FMIP II - Phase I Launch Workshop

Phase I – Launch Workshop

Phase I Launch Workshop

DRMFSS Food-Tracking System

Food Management Improvement Project(FMIP Pillar II)

Welcome (Day 1)


Schedule Overview

Look at the current systems, processes and problems

Day 2: Where to next?Set priorities for software development and process changes

Day 1: Where are we now?


Schedule – Day 1

Aims of this workshop Aims of FMIP Pillar II Current systems and processes Current Issues Day 1 summary



• Reach a clear, shared understanding of the current DRMFSS systems and work-processes

• Agree on the direction the Food-Tracking system is to take

Aims of this WorkshopOverall Aim


Reach a clear, shared understanding of the current DRMFSS systems and work-processes by:• Recapping the purpose of the FMIP Pillar II Project• Validating the mapping of the current systems and

processes• Presenting issues found during the information

gathering exercise, and open the discussion for any other issues

• Inviting the DRMFSS business units to discuss their requirements

Aim of Day 1Aims of this Workshop


Agree on the direction the Food-Tracking system is to take through:• Explaining the recommended software development

approach• Identifying the project risks• Setting the project scope• Deciding priorities for software development and

process-change• Reviewing findings



Aims of this Workshop

Thank you


Schedule – Day 1




• FMIP is a programme to support the capacity development of DRMFSS in food management in Ethiopia

• Initiated by the DRMFSS and WFP in response to gaps in monitoring and reporting on commodity movement and distributions

• Aimed at strengthening processes around food assistance programmes

Aims of FMIP Pillar IIBackground to FMIP


FMIP is made up of three pillars:• Pillar I covers data reconciliation and report

production for food handled by the DRMFSS between the years 2007-2009 and was finalized in early 2011

• Pillar II is the development of a new food-delivery tracking system, and supporting procedures

• Pillar III focuses on capacity development – improving the overall food-delivery infrastructure – including assessing warehouse locations, transport contracting and staff-training

Aims of FMIP Pillar IIBackground to FMIP


Currently, food tracking and the recording of performance metrics is highly manual. This makes it difficult for DRMFSS and WFP to:o Obtain up-to-date figureso Reconcile discrepancieso Trace specific donations and report to donors

Aims of FMIP Pillar IIBackground to Pillar II


These difficulties impact DRMFSS in three critical areas:1. Direct financial impact due to delayed ITSH

payments. The sole purpose of Pillar I was to analyse three years’ worth of data to determine and finalise outstanding payments.

2. Willingness of Donors to contribute depends upon the visibility of their aid from initial receipt into the country through to final distribution.

3. Reporting lags make it difficult to track missing consignments in a timely manner



All of this led to a report entitled “Evaluation of DRMFSS commodity tracking databases”, dated January 2011.The recommendations from this report form the basis for the aims of the tracking system.



Improve Key Performance Indicators (KPI):• Currently comprised of Dispatch from the

warehouse, Delivery to the FDP and Distribution to the beneficiaries

• The ITSH payments depend directly on the accuracy of the KPI Receipt, Dispatch, Delivery and Distribution

• Continued donor contributions depend upon transparency and auditability of all KPIs

Aims of FMIP Pillar IIAims of the Tracking System


Improve Forward Visibility of Deliveries:• Key factor in reducing fraud and loss (or at least, of

improving the recording of it)• FDPs often only become aware of a delivery when it

physically arrives, and cannot prepare storage space.• It also means when a scheduled delivery does not

take place, the Woreda/FDP will have no way of knowing this



Improve Confirmation-of-Delivery Notification:• Speed up notification of deliveries to Region and

Federal governments• Rapid reporting increases the visibility of fraud• Allows warehouses to see the results of their work

(currently no feedback one the truck leaves the hub)• ‘Current’ status of deliveries can be quickly obtained• Better transport statistics



Improve Document Tracking:• Documents recording a Distribution often contain no

reference to the parent Dispatch and Delivery, making tracing distributions difficult

• The WFP Shipping Instruction (SI) number is lost upon Dispatch from the DRMFSS hubs



Reduce Commodity Losses:• Better visibility means problems are caught more

quickly, and remedial action can be taken



In summary:• Improve Key Performance Indicators (KPI)• Improve Forward Visibility of Deliveries• Improve Confirmation-of-Delivery Notification• Improve Document Tracking• Reduce commodity losses



Aims of FMIP Pillar II

Thank you


Schedule – Day 1




Current Systems and Processes

Information is not just about computers! For the tracking system to work, we have to understand all the different ways information moves

We need to know what we have now before we can select which parts to change effectively

We need to see how each part of the organisation relates to the other parts

Why have a process map?



Everyone makes mistakes! The purpose of reviewing the model is to find and correct mistakes

This workshop is a part of the information gathering exercise!

Common understanding:It helps people from different parts of the

organisation understand the wholeIt will help the potential development companies

in the room better understand your requirements

Why review this process map?



Assessment / Appeal Allocation / Requisition Warehousing Distribution Finance



Current Systems and ProcessesAssessment / Appeal

DRMFSS Federal (Assessment (‘Relief’) Processes)

[r] RMS(Appeal)

1.1:Needs A’ment(W/Z/R)

1.2:Comple Results(EWCT)

N.AsesResults

1.4:Launch Appeal(EWCT)

HRD

CmtdStock

Loans/Swaps

[r] RMS(Pledge)

1.5:Record Pledges(EWCT)

1.6:Record Pipeline(EWCT)

[r] RMS(Pipeline)

WFPPipeline

N.AsesResults

1.3:Record HRD(ICT)

HRD

PledgeLetter

ContributionLetter

3.2:Raise RRD

(EWCT)

#1

3.1:Rqst Alloc’n

(Region)

HRDN.AsesResults

From #4.17(DRMFSS Hub)

Currently not in use


Pipeline appears to have no link to the later receipt of the Gift Certificate


Current Systems and ProcessesAllocation / Requisition

DRMFSS Federal (Allocation Processes)

3.2:Raise RRD

(EWCT)

3.4:Assign Source Hub

(Logs)

3.5:T’port Tender

(Fin, TC)

3.6:Inform Hub

(Logs)

RRD[2,3]

RRD[1]

RRD-ARRD-S

RRD-A

RRD[1]

RRD-ARRD-SCTWL

RRD[1]

3.7:Inform T’Porter(Logs)

T’portLetter

Transporter

CmtdStock

RgnlRqst

#1

RRD-ARRD-SCTWL

RRD-A/S

3.1:Rqst Alloc’n

(Region)

Pay 10%Deposit

FO #2

#3/Fax/

HRD

[r] RMS(Alloc’n)

Loans/Swaps

Notification ofAllocation

AllocationLetter

3.3:Notify Woreda(Region)

WoredaOfficial

N.AsesResults

From #4.17(DRMFSS Hub)

[r] RMS(D/Plan)

[r] RMS(T/Req’n)

3.8:Loans/Swaps(Logs)

3.9:Loan Repaymnts

(Logs)

Pipe-line

To #4.15(DRMFSS Hub)

To #4.11(DRMFSS Hub)

Further investigation of Loans & Swaps needed




Current Systems and ProcessesWarehousing

DRMFSS Hub

FO

6.3: WFP T’porterPayment

4.4: TransfrWFP Cargo 4.11: Dsptch

DRMFSS Cargo4.5: Receive

Other Cargo

4.9: StoreDRMFSSCargo

4.13: RcrdDispatch

GIN[4]

Storekeeper(Dispatching) Information

GIN[2,3]

GIN[1]

GIN[5] GIN[4]

GRN[1]

GRN[2,3]

4.16: Regi-stration

CmtdStock

/Fax/

Daily Dsptch(Excel)

GRN[4]WWB[3]

WWB[1,2]

Accounts

Registration

GRN[4]

4.14: Asgn Store

Storekeeper(Receiving)

GRN[5]

WWB[4]

4.15: Info Control

RRD-ARRD-S

4.17: Cmtd Stock Rprt

StoreReport

#1

FO

Store Update

StoreReport CTWL

#2

#3(Dispatch)

RegionalOffice

NotifyOf Dispatch

RRD-A

To #1.4 (EWCT), #3.4 (Logs)

From #3.6 (Logs)

To #4.7 (WFP)


Current Systems and ProcessesDistribution

Transporter

FOFO

Empty truck

FDP

WoredaOfficial

FDP ReceivingOfficial

5.3: DeliverDRMFSS Cargo

5.4: DistribDRMFSS Cargo

5.5: Sign frDRMFSS Cargo

5.1: CollectDistrib’n

Docs[f] FATS

(Delivery, Distribut’n)

[f] Delivery,Distribution

GIN[2,3]

GRN[3] GRN[4]

GIN[2]

GIN[2,3]

GIN[3]

Other Docs?Model 33 / Payroll / etc

IssueVoucher

FO

GRN[5]

GRN[2]GRN[1]

Signs for unseen cargo

Colours of these GRN don’t match those of warehouse receiving

UnknownDestination


Schedule – Day 1




Current Issues

Different people have a different view of the operation, and a different view of the problems

By talking about the issues, we start to understand the problem from others’ point of view

We need to have a common understanding of the problems before we can proceed with prioritisation

Why talk about the Issues?


Current Issues

– Is the issue valid?– Why is it caused?– What problems will it cause?– What are some possible solutions?

Current Issues


Current Issues

When goods are dispatched from the warehouse, the FDP official is not aware that a consignment is arriving.• Cannot plan for storage requirements• Unable to inform beneficiaries in advance of upcoming

distributions• Provides scope for fraud – including theft, damage, and so

on

Dispatch Notification


Current Issues

When goods arrive at a Woreda/FDP, there is no quick way for the FDP/Woreda to notify delivery to the Hub, Region or DRMFSS.• Cannot obtain current delivery figures – minimum 1-2

month lag in reporting• Deliberate fraud or missing cargo cannot have an immediate

alert triggered

Delivery Notification


Current Issues

When food arrives is distributed from the FDP storage location, the numbers of the Goods Received Note, Goods Issue Note and Request for Relief Distribution document are often not recorded of the distribution documents. • A break in the document chain means the origins of a

commodity are difficult to trace• This has implications for donors who require transparency

and accountability for distributed food• This has the potential to reduce future contributions

Break in document chain


Current Issues

Shipments from WFP are tracked by using the Total consignment tonnage – slash – Allocated tonnage – slash – dispatched tonnage (eg. 45000/15000/3000). Where two or more separate shipments have the same tonnage, it becomes difficult to distinguish the different shipments.• Reduces the ability to accurately and easily trace

distributions back to the donor• Affects the reporting obligations of WFP to the contributing

donors

Non-Unique Tracking Number


Current Issues

WFP consignments an SI attached, identifying the original Donor and the programme. The SI is recorded when entering the DRMFSS warehouse, but is lost upon dispatch.• The lack of SI number reduces cargo transparency and

visibility, impacting WFP’s obligations to the donors• Tracking with DRMFSS documents is also difficult because of

the break in the document chain and the non-unique tracking number

WFP Shipping Instruction (SI) Number


Current Issues

The flow of documents from DRMFSS Hub to FDP to transporter and finally back to DRMFSS Addis can take months.• Leads to delays in reporting – especially important around

the end of reporting periods (financial year, end of allocation round, etc)

• Complicates resolving problems, as they only become visible months after the event

• Delays the final 10% ITSH payments• Reduces the ability to monitor and reprimand transport

companies not meeting their obligations

Document Transfer Times


Current Issues

Following the needs assessment and the Launch Appeal, conducted semi-annually, the number of beneficiaries may be altered depending upon the availability of food-aid. It appears that this revised number is not communicated back to the regions.

Feedback to Regions from Launch Appeal


Current Issues

Other Issues?


Schedule – Day 1




Reach a clear, shared understanding of the current DRMFSS systems and work-processes by:• Recapping the purpose of the FMIP Pillar II Project• Validating the mapping of the current systems and

processes• Presenting issues found during the information

gathering exercise, and open the discussion for any other issues

• Inviting the DRMFSS business units to discuss their requirements

Review Aims of Day 1Aims of this Workshop


Phase I Launch Workshop

DRMFSS Food-Tracking System

Food Management Improvement Project(FMIP Pillar II)

Welcome (Day 2)


Schedule Overview

Look at the current systems, processes and problems

Day 2: Where to next?Set priorities for software development and process changes



Agree on the direction the Food-Tracking system is to take through:• Explaining the recommended approach to software

development• Identifying the project risks• Setting the project scope• Deciding priorities for software development and

process-change• Reviewing findings



Schedule – Day 2

Recap current issues Recommended Approach Project Risks Project Scope Prioritisation Review and Next Steps

Day 2: Where to next?


Current Issues (Recap)

The issues raised yesterday will feed directly into the prioritisation exercise

Recap Issues


Schedule – Day 2




Recommended Approach

• Divide the development risk – The failure of a small component has little impact on already implemented components

• Bring forward external risks – Avoid waiting 1-2 years to implement a complete system, only to find that it doesn’t work due to some external risk.

• Continuously Test Assumptions – Small component frequently implemented mean that an incorrect assumption is quickly caught and rectified

• Less dependency on providers – If the software developer does not meet standards, it is more possible to replace them mid-project

Break the development into smaller pieces



• Gradually change introduce – System changes means process changes. Smaller system changes means smaller process changes

• Design can be changed to meet changing needs – Each iteration of the development allows changes of direction or priorities

Break the development into smaller pieces (Cont’d)



• Quick-win first – Find areas that can be quickly and simply implemented – either process changes or system development. Confidence can work wonders.

• High-Risk next (Related to ‘Bring forward external risks’):“A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”If this fails, there is no point continuing. If it succeeds, the rest will be so much easier.

• Change fatigued last – Areas that are tired from frequent change should be left till later – give them time to see the benefits first

Group by Risk/Reward Profile



Look for areas that have no existing systems in place, and analyse why there is no system. For example:• If it’s due to user resistance, rate it lower in the

development schedule. Give them time to see the benefits to others.

• If there is no system because it’s a new unit, maybe prioritise the development. Enthusiasm is a big factor in acceptance

• Look for dependencies – they may need to be developed first

Fill the gaps first… (maybe…)



By Addressing external issues – The best computer system in the world won’t work if people won’t use it. Some areas to discuss are:• Changes to existing processes• Training• Additional staff/resources• Incentives

Address underlying problems



It is important to always remember: The business must drive the development – Not the other way round!

Focus on the Business, not the computer


Schedule – Day 2




• Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome). Wikipedia

• Measuring the risk:

Risks of FMIP Pillar IIWhat is Risk


• Scope Creep• Human Element• Lack of available infrastructure• Change fatigue• Lack of support at all levels

(management/staff/developers)• Financial / resource scarcity• Ongoing Maintenance• Acceptance by the Regions/different

stakeholders• Confused and blurred procedures• Incompatibility with systems:

internal/other systems

Risks of FMIP Pillar IIPotential Risks for the project

• Lack of funds• Lack of skilled manpower/resources• Connectivity• Staff turnover• Restructuring/policy changes• Lack of commitment from management,

staff / developer, designer• Software developers not understanding

requirements• Lack of maintenance & support

(funds/skills)• Project Delay• System incompatible because it is

developed without sufficient interaction from business units


Group Work – Risk Assessment

Consequence of Risk

Like

lihoo

d of

Ris

k

Rare

Possible

Unlikely

Insignificant

Probable

Almost Certain

Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic


• Choose one of the three top risks in the matrix and answer the following questions:– What are the reasons for this risk?– What business units/position can influence this risk?– What business units/positions are influenced by this risk?– What activities should be taken to mitigate this risk? By

whom?

Risks of FMIP Pillar IIGroup work


Schedule – Day 2




Project Scope

• DRMFSS-transported only: Only commodities transported by DRMFSS are tracked

• Relief (including emergency response) and PSNP: These two programmes make up the bulk of transported aid

• Food only: Including non-food bring sa whole new level of complexity to a tracking system

• MT/Quintal only: DRMFSS commodities are quantified by weight – not by sack, bag, box or bale.

Boundaries are good!


Accounting UnitUnits of Measurement Definition

The number of things that the owner of the cargo is interested in, or that the beneficiaries will see:

Example: Total number of health kits, tarpaulins, generators, radios, boats, etc


Minimum Logistics Unit (MLU)Units of Measurement Definition

The smallest thing that the warehouse / transport agent will see; the smallest things that a person can pick up and carry:

Boxes, drums, etcWhat the MLU is NOT:•Vials of medicine•Packets of biscuits•Individual items in a kit

If it makes no sense to put the thing directly on a Pallet or into a container, it probably isn’t an MLU

(eg, It doesn’t make sense to put a single vial on a pallet; but it is sensible to put a box of vials on a pallet).


BundlesUnits of Measurement Definition

The way in which the MLUs will be carried:

Loose, Pallets, 20’ sea container, etc

This may change throughout the journey – The goods may be transported on pallets initially, then placed in a sea container, and then finally loose (no bundle)


MLU Vs BundlesUnits of Measurement Definition

Where the MLUs are not bundled, they are classified as “Loose” cargo.

When MLUs are bundled, we normally carry one or more MLUs per bundle:

• 10 boxes per pallet (‘box’ is the MLU, ‘pallet’ is the bundle)

• 50 bales per pallet (‘bale’ is the MLU, ‘pallet’ is the bundle)

• 600 bales per 20’ container (‘bale’ is the MLU, ’20’ container’ is the bundle)


MLU Vs Accounting Units (Part 1)

This is were the real confusion begins!

It is usual to have multiple Accounting Units per one MLU:

•2 radio kits per box (‘radio kit’ is the accounting unit; ‘box’ is the MLU)

•5 blankets per bale (‘blanket’ is the accounting unit; ‘bale’ is the MLU)

Units of Measurement Definition


MLU Vs Accounting Units (Part 2)

BUT!

It is also possible to have one Accounting Unit spread over

multiple MLU:

• 1 generator spread over 2 crates (‘generator’ is the accounting unit; ‘crate’ is the MLU)

• 2 health kits spread over 5 boxes (‘health kit’ is the accounting unit; ‘box’ is the MLU)



SKU MLU Bundles

Accounting units (SKU) are what the owner is interested in; and what will be distributed to the beneficiaries.

Minimum Logistics Units (MLU) are what the warehouse and transporter will see; what is easily counted without knowing the contents of the item.

Note: Warehouse staff will only know there are 500 boxes on a truck or 30 bales on a pallet. They will not have the time, resources or the need to check the contents of the MLU!

Bundles are collections of MLU, and are generally what the transporter is interested in



And then we have boxes on pallets in containers



Prioritisation Matrix

FMIP II - Phase I Launch Workshop

Business

Transcript of FMIP II - Phase I Launch Workshop