Importance of a Rapid Results Framework

Developing a rapid results framework helps in translating long-term goals into concrete action, quick results, and effectiveness. The framework focuses on generating results to jumpstart reform efforts within the government or institution.

The Rapid Results Approach

The World Bank uses the rapid results approach (RRA) to help decision makers, stakeholders, and partners achieve tangible results within 100 days. The RRA enables engagement across a range of difficult development situations with its tools, strategies, and accompanying focus on teamwork. 

The RRA is an experience-based process and methodology that requires leadership teams to be adaptive, flexible, and creative in the achievement of their objectives. The approach leverages learning through implementation. Teams are able to change strategies as they go, developing what works and eliminating failed strategies.

Using an RRA leads to initiatives that help minimize implementation risks. That goal is achieved by dividing wide reforms into workable tasks that can be accomplished within 100 days. That way, the team members can focus on the immediate task and achieve results within a shorter timeframe. The methodology is desirable for building cross-sectoral coalitions because it helps participants to better set goals, build consensus, and ultimately motivate actors to implement change and quickly deliver on their promised results.

RRA disadvantages must also be recognized. Institutionalization can be a challenge as a result of the following:

  • Not institutionalizing the results learned
  • Pushing teams from one rapid results initiative (RRI) to another instead of creating bureaucratic systems
  • Poorly scoping out or preparing for the RRIs
  • Not providing the teams with enough strategic support— RRIs require as much work from senior authorities as they do from the teams conducting fieldwork
  • Why is it needed?

    RRA is useful when the answer to a problem is not a simple technical solution. When new coalitions need to deliver results, develop new processes, or find new solutions, RRA can be a powerful methodology for disciplined experimentation.

    Consequently, each initiative or set of initiatives can be designed with the following specific purposes: (a) jumpstarting the implementation of a project, program, or policy; (b) diagnosing performance-related organizational issues or obstacles; (c) testing a new strategy; (d) reducing implementation risks of complex projects; and (e) increasing local or frontline readiness to use new technologies or strengthening local engagement and ownership of a national program or policy.

  • Who are the actors?

    Typically, the RRA entails the creation of a temporary governance structure composed of a leadership group, strategic leaders, team leaders, teams, and rapid results coaches. RRA involves a small team comprising 8 to 15 members that are committed to achieving challenging goals in 100 days. The team is supported by a rapid results coach who reinforces management and implementation discipline during the team’s 100-day tenure.

    RRI team members are carefully selected because they can have an effect—positive or negative—toward the resolution of a specific challenge that blocks progress on a reform. They are not brought together because of their titles but because the change needed begins with them.

    Another unique feature of RRI teams is that they are “protected” by the leadership group and—at an operational level—by the strategic leader. That protection grants them the freedom and support needed to experiment their way toward success.

The following sections introduce three tools from the RRA to support coalition building in the audit process.

1. The first section is an implementation questionnaire composed of questions to be asked at each stage of implementation.
2. The second section is the goal-setting framework that can help coalitions move from a broader goal to an outcome-based one.
3. The final activity is a communication grid to help stakeholders begin to understand the perspective of the people around them.

Each tool can help deepen team members’ reflection before moving into action.

Any comments? Please notify us here.


Reed, Q. (2013): “Maximising the efficiency and impact of Supreme Audit Institutions through engagement with other stakeholders”, U4 Issue Nº9, Bergen, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre - Chr. Michelsen Institute.

UNDP (2001): “Governance and Accountability: Progress Report on the Implementation of the Forum’s Eight Principles of Accountability and the Development of Best Practices for Legislatures”, Briefing Paper for FEMM meeting.

GIZ-INTOSAI (2013): Supreme Audit Institutions. Accountability for Development.

O'Meally, S. (2013): “Mapping Context for Social Accountability: A Resource Paper”, Social Development Department, Washington DC: The World Bank.

Velásquez Leal, L. F. (2012): “Manual: Good practices for approaching citizenship”, OLACEFS´ Commission on Citizen Participation.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. et al (2009): The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Boston, Harvard Business Press.

Contreras, M. (2013): “The World Bank Institute’s Leadership for Development Program”, Presentation Leadership 4D – Catalyzing Change, WBI.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. and Marty Linsky (2009): The Theory Behind the Practice. A Brief Introduction to the Adaptive Leadership Framework, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Robert A. Neiman, “Execution Plain and Simple: Twelve Steps to Achieving Any Goal On Time and On Budget” 2004 pg. 105. Robert Neiman was a partner at Schaffer Consulting.

Osiche, Mark. “Applying Rapid Results Approach to Local Service Delivery: Emerging Issues, Lessons and Challenges from Nairobi City Council” in Local Governance & Development Journal Volume 2 Number 2, December 2008: pages 24-39.