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.

2 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.

3 And has raised awarenessabout results throughout the 1: 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.

4 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: 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.

5 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. Significant progress has been made ona number of fronts: sensitizing staff to results, andcreating the tools to enable a fast and efficientflow of information.

6 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.

7 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. 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.

8 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. 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.

9 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.

10 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.