1 / 20

RBM At UN-HABITAT: A Debrief

RBM At UN-HABITAT: A Debrief. Leslie M. Fox Consultant to the RBM-KM Task Force. September 22, 2008. Consultancy Purpose / TORs. Engaged for 6 months to support RBM-KM TF to implement RBM in UN-H; quick wins must-dos. My first trip: Develop workplan & identify key issues

ronli
Download Presentation

RBM At UN-HABITAT: A Debrief

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. RBM At UN-HABITAT: A Debrief Leslie M. Fox Consultant to the RBM-KM Task Force September 22, 2008

  2. Consultancy Purpose / TORs • Engaged for 6 months to support RBM-KM TF to implement RBM in UN-H; quick wins must-dos. • My first trip: Develop workplan & identify key issues • Specific deliverables include: • Refine MTSIP with SMART objectives, indicators, and performance measures in all six Focus Areas. • Develop an RBM framework / strategy for mainstreaming RBM • Develop TORs for improving the operations of the Programme Review Committee (Regional PRCs). • Develop Guiding principles and benchmarks for designing performance measurements for the MTSIP. • Develop Introductory RBM training programme for all staff. • Guidelines for R-B & participatory programme planning/budget • Methodology: immersion: interviews & document review • Debrief: Did I get it? Facts and findings? Be merciful

  3. The Context: Why RBM in UN-H • OIOS: broad mandate / limited resources • Energy is dissipated / little impact achieved • Focus on outputs not results: “So What!” • Too many players chasing too few dollars • Compete or perish / at best a marginal player • RBM is now international best practice and policy—MDGs and Paris Declaration • Many reasons why it cannot work • More reasons why it must • You are NOT alone in grappling with RBM issues • RBM is here to stay … be the RBM!

  4. The Yin & Yang of Results-based Management Accountability Empowerment

  5. The Fundamentals: The ABCs of RBM • RBM brings order out of chaos: being strategic • Making hard choices about your mandate—what is doable • What does being flexible really mean? Survival mode • If it is not measured then it did not happen • Many good deeds not recorded because no result formulated; or poorly formulated, that is, not SMART • RBM represents the harmony of accountability and empowerment • Without both you cannot obtain RBM • Performers (individuals - organizations) are expected to perform & will be held accountable for achieving expected results • But must be empowered: capacity (skills / expertise), resources and enabling policy environment with the right governance / institutional / management structure & rules promoting RBM • Delegation of authority and resources as low as possible is key • Single most important factor in successful RBM approach is LEADERSHIP

  6. More on RBM Fundamentals • The MTSIP is both an RBM-oriented strategic plan and corporate marketing strategy • An expression of corporate vision and commitment … especially to results • Transcends the interests of individuals, divisions, etc. • RBM embodies best practice: the MDG paradigm • Strategic planning & performance measurement are the core principles of RBM • Managing for results – outcomes and impacts – not outputs (activities and inputs): the “So What Test” • A Results Framework (best practice) is a graphic presentation of the MTSIP • It shows causal relationships between: • Levels of results both horizontally and vertically • Results to the mandate and to outputs

  7. UN-HABITAT MANDATE: HABITAT AGENDA / MDG 7 : TARGETS 10 & 11 / INT’L CONFERENCE PRIORITIES UN-H GOAL SU created by cities & regions that provide citizens with adequate services, security & employment opportunities MTSIP Vision To help create, by 2013, the conditions for international & national efforts to stabilize growth of slums and to set the stage for the reduction of urban poverty and the number of slum dwellers MTSIP Strategic Objective Sustainable Urbanization in targeted countries is a fundamental principle driving the making and implementation of development policy at the national and local levels in an engendered and youth sensitive way MTSIP EA / Outcomes Focus Area 1: Effective normative work informs SU policy making in … Focus Area 2: Participatory processes strengthen SU Partners to … Focus Area 3: Enabling policy / legal environment promotes PP land … Focus Area 4: Expanded access to environmentally sound urban services Focus Area 5: Increased access by the poor to innovative financing systems Focus Area 6: UN-H staff are empowered to achieve planned results MTSIP Sub-EAs / Outcomes Sub EA 1.1 Sub-EA 1.2 Sub-EA 2.1 Sub-EA 2.2 Sub-EA 3.1 Sub-EA 3.2 Sub-EA 4.1 Sub-EA 4.2 Sub-EA 5.1 Sub-EA 5.2 Sub-EA 6.1 Sub-EA 6.2 MTSIP Outputs MTSIP Activities / Projects • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D MTSIP Inputs Regular Resources = 10 percent / Non-Earmarked Project = 10 percent / Earmarked Project = 80 percent UN-HABITAT Medium-Term Strategic & Institutional Plan (MTSIP) Results Framework

  8. Get SMART: Refining the MTSIP • MTSIP is a good first cut at UN-H strategy • It needs to better demonstrate causal relationships between: • Different levels of results; and • between results and corresponding outputs • It requires reformulation of results and performance indicators a la SMARTness • Common problems: confusion between outputs and results; indicators with result and vice-versa • SMART Results lead to SMART Indicators: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound

  9. Governance / Institutional Constraints: Structure driving RBM integration • Biennium versus MTSIP programming • 2 year S-Frameworks vs. 6 year strategy • 4 subprogrammes versus 5/6 focus areas • 2 year work programmes / budgets vs. 6 year MTSIP Action Plan but no separate MTSIP budget • Work programme results delivered through divisions vs. no dedicated MTSIP structure: MTSIP results delivered through same divisional structures • IMDIS and IMIS reporting on work programmes vs. no MTSIP reporting format • There is no MTSIP monitoring & evaluation plan yet

  10. Aligning the MTSP with the BiennialSubprogrammes General Assembly / Secretariat Committee of Permanent Representatives UN-HABITAT Governing Council UN-HABITAT Executive Director OED Deputy Executive Director Biennial Subprogrammes UN-HABITAT Divisions MTSIP Focus Areas Subprogramme 1: S&SHSD Global Division Focus Area 2: Participatory Processes Focus Area 3: Pro-Poor Land/Housing Subprogramme 2: Monitoring the HA M & R Division Focus Area 1: Effective Advocacy Subprogramme 3: Regional & TC R & TC Division Focus Area 4: Basic Infrastructure Human Settlements Financing Division Subprogramme 4: Sustainable Financing Focus Area 5: Sustainable Financing OED / Programme Support Division Focus Area 6: Excellence in Management

  11. Governance / Institutional Constraints (cont.) • Principal question: can the biennium governance / institutional system and the management structure from which it derives: • Deliver MTSIP results? • Promote RBM principles of empowerment and accountability? • Does the fact that UN-H is a Secretariat programme subject to GA/GC requirements inhibit RBM approach • Acknowledgement but not recognition of MTSIP • SPs are aligned with Divisions which are intended to deliver both Work programme & MTSIP results

  12. Governance Constraints: Findings & Conclusions • Current alignment between Biennium & MTSIP appears weak at best relative to: • Programme planning (SF, WP) and reporting process • Results (EAs) and performance indicators / measures • Resources: both finances / staff • Divisions do not appear to be the most effective results-based unit of management to deliver MTSIP results • Role of Task Forces in MTSIP implementation • 2008 / 2009 Kick-start phase & quick wins vs. entire MTSIP Period? Conclusion: phase over to a new structure • Who / which division or office is responsible for oversight of implementation of MTSIP? • Corporate vs. division level? Conclusion: corporate level function • OED versus PSD? Many RBM-related functions are allocated to PSD and not OED. This is an Executive not Support function! • Strategic Planning and performance measurement unit? Where? • OED / Corporate Function not Divisions / Decentralized Function • OED: Corporate vision, commitment to achieving results and Accountability

  13. 2008 – 2013 MTSP REALIGNMENT: STRUCTURAL - FUNCTIONAL G L O B A L M R D R T C D H S F D E D M / P S D Focus Area 1: Effective advocacy, monitoring and partnerships Focus Area 2: Promotion of planning, management and governance Focus Area 3: Promote pro-poor land and housing Focus Area 4: Environmentally sound basic urban infrastructure and services Focus Area 5: Strengthen human settlements financing systems Focus Area 6: Excellence in management

  14. Financing Constraint: Projects Driving Results • Nature and type of funding: • Earmarked vs. Non-earmarked: 80% - 20% • Projects are the principal means of funding • Divisions develop projects and manage them • Mainly earmarked from a few donors • PRC is supposed to be review / advisory body recommending project approval • Deemed not effective by some • Result: New Regional PRCs established

  15. Financing Constraint: Findings and Conclusions • Projects have become an end vs. a means to achieving MTSIP or WP results • Projects focus on outputs (inputs and activities) rather than results • Thus, undercuts rather than supports RBM • Divisions deal bilaterally with donors and negotiate deals that are brought to PRC • Accountability often to donors vs. to UN-H • Donors drive funding decisions not results • Is PRC the Problem: Not really • Is Regional PRC the Answer: Definitely NOT!

  16. Organizational Culture: An RBM Constraint • Survival is & has been powerful incentive driving UN-HABITAT at all levels • Securing funding has been overriding force • Projects have been the result • Salaries are tied to project funding • Divisions have become the unit of survival • Allegiance to the division over corporate • For both core and project funded staff • Corporate culture is divisional culture • Every division is an island or feudal fiefdom • Competition (for resources) versus cooperation • Normative / Operational divide is a smokescreen • The existing culture is comfortable but anti-RBM

  17. Conclusions and Recommendations Phase 1: Preconditions to implementation • Retrofitting RBM to existing context is difficult • Reforms first: governance, finance, management, institutional • Leadership is the primordial variable in the reform process • Empowering Performers: capacity, resources and Enabling Environment • Radical vs. Incremental change • MTSIP is a six year strategy: from survival to sustainability … not all change in year 1 & 2 • MTSP Action Plan: Getting the Fundamentals right • Lord Keynes: “In the long-term we’re all dead”

  18. Conclusions & Recommendations (cont) • Getting the fundamentals right • Refining and finalizing the results framework: • causal logic from mandate to outcomes to activities • Focus area strategic plans should be developed • Formulating SMART results & SMART indicators • Organizational structure for delivering results • Results achievement should be through the Focus Areas • IN AN IDEAL WORLD there would be no Divisions, just FA results Teams. • IN THE REAL WORLD all Divisions must be aligned with all FAs • Corporate level strategic planning & performance measurement unit • Using existing resources effectively • Make projects work for results, not the reverse • Aligning Resources (staff and financing) with expected results • Incentives should reward results’ achievement • Emphasize FA Results team accountability and empowerment • Incentives promote joint results achievement / info sharing • Change should be based on the Art of the Possible

  19. Normative – Operational Divide / ENOF • A real problem? Or a smokescreen for other issues? • Every division is now doing normative work & many are doing project implementation • The Normative – Operational Divide is really a Division – Division Divide • Moving from the divisional structure to a Focus area structure will necessarily eliminate the divide

  20. Conclusions & Recommendations Phase 2: Executing reforms – 2010 / 2011 • Implementing Phase 1 reforms & Foundation • Managing for results • Accountability of Performers • Performance Measurement Plan implemented Phase 3: 2012/2013 The Transition • Scaling-up, Reflection and Design • Full-scale implementation of FA strategies • MTSIP 2008-2013 appraisal, reflection & LLs • Preparation and development of MTSIP 2014-2019

More Related