About this assessment framework
Prepared in line with OECD principles and the NESDC guidelines, covering 10 assessment dimensions in 3 main groups to support executives' strategic decisions, improve transparency in budget allocation, and prioritize projects that create the highest public value.
60%
Strategic and Public Value (Core Value)
25%
Delivery Capacity (Delivery Capacity)
15%
Governance and Sustainability (Governance)
Project information
1. Strategic and Public Value of the Project (Core Value)
60%
Not yet assessed0 / 60
1
—
/5
Definition: The extent to which the project can support the achievement of BMA's short-, medium- and long-term development goals, with links to the National Strategy, Master Plans, the National Economic and Social Development Plan, the BMA Development Plan, executive policy and international standards — not merely relating to one strategy, but creating Strategic Value and clearly explaining the results pathway from activities to long-term impact.
- Alignment with international standard goals such as SDGs, the OECD Better Life Framework, Climate Resilience, Smart City and Inclusive City
- Alignment with the National Strategy and national plans
- Alignment with the BMA 20-Year Development Plan and action plans of various periods
- Alignment with the policies of Bangkok's executive
- Ability to drive the city's Key City Indicators
- Ability to create Systemic Change rather than fixing only immediate problems
- Being a project with policy, social or new management innovation
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Excellent | The project directly and clearly aligns with multiple levels of key strategies, links concretely to BMA's main goals and indicators, supports structural change in the city, clearly explains the results pathway to long-term impact, and includes elements of innovation or systemic development. |
| 4 Very good | The project clearly aligns with BMA's key strategies or goals, can support the city's main indicators, and has potential to create high-level policy or spatial outcomes, though not yet at the level of city-wide systemic change. |
| 3 Moderate | The project aligns with the owner agency's plans or strategies and links to city-level strategy to some extent, but does not yet clearly show strategic impact or drive the city's key goals. |
| 2 Needs improvement | The project aligns only with the agency's routine mission or legal duties and cannot yet clearly explain links to city-level strategies, key goals or policy outcomes. |
| 1 Fails criteria | The project cannot clearly show alignment with BMA's strategies, development plans or key policies; it is an ad hoc or supporting activity that creates no strategic value. |
2
—
/5
Definition: The extent to which the project concretely benefits people, communities, the economy, society, the environment and urban management systems, focusing on Public Value rather than the volume of activities or number of participants. Consider direct/indirect and short-/long-term impacts, and impact on the overall urban system (System-wide Impact).
- Number of people or target groups who benefit
- Coverage of the benefiting area
- Ability to solve the city's structural problems
- Impact on quality of life, safety, health and the environment
- Impact on the urban economy and economic value creation
- Improved efficiency of public service delivery
- Ability to create continuing impact (Multiplier Effect)
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Excellent | Creates significant, wide-ranging positive impact; clearly solves structural or chronic urban problems; affects multiple dimensions at once; covers multiple population groups or all of Bangkok; has potential to change the system in the long term. e.g. reducing chronic flood points across many districts, a city-wide early warning system, digital services |
| 4 Very good | Creates significant positive impact for many people or areas; covers multiple districts or population groups; clearly reduces key problems. e.g. district-cluster projects, infrastructure linking multiple areas |
| 3 Moderate | Creates clear positive results but limited to a district, department or specific target group; does not yet show city-level impact. e.g. district-level projects, services for a specific department |
| 2 Needs improvement | Benefits a small target group or has limited impact in a specific location; not yet linked to solving the city's key problems. e.g. projects for a specific community or small target group |
| 1 Fails criteria | Very low impact; merely symbolic activity with no evidence it will lead to significant change. e.g. publicity activities with no clear results |
3
—
/5
Definition: Level of importance of the problem or need in the area that must be addressed or developed, considered from the severity of the problem, the risk of inaction, the frequency of the problem, the number of people affected, and the impact on the economy, society, environment and city security. Based on OECD's Place-based Policy concept — the city should invest in areas with the greatest development gaps or risks.
- Urgency: time-critical need; delay will cause greater damage or risk
- Spatial Necessity: severity of the problem, vulnerability or development gap in the area
- Number of people affected
- Frequency of the problem / risk to life, property and public safety
- Being a strategic area of the city
- Number of complaints or demands from the public
- Consistency with spatial data and the city's risk maps
Note: Also consider Traffy Fondue data, public complaint data, risk data, socially vulnerable area data and informal settlement data
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Highest criticality | Responds to a critical problem or risk affecting life, safety, property or key city systems; inaction will cause severe or widespread damage; clear confirming data exists. e.g. critical chronic flood areas, key infrastructure risk areas |
| 4 High urgency | Responds to a significant problem likely to cause serious damage if left unaddressed; must be implemented in the near term. e.g. areas with many accumulated complaints, high environmental / safety risk areas |
| 3 As planned | Necessary for urban development but not at critical level; can be prioritized in the normal plan cycle, including projects per House / Senate discussions, BMA Council resolutions or royal initiatives. e.g. improving public services, developing public spaces |
| 2 Low necessity | Responds to specific needs in areas without severe problems; spatial data does not yet clearly reflect necessity; can be postponed without major impact. e.g. improvement projects that do not address the main problem |
| 1 No clear necessity | Cannot clearly show the problem, necessity or urgency in the area; no supporting data or evidence. e.g. proposed mainly from the agency's own wishes, with no problem data to support it |
4
—
/5
Definition: The extent to which the project creates outcomes, impact and public value cost-effectively relative to the resources used. Considers how much the project increases productivity, reduces costs, reduces unnecessary resource use and creates benefits — not just whether it spends little or much, but the value obtained relative to resources used.
- Productivity Improvement
- Reducing future costs or budget burden
- Using technology or innovation to increase efficiency
- Reducing steps and staff workload
- Improving the quality of public service
- Increasing results with the same or fewer resources / reducing duplication of work processes
- Creating social and economic returns / strengthening long-term organizational capability
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Breakthrough value | Significantly increases productivity, reduces costs or raises efficiency; creates wide-ranging benefits; high social / economic returns; clearly reduces long-term budget burden. |
| 4 High value | Clearly increases operational efficiency, reduces costs or improves service quality; good value for investment; creates high-level benefits. |
| 3 Moderate value | Standard value for money; achieves set targets; tends to improve efficiency or service quality to some extent. |
| 2 Low value | Benefits obtained are not in line with resources used; does not yet clearly show increased efficiency, cost reduction or added value. |
| 1 Poor value | Cannot concretely show value for money, efficiency or benefits; high cost relative to expected results, or duplicates existing work. |
2. Capacity to Deliver Public Results / Services (Delivery Capacity)
25%
Not yet assessed0 / 25
5
—
/5
Definition: The extent to which project proposals and design are based on reliable data, facts and empirical evidence, and can reasonably explain the problem, need, target group and expected results. Follows Evidence-Informed Policy Making — answering 3 questions: What is the problem, is there evidence to confirm it, and is there data to support that the chosen approach will lead to the desired outcome?
- Statistical data clearly supports the problem / spatial data supports decision-making
- Gap analysis of the problem (Gap Analysis)
- Setting a baseline (Baseline) and target (Target)
- References to relevant research, studies or academic data
- Using data from urban management systems or government databases
- Can clearly identify the area, target group and nature of the problem / has a data monitoring system
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Highly complete | Fully supported by statistical, spatial and empirical evidence; systematic analysis of the situation and problem gap; clear baseline, indicators and targets; uses multiple reliable data sources. |
| 4 Adequately supported | Clear supporting data and statistics; references spatial data or relevant databases; reasonably explains the need, although some in-depth analysis is lacking. |
| 3 Moderate | Some data support; statistics help explain the problem, but spatial analysis, baseline or sufficient academic evidence is lacking. |
| 2 Limited support | Relies on only partial data or facts; uses general or outdated data; lacks empirical evidence confirming the need clearly. |
| 1 No evidence | Cannot present sufficient data, statistics or empirical evidence; relies mainly on the agency's opinions or assumptions. |
6
—
/5
Definition: The agency's ability to put the project into practice and achieve its objectives under constraints on law, budget, personnel, technology, space and time. Considers operational and technical readiness together — even a project with high strategic alignment and impact may fail to deliver results if it is not truly ready.
- Legal and regulatory readiness; has legal authority
- Organizational and personnel readiness; has a responsible unit and sufficient staff
- Budget and resource readiness
- Technical and technology readiness
- Space and physical readiness
- Management process readiness; has plans, SOPs and monitoring mechanisms
- Has experience or lessons from similar work / can start within the set time
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Very high readiness | Fully ready in all dimensions; clear legal authority; space ready for use; sufficient personnel, budget and technology; SOPs in place; can start immediately; low risk. |
| 4 High readiness | Ready in almost every aspect; minor constraints that can be resolved within normal processes and do not significantly affect goals or timing. |
| 3 Moderate readiness | Feasible to implement but with some constraints, e.g. additional resources needed or coordination across several agencies; can still proceed within a suitable timeframe. |
| 2 Low readiness | Several significant constraints, e.g. legal ambiguity, lack of specialist staff, lack of implementation space; relatively high risk of delay or failure. |
| 1 Not ready | Not significantly ready to implement; lacks several key elements; cannot show feasibility of delivering results within the plan period. |
3. Governance and Sustainability (Governance and Sustainability)
15%
Not yet assessed0 / 15
7
—
/5
Definition: The extent to which the project continues to produce results, benefits and public value after it ends without relying on ad hoc support, including the ability to maintain, scale or build on it. Highly sustainable projects "take root" in the work systems or behavior of organizations / people rather than ending with the budget.
- Has a plan for continued operation after the project ends, and an agency / mechanism responsible for long-term results (institutional sustainability)
- Can be integrated into existing work systems (institutional sustainability)
- Has budget / resources for continued operation without excessive future burden (fiscal sustainability)
- Can maintain results long term and scale to other areas / agencies (outcome sustainability)
- Has an approach for continuing monitoring and development of the project
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Very high sustainability | Creates results and public value continuously over the long term; clearly integrated into the agency's work systems or core mission; sufficient resources and mechanisms; can scale to city or organization level. |
| 4 High sustainability | Clear plan for continued operation; responsible agency; appropriate supporting resources; high likelihood of maintaining results over the long term. |
| 3 Moderate | Has some approach to ensure continuity, but still has constraints on budget, personnel or long-term operating mechanisms. |
| 2 Low sustainability | Does not yet clearly show mechanisms or resources to support operation after the project ends; risk that results will not last long term. |
| 1 Lacks sustainability | No plan for continued operation; no agency or resources to support it long term; results likely to end as soon as the budget ends. |
8
—
/5
Definition: The extent to which the project gives stakeholders, the public, communities, the private sector, civil society or government agencies the opportunity to take part in setting direction, designing, implementing, monitoring or giving feedback. Not a one-off public hearing, but a process of building Shared Ownership throughout the project cycle. For technical projects within the organization, participation of users or related agencies may be considered instead.
- Clearly identifies stakeholders and analyzes impact on them
- Listens to opinions from relevant parties and uses feedback to improve the project
- Builds understanding and communicates appropriately with the public
- Cooperation among agencies or partner networks / co-design or co-implementation (Co-creation)
- High level of acceptance by the public or relevant parties / builds shared ownership
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Very high cooperation | Fully analyzes stakeholders; opens participation at multiple stages; clearly uses feedback to improve; high acceptance / support; builds continuous shared ownership. |
| 4 High participation | Listens to opinions and opens participation in key project processes; appropriate communication and understanding building. |
| 3 Standard | Opinions are heard or coordinated per set processes, but stakeholders' roles remain limited. |
| 2 Low participation | Only partial communication or listening; does not yet clearly show feedback being used to develop the project. |
| 1 No participation | No stakeholder analysis, no listening to opinions, and no building of understanding and acceptance among relevant parties. |
9
—
/5
Definition: The readiness to define desired results, success indicators, progress-monitoring mechanisms and learning processes from performance. Based on Results-Based Management (RBM) — emphasizes actual results, not just budget disbursement per plan. Considers readiness of the measurement system throughout the project cycle: before, during and after implementation.
- Clearly defining Outputs and Outcomes
- Defining success indicators (KPIs), Baseline and Targets
- Collecting data during implementation and continuously monitoring progress
- Evaluating the project's effectiveness
- Summarizing lessons and knowledge, and using evaluation results to improve operations
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Complete | Clearly defines outputs, outcomes and impact; complete indicators, baselines and targets; systematic monitoring / evaluation mechanisms; data can actually be collected; plan to use evaluation results for future development. |
| 4 Clear | Appropriate indicators and monitoring mechanisms; results measurable fairly clearly; credible evaluation approach, although a complete learning system is not yet in place. |
| 3 Standard | Basic indicators and monitoring approach; can report progress but cannot yet clearly measure results or impact. |
| 2 Not yet sufficient | Defines only some indicators or focuses on activities rather than results; lacks clear monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. |
| 1 Cannot be measured | No indicators; no approach to monitoring or evaluation; cannot explain how success will be measured or proven. |
10
—
/5
Definition: The extent to which the project can anticipate, identify, assess and manage risks that may affect success, as well as its ability to adapt to change and uncertainty. Covers legal, technology, environmental, social, disaster, data security and policy-change risks — not just budget or delay risks.
- Systematically identifying potential risks and assessing severity / likelihood
- Setting preventive and mitigation measures / contingency plans
- Flexibility to change the way of operating and ability to continue operations (Continuity)
- Ability to recover after problems / managing technology and data risks
- Learning and improving from past risks or incidents
| level | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Very high adaptability | Comprehensive risk analysis covering internal and external risks; clear measures, backup plans and management mechanisms; flexible change of approach; can continue operating even when facing the unexpected. |
| 4 High readiness | Appropriate risk assessment and measures covering most key risks; manages impacts effectively. |
| 3 Standard | Basic risks and measures identified; can manage general risks but lacks in-depth analysis or plans for complex situations. |
| 2 Limited | Mentions only some risks; mitigation measures unclear; risk of disruption if the unexpected occurs. |
| 1 No risk management | No risk analysis, no mitigation measures, or cannot explain how to respond to events that may have an impact. |
Priority Matrix — Impact × Feasibility
Use the scores from criterion 2 (Impact) and criterion 6 (Feasibility) to classify projects per the guideline manual
Feasibility →
Improve / develop
Build readiness
Prioritize and develop
Strategic Priority
Expedite
Improve / develop
Build readiness
Prioritize and develop
Quick Win
Can proceed immediately
Review / cancel
Not recommended
Not recommended
Impact →
Strategic PriorityHigh impact + high feasibility — expedite
Quick WinModerate impact + high feasibility — can proceed immediately
Prioritize and developModerate-to-high impact + moderate feasibility
Improve / developLow impact + high feasibility — build readiness
Review / cancelLow impact + low feasibility
Not recommendedLow feasibility + moderate-to-high impact
Enter scores for criteria 2 and 6 to see the project's position in the Priority Matrix
Project types according to prioritization considerations
1. Projects creating city-level change
Transformative Project — creates structural change (Systemic Change) over the long term; wide-ranging impact covering large numbers of people
e.g. BMA long-term flood prevention projects
2. Key strategic projects
Strategic Project — supports BMA's key goals, solves major problems or clearly upgrades public services; a mechanism driving medium-term strategy
e.g. footpath improvement, upgrading service centers, developing Traffy Fondue
3. Urgent projects with quick results
Quick Win Project — can be implemented quickly, low budget, high readiness; creates results the public perceives in the short term
e.g. installing lighting, the BMA policy dashboard
4. Essential-mission projects
Foundational Project — necessary to maintain public service levels, safety or continuity of work systems under BMA's authority
Maintain long-term service efficiency
Summary of analysis results