How can a standardized framework covering access, quality, fiscal cost, utilization and affordability improve evidence-based infrastructure policymaking? Point out its limitations.

MoSPI's PAIMANA Performance Monitoring Dashboard (launched April 2026) now tracks 184 standardized indicators across six infrastructure sub-sectors. It measures them on five dimensions: Access, Quality, Fiscal Cost & Revenue, Utilization and Affordability [1]. It moves monitoring from what is spent to what is delivered, but gaps in its design and data limit how much it can do.

How the framework strengthens evidence-based policymaking

• Outcomes over outlays: Utilization indicators show whether assets are actually used. For example, cargo at Major Ports rose 7.2% (FY27, Apr–Aug) [1]. Spending alone says little: only 47.59% of the revised cost of 1,981 monitored projects has been spent [2].
• Equity lens: Because Access and Affordability are formal dimensions, policy can target excluded areas. One example is the 2,23,814 Gram Panchayats now connected digitally [1].
• Fiscal prudence: The Fiscal Cost & Revenue dimension links new assets to their sustainability. This helps decide which projects to fund first [1].
• Benchmarking and transparency: Common indicators and time-series data on one public platform allow comparison across sectors and over time [1].
• Administrative efficiency: The "one data, one entry" design draws data from DPIIT's IPMP portal through APIs, which updates over 70% of project data automatically [2].

Limitations

• Capacity is not performance: Renewables make up about 42% of installed capacity [1]. But solar runs at only about 20–22% of its full capacity over a year, against about 90% for coal [3]. NITI Aayog found no transparent public data on curtailment (green power the grid turns away) [4], and the dashboard has no curtailment indicator.
• Measurement does not match spending: MoRTH runs 57% of monitored projects [2] but has only 10 of 184 indicators. Its headline figure is km awarded, not km built [1].
• Different reference periods: Railways data is for FY 2024–25, while other sectors report FY27 data [1].
• Self-reported data: Ministries supply their own figures [1]. The 2012 Committee on Legislative Measures in Statistical Matters recommended a statutory, independent NSC to check such data [6].
• No baselines: CAG found only 156 of 442 Railway projects had fixed completion targets [5]. Without a deadline, no indicator can show a project is late.
• Narrow coverage: Urban infrastructure, water, and oil and gas are not covered [1].

The framework makes infrastructure accountability measurable, but its numbers are only as good as the data behind them and how much of the sector they cover. The next steps are to add generation and curtailment indicators, link each Flash Report project to the sector outcome it should improve, report road quality, give the NSC statutory backing, and use CAG audits as cross-checks. Together these would advance SDG 9 (resilient infrastructure) and genuine evidence-based governance.