Human Resources Committee - Minutes of meeting held on 10 July 2007
HRC members:
HRSC (alternate on this occasion only) |
Observers - AH, PS and DFID Abuja
Presenting: Apologies |
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of 26 April 2007
1. Agreed.
Agenda Item 2: HRSC Tracker and HRSC objectives
Annual Report 2006/07
2. The HRSC noted that action was complete on most items and was satisfied that work is progressing on the outstanding items.
Discussion
3. The HRSC:
- noted that the committee now had a clearer sense of purpose and direction;
- suggested that the success criteria should have more specific measures;
- agreed that the HRSC role is to take a corporate view of DFID’s people management agenda;
- agreed that papers coming to the HRSC should have a champion in DFID and could be presented by people from across DFID;
- acknowledged that the boundary of responsibility between the Management Board and the HRSC could be clearer but that the HRSC was there to provide a forum for discussion and/or follow up by the Management Board and to provide information for the Board;
- noted that now the HRSC does not include all Directors then papers should be sent out 7 working days in advance of the HRSC. This will allow other Directors an opportunity to comment.
Conclusion
4. The HRSC agreed that Liz Davis, Sue Owen and Ann Rennie should work on and agree the objectives and measures.
Agenda item 3: Optimizing the use of SAIC
Discussion
5. Marcus Manuel introduced this item. He noted:
- SAIC are fundamental to DFID achieving its objectives;
- he had received strong support and feedback from Heads of Office;
- there should be real investment in developing SAIC;
- the project team had focused on straightforward solutions which had the potential to make big differences.
6. Responding on behalf of HRD, Richard Montgomery:
- welcomed the study;
- acknowledged the benefits of developing SAIC given DFID’s productivity and performance challenges;
- suggested a number of limitations and risks;
- drew the attention of the Committee to the recommendations made in the HRD’s response paper.
7. HRSC members:
- congratulated Marcus and his team for their excellent work;
- noted that the number of SAIC in Band A is relatively small but the approach taken will send a strong message to SAIC overall;
- agreed that SAIC are important to DFID’s diversity and the way we work in future;
- noted that DFID has to consider if it wants to build more mobility in to its workforce which would mean moving towards an international cadre. The decisions in this paper are a step in this direction;
- noted that on promotions and third country postings SAIC expectations had to be carefully managed and the terms had to be clearly communicated;
- noted the possible conflict in managing standards for promotion if we continue to offer “local” and “global” promotions within Band A;
- acknowledged that the Competency Framework may have to be updated to reflect the different set of competences that SAIC bring to the organisation;
- suggested that the Strategic Workforce Plan should address the number of Band B posts overseas.
Conclusion
8. The HRSC agreed HRD’s recommendations. Liz to have discussions with Regional Directors about local promotions.
Agenda item 4: Workforce planning
Discussion
9. Ann Freckleton introduced this paper. She noted that:
- Workforce planning supported both the Strategic Workforce Plan and the Corporate Plan.
10. The HRSC:
- noted that we needed to explain why we need workforce planning;
- noted that there could be tensions between the corporate and divisional view on workforce requirements but that the HRSC role would be important in helping people understand and for the HRSC to take a view on the headline indicators;
- endorsed the approach of Divisions taking collective responsibility for workforce planning;
- acknowledged that the approach provided a clearer way forward in an era of increasing programme costs combined with reducing headcount and administration costs;
- asked that the transaction costs of producing the report be kept to a minimum.
Conclusion
11. The HRSC agreed that HRD should come back to the HRSC with a further version of a workforce planning paper.
Agenda item 5: Specialist posts in Corporate Services
Discussion
12. Liz Davis introduced this paper. The HRSC:
- accepted the proposal in principle;
- noted that all professional groups within Corporate Services should be included;
- noted that where there was already a Whitehall skills framework for a special group, and grade this should be adopted and not re-invented or re-engineered.
Conclusion
13. The HRSC agreed that HRD should further develop the professionalisation approach.
Agenda item 6: People Metrics Report
Discussion
14. Kelly Wright introduced the People Metrics Report. She explained that its purpose was to provide an informed profile of the organisation. She noted that it had taken time to produce some of the data.
15. The HRSC:
- warmly welcomed the report;
- acknowledged that metric data are critical and the report would be very useful to Directors;
- stressed that administrative costs in collecting the data should be kept to a minimum;
- noted that the data had to be accurate to maintain confidence;
- noted that the report should be produced on an annual basis.
Conclusion
16. The HRSC concluded that the report contained important data and asked HRD to proceed with individual discussions with Directors on which metrics would be the most useful.
Agenda item 7: Moving to a new structure for ‘core’ HR Departments
Discussion
17. Paula introduced the paper. She noted that:
- HRD had written job profiles for all posts in the new model;
- in August/September, existing HRD staff would be matched against these jobs;
- between November and March, HRD staff would undergo intensive training for their new roles.
18. In response to questions Richard Montgomery:
- acknowledged that some staff in HRD will not have a job in the new model;
- noted that posts filled with agency staff would be identified and filled with HCS staff;
- agreed that HRD would carry a surplus of staff until alternative posts could be found for them.
Conclusion
19. The HRSC noted the scale of the change, and suggested that HRD put in place good communications with the rest of DFID to inform people about the new model before its launch.
Agenda item 8: Management Environment Survey
Discussion
20. Liz introduced this paper. She:
- thanked David Reid for his excellent work;
- noted that the survey would ask the same questions as last year and it would start in September 2007.
21. The HRSC:
- queried question 20 because it was unclear about the time frame for induction in a job.
Conclusion
22. Liz Davis agreed to re-visit question 20 so that there will be clearer data on individuals who had taken up a new job within the last 12 months.
Any Other Business
23. None.
Ed South
Secretary, Human Resources Strategy Committee
17 July 2007
