Weakness in Software Implementation Affecting Sector Coordination
Identified weaknesses in software implementation affecting inter and intra-sector coordination, impacting efficiency and effectiveness of social services provision. Data analysis highlights lack of visibility in program results, duplication of efforts, and resource misallocation. Fishbone diagrams and action points emphasize the need for better coordination at the sectoral level and enhancing institutional capacity.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
TEAM COMPOSITION TECHNICAL TEAM NOEMIA UTXAVO DNPO, YASMIEN RIBEIRO DNPO, NERENOJUSSAR DNMA, ODEISSE DANIEL CEDSIF, IP COUCH TELES RIBEIRO/UNICEF DIRECTION ENG. CRISTINA MATUSSE DNPO
PROBLEM STATEMENT PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: WEAKNESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OFSOFTWARE. THE PROBLEM IS ASSOCIATED WITH INTER AND INTRA SECTOR COORDINATION OF PBB, WHICH HAS AFFECTED THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THEPROVISION OF QUALITY SOCIAL SERVICES.
DATA ILLUSTRATING ITS EXTENT NO VISIBILITY OF RESULTS AT PROGRAM LEVEL. EXAMPLE OF THE EDUCATION ACCESS AND FOOD SECURITY PROGRAM DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS AND RESOURCES; AFTER CARRYING OUT PRACTICAL EXERCISES OF DECONSTRUCTION AND PROBLEM FORMULATION, IDENTIFYING THE CAUSES AND SUB-CAUSES, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE PROBLEM IDENTIFIED BY THE TEAM REALLY CONSTITUTES A PROBLEM WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE NEW REFORM OF THE PLANNING AND BUDGETING SUBSYSTEM (SPO). NEXT, THE APPROACH FOCUSED ON THE NEED TO LOOK AT TRANSVERSAL PROGRAMS, AS IT INVOLVES THE INVOLVEMENT OF MORE THAN ONE SECTOR TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN RESULT, AND HOW TO IMPROVE THECOORDINATIONINTERSECTORAL AND INTRASECTORAL, WHICH CONFIRMED THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM.
ENTRY POINTS AND IDEAS FOR ACTION WITH A FOCUS ON PROGRESS SINCETHE MID- TERM REVIEW WORKSHOP IDENTIFIED ENTRY POINTS AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THE OVERALL ISSUE Lack of Coordination at sectoral level Limited institutional capacity Exiguous Budget Lack of an M&A system ++ + Authority - Authority Authority ++ Authority + + Capacity ++ Capacity - Capacity Capacity + + - + Acceptance Acceptance Acceptance Acceptance ++ STRONG + MEDIUM -WEAK
ENTRY POINTS AND IDEAS FORACTIONWITH A FOCUS ON PROGRESS SINCE THE MID- TERM REVIEW WORKSHOP THE INITIAL IDEAS THAT THE TEAM WANTED TO IMPLEMENT ANDTO PROGRESS FINALIZE THE SPO PLANNING AND BUDGETING MANUAL; DEFINE THE PROFILE OF PROGRAM COORDINATOR AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBPROGRAMS; VALIDATE THE PROGRAM COORDINATOR S PROFILE AND TORS; ALLOCATE RESOURCES AT SECTORAL LEVEL, AND THIS IN TURNTO ALLOCATETO PROGRAMS, SUBPROGRAMS AND FINALLY TO THE BENEFICIARY MANAGEMENT UNITS (UGB'S); FINALIZE THE POLICY EVALUATION MANUAL &PROJECTS
ENTRY POINTS AND IDEAS FORACTIONWITH A FOCUS ON PROGRESS SINCE THE MID- TERM REVIEW WORKSHOP NEW INSIGHTS AT ENTRY POINTS REVIEW THE PROBLEM, CAUSES AND SUB-CAUSES; DEFINITION OF PILOT PROGRAMS WITH EMPHASIS ON TRANSVERSAL PROGRAMS; APPROPRIATION OF THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT CYCLE VS EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM BUDGETING; REFLECTION ON MONITORING FUNCTIONALITY; COLLECTED DATA ADMINISTRATIVE DATA ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSVERSAL PROGRAMS AT PESO LEVEL; SECTORAL EXECUTION BALANCE REPORTS
ENTRY POINTS AND IDEAS FORACTIONWITH A FOCUS ON PROGRESS SINCE THE MID- TERM REVIEW WORKSHOP NEW LEARNINGS/LESSONS ON ENTRY POINTS FOR A PROGRAM BUDGET VIEW ALIGNMENT OF MEDIUM-TERM PLANS WITH PRIORITIES PARTICIPATORY AND INCLUSIVE DEBATE COMMITMENT AND DEFINITION OF RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE PROGRAM PROBLEMS AND ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE REVISITED MAGAZINE THE CAUSEREFERRING TO WEAK INTERSECTORAL COORDINATION; I. LACK OF QUALIFIED TECHNICIANS; II. RESISTANCE TO CHANGE; III. POOR COMMUNICATION AND IV. LACK OF COMMITMENT.
ENTRY POINTS AND IDEAS FORACTIONWITH A FOCUS ON PROGRESS SINCE THE MID-TERM REVIEW WORKSHOP CHALLENGESFACED IN IMPLEMENTING IDEAS AND HOW THE TEAM APPROACHED THEM Define team responsibilities and goals within each member s mandate Set a schedule activities aligned with ongoing reforms in the country Sensitizeto sectors to change the paradigm and engage in the planning process by program Start with piloting the selected programs
MEASURES OF SUCCESS MEASURES OF SUCCESS IDENTIFIED IN APRIL REALIZATIONNATIONAL PLANNING AND BUDGETING MEETING AND SPS FORUM CHANGE MANAGEMENT; CONDUCTING A REFLECTION RETREAT ON THE MONITORING FUNCTIONALITY IN THE MPO; TRAINING OF USERS IN THE CENTRAL AND PROVINCIAL SECTORS IN THE CONTEXT OF PREPARING THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PLAN AND STATE BUDGET 2024; SUPPORT FOR THE TYPING OF PESOE AND PO PROPOSALS IN THE MPO AT ALL LEVELS; VALIDATED THE PROBLEM IDENTIFIED BY THE TEAM AND IMPROVED THE CAUSES AND SUBCAUSES WITH THE KEY SECTORS (MADER, MISAU, MIC, MOPHRH, MIREME AND MGCAS); AND VALIDATION WITHDRAWAL OF THE ASSESSMENT MANUAL (MEF AND SECTORS).
MEASURES OF SUCCESS PROGRESS AGAINST THEM AND WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN REFINED OR ELIMIN PROGRESS AGAINST THEM AND WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN REFINED OR ELIMINATED WORKSHOP ON PROGRAMMATIC MANAGEMENT ANDSELECTIONOF PROGRAMS FOR THE PILOT PHASE; IN THE PROPOSAL OFWEIGHT2024-ALLOCATION OF BUDGET LIMITS PER PROGRAM; ATED SELECTHERE4 PROGRAMSPILOTS SOCIAL PROTECTION(MGCAS, MIC, MIDEDH, MISAU AND MOPHRH) ACCESS TO EDUCATION(MOPHRH, MTC, SEETP,MITESS, MIREME) FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY(MADER, SETSAN, MISAU, MIDEDH AND MOPHRH) TOURISM(MEF,MOPHRH, MIREME, MICULTURE) WORKSHOP ONREVIEW OF THE PROGRAM PORTFOLIO IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ANALYSIS OF THE 2024 PESOE BY THE TEAM IN THE PLANNING AND BUDGETING COMPONENT BY PROGRAM-PHASEPILOT ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT CYCLE
FLOW CHART PHASES OF PUBLIC INVESTMENT - LAW SUIT ENTITIES Sectors PHASES Problem Identification Sectors DNPED/MEF CTSPP MEF Formulation and Evaluation-Preview Technical advice Project Analysis and Evaluation Approval Pre-Investment DNPO/MEF Sectors | DNMA Sectors Sectors/DNMA Resource allocation Monitoring | Assessment | Follow-up Operation Ex post assessment (Impact) Investment Operation
WORKING IN NEW WAYS AND BUILDING CAPABILITIES CHANGES IN HOW STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT ARE VIEWED AND APPROACHED CHANGES IN WAYS OF THINKING AND WORKING SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PDIA APPROACH: NEW WAYS OF THINKING AND APPROACHING PFM CHALLENGES START WITH THE PILOT PROGRAM: PROMOTE AN APPROACH TOJOINT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE APPROACH AT NATIONAL LEVEL, SEEKING NEW APPROACHES AND PRACTICES TO FACE THE CHALLENGES OF RESOURCE LIMITATION. ENCOURAGE COLLABORATION AND EXCHANGE OF KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN COORDINATORS, PUBLIC MANAGERS, PROMOTE SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS ON BEST PRACTICES IN PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. APPROACH TO TEAMWORK, MEETING AND TEAM DYNAMICS MEETINGSVIRTUAL AND REMOTE; PRESENTATION INTECHNICAL ADVICEMINISTRY MEF LEADERSHIP; EXPLAIN HOW THE PROBLEM IMPACTS THE REFORM OF THE SPO AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF RESULTS RECOMMENDED IN THE PROGRAMS PROMOTE THE ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND DATA ANALYSIS, TO OPTIMIZE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND IMPROVE DECISION MAKING DEVELOP TRAINING AND TRAINING PROGRAMS AIMED AT UPDATING PROFESSIONALS WORKING IN THE AREA, SEEKING TO PROMOTE A MORE AGILE AND RESULTS-ORIENTED MENTALITY.
WORKING IN NEW WAYS AND BUILDING CAPABILITIES CHANGES IN THE WAYS IN WHICHAUTHORITIESTHEY ARECONSULTEDOR INVOLVED WORKSHOP/PLANNING FORUM/REMOTE MEETINGS, ESTABLISH MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION CHANNELS BETWEEN FINANCIAL MANAGERS ANDTHE AUTHORITIES, ENSURING A CONSTANT EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND ALIGNMENT OF OBJECTIVES. IMPLEMENT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL TOOLS THATALLOW THE AUTHORITIESMONITOR PROCESSES IN A MORE AGILE AND TRANSPARENT WAYOF MANAGEMENTPUBLIC FINANCES. PROMOTE AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT DIALOGUE, IN WHICHAUTHORITIES CANEXPRESS YOUR EXPECTATIONS AND NEEDS IN RELATION TO PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.,ENABLING GREATER PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT IN STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING. CHANGES IN HOW STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT ARE VIEWED AND ADDRESSED: IDENTIFYAND INVOLVE RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES, SUCH AS CITIZENS, CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR; CARRY OUT PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS TO OBTAIN DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON PROPOSED CHANGES IN PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT; DEVELOP EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE THAT INTERESTED PARTIES UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTIVES, BENEFITS AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGES INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DIALOGUE FORUM; IMPLEMENT COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE MANAGEMENT PLANS, WHICH INCLUDE THE IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL RESISTANCE AND ACTIONS TO MAXIMIZE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
WORKING IN NEW WAYS AND BUILDING CAPABILITIES NEW TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR EXPOSURE TO ISSUES OUTSIDE YOUR DEPARTMENT OR MINISTRY INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE MECHANISMS FOR ARTICULATION OF COORDINATORS, MANAGERS ANDRESPONSIBLEBY THE PROGRAM; CHALLENGES IN APPLYING THE PDIA APPROACH AND PARTICIPATING IN THE BPFCC APPROVALTHE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND PROFILE FOR THE COORDINATOR, MANAGERS AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM; RECOMMENDATIONCOORDINATORS, MANAGERS ANDRESPONSIBLEBY THE PROGRAM; ASSIGNMENTLIMITS TO PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMATIC MANAGEMENT IN A DECETRALIZED GOVERNANCE CONTEXT
NEXT STEPS GOALS ANDPLANNED ACTIVITIESFOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS CONTINUE REVIEW OF THE PLANNING ANDBUDGETING; FINALIZE THE REVIEW AND UPDATE OF PROGRAM PORTFOLIO INDICATORS; EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCE IN MATTER OF PLANNING AND BUDGETING FOR PROGRAMS; CONTINUE WITH THE PILOT OF THE 4 IDENTIFIED PROGRAMS; IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASE II OF ALLOCATION OF THE BUDGETARY LIMIT TO THE PROGRAM;
