“Learning from Existing Evaluation Practices on the Impacts and Effects of Intellectual Property on Development”

Geneva6th/7th October2011

Evaluation Section Internal Audit and Oversight Division (IAOD)World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

2

Why do we need evaluation?

It contributes towards a UN system evaluation policy that promotes learning, accountability and transparencyProvides the Organization and MS with valuable analysis and information that can be used for:

Decision-making processes concerning the improvement of present and future activities;  Policy formulation and review by Member States; and,

Evaluation is an organizational function focusing on institutional learning and accountability towards constituencies.

3

Is the Evaluation Section Independent?

Director IAOD

Director General WIPO General Assembly

PBC

IAOC

Audit Section

Evaluation Section

Investigation Section

4

IAOD Organigram

Nick Treen Director IAOD

T. Efendioglu Head Internal Audit

Senior Internal Auditor (Vacant)

S. Woess (Consultant Senior internal Auditor)

J. Van Hecke Head Investigation (Temp. Assignment)

Head EvaluationC. Hilfiker

J. FloresSenior Evaluator

S. Wiggins Investigation Assistant

S. Nunez Secretary

S. Winter Intern

P. Mehta (Intern)

5

How was the Evaluation Section created?

Previous 2001

Evaluation was non existent in WIPO

2002

First evaluation intents

Second evaluation intents

2004 2007

Evaluation is an ad-hoc activity

First evaluation policy

2008

Evaluation Section is created with 2 post. 1 post filled and 1 vacant

2009

Evaluation Section functioning only intermittently due to lack of staff

Evaluation Guidelines, and

Evaluation

Section Work Plans

2010

An Evaluation Framework is put in place through:

•Revised evaluation policy,

•Evaluation Section Strategy,

2011

Evaluation Section consist of 1 Head of Evaluation, 1 Senior Staff and 1 intern

Focus on core business

Process of institutionalizing the Evaluation Function

2011Evaluation

becomes effective!

What has been done since 2007? up to 2007: Monitoring and

Independent Evaluation:Program Performance Report (PPR)Providing support to the development of indicatorsTraining staff in the development of FrameworksDevelopping Program and Budget NarrativesSupport RBM

From 2008: ES starts defining its core function:Independent review of the PPR processSelf Evaluation Guidelines for ManagersRevision of first WIPO Evaluation PolicyEvaluation GuidelinesEvaluation Work PlansEvaluation StrategyCreation of an Evaluation Section Website Dissemination of evaluative information First country portfolio evaluationFirst evaluation seminar

6

By which framework is the Evaluation Section’s work guided?

7

Internal Audit and Oversight Charter

UN Norms and Standards for Evaluation

WIPO Evaluation Policy and Evaluation Guidelines

Evaluation Section Strategy

Evaluation Section Biennial Work Plans

Evaluation Section Annual Reporting

Topics, Objectives, Program

Performance and Country Evaluations

Current work underway: Country Portfolio Evaluation (CPE) Kenya

HOW DO WE SELECT A COUNTRY?1. Consultation of Director General and Managers2. Data analysis using specific criteria looking at 184

countries• Level of WIPO activity by country• Baseline information• International Context like UN Security Rating System, Economy Level,

availability of a national IP strategy, etc.• IP Statistics at national and international level• IP Index

3. Geographical and strategic priority using evaluability and feasibility assessment

8

Current work underway: CPE KenyaMain Characteristics of CPEs

1. CPEs focus on the entire WIPO assistance to a country2. CPEs address issues of strategic alignment, choices as well as performance

and results3. CPEs are utilization focused evaluations. They are designed to benefit

WIPO management and IP offices and partners in the countriesHow is a CPE process being rolled out?1. The Kenya CPE process started beginning 2010 with the planning and scoping of

the evaluation including consultation of WIPO staff2. An Evaluability Assessment was undertaken3. Strengthening the evaluation process by selecting an evaluators team, setting up

an LRG, undertaking an inception report4. Report preparation5. Dissemination6. Preliminary findings reported to the DG7. Evaluation includes management response

9

Where do we want to go

Evaluation Policy and Strategy:Continue to implement the current policy and strategyInstitutionalize evaluationDeliver more evaluation findings and information Revise strategy as needed

1 UNDERTAKING OF INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONSTo deliver independent, credible and high quality evaluations that identify what works to developing a balanced and accessible international IP system and what can be replicated and scaled up.

Creating a Common Understanding

2 CREATE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WIPO’S INDEPENDENT EVALUATION FUNCTIONTo contribute to strengthen and enhance the independent evaluation function and evaluation capacities for the benefit of WIPO and its stakeholders

Types of Evaluations

12

Pursue Validation of Program Performance Reports

Accuracy and verifiability of the performance dataSufficiency and comprehensive of reported data Accessibility of data and the efficiency of its collection Accuracy of the self-assessment of achievement Clarity of reporting

Nearly two-thirds of the results validated, related to the relevance and value of the indicators

Performance measures are primarily utilized for purposes of accountability to Member States

Ongoing Kenya Country Portfolio Evaluation

Inception Mission Completed (September 2011)Main Mission in October 2011Results available in December 2011

Initial findings suggest that Kenya has received successful support and

Consequently is reaching the « critical mass » in terms of the sustainability of it’s IP system

Stakeholders have shown a keen interest in this evaluation

Pursue the Enhancement of the Evaluation Function (e.g. Evaluation Seminars)

If rated successful, we will repeat this type of seminars

your opinion at the end of the seminar will be much appreciated ( a feedback form is being distributed)