The document provides guidance on what makes a good performance management plan (PMP). It outlines 14 key factors for a quality PMP, including having a clear results framework, indicators that reflect project objectives, and practical plans for collecting high-quality data. A good PMP is easy to follow, with the right level of indicators to assess results while still being manageable. It also identifies costs for implementation and opportunities for evaluation. Developing a strong PMP upfront helps guide effective management and decision making.

1. What Makes a Good
Performance Management
Plan?
___
A new tool for project managers

2. Background
 In July 2012, OPRH requested technical support
for developing a brief PMP guidance document
 ADS and TIPS guidance is oriented towards
country or regional Missions drafting and
implementing their own PMPs
 The new document zeroes in on what makes a
“good” PMP, and was primarily designed for
managers reviewing project-level plans

4. Quality is Universal
 Although the scope and scale of PRH projects
can differ substantially, quality standards for
performance management generally do not.
 A good PMP is easy to follow, with:
 a clear, comprehensive results framework
 indicators reflecting the project’s major objectives
 practical, realistic plans for obtaining high-quality
data

5. 1. Is the PMP clear and well-organized?
 A clear, easy to follow PMP is more likely to be
implemented correctly
 Though no standard format exists, examples
abound. Basic templates usually have the same
core elements (project description, results
framework, indicator table, etc.)
 Length will vary by size and complexity of project

6. 2. Are anticipated costs for implementing
the PMP included?
 Project budgets may fall short if resources for
performance management are not defined and
communicated upfront
 Expenditures for PMP development should be
budgeted ahead of implementation costs
 Implementation costs ideally include all costs
associated with obtaining, aggregating, checking
and reporting data

7. 3. Does the PMP deal mostly with results
and indicators, not strategy or operations?
 A good PMP is centered on the results and
indicators themselves. It is not a strategy
document.
 Indicators and indicator benchmarks should be
obvious; advantages and weaknesses of
indicators should be clear

8. 4. Is there a results framework showing
causal relationships between outcomes?
 A results framework should drive the PMP
 Models the expected relationship between
project outputs, outcomes and impacts
 Shows what the project is trying to accomplish,
and how

9. Sample Results Framework

10. 5. Are key outputs, outcomes and impact
reflected in the results framework?
 It is a good practice to review the framework and
ensure that it reflects results at every level
 Priority services and/or activities with large
relative investments should be a major focus
 The collection of impact indicators may be
dependent on timeline or scope of project

11. 6. Is the information on data flow and
reporting responsibilities complete?
 Flow of information should be clearly defined, so
that everyone involved understands how and by
whom results will be collected, aggregated,
recorded, and submitted for review

12. 7. Is there an indicator table, with baseline
estimates and targets where relevant?
 The indicator table is the heart of the PMP
 Include one or more indicators organized by
result, with a short, precise definition
 Full definitions and additional details can be
recorded elsewhere (indicator reference sheets)
 Baseline estimates and annual or other targets
should be included. Target-setting may
sometimes require external technical assistance.

13. 8. Do the indicators seem closely aligned
with project activities and objectives?
 The best indicators reflect outcomes that are
central to a project’s work
 Majority of indicators should be activity-specific
 Indicators that are impervious to the changes a
project is trying to effect over the reporting period
should generally be avoided

14. 9. Are the indicators clearly and
comprehensively defined?
 Indicator reference sheets are optional
 Should include technical details about each
indicator, such as source, disaggregation factors,
potential limitations, calculation methods, etc.
 Templates can be modified to meet individual
needs
 Costs are often approximated; detailed estimates
may be needed for primary data collection

15. 10. Is there enough information in the PMP
to judge the quality of the indicators?
 Basic info about
source and data
collection methods is
required
 Include information that enables the reader to
judge the reliability and validity of indicators
 It’s not enough to choose good indicators – you
have to be able to produce good estimates, too

16. 11. Do the indicators reliably measure what is
intended, and is their collection and use feasible?
 For nearly every type of activity, there are
established indicators in common use
 A good PMP will have an indicator list free from
obvious sources of measurement error
 ADS offers criteria for determining what should be
measured and how to ensure high data quality

17. 12. Is the number of indicators adequate to
reflect project results, but still manageable?
 Too many indicators can
overwhelm ability to see
the “big picture”
 Total number should be
based on needs and
resources of the project
 A mix of indicators
reflecting reach, coverage
and the effects of projects
is usually ideal

18. 13. Are indicators sufficiently disaggregated
to meet project information needs?
 Disaggregation is not the same as defining a
population of interest
 Person-level indicators should often be
disaggregated by sex and age
 Consider if other sub-groups are crucial to
assessing your program’s performance: parity,
ethnicity, area, facility or provider type

19. 14. Have opportunities for evaluation been
identified and developed?
 PMPs should:
 document the reasons for evaluation
 note that source of data is project evaluation, not
routine monitoring
 describe study design, proposed question content,
sampling plan and assessment of limitations
 plan to collect and report comparable data from
other sources if available, to compare with results

20. Conclusions
 Standards for PMPs are universally applicable
 “A good PMP is easy to follow, with a clear,
comprehensive results framework, indicators that
reflect the project’s major objectives, and practical,
realistic plans for obtaining high-quality data”
 Any size project will benefit from initial investment
in developing a strong PMP to help guide
management decision-making

21. Checklist available on the MEASURE
Evaluation website:
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/publications/MS-12-53

22. THANK YOU!
_______________
MEASURE Evaluation PRH is a MEASURE project funded by
the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) through Cooperative Agreement GHA-A-00-08-00003-
00 and is implemented by the Carolina Population Center at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partnership
with Futures Group International, Management Sciences for
Health, and Tulane University. Views expressed in this
presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or
the U.S. Government. MEASURE Evaluation PRH supports
improvements in monitoring and evaluation in population,
health and nutrition worldwide.