Linking Strategic, Operational and
Financial Planning
1.
Introduction
1.1
Plenipotentiary Resolution 72 addresses the topic of creating a
closer linkage between the strategic, operational and financial planning
processes of the ITU. It instructs the Secretary-General and the Directors
of the Bureaux to implement a system of operational planning, taking into
account the elements listed in the Annex to the Resolution. Furthermore,
it instructs the Council to report to the Plenipotentiary in 2002 on this
matter, with recommendations as appropriate.
1.2
Since the Resolution was passed, considerable progress has been
made, as reported to Council in documents C99/31 and C00/02. In
particular, operational planning is now an on-going and systematic part of
the planning process in the work programmes of the ITU Sectors and General
Secretariat. At Council in 2000, a number of enhancements to the system
were suggested, proposing to: make the Strategic Plan more
action-oriented; involve the Sectoral Advisory Group more closely in the
financial planning process; and to promote greater use of measurable
performance indicators. These improvements are in the process of being
implemented.
1.3
Each of the Sectors and the General Secretariat currently produces
and uses its plan in different ways and in different timeframes. This can
cause problems in coordinating the operational plans and setting
priorities across the Union. Table 1 shows a comparison between the 2000
operational plans according to a series of objective, comparable criteria.
2.
Perceived problems
2.1
Despite this progress, a number of unresolved problems remain which
have given rise to contributions from the membership to the Sector
Advisory Groups and to the Working Group on Reform seeking to streamline
and improve the process. While the problems are perceived differently
among different parts of the membership, there are certain common themes
that need to be addressed:
- Problems
of differential cycles. The strategic plan currently follows a
five-year cycle; the financial plan, a four-year cycle; the biennial
budget, a two-year cycle; and the operational plans, a one-year cycle.
In addition, each of the Sectors has different
inter-Conference/Assembly cycles. This causes dislocations in the
interaction between the different processes.
- Problems
of timing. Currently,
the ITU-R and ITU-D operational plans are completed prior to the start
of the fiscal year in which they apply.
The draft operational plans of the three Sectors are not
reviewed by the respective Advisory Groups until early in the calendar
year in which they apply. The draft operational plan of the General
Secretariat is not reviewed until Council when the year is already
halfway through. Many members would like to review the plans at an
earlier stage.
- Problems
of financial oversight. It is generally acknowledged that the
Sector Advisory Groups, as representative bodies including both Member
States and Sector Members, should play a role in financial management
for their respective Sectors. However, up to now, their inputs to
Council decisions on the budget have been only limited.
- Lack
of feedback. With the exception of the
ITU-R Sector, the mechanisms for reporting back on the results of
implementation of different operational plans, and feeding these
results into new or revised plans, are not currently well developed.
Similarly, the monitoring of key performance indicators needs further
attention. The
operational plans are also used in some areas (e.g., in the BR) for
internal management and monitoring on a quarterly basis.
Table 1:
The different approaches to operational planning in 2000
|
Item
|
ITU-D
plan
|
ITU-T
plan
|
ITU-R
plan
|
Gen.
Sec. Plan
|
|
First
review of plan by membership
|
Posted,
20/12/99
Discussed
in TDAG 2-3 Mar. 2000 and made available to Council
|
Posted,
22/5/00
Discussed
at TSAG, June 2000, and made available to Council
|
Posted,
17/12/99 and discussed at RAG, Jan 2000. Subsequently revised, based
on RAG comments, and made available to Council. Again revised
following WRC 2000.
|
Posted,
19/6/00 and made available to Council.
|
|
Review
and evaluation, if any, during or following completion of the year
2000
|
Review
of activities for first nine months at TDAG in Oct. 2000.
|
Review
via “annual report of ITU’s activities” at Council in 2001 and
at TSAG meeting in March 2001
|
Internal
review and reporting by Dept. Heads to the Director each quarter.
Document on implementation of 2000 plan provided to RAG in
March 2001 as well as separate, more detailed documents reporting on
publication activities in 2000, savings made in documentation in
2000 & processing of satellite filings
|
Review
via “annual report of ITU’s activities” at Council in 2001.
Not reviewed by Sector Members.
|
|
Length
|
28 pp
|
15
pp
|
29
pp
|
16
pp
|
|
Performance
indicators, targets?
|
Qualitative
indicators only
|
Output
measures, (e.g. numbers of Recommendations), qualitative indicators
and targets.
|
Both
qualitative indicators and targets. Output measures too.
|
Qualitative
indicators only
|
|
Resource
measures
|
Staff
months and CHF
|
Staff
months and other costs in CHF
|
Staff
months and CHF
|
Staff
months for Gender, SPU, PE, and CONF. CHF for FIN. Nothing for SC,
IS.
|
|
Posting
on website
|
2001
plan on BDT home page. 2000 plan available via TDAG documents and
Council website.
|
2000
plan on ITU-T website as a TSAG document and on Council website.
|
All
operational plans, past and present, available on ITU-R, RAG and
Council web pages.
|
Available
via Council website only.
|
|
Availability
|
Public
|
TIES
users only
|
Public
|
TIES
users only
|
3.1
In view of the problems highlighted above, it is clear that, even
with the enhancements proposed to Council in 2000, the current practice of
operational planning falls short of that intended in PP Resolution 72 and
that there are differences of approach. A number of improvements have
already been proposed, for instance by the RAG (see document RAG 2001
1/40), by the
report R-7 of TSAG (Ref. TD/68 of the last TSAG meeting) and
by the Working Group on Reform (see document C01/25). Taking up some of
the suggestions contained in these contributions, the following
suggestions are put forward for discussion and appropriate action:
·
Align the operational planning cycle
with other planning cycles. This could
involve, for instance, designing the next operational plan to cover the
period 2002-03. Thereafter, in line with the recommendation from the WGR (see C01/25), operational planning could be
incorporated into a rolling four-year work plan, aligned with the
strategic plan and financial plan for 2004-07. This would imply that the
operational planning process would have to begin as early as late 2001 so
as to ensure that there is a “bottom up” planning process involving
Sector Members. The earlier years would be fleshed out in more detail than
the later ones, which would be presented in outline form.
·
Bring forward the planning process and
review period. In this way, the draft
operational plan for 2004 onwards could feed into the planning for the
biennial budget and could be revised and reviewed before the start
of the calendar period to which they apply.
·
Formalise the system of reporting on
operational plans. This could be done, for
instance, by having the Bureaux prepare a document reporting on the
implementation of the operational plans and providing these to the Sector
Advisory Groups (as is currently done by the BR). These documents could be provided for information to the
Council. The same could be done by the General Secretariat i.e.,
submission of a document reporting on the implementation of their
operational plan to the Council for its review.
·
Establish links to planning documents.
At present, the different elements such as the Strategic Plan, the
biennial budget and the Sectoral operational plans are scattered in
different part of the website, with different levels of access control. It
is proposed that they should also be available via links from central web
pages which would also contain links to information on ongoing review and
revision processes, statistical reporting and on evaluation. It is
proposed that all planning documents, including the biennial budget and
financial operating report, be considered as public documents without
access restrictions.
·
Move towards quantifiable targets.
While it is understood that each of the Sectors and the General
Secretariat have different requirements for resource measurement and
identification of priorities, nevertheless there should be an effort to
move in the direction of quantifiable targets, with a systematic reporting
of actual outcomes and against targets and forecasts (as is currently done
in ITU-R).
·
Use consistent resource measurement.
Once operational planning is aligned with the biennial budget, it should
be possible to report both staff months and CHF costs, and to note any
divergence in terms of resource reallocation in subsequent revisions of
the operational plan. This would require, for instance, a standard
definition of staff months.
3.2
The
above approach is presented for Council to discuss and to take appropriate
action.
__________
|
