|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
Management information systems have been another area where the UN has
struggled for three decades with very little success. A 1988 JIU report observed
that: "ECOSOC had called in 1973 for
[management information systems] to provide proper planning and evaluation
information to member governments to facilitate decision-making in
intergovernmental bodies. The
Board of Auditors observed in
1977 that a computerized budget formulation process had been introduced,
[but only] to calculate updated resource estimates for the next biennium
for continuing activities
The Secretary-General, citing these and other
criticisms of budget implementation, established a new unit in the OFS
[Office of Financial Services] to develop, install, and evaluate all
United Nations systems of financial management and control, in order to
improve financial reporting." Joint Inspection Unit, on prescient concerns expressed in
the 1970s, in "Reporting on the performance and results of United
Nations programmes: Monitoring, evaluation, and management review
components", UN document A/43/124,
1988, para. 93.
However, Secretariat
efforts to use the new management information tools, as in other
management areas, made little progress: "In early 1985, JIU issued a
report on management issues in computer use
amid very dynamic changes in
information technology. [It]
urged urgent action to ensure a clear-cut systems development process
In mid-1986 a Technological
Innovations Board of major users was established to oversee computer
systems development throughout the Secretariat. " "Accountability and oversight in
the United Nations Secretariat",
on developments in 1985-1986, UN document A/48/420 and Add.
1, 1993, paras. 87-88. Not surprisingly,
a sharply critical evaluation for the CPC (Committee for Programme and
Coordination) in mid-1987 concluded that little had been done. It: "found a serious lack of policy
planning, co-ordination and control of information systems development in
the United Nations (repeating criticisms already made by the Board of
Auditors in 1984 and JIU in early 1985). It concluded that the 'most
serious problems' of system development were in the administrative area,
where many ineffective, partial, outmoded and/or labor-intensive systems
were operating in isolation from each other
The report noted further
that the need to integrate and complete these systems had been recognized
since 1976, but corrective efforts had failed
[due to] lack of internal
co-operation, dispersed EDP staff at Headquarters, the absence of an
overall plan, and outdated programming
methods." "In-depth evaluation of the
program on electronic data-processing and information systems services:
Report of the Secretary-General," UN document E/AC.51/1987/11 of
as discussed in Joint
Inspection Unit, "Reporting on the performance and results of United
Nations programmes: Monitoring, evaluation, and management review
components", UN document A/43/124, 1988, paras. 96-97.
The Secretariat
finally acknowledged in 1988 that it had an uncoordinated set of 22
computerized administrative systems, that there was 'widespread
dissatisfaction' with these old and unresponsive systems, and that this
situation had 'severe repercussions' throughout the organization in
extensive extra costs, fragmentation, and lack of
responsiveness." [This Secretariat mea culpa was in]
"Establishment of an integrated manageement information system." Revised
estimates under section 28: Report of the Secretary-General," A/C.5/43/24
of
A
JIU report in 1988, on UN performance and results reporting, observed
that: "An essential
programme budgeting function is to clearly identify programmes and
projects with their costs, to allow intergovernmental bodies to
effectively allocate scarce financial resources and the assess how they
are used. CPC observed in
1967 that
programme and financial data were not integrated. ACABQ stated in 1972 that the
existing 'hybrid' budget prevented member states from directly relating
inputs to outputs and determining if they wwere 'getting their money's
worth.' It therefore urged
integrated planning, budgeting, and costing. [Yet a]
group
of experts concluded in 1986 that the medium-term plan had not become the
desired [UN] 'primary policy directive' because the programme budget is
'merely the financial compliation of a number of [intergovernmental body]
decisions and resolutions, interpreted by the Secretariat, and prepared
in detail before Member States become involved. There have been many indications
of this separation of United Nations programming and financial processes,
and of the dominance of the financial side.
The United
Nations
still lacks an overall computerized, integrated management
information system."
"Reporting on the
performance and results of United Nations programmes: Monitoring,
evaluation, and management review components", UN document A/43/124,
1988, paras. 86-98 [86-87, 93]. [Note: the JIU report
section, entitled "Separation of
programme and financial data", went on to identify eight areas of
UN managerial muddling that had contributed to this lack of an integrated
system, as well as ongoing struggles to develop some detailed programme
cost data.]
The 1988 JIU report
also urged action to improve Secretariat reporting on its performance and
results. It recommended
inter alia that the Secretary-General give high priority to
establishing a computerized management information system to integrate
both programme and financial decision-making information to allow timely
and effective decision-making both in the Secretariat and in
intergovernmental bodies.
However, the Secretary-General responded
that: "This aspect has been a concern of
the General Assembly, its Fifth Committee and CPC for some time
[It]
will be taken into account in the context of an integrated management
information system for the entire Secretariat [once this system is in
place and operational.]" "Reporting on the performance
and results of United Nations programmes: Monitoring, evaluation, and
management review components: Note by the Secretary-General", UN document
A/43/124,/Add. 1 of The General
Assembly approved an integrated management information system (IMIS) for
processing and reporting on administrative actions [not programme
performance information] at all UN duty stations in late 1988. It was a very large project,
contracted out to a specialized firm. Unfortunately, while many such major
computerized systems stumble, this new UN system was worse. As the JIU summarized the efforts
between 1988-1995: "The IMIS moved forward with painful slowness
for years, due primarily to management indecision and a lack of proper
support to the contractor (resulting in significant cost overruns and an
expected final total cost of some $76 million
Meanwhile, the antiquated
existing systems have continued to provide inaccurate, tardy,
inconsistent, and inadequate financial and personnel data, which could
rarely be used by managers in daily operations. Recently, however, with
stronger leadership and following a 'complete reprogramming and
rebudgeting exercise' and a review by the Board of Auditors, IMIS may now
be ready to reach a 'critical mass' of implementation
" "Management in the United Nations: Work in progress", Joint
Inspection Unit, UN document
A/50/507,1995,
para. 54.
By 1997 the
Secretariat was finally ready to return at least to conceptual discussions
of the idea of performance management information systems for
decision-making, first urged more than a decade earlier. In a report on
his reform programme, Secretary-General Annan cited the possibilities of
introducing results-based budgeting (i.e., still primarily the old UN
"inputs fixation"), but at least to begin to finally move away from
compliance with rules governing inputs, and toward a focus on managers'
accountability for outputs and consequent outcomes: "Since a key aspect of
accountability for results is transparency of performance information,
management information systems would need to be able to provide
improved analytical tools for the monitoring and evaluation of
outputs and outcomes
to support results-based performance reporting
The creation of a results-based
budgeting framework would represent a substantial shift from input control
It would also require a shift in the management culture of the
Organization as a whole." "Renewing the United Nations: A programme for reform: Report of the
Secretary-General; Addendum: Results-based budgeting," UN document
A/51/950/Add. 6 of [Emphasis added]
The UN Secretariat's inactions over the decades provide a very clear
"timeline" in this area of management information systems, which can now
be updated. As in so many
other management areas, this timeline, in IO Watch's opinion, shows
clearly the Secretariat's entrenched delaying tactics, irresponsibility,
and inability to deliver what the General Assembly has emphasized that it
must do. To reprise the
situation: -- In 1973 ECOSOC
had called for [management information systems] to provide proper planning
and evaluation information to member governments to facilitate
decision-making in intergovernmental bodies, and by 1977 a computerized
budget formulation process had been introduced, [but only] to calculate
certain updated resource estimates for budgets [see the "1970s" item introducing
this subsection]; -- In 1988 a JIU report recommended
inter alia that the Secretary-General give high priority to
establishing a computerized management information system to integrate
both programme and financial decision-making information for timely and
effective decision-making, but the Secretary-General responded that this
"aspect, of concern to the General Assembly
for some time" would be fit
into an integrated management system being designed (the IMIS, which did
not actually even include programme performance information [see the entry
of 27 May 1988 above and the following paragraph]);
and -- In 1997 Secretary-General Annan
first proposed introducing results-based budgeting which would provide
accountability for results but would require management information
systems to provide improved analytical tools for the monitoring and
evaluation of outputs and outcomes [see the entry of
Most recently, the
"
program managers were not held
accountable for meeting program objectives because U.N. regulations
prevent linking program effectiveness and impact with program managers'
performance. U.N. officials
told us that a more mature program monitoring and evaluation system is
needed before program managers can be held responsible for program
performance. The Secretary-General tasked the
OIOS to develop a strategy to systematically evaluate and monitor
programme results and to introduce information systems needed
and
expects to have a complete system by 2006."
Thus, thirty-three
years after ECOSOC called for such an obvious, essential, and much-needed
system, the Secretariat "expects" [note, does not promise] to have
this fundamental management system become available. Of course, many new
complications and delays can arise between now and then, and no doubt
testing of the new system will be needed after 2006 to "get the bugs
out". Will programme managers
subvert it yet again, and a new Secretary-General (or Mr. Annan in a third
term?) engage in yet another new round of somewhat different but very
earnest UN management reform
ideas?
Despite these
basic and multiple management barriers to overall computerized information
systems development, some parts of the Secretariat, at least, have made
some very positive progress in using information technology to convey
information, and the UN has now established a fairly comprehensive and
widely-used Internet website (see www.un.org .) On the other hand,
other important areas and processes are clearly lagging. An OIOS report in 2003 reviewed
Secretariat administrative tasks and procedures in travel, procurement,
and staff entitlement administration to consider how to eliminate
duplication and unnecessary and complex procedures so that the
Organization can be managed in an integrated manner. It found that:
"the Secretariat's administrative environment
is not fully leveraging the advantages of technology, nor is it applying
modern process management practices adopted by other organizations. Many of the administrative
processes are still manual, cumbersome, timea-consuming, inefficient and
costly to administer. In some
cases, layers of control slow down the process without providing any real
value." "Review of duplication, complexity, and bureaucracy in United
Nations administrative processes and procedures," UN document A/58/211 of
The UN
Secretariat's painfully slow past responses to the "information
revolution" and in implementing the IMIS system have clearly retarded
overall UN information systems development. This is a shame, because it means
that the UN missed out on years of the rethinking, streamlining, increased
efficiencies, and productivity which such systems development processes
can provide for any organization.
An excellent
perspective on organizational productivity gains in September 2003
concluded that: "When productivity first picked up
in the late 1990s, economists debated fiercely about how much of the
increase was structural and how much of it was cyclical.
productivity gains from IT
investment do not materialise on the day that a computer is brought
[or] automatically boost
productivity growth: firms need to reorganize their business practices as
well.
the benefits are arriving years after the money has been spent.
IT investment in the late 1990s
was accompanied by significant intangible investment in human capital
(such as retraining) and in new business processes ('re-engineering.')
IT is also more pervasive than
previous technologies: it can boost efficiency in almost everything
that a firm does -- from design to accounting -- and in every
sector of the economy.
[An accompanying article stated
that] "
the most dramatic gains
happen when companies use technology to understand better what they do in
order to change how they do it
The main issue slowing
productivity gains down
is 'grandma syndrome' -- a reluctance to ditch
tried and true processes." "Special report: American productivity: The new 'new' economy: How
real and durable are
And
"Boosting productivity: On the shop floor: Automation is part of it, but
better understanding is the key", The Economist, both of The above article
concluded with the key observation that: "There is an advantage to being a
follower in adopting new technology, rather than a trailblazer: you can
wait to see what works and then pick the best bits. As Paul Saffo of
The UN has
already been "the first mouse", painfully trapped in a "lost decade" of
travails with its IMIS system.
It is also very much wedded to the "grandma syndrome," with the
key, and very regrettable, amendment that its management systems have been
mostly "tried and failing"
rather than "tried and true."
Management
information systems can still become a crucial element for more efficient
and effective UN operations
and management reform in the future. So far, however (and 30 years
after the ECOSOC called for them), the UN Secretariat has not really made
a serious attempt to reach for "the cheese" by properly establishing the
key managerial and productivity processes used by real, effective "21st
century" organizations. In 2004, there was a
ray of hope -- or at least fresh policy assertions and intentions -- that
the UN is striving to break out of this decades-long quest to properly use
modern information technology.
It might even be nearing the stage at which it can apply it to
management reform and accountability processes, and to strengthen its
antiquated decision-making systems. IO Watch will continue to follow up on
UN efforts in this area. "The information and communication
technology strategy (A/57/620) to ensure efficiency, automation and
coordination in the Organization's internal decision-making is being
implemented, and a Project Review Committee has been established to
enforce standards on all initiatives in the area of information and
communication technology and to ensure that all related investments are
justified. The United Nations
is upgrading its
network to make it more robust
" "Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the
Organization", UN document A/59/1, 20 August 2004, para. 235.
|
|||
