1. Projects and Programmes (p&p) A new concept for defining the implementation modalities TRAINING LAF – JUNE 2009

2. Context for the definition of the implementation modalities in p&p
Paris Declaration
Third Management contract
Belgian H&A Plan
Indicative Cooperation Programmes in some countries
Instruction for the preparation of the ICP and JC in 2009

3. Context for the definition of implementation modalities in p&p Present situation
Clear commitment of the Belgian State towards more « national execution »
Unclear view on how the concept of national execution applies to the execution modalities of p&p
The efforts toward more national execution during the formulation of new p&p lead to a variety of modalities and terminologies, that are discussed case by case, without a clear reference framework

4. Defining the execution modalities of p&p consists in answering 3 basic questions :
What must be done to manage the project?
which processes apply?  Mutual accountability
How to do it?
which system apply?  Alignement / Harmonization
Who’s doing what?
How to share responsibilities?  Ownership

5. What must be done to manage the project ? (which processes apply ?)
Procurement
Risk
Communication
Processes for managing p&p are grouped in 9 knowledge areas = process model for managing projects
Scope
Quality
Cost
Time
Human resources
Integration

6. What must be done to manage the project ? (which processes apply ?)
Processes are the right support for the discussion with the partner about his system (similarity Qplatform – National execution manuals)
According to the management areas, discussion can be lead at group level or at a more detailed level (process level)
Examples:
Management of international long-tem experts
Financial management

7. How to do it ? (Which system apply?)
2 possibilities for each process:
Partner
BTC or Third party (WB – EU – Common arrangements)
Alignment (Paris and Accra):
Select the partner’s system for as many processes as possible
Explain why it is decided not to use the partner’s system

8. How to do it ? (Which system apply?)
Not that simple
Is it important ?
Yes, because of Paris
Yes, from a strictly operational point of view (because TFF has to refer to the system description, otherwise everything should be described in the TFF)
If the Belgian system is chosen, it is important that an analysis of the harmonization possibilities has occured beforehand
Differing procedures  competition between interventions

9. How to do it ? (Which system apply?)
System’s identification rules
If the system remains in use after the end of the intervention, then it is probably a national system (or it became national)
If some purely validation steps are incorporated in the system then BTC considers that the system has not been modified
Examples
Special account for Belgian funds
Procurement

10. Who’s doing what? (How to share responsibilities?)
3 ways to share responsibilities within each process:
Responsibility R C I
national
belgian
joint
National responsibility: a posteriori control by BTC
Belgian or joint responsibility: a priori control by BTC
Joint responsibility requires a consensus

11. Who’s doing what? (How to share responsibilities?)
3 ways to share responsibilities within each process:
Responsibility R C I
national
Partner
(BTC)
BTC
belgian
(Partner)
joint
Partner and BTC
C stands for Capacity developmenet or partnership: is it compulsory or not?
Where is the consensus reached : PMU and/or SC?
Examples :
Financial management, procurement

12. National execution
National execution at process level = NEX = partner’s system + national responsibility
System
Partner
BTC
Third Party
National
National execution
Belgian
Joint
Responsibility

13. National execution /Cogestion
Stop using words like regie or cogestion
System
Responsibility
National
CTB
Partner
National execution
Cogestion
Joint
National execution /Cogestion
Belgian
Cogestion / Régie
Régie
Use the new terminology : system and responsibility
Ex : national procurement system in joint responsibility

14. National execution at project level
Discard good old rusty framework REGIE/COGESTION !
 Go for more accuracy, using the process table
More adaptability
More possibilities to measure and control progress towards more alignement
More possibilities to support consistent dialogue with the partner about his project management capacities

15. National execution at project level
National execution at project level = still to be defined …
Not all processes can be in national execution because a posteriori control can not apply on all aspects of project management (total budget, total duration, specific objective changes are obvious examples)
The choice of system/responsability can be different for each knowledge area (process)
The concept could be restricted to some areas of management (finance, procurement, HR)