B11 Managing Portfolio Performance - Monitoring, Reporting and Review

Background

Regular and effective monitoring, reviewing and lesson learning are key to how DFID measures the performance of its aid programme and demonstrates Value for Money (VfM).

Regular monitoring and reviewing of project progress, measuring the achievement of outputs/outcomes against performance indicators and targets and revising plans and aims as necessary, are all key processes in managing the project cycle.

Monitoring and reviewing also provide a means of:

  • encouraging ownership and participation through working closely with partners and other donors
  • ensuring the funds of DFID and those of partners and other donors are used effectively and efficiently to deliver outputs/outcomes within the agreed budget
  • ensuring that important practical lessons are captured from current operational projects so that these can be applied and shared across DFID for future project management. This will ensure continuous learning and quality control for DFID, partners and other donors both during the implementation of specific projects and in the design and development of new initiatives.

 

DFID records project monitoring data in ARIES. The Head of Department/Overseas Office is responsible for ensuring that all data entered in these reports are relevant, accurate and up to date.

The information captured underpins the calculation of Value for Money and other portfolio quality measures which appear in the Quarterly Management Board Report (QMR), the Autumn Performance Report (APR), the DFID Annual Report (AR) and other corporate reports. 

Compliance Tasks

1. Regular monitoring Projects should be monitored regularly to ensure satisfactory progress against expenditure. Checks should be made that the means of verifying progress, as specified in the Logical Framework, are: obtained in a timely manner; indicate satisfactory progress against the resources used and planned timetable; and any problems identified are being addressed.

Task assigned to: Project Staff

2. Teams should regularly review the appropriateness and effectiveness of measures to manage risks identified in the Logical Framework and project risk assessment in line with the Guidance on Risk Management in DFID.

Task assigned to: Project Staff

3. Project Reviews

Although it is best practice to review all projects, it is only mandatory for projects (including Programme Based Approaches (PBAs)) with an approved lifetime budget of £1 million and above and which are at least one year old to be reviewed and scored annually (i.e. have an Annual Review) and the required information entered in ARIES. These projects will also only be used in the calculation of Vfm.

If an Annual Review is not recorded within one year from the approval date of the project a spending block is applied automatically in ARIES. In certain cases, a Summary Review may be undertaken (see below).

Task assigned to: Project Staff

4. A Summary Review may be completed if there is insufficient evidence on which to base an analysis of a project in order to carry out an Annual Review. It gives an extension of a further six months to complete an Annual Review.

Task assigned to: Project Staff

5. The relevant Review Form must be completed for each review/completion and the document filed in Quest.

Staff must download and use the Annual Review, Summary Review and Project Completion Report from office templates on Excel (under File>New>Templates on my computer>Project Management>and then select the appropriate form). This downloading must be done each time. Old ones should not be filed and reused.

Task assigned to: Project Staff

6. Extracts from the Review forms must also be entered in ARIES to ensure data are captured for DFID wide use.

Task assigned to: Project Staff

7. Risk ratings must be included when projects are scored, as the Value for Money (VfM) target requires DFID to assess the success of projects in relation to risk levels.

Task assigned to: Head of Department, Head of Overseas Office, Project Staff

8. Heads of Department/Overseas Office must ensure the quality and accuracy of the data entered in ARIES. This is in addition to the Reviews and quality checks undertaken by Project Staff.

Task assigned to: Head of Department, Head of Overseas Office

9. Project Completion Reports (PCRs)

PCR completion, data capture and approval are similar to Reviews (see Compliance Tasks 3 to 6). However a PCR must be completed for all projects including Programme Based Approaches (PBAs) with an approved lifetime budget of £1 million or more no matter the length of the project.

A PCR must also be completed even where DFID is operating as part of a multi donor funded project. Performance reports produced by other partners can be used as the basis for the assessment of project performance.

ARIES will alert Programme Staff when a Project Completion Report is due (three months before the project end date).

Task assigned to: Head of Department, Head of Overseas Office, Project Staff

10. To close a project, a PCR must be undertaken unless approval is given to either defer the PCR or exempt the project from a PCR.

Task assigned to: Head of Department, Head of Overseas Office, Project Staff

11. Approval to defer a PCR must be given by the Head of Department/Overseas Office and must only be granted where there is no documentary evidence on which to base an analysis of a project in order to complete a PCR.

PCR deferral will be for 3 months (but can be renewed).

Task assigned to: Head of Department, Project Staff

12. Approval to exempt a project from a PCR must be given by Head of Department/Overseas Office and will be rare.

Before seeking approval to exempt a project from a PCR the Exempt justification field must be completed in ARIES.

Task assigned to:Head of Department, Head of Overseas Office, Project Staff

Risks of non-compliance

  • Projects do not achieve planned benefits for the poor
  • DFID funds cold be used for purposes other than originally intended and lead to fraud or non-compliance with the International Development Act (IDA) 2002 or the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998
  • UK taxpayer's funds not spent as intended
  • Parliament incorrectly informed of DFID's performance
  • Lesson Learning severely curtailed
  • Reputational damage to DFID and UK Government.
Last updated: 03 Oct 2011