The recommendations below summarize our view on the highest priority issues to be addressed in each of OCHA's functional areas.
Policy
While we have not identified a large number of policy activities that lack value, there is nonetheless a need to examine the portfolio of current policy activities and carefully prioritize. A key prioritization element should be to identify activities that are not strongly tied to an important issue tightly related to core humanitarian issues, and to be wary of activities that are in service of the field but lacking strong field-based demand. Given historic organizational dynamics, that demand has been hard to assess and joint efforts between headquarters-based policy groups and the field have been limited. We think this could be addressed through the "back to basics" approach described in the recommendation above.
Response coordination
In addition to our recommendation that senior leaders better understand the activities currently performed in coordination in order to identify opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness, we have a set of specific recommendations regarding certain response coordination activities.
In the light of the WHS discussions, we recommend that OCHA carefully consider the implications of increasing its focus on preparedness and adopting a more systematic approach to preparedness activities. It is important to note that preparedness is defined as the activities that OCHA undertakes to prepare itself for future responses, engagement with partners to improve and prepare for response in countries, and preparedness activities with specific governments in preparing for future crises. OCHA is already engaged in activities of this nature, but currently with an ad hoc approach. We would underline that broader resilience building is typically a development function, but part of the exercise that OCHA should undertake is to make the distinctions along the humanitarian-development
continuum more clear and articulate (through discussions with partners) where OCHA could focus versus where others are better placed.
OCHA is well placed to play a highly strategic role in preparedness that would produce a high return on investment for the community because the activities are tightly connected to OCHA's current
comparative advantage. Indeed, we see a commitment to deeper investment in preparedness as
33 fundamental to OCHA's 'resilience' commitments expressed at the WHS. OCHA could develop and apply deep institutional knowledge in subjects such as in natural disaster response, it could apply its positional advantage (built from government relations from a prior crisis), and it could leverage its convening power and IM capability. In all these cases, OCHA engagement could pay a deep dividend in reducing the impact of future emergencies.
A systematic approach to preparedness activities requires a compelling business case and a tight articulation of how OCHA will prioritize its efforts and interface with others who will carry the weight of programmatic delivery. Activities that require dedicated funds and resources to pursue a more
systematic approach to preparedness must be evaluated, and a business case for OCHA's role with a clearly defined focus of activities must be articulated for donor funding. If OCHA cannot engage donors in funding the preparedness activities for partners and governments, OCHA should make it clear that it is not supplying this function. It would continue to engage in ad hoc preparedness activities, for
example, where governments request specific support, but clearly communicate when it does so, so that it does not set unrealistic expectations of broader delivery.
We also recommend that OCHA engage in deeper examination of OCHA's role and path forward in three areas:
Protection and coordination in regards to Internally Displaced People (IDPs): A number of interviews expressed concern that OCHA's role in protection and how this translates to activities on the ground was unclear. Currently, UNHCR serves as the protection cluster lead and OCHA participates in the protection cluster. Our consultations raised a number of challenges with the division of
responsibilities, including:
The lack of a clear protection mandate (which spans from protection of civilians, to gender violence, to gender equity and even land tenure) and blurred distinction between humanitarian and development activities
The need for operational guidance from the IASC for the field
Some of these issues were considered by a recent 'whole-of-the system' review of protection in humanitarian response, undertaken by the IASC and a 2014 agreement between UNHCR and OCHA.
It is our understanding that the results of those processes are yet to be fully implemented. As such, this is an area deserving further exploration by CRD and PDSB.
Engagement with private sector actors: Engagement with private sector actors is a broader question that OCHA should address. At the WHS, private sector partnership was one of the key topics of discussion. Currently there is engagement with the private sector for different purposes, but OCHA should develop a clearer engagement strategy with private sector across different contexts both at the global level, and also at the local and regional level. Specifically, OCHA should ensure that the
responsibilities of the private sector partnership group at headquarters is clear, especially as other parts of OCHA seek to engage the private sector. There is a rationale for local partnership as a distinct function more tightly aligned with smaller local companies and local response, relative to the management of global partners managed from headquarters, but this should be clarified. It is also unclear how OCHA engagement would relate to cluster private sector engagement. For example, where does OCHA connect with the private sector? Is OCHA engaged in country at the Chamber of Commerce level? If so, with what aim? Alternatively, is there a cross-cluster coordination point with individual private sector organizations or do such connection points occur at an individual cluster level outside OCHA's responsibility?
In terms of private sector engagement on a local level through response, consideration needs to be given to the fact that OCHA staff do not typically have private sector backgrounds. The regional
alignment structures could help by including some private sector expertise at the regional level but in service of country offices.
34 Cash programming: This is another topic that was highlighted at the World Humanitarian Summit.
OCHA committed to 'ensuring that cash transfer programming is fully integrated into coordination structures, building on existing systems wherever possible.' While OCHA has communicated a position on cash, it is important to further clarify OCHA's role as this still appears to be a point of confusion. As a starting point, we suggest stressing that OCHA is not programmatic and will not distribute cash.
However, OCHA needs to address its role in strategic versus more technical assistance in cash coordination. On the strategic side, there is high value to OCHA coordinating discussions at cluster level, as well as furnishing those discussions with information such as which organizations are distributing cash, as well as strategic advice to the HC. Cash is another modality of humanitarian assistance, and it is well within OCHA's role to coordinate the strategic conversations with partners, but these positions need to be clarified.
Additionally, OCHA should be prepared to clearly define and communicate the guardrails around OCHA's role when it comes to technical assistance and involvement in cash programming at a more granular level. OCHA should clearly state its position on cash, and ensure a consistent message across OCHA to avoid confusion with partners or other external stakeholders.
Information management
We understand that there are efforts underway to address the proliferation of IM products, and to identify where efficiencies could be achieved. For example, the ongoing review established that over 100 different products (different product lines, not just different products) were deployed in Syria region over a month. We support these efforts to rationalize IM.
In light of significant demand from key stakeholders, we recommend that OCHA invest in upgrading its Information Management strategy to respond to a rapidly emerging ecosystem that can offer new and better approaches to the services OCHA currently performs. OCHA should consider exploring its role, activities (relative to others) and resourcing against three areas. First, can OCHA expand its network for information in the light of rapid change in this field, e.g. where does OCHA intersect with information flows to/from affected people? Second, can OCHA deepen its role in creating data standards for information from existing partners, which over time would allow it to compile, real time, higher quality data. As more partners accept these standards this data would come from a broader group of local partners and sources. Finally, can OCHA enhance its analytic and consolidator skills so it can provide deeper information products and data services?
To improve efficiency and effectiveness, HQ should also consider how it support field work through infrastructure, strategic direction (e.g. on core information management questions and trends), and by enhancing its regional support (see the Regional alignment recommendations in the Organizational Design chapter). This regional support would also enable the IM group to learn from innovation on the ground and ensure that centrally driven initiatives are fit-for-purpose.
Humanitarian Financing
We recommend that OCHA improve the efficiency and effectiveness of funding disbursements.
Delays in funding, and the administrative burden of receiving funding through OCHA, specifically through Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPF), is a high-priority area that should be investigated.
Specifically, identifying the root causes of delays in funding, and potentially identifying ways to streamline and reduce administrative burden of application for funding would greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the function. The issues with funding are not present in every situation, but there is significant inconsistency across countries that demand attention. This is especially true given moves to increase such funds.
In light of our proposal to consolidate humanitarian financing organizationally, there is an opportunity to review all the underlying processes and to establish a go-forward vision that ensures
35 adequate responsiveness. Additional measures should be taken for risk management, as some
expressed concerns that the expansion of funds increases the need to adequately manage risk. To address efficiency and concerns regarding both risk and being viewed as too programmatic, one of the areas to consider carefully is whether or not there is opportunity to leverage other parties for elements of fund management and governance.
36 IV. Management Model
IV.1. Context
An organization's management model is the set of tools and approaches that the leadership of an organization uses to make decisions, to promulgate them through the organization, and to track and manage their performance. A management model encompasses structural elements such as the decision rights of management committees, and the level of authority vested in different layers of management. It also includes the processes for supporting priorities, making decisions, allocating resources, sharing information, evaluating managers, and upholding organizational values.
This chapter focuses less on the management of what OCHA does, and instead focuses on how OCHA is managed. So, for instance, we focused not on what OCHA does to respond to crises, which is discussed in Role and Operating Model, but instead on how OCHA manages day-to-day activities.
OCHA's day-to-day management systems will ultimately determine the strength of the organization in responding to crises. While we saw evidence of strong strategic thinking in OCHA on what OCHA should do, there was less evidence of strong implementation. We would like the new management model to enable the organization to more quickly align on the what, and then move more reliably through the how to predictable delivery.
It is useful to set out three contextual items before considering OCHA's management model. First, because OCHA often operates in emergency environments, its management system must effectively balance the relatively predictable cadence of issues any organization will face over time and the
unpredictable nature of much of its activity. Second, the USG position and Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) posts are appointed by the SG, reducing the managerial stability of OCHA, especially in periods close to new appointments. Finally, OCHA’s head – the USG – has a prominent and often
unpredictable outward-facing role as the ERC. Playing a dual role as OCHA USG and ERC divides the USG's time between internal and external issues. OCHA is relatively small with ~2100 staff, and is typically well within the managerial capabilities of individuals at this level even with the added ERC role.
However, the pull of the external-facing role is quite significant and should be considered in the design.
Indeed, all three contextual elements point to the need for a management model that acts to stabilize ongoing OCHA functions as these other components flex.15
There is little doubt that OCHA's management model does not currently operate as a stabilizing force, and therefore offers significant opportunity for improvement. OCHA's management model was identified as a priority area of focus during the Inception phase of the Functional Review, and was strongly emphasized as an area for improvement in the results of the first all-staff survey, which put OCHA in the bottom quartile on every dimension relative to benchmarks.16 The importance of resolving the management model issues prompted the USG/ERC to create the Executive Management
Committee (EMC) (supplanting the informal Senior Leadership Team) as early as possible in his tenure, but the EMC is still embryonic and has no clearly defined decision rights. This chapter is intended to build on current efforts by highlighting best practices and by creating a clear vision for the long term changes OCHA should enact.
IV.2. Current State
15 It is important to note that in management model, our focus is on the internal management of OCHA, not the ERC activities.
16 OCHA EFR employee survey, Overall n = 1,075; Proprietary BCG EFR database. Results compare OCHA to set of 38 non-for-profit and intergovernmental benchmark organizations, including humanitarian organizations and the UN.
37 There are three important components to OCHA's current management model:
First, there is the senior leadership focused on internal management in the headquarters of OCHA.
These are the top management positions in OCHA, comprising of the USG, one ASG17, three D2s in New York, as well as the Head of OCHA's Geneva office.
Second, there is a strategic planning cycle that OCHA follows in order to set strategic direction from the USG through the organization. Currently, OCHA has a four-year strategic planning cycle (that is, a Strategic Plan and a Management Plan are created every 4 years). In addition to the Strategic Plan and Management Plan, OCHA has a Strategic Results Framework and Management Results
Framework. These are revised every two years to set targets and to report on achievements. Work plans by branch are developed annually. Additionally, OCHA has an annual process for budgeting and development of cost plans.
Third, although the USG has ultimate decision-making authority, there are several committees that advise him on decisions, including the newly established EMC, Senior Management Team (SMT), Budget Review Committee (BRC), Governance Board for Information Technology, recently formed Learning and Knowledge Management Board (LKMB) and the Emergency Response Task Force (ERTF).18
IV.3. Findings
The current committee structure in OCHA's management model, including the presence of the newly-formed EMC,19 is broadly in line with what we would expect to see in an organization. The main committees and their corresponding responsibilities – specifically the Terms of Reference,
membership,20 and cadence – align with common committee structures in private and public sector enterprises. However, our diagnostic uncovered some key gaps in OCHA's management model.
Specifically, we found that:
The management model is not codified in a clear way, and is lacking key components and interconnections:
o There is no integrated management system in place to drive a clear agenda for the organization as a whole;
o Decision rights are not clearly delineated, and accountability is unclear; and
o There are gaps in information sharing, both 'vertically' and 'horizontally', resulting in a lack of transparency across the organization.
Decisions made at the senior management level lack disciplined follow through
The leadership team does not work well together and perspectives on specific managers have become an entrenched lens through which all actions are viewed:
o There is a lack of trust amongst the leadership team
o There is entrenched polarization across leadership and a sense that everything is a 'zero-sum' game
17 Rashid Khalikov of the Russian Federation was appointed as Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Partnerships with the Middle East and Central Asia, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Geneva on 27 November 2015. In this role, he has limited engagement in the management of OCHA.
18 There are other boards within OCHA that are not addressed here, for example the proposed OCHA Gender Board
19 Given the importance of raising visibility of key administrative and programmatic functions at this juncture, we support the decision to create the EMC.
20 We would, however, support increasing the representation of the field and, if consolidated as per our organizational recommendation, Humanitarian Finance on the EMC.
38 Each of these findings is addressed in turn.
Finding 1: The management model is not codified in a clear way, and is lacking key components and