governance bos advanced business operations training kabul, afghanistan november 2014
Post on 16-Dec-2015
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Annual Workplan
Timeframe Planned Budget
Planned ActivitiesQ1
Q2
Q3 Q4
Responsible Party
Source of funds
Budget descriptio
nAmou
nt BoS Outcome:BoS Output 1
IndicatorsAnnual Target
Annual Deliverables BoS Output 2
Annual IndicatorsLinked to BoS Annual Deliverables
Responsibility to agency + individual
BoS Reporting
Present draft BoS to UNCT for approval;
Present draft AWP to UNCT for approval;
Annually
Report annually to UNCT against AWP (Q4);
Annual report includes progress against BoS objectives;
Other
Mid Term evaluation and adjustment of BoS;
End Term evaluation of BoS (end of cycle- informs next BoS);
Governance Structure BoS
UNCT
Operations Management Team
(OMT)
TWG Procurement (ad hoc)
TWG Human Resources (ad hoc)
TWG CP and Field Presences (Ad Hoc)
TWG Logistics (Ad Hoc)
TWG Harmonization (ad
hoc)
1. Road Map
6
3. Strategic Planning
Governance Framework
Decision Making-Decision Delegation
Assessment-Planning-Management
Implementation
Technical Input
Directions
Decisions
Approval
Plans /ToRs
Instructions
Proposals Reports
Analysis
Implementation Reports
Technical Results
UNCT
OMT
TWG
Exercise- Roles and accountability
At your tables, discuss
Roles of UNCT, OMT and Technical Working Groups
What can you do to enhance accountability?
10 min discussion- report in plenary
Division of Labor
Vision
Decision
Oversight
Escalation
Environment
Accountable BOS
Operationalise vision
Oversight TWGs
Prepare BOS
M&E BOS
Develop AWP
Manage budget
Input BOS & AWP
Solution design
Implement BOS
UNCT OMT Tech. WG
Common Budgetary Framework-BOS
Multiyear overview
Includes cost
• per outcome/output,
• funds available
• funding gap
Source: BOS results matrix
Includes resource mobilization plan
Financing the BOS
Common Budgetary Framework
Common Services Account
Financing arrangement- Cost Sharing
Resource Mobilization:
• Mainly cost shared
• One Fund
• Business Operations Innovation Fund (draft)
Some notes upfront
Brazil is a unique BOS pilot
No other BOS pilot are using the Integrated Service Center concept
No other ISC planned until assessment completed
Similar set-ups: Viet Nam, Copenhagen
Cost Benefit- Monetary & Labor
TOTAL COST (USD)- JOF Level Cost Nr of Staff Total Staff Cost JOF P4 263,051 1 263,051
NOC 147,168 1 147,168
NOB 111,492 2 222,984
NOA 94,031 1 94,031
G7 85,714 1 85,714
G6 65,343 7 457,402
G5 54,004 11 594,042
G4 44,265 3 132,794
27 1,997,187
TOTAL BENEFIT - JOF Service Line Net Monetary Gain (USD) Net Freed up labor
(after JOF staffing)
Procurement 720,853 10 FTE
ICT 65, 611 7 FTE
HR N/A 1.25 FTE
Travel 1,059,8001 Minus 3 FTE2
1,780,653 15.25 FTE
1 Based on existing LTA. Includes only JOF participating agencies and only UNDP, UNESCO and UNFPA saving averages over the period 2009-2012 . Refer to Demonstrativo Grupo ONU - Maio 2009 2012 2 Extra staff due to expansion of scope to include non-staff travel (NEX projects). Labor benefit accrues mainly to NEX projects (government)
Brazil-Single Service Window
Single Service Window
Cap. dedicated Common Operations- free up agency cap.
Single rule set for clients- simplification, transparency
Reduced cost ( leverage common volumes for services)
Less process duplication (contract, client/supplier man
Independent- Fair prioritization, accountability
Consolidation- No common operations outside the JoF
Supplements Agency, Regional and Global service models (different services)
Regulatory Framework
Harmonized Regulatory Framework for Procurement, ICT, HR and Travel
Supplementary, existing agency regulatory framework
For remaining non-harmonised component:
Additional local innovations Subject senior management approval partnering agencies
For processes, procedures and institutional settings, not R&R
+
+
Procurement – CBA
• Reduction of parallel processes and transaction costs;
• Increased value for money through improved planning,
• Improved coordination, consistency and planning across agencies;
• Efficiency and effectiveness gains through information sharing;
• Faster program implementation;
• Increased professionalization of procurement staff;
• Better procurement risk management;
top related