• Do you engage in the Kampala Principles Assessment and encourage partner country governments to assess their PSE strategy, partnerships and activities using this exercise?
• Does your government or organisation take into account partner countries' systems and results frameworks before creating or applying your own metrics? Is this reflected as guidance in your own PSE strategy? 
• Do you use metrics to measure business outcomes in addition to development results?
• Do you share responsibilities for data collection and evaluation with partners in line with their capacities and skills?
• Do you make data and information related to your PSE projects easily and readily accessible as a standard practice?  
• Do you regularly work with partners and initiatives (such as the OECD Results Community or Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED)) to refine or harmonise PSE results indicators and results-measurement approaches? 
• Does your PSE strategy recognise the constraints and provide funding to actors with limited capacities to strengthen their ability for joint results measurement?  
• Do you have policies and procedures in place to conduct independent evaluations of PSE policies and projects? Have you allocated sufficient resources to them?

• Does your government or organisation have a results framework that is suited to assess the results of your PSE projects? If yes, does it: a) include indicators linked to national priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals; b) disaggregate indicators at impact, outcome and output levels; and c) benefit from inputs from partner countries and project participants? 
• Do your projects recognise the capacity constraints of some actors (e.g. MSMEs) to contribute to the collection and analysis of information and provide funding to support these activities?
• Do your projects provide timely information on the project’s progress and results? 
• Does your government or organisation assess your projects against the Kampala Principles at different stages? Do you reflect on whether better results could have been achieved through stronger adherence to the Principles?

• Draw on established practices and recognised standards when measuring PSE results.

• Contribute to peer learning on what works and who benefits from PSE projects.

• Measure economic and social value and encourage partners to be transparent about both.

• Improve the information flow between public and private actors at country level. 

• Document investment opportunities and the risk perception of businesses.
• Support the collection of disaggregated data, when relevant, notably by gender, disability and vulnerable groups.

• Acknowledge any diverging interests in the development of results frameworks at the outset of projects and support efforts to reconcile organisational differences by accepting different goals and rationales.

• Provide capacity support to ease the reporting burden for actors with weaker capacity. 

• Ease the reporting burden for MSMEs, as onerous procedures may create significant barriers for engagement. 

• Support project managers in measuring results, building on existing capacity where possible, recognising the costs of external monitoring and evaluation consultants.

• Use recognised indicators and language and offer tailored capacity support as needed. 

     DON’T...

• Develop unduly complicated, overarching results frameworks and introduce cumbersome procedures with high transaction costs.

• Undermine country ownership by relying on centrally managed results frameworks.

• Be inflexible and closed to other partners’ priorities.

     DON’T...

• Disregard the tension between the need for streamlining indicators and inclusivity. You should seek an appropriate balance but recognise there are no blueprints.

• Stereotype private sector actors as providers of finance or services alone, thereby overlooking potential for private sector contributions to results measurement.