7
November 2012 Demystifying Evaluation in WIPO – Best Practices from Initial Evaluations
November 2012
Demystifying Evaluation in WIPO –
Best Practices from Initial Evaluations
2
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (RBM) AND EVALUATIONS
A&M = facilitator for organizational performance management, including performance assessment
Both performance assessment and evaluations identify opportunities for improvement (including lessons learned) which
feeds into the subsequent planning cycle
Evaluations are complementary to the assessments of organizational performance
Evaluations are dependent on the results/measurements frameworks defined at the planning stage
3
Impact
Results
Outputs
Results Chain
Medium-Term Strategic Plan
(MTSP) *
2010-2015
Strategic Outcomes&
Strategic Outcome Indicators
Program and Budget
2010/11
Expected Results &
Performance Indicators
Annual Workplan
2010Activities
WIPO’s PlanningFramework
Program and Budget
2012/13
Expected Results &
Performance Indicators
Program and Budget
2014/15
Expected Results &
Performance Indicators
Annual Workplan
2011Activities
Annual Workplan
2014Activities
Annual Workplan
2015Activities
Annual Workplan
2013Activities
Annual Workplan
2012Activities
Individual Staff
Objectives
2010
Individual Staff
Objectives
2011
Individual Staff
Objectives
2012
Individual Staff
Objectives
2013
Individual Staff
Objectives
2014
Individual Staff
Objectives
2015
Attrib
utio
n
External factors
Internal factors
Reporting External / Internal
Staff Performance
PMSDS
Internal Management
Reporting
Program Performance
Reports
Reporting on the MTSP to
Member StatesInvolvement of Member States
Involvement of and Approval by Member States
WIPO’s Results Based Management (RBM) Framework
* MTSP and ) and the comments from Member States as reflected in the report of the Assemblies 2010 and its annex
4
Limited experience with independent evaluations in the A&M Sector (as opposed to audits)
Confined to the Validations of the Program Performance Reports (PPR)
The Validations of the PPRs are not strictly speaking evaluations but follows a process and scope which can be called evaluative in nature
THE A&M EXPERIENCE
5
USEFULNESS OF PPR VALIDATIONS
The independent Validations of the PPR are very appreciated by Member States
It serves as a useful tool in the Secretariat’s performance dialogue with the Member States
The independent Validation exercise is a “best practice” within the UN system (WIPO the only organization where Program Managers’ performance assessment is independently verified)
Useful feedback for the further strengthening of the implementation of RBM
6
MAIN SUCCESS CRITERIA
Ownership - of findings, conclusions and recommendations is essential for learning and improvement
requires a “participatory” approach during planning (ToR), conduct of the evaluation (consultation with main
stakeholders) presenting and disseminating evaluation results
Knowledge - of the subject matter to be evaluated is essential in order to ensure validity of findings
Constructive approach - glass is “half full” versus “half empty”
Timing – Program Managers’ performance assessment & validation exercise are conducted in parallel leading to validation of “interim” performance data (A&M is pre-validating, providing quality assurance and checks of historical consistency)
INCREASES THE UTILITY OF EVALUATIONS (ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEARNING)
7
EXPECTATIONS FOR FUTURE EVALUATION WORK
Continue enhancing the utility of the PPR validation exercises
Strengthening the planning of evaluations to ensure their complementarity to organizational performance assessments
evaluations to provide more in-depth analysis of “what works well” and “what does not work well” and “why”
Ensuring that lessons learned get fed into the next planning cycle (closing the feedback loop)
