CDC - Partnership and Harmonization TWG

VI. Management & Workflow Challenges

6.1 An effective set of management and workflow processes will ensure that CRDB sets and meets its operational targets in an efficient manner. The objective for considering management and workflow challenges is therefore to identify where major components of work are not being optimally managed, or where some elements of the CRDB mandate are not fully addressed. It will then be possible to consider an approach to strengthening management and workflow arrangements.

6.2 It should be noted that the analysis presented here is of a preliminary nature and is necessarily somewhat subjective and qualitative. While it provides a useful complement to the objective capacity assessment work, it should be interpreted with caution and, ideally, subject to more in-depth diagnostic work that can develop a more objective analysis of management and workflow issues. This would include a more accurate assessment that promotes a greater understanding of the nature of any problems before recommending actions that might be taken.

6.3 There is no organisational workplan as such for CRDB and the principal set of management tools are the Harmonisation, Alignment and Results Action Plan, with its associated set of tasks, some of which are included in the Partnership and Harmonisation TWG Workplan (chaired by CRDB). The Joint Monitoring Indicators may also be considered a guide to the work of CRDB as it facilitates the underlying processes at GDCC (JMI monitoring) and TWG level (JMI setting) in preparation for the CDCF. This means that setting objectives and effective planning cannot be routinely undertaken by CRDB. In addition the H-A-R Action Plan and the JMIs are not monitored in a robust and analytical way so that they can be used to prioritise and guide the ODA-related activities of RGC.

6.4 The diagnostic work for this Strategy paper also indicated that almost none of the Department heads formulate any kind of plan for their Departments, and many of the staff do not have detailed job descriptions. At this level of management, therefore, there is a focus on day-to-day management of routine tasks, as opposed to focusing on matters of a more strategic nature. It was noted that most managers have advanced to their current positions by way of their technical abilities and few of them have received any specialised management training.

6.5 The main existing modality for performance management at an organisational level is through senior management meetings and during quarterly staff retreats, which allow for organisational and Departmental reflection on performance. There does not appear to be any routine staff management system in place, while management meetings are frequently postponed due to time constraints. Some heads of Departments have noted a gap between themselves and senior management that results in a lack of focus on organisational objectives and/or work of the Department being delegated elsewhere, creating inefficiency and confusion. This gap is a product of the inadequate management structures and the deployment of the Deputy Secretary General to other tasks.

6.6 Information sharing and knowledge generation is mainly promoted through quarterly workshops/retreats. However, a more institutionalised mechanism of monthly discussions on all aspects of CRDB work at the Directors' level has stalled. Also, similar information sharing and motivational seminars might be reconvened at the CRDB or Department level to develop self-confidence.

6.7 From an external perspective, the Functional Review noted the need to "constantly engage with other RGC ministries and agencies to ensure full observance of the provisions of SFDCM and the National Operational Guidelines in the management of development cooperation programs…until this is done, CRDB's functions and effectiveness would remain incomplete and unfulfilled." Improved processes for doing this are currently being considered as part of the GDCC-TWG Review.

6.8 Administrative support to management may also require further strengthening. It was noted in the interviews of staff in the Administration Department that they lack the basic skills necessary to perform their tasks (it was also noted that some of them are paying for their own training). Improved support to routine work functions – processing of exemptions, maintaining records, human resource management – might therefore be targeted at the Administration Department so that they can become a more effective support to management.

Workflow Issues

6.9 Workflow analysis is a process of analysing the nature of the tasks that are undertaken by an organisation, the rate at which the work is done and the manner in which it is managed. It provides a useful tool for evaluating the completion of tasks against the organisational mandate and can make recommendations on how improved workflow management can lead to improved organisational results.

6.10 No such analysis has been undertaken at CRDB to date, although it might be considered as a potentially useful approach to considering some of the following issues:

a) An organisational workplan, with monitorable indicators of progress and assigned responsibilities, would guide the focus of work of CRDB and create a coherent vision to motivate all staff. This would help to establish the workflow of strategic tasks beyond day-to-day management of routine tasks and periodical consultations with donors. The absence of a CRDB budget is a major encumbrance.

b) Most staff do not have detailed job descriptions that are guided by an overall workplan. This means that staff are often disengaged in the work of CRDB and Department heads are left with an overwhelming burden of work. This unsatisfactory arrangement results in staff feeling unmotivated and Department heads having little time to assign work to them or to mentor, coach or monitor them. Staff have noted that their views or concerns are seldom taken into account, creating a further sense of disengagement.

c) Improved workflow planning would leave Department heads with more time to manage. Some of the Department heads observed that they have no tool that can be used to gauge how well their Department is performing overall or how individual staff members were contributing.

d) Department staff manage day-to-day routine work, but most of the policy and strategic work is carried out by MDSP in the "capacity substitution" mode. Based on inputs provided by the Secretary General, MDSP staff are often requested to draft documents/papers, policy articulation speeches, etc. As such, the work of MDSP is in a way distinct and de-linked from other parts of CRDB.

e) There may be scope for increased identification of cross-Departmental tasks (for example in developing and maintaining the ODA Database), with clear responsibilities assigned to Departments and information needs clearly identified together with appropriate modalities for sharing.

f) There are well-established IT tools for managing information, these should be further strengthened and used a strategic way of managing information, for example in informing donor consultations and for sharing policy-related work with all staff.

g) CRDB might become a more effective internal sharer of knowledge, through use of its IT infrastructure, as well as through routine peer learning sessions such as regular seminars (which were tried previously and found to be useful).

h) Routine meetings, with relatively fixed agendas, at management and Department level would provide an opportunity to share information, monitor progress and consider emerging challenges, as well as to instil a stronger sense of organisational identity that might improve morale.