Consortium Office products and services, 29 August 2012

1. CGIAR Consortium Products, Services and Outcomes
August 29, 2012 – final version for CB consideration following consultation with Consortium members
This note is intended to help provide clarity on what the CGIAR Consortium and its implementing arm,
the Consortium Office, deliver and can be held accountable for. This document was drafted by the
Consortium Office staff in June-July and has benefitted from comments received from CGIAR
Consortium Members 1. The intent is to provide a framework against which the performance of the
Consortium, and the value for money it delivers, can be evaluated. This document will be submitted for
discussion and decision at the October 2012 Consortium Board meeting. The document will be shared
with the Consortium Board ahead of its virtual meeting on September 27, as it provides the context and
background for the 2013 CO POWB that the Consortium Board has to discuss at that time.
In general terms, the role of the CGIAR Consortium has been described in the various documents related
to the CGIAR reform. This note has taken key documents such as the Constitution and Joint Agreement
as starting points. The note attempts to concretize these roles and responsibilities of the CGIAR
Consortium into specific products and services, and proposes indicators and targets to measure the
performance of the Consortium against 3-5 year goals. In addition, the draft note proposed key projects,
activities and deliverables for the 2013 planning cycle in order to prepare the 2013 CO Program of Work
and Budget (POWB) in a consistent manner. This section has informed the 2013 CO POWB, which had to
be prepared more quickly in order to be reviewed by the Peer Review Group and submitted to the Fund
Council for its October meeting. Finally, as there has been some discussion on the Consortium’s
approach to shared services in the CGIAR, a brief position is laid out for the rationale and conditions for
the CGIAR to develop shared standards, systems or services – and the Consortium’s role in these.
Who We Are
The primary purpose of the CGIAR Consortium is to lead the development of the CGIAR Strategy and
Results Framework (SRF) and ensure its implementation through a portfolio of CGIAR Research
Programs (CRPs) that is optimized to achieve the System Level Outcomes most effectively and
efficiently.
The Consortium Office (CO) is the implementing arm of the Consortium, as delegated by the Consortium
Board through approved work plans and budgets. The Consortium Office also provides strategic advice
to the Consortium Board.
Much, or even most, of the work of the CO as described below depends critically on, or can only be
achieved through, collaboration with / delegation to / joint work with other System components (i.e.
Fund Office, Independent Science and Partnership Council, Independent Evaluation Arrangement),
1
Comments received with thanks from Martin van Brakel, Bruce Campbell, Victor Kommerell, Frances Seymour,
David Theriault, Graham Thiele
1

2. CGIAR Consortium members, CRPs and other partners through communities of practice (i.e. the CO will
not staff up to implement all the work below but work through partners).
What We Do
The key products and services provided by the CO are summarized as – contributions to – the following:
1. Policies: Development and cyclical revision of the policies and standards that provide the framework
for implementing CRPs – the Common Operational Framework and other policies and standards.
2. Core business: Management of the CRP portfolio and annual CRP cycle (portfolio financing plans,
CRP budgets and work plans, quarterly cash flow reporting and Window 1 disbursements,
operational decisions during the cycle concerning possible gaps/overlaps in the portfolio of CRPs,
monitoring and reporting on program results, analysis of progress at portfolio level, reporting on
intellectual asset management).
3. Shared systems or services: Development and management of shared systems / services. Either
with or on behalf of Consortium Members or to improve the functioning of the CRPs.
4. Communities of Practice (COPs), Partnership enabling and external relations: Support for
Communities-of-Practice and effective Partner relations, including internal and external
communication. Several new CoPs may be set up and supported. Organization of Consortium-wide
learning on how to partner, with whom, for what; how to manage multiple partnerships;
partnership relationship management. Represent, or coordinate/support the representation of, the
interests of several or all Consortium Members.
5. Internal Consortium back-office support: Management of Consortium internal business such as
support for the Consortium Board and Members Group; CO work plans and budgets.
In more detail the key continuous services and their associated 3-5 year outcomes, for which the
Consortium can be held accountable, are proposed as listed in Table 1 below. More indicators were
considered than will be practical to track and monitor. Following consultation and discussion of possible
indicators 1-2 indicators have been selected for each area other than that of the “core business” for
which 6 indicators are selected, for a total of 10 performance indicators. The indicators proposed to be
selected are shown in red and underlined in Table 1. Other indicators considered are shown in black. In
a follow-on step, the costs of these CO services are proposed to be mapped to the outcomes, in order to
start analyzing value for money (and prioritize activities and outcomes).
Table 1. Consortium Office Key Services and proposed associated medium term outcomes.
1. Policies / Common Operating Framework: development and cyclical revision
SERVICES 3-5 year OUTCOMES
(proposed indicators in red, underlined)
• Common Operational Framework: • Consortium Level ISO (quality)
Financial Guidelines; CRP Monitoring certification by 2015
Principles and Reporting Templates; CGIAR • Risks are managed to the satisfaction of
Intellectual Asset Principles; etc. all key System stakeholders, as
• Consortium policies, guidelines and measured by annual 360 feedback
standards: Consortium Gender strategy;
2

3. CGIAR Branding Guidelines; Guidelines for
standardized data management, including
scientific data quality control; Shared
standards for gender research in the CRPs;
Shared standards for quality research for
development partnerships and for the
implementation of impact pathways in the
CRPs; etc.
• Legal requirements for use of W1 and W2
funds: Joint Agreement and Program
Implementation Agreement
• Additional as may arise
2. Core business: managing annual CRP cycle
• Programmatic: Running CRP and CRP • Reduce total reporting and transaction
portfolio level Performance Management costs by 20% by 2015 – baseline tbd
System; Aligning CRP portfolio with the • Increase overall amount of CGIAR
SRF; CRP portfolio analysis funding by 10% year on year
• Financial: Annual Financing Plan; Annual • At least 50% of CRP funding through
CGIAR financial report; Analysis of Annual Windows 1+2 by 2015
CRP work plans and budgets; Quarterly • Total number of contracts down from
cash flow reports; Semi-annual portfolio almost 3000 to 300 by 2015
financial reports; Quarterly disbursements • Partner share of each CRP all-budget at
• Resource Mobilization least 30% by 2015, 40% by 2018
• Internal controls and best management • CRP receivables / payables less than 20%
practices (auditable) at CRP level of annual budget by 2013
• Intellectual Assets: Annual Consolidated • Risk management approach to control
IA Report and Annual CGIAR IA Report and delivery satisfies auditors and
Boards
3. Shared systems / services: development and service provision
• One Corporate System • Annual system financial report by April
• Knowledge Management & 30, in 2015
Communications shared services • Savings from (new) shared services at
• HR systems least $3m by 2015
• Shared system and standards for scientific • Significant HR policy congruence
data management and for programmatic including CGIAR remuneration standards
reporting on the CRPs and the portfolio and gender
• At least 10 CRPs share key information
systems or research platforms by 2015
4. Communities of Practice (CoPs) / Partner Relations: development and support
• Strategic Communication: internal and • CGIAR/CRP brand recognition / quality
external perception up 20% from 2012 by 2015
• Partnership Development • At least 20% increase in partner
• Communities of Practice: Corporate satisfaction with CRPs from by 2015
Service Executives CoP; Science Leaders (over 2012 baseline as surveyed)
CoP; Legal / IP CoP; Communicators CoP; • At least 80% of CoP members judge
IT managers CoP; Gender and Agriculture their CoP to provide value for money, as
3

4. Network; Monitoring & Evaluation CoP; measured by annual survey, by 2015
Genetic Resource CoP
5. Internal Consortium business
• Board/Members meetings, CO workshops • At least “meets expectations” of CO
• Work plans and budgets performance assessment by Board
• Monthly finance reports • At least 80% of CO staff find it a great
• Compliance with legal requirements place to work
Notes on Table 1:
1. Total support for the CGIAR, as used above, includes Windows 1, 2 and 3 plus bilateral support.
2. Several of the proposed indicators require work to establish baselines to measure progress against
as well as to gather the data to assess progress. The key three indicators that are relatively labor
intensive are:
a. Baseline and tracking total “transaction costs”, including all reporting, proposal
development, steering committee meetings etc. (through costing study).
b. Baseline and assessment of “partner satisfaction” (through Partner Perception Survey).
c. Baseline and assessment of “brand recognition” (through market research).
3. Regarding funding the two proposed, linked indicators are:
a. Growing the overall resources 10% year on year.
b. Increasing the share of core support for the CRP portfolio (W1+W2) to at least 50%.
2013 Priorities
The overview below is an overview of 2013 priority project / progress objectives and their immediate
outputs or deliverables (contributing to the 3-5 year outcomes from Table 1), This was developed in
order to share expectations for the 2013 cycle early with the CGIAR Consortium members, CRPs, CoPs
and other partners. These are the basis for the 2013 CO POWB and are developed further as part of that
deliverable.
Table 2. 2013 Consortium Office Priorities – projects and deliverables / outputs
1. Policies / Common Operating Framework (development and cyclical revision)
Key projects / activities 2013 outputs / deliverables
• Finalize Common Operational Framework • Revised JA and form of PIA approved
(Financial Guidelines (FG): FG1, FG2 phase • All chapters of the COF are completed
2 and FG4 completed, FG5 fully and approved, and a review cycle for all
implemented at all CGIAR Consortium guidelines is established
members, FG6 reviewed for possible • Strengthened governance policies
updating; Performance Management reviewed and implemented
System; Dispute Resolution; Conflicts of • Metrics for linking CRPs to SLOs
interest; Safeguards) approved
• Strengthen governance policies in COF • oversight process for SRF approved
• Review Joint Agreement (JA) and form of • research priority setting aligned with
4

5. Program Implementation Agreement (PIA) PMS approved
• Finalize a Data and Knowledge • Consortium Data and KM strategy
Management Strategy approved
2. Core business: managing annual CRP cycle
• Update the SRF, following Action Plan • 2013 SRF Update approved
• Implement the CRP Performance • PMS in place
Management System (PMS) • 2014 Finance plan (partially) based on
• Develop an Animal Genetic Resources PMS
Strategy at SRF level • Reports are generated as designed from
• Implement the CRP biannual financial OCS, and in that format where OCS is
reporting requirements not yet operational
• Improved Revenue Forecasting: tracking, • CRP financing more predictable in timing
updating, and reporting on fund window and volume because donor information
income is better collected and disseminated,
• Review CRP management & governance and forecast models are more robust
structures • Best practices for CRP administration
• CRP "mid-term" (program and budget) and governance structures are
review established
• Develop an annual CGIAR Intellectual • Mid-term review: recommend re-design
Asset Report if necessary, both financially or
• Develop Capacity Strengthening strategies structurally
for CGIAR and CRPs • GIAR IA report acceptable to donors
• 2012 CGIAR Annual report published
3. Shared standards / systems / services (development and service provision)
• OCS adopted in the CO • OCS is functional and serves both
• Develop and implement 1-2 new shared routine accounting for the CO and
systems or services (depending on 2012 consolidated reporting requirements for
report & recommendations) the CRPs (to the degree possible given
• Explore interest in common HR policies adoption timetable)
and systems with Members • One or two additional services/ systems
• Share approaches, experiences with may be implemented
designing and implementing research /
program / multi-project management
support applications, linked to other
business processes (e.g. HR, Finance);
bring in private sector expertise
4. CoPs / Partner Relations (development and support)
• Survey Partner Perceptions • Partner Perception baseline and plan of
• Initiate novel partnerships with BRICs action for improvement approved
• Prepare CGIAR Communications Strategy • Communication Strategy approved
(internal and external) • One additional system-wide HR project
• CSE will expand focus to embrace human will be undertaken
resources CoP & meet twice • At least one of the two CSE meetings will
• Legal /IP Network will focus on be a joint one with the HR community
5

6. implementing the CGIAR IA Principles • Legal/IP Network: CO coordinates the
• Science leaders focus on the SRF action development of best practices to
plan, the operational plans of the CRPs and implement the CGIAR IA Principles in the
the shared scientific data management CRPs; one annual meeting
system • Shared data management standard
• Gender experts focus on gender research system is on-line
quality standards and on capacity building
needs in gender research
• Genetic Resources experts focus on in situ
agro-biodiversity and develop and animal
genetic resources strategy – initiate
discussion on genetic resources strategy
5. Internal Consortium business
• Continued support for Board and • HQ Agreement ratified by French
Members Parliament
• Ensure privileges and immunities for the • The CO establishes administrative
CGIAR Consortium independence (elements of personnel
• Legal separation from Bioversity management, all travel, purchasing, etc.
• Partial administrative separation from assuming corporate bank account is
Bioversity established)
• Prep move to new office. • All logistics and plans finalized for
• Finalize staffing physical move
• Continued compliance with legal
requirements
Position on Shared Standards / Systems / Services
CRPs and members of the CGIAR Consortium should share common standards (such as Financial
Guidelines), systems (such as the One Corporate System) and services (such as AIARC) when they:
• Are required by the terms of the Joint Agreement or other legal documents; and/or
• Enable or support more effective management and/or increases probability of impact of CRPs
across CGIAR Consortium members and partners; and/or
• Are viewed by Members as having priority, benefit potential (benefit/risk); and/or
• Enable efficiency gains (cost savings).
Dependent on a case-by-case business analysis, it may be sufficient to have shared standards only (and a
diversity of systems and service providers). Other cases may justify a shared system or even a shared
service. A committee of the Corporate Service Executives has been (re-)established in May 2012 to take
forward the recommendations from the 2009 Accenture Shared Services Report. Shared standards may
be part of the Common Operational Framework (such as Financial Guidelines) or outside it (such as
shared data standards for CRPs).
6

7. The CO will support the development of all shared standards, systems and services for which there is a
clear business case. The CO will host or lead such work only if it has a clear advantage over one or more
CGIAR Consortium member(s) providing the same.
7