DFID Management Board
Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - June 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 |
Transforming DFID's HR Function |
Owen Barder, Dave Fish, Richard Calvert |
To assess progress in applying the Gershon Efficiency Review agenda to HRD |
B and D |
Relocation and accommodation |
Owen Barder, Dave Fish, Sharon White, Graham Stegmann, Peter Grant, Richard Calvert |
To assesss progress with Phase I of DFID's relocation plans and approve plans for phase II |
B and D |
Doing the knowledge II |
Owen Barder, Dave Fish, Richard Calvert, Adrian Blundell |
To assess progress with this corporate knowledge sharing initiative |
Band C |
Attendees: |
Suma Chakrabarti, Mark Lowcock, Bill Griffiths, Minouche Shafik (by VC), Nicola Brewer |
||
Apologies |
Masood Ahmed |
||
Observing |
DFID Ethiopia, 25 further observers in person/AH |
||
Transforming DFID's HR Function
1. Dave Fish described the programme of measures to transform the Human Resource (HR) function and people management across DFID. These were based on the HR Director's Delivery Plan (DDP) and the principles outlined in "Strength to Strength", both of which identified a need for better people management in DFID and for HR Division (HRD) to become more closely aligned with DFID's core business and to improve its internal efficiency and performance. Progress had been made, and HRD now proposed to increase the pace and scope of reform in response to a number of internal and external imperatives:
a. the need better to equip DFID to meet its business objectives;
b. feedback from the departmental management surveys, the 360 degree feedback programme and the recent IIP re-accreditation process that there were still some areas for significant improvement in the Department's people management;
c. the freeze on DFID's administration costs budget over the three years to 2007/08 places an additional premium on all aspects of good management practice to ensure that DFID got the best value from its staff;
d. to secure further efficiencies and added value from the HR function itself, which carried out very high levels of transactional activity.
2. So whilst internal considerations were driving the direction of change, a major external force was driving the scale of the change. Under the Whitehall-wide Gershon Efficiency Review, DFID had to reduce its "back office" costs by some 20 to 30 per cent over the next five years.
3. The goal was a Department that put good people management and planning at the heart of its business; where managers, properly supported by HR professionals and good corporate policies and systems, took real responsibility for managing the work, performance and development of their staff; where individuals undertook their own personal transactions using simple and reliable e-enabled systems; and where back office HR services were effectively provided by an efficient and tightly managed central function.
4. Findings of an analysis by Deloitte and Touche had confirmed that the approach suggested by HRD would produce the savings envisaged. HRD staff had been fully consulted as the approach had been developed and the Trade Union Side had been kept informed.
5. In discussion the Board made the following points:
a) the programme should be prepared to look ambitiously at the level of business process change;
b) it was important that the Divisional HR Advisors reported to HRD and right that they advised on line management responsibilities rather than doing them for others;
c) in moving in the direction described by the programme, really good guidance for line managers would be vital and it was a good idea to get professional assistance in producing this;
d) there had been mixed feedback from staff on the use of clusters, as well as corporate pros and cons. Their use should be continued for another year and then reviewed;
e) mandatory training should be kept minimal and targeted carefully;
f) HRD should keep an eye on Whitehall trends on the use of assessment centres - and specifically for an analysis of whether they provided the most accurate predictor of future performance;
g) the potential for shared services with other Government Departments seemed small - for example because of the wide range of DFID's recruitment, or because of the relatively small, complicated payroll.
6. In conclusion the Board:
a) thanked HRD for an admirably clear paper;
b) endorsed the proposals for change set out in the paper;
c) noted that this programme was consistent with the results of the recent benchmarking survey which had looked at the HR functions of other organisations;
d) said that the programme should aim to produce staff reductions of 30% in HRD;
e) emphasised that this should be understood as a programme which would deliver benefits to the whole office;
f) agreed that HRD should develop a change management plan to implement the proposals;
g) accepted that the change programme would take two to three years. The Board noted that the proposals were consistent with HRD's budget for the next two years and agreed that further money would be available to support the change management project if necessary;
h) commented that this was change on a very large scale and would require very good coordination with other change management processes (especially Catalyst) and support across the Office. Success would also entail culture change, which should be supported by the Board and Leadership Group, but also by leaders throughout DFID, especially SCS and Band A managers. The Board accepted that the proposals would be painful or disconcerting for some and noted that clear leadership and effective communication should continue to be important features of the transformation programme.
Relocation and Accommodation
7. Owen Barder described proposals to address the ongoing pressures on DFID's accommodation in UK, and proposals for the second phase of posts to be relocated from London to Abercrombie House (AH).
8. In discussion the Board made the following points:
a) new approaches to external recruitment should be commenced now in order to ensure good applications for jobs in Abercrombie House;
b) time would be needed to allow almost entirely new teams in AH to get up to speed;
c) the accommodation proposals were the best possible given the constraints. Changes should be phased in so they could be adjusted along the way. It would be better to control the number of staff we have;
d) space budgets should be as rigid as financial ones.
9. In conclusion the Board:
a) thanked Information Division for a good paper;
b) endorsed the proposals for the second phase of relocation of posts from London to Abercrombie House;
c) nominated Sharon White to lead the relocation team on Owen Barder's departure;
d) noted the programme of key departmental moves over the coming year;
e) decided that Information Division should be more forward in pushing warm-desking across the office;
f) confirmed the medium term arrangements for the building at 20 Victoria Street, (keeping at least until the end of 2005, with a further review in late 04 whether to extend the lease beyond the end of 06);
g) mandated the Director General for Corporate Performance and Knowledge Sharing to agree the system of accommodation budgeting from 2005/06.
Doing the Knowledge II
10. David Ennis described progress on the action points identified in the paper Doing The Knowledge II (DTK2) that was approved by the Knowledge Sharing and Communication Committee in September 2002. Since DTK2 was written, knowledge sharing had increasingly become a core DFID value and senior staff had accepted formal responsibility for promoting knowledge sharing. Information Division had been created; and within that, the Business Transformation Unit (BTU) aimed to bring together work on knowledge methods and systems. Several new tools to promote knowledge sharing and learning had been introduced.
11. Staff increasingly understood that knowledge work was not an additional activity but central to the achievement of corporate, team and individual objectives. DTK2 had played an important part in promoting knowledge sharing and learning within DFID. Nevertheless, DFID needed to do more to deepen the changes in culture and behaviour.
12. Although DFID staff were active in sharing knowledge, they were less pro-active in learning. DFID had not created an environment in which staff have time or incentive to take on the knowledge of others. The focus of DFID's knowledge agenda was too inward-looking: we needed to consider in more depth the flows of knowledge across our institutional boundaries and how we could engage in Knowledge Management as a development activity, as opposed to an internal support function.
13. In discussion the Board made the following points:
a) there had obviously been good progress on knowledge sharing, though there was still further to go. Knowledge-sharing was a major element of Catalyst;
b) it was the right approach for knowledge management people in divisions to facilitate knowledge-sharing rather than solely doing it themselves.
14. In conclusion the Board:
a) thanked Information Division for a very interesting paper;
b) expressed a willingness to champion the existing activities set out in DTK2, to clarify for staff what DFID meant by being knowledge-based, and to deepen staff understanding of how this related to our achievement of the MDGs. Information Division needed to follow up with specific suggestions;
c) endorsed the view that DFID should, over time, seek to give greater emphasis to learning (and not just sharing) as a core value; and that we should be seeking to improve knowledge sharing across institutional boundaries;
d) recognised that Information Division could not give priority in 2004 to work on developing a framework of standards to enable us to track progress towards becoming a knowledge based organisation, nor to analytical work on the development of a new strategy which extended our internal work on knowledge sharing to a more outward model focused on collaborating with others. Information Division should revisit that conclusion in 2005.
