Activity Monitoring Brief (AMB)

Date Printed: Date of printing as opposed to the date the AMB was locked.

1. Title and Background

Country (AMS generated)

Activity Name (AMS generated)
Activity Id (AMS generated)
Program (AMS generated)
Managing Section (AMS generated)
Activity Manager (AMS generated)
Monitoring Officer Enter name - usually Post officer
Partner Agency (AMS generated)
Current Contractor(s) (AMS generated)

This AMB
resulted from:
This could be part of a field visit and/or PCC or due to any other significant activity
milestone or event.

Dates: This AMB: Draft until locked Last locked AMB: AMS generated

Description
Generated from the description field of the main activity screen on AMS

Performance Scoring
Activities will be assessed using the following scale:

5: Best Practice
4: Fully Satisfactory
3: Satisfactory Overall
2: Marginally Satisfactory
1: Weak

A rating of 97 (not applicable) or 99 (dropped) may only be assigned to certain

indicators in certain Sections. Advice is provided under each Section.

Where indicators are assigned 97 (not applicable) or 99 (dropped), the calculation of

overall ratings for those Sections will not include these indicators.

The following Sections will assist in monitoring the important aspects of project
quality so that appropriate action can be taken when deficiencies occur. The Activity
Quality Rating will also be used in reporting on activity performance. It will be
calculated from the aggregated assessments against the four criteria that define
quality. These are: the appropriateness of objectives and design; the achievement of
objectives; whether the activity is being managed in a professional manner; and, the
sustainability of outcomes. The Activity Quality Rating will be calculated from the

1
overall rating assigned to each of these four criteria. Section 2, Appropriateness of
Objectives and Design and Achievement of Objectives, will provide ratings for the
first two criteria. Sections 3, Implementation Performance and 4A, Management
Performance, will provide the rating for the third criteria. The rating for
sustainability of outcomes will be derived from Section 4B, Sustainability.

2. Appropriateness of Objectives and Design and Achievement of

Objectives

A. Description of Objectives

The Objectives as entered under the MI/Objectives button when the APB is prepared
on AMS.

B. Appropriateness of Objectives & Design Previous AMB Current AMB

(date) Draft
OVERALL RATING: (AMS generated) X X

a) APPROPRIATENESS OF OBJECTIVES
1. X X
2. X X
etc.

b) APPROPRIATENESS OF DESIGN X X

A rating of 99 (dropped) may be entered in this sub-section, if warranted.

A rating of 97(not applicable) may not be entered.

The function of this section is to provide a 'trigger' to reassess objectives (and often
activity components) as a result of better knowledge about the project environment or
unanticipated changes in the project environment. The latter could occur as a result
of partner agency restructuring, significant change in partner government
policy/program priorities, natural disaster, civil unrest or major economic change.
Such improved understanding or changes could be either positive or negative (or
mixed) but would have to be significant enough to warrant a reconsideration of
activity objectives and, as a consequence, some change in the design.

In scoring the activity under this rating, the following descriptors of Best
Practice/Weak may be used as a guide. A rating of 2, 3 or 4 would thus be used for
activities for which performance is considered to fall somewhere between. Different
ratings may be given for each objective, depending on the strength or weakness of the
original design and the likelihood of variable performance against different
objectives. The ratings under each criteria (a and b) will be aggregated for the
overall rating against this quality criterion.

A rating of 5 (Best Practice) would be given if all the following (where relevant)
applied:

2
• The objectives and outputs are easily measurable and can be used to demonstrate
progress towards the target;
• The objectives are aligned with AusAID’s Key Result Areas and the country
strategy;
• The objectives remain consistent with the PG national development strategy and
priorities;
• The objectives are appropriate to the development situation in the project area;
• The PG has endorsed the objectives and continues to strongly support them;
• The log-frame indicators are available to measure and report on progress;
• The Risk Analysis has been updated and risk management strategies are in place;
and
• The PG remains satisfied with the institutional and organisational arrangements.

A rating of 1 (Weak) would be given if the following (where relevant) applied:

• The objectives and outputs are not measurable and progress cannot be
demonstrated;
• The objectives do not relate to the KRAs nor are they aligned with the country
strategy;
• The objectives are not in accord with the national priorities of the PG;
• The objectives are not appropriate to the development situation;
• There is no log-frame or there is a weak log-frame which does not include
indicators against which progress can be measured;
• There are no measurable benefits to target populations;
• There are no output or outcome indicators or measurement against these is not
being undertaken;
• The risk analysis has not been prepared or has not been updated and there is no
management strategy in place to monitor or report on risk measures;
• The PG has expressed dissatisfaction with the institutional or organisational
arrangement of the activity.

C. Likely Achievement of Objectives Previous AMB Current AMB

(date) Draft

OVERALL RATING: (AMS generated) X X

1. X X
2. X X
etc.

A rating of 99 (dropped) may be entered in this sub-section, if warranted.

A rating of 97 (not applicable) may not be entered.

This section contains an assessment or best judgement - based on currently available

information and current expectations - of the likelihood of project objectives being
achieved. The key objectives will reflect those listed in the Project Design Document
(usually), MOU and contracts. They would normally correspond with the objectives
for project or activity components. At the beginning or in the early stages of
implementation, particularly in infrastructure projects, the assessments will clearly be

3
based far more on expectations than on performance to date. The rating will reflect
an overall best estimate at the time of drafting.

In considering the ratings the following descriptors of Best Practice/Weak may be

used as a guide. Different ratings may be given for each objective, depending on the
strength or weakness of the original design and variable performance against
different objectives. The rating for each objective will be aggregated for the overall
rating against this quality criterion.

A rating of 5 (Best Practice) would be given if all of the following (where relevant)
applied:

• The planned activities and outputs are being achieved as scheduled;

• The planned outcomes are likely to be achieved;
• The outputs will be of a sufficient quality to meet the needs of the target
beneficiaries;
• The achievement of outcomes will be strengthened because of the high standard of
outputs;
• The implementation schedule is on time and within resources;
• There is active participation of PG officials, staff and beneficiaries;
• Data collection and analysis on the development situation, especially in terms of
benchmarks or monitoring data on gender, technical, social environmental or
institutional issues is being undertaken as planned;
• The PG has met or exceeded its commitments on time;
• The target population is receiving benefits on schedule;
• The beneficiaries understand the nature of the project assistance to them;
• Beneficiaries are involved in project implementation;
• If poverty reduction is a specific objective, there is likely to be a demonstrated
improvement in the standard of living of the target beneficiaries.

A rating of 1 (Weak) would be given if the following (where relevant) applied:

• Very few of the planned activities are being delivered on schedule and it is
unlikely they will be;
• Very few of the outputs or outcomes are likely to be achieved during the project;
• If some of the outputs are delivered these will not be of sufficient quality to meet
the needs of the beneficiaries;
• Very few of the target population are receiving or likely to receive any of the
benefits as planned;
• The implementation schedule is not met and resources are being exceeded or
under-utilised;
• There is limited or no participation of the PG officials, staff or beneficiaries;
• There is inadequate identification of relevant data and data collection is not being
undertaken, especially in the key areas of gender, technical, social, environmental
or institutional information;
• The PG is not meeting its commitments and consultation arrangements on the
activity are not working;
• The project is not likely to produce any measurable benefits;

4
• Beneficiaries do not understand the nature of the project and are not participating
in consultations on, or implementation of, project activities;
• If poverty reduction is a specific objective, it is unlikely any measurable increase
in the standard of living of the population will be achieved during the project.

Brief Comments on Appropriateness of Objectives and Design and

Achievement of Objectives (include detailed comments where a rating of a 1, 2 or 99
has been given.)
In this section a brief summary narrative of overall project performance should be
included consistent with the ratings given in sub-sections B and C above. It should
also discuss reasons for likely success or failure - particularly where a rating of less
than 3 is given for any component or for sub-sections B or C overall. If some
objectives are considered more important than others, and should therefore be given
greater weighting, please comment here.

3. Implementation Performance

A. Description of Components

The Activity Components are entered under the MI/Components button at the time the
AMS is updated. Components on the AMS will need to be amended if the design has
been changed since the APB was finalised.
1.
2.
3.
etc.

B. Component Performance Previous AMB Current AMB

(date) Draft

OVERALL RATING: (AMS generated) X X

1. X X
2. X X
3. X X

Rating:
5: Exceeding time and quality targets;
4: Achieving time and quality targets and on budget;
3: Moderate progress towards targets, some issues about quality, budgets or costs but
these are being adequately addressed;
2: Some progress towards targets, but slippage in schedule and cost overruns; &
1: Significant problems in achieving targets, quality outputs unlikely to be achieved
and substantial cost increases affecting overall budget.

A rating of 99 (dropped) may be entered against components, if warranted.

A rating of 97 (not applicable) may not be entered.

5
The component descriptions are listed in the Project Design Document as those items
being financed by AusAID e.g. specific training courses, provision of technical advice,
procurement of equipment/supplies, construction of facilities, project management.
For activities which do not require a PDD, other key documents should be used, for
example, the MOU, the contract or project proposal.

The rating in Section 3 relates to the efficiency of implementation of the activity

overall. To some extent this will involve judgements about management, but these
should only be in terms of the overall efficiency of implementation for each
component and not be specific to either the contractor or PG performance. Ratings
for activity management will be asked for in Section 4 and do not need to be reported
on here. What is being reported upon here is the efficiency of the activity in achieving
the agreed outputs. If an activity is in the early stages of implementation, the
assessments will clearly be based more on judgements about future performance than
on a measure of actual performance to date.

There are a number of issues to consider in making this rating for each component.
These include:

The timeliness of implementation:

• Have all the activities under the component been implemented, or commenced, on
schedule?
• Are the consultation mechanisms through which local authorities and
communities can discuss and agree on approach and timetable operating well?
• Are the responses to activity timetables and action times acceptable to AusAID
and stakeholders.

Costs and accountability:

• Are the activities under each component being implemented within budget?
• Are changes in unit costs or input costs adversely affecting the overall activity
budget?

The quality of the deliverables:

• Are the inputs provided under each component of sufficient quality, including
technical, to meet the activity requirements as set out in the PDD and other key
documents?
• Are the beneficiaries and the PG satisfied with the inputs delivered to date?
• Are strategies for the maintenance of benefits (training and management) being
put in place?

Brief Comments on Implementation of Components (include any actions

proposed or undertaken due to changes in Activity Objectives or Design and detailed comments
where a rating of 1, 2 or 99 has been given.)

In this section a summary narrative of performance towards achievement of outputs

for the components should be included consistent with the ratings given above. It
should also discuss any reasons for likely success or failure - particularly where a
rating of 2 or lower is given for any component or for the implementation
performance overall.

6
7
4. Management Performance and Sustainability
A. Management Performance Previous AMB Current AMB
(date) Draft

OVERALL RATING (AMS generated) X X

Contractor(s) Performance X X
Partner Agency/Government Inputs and Performance X X
Other Stakeholder Performance (e.g. AusAID, multilateral org.) X X
Procurement of Inputs X X

A rating of 97 (not applicable) or 99 (dropped) may only be entered against “Procurement of

Inputs”.

In considering the ratings it is suggested that the following descriptors of Best

Practice/Weak be used as guides. The rating for the indicators in each of the two
criteria areas, Management Performance and Sustainability, will be aggregated for
an overall rating against each criterion.

A. Management Performance:

Contractor Performance:

A rating of 5 (Best Practice) would be given if the performance (where relevant) were
assessed as follows:

• Advisers provided to the activity are of a high standard;

• The Annual Plan is prepared on time and to a high standard;
• The contractor is responsive to AusAID requests and instructions;
• The contractor is prompt in reporting, meets all reporting deadlines and provides
information that is accurate, reliable, succinct and specific to the activity components,
objectives and targets;
• Difficulties relating to technical assistance are solved quickly;
• Minimal problem are encountered with the project unit;
• Important problems or potential problems are brought to AusAID’s attention promptly;
• The contractor has excellent relationships with counterparts, regularly consults with
beneficiaries and other stakeholders and includes PG in decision making; and
• All contract milestones have been met or exceeded and there are no outstanding issues to
discuss in relation to meeting the requirements of the contract.

A rating of 1(Weak), would be given if the contractor performance includes the following:

• Advisers provided to the activity are of a poor standard;

• The Annual Plan or other annual reporting/monitoring requirements are not provided
on time or were considered to be unacceptable;
• The contractor is not prompt in responding to AusAID requests for information or action
or does not comply with AusAID direction;
• Information provided by the contractor is of poor quality, does not address specific
activity issues, or isnot presented in a clear and succinct manner;
• Important problems or difficulties are not brought to AusAID’s attention promptly;

8
• The contractor is unable to work effectively with the PG, staff or beneficiaries and is not
active in addressing difficulties in communication or approach; and
• The contractor is not meeting the contract requirements or is unable to comply with
important aspects of the contract.

Where there are multiple contractors an average of their separate scores should be entered.
(This can be weighted by their respective responsibilities for project implementation.)

Partner Agency/Government Inputs:

A rating of 5 (Best Practice) would be given if the following (where relevant) applied:

• The PG is meeting all its obligations under the MOU and officials are actively
contributing to the implementation, for example, through actively attending meetings,
visiting the sites and providing consistent support and resources over time;
• The PG project manager is of a high standard;
• The PG has a good relationship with AusAID and raises sensitive issues promptly for
discussion and resolution;
• Broad policy reforms have been stimulated which complement the project;
• The PG is managing the co-ordination role effectively and contributes positively to
activity management; and
• The PG has made counterpart staff, funds or other inputs available on time and to the
standard required for effective implementation of the activity.

A rating of 1 (Weak), would be given if the following (where relevant) applied:

• The PG has not met any of its obligations under the MOU or is very slow in doing so;
• The PG project manager is of a poor standard;
• Officials do not understand the project, are not available for discussions or visits or send
junior staff without authority;
• AusAID is having difficulty developing a good working relationship with key officials;
• The PG is not providing sufficient co-ordination of activities or relegates this role to
junior officials; and
• The PG is slow to respond to the contractor, AusAID requests or proposals.

Stakeholder performance (including AusAID):

A high rating (4 or 5) would be given in the following situation:

• AusAID has provided the desk and post with adequate tools for activity management;
• There is a high level of dialogue, consultation and visits between the Post and desk and
all key players are very familiar with the activity;
• Monitoring and reporting on risk is timely and appropriate to the size, complexity and
risks of the project;
• The AMB has been completed on time according to the CPRAMP;
• AusAID in-house resources to support the activity (e.g. post, sector advisers, contract
services, peer or advisory groups, TAG, legal services) have been responsive and have
strongly supported activity management;
• Multilateral or other agencies involved in the project have met or exceeded their
requirements; and
• Performance of other stakeholders has been active and positive.

9
A low rating (1 or 2) would be given if the following applied:

• The level of AusAID resources to manage the activity have not been sufficient to meet
requirements;
• Management information systems and other tools for monitoring the activity are
inadequate;
• Dialogue and consultation between the Post and desk has been limited and reporting
requirements have not been met;
• Support and involvement from multilateral or other agencies has been inadequate or
problematic;
• There are high levels of user hostility or low service uptake; and
• There have been poor levels of performance from other stakeholders in the activity.

Procurement Progress:

The activity would score highly, 4 or 5, if the following (where relevant) applied:

• The required equipment and supplies have been acquired in accordance with the activity
schedule;
• No major delays or shortcomings in procurement disbursement;
• Support staff recruited and trained on schedule;
• The equipment or supplies have been procured within budget;
• Delivery of the material or supplies has been prompt and cost effective.
• The material or supplies meet the technical specifications agreed for the activity and a
maintenance schedule has been established, including replacement of parts and repairs.

The activity would score a low rating if some or all of these aspects were not met or were
only met with cost overruns or significant time delays.

B. Sustainability Previous AMB Current AMB

(date) Draft

OVERALL RATING (AMS generated) X X

Financial X X
Institutional X X
Technical X X
Environmental X X
Social /Community X X
Gender X X

Population X X

A rating of 97 (not applicable) or 99 (dropped) may be entered against all of the above except
Financial and Institutional Sustainability.

B. Sustainability Performance:

This sub-section aims to identify the likelihood that the outcomes will be sustainable. If the
project has been well designed there should be in place a sustainability strategy which
identifies the constraints to the long-term maintenance of the benefits and the steps required

10
to maximise sustainability. In these situations the assessment can be made against the
indicators and issues identified in the strategy. Where there is no strategy the assessment
should use the PDD and the MOU to consider the extent to which the following factors are
addressed:

Financial:

• Are the means of financial support for the benefits or for the facility providing the
benefits clearly spelt out and understood by the PG and beneficiaries?
• Is appropriate training in financial management included if required, especially for
beneficiaries or other stakeholders?
• Is the PG economic policy context favourable for the activity?
• Are the financial inputs required from the PG after completion (both ongoing and
incremental) assessed and accepted by the PG?
• Are the increases in the recurrent budget likely to be small and within the capacity of the
PG to meet?

Institutional:

• Does the implementing agency or institution(s) have a high level of commitment to the
activity and are officials strongly supportive of the activity and actively involved in
decision-making?
• Are the staff and resources, both numbers and skills level, agreed to by the PG and are
they being met?
• Are staff at all levels in the institution, national, provincial and local, closely involved in
the implementation?
• Is there a high level of local ownership over project activities by government officers and
beneficiaries?
• Are the training programs likely to provide adequate and appropriate technical skills to
maintain project benefits after Australian involvement ends?
• Are essential project documents translated in the official language where appropriate?
• Is the activity likely to give the institution sufficient management knowledge and skills to
maintain the organisation, the systems and hardware necessary to ensure increased
capacity post activity?
• Does the activity include a program to provide the PG with the capability to obtain the
necessary training and skills in the future to maintain institutional capacity?
• Does the activity include appropriate training for PG officials to manage the activity?
• Will the activity have capable local staff in place to continue the activity after the AMC
has been withdrawn?

Technical:

• Are the engineering, scientific, and/or technical issues identified in the PDD being
adequately managed?
• Does the PG understand and endorse the approach taken under the activity to addressing
technical issues, particularly if the sustainability of the outcomes depends on accurate
solutions to technical problems or the installation of appropriate technology for the level
of capacity in country?
• Is the PG’s infrastructure and skill base able to support the technology transferred?
• Does the PG have the capacity to continue to provide an appropriate level of
maintenance of the technology being provided, including the skills for management,
troubleshooting and further technical development?

11
• Is the activity involving the beneficiaries in discussion about technical issues and
approaches to technical problems and are local proposals, concerns or solutions being
adequately taken on board in implementation?

Environmental:

• Does the activity adequately address any negative environment issues identified in the
PDD?
• Are steps being taken to mitigate or eliminate unforeseen environment issues that may
have arisen during implementation?
• Is the activity collecting and analysing environmental data as required for monitoring
and implementation of the activity?
• Has an environmental strategy or management plan been developed in consultation with
the target group and relevant officials in the PG?
• Is there a strategy in place that will ensure the ongoing management and protection of
the environment after project completion or is it being developed?
• Does the activity work cooperatively with beneficiaries, key agencies and staff in the PG
to ensure the appropriate skills are developed to assess and manage environmental
issues?

Social:

• Is the activity conducting regular beneficiary surveys and collecting data for monitoring
and planning purposes?
• Is the data on social and cultural impacts desegregated to focus on the poorest or most
disadvantaged groups?
• Are beneficiaries and target groups consulted on the design and implementation of
activities, particularly where social and cultural issues have a bearing on the strategy or
approach of the project?
• Where the beneficiaries are social or ethnic minorities has the activity undertaken a
social impact assessment and are the recommendations being incorporated in the
implementation strategy?
• Have vulnerable groups been identified and does the activity specifically target these
communities to ensure they participate in the activity and obtain benefits?
• Have participation strategies been developed for all social or cultural groups in the
target area?
• Where resettlement is required, has the activity developed a resettlement strategy that
incorporates social and cultural issues and is it being implemented on schedule?
• Is the activity reporting progress against key social and cultural indicators?

Gender:

In considering this issue, also consult the AusAID Gender Policy and Guidelines.

• According to the AMS Gender and Development Marker Questions for this activity, how
well are the key gender issues being addressed?
• Have gender sensitive consultations been incorporated into the implementation
schedule?
• Has the activity developed strategies to help overcome identified barriers to full
participation of men and women?

12
Population:

Are there population/family planning issues involved which are not consistent with the
Government's policies and procedures as embodied in the population guidelines and
monitoring requirements? For example, population targets, including prescriptive IEC
materials, and incentives. If so, how well is the activity addressing these issues? If population
is not relevant use the 97 indicator.

Brief Comments on Management Performance and Sustainability

(include specific comments where a rating of 1, 2, 97 or 99 was given).

This section should clarify and expand where appropriate on the ratings given above.
If some aspects of management performance and sustainability are considered more
important than others, and therefore should be given greater weighting, please
comment here.

5. Activity Quality Rating

Previous AMB Current AMB
(date) Draft

Overall Quality Rating X X

1. Appropriateness of Objectives & Design X X

2. Achievement of Objectives X X
3. Professionalism of Management X X
4. Sustainability X X

There is no need to enter the ratings for the criteria or the Overall Quality Rating.
These ratings will be calculated automatically from information provided elsewhere
in this AMB.

6. Finance

Original AMB Previous AMB Current AMB

Financial Data Estimates Estimates Estimates
1 Jan 97 28 Feb 98 28 Aug 98
Estimated End Date
Final APB AusAID Estimate $0
Total Current Estimate $0
Total Expenditure to Date $0
Expenditure/Current Estimate Ratio 0.00%
CFY Approved $0
CFY Expenditure $0
CFY Expenditure/Approved Ratio 0.00%

13
All Financial Data is automatically downloaded from the AMS, except the Final APB
AusAID Estimate which is downloaded from the APB. The Original AMB Estimates,
the expected completion dates and total AusAID cost are the estimates that were made
at the time of the FMA 9 approval for the activity prior to implementation. The
Current AMB Estimates figures are the expected completion dates and cost estimates
current at the time of AMB updating. The previous AMB Estimates column contains
figures from the last "locked" AMB.

7. Significant Activity Outputs Planned this Financial Year

Data will not need to be entered here. This information will automatically be taken
from the outputs listed or described in the "Activity Outputs by KRA/DAC” screen on
the AMS. Access to that screen will be via the "Outputs" button, currently found on
the Management Information (MI) screen which is accessed from the menu bar at the
top of the main activity screen on the AMS. This information will be used in reporting
on outputs and in the preparation of the Annual Report.

8. Actions Taken or to be Taken on Major Issues and Risks

A brief description of the current issues and risks that could have a major effect on
the activity objectives and/or implementation should be noted. Actions taken or
proposed should also be listed here.

9. Technical review

Include here an indication of the extent of sectoral/technical involvement in the

assessment made above, particularly if any field visits of sectoral experts (either
advisors or consultants) took place during the AMB period which contributed to the
assessment.

10. Other Proposed Actions

Describe other actions such as letters, visits, meetings or other actions.

Proposed next field visit: . {if appropriate}

Proposed next Coordination Meeting: . {if appropriate}

11. Review and Sign Off

Prepared by: usually Post Officer Signed:

Reviewed by: usually Desk Office or CPM Signed:
Authorised by: Director Signed:

14