Maximizing Organizational Performance through Evaluation Best Practices

1. Demystifying Evaluation in WIPO – • Best Practices from Initial Evaluations November 2012

2. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (RBM) AND EVALUATIONS A&M = facilitator for organizational performance management, including performance assessment Evaluations are dependent on the results/measurements frameworks defined at the planning stage Evaluations are complementary to the assessments of organizational performance Both performance assessment and evaluations identify opportunities for improvement (including lessons learned) which feeds into the subsequent planning cycle

3. Involvement of Member States Involvement of and Approval by Member States WIPO’s Results Based Management (RBM) Framework Reporting External / Internal WIPO’s Planning Framework Results Chain Medium-Term Strategic Plan (MTSP) * 2010-2015 Strategic Outcomes & Strategic Outcome Indicators Impact External factors Reporting on the MTSP to Member States Results Program and Budget 2010/11 Expected Results & Performance Indicators Program and Budget 2012/13 Expected Results & Performance Indicators Program and Budget 2014/15 Expected Results & Performance Indicators Program Performance Reports Attribution Annual Work plan 2010 Activities Annual Work plan 2011 Activities Annual Work plan 2012 Activities Annual Work plan 2013 Activities Annual Work plan 2014 Activities Annual Work plan 2015 Activities Outputs Internal Management Reporting Individual Staff Objectives 2010 Individual Staff Objectives 2011 Individual Staff Objectives 2012 Individual Staff Objectives 2013 Individual Staff Objectives 2014 Individual Staff Objectives 2015 PMSDS Staff Performance Internal factors * MTSP and ) and the comments from Member States as reflected in the report of the Assemblies 2010 and its annex

4. THE A&M EXPERIENCE • 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

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)