mba dissertation module - world agroforestry centre
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND
ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET / FEEDBACK FORM
MBA
Declaration and copyright
I, Joyce Mulekye Kasyoki, Sunderland university registration number: 19906980804,
declare that I am the sole author of this dissertation, that during the period of registered study
I have not been registered for other academic award or qualification, nor has any of the
material been submitted wholly or partly for any other award. This dissertation is a result of
my own research work, and where other people‘s research was used, they have been dully
acknowledged.
Date…………………………….. Signature ……………………………
Joyce Mulekye Kasyoki
CANDIDATE
Student ID: 19906980804 Student Name: Joyce Mulekye Kasyoki
Module Code: PGBM31
Module Name: MBA Dissertation
Due 13 May, 2011 Centre / College: Intel College, Nairobi Kenya Hand in Date: 13 May, 2011
Assessment Title: Assessment of employee perceptions on decentralisation of shared services: A case study of
World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF
Learning Outcomes Assessed:
Learning Outcomes Assessed:
Feedback relating learning outcomes assessed and assessment criteria given to students:
Mark:
Areas for Improvement:
General Comments:
Assessors Signature: Overall Mark (subject to ratification by the assessment board)
Moderators Signature:
Students Signature: (you must sign this declaring that it is all your own work and all sources of information have been referenced)
ii
Declaration
I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been presented to any
institution or university other than the University of Sunderland for academic credit. I further
declare that I followed all the applicable ethical guidelines in the conduct of the research.
Signed..................................................................Date..........................................................
Joyce Mulekye Kasyoki. Registration Number 19906980804
This dissertation has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed
supervisor
Signed..................................................................Date..........................................................
Dr. Amos Njuguna
iii
Abstract
Decentralisation of shared services is an important strategic tool because it standardises
business processes and operational procedures, reduces costs and optimises operational
efficiency in a way that enhances compliance with regulatory requirements and better
services to the customers. The purpose of this study was to assess the employees‘ perceptions
on decentralisation of shared services model for ICRAF. The study used a case study of
ICRAF to bring out the benefits of decentralising shared services, determine the criteria that
should guide decentralisation, establish the challenges to decentralisation, determine the
factors that influence effectiveness of decentralisation and to craft strategies that can enhance
decentralisation of shared services. Stratified random sampling was used to select 118
employees from ICRAF payroll of whom 84 responded to the survey. Data was analyzed by
use of descriptive statistics and one way ANOVA.
The study shows that the benefits of decentralisation are standardization of operations,
streamlining, and consolidating common business functions and processes in an organisation
in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness with both cost reduction and overall
profitability in mind. Other benefits include enhanced cross-regional collaborations,
performance without strong supervision, staff motivation and reduced bureaucracy.
The study further discloses the criteria that should guide decentralisation as providing staff
with clearly defined objectives, clarity on services that are to be shared, identified core
competencies, agreed tasks to be identified and ensuring that qualified and capable team
leaders are available among others.
The challenges to implementation of decentralisation of shared services as determined by the
study are constraints by poor management skills, insufficient budgets, job losses, resistance to
change, lack of understanding of staff role, time to train staff on decentralisation, duplication
of services and changes in work policy as well as inadequate facilities.
The strategies that can be put in place to enhance implementation of decentralisation of shared
services are 1). Communication strategy — a clear, simple communication with staff: top-down-
top is key to success. 2). Staff development plans: organisations must invest in training staff to
equip them into taking up new roles and 3). Transparent work policies — this would lead to
iv
significant efficiency gains and increase the time spent by Centre resources on more strategic
functions and core research activities.
The study recommends enhanced managerial training so as to build adequate capacity for the
decentralised structure. The organisation should clearly define the decentralisation process
provide simple updates to all staff in addition to carrying out awareness campaigns. Most
importantly, the organisation needs to create consultation and e-groups for staff in the regions
for ease of processes integration.
Keywords:
Decentralisation, Centralisation, Shared Services, Attitudes, Change, Efficiency, Cost
Saving, Creativity, Innovation and Organisational culture, Resource sharing, Customer
service.
v
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I acknowledge my God in Heaven for his favour throughout my research.
Secondly, to my husband and best friend Richard Kasyoki for his invaluable support,
patience, motivation and encouragement never to give up. To my bundle of joy Irene, Ian and
Halima for giving me the desire and a big push to catch up with them and to push ahead –
thanks for your patience too and for giving me space to study. I must admit that keeping up
with the young has been a challenge but it‘s been a great joy. To the special women in my
life (they know themselves) giving up was not an answer to them. I thank you very much.
To my immediate family members, Intel College Director and Management Team, my
colleagues in Cohort (4) at Intel, my boss Dr. Peter Minang and my very special ICRAF
colleagues (they know themselves) your support is beyond words description and expressions
– thank you.
To my Masters in Business Administration, (MBA) degree course supervisor, Dr. Amos
Njuguna it would have not been possible without your unconditional support and invaluable
guidance at every step. You have made it possible for me to bridge the knowledge gap.
Thank you.
To my dedicated employees both in my town home and at the farm in Kibwezi – thank you
for your understanding and patience throughout my research. I would also like to offer my
thanks to all World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) staff who filled out the research
questionnaire and gave extra feedback even when not required to. To my friends, social
networks and relatives to whom I have not been available as much as I wanted while I was
confined in my world of reviews, I apologize in advance and thank you for your
understanding and care at all times. The list is endless, feel acknowledged as you read
through.
Thank you all!
vi
Dedication
I dedicate this work to my dear late mother Mrs. Tabitha Munyasya. Mama you were and
still you remain very special to me, you gave me the best values in life including education.
Even in your last days at the Nairobi Hospital, Kenya in 2006, you encouraged me to go back
to school and study. You showed me invaluable love always. Your special words as you
called me echoed throughout out my MBA study and this has remained my strong hold
―soma Mama Mukui mwiitu wakwa, soma vyu‖ meaning read my daughter read and until you
can read no more........ Mama you are irreplaceable.
Mama you were the queen of my heart. I love you, mom continue to sleep well in Jesus.
To my dad – I have accomplished a milestone that you have always wanted me to complete.
I thank you for your encouragement and love in life. Thanks dad; you are the best ever!
To my best friend and the love of my life Richard, our two children Irene and Ian. Thank you
for being there at all times for me. Your love and support is irrevocable, and this is my hope
and strength.
vii
Table of Contents
ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET / FEEDBACK FORM ................................................................................ i Declaration and copyright .................................................................................................................................... i Declaration ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. iii Keywords: .......................................................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ........................................................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................. vii List of figures ......................................................................................................................................................... x List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ v Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................. xii
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 About the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry ........................................................... 3 1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Purpose of the Research ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Specific Objectives................................................................................................................................ 4
1.4.1 To determine the benefits of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF. .................................... 4 1.4.2 To determine the criteria that should guide the decentralisation process at ICRAF. ........................ 4 1.4.3 To determine the challenges to implementation of decentralised shared services at ICRAF. .......... 5
1.5 Justification ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Scope of the Research ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.7 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.7.1 Decentralisation ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.7.2 Shared Services ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.7.3 Organisational Structure ................................................................................................................... 6 1.7.4 Business Unit .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.7.5 Decentralised Shared Services Model............................................................................................... 6
1.8 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Benefits of Decentralisation .................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Faster Delivery of Services ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Staff Motivation ................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.3 Frees Senior Management from Day to Day Tasks .......................................................................... 9 2.2.4 Elimination of Bureaucracy .............................................................................................................. 9 2.2.5 Reduction of Overhead Costs ......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.6 Elimination of Redundant Employees and Facility ........................................................................ 10 2.2.7 Staff are More Customer Focused .................................................................................................. 11 2.2.8 Business Unit Autonomy Enhancement ......................................................................................... 11 2.2.9 Alignment of Staff to the Organisation Structure ........................................................................... 12 2.2.10 Cross-Regional Collaboration of Shared Services...................................................................... 12
2.3 Decentralisation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Clearly Defined Objectives ................................................................................................................. 13 2.3.2 Clarity on Services to be Shared ......................................................................................................... 13
2.3.3. Agreement on Tasks to be Decentralised Beforehand .................................................................... 13 2.3.4 Identification of Core Competencies .............................................................................................. 14 2.3.5 Clarity on Functions to be Decentralised ........................................................................................ 14 2.3.6 Clarity on Functions to be Centralised ............................................................................................ 14 2.3.7 Vision, Scope and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 15 2.3.8 Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.9 Geographic Location....................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.10 Leaders in the Organisation ........................................................................................................ 16 2.3.11 Volume of Work ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.4 Challenges to Decentralisation of Shared Services ............................................................................. 16 2.4.1. Inadequate Management Skills ....................................................................................................... 17 2.4.2 Potential Job Loss ........................................................................................................................... 17
viii
2.4.3 Resistance to Change ...................................................................................................................... 17 2.4.4 Time to Train on Decentralisation .................................................................................................. 18 2.4.5 Additional Work Load in Certain Departments .............................................................................. 18 2.4.6 Lack of Understanding by Staff of Role in the Decentralised Set Up ............................................ 19 2.4.7 Lack of Finance .............................................................................................................................. 19 2.4.8 Duplication of Services ................................................................................................................... 19 2.4.9 Changes in Work Policy ................................................................................................................. 20 2.4.10 Changes in Organisational Culture ............................................................................................. 20 2.4.11 Inadequate Facilities ................................................................................................................... 21
2.5 Ensuring Effective Decentralisation .................................................................................................... 21 2.5.1 Development of Concrete Policies to Effectuate Shared Services at ICRAF ................................. 21 2.5.2 Timely Communication to Staff on Workforce Turnover .............................................................. 23 2.5.3 Communication to Staff on the Financial Status of the Centre ....................................................... 23 2.5.4 Preparedness in Managing the Change Process .............................................................................. 24 2.5.5 Strong Leadership in the Decentralisation Process at HQ level ...................................................... 24 2.5.6 Strong Leadership at the Level of Decentralised Units................................................................... 25 2.5.7 Transparent Procedures and Guidance on Process .......................................................................... 25 2.5.8 Adequate Funds Allocated to Support the Decentralisation Process From the Onset .................... 25 2.5.9 Senior Leadership Team and Global Research Coordinators ......................................................... 25 2.5.10 Ensure that Differences in Geographic Conditions are Considered ........................................... 25 2.5.11 Ensure Decentralisation Process Aligns to ICRAF‘s Mission and Vision ................................. 26 2.5.12 Automation of ICRAF (internet and intranet) ............................................................................ 26 2.5.13 Staff Involvement in the Decentralisation Process ..................................................................... 27 2.5.14 Changing the Organisation Structure to Reflect the Newly Decentralised Units ....................... 27 2.5.15 Avoid Discrimination (location, gender, race, age, religion) on Placement of Staff .................. 28 2.5.16 Constantly Update Staff on Status of the Decentralisation Process ........................................... 28 2.6 Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................................... 29
2.7 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................................................... 31 3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLGY ........................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Research Philosophy ........................................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Research Design .................................................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Population ........................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5 Sampling and Sampling Design .......................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1 Sample Frame ..................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.2 Sample Size ......................................................................................................................................... 33 3.6 Research area ...................................................................................................................................... 33 3.6.1 Inclusion criteria ................................................................................................................................. 34 3.6.2 Exclusion criteria ................................................................................................................................ 34 3.7 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 34 3.7.1 Data Collection Instrument ................................................................................................................. 34 3.7.2 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................................. 35 3.9 Ethical considerations ......................................................................................................................... 35 3.10 Research limitations ............................................................................................................................ 35 3.11 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................................ 37 4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 37 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 37
4.2.1 Gender ............................................................................................................................................ 37 4.2.2 Age of the Respondents .................................................................................................................. 38
CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................................................. 76 5.0 Discussion, Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 76 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 76 5.2 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................... 76 5.3 Empirical Results in Relation to Previous Research Findings ............................................................ 78 5.3.1 Benefits of Decentralisation of Shared Services ................................................................................. 78 5.3.2 Critical Success Factors for Decentralisation of Shared Services ....................................................... 78 5.3.3. Challenges to the Decentralisation of Shared Services ....................................................................... 78 5.3.4 Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services ................................................................ 79 5.4 Communicative Validity of the Results .............................................................................................. 79
ix
5.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 85 5.5.3 Challenges to Decentralisation of Shared Services ............................................................................. 86 5.5.4 Strategies to enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services ................................................................. 86 5.6. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 86 5.6.1 Measures for Immediate Implementation ............................................................................................ 86 5.6.2 Short Term Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 87 5.6.3 Long Term Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 87
x
List of tables
Table 3.1 Distribution of Respondent across sample categories .................................................... 32
Table 4.1: Benefits of Decentralisation……………………………………..................................... 44
Table 4.2: Differences in Perceptions of the Benefits of Decentralisation…................................... 46
Table 4.3: Post Hoc Analysis on Enhancing Standardization of Procedures by Region using
Tukey Method.................................................................................................................................. 47
Table 4.4: Post Hoc Analysis on Reducing Bureaucracy by Area of Specialization using Tukey
Method............................................................................................................................................. 48
Table 4.5: Post Hoc Analysis on Re-alignment of the organisational structure to better support
the strategic direction of ICRAF by Duty Station............................................................................. 49
Table 4.6: Important Steps in Decentralisation of Shared Services.................................................. 52
Table 4.7: Differences in Perceptions of the Important Steps in the Decentralisation of Shared
Services at ICRAF............................................................................................................................ 53
Table 4.8: Post Hoc Analysis on Region using the Tukey Method.................................................. 54
Table 4.9: Post Hoc Analysis on Job classification using the Tukey Method.................................. 55
Table 4.10: Post Hoc Analysis on Area of Specialization using the Tukey
Method................................................................................................ ............................................. 57
Table 4.11: Decentralisation challenges........................................................................................... 59
Table 4.12: ANOVA on the Challenges of Decentralizing Shared Services at
ICRAF................................................................................................ ............................................. 60
Table 4.13: Post Hoc Analysis on Time to train on decentralisation as a challenge of
decentralisation by age .................................................................................................................... 61
Table 4.14: Post Hoc Analysis on Challenges by Region using the Tukey Method
.......................................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4. 1: Post Hoc Analysis of the Challenges by Education Level .......................................... 63
Table 4.16: Post Hoc Analysis Challenges by Duty Station – Resistance to Change
................................................................................................................... ...................................... 64
Table 4.17: Strategies to enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services ......................................... 66
Table 4.18: ANOVA on the Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services
.......................................................................................................................................................... 68
Table 4.19: Post Hoc Analysis for Factors for Effective Decentralisation – Work Experience and
Area of Specialization ..................................................................................................................... 69
Table 4.20: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Age......................................... 70
Table 4. 21: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Region................................... 71
Table 4.22: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Duty Station Avoiding
Discrimination.................................................................................................................................. 72
Table 4.23: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Area of Specialization............ 74
xi
List of figures
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework. Source: Author, 2011 .................................................................................. 29
Figure 4. 1: Gender distribution of respondents ................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.2: Age distribution of respondents ......................................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.3: Regions of study respondents ............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 4. 4: Educational qualifications of respondents ......................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.5: Job classifications of respondents ...................................................................................................... 40
Figure 4. 6: Duty stations of respondents ............................................................................................................. 41
Figure 4. 7: Work experience (years) of ICRAF respondents .............................................................................. 42
Figure 4. 8: Area of staff specialisation ................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 4. 9: ICRAF‘s organisational structure does not reflect its decentralised nature of operation .................. 43
xii
Acronyms
ADP Accenture Development Partnerships
AITEC Africa‘s development of ICT
ALGA Australian Local Government Association
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ANU Australia National University
BOT Board of Trustees
BPO Business Process Outsourcing
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CG Consultative Group
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
GRPLs Global Research Project Leaders
GRPs Global Research Projects
HRU Human Resource Unit
HRS Human Resources Strategy
ICRAF International Centre for Research and Agroforestry
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
IRS International Recruited Staff
IS Information Services
IT Information Technology
MBA Masters in Business Administration
NRS National Recruited Staff
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
PPM Personnel Policy Manual
PwC PriceWaterhouseCoopers
R&D Research and Development
ROI Return On Investments
SLT Senior Leadership Team
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SRF Strategy and Results Framework
SSUs Shared Service Units
TU Training Unit
WALGA Western Australian Local Government Association
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
For many companies, the pressure from the current global financial recession means cutting
down on expenditure and leveraging on economies of scale. One of the avenues to the
achievement of these objectives is the decentralisation of shared services. The move towards
decentralisation of shared services began in the 1980s and has been accelerating ever since
(Beard, 2004; Oracle White Paper, 2001). Decentralisation aims to achieve cost reduction,
better service delivery and best practices in delivering internal services to users (Goold,
Pettifer, and Young 2001; Benassi, 2002). Decentralized shared services generally involve
removing work activities from business units then standardising and consolidating the way in
which those services are delivered to provide value to the business units in the form of
reduced overall general and accounting costs and increased service performance. The bottom
line is that decentralised shared services are designed to organise and deliver internal support
services more efficiently and effectively. With decentralisation, organisations have to get rid
of structures that are highly concentrated and substitute them with independent business units
each running its own administrative services. Decentralisation thus encourages specialization
and hence lesser time is taken in producing management reports. In a decentralised shared
service environment therefore, an organisation pulls activities that support core business
processes out of each business unit and consolidates them into a separate operating unit that
runs these supporting processes as its core business process, (Longton and Robbins, 2007;
Kreklow and Kinney, 2007).
Bergeron (2003); Crusciolo and Narula (2007) argue that the decentralised shared services
model is not without its limitations. Bergeron mentions some of the limitations as creation of
multiple centers of power, unnecessary departmental competition, duplication of activities,
application to large organisations only and if not checked, may lead to increased operating
costs. Bergeron thus advises that to achieve a successful decentralised shared services model
implementation requires attentiveness to the corporate culture, the addition of the appropriate
technologies to the mix and investing the time and resources to manage employee
expectations.
According to Bergeron (2003), the decentralised shared services model is fundamentally
about managing resources to improve internal services and enhance the competitiveness of
2
the parent organisation. In many aspects, decentralisation is a hybrid approach that shares
characteristics with more traditional models such as centralisation (for example access to the
latest technology, economies of scale, and downsizing), decentralisation (for example
customer focus and ability to better meet customer needs), and outsourcing (for example
offloading of non-strategic activities).
A number of international organisations, such as the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (Accenture, 2009) and PriceWaterHouseCoopers (PwC,
2005), practising Decentralisation of Shared Services models and are successful. Many
multi-divisional firms have been moving towards Decentralisation of Shared Services since
the early 1990s (Quinn, Cooke and Kris, (2000). Large organisations such as the BBC,
Bristol Myers Squibb, Ford, GE, HP, Pfizer and Rolls-Royce operate Decentralisation of
Shared Services with great success (Quinn et.al, 2000). A survey by the English Institute of
Chartered Accountants found that more than 30% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies have
implemented a shared service centre, and are reporting cost savings in their general
accounting functions of up to 46%. (Quinn et.al, 2000). However, not every implementation
of shared services is a success. A failing shared service operation not provide the high-quality
services it should to the business in a cost effective, customer-centric fashion, it will not
exhibit the best-in-class attributes of successful shared service operations such as leveraging
standardized processed and core technology and will not run with an energetic, highly
motivated team (Farrel, 2004).
Governments and NGOs have not been left behind as far as Decentralisation of Shared
Services is concerned (De Vries, 2000; Akai and Masayo, 2002). In Kenya, the first
outsourcing and decentralised shared services forum for NGOs and development partners was
organized by AITEC Africa in June 2009. The event brought together over 250
representatives of NGOs and development partners as well as Business Process Outsourcing
(BPO) service providers (AITEC, 2009). Some of the outstanding case studies on shared
services highlighted were: (1) NetHope, a unique collaboration of 28 of the world's leading
international humanitarian organisations working together to solve common problems in the
developing world and serving tens of millions of end beneficiaries each year in over 150
countries. Its affiliates include Action Aid, Catholic Relief Services and World Vision, all of
which have regional and country offices operating in Kenya; (2) Soma-source, linking US-
based aid organisations and development agencies with BPO operators in Africa; (3) The
3
Shared Service partnership between ICRAF and ILRI that highlighted potential benefits such
as turning fixed costs to variable costs (transport and catering), flexibility of choice (service
and providers), enabling setting of minimum performance standards as well as allowing high
independence
1.1.1 About the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
In the year 2002, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry rebranded as World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). ICRAF was retained as the official acronym for identification.
The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) is an autonomous, non-profit research organisation
whose vision is a rural transformation in the developing world where smallholder households
strategically increase their use of trees in agricultural landscapes to improve food security,
nutrition, income, health, shelter, energy resources and environmental sustainability. The
Centre generates science-based knowledge about the diverse role that trees play in
agricultural landscapes, and uses its research to advance policies and practices that benefit the
poor and the environment, (ICRAF Strategy, 2008-2015).
ICRAF is one of the 15 centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR). Headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, it operates in six regions of the world
namely - Eastern Africa, Latin America, South Asia, Southern Africa, South East Asia and
West & Central Africa. The regional offices are located in Kenya, Brazil, India, Malawi,
Indonesia, Cameroon and Mali. The World Agroforestry Centre conducts research in
eighteen other countries around the developing world as it is documented in (ICRAF
Strategy, 2008-2015).
The CGIAR is a strategic Alliance of countries, international and regional organisations and
private foundations supporting 15 international agricultural Centers that work with national
agricultural research systems and civil society organisations including the private sector. The
alliance mobilizes agricultural science to reduce poverty, foster human well-being, promote
agricultural growth and protect the environment. The CGIAR generates global public goods
that are available to all, (CGIAR Strategy, 2005).
ICRAF receives funding from over 50 different governments, private foundations,
international organisations and regional development banks. Its current top ten donors are
Canada, the European Union, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
4
Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States of
America and the World Bank (ICRAF audited financial report, 2009-2010).
ICRAF‘s vision (ICRAF, 2006) is a rural transformation in the developing world where
smallholder households strategically increase their use of trees in agricultural landscapes to
improve food security, nutrition, income, health, shelter, energy resources and environmental
sustainability (ICRAF Strategy, 2008-2015).
ICRAF‘s mission is to generate science-based knowledge about the diverse roles trees play in
agricultural landscapes and to use its research to advance policies and practices to benefit the
poor and the environment (ICRAF Strategy, 2008-2015).
1.2 Problem Statement
Empirical studies focus on the rationale for decentralisation with less focus on
implementation and the challenges that befall managers in their attempt to decentralise
(Kreklow, and Kinney, 2010 p.1-2). Accenture (2009) in their evaluation of the 15 CGIAR
Centres, found that organisations today are adopting the decentralisation of shared services
model to maximise on its benefits. It is CGIAR‘s desire to see its 15 centres including ICRAF
adopting this model. However, it is necessary to carry out an assessment among ICRAF staff
to get views on decentralisation of shared services. There is lack of knowledge and data on
the nature, structure, functions and outcomes of the organisational decentralisation processes,
especially in some CGIAR Centres. The explicit objective of this study is to address the
knowledge gap by considering the benefits of decentralisation and the criteria that should
guide such efforts. The study also adds to the existing literature as it identifies the critical
success factors for decentralisation and develops strategies that can enhance application of
decentralisation of shared services in an international organisation.
1.3 Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this study is to assess decentralisation of shared services model for ICRAF.
1.4 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the research are:-
1.4.1 To determine the benefits of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF.
1.4.2 To determine the criteria that should guide the decentralisation process at
5
ICRAF.
1.4.3 To determine the challenges to implementation of decentralised shared
services at ICRAF.
1.4.4 To establish the measures that can be put in place to enhance implementation
of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF.
1.5 Justification
This study is of importance to the following stakeholders;
1.5.1 ICRAF Staff
Decentralisation of shared services will enhance staff collaboration, performance without
strong supervision, staff motivation and will reduce bureaucracy.
1.5.2 ICRAF Management
Decentralisation of shared services will ensure that level of responsibility is maintained,
facilitate transparent and timely decision making hence freeing management time to focus on
the research agenda.
1.5.3 Other international organisations
The findings of the study can be applied to other international organisations, especially those
with a similar core business and structure to ICRAF.
1.5.4. Future Researchers
The research will contribute to existing literature and theories of decentralisation of shared
services and this will be added value to interested parties.
1.5.5 Donors
Decentralisation is given the responsibility for cost reductions and this cost cutting move
presents a good success indicator for donors to increase investments to the work of ICRAF.
1.6 Scope of the Research
The research only focuses on ICRAF functions and therefore excludes other international
organisations. The research was conducted within the organisational setting and respondents
were selected among a cross section of employees covering National and International Recruited
6
Staff (NRS and IRS) at the headquarters in Nairobi and those at Regional Offices across the
world.
1.7 Definition of Terms
The following terms are used in this research.
1.7.1 Decentralisation
This is the systematic delegation of authority at all levels of management and in the entire
organisation (Quinn et.al, 2000).
1.7.2 Shared Services
This is a collaborative strategy in which a subset of existing business functions are concentrated
into a new semi-autonomous business unit that has a management structure designed to promote
efficiency, value generation, cost savings and improved service for the internal customers on the
parent corporation like a business competing in the open market (Bergeron, 2003).
1.7.3 Organisational Structure
This is the way within which an organisation arranges its lines of authority and
communications, and allocates rights and duties. Organisational structure determines the
manner and extent to which roles, power, and responsibilities are delegated, controlled, and
coordinated, and how information flows between levels of management (Mintzberg, 1981).
1.7.4 Business Unit
It is part of an organisation that operates as a distinct function, department, division, or stand-
alone business. Business units are usually treated as a separate profit center within the overall
business.(Rao, 2006).
1.7.5 Decentralised Shared Services Model
According to Economist Intelligence Unit (1998), this model apportions standardized and
consolidated business functions or processes with a service mentality to ensure effective
operation. The model helps organisations to save costs, increase available time for value-
added activities in line positions, improve measurement capability, and achieve better service
quality due to a more focused management attention.
7
1.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter has detailed the background to the study, identified the research problem as the
knowledge gap on the effectiveness of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF and
identified the research objectives as the determination of benefits and challenges to the
decentralisation of shared services and the development of strategies to enhance
decentralisation. The study is of great importance to the ICRAF members of staff,
management, scholars and donors.
Chapter two reviews literature on the subject, chapter three addresses the research
methodology, chapter four discloses the findings of the study while chapter five draws
pertinent conclusions on the topic.
8
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the findings of previous studies on the benefits, challenges, and
criteria to guide decentralization and the critical success factors to implementation of
decentralised shared services. The chapter concludes by reviewing the conceptual framework
that guided the study.
2.2 Benefits of Decentralisation
Empirical studies identify the benefits of decentralisation as; faster delivery of services, staff
motivation, frees senior management from day-to-day tasks, elimination of bureaucracy,
reduction of overhead costs, elimination of redundant employees and facility, staff are more
customer focussed, business unit autonomy enhancement, alignment of staff to the
organisation structure and cross-regional collaboration of shared services. Each of these
benefits are discussed in turn.
2.2.1 Faster Delivery of Services
According to Bergeron (2003) the shared services model is about optimizing people, capital,
time and other corporate resources. Accenture (2009) adds that decentralisation of shared
services enhances faster delivery, quality and effectiveness of all services as they provide
enhanced support to staff, programmes and the consortium in general. The rapid globalization
of business; with deregulation of world markets makes shared services a powerful facilitating
tool for global expansion (Shah, 1998). Shah adds that decentralisation increases the
efficiency of the provision of these services, and strengthens delivery systems and impact of
the consortium research agenda through appropriate shared service delivery mechanisms,
including the possibility to outsource some of these services and functions for effectiveness
and efficiency.
2.2.2 Staff Motivation
Decentralization of shared services contributes to a feel good factor in an organisation as
tasks are leveraged based on specialization (Bergeron, 2003). According to Bergeron, staff
are motivated as the firm cuts costs, increasing the quality of the back-end services and
9
freeing management to focus on the organisation‘s core competencies. Less motivation
behind the initiative is may be to move part of the management team away from core
business unit and send it into political exile (Bergeron, 2003). Similarly, since
decentralisation lends itself to innovative accounting practices, the model may be appealing
and motivating to members of senior management who are under pressure to move their
company to a greater profitability in the market argues Bergeron.
When considered alongside the work done by Janssen and Joha (2006), the structure can be
seen to receive depth from their focus on the motivation for shared services while adding
breadth to it. As it stands the structure characteristic of strategy has economies of scale as the
only motivation. Janssen and Joha (2006) not only provide greater detail regarding the
specifics of such a motivation, for example the importance of the predictability of costs as
well as their absolute value but also does identify other realms of motivation such as political
and technical. At the same time, outline dimensions such as structure and management
provide potential mechanisms through which motives they suggest such as solving internal
conflicts in an organisation can be realised.
2.2.3 Frees Senior Management from Day to Day Tasks
The purpose of implementing decentralisation of shared services in an organisation is to
reduce costs, time spent on managerial and administrative functions and increase quality,
accuracy and timeliness of information (Oracle White Paper, 2001). Bergeron (2003)
concludes that the decentralised shared-service model is designed to improve the
effectiveness and quality of performance of senior managers by allowing them ample time to
focus on core business activities rather than micro managing staff in administrative matters.
The model also increases collaboration and knowledge sharing within and across the business
units through the introduction of standards and collaboration tools. Increased productivity and
efficiencies of research support, administrative and financial services through use of common
templates leads to good practices and collaboration tools for doing the work easily,
overcoming workload and burnout within top management.
2.2.4 Elimination of Bureaucracy
According to Melchior (2007) decentralization of shared services is instrumental in
eliminating red tape in the performance of specific internal services such as payroll, accounts
payable, and travel and expense processing. The model thus equips organisations with a
10
flexible tool for elimination of bureaucracies, improving processes, generating profits, and
reducing costs.
Quinn, Cooke and Kris, (2000) document that shared services enable companies to retain
internal control of core functions while still maximizing cost efficiency without interruption
of the systems in place. According to Ulbrich (2006); Longwood and Harris (2007) the
concept of decentralised shared services is that back-office services are classified within a
single area for provision across an entire organisation thus easing on the office politics and
the need to transverse various management channels to have a simple task executed.
2.2.5 Reduction of Overhead Costs
Janssen and Joha (2006) suggest that shared services can offer multiple benefits to the public
sector and international organizations such as reducing costs, improving access to innovation
and allowing an increased focus on core operations. For the CGIAR Centres the cost cutting
move presents a good success indicator for donors to increase investments in the CGIAR
Centres (Accenture, 2009). Borman (2010) argues that decentralization is the avenue for
reducing costs through economies of scale and process improvement of multiple transaction-
oriented tasks. An enterprise resource planning system is seen as key to realising those
savings concludes, Borman. Decentralised shared services can deliver ‗quick win‘ cost
savings and financial advantages, but truly successful shared services solutions also provide a
parallel opportunity to improve operational processes (Quinn, Cooke and Kris, (2000).
Although this may initially involve additional capital investment and fundamental
organisational change, the long-term rewards include a stronger return on investment and
wider performance benefits across the centre (Quinn, et.al, 2000). Schulz, Hochstein,
Ubernickel, and Brenner, (2009) concluded that the common characteristics of
decentralization are an aggregation of support processes to cut costs.
2.2.6 Elimination of Redundant Employees and Facility
Dove (2004) showed evidence that decentralization increases efficiency, brings benefits and
provides various advantages such as:
Elimination of redundant structures, resources and equipment;
It is not always that the standardization in procedures from different units is easy or
possible, but at least decentralization enables harmonization between each and
facilitates the consistency and coherency between them. Once all the processes
11
become standard, this makes business management easier to report and even easier to
implement change across the university (even to the employees it is easier to
assimilate future changes);
The reengineering of who makes what, and where, increases controllability, as the
responsibilities becomes clear and concentrated.
Decentralised shared services is said to reduce redundancies, for example big spending in
technology software and operational resources as these are done by sharing common back-
office and research support services (Bergeron, 2003). This assumption is yet to be assessed
in addition to the criteria, effectiveness and challenges associated with its implementation
(Meyer 2002).
2.2.7 Staff are More Customer Focused
Schulz et.al. (2009) argues that some common characteristics of decentralisation of shared
services is an emphasis on delivering customer satisfaction and performance benchmarked
externally. According to Shah (1998) decentralisation of shared services was found to be
customer-focused and provides services to business units at competitive prices. Rather than
the typical cost-center focus, shared service organizations have a profit-center focus. He
continues to say that decentralisation is just a cost reduction scheme. He emphasizes that
centralisation is another means to downsize and reduce, but a decentralised shared-service
organisation is that and more. The focus of shared services is to provide a customer-oriented
organization since the customer can provide input on the services, information, and
performance.
2.2.8 Business Unit Autonomy Enhancement
Schulman, Dunleavy, Harmer, and Lusk (1999) notes that decentralisation is gaining
competitive advantage in today's fierce business environment that requires focus throughout
the company on value, as measured by quality, cost, speed, and service. In the quest for
superior performance, a growing number of companies are now turning to shared services, a
tactical technique by which corporations can organize financial and other transaction-oriented
activities to reduce costs and provide better service to business unit partners.
Schulman asks: ―of all the tools available for gaining competitive advantage, why shared
services?‖ One of the principal reasons is that it creates, through consolidation of often
disparate activities, more of a ―one company‖ feel among business units. The benefits of this
12
are twofold: first, it enables companies to show a consistent face to clients and customers,
vendors and suppliers, shareholders and potential shareholders and secondly it provides
increased flexibility to all of the business' operations, allowing corporate leaders to maintain
a global perspective while at the same time allowing business unit leaders to take strong,
customer-focused actions.
2.2.9 Alignment of Staff to the Organisation Structure
According to Shah (1998) a carefully planned and rigorously implemented decentralised
shared services organisation can deliver significant benefits. The success critical benefits
include;
Alignment of staff to the organisation structure and living its vision and mission.
Strong support and buy-in from the senior leadership team, regional and global
coordinators.
Clear differentiation of responsibilities, acceptance and commitment to change by
staff.
Standardised, streamlined and, where appropriate, fully automated processes to ensure
clarity and control,
Measurable structures with the capacity and flexibility to manage new business and
higher volumes with appropriate representation across-the-board.
Decentralised shared services also represent a key enabler for managing change.
Availability of sufficient funds to core business of the organisation, support projects,
common processes and improved service levels across to deliver quality on tasks.
2.2.10 Cross-Regional Collaboration of Shared Services
Decentralisation of shared services allows the organisation to collectively develop new
capabilities that an organisation cannot afford to develop singly. Unlike the traditional set-up,
decentralisation of shared services facilitates an organization like ICRAF to increase the total
research base without a proportional growth in overhead and back-office support (CGIAR
Secretariat, 2009).
2.3 Decentralisation Criteria
A review of literature on decentralization discloses the key criteria in decentralization as;
clearly defined objectives, clarity on services to be shared, agreement on tasks to be
decentralised beforehand, identification of core competencies, clarity on functions to be
13
decentralised, clarity on functions to be centralised, vision, scope and objectives, costs,
geographic location, leaders in the organisation and volume of work. These issues are
discussed in turn.
2.3.1 Clearly Defined Objectives
According to Dollery, Akimov and Byrnes, (2009) the importance of decentralisation of
shared services is to concretely identify ‗appropriate – well defined‘ objectives that can
deliver the desired services. Dollery, et.al. (2009) defined the following objectives:
Strategic services requiring expert local knowledge should be retained ‗in-house‘;
‗Non-strategic, low risk, rule-based‘ and ‗high volume transaction processing‘
services could be shared;
Services requiring ‗access to the latest technology without ongoing significant capital
investment or a requirement for specialist expertise‘ could be shared;
Services in which expert skills not readily attainable by councils should be garnered
through service sharing at least.
2.3.2 Clarity on Services to be Shared
Hewlett-Packard (2010) advises that when beginning shared services in an organisation, the first
step is to determine the services that must be provided in-house and those that can be shared
across other departments or regions. The actual steps taken can however vary from one
organisation to another.
2.3.3. Agreement on Tasks to be Decentralised Beforehand
Shah (1998) advises that tasks to be decentralised be agreed upon before the service begins.
Being transparent with business units or staff members involved is very important for
example:-
High quality service standards and measures—A decentralised shared-service
organisation will have service-level agreements with its customers (i.e., business
units) as well as performance targets and systems that capture and report data on how
well the shared service organisation is performing with its customers.
Performance-based rewards and incentives—A decentralised shared-service
organisation might have its own reward, compensation, and incentive systems that
differ from the rest of the larger organization. These incentives might be team-
oriented bonuses and may be focused on key measures of performance.
14
2.3.4 Identification of Core Competencies
CGIAR Secretariat (2009) reports that there are common tasks that one should complete or
isolate while planning any shared services project such as; determining core competencies, the
functions that can or cannot be shared, defining a strategic vision, scope and objectives, gaining
support from the senior leadership and setting of measurable goals and achievable timelines.
Allan (2006) identified numerous ‗back office‘ and ‗front office‘ activities suitable for sharing
that promise substantial scale economies and thus represent good candidates for decentralised
shared service models.
2.3.5 Clarity on Functions to be Decentralised
Decentralisation of shared services functions featured in (Accenture 2009) gives clarity as
follows:-
Identify which services are not decentralised and what service needs to be
decentralised.
Carry out a needs assessment at the headquarter level, for shared financial, human
resource, administrative and research support services over the coming two-three
years to establish facts.
Review and assess the current arrangements of shared services at the regional and
headquarter level, including drawing lessons from current set-ups.
Assess the current costs and benefits of fully linking up the ICRAF regions to the
headquarter services to enhance support for its research programmes and
scientists.
Assess the current costs and benefits of the individual provision by each Centre of
research support functions to its research programmes and scientists.
2.3.6 Clarity on Functions to be Centralised
Decentralisation of shared services goes hand-in-hand with centralization according to
Schulman, et.al. (1999). The authors show that the opposition comes about because to many
managers, especially to business unit management, decentralisation of shared services
contrasts centralisation and corporate control. However, he argues that when created for the
proper reason, implemented appropriately, and run as if it were a business unit, and for the
benefit of business-unit partners, centralisation of shared services is actually a key to
successful decentralisation.
15
2.3.7 Vision, Scope and Objectives
Accenture (2009) reports that the Vision and Scope – in decentralisation must be clear, have a
common strategy and plan to achieve results needs to be agreed and communicated to all
involved. Vision, Scope and objectives are key components of decentralisation of shared
services (Shah, 1998). Implementing a decentralised shared-services business includes
business events similar to starting up a new business and shutting down operations.
2.3.8 Costs
As the global market becomes more competitive, businesses are seeking new means of using
their resources efficiently and effectively (Shah, 1998). Porter (1980) stated ―The ability to
share activities is a potent basis for corporate strategy because sharing enhances
comprehensive advantage by lowering differentiation costs.‖ Enabled by improvements in
technology, deregulation, competition, and globalisation in the 1990s, the trend in business is
to use decentralised shared services to support people-intensive areas such as human
resources, finance, materials management and information technology says Shah. Schulman,
et.al., (1999) adds to say that efficiency is a step function; only so many costs can be
eliminated at any one time.
2.3.9 Geographic Location
Accenture (2009) found that the CGIAR Consortium is uniquely positioned as many facility
sites are located in low cost locations. As such, typical decentralisation of shared service
savings gained from moving to a low cost location will not have the same implication for the
Consortium. It is important to note that, as in other areas across the Consortium, some
sharing is already taking place between CG Centres with success. Large sites host scientists
from other Centres providing housing, transportation and other valuable facility services. For
example, IRRI has temporary housing on site for employees working in the Philippines short
term while ICRISAT provides vehicle transport for visitors and scientists. These elicit
positive reactions because employees feel that in addition to receiving a valuable service they
feel more comfortable and safe being picked up by a familiar face or working with their
colleagues to arrange housing. This cross sharing of services and facilities is a move in the
right direction and should continue to be leveraged (CGIAR Secretariat, 2009).
16
2.3.10 Leaders in the Organisation
Leadership and management team is another key component of decentralisation of shared
services (Shah, 1998). Schulman, et.al., (1999) says that working as a team in one company
provides increased flexibility to all of the business‘s operations. It allows corporate leaders to
maintain a global perspective while at the same time allowing regional and country-specific
business unit leaders to work administrative functions as well as taking strategic decisions.
Borman (2010) says that Leadership was the most solid direction-related factor. He
suggested that leadership was different from the administration or regulation of the
decentralization of shared services and related more to setting the direction, having a strong
passion to deliver and energising the workforce and the entire organisation to buy into the
vision.
2.3.11 Volume of Work
Decentralisation of shared services reduces the burden of work volume. This is reflected in
the argument by Dollery et.al. (2009) who considers the importance of decentralisation of
shared services as a fundamental tool that optimizes work, people, capital time and other
corporate resources. This contributes to work plans with clear targets and time. The volume
of work is shared across as the service is taken closer to the people. Mano (2010) notes that
decentralisation of shared services is a high volume low cost transactional service provider.
Through the consolidation of back-office operations and business process re-engineering,
greater economies of scale can be obtained.
Mano (2010) adds that decentralisation encourages a high degree of specialisation by freeing
―professionals from transactional activities, allows them to concentrate on more specialised
technical areas (Shah, 1998). Decentralised shared services leverage the skills and knowledge
base in an organisation. Individual business units might not be able to afford the services of
specialist. Shared services can afford these specialists because of the sharing aspect, their
larger clientele base, and offer these services to other business units (Shah, 1998). According
to Quinn et.al. (2000), these hired specialists could definitely protect the overall assets of the
organisation through teamwork hence improving on efficiency and effectiveness.
2.4 Challenges to Decentralisation of Shared Services
The key challenges to decentralisation of shared services are; inadequate management skills
potential job loss, resistance to change, time to train on decentralisation, additional work load
17
in certain departments, lack of understanding by staff of role in the decentralised set up, lack
of finance, duplication of services, changes in work policy, changes in organisational culture
and inadequate facilities. These challenges are discussed in turn.
2.4.1. Inadequate Management Skills
Blaser (2003) expresses the challenges that hinder effective implementation of
decentralisation. He says that effective and operational decentralisation of shared services
requires improvements in fiscal management and a stronger financial capacity at the regional
and/or local level. Decentralisation does not necessarily lead to greater equity. In some
instances it can also contribute to an increase in inequality. However, there are no permanent
challenges in work environment because work evolves. With team work synergies, devoted
staff that are willing to embrace change, decentralisation of shared services can yield positive
contributions in an organisation that wants to excel in this era of globalisation.
2.4.2 Potential Job Loss
Accenture (2009) says that shared services can be used to drive standard policies, processes
and tools across important support functions focus on the Centre. This can lead to significant
efficiency gains and increase the time spent by centre resources on more strategic functions
and core research activities. However, change management is never taken lightly in most
cases by members of staff. Staff can refuse to support the introduction of decentralised shared
services in the organisation for fear of job insecurity. Job redundancies are possible with the
introduction of shared services.
2.4.3 Resistance to Change
There are bottlenecks with any change management process. According to Meyer (1998) some
corporate groups see their role as controlling business units, for example, limiting business units'
spending on a function or forcing one-size-fits-all solutions on them inappropriately. These
corporate functions may be shared, but they are very different from being service oriented.
Additionally, decentralisation may be expensive as new functions need to be created and may
result to confusion and duplication of activities and it inevitably leads to a change in the
organisation culture, (Henricks, 2001; Sherman, 1999; Meyer, 1988).
There is already evidence of the range and complexity of the challenges that organisation
management face when implementing new strategies that demand that things be done
18
differently (Lightfoot, 2003; Kidd, Lamers, Ficarelli, and Hoffmann., 2000). These details
can make or break the performance of new approaches such as decentralised shared services,
especially during its pilot stages. Of particular importance is the development of support
systems to develop new skills, encourage new attitudes and give people the motivation to
take on new roles. These changes take time and continue to be a challenge to the
implementation of decentralised shared services.
Schulman et.al. (1999), states that in order to achieve the full intangible benefits, companies
must actively manage the expectations of individuals as their roles within the business
change. Removing the transactional aspects of human resources or finance from a business
unit, does not mean that there is no need for a head of business unit human resources or
finance. Rather, it means that these people will be able to take new and different roles in the
business unit, roles in which they act more as strategic business advisors with the business
unit head. But many of these senior functional managers are more comfortable managing the
transactional aspects of their jobs than they are in being business analysts and business
advisors. Managing the change in the roles of these senior functional managers whose
transactional activities are moved to a shared service organization is as important as
managing the change encountered by those who go to the shared service organization.
2.4.4 Time to Train on Decentralisation
Scott-Morton (1991); Dunphy and Griffiths (1998) have focused on job design and the broad
level of skills required of employees. Public sector employees are spared from downsizing so
they have the obligation to adjust and embrace the new concepts in SSC model philosophy
through training. In this context and to prevent employees‘ resistance to a shared service
implementation, it is useful that public institutions and universities, offer training and
seminars about the decentralization model (Bergeron, 2003). To get best value from staff,
Reilly and Williams (2006) states that staff training at various stages is important in the move
to fully operationalise decentralization of shared services. Organisations must invest training
staff to equip them into taking up new roles, adds Reilly and Williams.
2.4.5 Additional Work Load in Certain Departments
Bergeron (2003) states that shared services is a collaborative strategy in which a subset of
existing business functions are concentrated into a new, semi-autonomous business unit that
19
has a management structure designed to promote efficiency, value generation, cost savings,
and improved service for the internal customers of the parent corporation. A shared service
center is a separate and accountable semi-autonomous unit within an (inter) organisational
entity, used to bundle activities and provide specific pre-defined services to the operational
units within that (inter) organizational entity, on the basis of agreed conditions.
Decentralization of shared services seems to be especially suitable for outreach offices and
business units since in current practice each unit develops and maintains its own systems and
services. By bundling the development, maintenance and use of services, the costs can be
shared among the units, innovations out of-reach might become feasible, and the money freed
can be used to improve service levels without any of the units having to give up their
autonomy.
2.4.6 Lack of Understanding by Staff of Role in the Decentralised Set Up
Janssen and Joha, (2004) found that anyone who has managed a transition to shared services
experienced problems with the people. Recognition of this fact is the single most important
step to take, as managing of people is commonly misunderstood. Transitioning roles is a
complex process requiring significant time and effort. Strong executive support, continuous
communication and comprehensive training; for both the shared service center and the
business units are critical to success. Lightfoot (2003) states that there are no blueprints to
make the transition toward decentralisation of shared services, but communication can help
develop strategies to identify who needs what, where and how – to a large extent a
communication strategy works like a management audit by highlighting challenges and
providing solutions.
2.4.7 Lack of Finance
Accenture (2009) reports that lack of finance should not be an issue where proper planning is
done. However, lack of finance within the finance function in an organisation could hinder
better standards and the automation of core finance activities, whereby this insufficiency
makes it difficult for finance staff to focus more time on strategic financial management
priorities.
2.4.8 Duplication of Services
According to Shah (1998), while the benefits of decentralised shared services are numerous,
there are drawbacks. For example: duplication of management efforts, ineffectiveness from
20
small-scale operations, inadequate non-standard systems, inefficient localized practices,
outdated processes and duplication of infrastructure. Decentralised shared services provide a
means to alleviate the above drawbacks. It will provide immediate and uniformed services
across the regional offices and headquarters for example in the case of ICRAF (Accenture,
2009).
2.4.9 Changes in Work Policy
Change Management is the effective management of change to help the Centre inform,
involve and prepare all staff for the implementation of new and decentralised shared services.
Accenture (2009), states that shared services can be used to drive standard policies, processes
and tools across important centre‘s support functions. This can lead to significant efficiency
gains and increase the time spent by centre resources on more strategic functions and core
research activities. However, change management is never taken lightly in most cases by
members of staff. Staff can refuse to support the introduction of decentralised shared services
in the organisation out of job insecurity. Redundancy declaration is one of the biggest
challenges to the introduction of shared services policy. There is already evidence of the
range and complexity of the challenges that organisation management face when
implementing new strategies and policies that do things differently (Lightfoot, 2003; Kidd et
al., 2000).
Peckham, (2003) reports that it is important for policy-makers and managers to recognise
inter-relationships between inputs, processes and outcomes and levels in the sense that any
organisation (or individual) can gain and lose. They also need to be aware that the evidence
base for the impact of decentralisation of shared services on organisational performance is
poor and that there is little substantive evidence to support the key assumptions made about
decentralisation.
2.4.10 Changes in Organisational Culture
Mano (2010) agrees that there is no doubt the decentralization of shared services also has its
disadvantages and challenges to its implementation. The organisational culture changes for
employees can cause tension and resistance that can get in the way of getting results; high
start-up costs, for example, if organisations adopt the decentralised model, they must incur
the cost of hiring new staff and installing new technology; implementing shared services
takes time and can be a long process, not only during implementation but in seeing the gains
21
too; in terms of control, shared service centre could mean a loss of autonomy of the units and
finally, it can represent some risks once the control, confidentiality and security of
information is compromised.
2.4.11 Inadequate Facilities
In the evaluation done for CG Centres, (Accenture, 2009) found out that current facility
services include safety & security, housing, transport, physical facilities (buildings,
auditoriums, labs and schools), storage, food & catering, installations, architecture, utilities,
maintenance (electricians etc.) and site operation management. Many headquarter centres
have a robust offering of facility services and are essentially self sufficient in this area.
Facility services are largely delivered by in-house capacities although some Centres use
external providers for limited facility services. For example, ICRAF out sources mail room
functions while IRRI uses third parties for food and janitorial services.
2.5 Ensuring Effective Decentralisation
Empirical studies disclose the measures that ICRAF can use to enhance the decentralisation
process as; development of concrete policies to effectuate shared services at ICRAF, timely
communication to staff on workforce turnover, communication to staff on the financial status
of the centre, preparedness in managing the change process, strong leadership in the
decentralisation process at HQ level, strong leadership at the level of decentralised units,
transparent procedures and guidance on process, adequate funds allocated to support the
decentralisation process from the onset, senior leadership team and global research
coordinators ensure that differences in geographic conditions are considered, ensure
decentralisation process aligns to ICRAF‘s mission and vision, automation of ICRAF
(internet and intranet), staff involvement in the decentralisation process, changing the
organisation structure to reflect the newly decentralised units, avoid discrimination (location,
gender, race, age, religion) on placement of staff and constantly update staff on status of the
decentralisation process. The measures are discussed in turn.
2.5.1 Development of Concrete Policies to Effectuate Shared Services at ICRAF
ICRAF (2006) ICRAF Senior Management must champion the process by putting in place a
policy to effect decentralisation of shared services and to oversee its successful
implementation. According to Meyer (1998), it is good to involve staff in new processes
irrespective of locations as change management forms a basis for major decisions in an
22
organisation in regards to what decentralisation of shared services model can do for it
holistically such as a means to innovate, reduce costs and increase service levels. During the
implementation, planning, frequent reviews must be done on shared services progress.
According to (CGIAR Secretariat, 2009), enhancing the implementation of a decentralised
shared-services model means overhauling business functions similar to starting up a new
business and shutting down old operations process. Therefore, to effectuate successful
decentralisation of shared services, ICRAF‘s SLT must lead by example to buy-in concept
and to ensure that the following measures are in place beforehand:-
ICRAF’s vision - centre‘s policies and the strategy to guide ICRAF‘s work through
the transformation (ICRAF, 2006).
ICRAF’s operations strategy - Service agreements, space-planning, work
environment, security measures both for staff and assets as well as financial
management streamlined.
Senior Leadership Team and middle management team - to steer the process
ahead. Get everyone involved and on board. Monitor progress from time to time.
Business plan/Strategy – ICRAF goals well written in the strategy document, clear
definition of customers, procurement and supplier policies provided for, human
resource manual in use, funding requirements shared with donors, other investors and
staff, strategic performance measures, and initial budget. All these items have to be
made clear to all staff to avoid confusion or duplication of efforts.
Research – creating common research services can improve the efficiency of research
and laboratory support services (which may not be fully utilized today) and in
research data being more effectively shared across Centres.
Grant and Project Management – Centres using common templates,
indicators/metrics and processes for managing grants and projects can result in more
efficient management of the overall research pipeline with higher percentages of
winning proposals and greater focus on high-priority opportunities.
Human Resource – by standardizing the management of salaries, benefits and
entitlements for internationally recruited staff (IRS) and nationally recruited staff
(NRS) within countries, the consortium can more effectively utilize resources across
Centres and can more effectively offer HR services across multiple Centres.
Procurement – the Consortium can realize gains by leveraging the most mature
procurement processes across the Centres and by leveraging the best negotiated
23
purchasing agreements. For example, one Centre, the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA), recently acquired a purchasing agent in the UK, now
called IITA Limited.
Finance – common processes and systems can reduce time in the finance department
spent on manual processes, reconciliation and reporting.
Information and Collaboration – standards for collecting, managing and
disseminating information can increase collaboration within and across Centres, and
also reduce the risk of losing data and institutional knowledge
Information Technology – shared services in IT can drive improved specialization
and increased services. Efficiency gains can potentially free up IT personnel to focus
on strategic uses of technology to help drive the future research agenda instead of
tactical IT support within a specific Centre.
2.5.2 Timely Communication to Staff on Workforce Turnover
It is very important to inform staff on any upcoming processes that relate to work and the
work environment. Through close communication, management assesses employees‘ ability
to execute new processes within their roles. Communication is key in an organization that
wants to excel. The exercise must be driven from the top. Having the Board of Trustees
(BOT) and Senior Leadership Management as champions creates confidence at middle-
management level which is a real asset (ICRAF Strategy 2008-2015). Furthermore, without
this clear direction from the top, personal agendas can take precedence – deflecting the
programme from its original goals. Decentralisation of shared services is a key enabler for the
reform effort. Open communications with staff from time-to-time will help to bring clarity on
whatever issues. Communication improves service levels across the Centre and this will
allow ICRAF to deliver on its mission and on programmes that require increased
coordination across the board. Communication is thus a concrete component for
decentralisation efforts to succeed.
2.5.3 Communication to Staff on the Financial Status of the Centre
ICRAF must give timely updates on the Centre‘s financial status to staff. The financial
health of the Centre is key as staff will only work well when their jobs are assured and
secured. Job insecurity is cancerous. Communication can become one of the many challenges
that organisations face when implementing new strategies if not done properly and in good
time, (Lightfoot, 2003; Kidd et al., 2000). These details can make or break the performance
24
of the new approaches such as decentralised shared services, especially during its pilot stages.
Of a particular importance is clear and simple communication with staff to develop new skills
to support systems, encourage new attitudes and give people the motivation to take on new
roles. The bottom line for management is communications – Communicate, communicate and
communicate. Communication is important attribute to shared services success.
2.5.4 Preparedness in Managing the Change Process
A management team with a passion for a step change in performance, which is prepared to
make and stand by tough decisions, is crucial for its success in the new strategy.
In preparation to effect change process, ICRAF management will need to ensure that:
Staff are aligned with ICRAF‘s defined vision and mission;
Senior Leadership Team working together to maintain the new business processes;
Entire organisation committed to work towards making the new processes work;
Employees able to execute new processes within their roles;
Effective Change Network Organisation; and
Training materials and on-going performance support as an ongoing process.
Accenture (2009) says that shared services can be used to drive standard policies, processes
and tools across important centre‘s support functions. This can lead to significant efficiency
gains and increase the time spent by centre resources on more strategic functions and core
research activities. However, change management is never taken lightly in most cases by
members of staff. Staff can refuse to support the introduction of decentralised shared services
in the organisation for fear of job insecurity. Redundancy declaration is one of the biggest
challenges to the introduction of shared services.
2.5.5 Strong Leadership in the Decentralisation Process at HQ level
Senior Leadership Team (SLT) must buy-in the process to be successful. SLT is to work
with change agents inside the organisation to make the change process a success. Change
agents are people who assume the responsibility of managing the change process within an
organisation. It is very important to SLT to communicate with staff on any upcoming
processes that relates to work and the work environment at HQ. Staff can never be taken for
granted.
25
2.5.6 Strong Leadership at the Level of Decentralised Units
As stated above, ICRAF management is to lead the process. A holistic approach to change
management is needed to help ensure that other units are committed to the new service.
Change Management has to lay the foundation for a productive use of the processes and
system, thus minimizing the implications of deployment in the decentralised units.
2.5.7 Transparent Procedures and Guidance on Process
ICRAF has to operate with consistent, transparent policies and procedures across the board.
ICRAF management must lay steps in the right direction by having simple guidance manuals
to guide the process and these efforts should be further leveraged. The procedures must
communicate the same message both at the HQ and regions.
2.5.8 Adequate Funds Allocated to Support the Decentralisation Process From the
Onset
Accenture (2009) and CGIAR Secretariat (2009) on commitment and donor funds – updates
on leadership, budget and resource commitment from key stakeholders (CGIAR Consortium,
donors and key partners) need to be communicated to staff early to ensure buy-in and
continued support thus improving effectives of decentralization process.
2.5.9 Senior Leadership Team and Global Research Coordinators
SLT and RCs working together to ensure Common Systems / Policy – HR policies /
processes are streamlined to ensure effective and efficient services. Benefits and Entitlement
should be harmonized at country / regional level to support mobility of resources at during
the launching of full decentralisation of shared services. This will also facilitate the
implementation of regional / HQ shared services at the later stage of implementation. Human
Resources Strategy (HRS) to support cross regional in collaboration with SLT leadership and
regional HR teams advocating the same. This will:
Increase efficiency – Increase efficiency and satisfaction of internal employees;
Improved collaboration – Standardized HR policies will allow improved collaboration
across HQ and the regions.
2.5.10 Ensure that Differences in Geographic Conditions are Considered
Same principles applied at HQ on decentralisation of shared services to be replicated at the
regions a consistent way of doing business. ICRAF SLT to ensure that there is improved
26
facility services across regions. Regional decentralised shared services – regional support is
consolidated within a logical geographic area to provide a higher level of service to
underserved regions or projects (e.g. IT and research/lab services). ICRAF in all fairness
needs to:
Optimize cross-learning opportunities across the board;
Simplify implementation and support of enabling technologies across the board;
Potential to cross-train staff as activities grow in scale – need to be prioritized;
Ensure that there is greater sharing and collaboration across the board.
In addition, the wide geographical coverage of ICRAF increases the need for strong
communications and connectivity within and between all locations.
2.5.11 Ensure Decentralisation Process Aligns to ICRAF’s Mission and Vision
Decentralised shared services are intended to improve the capabilities and efficiency of
ICRAF as well as supporting the operation of the Centre‘s mission and vision. ICRAF SLT
will ensure that a clear, common strategy and plan to achieve results is agreed upon and
communicated to all staff across the board. In regards to ICRAF mission and vision,
processes in place will ensure:-
Employees are aligned with defined vision;
Senior Leadership Team is working together to maintain the new business processes;
Entire organisation committed to work towards making the new processes work;
That are processes and systems are geared towards the mission and vision of the
Centre.
2.5.12 Automation of ICRAF (internet and intranet)
Ulbrich, F. (2008) information systems improves business ideas by adding value. Today‘s
technological infrastructure and availability of highly qualified, multilingual staff enables
shared service organisations to conduct relationships with local, regional, and global entities,
such as suppliers, banks, audit firms, international scientists, consultants and administrative
management of programmes (Shah, 1998).
For ICRAF, there is added value in sharing services and collaboration between the regional
offices and headquarters to achieve the organisation‘s common goal and objectives, improve
27
efficiency and save costs. Some of the services that are currently being shared across by
ICRAF include internal audit, the procurement of information technology (IT) software,
publications, payroll, insurance and retirement package for the International Recruited Staff
(IRS). Other services are provided more locally within a single country or region, such as
shared IT and library services and office space for Global Research Projects (GRPs).
2.5.13 Staff Involvement in the Decentralisation Process
According to (Accenture, 2009 & CGIAR Secretariat, 2009) the following factors would
influence effectiveness of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF.
Senior Leadership Team – strong top-down direction and guidance is needed to
ensure that priorities are clearly set and decisions enforced by all staff.
ICRAF Vision and Roadmap – a clear, common strategy and plan to achieve results
needs to be agreed and communicated among the staff (ICRAF Strategy 2008-2015).
Outcomes – objectives and measurements of success need to be defined early and
monitored regularly by management and staff responsible.
2.5.14 Changing the Organisation Structure to Reflect the Newly Decentralised Units
ICRAF Strategy – a clear and compelling business case for each service needs to be
defined and understood at all levels of the organisation.
ICRAF core business and geographic considerations – differences in centre‘s
research focus and geographical locations need to be factored into shared services
beforehand, including quality of connectivity and use of different research services.
Communication – need direct and effective communications to encourage Centre
involvement and build buy in by staff.
Cultural Change – need to consider cultural and personnel differences and actively
manage change impacts across the Consortium.
Capacity Building – need to build and maintain skills and capabilities within the
Consortium to sustain and grow shared services.
Kolehmainen (1998) successful decentralisation requires that new organisational structures,
roles, and responsibilities be clearly defined, form a functional whole, and be acceptable to
the health staff. A review of decentralisation in ten countries demonstrated that this area is
one of the most problematic for human resources. Difficulties arise for several reasons. First,
the definition of organisational structures, roles, and responsibilities may be unclear or
28
inappropriate in view of health sector needs. Second, the roles and responsibilities may
conflict with each other. Third, the organisational structures and allocation of roles and
responsibilities may be disputed. Fourth, these organisational changes may be inadequately
communicated below the central level or change so frequently that no one is clear on the
current status.
2.5.15 Avoid Discrimination (location, gender, race, age, religion) on Placement of Staff
ICRAF Personnel Policy Manual (ICRAF PPM 2006) advocates for one ICRAF one staff
concept. ICRAF is an equal employer to all; hence the issue of discrimination does not occur.
ICRAF‘s SLT and HR team will to ensure that the operational efficiency is felt across the
board and that there exists further opportunities to increase collaboration between HQ and the
regions.
2.5.16 Constantly Update Staff on Status of the Decentralisation Process
ICRAF needs to fully operationalise what it has already started and bring it to full fruition.
New training, performance measurements, and reward systems are needed to encourage
employees to act in accordance with the values of shared services (Shah, 1998). Employees in
a shared-services organisation usually have to accept a flatter organisation with less
promotional opportunities, but one that rewards outstanding performance and the
development of new competencies (ICRAF PM, 2007). There is also an effort for the Global
Research Project Leaders (GRPLs) and head of units to get staff to accept and support shared
services. Effort is required to overcome employee fears about downsizing and loss of control.
Human resource in conjunction with the Training Unit should plan for staff to get training
that will enhance existing skills as well as develop new skills required in the fresh initiative.
Staff may have to specialise, learn new skills or be redeployed.
Too often the current technology and systems cannot fully support a shared services
environment (Shah, 1998). Decentralised shared services calls for major transformation in the
way a function operates. It requires a transformation of people – mind change, process, and
technology. In order for transition from a current to the desired state, major consultations
(top-down-top) are required to avoid confusion. Staff must be encouraged to transform
alongside the organisation. A shared services infrastructure builds on this concept to enabled
shared services to be implemented even when business requirements necessitate formal
barriers inside an organisation.
29
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework. Source: Author, 2011
2.6 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework explains the approach and relationships included to understand
the decentralisation process at ICRAF. The current situation is not fully decentralised, hence
the reason why the current structure is overloaded with tasks because it is semi-decentralised.
The centralised structure has challenges. It is expected that when decentralisation is fully
achieved, then decentralisation benefits will accrue, this include enhanced organisational
synergy and positive spirit among others. It is clear that enhancing and hindering factors
Current Situation: -High overhead costs -Compromised skills -Compromised infrastructure -Resistance to change -ICT challenges -Organisation structure is overloaded
Benefits: -Increased competitive advantage -Leveraging scale and competencies -Enhanced organisational synergy -Focused outputs
Decentralisation
process
Enhancing Factors: -Defined decentralisation
vision, mission, objectives, pathway -Understanding organisational structure -Process cost benefits -Effective leadership, management, and participation. -Collective attitudes and skills
Hindering Factors: -Resistance to change
-Poor/inadequate organisational infrastructure -Poor skills and attitudes
ls and attitudes
Dependent variables
Independent variables
30
interact to determine the course and outcomes of the decentralisation process (Figure 2.1)
above.
The independent variables include variable groups, measuring decentralisation benefits,
challenges, enhancing factors and hindering factors, while dependent variables included those
characteristics that cannot be manipulated by the research. This framework tries to classify
the types of benefits that ICRAF will get through decentralisation of shared services. The
current situation, hindering and enhancing factors have been mapped towards decentralisation
and does provide a comprehensive foundation for planning, justifying, and managing the
process.
This framework is in line with today‘s cost-reductions and limited resources and a bridge for
supporting other systems. ICRAF Senior Leadership Team is supportive and it is hoped that
it will considerer this model because of its advantages, such as increasing efficiency and
effectiveness. However, that notwithstanding, it is made aware of some risks, especially
because it requires a deep change of culture and organisational restructuring. The option of
adopting a decentralisation model is justified by inefficiencies and high services costs
incurred in the past. The process of decentralisation and its implementation is essential and
must be carefully executed for its success.
2.7 Chapter Summary
In summary, it is true from the literature review that decentralisation of shared services is a
very contemporary theme. It is a major focus by many international organisations as it
focuses on the requirements and solutions for effective management. The benefits of
decentralisation; include reduced costs and bureaucracies. The main challenges to
decentralisation include; poor skills within a decentralised framework and potential job-losses
among others. Finally, in the case of ICRAF to ensure effective decentralisation;
development of concrete policies to effectuate shared services at ICRAF, timely
communication to staff on workforce turnover, communication to staff on the financial status
of the centre, preparedness in managing the change process and constantly updating staff on
status of the decentralisation process is a must do.
31
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methods that were used to carry out the research. It constitutes the
outline used for the collection, measurement and methods of data analysis.
3.2 Research Philosophy
The positivist research philosophy was adopted since decentralization of shared services was
studied using empirical and scientific approaches. The positivist position is derived from that
of natural science and is characterised by the testing of hypothesis developed from existing
theory (hence deductive or theory testing) through measurement of observable social realities
(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). This position presumes the social world exists
objectively and externally, that knowledge is valid only if it is based on observations of this
external reality and that universal or general laws exist or that theoretical models can be
developed that are generalisable, can explain cause and effect relationships, and which lend
themselves to predicting outcomes. Positivism is based upon values of reason, truth and
validity and there is a focus purely on facts, gathered through direct observation and
experience and measured empirically using quantitative methods – surveys and experiments -
and statistical analysis. Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) relates this to the organisational context,
stating that positivists assume that what truly happens in organisations can only be discovered
through categorisation and scientific measurement of the behaviour of people, and systems
and that language is truly representative of the reality.
3.3 Research Design
This is a management business research that is undertaking a critical assessment of the same
according to (Saunders et al, 2009). To achieve the broad objective of this research, the
research is both explorative and descriptive survey in the case research of ICRAF, where an
assessment of employees‘ perception on decentralised shared services was done. Descriptive
survey method was chosen because it serves both qualitative (verbal) or quantitative (written)
communication with representatives sample of individuals or respondents from the target
population. It enabled the researcher to gather data at a particular point in time and use it to
describe the nature of the existing conditions. The descriptive design was chosen because it
basically describes the characteristics of the population as they exist at present minimizing
32
biases and maximizing the reliability of the evidence collected.
3.4 Population
Saunders et al., (2009), defined target population as the set of individuals, cases or objects
with some observable characteristics, to which a researcher wants to generalise the results of
the research. Population refers to an entire group of persons or elements that have at least one
thing in common (Kombo and Tromp, 2006). This research covered all ICRAF employees
across the globe. The target population for this research was 331 and the sample size was 84
employees of ICRAF both at scientific and non-scientific levels (Table 3.1).
3.5 Sampling and Sampling Design
Sampling techniques is a statistical determination of the appropriate sample size and enables the
researcher to generalise results to the population. Stratified random sampling was used to
determine the respondents to be included in the sample. According to Saunders et al., (2009),
the population is divided into several sub-populations, which are then subdivided in to other sub-
populations until observation units are selected. Table 3.1 shows the distribution of the sampled
respondents.
Table 3.1 Distribution of Respondent across sample categories
Category Frequency Percentage
GRP Leader 8 9.5
Unit Head 2 2.4
Manager 1 1.2
Scientist/Researcher 25 29.8
Technicians and field Employees 21 25.0
Administrative Staff 6 7.1
Communication 4 4.8
Research Intern 17 20.2
Total 84 100.0 Source: Author, 2011
3.5.1 Sample Frame
The sampling frame in this research was all employees of World Agroforestry Center
(ICRAF) which are 331 in total; male being 200 and 131 being females. The sampling frame
was obtained from ICRAF payroll. A total of 84 responded out of the sample of 118
calculated using the Yamane‘s formula (Israel, 1992) which represents about 46.4%. The
sampling fraction, for the respondents, which is the proportion of the total population that
33
was selected, was a quarter. This means one person was selected out of every group of 4 staff.
3.5.2 Sample Size
Israel (1992), states that in trying to respond to frequently asked questions concerning sampling
such as, "What size sample do I need?" The answer to this question is influenced by a number of
factors, including the purpose of the study, population size, the risk of selecting a "bad" sample,
and the allowable sampling error. In this research, the sample size was reached at by using
Yamane‘s formula (Yamane, 1967).
The sample determination formula is as follows.
21
Nn
Ne
Whereby:
n = sample size
N = size of the population
e = the error of 5 percent
Therefore,
2
331181
1 331 0.05n
3.6 Research area
This research was conducted at ICRAF headquarters in Nairobi and in the five regions
namely East Africa (Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda), South Asia (India, Sri-Lanka) South East
Asia (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, China and Vietnam), Southern Africa (Malawi,
Zambia, Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe) and West and Central Africa (Mali,
34
Cameroon, Nigeria), with a presence in Latin America (Peru and Brazil),
3.6.1 Inclusion criteria
Consenting staff at the ICRAF offices
Research fellows or interns physically present in the ICRAF offices
3.6.2 Exclusion criteria
Non-consenting staff or undelivered emails
Staff out of office
Persons not working for ICRAF
3.7 Data Collection
Data were collected using semi-structured self administered questionnaires. Semi-structured
interviews were carried out to gain more insights and get information that may not have been
captured in the questionnaires. The questionnaire was pretested on 30 sampled respondents
whose results were not included in the final analysis. Tests of reliability and validity were
conducted to ensure data quality.
3.7.1 Data Collection Instrument
The methods used in data collection were; questionnaires, interviews and observation and
document reviews. The main data was collected using questionnaires. Dwivedi (2008)
defines questionnaires as ―devises for securing answers to questions using a form which the
respondent fills in himself or herself‖. The questionnaires (Appendix two) were of
standardized format with a balanced mixture of both open-ended and close-ended questions.
Saunders et al (2009) notes that the use of questionnaires is advantageous because:
They are a less expensive procedure than personal or telephone interview
Require, especially mailed questionnaires, less administrative skills than interview
They can be administered simultaneously to a large number of respondents
They can provide uniformity from one measurement situation to another.
Likert rating scales were used to capture perceptions of ICRAF respondents in relation to
decentralisation (where ―1‖ = strongly disagree and "5"= strongly agree).
35
3.7.2 Data Collection Procedures
The questionnaire was administered using Survey Monkey an online tool and was pre-tested
on 30 respondents to confirm the flow and ease of understanding of the subject matter. The
highlighted changes were effected and the questionnaire was sent out to 118 ICRAF staff.
However responses were only received from 84 staff representing a 71% response rate. The
entire data was collected from 15th December, 2010 to 31st January, 2011. The data was
then cleaned and keyed in SPSS 18.0 for analysis.
3.8 Data Analysis and Presentation
Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18. Bar
graphs, tables and pie charts were used to display summarised data. Cross-tabulations were
generated to determine the relationships between variables. One way analysis of variances
(ANOVA) was used to test whether the differences between the means of the various items
reported in the study differed significantly. Tukey‘s Post Hoc test was used to explain the
factors that had higher mean ratings.
3.9 Ethical considerations
As a staff member of World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), the researcher had an advantage
of getting all the email contacts through the ICRAF global contacts list. However, due to
ethical considerations, the researcher sent out an initial contact email (Appendix one) alerting
recipients that they would be receiving an e-mail to participate in a questionnaire through
Survey Monkey and that there was an option for opting-out if one did not want to participate.
Confidentiality of all participants was assured at all levels of the research. Names of
the respondents were not to be included in the questionnaire.
The respondents had the option of participating or declining.
3.10 Research limitations
Some colleagues refused to give consent to request sent via email;
Some colleagues feared change management as result of this research;
Some staff are spread in various regions and with busy field work schedules. It was
difficult in reach them.
36
3.11 Chapter Summary
Chapter 3 presents the research methods applied in the research. The section describes the
research philosophy which is positivism. Other materials include the research design, sample
size determination. In the sample size, 84 respondents were randomly selected from sample
frame of 331 ICRAF workers. Questionnaires were used to collect the data using
SurveyMonkey software, an online tool that facilitates email-based surveys. Data was
analysed using SPSS version 18.0 for descriptives, means, ANOVAs and Post hoc analysis
was conducted by use of Tukey method.
Chapter four discusses the findings of the study.
37
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings and results of the study in the order of the research
objectives. It begins by analyzing the demographic characteristics of the sample, reviews the
benefits of decentralisation in ICRAF, and discloses the findings on the criteria that should
guide decentralisation. In the last part, the chapter documents the findings on the measures
that should be put in place to enhance decentralisation of shared services. For each of the
objectives, descriptive statistics are first calculated and the objective variables analyzed by
use of one way ANOVA to determine whether the responses differ significantly on the basis
of the demographic characteristics. The results are based on a response rate of 71% (n=84).
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
4.2.1 Gender
Figure 4.1 shows that majority of the respondents were female (51%) while the male
respondents constituted 49% of the sample. The female to male ratio in the sampling frame
was 53%.
Figure 4. 1: Gender distribution of respondents
38
4.2.2 Age of the Respondents
Figure 4.2: Age distribution of respondents
Figure 4.2 shows that the 25-29 age group of respondents consisted of 11% of the
respondents, the others were as follows; 30-34 (28%), 40-44 (14%), 45-49 (13%), > 50
(14%). The 30-39 age groups formed the largest proportion of the study population, with
more than 20% representation from the age categories in this group (Figure 4.2).
39
4.2.3 Geographical Distribution of the Respondents
72.6
13.1
4.81.2 1.2
7.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Africa Asia Australia Europe North
America
South
America
Region
Pe
rce
nta
ge
re
sp
on
de
nts
Figure 4.3: Regions of study respondents
Respondents were sampled from various regions (Figure 4.3). The highest representation was
Africa with 61 respondents (73%), followed by South America (7%) and Australia (5 %).
Other regions including Europe and North America had few staff, <2% from each of those
regions (Figure 4.3). ICRAF headquarters is based in Kenya, Africa and has the largest staff
population working in headquarters with less people in the regional offices.
40
4.2.4 Education Level
Figure 4. 4: Educational qualifications of respondents
Figure 4.4 shows that 64% of the respondents held postgraduate degrees (Masters and PhD)
23% had undergraduate degrees and advanced diploma holders accounted for 11% of the
respondents.
4.4.5 Job Classification
9.5
2.4 1.2
29.8
25
7.14.8
20.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
GRP le
ader
Unit h
ead
Man
ager
Scien
tist/
Res
earc
her
Techn
ician
Adm
inistra
tive
staf
f
Com
mun
icat
ion
Res
earc
h inte
rn
Job classfication
Pe
rce
nta
ge
re
sp
on
de
nts
Figure 4.5: Job classifications of respondents
1.2 1.2
10.7
22.6
32.1 32.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Certificate Diploma Advanced
diploma
Graduate Post-
graduate
Masters
Post-
graduate
PhD
Educational level (completed)
Pe
rce
nta
ge r
es
po
nd
en
ts
41
Figure 4.5 shows that scientists and researchers constituted almost 30% of the respondents.
ICRAF‗s core business is in research in agroforestry, hence this result is not surprising. The
other major staffs are distributed as follows; technicians (25%), interns (20%). GRP leaders
and administrative staff constituted 9.5 and 7% of the sample respectively.
4.4.6 Duty Stations of the Respondents
45.2
20.2
8.36
8.3
2.4
9.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
ICRAF h
eadqu
ater
s
Eas
t Afri
ca
West
and
Cen
tral A
frica
Sou
th A
sia
Latin
Americ
a
Sou
ther
n Afri
ca
Sou
th E
ast A
sia
Duty station
Pe
rce
nta
ge
re
sp
on
de
nts
Figure 4. 6: Duty stations of respondents
Figure 4.6 above indicates that most employees were located at the ICRAF headquarters,
Nairobi (45%). Others were stationed in regional offices in East Africa, South East Asia,
West and Central Africa and Latin America.
42
4.4.7 Job Experience
Figure 4. 7: Work experience (years) of ICRAF respondents
Figure 4.7 shows that over 55% of the employees had worked for 1- 6 years at ICRAF. This
was followed by those who had worked for 7-12 years (23.8%), and 13-18 years (8.3%). The
least group of workers were those who had worked for more than 18 years (5%).
43
4.4.8 Area of Specialization
31
56
13.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Research/ Science Technical/ Field
operations
Administrative
Area of specialisation
Pe
rce
nta
ge
re
sp
on
de
nts
Figure 4. 8: Area of staff specialisation
Figure 4.8 shows the areas of staff specialisation of the respondents. The technicians
comprised 56% of the sample, while researchers were 31%. Administrative staff constituted
13% of the sample.
4.4.9 Perception on whether ICRAF is Decentralised
10.7
40.5
27.4
17.9
1.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
Agreement
Pe
rce
nta
ge
re
sp
on
de
nts
Figure 4. 9: ICRAF’s organisational structure does not reflect its decentralised nature
of operation
44
Figure 4.9 shows that most of the respondents disagreed with the assertion that ICRAFs
organisational structure reflected its decentralised nature of operation (40.5%).
4.3 Benefits of Decentralisation
4.3.1 Frequencies and Means on the Benefits of Decentralisation
Most respondents were in agreement with the empirical benefits of decentralisation as shown
in Table 4.1.
Table 4. 2: Benefits of Decentralisation
Benefits
Rating
Total
Mean Rank
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
Enhances standardization of
operations
0 (0) 12 (16.4) 18 (24.7) 36 (49.3) 7 (9.6) 73 (100) 3.52
8
Enhances cross-regional
collaboration
0 (0) 10 (13.9) 12 (16.7) 36 (50) 14 (19.4) 72(100) 3.75
4
Performance with minimized
supervision
1(1.4) 7 (9.9) 16 (22.5) 35(49.31) 12 (16.9) 71 (100) 3.70
5
Motivates regional staff 0 (0) 7 (9.7) 7 (9.7) 39 (54.2) 19 (26.4) 72(100) 3.97 1
Reduces bureaucracy 0 (0) 10 (13.9) 6 (8.3) 37 (51.4) 19(26.4) 72 (100) 3.90 2
Reduces overhead cost 1 (1.4) 8 (11.1) 18 (25) 32 (44.4) 13 (18.1) 72 (100) 3.67 6
Staff become customer focused 1 (1.4) 8 (11.1) 17 (23.6) 35 (48.6) 11 (15.3) 72 (100) 3.65 7
Re-align organisational structure
to better support the strategic
direction of ICRAF
0 (0) 8 (11.1) 9 (12.5) 41 (56.9) 14 (19.4) 72 (100) 3.85
3
Values in parentheses ( ) are row percentages, while values outside parentheses are
frequencies.
Table 4.1 shows that 49.3% of the respondents agreed that decentralisation enhances
standardization of operations, 50% agreed that decentralisation enhances cross-regional
collaboration, while 17% neither agreed nor disagreed. Over 50% of staff agreed that
decentralisation motivates staff, reduces bureaucracy, and re-aligns organisational structure
better to suit ICRAF strategic direction. Forty nine percent of respondents agreed that
45
decentralisation led to improved performance with minimal supervision, while 22% neither
agreed nor disagreed.
Ranking the perceptions of the respondents on the benefits of decentralisation on the basis of
the mean, shows that the benefits in order of popularity are; staff motivation, reduction in
bureaucracy, realignment of the structure to support the strategic direction, enhancing cross
regional collaboration, minimizing supervision, reduction in overhead costs, staff becoming
more customer focused and enhancing the standardization of operations.
4.3.2 Differences in Perceptions of Benefits of Decentralisation - ANOVA
One way ANOVA was conducted to test whether there were significant differences in the
perception of the respondents regarding the benefits of decentralisation on the basis of
gender, age, region, education level, job classification, duty station, work experience and area
of specialization. The results are presented in table 4.2.
46
Table 4. 3: Differences in Perceptions of the Benefits of Decentralisation
Benefits Gender Age Region Education
Job
classification Duty station
Work
experience
Area of
specialisation
Enhances standardization of
procedures 0.325 0.793 0.033* 0.584 0.419 0.878 0.426 0.887
Enhances cross-regional
collaboration 0.754 0.506 0.536 0.276 0.102 0.27 0.411 0.26
Performance with minimized
supervision 0.868 0.759 0.494 0.377 0.246 0.139 0.288 0.258
Motivates regional staff 0.944 0.206 0.614 0.863 0.061 0.718 0.665 0.668
Reduces bureaucracy 0.377 0.761 0.582 0.266 0.078 0.255 0.377 0.03*
Reduces overhead cost 0.412 0.604 0.823 0.109 0.200 0.567 0.453 0.674
Staff become customer focused 0.83 0.969 0.961 0.526 0.459 0.37 0.142 0.974
Re-align organisational structure
to better support the strategic
direction of ICRAF 0.208 0.505 0.579 0.163 0.107 0.041* 0.804 0.615
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
47
Table 4.2 shows that the perceptions on the benefits of decentralisation do not differ on the
basis of gender, age, education level, job classification and work experience. This implies
that the benefits would be realized by all regardless of gender, age, education level, job
classification and work experience. Table 4.2 however shows that the perception that
decentralisation enhances standardization of procedures differs significantly on the basis of
the regions where the respondents hailed, the benefit on reduction of bureaucracy differed on
the basis of the area of specialization while the benefit on realignment of the organisation
structure to favour the strategic direction of ICRAF differed on the basis of the duty station.
Post Hoc analysis was conducted to determine the regions, areas of specialization and duty
stations that had significantly different than others. These results are reported in table 4.3, 4.4
and 4.5.
Table 4. 4: Post Hoc Analysis on Enhancing Standardization of Procedures by Region
using Tukey Method
Region Mean I Mean J Mean difference
(I-J)
Sig. Value
Africa and Asia 3.7 2.9 0.8 0.000**
Africa and Australia 3.7 3.0 0.7 0.109
Africa and Europe 3.7 2.0 1.7 0.085
Africa and North America 3.7 4.0 -0.3 0.208
Africa and South America 3.7 3.8 -0.1 0.097
Asia and Australia 2.9 3.0 -0.1 0.986
Asia and Europe 2.9 2.0 0.9 0.132
Asia and North America 2.9 4.0 -1.1 0.215
Asia and South America 2.9 3.8 -0.9 0.150
Australia and Europe 3.0 2.0 1 0.406
Australia and North America 3.0 4.0 -1 0.854
Australia and South America 3.0 3.8 -0.8 0.012
Europe and North America 2.0 4.0 -2 0.412
Europe and South America 2.0 3.8 -1.8 0.263
North America and South America 4.0 3.8 0.2 0.063
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Post Hoc tests on enhancing standardization as a benefit of decentralisation showed that
48
Africa valued this benefit higher than Asia (Table 4.3). (See chapter 5 for interpretation of
the result).
Table 4 5: Post Hoc Analysis on Reducing Bureaucracy by Area of Specialization
using Tukey Method
Area of Specialization (I
and J)
Mean I Mean J Mean difference
(I-J)
Sig. Value
Research and Technical 4.14 3.95 0.19 0.725
Research and Administrative 4.14 3.2 0.94 0.025*
Technical and Administrative 3.95 3.2 0.75 0.061
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Table 4.4 shows that Researchers and Administrators had significant differences in rating of
reducing bureaucracy, with researchers rating this benefit higher than administrators. (See
chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).
There were no significant differences in between any other groups of specialisation.
49
Table 4. 6: Post Hoc Analysis on Re-alignment of the organisational structure to
better support the strategic direction of ICRAF by Duty Station
Duty Station Mean I Mean J Mean difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
ICRAF HQ and East Africa 3.68 4 -0.32 0.872
ICRAF HQ and West and Central Africa 3.68 4.43 -0.75 0.33
ICRAF HQ and South Asia 3.68 3.6 0.08 1
ICRAF HQ and Latin America 3.68 4.29 -0.61 0.586
ICRAF HQ and Southern Africa 3.68 4.5 -0.82 0.817
ICRAF HQ and South East Asia 3.68 3.14 0.54 0.717
East Africa and West and Central Africa 4 4.43 -0.43 0.909
East Africa and South Asia 4 3.6 0.4 0.962
East Africa and Latin America 4 4.29 -0.29 0.987
East Africa and Southern Africa 4 4.5 -0.5 0.983
East Africa and South East Asia 4 3.14 0.86 0.258
West and Central Africa and South Asia 4.43 3.6 0.83 0.603
West and Central Africa and Latin
America 4.43 4.29 0.14 1
West and Central Africa and Southern
Africa 4.43 4.5 -0.07 1
West and Central Africa and South East
Asia 4.43 3.14 1.29 0.066
South Asia and Latin America 3.6 4.29 -0.69 0.786
South Asia and Southern Africa 3.6 4.5 -0.9 0.845
South Asia and South East Asia 3.6 3.14 0.46 0.962
Latin America and Southern Africa 4.29 4.5 -0.21 0.000**
Latin America and South East Asia 4.29 3.14 1.15 0.002*
Southern Africa and South East Asia 4.5 3.14 1.36 0.387
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Table 4.5 indicates that the perception that decentralisation will help to realign the
organisation structure to better support the strategic direction of ICRAF differs significantly
between Latin America and Southern Africa (p< 0.01) with Latin America rating the factor
50
higher than Southern Africa and between Latin America and South East Asia (p<0.05) with
Latin America rating the benefit higher than South East Asia. (See chapter 5 for
interpretation of the results).
4.3 Critical Success Factors for Decentralisation of Shared Services at ICRAF
4.3.1 Frequencies and Means on the Critical Success Factors for Decentralizing
Shared Services at ICRAF
Table 4.6 shows that fifty six percent (56%) of the respondents regarded regional
involvement as very important in decentralisation while 34% considered it somehow
important in decentralisation. Regarding the involvement of scientists (the bureaucrats), 48%
found this step to be very important, while 58% found involvement of administrative staff to
be very important (54%). Clarifying the functions to be decentralised and using a qualified
team of leaders were viewed by 61% and 64% of the respondents as very important steps to
decentralisation of shared services. The involvement of administrative staff from all regions
was rated very important by 58% of the respondents, while 32% rated it as important.
Definition of the decentralisation process was rated as very important by 54% of the
respondents, while 33% rated it as important. Staff feed-back was rated as somewhat
important (42%). More and regular information sharing was rated very important by 35% of
the respondents. Defined organisational structure was rated as very important by 57% of the
respondents.
The critical success factors to decentralisation of shared services were ranked on the basis of
the mean and reported in Table 4.6. The results indicate that the important steps in order of
preference are; involving staff from all the regions and headquarter, reducing paperwork
involved, clarifying functions that can be decentralised, making use of qualified team
members, defining the organisation structure, involving all regions in the process, clearly
defining decentralisation, identifying and documenting (mapping) the geographic locations,
regular information sharing, giving staff feedback and basing decentralisation on the volumes
of work.
One way analysis of variances (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether the critical
success factors differ on the basis of gender, age, region, education, job classification, duty
51
station, experience and areas of specialization. The results; reported in table 4.7 discloses that
the responses do not differ at all on the basis of age and education level but expose significant
differences on the basis of gender, region, job classification, duty station, work experience
and area of specialization. On the basis of gender (does not require Post Hoc analysis), the
issue on information sharing differs significantly between men and women. Women perceive
it to be more important than men (mean difference, 1.1). Post Hoc analysis was conducted to
further understand the differences in terms of region, job classification, duty station, work
experience and area of specialization. The results are reported in tables 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10.
52
Table 4. 7: Important Steps in Decentralisation of Shared Services
Important steps in
decentralisation
Rating
Total
Mean Rank
Not important
at all Not important Don’t know
Somewhat
important Very Important
Regional involvement 1 (1.4) 2 (2.9) 4 (5.7) 24 (34.3) 39 (55.7) 70 (70) 4.40 6
Involve scientists 0 (0) 7 (10.1) 6 (8.7) 23 (33.3) 33 (47.8) 69 (100) 4.19 10
Involve administrative staff from
regions and HQ
0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (10.1) 22 (31.9) 40 (58) 69 (100) 4.48
1
Define decentralisation process 0 (0) 3 (4.3) 6 (8.7) 23 (33.3) 37 (53.6) 69 (100) 4.36 7
Staff feed-back 1 (1.4) 1 (1.4) 13 (18.8) 29 (42.61) 25 (25) 69 (100) 4.10 11
More and regular information
sharing
0 (0) 2 (2.9) 10 (14.5) 24 (34.8) 33 (47.8) 69 (100) 4.28
9
Clarity on functions that can be
decentralised
1 (1.4) 1 (1.4) 5 (7.2) 20 (29) 42 (60.9) 69 (100) 4.46
3
Defined organisational structure 1 (1.4) 2 (2.9) 4 (5.8) 23 (33.3) 39 (56.5) 69 (100) 4.41 5
Reduced paperwork 0 (0) 1 (1.4) 3 (4.3) 28 (40.6) 37 (53.6) 69 (100) 4.46 2
Identify and document
geographic locations
0 (0) 1 (1.4) 3 (4.3) 37 (53.6) 28 (40.6) 69 (100) 4.33
8
Qualified team leaders 2 (2.9) 2 (2.9) 3 (4.3) 18 (26.1) 44 (63.8) 69 (100) 4.45 4
Volume of work 0 (0) 6 (8.8) 11 (16.2) 29 (42.6) 22 (32.4) 68 (100) 3.99 12
Values in parentheses ( ) are row percentages, while values outside parentheses are frequencies.
53
4.3.2 Differences in Important Steps in Decentralisation at ICRAF – ANOVA
Table 4.8: Differences in Perceptions of the Important Steps in the Decentralisation of Shared Services at ICRAF
Important steps in decentralisation Gender Age Region Education
Job
classification
Duty
station
Work
experience
Area of
specialization
Regional involvement 0.068 0.966 0.021* 0.331 0.002* 0.006* 0.763 0.000**
Involve scientists 0.697 0.256 0.652 0.301 0.175 0.630 0.916 0.028*
Involve administrative staff from regions and HQ 0.668 0.970 0.627 0.261 0.002* 0.235 0.159 0.001*
Define decentralisation process 0.553 0.955 0.670 0.915 0.018* 0.202 0.642 0.000*
Staff feed-back 0.709 0.083 0.102 0.238 0.347 0.268 0.626 0.388
More and regular information sharing 0.041* 0.498 0.02* 0.692 0.026* 0.078 0.539 0.025*
Clarity on functions that can be decentralised 0.429 0.447 0.910 0.638 0.029* 0.088 0.444 0.000*
Defined organisational structure 0.864 0.888 0.246 0.272 0.01* 0.219 0.384 0.014*
Reduced paperwork 0.912 0.413 0.583 0.467 0.65 0.334 0.678 0.043*
Identify and document geographic locations 0.257 0.759 0.901 0.966 0.663 0.683 0.303 0.658
Qualified team leaders 0.284 0.313 0.350 0.933 0.052 0.013* 0.032* 0.003*
Volume of work 0.699 0.131 0.816 0.759 0.155 0.067 0.320 0.012*
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
54
Table 4.9: Post Hoc Analysis on Region using the Tukey Method
Region
I and J
Regional
Involvement
More and Regular
Information Sharing
Mean
Difference
(I – J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Africa and Asia 0.48 0.000** 0.2 0.834
Africa and Australia 1.00 0.411 1.2 0.023*
Africa and Europe 0.63 0.561 -0.6 0.108
Africa and North America 0.52 0.645 -0.6 0.364
Africa and South America 0.80 0.342 0.8 0.114
Asia and Australia 1.30 0.035* 1 0.167
Asia and Europe 1.23 0.068 -0.8 0.830
Asia and North America -0.45 0.059 -0.8 0.254
Asia and South America 1.10 0.035* 0.5 0.538
Australia and Europe 0.68 0.069 -1.8 0.137
Australia and North America -0.87 0.235 -1.8 0.980
Australia and South America -0.20 0.509 -0.4 0.835
Europe and North America 1.10 0.413 0.0 0.102
Europe and South America 0.69 0.615 1.3 0.914
North America and South America 0.55 0.875 1.3 0.321
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Table 4.8 shows that regional involvement as a success factor to decentralisation was rated
significantly different between Africa and Asia (p<0.01) as Africa considered it more
important than Asia; Asia and Australia (p<0.05); Asia considered it more important than
Australia and Asia and South America (p<0.05); Asia considered it more important than
South America. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of the results).
55
Table 4.10: Post Hoc Analysis on Job classification using the Tukey Method
Job Classification Regional
Involvement
Involve admin staff Define Decentralisation Regular Info sharing Defined Org. Structure
Mean Difference (I – J) Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
GRP leader and Unit head -0.86 0.105 -0.43 0.624 -0.71 0.426 -0.86 0.098 -1 0.058
GRP Leader and Manager -0.86 0.291 -0.43 0.187 -0.71 0.310 -0.86 0.326 -1 0.951
GRP Leader and Researchers 0.24 0.977 0.47 0.527 0.39 0.85 0.29 0.952 -0.3 0.949
GRP Leader and Technicians -0.75 0.226 -0.15 0.994 -0.54 0.579 -0.58 0.535 -0.67 0.388
GRP Leader and Admin Staff 0.31 0.975 0.57 0.575 0.46 0.887 0.31 0.978 0.67 0.632
GRP Leader and communication -0.86 0.552 -0.43 0.919 -0.38 0.977 -0.53 0.918 -1 0.425
GRP Leader and Research Interns -0.55 0.614 -0.12 0.998 -0.25 0.979 -0.24 0.984 -0.69 0.404
Unit head and manager 0.25 0.520 0.13 0.651 0 0.489 0 0.068 0 0.950
Unit head and researcher 1.1 0.516 0.9 0.957 1.1 0.644 1.15 0.152 0.7 0.653
Unit head and technician 0.11 0.065 0.28 0.620 0.17 0.947 0.28 0.302 0.33 0.460
Unit head and administrative staff 1.17 0.546 1 0.542 1.17 0.574 1.17 0.983 1.67 0.146
Unit head and Communication 0 0.129 0 0.330 0.33 0.792 0.33 1.000 0 0.762
Unit head and research interns 0.31 0.875 0.31 0.425 0.46 0.498 0.62 0.997 0.31 0.997
Manager and Researchers 1.1 0.236 0.9 0.103 1.1 0.714 1.15 0.991 0.7 0.729
Manager and technician 0.11 0.765 0.28 0.500 0.17 0.625 0.28 0.941 0.33 0.288
Manager and administrative staff 1.17 0.281 1 0.369 1.17 0.891 1.17 0.998 1.67 0.214
Manager and communication 0 0.396 0 0.460 0.33 0.328 0.33 0.254 0 0.522
Manager and research intern 0.31 0.120 0.31 0.725 0.46 0.230 0.62 0.958 0.31 0.602
Researcher and technician -0.99 0.001* -0.62 0.037* -0.93 0.004* -0.87 0.01* -0.37 0.689
Researcher and Administrative staff 0.07 0.000** 0.1 0.999 0.07 1 0.02 1 0.97 0.092
Researcher and communication -1.1 0.174 -0.9 0.201 -0.77 0.571 -0.82 0.52 -0.7 0.687
Researcher and Research interns
-0.79 0.042* -0.59 0.099 -0.64 0.178 -0.53 0.374 -0.39 0.71
Technician and administrative staff
1.06 0.041* 0.72 0.156 1 0.067 0.89 0.15 1.34 0.007
Technician and communication -0.11 1 -0.28 0.98 0.16 0.999 0.05 1 -0.33 0.982
Technician and research intern 0.2 0.978 0.03 1 0.29 0.888 0.34 0.828 -0.02 1
Administrative staff and communication -1.17 0.241 -1 0.227 -0.84 0.622 -0.84 0.638 -1.67 0.037*
Administrative staff and research interns -0.86 0.191 -0.69 0.235 -0.71 0.412 -0.55 0.689 -1.36 0.000**
Communication and research interns 0.31 0.987 0.31 0.972 0.13 1 0.29 0.992 0.31 0.596
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
56
Table 4.9 discloses that the perception that regional involvement as a success factor for decentralisation of
shared services differs significantly between researchers and technicians (p<0.05) as technicians consider it
to be a more important factor, researchers and administration assistants (p<0.01) researchers consider it to be
more important, researchers and interns (p<0.05) interns consider it to be more important and technicians
and administrative staff (p<0.05) since technicians consider it to be more important. Table 4.9 further shows
that researcher and technicians had different perceptions on; the involvement of administration staff,
defining decentralisation and information sharing at (p<0.05) as critical in ensuring successful
decentralisation. Technicians considered the three elements as more important than the researchers. Lastly,
Table 4.9 discloses that definition of the organisational structure was rated differently by administrative staff
and research interns (p<0.01) and the staff involved in communication (p<0.01). In both cases, the
administrative staff had lesser mean. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).
57
Table 4.11: Post Hoc Analysis on Area of Specialization using the Tukey Method
Regional
Involvement
Involve admin staff Define Decentralisation Regular Info sharing Clarity on Functions Defined Org.
Structure
Job Classification (I
and J)
Mean
Difference (I –
J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
differe
nce
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Research and Technical -0.74 0.002* -0.64 0.001* -0.34 0.261 -0.6 0.019* -0.46 0.046 -0.34 0.261
Research and
Administrative 0 1 -0.2 0.667 0.49 0.265 -0.3 0.595 0.83 0.007 0.49 0.265
Technical and
Administrative 0.74 0.023* 0.44 0.124 0.83 0.014* 0.3 0.535 1.29 0.000** 0.83 0.014*
*p<0.05 **p<0.01
58
Table 4.10 shows that regional involvement as a critical success factor to decentralisation differs
significantly depending on the respondents‘ job classification as technical staff view it as more important
than researchers (p<0.05) and technical staff view it as more important than the administrative staff
(p<0.05). Regarding the involvement of staff, the responses between the research ant technical staff are
significantly different (p<0.05) with the technical staff rating it as more important than researchers.
Technical staff on the other hand consider the definition of decentralisation as more important in
decentralisation than the administrative staff (p<0.05). On the other hand, the technical staff regard regular
information sharing, clarity of functions and defining the organisation structure as more important than the
administrative staff (p<0.05). (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).
59
4.4 Challenges of Decentralizing Shared Services at ICRAF
4.4.1 Frequencies and Means on the Challenges of Decentralizing Shared Services at ICRAF
Most of the respondents agreed to some extent or were mostly not sure of the challenges likely to arise from
decentralisation (Table 4.11). Table 4.10 further shows that twenty five (25%) of the respondents regarded
management under a decentralisation mechanism as constrained by poor management skills. However, 20%
of the respondents were not sure of the same, while 15% thought that poor skills would be a challenge to
some extent (Table 4.11). In relation to potential job losses, 41% of the respondents were not sure if
decentralisation could cause this. Other challenges that would arise from decentralisation included resistance
to change, as indicated by 35% of the respondents (Table 4.11).
Table 4.12: Decentralisation challenges
Decentralisation challenges
Rating
Total
Mean Rank
Not at all
Small
extent Not sure
Some
extent
Large
extent
Inadequate management
skills
12(20.7) 9 (15.5) 12 (20.7) 15 (25.9) 10 (17.2) 58 (100) 3.03
9
Potential job loss 4 (6.9) 11 (19.0) 24 (41.4) 13 (2.4) 6 (10.3) 58 (100) 3.10 8
Resistance to change 5 (8.8) 4 (7.0) 14 (24.6) 20 (35.1) 14 (24.6) 57 (100) 3.60 1
Time to train on
decentralization
3 (5.2) 19 (32.8) 4 (6.9) 17 (29.3) 15 (25.9) 58 (100) 3.38
4
Additional work load in
certain departments
3 (5.2) 8 (13.8) 14 (24.1) 23 (39.7) 10 (17.2) 58 (100) 3.50
2
Lack of understanding by
staff of role in the
decentralised set up
6 (10.3) 15 (25.9) 7 (12.1) 18 (31.0) 12 (20.7) 58 (100) 3.26
6
Lack of finance 6 (10.3) 9 (15.5) 18 (31.0) 17 (29.3) 8 (13.8) 58 (100) 3.21 7
Duplication of services 5 (8.8) 9 (15.8) 11 (19.3) 22 (38.6) 10 (17.5) 57 (100) 3.40 3
Changes in work policy 5 (8.6) 10 (17.2) 15 (25.9) 20 (34.5) 8 (13.8) 58 (100) 3.28 5
Values in parentheses ( ) are row percentages, while values outside parentheses are frequencies.
Additional workload was also seen as a decentralisation challenge to some extent (40%), lack of
understanding of staff role was seen as a major challenge to some extent or to a large extent by over 50% of
the staff. Time to train staff on decentralisation was also seen to be a likely challenge to some extent (29%)
or to a large extent (26%). Thirty one percent of the respondents were not sure whether lack of finance was
to be a major challenge. Duplication of services and changes in work policy would arise as decentralisation
challenges to some extent as rated by over 35% of the staff (Table 4.11). Most of the factors ensuring
60
effectiveness of the decentralisation process at ICRAF were found to be very important by 40-60% of the
employees (Table 4.11). Table 4.11 also shows that resistance to change is the main challenge to
decentralisation in ICRAF. This is followed by additional workload, duplication of services, time to train on
decentralisation, changes in work policy, lack of understanding by staff on the role of the decentralised set
up, lack of finance, potential job loss, and inadequate management skills.
4.4.2 Differences in Perceptions of Challenges of Decentralisation - ANOVA
One way ANOVA was conducted to discern whether the challenges would be experienced differently on the
basis of age, gender, region, education level, job classification and duty station. Table 4.12; includes the
results of the analysis and shows that resistance to change differs on the basis of education level, duty station
and area of specialization; time to train differs on the basis of age; lack of understanding differs on the basis
of gender and education level; lack of finance and duplication of services differ on the basis of region;
change in work policy and organisation culture differ on the basis of education level and inadequate facility
on the basis of gender. Post Hoc analysis was conducted to explain where the exact differences would be
noted. These results are communicated in table 4.13, 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16.
Table 4. 13: ANOVA on the Challenges of Decentralizing Shared Services at ICRAF
Decentralisation challenges Gender Age Region Education
Job
classification
Duty
station
Inadequate management skills 0.345 0.077 0.285 0.697 0.838 0.122
Potential job loss 0.428 0.726 0.178 0.231 0.663 0.363
Resistance to change 0.914 0.376 0.460 0.008* 0.454 0.033*
Time to train on decentralization 0.051 0.026* 0.107 0.181 0.440 0.147
Additional work load in certain
departments 0.071 0.052 0.541 0.087 0.117 0.443
Lack of understanding by staff of
role in the decentralised set up 0.016* 0.234 0.148 0.015* 0.367 0.461
Lack of finance 0.099 0.116 0.013* 0.099 0.307 0.334
Duplication of services 0.585 0.855 0.040* 0.594 0.695 0.790
Changes in work policy 0.141 0.245 0.173 0.01* 0.052 0.399
Changes in organisational
culture 0.798 0.209 0.680 0.05* 0.220 0.606
Inadequate facility 0.07* 0.073 0.246 0.238 0.408 0.123
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
61
Table 4.14: Post Hoc Analysis on Time to train on decentralisation as a challenge of
decentralisation by age
Age Mean I Mean J Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig. Value
25 to 29 and 30 to 34 2.286 3.714 -1.429 0.139
25 to 29 and 35 to 39 2.286 2.917 -0.631 0.887
25 to 29 and 40 to 44 2.286 3.111 -0.825 0.765
25 to 29 and 45 - 49 2.286 4.250 -1.964 0.036*
25 to 29 and 50 + 2.286 3.875 -1.589 0.043*
30 to 34 and 35 to 39 3.714 2.917 0.798 0.570
30 to 34 and 40 to 44 3.714 3.111 0.603 0.858
30 to 34 and 45 to 49 3.714 4.250 -0.536 0.921
30 to 34 and 50+ 3.714 3.875 -0.161 0.834
35 to 39 and 40 to 44 2.917 3.111 -0.194 0.999
35 to 39 and 45 to 49 2.917 4.250 -1.333 0.183
35 to 39 and 50+ 2.917 3.875 -0.958 0.532
40 to 44 and 45 to 49 3.111 4.250 -1.139 0.409
40 to 44 and 50+ 3.111 3.875 -0.764 0.795
45 to 49 and 50+ 4.250 3.875 0.375 0.990
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Table 4.13 shows that the time to train on the new roles of the decentralised system will differ significantly
(p<0.05) between age groups 25-29 and 45-59 and also those aged 50 years or more. Those aged 25-29
would take lesser time to train than their older colleagues. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).
62
Table 4. 15: Post Hoc Analysis on Challenges by Region using the Tukey Method
Region
I and J
Lack of Finance Duplication of Services
Mean
Difference (I
– J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Africa and Asia -1 0.043* 1.4 0.000**
Africa and Australia 2.1 0.130 2.5 0.004*
Africa and Europe 1.1 0.325 2.5 0.000**
Africa and North America 2.1 0.771 1.5 0.000**
Africa and South America -0.2 0.899 0.3 0.003*
Asia and Australia 3.1 0.362 2.9 0.411
Asia and Europe 2.1 0.324 2.9 0.347
Asia and North America 3.1 0.121 1.9 0.991
Asia and South America 0.8 0.365 0.7 0.450
Australia and Europe -1 0.838 0 0.563
Australia and North America 0 0.658 -1 0.410
Australia and South America -2.3 0.984 -2.2 0.907
Europe and North America 1 0.594 -1 0.058
Europe and South America -1.3 0.388 -2.2 0.999
North America and South America -2.3 0.134 -1.2 0.264
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Table 4.14 shows that Africa and Asia have significantly different mean differences (p<0.05) with regard to
perceptions on lack of finance as a challenge to decentralisation, with Asia considering it a more severe
constraint. Interestingly, significant mean differences are noted between Africa and all other regions with
regard to the perception that decentralisation will lead to duplication of services. In all cases, Africa views
duplication of services as a more severe challenge compared to the other regions.
63
Table 4. 16: Post Hoc Analysis of the Challenges by Education Level
Education Level Resistance to Change Lack of Understanding Changes in work policy Change in
organisation
structure
Mean
Differenc
e (I – J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Certificate and diploma -0.850 0.251 -0.482 0.653 -0.321 0.061 -0.649 0.527
Certificate and graduate -2.10 0.000** -0.743 0.000** -0.214 0.000** -0.756 0.414
Certificate and postgraduate -1.60 0.000** -0.966 0.001* -0.623 0.003* -0.869 0.116
Diploma and Graduate -0.610 0.498 -0.143 0.003* -0.774 0.291 0.893 0.197
Diploma and post graduate -1.326 0.015* -0.553 0.004* -1.447 0.005 -0.462 0.550
Graduate and post graduate -0.716 0.153 -0.410 0.624 -0.673 0.148 -1.355 0.001*
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
64
Table 4.15 discloses that the level of resistance to change would differ significantly on the basis of education
level. Interestingly, those with lesser education qualifications; certificate holders and diploma would resist
the changes more than those with graduate or post graduate degrees. Similar conclusions are noted with
regard to the lack of understanding and adaptation to the newly decentralised structures as certificate holders
perceive it as a challenge as opposed to the diploma holders and the graduates. With regard to the changes in
the organisation structure table 4.15 discloses that graduates and post graduate degree holders have
significantly different means (p<0.05). (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).
Table 4.17: Post Hoc Analysis Challenges by Duty Station – Resistance to Change
Duty Station Mean I Mean J Mean difference
(I-J)
Sig. Value
ICRAF HQ and East Africa 3.28 4 -0.72 0.555
ICRAF HQ and West and Central Africa 3.28 2.4 0.88 0.000**
ICRAF HQ and South Asia 3.28 4.33 -1.05 0.629
ICRAF HQ and Latin America 3.28 3.86 -0.58 0.825
ICRAF HQ and Southern Africa 3.28 5 -1.72 0.671
ICRAF HQ and South East Asia 3.28 4.29 -1.01 0.291
East Africa and West and Central Africa 4 2.4 1.6 0.118
East Africa and South Asia 4 4.33 -0.33 0.997
East Africa and Latin America 4 3.86 0.14 0.999
East Africa and Southern Africa 4 5 -1 0.995
East Africa and South East Asia 4 4.29 -0.29 0.941
West and Central Africa and South Asia 2.4 4.33 -1.93 0.178
West and Central Africa and Latin
America 2.4 3.86 -1.46 0.234
West and Central Africa and Southern
Africa 2.4 5 -2.6 0.060
West and Central Africa and South East
Asia 2.4 4.29 -1.89 0.057
South Asia and Latin America 4.33 3.86 0.47 0.989
South Asia and Southern Africa 4.33 5 -0.67 0.103
South Asia and South East Asia 4.33 4.29 0.04 0.996
Latin America and Southern Africa 3.86 5 -1.14 0.753
Latin America and South East Asia 3.86 4.29 -0.43 0.978
Southern Africa and South East Asia 5 4.29 0.71 0.147
Table 4.16 shows that resistance to change as a challenge to decentralisation will be applicable across all the
65
duty stations. Significant mean difference (p<0.01) is however noted between ICRAF headquarters and
West and Central Africa, with ICRAF headquarter staff rating it as a more severe challenge. (See chapter 5
for interpretation of this result).
66
4.5 STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE DECENTRALISATION OF SHARED SERVICES
4.5.1 Frequencies and Means on the Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services
Table 4.17: Strategies to enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services
Factors Rating Total
Not important Less important Not sure Important Very important Mean Rank
Development of concrete policies 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 4 (7.0) 24 (42.1) 27 (47.4) 57 (100) 4.33 9
Timely communication 0 (0) 1 (1.8) 12 (21.4) 27 (48.2) 16 (28.6) 56 (100) 4.04 16
Change preparedness 1 (1.8) 3 (5.3) 7 (12.3) 25 (43.9) 21 (36.8) 57 (100) 4.09 15
Staff communication 2 (3.5) 2 ( 3.5) 3 (5.3) 27 (47.4) 23 (40.4) 57 (100) 4.18 13
Strong leadership at HQ level 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 5 (8.8) 16 (28.1) 34 (59.6) 57 (100) 4.44 4
Strong leadership at decentralised units 0 (0) 1 (1.8) 2 (3.6) 18 (32.1) 35 (62.5) 56 (100) 4.55 2
Transparency 0 (0) 1 (1.8) 0 (0) 30 (52.6) 26 (45.6) 57 (100) 4.42 5
Funds allocation 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 1 (1.8) 25 (43.9) 29 (50.9) 57 (100) 4.42 5
SLT and global research coordinators working
together
0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 22 (38.6) 33 (57.9) 57 (100) 4.54
3
Accounting for geographic differences 0 (0) 3 (5.3) 7 (12.3) 21 (36.8) 26 (45.6) 57 (100) 4.23 11
In line with mission and vision 0 (0) 3 (5.4) 1 (1.8) 23 (41.1) 29 (51.8) 56 (100) 4.39 8
Automation 1 (1.8) 0 (0) 10 (17.5) 25 (43.9) 21 (36.8) 57 (100) 4.14 14
Staff involvement 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (8.8) 24 (42.1) 28 (49.1) 57 (100) 4.40 7
Changing the organisational structure 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 9 (15.8) 23 (40.4) 23 (40.4) 57 (100) 4.18 12
Avoiding discrimination 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 19 (33.3) 36 (63.2) 57 (100) 4.60 1
Constantly updating staff 0 (0) 1 (1.8) 7 (12.3) 24 (42.1) 25 (43.9) 57 (100) 4.28 10
Values in parentheses ( ) are row percentages, while values outside parentheses are frequencies.
67
Table 4.17 shows that development of concrete policies was found to be very important
(47%) or important (42%). Timely communication was rated important (48%), or very
important (29%). Change preparedness was also rated important (44%). Strong leadership at
decentralised units was rated as very important (63%), while avoiding discrimination was
also rated as a very important factor by 63% of respondents (Table 4.17). Staff
communication was rated as very important by 40% of respondents. Strong leadership at the
decentralised units was very important (62.5%) or important (32%). Process transparency
was also rated important (53%) or very important (46%). The allocation of funds was also
very important (51%) or important (44%). The working together of SLT and global teams
was rated very important (58%) or important (39%). Being in line with mission and vision
was rated as very important (52%). Staff involvement was an important (42%) or a very
important (49%) requirement for a successful decentralisation process at ICRAF. Constant
staff updates were rated as very important processes for decentralisation. Table 4.17 further
shows that avoiding discrimination was the most highly rated strategy to enhanced
decentralisation, followed by strong leadership at decentralised units, SLT and global
research coordinators working together, Strong leadership at HQ level, Funds allocation,
Transparency, Staff involvement, being in line with ICRAF mission and vision .The least
rated was timely communication.
4.5.1 ANOVA on the Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services
One way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the strategies need to be applied
differently on the basis of gender, age, region, education, job classification, duty station,
work experience and area of specialization. The results; presented in table 4.18 shows that all
the strategies do not have to be applied differently on the basis of gender, work experience
and education level. However, communication, changing the organisation structure, avoiding
discrimination and constantly updating staff needs to be applied differently to members in
different age groups. Similarly, staff communication, changing the organisation structure and
constantly updating staff must be implemented differently to people in different job
classifications. Additionally, table 4.18 shows that avoidance of discrimination must be in
tune with people in different duty stations. Lastly, development of concrete policies, timely
communication, change preparedness, staff communication, strong leadership at the
headquarters and the alignment of the decentralisation process to the mission and vision of
ICRAF appear to vary widely on the basis of the area of specialization of the respondents.
68
Post Hoc analysis was conducted to understand the differences in a better way. The results of
the Post Hoc analysis are reported in table
Table 4.18: ANOVA on the Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared
Services
Factors of effective
decentralization Gender Age Region
Educatio
n
Job
classification
Duty
station
Development of concrete
policies 0.492 0.675 0.234 0.372 0.234 0.329
Timely communication 0.980 0.018* 0.288 0.403 0.288 0.118
Change preparedness 0.190 0.518 0.843 0.317 0.843 0.444
Staff communication 0.727 0.188 0.013* 0.624 0.013* 0.35
Strong leadership at HQ
level 0.959 0.980 0.24 0.227 0.240 0.517
Strong leadership at
decentralised units 0.434 0.131 0.761 0.927 0.761 0.323
Transparency 0.473 0.100 0.708 0.877 0.708 0.210
Funds allocation 0.545 0.618 0.254 0.709 0.254 0.946
SLT and global research
coordinators working
together 0.885 0.134 0.855 0.782 0.855 0.685
Accounting for geographic
differences 0.140 0.287 0.08 0.854 0.080 0.115
In line with mission and
vision 0.680 0.074 0.712 0.614 0.712 0.227
Automation 0.574 0.847 0.465 0.781 0.465 0.736
Staff involvement 0.445 0.572 0.482 0.37 0.482 0.110
Changing the organisational
structure 0.473
0.060*
0.046* 0.667 0.049* 0.460
Avoiding discrimination 0.174 0.028* 0.735 0.858 0.735 0.037*
Constantly updating staff 0.397 0.016* 0.036* 0.344 0.036* 0.218
69
Table 4.19: Post Hoc Analysis for Factors for Effective Decentralisation – Work
Experience and Area of Specialization
Factors of effective decentralization
Work
experience
Area of
specialization
Development of concrete policies 0.918 0.000**
Timely communication 0.885 0.028*
Change preparedness 0.957 0.007*
Staff communication 0.548 0.007*
Strong leadership at HQ level 0.311 0.000**
Strong leadership at decentralised units 0.344 0.205
Transparency 0.620 0.127
Funds allocation 0.415 0.068
SLT and global research coordinators working together 0.579 0.850
Accounting for geographic differences 0.549 0.615
In line with mission and vision 0.458 0.001*
Automation 0.954 0.253
Staff involvement 0.612 0.311
Changing the organisational structure 0.156 0.655
Avoiding discrimination 0.956 0.660
Constantly updating staff 0.15 0.480
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Post Hoc analysis on the application of the strategies to people in different age groups (Table
4.19) shows that the timely communication strategy is rated differently by age groups 30-34
and 45-49; changing the organisation structure is rated differently by age groups 25-29 and
30-34 and constantly updating staff is rated differently by age groups 25-29 and 30-34 on one
hand and 30—34 and 45-49 on the other. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).
70
Table 4.20: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Age
Age
I and J
Timely
Communication
Changing
Organisation
Structure
Avoiding
Discrimination
Constantly updating
staff
Mean
Differen
ce (I – J)
Sig.
Valu
e
Mean
differen
ce
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
differen
ce
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
differen
ce
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
25 to 29 and 30 to
34 -0.643
0.39
6 -1.110
0.043
* -0.275 0.871 -0.978 0.042*
25 to 29 and 35 to
39 -0.143
0.99
8 -0.905 0.165 -0.095 0.999 -0.786 0.175
25 to 29 and 40 to
44 -0.032 1 -0.683 0.519 -0.095 0.999 -0.508 0.687
25 to 29 and 45 –
49 0.482
0.76
7 -0.446 0.878 0.571 0.298 -0.036 1.000
25 to 29 and 50 +
-0.518
0.70
9 -0.946 0.199 -0.054 1.000 -0.661 0.44
30 to 34 and 35 to
39 0.500
0.50
7 0.205 0.986 0.179 0.955 0.192 0.981
30 to 34 and 40 to
44 0.611
0.36
8 0.427 0.805 0.179 0.968 0.470 0.618
30 to 34 and 45 to
49 1.125
0.01
1* 0.663 0.422 0.846 0.009 0.942 0.040*
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Post Hoc analysis of the strategies to enhance decentralisation of shared services on the basis
of region (Table 4.20), shows that; staff communication as a strategy differs significantly
(p<0.01) between Africa and Australia with Asia perceiving the strategy as more effective,
Australia and Europe, Australia perceiving the strategy as more effective and Australia and
North America, with North America perceiving the strategy as more effective. The strategy
on constantly updating staff, was rated significantly different (p<0.01) by Australia and South
America with Australia regarding it as a more effective strategy and Europe and South
America with Europe regarding it as more effective. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this
result).
71
Table 4. 2118: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Region
Region
I and J
Staff Communication Constantly updating
staff
Mean
Difference
(I – J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Africa and Asia -0.1 0.935 0 0.962
Africa and Australia 0.3 0.000** -0.7 0.107
Africa and Europe 3.3 0.457 2.3 0.214
Africa and North
America -0.7
0.121
-0.7
0.412
Africa and South
America 0.5 0.520 0.1 0.860
Asia and Australia 0.4 0.358 -0.7 0.257
Asia and Europe 3.4 0.624 2.3 0.135
Asia and North
America -0.6
0.104
-0.7
0.658
Asia and South
America 0.6 0.480 0.1 0.970
Australia and Europe 3 0.000* 3 0.107
Australia and North
America -1
0.000**
0
0.162
Australia and South
America 0.2
0.350
0.8
0.000**
Europe and North
America -4
0.784
-3
0.102
Europe and South
America -2.8
0.302
-2.2
0.003*
North America and
South America 1.2 0.141 0.8
0.065
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
72
Table 4.22: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Duty Station
– Avoiding Discrimination
Duty Station Mean I Mean J Mean
difference (I-J)
Sig. Value
ICRAF HQ and East Africa 4.65 4.89 -0.24 0.853
ICRAF HQ and West and Central
Africa 4.65 4.4 0.25 0.918
ICRAF HQ and South Asia 4.65 4.67 -0.02 0.996
ICRAF HQ and Latin America 4.65 4.57 0.08 0.999
ICRAF HQ and Southern Africa 4.65 4.00 0.65 0.003*
ICRAF HQ and South East Asia 4.65 4.33 0.32 0.754
East Africa and West and Central
Africa 4.89 4.4 0.49 0.554
East Africa and South Asia 4.89 4.67 0.22 0.988
East Africa and Latin America 4.89 4.57 0.32 0.833
East Africa and Southern Africa 4.89 4.0 0.89 0.001*
East Africa and South East Asia 4.89 4.33 0.56 0.349
West and Central Africa and South
Asia 4.4 4.67 -0.27 0.981
West and Central Africa and Latin
America 4.4 4.57 -0.17 0.993
West and Central Africa and
Southern Africa 4.4
4.0 0.4 0.000**
West and Central Africa and South
East Asia 4.4 4.33 0.07 1
South Asia and Latin America 4.67 4.57 0.1 1
South Asia and Southern Africa 4.67 4.0 0.67 0.000**
South Asia and South East Asia 4.67 4.33 0.34 0.944
Latin America and Southern
Africa 4.57
4.0 0.57 0.006*
Latin America and South East
Asia 4.57 4.33 0.24 0.963
Southern Africa and South East
Asia 4.0 4.33
-0.33 0.094
*p<0.05; **p<0.001
Table 4.21 shows that staff at ICRAF headquarters, East Africa, West and Central Africa,
South Asia, Latin America perceive the avoidance of discrimination as an effective strategy
to enhance decentralisation of shared services compared to their counterparts in Southern
Africa. (See The strategy on constantly updating staff, was rated significantly different by
73
Australia and South America with Australia regarding it as a more effective strategy and
Europe and South America with Europe regarding it as more effective. The strategy on
constantly updating staff, was rated significantly different by Australia and South America
with Australia regarding it as a more effective strategy and Europe and South America with
Europe regarding it as more effective. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).
74
Table 4.23: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Area of Specialization
Area of
specialization
Development of
concrete policies
Timely
communication
Change
preparedness
Staff
communication
Strong Leadership
at HQ
Mission and Vision
Mean
Difference
(I – J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Mean
difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Value
Research and
Technical 0 1.000 -0.26 0.480 -0.31 0.506 -0.04 0.984 0.13 0.796 -0.13 0.832
Research and
Administrative 1.36 0.000** 0.6 0.222 0.86 0.092 1.15 0.019* 1.57 0.000** 1.1 0.006*
Technical and
Administrative 1.36 0.000** 0.86 0.025* 1.17 0.006* 1.19 0.005* 1.44 0.000** 1.23 0.001*
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
75
The results in Table 4.23 show that employees involved in research and technical work view
the development of concrete policies to guide the decentralisation process, strong leadership
at the ICRAF head quarters and alignment of the decentralisation process to the mission and
vision of ICRAF as more effective strategies than their counterparts involved in
administration. Additionally, timely communication and staff communication are considered
more effective strategies by technical staff compared to the administrative staff (p<0.05). (See
chapter five for interpretation of this result)
4.6 Chapter Summary
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Women were the majority respondents, all
disciplines and regions were included and well represented in the study. Decentralisation of
shared services is advocated for by many staff across all disciplines as well as ICRAF Senior
Leadership Team. Decentralisation is seen to enhance standardization of operations across the
board for as long as discrimination is avoided under all costs. Overall, there were minimal
differences in the rating of decentralisation benefits by different staff groups, therefore;
indicating that staff generally agreed with the potential decentralisation benefits. This
generally shows that decentralisation would be largely beneficial to ICRAF, and should be
encouraged and adopted fully. While implementing decentralization, however, strategies will
have to be applied differently to different regions, age groups and job classifications.
Chapter five interprets the results and draws pertinent conclusions.
76
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Discussion, Discussion and Recommendations
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the summary of findings of the research, discusses the results, draws
conclusions and makes recommendations for the implementation of decentralisation of shared
services at ICRAF.
5.2 Summary of Findings
Significant findings that arose from the study on decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF
were;
(i) The benefits of decentralising shared services at ICRAF in order of popularity are;
staff motivation, reduction in bureaucracy, realignment of the structure to support the
strategic direction, enhancing cross regional collaboration, minimizing supervision,
reduction in overhead costs, staff becoming more customer focused and enhancing the
standardization of operations. The perception that decentralisation enhances
standardisation of procedures differs significantly on the basis of the regions where
the respondents hailed, the benefit on reduction of bureaucracy differed on the basis
of the area of specialisation while the benefit on realignment of the organisation‘s
structure to favour the strategic direction of ICRAF differ on the basis of the duty
station.
(ii) The steps to take to ensure that decentralisation of shared services is successful in
ICRAF in the order of importance are; involving staff from all the regions and
headquarter in the process, reducing the paperwork involved, clarifying functions that
can be decentralised, making use of qualified team members, defining the
organisation structure, involving all regions in the process, clearly defining
decentralisation, identifying and documenting (mapping) the geographic locations,
regular information sharing, giving staff feedback and basing decentralisation on the
volumes of work. Respondents however significantly differed in perception of some
of the steps of decentralisation. The steps are; regional involvement differs on the
basis of region, job classification, duty station and area of specialization; involvement
77
of scientists differ on the basis of the area of specialization; involving administrative
staff and defining the decentralisation process differs on the basis of job classification
and area of specialization; more and regular information sharing differs on the basis
of gender, region, job classification and area of specialization; clarity on functions to
be decentralised and defining the organization structure differs on the basis of job
classification and area of specialisation; reduced paperwork differs on the basis of
area of specialisation; the use of qualified team leaders differs on the basis of the duty
station, work experience and area of specialisation while the volume of work differs
on the basis of specialisation.
(iii) The challenges to decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF in the order of
severity are; resistance to change, additional workload, duplication of services, time to
train on decentralisation, changes in work policy, lack of understanding by staff on
the role of the decentralised set up, lack of finance, potential job loss, and inadequate
management skills. Some of the challenges are however experienced differently on
the basis of some independent variables. For instance, resistance to change differs on
the basis of education level and duty station, time taken in training differs on the basis
of age, lack of understanding of the decentralization process differs on the basis of
gender and education level, lack of finance differs on the basis of region, duplication
of services differs on the basis of region and changes in work policy and organisation
culture differ on the basis of education level of the respondents.
(iv) The strategies that ICRAF can use to enhance decentralisation of shared services in
the order of importance are; avoiding discrimination, strong leadership at the
decentralised units, SLT and global research coordinators working together, ensuring
strong leadership at the head quarters, funds allocation, transparency, staff
involvement, ensuring that the decentralization policy is aligned to the ICRAF
mission and vision and ensuring timely communication. Communication, changing
the organisation structure, avoiding discrimination and constantly updating staff needs
to be applied differently to members in different age groups; staff communication,
changing the organisation structure and constantly updating staff must be
implemented differently to people in different job classifications; avoidance of
discrimination must be in tune with people in different duty stations and development
of concrete policies, timely communication, change preparedness, staff
78
communication, strong leadership at the headquarters and the alignment of the
decentralisation process to the mission and vision of ICRAF vary widely on the basis
of the area of specialization of the respondents.
5.3 Empirical Results in Relation to Previous Research Findings
5.3.1 Benefits of Decentralisation of Shared Services
The present study shows that decentralisation will be a real benefit within ICRAF and a value
added to Senior Leadership Team, researchers, technical staff as it will help to bridge the gap
between them and administrative support, hence minimising on any future bureaucracies; a
further benefit of decentralisation. Decentralisation will motivate staff as they will have better
and open working relationships and team building activities. Decentralisation of shared
services contributes to a feel good factor in an organisation as tasks are leveraged based on
specialization (Bergeron, 2003). These compares very well with other literature done for
example by Bergeron (2003) who said that shared services model is about optimizing people,
capital, time and other corporate resources. Shah, (1998) adds that decentralisation increases
the efficiency of the provision of these services, and strengthens delivery systems and impact
of the consortium research agenda through appropriate shared service delivery mechanisms,
including the possibility to outsource some of these services and functions for effectiveness
and efficiency.
5.3.2 Critical Success Factors for Decentralisation of Shared Services
The present study sought to determine the criteria that should guide the decentralization
process at ICRAF. The research shows the need for ICRAF to clearly redefine the criteria for
effective decentralisation to guide staff in their work. There is need to bring clarity on
services that are to be shared beforehand, identify core competencies, agreement on tasks to
be identified and ensuring that qualified and capable team leaders are available among others.
This outcome matches with literature review done by Dollery et al (2009) who documents on
the importance of decentralisation of shared services as to concretely identify ‗appropriate –
well defined‘ objectives that can deliver the desired services well in advance.
5.3.3. Challenges to the Decentralisation of Shared Services
The third objective of the study was to determine the challenges to implementation of
decentralised shared services at ICRAF. The research shows that there are challenges for the
79
effectiveness of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF. Training for ICRAF staff in
decentralisation is highly required to cope with the ever evolving technological environment
and improvement in management skills, staff need to be prepared well so as not to resist
change when it comes for change is good only when handled well. These results compares
very well with literature review done by Blaser (2003) who expresses the challenges that
hinder effective implementation of decentralisation as inadequate management skills and
resistance to change. Blaser shows that effective and operational decentralisation of shared
services requires improvements in fiscal management and a stronger financial capacity at the
regional and or local level. In regards to resistance to change Meyer (1998) shows that
corporate groups see their role as controlling business units, for example, limiting business
units' spending on a function or forcing one-size-fits-all solutions on them inappropriately.
These corporate functions may be shared, but they are very different from being service
oriented.
5.3.4 Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services
The last objective sought to establish the measures that can be put in place to enhance
implementation of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF. The research shows that in
ICRAF it is paramount for ICRAF to have in place a clear communication strategy, staff
development plans, have transparent work policies and clearly define the organisational
structure. The research shows a big need for enhanced managerial training so as to build
adequate capacity for the decentralised structure. These findings compares very well with
other challenges for decentralisation; for instance, Quinn et al (2000), who indicates that not
every implementation of shared services is a success. In relationship to this, empirical
research focuses on the rationale for decentralisation with less focus on implementation and
the challenges that befall managers in their attempt to decentralise (Kreklow and Kinney,
2010).
5.4 Communicative Validity of the Results
The researcher constituted a focus group of 12 respondents to discuss the empirical results of
the present study. This was done because, the significant differences in perceptions of the
respondents with regard to benefits, critical success factors, challenges and the strategies to
enhance decentralisation of shared services could not be explained by use of previous
empirical studies. TerreBlanche, Durrheim and Kelly (2006 p.381) recommends the
80
communicative validity (veracity of truthfulness) of knowledge be tested in dialogue with
either the respondents, general public or scientific community of scholars in such instances.
The following is a summary of the questions posed to the focus group and the feedback that
was obtained.
Question One: The results show that Africa valued ―enhancing standardization as a benefit
of decentralisation‖ higher than Asia. Why is it so?
African respondents are based at the headquarters and hence had a higher need for
standardising institutional procedures. Additionally, the Asian respondents are inclined
towards centralisation processes and resistance to change for fear of losing their jobs as well
as limited resources to enable staff undertake training in management skills.
Question Two: The results show that researchers and administrators had significant
differences in rating of reducing bureaucracy (as a benefit of decentralisation), with
researchers rating this benefit higher than administrators. Why is it so?
This result is consistent with ICRAF because of the researchers (viewed to be bureaucrats)
want to reduce the gap between them and administrators and would like to see
administrators becoming more involved in research activities at some level for effective
support especially in budgets and donor reporting of scientific activities and deliverables.
While this enhances the research activity (core mandate of ICRAF) administrators view it as
added responsibilities. The researchers are interested in creating synergy for effective and
efficient operations in the core business of ICRAF.
Question Three: The perception that decentralisation will help to realign the organisation
structure to better support the strategic direction of ICRAF, differs significantly between
Latin America and Southern Africa with Latin America rating the factor higher than Southern
Africa and between Latin America and South East Asia with Latin America rating the benefit
higher than South East Asia. Why is it so?
The reason why Latin America rates this benefit much higher is because the team is much
smaller and reasoning together is much easier compared to the large and diverse team in
81
South East Asia. Secondly, there is no fear of job insecurities in Latin America as human
capital is already limited and operational capital is sufficient. South East Asia is the largest
region and funds are a big constraint and would not see how decentralisation is to aid
realignment of the structure, instead retrenchment is much feared.
Question Four: Regional involvement as a success factor to decentralisation was rated
significantly different between Africa and Asia as Africa considered it more important than
Asia; Asia and Australia; Asia considered it more important than Australia and Asia and
South America; Asia considered it more important than South America. Why?
As mentioned elsewhere in this study, Africa and Asia are the largest regions with biggest
staff population and views shared services as a means to alleviate drawbacks.
Decentralisation will provide immediate and uniformed services across the regional offices
Question Five: The differences in information sharing were noted between Africa and
Australia as Africa considered it more important in enhancing decentralisation than Australia.
Why?
The reason for high rating by Africa; is because Africa is the home of ICRAF headquarters,
and has the largest staff population working at headquarters and fewer people in Australia
region. The activities in Africa cannot be compared with those in Australia in terms of
output, hence the reason why decentralisation is much preferred in Africa since it will ease
work overload and reduce on budget expenditures. There are no known bureaucracies in
Australia as it is one of the smallest locations with no work pressure because it is mainly
used as a capacity building location where two or three staff members go for training at the
Australia National University (ANU).
Question Six: The perception that regional involvement as a success factor for
decentralisation of shared services differs significantly between researchers and technicians
as technicians consider it to be a more important factor, researchers and administration
assistants; researchers consider it to be more important, researchers and interns; interns
consider it to be more important and technicians and administrative staff since technicians
consider it to be more important. Why is it so?
82
The reason for the low perception of the administrative staff is that they are not involved
much in decision making. Their level of understanding of the ICRAF structure is low and
there is need to get them more engaged in the structure of ICRAF work.
.
Question Seven: Researchers and technicians had different perceptions on; the involvement
of administration staff, defining decentralisation and information sharing as critical in
ensuring successful decentralisation. Technicians considered the three elements as more
important than the researchers. Why is it so?
Technical staffs have a much clearer understanding of the organisational structure and
strategy compared to the administrative staff, hence the reason for the high rating of the
definition of decentralisation. Technical staff are more responsible for development of the
strategy much more than administrative staff. They engage more with donors as they develop
research proposals as well as resource mobilisation. With these observations, this gives
technical staff an upper hand with regards to their perception for a decentralised model
Question Eight: Definition of the organisational structure was rated differently by
administrative staff and research interns and the staff involved in communication. In both
cases, the administrative staff had lesser mean. Why is it so?
The reason for administrative staff to score less indicates that they are not involved much in
decision making. Their level of understanding of the ICRAF’s structure is low and there is
need to get them more engaged in the structure of ICRAF’s work.
Question Nine: The results show that regional involvement as a critical success factor to
decentralisation differs significantly depending on the respondents‘ job classification as
technical staff view it as more important than researchers and technical staff view it as more
important than the administrative staff. Why is it so?
Majority of the staffs of ICRAF work is in the regions where we have the tropical forests.
Decentralisation is more meaningful to staff who go to the field compared to staff at the
headquarters who handle policy matters.
Question Ten: The results show that the research and technical staffs rate the definition of
83
decentralisation as a critical success factor to decentralisation differently; with the technical
staff rating it as more important than researchers. Technical staff on the other hand considers
the definition of decentralisation as more important in decentralisation than the administrative
staff. On the other hand, the technical staff regards regular information sharing, clarity of
functions and defining the organisation structure as more important than the administrative
staff. What explains these results?
Technical staffs have a much clearer understanding of the organisational structure and
strategy compared to the administrative staff, hence the reason for the high rating of the
definition of decentralisation. Additionally, technical staffs are more responsible for
development of the strategy much more than administrative staff; they engage more with
donors as they develop research proposals as well as resource mobilisation. With these
observations, the technical staff an upper hand with regards to their perception for a
decentralised model.
Question Eleven: The results show that the time to train on the new roles of the decentralised
system will differ significantly between age groups 25-29 and 45-59 and also those aged 50
years or more. Those aged 25-29 would take lesser time to train than their older colleagues.
However, there would be no discrepancies between all the other age groups. Why?
This implies that a different training program is required for those the two groups. The age
groups 25-29 want to enhance existing skills as well as develop new skills required in the
fresh initiative, they are much interested in new methods that would enhance their
performance, while Age group 45-59 and beyond belong to the old school and the ever
evolving technological environment has overwhelming challenges and multi-tasking is never
easy for this group and that is why they resist change.
Question Twelve: Africa and Asia have significantly different mean differences with regard
to perceptions on lack of finance as a challenge to decentralisation, with Asia considering it a
more severe constraint. Significant mean differences are noted between Africa and all other
regions with regard to the perception that decentralisation will lead to duplication of services.
In all cases too, Africa views duplication of services as a more severe challenge compared to
the other regions. Why?
84
As mentioned elsewhere in this study, Africa is the largest region with biggest staff
population and views shared services as a means to alleviate drawbacks. Decentralisation
will provide immediate and uniformed services across the regional offices
Question Thirteen: the level of resistance to change would differ significantly on the basis
of education level. Interestingly, those with lesser education qualifications; certificate holders
and diploma would resist the changes more than those with graduate or post graduate
degrees. Similar conclusions are noted with regard to the lack of understanding and
adaptation to the newly decentralised structures as certificate holders perceive it as a
challenge as opposed to the diploma holders and the graduates. With regard to the changes in
the organisation structure the graduates and post graduate degree holders have significantly
different means. Why?
Staff with higher level of education reason wisely and can take concrete and strategic
decisions that are beneficial to the organisation. This is a dependable group of professionals
as opposed to staff with little education and exposure.
Question Fourteen: The results indicate that resistance to change as a challenge to
decentralisation will be applicable across all the duty stations. Significant mean difference is
however noted between ICRAF headquarters and West and Central Africa, with ICRAF
headquarter staff rating it as a more severe challenge. Why?
ICRAF is headquartered in Kenya and change management is never taken lightly in Kenya.
Jobs are hard to find in Kenya and especially good openings in international organisation
are a dream of many people and probably the reason is because that the introduction of
decentralised shared services in the organisation will cause job insecurity. Redundancy
declaration is one of the biggest challenges in Kenya. Past experiences have not rested well
with staff, hence the reason to fight it and prefer status quo.
Question Fifteen: The application of the strategies to people in different age groups shows
that the timely communication strategy is rated differently by age groups 30-34 and 45-49;
Timely and accurate communication with staff is key to any organisation that wants to excel
and ICRAF regions would not agree to be left behind in this noble aspect. Regular
85
information sharing and defined organisational structure is appreciated where it is seen to be
working well.
Question Sixteen: The strategy on constantly updating staff, was rated significantly different
by Australia and South America with Australia regarding it as a more effective strategy and
Europe and South America with Europe regarding it as more effective. Why?
The simple reason is that timely and accurate communication with staff is key to any
organisation that wants to excel and ICRAF regions would not agree to be left behind in this
noble aspect. Regular information sharing and defined organisational structure is
appreciated where it is seen to be working well.
Question Seventeen: The results disclose that staff at ICRAF headquarters, East Africa,
West and Central Africa, South Asia, Latin America perceive the avoidance of discrimination
as an effective strategy to enhance decentralisation of shared services compared to their
counterparts in Southern Africa. Why?
Past history is clear about discriminations of various aspects in Southern Africa. Past
experience and actions of apartheid could still be a barrier to contemporary thinking of the
staff in the region, hence the rating in this section. However, things are changing and the
region has seen good success from other regions that are similar and it does understand that
discrimination is detrimental to its success.
Question Eighteen: Timely communication and staff communication are considered more
effective strategies by technical staff compared to the administrative staff. Why?
ICRAF is a research organisation and therefore, its technical staff guide research and make
polices that are beneficial to staff and directs the achievement of ICRAF strategic document.
5.5 Conclusions
5.5.1 Benefits of Decentralisation of Shared Services
An international organization like ICRAF can get substantial benefits by decentralising its
operations. These benefits would however not be experienced universally. Some regions
86
(those with much workload and many employees) may experience the benefits more than
others, employees in different areas of specialisation (line managers) will also experience the
benefits differently and employees in certain duty stations (where core activities take place)
will also experience the benefits differently.
5.5.2 Critical Success Factors for Decentralisation of Shared Services
Presence of certain factors expounded in the study will enhance decentralisation of shared
services in international organizations such as ICRAF. The success of these factors in
enhancing decentralisation will however depend on; the region involved, job classification of
the employees, duty stations and area of specialization.
5.5.3 Challenges to Decentralisation of Shared Services
International organizations such as ICRAF are bound to experience challenges in their
attempt to decentralize operations. The most severe challenge would be resistance to change.
The challenges will however be experienced differently depending on the education level of
the employees, duty stations, age and the regions where the employees work.
5.5.4 Strategies to enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services
International organizations such as ICRAF can use various strategies to augment
decentralisation of shared services. The strategies include; avoiding discrimination, strong
leadership at the decentralised units, SLT and global research coordinators working together,
ensuring strong leadership at the head quarters, funds allocation, transparency, staff
involvement, ensuring that the decentralization policy is aligned to the mission and vision and
ensuring timely communication. These strategies may however need to be implemented
differently on the basis of age of the employees, regions, duty stations and areas of
specialization.
5.6. Recommendations
5.6.1 Measures for Immediate Implementation
The following measures should be implemented immediately;
Start preparing employees for decentralisation to reduce resistance to change
87
Take immediate steps to reduce the perception that some employees are
discriminated against
Ensure that more and regular information on decentralisation is dispersed to
all employees
Educate the administrators on the operations of a decentralised structure
Determine the services that need to be centralised and those that can be
decentralised
5.6.2 Short Term Recommendations
In the short term the following interventions should be undertaken:
Involve administration staff in decision making
Have different training programs (management skills and decentralisation) for people in
different ages
Ensure timely communication of information
Definition of decentralisation process and pathway and with simple updates to all staff
Awareness creation and consultation groups and E-groups for staff in the regions
Impact assessment of the decentralisation process. This should include a cost-benefit
analysis.
5.6.3 Long Term Recommendations
In the long-term; the following interventions should be undertaken to enhance
decentralisation of shared services;
Development of a long-term training policy to ensure that all managers are effectively
trained
Creation of an organization structure that is more receptive to decentralisation of
shared services
Employ more staff in Latin America
Make budgetary provisions to improve the facilities and other aspects in the Asian
region.
88
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akai, N. and Masayo S (2002). Fiscal Decentralization Contributes to Economic Growth:
Evidence from State-Level Cross-Section Data for the United States. Journal of Urban
Economics, Vol.52 (1), pp. 93-108.
Allan, P. (2006). What Drives Councils’ Efficiency: Population Size or Density. Independent
Inquiry into Local Government Inquiry. Sydney: NSW Local Government and Shires
Association.
AITEC, (2009). The First Outsourcing & Shared Services Forum for NGOs and Development
Partners. Theme: Optimising service delivery through shared services, Laico Regency Hotel,
Nairobi.
Baggott, R. (2004). Health and Health Care in Britain, 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Benassi, F.E. (2002). Shared services: running IT as a business. Energy IT, Vol.7 (1), pp.24-9.
Bergeron, B (2003). Essentials of Shared Services. John Wiley & Sons Press, Baffins Lane,
Chichester, England.
Blaser, J, Besdziek, D, and Byrne, S. (2003). Lessons Learned on Decentralization: A
Literature Review. Working paper. Institute of Federalism and Swiss Agency for
Development Cooperation.
Bramante, J. (2003). Introducing and Managing Organisational Change in Support of Business
Performance Management. Business Performance Management, Vol. 11 (1). Penton Media Inc.,
USA
Borman, M. (2010). Characteristics of a successful shared services centre in the Australian
public sector", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 4 (3). Pp.220 – 231.
89
Burns, D., Hambleton, R. and Hoggett, P. (1994). The Politics of Decentralisation.
Basingstoke: Macmillan
CGIAR Secretariat (2009). Shared Services Key Findings and Recommendations. Alliance
Office, FAO, Via delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 - Rome ITALY. Pp.9
Criscuolo P, Narula R. (2007). Using multi-hub structures for international R&D:
organisational inertia and the challenges of implementation. Management International
Review, 2007, Pp:639-660
De Vries, M. (2000). The rise and fall of decentralization: a comparative analysis of
arguments and practices in European countries. European Journal of Political Research.38:
193–224
Dove, C. (2004). The Shared Service Center: A Model for University Efficiency. Dissertation
in HE Management, Faculties of The University of Pennsylvania, USA.
Duarte,C.M.C., Esperança, J.P., Curto, J.D., Santos, M.C., and Carapeto, M. (2010). The
determinants of gender pay gap in Portuguese private firms. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 25 (6), pp.438 - 461
Dunphy, D. and Griffiths, A. (1998). The Sustainable Corporation: Organizational Renewal
in Australia. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Dollery, B, Akimov, A and Byrnes, J. (2009). Shared Services in Australian Local
Government: Rationale, Alternative Models and Empirical Evidence. The Australian Journal
of Public Administration, vol. 68, (2), pp. 208–219.
Dwivedi, Y. K. (2008). Development of Survey Instrument: Exploratory Survey and Content
Validity. In Dwivedi, Y. K. (Ed.), Consumer Adoption and Usage of Broadband. (pp. 76-
116). doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-783-6.ch004
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Research Report, (1998). Decentralised Shared Services
Model: A new business architecture for Europe. Written in cooperation with Baker &
90
McKinzie, The Chase Manhattan Bank, KPMG, PeopleSoft)
Exworthy, M. (1994). The contest for control in community health services - general
managers and professionals dispute decentralisation. Policy and Politics 22(1): 17–29.
Farrell, D., (2004). Beyond Offshoring: Assess Your Company's Global Potential. Harvard
Business Review. vol.82, 12; p. 82.
Galbraith, J.R. (2002). Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide to Strategy, Structure
and Process. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Goold, M, Pettifer, D. and Young, D., (2001). Redesigning the Corporate Center. European
Management Journal, vol. 19 (1), pp. 83-91.
Hatch, M. J. and Cunliffe, A. L. (2006), Organization Theory. 2nd ed, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Henricks, M. (2001). Learn to Share. Entrepreneur.
Howard, M.H and Wilson, D.A. (2006). Shared Services Insights (Part 1): An Implementation
Model for Successful Public Sector Programs. Outlook Point of View Vol (1). July issue.
Israel, G.D. (1992) . Sampling The Evidence Of Extension Program Impact. Program
Evaluation and Organizational Development, IFAS, University of Florida. PEOD-5. October.
Janssen, M., Joha, A. and Weerakkody, V. (2007). Exploring relationships of shared service
arrangements in local government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 271-84.
Janssen, M., and Joha, A. (2006). Motives for establishing shared service centers in public
administration. International Journal of Information Management (26), pp 102 - 115.
Janssen, M (2005). Managing the development of shared service centers: stakeholder
considerations. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 113 (564-570),
ACM, New York, USA.
91
Janssen, M., and Joha, A. (2004). Issues in relationship management for obtaining the
benefits of a shared service center. In M. Janssen, R. W. Wagenaar, & H. G. Sol (Eds.), Sixth
International conference on electronic commerce. Pp. 219–228. New York: ACM Press.
Kidd, A.D., Lamers, J.P.A., Ficarelli, P.P. and Hoffmann, V. (2000). Privatising agricultural
extension: Caveat emptor. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol.16, pp. 95–102.
Kombo D.K and Tromp D. L.A (2006). Proposal writing and thesis proposal: An
introduction. MBA Thesis. Paulines Publications, Africa: Nairobi
Kothari, C.R. (1999). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age
International (P) limited publishers, New Delhi.
Langton, N. and Robbins, S.P (2007). Organisational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies,
Applications. Pearson Education, Inc. Fourth Canadian Edition (ISBN: 0131971107).
Lightfoot, C. (2003). Demand-driven extension: some challenges for policy makers and
managers. Presentation to CTA’s Sixth Consultative Expert Meeting of its Observatory on
ICTs. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No.136. Wageningen, the
Netherlands:
Longwood, J. and Harris, R.G. (2007), ―Leverage business process outsourcing lessons to
build a successful shared business service organisation‖, Report G00144283, Gartner,
Stamford, CT.
Mano, M. (2010). The Shared Service Center: Anew possibility for high education
Institutions. University of Coimbra, Reitoria, Portugual.
Megginson, D, Clutterbuck, D (2007). Techniques for coaching and mentoring.
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005ISBN 075065287X, 9780750652872. Pp.187
Melchior, D.C, (2007). Shared Services: A Manager's Journey. In John Wiley and Sons,
2007 - Business & Economics - 245 pages
92
Meyer, N.D. (2002). An Introduction to the Business-Within-a-Business Paradigm. NDMA, Inc.
Publications. 641 Danbury Road, Suite D, Ridgefield, CT 06877, USA. Pp. 47
Meyer, N.D (1998). DECENTRALIZATION: Decentralization: Fantasies, Failings, and
Fundamentals. NDMA, Inc. Publications. 641 Danbury Road, Suite D, Ridgefield, CT 06877,
USA. Pp.147
Mugenda, O.M and Mugenda, A.G (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and
Qualitative approaches. African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi
Megginson, D. (2007). Continuing Professional Development. 2nd
Edition Chapter 5; Chapter
6-9).
Mintzberg, H. (1981). Organization Design: Fashion or Fit. Harvard Business Review
(January February).
Nissel, M. (1980). The Welfare State – Diversity and Decentralisation. London: PSI
Peckham, S. and Exworthy, M. (2003). Primary care in the UK: policy, organisation
and mangement. Basingtoke: Palgrave
Pollitt, C (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Second Edition. Chapter 16.
(ISBN 0-19=926848-7; 0-19-926849-5 (pbk). Pp.371-377
Pollitt, C., Brichall, J. and Putnam, K. (1998). Decentralising Public Service Management.
London: Macmillan
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and
Competitors. The Free Press, New York, NY.
PwC, (2005). Shared Services for Even Greater Efficiency in Local Government. London:
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
93
Quinn, B., Cooke, R. and Kris, A. (2000). Shared Services: Mining for Corporate Gold.
Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
Ramírez, R. and Quarry, W. (2004). Communication strategies in the age of
Decentralisation and Privatisation of rural services: Lessons from two african experiences.
Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No.136. ODI, London SE1 7JD, UK.
Rao, M.P. (2006). A performance measurement system using a profit-linked multi-factor
measurement model. Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol 106 (3), pp. 362-79.
Reilly, P. and Williams, T, (2003). How to get best value from HR. The shared services
option. Gower publishing Ltd., Aldershot, Hants, Gull 3HR, UK.
Sarikas, O.D. and Weerakkody, V. (2007). Realising integrated e-government services: a UK
local government perspective. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 1
(2). pp. 153-73.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A (eds) (2009). Research Methods for Business Students
(5th ed), London: Prentice Hall.
Schulman, D.S., Dunleavy, J.R., Harmer, M.J. and Lusk, J.S. (1999). Shared Services:
Adding Value to the Business Unit. Wiley, New York, NY.
Schulz, V., Hochstein, A., Ubernickel, F. and Brenner, W. (2009). . Definition and
classification of IT-shared-service-centre. Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on
Information Systems. San Francisco, August 6-9.
Scott-Morton, M.S. (1991). The Corporation of the 1990s,. Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Shah, B. (1998). Shared Services: Is it for you? Industrial Management Magazine.
Sharp, J.A., Peters, J. And Howard, K. (2002). The Management of a Student Research Project.
(3rd
edn). Aldershot: Gower.
94
Sherman, E. (1999). The Shared Services Challenge: Retooling IT as an Internal Vendor to
Deliver Better Service Works for Many, but It's Easy to Hit Snafus along the Way.
Computerworld.
Smith, B.C. (1985). Decentralization: the territorial dimension of the state. London: Allen
and Unwin.
Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K. & Kelly, K. (2006). First Steps in Qualitative Data
Analysis. Reserach in Practice. Applied Methods for Social Sciences. Cape Town. University
of Cape Town.
Ulbrich, F. (2006). Improving shared service implementation: adopting lessons from the BPR
movement. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 (2). pp. 191-205.
Ulbrich, F. (2008). The Adoption of IT-enabled Management Ideas. The Economic Research
Institute, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
Ulrich, D (1997). Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and
Delivering Results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wagenaar, R. (2006). Governance of share service centers in public administration:
dilemma‘s and trade-offs., paper presented at International Conference on Electronic
Commerce. Fredericton, Canada, August 14-16.
WALGA, (2006). Systemic Sustainability Study: In Your Hands – Shaping the Future of
Local Government in Western Australia. Perth:Western Australian Local Government
Association.
White Paper, The World Development Report 2008 on Agriculture for Development,
Washington, WB
Willcocks, L.P., Lacity, M. and Cullen, S. (2007). Outsourcing: fifteen years of learning. In
Mansell, R., Averou, C., Quah, D. and Silverstone, R. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of
Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
95
World Agroforestry Centre, (2008), Transforming Lives and Landscapes. Strategy 2008-2015.
Nairobi, Kenya. WorldAgroforestry Centre.
World Agroforestry Centre. (2007). ICRAF Personnel Manual. Nairobi, Kenya.
WorldAgroforestry Centre.
Yee, C and Powell, J (2007). Shared Services as an Asset in Supporting Innovation and Growth.
Shared Services & Outsourcing Network articles. SSON. Vol. 9 (8).
World Agroforestry Centre. (2006). Trees of Change: A vision for an agroforestry
transformation in the developing world. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.
World Agroforestry Centre. (2004). Senior Leadership Team (SLT) Minutes. World Agroforestry
Centre, Nairobi
Blogs
Beard, M. and Rupp, T (2004). The Future of Shared. Services Montgomery Research Institute,
CFO Projects. [Solutions Development]. JPMorgan Treasury Services. [Online] Available from
www.cfoproject.com/documents.asp?grID=291&d_ID=1475. [15 January 2011]. Pp.1-5
Hewlett-Packard, (2010). Hewlett-Packard Development Company. [Online] Available from
http://h30187.www3.hp.com/articles/viewArticleAllPages.jsp?courseSessionId=305985&lessonI
d=60564&courseId=32169 . [15 January, 2011]
Israel, G.D. (1992). Determining Sample Size. Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006
Kreklow, S.R and Kinney, A.S (2010). The effective organisation of administration functions
through shared services. [Online] Available from http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-
insurance/4498393-1.html. Government Finance Review. Pp.1-2. [16 January, 2011].
96
Lightfoot, C. (2003). Demand-driven extension: some challenges for policy makers and
managers. Presentation to CTA‘s Sixth Consultative Expert Meeting of its Observatory on
ICTs. Wageningen, the Netherlands: CTA. [Online] Available from
www.cta.int/observatory2003/keynote_papers/Challenges_in-demanddriven_extension.pdf.
[19 April, 2011].
Oracle White Paper (2001). Consolidate Business Operations Through Shared Service
Centers. Shared Services and Multi-Org Architeture, Applications Development, Oracle
Corporation. [Online] Available from http://www.oraclewhitepapers.com/. [23 February,
2011]
97
Appendix 1: Survey introductory letter
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:06 AM
To: Kasyoki, Joyce (ICRAF)
Subject: Dissertation Survey_ "Decentralisation of shared Services: A case study of World
Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF‖
Dear Name of Respondent,
Very warm greetings.
My name is Joyce Kasyoki. I need your support. I am a student at the University of
Sunderland, UK undertaking a Masters Degree in Business Administration. I am carrying out
a survey and kindly request you to participate by filling in the questionnaire at your earliest
convenience but not later than 31st January, 2011
My dissertation research title is "Decentralisation of shared Services: A case study of World
Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF.‖ All responses are confidential. In this study, a decentralized
shared services organization is one which decision-making authority is not confined to the
Senior Leadership Team (SLT) but rather is throughout the organization, with leaders at
various levels making key operating decisions relating to their roles and responsibilities. The
information obtained will be used strictly for academic purposes.
Here is a link to the survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=D4AsAjhxYUiWOtXHUEaeZA_3d_3d
This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this
message.
Thanks for your participation!
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link below,
and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx?sm=D4AsAjhxYUiWOtXHUEaeZA_3d_3d
Sincerely yours,
Joyce Kasyoki
Manager, Administration
ASB—Partnership for Tropical Forest Margins
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
UN Avenue, P.O. Box 30677-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel +254 20 722 4114
Fax +254 20 722 4001
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.asb.cgiar.org// www.worldagroforestrycentre.org
98
Appendix 2: Questionnaire
Decentralisation of shared services at World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF
A].GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF
1. What is your gender?
-Male
- Female
2. What is your age bracket?
18-24yrs
25-29yrs
30-34yrs
35-39yrs
40-44yrs
45-49yrs
50 and above.
3. Please select your region:
Africa,
Asia,
Australia,
Europe,
North America,
south America
4. Level of education (Already completed):
Certificate,
Diploma,
Advanced diploma,
Graduate,
Postgraduate (masters level),
Postgraduate (PhD level)
5. Job classification:
DG & Director,
Coordinator,
GRP Leader,
Unit Head,
Manager
Scientist/Researcher,
Technicians & field employees,
Administrative staff
99
6. Please indicate your duty station.
ICRAF Headquarters
East Africa
West and Central Africa
South Asia
Latin America
Southern Africa
South east asia
8. How long have you worked for ICRAF?
Less than 6 months
1-6 years
7-12 years
13-18 years
+18 years
9. What is your area of specialisation
Research/Science
Technical/Field Operations
Administrative
B] To what extent do you agree that ICRAF would get the following benefits if it
adopts decentralization of shared services?
Rate each item on the scale shown to indicate your level of agreement
Score Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
1. Faster delivery of services to the
clients
2. Staff motivation
3. Will free senior management
from the day to day tasks and so
they will concentrate on strategic
aspects of their job
4. Elimination of bureaucracy
5. Will reduce the costs of
operation
6. Will eliminate redundant
employees and facility
7. The staff will become more
customer focused
100
8. Business Unit (department)
autonomy will be enhanced
9. Staff will be strategically aligned
to the organization.
Please state any other benefits that a decentralized structure will result to ICRAF.
C]. In a ranking of 1-5 (5 being the highest), to what extent do you think the
following criteria should guide the decentralisation process at ICRAF?
Please rank between 1-5 (5 being the highest priority)
Score 1 2 3 4 5
10. Clearly defined objectives of decentralisation
11. Clarity on services that are to be shared across the
board
12. Agreed tasks to be identified and completed
before embarking on a shared services mode
13. Identified core competencies for decentralisation
14. Clarity on functions that can be decentralized
15. Clarity on functions that cannot be decentralized
16. Clear Centre strategic vision, scope and objectives
17. Costs required in decentralization are allocated
across the board
18. Geographic location of functions and departments
well identified and documented
19. Availability of qualified and capable team leaders
20. Volume of work in the department
In your opinion what other step/criteria would you add to the above?
______________________________________________________
D]. To what extent would you consider the following to be the challenges if ICRAF
was to fully decentralise shared services?
Please rank between 1-5 (5 being the highest priority)
Not at
all
Small
Extent
Not
Sure
Some
Exte
nt
Large
Extent
1. Managers have inadequate skills to
manage decentralized units
2. Potential loss of jobs
3. Resistance to change
4. Time required in educating staff
members on the importance of
decentralisation
101
5. Additional work load in certain
departments
6. Lack of understanding by the staff on
their role in the decentralized set up
7. Lack of finance
8. Duplication of services
9. Changes in work policy
10. Changes in organizational culture
11. Inadequate facility
What other challenges would the decentralization process face? (please list)
______________________________________________________
E]. Please rate the importance of the following factors in ensuring effectiveness of
the decentralisation process at ICRAF.
Please rank between 1-5 (5 being the highest priority)
Not At
All
Importa
nt
Less
Importa
nt
NOT
SURE
Importa
nt
Very
Importa
nt
1. Development of concrete policies
to effectuate shared services at
ICRAF
2. Timely communication to staff on
workforce turnover
3. Communication to staff on the
financial status of the Centre
4. Preparedness in managing the
change process
5. Strong leadership in the
decentralization process at HQ
level
6. Strong leadership at the level of
decentralized units
7. Transparent procedures and
guidance on ICRAF‘s
commitment to decentralisation
process
8. Adequate funds allocated to
support the decentralisation
process from the onset
9. Senior Leadership Team and
Global Research Coordinators
working together to carry out the
process
10. Ensure that differences in
geographic conditions of the
regions are considered during
decentralisation
102
11. Ensure that the decentralization
process is in line with ICRAF‘s
mission and vision
12. Automation of the ICRAF centers
(internet and intranet)
13. Staff involvement in the
decentralization process
14. Changing the organization
structure to reflect the newly
decentralized units
15. Avoid discrimination (location,
gender, race, age, religion) on
placement of staff
16. Constantly update staff on status
of the decentralization process
Please state any other factors that you would consider important in enhancing the
decentralisation process
______________________________________________________
Thank you for participating.
103
Appendix 3: Lessons Learned – Personal developmetn
Through this study, I have been able to identify and document my own research proposal that
was followed by thesis. At this point, I feel that I am able to develop good writing and study
skills that help in retention of information and putting it in to good use. The feel good factor
associated with personal development plan is motivating it promotes understanding and
dealing with reality in life. (Megginson, 2007).
In terms of personal abilities and competencies, I have advocacy ideas for excellent
coordination and organization skills, as well as interpersonal skills. As a team player I would
work effectively in research oriented tasks and provide support to colleagues. Nevertheless,
my study has provided me with fresh knowledge and after this research, I have no doubt that I
am able to work well independently under minimal supervision, taking decisions as
circumstances require. Above notwithstanding, I am very confident that this research has
equipped by bridging the knowledge. I am now able to perform the following with vigour
and confidence:
Identify the needs of my organization and elaborate an effective organisational
strategy based upon the goals and objectives.
Understand the basics of good leadership, effective management and communication
skills within an organisation.
Deliver effective and quality services to members through decentralisation model.
Assess the different aspects and processes within an organisation.
Develop effective lobby and advocacy strategies through decentralisation of shared
services
Understand the socio-cultural issues affecting my work environment and the ICRAF
as a global international organisation.
104
Appendix 4: Workplan
Key Activities
(Milestones) Time-scale
(Plan of action)
Resources required
(Equipment, software, personnel etc)
1. To identify my own area
of interest January, 2010 Supervisor‘s support, internet
connectivity, course book
2. Select topic
February, 2010 Supervisor, office Supervisor and
myself to explain interest
3. Confirm topic and begin
to develop dissertation
proposal
February, 2010
Supervisor, internet, computer
4. Proposal written and
submitted to Supervisor at
Intel College Sept, 3
rd, 2010
Supervisor, computer, internet
5. Process proposal feedback Sept, 17th
2010 Supervisor, computer and internet
6. Design questionnaire October, 2010
Supervisor, office supervisor,
computer, course book, internet
7. Pre-test the questionnaire
November, 2010
Introduction letters, Pilot respondents,
computer, office supervisor, computer
and internet
8. Begin to collect data and
background information
November, 2010
Internet, Library, Research Intern,
course book, journals and references
9. Analysis and
interpretation of data December, 2010 Research Intern, additional computer
for intern and internet
10. Make desirable changes in
the questionnaire based on
feedback received December, 2010
Myself, the research intern, computer
and internet
11. Data collection December, 2010
Myself, research intern, colleagues
computer and internet
12. Writing up 1st draft
December, 2010 Supervisor reviews, Computer and
internet, office supervisor‘s time
13. Handle feedback and
corrections to 1st draft December, 2010
Supervisor 2nd
review, computer,
internet
14. Final proposal draft
prepared submission of
dissertation
December, 2010
Supervisor, computer, internet
15. Approval to write the full
proposal
Early January, 2011 – 12 May 2011 writing
full dissertation chapter 1-5 including
bibliography back and forth with
supervisor‘s reviews comments and
direction.
Supervisor, office supervisor,
computer
16. Submission of complete
dissertation 13 May, 2011 Supervisor, Computer and internet,
MBA –Sunderland Admin Support
Graduation November 2011
Family, Supervisors, Office
supervisor, Peers, Friends and Well
wishers