caricom secretariat reformation framework€¦ · secretariat reformation framework strategy...

Prepared by the Change Management Office for the Thirty

Seventh Meeting of the Community Council of Ministers

- December 2015

2015-2018

CARICOM SECRETARIAT

Reformation Framework MAKING THE SECRETARIAT FIT FOR PURPOSE

SECRETARIAT REFORMATION FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION

of 84

SECRETARIAT REFORMATION FRAMEWORK STRATEGY QUADRANT

of 84

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 5

A FRAMEWORK TO ADVANCE THE REFORM PROCESS: THE CMO APPROACH .............................. 8

THE REFORM FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 12

THE STRATEGY QUADRANT ........................................................................................................... 14

SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................................................... 14

CMO’s Findings ...................................................................................................................... 14

Planned Activities .................................................................................................................. 15

Expected Final Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 15

BACKGROUND TO THE STRATEGY QUADRANT ......................................................................... 17


THE PEOPLE QUADRANT ............................................................................................................... 27

SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................................................... 27

CMO’s Findings ...................................................................................................................... 27



BACKGROUND TO THE PEOPLE QUADRANT ............................................................................. 31

Planned Activities ...................................................................................................................... 36

THE PROCESS QUADRANT ............................................................................................................. 43

SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................................................... 44

CMO’s Findings ...................................................................................................................... 44




of 84

BACKGROUND TO THE PROCESS QUADRANT ........................................................................... 46

Secretariat’s Planned Activities ................................................................................................. 52

THE TECHNOLOGY QUADRANT ..................................................................................................... 54

SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................................................... 54

CMO’s Findings ...................................................................................................................... 54



BACKGROUND TO THE TECHNOLOGY QUADRANT ................................................................... 58


THE GOVERNANCE QUADRANT .................................................................................................... 65

SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................................................... 65

CMO’s Findings ...................................................................................................................... 65

Secretariat’s Planned Activities ............................................................................................. 66


THE SITUATION ...................................................................................................................... 68

Planned Activities ...................................................................................................................... 77

TIMELINE ....................................................................................................................................... 79


of 84

INTRODUCTION

A Decision to Restructure CARICOM

At their Thirty-First Meeting held in Montego Bay, Jamaica in July 2010, the Heads of

Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) commissioned an independent review of

the CARICOM Secretariat (CCS). The Report titled, ‘Turning Around CARICOM: Proposals to

Restructure the Secretariat’, undertaken by Landell Mills Ltd. outlined a three-step approach to

CARICOM’s reform and restructuring process:

(i) Prioritisation with the full and unequivocal support of Member States and the delivery of

a narrow range of specific, practical and achievable benefits over a reasonably short

time horizon;

(ii) Reorganisation and strengthening of the CARICOM construct, including the Secretariat

and Regional Institutions, to focus on the management of implementation; and

(iii) A fundamental restructuring of the Secretariat to add value to what Member States can

do individually.

Heads of Government, having received the Report at their Twenty-Third Inter-Sessional

Meeting held in Suriname in March 2012, agreed that the Secretary-General would –

“...begin the process of addressing the restructuring of the Secretariat through, inter

alia, the recruitment of a Change Facilitator who would provide him with the necessary

support for the change process and the strengthening of the corporate functions, in the

first instance”;


of 84

...establish an internal group to draft an outline of a 5-year strategic plan for

consideration at the Thirty-Third Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government to

be held in July 2012 in Saint Lucia; and

..since “form follows function”, re-examine the future direction of the Community and

the arrangements for carrying this forward which would include the role and function of

the Secretariat”.

A Decision in Action

Guided by these decisions, the Secretary-General recruited a Change Facilitation Team which

developed the first ever five-year strategic plan for the Community after consultations with a

wide range of CARICOM stakeholders in collaboration with the CARICOM Secretariat and

Change Drivers in Member States. The Strategic Plan for the Caribbean Community 2015 –

2019: Repositioning CARICOM was approved at the Thirty-Fifth Meeting of the Conference of

Heads of Government in Antigua and Barbuda, July 2014. Recognising the resource constraints

faced by the Community, in approving the Strategic Plan, the Conference narrowed the focus

further and selected eleven (11) high-priority areas for focused implementation over the five-

year period.

This was followed by a Strategic Implementation Plan which was approved by the Thirty-Fifth

Meeting of the Community Council of Ministers in January 2015, in Georgetown Guyana. The

reformation of the CARICOM Secretariat was identified as one of the 11 high priorities for the

period, acknowledging that the success of this endeavour would directly impact CARICOM’s

progress on the other goals.

In light of the complexity of the envisaged changes to the Secretariat and CARICOM as whole,

the Secretary-General established a Change Management Office within the CARICOM

Secretariat to assist him, inter alia, in “deliver a restructured Secretariat with


of 84

strategic focus and strengthened corporate functions guided by the approved

Community Strategic Plan which clearly defines the role and function of the

Secretariat”.

Purpose of the Change Management Office (CMO)

In addition to the priority focus on restructuring the Secretariat the CMO will, coordinate

implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the overall implementation of the

Community Strategic Plan by the actors across the CARICOM architecture - Member States,

Organs and Bodies of the Community, the Secretariat and the Regional Institutions.

The Terms of Reference for the CMO state the expected outcomes as:

1. A restructured Secretariat with strategic focus, implementation capacity and strengthened

corporate functions guided by the approved Community Strategic Plan:-

1.1. Develop recommendations for the restructuring

1.2. Prepare and finalise the Transition Strategy and Plan

1.3. Implement the Transition Strategy and Plan to transform the Secretariat, including its

business process.

2. Governance arrangements that facilitate coordinated implementation of the Community

Strategic Plan by the Secretariat, Regional Institutions of the Community and CARICOM

Member States.

2.1. Provide advice and direct support to implement approved reforms to the current

governance arrangements across the Community architecture.


of 84

A FRAMEWORK TO ADVANCE THE REFORM PROCESS:

THE CMO APPROACH

In planning an organisational transformation, there must be a balance between the efforts

needed to design and implement the changes and the efforts needed to conduct business as

usual. Reforming the Secretariat necessitates an organisation-wide initiative with no Office,

Directorate, Unit, Team or Individual left untouched. Every role, process, policy and strategy

must be interrogated, reconsidered and reviewed.

An Independent Perspective

The CMO is a part of the Secretariat, and yet independent of the Secretariat, similar to units like

Internal Audit. Like all other units, the CMO stands united in the goal to achieve a reformed

Secretariat, yet the CMO must stand independent of the Secretariat and to be able to provide

the Secretary-General, with an honest and objective assessment of what exists or what is being

proposed. The CMO will try to work within the confines of the existing rules, policies and

processes when possible, even if it is to later question and recommend changes to those very

same rules, policies and processes. It should be understood however, that there will be times

when the CMO will request of the Executive Management Committee, a relaxation of

predefined policies and agreed processes where they impede the progress of the Reform.

Duty of Honesty

In this document, the CMO has taken a preliminary view of what is currently being done or has

taken place within all Offices/Directorates/Units and made an initial assessment of whether it is

on track to achieve the organisation’s goals. Like the CMO, every Directorate/Office/Unit

should enter this assessment with the supposition that it is not on track or that it could be


of 84

more on track, otherwise there would be no need to embark on a reform process; but we also

assume that some Directorates/Offices/Units will be more on track than others.

During the preliminary assessment and all other assessments, it is imperative that the CMO

provide a candid view of the findings. This includes reporting issues that relate to process,

thoroughness, quality, competence and attitude. These can be very sensitive issues and it is not

uncommon to find that organisations may have been reticent about addressing these issues in

the past. Nevertheless, it is these very issues that the reform process must highlight and

facilitate discussions around, for successful reformation.

Joint Input into Work Plans

During the reform exercise, the work planned by the Directorates/Offices/Units must make

room for work needed to facilitate the reform and it is crucial that resources are allocated in

these Directorates/Offices/Units to support, lead and conduct the needed initiatives. The very

nature of the reform process means that Directorates/Offices/Units must take an active role in

the reform as experts within their given field. Therefore, the work of assessing, reviewing and

changing needs to be carried out jointly by the CMO and the affected

Directorates/Offices/Units, if the change is to be sustainable. As a result, each manager must be

open to re-allocating workload or duties within their Directorate/Office/Unit to address the

priority needs. The Secretariat will also have to consider where resources can be shared or

reallocated internally as necessary. Where it becomes apparent, that the competence or the

bandwidth is not available to achieve the desired outcomes within the required timeframe,

resources may be sourced through the procurement of consultancy or recruitment of staff.

Depending on the skill set within the CMO, its staff may act as the consultant.

When a consultant is engaged, the relevant Directorate/Office/Unit is expected to make time to

work with the consultant to ensure that the work is done accurately, efficiently, effectively and

to a high standard of quality. The Manager of the Directorate/Office/Unit is expected to work


of 84

closely with the consultant to ensure a transfer of skills and knowledge, and to ensure that the

reformed processes can be smoothly transitioned back into the right department when the

consultant leaves. This means that the ‘normal operations’ need to run parallel with the reform

work and indeed at times, the reform work must take precedence. At all times, the CMO will

provide oversight to ensure that the goals of the interventions are achieved.

Reform an Uneasy Process

In the face of this level of investigation and analysis, it is quite common for executives,

managers and employees subjected to the reform processes, to feel vulnerable. It is even more

likely when the individuals or persons were involved in the creation of and/or the championing

of that process. Persons may experience the required analysis as a personal attack, or that the

CMO is ‘trying to encroach on their territory’. This can result in executives, managers and

employees being overly protective of their (turf) role and functional area. However, this is not

the case, so it must be reiterated that this level of investigation and analysis is a part of the

process and is a reflection of the level of thoroughness which must be utilised if the CMO is to

help the Secretariat to rethink and reform.

Why Reform Processes Fail

There are several reasons why reform processes fail in organisations. These include fear, lack

of cooperation and conflicting priorities. However, there are some reasons which are a little

less obvious as shown below:

Overconfidence – as human beings we tend to overestimate our brain’s ability to make

rational judgements e.g. considering our approach or our team to be stronger than it

really is;


of 84

Mental Accounting – we circumvent and avoid restrictions by classifying activities

differently under headings or labels. E.g.: classifying monies spent entertaining as

training;

Status Quo Bias – unwilling to change things from the way they have always been e.g.

failure to change obscure processes;

Herding – choosing strategies and solutions simply because others (IDPs, Member States

and Institutions) have taken that approach;

Sunk Cost – Continuing along an obviously flawed path, because we believe we have

invested too much to turn back or start again.

Therefore management and staff are encouraged to bear in mind all that has been stated in this

section as they interact with the CMO. At each point the CMO and the respective

Directorate/Office/Unit must ask, what is the true objective of the particular process of the

activity? Is that objective being achieved? The proposed interventions will seek to use the best

of what has already been done, what is in progress and what is planned and to tweak or alter

the plan to enhance the process or activity. That said, sometimes it may require a full

abandonment of what was done in the past or what is planned.


of 84

THE REFORM FRAMEWORK

This document provides a framework of the intended approach to the reform process during

the period July 2015 to June 2018. Given that previous change documents and the Community

Strategic Plan utilised a Four Quadrant Change Model, which groups the change initiatives

under Strategy, Structure, Processes and Technology; we have described the reform process in

relation to these for

continuity, and included

Governance which cross-

cuts all of these areas.

The quadrants are not

silos, they are

interoperable parts of the

Reform Process.

As we describe each

category of the

framework, we provide:

a) A Synopsis - an

overview of the

findings of the

CMO; the activities which the Secretariat plans to undertake to determine which

aspects need to be reformed; and the expected final outcomes for the Secretariat and

where appropriate, the wider Community.

b) Background to the Quadrants - a description of early findings based on information

contained in the Landell Mills and Archer-Gomes reports; a limited review of

documentation and policies; and anecdotal interviews and observations within each


of 84

Directorate/Office/Unit of the Secretariat. It is expected that these indications will

either be substantiated or disproved by the assessments of the current state.

c) Secretariat’s Planned Activities - In the first instance, this provides more detail on the

work which will be carried out in the first 12 months in each quadrant and later, the

expected final outcomes for the Secretariat and where appropriate, the wider

Community.


of 84

THE STRATEGY QUADRANT

The Reform Process starts with the Strategy quadrant, because the Community Strategic Plan

through the Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan, will determine how the structure, processes,

technology and governance within the Secretariat must be transformed to achieve the

Community Vision.

SYNOPSIS OF THE STRATEGY QUADRANT

CMO’s Findings

Our initial findings indicate that:

1. The Secretariat needs to establish who should be considered its’ primary customer.

Perspectives vary between the Governments of the Member States and the citizens in

each Member State. As a result, there are differing expectations within the Secretariat

and in the wider Community about the responsibilities of the Secretariat;

2. The Secretariat must then review and update its mission, vision and its 3-4 year strategy

to reflect the needs and priorities of its primary customer;

3. The crafting of a Strategic Business Plan is a critical output for the Secretariat to enable

it to establish and communicate clear strategic priorities in the context of the available

resources, the large number of activities which must take place as part of the Reform,

and the priorities outlined within the Community Strategic Plan;

4. With respect to Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting, emphasis must be given to

building a system that is objective and evidence-based. The secretariat has mobilised

resources from the CDB for a project entitled “Promoting the Principles of Managing for

Development Results – Furthering the Regional Integration Process”. This project will be


of 84

used to conduct the necessary research to determine an appropriate M&E system for

CARICOM.

Planned Activities

As a result, the Secretariat will:

a) Develop a Strategic Business Plan as priority. This is expected to be completed in

February 2016;

b) Review and reorganise as required, the Work Programmes currently developed for

presentation to the Budget Committee in December 2015, once the Strategic Business

Plan is completed.

Expected Final Outcomes

Within the Secretariat, it is expected that:

There will be a Strategic Business Plan aligned to the Community Strategy;

Each Directorate/Office/Unit will have a biennial Work Programme aligned to the

Strategic Business Plan and hence the Community Strategy. In keeping with current

practice, the Work Programmes will be reviewed and updated each year;

Budgets will be more firmly and clearly aligned to the Strategic Business Plan, enabling

resources to be shifted in support of the priorities;

Clear, objectives and ‘SMART’ measures will be established to monitor, evaluate and

report on the progress of the Work Programmes and the Strategic Business Plan that

will enable reporting against the Community Strategic Plan;


of 84

The Work Programmes with the identified measures will form the basis of the targets

and objectives set for individuals and teams, on an annual basis, as part of the

performance management process.

In the longer term, it is possible that:

Each Member State will have a ‘clear’ National Strategic Business Plan identifying its

plans and strategies;

The Community Strategic Plan will be further developed aligned to the National Plans

such that priorities for the Region are more easily reflected in the Community Strategic

Plan;

In addition to the Secretariat, every CARICOM Institution will have a Strategic Business

Plan aligned to the Community Strategy;

There will be an agreed Overarching Strategic Planning mechanism with timelines and

an approach to meeting, reviewing and adjusting National, Secretariat and Institutions’

Strategic Business Plans before finalising biennial work programmes within the

Secretariat;

Budgets and funding for all Strategic Plans, will be developed to support the agreed

plans; and

There will be agreed (SMART) metrics to track, evaluate and report on the performance

of each generated Strategic Business Plan as well as the Community Strategic Plan.


of 84

BACKGROUND TO THE STRATEGY QUADRANT

The Twenty-Fourth Inter-Sessional Meeting held in Haiti in February 2013, having considered

the matter of the Reform Process in caucus, noted that the process would deliver a Strategic

Plan for the Community and a Business Plan for the Secretariat.

The Community Strategic Plan as stated earlier must guide the work of the entire CARICOM

construct and determine the reformed state of all entities to ensure that they are fit for

purpose as well as efficient and effective in the delivery of services that benefit the Community.

The Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan is expected to be delivered in February 2016.

Why a Strategic Business Plan

It must be understood that the Community Strategic Plan can only provide a vision with

Enterprise level goals and objective, which is an overall strategic direction for the Community.

Indeed when the plan was prepared, it was anticipated that “... each implementing agent

of CARICOM (the Member States, the Institutions and the Secretariat) would

need to draw from the Strategic Plan in designing its operational plan and

annual plans” . For the Secretariat to prepare operational plans with goals and objectives

that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound, it must first consider the

priorities outlined in the Community Strategic Plan and then view them through the context of

the strengths and limitations within the Secretariat. It must be emphasized, that the

Community Strategic Plan through the Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan will determine how

the structure, processes and people within the Secretariat must be transformed to achieve the

Community Strategic Plan.

Discussions with Directorates/Offices/Units revealed that they are frequently overzealous in

deciding what is attainable when developing work plans. A contributing factor is that Offices,


of 84

Directorates and Units typically plan in isolation and do not build in time for management

activities such as coaching and performance management, participation in strategic planning

and budgeting. Another strong contributing factor is that ad hoc activities frequently arise

which are difficult to plan for. The Reform process will require a significant amount of time

from all management and staff within the Secretariat. Now more than ever, a Strategic Business

Plan is required which will enable the Secretary-General and the Executive Management team

to set clear strategic priorities for the Secretariat in the context of the priorities of the

Community plan and the large scale change activities which will be required for the reform.

Identifying the Primary Customer of the Secretariat

It is clear from the stakeholder interviews which were conducted during the creation of the

Community Strategic Plan, that CARICOM is desirous of making the Secretariat more customer

centric. In doing so, the Secretariat must first identify who is its customer?

In reviewing the Revised Treaty, the programmes being managed by the Secretariat and the

mandates given to the Secretariat, the response could be: the Member States/Governments

and/or the Citizens of the Member States. Best practice indicates, that the Secretariat’s

customer is the stakeholder who makes the decision to ‘procure’ the services of the Secretariat.

The answer to the question is critical, since it is the needs and priorities of the customer which

must shape the nature of the services offered by the Secretariat.

Reviewing and Updating the Vision and Mission of the Secretariat

The Vision and the Mission statements of an organisation can be powerful statements that

create unity in thinking and approach amongst its employees. However for most organisations,

they become little more than unwieldly statements which even the CEO does not remember.

Used correctly, the organisation should be able to weigh its strategies and decisions against its

vision and mission by asking if the strategy will help the organisation to reach its vision, fulfil its

mission and whether the approach taken is in keeping with the values of the organisation.


of 84

The current mission of the Secretariat states “To provide dynamic leadership and

service, in partnership with Communit y institutions and Groups, toward the

attainment of a viable, internationally competit ive and sustainable Community,

with improved quality of l ife for all .” Having read the statement, it could be said that it

does not succinctly convey what the Secretariat does and for whom.

Once the Secretariat has reached a clear conclusion on who its customer is, it must then review

its purpose to determine how it can be accurately reflected in the mission statement. The

Secretariat should aim for a statement that is memorable and accurately summarises the

service that it provides to its customers. Likewise, a vision statement must be crafted to ensure

it reflects the goals and the intentions of the Secretariat for the period of the Strategic Business

Plan.

Biennial Operating Plans

Similar to other International Organisations like the UN, the CARICOM Secretariat has been in

the habit of the developing Biennial Operating Plans which are referred to as Work

Programmes. These differ from the Strategic Business Plan proposed for the Secretariat, in that

the Strategic Business Plan will produce corporate level strategies, goals and objectives,

whereas the Biennial Operating Plans should be more tactical and detailed in scope and break

down the contribution of each Directorate/Office/Unit to the Secretariat’s Strategic Business

Plan in the form of programmes and projects. Biennial Operating Plans for each

Directorate/Office/Unit will be one of the outputs of the business planning process.


of 84

Team and Individual Objectives and Targets

At present, team and individual objectives and targets are generally developed on an annual

basis, but the level of alignment to the Community or Secretariat’s Strategy is questionable.

Going forward, team and individual objectives and targets must be flexible to deal with

unplanned activities and special circumstances. Whilst the individual objectives and targets will

not be captured within the Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan document, these must be

directly derived and aligned. These embody the activities and tasks that may be assigned to a

team or individual based on their role and the skill-set and competencies predefined by the

role. This is likely to require some adjustment to the performance management system in terms

of how the objectives are laid out and measured.

Monitoring, Evaluating and Reporting on the progress of the Community Strategy and

the Secretariat Business Plans

The criticality of an effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system was recognised within

the Community Strategic Plan. Simply put, the Secretariat needs a mechanism by which to

measure, chart and report the progress that it makes itself as well as the progress that the

Community makes.

However it must be

understood that this

requires the right kind

of indicators to be

developed at each

level of the

organisation.


of 84

The indicators which may be appropriate to measure the performance of individuals in the

organisation must relate to, but will not be appropriate to measure the performance of the

Directorate/Office/Unit. The first is likely to be more task oriented while the other is likely to be

more outcome related.

Likewise, the indicators used to measure the performance of the Secretariat at the level of the

Strategic Business Plan will be linked to, but not identical to those used to measure and report

on the performance of CARICOM against the Community strategic plan. Thus it is important to

understand the complexity and the range of measures that need to be developed to monitor

and evaluate the performance of both the Secretariat and the Community effectively.

Currently the Secretariat has measures which are targets used at the levels of Individual,

Directorate/Office/Unit Work Programmes and the Community Strategic Plan. These vary in

type and style. These targets are also task focused or very general in nature and it is clear that

they have not been developed in coordination and coherence amongst the

Directorates/Offices/Units.

Likewise the Strategic Management Unit has, through consultations with the Community

Institutions, collated the Operational Plans of the Secretariat and the Institutions in relation to

the Community Strategic Plan. The draft document informed the first Virtual Cluster meeting

around the Strategic Pillars in June 2015 and is guiding the development of a Community

Scorecard which is expected to be delivered in January 2016. Reviewing the document, the

CMO finds that more work must be done to produce a digestible document from which

conclusions can be easily drawn and understood. To achieve this the quality of indicators and

outputs needs to be strengthened. Consideration should be given to collating the Business

Plans of the CARICOM Secretariat and the Institutions in the first instance as this may negate

the need to collate the operational plans.

Overall, if the Secretariat is to achieve a cohesive and comprehensive monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) mechanism, it must first identify appropriate methodologies and then review

and adapt the existing measures as well as define and develop measures where there are none.


of 84

Early Thinking Suggests Results-Based Management (RBM)

RBM as a method of monitoring, evaluating programmes and projects, has become extremely

popular in the development community. “RBM starts with the end in mind and

stakeholders are encouraged to consider how the programme will improve

quality of l ife for the target population ”. This is due in a large part to NGOs, bilateral

and multilateral organisations adopting this methodology and requiring recipients of funding to

provide reports using RBM measures. In spite of the insistence, few if any have been able to

meet the demands of RBM.

The challenge is, that RBM while seemingly sensible is very difficult to implement. RBM requires

project log frames to be prepared and presented in a specific format and this requires

measurement of the progress of activities at the level of the Member State. This in turn

requires a significant level of sophistication in relation to data capture, analysis and reporting

within the Member State, much of which does not exist.

Almost all reviews of RBM in practice indicate that it requires continues time, effort, headcount

and other resources. In a UN report ‘Strategic Planning in the United Nations System 2012’, it

was noted that some agencies had to add upwards of 14 persons each to support their RBM

and training takes place almost monthly to teach employees to use and improve their skill at

writing RBM outputs. RBM is neither simple nor cheap and many Member States with severe

economic constraints are forced to make the difficult choice between building a system to show

others what is wrong or fixing what is wrong. Inevitably the latter wins.

Likewise at the time of creating the Community Strategic Plan, CARICOM agreed that to reflect

its progress against the Community Strategic Plan, the M&E system would draw on two models

– Results-Based Management (RBM) and a System of Indicators for Regional Integration (SIRI).

Indeed there have already been some attempts to utilise more results focused measures within

the area of performance appraisals. It was felt that this unique approach to CARICOM would

include “. . .monitoring and measurement indicators to deal with both the


of 84

development objective (e.g. food and nutrit ion, security for the people of the

region, especially the poor) and the regional integration objective

(harmonisation...)” .

The Community Strategic Plan highlights several important parameters which are necessary for

the hybrid M&E system to be effectively developed and implemented. These include:

Collaboration with stakeholders to design the model allowing for co-delivery;

A new approach to designing and planning interventions at the national and Secretariat

levels which goes beyond programme outputs;

A definition of expected results which are centred on the impact on the beneficiary;

Simultaneously addressing conceptual, technical, political, institutional and

organisational aspects across CARICOM.

A Move towards Results Focused Measurement

Given the likely challenges with RBM and its limitations in providing a comprehensive

measurement system, the Secretariat will endeavour to develop a ‘Customised Results

Focused’ M&E system that can be supported by existing or imminent technology and resources.

Results focused, means that higher priority is given to producing desired results or deliverables

than simply to the performance of required tasks. For example, employees, teams and

organisations are not rated highly for holding and attending many meetings. They are rated

highly only if they achieve the desired results within those meetings. Naturally, this means that

the objectives (expected results) for each meeting must be articulated at the start and assessed

at the end.

Through the CDB funded project, the necessary research will be undertaken towards defining

the framework of a suitable, objective and evidence-based M&E system that can meet the


of 84

needs of CARICOM and the varying levels within the Organisations. In this way, it will not be

limited by the logic frame of the RBM methodology and the framework can continue to grow

and improve as technology and measurement systems improve within CARICOM.

The Link between the Secretariat and Community Institutions

In addressing the areas of Strategy and Monitoring and Evaluation, the Secretariat intends to

focus on improvements internal to itself initially. However, it must be noted that the

Community Strategy calls for improved governance arrangements for Community Institutions

“to create an enabling environment for coordinated management across the

Regional Integration Architecture”.

The objective of ‘coordinated management’ is to ensure that the Community Institutions are

best positioned to contribute to the effective implementation of the resilience building agenda.

As such, it is critical that Institutions are engaged and informed in the development of the

Secretariat’s solutions since it will provide easier collaboration as well as economies of scale if

similar approaches and solutions are used throughout.


of 84

PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR THE STRATEGIC QUADRANT

As a priority, the Secretariat will create a Strategic Business Plan and then strengthen the

Biennial Operating Plans (Work Programmes) in light of the Strategic Business Plan. This will

commence in December 2015 and it expected to be completed within 4 months. Likewise

research on possible monitoring and evaluation systems will commence in December 2015 and

recommendations for options are expected to be presented in March 2016 at the latest.

Once the monitoring and evaluation system has been agreed in principle, the assessment,

building and update of existing measures to create the new cohesive measures will take place.

It is anticipated that the Secretariat will need to review its existing performance management

system to ensure that it lines up with approved M&E system. Of course, the structure of the

Secretariat to drive the Strategic Business Plan and the Community Strategy will also be

reviewed. This will be addressed under the People Quadrant later in this document. Assuming

minor adjustments to the performance management system, we anticipate this work will

completed by September 2016. However if more complex, infrastructural changes are required,

this may be delayed pending the availability of funds and development time.

Once the Secretariat’s internal processes for translating the Community Strategy into objectives

and targets with appropriate measures at each level of the organisation is in place, attention

will be turned to aligning the Community Institutions.

Ideally, an Overarching Approach for Strategic Planning in CARICOM and a Monitoring and

Evaluation system must be agreed. The Overarching Approach will need to be agreed and

documented to ensure that across the CARICOM entities there are harmonised definitions and

where possible methodologies, timing, roles and responsibilities in relation to strategic

planning. It should provide guidelines on the format of the plans, timelines and the approach

that will be taken to review, discuss, adjust and agree on the plans as well as budgets to


of 84

support the plans. This will require each CARICOM Institution to have a Strategic Business Plan

aligned to the Community Strategy with relevant measures.

Given that there must be coordination amongst so many organisations, Strategic Planning is

likely to start much earlier in the fiscal year and may require a defined resource for Strategic

Management in each Institution. Nonetheless Institutions that have Strategic Business Plans in

place ahead of time will find this process much easier.

CARICOM Institutions have already started to review their Operating Plans against the

Community Strategic Plan. But the level of alignment and congruence between activities

supporting or dependant on activities within the Secretariat and other CARICOM Institutions

has not yet been verified.

In the longer term, Strategic Planning in CARICOM is likely to be more effective if all Member

States have a ‘clear’ National Strategic Plan identifying its sub-plans and strategies which will

allow the Community Strategic Plan to be developed in sight of the National Plans and

Strategies. In that way, the Strategic Business Plans of the Institutions and the Secretariat will

be aligned to the Community Strategy and the National Plans.

SECRETARIAT REFORMATION FRAMEWORK PEOPLE QUADRANT

of 84

THE PEOPLE QUADRANT

Maintaining the motivation and the engagement of the employees to participate in and support

the change process is critical to the success of the reform. As such, the people quadrant is being

addressed early in the reform process.

SYNOPSIS OF THE PEOPLE QUADRANT

CMO’s Findings


1. The CARICOM Secretariat’s culture has never been firmly defined, although there have

been suggestions made over the years relating to aspects of the culture which could be

improved. Attempts to measure culture to date have focused on utilising an in-house

satisfaction survey which has a number of limitations;

2. The role and the personal style of the Secretary-General as well as those of the

Executive and Senior Management can strongly impact the norms and values which are

practiced within the organisation. Thus there is a need to thoroughly assess these roles

as they are practiced and the position holders currently within the role;

3. There are conflicting priorities amongst the management team. This is due in part to

ambiguous and conflicting ideologies within the Region about the purpose and nature of

CARICOM, but it is also impacted by the lack of a Strategic Business Plan;

4. Time utilisation amongst all managers vary and further investigation is required to

understand the cause. Possible causes include a highly centralised decision making


of 84

approach, a lack of strategic direction as well as limitations in the skills and

competencies of the individual manager and their personal preferences;

5. A revised structure can only be proposed upon the completion of the Secretariat’s

Strategic Business Plan with defined outputs; and the review of new or revised

processes which can determine the needs of the Secretariat.

Planned Activities


a) Implement an annual Employee Engagement survey to assess and monitor the

opportunity for engagement within the organisation. In 2016, the engagement survey

will be used by the CMO to discuss and obtain the employees’ views on the Reform as

well as opportunities for improvement within the Secretariat;

b) Conduct a job analysis and evaluation of the existing Executive and Senior Management

Roles, including the role of the Secretary-General and the Office of the Secretary-

General (OSG) to identify options to restructure the roles and the OSG as well as the

core competencies for the Executives and Senior Managers within the Secretariat, to

better deliver on the Strategic Business Plan and as a result the Community Strategic

Plan;

c) Conduct competency based assessments of the Executive and Senior Managers to

enable them to become more self-aware about their strengths, limitations and

development needs. Develop personal development plans for each manager aligned to

their optimal career paths within the organisation;


of 84

d) Implement team building activities to increase cooperation and collaboration within the

Executive and Senior management teams and develop a culture in which managers

respect each other’s differences, provide honest feedback and are able to disagree

constructively;

e) Revise and update the Secretariat’s philosophies, rules and regulations as it relates to

staff policies;

f) Conduct a job evaluation of all revised management and non-management jobs and

provide a recommended grade and compensation structure which will allow the

organisation to attract, motivate and retain talent. Data from the current compensation

and pay policy exercise will be considered.



There will be a revised structure for the organisation which supports the

implementation of the Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan and as a result the

Community Strategy. This will include revised role descriptions;

Defined competency models will be created for the Secretariat staff whether they are in

individual roles, or part of the senior or executive management. Consideration will be

given as to whether a technical competency model needs to be developed at a later

date;

A prioritised plan for the development of skills, competencies and behaviour (creating

the new CARICOM culture) within the Secretariat will be prepared in conjunction with a


of 84

Succession Plan, an approved Acting list and policy. This will also enable career

pathways to be developed for all employees;

A revised Compensation philosophy and structure for the entire Secretariat will be

developed to ensure an objective means for assigning salaries and benefits;

Philosophies and Policies supporting recruitment, management and retention of talent

within the Secretariat will be upgraded.


There can be a single CARICOM Grand Compensation and Benefits structure which will

allow all CARICOM Institutions and the Secretariat to harmonise people policies,

compensation and benefits;

Likewise, a CARICOM-wide approach to Talent Management will harmonise

management and executive competency models, recruitment and development

programmes, even producing a group-wide succession plan that allows for secondments

to enable the development of all employees and a pipeline of talent to support future

endeavours;

Current collaborations on group health plans and the appeals court can be extended to

include a CARICOM Performance Management System, HR policies and processes and a

single HRIS.


of 84

BACKGROUND TO THE PEOPLE QUADRANT

Culture of the Secretariat

To date there have been limited attempts to define the culture of the Secretariat either as it

currently exists or as it needs to. This may be due to the fact that in speaking about an

Organisation’s culture, it includes the organization's vision, values, norms, systems, symbols,

language, assumptions, beliefs, and habits. Thus it is difficult to measure and define.

Nonetheless, there have been many criticisms levelled at the culture of the Secretariat. In 1998,

Trevor Hamilton and Associates in a report stated that the Secretariat was highly bureaucratic,

programme oriented, centralised, public sector oriented and manual. It was argued, that it

should be more flexible, project oriented, decentralised, customer driven and electronic. In the

10 years since that report, the Secretariat did indeed become more project oriented, but one

could argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and there is a need

to achieve a balance between the specific projects and the overall thrust of the programmes.

Landell Mills in their (January 2012) report stated that at the senior and executive management

levels, insufficient time and attention is paid to core management, coaching and succession

planning. Meanwhile at the junior levels, there is a large number of employees with traditional

secretarial and administrative support skills.

In order to unravel the true nature of the issues and challenges affecting the culture of the

Secretariat, the organisation will need to be assessed at multiple levels - the vision, values,

norms, systems, symbols, language, assumptions, beliefs, and habits. The issues relating to the

Secretariat’s vision have already been discussed in the Strategy quadrant so will not be

repeated here.


of 84

Engagement within the Secretariat

Engagement reveals the extent to which employees are connected to the organisation’s values

and norms. It can bring to light challenges they may have with the Secretariat’s systems,

language and habits. Employees who are engaged typically feel a great deal of alignment with

their own personal goals and the opportunity to realise those personal goals within the

organisation.

In the past, the CARICOM Secretariat has conducted an assessments of its employees’

satisfaction. This provides some indication of the employees’ satisfaction with the Secretariat’s

habits and norms. The last satisfaction survey conducted in 2012 was developed in-house to

look at a number of areas which the Secretariat wanted to address.

The survey reported that the majority of employees were dissatisfied with internal

communication, management and employee relations, performance management,

opportunities to learn and develop and the motivational work environment. To a lesser extent,

employees had concerns around staff welfare, compensation and benefits, job satisfaction and

organisational direction. Limited action was taken to share and discuss the results with all

employees in light of the expected reform process, although some actions were taken to

address concerns such as air quality testing.

All surveys used in the Secretariat to date, have used a fully-blind, paper and pencil

arrangement, which means that no one could match the output of the individuals with the

responses. This was done to encourage responses; however this makes it impossible to verify

the link between the engagement initiatives and the employee’s performance and to conduct

concurrent validation. For example, do persons who state that they have more opportunity for

engagement actually become more engaged at work, is their output higher, do they make less

errors, do they go over and beyond in their work? It is vital that the Secretariat is able to make

such connections if it is to justify taking actions based on the results of the survey.


of 84

The Secretariat has agreed that a more reliable measure of employee engagement be used to

create a baseline in January 2016 which will make it more appropriate to take decisions on the

basis of the information gathered. This will cover some of the areas on which the satisfaction

survey focused, but will prioritise the areas that have been scientifically documented to

increase the opportunity for employees to become engaged. Similar surveys would then be

conducted each year at a similar time to monitor changes in opportunity for engagement.

It is expected that there will be some reticence about the survey, since most employees are

concerned about the ability of a manager being able to directly match the responses of an

individual with their output. However the Secretariat must reassure its employees since the

information will only be available in aggregate form. This will be managed with communication

and the way in which the results are shared with each subsequent deployment of the survey.

The Secretary-General

In establishing and reviewing an organisation’s culture, it is important to look at the role and

the personal style of the CEO as this can strongly impact the norms and values which are

practiced. Research and observation indicate that the Secretary-General currently performs

several roles including being the CEO of the Community, the Secretary-General of CARIFORUM,

Ambassador of CARICOM and CEO of the Secretariat.

Clarification is needed to understand what duties are currently being carried out and what skills

and competence is required to complete the various functions within the Secretary-General’s

role. A time-utilisation study will also help to reveal which tasks can benefit from being either

automated, or delegated to enable a more strategic focus within the role. The analysis will

reveal the type of support needed which will influence the structure of the Office of the

Secretary-General and also the structure of the Executive Management Team.


of 84

It should be noted that even the use of the term CEO of CARICOM bears further research and

discussion and raises the question of the reporting relationship between the CARICOM

Institutions, the Heads of Government and the Secretary-General. It should also be noted, that

the Community Strategy anticipates that the executive role and function of the Secretary-

General needs to be strengthened. This will be discussed in more detail in the Governance

Quadrant.

The Executive and Senior Management Teams

There are conflicting priorities amongst the management team which is due in part, to

ambiguous and conflicting ideologies within the Region about the purpose and nature of

CARICOM and the Secretariat. As mentioned in the previous section, there are some managers

who believe that the CARICOM citizen is the Secretariat’s customer, while others believe it is

the Member States and others believe it is the Governments which leads to different

perceptions of the priorities. Notwithstanding, it is to be expected that managers may be more

sensitive to issues which resonate within their Member State. This underlines the paramount

importance of developing a Strategic Business Plan so that some, albeit not all of these issues

can be addressed.

While it is expected that managers will have different styles of management, it is still to be

expected that managers in similar roles (e.g. ASGs) will have similar levels of responsibility,

accountability and competencies and therefore the way in which time is utilised by the

managers will be similar. However some Executives and Senior Managers appear to be much

more pressured than others. This raises the question of whether the differences are a matter of

role differences or personal style differences in the way the role is conducted.

Without question, centralised decision-making is apparent within the Secretariat. Executive and

Senior Managers do not have the authority to make purchases of any amount. Recruitment

decisions, even at the junior level or temporary level, must be approved by the Deputy

Secretary-General or the Executive Management Committee. It has been suggested that this


of 84

much centralised approach to decision-making is a result of the organisation attempting to

ensure transparency and accountability with purchases and the way that funds are used.

However a balance must be found that allows appropriate levels of authority and accountability

to be held within the executive and senior management levels.

Other Management and Non-Management

Within the Secretariat there are approximately 20% of employees whose roles are considered

to be a part of the middle and junior management. These include Programme Managers,

Deputy Programme Managers and Senior Project Officers. Much of their functions are derived

from the structure of the Secretariat into 3 Directorates, and 4 Offices, each containing a series

of Units. Early observations suggest that the span of control varies significantly amongst this

group of Managers, hence some restructuring of the Units is required.

In the 10 years since the Hamilton Associates report, the Secretariat did indeed become more

project oriented, but one could argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite

direction and there is a need to achieve a balance between the specific projects and the overall

thrust of the programmes. To some extent Programme Managers have become more akin to

Project Managers, managing a wide range of consultancies rather than employing their

technical skills to shape and direct the Regional Integration agenda.

The other 30% of employees make up the technical, administrative and ancillary staff. This is

not surprising since each Executive and Senior Manager has a Secretary as well other

administrative staff to support the unit. Trends around the world have seen this type of

structure being replaced by one in which managers become more self-sufficient by utilising

technology and the support being provided via more technical support like project

management, analysis and reporting. Making similar adjustments within the Secretariat will

require an increase in IT skills, project management, report writing and research skills.


of 84

Planned Activities

The Secretariat will conduct a baseline employee engagement survey in January 2016. In

accordance with best practice, the results of the survey will be reviewed not only at the

organisational level, but broken down and analysed by Directorate, Office and Unit so that the

unique responses of each group can be established. The entire HR team and all managers will

be trained and given guidance on how to share the survey data in an appropriate way and to

facilitate a discussion with their team members.

Action planning will take place at several levels during February and March 2016. At the

Executive level, priorities for the organisation emanating from the survey results will give rise to

corporate level actions (e.g. conduct a job evaluation) aligned to the strategic priorities. At the

Directorate/Office/Unit levels, changes may be made to processes after appropriate cross

functional consultation and at the team level, changes may be made in the way which persons

interact together or work is managed. While it is clear that the dissemination of survey data is

a lengthy process requiring proper planning and high levels of involvement from all employees

for effective execution, it will provide the employees with the opportunity to input directly into

the Reform process. Additional benefits include a team based approach to resolving the issues

raised; management and non-management working together and strong level of buy-in to the

proposed solutions a.k.a. strong employee engagement.

Job Analysis and Evaluation at the Executive and Senior Management Levels

In order to define the ‘ideal’ structure for the secretariat, the Organisation must first determine

the duties that are currently being carried out, the available level of skill and competence and

the workload being managed and assigned at each level.

A job analysis and evaluation of the role of the Secretary-General, the Office of the Secretary-

General and the Executive and Senior Management (Deputy Secretary-General to Director)


of 84

roles will commence in December 2015 and is expected to be completed by the end of March

2016. This will include a time utilisation study which will reveal how much time is currently

being utilised on average across the main components of each person’s role and which, if any

aspects of the role should or can be better managed or delegated to another role.

The Secretariat has set aside a significant level of funds and to supplement funding from DFID

to ensure this piece of work is done with the utmost urgency. When complete, this piece of

work will deliver proposed structures for the most senior levels of the organisation, including

restructured role descriptions, responsibilities and accountabilities. It will also provide a

proposal for a revised Grade Structure and compensation package to achieve the goals of the

Secretariat and as a result the wider Community.

Competency Assessment of Executives and Managers

The gap between the skills and competencies required for the Executive and Senior

Management roles will be captured via competency assessments. Like the Job Analysis and

Evaluation, the assessments will begin with the Secretary-General and the Office of the

Secretary-General, rolling down through the ranks of management. The results will provide

both individualised information for the position holder and their immediate supervisor. It will

also allow the organisation to evaluate its strength at each level. This will provide excellent

information to build leadership and management competency models, plan training, plan for

succession and identify gaps to be addressed by recruitment.

The exact nature of the assessments is to be agreed but this is likely to include some form of

work style profile, a 360 assessment as well as taking existing performance data into

consideration. The Secretariat will have the option of mainstreaming these assessments as part

of its ongoing development of employees in the future. Each manager will receive personal

feedback on their results to assist them in developing their own personal development plan

aligned to the opportunities within the Secretariat.


of 84

Notwithstanding, the Secretariat is a melting pot of several cultures, languages and personal

preferences. Team building activities are required to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of

interactions between managers, to help them to address and resolve conflicts and to enable

the managers to challenge each other in a productive way.

Proposing a Structure for the Secretariat

Once the Business Plan has been completed, a structure can only be proposed once the

business processes have been reengineered and the required technology to support the

reengineered processes has been considered. This is covered more in the following quadrants.

Hence structures are likely to be proposed between July and September 2016.

There is no ‘ideal permanent’ structure for an organisation. Rather, the structure must reflect

the needs of the organisation in the short and medium term, with consideration being given to

how that structure can be augmented or contracted as the needs of the organisation change.

As such, all recommendations which will be made concerning the ratio of permanent to

contract staff, technical to non-technical and management to non-management staff, should be

regarded as guidelines, rather than rules.

Job Evaluation

Once a structure has been proposed and agreed in general, all other management and non-

management roles will be analysed and evaluated using the newly defined job descriptions.

Similar to the Job Evaluation conducted at the Executive and Senior Management levels, this

activity will deliver a standard job evaluation methodology for the Secretariat and well as a

revised Grade Structure and Compensation Structure aligned to the Market rates and the

objectives of CARICOM.


of 84

This will ensure that any new role can be objectively and accurately placed within the revised

Grade structure. The job analysis data can also be used to build junior and technical

competency models for the Secretariat if required. Finally, proposals will be given on the

mechanism by which employees can be selected or placed in the new roles and grade structure

as well as the approach to handle any anomalies.

Reviewing and Aligning the CARICOM Institutions

As mentioned previously, the Community Strategy calls for improved governance arrangements

for Community Institutions “to create an enabling environment for coordinated

management across the Regional Integration Architecture ”.

Within the mandates received from the Conference, the Secretary-General is required to

provide a review of the CARICOM Institutions. This will entail reviewing the function and the

performance of the Institutions in line with the Revised Treaty, their Inter-Governmental

Agreements, and the requirements established within the Community Strategic Plan.

This provides an optimal opportunity to consider where economies of scale can be achieved,

particularly in the provision of support services such as HR, Audit, Resource Mobilisation and

Procurement. Indeed, the Community Institutions and the Secretariat have already identified

areas and begun work where this is prudent (Employee health plans and an appeals process).

In the longer term, CARICOM would benefit from developing a single CARICOM Job Evaluation

tool which will enable similar job evaluation exercises to be completed within the CARICOM

Institutions. This will also require training the HR team and a multidisciplinary Job Evaluation

Committee; as well as developing governance procedures for job evaluations to ensure

standardisation of the process.


of 84

In addition, consideration should be given to developing an overarching CARICOM grade and

classification system which can be overlaid on the grade and classification of the Secretariat and

all CARICOM Intuitions. This will enable the Secretariat to put in place, CARICOM management

and development programmes, succession plans and secondment programmes to develop the

pipeline of talent supporting the Secretariat and the CARICOM Institutions. In this way,

CARICOM will benefit from multidisciplinary exposure and economies of scale.


of 84

COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE REFORM PROCESS

Keeping employees and other stakeholders informed during the reform process is necessary.

This will maintain engagement and cooperation and manage expectations and perceptions of

transformation initiatives. Careful and deliberate statements to address such expectations and

explain initiatives is required.

The communications plan for the reform process will be reviewed and strengthened as

necessary by the Communications Unit, the internal subgroup for communication as well as any

other appropriate specialists. The table below shows the anticipated formal communications.

Internal communications will rely on regular briefings for EMC and SMC members, who will

then be required to cascade information appropriately via team meetings. This will be

supported via intranet posts, blogs and memos as appropriate. In addition, annual Employee

Engagement town hall meetings with the Change Management Office will provide a structured

opportunity for employees to share their views and ask questions about changes. Managers will

have the option of inviting members of their staff who have been assigned to the internal

subgroups to provide updates to colleagues during the Office or Directorate meeting.

Communication with external stakeholders will primarily take place through the agreed

meetings of the Organs and Bodies. In addition bi-lateral meetings with specific individuals will

occur from time to time.


of 84

Table 1: REFORMATION COMMUNICATION TABLE

ACTIVITY RECIPIENTS RESPONSIBILITIES UPDATE FREQUENCY

INTERNAL SECRETARIAT

Status report SG CMO Monthly

EMC/SMC Briefing documents EMC/SMC CMO Monthly or as needed

All Staff Town hall meeting All staff SG/CMO Bi-annually

Staff Association Meeting Staff Association HR/CMO Bi-annually

Employee Engagement Town

halls

All Staff in the related

Directorate or Office

Unit Head and

CMO Annually

Directorate/Office Meetings All Staff in the related

Directorate or Office EMC

Bi Monthly or

Quarterly

Unit Meetings All Staff in unit Unit Manager Monthly

Intranet/Blog All Staff CMO/COMs Based on activities

Chairs Meeting, Internal Sub

Groups Chairs and Vice Chairs

CMO and

Management

as needed

Bi Monthly

Internal Sub Groups Staff assigned to the

sub-group

Chair and

Vice Chair As required by activity

All Staff Memos/ Discrete Group

Memos As appropriate CMO/COMs As required by activity

EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

Committee of Ambassadors Ambassadors SG/EMC/CMO Bi-annually

Community Institutions Heads of Institutions SG/EMC/CMO/

Ambassadors Bi-annually

Community Council Members SG/EMC/CMO/


Conference Heads of Government SG/EMC/CMO/


Organs and Bodies Organs, Bodies,

Ministers,

SG/EMC/CMO/

Ambassadors As required by activity

Bilateral Meetings As appropriate SG/EMC/CMO/

Ambassadors As required by activity

SECRETARIAT REFORMATION FRAMEWORK PROCESS QUADRANT

of 84

THE PROCESS QUADRANT

A process is a series of actions or steps and decisions taken in order to achieve a particular end.

There are several different models of classification of processes that have been provided by

researchers. However, for the purpose of this document, we will outline three types of

processes within the Secretariat:

1. Core Processes. Within the Secretariat, core processes represent the essential activities

that are performed to accomplish its mission. An example of a core process would be

the process of presenting to and receiving a response from Heads of Governments on a

required decision;

2. Support Processes. These represent processes which limit, enable or facilitate the core

processes. Within the Secretariat an example is the procurement processes for

consultancies;

3. Management Processes. These represent processes which management uses to

measure, monitor and control business activities for example the performance

management process.

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is the practice of rethinking and redesigning the way

work is done to better support the Secretariat's mission. Benefits can include more efficient and

effective practices, improved implementation speeds, reduction in wastage and duplication and

reduced costs (usually on a long term basis).


of 84

SYNOPSIS

CMO’s Findings


1. The Strategic Business Plan in an integral requirement to facilitate the reengineering of

processes, since it is expected to define the Secretariat’s missions, strategic goals and

the needs of the member states;

2. The mission of each Directorate and Office must be established and realigned to the

Strategic Business Plan and the Revised Treaty;

3. Attempts have been made to develop decision-making processes for the Conference as

well as to strengthen processes around support functions such as procurement. Other

processes for functions like IT and Audit are in the process of being reviewed;

4. The processes within the Secretariat are complex and attempts to meet the standards of

other multilaterals have made them too stringent in places which disempowers the

Executive and Senior Management team;

5. The Secretariat must find a way to develop processes, which obtain input from Member

States, CARICOM Institutions and International Development Partners but are fit for the

purposes of the Secretariat within the context of the Region; and

6. The Mechanism of EMC and SMC needs to be reviewed and optimised to allow for

better information flow and decision-making.


of 84

Planned Activities


a) Conduct an internal service review in, April 2016, to establish the extent to which the

mission is being achieved as well as the level of cooperation among Offices, Directorates

and Units;

b) Collate and map the existing core, support and management processes so that a single

repository of processes can be established;

c) Review and reengineer the processes starting with the core processes. Reengineered

processes will include input from other stakeholders to ensure compliance with the

requirements of International Development Partners, but they must be developed to fit

the context of the CARICOM Secretariat;

d) Governance matters will be reviewed and proposals for improvements made to support

the reengineered processes.



There will be a central repository for all business processes including core, management

and support processes;

Each Directorate/Office/Unit will be required to maintain and update the policies and

processes relevant to their operations as part of their annual responsibilities;


of 84

The process for the operation of EMC and SMC will be revised and improved to enable

quicker and more effective decision-making and information sharing;

All staff policies and procedures will reviewed and updated;

Opportunities to automate procedures will be identified to facilitate more efficient and

effective processes; and

Procedures relating to Organs and Bodies will be review and updated.


There will be standard support and management policies and procedures across the

CARICOM Secretariat and Community Institutions;

This can include common staff rules and procedures relating to employees such as

acting, recruitment, secondments and performance management; and

It can also include approaches to procurement, budgeting, project management and

resource mobilisation.

BACKGROUND TO THE PROCESS QUADRANT

Secretariat Business Plan Required

To start a business process review, it is first important to understand the mission of the

organisation and then to begin to identify the activities which enable it to function. Once the

Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan is complete this will help the consultant to clearly


of 84

understand CARICOM’s and the Secretariat’s missions, strategic goals and the needs of the

member states.

The processes which enable the Secretariat to function are complex. The Directorate, Office, or

Unit within the Secretariat that is responsible for a specific programme is not usually

responsible for all the features that determine the achievement of the relevant CARICOM goal.

In addition, themes typically intersect across the programme of more than one Secretariat

Programme area, Institution and Member State.

Understanding the inter-linkages between the Secretariat’s Directorates/Offices/Units themes

is important in mapping a process. Since the preparation of the Business Plan will require

discussion and further clarity on these points, the business process review will commence after

completion of the Secretariat’s Business Plan.

Mission of Each Directorate/Office

Most of the Directorates/Offices/Units were established with a specific vision and mission.

These terms of reference must be reviewed to determine whether the visions and the missions

are being delivered currently; and if they are not, then why not? This will require detailed

research of the decisions taken within the Secretariat and even within the Organs and Bodies to

determine the evolution of changes made before a recommendation can be made to revise,

update or reaffirm the vision and mission. The support of the General Counsel’s Office will be

integral in this regard.

Internal Service Review

This type of review is typically used by organisations to identify the level and quality of

interaction between/among Directorates/Offices/Units. Currently internal service reviews are

not conducted within the Secretariat. However, during our preliminary meetings with

Directorates/Offices/Units, they indicated that there are incidences of poor communication,

overlapping activity and seeming lack of support.


of 84

The Secretariat will therefore conduct an internal service review, once the currently agreed

mission of each Directorate/Office/Unit has been established. This would look at the both the

service received by each Directorate/Office/Unit and the service provided. For example, the

review of the Human Resources would look at both the service provided by HRM to the rest of

the organisation as well the level of cooperation that HRM receives from each

Directorate/Office/Unit in conducting the activities required to fulfil its mandate.

In the first year, the result will form a baseline assessment and this will highlight areas where

business processes are likely to be impacted, enabling the business process review to focus on

critical bottle necks. Similar to the engagement survey, this assessment would be conducted

online with invitations sent to the respective CARICOM email addresses and employees will

only be required to comment on the Directorate/Office/Unit with which they personally

interact.

In subsequent years, following the assessment the Secretariat should expect to see an

improvement in performance once the re-engineered processes have been put into place.

Moreover, if the Secretariat should decide to monitor the levels of internal cooperation and

service on an annual or biennial basis, the output can form an objective measure of the

Directorate/Office/Unit’s performance, even forming a part of the unit head’s performance

targets.

Complex Processes

At this present time, the Secretariat utilises funding from International Donors and Partners

(IDPs) for about 60% of its activities. This means that there is strong need for Secretariat

processes to meet the standards of IDPs to enable easier reporting and release of funds. To

address this the Secretariat has developed several processes using the guidelines of much

larger multinationals like the UN. On the face of it this may appear to be a sound decision,

however the size and the value of the issues and decisions which the UN handle tend to run


of 84

into the hundreds of millions, in comparison with the thousands of dollars frequently managed

and the occasional hundreds of thousands managed within the Secretariat.

An example of this is the procurement processes which have been updated to comply with EU

standards. These types of processes although well intentioned, remove all authority from the

Executive and Senior Management team, causing bottle necks which make it very difficult and

time consuming to achieve the smallest of tasks. Thus the Secretariat has the difficult job of

reengineering its processes in such a way that it provides the greatest level of transparency

while not negating operational efficiency and also the empowerment of the Executive and

Senior management.

Executive and Senior Management Committees

The Secretariat makes much of its decisions through the Senior Management Committee (SMC)

and the Executive Management Committee (EMC). The original intention was that issues would

first be discussed, researched and reviewed at the SMC before a position is presented at EMC

for a final decision. In practice however, this does not occur. More often than not, the SMC

appears to discuss daily issues and considerations as well as decisions which have already been

made by EMC.

EMC on the other hand appears to spend a significant amount of time making decisions on

issues that have not be thoroughly reviewed by SMC, which means that the required level of

consultation has not taken place, resulting in further requests for investigation and

presentation of information. EMC meetings therefore, can be extended or may be scheduled

almost weekly to address all of the issues raised.

The Secretariat has agreed that the mechanism both of SMC and EMC and the way information

and decisions flow between them, needs to be reviewed and revised. Within the Secretariat,

managers need regular opportunities to share information as a means of providing updates to

each other on what is happening in the organisation so that support can be offered and


of 84

received, but also to make decisions. They also need opportunities to strategize and develop

innovative solutions to both operational and strategic issues.

Mapping & Interrogating the current business processes

Currently processes within the Secretariat have been defined to varying levels of detail in

varying formats. There is no specific unit with responsibility for processes or no central

repository of processes which an employee can consult to determine how to go about achieving

a desired outcome. Processes seem to be developed when desired by the unit that provides the

service, or when mandated in response to an issue. Consultations on process changes may or

may not happen before the new process is put in place.

Interestingly, there appears to be fewer core processes documented than there are support

processes. But as mentioned above, these are often developed without taking into

consideration the time required to move from one step of the process to the other; hence

where processes are documented, it often takes lengthy periods to get things done which is not

the intent of process mapping. This may be an instance where the ‘attitude’ and perspective is

not customer centric but rather focuses on the ease or maintaining the ‘power’ of the service

provider.

Before processes can be reengineered, they must first be identified and then mapped in their

current format, using a standardised method. Given that the number of processes is likely to be

large and the reengineering process is likely to be expensive. The CMO will aid the

Directorates/Offices/Units to identify and map all current processes ensuring the all-important

inputs, timelines and decisions are captured with the support of the relevant sub-group and a

consultancy.

This is lengthy process and we will determine whether the approach will focus on core

processes first, or look at processes by Directorate/Office. Mapped processes will then be


of 84

interrogated to identify redundancies or blockages which cause delay or derailment and where

errors typically occur. With appropriate consultation the project will also propose revised

processes.

Governance

The Secretariat has a series of rules, policies and procedures supporting its activities. The rules

are set at the level of the Community Council while policies and procedures are set at the level

of the Secretariat, through authority devolved from the Secretary-General. In mapping

processes, it will be necessary to understand where the governance associated with Secretariat,

Organs, Bodies and Institutions allow, support or inhibit the current and proposed processes. It

can be expected that in different instances, changes must be made at each level (Secretariat,

Organs, Bodies and Institutions) to facilitate the reengineered process and strengthen

integration.

The Community Strategic Plan established the strengthening of Governance arrangements

within CARICOM as one of the key drivers of the articulated goals in recognition of its

importance. Specifically governance is expected to “Improve the decision-making

processes through reviewing and promoting decision-making protocols,

strengthening the preparatory process, including feasibi l ity/resource/cost -

benefit analysis; improving the management of meetings by focused discussion

and taking of strategic decis ions ”.

Currently decision-making protocols have been agreed for the Conference. Every effort must be

made to ensure that these are now followed and concerns or alternate considerations are

raised at the time of reengineering processes. It is imperative that key stakeholders, such as the

Committee of Ambassadors and the Community Institutions, are involved in mapping and

revising core decision-making processes.


of 84

Secretariat’s Planned Activities

In April 2016 the Secretariat will begin the process of researching and establishing the Terms of

Reference for each Directorate and Office. This will form the basis of the Internal Service

Review which should be completed by May 2016. The output from this review will provide an

indication of where processes may be failing.

Concurrently, the Secretariat will ensure that process maps for existing processes are prepared.

Processes will also be categorised so that a single, central repository of processes can be

established, enabling easy retrieval and endowing a specific unit with responsibility for collating

processes.

Through a series of workshops between May and July 2016 existing processes will be reviewed

and reengineered. Many Core decision-making processes will require the input of CARICOM

Institutions. The Committee of Ambassadors will be essential to assist in gaining the input of

Member States where appropriate.

Once the core processes have been drafted, the support and management processes can be

reviewed to ensure alignment and facilitation of the core processes. Thus it can be expected

that all staff policies and procedures will be updated, delegation of authority will be established

for managers and new procedures will be developed and implemented for SMC and EMC.

Similarly to the core processes, many of the support processes must be developed with an eye

on the guidelines and policies of the International Development Partners, but taking into

consideration the much smaller span of authority and funding of the Secretariat.

The review of the Governance arrangements and policies supporting the existing and proposed

reengineered processes must occur simultaneously with the Business Process Review. It must

be expected that having new Governance arrangements put in place will take time. Hence,


of 84

while new processes may be proposed as early as July 2016, approval and implementation of

these processes in some instances may take considerably longer.

In the longer term, there would be benefit in standardising many of the support policies and

procedures across the CARICOM Intuitions.

SECRETARIAT REFORMATION FRAMEWORK TECHNOLOGY QUADRANT

of 84

THE TECHNOLOGY QUADRANT

Technology often goes hand in hand with processes. Rather than technology for the sake of it,

organisations should consider where technology can simplify processes, provide a higher

quality of output and make the process faster, more accurate and more cost effective.

SYNOPSIS

CMO’s Findings


1. The Secretariat needs to lay out a Technology Strategy to articulate the vision for

technology, the type of operating model and the level of automation and integration

needed to achieve its strategic goals and the needs of the Member States;

2. The underlying infrastructure is challenged as a result of an inconsistent power supply

and limited bandwidth supporting communications and connectivity in its current

locale;

3. The Secretariat is expected to provide service and support for at least 7 new CARICOM

systems which will require a more ‘sales and service’ orientation and structure for the

Unit;

4. The security and back up functions relating to IT must be strengthened and will require

clearer categorisation of information so that sensitive information may be properly

secured;


of 84

5. A comprehensive continuity plan is required for the Secretariat’s IT systems;

6. There are several challenges with the hardware and software currently used and

available within the Secretariat, ranging from out of date software, unavailable packages

and a lack of IT training; and

7. The Secretariat must consider the technological requirements that will be needed to

improve processes and decision making.

Planned Activities


a) Conduct an internal IT skills audit in relation to Microsoft Office suite to enable a

standard minimum level of competence to be established within the Secretariat;

b) Map the current technology infrastructure across the Secretariat and all Community

Institutions to provide an understanding of what systems exist, which are beneficial and

to ensure that future IT purchases can be integrated, where possible;

c) Complete the assessment of the Secretariat’s requirements, capability and the gap

which must be addressed in the coming years;

d) Craft relevant IT solutions to address the gaps identified via the IT assessments as it

relates to hardware, software, security or general infrastructure;

e) Organise training on standard software packages to ensure a minimum level of

computer literacy and competence;


of 84

f) Establish opportunities where existing systems can be enhanced, in the short term, to

improve the capability and service offered.


It is expected that the Secretariat will:

Have an IT strategy as part of its Strategic Business Plan to inform the vision, the type of

operating model and that is required to support the organisation;

Establish a high-level of IT competence to enable all managers and staff to become

more self-sufficient and support staff to focus on more technical areas of support;

Take advantage of cost effective options to enhance existing capabilities in the short

term;

Review and update all IT processes, policies and approach, with a view to becoming

more service oriented; and

Strengthen internal IT capacity.


There will be a strengthened IT capacity within the CARICOM Institutions;

Across the CARICOM Secretariat and Institutions, there could be a common overarching

IT strategy and operating model which will enable greater integration;


of 84

Enterprise wide platforms, common hardware and software will lead to efficiencies and

allow additional functionality to be added to the IT department improving service to all

users without inhibitive costs.


of 84

BACKGROUND TO THE TECHNOLOGY QUADRANT

The Community Strategic Plan acknowledges the importance of ICT within the Community and

that many stakeholders consider it a ‘game changer’ for CARICOM. It states: “The

opportunities for the use of technology must be ful ly realized, bearing in mind

some constraint with resources. To support the integration of the technology in

implementation, an assessment and ‘mapping’ of the technology infrastructure

across all Community Institutions will be a useful starting point for

strengthening the overall system”.

The Community Strategic Plan outlines 4 steps which must be taken with a view of developing a

CARICOM Digital Economy. These include:

(i) Developing a single ICT space;

(ii) Bringing technology to the people and transforming them into Digital Citizens;

(iii) Strengthening cyber security; and

(iv) Investing in ICT.

A Technology Strategy

If the Secretariat is to coordinate CARICOM’s realisation of these steps outlined under ‘Building

Technological Resilience’ in the Community Plan, then the Secretariat must as an organisation,

embrace these as a goals for itself. However, there is no vision or goal articulated for

technology, specifically within the Secretariat and this needs to be rectified.

The Landell Mills 2012 report indicated that technology, like many of the support services was

‘not fit for purpose’. The report highlights challenges which include: aging computers, laptops

and software; unreliable internet and telephone connections, a messy website. The report also


of 84

noted many deficiencies which were noted in a review of the Secretariat’s systems between

2006 and 2009 and had still not been addressed.

Based on the Community Strategy, one could visualise a sensible level of automation; seamless

integration; a secure and reliable service; and a high level of technical proficiency in Secretariat

employees as well as a culture of utilising technological solutions; but what does a digital

economy within the Secretariat look like in practice?

To answer these questions, the Secretariat needs to go further and consider the end user

experience that it is aiming for. Which processes should be automated; which systems should

be integrated and what level of service is required? Is there is need for real-time access to

information, by whom and to what extent? Which type of files/systems need to be accessed

remotely? Should systems be hosted in-house or in the cloud? How does the Secretariat secure

its in-house and cloud based systems? The answer to some of these questions will be addressed

in the outputs of the Strategic Business Plan and the assessments within the technology,

process and people quadrants will provide important inputs.

Underlying Infrastructure

One of the significant challenges as it relates to technology for the Secretariat is the unreliable

power and communications services within its current location where power outages are a

regular part of life. Like many other organisations, the Secretariat has independent generators

and also a UPS which was acquired through the 2006-2009 IT projects. This UPS is now in need

of an upgrade to meet the growing demands of the Secretariat. It is expected that an India IT

project will deliver a new UPS and a generator to address this need. Given the challenges

associated with a non-stable power supply, consideration must be given to where the

technological hub for CARICOM services should be placed.


of 84

It could be argued that a part of the difficulty as it relates to telecommunications within

Guyana, is the unreliable power source. However bandwidths are limited, which provides a

challenge with video streaming and video conferencing. The Secretariat currently employs two

distinct voice communications systems. The first allows employees to communicate with each

other using internal extension numbers. The second provides direct lines for senior staff who

are likely to have more frequent external and overseas calls. The existing system is below par

when considering the current technological solutions which allow seamless voice, data

integration, video and mobile communication via an integrated platform.

Support for CARICOM Systems

There are seven systems which have been developed for CARICOM which will require the

Secretariat to maintain, troubleshoot and support them. These include a CSME E-Commerce

Regime, an Online Company Registry, an Instrument for an Integrated CSME Procurement

Market, and a Labour Market Information System, among others.

This represents a big shift for the Secretariat’s IT unit which is currently structured around their

technical assets or capabilities - applications, servers, networks, programming, analysis and

operations. Going forward they must be structured with customer service in mind, with a “sales

and service” needs approach. The sales function relates to its interaction with the ‘clients’ who

develop and run the system being hosted by the Secretariat. IT must develop service level

agreements, and help the ‘client’ to understand the cost relating to delivering against that

service agreement. On the other hand, the service function relates to the ‘users’ of the systems

who will require help desk support to trouble shoot and resolve issues and questions about the

system they are accessing.

It is not known at this juncture whether the cost to support and sustain these new systems

were anticipated and agreed within the core funding of the Secretariat, but this must be done

in the future.


of 84

Recovery, Continuity & Security

The Secretariat does conduct regular backups of information; however a recent example where

more than a year’s worth of work for the Legal department was lost, highlighted some of the

limitations of the current backup system.

There must be a determination of what type of information is backed up, how often and where

the backup will be physically located. Georgetown Guyana is prone to flooding and the

Caribbean lies in the hurricane belt, thus there must be alternative storage and backup of

information.

This naturally leads to the question of business continuity and disaster recovery. Within the

Secretariat some systems have a continuity plan, but there is no overall plan to address

continuity and disaster recovery for the Secretariat’s IT system as whole.

Security of information within the Secretariat must also be considered. Much of the

information that the Secretariat manages is already within the public domain, however, there is

some information that may be sensitive. The Secretariat must be able to clearly differentiate

between the different types of information and balance the need for easy access with the need

to secure critical information.

Secretariat Hardware & Software

Following the 2006-2009 technology projects, the Secretariat underscored urgent areas for

assistance which included:

Communication services including video-conferencing, web-conferencing, Voice over

Internet Protocol as well as the more traditional telecommunication by wired and

wireless telephony;

Aging equipment and software;


of 84

A website that needs upgrading and which does not have together in one place all the

websites of the Secretariat;

Intranet that is less than optimal;

Document management services;

Project management information systems; and

Human resource information systems (HRIS).

The current HRIS was purchased in 2011 with donor funding from Korea. To date, the employee

self-service and the payroll modules have been implemented. The performance management

module was implemented in 2015 with limited use of the competency module (technical

competences are still to be developed). Training and recruitment modules are expected to be

implemented in 2016. Experience with the HRIS has revealed that further customisation is

required in the self-service and performance management modules to meet the needs of the

Secretariat.

The Communications Unit is in the process of upgrading the CARICOM website. The design has

been approved and content has been populated. The improved designed will enable greater

use of social media, improved website analytics, provide a more consistent brand image and

increase the general appeal of the site. A soft launch of the website are expected to take place

before the end of the year. The intranet is also scheduled to be upgraded; proposals for the

design and functionality are currently being explored.

Many of the laptops and PCs being used are old and utilise outdated operating systems

(Windows XP) and software (Microsoft Office 2007). Software that would be considered

standard in many offices such as Adobe to encrypt documents, Microsoft Visio to produce

process maps and Microsoft Projects to plan and track projects, are not readily available within

the Secretariat. Furthermore, many Directorates/Offices/Units do not fully utilise the available

technology, such as Microsoft Outlook, to schedule meetings, assign and track tasks. This may


of 84

be the result of insufficient training on the available technology, lack of time or lack of

technological curiosity.

Whilst there should be room within organisations for personal style and preference to be

considered, the Secretariat needs to up-skill and mandate its employees to make use of

available technology. It is interesting to note that in an organisation where many employees

travel, smart phones and tablets are not provided as a part of normal business, many persons

still print emails before reading them, attend meetings with note pads and VPN access (external

access to the network) is not standard for management. An IT Skill Audit will be conducted

within the Secretariat, so that the gap can be determined and addressed. The lack of training on

existing systems e.g. Microsoft Office, Projects and Adobe, can be achieved using cost effective

means such as local and in-house training.

Planned Activities

Mapping of the Technology Infrastructure across Secretariat and all Community

Institutions

To facilitate the discussion and decisions related to technology in the Secretariat’s Business

Plan, an assessment of the existing technology infrastructure in the Secretariat must first take

place.

Extrapolating from the Community Strategic plan, it is understood that a single ICT space for

CARICOM is a priority objective. Appreciating that technology requires significant investment,

it behoves the Secretariat to consider what is currently being used beneficially in other

CARICOM Institutions, before selecting further solution. As such, the mapping of the

technological infrastructure in Community Institutions will be conducted as a priority.


of 84

Complete the Assessment of the Secretariat IT Capabilities

In 2015, the Government of India intending to enter into a bi-lateral agreement with CARICOM,

to aid in the upgrade of CARICOM Secretariat ICT systems, embarked on an assessment of the

‘IT infrastructure, software and services (including training and capacity

building) that wil l be required by the CARICOM Secretariat to implement the

init iatives that will support the achievement of the Community’s objectives,

especial ly within the context of the approved Community Strategic Plan ’. It is

expected that this report will advise on technology, people and processes needed to improve,

upgrade, replace and maintain the information and communication technology.

Consultations were conducted with key staff members to understand the needs of the Offices

and Directorates, the internal Technology Steering Committee and with IT staff members.

Documents were reviewed and equipment was inspected. The report from that assessment is

still being finalised. Hence it is not known how thorough the assessment will be and if any

additional surveys or assessments will need to be carried out. The results of this assessment

will therefore be critical to the business planning activities around technology.

Business Process Reengineering

The previous quadrant described the business processes reengineering which will be required

to take place within the Reform. As processes are reviewed and reorganised, consideration will

be given to areas where technology can make the process more accurate, efficient, effective

and easier. Plans to improve the technology within the Secretariat will take this fully into

consideration as this will impact the structure of the organisation, especially the IT unit and also

determine the skills which must be developed amongst the staff.

SECRETARIAT REFORMATION FRAMEWORK GOVERNANCE QUADRANT

of 84

THE GOVERNANCE QUADRANT

Governance is an area that touches every part of the Secretariat and indeed CARICOM. In the

previous quadrants, there was reference to the issue of governance, however we attempt to

bring all the threads together in this section.

Unlike the other quadrants where the Secretariat can focus on the Secretariat first and then

consider wider implications for the Institutions, Organs and Bodies. Governance must consider

all at the same time since they are so intricately interlinked.

SYNOPSIS

CMO’s Findings


1. There are conflicting views and perceptions in and around CARICOM which impact on

the expectations various stakeholders have of CARICOM and subsequently the

Secretariat. These conflicting expectations make it difficult to fairly and clearly assess

the performance and hence the success of the Secretariat;

2. Given that CARICOM continues to evolve, it necessary to review and reconsider the

governance, processes and powers endowed on the Organs, Bodies, Secretariat and

Institutions to determine the best way of providing authority, so that each can be held

accountable for its role;


of 84

3. Within the Secretariat and CARICOM there is a constant level of urgency which prevents

processes from being followed within the Organs. This results in insufficient

consultations and discussion to enable a solid foundation for decision-making;

4. Within the current governance structure, the Community Council has established

regulations that reach beyond the Strategy of the Community into the Operations of the

Secretariat;

5. Despite calls to increase the authority of the Secretary-General, it has not yet been

made clear or agreed what areas this increased authority should relate to; and

6. The Treaty and the governance of the Community Institutions currently does not allow

for the Secretariat to achieve the Community Strategy’s goal to create an enabling

environment for coordinated management across the Regional Architecture.

Secretariat’s Planned Activities


a) Within the development of the Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan, a position will be

taken on some of the key questions surrounding CARICOM, based on available

information. The input of key stakeholders will be elicited through circulation and

discussions on the draft document;

b) Review the governance framework relating to the role of the Secretary-General during

the Job Analysis which takes place between Dec 2015 and March 2016. Thereafter

consultations will be held with the key stakeholders, such as the Committee of


of 84

Ambassadors, the Community Council of Ministers, and the Institutions, on the nature

of the increased authority;

c) The Revised Treaty and the governance of the Community Institutions must be

amended to allow the Secretariat to achieve the Community Strategy’s goal to create an

enabling environment for coordinated management across the Regional Architecture;

d) Reengineering the Business Process will reveal changes that might be required within

the governance of the Organs, Bodies and within the Secretariat, to realise the

efficiencies that are required. These are likely to be available in September of 2016. At

that time, the Office of the General Counsel will provide guidance on how these changes

should be addressed.


Within the Community, it is expected that:

There will be a clearer understanding of the role of the Secretariat over the next three

to five years, recognising that elements of the role will evolve as CARICOM continues to

evolve;

A more explicit mechanism related to the relationship between the Secretariat and the

CARICOM Institutions will be created and agreed;

The governance structures supporting the Community Institutions will be updated to

recognise the role of the Conference/the Community Council, the Secretariat and the

Organs and Bodies;


of 84

The Treaty will be further revised to take account of the governance changes

determined.

THE SITUATION

CARICOM desires integration, enhanced decision-making, implementation, accountability,

compliance and enforcement through participatory governance. The Revised Treaty allows for

Organs and Bodies of CARICOM to develop and implement protocols which are expected to

lead to the operationalisation of the mandates agreed by the Heads of Governments and the

provisions of the Revised Treaty. The challenge for many of the Stakeholders, is the lack of

implementation of the decisions taken within Member States.

Several causes have been suggested for this which include a lack of planning, processes,

governance, understanding of the factors which affect implementation at the national level;

agreement about the purpose and the role of CARICOM amongst stakeholders; and poor

attendance at the meetings of the Bodies and Organs. In this quadrant we examine these issues

from the perspective of governance.

Sovereign Caribbean Community vs. Sovereign States

The Treaty of Chaguaramas is clear, CARICOM and CSME was established by Treaty between

sovereign states determined to enhance Community decision-making and implementation,

desiring a sound and stable macro-economic environment conducive to investment and

competitive cross border production of goods and services. The Member States resolved

through CARICOM, to establish conditions which would facilitate access by their nationals to

the collective resources of the Region in a non-discriminatory basis and committed to establish

effective measures, programmes and mechanism to assist disadvantaged countries, regions and

sectors of the Community.


of 84

However, there are some who fear and others who welcome the idea that some level of

Sovereignty has been eroded and must be further eroded to facilitate the integrated Region.

Indeed the outcome of the decision of the CCJ in Myrie v. Barbados which found that the

decisions made at the level of the Conference of the Heads of Government create binding legal

obligations, has further strengthened this notion.

The reality is, that CARICOM will continue to evolve and there will be supporters and detractors

for its positon at any given time. However, we must be cognisant that within and amongst

Member States, the CARICOM Institutions and the Secretariat, those opinions can have an

impact on the ease and rate of implementation.

Who is CARICOM’s Customer?

The answer to this question depends on the perspective that is taken. For Member States the

positon is clear, they are elected to serve the citizens within their country; but that position

becomes a little less clear for the Secretariat and indeed the Institutions.

It can be argued that since the Secretariat and the Institutions were created by

Treaties/Agreements to provide services to the Region, the Region is the customer. However

the question must be asked, does the Region exist as a legal entity? Can it make decisions to

implement programmes, laws and guidelines without the permission of the Governments? If

the Region cannot, then who does? Perhaps the question becomes a little clearer if we ask who

is the ‘primary’ customer? This allows the approach to be taken where there is a primary

customer who makes the decision to accept the services provided by the Secretariat and the

Institutions, on behalf of secondary customers.

The answer to this question is of immense importance as it determines which priorities become

the priority of the Secretariat. Interestingly, some persons argue that CARICOM and hence the


of 84

Secretariat should be focused only on areas which are of regional significance, that is, the issues

that impact the macro-economic environment in the Region as opposed to the specific

circumstances of the an individual Member State. However others believe that idiosyncratic

issues within Members States should also be the responsibility of CARICOM and the Secretariat.

It is important that a collective position providing clarity on these issues is established within

the minds of the Heads of Government, the Organs and Bodies, Government Ministers,

Member States, CARICOM Institutions, the Secretariat, citizens and International Development

Partners. Failing that, it will be impossible to ever truthfully assess the performance and the

success of CARICOM.

The Role of the Secretariat

The Role of the Secretariat is outlined in Article 23 of the Revised Treaty and is further detailed

within the Community Strategic Plan. However, one of the challenges for the Secretariat is that

some stakeholders believe that it should be more proactive. It has been suggested that the

Secretariat needs to do more to stay abreast of what is happening in each of its ‘technical’

areas and should chart the course for all Member States to follow. Furthermore it is felt that

the Secretariat should take the initiative to help to resolve areas where integration is stalled or

to bring it to the attention of the Heads of Government.

To facilitate this, the Secretariat can address its structure and function to increase the amount

of research and frequency of ‘blue sky’ thinking that takes places within CARICOM. However,

this requires resources and highlights the needs to address the issue of sustainable funding for

the Secretariat and Institutions.

From a Governance perspective, the question must be asked: what authority is embedded in

the Secretariat to really achieve this? The Secretariat’s authority is derived from that given to

the Secretary-General. The Community Strategy anticipates that specific to the Secretariat, the


of 84

executive role and function of the Secretary-General needs to be strengthened. The challenge

lies in determining how and in what areas.

The governance structure establishes the Conference of the Heads of Government as the

supreme Organ of the Community determining and providing policy direction for the

Community. The Community Council of Ministers is responsible for the development of

Community Strategic Planning and coordination of economic integration, human and social

development and external relations. Ministers within Governments make up the Organs and

Bodies which have functions as prescribed in the Treaty. The Secretariat and CARICOM

Institutions are expected to support the Principal Organs, Organs and the Bodies by providing

expertise and then later preparing governance, policies, strategies and programmes to assist

the Member States with implementation. In some instances, an Institution is established to

provide the service direct to the citizens, albeit through other institutions and businesses if the

cost-benefit of the service prohibits the development of similar organisations in every Member

State.

In determining how the authority of the Secretary-General should be augmented, consideration

can be given to what exists within similar multilateral organisations which rely on participatory

governance -loose, less binding agreements, guidelines, best practice and motivators to

influence the performance within Member States. Alternatively consideration can be given to

governance arrangements that exist in other regional organisations. As is done in the diagram

below.

TYPICAL REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS CARICOM

Owners Member States

Board of Directors Heads of Government

Strategic Board Committee Community Council

Other Board Committees Organs and Bodies

Group CEO Secretary-General

Subsidiary CEOs Heads of Institutions

Executives DSG, ASG level


of 84

Clearly, whatever decision is taken, this will require the review and adaptation of governance

not only at the level of the Secretary-General, but for all the Organs, Bodies and Institutions.

Participatory Governance

Some Organs and Bodies report weak participation by the relevant Ministers and that quite

often, alternatives are sent to the meeting who are not fully briefed and do not have the

authority to make decisions. Even if there is a sufficient quorum to make a decision, the lack of

participation by key individuals means that there is a lack of needed buy-in to ensure that the

actions arising out of the decision receive the priority needed within the Member States.

Ministers would be well within their rights to argue that they are unable to prepare sufficiently

in advance because agendas are sometimes still being produced hours before the start of

meetings. However, the self-same Ministers, must also take responsibility for adding the late

agenda items. Protocols do exist which outline the timeframes for when agendas should be

agreed and finalised but these are not always adhered to.

Within the Secretariat and the Community there is a constant level of urgency. Plagued by the

reputation of an ‘implementation deficit’, there is a rush to complete task within extremely

short time frames. This means that the required level of consultation does not take place. This

leads to persons not sufficiently reading and ventilating materials beforehand. This in turn,

prevents Ministers from being in a position to make decisions at the meetings of the Organs

and Bodies. Surprisingly, the answer to this dilemma may in fact require slower more reasoned

steps before Ministers are asked to take decisions. For example, perhaps agenda items should

be agreed and papers circulated at least three (3) months in advance of the meeting. This

would allow the Ministers to share documentation and gain in-put and buy-in at the national

level before committing the Member State officially.

No doubt, this solution may give many persons reason to pause, but the key is to ensure that

the necessary consultation and discussion takes place within the provided window at the

member state level. Since the end result of this process creates binding legal obligations (note


of 84

the decision of the CCJ in Myrie v Barbados), it is critical that Member States have sufficient

time to review and engage in consultations on proposals.

Perhaps this speaks to an evolved role for senior and programme managers in the Secretariat

and the critical role of the Committee of Ambassadors.

The Office of the General Counsel will be integrally involved in translating the decision-making

process approved by the Heads of Government into Rules of procedure for that Principal Organ

and for rolling out these procedures for the Community Council and the Organs and Bodies.

The new procedures provide for ratifying and publishing decisions, these are some of the ‘core’

processes referred to under the Business Process Review.

Regulations, Rules, Policies and Procedures

The Secretariat is governed by a series of regulations, rules, policies and procedures. The

regulations are set at the level of the Community Council while rules, policies and procedures

are set within the Secretariat. To some extent the regulations set out for the Secretariat by

Community Council move beyond Community Strategy and into the Operations of the

Secretariat. An example of this is the Staff Regulations which address matters such as

allowances and leave for employees in the junior ranks rather than affirming the Secretary-

General’s right to make rules in accordance with the values of CARICOM.

Theories of Governance (e.g. policy governance) suggests that the organs like Boards of

Directors, Board Committee and the Community Council should establish a clear differentiation

between governance and management responsibilities in organizations. As such, they should

set rules for the CEO that establish the limits of his or her authority rather than try to cover

every situation or eventuality. This allows the CEO to be held responsible for the outcome of his

or her decisions. Applying similar arguments to CARICOM, if the Secretary-General is to be held


of 84

responsible for the performance of the Secretariat, then the incumbent must be allowed to

make all decisions in relation to the Operations of the Secretariat.

This also requires a shift in thinking of the Secretary-General. Within the Secretariat, much of

the decision making is made by the Executive Management Committee, although at times the

Secretary-General may make a mandate. It is expected that this will vary according to the

personal style of the Secretary-General, however, it must be clear that decisions made at EMC

are made through authority devolved from the Secretary-General. As such, the Secretary-

General can override EMC decisions if he or she believes it is in the best interest of the

Secretariat. This underscores the need for the Community Council to utilise an appropriate

performance management process in relation the Secretary-General’s performance.

This is the tenet upon which authority can be devolved to the Executive and Senior

Management levels, supported by a robust performance management process. This will lead to

faster decision-making which in turn should engender greater initiative and proactivity within

the Secretariat.

Strengthening the Role of the Secretary-General in relation to Administrative Decisions

within Institutions

When each CARICOM Institution is conceptualised and constituted, an Inter-Governmental

Agreement is developed to establish the scope and authority of the Institution. In a few

instances, the governance structures of CARICOM Institutions acknowledge the role of the

CARICOM Organ which has a governing role. However, most do not generally provide the

Secretary-General with any direct administrative powers or authority. Thus the Secretariat

must rely on strong relationships to influence the direction of the Institutions. Attempts have

been made to achieve this by having senior managers from the Secretariat sit on the Board of


of 84

Directors of the Institutions, but not all such Directors have the power to vote and are generally

seen as observers.

If the Secretary-General is to fully conduct the role of CEO of CARICOM, a mechanism must be

found to enable the CEO to give mandatory direction to Institutions in line with CARICOM goals.

This could be achieved by altering or updating the Agreement for each Institution, changing the

role and authority of the Secretariat Board Representative and changing the role of the

Secretary-General vis a vis the budget approval process for the Institutions and their access to

International Development Partner funding. This is a piece of work which is firmly on the radar

of the Office of the General Counsel, including more rigorous systems required for enforcement

and sanctions and the inclusion of relevant provisions in the Treaty regarding Institutions, to

contribute to a more cohesive CARICOM System of institutions.

It should be noted, that these issues must be addressed in tandem with the re-engineering of

the core processes and the re-structuring of the role of the SG.

Setting Standards for Secretariat, Institutions, Bodies and Organs

Currently, most Offices and Directorates within the Secretariat recognise that it is their

responsibility to set internal protocols, standards and processes for their operation, but this is

frequently ignored unless a crisis or incident calls attention to it. Likewise, CARICOM

Institutions, Organs and Bodies take responsibility for setting their own protocols, standards

and processes over and above those set out in their Agreements and in the Revised Treaty,

respectively.

Presently, there is no single unit which is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the level

of adherence to rules, policies and internal protocols by the Secretariat, CARICOM Institutions,

Organs and Bodies against these standards.


of 84

As mentioned in the previous quadrants, there are extensive opportunities within CARICOM to

achieve economies of scale by harmonising and integrating management policies and processes

(e.g. staff rules, training and succession planning); support policies (e.g. resource mobilisation

and procurement standards) as well technical systems and frameworks. Within the context of

the Strategic Plan and implementation thereof, there is voluntary cooperation by the

Secretariat and CARICOM Institutions towards these harmonisation endeavours, but there is

more to be done. The Office of the General Counsel will play a strong role in developing SLAs,

Delegations of Authority, MOUs and Terms of Reference to facilitate this.

Managing Standards for Institutions, Bodies and Organs

Adherence to standards, internal controls and regulations is typically measured across the three

‘control’ functions: internal audit, compliance and risk management. In some smaller

organisations these functions may be performed by the same individual, but best practice

requires some degree of separation of the internal audit function from the compliance and risk

functions. Nonetheless, these three functions can and must work together.

Audit has a simpler remit “are we doing what we said we will do?” Measurements are usually

taken on a cyclical basis and different aspects are covered each year, although financial and

high risk areas may appear annually. It does not assist with the development of protocols,

policies or procedures. It asks and answers whether the procedure was followed or it was not. A

higher degree of separation is required for this function, so that they are not influenced or

pressured to alter their findings.

Compliance asks the questions “are we doing what we said we will do in the way we said we

will do it, every time”; Risk asks ‘what it the potential impact if we continue to operate like this’.

Whilst a level of independence is required, in that it is not usually recommended for this

functions to report into the ‘core’ of the organisation, unlike Audit, these functions can and


of 84

should be actively involved in the preparation of solutions, drafting of protocols, policies and

procedures.

The current Internal Audit team recognises that it has been some time since they reviewed

their approach and processes. They are due to embark on an independent assessment of their

structure and performance in line with best practice through technical assistance being

provided by CDB. The assessment will also take into consideration the goals and objective

identified within the Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan, once it is developed.

Recently the Secretariat has attempted to add a Risk function. However, it is not clear whether

this is intended to manage the risk of the Secretariat or be extended to the CARICOM

Institutions, Organs and Bodies. The Secretariat and CARICOM are both susceptible to financial,

reputational, legal, compliance and operational risks. Therefore, the Secretariat needs to

determine the right placement for this function.

Whether Risk and Compliance are merged or operated independently, both of the functions are

required for the Secretariat and CARICOM and must maintain a moderate level of

independence from the ‘Technical/Core departments.

Planned Activities

Within the development of the Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan, a position will be taken on

the some of the key questions surrounding CARICOM, based on available information. The

input of key stakeholders will be elicited through circulation and discussions on the draft

document. The draft document is expected to be developed in January 2016 and circulation and

discussion will take place thereafter. The Committee of Ambassadors will be integral in this

process.


of 84

As part of the job analysis and evaluation of the Secretary-General’s role and Office, the

Secretariat will consult with key stakeholders to determine that type of authority that should be

established for the Secretary-General. Further consultations will need to take place with the

Institutions and other stakeholders to determine the optimal mechanism to achieve the level of

participation and accountability that is required.

Reengineering the Business Process will reveal changes that might be required within the

governance of the Organs, Bodies and within the Secretariat, to realise the efficiencies that are

required. These are likely to available in September of 2016. At that time, the Office of the

General Counsel will provide guidance on how these changes should be addressed.

The Work Programme of the Office of the General Counsel has included a number of activities

to address the Governance Pillar within the Community Strategy. These include a review of the

Agreements and Governance of the Institutions to achieve an enabling environment for

coordinated management across the Regional Integration Architecture and further revision of

the Treaty.

In addition, the Inter-governmental Task Force (IGTF) is currently reviewing the policies in

relation to government procurement with a view to standardising the processes and ensuring

equal opportunity for organisations within the Region. High on the agenda and concurrent with

Article 239 of the revised treaty, the Secretariat plans to establish further protocols and

strengthen existing protocols to outline the authority and role in decision-making for Inter-

Governmental Task Forces (IGTFs), to establish the treatment of goods grown in free zones and

govern electronic commerce within the Region. So ensuring that the integration agenda is being

managed concurrently with the reform.

SECRETARIAT REFORMATION FRAMEWORK NEXT STEPS

of 84

TIMELINE

This section provides a broad timeline for the Reform Process and this is captured in the

diagram below.

Preliminary Review

The Preliminary review was completed between mid-July and mid-October. The results led to

the development of this the Draft Reformation Framework Document. An initial iteration of the

Reformation Framework Document was discussed at a Joint Internal EMC-SMC meeting on

31 October and 6 November 2015.

Reformation Framework Document

The draft Reformation Framework Document having taken into consideration comments made

by the Secretariat’s Senior and Executive Management was shared with the Committee of

Ambassadors in November. This iteration being presented to Community Council takes into


of 84

consideration the comments and suggestions that were made. In particular to speak more

expressly to the communication around the Reformation.

The Strategic Business Plan for the Secretariat

The Development of the Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan will take place between

November 2015 and February 2016. The Secretariat’s Strategic Business Plan will set priorities,

focus energy and resources for the Secretariat taking into consideration its operational

constraints relating to the goals and priorities expressed within the Community Strategic Plan. It

will enable the Secretariat to better coordinate its activities in line with CARICOM and other

Stakeholders, ensuring we are all working toward common goals and agreed outcomes.

Implementing the Strategic Business Plan, strengthens the management process which allows

the Secretariat to adjust its direction in response to a changing environment more efficiently

and effectively. Another benefit which can be quickly realised is a tighter alignment between

the work programme and the budget. In this way, it will be possible to quickly translate a

decision made by Community Council about the budget into the inclusion, exclusion or shift in

timelines of a project or initiative affecting the outcomes of the work programme.

Organisational Assessment

The timelines provided on the next page provide an overview of the activities which will be

taking place in each quadrant from December 2015 to 2016. It should be noted that these

timelines are dependent on the resourcing requirements for the CMO being fully met, both in

terms of staffing and funds to support consultancies. Delays in either will result in delays in the

deliverables outlined.

Seven organisational assessments will be conducted starting in November 2015 within the

Secretariat:

I. An employee engagement survey;


of 84

II. Job Analysis and Evaluation of the executive and senior management roles and

competency evaluation of position holders;

III. An Internal Service Review

IV. Business Process Review;

V. Job Analysis and evaluation of all other management and non-management roles;

VI. IT and technology assessment of all systems, hardware, software and infrastructure; and

VII. Competency evaluation of all position holders

Upon completion of all assessments, options for the restructure of the Secretariat – strategy,

people, processes, technology and governance - will be proposed and discussed first with the

Secretariat’s management and the Secretary-General.

Transition Document

This document will include changes to recommended philosophies, processes, structures and

culture. Based on the direction approved by the Secretary-General, options for implementing

the changes will be given.

It should be expected, that the Secretariat assessments may reveal a number of ‘quick wins’

which can be achieved in a short time frame with minimal investment. These quick wins can be

implemented even before the full assessments are completed. On the other hand, significant

changes will need to be ratified by the Community Council and Conference.

Assessment of Community Institutions

Similarly to the Secretariat, we propose that a series of Institutional assessments start in the

latter end of 2016.

I. Assessment of the Mission and Terms of Reference


of 84

This will focus on reviewing the organisation against its mission and its terms of reference

governing its purpose. The intent is to determine whether the Institution is delivering against its

primary mandate, whether the mandate needs to be changed and it so how. The results of this

assessment will produce greater strategic alignment between the Institution and the

Community

II. Internal Management

The assessment of the internal management will determine if the organisation has the

leadership, skills, competence and processes to be successful in its mission. Employee

engagement surveys can also be used here.

III. An Internal Service & Business Process Review

This assessment will help the Institution to review the internal collaboration and the

effectiveness of its processes. Where appropriate we will seek to standardise processes within

the Secretariat and the Institutions. During this phase the technology (systems, hardware,

software and infrastructure) to support the processes within each Institution will be reviewed.

It should be noted that the technology mapping exercise scheduled for Jan – Mar 2016, will

highlight opportunities for early synergies.

IV. Internal Structures, Knowledge and Competence

In this final assessment, we will reviews the structures and make recommendation to enable

more efficient, effective operations within the Institutions.

Implementation

The length of time for implement will vary for both the Secretariat and the Community

Institutions depending on the reforms that are recommended. It should be expected that


of 84

where reforms require changes to the governance frameworks, then more time may be

required to implement. This is expected to be concluded by June 2018.


of 84

Timelines for CCS Reform Process 2015-2016

Change Quadrants

STRATEGY PEOPLE PROCESS GOVERNANCE TECHNOLOGY

Q4 2015 Strategic Business Plan

(8-10) Weeks

Executive/ Senior Management Assessments

(1-3) Weeks

Technology Mapping Secretariat & Institutions (6-8) Weeks

Executive/ Senior Management Job Analysis/

Evaluation (8) Weeks

Outline Additional SG Authority

(2-4 Weeks)

Q1 2016 M & E for Community and CCS Strategic Plans

(4-8) Weeks

Employee Engagement Survey (2015) (4-6) Weeks

Technology Assessment & Feasibility Secretariat

(6-8) Weeks

Q2 2016

Recommend the M&E Methodology

Executive & Management Coaching & Team Building

(2-4) Weeks

Internal Service Review (2-4) Weeks

Governance Assessment (2) Months

IT Quick Wins & upskilling for all

employees (6-8) Weeks

Build the M&E Methodology

Business Process Review (3-6) Months

Policy Review (3-6) Months

Q3 2016

Q4 2016

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ON STRUCTURES, PROCESSES, TECHNOLOGY & GOVERNANCE

Complete Design and Implement plan for the

Strategic Framework

Staff Job Analysis/ Evaluation and

Compensation Restructure (2-3) Months

Complete Design and Implementation plan for Re-

engineered Processes

Revision of the Treaty and Institutions’

Charter (6-8) Months

Complete Design and Implementation plan

for Technology Solutions

IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREED REFORMED STRUCTURE, PROCESSES, TECHOLOGY AND GOVERNANCE

Q1 2017

REVIEW OF THE INSTITUTIONS Q2 2017

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ON STRUCTURES, PROCESSES, TECHNOLOGY & GOVERNANCE FOR INSTITUTIONS

Q3 2017 IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREED REFORMED STRUCTURE, PROCESSES, TECHOLOGY AND GOVERNANCE FOR INSTITUTIONS

Q4 2017