“Results ased Management: Theory and Application”...•Improved talent management 2008-2010...
Transcript of “Results ased Management: Theory and Application”...•Improved talent management 2008-2010...
JPO Training Programme
October-November 2011
“Results Based Management: Theory
and Application”
Marielza Oliveira
Operations Support Group/Executive Office
Organizations get what they focus on.
If an organization wants to get high-level results (national impact), then this is what
it must focus on.
Key Message 1
MEANING & PURPOSE OF RBM
“A broad management strategy aimed at achieving improved performance and
demonstrable results ” RBM helps us to answer 4 related questions:
1. Why does the organization exist, and is it serving its
purpose?
2. Whose needs is the organization intended to serve, and is
it serving those needs effectively?
3. What is the organization supposed to deliver, and is it
delivering this effectively?
4. What are the resources available, and is the organization
using them efficiently?
10
Holistic RBM
Str
ate
gic
Pla
nnin
g 1. Identifying clear and measurable objectives
2. Selecting indicators
3. Setting explicit targets
Perf
orm
ance
Measure
ment
4. Developing performance monitoring systems
5. Reviewing, analyzing and reporting actual results vis-à-vis targets
Results-B
ased (
Perf
orm
ance)
Managem
ent
6. Using evaluation findings to generate lessons and increase the understanding of strengths, weaknesses and comparative advantages
7. Using performance information for internal management accountability, learning, resource allocation decisions including human resources management, and reporting to stakeholders and partners 7-9
THE RBM LIFE-CYCLE APPROACH
10
WHAT IS THE “RESULT” FOR WHICH GOVERNMENT, UNDP AND OTHER PARTNERS ARE WORKING?
“Real and meaningful improvement in people’s
lives and the opportunities open to them.”
1. Not just for a few persons, but for the majority (or for a significant part of the population)
2. Change and improvements must be sustainable – national ownership and capacity
13
Evolution of RBM in UNDP • Decision 98/1 - adopted guiding principles for sharpening the
programmatic focus of UNDP, and requested that the Administrator operationalize them, including a mechanism for implementation, impact measurement and evaluation.
• Decision 98/23 - directed UNDP to develop a multi-year funding framework integrating programme objectives, resources and outcomes within the corporate priorities and focus.
– Consistent with the recommendation of the SG to the UNGA that MYFFs be used throughout the United Nations system as pledging mechanisms under which donors could link their financial contributions to results, programme performance and aid effectiveness.
– First UNDP MYFF presented to the EB in 1999 initiated the transformation of UNDP into a results-based organization
• Business Plan 2000-2003 + MYFF 2000-2003
• MYFF 2004-2007
– 5 Strategic Goals, with 30 Service Lines
• 4 focus areas
– Poverty and MDG (12 outcomes)
– Democratic Governance (9 outcomes)
– Crisis Prevention and Recovery (9 outcomes)
– Environment and Energy (4 outcomes)
• 5 cross-cutting issues
– Capacity development
– Gender equality
– South-South cooperation
– National ownership
– Aid effectiveness
• Coordination – 8 outputs: improving UNDS
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence; strengthening ownership of UNRC system; improving UNRC knowledge management and capacities; resource mobilization and reporting; strengthening partnerships.
• Management – 12 outputs: accountability; staff
security; financial and audit management; programming arrangements; talent and career management; gender parity; RBM; knowledge management
• South-South cooperation – 3 outputs: mainstreaming SSC;
enhancing contributions to development; increasing effectiveness
Strategic Plan 2008-2011 (then 2013)
How efficient is UNDP as an
organization? (How well to we manage
inputs: HR, finances, ICT, premises,
etc.?)
How well does UNDP contribute to
development results?
Human Development
IRF – Operational Efficiency
IRF – Operational Effectiveness IRF – UN Development Coordination
DRF – evaluative evidence
Available Resources
Results-based management at UNDP (before MTR)
• Fuel, food and financial/economic crises since 2008 = tighter aid budgets, focus on foreign policy objectives
• New events – MDG Summit
– International agreements in Cancun and Nagoya
– Rio + 20
– Least Developed Countries Conference
– Beijing + 15
• Need for all development organizations to more clearly articulate “Value for Money” – donors are “ranking” partners to make funding decisions
• Rise of MICs and emerging donors
Changes in Global Scenario
Mid-Term Review • The most extensive analysis UNDP has ever done of
its performance, over a period of time
– Results-Oriented Annual Reports (ROAR) narratives submitted by the various UNDP programming units at global, regional and country levels
– Statistical analysis of outcomes and expenditures at country level
– Findings from decentralized evaluations
– Case studies, assessments (ex: 30 MDG assessments)
– Partner surveys (UNDP survey, Multilateral Organization Performance Analysis Network, etc)
– Trends detected in new Country Programme Document submissions
Poverty and MDGs
Democratic Governance
Crisis Prevention and Recovery
Environment and Sust. Development
Substantive findings
Evaluation recommendations • Programmatic “how”
– Leverage downstream results for transformational change so that they inform policy, learning, and possible scale-up or replication
– Need to better identify and codify successful experiences
– Work more across practices and across regions instead of in silos
– Mainstream national capacity development throughout programming
– Improve knowledge management & South-South Cooperation
• Operational “how” – Streamline internal processes to reduce burden and enhance
efficiencies and effectiveness at country level
• Faster procurement processes
• Improved talent management
2008-2010 Country expenditures by Focus Area
Focus area 2008 2009 2010
Poverty & MDGs $ 1,199 $ 1,117 $ 1,205
Democratic Governance $ 1,414 $ 1,445 $ 1,133
CPR $ 612 $ 576 $ 1,158
Environment & Energy $ 373 $ 413 $ 406
Unlinked $ 158 $ 188 $ 324
Total $ 3,757 $ 3,752 $ 4,328
* In USD millions
2010 country expenditures by source of funds (percentages by focus area in each source of funds)
Focus area Regular
Resources
Other Donor
Resources
Local
Resources
Poverty & MDGs $ 158
(33.1%)
$ 738 (24.5%)
$ 335 (41.5%)
Democratic
Governance $ 154
(32.3%)
$ 713 (23.7%)
$ 281 (35.5%)
CPR $ 75
(15.9%)
$ 932 (31.0%)
$ 36 (4.8%)
Environment &
Energy $ 29
(6.2%)
$ 268 (8.9%)
$ 100 (12.0%)
Unlinked $ 60
(12.5%)
$ 356 (11.8%)
$ 47 (6.3%)
Total $ 478
(100.0%)
$ 3,007 (100.0%)
$ 801 (100.0%)
* In USD millions
2010: Outcomes representing 50% expenditures by Typology
All
countries
SDS = 4 LDC = 7
+ other
LIC = 5 L-MIC =
4
U-MIC =
3
NCC = 2
+ other
Pov + MDG Pov +
MDG
Pov +
MDG
Pov +
MDG
Ineq +
MDG
Ineq +
MDG
Ineq +
MDG
Private
sector
AIDS
integrate
P/M/E
MDG
Private
sector
Public
services
Public
services
“Other”
AIDS funds Elections Local dev AIDS
funds
Conflict
recover
Mainst EE Mainst
EE
Elections Conflict
gov CD
Public
services
Public
services
Mainst EE
Public
services
NHRI CD Mainst
EE
Conflict gov
CD
“Other”
Mainst EE Conflict
recover
Mainst
EE
Red = Poverty & MDGs / Blue – Democratic Governance
Black = CPR / Green = Environment & Energy
• Our stakeholders want to know
– That UNDP is sharpening its strategic direction, relevance in different settings, and focus on transformational development results
– What is UNDP’s specific contribution as reflected in a more robust results chain and accompanying monitoring and reporting system
– What/how we’re doing: predictability, transparency and clarity of reporting so everyone can understand – both what is succeeding and what is not succeeding, and where work is in progress
• Upcoming conversations with the EB will be “existential” for UNDP! What/how we “do now” greatly affects our positioning.
EB Dynamics and Expectations
• Address recurring evaluation findings:
– Leverage downstream results for transformational change: inform policy, scale-up, replicate, learn – and tell the story
– Manage and make visible our knowledge, identify and codify successful
experiences
– Find the substantive space that brings practices together (e.g., poverty/environment), don’t work in silos – and tell that story
– Mainstream national capacity development throughout programming – and tell that story
– Highlight South-South cooperation – and tell that story
– Streamline processes to reduce burden and enhance value for money
• Improve programme management, starting with more serious use of measurement (2800 outcome indicators, only 10% measured) and learning (including from evaluation); invest in high quality CPDs that are meaningful for and underpin the entire programme cycle
• Avoid fragmentation and increase alignment of projects in support of outcomes
• Improve monitoring , document it to support stronger and more meaningful evaluations; make better use of evaluation findings; invest in improving the quality of decentralized evaluations and management response; and learn about what works, what doesn’t work, and how that can improve our effectiveness as a development partner – and tell that story
Our commitments to the Executive Board
Current UNDP Results Map
RCA Key Results (Outputs)
RCA Key Results (Outputs)
RCA Key Results (Outputs)
RCA Key Results (Outputs)
Strategic Plan Development Results Framework Institutional Results Framework
Integrated Work Plan (IWP) Unit Level Results (Outputs)
Programme Resources
Management Resources
Corporate Level
Global, Regional and Country Level
Unit (HQ/CO) Level
Staff Level
Evaluation
Audit
Output
Development Results
UNDAF/CPD/CPAP Outcomes
Output Output
BSC Results (Outputs)
Strategic Plan 2008-2011, extended to 2013 (post MTR)
• 4 focus areas
– Poverty and MDG (7 outcomes)
– Democratic Governance (9 outcomes)
– Crisis Prevention and Recovery (6 outcomes)
– Environment and Energy (3 outcomes)
• Development Effectiveness – 5 outputs: quality of programming,
knowledge management, capacity development, gender equality, SSC
• Coordination – 3 outputs: UNRC system
management, ownership and coordination
• Management – 7 outputs: effective leadership,
accountability, HR, partnerships, input management, security, oversight & internal controls
Results-based management at UNDP (post MTR)
Level 1 – How efficient is UNDP as
an organization? (How well to we
manage inputs: HR, finances, ICT,
premises, etc.?)
Level 3 – How well does UNDP
contribute to development
outcomes?
Level 2 – How effective are UNDP
operations? (in CD, KM, SSC,
partnership building, resource
mobilization, etc)
Human Development
IRF – Operational Efficiency
DRF - Development Effectiveness IRF – Operational Effectiveness
IRF – UN Development Coordination
DRF – evaluative evidence
Available Resources
Transformational results
Value for money, SROI
Key Message 2
RBM is about much more than outcomes/ outputs/ indicators being pasted into a
matrix...
It’s about having a clear articulation of what you want to change and how to make it
happen.
Problem Analysis
GATHERING INFORMATION About development problems from existing sources,
Incl. national treaty reports and observations and
recommendations from treaty bodies
ANALYSIS Of root causes,
capacity issues &
their linkages
ASSESSMENT Shortlist major development problems
for deeper analysis
Negative outcomes, manifestations of
problems, unfulfilled rights
Root causes Beliefs, attitudes, culture, traditions Natural resources, natural disasters
Political and economic systems, ideologies, conflict
Underlying causes and capacity issues
Policies, laws, budgets
Systems for service delivery
Behaviors and practices, low household incomes
Immediate causes
Affecting individuals and households
Causality analysis: “why?”
38-42
Problem Tree
Malnutrition &
death
Inadequate dietary
intake Disease
Insufficient
food security
Inadequate Maternal
& Child Care services
Insufficient health services
& unhealthy environment
Political, Ideological,
Economic structures
Resource Control
+
Organizational structures
Root
causes
Underlying
causes
Immediate
causes
Manifestations
Formulate problem in a neutral manner
• “Minorities and marginalized groups do not have the right to vote.” Versus
• “Minorities and other marginalized groups do not participate in elections.” Or
• “Low levels of participation by minorities in elections.”
33-35
• A theory of change is a strategy for change.
• It explains all the major things that need be in place in order for development change to occur.
• It is not about what one Agency must do, but what all partners and non-partners must do to make real change happen .
• It is not about projects, but all the different types of interventions necessary for change to happen.
THEORY OF CHANGE
44-48
WHAT SOLUTION?
If a problem is caused
by conditions three
If a problem is caused
by conditions three
All three conditions
must be addressed
WHAT SOLUTION?
MAKING THE STRATEGIC CHOICE The Value, Support, Capacity Model
VALUE SUPPORT CAPACITY & COMPARATIVE
ADVANTAGE
Solving this problem would
bring significant value to the
country/region.
1. It is a global, regional,
national priority
2. It supports the
country/region in
achieving an MDG or
other major development
priority
3. There is regional or
national ownership of
the issues.
Would we have support to
work towards solving this
problem:
1. It is in line with our
mandate (Executive
Board or Senior
Management Support)
2. We can count on
government and others
to partner with us.
3. We can count on the
support of those with
decision-making power
and resources.
Would we have the capacity
and comparative advantage
to work on the problem:
1. We have or can put in
place capacity quickly to
address the problem.
2. We have the skills and
resources to provide
support more effectively
or efficiently than others
3. We have unique
resources and/or
attributes (e.g., neutrality,
legitimacy, reputation,
convening role)
37
• Programme design / planning - serves as a tool to develop programme strategy and to explain programme concepts and approach.
• Programme implementation – provides the elements for monitoring and performance improvement.
• Programme evaluation and reporting – presents program information and progress for accountability and communications.
THEORY OF CHANGE
Strategic Priority Setting: “Inclusion”
UNDP
comparativ
e
advantage
Major
national
challenge
Alignment of
key actors to
support action
1. “Just do it”/strategic priority
2. Potential high priority, if
consensus can be built
3. Potential high priority, if others
cannot meet demand and internal
capacity development is feasible
4. Lower priority: does not meet
major national challenge
Value
Support
Capacity
37
Who is involved in defining the solution?
ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS IN
PLANNING FOR RESULTS
Who should be involved in planning for and implementing change?
Always ask: “whose voice is normally not
heard on this issue?”
25-29
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS – STEP 1 Stakeholders (examples) Interest in Activity Nature of Interest
(+ or -??)
Office of the Prime Minister Greater citizen participation +
Universities Political culture and civic behaviour +
Main political parties Free and fair elections
Opportunities for greater influence?
+
+/-
Church umbrella organization Ethics in politics, fairness +
NGO group(s) Fairness. Greater influence +
Private sector organization(s) Opportunities for influence, fairness +/-
Minority group(s) representatives Opportunities to participate +
Youth umbrella organization Opportunities to participate, fairness +
Electoral administrative body Maintain neutrality/independence +
International observer group Fairness +
Citizens Organisations Rights of citizens, fairness +
Women’s organization Rights of women, fairness +
Informal political leaders/”dons” Threats to their power - 25-29
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS – STEP 2
Stakeholders (examples) Importance
(Scale of 1 to 5, 5 =
highest)
Influence
(Scale of 1 to 5, 5 =
highest)
Office of the Prime Minister 5 5
Universities 3 2
Main political parties 5 4
Church umbrella organization 3 2
NGO group(s) (e.g. a watchdog NGO) 4 3
Private sector organization(s) 3 4
Minority group(s) representatives 5 1
Youth umbrella organization 5 1
Electoral administrative body 4 3
International observer group 1 3
Citizens Organization’s 5 2
Women’s organization 5 2
Informal political leaders/”dons” 2 4 25-29
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS – STEP 3 (Importance and Influence Matrix)
Group 1: High
Importance/Low Influence
Stakeholders.
Group 2: High
Importance/High Influence
Stakeholders.
Group 3: Low
Importance/Low Influence
Stakeholders.
Group 4: Low Importance/High
Influence Stakeholders.
Importance
Influence 25-29
Develop a strategy for each relevant group
Case Study:
Women’s Political Participation
The Ministry of Social Affairs in Erbamia has written to UNDP asking for support on the issue of women’s political participation. Women are
generally poorly represented in all levels of the political system and are also under-represented in elections and other forms of engagement in
decision-making. In the letter, the Ministry points to the problem of inadequate support for women from civil society organizations. The letter
further specifies that the Ministry would like to move forward in developing a $500,000 project that would help train and equip Civil Society
Organizations that support women political activists. The project would also support the opening of a women’s political resource centre in the
National Institute of Public Administration.
How should UNDP respond? What should be done? Who should be involved in defining solutions?
Draft a letter of response to the Ministry.
• What are RISKS?
• What are ASSUMPTIONS?
What could affect program performance?
Definitions
“Risk corresponds to a future event, beyond our control, that may impact the achievement of UNDP's objectives. ” Risks may, however, also present new opportunities.
Assumptions – things that need to be in place for the programme or project to be successful, which are outside of our control, but which we believe have a moderate to high probability of occurring. Assumptions are positive – we assume they will happen. Risks are negative – we think they might happen and negatively affect our efforts.
Risks can be assessed based on impact and probability.
Since future impacts can be both positive and negative, risks can take the form of either threats that would prevent UNDP from achieving its objectives, or opportunities that would enhance the organization’s ability to achieve its objectives.
49-51
Score Rating Likelihood of occurring
5 Expected >80%
4 Highly likely 60% - 80%
3 Likely 40% - 60%
2 Not likely 20% - 40%
1 Slight < 20%
Probability of risk occurring
Score
Rating
5 Critical
4 Very high
3 High
2 Moderate
1 Low
Risk impact
Impact on development
results?
Impact on programme and
operations?
Impact on safety and security?
Impact on Reputation?
Financial impact?
Time for Recovery?
What would be the Organizational and Operational Scope?
Risk impact
Critical impact on outcomes in several focus areas
Inability to perform mission critical programmes and operations for more than six months
Loss of life (Staff, partners, general population)
Reports in key international media for more than one week
Senior management
level
Potentially irrecoverable impact
Organization-wide; inability to continue normal business operations across the organization
Significant impact on outcomes in several focus areas.
Significant disruptions in programmes and operations for one month or longer
Loss of life due to accidents/ non-hostile activities
Comments in international media/forums
Bureau Director level
Recoverable in the long term (i.e. 24-36 months)
Significant ongoing interruptions to operations in 2 or more offices or locations
Significant impact on outcomes in one focus area
Significant disruptions in programmes and operations for less than one month
Injury to UN staff, partners or general population
Several external comments within a country
Manager level 3
(i.e. normally above
USD 100.000)
Recoverable in the medium term (i.e., 12-24 months)
Significant impact within 1 or more departments, offices or locations
Moderate impact on outcomes in one focus area
Disruptions in programmes and operations for less than one week
Loss of infrastructure, equipment and other assets
Isolate comments within a country
Manager level 2
(i.e. normally below USD
100.000)
Recoverable in short term, (i.e., within 12 months)
Moderate impact within 1 or more departments, offices or locations
Low impact on outcomes in one focus area
Moderate disruptions to programmes and operations
Damage to infrastructure, equipment and other assets
Isolate comments within a region of a country
Manager level 1
(i.e. normally below
USD 30.000)
Temporary
Limited impact within 1 or more departments, offices or locations
Likelihood
Imp
act
1 2 3 4 5
1
2
3
4
5
Decision to accept risk by RC/RR
Decision to accept risk by RC/RR in
consultation with ASG
Decision to accept risk by USG
Unacceptable risk
Decision to accept risk by ASG
Decision making and accountability
Guidance for decision-making:
Do the expected gains from an activity justify the associated risk exposure?
Wow, what a marathon! Thanks for your attention today.
What are your questions?