Becoming One Operation, One Organization

1. Becoming One Operation, One Organization Key Recommendations from the SO IP Forum (SOCCER) September 2012 INTERNAL USE ONLY

2. How Will We Use these Recommendations? INTERNAL USE ONLY

3. Presentation Content • SOCCER’s Key Questions • Key Features of One Op/One Org vision, WVUS & WVAus processes • Recommendations for action • To E-GOLT & SO Executives • To One Op/One Org Working Group • Key Dates & Next Steps INTERNAL USE ONLY

4. SOCCER’s Key Questions On One Op/One Org Vision • Do we agree with how the GFO has described the future (5 year) role of SO IPGs? • What must be clarified or changed within this vision in order for SO’s to be a part of it? INTERNAL USE ONLY

5. Key Features of the GFO’s “One Op/One Org” Vision SO IPGs: A Shift in the Level of Engagement From: Programme • To: Portfolio • Strategic engagement at portfolio and outcome / impact level Activity Monitoring • Facilitators, collaborators and strategic partners Capacity Builders Quality Assurance • Exception monitoring INTERNAL USE ONLY

6. Key Messages for SO Executives & e-GOLT • CLARIFY: • Risk Management & exception management: SO vs RO vs NO roles • Changes needed within the GC to fulfill the Vision • NO consultation process for affirming the Vision • Functional implication of shifting from capacity building to “facilitation & collaboration” • Define ‘portfolio’ • Role of grants, advocacy & HEA: part of vision? KEEP • The overall direction of the One Op/Org vision • Largest SO’s affirm the timeline for functional shifts (3-5 yrs) • Contingent upon progress toward Established PCR ratings & other key metrics of NO performance • FedNet foundation & momentum • Clearly reflect principles within this vision CHANGE/ADD • Add full SO role to Vision, then the SO IPG • The vision should emphasize common SO IPG functions, not structure • Establish clear protocol for accountability & transparency between GC and SO • Ex: Service Level Agreements • Acknowledge longer timeline (5+ yrs) for some medium/small SO’s to functionally shift • Clear SO IPG program oversight minimums INTERNAL USE ONLY

7. SOCCER’s Proposed Clarifications • In order to fulfill the One Op/One Org vision, the GC must consolidate strategic planning and prioritization into one effort (GOSM-led). • Better coordination between IM & GFO needed to ensure that RO/NO efforts and SO investments are aligned with one overall vision • NO’s should be meaningfully included and have an opportunity to shape the One Op/One Org vision before it is set in motion. • Should occur now, rather than following final e-GOLT buy-in. How to engage via working group? • SO IPG’s primarily play capacity building roles in light of RO/NO capacity gaps. SO IPGs should and will continue to maintain robust technical and strategic portfolio management capabilities, geared toward donor-facing needs in the future. The donor-facing role requires that SOs remain engaged with field programming for • Accountability to donors (including ability to demonstrate program effectiveness and impact) • Fulfillment of fiduciary responsibility as defined by each SO; and • Maintaining credibility among peer agencies (within & outside of int’l development) • ‘Portfolio’ refers to a) the full suite of an SO’s funded programs within an NO. INTERNAL USE ONLY

8. Proposed Changes to the “One Op/One Org” Vision SO IPGs: A Shift in the Level of Engagement • To: Portfolio From: Programme • Strategic engagement at portfolio and outcome / impact level Activity Monitoring • Facilitators, collaborators and strategic partners Capacity Builders Quality Assurance • Exception monitoring Field Orientation • Donor-orientation. Bridging donor interests & community needs. INTERNAL USE ONLY

9. General Comments for the Working Group • Consider piloting the One Op/One Org vision in 2 Established No’s for 2 years • Clarify what is meant by monitoring and evaluation within the RO role vs. the NO role. • Clarify what is meant by GC’s ‘strategic’ focus • Describe RO accountabilities INTERNAL USE ONLY

10. Key Messages for One Op/One Org Working Group (1) From: Programme • To: Portfolio • CLARIFY: • For smaller SO’s, a program view = a portfolio view • Role of NO PCR rating in determining timing of shift from program to portfolio engagement KEEP • Overall direction CHANGE/ADD • Demonstrate how to hold RO’s accountable for leading PSTs • Describe expected co-dependencies & trade-offs of shifting from program to portfolio view • Clear SO IPG program oversight minimums INTERNAL USE ONLY

11. Key Messages for One Op/One Org Working Group (2) • Strategic engagement at portfolio and outcome / impact level Activity Monitoring • CLARIFY: • GC willingness to reprioritize its own spending rather than asking for additional funding KEEP • Overall direction CHANGE/ADD • Address impact of activity-based budgeting • Risk monitoring and management role of RO’s INTERNAL USE ONLY

12. Key Messages for One Op/One Org Working Group (3) Capacity Builders • Facilitators, collaborators and strategic partners • CLARIFY: • Expected behavior changes when SO’s move from capacity building to facilitation, collaboration, strategic partners roles • Ability of & timeframe for (3-5 yrs?) RO’s to fully take on capacity building roles currently played by SO IPG’s KEEP • Overall direction CHANGE/ADD INTERNAL USE ONLY

13. Key Messages for One Op/One Org Working Group (4) Quality Assurance • Exception monitoring • CLARIFY: • Quality Assurance Do’s & Don’ts for all SO’s including how best to manage exceptions KEEP • QA role within NO’s and RO’s (we affirm this per PST intent) CHANGE/ADD • Mechanism for ensuring SO IPG program oversight minimum standards • Recognize and describe the risk management role that SO’s have per audit & donor requirements • Clear definition of ‘exception monitoring’ INTERNAL USE ONLY