Good intentions are not enough; we must have results and follow through as those results dictate. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results: if the World Bank's policies are ending in failure, they can't simply say, "Well, it's the thought that counts," and go on failing. They need new structure and new leaders to end failing policies and create new ones.
I would say that World Bank has failed and for that matter most banks have failed. America and now Europe needs bailouts. From this perspective, pretty much all major banks have failed. When it come to the World Bank it is hard to see what they do. It is hard to measure their success as post 2 states. If you look at statistics, then there are nearly 1 billion people who are still hungry. If one of the objectives of the World Bank is to help in this area, they have failed.
The World Bank is still acting as a proxy for the big nations that supply its funding, in this case mainly the United States and parts of Western Europe, etc. Because of this, those in expanding markets argue that the World Bank is often far too stringent and demanding and the nations supplying the funding argue that it is too lax and sometimes too eager to intervene.
Like any bureacracy it is also far too political and muddled to succeed in something requiring as much dynamic thought and action as reducing poverty in the world, etc.
One key criticism that has been levelled against the World Bank is the way in which it has introduced Structural Adjustment Policies in order to "help" developing countries open their markets up. However, critics argue that these SAPs have only served to further weaken already vulnerable countries and their domestic markets, allowing them to be exploited by first world countries.
The World Bank has sometimes been criticized for imposing harsh economic requirements on countries that have been in financial trouble. The World Bank can also be accused of loaning money to governments that are often corrupt, so that the much of the money never gets to the people who actually need it or who can use it most productively. This is a charge commonly leveled at all kinds of "foreign aid" programs.
Perhaps you could clarify this question to tell us more about what you want. As it is, it does not make much sense.
Are you asking whether the World Bank has succeeded? If so, you can argue that it has not. Its main goal is to reduce poverty and yet poverty continues to be a terrible problem world wide. You can also criticize it for being excessively pro-market and pro-rich world.
It is hard to know if it has succeeded because we cannot really know how much (if any) more poverty there would be if the World Bank did not exist.