Last Updated on October 27, 2026 by Jorge Lynch
Funds disbursed are important, but they are not the same as satisfactory contract performance, value for money, or development results.
Over the years, while working on donor-financed projects, I have become increasingly concerned about the way project implementation performance is sometimes discussed and assessed.
When projects fall behind schedule, conversations often turn quickly to commitments and disbursement. How much has been disbursed? How can procurement be accelerated? What can be fast-tracked? Can activities be restructured to improve implementation and disbursement?
These are legitimate questions. Financing that remains unused because implementation has stalled cannot deliver the intended development benefits. But I have often found myself asking a different question:
Are we concentrating too much on moving the funds and not enough on what the resulting contracts are actually delivering?
My concern comes from observations and discussions with colleagues during project implementation. It may not reflect the intentions of the financing institutions involved. Development banks, including the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, formally emphasize value for money and development results.
Nevertheless, the operational emphasis can sometimes create the impression that improving disbursement has become more urgent than ensuring satisfactory contract performance and achieving the intended development benefits.
1. Disbursement Is Not the Same as Performance
Disbursement is an important indicator of financial progress. A project that has disbursed very little after several years, despite substantial planned expenditure, deserves management attention. Low disbursement may signal delays, inadequate implementation capacity, unrealistic project design, or poor contract performance.
One reason disbursement receives considerable attention is that it is relatively easy to measure. It is regularly reported and provides a readily available indication of financial progress. It can also support comparisons across projects when differences in project age, design, and disbursement arrangements are considered.
The quality of contract performance and the achievement of development outcomes are often more difficult to measure. Consequently, what is easiest to measure can sometimes receive more attention than what ultimately matters.
It is useful to distinguish between four related dimensions:
- Financial progress: Whether project funds are being committed and disbursed in line with implementation needs and plans.
- Procurement performance: Whether procurement is conducted efficiently, transparently, and in accordance with applicable requirements while seeking value for money.
- Contract performance: Whether suppliers, contractors, and consultants deliver the required outputs within the agreed time, cost, and quality parameters.
- Development performance: Whether those outputs contribute to the intended outcomes and sustainable benefits.
These dimensions are interconnected, but satisfactory performance in one does not establish satisfactory performance in another.
Medical equipment may be purchased and paid for but remain unused because trained personnel, suitable facilities, or maintenance arrangements are unavailable. A consultancy may deliver its reports and receive payment without the recommendations being implemented or the expected institutional improvements occurring. Construction works may be completed but fail to provide sustainable benefits because of quality deficiencies or inadequate maintenance.
These situations may reflect deficiencies in contract performance, project design, operational readiness, or the subsequent use of outputs. The cause must be established before responsibility is assigned.
In each case, funds have been disbursed. The question is whether the intended results have been achieved.
Disbursement tells us that money has moved. It does not, by itself, tell us whether value has been created.
2. Many Implementation Problems Begin Before Procurement
Another concern is that procurement is frequently blamed for implementation delays that originate elsewhere.
Some projects enter implementation without sufficient preparation. Needs assessments may be inadequate, technical requirements incomplete, implementation capacity overestimated, or institutional arrangements insufficiently examined. Project documentation may also be adapted from previous projects without adequate consideration of the specific operating environment.
These weaknesses become apparent when implementation begins.
Technical specifications and terms of reference require repeated revisions. Project personnel may be unfamiliar with procurement requirements. Evaluation committees may be difficult to convene, and approving officials may have competing responsibilities outside the project.
In some cases, decisions that appear straightforward in an implementation schedule take weeks or months because the responsible authorities are not dedicated to the project.
These delays are often described collectively as procurement delays. That description may identify where the delay appears in the project schedule, but it does not necessarily explain its cause or establish who can resolve it.
There is an important distinction between the total time required to complete procurement and the time attributable to activities directly controlled by procurement personnel. Technical preparation, evaluation, reviews, and approvals may involve several other actors, each with responsibilities that affect the overall schedule.
These activities remain part of the broader procurement process. The point is to identify the actual bottleneck and assign corrective action to the person or institution able to address it.
Realistic procurement planning must therefore account for the entire process, including preparation, reviews, approvals, solicitation, evaluation, and contract award. It must also identify who is responsible for each stage and whether those actors have the capacity and availability to perform their roles.
This distinction matters because the diagnosis influences the response.
When all implementation delays are attributed to procurement personnel or procedures, the proposed solution is often simply to accelerate procurement. But that instruction cannot, by itself, resolve inadequate technical preparation, weak institutional capacity, unavailable decision-makers, or inefficient approval arrangements.
What is described as a procurement problem may actually be a broader project preparation, governance, or implementation problem.
3. Fast-Tracking Is Not a Procurement Method
One expression I frequently hear when projects fall behind schedule is “fast-track the procurement process.”
In discussions about delayed procurement activities, I have found myself saying more than once:
“Fast-tracking is not a procurement method”.
Seeking to fast-track procurement does not, in itself, identify or justify a particular procurement method. Any measures taken to accelerate the process must comply with the applicable procurement framework and preserve the requirements associated with the selected method.
There is nothing wrong with accelerating procurement where this can be done responsibly. Unnecessary administrative delays should be eliminated. Reviews can be better coordinated, documents prepared in parallel where appropriate, and approval processes organized more efficiently.
Depending on the applicable procurement framework and circumstances, provisions may also exist for addressing urgent requirements through appropriately justified procurement approaches.
But describing an activity as fast-tracked does not remove the need for clear requirements, a justified procurement approach, appropriate evaluation and approvals, or effective contract management.
More importantly, it does not make an unrealistic contract implementation period realistic.
This becomes particularly relevant when projects have already lost considerable time through inadequate preparation, delayed decisions, or institutional constraints.
As the project closing date approaches, pressure increases to accelerate procurement, restructure activities, shorten implementation periods, and improve disbursement.
Some adjustments may be justified and necessary. Projects must be capable of responding to changing circumstances. However, an important question must be asked:
Are we adjusting the implementation approach to improve the likelihood of achieving the intended results, or primarily to increase commitments and disbursement as project closing approaches?
Time lost during project preparation and approvals cannot always be recovered safely by compressing procurement and contract implementation.
A contract that reasonably requires nine months to deliver a satisfactory result does not necessarily become a six-month contract simply because the project closing date is approaching.
When acceleration becomes the principal response to earlier implementation delays, procurement quality, contract performance, and ultimately value for money may be compromised.
4. Borrowers and Grant Recipients Also Have Responsibilities
I do not consider these problems to be the responsibility of financing institutions alone.
Borrowers and grant recipients have a central role in ensuring effective project implementation.
In my experience, inadequate project ownership and insufficient implementation capacity can be significant obstacles.
Project personnel may be technically qualified in their respective fields but lack sufficient understanding of procurement, contract management, financial management, or the broader requirements of project implementation.
In addition, important decisions may depend on officials and committees outside the project implementation structure whose other responsibilities take precedence.
These institutional realities need to be considered during project preparation, with clear responsibilities, realistic decision timelines, and arrangements for addressing delays.
Another concern is how external financing is sometimes perceived.
Donor financing may be treated as something separate from normal public resources, occasionally creating the impression that grant financing, in particular, is somehow free money.
It is not.
Whether provided as a loan, concessional credit, or grant, development financing represents resources entrusted for a defined public purpose. Borrowers and recipients remain responsible for ensuring that those resources are managed economically, efficiently, and accountably.
The fact that financing comes from an external source does not diminish the recipient’s responsibility to obtain value for money and achieve the intended benefits.
5. Measuring What Matters
I believe project implementation reviews would benefit from giving greater attention to contract performance and development results alongside financial progress.
Disbursement should certainly continue to be monitored. However, implementation discussions should also examine whether contracts are delivering the expected outputs, whether those outputs are being used, and whether the intended beneficiaries are receiving the expected benefits.
This requires distinguishing between what a contract must deliver and what the project must achieve through the use of those deliverables. It also requires recognizing that some development outcomes take time to emerge.
When procurement delays occur, the time spent at each stage should be examined to identify the actual bottlenecks. This would help distinguish delays within the procurement team’s control from those arising from technical preparation, institutional reviews, approvals, or other causes.
Similarly, before accelerating procurement or restructuring project activities, consideration should be given to whether the proposed changes will improve the likelihood of achieving the intended results.
A few practical measures could make a difference:
- Monitor contract performance alongside disbursement, including delivery schedules, quality, outstanding obligations, and implementation risks.
- Identify the actual causes of procurement delays, including the responsible actors and the actions needed to resolve each bottleneck.
- Confirm implementation readiness before launching procurement activities, including technical requirements, decision-making arrangements, and contract management capacity.
- Assess proposed acceleration measures against their potential effects on competition, value for money, contract performance, and development outcomes.
- Monitor whether completed outputs are operational and being used, and assess progress against the project’s agreed outcome indicators, baselines, targets, and expected timeframes.
These measures place disbursement within a broader assessment of whether project implementation is producing the intended results.
6. Disbursement Alone Does Not Demonstrate Success
I understand why development banks monitor disbursement closely, and why borrowers should do the same. Projects cannot achieve their objectives if financing remains unused because implementation has stalled.
Disbursement may also legitimately precede delivery. Advances can provide the resources needed for implementation, subject to the applicable financing and contractual arrangements. The concern is therefore not that every disbursement must follow completed performance.
The concern is treating the movement of funds as sufficient evidence of success.
The purpose of a development project is not simply to spend its financing. The financing exists to achieve defined development objectives.
Likewise, the purpose of public procurement is not merely to complete a process, award contracts, and enable expenditure. It is to obtain the goods, works, and services necessary to achieve the intended public benefit.
That is why I keep returning to a simple proposition:
Disbursement should support effective project implementation. It should be assessed alongside evidence of satisfactory contract performance and progress toward the intended development results.
When projects are under pressure to accelerate, the response should address the actual causes of delay while preserving a realistic path to satisfactory delivery and sustainable benefits.
Ultimately, the real measure of success is what the project achieved with the resources entrusted to it.