DFID Management Board
Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - December 2004
In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement and Service Delivery 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.
Topic |
Attending |
Purpose |
MB Obj |
Cabinet Office Diversity Peer Review |
Kamalijit Kerridge-Poonia, Ellen Wratten |
To update the MB on the review outcomes and agree action to take forward |
B, C and D |
Relocation |
Sharon White, Dave Fish, Carol Robson, Fiona Lappin |
To update the MB on progress with relocation |
A, B and C |
DDP update and process |
Richard Calvert, Helen Mealins, Simon Gill |
Update on DDP process and discussion of MB review in January |
A, B, C and D |
Freedom of Information update |
Frank Rankin |
Update on FOI and implications for the Department in the new year |
A, C and D |
Attendees |
Suma Chakrabarti, Mark Lowcock, Masood Ahmed, Helen Ghosh, Minouche Shafik |
||
Apologies |
Bill Griffiths, Masood Ahmed |
||
Observing |
Angela Bevan, David Campbell |
||
Cabinet Office Diversity Peer Review
1. Kamaljit Kerridge-Poonia described the diversity peer review which had taken place with the Cabinet Office in October and November. The exercise had produced a meaningful debate on diversity resulting in an exchange of letters between the two diversity champions (Mark Lowcock and Colin Balmer) outlining the current strengths and areas for future focus in both organisations.
2. In discussion, the Board:
a. noted that DFID was making good progress towards its diversity targets, although we must not become complacent, especially with regard to the areas identified as strengths during the peer review;
b. noted that the main areas the Cabinet Office had identified as requiring attention were barriers to career progression, management effectiveness and networking opportunities. Action was currently in train to address all of those issues. Future work on career progression would need to consider what was the right mix of external recruitment and internal promotion to the SCS against the framework of DFID's operational need to have an SCS cadre with overseas experience. Opportunities for networking were particularly valuable in a large decentralised organisation like DFID, but the type and structure of any particular network would depend very much on the common issues for discussion and demand for support amongst staff. Although establishing and maintaining networks had resource implications, the cost should not be overestimated; and,
c. suggested that DFID might seek to emulate some of the Cabinet Office's successes in addition to working on the areas identified as relative weaknesses.
3. In conclusion,, the Board:
a. thanked Kamaljit Kerridge-Poonia and Ellen Wratten for leading on the peer review;
b. accepted the Cabinet Office's assessment;
c. awaited the HR Committee's findings on the Career Progression study and noted that the Management Board might wish to revisit the issue in a future meeting;
d. agreed that the Diversity Champion and HR Director should work closely with the General Advisory Group on Diversity to take forward work on networks.
Relocation
4. Fiona Lappin gave an update on the number of posts that had now been relocated to Abercrombie House. Policy Division and Africa Division would be relocating posts during the course of 2005 and early 2006.
5. In discussion the Board:
a. noted that many aspects of the relocation so far had gone very well. For example, most of the empty posts had been filled, and the quality of staff recruited from Abercrombie House had been strong, as had the support from ISSD and OSSD;
b. noted that the experiences of the first departments to move to Abercrombie House had generated many lessons that would be helpful for the Policy Division and Africa Division moves;
c. noted that staff turnover in the departments that had already moved had been extremely high, thus creating a steep learning curve for new teams. Staff had coped well with this additional pressure but for future moves, a phased approach would help maintain continuity;
d. noted that having a "critical mass" of staff working on strategic and policy issues in Abercrombie House was key to the success of the relocation; and,
e. noted that the Board and senior managers needed to help effect a shift in attitudes amongst some London-based staff.
6. In conclusion the Board:
a. thanked Fiona Lappin and Sharon White for the update;
b. confirmed it was content with the progress made so far, which had proved that policy functions could be run effectively and well from Abercrombie House;
c. recognised the time and effort that had gone into making the first stage of relocation so successful, including the work of office and information services whose high quality accommodation and video-conferencing services had helped ease the transition;
d. noted the lessons to be drawn from the first moves, in particular with regard to phasing the relocation of future teams to allow sufficient time to skill new staff; and,
e. nominated Joy Hutcheon to lead the relocation team from 17 January.
Directors' Delivery Plans Process
7. Helen Mealins updated the Board on the DDP timetable and process leading up to the Board discussions on 25 and 26 January.
8. In discussion the Board:
a. thanked Corporate Strategy Group for its efforts in improving the DDP process which had produced a good structured approach to managing the exercise;
b. noted that Directors would be able to bring Deputies to the meetings in January, but that the Board would be looking to Directors themselves to introduce sessions and respond to questions.
9. In conclusion the Board:
a. agreed the proposed process and timetable for approving the DDPs;
b. agreed that Corporate Strategy Group should provide for Board members a short assessment of each DDP that would highlight issues for further exploration during the Board meetings;
c. agreed that, following the previous year's format, the meetings would be open to all observers via drop-in rooms with video links to the boardroom; and,
d. noted that the Leadership Group would meet in February for an ex-post review of the DDP process.
Freedom of Information update
10. Frank Rankin reminded the Board that the Freedom of Information Act would go live on 1 January 2005. Open Government Unit had been working with the department to raise awareness of the Act and ensure staff understood what it meant for them. At present it seemed that there was a wide but shallow understanding throughout the organisation. However, even if they did not understand exactly what to do in the event of an FOI request, an internal communications 'phone survey had revealed that 80% of staff would know where to go for advice and help with handling. Open Government Unit had plans for advertising further in the New Year but it was currently waiting for help from the Centre on a number of substantive issues before issuing formal guidance to the department.
11. One of the changes to the Department's ways of working would be to the design of submission templates. Under the Act, information that constitutes advice to Ministers on policy formulation is exempt but "hard data" will have to be disclosed once decisions are made. Open Government Unit was working with Corporate Strategy Group to redesign the format of submissions to include an "advice" section that could easily be removed once the documents were to be put in the public domain.
12. The Board thanked Frank for the update and:
a. noted that the redesign of the submission template was a significant change whose successful implementation would require careful consideration by Directors and Heads of Department. Removing advice from the main body of submissions to a separate section would not be intuitive and staff would only become accustomed to doing this through practice and through guidance and support from their managers; and,
b. asked Frank to present a similar update to the Monday Morning Meeting on January 10.
