Systematic performance measurement provides a good basis for institutions to improve the design of instruments in response to client demand, as well as drawing comparisons across programs, in order to choose intervention strategies and establish best practice. Comprehensive comparison is difficult because what is measured depends upon the objectives of the institution or program. It is even more difficult to establish standards or benchmarks for individual indicators, since there are often trade-offs between indicators depending upon the program's objectives and target population (for example, between minimizing the cost of providing services, and serving high-cost groups such as rural entrepreneurs). 

Three categories of performance measurement are therefore relevant i.e.:

·         Client impact, in terms of changes in SE performance (e.g., sales, value added, profitability), or broader social and economic impact (employment, poverty alleviation, etc.).

·         Institutional performance, according to indicators of outreach, cost effectiveness, and sustainability.

·         Market development, measured for example by the numbers and types of BDS providers, the price and quality of services available, the willingness to pay for services on the part of SMEs, and the degree of distortions in the market;

AFRI will provide performance measurement services to governments and facilitators using a performance measurement framework that is based on an analysis of the market for business development services. In the framework, performance goals and indicators are categorized according to whether they assess the overall BDS market; assess BDS suppliers; or assess BDS customers and SMEs.