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 26 October 2005

15:00 - 17:30  

1. The Board congratulated Helen Ghosh on her recent appointment as Permanent Secretary of DEFRA. Helen thanked the Board. She was delighted to be able to continue to serve as a non-executive DFID board member.

2. Suma opened the meeting by noting two issues:

1. at the “Town Hall” meeting on Monday 24th October it was requested that more Board events were requested in AH. The next Board Meeting in Abercrombie House will be on 2nd March;
2. a Financial Management Review has just been conducted by the Treasury. Suma was pleased with the assessment of the Department. The conclusions were broadly positive. The recommendations outline a few areas for improvement.

3. Suma introduced the observers from Egon Zehnder who are currently conducting a review of the Management Board. This is based on structured interviews, observing the Board and comparative data from other board reviews and best practice. For more information see the Terms of Reference. Egon Zehnder are due to present their findings at the next Board meeting on 23rd November.

Communication Strategy Update

4. On the Communications Strategy update Joy Hutcheon asked the Board to:

• note progress on the communications strategy;
• raise questions on the deliverables or progress recorded against them;
• comment an any issues that have arisen since the strategy was agreed that should now be included – e.g. considering how we should engage with school children;
• provide feedback on performance where the strategy touches Board Members directly – in particular on press office performance and internal communications;
• comment on 3 strands of the strategy: DFID branding, Management Board visibility and enhancing the effectiveness of DFID county programmes. Veema Shah, Peter Riddlesdell and Sina Odugbemi introduced these subjects.

5. In discussion the Board:

• praised the progress which had been made in the last few months since the launch of the communications strategy. It was agreed that DFID media handling had improved markedly;
• thanked ISCD for focusing their attention on the few remaining key issues;
• requested greater prioritisation in the planned activities;
• noted that communications post-2005 will be a challenge. The only big communications event currently on our horizon is Asia 2015. Will that be enough to maintain the momentum? We will need to clearly articulate how we are doing and how we expect to deliver on the commitments made in 2005;
• asked if we should invest more resources in communicating in a continous manner with those working in development for part of their lifves, e.g.vso volunteers, ODI fellows, gap year students;
• asked ICSD to think further about the purpose of branding, and provide a fuller analysis setting out precisely what we might aim to achieve, and the risks and opportunities;
• noted that branding of our humanitarian assistance could increase its profile but that we needed to think carefully about how this was done. It was agreed that we ought to be more explict in the UK about DFID’s humanitarian relief inputs. A nd there was consensus that we should not be branding materials which would be left in the country after DFID had gone, such as jerry cans. ICSD were encouraged to draw a distinction in branding between temporary inputs (eg planes) and those with a longer life in the recipient country (eg food aid bags).We would want to reflect the “wholesale” as well as “retail” business. It was asked if should we require NGOs to acknowledge formally acknowledge the funding they receive from us;
• emphasised that they were working to improve internal communications. The Board felt it had some good examples of improved internal communications recently, including the Quest video and the “Town Hall” meetings.

6. In conclusion the Board:

• asked ICSD to think further about the purpose of branding, and provide a fuller analysis setting out precisely what we might aim to achieve, and the risks and opportunities;
• agreed to the recommendations on branding education and print material;
• concluded that more work was needed on the feasibility and costs of branding materials used in our humanitarian assistance;
• requested a short note be put up to ministers in November updating on progress on the strategy. ISCD will meet with Mark Lowcock again in the next couple of months to update on progress;
• agreed a note on developing and implementing good communications strategies in country offices should be put together. This should highlight current best practice;
• agreed a core script should be put together to ensure consistency and prioritisation of messages. It was suggested that the evaluation of staff perceptions of senior management should be included in the management survey.

Autumn Performance Report

7. Helen Mealins and Simon Gill introduced the APR, which needed to be agreed by the Board before being submitted to Ministers for approval. The APR closely followed the model set in 2004. It set out progress against the 2003-6 and the 2005-8 PSA targets.

8. In conclusion the Board:

• were broadly content with the APR;
• noted that there were a number of constraints in the formatting of the document as it needed to comply with HMT guidelines. Summary paragraphs were requested for the Africa and Asia targets to make the text clearer;
• asked if a number of the traffic light ratings could be revisited and verified
• all forward projections – are we confident of our predictions?;
• 05-08 Africa 1: amber-amber instead of amber-green?;
• 05-08 ODA: green-amber instead of green-green?;
• efficiency headcount: better than amber?;
• 05-08 conflict: amber-amber instead of amber-green?;
• 05-08 EC Aid: should it really be green-green?;
• requested the conflict text should be revised to be more strategic, shorter & less input-focused

Quarterly Management Report (QMR)

9. Helen Mealins, Simon Gill and Liz Davis introduced the QMR. They asked the Board to note the key headline messages, provide feedback on the format and to consider:

• how the Board encourages portfolio improvement and whether it wishes to periodically review performance of the top 50 programmes which have the biggest impact on the portfolio;
• how to continue to focus attention on managing headcount pressures during the forthcoming DDP review;
• whether further work could be undertaken with the international system to fulfil existing 2005 commitments and the scope to increase the level of bilateral engagement and partnership;
• how to ensure coherence between the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 07, the new White Paper and the development of a Medium Term Plan over the next nine months.

10. In discussion the Board:

• expressed concern at the lack of progress on portfolio quality;
• agreed that CSG should provide Directors with more detailed information, such as about VFM and compliance, to help them manage their portfolio. This should include information on VFM, compliance and the balance of portfolio risk;
• noted the latest statistics which highlight progress on reducing numbers and also on reducing vacancy rates. New data will be available at the end of October. Further information will be provided in the next QMR which will give projections on a divisional basis broken down by HCS and SAIC. There will also be information on skills and grades and gaps across Divisions;
• noted that work on CSR, the new White Paper and the development of a Medium Term Plan will take place sequentially and the Board will itself provide overarching governance for these work streams.

11. In conclusion the Board:

• agreed that they would look at further measures to incentivise more effective action to improve portfolio quality. This would be discussed further at the Leadership Group meeting on 7 November;
• agreed, as an interim measure, that the Board would look at portfolio ratings for the top 50 programmes;
• agreed that Directors should receive more detailed information to enable better comparisons across countries and groups;
• agreed that regional division VFM data should in future be incorporated in the QMR, rather than just the aggregate figures;
• requested that future QMRs contain divisional breakdowns of headcount trajectories. This should include breakdown by skill and grade. We should look to share best practice across of the organisation to assist offices in “doing more with less”. Some departments have already successfully undergone restructuring;
• agreed Mark Lowcock would set down a core script which covers our approach to Headcount reductions;
• emphasised that we need to be clearer on harmonisation challenges and debate on joint offices etc. The Board will look at which bilaterals we are focusing on in the DDP discussions in January. There had been discussions at the Development Committee on this.
• on the format of the QMR the Board requested:
• more information on audit. This would reinforce the links between the Board and the Audit Committee;
• that when traffic lights change in future versions, the narrative in the report should explain this;
• headings should be put on each traffic light column to clarify the difference between current and projected status.

Corporate Risk Register

12. Helen Mealins and Simon Gill asked the Board to approve the Corporate Risk Register

13. In conclusion the Board:

• noted that DFID had been commended by the centre for our approach risk management. It would be interesting to assess how far this was embedded below the SCS;
• endorsed the High-High rating for avian flu, and noted the action underway on that;
• recommended that internal policy coherence be removed from the risk register. Substantial progress had been made on this issue over the last few months;
• agreed that Corporate Strategy Group would organise an event in December to assess to what extent key risk messages had been embedded in the organisation. It was suggested that Minouche Shafik and Bill Griffiths should participate in this and that the event might focus on the management of risk in a particular environment. DRC was identified as a possible country context.

Anna Morgan
Management Board Secretary