Business Operations: The Engine of the UN

The future: Post 2015 and Business Ops

Operational Excellence

Partnerships

Data Revolutio

n

Business Operations

Programme

QCPR and Business Operations

QCPR 2013-2016- Business Operations

Consolidation of support services

Greater collaboration in procurement

Decision power delegated to OMT

Common and standardized system

of cost control

Reduce the nr. of parallel project

implementation units

Increased use of national public and

private systems

Redirect efficiency

savings into programmes

(Feasibility Study) ERP Interoperability

Establishment of common premises

Prioritize the availability of financial and human resources

Funding mechanisms for innovation

11 mandates for H-BO

Most Frequent Common Services 2014

Secu

rity S

ervice

s

Trave

l Servi

ces

Cleaning S

ervice

s

Medical S

ervice

s

Courier S

ervice

s

Common Inte

rnet P

rovid

er

Telephone La

nd Line Pro

vision

Mobile Phone Pro

vision

Fuel S

ervice

s

Common Inte

rnet B

ack-up So

lution

Conference

Facili

ties

Stationary

Provis

ion

Common ICT H

elp Desk

Caterin

g Servi

ces

Common Wire

less Connecti

vity

Common Serve

r Space

IT Main

tenan

ce Se

rvice

s

Transp

ortation (C

ar/Bus R

ental)

Printing S

ervice

s

Transla

tion Servi

ces

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Type of Common Service

Perc

enta

ge U

NCT

s

Most Frequent Common Services 2014Any analysis done?

Secu

rity S

ervice

s

Trave

l Serv

ices

Cleaning S

ervice

s

Medica

l Serv

ices

Courier S

ervice

s

Common Inter

net Pro

vider

Telep

hone Lan

d Line P

rovis

ion

Mobile Phone P

rovis

ion

Fuel

Servi

ces

Common Inter

net Back

-up Solution

Conferen

ce Fa

cilities

Stationary

Provis

ion

Common ICT H

elp Desk

Caterin

g Serv

ices

Common Wire

less C

onnectivit

y

Common Serve

r Space

IT Main

tenan

ce Se

rvices

Transp

ortation (C

ar/Bus R

ental

)

Printing S

ervice

s

Transla

tion Servi

ces0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% of countries executing analysis for Common Services

% of countries jointly providing this service % of countries doing ex ante analysis

Main Obstacles for CS Development

Operationalization QCPR

One Programme

Common Budgetary Framework+ One UN

Fund

Operating as One

Commun-icating as

One

One annual UN Country Results Report (programme, funding, operations, communications)

Result Groups OMT Country CG

One Leader (RC and UNCT)

Joint National/UN Steering Committee

HLCM

UNDG

Proc

BOS

UN

CT

ICT HR FIN …

Harmonised BO policies, procedures

Country level solutions

UN

CT

UN

CT

UN

CT

UN

CT

UN

CT

UN

CT

Dat

a, P

olic

y In

pu

tHLCM-UNDG and the BOS

Medium Term strategic framework

Derives from UNDAF/One Programme

Same cycle as UNDAF

Voluntary

Reflects only Common Operations

Flexible and scalable to local need

What is the BOS?

What is the BOS?

BoS = Scalable- Pick and chose service

lines as locally needed

Milestones BOS Development

2 weeks

3 weeks

2 weeks

4 weeks

3 days

2 weeks

2 weeks

4 days

1 hour

Aver

age

Tim

e

Why do the BOS?

Light vs regular BOS

• Baseline and Needs Analysis are mandatory• Cost Benefit Analysis

– Quantitative: more labor required, but more accurate

– Qualitative: Less labor required, but less accurate

Suggested approach: Hybrid- use quantitative for select set of services (ex. Procurement)

Modalities for BOS implementation

Lead Agency•Internal service provider•OMT led•One Agency (supplier) to other agencies (clients)•Traditional model CS

Outsourced•External service provider•One agency manages the contract•Requires min. supplier base in market

Integrated Service Center•Internal Service provider•Single service window•Dedicated unit proving services to client agencies•Requires robust analysis and min. critical mass

Challenges

• Capacity needed for development BOS• Need to scale in accordance with capacity• Political buy-in: RC, UNCT and OMT need to be

fully aware and use the BOS as a management tool• Focus should be on achievement activities-

UNDG/HLCM can help what is feasible based on global practice

• Financial investment needed for BOS implementation

Scoping the BoS

• Flexibility- based on in country capacity and need, the UNCT/OMT can select multiple or just one outcome area (ex. Procurement);

• Time Requirement: 3-6 months end-to-end over a 5 year cycle to develop the BoS, including analysis;

• Time requirement may be higher or lower depending on the scope of the BoS (depends on capacity available and need).

Support

• UNDG Website: https://undg.org/home/guidance-policies/business-operations/

• UNDG/DOCO:– Lars Tushuizen- lars.tushuizen@undg.org

Business Operations Specialist

Luigi de Munnik- luigi.demunnik@undg.org Business Operations Specialist

To unlock UNDG support…

• Mail to the Director of DOCO– Informing UNDG that the UNCT has decided to

move forward on the BOS– Kanni.wignaraja@undg.org

• Cc Chairs of UNDG Business Operations WG• Jens Wandel: Jens.wandel@undg.org• Jean Yves le Saux: jy.le-saux@unesco.org

• Cc Chairs of DOCO advisors to UNDG Bus Ops• Lars.Tushuizen@undg.org • Luigi.demunnik@undg.org

• 14 pilots

• LIC countries, MIC and Post Conflict Countries

• Support UNDG and HLCM- Technical, QA, Mission, Political

BOS Pilots (2013)

BOS Pilot Status – March 2015

BOS Pilot Status-Detailed

BOS completed (10)– Bosnia &

Herzegovina– Ethiopia– Jamaica– Lesotho– Liberia– Malawi– Moldova– Rwanda– Tanzania– Denmark

(Copenhagen)

On Track (4)– Afghanistan

Estimated completion: Q2 2015– Brazil

Estimated completion: Q2 2015

– South AfricaEstimated completion: Q1 2015

– Iraq (due to local dynamics- civil unrest)

Cancelled (1)

BOS Pilots per Region

BO Areas under the BOS

BOS Self-Starters

Integrated Service Center

Brazil pilot

Some notes upfront

Brazil is a unique BOS pilot

No other BOS pilot are using the Integrated Service Center concept

No other ISC planned until assessment completed

Similar set-ups: Viet Nam, Copenhagen

JOF Service lines

Eight participantsUNAIDS, UNDP, UNDSS, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNOPS and UN Women.

Cost Benefit- Monetary & Labor

TOTAL COST (USD)- JOF Level Cost Nr of Staff Total Staff Cost JOF P4 263,051 1 263,051

NOC 147,168 1 147,168

NOB 111,492 2 222,984

NOA 94,031 1 94,031

G7 85,714 1 85,714

G6 65,343 7 457,402

G5 54,004 11 594,042

G4 44,265 3 132,794

27 1,997,187

TOTAL BENEFIT - JOF Service Line Net Monetary Gain (USD) Net Freed up labor

(after JOF staffing)

Procurement 720,853 10 FTE

ICT 65, 611 7 FTE

HR N/A 1.25 FTE

Travel 1,059,8001 Minus 3 FTE2

1,780,653 15.25 FTE

1 Based on existing LTA. Includes only JOF participating agencies and only UNDP, UNESCO and UNFPA saving averages over the period 2009-2012 . Refer to Demonstrativo Grupo ONU - Maio 2009 2012 2 Extra staff due to expansion of scope to include non-staff travel (NEX projects). Labor benefit accrues mainly to NEX projects (government)

Brazil-Single Service Window

Single Service Window

Cap. dedicated Common Operations- free up agency cap.

Single rule set for clients- simplification, transparency

Reduced cost ( leverage common volumes for services)

Less process duplication (contract, client/supplier man

Independent- Fair prioritization, accountability

Consolidation- No common operations outside the JoF

Supplements Agency, Regional and Global service models (different services)

Brazil- Integrated Service Center

BOS

Brazil Copenhagen Viet Nam

-- WARNING –

ISC NOT FOR ALL COUNTRIES

Regulatory Framework

Harmonized Regulatory Framework for Procurement, ICT, HR and Travel

Supplementary, existing agency regulatory framework

For remaining non-harmonised component:

Additional local innovations Subject senior management approval partnering agencies

For processes, procedures and institutional settings, not R&R

+

+

But do they do anything at HQ?

Status of implementation of Procurement Network recommendations (2011, BASELINE)

AfDB

FAO

IFAD

ILO

ITU

PAHO

UNDP

UNFPA

UNHCR

UNICEF

UNOPS

UNRWA

UN Sec

WFP

WHO

WIPO

WMO

1 L 0 L N A A A L A A L L 0 A A A A

2 A 0 A N A A A 0 0 0 0 0 A A A A A

3 A 0 0 N 0 A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A

4 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0

5 A 0 A N A A A 0 A 0 0 A N A A N N6 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A7 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A8 A A A A A A A L A A A A A L A A A

Legend: A Action required

L Limited action required / initiated

0 No action required

1

2

3

UN Cooperation

Second review

LTAs

4

5

Restrictions

Procurement services

N No action foreseen / intended

6 Integration of ‘guidelines‘

7 Communication on ‘guidelines‘

8 Table of Contents

Status of implementation of Procurement Network recommendations (Sep 2012)

AfDB

FAO

IFAD

ILO

ITU

PAHO

UNDP

UNFPA

UNHCR

UNICEF

UNOPS

UNRWA

UN Sec

WFP

WHO

WIPO

WMO

1 L 0 L L A L L 0 A 0 L L 0 L A A A

2 A 0 A L A 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A A

3 L 0 0 L A 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A

4 0 0 L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 L N N L A L L 0 L 0 0 A N L A N N6 A A A L A L L 0 A 0 A A N A A A A7 A A A L A L L 0 L 0 A A N A A A A8 A A L L N A L 0 L A A A A L A A A

Legend: A Action required

L Limited action required / initiated

0 No action required

1

2

3

UN Cooperation

Second review

LTAs

4

5

Restrictions

Procurement services

N

6 Integration of ‘guidelines‘

7 Communication on ‘guidelines‘

8 Table of ContentsNo action foreseen / intended

Status of implementation of Procurement Network recommendations (Sep 2013)

Legend: A Action required

L Limited action required / initiated

0 No action required

1

2

3

UN Cooperation

Second review

LTAs

4

5

Restrictions

Procurement services

N

6 Integration of ‘guidelines‘

7 Communication on ‘guidelines‘

8 Table of ContentsNo action foreseen / intended

 

AfDB

FAOIFAD

ILO ITUPAHO

UNDP

UNFPA

UNHCR

UNICEF

UNOPS

UNRWA

UN Sec

WFP

WHO

WIPO

WMO

1 0 0 L L N L L 0 L 0 L L 0 L A L A

2 N 0 A L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A N A

3 0 0 0 L N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A L A

4 0 0 L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 N 0 N L N L L 0 0 0 0 A N L A L N

6 N L A L N L L 0 A 0 A A N A A N A

7 N 0 A L N L L 0 0 0 A A N A A N A

8 N A L L N A L 0 L A L A A L A L A

Status of implementation of Procurement Network Recommendations (January, 2014)

Legend: A Action required

L Limited action required / initiated

0 No action required

1

2

3

UN Cooperation

Second review

LTAs

4

5

Restrictions

Procurement services

N

6 Integration of ‘guidelines‘

7 Communication on ‘guidelines‘

8 Table of ContentsNo action foreseen / intended

 

AfDB

FAO

IFAD

ILO ITUPAHO

UNAIDS

UNDP

UNESCO

UNFPA

UNHCR

UNICEF

UNOPS

UNRWA

UN Sec

UNWomen

WFP

WHO

WIPO

WMO

1 0 0 L L N L L L 0 0 L 0 0 L 0 0 L A L A

2 N 0 L L 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A N A

3 0 0 0 L N 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A L A

4 0 0 L L 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 N 0 L L N L N L N 0 0 0 0 A N L L A L N

6 N 0 L L N 0 L L 0 0 A 0 L A N 0 A A N A

7 N 0 L L N 0 L L 0 0 0 0 0 A N 0 A A N A

8 N L L L N 0 L L L 0 L A 0 A A 0 L A L A

Newly joined agencies

Status of implementation of Procurement Network recommendations (September, 2014)

Newly joined agencies

A Action required 1. UN Cooperation 5. Procurement Services 9. Common Glossary of Terms

L Limited action required/Action initiated 2. Waive Second Review 6. Integration of "guidelines"

0 No action required 3. Sharing LTAs 7. Communication on "guidelines"N No action foreseen/intended 4. No Restrictions 8. Table of Contents

 

AfDB

FAO

IFAD ILO ITU PA

HO

UNAIDS

UNDP

UNESCO

UNFPA

UNHCR

UNICEF

UNOPS

UNRWA

UN Sec

UNWomen

WFP

WHO

WIPO

WMO

UNIDO

1 0 0 L 0 N L L 0 0 0 L 0 0 L 0 0 L L L A 0

2 L 0 L 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A L L A 0

3 0 0 0 0 N 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L L A 0

4 0 0 L 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 N 0 L 0 N L N 0 N 0 0 0 0 L N 0 L 0 L N 0

6 N 0 L 0 N 0 L 0 0 0 A 0 0 L N L A L 0 A L

7 N 0 L 0 N 0 L L 0 0 0 0 0 L N L A L 0 A L

8 N L L 0 N 0 L 0 L 0 L L 0 L A 0 L L L A A

9   L L  0    A     L L L L 0 L  L 0   0   A