A short guide to the InfraGov Assessment Tool — how assessments are set up, what the maturity ladder means, how publishing works, and how to read the comparison views.
The InfraGov Assessment Tool is a structured benchmarking workspace for the governance of public investment management (PIM). Teams in ministries of finance, planning agencies, and partner institutions use it to assess where their country sits on the InfraGov 2.0 framework, build an evidence base behind each indicator, and publish results that can be compared across countries.
An assessment covers 16 dimensions of PIM governance and 119 indicators within them. Each indicator is benchmarked at one of four maturity levels and supported by a short evidence record.
Work is done in Draft with role-based collaboration. When the team is ready, a dimension is Published by the assessment Owner — at which point it appears on the public global dashboard for cross-country comparison and can be downloaded by anyone.
The other tabs walk through how each part of the tool fits together. Start anywhere; nothing assumes you've read the previous tab.
The Assessment Tool supports two complementary maturity-assessment frameworks. Pick one at the start of every new assessment — the choice shapes which dimensions / pillars and indicators the assessment is scored against. The two frameworks can be run independently for the same country in the same year.
16 dimensionsgrouped into Core PIM systems, Cross-cutting “3Is”, and Special Agendas (CAPSS), spanning the full project lifecycle from strategic guidance and preliminary screening through to operations and ex post review.
Used to benchmark the maturity of a country's Public Investment Management (PIM) systems against international good practice. Each indicator is scored on the four-tier Incipient → Nascent → Emerging → Advanced scale.
InfraGov 2.0 is the successor to the original InfraGov diagnostic and is the default framework for new country assessments. Run this when the question is “how well does this country plan, appraise, deliver, and learn from infrastructure projects?”
8 pillars and around 40 indicators covering the governance of public assets across their full lifecycle: accounting and valuation, cadastres and registries, strategic planning and resourcing, efficiency and revenue mobilisation, accountability and controls, digital government, climate resilience, and capacity and skills.
Used to benchmark how well a country identifies, records, maintains, and gets value from the public assets it already owns — land, buildings, infrastructure, and the cadastral and accounting systems underpinning them. Same Incipient → Advanced maturity scale as InfraGov 2.0.
Run this when the question is “how well does this country govern the public assets it already has, regardless of how they were originally procured?” A country can hold one InfraGov 2.0 and one PAG-FA assessment for the same fiscal year — they answer different questions.
The ladder describes a journey of progress, not a pass/fail judgment. Each level captures both the practices in place and the institutional capacity behind them. The same definitions apply across every dimension and indicator — what varies is the specific evidence that justifies a given level.
The earliest stage of development.
The country has recognised the need to act in this area, but systematic processes are not yet in place. Activities tend to be ad-hoc, fragmented, or dependent on individuals. Capacity is limited and outcomes are difficult to predict. Incipient is not a failure — it is a starting point that highlights where attention is most needed.
Foundational work is underway.
Basic structures, policies, or processes are emerging. Some elements of good practice are visible, but application is inconsistent across institutions or projects. Capacity is growing, though gaps remain in coverage, depth, or institutional reach.
Consistent processes and growing capacity.
Established procedures are applied with reasonable consistency. Most elements of good practice are in place and outcomes are generally positive, though gaps remain — typically in coverage of less-prominent projects, in depth of analysis, or in the quality of supporting data. The country is on a credible trajectory toward Advanced.
At the leading edge of practice.
Systems are fully developed, consistently applied, and routinely reviewed for improvement. The country exhibits leading practice across the indicator and would serve as a useful benchmark for peers in the region or globally.
The four-step ladder is deliberately ordinal — it tells you where a country sits in a sequence of development stages, not how many points it has earned. A move from Nascent to Emerging is a meaningful institutional milestone; an arithmetic difference of “one point” is not.
Numerical scores derive from the labels for visualisation and comparison only. When the dashboards aggregate them they do so to support comparison, not to produce a definitive ranking — numerical averages should be read as a rough centre-of-gravity for the underlying labels.
A new assessment is anchored on one country and one reporting fiscal year. The platform derives the rest — title, period window — automatically so each assessment is unambiguous.
One assessment per country per fiscal year. The system blocks creating a second assessment for the same country covering the same year.
Quantitative indicatorsrequire comparable data over time. When the assessment will report on quantitative indicators (e.g. “What share of projects undergo independent review?”), the period automatically expands to a three-fiscal-year window ending in the selected year — so a 2026 anchor reports as 2024–2026 instead of just 2026.
The title is generatedas “Country InfraGov Assessment · Period” and is shown read-only on the form. It also appears on the assessments list and details pages.
Each of the 16 dimensions contains a handful of indicators (MBIs). Indicator text follows a Statement: question format — the statement is the area being benchmarked, the question guides what evidence to capture.
Every indicator has five fields:
Save data on any indicator at any time — work is autosaved into Draft until the dimension is published.
Each dimension is published independently. Once every indicator in a dimension is complete, the assessment Owner can publish it. Drafts stay private; Published dimensions appear on the global dashboard for everyone with an account.
Owner-only. Publishing and unpublishing are restricted to the assessment Owner (or a platform Admin). Contributors and Reviewers can't flip the state.
Locked when Published. A published dimension is read-only. To revise answers, the Owner must Unpublish first — which moves the dimension back to Draft and reopens the form. The data temporarily disappears from the public dashboard until republished.
What goes public: Fields 1–3 (Key Respondents, Data Source, Results Summary) plus the maturity level. Field 4 (Result Detail) is always private to the assessment team.
Summary view. Once a dimension is complete, the form is replaced with a clean read-only summary table. The same summary is used for both the prepare-to-publish review and the post-publication view.
Roles are set per dimension, so a single user can be a Contributor on one dimension and a Reviewer on another in the same assessment. The assessment Owner controls assignments.
The Global Visualization page lists countries that have published dimensions and lets you focus on a specific indicator across them. Clicking through to a country opens its profile — every published dimension expanded by default, with an optional side-by-side comparison.
The country page has a small Download data cluster at the top right with two icons — one for PDF, one for Excel-compatible CSV.
PDF.Opens the browser's native print dialog — pick “Save as PDF” for a file. The navbar, controls, and download buttons are hidden from the print so the resulting document shows only the country's data: header, every dimension's body, and any comparison-gap notices.
CSV.One row per indicator across every published dimension, with the home country's score + maturity level. When a comparison country is selected, two more columns hold their score and level (“N/A” for dimensions the comparison hasn't published). The file carries a UTF-8 BOM so Excel preserves accented characters cleanly.
Whatever view you have selected (Text or Chart) is what gets included in the PDF, and whatever comparison is selected is what goes into both files.
The tool is under active development — feedback from real assessment teams is what drives improvements.
Spotted a bug, missing feature, or unclear copy? Have an idea for a new dimension or visualisation? Please get in touch.
Email infragov@pim-pam.net with as much detail as you can — the page you were on, what you were trying to do, what you saw instead. Screenshots help a lot.
For broader PIM-PAM news and release notes, visit pim-pam.net.
