Sections:

• Home
• ABOUT DFID
  • History
  • Mission statement
  • Ministers & organisation
  • Millennium Development Goals
  • How DFID works in the UK
  • Who DFID works with
  • Development activities
  • Performance & expenditure
  • Key achievements
  • Evaluation
  • Diversity & equality
  • Expenditure statistics
• FIGHTING POVERTY
• COUNTRY PROFILES
• NEWSROOM
• PUBLICATIONS
• CASE STUDIES
• PROCUREMENT
• CONSULTATIONS
• POLICY AND RESEARCH
• FUNDING SCHEMES
• RECRUITMENT
• DISCOVERY ZONE
• GET INVOLVED

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

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - February 2005

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.

Update on G8/2005

1. Graham Stegmann introduced the update on G8/2005. Good progress had been made in setting the agenda and DFID engagement.

2. Four key events (publication of the Sachs and High Level Panel reports, the Commission for Africa (CfA) draft report, and the G8 Sherpas meeting) had taken place since the Board's last session on '2005' in October 2004. These provided a strong base for following country-based approaches, which was supported by DFID. However, there was some tension between this and working through vertical institutions and funds preferred by some other donors. Similarly, there was debate about the relative allocation of additional funds between fragile states and good performers.

3. DFID needed to reach a final view on desired concrete deliverables from the Millennium Review Summit and how to respond to the CfA. And we needed to discuss with the Treasury sources of additional finance.

4. In discussion, the Board:

a. welcomed the progress. Outstanding 'loose ends' should be reduced as far as possible. It would not be possible to tie them up entirely since many were largely dependent on others outside DFID;
b. noted that it was committed to further support 2005 efforts, and invited the 2005 Unit to be more directive. A core script on the priorities and key messages would assist Board members;
c. noted concerns that the Department as a whole was not sufficiently aware or engaged on the 2005 agenda. The Board questioned whether enough was being done to prioritise and mobilise staff on 2005. Having a clearer sense of what success would look like to external contacts would help focus and engage the Department more broadly;
d. noted the need to manage the tension between country-led approaches versus working through vertical institutions.

5. In conclusion, the Board:

a. thanked Graham Stegmann for the update;
b. on clarification of priorities and risks:

i. agreed progress had been made on clarifying priorities and observed that it would not be possible to tie up all loose ends/issues in advance;
ii. advised that more needed to be done on internal mobilisation of key people / teams. Graham Stegmann and Nick Dyer would need to quickly work on this with Masood Ahmed, Minouche Shafik and Directors. Clarity was needed on which teams should to be mobilised;
iii. agreed communications (internal and external) needed further improvement. The team should define what success would look like;
iv. agreed that these policy and programme issues should be further dealt with at a dedicated session at the next Board meeting (16 March). The meeting would also consider resource risks. Graham Stegmann would produce a paper for the meeting. An outcome would be the development of a core script for Board executive members;

c. agreed with the principle of making 10-year commitments to selected countries and noted that Dave Fish and Charlotte Seymour-Smith were taking this work forward;
d. noted the tension between country-led approaches and using vertical institutions. A pragmatic solution would be to agree that DFID's default position was to operate through a country-led approach, whereas some other donors would tend to work through vertical institutions. This division of labour would allow for funds to be channelled through vertical institutions for short-term support, whilst simultaneously supporting capacity building of appropriate institutions in the longer-term. This would need to be discussed further with Ministers. The CfA should be encouraged to focus on better institutions;
e. agreed that Suma Chakrabarti would raise with his HMT counterpart the importance of close working at the senior level to ensure a consistent approach and messages, to agree on the 6 key deliverables for 2005, and DFID's greater involvement on financing discussions. Graham Stegmann would provide briefing points;
f. noted that the Board would review in January 2006 what had been achieved against the list of goals that had been set for the 2005 Presidencies.

Update on EU Presidency

6. Nick Dyer introduced the update on preparatory plans for the EU Presidency. Planning was on track. Major developments since the last discussion included the publication of the UK-Luxembourg 2005 Work Programme; the arrival of a new European Commission; and a successful 'assurance visit' by the Cabinet Office European Secretariat.

7. The grid of emerging EU deliverables set out a lot of choices to be made. Many of these would become clearer following the meeting of EU Development Ministers on 25-26 April. A longer session focused on deliverables would be needed after this. The main risks were: OGDs' priorities dominating the Africa agenda; the handling of EDF10; civil society's expectations; the timing of Development Councils; and the possible impact of an election.

8. In discussion, the Board:

a. thanked Nick Dyer for the update;
b. advised that the Presidencies offered a key lesson learning opportunity. The team should have benchmarks against which DFID could measure its achievements. 9. In conclusion, the Board:

a. agreed that the EDF replenishment and Development Policy Statement presented the most critical risks in the areas for which DFID was accountable. Consideration was also needed on the implications for EU business of the run up to the referendum on the EU Constitution;
b. agreed that there was no need for EUD to establish an internal Presidency steering committee in addition to its current arrangements, as requested by the Cabinet Office. EUD would relay this to the Cabinet Office;
c. noted that the Trade Ministerial needed greater focus more urgently that had previously been thought. The team would address this.

Annual Diversity Plan

10. Kamaljit Kerridge-Poonia introduced the session on Diversity. The Annual Diversity Report 2005, which followed a new format, set out the progress made against priorities identified last year. The Board were invited to comment on the new format and advise whether the team's work was on course.

11. In discussion, the Board:

a. noted that the HRC had seen the Report and background papers ahead of the meeting and were content;
b. welcomed the progress made, and the way this had been presented in the report. The data was very useful;
c. advised that the language in the report tended still to be too technical. It should be written in more generalist style for the report to be an effective communication and engagement document,
d. noted that now systems and processes had been addressed, attention needed to be focused on the second stage: tackling behaviours and attitudes;
e. acknowledged the breadth of issues covered and the need for greater focus.

12. In conclusion, the Board:

a. thanked all those who had contributed to this very good piece of work. Strong progress had been made;
b. requested that next year the team aim for a report written in an even more accessible way;
c. asked that a prioritised action plan focused on core business planning areas be developed. This would help mainstream the work;
d. noted that the data on how DFID was performing on the range of diversity issues, especially disability, gender, and flexible working was useful. It would be interesting to consider the links with how DFID was developing with what was being done through the efficiency agenda.

Quarterly Management Report

13. Richard Calvert introduced the headline issues of the fourth Quarterly Management Report and update on the Corporate Risk Register. He referred the Board to the recommendations and issues in the covering paper for discussion.

14. In discussion, the Board:

a. observed with concern the significant decline in PCR compliance across all Divisions in the last 6 months. The Board agreed that the only way to guarantee completion was to introduce an automated IT system that made completion mandatory (e.g. similar to that for OPRs);
b. noted the reduction in the suspense balance, but agreed the need for more effort to reduce both the number and age of items;
c. welcomed Liz Davis' observation that the Department was becoming more positive towards the cluster system as it bedded down. Approximately 80% of managers had got their first or second choice of applicant in the last round. A review of the cluster system would be desirable, but the timing could fit with the wider HR transformation programme. It should be focused and light-touch, to avoid putting greater pressure on HR;
d. supported having agreed milestones on headcount. Liz Davis had started work on this with all Directors. The Headcount targets remained one of the most challenging of the efficiency targets facing DFID over the next 3 years. The Board would want to give the issue a strong focus;
e. agreed with the recommendation for a more systematic review of the risk register. The Board would welcome a fresh look at the external risks in particular;
f. agreed that the Board would want to look at HIV/AIDS delivery in the next QMR, given that the disjoint between the Divisions' confidence that the targets would be met and the spending shortfall.

15. In conclusion, the Board:

a. thanked Richard Calvert and the team for their good work on the QMR and Risk Register;
b. asked Finance Division to develop a system that guaranteed completion of PCRs. Noted that Minouche Shafik would continue to work with Regional Divisions to push project scoring;
c. advised that a target should be set for outstanding suspense to be eradicated after 12 months. Richard Calvert would work with Minouche Shafik on this;
d. agreed to a review in due course of the cluster system. It should focus on the 20% of posts that were not filled/did not get preferred bids with the aim of developing a toolkit on how to manage this;
e. asked that the QMR include data on headcount target reductions by Department (giving figures, timeframe and milestones);
f. agreed that tracking of external risks needed more work. Richard Calvert would consider how to manage this, closely involving the non-Executive Directors in the review;
g. noted the disjoint on HIV/AIDS. Masood Ahmed and Minouche Shafik would address this once the external risk tracking system had been agreed;
h. noted that Mark Lowcock and Minouche Shafik were to meet separately on portfolio quality.

Next 3 Years - progress report

16. Mark Lowcock presented an update, drawing the Board's attention to 4 issues:

whether the vision still looked right;

where DFID stood on the main elements;

how effectively the agenda had been communicated and mainstreamed;

and the main areas to address over the next few months.

17. In discussion, the Board:

a. agreed with Mark Lowcock's conclusions;
b. observed the importance of having a known title/phrase to capture the different elements of the change agenda. Whilst acknowledging it would take time to establish the 'brand', more focus should be given to promoting awareness and understanding of the Next 3 Years;
c. noted the need to work with the SCS to address the performance management agenda more broadly across the Department.

18. In conclusion, the Board:

a. thanked Mark Lowcock for his summary. It set a useful template to follow for future;
b. noted that staff were broadly aware of N3Y content, but not the 'label'. Developing performance indicators and milestones would help staff identify and engage with N3Y brand. Mark Lowcock would take this forward. Understanding should be tested again once the finalised RAR announcement was issued;
c. welcomed the progress made on the main elements of the N3Y, e.g. with Quest, the Blue Book, and Aries, but agreed that further challenges lay ahead;
d. noted that engagement with Whitehall had improved overall, but that we still needed to be vigilant against threats to DFID's mission.