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

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

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.

Meeting on 25 and 26 January 2005

15:30 - 17:30

Directors Delivery Plan Review
Asia	Africa	EMAD	Policy
CKSD	ETID	UNCHD	HR
FCPD
Attendees		Suma Chakrabarti (Chair) Mark Lowcock, Minouche Shafik, Bill Griffiths, Helen Ghosh, Masood Ahmed
Observing		Staff in Palace Street, Abercrombie House and (at a maximum) 9 overseas offices (21 in total)

Asia Division (AsD)

In introducing AsD's DDP Charlotte Seymour-Smith:

emphasised her and country offices' strong ownership of the DDP;

explained that Asia Division was changing in response to corporate priorities and the Asian context;

identified the key challenges as developing coherent but flexible planning; reprioritisation; improving risk management; and the quality of management;

noted that although the tsunami was currently a high priority issue, it did not dominate the DDP. DFID's response would be evidence based, proportionate and manageable. Asia Division would continue to support existing priorities, especially conflict reduction and harmonisation.

In summarising the discussion, the Board:

thanked Charlotte Seymour-Smith and her team for the DDP;

welcomed the efforts already made on human resources (HR); strategy; and portfolio focus, and harmonisation. However, there was a need for further prioritisation. Consideration of costs and benefits should help AsD to prioritise efforts on building relationships with other agencies;

agreed with the aim to exit our bilateral programme in Cambodia in the long term. The proposed programme allocation would be revisited to ensure it fitted with the changing nature of DFID's engagement, which involved working increasingly through multilaterals;

appreciated AsD's approach to risk management, and agreed now that regional programmes needed to work further with corporate departments in improving portfolio quality. AsD needed to be clearer about (a) what the programme consequences would be if risks materialised; and (b) systematic about risk analysis and links to portfolio performance. AsD would work on this with Finance and Corporate Policy Division (FCPD), Mark Lowcock and Nemat Shafik;

recognised the differences across divisions on issues affecting budget support and fiduciary risk (e.g. corruption, PFM, wider public sector reform issues and the level of donor engagement). However, DFID needed to have a consistent approach to these issues across regions, and AsD was currently taking a more restrictive approach than others in some cases;

welcomed the supplementary note on the Tsunami. The overall impact on GDP and poverty in Asia would not be very significant. We would make a careful assessment of our own contribution, assess that from others, and promote World Bank leadership within a more harmonised approach;

noted that although gender work had been embedded across AsD, it needed to be brought out more explicitly in the DDP. Gender issues continued to be key to tackling off-track MDGs and more may need to be done by AsD;

discussed AsD's connections with other parts of the Department. The Board noted Policy Division's (PD's) help developing tools to support various aspects of AsD's work, but agreed more help was needed with implementing new policy initiatives. AsD was encouraged to continue engagement with PD, Communication and Knowledge Sharing Division (CKSD), the Chief Scientist, and EMAD (with which AsD shared many policy similarities);

accepted the HR strategy and proposed sequencing. Points on HMG constraints on pay and strategy, and SAIC recruitment and retention were noted. AsD needed to define more clearly the mix of skills required, for both UK and SAIC staff, across the range of countries it operated in; it would take forward this work with HR and other regional Divisions;

welcomed the DDP's handling of Quest and Catalyst;

welcomed the Director's judgement that the DDP deliberables were achievable within the resource envelope, although further prioritisation and efficiency savings might be necessary. Post-tsunami reconstruction costs for 2006/07 and 2007/08 would be taken forward within the Divisional allocation.

Africa Division (AfD)

In introducing AfD's DDP Dave Fish:

thanked his team for their efforts in putting together the DDP;

emphasised the importance of 2005 for Africa;

highlighted progress towards peace and democracy, as well as the importance of supporting the African Union (AU) and New Plan for Africa's Development (NEPAD) on government reform programmes;

noted that a high proportion of additional money will go to Nigeria, DRC and Ethiopia because of their strategic importance in achieving MDG targets in Africa as a whole;

explained the rationale for the forthcoming fundamental review of staffing in each of AfD's offices;

noted that the AfD worked well with the FCO, and had some excellent examples of cooperation over difficult issues.

In summarising the discussion, the Board:

thanked Dave Fish and his team for the DDP;

agreed that DFID needed a clear position on the Commission for Africa (CfA) report ahead of its final publication in March. AfD would submit views as a starting point for discussions;

noted the Division's planned focus on fragile states and difficult environments, in particular on: opening new offices; ensuring AfD had the right mix of skills; and on working with the military;

welcomed the continued prioritisation of PRBS and strengthening the fiduciary environment. The Board thought that a stronger programme of complementary measures, including technical assistance for accountability institutions (e.g. Auditor Generals) was needed;

noted that the Director would focus his country visits on monitoring and managing progress against the MDGs and, in particular, those that were off track;

observed that DDP was very good at laying out challenges and analysis but needed to be more explicit on the how it handle the resulting management and delivery challenges. The Board noted that Graham Teskey was currently reviewing the level of management support required by the Director;

asked for a note on the contingency plan if all three high probability/high impact risks were to be realised;

welcomed the forthcoming staffing review;

noted the Division's improved relationships with PD, although agreed that links between PD and country offices should be further developed;

asked AfD to reconsider carefully the proposed level of unallocated resources in 2006/07 and 2007/08. AfD would discuss with FCPD;

agreed to further improve the Board's visibility throughout AfD.

Europe, Middle East and Americas Division (EMAD)

In introducing EMAD's DDP Martin Dinham:

thanked his team for their contributions and emphasised his full ownership and responsibility for the Plan's implementation;

emphasised EMAD's delivery of cutting edge and innovative work despite the large number of programme closures;

highlighted forthcoming challenges, including:

focus on key sectors;

progress on partnership with the EC;

Middle East peace process;

moving forward on Iraq;

improving performance, and demonstrating added value and defining sharp ways to measure progress.

In summarising the discussion, the Board:

thanked Martin and EMAD for the DDP and opening points. The Board recognised that EMAD had been implementing a substantial change programme and delivering on a high profile policy agenda, e.g. Middle East and Iraq;

noted the proposed prioritisation of the Overseas Territories, Iraq, and MEPP;

agreed that a more focused approach, based on comparative advantage, was required in all country programmes. This included a move to joint offices wherever possible to maximise harmonisation opportunities and minimise the costs of running small DFID offices;

encouraged continued close working with FCO on the Middle East Peace Process. The Board asked the Division to prepare a paper on the Middle East to guide DFID's involvement ahead of the 1 March meeting;

encouraged the development of EMAD as a "centre of excellence" for influencing; good management practice, and work with Whitehall and multilaterals. In line with this, the Board endorsed EMAD's greater emphasis on a staffing profile with higher numbers of senior staff with influencing skills rather than on project cycle management skills;

recognised that the proposed headcount cut would require careful management;

noted the need for greater connections with PD and Europe, Trade and International Division (ETID);

welcomed EMAD's approach to bedding in Catalyst and QUEST, and its communication strategy;

welcomed the use all three risk categories in the risk matrix, but concluded that the matrix should be slimmed down. EMAD would develop broad risk mitigation strategies along with 6-monthly stocktakes with identified risk managers;

noted that the anticipated reduction (£20 million) of programme spend in Iraq should enable other LIC commitments to be met in 2005/06;

agreed to provide continued assistance with EMAD's prioritisation efforts and development as a centre of excellence.

Policy Division (PD)

In introducing PD's DDP Sharon White:

noted that the DDP was a joint effort between the management team;

said PD had 'bedded-in' as a Division and was now focused on the substance of its work. There were still some difficult issues to resolve around the centralised nature of PD, and its operation in a decentralised organisation;

said PD would take forward a discussion with the Development Committee on meeting the competing demands of different stakeholders and increasing its focus. An area for further focus was the implementation of its policy strategies. It would also want to improve its financial management and clarify the role of Heads of Profession.

In summarising the discussion, the Board:

thanked Sharon White for the DDP and welcomed the progress PD had made since last year. The improved management structure had worked well. The Board agreed financial management needed further work and welcomed PD's commitment to that. Lines of responsibility needed to be clear within the revised structure. Clarifying the role, position and status of the HOPs was an important element of this;

noted there were several areas that needed attention relating to prioritisation and comparative advantage. These included better recording of the time spent on different areas of work; prioritising the deliverables in 2005; and engaging with the Development Committee in both setting priorities and agreeing the level and depth of engagement with other divisions. There was a concern that the rate of policy development outstripped the absorption capacity of the rest of the organisation;

noted that work on gender would be maintained and assume greater importance for senior management in PD;

noted the progress made in building connections with other divisions but that further work was needed. Increased collaboration and synchronisation with Evaluation Department, in particular, would be useful. The Board welcomed the development of links with the Chief Scientific Adviser;

noted PD's key role in representing DFID with a range of external partners. PD and its staff need to be able to manage the pressures for additional resources that arose through these interactions. Richard Calvert would take forward a discussion with PD and others to resolve outstanding pressures;

agreed a small positive adjustment was needed in administrative resources to ensure key priorities could be met;

noted that the policy coherence review would make recommendations on the roles of PD and the regional policy units, and looked forward to the Development Committee's appraisal of the work.

Communication and Knowledge Sharing Division (CKSD)

In introducing CKSD's DDP, Joy Hutcheon:

explained CKSD had only come into being the previous week, and that the DDP was likely to evolve as the Division established itself;
outlined that CKSD's overall priority was delivering the objectives of each of the Departments within CKSD;
noted that the DDP currently appeared compartmentalised; CKSD would look for higher-level synergies in the future, for example through the drawing together the broader issues around knowledge which applied across the Division;
noted that staff had high levels of expectation regarding what CKSD could deliver; the Division looked forward to delivering on this.

In summarising the discussion, the Board:

thanked Joy Hutcheon for her introduction and for the work of all those involved in preparing the DDP. The Board welcomed the Division's enthusiasm in taking the DDP forward, including within the individual business units which it noted had become much stronger in the last year;

noted that CKSD would work with departments to explore common themes and how to push ahead with the knowledge agenda;

observed that relationships with external research and civil society organisations had improved. However, more work was needed on the handling of groups who had applied unsuccessfully for funds through better handling of grant programmes and management of expectations;

advised that the proposed Development Committee paper on Faith and Development should be action orientated and set out a clear position for DFID;

agreed that the Division would put forward a communications strategy for DFID for discussion with the Board by mid-2005;

noted that spending in research would be largely focused in the four key areas of: climate change; killer diseases; agriculture; and key policy work that encouraged States to be pro-poor;

commended Evaluation Department's commitment to produce faster, real-time evaluations, such as that planned for the HIV/AIDS strategy. Board members would each champion pieces of work. Further effort was needed to ensure that conclusions from evaluations were taken up and acted upon across. This would be helped by ensuring that work was relevant and useful to other divisions; coordination with Policy Division would assist in this;

agreed that the Chief Scientific Adviser would be a key resource for the Division and would help with CKSD's connections within the DFID, including links with country offices and PD;

welcomed the improvements in the recruitment and retention of staff which had been reflected in higher levels of performance. This trend needed to be continued, including through increased career development opportunities for specialised posts;

agreed that CKSD would finalise resource issues with Richard Calvert and FCPD, but were committed to delivering the DDP with the resources made available;

agreed that Board members would take forward key CKSD themes in their visits to country offices and assist with promotion across the Department.

Europe, Trade and International Division (ETID)

In introducing ETID's DDP, Peter Grant :

thanked everyone in ETID who had worked on the DDP;

noted that ETID was a new Division covering a range of policy issues, trade, debt, international architecture and MIC policy. It would engage closely with other parts of HMG on this agenda;

said that work was going well on debt and multilateral effectiveness; progress had also been made

in conjunction with the FCO on EU effectiveness;

noted priorities in 2005 included the EU presidency and the Doha trade round in December, and the following strategic themes:

declining share for the multilaterals in DFID's budget;

EU relationship;

working with others;

upgrading skills to deliver ETID's agenda and that of the Department more broadly;

There would also be strong links with the 'make poverty history' campaign, which covered key areas of ETID's work.

In summarising the discussion the Board:

thanked Peter Grant and his team for the DDP;

agreed to use the Permanent Secretary's network to showcase the National Audit Office (NAO) study on joint targets to encourage engagement by other government departments;

agreed further work was needed to define the Division's priorities. Masood Ahmed would take this forward with ETID;

welcomed ETID's approach to gender issues, especially plans for additional staff capacity;

noted the analysis in the DDP on trends in multilateral spending. The Board requested a paper on the multilateral share of DFID's budget for discussion with Ministers shortly after the expected election;

advised that ETID continue to work with regional divisions on the effectiveness of multilaterals. Joint Country Assistance Plans provided a good opportunity for this, but a more systematic process was needed in terms of feedback and actions, with the World Bank in particular. The UK delegation in Washington should be asked to give this greater priority;

welcomed the commitment to flexibility across the international divisions. International Development and Advisory Department (IDAD) had a critical role in supporting this, and should develop as a model of how resources could be shared across divisions;

noted that ETID should promote joint work, including through joint submissions, with the regional divisions. For example, work on multilaterals in which both ETID and EMAD were engaged and shared a common agenda;

asked ETID to produce a joint note on skills upgrading with HRD and UNCHD in response to the changing staffing requirements (increased emphasis on influencing skills and senior level interaction with other governments and organisations);

welcomed the focus and management of risk, including the use of the risk table to guide resource allocation. The DDP should be explicit on who risk owners were and holding them to account. The Board would work with the Division on mitigation of political risks;

agreed that administrative resource issues and programme allocations would be managed through a follow up meeting with FCPD. The Board acknowledged pressure in headcount figures. Both ETID and UNCHD would be expected to meet the headcount target by the end of the current spending review period.

United Nations, Conflict and Humanitarian Division (UNCHD)

In introducing UNCHD's DDP, Jim Drummond:

thanked everyone who had worked on the DDP;

noted that UNCHD was a new Division with a wide agenda that included UN reform;

noted he had been impressed by CHAD's operational capacity to deal with emergencies;

explained that UNCHD will build on the Multilateral Efficiency Framework (MEFF) which had already started to promote change the UN systems;

outlined the key challenges ahead as:

humanitarian issues and their handling by the international system;

UN reform and agreeing the extent to which UNCHD should prioritise work on UN architecture. This would be informed by how the UN operated at country level and regional divisions response to it;

conflict prevention and fragile states, and how to anticipate and engage with the rest of Whitehall on these issues;

post conflict and how to build up the Post Conflict Reconstruction Unit (PCRU) in a way that is operationally useful to DFID, Whitehall and external partners;

coherence and management within UNCHD.

In summarising the discussion the Board:

thanked Jim Drummond and his team for the work put into the DDP;

asked for further details on the management plan for developing UNCHD's role and its capacity to deal with management hotspots;

welcomed clarity on the top three priorities: the important work led by CHAD on reforming the international humanitarian system; reform of the UN at the country level; and the range of management challenges. The Board were comfortable with a reduced level of ambition on the policy agenda given the extent of the capacity building and management work. UNCHD would review the agenda with Masood Ahmed mid-2005;

noted that work on conflict prevention needed to be more strategic. The PCRU & CHAD-OT needed to be flexible to deal effectively with difficult situations. The Board noted the complex accountability arrangements for PCRU and implications that had for engagement with other parts of Whitehall. This would need to be looked at as part of the review of PCRU's work and resourcing before the 2006 Spending Round;

observed that UNCHD needed to assess further work required across Government to ensure progress on the PSA conflict joint target. The upcoming National Audit Office report on joint targets would provide a focus for this work;

noted that PD's policy coherence review would help UNCHD to explore connections with other division. UNCHD would also work with Nemat Shafik and country teams on UN reform;

agreed programme and administrative resources would be discussed further with FCPD.

Human Resources Division (HRD)

In introducing the HRD's DDP, Liz Davis:

welcomed the opportunity to have an open discussion on the DDP and get the Board's perspective on identified issues;

said the DDP covered all of HR business, including corporate issues; overseas pensions; work with the SCS group; and office services;

said HR priorities would be added to the DDP once the DDPs of all other divisions were finalised.

In summarising the discussion, the Board:

thanked Liz Davis and her team for the DDP;

agreed the need for a skills strategy for DFID, which would feed into a cross-government strategy;

agreed that the skills matrix used for SCS staff should be rolled out to Directors;

noted more work was needed for DFID to meet Whitehall's targets for diversity. Mark Lowcock, Suma Chakrabarti and Liz Davis would have a further discussion on the diversity strategy;

noted the summary of the future management of HR that "managers decide, HR advises". The consequences required a cultural change within DFID;

noted the need to consider the differences in organisational culture between the two headquarters as the relocation of staff and activities continues;

welcomed the change programme in HRD and the ongoing work to develop a network of HR professionals in Abercrombie House;

welcomed the progress on security;

noted the need for further work on the performance management process;

welcomed the Division's commitment to ensuring the Board received reliable and appropriate HR management and performance information for the QMR and the ongoing development of key performance indicators;

welcomed the Division's view that it could deliver the DDP within their resource allocation;

agreed to support HR as it began to operate differently including delivering key HR messages on prioritisation and the changing nature of HR when visiting country offices.

Finance and Corporate Policy Division (FCPD)

In introducing the FCPD's DDP, Richard Calvert:

highlighted FCPD's responsibility for delivering a core set of services to DFID; taking forward corporate objectives such as PSA delivery, portfolio performance; and promoting good performance management;

noted that the introduction of ARIES was the key management challenge over the next three years, and part of a series of changes to core functions;

emphasised that FCPD was aiming for a more sophisticated approach to customer service.

In summarising the discussion, the Board:

thanked Richard Calvert and his team for a focused DDP, and facilitation of the overall DDP process;

noted the two roles of FCPD - core services and the corporate agenda. The Board agreed with the strategy to embed corporate objectives within divisions, but would also like FCPD to be both systematic and opportunistic in reinforcing corporately agreed lines;

noted the continued prioritisation of resource management, and welcomed improved information on DFID's administrative cost base;

noted the challenges implicit in implementing ARIES and ensuring that the Departmental Finance Officer network was working effectively;

agreed with the continued focus on corporate risk management, including more work on mitigation strategies. The Board also asked for stronger connections between the Corporate Risk Register, and the PSA and DDPs;

noted FCPD's work with regional divisions and PD on Public Financial Management issues and highlighted the need for more clarity on balance of responsibilities;

noted the need for FCPD to take forward energetically work to improve portfolio performance across the Divisions;

asked the Division to take forward work on embedding knowledge and understanding of the International Development Act throughout the organisation;

noted that FCPD expected to be able to achieve the deliverables within the resources to be allocated, factoring in significant headcount reductions.

Anna Morgan
Management Board Secretary