USAID Summer Seminars
Session 2 - Notes
 The
Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination, in coordination
with the Knowledge for Development Subcommittee, is pleased
to present USAID 2004 Summer Seminars.
If you have further comments or questions, please visit our
WebBoard
(new page will open).
| Date |
Session #. Title |
Materials |
| June 29, 2004 |
2. An Explanation of USAID’s Business
Model Review |
Notes
and Presentation, PPT 1 Mb |
Organizer: David
Eckerson, M/HR. Panel:
Joseph Lombardo, Policy & Program Coordination Bureau; Tom
Rishoi, Foreign Service Officer (retired)
USAID Summer Seminar Session 2, Tuesday, July 6, 2004, 9:00-11:00
Topic: An Explanation of USAID’s Business Model Review
Presentation Notes
Dave Eckerson
Business Model Review (BMR) can be interpreted in many different
ways, so when Administrator Natsios first suggested that a
Business Model Review be created, there were many lofty, albeit
differing, expectations within the Agency. One view was to
completely revamp the Agency, and create a new business model
so the most effective and efficient way of operating USAID
would be achieved. Another view was that the Agency, on the
whole, was running just fine. This view suggested that some
refining of the current method, with emphasis on USAID in-country
presence, would work to strengthen the Agency. The biggest
challenge to the later view was how to achieve recognition
for the work being done within the field, while also regaining
some control back from the State Department. The result was
that a BMR had to be created that would satisfy both views,
and improve the way in which the Agency conducts business.
It also had to be achieved in a timely fashion.
The first step in achieving a working BMR was to see what
could and could not be accomplished. In order to do this,
committees were set-up, the KfD Strategy CoP working groups’
help was enlisted, strategy-specific open forums were held,
and mass e-mails were sent to Agency employees who had taken
part in senior leadership training courses. In addition, the
Administrator set out to see what was working within the Agency.
He concluded that the main concern was the proliferation of
strategic objectives (SOs), and that common indicators needed
to be limited. In an attempt to further see where the Agencies
strengths lay, 10 regional hub countries’ business models
were looked at. The inevitable conclusion was that in the
field, USAID was not standard across the board, but rather
decentralized. One need only look to the LAC Bureau’s
business model (the first) for direction. When looking at
all other hubs, it appears as though some areas are heavily
vested with contractors for employees, while other hubs were
overseeing many countries at once. The main conclusion is
that USAID must institute standardization across the Agency.
In doing so, there are three main areas that must be addressed:
strategies and strategic management, the improvement of operational
efficiencies, and field operations
One route used to approach the BMR was in terms of strategies
and strategic management. From this sprang the idea that the
use of Automated Directive Systems (ADS) would be a great
way in which to streamline the way in which the Agency was
run, by replacing the handbooks. However, as time progressed
the ADS kept growing. Once again the Agency was split between
those who thought ADS was good and efficient, and those who
thought that change was necessary.
The BMR concluded that overall, the Agency spends too much
time and money on creating strategies, which are inevitably
futile. In addition, the BMR found that there is a need to
standardize and in effect downsize the number of strategic
objectives. The premise was that the same needs exist everywhere,
with common work being done everywhere, and that having too
many SOs makes it difficult to “tell our story.”
The BMR also found that strategic management needed to be
reassessed. There were an increasing number of coordinator
positions sprouting up throughout the Agency, leading to further
decentralization. USAID must find another way in which to
do business, one in which standardization and efficiency exists
across the board.
The outcome of the BMR was that a hard look was taken at
the way in which strategies are developed. A move towards
strategic management was reassessed, and the number of SOs
was greatly reduced. In addition, a set of common indicators
was created. While all this change was seen as necessary,
the sentiments were not felt throughout the Agency, especially
amongst the staunch ADS supporters.
The BMR also took a look at management. Using Latin America
as a model, the BMR took into account all the staff in a mission.
Then they compared this to missions worldwide. It was found
that was a great disparity among management units. It was
decided that the Counselor, along with PPC are going to improve
the way in which bureaus implement mission program management
assessment. It is hoped that 15 to 20 mission program management
assessments will take place a year. After the assessments
conclude, their findings will be shared across the Agency.
Hopefully the first of the assessments will occur before year’s
end.
In addition, it was found that no alignment, or synergy,
exists between the bilateral, regional, and pillar bureau
programs. The first portfolio review found that there was
a shift where regional programs, concentrated on technology,
were being moved to pillar bureaus, and many regional programs
were moved out to the field. The second portfolio review looked
to see how the bureaus did once there was a shift, and their
regional programs were taken away. It looked to see whether
or not they began crafting new programs. The third portfolio
review said that there should be a focus on the pillar bureaus
and their functions. The pillar bureaus should primarily be
doing field support, exerting technical leadership for the
Agency, and also doing research and development. It was concluded
that the pillar bureaus require greater understanding throughout
the Agency.
BMR also discovered that as body, USAID have lost the ability
to design its own programs. Control over program design has
been contracted out. Emphasis on training is necessary to
rebuild the program design concept. The BMR also concluded
that development criteria must be initiated for placement
of contracts officers. What is most necessary is training
on a standardized communications program.
Joseph Lombardo
The Business model review is another stage in the evolution
of the Agency. There has been a sense that there has been
a proliferation of projects, with no overarching bridge to
unite. The view was that the Agency was burdensome, time consuming
and costly. This was the view held in the mid 90s. Today it
is quite different. The question is how do we create a system
that provides broad strategic objectives. The challenge is
to design and streamline programs to suit the individual country.
We are looking to the future with working groups that are
creating interim guidance for laying out a broad framework
of how we are to proceed in the coming years. This guidance
will utilize existing supplementary guidance, such as the
White paper. Within the framework created, the strategic vision
will be broad and outlined. Under the strategic vision, the
missions will be putting together the operational plan, which
will be a work in progress, updating as needs change.
Q & A
1. Too much focus is being placed on the reduction,
and standardization of indicators. What needs to be reached
is an understanding of the indicators already in use.
Development is not a scientific pursuit. It’s
both science and politics. When it comes to politics the indicators
must exist. If the indicators must exist due to politics,
then they better mean something.
2. I am struck by the way in which the Agency has
finally decided to standardize. Why haven’t they been
standardizing all along? Now they must come up with doctrine,
and standards, and a way in which to make the Agency more
efficient.
We must be careful, because the current Administrator comes
from a military background as well. He is well aware of the
need for standardization, and its importance. There is a dichotomy
within the Agency on how to accomplish and approach the Business
Review Model, since there are those who seek a uniform approach,
while there are others who are still more relaxed about the
way in which things are done.
3. Did the group conducting the Business Model review,
delve into previous reasons why efforts to standardize didn’t
work? If so, then did they formulate a BMR that would rectify
past mistakes?
We did not look to past efforts to standardize.
We did, however, look at 25 different studies done within
the Agency on realignment and business practices. Every one
of the studies was never implemented. Back then we did not
have a centralized form of management. When a lot of stuff
is coming from the center, what do you do? We hold the people
in the field, along with their knowledge, as our highest asset.
So we look to those in the field for guidance, because we
still have no centralized management system. Now we are so
earmarked that we are moving into the new world with the White
Paper, the fragile states strategy, and MCA. There are many
changes occurring, producing challenges, and fears as well.
Fear that the Agency will become a finishing school for MCA
countries.
4. I am concerned that the Agency has become broken,
with all the problems that decentralization has caused. Were
there any redeeming aspects of USAID that emerged from the
study, which can be trumpeted, and built upon? I am concerned
that the Agency is so vulnerable that the movement to break
it and start over again is strengthened.
We went to 10 countries. Stones can be cast at the
Agency. You can go to any country in which we have a presence
and see the work that we have done. We are at the forefront
of the development world. The battle is in the perception
of USAID. There is one side in which there is the movement
to standardize. On the other side is side in which we need
to train our leaders to maximize our efficiency in the field.
5. Is the Business Model Review available to view?
Who else has seen it?
The Hill. The Administrator. The problem is really
easy to fix. It is not a one size fits all type of solution.
We just have to do get it done by taking all the little systems
we have and making them cohesive. The Business Model review
is posted to the web site.
6. Can you explain the “well-trained cadre”
of FSNs to be used in other countries to provide us with our
search capacity? There is a lot of turnover in the missions,
because they feel that life on a contract basis is not appealing
in terms on longevity? Is this to be due to the fact that
no incentive is given to make them stay with USAID? Can you
explain this?
Point well taken. There is no OE money to provide
incentives. When the FSNs were initially hired it was through
the use of OE money. Now the funding has been moved to program
side. Most of the technical people were moved to the program
side. The plus is that much of the money was used for training.
In the inevitably we ended up becoming a development finishing
school. The problem is that we can’t provide the training
consistently, leaving us with an inability to retain our best
and brightest. The notion of our recommendation is that we
mobilize our best and retain them on a consistent basis. How
are we going to do it? We need a FS coordinator, however no
one wants to do the job. Regardless everyone in the agency
believes in FSNs. In the meantime, the FSNs are mobilizing
themselves, for instance the FSN chief accounts in Egypt have
created a worldwide network.
7. Did you look at all of the practice of management
for results? Specifically, I have found that the missions
manufacture results that do not really have country ownership.
It depends on the mission. Some missions place many
issues under one blanket SO. To answer your question, yes,
missions often manufacture results.
8. Will country ownership become a bigger issue
as the Agency moves to standardization of Sops, resulting
in less country ownership?
The standard SO does not mean there won’t
be country ownership.
9. What happens to new strategies?
We put out the word that until we get some interim
guidance, all strategies should be put on hold. If there are
strategies that are complete, then they should proceed with
review. The bureaus will create abbreviated reviews. We are
also looking to develop a crosswalk for the objectives, in
order to capture the essence of what people are trying to
do. We are developing a series of joint strategic objectives,
in addition to program objectives. In the end we are trying
to maintain has much freedom as possible for the missions
to tailor the programs to the needs of the mission, while
still showing Congress that we have some cohesion in how we
develop Agency goals.
10. So are we actually renaming the SOps in order
to facilitate standardization, or are we actually reducing
the existing Sops?
The SOps will be substituted by the program objectives.
# # # end notes # # #
To view descriptions for the upcoming 2004 seminars,
please click here.
Back to Top ^
|
