TIP Number6, Selecting Performance Indicators
TIP Number6, Selecting Performance Indicators
TIP Number6, Selecting Performance Indicators
PN-ABY-214
2
Use a Participatory Approach
Reengineering requires operating units to use a participatory approach in selecting indicators for their performance
monitoring system. Collaborating closely with development partners, host country counterparts, and customers at
each step of the indicator selection process has many benefits. It makes good sense to draw on the experience of
others and obtain their consensus throughout the process.
1. DIRECT. A performance indicator should measure as closely as possible the result it is intended to measure. It should not be
pegged at a higher or lower level than the result being measured. For example,contraceptive prevalence rateis a direct measure of
the result increased use of family planning methods. But number of service providers trainedwould NOT be a direct measure of the
result improved service delivery. Just because people are trained does not necessarily mean they will deliver services better.
If using a direct measure is not possible, one or more proxy indicators might be appropriate. For example, sometimes reliable data on
direct measures are not available at a frequency that is useful to managers, and proxy indicators are needed to provide timely insight
on progress. Proxy measures areindirect measures that are linked to the result by one or more assumptions. For example, in rural
areas of Africa it is often very difficult to measure income levels directly. Measures such as percentage of village households with tin
roofs (or radios or bicycles) may be a useful, if somewhat rough, proxy. The assumption is that when villagers have higher income
they tend to purchase certain goods. If convincing evidence exists that the assumption is sound (for instance, it is based on research
or experience elsewhere), then the proxy may be an adequate indicator, albeit second-best to a direct measure.
2. OBJECTIVE.An objective indicator has no ambiguity about what is being measured. That is, there is general agreement over
interpretation of the results. It is both unidimensional and operationally precise. To be
unidimensional means that it measures only
one phenomenon at a time. Avoid trying to combine too much in one indicator, such as measures of both access and use. Operational
precision means no ambiguity over what kind of data would be collected for an indicator. For example, whilenumber of successful
export firms is ambiguous, something likenumber of export firms experiencing an annual increase in revenues of at least 5 percent is
operationally precise.
3. ADEQUATE.Taken as a group, a performance indicator and its companion indicators should adequately measure the result in
question. A frequently asked question is "how many indicators should be used to measure any given result?" The answer depends on
a) the complexity of the result being measured, b) the level of resources available for monitoring performance, and c) the amount of
information needed to make reasonably confident decisions. For some results that are straightforward and have tried and true
measures, one performance indicator may be enough. For example, if the intended result increased
is traditional exports, the
indicator dollar value of traditional exports per yearis probably sufficient. Where no single indicator is sufficient, or where there are
benefits to be gained by "triangulation" -- then two or more indicators may be needed. However, avoid using too many indicators. Try
to strike a balance between resources available for measuring performance and the amount of information managers need to make
reasonably well informed decisions.
4. QUANTITATIVE, WHERE POSSIBLE.Quantitative indicators are numerical (number or percentage of dollar value, tonnage,
for example). Qualitative indicators are descriptive observations (an expert opinion of institutional strength, or a description of
behavior). While quantitative indicators are not necessarily more objective, their numerical precision lends them to more agreement
on interpretation of results data, and are thus usually preferable. However, even when effective quantitative indicators are being used,
qualitative indicators can supplement the numbers and percentages with a richness of information that brings a program's results to
life.
5. DISAGGREGATED, WHERE APPROPRIATE. Disaggregating people-level program results by gender, age, location, or
some other dimension is often important from a management or reporting point of view. Experience shows that development
activities often require different approaches for different groups and affect those groups in different ways. Disaggregated data help
track whether or not specific groups participate in and benefit from activities intended to include them. Therefore, it makes good
management sense that performance indicators be sensitive to such differences.
6. PRACTICAL.An indicator is practical if data can be obtained in a timely way and at a reasonable cost. Managers require data
that can be collected frequently enough to inform them of progress and influence decisions. USAID operating units should expect to
incur reasonable, but not exorbitant, costs for obtaining useful performance information. A rule of thumb, given in the reengineering
guidance, is to plan on allocating 3 to 10 percent of total program resources for performance monitoring and evaluation.
7. RELIABLE. A final consideration in choosing performance indicators is whether data of sufficiently reliable quality for
confident decision-making can be obtained. But what standards of data quality are needed to useful?
be The data that a program
manager needs to make reasonably confident decisions about a program is not necessarily the same rigorous standard a social
scientist is looking for. For example, a low cost minisurvey may be good enough for a given management need.