ITI Methodology
The ITI evaluates the full system required for transparency to function, from legal framework to data publication to citizen engagement, producing a single comparable national score updated every two years.
Score hierarchy
The Four Dimensions
Every ITI implementation scores four dimensions. Each is evaluated using a distinct data collection method and contributes a weighted score to the overall national result. Together they form a complete picture of whether transparency is structurally possible, practically operational, and genuinely accessible.
Evaluates the national or sub-national legal framework: the laws, platforms, and institutions that make consistent infrastructure disclosure possible. Assessed using official websites and national regulatory frameworks for transparency, procurement and public finance.
Evaluates procuring entities, the institutions that commission and deliver public infrastructure, assessing their procedures and capabilities for managing and disclosing information across the full project lifecycle.
Measures the opportunities for inclusive public engagement at each stage of a project's lifecycle, and how effectively citizens are using the disclosed information. Formal mechanisms for community engagement in planning and monitoring are assessed.
Evaluates the quantity and quality of data disclosed by procuring entities for specific infrastructure projects, measuring the practical output of transparency efforts against international standards including the CoST IDS and OC4IDS.
How the Score is Calculated
Every indicator feeds into sub-variables, variables, and dimensions, each with differentiated weightings based on relative importance. The final national or sub-national ITI score is the weighted sum of the four dimension scores.
The overall score for a country or sub-national unit, on a scale of 0 to 100. It rolls up from the four dimensions and enables direct cross-country comparison and tracking over time.
e.g. Costa Rica: 67 / 100 (2025)Each of the four dimensions is scored 0 to 100 and weighted. Together they roll up to the national score.
e.g. Costa Rica Data Publication: 88.6 / 100 (2025)Each dimension is broken into variables, thematic groupings that determine the dimension score through weighted averaging.
Variables are composed of sub-variables, each reflecting a distinct aspect of transparency practice or policy.
The base level of the assessment. Each indicator is individually evaluated and scored 0 to 100 according to defined criteria. Weighted indicator scores aggregate into sub-variables.
Used for the Enabling Environment and Data Publication dimensions. Assessors review official websites, legal databases, and project data portals. Two to three distinct data reviews are typically conducted per dimension, following a structured protocol defined in the ITI Manual.
Used for Capacities & Processes and Citizen Participation dimensions. A structured survey is completed by a designated officer at each selected procuring entity. Responses require specific documentary evidence and are subject to a separate endorsement and data review process.
Objectives & Outcomes
The ITI is not a ranking exercise: it is a diagnostic and reform tool. Each objective is tied to a specific way in which better transparency measurement leads to better infrastructure outcomes.
Assess levels of transparency in public infrastructure consistently, enabling governments and donors to measure progress across biennial cycles.
Assess and promote accountability among infrastructure entities, and create structured opportunities for peer learning between institutions and countries.
Surface where infrastructure governance is working and where it is failing: at country level, entity level, and across specific dimensions of transparency.
Raise awareness and promote the adoption of the CoST Infrastructure Data Standard (IDS) and the Open Contracting for Infrastructure Data Standard (OC4IDS).
A standardised methodology enables direct comparison across ITI countries, identifying common weaknesses and recognising good practice that can be shared.
Guide public leaders, at national and sub-national level, to develop the capacities needed to strengthen transparency and accountability in the infrastructure sector.
Develop a shared agenda among governments, civil society, donors, and regional bodies to raise transparency and accountability standards in public infrastructure, where the costs of failure are borne most heavily by communities.
Principles
The ITI's principles fall into two categories: those that governed how it was designed and developed, and those that govern how each implementation is conducted. Both sets are necessary for the results to carry weight with governments, donors and civil society.
The indicators and dimensions reflect what actually matters for infrastructure transparency, not what is easiest to measure. The framework was developed with governments, practitioners and civil society to ensure real-world applicability.
The ITI covers the full system: legal frameworks, institutional capacities, citizen engagement, and data quality. No single dimension alone is sufficient: the ITI is designed to capture how all four interact.
Despite the four-level hierarchy, the final output is a single 0 to 100 score with clear dimension breakdowns. The methodology is fully documented and open to scrutiny in the ITI Manual.
The same methodology, indicators, and weightings apply in every country. This is what makes cross-country comparison valid and what allows score changes over time to mean something.
Assessments are conducted independently, following defined protocols. Results are not subject to government review or approval before publication.
The biennial cycle is fundamental. A single snapshot is a baseline; it is the second and subsequent cycles that reveal whether reforms are taking hold.
Data collection follows a structured protocol with multiple review stages and evidence requirements, ensuring scores reflect reality rather than perception or self-reporting alone.
Results are disaggregated to the level of individual procuring entities, the ministries and agencies responsible for delivering infrastructure, not just a single national figure.
Every implementation produces a findings report with specific, actionable recommendations, not just a score. The reporting stage includes follow-up meetings and stakeholder support designed to translate findings into reform commitments.
Implementation Process
Each ITI implementation follows the same process, regardless of whether it is national or sub-national, standalone or part of a regional programme. The sequence is designed to ensure data quality at every step before moving to the next.
The preparation stage defines the scope and conditions for a credible assessment. It typically spans several weeks and involves both the CoST team and the in-country implementation partner.
Data is collected using the two methods, desktop research and the entity survey, in parallel. Each has its own review process to ensure accuracy and completeness before scores can be calculated.
Collected data is converted into scores using the ITI's defined weighting system. This stage is purely analytical: no new data is gathered.
Results are prepared, published and publicly presented. The reporting stage is not just publication: it is the beginning of the reform process the ITI is designed to enable.