Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1 Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS47 The findings from this study have beensummarized in short text boxes at the end ofmajor sections and Chapter 4 has drawn togethercore strands from the analysis. Elements of aresults focus within UNDP predate introductionof results-based management into UNDP, whichfor this evaluation is taken to have occurred in1997, when the Administrator s Annual Reportcalled for the establishment of an overall planningand results management system in UNDP. Thiswas operationalized in 1999 with the introduc-tion of strategic results frameworks across allprogramme countries and development of thefirst 2 discusses the subsequenteight-year period of rolling innovation, redesignand change. It is important to understand thatthis evolution was not guided by a comprehensivedesign and that there is little consensus withinUNDP on what the results-based managementapproach and systems is clear is that, over the period, UNDP hasestablished a cycle of setting and revisingcorporate goals, has introduced improved officesystems to manage project finances, has institu-tionalized the need to report on corporate andindividual performance, and has raised awarenessabout results throughout the 1.

2 The experience of UNDP withintroducing results-based management issimilar to that of other was one of the first UN organizations tomove to a results-based management approach,but the information does not exist to rank itsachievements and status relative to other organi-zations. Review of the literature discussingexperiences with results-based management (seeAnnex 6) strongly suggests that UNDP s experi-ence has not diverged significantly from that ofmany other public-sector , this evaluation identifies a significantnumber of areas where greater progress couldhave been made, but even with perfectknowledge and the required managementcommitment, it is unlikely that UNDP couldhave fully institutionalized a results-basedmanagement approach within eight CONCLUSIONS and the recommenda-tions therefore focus on the key challenges forUNDP and draw on wider experience on howthese may be successfully 2.

3 UNDP has a weak culture of experience suggests that an organi-zation with a strong culture of results:nEngages in self-reflection and self-examina-tion,seeking evidence on what is beingachievednEngages in results-based learning, withadequate time and opportunitynEncourages experimentation and change,including risk takingAdopting results-based management was a logicalcontinuation of management reforms during the76 See Box 1, which summarizes challenges identified by the World Bank 2006 Annual Report on Operations Evaluationon operationalizing managing for 5 CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONSCHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS481990s, and UNDP probably had little option inview of pressure to improve performance from theExecutive Board and across the United Nationsas a whole.

4 Significant progress has been made ona number of fronts: sensitizing staff to results, andcreating the tools to enable a fast and efficientflow of information. Despite considerable invest-ment in development of systems, managing forresults has proved harder to achieve. In particular,the strong emphasis on resource mobilizationand delivery, a culture supporting a low level ofrisk-taking, systems that do not provide informa-tion relevant for managing for results at thecountry programme level, the lack of clear linesof accountability, and the lack of a staff incentivestructure to judge performance based onmanaging for development results all workagainst building a strong culture of 3: The corporatist approach hashad only a limited effect on developmenteffectiveness at the country adopted a systems approach to stimulatemanaging for results, which meant that changewas to be driven by the implementation ofcentrally designed and prescribed systems.

5 TheMYFF strategic plans were used to set corporateresults frameworks with complex structures ofservice lines that tried to reflect the diversity of country programmes. These were primarilydeveloped to enable aggregate reporting ofUNDP performance to the Executive Boardwhile at the same time creating a clearer focus tothe has not developed corporate oversightsystems that track the degree to which countryprogrammes implemented a results-basedmanagement approach, instead focusing ondevelopment of systems required for upwardscorporate reporting and oversight of is the lack of oversight systems thatfocus on tracking whether programmes useresults to adjust resources (people, money andpartnerships) to improve future practice, the corporate service lines set byheadquarters have proved too numerous, withvery permissive definitions.

6 This has led tocountry offices manipulating their programmesto fit into corporate service lines, divertingattention away from country needs, and has madereporting to the Executive Board more aboutprocess than substance. There is also littleevidence that this approach has significantlyaffected the shape of country-level programmes,but there is evidence that it has imposedunnecessary transaction costs at country is little evidence indicating a significantrole for results-based management systems in thestrategic allocation of resources (people andmoney) within 4: Results-based management hasbeen misinterpreted as not supporting thedecentralized way in which UNDP works in a strongly decentralized way, yetthe results framework in the MYFF were notgeared to country processes.

7 Emerging newsystems under the UNDAF/CPD/CPAP reforms are seen to have the potential to createobjectives for UN organizations that are alignedwith national plans and responsive to countryneeds. Working through these structures, UNDP country offices are now able to define realisticoutcome objectives that are within UNDP smandate, aligned to the UNDAF and harmonizedwith other development has been accompanied bydelegation of authority over the CPD. Undercurrent procedures, country programmes are notscrutinized for development potential by regionalmanagement, an abdication of responsibility. As aresult,evaluation and audit provide the onlymeans to check that country programmes arecontributing to corporate corporatist top-down approach has inadver-tently fuelled concerns that having corporategoals is a means of imposing programmes at thecountry level.

8 Decisions about the nature andcontent of country programmes are inevitablyreached through a political process between theCHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS49 Resident Representative/Country Director, thenational government and those funding specificprojects. The role of results-based management isnot to constrain that process but to provide aframework so that UNDP works within itsmandate, or areas of competence, and ensure thatadequate resources are aligned behind achievingresults agreed among partners. Once programmesare agreed upon at the country level, results-based management should provide standards as abasis for dialogue about how to craft realisticoutcomes, select objective indicators that candemonstrate progress towards developmentobjectives, and jointly monitor 5: Results-based management systemsare not helping build a results-based are strong perceptions within UNDP thatsystems related to financial administration andmanagement have improved.

9 Also, training inPRINCE 2 and ATLAS may be strengtheningproject administration and management skills, insome offices, where these have declined in thelast , there is little evidence that systemshave led to increased focus on developmentresults (managing for outcomes). ATLAS andPRINCE 2 both deal with information at theproject level and the project is at the core of their designs. The RCA does not effectivelyincorporate key results that reflect successfulmanagement for results by individuals. There arealso concerns that systems have become overlycomplex and and use of results systems have mainlyfocused on producing data to meet reportingcommitments to the Executive Board, ratherthan managing for outcomes, which is central toachieving a results orientation in UNDP at theprogrammatic , UNDP has failedto develop a system for reporting on its contribu-tion towards development results, which meetsthe demands of constituencies within theExecutive Board.

10 This reflects a number of corporate level results frameworks havenever included high-level goals with substantivemeasurable and agreed indicators against whichto assess global progress towards meeting thegoals. Comparison of the goal-level reporting byUNDP with the objectivity of reporting againstthe MDGs is stark. UNDP also needs to becontrasted with many other UN organizations,which can rely on objective results data reportedthrough internationally developed systems todiscuss whether or not progress is being madeunder their key mandated has developed a reporting system thataggregates whether results will be delivered whenexpected or not. This approach has limitations:first, because the country-programme outcomesagainst which UNDP will deliver are poorlydefined and there is insufficient consistencyacross the country programmes on the definitionof an outcome;second, because the logic linkingoutputs delivered by UNDP with achievement ofthe outcomes,and the higher level objectivesfound in the corporate strategic resultsframeworks, is often not explicitly defined andaccessible; third, and the main point of interestfor the Executive Board, this approach fails to report on UNDP s performance againstoutcomes for which it is 6:Managing for results requires importance of leadership to drive results-based management forward has been notedseveral times in this report.