2022-05-18-世界卫生组织-Output_scorecard_2022_52页_728kb

Output Scorecard 2.0 Summary

Overview

The Output Scorecard 2.0 is a framework used by the Secretariat to evaluate its outputs within the context of the General Programme of Work (GPW13). It was introduced in line with WHA72.1 (2019) and is applied to assess the Secretariat's contributions to the outcomes of the Organization. The scorecard evaluates outputs across six key dimensions, each with specific criteria and a scoring scale from 1 (Emergent) to 4 (Strong). Dimension 6 uses a similar scale but is based on the achievement of targets rather than self-assessment.

Core Content

The scorecard is designed to measure the effectiveness of the Secretariat's work in delivering global public health goods/technical products (GPHGs/TPs), leadership in health, and impactful integration of gender, equity, human rights, and disability. It also includes criteria for technical support delivery at the country level and value for money.

Main Dimensions and Criteria

Dimension 1: Effective Delivery of GPHGs/TPs

• 3.a. Developing the approved GPHGs/TPs on time/as planned

  • Strong (4): 91–100% of GPHGs/TPs developed on time.
  • Satisfactory (3): 61–90% of GPHGs/TPs developed on time.
  • Developing (2): 41–60% of GPHGs/TPs developed on time.
  • Emergent (1): Few or none of GPHGs/TPs developed on time.

• 3.b. Developing the approved GPHGs/TPs to quality standards

  • Strong (4): All or almost all GPHGs/TPs met quality assurance standards.
  • Satisfactory (3): Most GPHGs/TPs met quality standards.
  • Developing (2): Some GPHGs/TPs met quality standards.
  • Emergent (1): Few or none of GPHGs/TPs met quality standards.

• 3.c. Ensuring availability, accessibility, and use of developed GPHGs/TPs

  • Strong (4): All or almost all GPHGs/TPs were made accessible and available for use.
  • Satisfactory (3): Most GPHGs/TPs were made accessible and available for use.
  • Developing (2): Some GPHGs/TPs were made accessible and available for use.
  • Emergent (1): Few or none of GPHGs/TPs were made accessible and available for use.

Dimension 2: Effective Delivery of Leadership Functions

• 2.a. Strategic, credible, and evidence-based delivery of results

  • Strong (4): Vision, strategy, and targets are well-established and consistently used.
  • Satisfactory (3): Vision, strategy, and targets are well-established but need improvement.
  • Developing (2): Actions are becoming more aligned with long-term vision.
  • Emergent (1): Actions are mainly reactive with no clear strategy or vision.

• 2.a.2. Progress on the delivery of priority leadership activities

  • Strong (4): All or almost all leadership activities were delivered as planned.
  • Satisfactory (3): Most leadership activities were delivered as planned.
  • Developing (2): Some leadership activities were delivered as planned.
  • Emergent (1): Few or none of leadership activities were delivered as planned.

• 2.a.3. Credibility and influence of evidence-based policy advice

  • Strong (4): The Org Group is seen as the most credible source of policy advice.
  • Satisfactory (3): The Org Group consistently provides evidence-based advice.
  • Developing (2): The Org Group is starting to be seen as a credible source.
  • Emergent (1): The Org Group has yet to provide evidence-based advice.

• 2.b. Building strategic partnerships, convening and brokering solutions

  • Strong (4): Solutions were brokered through sustainable networks and partnerships.
  • Satisfactory (3): Solutions were brokered, but key influence has not yet been demonstrated.
  • Developing (2): Some networks and partnerships were built.
  • Emergent (1): Networks and partnerships are at an early stage.

• 2.c. Driving the agenda for health impact

  • 2.c.1. Strategic positioning of health high in the agenda

    • Strong (4): The Org Group actively places health issues in the agenda of policy and advocacy bodies.
    • Satisfactory (3): The Org Group has implemented leadership activities to influence the agenda.
    • Developing (2): Plans were made to advocate for key health issues.
    • Emergent (1): Activities were planned to influence the health agenda.

  • 2.c.2. Ability to drive coherence and alignment in strategic direction

    • Strong (4): Coherent strategic direction and agenda were established through collaboration.
    • Satisfactory (3): Contributions were made to set a coherent strategic direction.
    • Developing (2): Leadership role in setting a coherent agenda is beginning.
    • Emergent (1): No concrete contribution to setting a coherent agenda.

  • 2.c.3. Progress towards raising awareness on and advocating for the reduction of inequities

    • Strong (4): More than two activities were conducted to address inequities.
    • Satisfactory (3): At least two activities were conducted to address inequities.
    • Developing (2): At least one activity was conducted to address inequities.
    • Emergent (1): At least one activity was planned to address inequities.

Dimension 3: Delivering Value for Money

• The dimension is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it is implied that it focuses on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Secretariat's outputs.

Dimension 4: Impactful Integration of Gender, Equity, and Human Rights

• 4.a. Gender equality and empowerment

  • Strong (4): Activities are gender-transformative with sex- and age-disaggregated data.
  • Satisfactory (3): Gender analysis is planned for the next year with data used.
  • Developing (2): Activities consider gender but are not transformative.
  • Emergent (1): No gender analysis or data is used.

• 4.b. Equity and inclusion

  • This criterion is not fully detailed, but it is likely related to ensuring equitable access and inclusion of marginalized groups in the Secretariat's outputs.

• 4.c. Human rights

  • This criterion is not fully detailed, but it is likely related to ensuring health systems respect human rights.

Dimension 5: Value for Money

• This dimension is not fully detailed, but it is implied to assess cost-effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of outputs.

Dimension 6: Achieving Results in Ways Leading to Impacts

• This dimension uses the same scale as the others but focuses on target achievement.
• If the score is less than 4, the extent to which targets were achieved must be measured and reported.

Key Information

• The scorecard is pre-populated based on the GPHG/TP SharePoint Database.
• Self-assessment is used for dimensions 1–5, while Dimension 6 is based on target achievement.
• For country offices, the scorecard includes specific criteria related to influence on national health agendas and resource allocation.
• Feedback from external stakeholders is a key component in assessing the credibility of policy advice.
• Gender, equity, and human rights are integrated into the evaluation process, with a mandate from WHA60.25.
• Corrective actions and leadership intervention are required if scores are below 4 in any dimension.

Conclusion

The Output Scorecard 2.0 provides a structured and comprehensive framework for evaluating the Secretariat's performance across multiple dimensions. It emphasizes timeliness, quality, strategic alignment, and impact, while also ensuring gender and equity considerations are integrated. The scorecard supports transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in the delivery of global public health goods and leadership functions.