DFID Management Board
Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - October 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 |
EU and G8 Presidencies |
Margaret Cund Nick Dyer Peter Taylor |
Update on DFID's preparatory plans for the Presidencies, and to resolve any obstructions |
A, B, C and D |
Autum Performance Report |
Helen Mealins Simon Gill Kerstin Hinds |
To agree the draft APR |
B, C and D |
Quarterly Management Report |
Helen Mealins Simon Gill Kerstin Hinds John Anning |
To consider the third quarter management report. The Corporate Risk Register update will be considered alongside this |
B, C and D |
Attendees: |
Suma Chakrabarti, Mark Lowcock, Minouche Shafik |
||
Apologies |
Bill Griffiths, Masood Ahmed |
||
Observing |
Bridget Crumpton, Billy Sterwart, Mel Speight and Duncan Hart |
||
Update on G8/2005
1. Margaret Cund introduced the update on G8/2005. The Secretary of State and Foreign Secretary would be sending a letter to Cabinet colleagues on how they viewed the twin track approach to development and security - the two areas that would come together at the UN Millennium Declaration Review Summit. The Secretary of State was currently considering the draft letter.
2. Good progress had been made in identifying high level aims and headlines for 2005. Work was now underway on the next level to agree specific deliverables and outcomes.
3. In discussion, the Board:
a. commented that the summary of 2005 Objectives outlined in Annex A was very helpful. It was important for all Divisions to engage in the 2005 agenda. Directors should specify in the DDPs how their Division would contribute to 2005 objectives;
b. questioned to what extent the conclusions from the Sachs report would be likely to have a bearing on the 2005 strategy;
c. felt that the Department was in good shape on process and resources, noting the strong team that was now in place to coordinate the 2005 work;
d. observed that it was important to view the year overall. Whilst the list of objectives for 2005 was good, two areas were suggested for further attention:
i. ways of locking in international commitment to the MDGs;
ii. ensuring that the right processes and arrangements were in place to follow up on the outcomes of the UK Presidency;
e. suggested that the outcome of the US election may have consequences for the UK Presidency. The team may want to review the objectives post-US election result.
4. In conclusion, the Board:
a. thanked Margaret Cund and the 2005 team for their work;
b. agreed that the process had been impressive. The Department was aware of the importance of 2005; now further work was needed on engagement. The DDPs offered a helpful way for Divisions to consider their role and come up with concrete outcomes. It was important to start work on this early. The 2005 team had an important role in supporting Directors and helping them brainstorm ideas;
c. agreed that the Board would give full support, as needed. In particular, Suma and Masood would attend 2005 meetings, as necessary.
Update on EU Presidency
5. Nick Dyer and Peter Taylor introduced the update on preparatory plans for the EU Presidency. Both process and resources were in good shape.
6. The UK would inherit a fairly specific agenda, so G8 deliverables would not migrate to the EU Presidency. It was important therefore to agree quickly what DFID would want to achieve. Some deliverables had been agreed, but these were not without risk. The slipping timeframe for EDF was a particular area of concern. Additionally, not being on the GSI network was becoming increasingly problematic for the Department. EUD was also concerned about the potential disruption caused by transferring to Catalyst during the Presidency period.
7. The Board were asked to consider whether there were any gaps in the preparatory plans and whether any major risks had been overlooked.
8. In discussion the Board:
a. noted that the DDP process offered a useful way for Divisions to think about how they would contribute to the EU Presidency priorities;
b. noted that EUD should keep in touch with the Catalyst and Quest teams on timing of the roll out, to ensure that EUD did not have any unnecessary disruption.
9. In conclusion the Board:
a. thanked Nick Dyer and Peter Taylor for the update;
b. confirmed that the objective for the EDF took precedence over the timetable. We should be ready to let the timetable slip if that proved necessary to achieve a more optimal output;
c. agreed that relevant DDPs should include coverage of how the Division would contribute to EU Presidency priorities. EUD would support Directors, including in identifying specific deliverables that Divisions could assist with.
Autumn Performance Report (APR)
10. Helen Mealins and Simon Gill introduced the APR, which needed to be agreed by the Board before being submitted to Ministers for approval.
11. The APR closely followed the model set in 2003, but there had been clear improvements in the content and presentation quality. The team had continued to be as explicit as possible in the APR, which outlined progress towards meeting the 2003-06 PSA targets; gave an analysis of off-track targets; and gave a final outturn against the targets in the 2001-04 PSA.
12. In discussion the Board:
a. noted that the APR was a key vehicle for managing performance;
b. agreed the importance of ensuring the sub-targets were clear;
c. noted the apparent inconsistency among some of the targets, for example that infant mortality figures had increased against a backdrop of reduced poverty. The Board acknowledged that there was a broader concern about a lack of theory underpinning some of the internationally agreed targets, and whether the right proxies were used to measure progress (e.g. on maternal mortality). This was an area for further debate. However, it was important to get clarification on measurement of health data from within DFID.
d. noted that resourcing for Iraq would have consequences for target five (section four), which should be explained in the cover note.
13. In conclusion the Board:
a. congratulated the Corporate Strategy Group for the excellent draft, and improvements made from the last APR;
b. asked Helen Mealins to speak to Stewart Tyson and Hans-Martin Boehmer to clarify the concerns around data for the health-related MDGs;
c. agreed the APR would be a useful tool to inform DDP discussions, and requested that Helen Mealins draft questions for the DDP Review;
d. agreed that the APR should be submitted to Ministers with the covering note giving details on the areas discussed by the Board.
Quarterly Management Report (QMR)
14. Helen Mealins, Simon Gill and John Anning introduced the third QMR, which was organised in four sections: Delivery; Managing Resources - Finance; Building for a Better future; and Risk Management. The updated Corporate Risk Register was considered alongside the QMR. Kerstin Hinds and Simon Gill explained the amendments proposed, which had been agreed in consultation with Regional Divisions, Policy Division and Mark Lowcock.
15. In discussion the Board:
a. agreed that further information was needed on the Delivery targets and the reasons for the changes in status. Regional Directors should use the APR and QMR as tools to assess what was happening in their Divisions;
b. emphasised the importance of the financial management issues. It:
i. welcomed the good progress on suspense accounts, whilst noting further progress is still needed;
ii. agreed that closer management by Directors and FCPD was needed to ensure that spending plans are adhered to and the ODA/GNI target met. The Board would want to be kept in touch on this;
iii. were very concerned to note that the compliance record for Project Completion Reports is deteriorating, and were keen to find ways to quickly reverse this trend, including by giving greater focus through the Risk Register. Minouche Shafik would take up separately with Regional Directors;
iv. noted the continued reduction in number of contracts managed by Procurement Department and the increased number of contracts cleared by OJEC competition going to non-UK suppliers. However, there would be resource implications for PrD for a reduction in contracting levels, which Richard Calvert should give thought to;
v. questioned whether further thinking was needed on the trade-off between meeting productivity targets with cuts on admininstration costs, versus ensuring we meet our fiduciary risk management objectives. This was also an area for broader consideration under the N3Y agenda, and to be considered during DDP discussions;
c. agreed in the Building for a Better Future section that the trend was in the right direction, although further work was needed to ensure that DFID had the right skills mix once the headcount figures had been finalised. We need to manage external recruitment in the short term to avoid compounding our longer term headcount management challenge. The Board would use the opportunity of the November SCS Leadership Conference to make sure that SCS members were aware of this.
16. In conclusion the Board:
a. thanked Helen Mealins, Simon Gill, John Anning and Kerstin Hinds for the very helpful papers;
b. asked that follow up action be taken as set out above.
