## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [EXECUTIVE SUMMARY](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2020/english/ppea2020013.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2020/english/ppea2020013.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2020/english/ppea2020013.pdf.json) --- ### Background - Purpose: Propose a framework to implement the recommendation of the Third External Evaluation of the IEO to address the backlog of open management actions included in the Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) in response to Board-endorsed IEO recommendations. - Basis: Builds on the Third External Evaluation of the IEO and recent Periodic Monitoring Reports (PMRs), including novel ideas introduced in the Ninth PMR to give clearer indication where Management or Board intervention may be required. - Date on document: March 6, 2019 - Governance note: Prepared by the Office of Internal Audit, in consultation with SPR, LEG, SEC, IEO and other departments; Approved By Nancy Onyango. ### Key findings from analysis of open actions - Preliminary analysis of actions classified as open in the Ninth PMR: - "roughly a quarter" were well-defined with no obvious future challenges. - The remainder would require some form of intervention by Management or the Board. - Root causes for long-standing implementation challenges: - Management actions that involve culture change or continuous technical improvements. - Actions that are broadly worded without clear measures of success. - Some actions are part of continuous improvements where a binary open-closed classification is not meaningful. - Some actions have become duplicates, redundant, or no longer valuable. ### Triage framework: five categories and corresponding interventions - Category 1 — Actions that are open with no obvious challenges; routine follow-up in the PMR. - Characteristics: Clearly defined, measurable, monitorable, progress is being made, sufficiently specific and time-bound. - Intervention: Continue monitoring through PMR. - Examples: (a) the development of a common evaluation framework for capacity development, (b) the adoption of Fund-wide data management standards. - Category 2 — Actions for which desired outcomes are not being achieved despite implementation guidelines being in place; revisions needed to embed greater incentives or stronger enforcement. - Characteristics: Guidance provided but outcomes not achieved; outcomes still deemed relevant. - Intervention: Board-endorsed revisions to enhance monitorability (in line with SMART principles), embed compliance incentives, and/or strengthen accountability mechanisms; reformulated through new MIPs. - Examples: (a) early consultations with country authorities ahead of the Article IV discussions, (b) improved handover of country assignments. - Category 3 — Actions that are insufficiently specific, with no clear measures of success; revisions needed to make them SMART. - Characteristics: Broadly worded actions making progress difficult to measure. - Intervention: Management proposes revisions to make actions Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART); reformulated through new MIPs. - Examples: (a) incentivize the use of the common surveillance database, (b) undertake metadata clean up. - Category 4 — Actions that involve long-term technical or culture change and are not suitable for a binary open-closed classification; better addressed through other mechanisms. - Characteristics: Ingrained technical or cultural issues where binary classification is not meaningful. - Intervention: Follow up in five reporting cycles of the PMR to review intermediate progress; after five cycles Management would propose retirement from PMR (subject to Board endorsement) or extension of monitoring; identify alternative Board mechanisms for future updates where appropriate. - Examples: (a) continuously improve analytical underpinnings of surveillance and program design, (b) publish a statement of workplace values to encourage staff research contributions, (c) broaden professional diversity or geographical representation of staff. - Category 5 — Actions for which full implementation is no longer seen as valuable, have duplicates in other MIPs, or have become redundant; retire from PMR. - Characteristics: Actions with significant challenges or superseded by other events/priorities or MIPs. - Intervention: Retire from PMR subject to Board endorsement; Management proposals to retire take the form of a short staff paper submitted jointly with a PMR. - Examples: Actions to develop a multi-country medium-term forecasting model where full implementation would not be efficient due to unforeseen technical difficulties. ### Implementation and follow-up procedures - Timing: The framework would be implemented jointly with the Tenth PMR. - Responsibilities and process: - Upon Board approval of the framework, SPR will prepare a final categorization of all open actions in consultation with OIA and accountable departments and with Management’s clearance. - The final categorization will be presented to the Board for endorsement along with the Tenth PMR. - For actions in categories 2 and 3: Management proposals will take the form of MIPs and follow the established process for approval of new MIPs; implementation monitored by subsequent PMRs. - For actions in category 4 that have completed five PMR cycles, and actions in category 5: Management proposals to retire these actions will take the form of a short staff paper submitted jointly with the Tenth PMR for Board consideration and endorsement. - For category 4 actions that have not completed five reporting cycles at the time of the Tenth PMR: a short paper accompanying a future PMR will be presented for Board consideration at the applicable time. - Exceptional use: The framework is expected as a one-off triage but may be leveraged in future PMRs if unforeseen implementation challenges or changed circumstances arise. ### Links to existing PMR and MIP frameworks and proposed decision - The proposed decision consolidates and amends the framework on Periodic Monitoring Reports (PMRs), restating the PMR framework and introducing the categorization framework and associated procedures, including the requirement for Board endorsement of the categorization. - One consequential amendment to the framework on Management Implementation Plans (MIPs): because the PMR framework currently contains the provision affording the full Executive Board the opportunity to provide feedback on MIPs, the proposed decision amends Decision No. 15877-(15/95) on the MIP framework to include reference to the Board’s feedback on MIPs following the Evaluation Committee discussion. - The triage categories will be applied using professional judgment where actions display characteristics of more than one category; each action will be assigned a primary category for the purpose of determining the best course. ### Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) — requirement and timing - Within six months of the discussion by the Executive Board of each Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) report, Management shall provide the Board with a forward-looking implementation plan in response to Board-endorsed IEO Recommendations (a Management Implementation Plan or MIP) prepared according to the modalities outlined in Decision No. 15877-(15/95). - When a MIP has been presented to the Executive Board, the Board shall adopt a decision noting that the requirement to prepare a MIP has been fulfilled. ### Office of Internal Audit (OIA) — role and PMR production - The Office of Internal Audit (OIA) will be responsible for independently assessing progress and preparing a Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR) on the status of MIPs. - Each PMR will examine the state of implementation of actions contained in the MIPs already in force, including those not deemed completed on the occasion of a prior PMR. - SPR will facilitate the provision of information and data to the OIA, as may be needed for OIA to carry out the independent assessment. - The PMR is expected to be produced once a year. - At fixed intervals, the OIA shall present the PMR to the Board, in line with circulation procedures for policy/key administrative items. - The PMR will be discussed and subject to endorsement by the Board. - The earlier practice of regular discussions of the PMR by the Evaluation Committee is hereby eliminated. - The frequency of the PMRs may be reviewed by the Board as needed. ### Classification of outstanding actions (from the 10th PMR onward) and follow-up - Together with the 10th PMR, SPR will prepare a classification of all actions that the OIA has not determined to be implemented into Categories 1 through 5, subject to consultation with the OIA and accountable departments and the approval of Management. This classification will be subject to endorsement by the Board. - Thereafter, each subsequent PMR will reflect the classifications of these actions as they were endorsed by the Board, as needed. - In exceptional circumstances after the 10th PMR, SPR, in consultation with the OIA and relevant departments, may submit to the Executive Board together with a PMR a proposal to classify outstanding action(s) into Categories 2-5. ### Categories for open actions (definitions) - Category 1. Actions that are open with no obvious challenges; routine follow-up in the PMR. These actions are clearly defined, measurable and monitorable, progress is being made, and are expected to be implemented in reasonable time. - Category 2. Actions for which desired outcomes are not being achieved despite implementation guidelines being in place; revisions are needed to embed greater incentives or stronger enforcement. Management will propose revisions that seek to achieve the same goal as the original action, while enhancing monitorability, embedding compliance incentives, and/or strengthening accountability mechanisms. - Category 3. Actions that are insufficiently specific and have no clear measures of success; revisions are needed to make them SMART. Management will propose revisions to make them more specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. - Category 4. Actions that involve long-term technical or culture change and are not suitable for a binary open-closed classification; better addressed through other mechanisms. The classification will identify actions designed to address ingrained technical or cultural issues, for which a binary open-closed measure of progress is not meaningful. Actions in this category would be followed up in five reporting cycles of the PMR, following their original approval, to review progress. After this period, Management will propose (with an explanation of the progress to date) that the action should be retired from the PMR monitoring process, unless a longer monitoring period is required—in which case the period of PMR monitoring would be extended. If needed, at the time an action is proposed to be retired, Management, jointly with the accountable departments, would identify other mechanisms of the Board where future updates could be available (e.g., a Board policy or administrative review that looks into the broad topic of concern). - Category 5. Actions for which full implementation is no longer seen as valuable, have duplicates in other MIPs, or have become redundant; retire from PMR. Management will propose that such actions should be retired from the PMR because they have encountered significant challenges or other factors that make full implementation unlikely (with no obvious remedy) or have become redundant because they have been superseded by subsequent events, priorities, or MIPs. - Implemented; no further action required. Continuing with the practice in prior PMRs, these represent actions that have been substantially addressed as intended. ### Management proposals and Board consideration for reclassified actions - For any actions categorized in (b) through (e) above, Management shall present to the Board relevant proposals for remedial actions. - For the actions falling under categories (b) and (c), Management proposals will take a form of a MIP and will follow the established process for the approval of new MIPs. - For actions falling under categories (d) and (e), Management proposals to retire relevant actions will take form of a short staff paper submitted, jointly with the PMR, for Board consideration and endorsement. - In the case of actions classified in category (d), the short staff paper would be presented for Board consideration and endorsement at the fifth PMR reporting cycle. ### Amendments and repeals of existing decisions - Decision No. 15877-(15/95) shall be amended to add the following at the end of the first bullet: “On each such occasion, the Executive Board shall be given the opportunity to offer feedback on the implementation plan, normally on a lapse-of-time basis. When a MIP has been presented to the Executive Board, the Board shall adopt a decision noting that the requirement to prepare a MIP has been fulfilled.” - Decision DEC/A/12739 and the reference to “preparing Periodic Monitoring Reports” in paragraph 3 of Decision No. 15540-(14/14) are hereby repealed. ### Illustrative examples of open management actions by category (selected) - Category 1 examples include: - Behind the Scenes with Data at the Fund (2016): Adopt Fund-wide data management standards. Original Target Date: 2017. Accountable Dept: STA, Area departments. - Self Evaluation at the IMF (2015): Develop a common evaluation framework, including self-evaluation, for IMF capacity development. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: ICD. - Category 2 examples include: - IMF Forecast: Process, Quality, and Country Perspectives (2014): Issue guidelines establishing minimum requirements and recommending best practices for the handover of country assignments. Original Target Date: 2016. Accountable Dept: KMU, SPR, Area departments. - The Role of the IMF as Trusted Advisor (2013): Early consultations with country authorities will now be expected of all teams. Original Target Date: Beginning 2013. Accountable Dept: SPR, Area Departments. - Category 3 examples include: - Behind the Scenes with Data at the Fund (2016): Undertake metadata cleanup. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: STA, Area departments. - Behind the Scenes with Data at the Fund (2016): Incentivize use of the Common Surveillance Database. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: STA. - Category 4 examples include: - The IMF and the Crisis in Greece, Ireland and Portugal (2016): Ensure continuous improvements in the analytical underpinnings of both surveillance and program design. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: SPR, All departments. These actions would be followed up in five reporting cycles of the PMR, and following the thirteenth PMR (which will be the fifth PMR reporting cycle for this evaluation under OIA), Management would propose for the action to be retired. - Research at the IMF - Relevance and Utilization (2011): Publish a statement of workplace values to emphasize staff contribution of ideas. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: COM, HRD, All departments. Following the tenth PMR (which will be the fifth PMR reporting cycle for this evaluation under OIA), Management would propose for the action to be retired. - Category 5 examples include: - IMF Forecast: Process, Quality, and Country Perspectives (2014): RES pilot for top-down guidance for medium-term forecasts. Original Target Date: 2015. Accountable Dept: RES. Implementation unlikely due to unforeseen technical challenges. - IMF Forecast: Process, Quality, and Country Perspectives (2014): Develop a multi-country macro-econometric forecasting model to ensure medium-term consistency of forecasts. Original Target Date: 2015. Accountable Dept: RES. Implementation unlikely for same reasons. *Source: ppea2020013 - 1. Within six months of the discussion by the Executive Board of each Independent Evaluation* ### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ### Background - Purpose: Propose a framework to implement the recommendation of the Third External Evaluation of the IEO to address the backlog of open management actions included in the Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) in response to Board-endorsed IEO recommendations. - Basis: Builds on the Third External Evaluation of the IEO and recent Periodic Monitoring Reports (PMRs), including novel ideas introduced in the Ninth PMR to give clearer indication where Management or Board intervention may be required. - Date on document: March 6, 2019 - Governance note: Prepared by the Office of Internal Audit, in consultation with SPR, LEG, SEC, IEO and other departments; Approved By Nancy Onyango. ### Key findings from analysis of open actions - Preliminary analysis of actions classified as open in the Ninth PMR: - "roughly a quarter" were well-defined with no obvious future challenges. - The remainder would require some form of intervention by Management or the Board. - Root causes for long-standing implementation challenges: - Management actions that involve culture change or continuous technical improvements. - Actions that are broadly worded without clear measures of success. - Some actions are part of continuous improvements where a binary open-closed classification is not meaningful. - Some actions have become duplicates, redundant, or no longer valuable. ### Triage framework: five categories and corresponding interventions - Category 1 — Actions that are open with no obvious challenges; routine follow-up in the PMR. - Characteristics: Clearly defined, measurable, monitorable, progress is being made, sufficiently specific and time-bound. - Intervention: Continue monitoring through PMR. - Examples: (a) the development of a common evaluation framework for capacity development, (b) the adoption of Fund-wide data management standards. - Category 2 — Actions for which desired outcomes are not being achieved despite implementation guidelines being in place; revisions needed to embed greater incentives or stronger enforcement. - Characteristics: Guidance provided but outcomes not achieved; outcomes still deemed relevant. - Intervention: Board-endorsed revisions to enhance monitorability (in line with SMART principles), embed compliance incentives, and/or strengthen accountability mechanisms; reformulated through new MIPs. - Examples: (a) early consultations with country authorities ahead of the Article IV discussions, (b) improved handover of country assignments. - Category 3 — Actions that are insufficiently specific, with no clear measures of success; revisions needed to make them SMART. - Characteristics: Broadly worded actions making progress difficult to measure. - Intervention: Management proposes revisions to make actions Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART); reformulated through new MIPs. - Examples: (a) incentivize the use of the common surveillance database, (b) undertake metadata clean up. - Category 4 — Actions that involve long-term technical or culture change and are not suitable for a binary open-closed classification; better addressed through other mechanisms. - Characteristics: Ingrained technical or cultural issues where binary classification is not meaningful. - Intervention: Follow up in five reporting cycles of the PMR to review intermediate progress; after five cycles Management would propose retirement from PMR (subject to Board endorsement) or extension of monitoring; identify alternative Board mechanisms for future updates where appropriate. - Examples: (a) continuously improve analytical underpinnings of surveillance and program design, (b) publish a statement of workplace values to encourage staff research contributions, (c) broaden professional diversity or geographical representation of staff. - Category 5 — Actions for which full implementation is no longer seen as valuable, have duplicates in other MIPs, or have become redundant; retire from PMR. - Characteristics: Actions with significant challenges or superseded by other events/priorities or MIPs. - Intervention: Retire from PMR subject to Board endorsement; Management proposals to retire take the form of a short staff paper submitted jointly with a PMR. - Examples: Actions to develop a multi-country medium-term forecasting model where full implementation would not be efficient due to unforeseen technical difficulties. ### Implementation and follow-up procedures - Timing: The framework would be implemented jointly with the Tenth PMR. - Responsibilities and process: - Upon Board approval of the framework, SPR will prepare a final categorization of all open actions in consultation with OIA and accountable departments and with Management’s clearance. - The final categorization will be presented to the Board for endorsement along with the Tenth PMR. - For actions in categories 2 and 3: Management proposals will take the form of MIPs and follow the established process for approval of new MIPs; implementation monitored by subsequent PMRs. - For actions in category 4 that have completed five PMR cycles, and actions in category 5: Management proposals to retire these actions will take the form of a short staff paper submitted jointly with the Tenth PMR for Board consideration and endorsement. - For category 4 actions that have not completed five reporting cycles at the time of the Tenth PMR: a short paper accompanying a future PMR will be presented for Board consideration at the applicable time. - Exceptional use: The framework is expected as a one-off triage but may be leveraged in future PMRs if unforeseen implementation challenges or changed circumstances arise. ### Links to existing PMR and MIP frameworks and proposed decision - The proposed decision consolidates and amends the framework on Periodic Monitoring Reports (PMRs), restating the PMR framework and introducing the categorization framework and associated procedures, including the requirement for Board endorsement of the categorization. - One consequential amendment to the framework on Management Implementation Plans (MIPs): because the PMR framework currently contains the provision affording the full Executive Board the opportunity to provide feedback on MIPs, the proposed decision amends Decision No. 15877-(15/95) on the MIP framework to include reference to the Board’s feedback on MIPs following the Evaluation Committee discussion. - The triage categories will be applied using professional judgment where actions display characteristics of more than one category; each action will be assigned a primary category for the purpose of determining the best course. *Document: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — March 6, 2019* ### 1. Within six months of the discussion by the Executive Board of each Independent Evaluation ### 1. Within six months of the discussion by the Executive Board of each Independent Evaluation ### Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) — requirement and timing - Within six months of the discussion by the Executive Board of each Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) report, Management shall provide the Board with a forward-looking implementation plan in response to Board-endorsed IEO Recommendations (a Management Implementation Plan or MIP) prepared according to the modalities outlined in Decision No. 15877-(15/95). - When a MIP has been presented to the Executive Board, the Board shall adopt a decision noting that the requirement to prepare a MIP has been fulfilled. ### Office of Internal Audit (OIA) — role and PMR production - The Office of Internal Audit (OIA) will be responsible for independently assessing progress and preparing a Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR) on the status of MIPs. - Each PMR will examine the state of implementation of actions contained in the MIPs already in force, including those not deemed completed on the occasion of a prior PMR. - SPR will facilitate the provision of information and data to the OIA, as may be needed for OIA to carry out the independent assessment. - The PMR is expected to be produced once a year. - At fixed intervals, the OIA shall present the PMR to the Board, in line with circulation procedures for policy/key administrative items. - The PMR will be discussed and subject to endorsement by the Board. - The earlier practice of regular discussions of the PMR by the Evaluation Committee is hereby eliminated. - The frequency of the PMRs may be reviewed by the Board as needed. ### Classification of outstanding actions (from the 10th PMR onward) and follow-up - Together with the 10th PMR, SPR will prepare a classification of all actions that the OIA has not determined to be implemented into Categories 1 through 5, subject to consultation with the OIA and accountable departments and the approval of Management. This classification will be subject to endorsement by the Board. - Thereafter, each subsequent PMR will reflect the classifications of these actions as they were endorsed by the Board, as needed. - In exceptional circumstances after the 10th PMR, SPR, in consultation with the OIA and relevant departments, may submit to the Executive Board together with a PMR a proposal to classify outstanding action(s) into Categories 2-5. ### Categories for open actions (definitions) - Category 1. Actions that are open with no obvious challenges; routine follow-up in the PMR. These actions are clearly defined, measurable and monitorable, progress is being made, and are expected to be implemented in reasonable time. - Category 2. Actions for which desired outcomes are not being achieved despite implementation guidelines being in place; revisions are needed to embed greater incentives or stronger enforcement. Management will propose revisions that seek to achieve the same goal as the original action, while enhancing monitorability, embedding compliance incentives, and/or strengthening accountability mechanisms. - Category 3. Actions that are insufficiently specific and have no clear measures of success; revisions are needed to make them SMART. Management will propose revisions to make them more specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. - Category 4. Actions that involve long-term technical or culture change and are not suitable for a binary open-closed classification; better addressed through other mechanisms. The classification will identify actions designed to address ingrained technical or cultural issues, for which a binary open-closed measure of progress is not meaningful. Actions in this category would be followed up in five reporting cycles of the PMR, following their original approval, to review progress. After this period, Management will propose (with an explanation of the progress to date) that the action should be retired from the PMR monitoring process, unless a longer monitoring period is required—in which case the period of PMR monitoring would be extended. If needed, at the time an action is proposed to be retired, Management, jointly with the accountable departments, would identify other mechanisms of the Board where future updates could be available (e.g., a Board policy or administrative review that looks into the broad topic of concern). - Category 5. Actions for which full implementation is no longer seen as valuable, have duplicates in other MIPs, or have become redundant; retire from PMR. Management will propose that such actions should be retired from the PMR because they have encountered significant challenges or other factors that make full implementation unlikely (with no obvious remedy) or have become redundant because they have been superseded by subsequent events, priorities, or MIPs. - Implemented; no further action required. Continuing with the practice in prior PMRs, these represent actions that have been substantially addressed as intended. ### Management proposals and Board consideration for reclassified actions - For any actions categorized in (b) through (e) above, Management shall present to the Board relevant proposals for remedial actions. - For the actions falling under categories (b) and (c), Management proposals will take a form of a MIP and will follow the established process for the approval of new MIPs. - For actions falling under categories (d) and (e), Management proposals to retire relevant actions will take form of a short staff paper submitted, jointly with the PMR, for Board consideration and endorsement. - In the case of actions classified in category (d), the short staff paper would be presented for Board consideration and endorsement at the fifth PMR reporting cycle. ### Amendments and repeals of existing decisions - Decision No. 15877-(15/95) shall be amended to add the following at the end of the first bullet: “On each such occasion, the Executive Board shall be given the opportunity to offer feedback on the implementation plan, normally on a lapse-of-time basis. When a MIP has been presented to the Executive Board, the Board shall adopt a decision noting that the requirement to prepare a MIP has been fulfilled.” - Decision DEC/A/12739 and the reference to “preparing Periodic Monitoring Reports” in paragraph 3 of Decision No. 15540-(14/14) are hereby repealed. ### Illustrative examples of open management actions by category (selected) - Category 1 examples include: - Behind the Scenes with Data at the Fund (2016): Adopt Fund-wide data management standards. Original Target Date: 2017. Accountable Dept: STA, Area departments. - Self Evaluation at the IMF (2015): Develop a common evaluation framework, including self-evaluation, for IMF capacity development. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: ICD. - Category 2 examples include: - IMF Forecast: Process, Quality, and Country Perspectives (2014): Issue guidelines establishing minimum requirements and recommending best practices for the handover of country assignments. Original Target Date: 2016. Accountable Dept: KMU, SPR, Area departments. - The Role of the IMF as Trusted Advisor (2013): Early consultations with country authorities will now be expected of all teams. Original Target Date: Beginning 2013. Accountable Dept: SPR, Area Departments. - Category 3 examples include: - Behind the Scenes with Data at the Fund (2016): Undertake metadata cleanup. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: STA, Area departments. - Behind the Scenes with Data at the Fund (2016): Incentivize use of the Common Surveillance Database. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: STA. - Category 4 examples include: - The IMF and the Crisis in Greece, Ireland and Portugal (2016): Ensure continuous improvements in the analytical underpinnings of both surveillance and program design. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: SPR, All departments. These actions would be followed up in five reporting cycles of the PMR, and following the thirteenth PMR (which will be the fifth PMR reporting cycle for this evaluation under OIA), Management would propose for the action to be retired. - Research at the IMF - Relevance and Utilization (2011): Publish a statement of workplace values to emphasize staff contribution of ideas. Original Target Date: TBD. Accountable Dept: COM, HRD, All departments. Following the tenth PMR (which will be the fifth PMR reporting cycle for this evaluation under OIA), Management would propose for the action to be retired. - Category 5 examples include: - IMF Forecast: Process, Quality, and Country Perspectives (2014): RES pilot for top-down guidance for medium-term forecasts. Original Target Date: 2015. Accountable Dept: RES. Implementation unlikely due to unforeseen technical challenges. - IMF Forecast: Process, Quality, and Country Perspectives (2014): Develop a multi-country macro-econometric forecasting model to ensure medium-term consistency of forecasts. Original Target Date: 2015. Accountable Dept: RES. Implementation unlikely for same reasons. *Source: ppea2020013 - 1. Within six months of the discussion by the Executive Board of each Independent Evaluation* --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2020/english/ppea2020013.pdf_