DFID Management Board
Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - 18 April 2005
Management Board Minutes 18th April 2005
In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement the Management Board will aim to:
- communicate the vision, role, direction and priorities of DFID to staff and other stakeholders;
- ensure DFID's financial resources and staff are allocated and managed effectively;
- monitor and improve DFID's performance;
- protect and enhance DFID’s reputation as a highly effective international development organisation.
Topic |
Attending |
Purpose |
Management Board Objective |
MB sub-committees - Annual Review |
Masood Ahmed & Rebecca Stringer & Donal Brown (Development); Bill Griffiths & Elinor Wakefield (Audit); Mark Lowcock & Edward South (HR); Mark Lowcock & Gary James (Security) |
To review progress against the sub-committees' TORs and agree any action needed |
A, B, C & D |
MB self assessment |
Rebecca Goddard |
To agree the self-assessment for 2004-05 and any identify action needed for the next year |
C & D |
Election: Ministerial Guidance |
Richard Calvert; Simon Gill; David Beer. |
To review the final draft, agree any changes needed and approve handling arrangements. |
A & C |
Quarterly Management Report (1st ¼ 2005), including update of the Corporate Risk Register |
Richard Calvert; Liz Davis; Joy Hutcheon; Helen Mealins; Simon Gill; Gail Marzetti; John Anning. |
To review DFID's performance on the basis of programme expenditure, IT, HR and risk indicators, and agree the update of the Corporate Risk Register. |
A, B, C & D |
New Quarterly Management Report format |
Richard Calvert; Liz Davis; Joy Hutcheon; Helen Mealins; Simon Gill; Gail Marzetti; John Anning |
To consider the new format for the QMR. |
A, B, C & D |
Attendees |
Suma Chakrabarti (Chair) Mark Lowcock, Masood Ahmed, Minouche Shafik, Helen Ghosh, Bill Grifiths |
||
Observing |
Gary James (ISSD); Dave Beer, Felicity Rose, Andy Thackray (CSG); Rebecca Stringer, Donal Brown, Greg Briffa (PD); Alison Cochrane (TMG); Tamsyn Barton (ITD); Eleanor Briers; Sharon Creary, Peter Riddelsdell, Sarah Saxton (ICSD); Rebecca Terzeon (AsD |
||
MB Sub-Committee's annual review
Development Committe (DC)
1. Masood Ahmed introduced the Committee's paper. The key issues for the Board's consideration were:
a. Work programme - whether the DC should focus on ensuring greater coherence
between the development, implementation and evaluation of policy;
b. Chairing - whether DG Regional Programmes should co-chair with DG Policy
(on a rotational basis), leading on tracking and evaluation of implementation;
c. Membership - whether the DC should recruit non-Executive members to
provide an enhanced challenge function.
2. Masood noted that the DC was sufficiently linked to the Policy Advisory Group through the overlap in membership. A more structured connection was not required, although the Committee would look for opportunities to link with the work of the Group in its work plan.
3. In discussion, the Board: a. welcomed the proposals for the 'next generation' of the DC, in particular the work to ensure greater linkage between policy recommendations from the centre and the work of regional programmes, and the greater input form regional programmes.
4. In conclusion, the Board:
a. thanked the Development Committee Secretariat for a good paper;
b. agreed to the development of a stronger executive role. The DC would move
from acting as a sounding board to providing instruction and effecting
implementation. All development policy issues of consequence should be cleared
through the DC. The Science and Technology strategy would also go through the
Committee (subsequently also agreed with Gordon Conway);
c. endorsed the move for greater distinction between the types of product -
codifying lesson learning and providing advice on best practice, as opposed to
new policy 'instruction';
d. agreed the proposal for DG Regional Programmes to co-chair on a rotational
basis;
e. approved the recruitment of NEDs onto the DC. The Chairs would come up
with suggestions for candidates, for approval by the Management Board;
f. noted the Committee's proposals for dealing with the overload felt in
Policy Division. The work programme would help manage this. The Board would
follow progress closely.
Audit Committee (AC)
5. Bill Griffiths introduced the Committee's paper. The AC's work was driven by financial matters. It had contributed to the Department's excellent reputation in Whitehall for financial and risk management. The model varied from other Whitehall Departments, due to its mixed membership of both generalists and finance and audit professionals. The key issues put forward for the Board's attention were:
a. Communications - the Committee recognised that it needed to do more to
profile its work within the Department;
b. Membership - whether the AC increased external, specialist membership to
pursue a sharper challenge function; and whether the balance of membership was
correct among the Executive members.
6. In discussion, the Board:
a. noted it was a well run, focused committee with good outcomes. The
structure of varied generalist and professional membership suited the context in
DFID;
b. supported the better use of Directors on the AC, for example Regional
Divisions need only be represented by one Director;
c. advised that whilst the forward agenda provided a good list of what the AC
would do, it should be clearer about areas for improvement and how it would
track progress.
7. In conclusion, the Board:
a. noted that this was an area where DFID was rated at the top of Whitehall,
due to the hard work of Finance Division and others. We should celebrate this
success.
b. requested further work to better communicate the importance and success of
the Committee's work. Director members should work on material to go on inSight;
c. agreed that the membership be revised. Another non-Executive should be
appointed to provide a greater external challenge function within the AC. The
number of non-specialist executive members should be reduced, possibly on
rotation with Directors following distinct work-streams. Bill Griffiths would
come back with further thinking.
Human Resources Committee (HRC)
8. Mark Lowcock introduced the Committee's paper and invited comments on the proposed focus of work for the following year:
i. development and implementation of HR transformation, which would drive
DFID's people system, management and choices;
ii. quality of management across organisation, including skills enhancement
and development;
iii. diversity mainstreaming.
9. In discussion, the Board:
a. observed that the HRC provided an excellent discussion forum, but wondered
about its impact. The Committee should get feedback from HRD about the extent to
which its discussions had added value and effected change within the Department;
b. noted that the HRC might benefit from a broader input e.g. presentations
from other Departments;
c. agreed that more work would be needed on skills requirements in the
Department in the longer term, and tying together the shorter term needs with
longer term direction. We would need to return to this after the SR06 strategy
work, and it would be picked up in the Board's agenda in 2006/07.
10. In conclusion, the Board:
a. agreed with the proposed objectives. Advised that the HRC progress from
'sounding board' to play a more executive role in these areas;
b. asked Mark Lowcock to advise by end-May 2005 whether the HRC needed a
non-Executive member;
c. suggested that we find out more about other organisations' work on HR
development in the context of growing budget and efficiency agenda. Helen Ghosh
would give a presentation to the Committee on experiences in HMRC, which had
done a lot of work on this recently. Independent work would also be commissioned
to help us think through implications and management of this area;
d. requested that the HRC give further thought to its added value and
direction. It should cover this in a mid year review presented to the Board in
the Autumn.
Security Committee (SC)
11. Mark Lowcock introduced the Committee's paper. The SC had been established on a temporary basis to oversee and ensure security for DFID's premises across the network. It had completed this work; only a care and maintenance role was needed now. The big issue instead concerned information security. The Board were asked to consider whether the SC should adopt a strong focus on information, especially IT, security or whether this should be dealt with elsewhere.
12. In discussion, the Board:
a. noted that a lot of the SC's work had concerned overseas offices. It still
had a role providing support and advice, particularly for moving or expanding
offices;
b. observed that addressing information security was both a technical and
cultural issue. We needed to ensure staff were aware of the risks and importance
of adhering to procedures, and their requirement to do so. Other Whitehall
departments took a much tougher line with its staff on security issues. Thought
was needed on how to change DFID's culture on security, which would be better
dealt with in a broader group than the SC.
13. In conclusion, the Board:
a. welcomed the good progress made by the SC;
b. advised that the Committee should continue operating to follow up on its
original remit, meeting formally twice yearly. The Board would review this in a
year's time;
c. requested that Mark Lowcock think how to take forward work on information
security
d. separately to the discussion on the SC, the Board welcomed the
announcement by Mark Lowcock that DFID had won a Government Computing Magazine
award for DFID COnnect. The Board congratulated the DFID Connect team for the
achievement and asked Mark to arrange a spotlight notice.
MB Self assessment 2004-05
14. Suma Chakrabarti introduced the self-assessment paper. He noted the good consultation and coordination process, for which he thanked the Secretary.
15. In reviewing the paper, the Board gave comments and a summary against each section:
a. Summary of Board's role:
i. the Board was functioning well, and was very fit for purpose;
ii. the section should include information giving an overall flavour of the
Board and how it differs from other Whitehall models. It would also present the
strengths and weaknesses, and track the Board's impact. Helen Ghosh and Bill
Griffiths would provide a box giving this detail;
iii. the Board needed a purpose statement. Rebecca Goddard would coordinate
this with support from CSG;
iv. an external, slightly more structured review was timely. Mark Lowcock
would approach Egon Zender to ask about HMT's process for this;
b. Delivery Against Objectives:
i. wording for objective D would be amended to capture objective measures,
e.g. the positive press commentary on DFID, rating by NAO and results from the
SCS survey;
ii. difficulty gauging the extent to which the Board should take direct
responsibility for successes under objective D would be recognised through a
chapeau noting the contribution of Department;
iii. more thought was needed on how we took forward work on objectives, and
how the Board responded to delivering what the Government wanted. This should be
a topic for the Communication Strategy, which was coming to the Board in May;
c. Key Content Slippage:
i. the Board approved this section, noting that the Communication Strategy would be presented in May;
d. How to be More Effective:
i. the Paper gave a good list for the Board to focus on;
ii. broadening the base of leadership was critical, and should be stressed
further in point iv (relationship with sub-Committees and Leadership Group). The
Board would continue its work taking forward leadership characteristics with the
SCS. The Leadership Group had an important role supporting this;
iii. point vii (directive approach) would be amended to draw out how this
would look in practical terms. The Board wanted to ensure sufficient questioning
of assumptions on conventional wisdom on issues that come before the Board;
e. Forward Objectives:
i. objective D would be revised and sit instead as the Board's purpose;
ii. objectives A, B, C would be rolled over. There needed to be a strong linkage with the Communication Strategy, which should address both communication and how the Board's work linked back into the Department's business;
f. Workplan to deliver objectives:
i. the workplan was agreed, with the recognition that in addition to the
cycle of regular business that came before the Board, it would be more proactive
on distinct issues that it needed to grip. Examples included the Communication
Strategy, work on portfolio implementation quality;
ii. the agenda would differentiate between topics for discussion and those
requiring decision. This would help track the Board's added value.
16. In conclusion, the Board:
a. requested that the paper be amended in line with comments above;
b. noted that Directors and SCS should play a greater role in encouraging
staff to observe meetings; currently this was very dependent on the Board
Secretary;
c. agreed that Board minutes and finalised papers should be published on
DFID's website as well as inSight. Covering minutes for papers submitted to the
Board should include a recommendation on publication.
Election: Ministerial Guidance
17. Richard Calvert introduced the draft guidance and timetable for its finalisation. The Board was asked for its comments and any changes to be made.
18. In discussion, the Board: a. thanked the team and those who had inputted for a very good effort. It was an excellent resource; an amended version be made available for staff more broadly.
19. In conclusion, the Board:
a. noted that Board members had already provided drafting comments;
b. requested that details of announcements be included alongside that on
decisions and events. Mike Snowdon had done some work on this; CSG would
coordinate with him. These lists also needed to be prioritised;
c. agreed that an amended version of the pack be provided for induction
courses; CSG would take this forward with TDU.
Quarterly Management Report (QMR) and update of Corporate Risk Register
20.Richard Calvert introduced the QMR for the first quarter of 2005 and the update to the Corporate Risk Register, and outlined the key headline messages and actions for the Board's attention.
21. In discussion, the Board:
a. thanked Gail Marzetti for her very helpful submission and clear
recommendations;
b. welcomed the close correlation between budget and expenditure.
22. In conclusion, the Board:
a. noted with concern the decline on compliance with PCRs. The Department
faced reputational risk from poor performance in this area which the Board took
very seriously. Concentrated effort was needed to address this ahead of the SCS
pay round being finalised. The Board would issue a minute notifying the SCS.
Directors' Statements should also include a link to this with effect from 2006;
b. noted the fall in the approved commitment stock and questioned whether
this would have implications for our future programming. FCPD would investigate
this further and include an update in the next QMR;
c. congratulated HRD at closing the gap between vacancies and people to fill
them. This achievement was underplayed in the QMR. The key test remained whether
the vacancies were in priority areas. The next QMR should give details on this
and how we would address the combination of hard to fill jobs with hard to find
skills. Further work was also needed in taking forward plans for early departure
opportunities. Liz Davis would look at this as part of the strategy for managing
current context and medium term requirements. Directors should use mid year
reviews with staff to talk through plans for the next 2 years so to help manage
expectations and planning. Minouche Shafik and Masood Ahmed would confirm this
with their Directors;
d. advised that the Cabinet Office 'staff in post' definition should be
amended to 'Home Civil Servants';
e. noted that HRD would issue an announcement confirming that promotion
boards would be held in 2005 for all grades below the SCS (on which the position
is not yet clear);
f. agreed that the Department needed to be much better at completing the
staff management and appraisal system. Liz Davis would circulate breakdown of
figures by Division to each Director to address the issue of poor compliance;
g. agreed that for the remainder of the current PSA we would continue to use
the existing methodology on portfolio measurement. For the 2005/08 PSA we will
move to an initial 3 year rolling average;
h. on the corporate risk register, agreed that that the Corporate Risk
Register would not be published in its current format; the Board would revisit
once central guidance had been received;
i. agreed further thought was needed on how to rate individual portfolio
ratios as a key element of how risk management is embedded and managed in the
Department. Work should be done to rate PSA countries by risk to inform
programming decisions.
New Quarterly Management Report Format
23. Simon Gill outlined the proposed new design the QMR, noting the extensive consultation which had informed the new design.
24. In discussion, the Board:
a. welcomed the improved format, which was potentially more user friendly and
effective as a management tool;
b. noted that Mark Lowcock, Minouche Shafik and Masood Ahmed would feed in
detailed comments after the meeting
25. In conclusion, the Board:
a. thanked the team for their work on the new format;
b. agreed we should adopt a new format, although further work was needed.
Bill Griffiths should 'road test' the next version. He would ensure it addressed
3 questions:
(i) whether managers were content with provision of less data on
performance than to date;
(ii) whether it provided all information needed by
those who used it; and
(iii) how the report can maximise predictive qualities;
c. asked CSG to ensure that Divisions were consulted in the design of the new format.
