UN Projects: 3 Common RBM Pitfalls

Programme and project managers across the UN System use Results Based Management (RBM) to ensure project activities are implemented on schedule and on time. Effective integration and implementation of RBM principles creates a shared understanding among donors, stakeholders and internal teams on how the project will be executed. It sets the objectives for planning, monitoring and evaluation and creates a platform for communicating results throughout the project's life. Sounds simple, right? Not always the case. Below are three common pitfalls I've faced in UN programming and recommendations on how to overcome them.

1. Defining realistic results

We want our projects and programmes to be ambitious: to meet donor, beneficiary and national counterpart expectations. After all, UN work tackles the most challenging issues on the planet and Agenda 2030 feels like its moments away. So sometimes, when planning for results, UN teams aim too high.

Results overreach can occur at the activity level, where individual inputs and tasks defined are not commensurate with available resources and reach. Tangible products that the programme or project will deliver can also be inflated at output levels. And the loftiest of results tend to be seen in the expected medium to long term development changes specified in the outcome and impact levels.

How do you ensure results are realistic?

The best way is to keep it real is consultations and buy-in of key stakeholders. We first want to ask: What do we want to achieve? By working with national and sub-national level counterparts we find the national development priorities that are aligned to our project and ensure results directly support government objectives.

The second question to ask key stakeholders is: How will we do it? This includes the activities and outputs necessary for achieving the targets, e.g. training, facilities constructed, etc. It will also define the roll out approach, e.g. regional, local, population groups, etc.

The third question is: What resources are required? We need to work with donors, beneficiaries, national and sub-national partners, private sector, and UN teams to pair results, especially at the activity and output levels, with budget lines. Budgets should include realistic cost estimates for financial and human resources. A simple way to do this is using a cost table that can be reviewed by all stakeholders to ensure it is realistic.

Some people are fully opposed to unfunded objectives. I disagree. It's ok to have a few unfunded targets, which will be used for additional resource mobilization, but unfunded results should be no more than 10-20% of the overall budget. And all stakeholders need to know which results will be achieved only when additional funding comes through.

2. Indicators that are overly complex or just too many

We need indicators to tell us whether we're on track or stuck with our project or programme. This information is key to monitoring and unlocking bottlenecks during implementation, but also to identify lessons for future projects when evaluating project results. However, I've seen many projects where reporting on activity indicators can feel nearly impossible. The data may not be readily available and would require additional skills or resources to be able to capture the information needed to successfully report on the indicator.

Another obstacle is when there are just too many indicators. Those on the ground, who are leading the day-to-day management of activities, have limited time to dedicate to indicator reporting. People often overestimate the amount of information needed to make decisions or identify whether activities are on track. Identifying a manageable amount of indictors that are simple and easy to report on, are sufficient for monitoring and keeping the project or programme on track.

3. Cultivating an RBM culture

The nice thing about RBM is that when it is done right, it is a simple way to ensure activities are implemented against defined objectives and results. It is also a wonderful way to diagnose the health of a project or programme and keep all stakeholders informed throughout. However, RBM is also rife with jargon and multiple tools, documentation and reporting processes. Results Chain theory, for example, trumps me every time and I always need to revisit it to understand the cause and effect relationships between result levels and measurable development changes (outcome and impact). So how do we get teams to use it?

To create a succssful RBM culture it is important to demystify the approach, but also make sure to put RBM into regular practice at each stage of the programme and project cycle. Regular training needs to be available for new employees, but also to refresh those of us who could use another dose of the principles and tools. Establishing RBM focal points and coaches also helps keep the culture alive. Having people who can answer questions as they arise in practice makes it easier for RBM application.

In addition to these two practical steps, it also helps to recognize results performance and demonstrate RBM prioritization from top management. This can help create buy-in at all levels, both internally and externally.

What have you found most challenging in implementing an RBM approach in your team?

Would love to hear from other project and programme managers about the biggest challenges they've faced in implementing RBM and advice to overcome the obstacles. Share in the comments!