Transcript Organizational design for clear accountabilities and

Organizational design for clear roles
and responsibilities
RAVIC Analysis
NOTE:
1. This tool/guidance has been developed by the Global Change Management Support Team under the guidance of the Inter-Agency
Task Team for Change Management. It has not been tested at the country level and there are no examples of its application from
any country office at this time.
2. Expert team to implement BPR with the help of UNCT guidance.
21 July 2015
1
Rationale: Clarify Accountabilities
RAVIC analysis is used to delineate decision-making roles within
a team or an organization. For each decision, it clarifies who is:
• Responsible: The individual(s) who actually
completes the task, the doer. This person is
responsible for action/implementation.
Responsibility can be shared. The degree of
responsibility is determined by the individual with
the “A”.
• Accountable: The individual who is ultimately
responsible. Includes yes or no authority. Only one
“A” can be assigned to a function.
• Veto: The individual who has the power of veto
over a given decision, it is an exception authority.
• Informed: The individual(s) who needs to be
informed after a decision or action is taken. This
incorporates one-way communication.
• Consulted: The individual(s) to be consulted prior to
a final decision or action. This incorporates two-way
communication.
R – Responsible
A – Accountable
V – Veto authority
I – Informed
C – Consulted
2
RAVIC Template
The RAVIC analysis helps develop a tailored accountability
framework that a UNCT could use to agree how joint activities
should be managed, including stakeholder management.
Roles:
Role A
Role B
Role C
Role D
Role E
1.
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
2.
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
3.
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
4.
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
Key Decisions:
3
RAVIC example
Take the example where the UN plans to engage in a major joint
programme to enhance the living situation for people living with
HIV and AIDS. The communications group would prepare the
communication strategy around this event, yet the cluster on HIV
and AIDS has to be involved in the process as well:
Roles:
1. Developing a communication
strategy for a major joint
programme
Communic
ations
group
UNDAF
Cluster
chair
UNDAF
Outcome
leader
Relevant
agency
heads
R, A
C, V
C
I
Explanation for role allocation on next slide
4
Communication example
•
•
•
•
Role 1: Communications group
– R: The communications group prepares the communication items and ensures
the right messages are distributed through the right communication channels
– A: The communication group is ultimately accountable for the communication
messages going out to the media
Role 2: UNDAF Cluster chair
– C: The cluster chair would need to consulted on the fact the communication
groups prepares these communication activities and on the objective of the
messages
– V: The cluster chair would have the right to veto the communication messages
on behalf of the UNCT, should they not be in line with the messages and
image the UNCT envisions for the UN involvement in the HIV and AIDS area
Role 3: UNDAF Outcome leader
– C: The outcome leader would need to be consulted on the nature of the
messages and how they relate to the outcome and activities
Role 4: Relevant agency heads
– I: The agency heads that are involved in the outcome or cluster should be
informed of the fact the message went out
5
Example – Overall authorities for clusters
In the UNDAF framework, UNDAF outcomes that share a common theme (e.g. Health
of Governance) are grouped in clusters. Each cluster has various roles associated with
it, such as the cluster leader, outcome leaders and outcome team members
• Role 1 UNDAF Cluster leader
– A: Accountable for the realization of all outcomes within a cluster
• Role 2 UNDAF Outcome leader
– A: Accountable for the realization of a specific outcome within the cluster
• Role 3 Outcome team member
– R: Responsible for implementing the activities that lead to the realization of
the outcome
• Role 4: UNCT
– V: Ability to veto any cluster decisions
– C: Must be consulted by the cluster leader on the priorities and progress of
the cluster
– A: Ultimately accountable for the results of all the clusters in the UNDAF
• Role 5: Donor
– I: the donor must be informed on the outcomes/activities that are funded
6
with the resources being made available to the cluster by the donor
Steps for conducting RAVIC analysis
It is recommended that the RAVIC analysis is tailored for targeted
areas, and not necessarily mapped out in an exhaustive manner
for all decisions at all levels of an organization. For a UNCT, the
following steps may be helpful:
1.
2.
3.
Brainstorm which teams would benefit from establishing more clarity
in the decision-making process (e.g. a newly formed Inter-Agency
Cluster)
Convene the team and outline the key decisions that they will be
making and discuss how the RAVIC roles would best be assigned. It is
important that this activity is done by the group together, as
communicating around different viewpoints and highlighting barriers
is critical for addressing challenges and building ownership
Present the proposed decision-making framework to the UNCT and
establish consensus
7
RAVIC Guidelines
• Each decision must have an R. Someone must be responsible for the decision
• There can only be one R given for each decision
• Each decision must have an A. It may be the same role as the R role. There
can be only one accountability per activity
• The V should be used sparingly. Too many Vs may indicate that that issues of
trust and competence have to be examined
• Ensure that the Cs represent a diversity of viewpoints for important
decisions
• Place accountability (A) and responsibility (R) at the level closest to the
action or knowledge
• Authority must accompany accountability
• Minimize the number of consults (C) and informs (I)
What is the difference between Responsibility and Accountability?
These terms are often confused and used in a mixed fashion. The role that takes the
responsibility will take the decision and has the authority to do so. The role that is
held Accountable might not make the decision, but will be held accountable for it
(often a senior role). An example for the UN System would be a Programme Officer
who is responsible for making decisions on certain expenditures. However, the
accountability for these decisions will in the end be with the Head of the Agency.
8
How to analyze the RAVIC
Roles:
Role A
Key Decisions:
Role B
Role C
Role D
Role E
1
1.
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
2.
2R / A / V / I / C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
3.
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
4.
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
R/A/V/I/C
1
Vertical Analysis: Evaluate the designated activities in the decision
making process for a specific role
2
Horizontal Analysis: Evaluate the designated activities across multiple
roles for a single decision / process
9
Vertical analysis: A single role
If You Find:
Then Ask:
Lots of R’s
Can or need the individual(s) stay on top of so much? Can
the decision/activity be broken into smaller, more manageable
functions?
No empty
spaces
Does the individual(s) need to be involved in so many
activities? Are they a “gatekeeper” or could management by
exception principles be used? Can C’s be reduced I’s, or left
to discretion when something needs particular attention?
No R’s or A’s
Should this functional role be eliminated? Have processes
changed to a point where resources should be re-utilized?
Too many A’s
Does a proper “segregation of duties” exist? Should other
groups be accountable for some of these activities to ensure
checks and balances and accurate decision making
throughout the process? Is this a “bottleneck” in the
process—is everyone waiting for decisions or direction?
Qualifications
Does the type or degree of participation fit the qualifications of
this role?
10
Horizontal analysis: A single decision
If You Find:
Then Ask:
No R’s
Is job getting done? Some roles may be waiting to approve, be
consulted, or informed.
Too many R’s
Is this an indication that an individual’s portfolio may be a bit too
large, causing him or her to be spread too thin?
No A’s
Why not? There must be an “A.” Accountability should
delegated to the most appropriate level.
Too many A’s
Is there confusion about who is accountable? Confusion can
exist when there is a multitude of interpretations about
accountability.
Lots of C’s
Do all the functional roles really need to be consulted? Are
there justifiable benefits in consulting all the roles?
Lots of I’s
Do all the roles need to be routinely informed or only in
exceptional circumstances?
Every box is
filled in
They shouldn’t be. If they are, too many people are
involved. Typically, organizations allocate too many “C’s” & “I’s.”
11