1. IAOD Evaluation Seminar “Demystifying Evaluation in WIPO- Best Practices from Initial Evaluations” Geneva November, 8 2012 2012 Validation of Program Performance Report (PPR) Tuncay Efendioglu, Head, Internal Audit Section

2. Scope and Objectives Third validation exercise since 2008; All 29 WIPO programs included; Main objectives: Independent verification of information contained in the 2010/2011 PPR; Follow up of open recommendations of previous PPR Validation Reports; The level of ownership of the results-based framework (RF) by WIPO programs.

3. Methodology One Randomly selected KPI per program; Interviews with Program Managers/Alternates Review of documentary evidence; Discussion of findings/recommendations with all program managers during the fieldwork and reporting stage; Draft Report Sent for comments by Program Managers; Final report including management comments sent to Director General and submitted to General Assembly Member States.

4. Challenges Time schedule set for PPR Validation - Undertaken simultaneously with the PPR- Validating a moving target Availability of 29 Program managers- interview schedules Interviewing managers for PIs they were not responsible for so Lack of sense of ownership coupled with lack of background knowledge about Performance measures.

5. Findings and Conclusions Strengths found where Timeliness of reporting on the individual PPRs; Efficiently collected and easily accessible PD. Limitations observed where Partial relevance of PD; Lack of sufficiency and comprehensiveness of PD; and The RF was primarily used for reporting on performance rather than for management and learning.

6. Findings and Conclusions Improved expected results (ERs), PIs and sensible baselines and targets in 2010/11 with regard to 2008/09; Reporting on PIs is still perceived by some WIPO managers as a mandatory administrative exercise without clear linkages to the strategic and operational objectives of the Organization; Although, ownership levels for Performance Indicators improved, information used for reporting not produced on a regular basis to track progress;

7. Findings and Conclusions The use of the RF is confined to reporting on performance limiting its potential to enhance management and learning; RF and monitoring tools need to be strengthened to add the expected value; Customized training and coaching of responsible staff for designing, monitoring and reporting on the performance framework.

8. Recommendations Quality assurance of PD as well as their use for the purpose of program management needs to be further strengthened; Strike the right balance between the RF as a reporting and a management tool by better defining PIs, in future Program & Budget (P&B) documents; Further increase Results-Based Management (RBM) and monitoring support to staff through more facilitated participative workshops; Deadlines for submission of individual and consolidated PPR should be set well in advance enabling for timely validation of a final PPR.

9. Some Food for Thought Is internal oversight offices validating the performance report a good practice to advocate for or not? Is Member States’ reliance on Validation of PPR similar to reliance on External Auditors' report on financial Statements? WIPO like others is confronted with KPIs measuring outputs rather than outcome and impact. What is the advice to give to improve the use of RBM? Who should decide on the indicators of success, program managers or Member States?

10. THANK YOU