RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/BFA/W/70
26 April 2002
(02-2380)
Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
The attached report with regard to Results-based Management has been prepared in order to
develop further the existing approach of the WTO in this regard and in response to discussions in the
Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration in 2001 (see WT/BFA/56, paragraph 31).Performance Management Reform in the
World Trade Organization Secretariat:
Introduction of Results-based Management
Submitted by Terry Slater
International Management and Human Resources ConsultantMarch 2002Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
II. INTRO DUCTION................................................................................................................ .... 3
A. P URPOSE , OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE REVIEW ................................................................... 3
B. M ETHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 3
III. THE CASE FOR PERFORMANCE  MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS-
BASED BUDG ETING ............................................................................................................. 5
A. W HAT IS RESULTS -BASED BUDGETING ? .................................................................................... 5
B. W HAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF RESULTS -BASED BUDGETING ? ......................................... 5
C. E XPERIENCE OF OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ....................................................... 6
D. T HE WTO C LIMATE ................................................................................................................... 7
1. The Current System....................................................................................................... 8
2. Views of the System’s Owners....................................................................................... 9
3. Views of the System’s Users ........................................................................................ 10
4. Views of the Staff Association ..................................................................................... 11
5. Views of the System’s Clients – the Delegates............................................................ 11
E. W HAT TYPE OF SYSTEM DOES THE WTO N EED? – D ESIGN PARAMETERS ............................. 11
IV. A NEW WTO RESULTS-BAS ED MANAGEMEN T SYSTEM ....................................... 16
A. S TRATEGIC PROGRAMME PLANNING AND BUDGETING ........................................................... 17
1. Strategic Vision & Co rporate Obje ctives................................................................... 18
2. Divisional Objectives.................................................................................................... 193. Divisional Expected Results......................................................................................... 20
4. Divisional Strategy and Work Plan ............................................................................ 21
5. Staff Performance Management ................................................................................. 22
6. Programme and Budget Approval and the Budget Hearing.................................... 22
B. I
MPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ...................................................................................... 23
1. Aligning Managerial Accountability  and Decision-making Authority.................... 23
2. Gathering Performance and Cost Data...................................................................... 24
3. The Mid-year Review................................................................................................... 26
C. E VALUATION AND FEEDBACK .................................................................................................. 26
1. Annual Performance Assessment - Divisional and Corporate ................................. 26
2. Thematic Evaluations .................................................................................................. 27
3. Systemic Evaluations.................................................................................................... 27
4. Capturing Productivity and Quality Improvements................................................. 27
5. Staffing Level Reviews ................................................................................................. 28
6. Internal Consulting ...................................................................................................... 287. The Feedback Loop...................................................................................................... 28Page ii
V. SUPPORT SY STEMS............................................................................................................ 30
VI. LINKAGE WITH THE BUDGETARY CYCLE................................................................ 32
VII. VII. LINKAGES WITH OTHER SYSTEMS, POLICIES AND
PROCESSES...................................................................................................................... ..... 34
A. S TAFF REWARDS AND SANCTIONS ........................................................................................... 34
B. A PPOINTMENT , PROMOTION , REASSIGNMENT AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT ......................... 34
C. S TAFF LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 35
D. C ONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................. 35
VIII. THE RESOURCE AND PE RFORMANCE ANALYSIS FUNCTION / UNIT................ 37
A. F UNCTIONS ............................................................................................................................... 37
B. S TRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................... 37
C. R EPORTING RELATIONSHIPS ..................................................................................................... 38
D. C OMPETENCIES REQUIRED ....................................................................................................... 39
IX. IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................................ 41
A. L EVERAGING LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................................................. 41
B. S PECIAL WTO C HALLENGES .................................................................................................... 42
C. P HASED IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................... 42
D. R ESOURCES – INVESTMENT AND RETURN ................................................................................ 43
Annex 1 ........................................................................................................................ ............ 44
Annex 2 ........................................................................................................................ ............ 48
Annex 3 ........................................................................................................................ ............ 49
Annex 4 ........................................................................................................................ ............ 50
Annex 5 ........................................................................................................................ ............ 51
X. BACKGR OUND: .................................................................................................................. .5 1
RESOURCES : .............................................................................................................................. ............ 52
STAFFING :.............................................................................................................................. ................ 52
Annex 6 ........................................................................................................................ ............ 53
Annex 7 ........................................................................................................................ ............ 54
Annex 8 ........................................................................................................................ ............ 56Page 1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This reports submits proposals to improve the performance and accountability of the
WTO Secretariat through the introduction of a new system of results-based management
(RBB).  It builds both on the findings of the consultant’s earlier report, “Strategic
Organizational Review:  Structure and Staffing Resources of the World Trade Organization
Secretariat” (September 2001), and on initiatives already taken in the Secretariat to move
towards results-based budgeting and to introduce a new staff performance evaluation system.Implementation of the recommendations  in this report would constitute a major reform in
performance management for the WTO .
RBB is a strategic, integrated cyclical system of programme planning and budgeting,
objective setting, implementation and monitoring, and evaluation and feedback that isdesigned to improve organizational effectiveness by focusing on the achievements of results.
The case for RBB is made  and its pros and cons examined.  The experience of other
organizations in introducing RBB is reviewed a nd lessons learned are identified.  Based on a
review of its recent history and extensive interviews, WTO’s current climate is described
including its current programme and budgeting system and the views of system’s users,system’s owners, the Staff Association and system’s clients, the Delegates, on the need for
RBB.   The system’s owners and delegates generally support the introduction of RBB
whereas the Staff Association is skeptical and the system’s users – Division Directors are
strongly opposed.
The type of system needed by the WTO is identified as well as specific parameters to
guide the design of a new system.  A new RBB system is proposed for the WTO  the major
components of which are:
/g216 Strategic programme planning and Budgeting including:
/g167 Establishing for the WTO Secretariat a strategic vision and corporate
objectives;
/g167 Setting divisional outcome-oriented objectives, measurable expected results
and strategies and work plans including activities and resources;
/g167 Evaluating the performance of staff; and,
/g167 The programme and budget approval process including a new mechanism, the
budget hearing where Director could defend their programme and budget
proposals
/g216 Implementation and Monitoring including:
/g167 Aligning managerial accountability and decision-making authority to support
RBB;
/g167 Gathering performance and cost data including feedback from Members and
other clients; and,
/g167 A mid-year to assess progress toward fulfillment of objectives
/g216 Evaluation and Feedback including:
/g167 Divisional and corporate annual assessments of performance against
objectives;
/g167 Thematic evaluations of horizontal, cross-cutting activities;Page 2
/g167 Systemic evaluations to examine the operation and effectiveness of the RBB
system itself;
/g167 Capturing productivity and quality improvements;
/g167 Staffing level reviews examining resources, organizational structure, policies,
practices and processes to achieve efficiencies and improve effectiveness;
/g167 An internal consulting service to assist with the introduction of the RBB
reform; and,
/g167 Feedback on lessons learned to improve management and performance
The data and financial sy stems supporting RBB are briefly examined and it is
concluded that no major changes would be required to support the introduction of
RBB.
The impact of the programme and budgetary cycle on RBB is examined and a
new accelerated annual cycle , worked out in discussions with WTO management and
Delegates, is proposed  to facilitate in troduction of RBB.
Those systems, policies and processe s that have an effect on RBB are
identified and the importance of later reviewing these to ensure they support RBB is
stressed.  These include:  staff reward s and sanctions; appointment, promotion,
reassignment and career development; sta ff learning and development and contractual
arrangements.
The functions, structure, reporting relationships and competencies  required
of the staff of the new Resource and Performa nce Analysis Unit are proposed.
Suggestions for implementation are offe red based on the experience of other
organizations and the special challenges facing WTO are identified.  A phasedimplementation is proposed a nd the investment of and return on resources needed to
implement the new RBB system are briefly touched on.
In a short closing note, it is concluded that the potential benefits of
introducing RBB well make the investment worthwhile .  These include: efficiencies
and savings, productivity and quality improvements, improved dialogue with
Member, increased management accountabilit y and most importantly, improvement in
the Secretariat’s performance in delivering results that respond to Member’s needsPage 3
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose, Objectives and Scope of the review
1. At the request of the Director-General, this report submits proposals to improve the
performance and accountability of the Secretariat through the introduction of a new system ofperformance management.  It builds both on observations and recommendations contained in
the consultant’s earlier report, "Strategic Organizational Review: Structure and Staffing
Resources of the World Trade Organization Secretariat"
1, and on initiatives already taken in
the Secretariat to move towards results-based budgeting and to introduce a new staff
performance evaluation system.  The specific Terms of Reference can be found in Annex 12.
2. This report focuses primarily on developing a strategic programme management system
based on accountability for achieving results, the components of which include programme
planning, including objective setting, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation – which together
are commonly referred to as results-based budgeting3.  However it also discusses the
linkages with staff performance evaluation, aligning management accountability and decision-making authority, capturing productivity and quality improvements and conducting periodic
staffing level.  All these components when integrated can be said to constitute a results-based
management  approach and their development and introduction in the Secretariat a major
reform in performance management.  Other related and supporting systems are touched upon
in this report, but are to be examined in depth at a later stage
4.  Also included in this report are
proposals on the structure, functions and staffing of a new unit charged with supporting
program planning, objective setting, monitoring and evaluation including the unit’s
relationship with the existing Technical Cooperation Audit Division.
B. Methodology
3. In preparing this report the following steps were followed:
• Step 1.  Study of the WTO’s current situation including examination of current
systems in the Secretariat for setting objectives and gathering, through interviews5, of
the views of system’s "owners" including Senior Management (8 interviewed);
• Step 2.  Gathering of views of system’s "users / clients" on the current system through
interviews5 of WTO administration-selected samples of delegates (9 interviewed) and
of Division Directors (14) and the Staff Association (6).  (For a complete list of all
WTO Members and WTO Secretariat interviewed see Annex 2);
                                                     
1 Submitted in September 2001, in response to a request of the Committee on Budget, Finance
and Administration made in December 2000.
2 This report constitutes Phase I of the Terms of Reference.  Phase II, to be undertaken at a
later stage, would examine related systems and processes and recommend any changes in these thatwould be required to support the new system.
3 As in the United Nations (See document: "Results-based budgeting, Report of the Secretary-
General, A/54/456 of 11 October 1999, paragraph 25) or in the World Intellectual PropertyOrganization.  Other terms for such a system include "strategic budgeting" (ILO).
4 See Phase II of the Terms of Reference in Annex I.
5 Views were obtained inter alia on the need for and possible components of a results-based
budgeting system; corporate and divisional objectives and established results and the difficulties in
setting these in the WTO context; the involvement of Members in results-based budgeting; how
performance and cost data is gathered and whether this is necessary; the relevance of the currentbudgetary cycle to results-based budgeting; and, the functions of the new Resource and PerformanceAnalysis Unit and its relationship to Technical Cooperation Audit Division.Page 4
• Step 3.  Tracking of best performance management practice in four international
organizations in Geneva (ILO, WHO, WIPO and UNCTAD) through interviews5 of
staff responsible for performance management in those organizations (9 interviewed);
• Step 4.  Analysis of pros and cons of WT O’s current situation and the systems of the
organizations visited, formulation of new approaches and discussion of the feasibilityof these approaches in return interviews with certain WTO staff members
6; and,
• Step 5.  Submission of a report evaluating WTO’s current situation and
recommending a new performance management system.
4. The consultant wishes to record that he received open and full cooperation from all
parties contacted in the course of his work.  His sincere appreciation is extended to all
participants in the process for the time and effort they dedicated to this exercise and for
sharing their views, which have been insightful and often frank. He apologises for any errors
or misunderstandings that may be contained in the report.
                                                     
6 A meeting was held on 4 March 2002 with representatives of WTO management and of the
Staff Association in which possible new approaches were presented and the feasibility of thesediscussed.Page 5
III. THE CASE FOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND
RESULTS-BASED BUDGETING
A. What is Results- based Budgeting?
5. Results-based budgeting is a strategic, integrated, cyclical system of programme planning
and budgeting, objective setting, implementation and monitoring and evaluation and feedback
that aims to improve an organization’s effectiveness by focusing on the achievement of
results.7  It stresses client focus and management accountability by establishing pre-defined
objectives and measurable results expected by clients and holding management accountable
for achieving these.  Progress is monitored and evaluated and the information is used to set
subsequent objectives and expected results and allocate resources.  Normally programme
managers are given greater flexibility in developing strategies, organizing activities and
managing inputs (staff and other resources) within allotted funds, but are also held moreaccountable for the results achieved.
6. Results-based budgeting shifts the primary focus from:
• Routine to Strategic – Work is not carried out because it always has been, but is
regularly planned and adjusted with the aim of achieving results.
• Inward to Outward – The emphasis is placed not on serving the organization, but
the organization’s clients.
• Outputs to Outcomes – The work that is done is given less importance than what
has been achieved by doing it (e.g. the focus is less on how many and what type
of seminars and more on what have been the results of the seminars).
• Lack of Clarity to Transparency – The budgetary resources provided are linked
more directly to expected results than to duties, responsibilities and functions to
be carried out.
• Perception to Evidence – Choices are made not on the basis of what is felt to be
appropriate / effective, but on the basis of impact information.
B. What are the Pros and Cons of Results-based Budgeting?
7. Views on the advantages and disadvantages of results-based budgeting range from one
extreme:
a theoretically neat, but bureaucratic and costly system that dazzles the audience with
new catch words, but does not provide any practical use,
to the other:   an effective management system that supports the achievement of results in an
objective, transparent and efficient manner and thereby provides better service to clients.
Some of the pros and cons identified can be summarized as follows:
Cons:
• Not appropriate for the international public sector where the work is policy-oriented
and objectives are difficult to identify and measure clearly.
                                                     
7 "More is said of the components of results-based budgeting / results-based management in
Sections III.E. "What Type of System does the WTO Need – Design Parameters".Page 6
• A bureaucratic and costly system that requires additional time and resources to
operate and forms and procedures to administer.
• Leads to micro-management by encouraging clients / constituents to interfere in the
internal management of the organization.
• Discourages cooperation between managers and ‘working across’ the organization, as
managers are reluctant to spend time helping other managers unless their ownobjectives can be served in the process.
• Results in poor morale of managers who are forced to spend time on feeding the
bureaucratic system that could be better spent on getting their job done.
Pros:
• Helps managers to manage better by giving them a better understanding of the
purposes of their work, helping them to focus more on what is to be achieved within a
given time-frame and encouraging them to manage resources more effectively
towards these ends.
• Encourages more focus on what clients (Members) want.
• Empowers managers by giving them greater authority in executing their programmes.
• Tightens management accountability and improves performance.
• Ensures that money is well spent.
• Results in a more transparent and open dialogue between clients (Members) and the
Organization (Secretariat) over their respective roles in managing the Organization
and thereby protects management from isolat ed pressure from individual Members to
influence unduly its behaviour.
• Results in less suspicion and better support from those funding the Organization as
the link between the resources provided and the purposes they are to be put to is moretransparent.
• Improves the morale of staff at all levels, as they are better able to see how their work
contributes to the overall objectives and mission of the Organization.
C. Experience of Other International Organizations
8. Most United Nations and Breton Woods institutions have moved in the recent past or are
moving to implement results-based budgeting.  In Geneva, the ILO, WHO, WIPO and
UNCTAD are considered to be among the ‘best practice’.  Each has a slightly different
approach.  Some are more elaborate than others and the focus can be different.
9. In the ILO, for example, internal managers are held accountable for expected results that
rely on practices and decisions of Member States – for example, the number of countries that
have ratified a particular International Labour Convention by the end of the budget period.
The WHO and UNCTAD in contrast report that they are moving away from that approach to
hold managers accountable for only what is within the Secretariat’s purview (e.g. "WHO’s
manageable interests8" and in UNCTAD "within the Secretariat’s sphere of influence9"), thus
                                                     
8 From "Strategic framework for One WHO", a current WHO training CD rom.Page 7
distinguishing between Member States’ and the Secretariat’s objectives and expected results.
WIPO believes that activity-based control – closely monitoring and costing each activity
carried out to achieve a specific objective - is the foundation of successful results-based
budgeting.   The ILO however has jettisoned this type of system because it is considered
overly bureaucratic and costly to administer, but more importantly because it is non-strategicas it focuses on inputs instead of outcomes.
10. Despite their differences all these organizations agree on a number of issues:
• Results-based budgeting is improving the internal management of the organization.
ILO noted that before results-based budgeting, when managers were asked what they
did they would say, for example, that they ran seminars on (e.g.) forced labour.  Now
they say they try to influence national attitudes on forced labour. What types ofseminars run, who the audiences are, what the follow up with participants is etc. are
being changed on the basis of results whereas before the same seminars were run
over and over.  Managers are more outcome-oriented.
• It has improved the dialogue between Member States and the Secretariat.  The
budget process has become more transparent to Members; they have a better
understanding of what is to be and has been accomplished with the money given.Despite some initial fears, the process has not led to a micro-management of the
Secretariat by Member States.
• The move to results-based budgeting is inevitable.  The clients – Member States –
want results-based budgeting.  Donors want it.  In some cases Member States have
urged the Organization to implement the process and in others the Organization has
taken the initiative because it saw "the writing on the wall".  As a person in one of
the organizations remarked, before results-based budgeting managers were too
complacent and thought the money for the regular budget would always come in.This is no longer the case.  Most countries have an envelope set aside for all
international organizations and the competition for that money is intense.  Those
organizations that can better demonstrate results will have a better chance of getting
it.
• The move is also a difficult and long-term process.  There is strong internal
resistance from managers who don’t want to be held accountable, who think the
process is too bureaucratic and time consuming or who think it really is not
applicable to their work in the international public sector.  Introduction of results-
based budgeting is a change in management practice.  Change is resisted and it takes
a long time to change attitudes.  It is commonly considered that the process takes
between 5 and 10 years to implement fully10.
D. The WTO Climate
11. What is the current planning and budgeting system in the WTO?  What are its pros and
cons? What are the views of Members, Secretariat Managers – both the system’s owners
(those operating the system) and users (Division Directors) – and of the Staff Association on
the current system and on results-based budgeting?
                                                                                                                                                       
9 Opcit,  "Results-based budgeting”, Report of the Secretary-General
10 This is based on comments of the three organizations and the findings of Annette
Binnendijk, consultant to OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, in "Results BasedManagement in the Development Co-operation Agencies: A Review of Experience", ExecutiveSummary, page 23, February 2000.Page 8
1. The Current System
12. Some recent history and progress so far:  The Secretariat has made a conscious effort in
the recent past to move gradually towards results-based budgeting and Members have
supported and encouraged this direction. For the 1996 and 1997 budgets, Divisions were
asked to accompany their budget proposals with information on their "objectives" and"planned activities", although the planned activities were not included per se in the "Burgundy
Book".  In 1997, the practice of providing an estimate of the hours per year dedicated to
technical assistance activities was initiated.  In 1998, the budget showed for the first time a
breakdown of the "objectives" and the "work programme" of each division.  The budget
presentation was the same for 1999.
13. In its meeting of May 25,1999, the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration
("Budget Committee") took note of a "non-paper" on results-based budgeting that had been
distributed by the delegate from the Netherlands.  The paper explained the process and merits
of results-based budgeting and commented that the quality of divisional contributions in
setting forth objectives varied widely and that there was no uniform approach towards the
way in which objectives were formulated.  It welcomed the work undertaken by the
Secretariat thus far and proposed that "the Budget Committee should assume its proper role"and "address both the process and the substance of results-based budgeting in its future
discussions on the budget"
11.
14. The presentation of the budget for 2000 remained the same as for 1999.  However in
October 2000, a “Divisional Reporting on Objectives and Expenditure"12 (for 1999) was
prepared for the first time.  It contained an assessment by Division Directors on achievementsagainst objectives.  In addition, the 2001 budget reflected for the first time a breakdown of
"objectives", "background", "main activities" and "expected results".
15. At its meeting on 20 June, 2001, the Budget Committee discussed a joint proposal of the
delegates of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom that once again extolled the virtues of
results-based budgeting as an ongoing, cyclical process, noted that the Budget Committee hadnot followed such "best" practice and propos ed that a concise document summarizing the
findings of the external auditor relating to the efficiency of the Organization be before the
committee when it discussed the 2002 budget.  "The Secretariat took note of the proposal that
was widely supported and informed the committee that it would apply the sequences of the
cyclical process of a result-based budgeting and that the auditors were aware of it"
13
16. In December 2001 the Budget Committee noted the second "Divisional Reporting on
Objectives and Expenditures14" (for 2000) as "a further step in the direction of results-based
budgeting"15.  It referred to a proposal of the external auditor that the use of a time registration
system in the Secretariat be investigated and noted that Members of the Committee were not
opposed to the suggestion  "provided that it would be cost effective and would not imposeadditional bureaucratic activities to the Organization"
16.  The presentation of the 2002 budged
is the same as that for 2001.
17. From this short history as reflected in the official record, the following facts emerge:
                                                     
11 CRP (00)08, page 1.
12 WT/BFA/W/43 of 5 October 2000.
13 WT/BFA/53 of 20 June 2001
14 WT/BFA/W/58 of 11 July 2001.
15 WT/BFA/56 of 18 December 2001, page 1.
16 Ibid, page 2.Page 9
1. The Secretariat on its own initiative is progressively moving towards a results-
based budgeting approach including collecti on of information on performance against
objectives and time spent on certain activities.
2. This initiative is widely supported in the Budget Committee and has been
encouraged by its members.
3. The Secretariat has gone on record that it will apply results-based budgeting.
4. The delegates do not wish to introduce systems that are too bureaucratic or costly.
5. Both the quality and approach of divisional submissions setting forth objectives
vary widely.
18. Pros and Cons of the WTO’s current system:  In addition to the facts set out in the
above paragraph concerning the system currently in operation, the following observations of
the consultant can be added:
Pros:
6. Due to the Secretariat’s prior initiative, several of the components of a full
results-based budgeting system are already in place.
7. The current system has the merits of being short and simple.
Cons:
8. Corporate WTO goals are not articulated.
9. Current divisional objectives are more statements of duties and responsibilities
rather than specific outcome-oriented objectives and the expected results are often
vague and not amenable to objective measurement.
10. There is no monitoring during implementation or in-depth evaluation of
performance against objectives17.
11. There is no follow through either by Senior WTO Management or the Budget
Committee in terms of taking stock of or discussing performance against objectives.
12. No significant guidance or training has been provided to Division Directors to
assist them in putting results-based budgeting effectively into practice.
2. Views of the System’s Owners
19. The views of the WTO system’s owners on results-based budgeting are quite similar
to those of their colleagues in the other international organizations.  Included in this group are
the Director-General and the Director of the Office of the Director-General, the Deputy
Director-General responsible for the budget and the Director and staff in AGSD responsiblefor managing the current budgetary system.  They believe the introduction of full results-
based budgeting will help managers to focus more clearly on what Members want to achieve
                                                     
17 The reports on "Divisional Reporting on Objectives and Expenditure" (latest
WT/BFA/W/58 of 11 July, 2001 for the year 2000) tend to list activities carried out by the divisionrather than assessing whether the stated objectives have or have not been met and why / why not.  Also,there is no evaluation of division’s performance against objectives at the corporate – Secretariat as awhole – level.Page 10
and hold them accountable for it.  They believe the efficiency, productivity and service of the
Secretariat will improve as a result.
20. Members, they feel, are demanding improved performance and a clearer link between
the money provided in the budget and what is to be achieved with it.  Introduction of results-
based budgeting is considered a political imperative.  Members have a right to participate inthe process of establishing objectives and it is unlikely that their participation would lead to
any micro-management of the Secretariat.  In fact, having a structured, transparent process in
which the Members’ and the Secretariat’s responsibilities are discussed and defined would be
beneficial.  In summary, they believe that results-based budgeting is clearly needed.
3. Views of the System’s Users
21. The great majority of the users of the current system are extremely negative about
results-based budgeting.  Included in this group are some of the Deputy Directors-General and
the Division Directors.  While some share the positive views of the system’s owners they are
in a small minority.  Another larger minority are very sceptical and say that if results-based
budgeting is to succeed at all, the system must focus on identifying the Secretariat’s
objectives as distinct from those of the Organization as a whole.  Some of the more negative
feelings, which are shared by many, might be summed up as in the follow two paragraphs.
22. Results-based budgeting is a system that can possibly apply to the private sector
where widgets or aluminium siding are made, but not to the public sector and certainly not to
an international organization of the likes of the WTO.  We are clearly different.  We are
primarily a political Organization and it is difficult to identify concrete objectives in such an
atmosphere where issues are fuzzy, confidential and subject to sudden changes.  In addition,WTO is a Member-driven Organization.  This means that the Secretariat cannot have
objectives – only the Member’s have objectives.  It could be possible to establish objectives in
some of the service areas, but certainly not in the operational divisions where an important
function is servicing committees.  For example, Members accept us giving advice to assist in
the negotiations, but if we were to state in a budget document that we were going to give themsuch advice, it would not be accepted.  Furthermore, when it comes to measuring whether or
not the Director had given good advice, if the nature of the advice or the recipients of it are
mentioned publicly, it would be the last time we would be allowed to give advice.  Even if it
were possible to identify objectives, the power of decision rests  with Members so it would not
be fair to hold directors accountable if objectives were not met.
23. There are two further complications in WTO.  First, plans are frequently changed.  A
plan for technical assistance, for example, can be established at the beginning of the year for
the year, but already by the end of January the plan has had to be changed in response to
Member’s requests.  Another difficulty is that the Director-General and the Deputy Directors-
General are constantly changing every few years.  How can there be management continuityin setting objectives and following through?   Such a system would only bring us more
bureaucracy and unnecessary work.  We are already over-burdened by bureaucracy and this
would mean still more time we would have to  spend feeding a system that would give us
nothing – time that could be better spent doing our real jobs.  Finally it would lead to
interference of delegates in the management of the Secretariat, which is the prerogative of the
Director-General.  There has always been this tendency and it is growing.  Results-based
budgeting would only encourage this trend and it would be unfortunate for the Organization.In summary, the users of the current system believe that results-based budgeting is clearly not
needed.Page 11
4. Views of the Staff Association
24. Members of the Staff Association are highly sceptical.  How can the Secretariat be
held accountable, they wonder, if it is the Members who complete or not tasks.  The role of
the Secretariat is high quality facilitation, but how can this be measured well?   If results-
based budgeting were to be introduced, having  a ‘SWAT team’ approach would certainly go
down badly.  If the system were to help directors to establish and meet targets without
punishing them, then it might be beneficial.  With such a system, Directors might be able to
learn how to manage their operations more effici ently so that they don’t need to ask for more
staff.   A positive element of the current Staff Performance Evaluation system is the multi-
tiered evaluation process; this type of approach should be incorporated in any new results-based budgeting system.
5. Views of the System’s Clients – the Delegates
25. The views of delegates fall broadly into two groups.  There is the majority who
clearly support  results-based budgeting and the minority  who are willing to go along, but
sceptical or feel it unnecessary.  The views of the proponents are similar to the perception of
their views held by WTO system’s owners.  These delegates believe that their Governments
clearly want to see the link between the resources given and the results they achieve.  Theywant more transparency in the budget process and to be better able to evaluate if the resources
asked for are needed.  This information is needed to report back to their capitals in order to
justify the budget; all requests for additional posts are suspect.  It should not be too difficult to
establish objectives they believe.  These are clearly set out in the Doha Declaration and in the
work plans of committees.  These can be broken down by division and elaborated further.They want more results- and efficiency-oriented thinking on the part of managers.  They
suspect there is some waste and some efficiencies to be gained.
26. Others are willing to go along with results-based budgeting, but are sceptical that it
can work in an Organization like the WTO that is highly political and where it is difficult to
identify objectives.  The yardsticks of WTO are different.  How can one assess advisoryactivities?  Sometimes it’s better if the Secretariat does not push the negotiation process
along.  These delegates question whether a results-based budgeting system is necessary in theWTO.
27. All delegates interviewed agree however on a number of issues .  They do not accept
the argument that the Organization is Member-driven as a reason for not trying to identify
objectives.  They are all seeking efficiencies and feel strongly about the need for periodic
reviews of the staffing levels of the Secretariat every 2 – 3 years. (As one delegate remarked,
a division can do good work and achieve its objectives, but this is not necessarily anindication of whether it is over- or under-staffed.)   They point out that they are not interested
in micro-managing the Secretariat, as they have 
neither the desire nor the time to do so.
E. What Type of System does th e WTO Need? – Design Parameters
28. If the WTO is to implement a results-based budgeting system, what should be its
design parameters?  A number of these are proposed in the following paragraphs.  These are
based on WTO’s particular climate, as influenced by its history and as reflected through the
views and attitudes of its delegates, managers and Staff Association, and on the experience ofothers in implementing results-based management in the international public sector.
29. Client – focused  – The system should place emphasis not on serving the
Organization, but its constituents.  The delegates want to know that the money is well spent.
They want a system that is more transparent in showing the link between the resources and
what is to be achieved through them.  They  want a method of seeking efficiencies andPage 12
periodically reviewing the appropriateness of staffing levels.  They do not want the system to
be overly bureaucratic or costly.
30. Delegates should participate in the approval process of organizational and divisional
objectives in order both to take some ownership in the system and to confirm that the system
is responding to their needs.  Based on other Organizations’ experience and WTO delegates’comments, the Secretariat should not be worried about micro-management / interference in
internal management.  Both Members and WTO management have legitimate roles in
managing the Organization.  Providing a struct ured and orderly process through which the
respective roles can be worked out would be healthy as it is likely to lead to greater
understanding and support on both sides.  However the system should not encourage micro-
management.  There is already a dynamic between the need to be transparent and the danger
of providing so much detail that it encourages micro-management.  The system shouldtherefore place the focus at a higher level – whether objectives and expected results have been
met and not on whether certain activities have been carried out.  This is a focus on
performance against objectives.
31. Outcome – oriented  – The system should be outcome-oriented if performance is to
be improved and clients needs are to be met.  It should help managers to think more in termsof results, to focus on outcomes as opposed to outputs.  Current divisional objectives and
results will need to be changed from sometimes-vague statements of duties and
responsibilities to outcome-oriented objectives and measurable expected results.  As stated by
Robert S. Kaplan, professor at Harvard Business School, performance measurement should
focus on "…outcomes the organization intends to achieve, not what programs and initiativesare being implemented"
18.  Accountability will also need to be strengthened with managers
being held responsible for the achievement of results.  Monitoring, including collection of
cost and performance data, and evaluation should therefore focus more on achievement of
results as opposed to control of inputs.
32. Address the Difficulty of Objective-setting in the WTO Climate  – The concerns
raised by Division Directors regarding the difficulty, or even impossibility, of establishing
objectives and measurable expected results in the climate of a Member-driven Organization –
where Members are seen to take the initiatives and all the decisions – and, in particular, in the
context of operational divisions’ key responsibility of  "facilitating negotiations" will need to
be addressed.
33. This augurs for the system’s distinguishing between the objectives of Members
versus those of the Secretariat and focusing on the latter, although recognizing that some of
these may well be the same.  This would mean that Divisions would, for example, be held
accountable for providing to a committee where negotiations are taking place all the
necessary information, advice, technical guidance etc. that would be needed to reachagreement among Members. However they would not be held accountable if Members did not
in the end reach agreement for other reasons.  In fact this is the direction in which most
organizations visited are moving.
34. This is primarily because there orgnanizations believe that managers cannot be held
accountable for lack of results if, after providing all the necessary advice and assistance, a
government does not take the necessary decision to implement due to political, cost or other
reasons beyond the control of the Secretariat.  Another reason however has been that it hasproved extremely difficult to gather reliable information on implementation (e.g. is
implementation the President’s speech endorsing the policy, relevant legislation passed,
changes in national programmes etc.?) and if implementation is recognized, it is difficult to
                                                     
18 "Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Nonprofit Organizations",
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), Spring 2001, page 357.Page 13
assess evidence of the Secretariats’ impact (i.e. how instrumental the Secretariats’ actions
have been versus other factors in achieving the result).
35.  Empower Managers  – The system will need to empower managers.  They cannot be
held accountable for achievement of results if they are too controlled on how they manage
their work plans, activities and resources to achieve those results.  This would mean givingthem the flexibility to move resources between  budget lines while remaining within the same
overall money envelope and staffing table; reducing certain process controls (forms required
for expenditures etc.
19) and focusing monitoring more on objectives and less on activities.
The United Nations believes that "increased accountability of programme managers must be
accompanied by an empowerment effectively to discharge that responsibility"20 It is moving
away from "input accounting" to "results-based accountability".21
36. A final reason for empowering managers is that given their current negative attitudes
on the introduction of results-based management, in order to buy into the new system they
will need to feel from the start that they are not constrained through unnecessary bureaucracy
in achieving what they are held accountable for.  Based on other organizations’ experience,
manager’s recognition that the system is actually helping them to manage more effectively
will only come years later.  More will be said about this later in this report, but the processcontrols on WTO managers already seem to be light by comparison to other organizations
visited.
37. Help, not Punish Managers  – The focus of the new system should be on assisting
managers to improve performance, not on punishing them for not meeting objectives /
expected results.  A punitive approach would seriously jeopardize acceptance of the systemby both managers and other staff.  It would also be less effective.  Punishment is unhelpful to
learning and it can also lead to establishing objectives that are ‘sure things’ rather than
reaching for something more significant, and to reporting on performance that is incomplete
or, what is worse, dishonest.  Those administering the system should be seen as helpful
internal consultants rather than inspectors and controllers.
38. Build on and improve the current system  – As indicated above, through the initiative
of the Secretariat to move progressively to results-based budgeting, there are a number of the
components of such a system already in place in the current budgetary system.  These are
reflected in the "Burgundy B ook", the "Divisional Reporting on Objectives and Expenditures"
or in other documents or internal practices and include:
• Setting of Divisional Objectives
• Setting of Divisional Expected Results
• Setting out Divisional Work Plans / Main Activities
• Providing Background Information
• Identifying the Necessary Resources (staff, money etc.)
• Gathering Performance and Cost Data
                                                     
19 ILO reports that before, when authorizing expenditures, it used to require one form per
activity each time the manager wanted to spend money on that activity.  Now it requires only one formfor all the activities relating to a particular objective.
20 Opcit , "Results-based budgeting, Report of the Secretary-General.
21 Ibid,  para. 1.Page 14
• Evaluating Division’s Performance Against Objectives
Although the quality of many of these could be improved upon, to the extent that the
components are useful elements they should be incorporated in the new system and the same
terminology used as far as possible.  This is because the practice managers and delegates
already have in working with them will facilitate migrating to the new system.  And, ofcourse, the new system should add value – be an improvement over what currently exists.
39. All the necessary components, but as simple as possible  – This is perhaps the most
difficult parameter to meet.  As results-based budgeting is an integrated system, its
effectiveness is reduced or eliminated by the removal of certain of its essential parts.  As
shown in the following diagram, each phase leads to the next until the cycle is completed andstarted again; each is essential in following th rough from the previous phase and in leading to
the next so that removal of any one would break the links and make the system ineffective.
For example there is no sense in setting expected results if achievement of these is not
monitored; if lessons are not extracted from an evaluation of past performance, then there is
no feedback to improve the process the next time around and so on.  All the components in
the diagram therefore should feature in the new system.
Diagram 1:  The Cycle of Results-based Budgeting
Strategic
Programme
Planning  &
Budgeting
Objective  Setting
with
Expected  Results
Implementation
&
MonitoringEvaluation
&
FeedbackPage 15
40. As set out earlier in this report, there are a number of other components that are
desired by one or more of the various interest groups – delegates, system’s owners, system’s
users and the staff Association; that other organizations have found useful / essential or that
would reinforce the system and make it more effective.  These include:
• Ensuring the alignment of management accountability and decision making
authority  when implementing
• Conducting periodic staffing level reviews
• Gathering performance data including cost data  when monitoring (the majority of
those consulted felt that having data on the cost of achieving individual objectiveswould be useful in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of resources spent on different
objectives, in conducting staffing level reviews and in determining budgetary
allocations.)
• Capturing productivity and quality improvements
• Providing an internal consulting service  to help managers improve the process
• Evaluating the Performance of staff (This system should be a part of the results-based
management system as the objectives set for individual staff members should be
linked to the Division’s objectives and staff should see how their work fits in with the
larger work and objectives of the Organization.)
All of these taken together are the components of a full results-based management system .
There are of course linkages with other supporting and related systems, some of which will be
touched upon later in this report.
41. Armed with these basic components, there still remain a few parts of the new system
that need to be added to ‘flesh out’ the basic components and put them effectively into
practice.  In attempting to meet the design parameter of keeping the system as simple as
possible the ‘devil will be in the detail’ as the expression goes.  The approach therefore in
adding these is minimalist.  At the beginning of the next section of this report the componentsof the proposed new results-based management System are set out in Diagram 2.Page 16
IV. A NEW WTO RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
42. A review of some of the relevant literature (see bibliography in Annex 3) and the
experience of the organizations visited reveals three important points to bear in mind when
designing a results-based management system:
• Firstly, there is no standard formulae or single generic approach that can be applied to
all or even to some organizations.  Each organization will need to work out what is
appropriate based on its own culture, history, available resources, what it expects to
get out of the system etc.  For example, types of performance measures must betailored to the specific mission and goals of the Organization.
22
• Secondly, no system is perfect.  With organizations of any significant size, the system
designed will work better in some areas and less well in others.  Choices should be
made on the basis of what fits best for the Organization as a whole.  It has to be
recognized that one is not dealing with a wate rtight system in all its details; it is the
general thrust that is important.
• Thirdly, the system should be built incrementally.  It is not possible to design the best
possible system for an organization the first time round so a lot of time should not be
wasted attempting this.  Significant improvements will only come with experience
from operating the system.
This section puts forward a proposal for a new results-based management system that the
consultant believes would be the most appropriate for the WTO based on the information hehas been able to gather at this stage in the development process. Diagram 2 below sets out all
of the components of the system, each of which is described in the sections that follow.  The
components are shown in pink to assist the reader.
                                                     
22 "Mission Impossible? – Measuring Success in Nonprofit Organizations, John C. Sawhill &
David Williamson in Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), Spring 2001, page 382.Page 17
Diagram 2:  Components of the Proposed Results-based
Management System
This diagram sets out all of the elements of the proposed system.  Other proposals for
changes that relate to the budgetary cycle are found below in Section V – Linkage with theBudgetary Cycle.
A. Strategic Programme Planning and Budgeting
1.Strategic Vision & Corporate Objectives2.Divisional Objectives *
3.Divisional Expected Results *
4.Divisional Strategy & Work Plan
- Strategy
- Background *
- Work Plan *
- Main Activities *
- Resources
- Forecasting Productivity and Quality Improvements
5.Staff Performance Management
6.Programme and Budget Approval & the Budget Hearing
B. Implementation and Monitoring
1.Aligning Managerial Accountability & Decision-making 
Authority
2.Gathering Performance Data * & Cost Data
3.The Mid-year Review
C Evaluation and Feedback
1.Annual Performance Assessment – Divisional *& Corporate **
2.Thematic Evaluations
3.Systemic Evaluations
4.Capturing Productivity & Quality Improvements
5.Staffing Level Reviews6.Internal Consulting
7.The Feedback Loop
* Already exists in WTO
** Several types of evaluation will be addressed
A. Strategic Programme Planning and Budgeting
43. Included in this section are the pla nning, articulation and approval of the
organization’s programme and budget from the or ganization’s strategic vision and corporate
objectives at the highest level to an individual staff member’s performance objectives.  A
review of the literature and systems in operation in the organizations visited reveals that a
myriad of different levels are conceivable when setting objectives and expected results.  Some
of those the consultant has come across include:  strategic corporate vision; global corporate
objectives; areas of work with goals; corporate operational objectives; divisional objectives;divisional expected results; performance indicators; targets; milestones; unit objectives with
expected results, indicators, targets and milestones; work plans with activities, inputs, outputs,
outcomes, resources etc.  The number of levels chosen depends in large measure on the
degree of precision and clarity applied.Page 18
44. In the following proposal an effort has been  made to keep the system simple, with the
least possible components, but have the components as focused as possible.  Annex 4 contains
a preliminary draft showing how some of the components set out in this section might be
articulated in WTO, it being recognized that the actual texts would have to be developed by
the Secretariat.
1. Strategic Vision & Corporate Objectives
45. The Strategic Vision  is the highest possible level of planning and objective setting of
an organization.  It is the overriding purpose of  the organization.  The strategic vision is a
statement, as brief as possible, of what the organization as a whole wants to achieve.  It is
normally not time bound – to be accomplished this year or over the next 5 years, but valid for
the life of the organization.  Normally the strategic vision is that of both the Secretariat andthe larger Organization.  In the ILO, for example, "decent work" is used.  The strategic vision
for WTO might be: " world trade flow as free as possible without undesirable side effects ".
46. Following the strategic vision are the Corporate Objectives .  These are the broad
organizational objectives – impacts or outcomes – for the Secretariat as a whole.  All
objectives should be outcome-oriented; they should focus on what is to be achieved, not the
means to achieving it.  When establishing these, it is important to focus on what are the
clients’ needs – what the Members expect the Secretariat as a whole to achieve.  There shouldbe a maximum of 5 or 6 of these.  Some organizations have established these only in the
"technical" areas with the result that service areas (finance, human resources etc.), when
establishing their own objectives, cannot see how their work fits under any of the broad
objectives of the organization as a whole.  The consultant believes that all WTO divisions
should be able to identify at least one corporate objective that their work supports.  For thisreason, "good governance of the organization" is included as a proposed corporate objective
in Annex 4.
47. A strategic vision and corporate objectives are not currently, nor have they been,
articulated for the WTO.  It will be necessary to do this in order to provide a fabric /
orientation / direction both to guide and to pull together Divisions in setting their objectivesand expected results.
48. The focus on corporate objectives can be time-bound – to be accomplished in the
short, medium or long term – or valid for the life of the organization.  In moving from the
more general objectives to the more specific ones, attention needs to be paid in the WTO
context to distinguishing between objectives of the World Trade Organization and those of itsSecretariat.  It is recommended that the Secretariat should be held accountable only for what
is within its sphere of influence.  This is important, as explained earlier, to foster both
acceptance of the system and ownership and accountability for the identified results.  Thus,
while some corporate objectives may be valid for both, only those that are valid for the
Secretariat should be included in the results-based management system.
49. Some organizations distinguish between "corporate strategic  objectives", which are
those valid for both the organization and its secretariat and "corporate operational  objectives’,
which are valid for the secretariat alone.  The former tend not to be time-bound or are long-
term in perspective and the latter tend to be time-bound to the specific budget period (e.g.
what should be accomplished within the biennium or year).  The consultant has suggested
some possible corporate objectives for WTO in Annex 4, which he believes are valid for both
the Organization and the Secretariat and for the life of the Organization.  In contrast,corporate objectives valid for the Organization as distinct from the Secretariat might be many
of those set out in the Doha Declaration. The divisional objectives suggested later however
are focused clearly on outcomes the Division can be held accountable to achieve, as opposedPage 19
to those dependant on the Organization’s Members.  These should of course flow from the
Doha Declaration and other objective such as those established in Committees.
50. It will be important for the Secretariat to develop the strategic vision, corporate
objectives, divisional objectives etc. for itself through a process of consultation so that they
are the most appropriate and to build staff ownership and commitment to their achievement.Annex 4 only offers suggestions as a starting point for this process.  Organizations that have
had experience in applying results-based management strongly recommend that a lot of time
should be spent on getting the corporate objectives right as all the subsequent levels below
depend upon them.
2. Divisional Objectives
51. Divisional Objectives  are the key impacts or outcomes that the division is held
accountable to achieve within the budget period.  It is important here too to focus on client’s –
Member’s – needs and on what Senior Management expects the division to achieve.  There
should be a maximum of 5 or 6 of these - the major / key  objectives to be achieved.  They can
be "content-oriented" (e.g. "better understanding and improved capacity of developing
countries on issues, obligations and opportunities in the market access area")  or "process-
oriented" (e.g. "efficient and timely administration of staff’s human resources entitlements ").
Divisions already establish objectives, which are reflected in the “Burgundy Book” however
these tend to be descriptions of the division’s responsibilities or the services it intends to
provide but not the outcomes it expects to achieve.
52. In setting its outcome-oriented objectives a division has many sources to draw upon:
• Strategic vision;
• Corporate objectives;
• Doha Declaration;
• Committees’ work
programmes;
• Previous declarations;• Directives from Senior
Management;
• The division’s mandate;
• Obligations and
responsibilities to theprofessional community;
• Agreements;• Past performance against
objectives;
• Policy directives of
Members;
• WTO policies;
• Efforts to improve
efficiency, products and
services etc.
In the meeting with delegates it was suggested that there are four main areas from which
operational divisions should draw their objectives: facilitating negotiations; facilitating
implementation of existing agreements; technical assistance; and, supporting the dispute
settlement process.  Annex 4 provides some suggestions of divisional objectives for anoperational division.
53. Divisional objectives can be worked  out from both a top down and bottom up
process.  Staff within the division should be consulted in the process of establishing both
divisional objectives and expected results in order to build commitment and to understand
how their individual work fits in with and supports the objectives of the division andultimately those of the Secretariat as a whole.Page 20
3. Divisional Ex pected Results
54. Divisional Expected Results  are the indicators set out beforehand that later tell if the
division has met its objectives.  They answer the question: how will we know achievement of
the objective when we see it.  These are, in the final analysis, what divisions are held
accountable for.  Divisions currently identify expected results in the “Burgundy Book” but
these tend to be descriptions of activities, services or responsibilities and are seldom
measurable results.  Managers have not been trained in setting expected results, but there may
also be some resistance to establishing these in more measurable terms than now exists.  Asone author notes: "Fear is the major barrier – there is a common apprehension that by
developing indicators, people in the front line provide whoever they account to…with
weapons to be used against them
23.
55. Divisional expected results should be cl ient-focused and outcome-oriented and should
be built through a consultative process.  At least one expected result should be established for
each objective, but the overall number should be kept to a minimum.  Interventions (e.g.
training) should not be confused with expected results (new skills / competencies).  Divisional
expected results should be measurable.  They can be quantitative in nature (e.g. amounts,
numbers, ratios, percentages, proportions, average scores, ratings, weighted and non-weightedindices etc.) or qualitative (e.g. description of the status, documented observations, opinions,
pre-determined quality descriptions etc.).  The following are a range of criteria  that have
been recommended as guides when setting expected results:
• Valid – the indicator directly represents the result it is intended to measure
• Objective – the definition is precise and unambiguous about what is to be measured
• Reliable – the data is consistent or comparable over time
• Practical – the data can be collected easily (available), on a timely basis and at
reasonable cost.
• Useful – the data have utility for decision-making and learning
• Adequate – the minimum number of indicators are used to measure the objective and
its most important dimensions
• Owned – partners and stakeholders agree that the expected result makes sense
A convention that has been used in training is to say that expected results must be SMART :
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Relevant and
Time-bound
Some suggested Expected Results for an operational Division are in Annex 4.  How these can
be measured – how the data may be collected – is dealt with in Section IV.B.2. Gathering
Performance and Cost Data.
                                                     
23 Macpherson, Malcolm, "Performance Measurement in Not-For-Profit and Public-Sector
Organisations" in Measuring Business Excellence 5,2 2001, p. 13.Page 21
4. Divisional Strategy and Work Plan
56. Once a division has set its objectives and expected results, a Divisional Strategy  is
needed to plan how these are to be achieved.  The divisional strategy is a plan for organizing
and directing the use of means and inputs (activities, staff, money and other resources) in
order to achieve the end results / outcomes (objectives and expected results).  It is not
proposed that divisions be required to articulate formally their established strategies in the"Burgundy Book" although they may indicate strategic elements in the portion of that
document called Background (see next paragraph).  Set out in Annex 5 is an example of how
a division’s portion of the "Burgundy Book" might look in future under a results-based
management system.
57. Traditionally the  Background  section of the "Burgundy Book" contained a range of
material including the duties, responsibilities and functions of the division, important
guidance it was following, some strategic elements, important issues, challenges etc.  It is
suggested that, subject to a maximum text length, divisions be given the flexibility to include
in this section elements they feel are important.  However it is recommended that included
therein should be some indication of strategic elements as well as an indication of any
external factors beyond the division’s control that may impact on the fulfilment or not of the
divisional objectives and expected results.
58. It is recommended that the "Burgundy Book" also contain the Divisional  Work Plan .
The work plan deals with the allocation of activities, money, staff and other resources needed
to achieve the objectives and expected results.  Following the traditional layout of the
"Burgundy Book", the work plan has two compone nts: the main activities and the resources
(Staffing and Budget).  See again Annex 5.
59. The Main Activities  are the services or products delivered irrespective of the benefits
accruing from such activities.  In keeping the system simple, individual activities need not be
related each to a specific objective or expected result; some activities may support more than
one of these.  Activities may include the preparation of a report, the holding of a seminar, the
provision of an advisory service, the servicing of a meeting etc.  Activities require inputs in
the form of staff and other resources in order to be carried out.  The Resources  set out in the
"Burgundy Book" have two sections:  the Divisional Staffing  – the numbers of directors and
other staff, and the Divisional Budget  – the Staff Costs, Administrative Costs and Other Costs
representing the division’s total budget.  As part of the work plan, it is recommended that the
division estimate at the beginning of the budget period the Percentage of Resources  that it is
intended to Allocate to Each of the Objectives  in working towards their fulfilment.
60. It is also recommended that at the stage of preparing the divisional budget
submission, (which contains the components described above that are later reflected in the
"Burgundy Book"), Divisional Directors be asked to Forecast Productivity and Quality
Improvements  they believe can be realized either in their own division or elsewhere in the
Secretariat.  These would take the form of an indication of those actions the Division plans
to execute  during the budget period aimed at making efficiencies, increasing productivity
or improving quality  or any suggestions for realizing these  in areas that are outside the
Division’s control or influence .  These would not be reflected in the "Burgundy Book" but
indicated on the budget proposal forms submitted and would be followed up by the Resource
and Performance Analysis Unit (see in this regard the section IV.C.4. Capturing Productivity
and Quality Improvements and section VIII. The Resource and Performance AnalysisFunction.Page 22
5. Staff Performance Management
61. It is important here to draw attention briefly to the linkage between the Staff
Performance Management system  and the larger results-based management system.  The
Secretariat has recently implemented a new staff performance management system composed
of a Staff Performance Evaluation  system and supported by a Performance Award
System .  This new system falls nicely in place under any new results-based management
system.  Under the stated purposes of the new staff performance management system, is the
setting of individual staff member’s objectives "…in the context of the aims of the division
and the organization".  The manager ("supervising officer") is asked to "…describe the duties
and objectives of the staff member over the rating period together with specific work
objectives agreed between the supervising officer and the staff member" and staff are heldaccountable for results against specific performance criteria established in advance
24.
6. Programme and Budget Appr oval and the Budget Hearing
62. The final step in strategic programme planning and budgeting is the  Programme and
Budget Approval  process.  As part of the process of establishing the Secretariat’s final
proposals on objectives, expected results, resource levels etc., it is recommended that a
Budget Hearing  be instituted.  Division Directors have indicated to the consultant during this
review that once their budget proposals are submitted there is little if any feedback on these
until the division’s budget has been approved by the Budget Committee and General Counseland the Division Director officially informed many months later.  There is a feeling among
directors that they are kept out of the process that establishes their own budgets and that their
views are not welcomed.  On the side of the system owners there is the feeling that Division
Directors do not exercise discretion in making proposals, which are for unrealistic increases –
"the sky’s the limit".  The current process as structured does not build understanding orcommitment among divisional management.
63. In order to build more transparency into the process, the following steps are proposed.
Division Directors would prepare their divisi onal programme (including objectives and
expected results) and budget proposals and discuss these with their respective Deputy
Director-General making revisions as necessary.  Following receipt of these, a short notecritiquing both the programme and budget elements would be prepared jointly by the
Resource and Performance Analysis Unit (for programme elements) and AGSD’s Budget and
Control Section (for budget elem ents) and distributed to the DDG and Division Director.  The
note would be short, 1-2 pages, and provide a brief rationale as to why certain proposals have
not been accepted and should be modified.
64. A Budget Hearing would then take place.  The Deputy Director-General responsible
for administration would chair this and the staff from AGSD, the Division Director and the
relevant DDG would attend.  The Division Director would be given a short time to say what
the division’s reaction was to the critical note and those preparing the note would have an
opportunity to react to this.  After a brief discussion the meeting would be adjourned.Decisions would be taken later by the system’s owners as to the proposals that would finally
be made to the Budget Committee (as is now the case) once all of the information from all
hearings had been gathered and put together.  This would not give a Division Director the
responsibility of decision on the proposals going forward for the Division, but it would at
least provide an opportunity for more transparency, a better understanding of the views on
both sides and a greater input of Division Directors into the process.
                                                     
24 World Trade Organization Manual Performance Evaluation, Personnel Division, January
2001.Page 23
65. Before concluding this section it is important to make the point that all functions of
the Secretariat, irrespective of the funding sour ce, should be subject to the same results-based
management system.  It would not make sense to set up a separate management system for
certain activities simply because their funding source is different.  Only a consolidated
approach will bring synergies and coordinated efforts leading to higher overall levels ofperformance.  Under this approach theref ore, the new "Burgundy Book" would include
programme and resource elements for activities funded by the regular budget and the Doha
Development Agenda Global Trust Fund.
B. Implementation and Monitoring
66. The purpose of the Implementation and Monitoring  phase of results-based
management is to ensure that the appropriate decision-making authorities necessary forimplementation are in place; to gather relevant performance and cost data during
implementation in order to enable later the evaluation of performance; and, to check mid-way
through the process if progress towards achievement of objectives is on target.  Monitoring
helps ensure accountability.  It is not recommended to focus monitoring on the tracking of
inputs such as activities or outputs, but on outcomes and the costs of these
.  One author warns
against applying an "audit mentality" during monitoring as this "may ironically shift focusback down to outputs, which can be more easily  attained and attributed to agency activities,
and for which data can be easily collected on an annual basis".
25
1. Aligning Managerial Accountability and Decision-making Authority
67. Both the literature surveyed and the organizations visited indicate the importance ofAligning Managerial Accountabili ty and Decision-Making Authority  necessary to achieve
objectives and expected results.  If managers are to be held accountable for results / outcomes,
they need to be given the flexibility to mana ge the means towards achieving those objectives.
They cannot be held accountable for both objectives and a list of activities.  The latter are
only for showing how it is intended to achieve the objectives.  Not providing this flexibility
offers the handy excuse:  Our objectives / expected results were not met because we did not
have the freedom of action necessary to do so.  The focus therefore needs to be shifted from
process control  to outcome accountability .
68. Managers should therefore be empowered to shift resources between budget lines
while still remaining within the overall monetary  envelope, to use staffing resources to hire
several short-term staff members / consultants instead of one long-term staff member and to
have freedom in implementing their work plans by changing activities in mid-stream if they
deem that doing so would lead to better result s.  They should not be told how much money to
spend on a given activity.  Process controls, such as procedures to authorize expenditures,
forms used etc. should be kept to the minimum necessary.   As mentioned earlier, "increased
accountability of managers must be accompanied by an empowerment effectively to
discharge that responsibility”
26.  The impression of the consultant is that the process controls
in the WTO are already minimal and Division Directors already have been delegated thenecessary decision-making authorities as described here.  However Senior Management could
check this prior to implementation.
                                                     
25 Opcit,  "Results Based Management in the Development Co-operation Agencies: A Review
of Experience, Executive Summary", Annette Binnendijk, page 16.
26 Opcit,  "Results-based budgeting”, Report of the SG, Para 81.Page 24
2. Gathering Performance and Cost Data
69. During implementation there is a need for Gathering Performance and Cost Data .
The collection of performance data is needed to be able to judge while work is in progress
whether achievement of objectives is on target and at the end of the budget period if
objectives have been accomplished.  The gathering of cost data is necessary so that
management sees the connection between the cost of activities, staff and other resources andthe results that have been or not been achieved by the investment.  In this way some cost /
benefit analysis can be made.  Ways of gathering both types of data are recommended in the
following paragraphs.
70. Performance Data  – Both quantitative and qualitative data is important in measuring
performance.  The gathering of quantitative performance data (e.g. the number of pages ofdocuments translated, the turn around time for processing staff entitlements, the numbers of
national policy makers briefed / trained in a particular trade area etc.) is rather straightforward
as it can generally be made available.  In the WTO context, the difficulties will arise in
gathering qualitative performance data and in particular, data on the quality of the facilitation
by divisions of debate and consensus of Members in the negotiation process.
71. It is recommended in general that the Secretariat begin to obtain in a structured way
feedback from clients on whether or not they consider that the objectives have been met.  In
particular, as regards the negotiating process, it is proposed that divisions elicit information
from delegates on their performance in facilitating the meetings.  UNCTAD for example
distributes questionnaires to national authorities to obtain their assessment of the quality of its
Secretariat’s publications.  The national authorities are asked to “rate the quality of the
publication” according to a number of parameters, e.g. “Originality, Wealth of information,Up-to-date information, Technical accuracy, Comprehensiveness of coverage” and so on.
This is used to assess the Secretariat’s performance against the “indicator” (expected result)
of “Feedback from Member States…indicating that UNCTAD studies and analyses… have
contributed to intergovernmental debate and consensus”
27.  It also seeks the views of
delegations and other participants on the Secretariat’s performance at its meetings.
72. Gathering qualitative data on a division’s performance in “facilitating
intergovernmental debate and consensus” during meetings (see divisional objective example
in Annex 5) and obtaining “feedback from delegates that the division’s studies and advice
have contributed positively to consensus” (see expected result example in Annex 5) could be
obtained by a short, 1-2 page, Facilitation Assessment Sheet that would be completed by the
Chairman of the Committee.  Both content and process facilitation would be evaluated.  The
focus would be on the quality of performance, not the time taken for it as only the Division
Director would be able to assess this (see next section on cost data).  Some examples of the
possible questions to ask are set out below; the actual ones retained would have to be worked
out by the Secretariat:
• Content:  were all the issues put on the table?, was the advice of a high technical
level?, was the Secretariat responsive in providing advice / information requested?,
was the advice objective and neutral and when required discrete?, was confidentiality
maintained?, were sensitive issues handled in a sensitive manner?, were constructive
suggestions made – to the Chairman and to delegates – to overcome obstacles
encountered?, were the minutes of a high quality – objective, sound, substantive and
to the point?, were the Chairman’s notes of high quality? etc.
                                                     
27 Ibid,  Addendum A/54/456/Add.2, page 14.Page 25
• Process:  was the meeting organized well?, was a good draft agenda prepared?, were
documents distributed as soon as possible?, were minutes distributed in a reasonable
period of time? etc.
73. Before completing the evaluation sheet,  the Chairman would obtain views from a
sample of delegates in attendance during the meetings.  The objective would be to obtain a
representative sampling but reach those delegates who had been assisted by the division.These might not be the most vocal delegations during the debate.  The Division Director
could suggest to the Chairman which delegates might be included in the sample, but it would
be the Chairman’s responsibility to draw the sample.  This would be one of the functions that
the Chairman could carry out not in a personal capacity, but ex officio.
74. Cost Data  – Some cost data is already gathered as regards financial data on
expenditures and time spent on providing technical assistance.  It is recommended that during
implementation, the amount of the Division’s resources spent in the pursuit of each of its
objectives be gathered on a quarterly basis.  As the majority of most division’s resources are
staff resources, this could be done by each staff member in the division filling out every
quarter a one-page  Time Allocated Sheet  indicating the percentage of time spent during the
last three months on each of the division’s objectives.  The staff member would simply have
to allocate a proportion of 100% of his/her time to each of the division’s 4 or 5 objectives.Staff would be advised in advance of the requirement of completing these sheets so that they
could be thinking about how the time they spend during implementation relates to each
objective or taking some notes to this end.
75. The Division Director would gather these sheets and compile a one-page summary
sheet providing a consolidate accounting of the staff time spent, making adjustments ifdeemed that staff had not recorded their time accurately.  To this would be added an
allocation of the other resources – missions, temporary assistance, equipment (this could be
prorated according to staff time spent on each objective) according to each of the objectives.
The Division Director would send a copy of this these sheets to the Resources and
Performance Analysis Unit.
76. The information would be used by the Division Director together with the
performance data gathered (see above paragraphs) in preparing the Divisional Reporting on
Objectives and Expenditures at the end of the budgetary period.  Comparisons of the amount
of resources estimated by the Director at the beginning of the budgetary period to be allocated
to each objective (see paragraph 59 above) with the resources actually spent would be usefulin adjusting the work plan, in allocating resources during the budget period and in planning
better during the next period.  Managers would be better able to see the relationship between
the costs of the activities they carry out and the results they achieve through them.  Cost /
benefit analyses could be carried out to determine if the amount of resourced dedicated to a
given objective was worth the investment based on its importance.
77. This process would provide a rough accounting of the costs of each objective, which
would probably be sufficient for WTO’s purposes.  For example, an accounting would not be
made for time spent after the normal 8-hour working day, time lost for leave etc.  In
conformity with the design parameter of keeping the system simple, it is not recommended to
institute a full cost accounting system – in which each staff member would be required, torecord every 15 minutes or hour
28 the time spent on each objective.  Such a system would
draw a lot of staff time away from the work and would require a significant investment ofresources in compiling, inputting and analysing the data.  Such a system would not, in the
consultant’s view, be consistent with the wishes of Members of the Budget Committee,
                                                     
28 In law firms where this practice first started for the purposes of billing clients, it is now
common to record time spent every 6 or 7 minutes.Page 26
expressed in response to the suggestion of the external auditor that a time registration system
be investigated.  The Members indicated that they were not opposed to the suggestion
"provided that it would be cost effective and would not impose additional bureaucratic
activities to the Organization"29.
3. The Mid-year Review
78. It is recommended that Division Directors take stock halfway through implementation
during a  Mid-year Review .  At this point in time, directors would review if they were on
target to meet their expected results and objectives by the end of the year.  A short 1-2 page
Mid-Year Review Sheet could be completed.  On this directors would place a check mark
against each objective where the Division was on target, but for each where it was not, a brief
(1-3 sentences) explanation of the reasons would be provided together with a brief indicationof the remedial action (change in strategy, shift in resource allocation etc.) that would be
taken from that point on in order to get back on track.  In exceptional circumstances (e.g.
events beyond the Division’s control that prevent achievement of objectives / expected results
and the effects of which cannot be overcome by the Division) directors might be allowed to
propose modifying the objective or the expected  result, or both.  Senior Management could
review these proposed changes for decision.
C. Evaluation and Feedback
79. Evaluation and Feedback  is the last phase of the results-based management cycle
before the cycle is begun anew.  Performance evaluation is distinct from performance
monitoring in that the latter focuses mostly on whether  objectives are being or have been met,
whereas the former focuses mainly on explaining how and why  objectives were or were not
achieved.  It attempts to analyse the factors, actions etc. that have led to problems or tosuccess and draw lessons that can be applied during future cycles.  It also provides useful
information on which to base future decisions on the allocation of resources in the budget.  It
is the evidence base on which management decisions are made.  This phase is crucial to
continuously improving organizational performance. There are a number of types of
evaluation that should be undertaken as described in the following paragraphs.
1. Annual Performance Assessment - Divisional and Corporate
80. Divisional  – Currently divisions prepare an annual “Divisional Reporting on
Objectives and Expenditures”.  As indicated ear lier in this review (see footnote 17) however,
contributions tend now to list the activities that had been carried out by the division rather
than assessing whether the stated objectives / expected results have or have not been met and
why / why not.  It is proposed that Division Di rectors continue to provide these reports on
objectives and expenditures, but that they be made more focused on outcomes as opposed to
outputs – whether objectives / expected results have or have not been achieved and why / whynot.  In short, they should be reports on the evaluation of performance against stated
objectives.
81. Corporate  – In addition to the divisions’ evaluations, it is recommended that a
corporate evaluation also be conducted.  This w ould be both a review of each division’s own
evaluation of its performance as well as a comparative and consolidated assessment made
at the level of the Secretariat as a whole of divisions’ collective efforts .  This would be
included in the Divisional Reporting on Objectives and Expenditures document as a new
feature.  The new Resource and Performan ce Analysis Unit would contribute in pulling
together this document.  Particularly successful experiences, what might be called internal
                                                     
29 Opcit , WT/BFA/56, page 2.Page 27
best practice, could be highlighted and disseminated to all divisions to capitalize on.  Those
factors, policies, practices etc. that are influencing good or poor performance could be
recognized and positive or negative trends co uld be identified.  “Performance information
promotes continuous management learning about what results are being achieved…and
why…”30.
2. Thematic Evaluations
82. Thematic Evaluations  – In addition to “vertical” evaluations of a given division’s
performance against objectives, thematic evaluations can be carried out on areas that are
crosscutting in the Secretariat.  Some examples could include: technical assistance, provision
of technical advice to the dispute settlement process, progress towards implementation of
agreements etc.  Whether and how objectives in these areas are being met would be analysedand the conclusions disseminated to improve l earning and performance, modify practices etc.
3. Systemic Evaluations
83. Systemic Evaluations  – Systemic evaluations concern the assessment of the results-
based management system itself as well as supporting and related systems.  Are objectives too
broad, or too narrow, too many or too few?  Is  progress towards making expected results more
measurable, reliable etc. sufficient?  Is the approach to setting objectives and expected results
across divisions consistent or at roughly the same level of detail?  Are divisional strategies
formulated in the most effective manner?  Can the feedback from clients be improved?  Arethe forms, evaluation sheets etc. effective?  Has the budget hearing been an improvement?
Are the performance and cost data gathered during monitoring sufficient, too much or poorly
focused?  Are evaluations against performance meaningful?  Is best internal practice being
picked up and put to use?  Are productivity and quality improvements being captured?  What
other related systems need to be changed to support better results-based management?  Theseare but a few of the types of questions that can be the focus of systemic reviews.  The more
the system is improved, the more the management of the organization is improved.
4. Capturing Productivity and Quality Improvements
84. Capturing Productivity and Quality Improvements – One  of the most important
benefits to reap from the new results-based management system could be the capturing of
productivity and quality improvements.  Approaches, methods, practices etc. that couldimprove effectiveness, efficiency and quality and reduce time and cost should be analysed and
those found workable identified, disseminated and put into practice.  Identification of
improvements could come from several sources.
85. First there are the suggestions that Division Directors would be required to put
forward as part of their budget submission
31 – either actions the division plans to execute
during the budget period that would result in productivity or quality improvements or
suggestions for realizing these in areas outside the division’s control or sphere of influence.
The staff at large could also be encouraged to bring forth such suggestions.  Some rewards
might be given to staff who have identified particularly significant improvements.  One time
for eliciting these could be when the Director discusses the division’s draft proposals onobjectives, expected results and the budget with the staff of the division.  Another important
source would be the findings of divisional, corp orate, thematic and systemic evaluations.  The
new Resource and Performance Analysis Unit would have a primary role to play in this
process as described later in this report.
                                                     
30 Opcit , Binnendijk’s document, page 15.
31 See paragraph 60 above.Page 28
5. Staffing Level Reviews
86. Staffing Level Reviews  – This is the area that all delegates surveyed wanted most to
be included in a new results-based management system.  As indicated earlier in this review, a
division can meet all of its objectives, but this is not necessarily indicative of whether or not
its resource levels are appropriate.  Normally results-based budgeting systems do not provide
in-depth information on the adequacy of staffing and resources levels.  It is for this reason thatthe conduct of periodic staffing level reviews is proposed as an additional feature of the new
results-based management system.
87. It would be useful to conduct periodic reviews of the adequacy of the staffing and
resource levels of divisions.  These could be done for individual divisions, groups of divisions
or the Secretariat as a whole.  They could also look at resources, organizational structure,policies, practices and processes. As the primary resource for most divisions is staff, these are
called staffing level reviews, but the reviews c ould also look at other resource besides staff..
At the most general level, these reviews would examine existing workload  and the adequacy
of resources allocated – staff, money, equipment etc. to deliver the workload. More detailed
reviews could examine the relationship and impact of organizational structure and
management practices  on staffing and other resource levels.  This in effect is the level at
which the consultant’s last report was pitched
32.  At a level of even greater detail would be
reviews examining the organization of work and work processes , including issues such as
outsourcing work, the distribution of work with in units, work flow and the effect these have
on resource levels.
6. Internal Consulting
88. Internal Consulting  – Another feature of the system should be the provision of
internal consulting services.  This is simply providing a service to Division Directors andother managers on how to set objectives and expected results, develop strategies, plan work,
organize activities etc. to be able to operate better the results-based management system.
Managers should be able to have a unit in the Secretariat they could turn to for help in this
regard.  For example, a Division Director could contact this unit explaining that following
developments at a Ministerial Session the divisional objectives, expected results or work planneeds to be revised and requesting some assistance and advice in this regard.  The unit could
also disseminate to divisions helpful information on lessons learned or best practice observed
through evaluations. It is important to have this as a feature of the new, not only to provide a
useful service, but also so that the system is focused not on punishing, but on helping
managers.
7. The Feedback Loop
89. The Feedback Loop  – This is the final step in the results-based management cycle.
It is important, as has already been mentioned, that the information obtained through various
types of evaluation, capturing productivity and quality improvements or staffing level reviews
be disseminated to Division Directors and other internal managers.  This is essential to
promote learning so that when the next cycl e begins objectives and expected results can be
made more focused, strategies and work plans more effective, performance reporting moreprofound etc. and ultimately the performance of the organization constantly improved.  There
is an inevitable lag in time before the lessons learned through evaluation can be put into
practice in a future cycle as is explained below in the section VI on Linkage with the
Budgetary Cycle.
                                                     
32 "Strategic Organizational Review: Structure and Staffing Resources of the World Trade
Organization Secretariat”, submitted in September 2001, in response to a request of the Committee onBudget, Finance and Administration.Page 29
90. It is also important that decisions at the corporate level be taken  on the information
gained in the results-based management process.  If no decisions of this nature are taken,
managers will view the system as unimportant to Senior Management and Members and will
quickly lose interest and commitment.   Thus the information gained from the system should
be a primary source on which to base decisions on the Organization’s programmes and theallocation of resources within the Secretariat to de liver these.  It is interesting to note in this
regard that the ILO has even reorganized the structure of its Secretariat in conformity with its
major / corporate objectives.
91. Finally it is important that the organization’s clients be involved in taking these
decisions.   Feedback from Members is essential in knowing if objectives and expected results
are meeting their needs.  It is recommended that the new “Burgundy Book(s)” be reviewed
and approved, as now, by the Budget Committee and the General Council.  However as the
debate will be moved more to a policy level in the future with more programme elements –
corporate WTO Secretariat and Divisional objectives and expected results – being featured inthe “Burgundy Books”, it is expected that th e General Council will want to dedicate more
time to this process than it has in the past.Page 30
V. SUPPORT SYSTEMS
92. There are a number of systems and processes that can be identified as directly
supporting a results-based management system.  These are explained briefly below.  There are
also a number of processes that need to be done at the stage of implementation to make
introduction of the system more successful.  These are dealt with under section IX.
Implementation.  Finally there are a number of systems, policies etc. that are linked to results-based management and that can support it indirectly.  These are dealt with under section VII
Linkages with Other Systems, Policies and Processes.
• Data Systems:  A number of suggestions ha ve been made throughout this report for
the introduction of some simple forms or the use of existing forms for collecting
necessary new data.  These are summarized here:
o An indication of the percentage of resources the Division Director plans to
allocate to the achievement of each of the divisions objectives – in the normal
budget submission (paragraph 59),
o Suggestions by the Division Director for capturing productivity and quality
improvements – in the normal budget submission (paragraph 60),
o Feedback from the Chairmen of Committees on the facilitation by divisions
of the committees’ work – in a new “Facilitation Assessment Sheet”
(paragraph 72),
o A quarterly recording of Division staff’s time spent on objectives – in a new
“Time Allocated Sheet” (paragraph 74),
o Directors’ checking mid-way if on target towards meeting the year’s
objectives – in a new Mid-Year Assessment” sheet (paragraph 78), and
o A corporate evaluation of performance against objectives giving a
comparative and consolidated assessment of the efforts of all divisions – as a
new feature in the Divisional Reporting on Objectives and Expenditures
document (paragraph 81).
An obvious effort has been made to keep to a minimum the new data identified as
necessary and the means of collecting them.    In this connection, it is noted that anumber of recommendations were already made by the consultant in the previous
report
33 to change some parts of the budget questionnaire in order to obtain some
additional information that could be useful in improving the process.  WTO
management may want to reconsider those recommendations that remain relevant
following this study.  With all of the changes proposed, it is not expected that anyadditional information technology (IT) systems will be required to support the
introduction of results-based management.
• Accounting System(s):  Some organizations have modified or are contemplating
modifying their accounting systems to make them more compatible with their results-
based budgeting / management systems.  WIPO, for example, has redesigned its
                                                     
33 Ibid, paragraphs 141 and 142.Page 31
accounting system to accept expenditure information by activity.  WTO budgets on a
cost centre basis with most cost centres being divisions, but in the larger divisions
smaller organizational units are cost centres.  After discussion with the WTO Budget
and Control Section in AGSD, it is not considered necessary to change any WTO
current accounting processes or systems to support the introduction of results-basedmanagement.  This issue could be kept under review; however to monitor if changes
in the results-based management system should in future require modifications in the
accounting system.Page 32
VI. LINKAGE WITH THE BUDGETARY CYCLE
93. Is WTO’s current budgetary cycle conducive to the introduction of results-based
management?  Some of the potential problems imposed by the current cycle as well as some
possible solutions are examined in this section.
94. A Biennial Cycle  – Ministerial Sessions are held every two years.  During these there
are often decisions taken or developments that would impact on the Secretariat’s objectives
and expected results.  The possibility of moving from an annual to a biennial cycle was
therefore considered; however this alternative is not recommended for the following reasons:
• It is doubtful that Members would favour a two-year cycle, as the tendency in the
recent past has been to want to monitor the budget more, not less frequently.
Delegates consulted confirmed that Members would not favour a two-year cycle.
• The ITC’s biennial cycle was changed to an annual one in order to be more
compatible with that of WTO.   It would be difficult now for WTO to change to a
biennial cycle;
• Changing to a biennial cycle would require a modification of the financial rules of the
Organization. This is undesirable as it might unnecessarily open up for discussion a
range of other policies;
• Ministerial Sessions are not held during the same period of the year and therefore
cannot in any event be fit nicely into a neat results-based cycle; and,
• In most organizations where a biennial cycle exists, objectives and expected results
are set over a one-year time frame and Member States nevertheless want to review
progress half-way through the biennium.  Hence, little would be gained.
95. An Accelerated Annual Cycle  – Currently Division Directors begin preparing next
year’s budgetary proposals at the end of May / beginning of June.  With a new results-based
management system, this cycle would mean that directors would have to identify next year’s
objectives and measurable established results at a time when they do not know or even have a
good idea if the current year’s will be accomplished as they will have had less than half of a
year working on these.  In order to give directors more experience in working towards current
objectives and established results before they are required to identify those for next year, it is
recommended to accelerate the current annual process.  This would avoid the problemsassociated with a biennial cycle and is a workab le alternative, as is evidenced by last year’s
experience when the 2002 budget was worked out in only a few weeks time after the Doha
Ministerial Session.  Attached as Annex 6 is a suggested accelerated annual cycle.  It is noted
that the great majority of those interviewed preferred accelerating the current annual cycle.  In
fact, the timetable set out in Annex 6 was developed in discussion with a group of delegates.
96. It should be pointed out that irrespective of the cycle adopted, there will always be a
lag between the time it takes following completion of a cycle to evaluate performance, draw
lessons from it and put these into effect during the next cycle.  The only way to avoid this
would be to close down operations for the period  of time this takes before beginning the new
cycle, but this, of course, would be absurd.  In the final analysis, this inevitable lag is anotherPage 33
reason for embracing an annual cycle as the lessons from evaluation can be put into effect a
year later, whereas with a biennial cycle, it would be two years later.Page 34
VII. VII. LINKAGES WITH OTHER SYSTEMS, POLICIES
AND PROCESSES
97. This section identifies those systems, policies and processes that have an effect on
results-based management.  It is important to examine these to ensure that they are not
working against, but supporting a results-based approach.  The systems are identified belowtogether with the reasons for their linkage with results-based management; however
examination of them is planned for Phase II of this project.
A. Staff Rewards and Sanctions
98. The Organization’s system of reward mechanisms and sanctions should support and
encourage a performance management culture.  It should encourage staff to identifyobjectives and measurable results and to be held accountable for their achievement. The Staff
Performance Evaluation system already has as a component a Performance Award
Programme.  This envisages rewards for satisfactory performance in the form of pensionable
increases and non-pensionable increases for exceptional performance.  It also foresees
sanctions such as the withholding of pensionable increases for failure to meet performanceobjectives.   As the staff Performance Evaluation system and in particular the Performance
Award Programme were developed prior to the introduction of results-based management, it
is advisable to re-examine these to ensure they are fully supportive and to make any necessary
changes.  In this connection it would be useful to consider if staff should be rewarded in some
manner for suggestions they have made which have resulted in productivity or qualityimprovements (see paragraph 85 above).  Finally, decisions on the allocation of resources
should, of course, be influenced by success or failure in achieving objectives and expected
results.  However basing these and other rewards / sanctions decisions too directly on results
achieved can lead to difficulties.  “If resource allocations (or other rewards & penalties) aretoo rigidly tied to performance data, this may create incentives for biased reporting, asmanagers try to put their performance in the best possible light”
34
B. Appointment, Promotion, Reassignment and Career Development
99. Competencies (skills and attributes) that support results-based management should be
identified and taken into consideration in the appointment of candidates and the selection of
staff for promotion, reassignment and career development opportunities.  They should be
featured in vacancy notices and the selection criteria.  This is all the more important at the
management level as it is the managers who have the most significant impact on the successor failure of results-based management.  The following are some examples of competencies
used by the United Nations
35 that are supportive of results-based management:
For all staff:
• "Is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments, observing deadlines and
achieving results"
• "Works collaboratively with colleagues to achieve organizational goals"
• "Shares credit for team accomplishments and accepts joint responsibility for team
shortcomings"
                                                     
34 Opcit,  Binnendijk, page 24 of the Executive Summary
35 United Nations brochure: United Nations Competencies for the FuturePage 35
• "Develops clear goals that are consistent with agreed strategies"
• "Delivers outputs for which one has responsibility within prescribed time, cost and
quality standards"
• "Identifies clients' needs and matches them to appropriate solutions"
More related to managers:
• "Identifies strategic issues, opportunities and risks"
• "Clearly communicates links between the organization's strategy and the work unit's
goals"
• "Is proactive in developing strategies to accomplish objectives"
• "Encourages others to set challenging goals"
• "Holds others accountable for achieving results related to their area of responsibility"
• "Monitors progress against milestones and deadlines"
It will be important for the WTO to work out its own competencies and use them in these
various human resources processes.
100. The performance track record of staff and managers should be taken into account in
decisions regarding promotion, reassignment and career development.  As the results-based
management system is designed to help, not  punish, the first response to poor performance
against objectives should be to work with the manager / staff member to help improve
performance, providing any necessary assistance and learning and development opportunities.However in the interests of organizational effectiveness, a track record of repeated failure to
meet objectives needs to be taken into account in deciding whether or not the staff member
should remain in the job.  Similarly, those who have performed well in meeting objectives can
be considered for larger responsibilities.  It will be important to examine WTO's promotion
and other practices to ensure that performance is taken into account.
C. Staff Learning and Development
101. Quite apart from the major training and briefing effort that will need to accompany
the introduction of results-based management (discussed below under section IX.
Implementation), it is important to build a staff learning and development programme thatcontinuously supports results-based management. Interventions should be organized that help
build a performance management culture in the organization and that support development of
the needed competencies.
D. Contractual Arrangements
102. It would be useful to examine the current contractual arrangements to see if they are
supportive of a results-based management culture.  Some of the issues that could be examined
are:
• Is the award of a permanent contract c onducive to results-based management and
management accountability?  If so, are the arrangements for obtaining tenure such?Page 36
• Does the range of contracts / employment arrangements available to the Secretariat
provide sufficient flexibility?  What other options might be considered or currentoptions jettisoned?  It is noted in this regard that some national governments have
instituted service contracts in which executives are hired from outside to deliver a
range of expected results and their remuneration is based on whether or not and to
what extent they deliver these results.
• Has sufficient use been made of the arrangement of staff working ten months away
and two months in the organization (as applied in LSDD)?
• Employment contracts represent a financial obligation of the employer for the period
of the contract.  Has the relationship of this to the budget been considered as regards
the types, amounts and lengths of contracts?Page 37
VIII.  THE RESOURCE AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
FUNCTION / UNIT
A. Functions
103. In the Notices to the Staff of 14 December 2001 [OFFICE (01)/110], and 18 January
2002 [OFFICE (02)/9] the Director-General a nnounced that the Resource and Performance
Analysis Unit would be set up “to increase accountability and assess the efficiency of the
Secretariat on a continuing basis” and that “the purpose of this operation would be to assessthe performance of the Secretariat on a continuing basis and facilitate greater use of
management against goals and increased reliance on performance-based budgeting”.
104. As indicated in this report, the new results-based management system would have
many components.  Members, Senior Management, directors and staff will all have importantroles to play in executing the system, but there are three internal units that should take charge
of the major responsibilities to support the new system.  The breakdown of responsibilities
would be as follows:
The Human Resources Section (AGSD) – for the staff performance management
components (as is currently the case)
The Budget and Control Section (AGSD) – for the budget-related components (as is
currently the case)
The Resource and Performance Analysis Unit (RPA Unit) – for the programme-
related components including strategic programme planning, objective-setting,
programme performance monitoring and evaluation of performance against objectives(i.e. most of the new elements)
The functions of the RPA Unit are described in detail in the various sections of this report.  A
summary of these is provided in the statement of functions for the unit in Annex 7.
B. Structure
105. Based on the functions to be carried out and bearing in mind cost considerations andthe wishes of management and delegates that bureaucracy and cost should be kept down, it is
envisaged that the RPA Unit would need a perm anent staffing of 1 Director, 1 Professional
and 1 Support staff and some additional resources for temporary assistance.  Although job
classification reviews would need to be carried out, it is envisaged that the Director should be
graded 12 or 11, based not only on the level of the work to be carried out, but also in order to
give the Director sufficient status vis-à-vis other directors in advocating and implementing the
new system.  For the Professional level post a 10 or 9 grade would seem appropriate.  As forthe Support staff member, a senior Administrative Assistant would seem to be called for as
this person would not only provide secretarial services, but also support the administration of
the new system.
106. Once the system is up and running the regular staff should be able to cope with all of
the functions except the conduct of staffing reviews which can represent a significant
investment of additional time / resources.  For this function the temporary assistance
resources are envisaged.  Quite apart from the fact that the unit would not have sufficient
resources to conduct the staffing reviews, there is also a certain value in having reviews of
this type conducted by specialists from outside the Secretariat.  On top of this resource base,
the unit should also be able to draw assistance from time to time during peak periods from
other divisions in the Secretariat such as Administration and General Services, Statistics etc.
During the first year or two of implementing results-based management however, the unit willPage 38
no doubt need to be reinforced by an additional staff member or two who could be on
secondment from other units in the Secretariat.  Finally resources will be required to support a
significant investment in training and briefing upon introduction of the system.  Whether
these resources should be housed in this unit or elsewhere (e.g. the Human Resources Section)
is a matter for the management to review.
C. Reporting Relationships
107. It is proposed that the Resource and Performance Analysis Unit report directly to the
Director-General, and that its work be reviewed by the Director-General and the Deputy
Director-General in charge of Administration.  As this unit will be conducting evaluations of
the performance of all units in the Secretariat it would be more appropriate that it report
directly to the Director-General not only to insure independence and objectivity in carryingout its functions, but also to be seen to be totally independent and objective.  Much of the
work of this will need to be coordinated and consolidated with that of the Budget and Control
Section in AGSD (e.g. joint preparation of the “Burgundy Book” and the Divisional
Reporting on Objectives and Expenditures docu ment, organization of the Budget Hearing and
the Mid-year Review etc.).  However the Office of the Director-General does not have
sufficient staff to do this.  For this reason it is proposed that the Deputy Director-General in
change of Administration manage this.
108. It is further recommended that Senior Management be involved in the results-based
management process.  As explained in this report, it is envisaged that the Deputy Directors-
General will be involved in reviewing, ap proving and monitoring the achievement of
objectives in their sectors.  In addition it is suggested that the Senior Management Committeebe charged with the function of overall review and monitoring of all aspects of the
implementation of results-base management in the Secretariat.  This would include inter alia
the review of the “Burgundy Book” and exam ination of evaluation reports and staffing
reviews prepared by the RPA Unit.
109. As regards the relationship of the Technical Cooperation Division and the new
Resource and Performance Analysis Unit there are two alternatives: that they remain
independent units or that they are merged.  The arguments for each are as follow:
For Independence
• TCA has a horizontal, cross-cutting focus (review and evaluation of
technical assistance) whereas RPA would have mainly a vertical
focus (review of divisions performance against objectives)
• TCA is dealing with a separate budget (the Doha Development
Agenda Global Trust Fund) than that of RPA (Regular Budget)
• The work of TCA is reviewed by the Committee on Trade and
Development whereas the work of RPA would be reviewed by the
Budget Committee
• The “clients” of TCA are predominantly the developing countries
whereas the clients of RPA are mainly the major contributorsPage 39
For Merger
• The functions are virtually the same as both are involved in seeing that objectives are
met, in carrying out evaluations of performance against objectives etc.  Furthermore,
the RPA would in any case be involved in  other cross-cutting, horizontal reviews
other than technical cooperation (e.g. the functioning of the dispute settlement
process, progress towards implementation of agreements etc.)
• All programmes should be part of the new results-based management system
irrespective of funding source in order to ensure coordination and synergies
• The work of both units involves certain programme policy questions and the Budget
Committee will surely take an interest in both areas
• If the units were separate, their responsibilities would overlap for example in
evaluating the achievement of technical assistance objectives of divisions; therecould also be different approaches to measuring and evaluating performance which
would be confusing to divisional management
• Merger would require less resources
110. Although a case can be made for each alternative, on balance the consultant supports
the merger of the two units.  This is because the arguments for merger are more compelling
than those in favour of separate units and because the overwhelming majority of those
consulted at all levels favoured merger.  The delegates were particularly firm on this point.With the staffing and resource levels and other arrangements suggested in the previous
section on Structure, it is not expected that additional staff would be required to assume the
technical assistance review functions provided that the temporary assistance credits allocated
are sufficient.
D. Competencies Required
111. It is important that the staff of the RP A Unit and in particular the Director and
Professional staff member together have the necessary competencies to carry out the functions
of the unit.  These would include the following:
• Skills in operating a results-based budgeting / management system which include
development of outcome-oriented objectives and measurable expected results
• Skills in programme development, execution, monitoring and evaluation
• Knowledge of the work of WTO in particular as regards trade
• Strong advocacy, consultation and communication skills
• Skills in applying theory, techniques and practices in a practical manner through the
development of guidelines, tools and training materials
• Skills in organizing and leading learning and development interventions
• Strong organizational, analytical, information technology and drafting skillsPage 40
112. It may not be possible to find both a Di rector and Professional staff member among
the WTO staff who have all of these competencies.  In this case certain combinations can be
sought:  A Director inside with the WTO k nowledge and a professional from outside who
has had extensive experience in advocating and implementing results-based management, or
a Director from outside with results-based experience and a professional staff member withsufficient WTO experience from one of the technical / operational divisions.  In the latter
arrangement, the professional post could be filled by secondment of a staff member from an
operational division on a 2 year rotational basis.  Attached in Annex 8 is a draft job
description for the Director of the Resource and Performance Analysis Unit.Page 41
IX. IMPLEMENTATION
113. Results-based management is a way of managing, not just a system for presenting a
budget.  Successful implementation of the proposals contained in this review involves a major
organizational change and human nature is such that change is resisted, often strongly.  As
indicated earlier, the process will be long and difficult taking some 5 to 10 years before
significant benefits can be reaped.  How implementation is approached will have a large
influence in determining success or failure.  This  section offers some suggestions to facilitate
the implementation process.
A. Leveraging Le ssons Learned
114. In the course of discussions with other organizations having experience in
implementing results-based management and in re viewing some of the relevant literature, a
number of lessons learned have emerged.  When building the various components of theproposed system, the consultant has tried to take systematically into account those lessons that
were relevant; they are therefore not repeated here.  What follows however are a number of
lessons learned concerning the implementation phase of results-based management that can
be applied in WTO:
• Leadership support is essential:  Without strong interest, advocacy and involvement
from the Senior Management of the WTO, results-based management is unlikely to
be broadly institutionalised.  “Leaders can send strong messages of support for RBM
to their staff by giving speeches, sending out agency-wide notices, participating in
RBM-oriented workshops, providing adequate budgetary support, etc.”36
• Involvement of Members is essential:  The Budget Committee and the General
Council will need to take a strong interest in results-based management and
participate actively in the formulation of objectives, the review of performance
against objectives etc.  Directors will not be convinced of the importance of the
system unless there is support by Members.  (For example: the importance of setting
objectives to meet Members needs, if Members show little interest in reviewing
these.)
• Build ownership through participation:  To build commitment, directors and staff
need to be involved in setting not only divisional, but corporate objectives, in
establishing measurable expected results, in strategic planning exercises, in workingout the procedures for collecting performance data, in the process of evaluating
performance against objectives etc.
• Present the new system as an aid to management:  There is already a strong resistance
among directors to the introduction of results-based management.  If the purpose of
the system is presented as a means of controlling and punishing them there is little
hope for success.  Instead the focus should be placed on introducing a system thatwould help the organization and directors to manage better
• Allow sufficient time and resources:  “It takes time to develop strategic plans, to
monitor results data long enough to establish trends and judge performance vis-à-vis
targets, and to evolve new agency decision-making and reporting processes in which
performance data is used”37.  Without a sufficient investment of resources the reform
                                                     
36 Binnedijk page 23 of Executive Summary
37 Binnedijk page 23 of Executive SummaryPage 42
will not succeed.  (More is said about resources in the Section V III.C, Investment of
Resources.)
• Issue clear instructions when implementing: New operational policies, procedures and
practices need to be spelled out clearly in advance as well as statements on roles and
responsibilities – who / what unit is responsible for what.
• Ensure sufficient support mechanisms:  The RPA Unit will need to provide guidance,
tools, examples, advice and assistance to managers to help with implementation.
• Provide sufficient briefing and training:  This is perhaps the most essential input to
ensure success, as there is a significant change of organizational culture involved.
Initially there should be a large investment in learning and development by way of
training programmes and workshops for all Division Directors and briefing and
training sessions for all staff members.  Senior Management should be involved inthese.  In addition to normal briefing / training sessions, “how to” workshops in
which directors would have practice with instructors in working out objectives and
expected results would be most useful.  Training and development interventions will
also need to be continued throughout the life of the system to orient new managers
and to constantly improve approaches, techniques etc.
B. Special WTO Challenges
115. There are a number of special challenges involved in implementing results-base
budgeting in the WTO.  One of the most significant of these has been dealt with in the body
of the report.  This concerns the challenge of setting outcome-oriented objectives and
measurable expected results  in the context of WTO’s special kind of work and in particular
the work of operational divisions in facilitating the negotiation process.
116. Another challenge will be overcoming the effect that the frequent turnover Senior
Management  (The Director-General and Deputy Directors-General) can have on
implementation and follow through of results-based management.  If objectives and strategies
are significantly or repeatedly changed by Senior Management every 2 or 3 years, it will be
difficult not only to meet those objectives, but also to maintain the commitment of Division
Directors and other staff in the new system.
117. As alluded to in the consultant’s previous report38, the current grouping of divisions
under DDG’s  is not based on any functional or business process lines.  This makes policy
orientation and coordination less possible and wher e possible less meaningful.  It also makes
the formulation of strategies and establishment of objectives and expected results and theirmonitoring and evaluation more difficult and does not allow for synergies that could be
created.  If divisions are not grouped under the Deputy Directors-Generals on the basis of
functional / business process lines as recommended in the earlier report, overcoming the
difficulties imposed by the current structure will be a key challenge.
C. Phased Implementation
118. It will not be possible, as explained earlier in this report, to achieve fullimplementation of results-based management within the first few years after implementation.
Consideration could be given to setting incremental system implementation goals.  All of the
                                                     
38 Strategic Organizational Review:  Structure and Staffing Resources of the World Trade
Organization Secretariat, paragraph 20.Page 43
organizations visited indicated that they were proceeding along these lines.  The following is
a suggested phased implementation of the new system:
First stage (1st year’s cycle) – Reaching agreement on strategic vision and corporate
objectives; establishing a first set of divisional outcome-oriented objectives,
measurable expected results, strategies and work plans; and, obtaining through
monitoring and evaluation an initial experience in applying the new system.
Second Stage (2nd year’s cycle) – Deepen application of results-based management by
making divisional objectives more outcome-oriented and expected results more
measurable; improving strategies and work plans; improving the accuracy and
reliability of data collection and performance measurement techniques; improving
evaluation of performance against objectives and applying the lessons learned
through evaluations in the new cycle.
D. Resources – Investment and Return
119. As indicated earlier in this report, the implementation of results-based management
will require an investment of resources.  The investment involves: establishing the Resourcesand Performance Analysis Unit and providing it with the necessary staff and other resources;
the investment of time in the new system by Senior Management, Divi sion Directors and staff
at large; training and development interventions during implementation and continuously
throughout the life of the system; preparation and publication of guides, materials, data
collection sheets etc.  An accurate estimate of the amount of investment involved can only bemade once decisions are taken on the recommendations made in this report.  This is foreseen
in Phase II of the consultant’s terms of reference.
120. In closing, it must be emphasized that investment in result-based management, if
successful, should bring returns to the Organization that would well make the investmentworthwhile.  Through staffing reviews and evaluations, efficiencies and savings can be made.
Productivity and quality improvements can be captured.  The dialogue with Members and
debate on the programme and budget can be improved.  Management accountability could be
increased.  Most importantly however could be the improvement in the Secretariat’s
performance in delivering results that respond to Members’ needs.Page 44
Annex 1
Terms of Reference
Proposals for the Introduction of Performance Management Reform
in the World Trade Organization
Purpose of the review
Building on the Strategic Organizational Review of the Structure and Staffing Resources of
the WTO Secretariat (September 2001), the purpose of this review is to provide proposals for
the introduction of Performance Management reform in the WTO.  The first phase of this
review will be conducted between 20 January 2002 and 15 March 2002.  A second phase will
be completed thereafter.
Under Phase I proposals will be submitted for creating a new Performance Management
system to improve programme performance and accountability.  The system would enable the
setting of broad strategic goals for the Secretariat as a whole, the establishment of divisional
objectives that support WTO corporate goals and the linking of individual staff members’
objectives to the broader organizational objectives.   The system would include the
articulation of strategies to achieve objectives, the identification of expected, measurableoutputs and a means for regularly monitoring units’ performance through both in-process
reviews and final evaluations.  It would include a component for eliciting, analyzing and
acting upon productivity and quality improvement suggestions.  Also under Phase I, the
structure, functions and staffing of a new unit reporting directly to the Director-General and
charged with the operation of the Performance Management system will be defined.  Alsoconsidered will be the linkage of this unit with the Technical Cooperation Audit Division.
Finally other systems and processes to which the new Performance Management system must
be linked to ensure success will be identified.
Under Phase II related systems and processes will be examined and any changes in these that
would be required to support the Performance Management system will be recommended.
Systems / processes to be examined would include working conditions, appointment and
promotion, career development, staff training, rewards and sanctions systems, contractual
arrangements including tenure provisions, the budgetary process and related data collection
systems.  Also included under Phase II will be an examination of any investment of resourcesthat would be required to support the reform.
Scope of functionsPage 45
The Contractual Partner engaged to conduct this review will:
Phase I:
Step 1.  Study the WTO’s current situation.  Examine any current systems in the Secretariat
for setting objectives (corporate, divisional and staff member).  Study circulars, rules,
background documentation etc.  Interview the Deputy Director-General responsible for the
administrative processes, other Deputy Directors-General, the Office of the Director-General,
the Director of AGSD and the Head of the Human Resources Section.  Hold working sessions
with key staff members in these units to un derstand the current systems  (System owners).
Step 2.   Gather views on the current system:  Obtain management’s views on the current
situation by interviewing the Director-General and a representative sample of 7 or 8 Division
Directors.  Obtain the views of the Staff Association by interviewing the Staff Council
(System users / clients).
Step 3.  Track best performance management practice in international organizations:  Identify
the two Geneva-based United Nations organizations considered to be the most advanced in
this field.  Interview the heads of those units responsible for performance management in
those organizations (or those designated by them) to obtain an understanding of and gather
information on the functioning of their systems.
Step 4.  Analysis:  Analyse the pros and cons of WTO’s current situation and the systems of
the organizations visited.  Formulate potential changes incorporating new approaches and
discuss the feasibility of these in return interviews with certain WTO staff members.
Step 5.  Submit a report:
- Evaluating the merits and shortcomings of WTO’s current situation,
- Recommending a new performance management system to achieve the stated
objectives based on the information and views obtained and the analysis carried
out,
- Proposing the structure, functions and staffing of the new unit responsible for
performance management  (Resource and Performance Analysis function)
including a draft statement of functions and job description for the head of the
unit,
- Identifying in the types of supporting systems to which the performance
management system would need to be linked, and
- Providing ideas on the topics to be considered in the second phase of the review.Page 46
The Review will not include any report on those systems of United Nations organizations
examined or detailed elaboration of the supporting procedures, forms or data bases that would
be required for the new WTO system.
Management of the World Trade Organization will:
- Select the sample of WTO Division Directors and delegates to be interviewed and
assist in scheduling the interviews and
- Provide secretarial services for the Contractual Partner
Timing
- Phase I – In depth examination of current situation, gathering of views of
management and staff and tracking of best practice in other international
organizations (Steps 1 - 3 above): 2.5 weeks between 20 January and 9 February
2002.
- Phase II – Analysis and preliminary determination of findings and
recommendations (Step 4): 2.5 weeks between 9 February and 1 March.
- Phase III – Preparation of final recommendations and report (Step 5): 2 weeks
between 2 March and 15 March.
Phase II  (draft to be revisited after Phase I)
Step 1.  Study the WTO’s current systems /processes related to performance management
including appointments and promotions, career  development, staff training, rewards and
sanctions, contracts including provisions for tenure and budgetary formulation.  Study
background documentation, interview relevant staff etc.
Step 2.  Gather views of management and staff and possibly those of Members (e.g. as
regards the budgetary system).
Step 3. Obtain best practice information on the systems examined.Step 4.  Analysis and formulation of proposals
Step 5.  Submit a report:Page 47
- Evaluating the current WTO systems of relevance to performance management as
indicated in the objectives above and as may be amended following Phase I,
- Recommending changes to the systems examined necessary to support
performance management based on the information and views obtained and the
analysis carried out and also drawing on the results of Phase I, and
- Identifying any investment of resources that may be required to support the
overall performance management reform.
Timing   
To be negotiated between the WTO and the Contractual Partner upon completion of Phase I.Page 48
Annex 2
LIST OF WTO MEMBERS AND WTO SECRETARIAT INTERVIEWED
WTO Secretariat
Director-General
Deputy Directors-General
Mr. Miguel Rodríguez Mendoza
Mr. Ablassé Ouedraogo
Mr. Paul-Henri Ravier
Mr. Andrew L. Stoler
Directors
Mr. Fermin Alcoba-Enciso
Mr. Clemens Boonekamp
Mr. Jacques ChabertMr. Richard EglinMr. David HartridgeMs. Roslyn JacksonMr. Patrick Low
Mr. Robert Luther
Mr. Chiedu OsakweMr. Patrick RataMr. Evan RogersonMr. Paul Rolian
Mr. Yanick Woznowski
Other
Mr. Lawrence Emler
Mr. Anthony Mistri
Mr. Yves Renouf
Mr. György Simonics
Staff Council Representatives
Mr. Richard Hughes (Chairman)
Mrs. Janet Chakarian-Renouf
Mr. Dale HoneckMr. Nicholoas LockhartMr. Peter MilthorpMr. Jorge ViganoWTO Members
Ms. N. Lynn McDonald
Second Secretary (Legal Affairs)
Permanent Mission of Canada
Mr. Jean-Marc Mignon
Counsellor
Permanent Delegation of France to the WTO
Dr. Derik Baumgartner
CounsellorPermanent Mission of the Federal Republic ofGermany
Mr. V.P. Haran
Deputy Permanent Representative to the WTOPermanent Mission of India to the WTO
Mr. Yoichi Suzuki
Minister, Deputy Permanent Representative to the
WTOPermanent Mission of Japan
H.E. Mr. M. Supperamaniam
Ambassador, Permanent Representative to the WTO
Permanent Mission of Malaysia
Mr. Jan-Peter G. Mout
First SecretaryPermanent Mission of the Netherlands
Mr. Neil McMillan
Minister, Deputy Permanent RepresentativePermanent Mission of the United Kingdom
Mr. David P. Shark
Deputy Chief of Mission
Deputy Permanent RepresentativePermanent Mission of the United States to theWorld Trade OrganizationPage 49
Annex 3
Bibliography
1. Binnendijk, Annette : Results Based Management in the Development Co-operation
Agencies : A Review of Experiences. Executive Summary (Paris, Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) Working Party on Aid Evaluation), 2001.
2. CRP(00)08
3. “Divisional Reporting on Objectives and Expenditure” WT/BFA/W/58, 11 July 2001.
4. Macpherson, Malcolm: “Performance measurement in not-for-profit and public sector
organisations” in Measuring Business Excellence, 5, 2, 2001, pp.13-17.
5. Results-based budgeting / Results-based management “What Type of System does the
WTO Need – Design Parameters”.
6. Results-based budgeting, Report of the Secretary-General, A/54/456 of 11 October 1999.
7. Results-based budgeting, Report of the Secretary-General, Addendum A/54/456/Add.2, p
14
8. Sawhill, John C.; Williamson, David: “Mission impossible? Measuring success in
nonprofit organizations” in Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), Spring 2001, pp.
371-385.
9. Sawhill, John C.; Williamson, David: “Strategic Performance Measurement and
Management in Nonprofit Organizations” in  Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3),
Spring 2001, p 357.
10. “Strategic framework for One WHO”, a current WHO training CD rom.
11. “Strategic Organizational Review: Structure and Staffing Resources of the World Trade
Organization Secretariat”, submitted in September 2001.
12. World Trade Organization Manual Performan ce Evaluation, Personnel Division, January
2001
13. WT/BFA/53 of 20 June 2001
14. WT/BFA/56 of 18 December 2001
15. WT/BFA/W/43 of 5 October 2000Page 50
Annex 4
Possible Strategic Vision and Corporate Objectives for the Secretariat
and Divisional Objectives and Expected Results
Strategic Vision:
World trade flow as free as possible without undesirable side effects
I. CORPORATE OBJECTIVES :
/g216 Discrete, efficient, non-partisan and high quality fora for trade negotiations (Provide)
/g216 Increased implementation of trade agreements (Promote)
/g216 Neutral, timely and sound settlement of trade disputes (Support)
/g216 Greater awareness of trade benefits and developments & fuller participation in the
multilateral trading system (Improve & promote)
/g216 Greater coherence in trade policies among international institutions (Promote)
/g216 Good governance of the organization (Ensure)
Divisional Objectives: (Operational Division A)
• Facilitated intergovernmental debate and consensus on YYY trade issue(s)
• Member’s greater understanding of implementation issues and improved capacity to
implement Agreement on ZZZ
• Quality and timely technical advice to Dispute Settlement Panels in A area
• Better understanding and improved capacity of developing countries on issues, rights,
obligations and opportunities in the A area
II. EXPECTED RESULTS:
/g113 Feedback from Members (delegates in Co mmittee on YYY) that A Division’s studies
and advice have contributed positively to debate / consensus by putting all issues /
options on the table and by being neutral, of high technical level and discrete when
necessary, and it’s servicing of meetings has been efficient, responsive and timely
/g113 Answers provided to queries on specific aspects of interpretation of Agreement on
ZZZ, draft laws and regulations provided on request by Members, assistance given in
establishing or improving domestic trade systems etc.)
/g113 Dispute Settlement Advice provided within is well-researched, neutral and timely
/g113 Technical notes provided on request by Members, advice provided to national
authorities, numbers of national policy makers briefed / trained etc. in the A areaPage 51
Annex 5
EXAMPLE OF HOW VOLUME 2 OF THE ‘BURGUNDY BOOK’– “BUDGET
ESTIMATES” MIGHT LOOK FOR AN OPERATIONAL DIVISION (A) UNDER A
NEW RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Extract from “200X Programme and Budget Proposals by the Director-General”:
Division A
Objectives:                                                                                                               % of
Resources
Dedicated
• Facilitated intergovernmental debate and consensus on YYY trade issue(s)
50%
• Member’s greater understanding of implementation issues and improved
capacity to implement Agreement on ZZZ                                                          20%
• Quality and timely advice to Dispute Settlement Panels in A area                     10%
• Better understanding and improved capacity of developing countries on
issues, rights, obligations and opportunities in the A area                                  20%
Expected Results:
/g113 Feedback from Members (delegates in Co mmittee on YYY) that A Division’s studies
and advice have contributed positively to debate / consensus by putting all issues /
options on the table and by being neutral, of high technical level and discrete when
necessary, and it’s servicing of meetings has been efficient, responsive and timely
/g113 Answers provided to queries on specific aspects of interpretation of Agreement on
ZZZ, draft laws and regulations provided on request by Members, assistance given in
establishing or improving domestic trade systems etc.)
/g113 Dispute Settlement Advice provided is well-researched, neutral and timely
/g113 Technical notes provided on request by Members, advice provided to national
authorities, numbers of national policy makers briefed / trained etc. in the A area
X. Background:
Narrative description including:
- functional responsibilities                                                   (as now, but brief )
- any important issues, challenges or guidance                     (as now, but brief )
                    and
- any strategic issues                                                              (brief )
- any significant external factors beyond control     )
  of division that may impact on fulfillment of        )            (brief )
  objectives / expected results                                   )Page 52
– 2 –
Work Plan:
Main Activities:
• 
• 
• 
• 
Resources:
Staffing:
Director                                                                                                                                 1
Other Staff                                                                                                                            8
               Part                                             Section                                                       C HF
A. STAFF COSTS
      Work Years / Salary                                         1,038,600
                                                            Temporary Assistance
B. ADMINISTRATIVE
     COSTS                                          Communication and Building
                                                            Permanent Equipment
                                                            Expendable Equipment
                                                            Contractual Services
C. OTHER COSTS                             Staff Overhead Costs
                                                            Missions
                                                            Various
                                                            Representation and Hospitality                             800
                                                            Other
TOTAL                                                                                                                   1,039,4 00Page 53
Annex 6
Suggested Results-based Management Cycle39
September
/g118 Preparation of “Burgundy Book” by Secretariat (including new programme elements (strategic
vision, corporate objectives and divisional objectives, expected results, work plans, main
activities) as well as budget el ements (staffing and resources)
o Division Directors’ proposals in by end of Jeune Genevois holiday
o 1 week for management to review
o 1 week for budget hearings
o 1 week for preparation of “Burgundy Book”
October
/g118 Delegates briefed and review “Burgundy Book”; consultation process begins
o 1st week: Burgundy book distributed to delegates
o Mid October (2 weeks later): Secretariat gives briefing stating changes it is seeking
in the next budget (shift in objectives, additional posts etc.)
o Mid to end October: delegates ask questions, obtain additional background
information and begin consultations with other delegates, capitals etc.
November
/g118 Consultations continue and meetings of Budget Committee are held
o 1st 3 weeks: Continuation of consultations and meetings of Budget Committee
o Last week:  Wrap up of consultation and meetings and preparation and distribution of
Programme and Budget document for the General Council (10 day rule on advanced
distribution of document respected)
December
/g118 Programme and budget approved
o Mid December:  General Council considers and approves Programme and Budget
o End December: Secretariat prepares notifi cations to divisions of their programmes
and budgets
o Division Directors Annual Report on time allocated to objectives40 submitted
January
/g118 Programme and Budget announced; Divisional performance against objectives prepared
o End 2nd week: Divisions notified of their programmes and budget allocations
o End January:  Directors submit contribution to “Divisional Reporting on Objectives
and Expenditures” document
April
/g118 “Divisional Reporting on Objectives and Expenditures” document completed
o Mid April:  Divisional submissions revised and Corporate evaluation completed
o End April:  “Divisional Reporting on Objectives and Expenditures” document
distributed to delegates
May
/g118 Members’ review of Secretariat’s performance against objectives in Budget Committee
June
/g118 Mid-Year Review conducted
o End of 3rd week: Divisional Mid-year assessment sheets submitted
o Last week: Senior Management meets to review progress and approve any proposed
changes in objectives, expected results, resources etc.
                                                     
39 This is a first draft that would need to be revised after consultation within the Secretariat
and with Delegates.  This cycle may also have to be made less tight during the first year ofimplementation.
40 This is based on quarterly reports due at the end of each 3rd month.Page 54
ANNEX 7
RESOURCE AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS UNIT
STATEMENT OF FUNCTIONS
BROAD RESPONSIBILITIES:
THE RESOURCE AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS UNIT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING THE PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR THE PROGRAMME ELEMENTS OF THE
ORGANIZATION’S RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.  THIS INCLUDES
STRATEGIC PROGRAMME PLANNING, OBJECTIVE-SETTING, PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING INCLUDING GATHERING OF PERFORMANCE
DATA AND EVALUATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE AGAINST
OBJECTIVES.
THE UNIT IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE PERIODIC CONDUCT OF
STAFFING REVIEWS, CAPTURING PRODUCTIVITY AND QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS.
IN CARRYING OUT ITS FUNCTIONS, THE UNIT WORKS CLOSELY WITH SENIOR
MANAGEMENT, DIVISION DIRECTORS, AND THE BUDGET AND CONTROL AND
HUMAN RESOURCES SECTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL
SERVICES DIVISION
SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS:
• ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAMME ELEMENTS OF THE RESULTS-
BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING:
O AT THE PLANNING PHASE – ISSUING GUIDANCE, INSTRUCTIONS
AND FORMS FOR SETTING OF OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED
RESULTS, FORMULATING STRATEGIES AND WORK PLANS AND
FORECASTING PRODUCTIVITY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS,
FOLLOWING UP THEIR COMPLETION AND SIGNING OFF THAT
DIVISION OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED ADEQUATELY
O AT THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PHASE –
COLLECTING PERFORMANCE DATA FROM DIVISIONS, ASSISTING
DIVISIONS IN COLLECTING FEEDBACK FROM CLIENTS ON
PERFORMANCE AND ORGANIZING THE MID-YEAR REVIEW ON
DIVISIONS’ PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES
O AT THE EVALUATION STAGE – COLLECTING FROM DIVISIONS
ASSESSMENTS ON PERFORMANCE AGAINST OBJECTIVES ANDPREPARING THE PROGRAMME PORTIONS OF THE DIVISIONAL
REPORTING ON OBJECTIVES AND EXPENDITURE DOCUMENT
• PROVIDING AN INTERNAL CONSULTING SERVICE ON PROGRAMME-
RELATED ELEMENTS OF RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT INCLUDING
PROVIDING BRIEFING AND ASSISTANCE TO DIRECTORS AND OTHERMANAGERS IN SETTING OUTCOME-ORIENTED OBJECTIVES AND
MEASURABLE EXPECTED RESULTS; IN DEVELOPING STRATEGIES AND
WORK PLANS TO MEET OBJECTIVES, IN GATHERING FEEDBACK FROM
CLIENTS AND IN EVALUATING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST
OBJECTIVESPage 55
• CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS OF VARIOUS TYPES INCLUDING:
O PERFORMANCE AGAINST OBJECTIVES – ANALYZING AND
CRITIQUING DIVISIONAL (VERTICAL) EVALUATIONS AND
COMPILING A COMPARATIVE AND CONSOLIDATED CORPORATE
EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECRETARIAT AS AWHOLE
O THEMATIC EVALUATIONS – EVALUATING CROSS-CUTTING
(HORIZONTAL) FUNCTIONS, WORK AREAS, ISSUES ETC.
O SYSTEMIC EVALUATIONS – MONITORING THE PROGRESS OF
IMPLEMENTATION, CONSISTENCY OF APPROACH (SUCH ASREGARDS THE FOCUS, LEVEL AND DIFFICULTY OF OBJECTIVES
AND EXPECTED RESULTS); ADEQUACY OF MECHANISMS (SUCH
AS THE BUDGET HEARING AND MID-YEAR REVIEW, THE
PROCESS FOR CAPTURING PRODUCTIVITY AND QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS, THE EVALUATION PROCESS ETC.),
PROCEDURES AND FORMS; AND, THE OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
•  CAPTURING PRODUCTIVITY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
INCLUDING COLLECTING, ANALYZING AND EVALUATING
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY, QUALITY OR
EFFECTIVENESS AND REDUCING TIME AND COSTS AND
RECOMMENDING ACTIONS TO PUT THESE INTO PRACTICE.
• CONDUCTING OR ORGANIZING THE CONDUCT STAFFING REVIEWS OF
INDIVIDUAL DIVISIONS, GROUPS OF DIVISIONS OR THE SECRETARIAT
AS A WHOLE TO EXAMINE EXISTING WORKLOAD AND THE ADEQUACY
OF RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO DELIVER THAT WORKLOAD; THE
RELATIONSHIP AND IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ANDMANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON STAFFING AND OTHER RESOURCE
LEVELS; AND THE EFFECT ON RESOURCE LEVELS OF THE
ORGANIZATION OF WORK AND WORK PROCESSES INCLUDING SUCH
ISSUES AS OUTSOURCING.
• PROVIDING INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK ON THE LESSONS LEARNED
THROUGH RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT INCLUDING EXTRACTINGINFORMATION ON HOW AND WHY OBJECTIVES WERE OR WERE NOT
MET, WHAT FACTORS, ACTIONS ETC HAVE LED TO SUCCESS OR
FAILURE, WHERE THERE IS INTERNAL ‘BEST PRACTICE’ ETC. AND
DISSEMINATING THIS TO SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND DIVISIONS TOIMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE.Page 56
Annex 8
Draft Job Description – Director, Resource and Performance Analysis Unit
THE INCUMBENT DIRECTS THE RESOURCE AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
UNIT, WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR
THE PROGRAMME ELEMENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION’S RESULTS-BASED
MANAGEMENT (RBB) SYSTEM INCLUDING STRATEGIC PROGRAMME
PLANNING, OBJECTIVE-SETTING, PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING AND EVALUATION.  THE UNIT IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FORMANAGING THE PERIODIC CONDUCT OF STAFFING REVIEWS, CAPTURING
PRODUCTIVITY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS AND PROVIDING FEEDBACK
TO IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.
SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE:
A) MANAGING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAMME ELEMENTS OF
RBB INCLUDING ISSUING GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR SETTING
OBJECTIVES, EXPECTED RESULTS, STRATEGIES AND WORK PLANS;
COLLECTING PERFORMANCE DATA; ORGANIZING MID-YEAR REVIEWS
TO MONITOR PROGRESS; AND, CONSOLIDATING DIVISIONAL
ASSESSMENTS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST OBJECTIVES
B) CHAMPIONING RBB AND PROVIDING AN INTERNAL CONSULTING
SERVICE TO ASSIST AND TRAIN DIRECTORS AND OTHER MANAGERS IN
EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAMME ASPECTS OF RBB
C) ANALYSING AND EVALUATING POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY AND
QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS AND RECOMMENDING ACTIONS TO THESEINTO PRACTICE
D) MANAGING STAFFING LEVEL REVIEWS TO EXAMINE WORKLOAD AND
RESOURCE LEVELS AND THE IMPACT ON THESE OF ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE, MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND WORK PROCESSES WITH
THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING EFFICIENCIES, GREATER EFFECTIVENESSAND IMPROVED PERFORMANCE
E) CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST OBJECTIVES
OF DIVISIONS AND OF THE SECRETARIAT AS A WHOLE, THEMATICEVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CROSS-CUTTING ACTIVITIES
AND SYSTEMIC EVALUATIONS OF THE NEW RBB SYSTEM AND
DISSEMINATING FEEDBACK ON LESSONS LEARNED TO IMPROVEORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
F) MANAGING THE HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES ASSIGNED TO
THE UNIT
REQUIRED COMPETENCIES INCLUDE:
a) Skill in operating a results-based budgeting / management system including the
development of outcome-oriented objectives and measurable expected results
b) Programme development, execution, monitoring and evaluation skills
c) Knowledge of the work of WTO in particular as regards trade
d) Strong advocacy, consultation, client orientation and teamwork skills
e) Ability to apply theory, techniques and practices in a practical manner through the
development of guidelines, tools and training materialsPage 57
f) Competence in organizing and leading learning and development interventions
g) Strong organizational, analytical, information technology and communication skills
including drafting
h) Ability to clearly, accurately and concisely and to communicate both orally and in
written form in an articulate and persuasive manner in at least one of the
organization’s working languages; and a good knowledge of an additional working
language
__________