Measurement and reporting builds trust

A key shift of WHO’s Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW 13) and the Transformation Agenda has been a much stronger focus on accountability and transparency in reporting the Organization’s performance and contributions to the strategic goals mandated by Member States through the General Programme of Work and Governing Bodies. The system is continuously improved to ensure it is user-friendly and adds value, but the WHO Output Scorecard is already building trust between WHO, Member States, donors and other stakeholders.

“If there is no trust in the Organization, we will not be able to attract resources and implement the programmes that we set out to do.” says Imre Hollo, WHO Director of Strategic Planning and Budget.

To accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, WHO set out three ambitious targets, called the Triple Billions: one billion more people benefitting from universal health coverage, one billion more people better protected from health emergencies, and one billion more people enjoying better health and well-being. The scorecard helps Member States, donors and key stakeholders to understand the Secretariat’s contribution to these targets.

After two years of Member State and staff consultations and pilot testing, the scorecard was first rolled out for the 2020–21 WHO Programme Budget. Modelled on the Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) approach, it collects quantitative and qualitative data based around the three strategic shifts of the Thirteenth General Programme of Work: stepping up leadership, driving public health impact in every country, and focusing global public goods on impact.

In addition to these three key areas, the scorecard collects information on value for money and impactful integration of gender, equity and human rights. Mr Hollo believes the scorecard is “not only a report, but a resource.” It is a structured way of reporting and storytelling that allows the reader to see big picture progress, and to zoom in to examine key elements of different programmes.

There have been some challenges, such as the inherent issues that arise when aggregating data built from teams, departments and budget centres, upwards.

“In every system where you aggregate scores, especially in a large organization, everything becomes less meaningful on the aggregate level,” Mr Hollo explains. “We are trying to really focus on the narrative, the stories behind the scorecard.”

As with all big organizational changes, the scorecard has also met with some resistance. Internally, the process is seen by some as a more laborious form of corporate reporting, where the consequences are not immediately apparent. Mr Hollo explains that “despite our best intentions, it is not super light, so we need to make it lighter and easier. We have improved the tool, but it takes time.” 

The new process has evolved to become more structured and collaborative, requiring teams to reflect and review together. This more collective effort, along with a refined and streamlined version of the scorecard introduced for the 2022–23 biennium, is yielding richer and more meaningful results. It allows WHO to highlight improved leadership, impact at the country level and effective normative work such as delivery of technical products and global public health goods. The trust built through the scorecard is crucial for WHO to be able to continue delivering important technical programmes.