IAOD Evaluation Seminar Demystifying Evaluation in WIPO- Best Practices from Initial Evaluations Geneva November, 8 2012 2012 KENYA COUNTRY IP PORTFOLIO.

IAOD Evaluation Seminar

“Demystifying Evaluation in WIPO- Best Practices from Initial Evaluations”

GenevaNovember, 8 20122012

KENYA COUNTRY IP PORTFOLIO START UP NATIONAL IP ACADEMIES

OGADA TOM

Contents

1. Role and Steps

2. Kenya Country IP Portfolio

3. Start up National IP Academy Project

4. Lessons Learned

5. Recommendations

Role and Steps

a. To find answers to the questions identified in the terms of reference

b. To ensure that the exercise is carried such as to meet three evaluation objectives Learning Participation Decision making

c. Provide comfort to key stakeholders on the rationale of the exercise

1. Role as external evaluator

Understanding the terms of reference Inception Report Data collection Data analysis Reporting

2. Steps followed in evaluation

Role and Steps

a. Understanding the terms of reference Purpose and utility Scope Resources available (time, HR, Finance)

b. Inception Report Key questions to be answered Data collection methodology Key respondents Limitations

3. Steps followed in evaluation cont

Role and Steps

Steps followed cont.

c. Data Collection• Face to face

• Questionnaire

• Telephone/Skype

d. Data Analysis and evaluation criteria• Program design and delivery strategy

• Relevance

• Effectiveness

• Efficiency

• Synergy

• Sustainability

e. Reporting• Findings • Conclusions (#findings)• Recommendations (#findings and

Conclusions)

Steps followed cont.

Kenya IP PortfolioGerry Cooney – Team LeaderAlessandra NarcisoTom Ogada

1. Background

Kenya is viewed as a success story in IP in the region Kenya has a long time collaboration with WIPO WIPO has supported various IP (projects) portfolio since

1990’s Evaluation focused on the period 2005-2010 Evaluation period: July 2012 to January 2012

Kenya IP PortfolioGerry Cooney – Team LeaderAlessandra NarcisoTom Ogada

2. What was done

Inception mission and interview in Geneva, Kenya and ARIPO Data collection in Kenya and Geneva Data collection Presentation of initial findings in Kenya Presentation of revised report to Geneva Comments and suggestions Final report

Kenya IP PortfolioGerry Cooney – Team LeaderAlessandra NarcisoTom Ogada

3. Results

11 Findings 6 Conclusions 4 Recommendations

Finding 1WIPO’s support to Kenya (2005-2010) was relevant to Kenyan development priorities and in line with the Kenyan development agenda)

Vision 2030 STI policy Industrialization Policy Climate change strategy Trade

Conclusion Kenya still needs to do a lot to strengthen its IP system – e.g IP awareness National IP Policy and Strategy Review of IP laws Development of new IP laws Training and education in IP

RecommendationWIPO should continue its support in Kenya and make its future investments strategically in recognition of the evolving IP landscape and emerging needs.

Relevance

Finding 2Kenya had a much higher profile, stature, expertise and capacity in IP in 2010 than it did in 2005. Interviews with key Kenyan IP stakeholders credit WIPO with direct and indirect contributions to these positive changes.

Conclusion Through contribution from WIPO, Kenya made considerable progress in the development of IP in 2005-10. Today, Kenya is regarded as a leader in IP in the African continent. However past support has focused on IP Offices

RecommendationTo meet the growing and evolving needs for IP support in Kenya, WIPO should extend its support beyond KIPI and KECOBO to other IP stakeholders such universities, research organizations and ACA

Effectiveness

Finding 6WIPO contributions to building the IP capacity of individuals and national IP offices are generally being sustained. Noted shortcomings include some orphaned WIPO projects in Kenya as well as inadequate support from the government

ConclusionWIPO’s direct and indirect support are being sustained by targeted institutions and individuals. However, the sustainability of WIPO infrastructural projects can be a problem when the govt’s commitment for ongoing support is not obtained at the initiation of projects

RecommendationWIPO should enhance the sustainability of its activities by developing government-supported exit strategies

Sustainability

Challenges

Conclusi

1. Lack of documented information on support given or received.

2. Weak M&E system in beneficiary country

3. Limited preparation of the stakeholders for the evaluation process

4. Involving three experts from three continents

Managing calendars

Time difference

Difficulty in agreeing on the style and depth of the report

5. Making acceptable recommendations to key the Stakeholders.

6. Slow feedback on the report

Startup IP AcademyTom Ogada

1. Background

Project initiated in 2009 to assist DC and LDC to establish their own IP academy

Project piloted in four countries (Dominican Republic, Peru, Colombia and Tunisia)

If successful scale up would follow Evaluation covered period 2009-2012

2. What was done

Inception mission and interview in Geneva. Face to face data collection in Geneva Data collection through questionnaire from the beneficiaries Presentation of initial findings in Geneva Comments and suggestions Final report

Startup IP AcademyTom Ogada

3. Results

6 Findings 7 Conclusions 4 Recommendations

Startup IP AcademyTom Ogada

Finding 1The project document was appropriate for use as a guide for the implementation of the pilot projects during phase I but will need further improvements to make it more appropriate for continued use in the project implementation in phase II

Conclusion The project document as was designed, together with the improvements so far undertaken, will require further modification to be appropriate for use as a guide for the implementation of the project in phase II

RecommendationsThe project document, together with improvements made so far, be further modified by the WIPO Academy to provide clarity and make the process more efficient, flexible and demand driven

Project design and implementation

Finding 2The objectives of the National IP startup Academy Project are highly relevant to the needs of the Member States, the country’s IP institutions, individual beneficiary from the members and the WIPO’s Development Agenda recommendations

Conclusion The project is relevant to the needs and aspirations of most developing and least developed countries. Although the piloting process has not been completed , the validity of the project concepts has been proven

Recommendations1.The CDIP agrees that the pilot process be completed and extended for two years.2.That consideration be given by Member States on the future direction of the project beyond the end of phase II, so as to meet future requests from Member States and to consider a gradual phasing out of the ongoing cooperation

Relevance

Challenges IP Startup Academy

Conclusi

1. Language and communication

2. Data collection from the beneficiary only through questionnaires

3. Low questionnaires return rate

4. No opportunity for feedback from the beneficiaries on the initial findings

5. Limited time and resources

Lessons learned

Conclusi

1. Culture of M&E not yet developed amongst the key stakeholders.

2. Inception phase very important

3. People do not like answering interview questionnaires, direct or telephone interviews are preferred

4. Successful evaluation depends on the support given by the client

5. Preparation of the stakeholders for the evaluation is important

6. Strong documentation facilitates quality evaluation

7. Managing inception interview

8. Prompt feedback on report

Recommendations

Conclusi

1. Deepen the culture of evaluation amongst WIPO staff and the partners (beneficiaries)

2. Strengthen documentation and reporting by beneficiaries

3. Improve on the management of evaluation process

Stakeholders preparation

Provide for enough time and resources for data collection

Provide for active review of the initial findings, conclusions and recommendations by the beneficiaries

Promote use of evaluation results

THANK YOU