Silo Fighters Blog

Taking pilots to standards: Marking 10 years of ‘Delivering as One’

BY Alexander Freese, Gerald Daly, Helene Remling | November 2, 2016

Alexander Freese, Gerald Daly, and Helene Remling We’ve all felt the touch of coordination. Whether for a hiking trip, a wedding or a picnic in the park: planning together who does what, working on more challenging treats in a team (that barbecue, photo book or treasure hunt!) leads to better results than anyone could have achieved alone –  and it is always more creative and fun too! When it comes to complexity, organizing the activities of 32 UN entities with development operations in 165 countries and territories and a total budget nearing 17 billion US Dollars can hardly be compared to a picnic in the park. But still, coordination in either scenario is essentially about common sense, pooling ideas and resources. Underlying is  the conviction, that one needs to go together instead of alone to achieve common goals. In November 2016, the UN has perhaps a less known anniversary to celebrate. Ten years ago a process was initiated that put the common sense of coordination for better development results on center stage for the UN development system: ‘Delivering as One’ was born.  Aimed at supporting the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, this initiative was launched by then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2006 based on recommendations by Member States to strengthen coordination and management of the UN development operations. Test, evaluate and standardize But what does it take to bring to bear the full potential of a cooperative and collaborative UN on the ground? ‘Delivering as One’ equipped UN teams in 8 countries with flexibility and resources to experiment and find answers to this crucial question.  Some six years later,‘Delivering as One’ was formally recognized by Member States as a valuable business model for UN development activities. Building on five crucial pillars of the UN at the country level, namely one programme, a common budget, one leadership, and to communicate and operate as one, the UN set off to formalise the approach. Mandated by the UN General Assembly, senior UNDG leadership launched a unique interagency process  to come up with  Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for ‘Delivering as One’. These procedures were to codify the approach and bring together the lessons learned from the pilot countries for the benefit of all UN teams across the globe. If you would like to return to the travel analogy, the ultimate survival guide for a successful camping trip. In 2014 the UN Secretary General and 18 Heads of UN Agencies signed the SOPs, making the SOPs document the UN guidance document with the largest ever number of signatures by UN leaders. We’ve learned a number of valuable lessons in this two year journey of reviewing, drafting and negotiating a guidance document that would help unite UN efforts on the ground. With Ban Ki-moon’s term ending and a new resolution to guide the UN development system underway, the UNDG is at an important crossroads and  these lessons could inform future UN change processes:  1. Maintaining momentum: Reforming big institutions takes time. But with concrete yet strategic requests such as for the SOPs, change can happen fast. New resolutions and leadership create momentum for necessary change that should be harnessed. Sometimes this does not allow for in-depth preparatory research, but this time around much data has been collected on the functioning of the SOPs at the country level, paving the way for speedy progress in taking the SOPs to the next level. 2. Co-create change with those who will implement it: The UNDG set up a dedicated high level group to develop the vision of the SOPs, and a series of working groups to flesh out technicalities. Even though the high level group included colleagues from the regional and country levels, due to the very ambitious timeline, little time was left to consult and communicate intensively with important stakeholders such as country level agency staff who would be the eventual implementers of the SOPs. This might have caused delays in the behavioral change required by UN staff at the country level. 3.Keep the big picture in mind, even as you work out the detail: Developing the SOPs was a technical consolidation of experiences with ‘Delivering as One’ At the same time it was a political negotiation as to what extent agency procedures would later align to the the new standards. The UNDG focused on the technical aspects, and could have informed senior leadership and communicated to its governing bodies better about the strategic goal of the SOPs along the way: A UN system at country level ready to provide integrated policy support and solutions to multidimensional development challenges as versatile and complementary teams and has the internal procedures in place to fully support it (e.g. to allow for truly joined upfront analysis and planning). 4.The plan-monitor-adjust loop: The adoption of the SOPs falls in a period of change for many agencies, with shifting funding structures, calls for reform of governance mechanisms and the Agenda 2030 that requires taking policy integration and coherence to the next level. The SOPs embody a whole-of-UN approach that mirrors the whole-of-Government ethos that is called for to find the ideal balance between the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda breaks new ground. In the same way, the SOPs allow for continuous adjustment of technical details while maintaining their broader strategic intent. To this end, the UNDG has set up a system to track progress in the implementation of the 15 core elements of the SOPs to allow for the analysis of bottlenecks and accountability towards Member States. Challenges ahead: Changing the way we work In 2015 the UN turned 70, a year that will always be remembered as a year marked by major agreements signalling a paradigm shift in tackling global challenges. But while it was an opportunity to look back, it was also a chance to look ahead.  To help us deliver on the universal and transformative 2030 Agenda, the main challenge going forward is to enable UNCTs to provide equally integrated support to Governments through fully implemented SOPs. We need to gather more evidence on the value addition of the SOPs towards the UN’s contribution to the 2030 Agenda, and in continued reduction of transaction costs and duplication in the UN development system. On average, 16 resident and non-resident agencies in each of our 131 UN Country Teams make an incredible breadth and depth of expertise available to  Governments and societies. They provide pooled expertise, policy support and resources at country level. The SOPs allow us to harness the opportunities inherent in this vast offering by the UN system. As the recently published first Progress Report on the SOPs shows, much has been achieved in the short time span of two years since the launch of the SOPs: They have contributed greatly to improved inter-agency collaboration and enhanced the strategic positioning and relevance of the UN development system at the country level. A growing number of UNCTs are now organized around results groups and the most advanced ones focus their policy capacities around joint policy products and joint work plans. Around one third of UNCTs are implementing, or are in the process of preparing, common Business Operations Strategies in support of their United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). Programme Country Governments that have formally requested the UN to ‘Deliver as One’ are responding much more positively to questions on the UN’s alignment with national priorities, its overall contribution to development, and its focus on the poorest and most vulnerable people. The SOPs were agreed upon, signed and rolled out. Nevertheless, more time and effort is needed to fully implement them across all UN Country Teams. To realise the full potential of the SOPs, we also need to bring the required actions at headquarter level to the governing bodies of UN entities. Member States should understand that this change does not come overnight. Persistent follow-up is required from all stakeholders. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. As John Hendra, Senior UN Coordinator “Fit for Purpose” for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, put it we can build on the SOPs as the “floor” – for UN support to the 2030 Agenda at the country level. They are flexible and common sense principles of working together, transparently, efficiently and effectively. They also ensure government oversight and ownership, helping the UN to better align with national development needs and objective. In this sense, progress made in the past 10 years on ‘Delivering as One’ makes for a great campfire story perfecting a journey towards a UN that delivers better together. A story told jointly by so many UN colleagues from a diversity of organizations, based in countries across the globe, united by the UN values, vision and mission. This is an encouraging result from the 2012 quadrennial comprehensive policy review (QCPR) resolution and positive signal going forward into the negotiations of the next resolution on the UN’s operational activities for development.

Read More
Silo Fighters Blog

How would Napoleon have approached the 2030 Agenda?

BY Lars Tushuizen | August 25, 2016

For months the trumpets sounded and the drums beat on a new milestone in UN development -- a beautiful baby, called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), was born. It's neither a boy nor a girl,  it’s gender balanced -- a small step for men, but a giant leap for mankind. So our development problems are solved. We have a “plan”. Which, as we all know, means we are all but there. Or so we would think. Truth be told -- the Millennium Development Goals did address a range of significant development issues and created a common cause that rallied the development world. But there is a thing that bothers me about these sweeping development frameworks. A fundamental thing that few know about and is not even discussed while thinking through implementation of programmes to achieve the SDGs. To address this fundamental notion in development programmes, let’s look back in time.  The Russian Campaign in 1812 During  the Russian Campaign in 1812. Napoleon tried to engage the Russian army for a decisive action at the Battle of Maloyaroslavets. His generals were planning their attack (programme) without consulting the logistics officers that needed to aptly plan the logistics and operations support for their plan. His troops exhausted, his operations disarrayed from the start --  with few rations  and no winter clothing -- Napoleon lost and was forced to retreat. His vision was solid but he failed to achieve his objectives and lost 95 per cent of his assets, including his men. Reflecting on this historical occurrence, let’s add a relative perspective to our action plan with the SDGs. We talk about how we will engage universally with all the people we are to serve, we talk about recruiting the best and the brightest the world has to offer, we talk about using big data and real time data to inform our programmes, and most of all, we talk about impact and results. Don’t get me wrong, the SDGs are a great achievement from a planning, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting perspective. And it will have a great impact if we manage it. But to achieve these lofty goals, there is very little thinking going on about the need and the resources for business operations to be reformed. Programmes consist for a large part of business operations processes- one way to look at a programme is that it is a collection of procurement of supplies and services, recruitment of the right staff with the right skills, logistics to move people and supplies around to the population that needs it, ICT to support the planning, reporting and collaboration, and increased analysis  analysis of ever growing data sets. If business operations is from Mars, programme is from Venus There for sure is a fundamental difference between business operations and programme. After all they involve very different skills and expertise. But this does not mean we should approach them as separate areas, where we plan and strategize in a very siloed approach. Especially in an environment where the focus is on integrated programming across agencies and mandates, joint annual planning and advanced collaboration in resource mobilization and implementation. This separation does not have to be. It should not be. We have the instruments to bring operations and programme planning together (as outlined in the Standard Operating Procedures for Delivering as One). Programmes and operations are two sides of the same coin - both are indispensable in delivering development impact. We cannot afford to have separate strategic planning and implementation. They are too closely linked to keep them separate. There is always more room for improvement The UN has introduced innovations in business operations through the business operations strategy, which is closely linked to the UNDAF and programme planning. This is a great start and the UNDG outlined quite an ambitious vision for the role of business operations under the SDGs. But what is needed is a change of mindset of both programme and operations staff, both of senior management and our rank and file. Instead of treating business operations to engage once the programme is set and treat them as an external force that needs to deliver services to the programme, business operations needs to be engaged in the projects. What is needed is a change in project development and implementation to ensure business operations as well as programme staff are part of the same team. Some agencies already do this, but there is more room for improvement. In the end it is like a war, a development war We think about the attack plan, the maneuvers that will get us to our goal and not to forget, the victory speech we will give to position this development war that ends all development wars (or all development, but that is besides the point). But what war is ever won without ensuring the logistics and operations of the army are developed at par with the strategy so the soldiers of reform and development don’t die from cold at the battlefield? We all know what happened to Napoleon. He had a plan, but he did not think through the operations and logistics to implement that plan. Based on the epic defeat and learning from his mistakes, how do you think Napoleon would implement the SDGs? Would we repeat history without learning from key events such as the Russian defeat?

Read More
Silo Fighters Blog

Inclusive UN strategic planning: a survivor’s guide

BY Bruno Pouezat | November 13, 2015

Having survived the UNDAF process, I provide these reflections in hope that my personal experience and personal convictions will help you and your United Nations Country Team (UNCT). These comments reflect personal experience – and where experience failed to meet expectations, personal convictions. Most will be self-evident, yet not applicable everywhere; and all may be totally misconceived. UNDAFs and Delivering As One: Tools to help the UN and its partners work better together UNDAF is a process, not a document. The document will only be as good as the process that led to it. The document will soon be forgotten; the governance structure and work practices will durably transform how we work and how we are perceived. In addition, in today’s rapidly evolving world, any analysis or programming framework will soon become outdated. The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) allow for documents to be revised by consensus when needed; smooth-running governance structures will make this easy. Sweat the process, keep the document short. Delivering as One is a Swiss knife with an infinite list of options (‘SOPs’). Compared to earlier guidance, it represents an incremental step towards integration, not a revolution. Beyond the government formally asking for the application of the approach, there is no set minimum. The government and the UNCT can pick and choose how far to go along each of the pillars. 100 percent of any one pillar may not fit a given situation. Choose an option that works for you and adds value. Better to aim low and ratchet up the ambition once something is seen to work, rather than try for the moon, hit a snag and undermine the credibility of the entire effort.   Governance structures must be inclusive, participatory and transparent. Not only do they underpin programming quality, they contribute to our accountability, which goes beyond the national authorities. In line with the SOPs, I suggest: One national steering committee; Vertical thematic groups, one for each result area; Horizontal groups for cross-cutting issues (gender, human rights, youth, disaster risk reduction etc.); Monitoring and evaluation (M&E). All of the above to be co-chaired by a government and UN agency head; Communications and Operations – unless included in the local version of Delivering As One, these last two do not require a government co-chair nor reporting to the national steering committee. The national steering committee should be representative of all our partners at country level, keeping overall numbers reasonable – government, civil society, private sector, media, donors etc. Thematic groups should include anyone interested in the subject matter. All those interested should be on a mailing list or shared workspace. Only some will show up at every meeting, but all must be members, receive all the information and be able to come when they feel like it. The composition of the M&E Group is more technical. It should include the national statistics authorities, the national M&E association if there is one, M&E specialists in donor offices, etc. With regard to their contribution to the UNDAF, the groups are accountable to the national steering committee. The UN co-chairs are accountable to the UNCT. Collaboration, consultation and common work for a purpose Thematic groups function as forums for information exchange, and contribute to project formulation and monitoring. They also drive the drafting of the UNDAF and feed regular (annual/semi-annual) reporting. They should meet often and spend most of their time discussing development issues, not UNDAF bureaucratic requirements (best handled by a core group). People will come to meetings only if they gain something – information, understanding. Keep the meetings and the minutes short, the chairmanship lively and participative, and hold UN co-chairs up to their responsibility of representing the whole UN family, not their agency interests. Thematic groups can also contribute to resource mobilization to fill gaps in the resource table. The support of effective and representative groups provides credibility to a funding request to a donor with regard to a project/programme included in UNDAF. Thematic groups should not duplicate existing sectoral coordination arrangements – ideally, there should be only one coordination mechanism per sector, chaired by the government, which, as a line-item activity, would meet the needs of UNDAF and Delivering As One. Piggy-back on existing arrangements. The M&E group has essential accountability responsibilities: during UNDAF (and later on individual project/programme) formulation, it validates indicators and targets. During implementation, it provides the common format for thematic groups to report progress, and it validates the data they present. Focus on development results, and where working together adds value Joint programming is the aim; joint programmes are an optional tool – for use where and when clear benefits offset the administrative burden. Results framework and M&E constitute the core of the UNDAF. Get that part right. Convincing reporting demands sound M&E. Invest in M&E human resources at the agency and inter-agency (UNCT) level. Use national data systems – and strengthen them through a programme activity if need be. Use indicators that show the UN improving people’s lives, not the number of conferences/meetings/seminars/workshops – or even laws passed. As far as possible, avoid duplication by using UNDAF-wide reporting mechanisms to answer Agency-specific requirements – review meetings, results frameworks, reports etc. The UNDAF Annual Review report should cover most of the reporting requirements of the agencies/ funds/ programmes. Ownership – theirs and ours. Place government counterparts front and centre in annual reviews. Let them own the UNDAF results and be the ones reporting on them to their national peers (consider offering prior training on the effective use of PowerPoint). Consultants kill ownership – use consultants to facilitate the process and polish up the documents if need be; rely on UN staff and their partners for drafting, etc. UN staff’s participation in joint UN work must be reflected in their performance plan, and actual contributions highlighted in their performance appraisal. UN co-chairs can be asked to provide inputs. Break the agency silos at work and at play: between UN staff, familiarity breeds sympathy. The more exposure to each other as individuals, not agency flag bearers, the better. Even short of a UN House, shared premises and facilities like a kitchen/cafeteria help staff meet informally. Joint work increases familiarity with each other’s working practices. Shared accountability towards shared clients builds solidarity. Inclusive email lists spread information and feed a sense of a shared identity. This also applies within the UNCT: each agency representative should have a well-defined share of responsibility in the work of the whole, and be accountable for it to the whole (not to the Resident Coordinator!). Leave comments; let’s talk!

Read More
Silo Fighters Blog

Delivering as one: Now more than ever

BY Helen Clark | February 5, 2015

At the national level, public sector institutions need departments and divisions - they help keep the focus on results. But when they don’t work together, they don't help their governments solve complex problems. The same applies in the UN. If we can't join forces to be more effective, we would be of less and less relevance to governments addressing the cross-sectoral challenges of sustainable development. Throughout the post-2015 discussions, member states have reaffirmed that economic growth, environmental protection, and social justice can no longer be pursued as separate agendas. There is broad awareness that we all need to break out of our silos. A call for integrated solutions Take energy policy as a good example of how segmented solutions will never suffice. Governments look for solutions which bring reliable and affordable access, support delivery of basic services, and stimulate economies without damaging peoples’ health or the environment. Achieving all that requires integrated decision-making. Inclusive development cries out for cross sector thinking - we know that economic growth which doesn't translate into better services does little for those who have been marginalized by illness or disability, or by lack of identity documents. And if the growth has come from poisoning the air and water, everyone suffers. The truth is that there there is no one sector, silver bullet solution for most development challenges. No one agency, ministry, or department can solve them - and no one UN agency acting alone can be much help either. These challenges call on us all in the UN Development Group to work together to help craft coherent, multi-sector support to governments aimed at achieving inclusive, sustainable, and resilient development for their countries. Forging ahead, together In our efforts to improve how we deliver together, we have seen progress. We have hammered out ways of working together in countries through Delivering as One. We have worked together on how we plan, programme, we communicate, co-ordinate logistics, and demonstrate results. Inside the system, the new Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) point the way forward for all UN Country Teams. The UN Secretary-General and the whole UNDG are behind these, and we are advancing them in a growing number of countries. The new development agenda needs joined up ways of working more than ever. We know the theory, now it’s time to build up the evidence of how it’s done in reality. How do inter-sectoral initiatives work best? What are the factors for sucesss (and failure)? How can we find ways to demonstrate the impact of working together? We want to hear from you. Tell us your stories, and give us your feedback.  We need to Deliver as One, now more than ever.

Read More

Share your story with us




Shares