## IMPLEMENTING BOARD-ENDORSED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2024 EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE IEO

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [IMPLEMENTING BOARD-ENDORSED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2024 EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE IEO](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024051.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024051.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024051.pdf.json)

---

### Executive summary
- The Fourth External Evaluation of the IEO (The Garcia-Silva Report) recognized the IEO’s solid reputation and capacity to deliver high-quality evaluations.
- The Garcia-Silva Report proposed recommendations in six areas: (i) Undertaking Early-Stage Evaluations, (ii) Review the IEO’s HR Policy, (iii) Topic Selection, (iv) IEO Product Line, (v) Follow-up process, and (vi) Joint evaluations with other International Financial Institutions (IFI) evaluators.
- Management and staff only need to take action in response to recommendation (v). Recommendations (i–iv) fall under the IEO’s purview, and recommendation (vi) was not endorsed by the Executive Board.
- This paper focuses on staff’s proposals to enhance ownership in implementation and the follow-up of Board-endorsed recommendations (recommendation v).
- Key dates: Staff Report completed on October 9, 2024 for Executive Board consideration on October 21, 2024; the Garcia-Silva Report completed on July 15, 2024.

### Background: external evaluations of the IEO
- The IEO’s Terms of Reference include provisions for periodic external evaluations launched by the Executive Board to assess effectiveness and consider improvements.
- Four external evaluations since the IEO’s creation: the “Lissakers Report” (2006), the “Ocampo Report” (2013), the “Kaberuka Report” (2018), and the fourth “Garcia-Silva Report” (completed on July 15, 2024).
- Management and Executive Directors welcomed the fourth external evaluation and its assessment that the IEO has established a high degree of credibility and a reputation for rigor.
- The report’s six recommendations are summarized and paired with Executive Board responses and planned follow-up where endorsed.

### Implementation plan
- Overall: Management and staff will act only on recommendation (v); the IEO will address recommendations (i–iv); recommendation (vi) was not endorsed.

- Recommendation 1: Undertaking Early-Stage Evaluations
  - Executive Board Response: Most Directors supported the suggestion for early-stage evaluations to provide timely feedback while respecting non-interference; some Directors cautioned against general use to avoid interference and mandate blurring.
  - Implementation: The IEO plans to develop an Evaluation Policy which, in consultation with staff, will formulate proposals. Management and staff will continue close coordination with the IEO to enable early evaluations where warranted, ensuring adherence to the non-interference clause and avoiding interference with operational activities. Coordination will be facilitated through regular interactions and feedback opportunities at various evaluation stages.

- Recommendation 2: Review the IEO’s HR Policy
  - Executive Board Response: Directors broadly welcomed eliminating rigidities and better balancing objectives within the budgetary envelope, encouraging the IEO to work with the Evaluation Committee (EVC) and HRD; some Directors cautioned against bespoke HR policies that conflict with streamlining.
  - Implementation: The IEO has presented a proposal to increase flexibility in some HR policies, expected to be considered by the EVC on October 9, 2024.

- Recommendation 3: Topic Selection
  - Executive Board Response: Directors welcomed past topic choices and a more strategic focus; they broadly supported enhancing topic-selection processes to be more structured, transparent, and informed by Management and the Board while preserving IEO independence. Views differed on Management suggesting topics and on setting explicit criteria.
  - Implementation: The IEO’s planned Evaluation Policy will include proposals. Management and staff will maintain close relations with the IEO and may suggest topics when the IEO requests feedback on its annual paper on possible topics.

- Recommendation 4: IEO Product Line (short and full-scale evaluations)
  - Recommendation text: Simplify the product line to short and full-scale evaluations; complete full-scale evaluations within 18 months; consider shorter evaluations with a limited number of recommendations; use interim and informal engagement between IEO, staff, and management to prioritize preliminary findings; enhance ownership through active engagement by the IEO without affecting independence.
  - Executive Board Response: Directors saw merit in simplifying the product line and completing full evaluations within 18 months, preserving flexibility to adapt evaluations and number of recommendations. Many opposed proliferation of evaluations and were cautious about "interim findings reports"; views varied.
  - Implementation: The IEO’s Evaluation Policy will consider the recommendation. Management and staff will continue frequent informal interactions early in the evaluation cycle to support early and informal engagement.

- Recommendation 5: Follow-up process (ownership and SMART implementation)
  - Recommendation text: Apply SMART criteria to implementation plans; give the IEO a voice on alignment of plans with Board-endorsed recommendations; enhance accountability by management issuing brief BUFF statements ahead of PMR discussions and include short references to implementation pace in the Global Policy Agenda (GPA).
  - Executive Board Response: Directors broadly supported enhancing ownership and the follow-up process. They generally agreed a management BUFF on the Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR) could be considered even though the PMR is already endorsed by Management when circulated to the Board. They concurred that actions in the Management Implementation Plan (MIP) should be SMART while keeping IEO recommendations more general, and generally agreed that the GPA could reference implementation of IEO recommendations. Directors supported IEO participation and statements in Board meetings on the MIP and PMR and noted the EVC is an appropriate venue for IEO advice.
  - Implementation:
    - Management Implementation Plans (MIP) already adhere to the SMART principle; Management will ensure this continues.
    - Management will consider issuing a BUFF statement for the PMR when it is expected to add value to Board discussion.
    - Management will leverage the GPA to refer broadly to progress on implementation of IEO recommendations when relevant.
    - The IEO can advise the Executive Board via the EVC, including participating and issuing statements in EVC meetings considering MIPs, and may do so in Executive Board meetings discussing the PMR.

- Recommendation 6: Joint evaluations with other IFI evaluators
  - Recommendation text: Scope for simultaneous work on common themes with other IFI evaluators; joint evaluations only for topics with high maturity in each institution; differing mandates and procedures imply significant complexities for joint evaluations.
  - Executive Board Response: Many Directors saw potential for joint evaluations and emphasized careful coordination and a structured but practical approach mindful of resource constraints; some were skeptical and preferred concurrent but separate evaluations and collaboration on information, methodologies, and best practices.
  - Implementation: The Executive Board did not endorse joint evaluations. Directors saw value in concurrent but separate evaluations; collaboration can focus on sharing information, methodologies, and best practices.

### Costing and resource implications
- Management- and staff-related actions in this MIP are expected to be manageable and not give rise to significant new or additional costs as they largely reflect continuation of current practices and can be accommodated under the current budget envelope.
- Recommendations under the IEO’s purview may entail additional costs.

*IMF Policy Paper, Staff Report completed October 9, 2024.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024051.pdf_