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

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 12 July 2005

15.15 - 17.15  Location: PS

Quarterly Management Review (QMR)

1. Simon Gill outlined the QMR's new format and increased focus, which aimed to increase the document's usefulness as a management tool. ISD had done a tremendous job at revising the way data was managed, which had enabled the team to put the QMR together much more efficiently. Areas for further development were refining indicators, and making the Report relevant as a performance management framework at a Divisional, as well as corporate, level. The team would continue to work with Directors on this.

2. The Board was asked to note the headline messages and advise on appropriate management actions; and, to give feedback on the new format.

3. In discussion, the Board:

•  On headline messages:
  
  i. noted that the criteria by which Departments' performance on efficiency was rated were in practice being tightened. The consequence was that DFID, like other Departments, was likely to receive a lower rating for the latest reporting period, despite being broadly on course with its efficiency agenda. FCPD was following up on this with the Office of Government Commerce;
  ii. was very pleased to see the significant improvement on the PCR completion rate. The next step would be to focus more on the value for money indices themselves. It would be useful to have analysis on whether the trajectory in this area was yet heading in the right direction;
  iii. welcomed the continuing reduction in the vacancy rate, and observed that the first cluster in 2005 had been the most successful;
  
  
•  On feedback on the new format:
  
  i. advised that the front cover graphics should link more clearly to DFID's business (i.e. working towards the MDGs and PSA);
  ii. the inside cover should explain the report and its purpose, which was essentially to: i. set out and report progress against the outcomes we worked to achieve; and, ii. outline measures and issues relating to DFID's capacity and reputation and how to further improve the organisation;
  iii. that a better logical flow for the data might be to arrange it into three sections: i. "reputation" in terms of headline messages and actions (e.g. management of capacity and performance on the PSA); ii. delivery of results (based on our PSA objectives and targets, which were in turn linked to the MDGs); iii. capacity to meet the target outcomes (building on the seven Centres of Excellence);
  iv. each section should categorise data into two headings: issues for action now, and information for reference but not requiring detailed attention. The distinction between key issues and questions was blurred, and these could be brought together;
  v. each section should have a clear headline, as previous versions had done;
  vi. investigate ways to further refine the measures used.

4. In conclusion, the Board:

•  On headline messages:
  
  i. advised that the summary should be more directive in signposting issues for immediate attention and discussion that quarter, and those which were ongoing issues that could be looked at in slower time. The summary should also be more strategic and forward-looking, e.g. in raising multilateral issues;
  ii. noted concern about the extent to which we were off track on the PSA target for Africa. The Management Board would have a meeting with the Africa team's senior management in September to review progress with implementation of the Africa DDP;
  iii. agreed that the Leadership Group meeting in September would consider the issues around the current headcount trajectory, and corrective action needed, as part of its discussion of the Strategic Framework paper;
  iv. advised that the summary of management data for PSA countries (captured in Annex 4) was very helpful. It would be useful to include the number of approved activities being managed in each country programme to assist comparisons across countries and regions;
•  On feedback on the new format:
  
  i. thanked the team for their work. The QMR had improved and was more focused;
  ii. agreed the Corporate Risk Register should be incorporated into the QMR as proposed;
  iii. advised that Richard Calvert and his team should consider the detailed comments given above and incorporate as appropriate.

Corporate Risk Register

5. Richard Calvert introduced the session, noting the intention that the corporate risk register would in the future be incorporated into the QMR. This should therefore be viewed as an interim update and would be the last time the Risk Register was handled in this way.

6. The paper outlined work on the wider risk programme both internally and across Whitehall. The Board was asked to comment on the range of issues relating to taking forward risk management in DFID.

7. In discussion, the Board: a. noted that Minouche Shafik was working with regional Divisions on how to improve risk management in country offices to enable them to better advise Ministers;

8. In conclusion, the Board:

a. agreed the shape of the new register;
b. agreed the proposal of dividing the Political Will risk into two: one for partner governments and one for the international system;
c. advised that the list of specific issues very usefully helped the Board get further into thinking about risk management, and agreed with the recommendations made;
d. agreed that the current arrangements for the management of risk in the Department were broadly appropriate. Work on a medium term strategy would help the Management Board and Ministers engage on broader risks, e.g. climate change;
e. suggested that we explore how to make discussions on risk management more engaging, and advised that we draw from the HMRC Board's recent session. Richard Calvert would follow up;
f. noted that Gail Marzetti was moving onto a new post, and thanked her for her work 'upping the game' on risk management.

Management Survey 2005

9. Mark Lowcock gave a summary of the Human Resources Committee (HRC) discussion of the Survey, which had taken place that morning. The HRC had agreed the headline was that most staff felt that on most measures they were well managed most of the time. It had strongly agreed with the areas identified for development: performance management; quality of feedback; weakness on induction; and poor analysis of the impact of training.

10. We needed to be clear how the Department would follow up on the conclusions from the Survey. At a Divisional level, Directors would be asked to digest findings and set out proposed follow up to Liz Davis by the end of September. Issues at a corporate level (e.g. performance management and induction) would be dealt with through the HR transformation programme and the People Strategy. The Survey (including a summary of qualitative data against an alphabetised list of Departments) would be put on inSight next week under a cover note from the Management Board, outlining the process for responding to the conclusions. Discussions on how to improve the methodology and other related issues for future surveys would be managed by the HRC.

11. In conclusion, the Board:

a. agreed with the HRC's recommended approach for publication and response. Directors should take the conclusions from the Survey very seriously, and ensure that issues were dealt with as needed;
b. noted the variation across teams. This was an indication not only of management style and effectiveness, which would need to be addressed, but also gave the Board a valuable indication of where resources and additional support may be required.

AOB: London Bombings: Management of Response Arrangements

12. Gary James gave an oral report on the Department's response following the London bombings on 7 July. The subscription to police information service meant the Security Section had been quickly alerted to events. Our response had been coordinated with COBR (Government's emergency coordinating group), although there had been limited amount of proactive advice from the centre.

13. The team was reviewing the business continuity plans, which would benefit from the extended back-up services available. Guidance to staff would be updated in line with the review. The building's security arrangements would also be assessed by security services in the next few weeks.

14. In conclusion, the Board:

a. thanked Gary James and his team for their good management of the situation following the bombings. The response had been handled well overall, and the Board had been very impressed with the systems and attitude of staff. Our work managing risks to staff and offices overseas had assisted the response in London;
b. observed that lack of proactive advice from the centre meant that decisions in the latter part of the day had had to be based largely on judgement. There were lessons for the centre in this, which Permanent Secretaries were likely to pick up at their next meeting. There were also specific lessons for DFID (e.g. to ensure COBR had the right contact details);
c. observed that the incident underlined the risks the Department faced; each day there were some 3,000 attacks on DFID's IT system.

AOB: Spending Review 2006

15. Richard Calvert confirmed that HMT were unable to say yet whether the SR06 round would take place next year, as previously expected. He would continue to keep the Board and Ministers updated, but preparations were in place should the Review go ahead.