-financed Bank Group projects had been evaluated by IEG, representing 36 percent of all Type 1 WBG projects approved or committed during the past 20 years. Theory of Change and Evaluation Framework Evaluation Theory of Change 18. Underpinning the review of evaluated joint Bank Group projects is a theory of change derived from the 2013 WBG Strategy on the rationale for a One World Bank Group approach. The theory adopted the following assumptions: (1) the WBG has a comprehensive package of complementary tangible and non-tangible assets that allows it to provide bespoke solutions to public and private sector clients’ complex development problems; (2) the Bank Group can maximize the comparative advantages of each of the three institutions and achieve synergies by working as a collective entity to meet complex development challenges (i.e., the whole WBG is greater than the sum of its constituent parts when it comes to meeting today’s complex global context); and (3) joint projects can achieve objectives and outcomes otherwise not possible if pursued separately by the respective institutions of the Bank Group. Figure 2 illustrates the simplified theory of change for joint Bank Group projects derived from the 2013 WBG Strategy. 5 Figure 2. Joint WBG Projects Theory of Change Theory of Change Underpinning Joint WBG Projects Achieve Twin Goals Sustainably: End extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity Higher level impact (longer-term effects) Achieve shared project objectives & solutions to complex development outcomes not Clients’ development needs are addressed Client demand for customized possible if done Complex Global Context individually WBG functions challenges WBG’s Comparative WBG maximizes effectively & Joint WBG synergies efficiently as a Advantage collective Projects Inputs Inputs • Financing and Resources • Joint Country Engagement • Range of Products, Instruments & • Governance and Management Services • Policies, Processes, and Practices • Country, Regional, Sector • Incentives Expertise • Attitudes • Global Knowledge & Experience • Revamped corporate structure • Convening Power Source: October 2013 World Bank Strategy. Organizing Framework for Analyzing ‘Jointness’ 19. In characterizing push-pull factors and what works, and what does not work in joint Bank Group projects, this Note will apply the factors of successful collaboration identified by Mattessich et. al. in their extensive review of research literature on collaboration. 14 The success factors are grouped into six categories: enabling environment or context; team members’ characteristics; process and structure; communication; purpose; and resources. Annex 2 presents detailed description, indicators, and the IEG data sources for each category. The Note proposes to use the six categories to structure the review of evaluative materials and relevant project documents, communications, meeting minutes to answer the core evaluation questions. IEG will also consult with project teams to fill information gaps identified after the desk review, particularly on topics such as staff incentives, push factors for jointness, challenges in putting together a WBG team, cost and gains from involvement in a joint project. 6 Evaluative Questions 20. Preparation of this Learning Note will be guided by the following overarching questions: • What lessons are emerging from IEG evaluations of joint WBG projects that can help inform WBG management and staff in designing and implementing joint projects in the future? • What good practices are identified through evaluation that can be replicated in future joint projects? • What does the evaluation of joint projects tell us about the implications of working as One World Bank Group going forward? 21. To answer these overarching questions, the team will be guided further by the following sub-questions on: 1. Development Effectiveness of Joint Bank Group Projects. Have joint, co-financed projects achieved their intended objectives and outcomes? What are the factors affecting their results and outcomes? a. Context of Joint Projects: What are the specific contexts or conditions in which there are more jointly financed projects? Have certain contexts or sectors attracted more jointly financed projects? Which combination of the three Bank Group agencies and instruments most often appears in Type 1 projects? Are there differences in the conditions/contexts of joint projects that involve all three Bank Group institutions compared to a combination of two institutions (either IDA/IBRD-IFC, IFC-MIGA, IDA/IBRD-MIGA)? b. Complementarities and Synergies: Which specific combination of WBG instruments and approaches have better development outcomes? What IFC products and services / MIGA product best complement IDA/IBRD’s own instruments? c. Mechanisms and Institutional Arrangements: What mechanisms and institutional arrangements, both formal and informal, contribute to efficient and effective joint WBG projects? How do the differing business models, operating norms, incentives and M&E systems within the WBG help or hinder effectiveness of joint WBG projects? 2. Efficiency. How do Bank Group institutions share resources and responsibilities in co- financed projects? What internal WBG factors enable or hinder co-financing of projects? 3. Value-Added to Clients. Have co-financed projects provided discernible benefits to clients, both public and private sector? Based on project documents and evaluations, why did clients express a preference for engaging in Type 1 joint projects? What are the challenges to clients in co-financed Bank Group projects? Methodology 22. As a Category I Learning Product, this Note will rely on desk reviews of jointly financed Bank Group projects approved/committed and evaluated during the FY95-FY15 period. Content 7 analysis of ICRRs, PPARs, and Evaluation Notes for XPSRs, PESs, PCRs, and PERs will be used to answer the evaluation questions. While project ratings are useful indicators of project success and Bank Group performance, the desk review intends to focus on the context, drivers, synergies and complementarities of WBG instruments, mechanisms and institutional arrangements, project team characteristics, work quality, and client feedback (if available) on joint co-financed Bank Group projects. 23. This Note will highlight corporate level implications of joint Bank Group projects based primarily on IEG project evaluations – as such, a review of related project documents is necessary to understand the context and rationale for undertaking joint Bank Group projects. Extending the portfolio review to projects approved and evaluated in the past 20 years allows the team to compare characteristics and trends of co-financed projects before and after the formal mandate to work as One WBG outlined in the 2013 WBG Strategy. 24. Finally, findings from the desk review of project evaluations will be complemented with the findings and recommendations on WBG collaboration from IEG country, region, sector and thematic, and corporate evaluations. The review will cover IEG higher level and synthesis evaluations completed during the FY01-16 period that assessed (whether in a chapter, a section, or paragraph) WBG cooperation, coordination or collaboration. Annex 1 lists the IEG sector, thematic, corporate and synthesis evaluations reviewed to date. 25. Limitations. In preparing this Learning Note, the generalization of findings and attribution will be limited by the small number of evaluated co-financed Bank Group projects. Evaluated Type 1 joint projects represent 35% of overall Type 1 joint Bank Group projects. Although the team can distill generalized findings from the desk review, granularity may be constrained. 26. The team also anticipates limited information regarding client feedback on the value- added and challenges of working in joint Bank Group projects. Often, systematic gathering of client feedback is not included in IEG project evaluations. Same is true but to a lesser extent, for WBG staff perspectives. Since this Note is a Category 1 Learning Product, it is also limited to the review of existing evaluative materials. Nevertheless, feedback from clients and WBG project teams gathered through structured interviews or surveys would help illuminate the value- added and the operational challenges of joint WBG projects. As an alternative, this Note will gather and analyze the rationale and expected additionality to clients of joint Bank Group projects from relevant project documents. IEG will also consult with incumbent project teams where there are information gaps or issues that need further probing. Finally, analyzing efficiency, especially quantifying the cost of designing, implementing and monitoring joint financed projects may be difficult because of the lack of common budget codes and problems with collecting project cost data across the Bank Group. 27. The lack of counterfactual analysis marks a gap in IEG’s assessment of intra-WBG project collaboration. 15 Many if not most sector, thematic and/or country evaluations by IEG have flagged, directly or indirectly, missed opportunities for exploiting a joint approach. Yet IEG 8 has not systematically analyzed the consequences of a failure to collaborate or even cooperate. For example, IEG’s 2010 Evaluation Brief on “Lessons from WBG Cooperation” noted that: “IEG needs to do its part. While it is easy to conclude that there is not enough cooperation, it is far more difficult to say by how much … Making such a determination would require data from systematic analyses of actual and missed cooperation opportunities, including the consideration of counterfactual scenarios. Such analyses have not been consistently developed in IEG evaluations to date.” 16 28. The same Evaluation Brief also recommended that “…A free-standing evaluation of cooperation would be needed if this issue is to be explored more deeply.” 17 However, remedying this gap and the absence of counterfactuals without generating and analyzing new data is outside the scope of a Category 1 Learning Product. This Learning Product is, as such, a first step that may, subject to identified priorities and IEG management decision, be built upon over time as part of IEG’s work program. Team Composition and Timeline 29. The Learning Note will be led by Aurora Medina Siy as Team Leader with support from Anthony Tyrrell, Francesco Bolognesi, and Feruza Abduazimova. Peer reviewers will be: Carmen Nonay, current Practice Manager-GPSURR and a former MIGA and IFC staff; Ramamohan Mahidhara, Chief Investment Officer, IFC; and Pankaj Gupta, Practice Manager, GEEFS, World Bank. The Learning Note will be delivered by the end of the fiscal year 2016. Outreach 30. An outreach to Bank Group management and staff is envisioned after delivery of the Learning Note to CODE. Infographic materials on good practices, on key themes from the Learning Note that could be of interest to WBG management and staff will be part of the outreach plan. The team plans to work with IEGKC in designing the outreach materials and event for this Learning Note. 9 Annex 1. Review of IEG Higher Level Evaluations with WBG Collaboration Chapters or Sections IEG Evaluation FY Scope or Unit of Analysis Past and Future – Bank-IFC Cooperation at the 2015 Country Strategy Level; covered IFC and WB Country Strategy Level (LP1) World Bank Group Support to Electricity 2015 Sector -Country, Program and Project Levels. Access, FY2000-FY2014 Chapter 4 – Enhancing Country Approaches and Covered all 3 Bank Group institutions; integrated Scaling Up Access – Collaboration Among World analysis of WBG; with WBG-wide Bank, IFC, and MIGA in the Electricity Sector recommendations (pages 79-83) World Bank Group Cooperation: Evidence and 2010 Country, projects/ program, sector levels Lessons from IEG Evaluations (IEG Evaluation Brief 11) Covered all 3 Bank Group institutions; integrated analysis of WBG. IFC Cooperation with World Bank in Middle 2007 Country level (IFC-WB cooperation in 15 Middle Income Countries, 1996-2006 (IEG-IFC Income Countries’ case studies) Evaluation Working Paper) Covered IFC and WB investments and TA IFC/World Bank Cooperation on Private Sector projects. Development (IEG-IFC Evaluation Brief) Evaluation of WBG Experience with Targeted 2014 Country Level and Projects/ Programs targeted Support to SMEs, 2006 to 2012 to SMEs Special Topic: Lessons from Six Country Case Studies on Sequencing, Complementarity, The Based on 6 country case studies: Kenya, Relationship of Systemic to Targeted Reform and Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua, Ukraine, Sierra WBG Collaboration (Chapter 4 – pages 144-148) Leone Box 4.8 IFC and WB Collaboration: The Africa MSME Program (page 148) Integrated analysis covering all 3 WBG institutions; with WBG-wide and specific WB, IFC and MIGA recommendations. World Bank Group Support to Public-Private 2014 Country Level and Project Level Partnerships: Lessons from Experience in Client Countries, FY02-12 Forty (40) country desk reviews and 9 country Chapter 5: Working as One World Bank Group case studies with visit. (pages 105-121) Covered all 3 WBG institutions; Integrated analysis of Bank Group; with WBG-wide recommendations Results and Performance of the WBG 2012 2013 Synthesis of different IEG evaluations Chapter 3 – Enhancing the Bank Group’s Effectiveness – Strengthening Collaboration Covered all 3 WBG institutions. Across Boundaries (pages 56-58) Chapter 5 – Conclusion: Areas for Attention (page 77). Results and Performance of the World Bank 2014 Synthesis of IEG evaluations Group 2013 10 IEG Evaluation FY Scope or Unit of Analysis Chapter 4 – Institutional Effectiveness – Covered all 3 WBG institutions; integrated Coordination and Collaboration across the WBG analysis of WBG. (pages 105-108). Extractive Industries and Sustainable Dev: An 2003 Project, country and sector levels. Evaluation of WBG Experience Volume I – Overview and Volume II, Chapter 5 – Separate chapters for WB, IFC and MIGA with a Coordination across the World Bank Group (para chapeau or summary chapter. 5.19 ) The World Bank Group Guarantee 2009 Corporate and project levels. Instruments, 1990-2007 Covered all 3 WBG institutions; with separate chapters and recommendations for WB, IFC and MIGA and a chapeau chapter on findings and recommendations. An IEG Evaluation of World Bank Group 2016 Strategy, Project, Country, and Sector Levels Support for Financial Inclusion for Low- Income Households and Micro-enterprises 5 country case studies; integrated report covered all 3 WBG institutions. World Bank Group Support 2014 Strategy and Project levels for Innovation and Entrepreneurship: An Independent Evaluation Covered all 3 WBG institutions separately in each chapter (chapter organized by topics) and with a chapeau chapter. The Africa Action Plan: An IEG Evaluation 2011 Strategy-Regional Levels Focused on WB because WB was the main player although the AAP was intended as a WBG document. Lessons on WBG Support for 2016 Covered purposively sampled pairings of Transformational Engagements (forthcoming) projects, sector, programmatic and country engagements by the WBG. Integrated discussion of WB, IFC and MIGA interventions in the relevant chapters. 11 Annex 2. Categories of Factors of Successful Collaborations and Partnerships (Adapted from Mattessich, et.al. 2001) CATEGORIES AND SUB- DEFINITION IEG DATA SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. CONTEXT (ENABLING ENVIRONMENT) • History of collaboration or Leads or other team members have WBG Portfolios – TTLs/Project cooperation history of cooperation or collaboration Leads; Project Documents • Collaborative group seen as Team members perceived as Project Evaluations; Project legitimate leader competent and reliable within their Documents & Communications area of expertise • Favorable political and social Support from WBG management, Project Evaluations; Project climate government, Bank Group clients, and Documents & Communications other donors. 2. TEAM MEMBERS’ CHARACTERISTICS • Mutual respect, understanding and Shared understanding and respect for Project Evaluations; Project trust each other and their respective Documents & Communications; organization viz: how they operate, Interviews their limitations and their expectations • Appropriate representation or cross- Representation, to the extent Project Evaluations; Project section of members possible, from part of WBG that will be Documents & Communications; affected by the project. Interviews • Members see collaboration as in Belief that they will benefit from their Project Evaluations; Project their self-interest involvement and that the advantages Documents & Communications; will offset costs. Interviews • Ability to compromise Willingness and ability to compromise Project Evaluations; Project Documents & Communications; Interviews 3. PROCESS AND STRUCTURE • Members share a stake in both Ownership of both the way the group Project Evaluations; Project process and outcome works and the results of the work Documents & Communications; Interviews • Broad participation at every level Every level, including management, Project Evaluations; Project within each Bank Group institution Documents & Communications; have at least some representation and Interviews on-going involvement • Flexibility Openness to various ways of Project Evaluations; Project organizing and accomplishing work Documents & Communications; Interviews • Development of clear roles and Clear understanding by members of Project Evaluations; Project policy guidelines their roles, responsibilities and an Documents & Communications; understanding of how to carry out Interviews these responsibilities • Adaptability Ability of the team to sustain itself Project Evaluations; Project amid major changes in order to cope Documents & Communications; with changing conditions. Interviews • Appropriate pace of development Structure, resources and activities Project Evaluations; Project change over project cycle to meet Documents & Communications; needs of the team without Interviews overwhelming capacity • Incentive system Formal or informal incentive system to Project Documents & sustain team Communications; Interviews 12 4. COMMUNICATION • Open and frequent communication Team members interact often, update Project Evaluations; Project each other, discuss issues openly and Documents & Communication; convey all necessary information to each other and where appropriate, to relevant people outside the team. • Established informal relationships Team members establish personal Project Documents & and communication links connections, in addition to formal Communications; Interviews communications, resulting to more informed and cohesive group working on the project. 5. PURPOSE • Need, opportunity or crisis as Underlying reason for the joint or Project Evaluations; Project motivation collaborative effort Documents & Communications; Interviews • Concrete, attainable goals and Goals and objectives of the team are Project Evaluations; Project objectives clear to all members and can be Documents & Communications; realistically attained. Interviews • Shared vision Members have the same vision, with Project Evaluations; Project clearly agreed-upon objectives, Documents & Communications; strategy. Shared vision may exist at Interviews the start or developed over the course of working together in the project. • Unique purpose Goals and approach of the team differ Project Evaluations; Project in part from the goals and approach of Documents & Communications; their respective organization. Synergy Interviews and complementarity vs. competition 6. RESOURCES • Sufficient funds, staff, materials and Adequate, consistent financial base Project Evaluations; Project time and staff and materials needed to Documents & Communications; support the project. Allows for Interviews sufficient time to achieve goals as well as time to nurture the collaborative effort. • Skilled leadership Leader has organizing and Project Evaluations; Project interpersonal skills and carries out the Documents & Communications; role with fairness. Because of these Interviews (plus other) characteristics, the leader is respected and given ‘legitimacy’ by the members. 13 Bibliography Austin, James. “The Collaboration Challenge: How Nonprofits and Businesses Succeed Through Strategic Alliances.” The Drucker Foundation. Jossey-Bass. 2000. Bailey, Darlyne and Koney, Kelly McNally. “Strategic Alliances Among Health and Human Services Organizations: From Affiliations to Consolidations.” Sage Publications, Inc. 2000. Development Committee. DC2015-0004. “The World Bank Group Support for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” September 28, 2015. Dlamini, Khetsiwe. “The Power of Group Think: Making the World Bank Group Vision a Reality.” IFC Smart Lessons. September 2013. Frey, Bruce W, Lohmeier, Jill H, Lee, Stephen W, and Tollefson, Nona. “Measuring Collaboration among Grant Partners.” American Journal of Evaluation, Volume 27. No. 3, pages 383-392. Gajda, Rebecca. “Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic Alliances.” American Journal of Evaluation. Volume 25, No. 1, 2004. pp. 65-77. Gajda, Rebecca and Koliba, Christopher. “Evaluating the Imperative of Intraorganizational Collaboration: A School Improvement Perspective.” American Journal of Evaluation. Volume 28, No. 1. March 2007. pp. 26-44. Gittinger, J. Price “Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects.” Economic Development Institute-World Bank. 1984. IDA. SecM2011-0181; IDA/SecM2011-0217. “Partnering for Africa’s Regional Integration: Progress Report on the Regional Integration Assistance Strategy (RIAS) for Sub-Saharan Africa.” March 22, 2011. __________. IDA-14 “Strengthening the Private Sector in IDA Countries: Status of WBG Collaboration.” November 2004. IDA-IFC Secretariat. “World Bank-International Finance Corporation Collaboration in IDA Countries: A Progress Report.” May 2009. ___________. “Models of Collaboration: Working Across the WBG Boundaries” September 2009. ___________. “World Bank-International Finance Corporation Collaboration in IDA Countries: Second Progress Report.” May 2010. Independent Evaluation Group. “An IEG Evaluation of World Bank Group Support for Financial Inclusion for Low-Income Households and Micro-Enterprises.” 2016 ___________. “World Bank Group Cooperation: Evidence and Lessons from IEG Evaluations.” Evaluation Brief 11. 2010. ___________. “The Africa Action Plan: An IEG Evaluation.” 2011 ___________. “Results and Performance of the WBG 2012” ___________. “Results and Performance of the WBG 2013” 14 ___________. “World Bank Group Support to Public-Private Partnerships: Lessons from Experience in Client Countries, FY02-FY12.” 2014 ___________. “World Bank Group Support for Innovation and Entrepreneurship: An Independent Evaluation.” 2014 ___________. CODE2014-0002. The Big Business of Small Enterprises: Evaluation of the World Bank Group Experience with Targeted Support to SMEs 2006-2012. January 6, 2014. ___________. Extractive Industries and Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of WBG Experience. 2003. ___________. CODE2015-0008. “Past and Future – Bank-IFC Cooperation at the Country Strategy Level.” Category I Learning Product. March 2, 2015. ___________. CODE2015-0026. “World Bank Group Support to Electricity Access FY2000-FY2014: An Independent Evaluation.” May15, 2015. ___________. The World Bank Group Guarantee Instruments, 1990-2007. 2009. IEG-IFC. “IFC Cooperation with World Bank in Middle Income Countries, 1996-2006.” IEG-IFC Evaluation Working Paper. 2007. _________. “IFC/World Bank Cooperation on Private Sector Development.” IEG-IFC Evaluation Brief. 2007. James Bell Associates. July 2011. Evaluation Brief: Evaluating Inter-Organizational Collaboration. Arlington, VA: Author. Klimkeit, Dirk. “Organizational Context and Collaboration on International Projects: The Case of a Professional Service Firm.” International Journal of Project Management. Volume 31. 2013. pp. 366- 377. Mankin, Don, Cohen, Susan and Fitzgerald, Stephen P., “Developing Complex Collaborations: Basic Principles to Guide Design and Implementation.” in Complex Collaboration: Building the Capabilities for Working across Boundaries. Published Online: 08 March 2015; pages 1-26. http://10.1016/S1572- 0977(04)10001-0. Marek, Lydia I., Brock, Donna-Jean P., and Savia, Jyoti. “Evaluating Collaboration for Effectiveness: Conceptualization and Measurement.” American Journal of Evaluation. 2014. Pp. 1-19. Mattessich, Paul W., Murray-Close, Marta, Monsey, Barbara R., Wilder Research Center. “Collaboration: What Makes It Work?” Second Edition. Fieldstone Alliance. 2001. Sadrozinski, Renate. “Evaluative Framework for International Collaboration.” Final Report prepared for the National Science Foundation. Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education. University of Washington. 2006. http://www.education.uw.edu/cirge/evaluative-framework-for-international- collaboration/ Thomson, Anne Marie, Perry, James L., Miller, Theodore K. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Volume 19, 2009. pp. 23-56. Woodland, Rebecca H. and Hutton, Michael S. “Evaluating Organizational Collaborations: Suggested Entry Points and Strategies.” American Journal of Evaluation. Volume 33. No. 3. 2012. pp. 366-383. 15 World Bank. OM2014-0087/2 “Technical Briefing: Regional Integration in South Asia.” A Revised Power Point Presentation. February 6, 2015. World Bank. OM2015-0046. “Technical Briefing: Regional Integration and Cooperation.” A Power Point Presentation. June 12, 2015. World Bank Group. “World Bank Group Strategy: Informal Discussion with Executive Directors.” July 30, 2013. World Bank Group. “World Bank Group Strategy”. October 2013. _______________. A Common Vision for the World Bank Group. Development Committee Paper. Background Annex. Spring 2013. _______________. DC2010-0003. “New World, New World Bank Group: (I) Post Crisis Directions.” April 20, 2010. _______________. DC2010-004. “New World, New World Bank Group (II): The Internal Reform Agenda.” April 20, 2010. _______________. DC2010-0002. “Synthesis Paper: New World, New World Bank Group.” April 20, 2010. 16 Endnotes 1 There is an indicator on Tier 3 (Performance /Working as One WBG) of IDA’s Result Management System pertaining to the “Satisfactory performance of joint and complementary IDA/IFC projects in IDA countries.” However, this indicator is being tracked and monitored by the IFC only. The WBG Corporate Scorecard did not include the foregoing project-level indicator for measuring WBG-wide collaboration. Instead, two indicators have been developed and monitored for the Corporate Scorecard under Tier 3: share of CPFs that have at least one joint objective in the results matrix; and staff time spent across GPs/CCSAs. 2 This Learning Note adopted Gittinger’s definition of a project as “an activity for which money will be spent in expectation of returns and which logically seems to lend itself to planning, financing, and implementing as a unit. It is the smallest operational element prepared and implemented as a separate entity in a national plan or program of [agricultural] development. It is a specific activity, with a specific starting point and a specific ending point, intended to accomplish specific objectives…It will have a well- defined sequence of investment and production activities, and a specific group of benefits, that we can identify, quantify, and, [usually in agricultural projects], determine a money value for.” Source: J. Price Gittinger. “Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects.” Economic Development Institute-World Bank. 1984. 3 CODE2015-0008. “Past and Future – Bank-IFC Cooperation at the Country Strategy Level.” March 2, 2015. The review of 42 CASCRRs and 18 CPEs concluded that ‘jointness’ in past CASs usually meant listing IFC’s already existing pipeline of investment and advisory services projects in the respective country strategy. 4 Source: iDesk. IFC Dictionary. IFC-World Bank Joint Project. 5 Source: iDesk. IFC Dictionary. IFC-World Bank Complementary Project 6 IDA-IFC Secretariat. “Models of Collaboration – Working Across World Bank Group Boundaries.” September 2009. 7 PID #122671. This project involved provision of IDA PRG to four IPP projects: Thika Power Limited, Gulf Power Limited, Triumph Power Generating Company Limited and OrPower4 Inc. IFC also provided loans to Thika Power Ltd and Gulf Power Ltd. MIGA also supported Thika Power Ltd, Triumph Power Generating Company Ltd and Gulf Power Ltd during the 2012 to 2014 period. 8 The investment climate assessment intended to (a) rationalize taxes; (b) improve efficiency of revenue generation; (c) strengthen incentives to invest and operate formally in Yemen; and (d) reduce opportunities for discretionary application. 9 IFC AS Investment Climate business line assisted the following projects in 2008: the Yemen Tax Simplification Roll-out I, Yemen Mining Investment, Yemen Investment Generation Program, and Doing Business Yemen. These were followed by the advisory services support to the Yemen PPP Program in 2009. Four other IFC AS investment climate related projects were approved in 2010 and 2011 and implemented but these were terminated. [The four terminated IFC AS projects were: SME PPD Yemen (Ventures); Public Private Dialogue in Yemen; Tourism Investment Generation Yemen; and Yemen Special Economic Zones - Investment Generation.] 10 PID# P065111 and PID# P088435. 17 11 DC2013-2002. “A Common Vision for the World Bank Group.” April 3, 2013. Paragraph 86, Page 31. 12 Types 2 and 3 joint projects were excluded in this Learning Note at this time partly because of the extensive portfolio review that must be undertaken to identify the sequencing of the interrelated and parallel WBG projects. 13 DC2013-2002. “A Common Vision for the World Bank Group.” April 3, 2013. Paragraph 86, Page 31. 14 The analytical framework that the Learning Note adapted would provide structure to the review of project documents. The framework itself was based on a 2001 review of 281 research studies on factors influencing successful collaborations. The source material is cited in the Bibliography. 15 Among the 15 IEG higher level and synthesis evaluations reviewed so far, only two linked synthesis evaluations and the Evaluation of WBG Support to SMEs enumerated the missed opportunities without Bank Group cooperation. The two synthesis evaluations are: (a) IEG-IFC Evaluation Working Paper 2007. “IFC Cooperation with World Bank in Middle Income Countries, 1996-2006; and (b) IEG-IFC Evaluation Brief 2007. “IFC/World Bank Cooperation on Private Sector Development.” Subsequent IEG higher level evaluations repeated the same messages from the two IEG-IFC synthesis evaluation papers. The IEG-IFC Evaluation Working Paper also provided definitions of cooperation, coordination and collaboration. These terms are used interchangeably in most IEG evaluations. IEG Evaluation Brief 11 on World Bank Group Cooperation: Evidence and Lessons from IEG Evaluations (2010) recommended measuring and monitoring WBG cooperation to track progress and “…some conceptual work will be needed to identify meaningful and feasible measures. Such work could also contribute to the clarification of what is meant by Bank Group cooperation and performance.” 16 IEG Evaluation Brief 11. “World Bank Group Cooperation: Evidence and Lessons from IEG Evaluations.” 2010. 17 Ibid. 18