Management Board | Development Committee | Audit Committee | Human Resources Committee

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

Meeting on 23 January 2007 – Reviews of Divisions’ Business Plans

Please note: Management Board Minutes for 22 January 2007 are also available.

In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement the Management Board will aim to:

A. communicate the vision, role, direction and priorities of DFID to staff and other stakeholders;

B. ensure DFID's financial resources and staff are allocated and managed effectively;

C. monitor and improve DFID's performance;

D. protect and enhance DFID’s reputation as a highly effective international development organisation.

10.15 – 16.30, Location: PS 3W12

Time	Topic	Attending	Observers	MB Obj
10.15- 11.15	International Finance and Europe Division	Amanda Rowlatt	5W6 AH280	A, B, C & D
11.15- 12.15	UN, Commonwealth and Humanitarian Division	Jim Drummond Daniel Davis	5W6 AH280	A, B, C & D
12.15-12.30	Break
12.30-13.30	Finance and Corporate Performance Division	Richard Calvert	5W6 AH280	A, B, C & D
13.30-14.00	Lunch
14.00-15.00	Global Development Effectiveness Division	Owen Barder	5W6 AH280	A, B, C & D
15.00-16.00	Policy and Research Division	Sam Sharpe Rob Wilkinson	5W6 AH280	A, B, C & D
16.00-16.30	Information Systems Department	Simon Jones	5W6 AH280	A, B, C & D

Attendees	Suma Chakrabarti (Chair)	Mark Lowcock
	Bill Griffiths (Non-Executive Director)	Minouche Shafik
	Helen Ghosh (Non-Executive Director)	Sue Owen

Observing

Staff in 1 Palace Street, Abercrombie House and offices as detailed above

International Finance and Europe Division (IFED)

Amanda Rowlatt represented IFED.

The Management Board agreed the self-assessment for 2006/07 and framework for 2007/08, subject to the following comments. The Board:

asked IFED to make some small revisions to the way the performance assessment for 2006/07 is set out – Amanda should go back to Mark Lowcock on this;

asked that the multilateral effectiveness work take into account organisations’ resource allocation policies as well as capacity to manage for results;

asked Amanda and her senior team to get more personally involved in engaging with the World Bank’s senior management, where the DFID Board had been closely involved until recently;

asked the Division to feed into the Comprehensive Spending Review process a quick analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of keeping the EC aid poverty target, addressing the question whether the EU should now be seen as one legitimate vehicle for providing DFID aid to Middle Income Countries;

asked that the agreement with FCO around EC attribution include clear red lines for escalating decision-making to higher levels;

asked Amanda to work with Martin Dinham on pre-posting training for FCO and HMT officials whose work would involve multilateral or development issues;

congratulated the Division on its Management Survey results, and asked that the momentum be maintained on performance management. One area to watch was the tendency for staff to get too close to the organisations with whom they were regularly interacting;

welcomed IFED’s good relationships with the corporate divisions, and specifically:

asked for a short note on the Division’s good relationship with HR, especially the role of the business partner, to share with other divisions;

suggested IFED develop a closer relationship with Finance and Corporate Performance Division, to understand the bigger financial picture (e.g. total volume of aid going through the multilaterals);

welcomed the work so far with Communications Division, and suggested that this be used to bring some developing country voice into IFED’s work;

on evaluation, asked the Division (a) to push the multilateral institutions to take evaluation more seriously, and (b) to continue to ensure Evaluation Department’s outputs matter for its work;

asked the Division to look at whether we were investing enough resources in our engagement with private sector funds, and also to communicate DFID’s work with the private sector better;

welcomed the collaboration between IFED and Policy and Research Division on Global Funds. There are good lessons here on transfer of knowledge and induction.

UN, Commonwealth and Humanitarian Division (UNCHD)

Jim Drummond and Daniel Davis represented UNCHD.

The Management Board agreed the self-assessment for 2006/07 and framework for 2007/08, subject to the following comments. The Board:

asked the Division to update Ministers on the development of the evidence-base on multilateral effectiveness following the Vietnam meeting in February;

asked for a note on how Evaluation Department’s products have impacted on the Division’s work so that wider lessons can be learnt;

noted that progress had been made in addressing audit concerns with the Global Conflict Prevention Pool but that problems remained; and asked the Division to consider ways in which DFID could ensure concerns were addressed, including by taking a tougher line on audit issues in negotiations around future allocations;

asked the Division to work with EMAAD and IFED to ensure that the new Ambassador to the United States was well briefed on DFID’s agenda;

asked for a note on the future role and financing of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Unit;

encouraged the Division to communicate its successes better, for example on UN reform;

encouraged the Division to continue to work closely with Regional Divisions on UN reform and security and development; and noted the importance of progress on the security and development agenda in the year ahead;

asked the Division, with its HR business partner, urgently to work up a plan on how to tackle poor performance;

asked the Division to write a short note (joint with IFED) on its good relationship with HR Division, to share with other divisions.

Finance and Corporate Performance Division (FCPD)

Richard Calvert represented FCPD.

The Management Board agreed the self-assessment for 2006/07 and framework for 2007/08, subject to the following comments. The Board:

thanked the Division for coordinating all the papers for these discussions;

welcomed the good progress on ARIES, and asked the team to focus on getting the internal communications plan right. There would need to be a considerable effort on this, involving the Management Board, Directors and SCS;

on Evaluation Department (EvD):

welcomed EvD’s increased throughput, and asked for continued efforts to increase the uptake of EvD’s findings by Divisions;

asked that EvD’s work programme be better linked to DFID’s business needs (including more ‘fast and focused’ studies);

asked FCPD to look at the approval process for the work programme – (a) this should go to the Development Committee at the same time as the ‘policy priorities’ document; (b) FCPD should consider whether the work programme should be signed off by the Management Board after it has been approved by the Development Committee;

whilst welcoming the suggestion of more independence in DFID’s evaluation function, expressed concern at proposals which would take Evaluation Department too far away from DFID, thereby reducing the potential for lesson-learning;

emphasised the importance of Public Financial Management and Fiduciary Risk Management, and asked FCPD (with GDED) to keep DFID one step ahead on this;

asked FCPD to develop stronger financial management skills (an ‘accountability reflex’) in DFID staff over the next 12-18 months;

asked the Division to continue to manage the NAO relationship well, for example on Budget Support, and keep Country Offices up to date with progress on this;

looked forward to an update on the work of the Strategy Unit at the Management Board meeting in February;

on FCPD’s ‘grip’ of the organisation (given the upcoming challenges of delivering an increasing programme with reducing administration costs):

asked the Audit Committee to look at the underpinnings of the regular stocktakes of DFID’s financial management for the Treasury;

noted DFID’s good position on financial accounting, and agreed that more progress was needed to improve management accounting;

asked that the Corporate Plan be finalised as far as possible before Directors write their new Delivery Plans in the autumn. It should preferably come to the Board in September;

on propriety issues and political awareness of staff, asked FCPD:

to take more of a proactive approach towards promoting political awareness across DFID;

to improve its work on sensitive costs (with Communications Division);

with HR Division, to remind staff of their responsibilities on propriety issues.

Global Development Effectiveness Division (GDED)

Owen Barder represented GDED.

The Management Board agreed the Director’s Delivery Plan for 2007/08, subject to the following comments. The Board:

agreed that (a) trade (b) results / developing the evidence-base (c) working with other donors and (d) tackling corruption were the key priorities for GDED in 2007/08 and stressed the importance of aligning resources in support of these;

agreed that the Division would need to work through a wide set of stakeholders in order to deliver its priorities;

asked the Division to start work mapping out likely future donor architecture, given the wide range of new donors entering the field in recent years;

noted the need to do more to galvanise action on improving development statistics, at both country and institutional level;

asked the Division to communicate urgently (including to Ministers) the range of actions DFID is taking on corruption;

welcomed the strong progress in GDED on building networking and influencing skills, in particular the systematic approach to assessing impact, and asked the Division to share this with the Leadership Group;

asked the Division to review, with FCPD, current responsibilities on fiduciary risk;

welcomed the attention being paid to management and leadership and asked the Division for a clear plan on how performance would be improved over the coming years.

Policy and Research Division (PRD)

Sam Sharpe and Rob Wilkinson represented PRD.

The Management Board agreed the self-assessment for 2006/07 and framework for 2007/08, subject to the following comments. The Board:

welcomed progress on selectivity (specifically the dropping of less important areas of policy work) and the increased focus of PRD staff on workplans;

asked PRD to think through how best to lock in the country-led approach to development and a focus on results given the likely political changes over the coming months, and to discuss this with Mark Lowcock;

asked PRD to bring a discussion on White Paper 3 deliverables to a Regional Directors’ meeting. This would include a stocktake on climate change – to determine what skills Regional Divisions need to deliver our commitments – as well as a discussion of health, where there is a need to bring order to the large volume of work through the Health Strategy process;

welcomed the progress on gender, including the Gender Strategy, and asked that we communicate our work better externally;

asked that Evaluation Department’s work programme be presented to the Development Committee at the same time as the future policy priorities are considered;

asked PRD to discuss with executive members of the Management Board what balance of interests (DFID and external) should drive DFID’s Research programme;

welcomed the improvement in relations between PRD and regional divisions, and looked forward to further progress this year;

asked the Division to build on its good relationship with HR Division to achieve results, such as filling key vacancies faster;

welcomed progress on performance management and asked the Division to work up a plan for how productivity would be improved further (including, for example, through rethinking the necessary skills mix as well as better people management);

asked the Division to consider quickly whether the processes for communicating with UK stakeholders (such as answering Parliamentary Questions and Ministerial letters) should be centralised;

on offshoring policy work, asked that some options be presented to the executive members of the Management Board in February, prior to the arrival of Andrew Steer in April.

Information Systems Department (ISD)

Simon Jones represented ISD.

The Management Board agreed the self-assessment for 2006/07 and framework for 2007/08, subject to the following comments. The Board:

asked for a paper on a what a future ISD might look like after the implementation of ARIES, as an input to the Corporate Plan;

welcomed the close working relationship that has been established with the FCO, encouraged Simon to build a close relationship with his new counterpart there, and emphasised that the sharing of services must be based on a sound business case;

asked for a submission to Ministers on the savings achieved through the use of video-conferences;

asked the Division to consider, with PCRU and the DG Regional Programmes, options for secure VC links;

noted the Division’s concerns about further resources pressures in the Comprehensive Spending Review process and asked Simon to discuss this with the DG Corporate Performance and the Finance and Corporate Performance Director.

Justin Williams - Management Board Secretary
Pete Shelley - Corporate Planning and Performance Group