From Project Outputs to
Outcomes
ABDULLA GOZALOV, UNSD
COUNTRY DIRECTORS’ MEETING
NEW YORK, 15-17 OCTOBER 2014
UNSD-DfID Project Objectives
 Improve the coherence and clarity of dev’t indicators
 Improve coordination in the NSS
 Collate development data in 1 place/database
 Explain differences between intl. & nat. data
 Improve accessibility and visibility
 Make access to national data easier
 Draw attention to wider set of indicators
 Reduce data request burden
 Enhance knowledge
 Strengthen IT support
 Use of latest IT software & practices
 Training & skills development
Project Outputs
 Centralized National Repository for dev’t indicators
 Established or improved in all project countries
 Morocco’s database is still offline but will be in production
soon
 In many cases data is still out of date, published with
significant delays
 In some countries, the database is still often offline
 International Data Platform
 CountryData web site has been in operation since late 2011
 Has evolved through several versions
 Now integrates project countries’ data with those obtained
from MDGLabs, for over 100 countries total
Project Outputs (cont.)
 Automated Data and Metadata Exchange
 Data exchange has been established between CountryData and
all 11 project countries, as well as 4 additional countries
 Automated metadata exchange established with 4 project
countries; non-automated exchange with most others
 Metadata and Discrepancy Information
 Some metadata has been obtained from 8 countries (except
Ghana, Liberia, Morocco)
 Quantity and quality is often still an issue
 Discrepancies have been analyzed for all countries
Assessing Project Outcomes
 While project outputs are certainly used to measure
success of the project, it is achieving favorable
outcomes that is the ultimate goal.
 There is evidence of positive outcomes in many of
the project countries.
 Other outcomes are more long-term but we can
analyze if the project has made an influence.
More Coherent Dev’t Indicators
 Has the project helped improve the uniformity of
development indicators at national level?
 In Rwanda, project consultant helped identify and
address issues with development indicators
produced by different agencies of the National
Statistical System.
 Launch events for dissemination databases

Rwanda, Uganda, Cambodia
 Consultations with users
 Rwanda, Burundi
Increased Collaboration Within NSS
 Has the level of cooperation between NSO and
Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDAs) improved
as a result of the project?
 NSO meetings with MDAs; focal points established

Lao, Viet Nam, Uganda
 Most project countries have developed data and
metadata templates for use with MDAs.
 In some cases, efforts to increase cooperation within
the NSS were met with significant resistance or
inertia.
Improved Understanding of Discrepancies
 Has the project helped improve understanding and
therefore reduce the number of discrepancies
between national and international indicators?
 The number of discrepancies on CountryData has
gone down

Cambodia, Uganda, Thailand
 Some of these are due to database cleanup efforts,
others due to harmonization at national level
Improved Understanding of Data
 Has the project helped users to better understand
and choose indicators and data sources?
Improved Evidence-Based Policy-Making
 If the project improved the accessibility and quality
of development indicators, has this improved the
policy-making?
 In Cambodia, senior staff from the Ministry of
Planning expressed their appreciation of the
improved CamInfo database and their willingness to
use it in their activities.
Reduced Data Request Burden
 Has the project reduced the data request burden? Do
project countries have plans for data exchange
automation outside the project?
 The project minimized its own data request burden
through data exchange automation using SDMX.
 Thailand participates in a UNESCAP/ADB project to
pilot National Accounts data exchange through
SDMX.
Thank You!