Upload
rmcpu
View
18
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Save the Children
Award Management
Embracing Change to Work Better
RMCPU Planning Meeting
Pretoria Nov 2016
1
Agenda
Expectations
Full AMCP Changes
What are we asking of RMCPU Team
Understanding AM at SCI and link to AMCP
Understanding KPIs and How they are Generated
2
Session Objectives
3
Session Objective and Agenda
bull Increase understanding of AM Process (AMS approvals
tools available)
bull Understand scope and purpose of AMCP (Phase 1 and Phase
2) How to link with AM function and maintain momentum after
AMCP
bull Increase understanding on KPIs
how theyrsquore generated
how they are measured and
what they seek to achieve
4
New AM Manual In SCI we refer to Award Management rather than
lsquoGrantrsquo or lsquoContract managementrsquo to reflect that funding for projects
may come from a wide range of sources such as
bull On-going framework agreements with donors
bull Members undesignated funds
bull Contracts
bull Gifts in Kind (GIK) donations
bull GrantsCooperative Agreements
All SCI and Member staff must follow the core processes for managing
SCI awards of both cash and non-cash (GIK) donations
Award Management (AM) at SCI
5
The Award Cycle
6
The Award Cycle ndash other version
Prepare Opportunity Proposal Inception Implement Report Close
Portfolio Planning
Securing an Award
Managing an award
Lay the
groundwork
for success
Create and
pursue the
right
opportunities
Develop
winning
proposals
Set-up
delivery
fast and
right
Proactively
manage
compliance
Inspire
donor
confidence
in our
results
Finish as
strong as
you
start
7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes
the approvals of opportunities concept notes proposal agreements
and amendments AMS is used by SCI and Members to
bull Share information about opportunities awards partnerships and donors
bull Manage the joint approvals of opportunities concept notes proposals
agreements and amendments
bull Support AM activities such as proposal development and review donor
reporting donor compliance and close out
bull Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements
bull Store and share documents relating to awards partners donors and
projects
bull Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios
AMS Award Management System
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
1
Agenda
Expectations
Full AMCP Changes
What are we asking of RMCPU Team
Understanding AM at SCI and link to AMCP
Understanding KPIs and How they are Generated
2
Session Objectives
3
Session Objective and Agenda
bull Increase understanding of AM Process (AMS approvals
tools available)
bull Understand scope and purpose of AMCP (Phase 1 and Phase
2) How to link with AM function and maintain momentum after
AMCP
bull Increase understanding on KPIs
how theyrsquore generated
how they are measured and
what they seek to achieve
4
New AM Manual In SCI we refer to Award Management rather than
lsquoGrantrsquo or lsquoContract managementrsquo to reflect that funding for projects
may come from a wide range of sources such as
bull On-going framework agreements with donors
bull Members undesignated funds
bull Contracts
bull Gifts in Kind (GIK) donations
bull GrantsCooperative Agreements
All SCI and Member staff must follow the core processes for managing
SCI awards of both cash and non-cash (GIK) donations
Award Management (AM) at SCI
5
The Award Cycle
6
The Award Cycle ndash other version
Prepare Opportunity Proposal Inception Implement Report Close
Portfolio Planning
Securing an Award
Managing an award
Lay the
groundwork
for success
Create and
pursue the
right
opportunities
Develop
winning
proposals
Set-up
delivery
fast and
right
Proactively
manage
compliance
Inspire
donor
confidence
in our
results
Finish as
strong as
you
start
7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes
the approvals of opportunities concept notes proposal agreements
and amendments AMS is used by SCI and Members to
bull Share information about opportunities awards partnerships and donors
bull Manage the joint approvals of opportunities concept notes proposals
agreements and amendments
bull Support AM activities such as proposal development and review donor
reporting donor compliance and close out
bull Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements
bull Store and share documents relating to awards partners donors and
projects
bull Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios
AMS Award Management System
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
2
Session Objectives
3
Session Objective and Agenda
bull Increase understanding of AM Process (AMS approvals
tools available)
bull Understand scope and purpose of AMCP (Phase 1 and Phase
2) How to link with AM function and maintain momentum after
AMCP
bull Increase understanding on KPIs
how theyrsquore generated
how they are measured and
what they seek to achieve
4
New AM Manual In SCI we refer to Award Management rather than
lsquoGrantrsquo or lsquoContract managementrsquo to reflect that funding for projects
may come from a wide range of sources such as
bull On-going framework agreements with donors
bull Members undesignated funds
bull Contracts
bull Gifts in Kind (GIK) donations
bull GrantsCooperative Agreements
All SCI and Member staff must follow the core processes for managing
SCI awards of both cash and non-cash (GIK) donations
Award Management (AM) at SCI
5
The Award Cycle
6
The Award Cycle ndash other version
Prepare Opportunity Proposal Inception Implement Report Close
Portfolio Planning
Securing an Award
Managing an award
Lay the
groundwork
for success
Create and
pursue the
right
opportunities
Develop
winning
proposals
Set-up
delivery
fast and
right
Proactively
manage
compliance
Inspire
donor
confidence
in our
results
Finish as
strong as
you
start
7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes
the approvals of opportunities concept notes proposal agreements
and amendments AMS is used by SCI and Members to
bull Share information about opportunities awards partnerships and donors
bull Manage the joint approvals of opportunities concept notes proposals
agreements and amendments
bull Support AM activities such as proposal development and review donor
reporting donor compliance and close out
bull Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements
bull Store and share documents relating to awards partners donors and
projects
bull Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios
AMS Award Management System
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
3
Session Objective and Agenda
bull Increase understanding of AM Process (AMS approvals
tools available)
bull Understand scope and purpose of AMCP (Phase 1 and Phase
2) How to link with AM function and maintain momentum after
AMCP
bull Increase understanding on KPIs
how theyrsquore generated
how they are measured and
what they seek to achieve
4
New AM Manual In SCI we refer to Award Management rather than
lsquoGrantrsquo or lsquoContract managementrsquo to reflect that funding for projects
may come from a wide range of sources such as
bull On-going framework agreements with donors
bull Members undesignated funds
bull Contracts
bull Gifts in Kind (GIK) donations
bull GrantsCooperative Agreements
All SCI and Member staff must follow the core processes for managing
SCI awards of both cash and non-cash (GIK) donations
Award Management (AM) at SCI
5
The Award Cycle
6
The Award Cycle ndash other version
Prepare Opportunity Proposal Inception Implement Report Close
Portfolio Planning
Securing an Award
Managing an award
Lay the
groundwork
for success
Create and
pursue the
right
opportunities
Develop
winning
proposals
Set-up
delivery
fast and
right
Proactively
manage
compliance
Inspire
donor
confidence
in our
results
Finish as
strong as
you
start
7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes
the approvals of opportunities concept notes proposal agreements
and amendments AMS is used by SCI and Members to
bull Share information about opportunities awards partnerships and donors
bull Manage the joint approvals of opportunities concept notes proposals
agreements and amendments
bull Support AM activities such as proposal development and review donor
reporting donor compliance and close out
bull Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements
bull Store and share documents relating to awards partners donors and
projects
bull Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios
AMS Award Management System
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
4
New AM Manual In SCI we refer to Award Management rather than
lsquoGrantrsquo or lsquoContract managementrsquo to reflect that funding for projects
may come from a wide range of sources such as
bull On-going framework agreements with donors
bull Members undesignated funds
bull Contracts
bull Gifts in Kind (GIK) donations
bull GrantsCooperative Agreements
All SCI and Member staff must follow the core processes for managing
SCI awards of both cash and non-cash (GIK) donations
Award Management (AM) at SCI
5
The Award Cycle
6
The Award Cycle ndash other version
Prepare Opportunity Proposal Inception Implement Report Close
Portfolio Planning
Securing an Award
Managing an award
Lay the
groundwork
for success
Create and
pursue the
right
opportunities
Develop
winning
proposals
Set-up
delivery
fast and
right
Proactively
manage
compliance
Inspire
donor
confidence
in our
results
Finish as
strong as
you
start
7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes
the approvals of opportunities concept notes proposal agreements
and amendments AMS is used by SCI and Members to
bull Share information about opportunities awards partnerships and donors
bull Manage the joint approvals of opportunities concept notes proposals
agreements and amendments
bull Support AM activities such as proposal development and review donor
reporting donor compliance and close out
bull Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements
bull Store and share documents relating to awards partners donors and
projects
bull Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios
AMS Award Management System
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
5
The Award Cycle
6
The Award Cycle ndash other version
Prepare Opportunity Proposal Inception Implement Report Close
Portfolio Planning
Securing an Award
Managing an award
Lay the
groundwork
for success
Create and
pursue the
right
opportunities
Develop
winning
proposals
Set-up
delivery
fast and
right
Proactively
manage
compliance
Inspire
donor
confidence
in our
results
Finish as
strong as
you
start
7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes
the approvals of opportunities concept notes proposal agreements
and amendments AMS is used by SCI and Members to
bull Share information about opportunities awards partnerships and donors
bull Manage the joint approvals of opportunities concept notes proposals
agreements and amendments
bull Support AM activities such as proposal development and review donor
reporting donor compliance and close out
bull Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements
bull Store and share documents relating to awards partners donors and
projects
bull Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios
AMS Award Management System
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
6
The Award Cycle ndash other version
Prepare Opportunity Proposal Inception Implement Report Close
Portfolio Planning
Securing an Award
Managing an award
Lay the
groundwork
for success
Create and
pursue the
right
opportunities
Develop
winning
proposals
Set-up
delivery
fast and
right
Proactively
manage
compliance
Inspire
donor
confidence
in our
results
Finish as
strong as
you
start
7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes
the approvals of opportunities concept notes proposal agreements
and amendments AMS is used by SCI and Members to
bull Share information about opportunities awards partnerships and donors
bull Manage the joint approvals of opportunities concept notes proposals
agreements and amendments
bull Support AM activities such as proposal development and review donor
reporting donor compliance and close out
bull Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements
bull Store and share documents relating to awards partners donors and
projects
bull Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios
AMS Award Management System
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes
the approvals of opportunities concept notes proposal agreements
and amendments AMS is used by SCI and Members to
bull Share information about opportunities awards partnerships and donors
bull Manage the joint approvals of opportunities concept notes proposals
agreements and amendments
bull Support AM activities such as proposal development and review donor
reporting donor compliance and close out
bull Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements
bull Store and share documents relating to awards partners donors and
projects
bull Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios
AMS Award Management System
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
8
bull Opportunity Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
bull Proposal The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award
bull Inceptionbull Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference)
bull The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties
bull Where you have multi-country awards monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players therefore you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting
AM For Multi Country Awards
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
9
bull Implement Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards and must involve all offices The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting
bull The ldquoleadrdquo can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
bull Participants on the PIC call include Member the ldquoleadrdquo and
representatives from each implementing CO Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file
bull Report Either the Member or SCI can ldquoleadrdquo and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO as required by the donor Within SCI the RO can take
this role or they can designate one CO This must have been agreed at
the inception phase
bull Close close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
10
Scope of AMCP 2015ndash2017
To implement a consistent efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children
bull Single-point accountability for each step in the process
bull Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
bull Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
bull Clear definition of responsibilities
bull Capable and properly resourced COs able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
bull ROs acting as the first port of call for escalation and issue resolution
bull Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
11
Then AM Functional Matrix was born before COOM
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
bull Development of improved processes procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children Simplification and consistency
bull Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement
1 Recommended structure for Award Management
2 Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(ie proposal reporting close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT
3 Ensuring processes tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
13
What Do we want to see after phase 2
Exit Criteria CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into lsquoAM normal Business as
Usualrsquo Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full
1Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed amp agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded
Guidance tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness
5KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
14
So What are we asking of you
bull Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
bull Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs)
bull Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
bull Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
15
It is a coordinated effort
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
Save the Children
Q amp A
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
18
Annexes
Annexes
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
19
Award Management Processes
1 Prepare and Opportunity
2 Proposal
3 Agreement to Fund Summary
4 Partner Agreement
5 Kick Off
6 Regular Award Reviews
7 Report
8 Amendments
9 Audits and Evaluations
10Close Out
11 GIK (Gift In Kind)
12 Match Funding Key steps
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
20
Award Management Processes
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
21
Award Management Processes
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
22
Award Management Processes
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
RMCPU
Key Performance Indicators Analysis
ESA Regional Awards 20 11 2016
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
KPIs Overview
References
bull AMS - Portfolio Analysis Report
bull Onenet ndash Core KPIs
bull Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices
bull The overall KPIs results for ESARO however are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU awards
bull To calculate the RMCPU KPIs one manually drills the RMCPU awards and calculate individual performance based on KPI guidance
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
KPIs Calculation ProcessExplanationOn Time Reporting to Member
Includes award reports in current month as per the lsquodate due to Memberrsquo field in AMS Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including where CO is Other Implementing Office
Numerator Total of reports submitted to member on time in the period Denominator Total
of reports to member to be submitted for the period
Quality of Donor Reporting Numerator of reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period (Types of reports included in list below) that have been given a Member effort rating of lsquoMinorrsquo Denominator of all reporting schedules with a lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo in the reporting period Ratings are
triggered when the lsquodate submitted to donorrsquo is entered in AMS
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start Date Numerator Sum of total award amount to
implementing office for all awards activated in the period where Date 1st made active is within 14 days of
award start date Denominator Sum of total award amount to implementing office for all awards activated in the period PALs are taken in to consideration if they were signed within the timeframe (above) and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time Looks at value (USD) of awards that are closed by the target close out date as a percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report Numerator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should close in the period that are closed on or before the target
close out date Denominator Sum of Total Award Amount to Implementing Office of all awards that should
close in the period
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select parameters for Year-2016 Region
ESARO CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to Individual awards contributing to the KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU award by lead implementing personprogramme
location
Calculating RMCPU KPIs Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling down based on the parameters of lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa KPI on on time reporting to member take all RMCPU reports due for the periodmdashand note the
number Select reports submitted on time for RMCPU awards selected Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38 33 63 41 33 60 33 41 50 57 0 39 71 71 46
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0 20 17 40 89 50 69 0 100 100 75 50 50 58
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18 18 52 100 56 100 85 100 100 100 92
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0 57 22 44 0 0 13 3 100 0 5 10
KPI10 Funding Gap as of
Latest Budget
036 036 036 036 178 138 138 138 138 00 00 00 00 00 00
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8 43 0 20 40 75 25 54 25 0 50 31 54 54 40
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
age Unit age Unit age Unit age Unit
Quality of donor reporting 20 5 64 11 100 2 75 4
On time reporting to member 48 25 40 5 20 10 70 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54 2 100 2Not Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0 1 4 4 0 3Not Ranked 0
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO RMCPU ESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20 17 64 69 100 75 75 50
On time reporting to member 48 41 40 41 20 39 70 71
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 18 54 56 100 100 Not Ranked 100
Awards closed out on time 0 44 4 3 0 5 Not Ranked Not Ranked
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
30
RMCPU Summary AM 2016 KPIs Trend
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
Comparison of KPIs
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
Key IssuesPain points
bull RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution
bull RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU
bull Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
bull Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted
bull The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too
bull Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
bull A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period
bull All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100 effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable)
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings