UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND

ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET / FEEDBACK FORM

MBA

Declaration and copyright

I, Joyce Mulekye Kasyoki, Sunderland university registration number: 19906980804,

declare that I am the sole author of this dissertation, that during the period of registered study

I have not been registered for other academic award or qualification, nor has any of the

material been submitted wholly or partly for any other award. This dissertation is a result of

my own research work, and where other people‘s research was used, they have been dully

acknowledged.

Date…………………………….. Signature ……………………………

Joyce Mulekye Kasyoki

CANDIDATE

Student ID: 19906980804 Student Name: Joyce Mulekye Kasyoki

Module Code: PGBM31

Module Name: MBA Dissertation

Due 13 May, 2011 Centre / College: Intel College, Nairobi Kenya Hand in Date: 13 May, 2011

Assessment Title: Assessment of employee perceptions on decentralisation of shared services: A case study of

World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF

Learning Outcomes Assessed:

Learning Outcomes Assessed:

Feedback relating learning outcomes assessed and assessment criteria given to students:

Mark:

Areas for Improvement:

General Comments:

Assessors Signature: Overall Mark (subject to ratification by the assessment board)

Moderators Signature:

Students Signature: (you must sign this declaring that it is all your own work and all sources of information have been referenced)

ii

Declaration

I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been presented to any

institution or university other than the University of Sunderland for academic credit. I further

declare that I followed all the applicable ethical guidelines in the conduct of the research.

Signed..................................................................Date..........................................................

Joyce Mulekye Kasyoki. Registration Number 19906980804

This dissertation has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed

supervisor

Signed..................................................................Date..........................................................

Dr. Amos Njuguna

iii

Abstract

Decentralisation of shared services is an important strategic tool because it standardises

business processes and operational procedures, reduces costs and optimises operational

efficiency in a way that enhances compliance with regulatory requirements and better

services to the customers. The purpose of this study was to assess the employees‘ perceptions

on decentralisation of shared services model for ICRAF. The study used a case study of

ICRAF to bring out the benefits of decentralising shared services, determine the criteria that

should guide decentralisation, establish the challenges to decentralisation, determine the

factors that influence effectiveness of decentralisation and to craft strategies that can enhance

decentralisation of shared services. Stratified random sampling was used to select 118

employees from ICRAF payroll of whom 84 responded to the survey. Data was analyzed by

use of descriptive statistics and one way ANOVA.

The study shows that the benefits of decentralisation are standardization of operations,

streamlining, and consolidating common business functions and processes in an organisation

in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness with both cost reduction and overall

profitability in mind. Other benefits include enhanced cross-regional collaborations,

performance without strong supervision, staff motivation and reduced bureaucracy.

The study further discloses the criteria that should guide decentralisation as providing staff

with clearly defined objectives, clarity on services that are to be shared, identified core

competencies, agreed tasks to be identified and ensuring that qualified and capable team

leaders are available among others.

The challenges to implementation of decentralisation of shared services as determined by the

study are constraints by poor management skills, insufficient budgets, job losses, resistance to

change, lack of understanding of staff role, time to train staff on decentralisation, duplication

of services and changes in work policy as well as inadequate facilities.

The strategies that can be put in place to enhance implementation of decentralisation of shared

services are 1). Communication strategy — a clear, simple communication with staff: top-down-

top is key to success. 2). Staff development plans: organisations must invest in training staff to

equip them into taking up new roles and 3). Transparent work policies — this would lead to

iv

significant efficiency gains and increase the time spent by Centre resources on more strategic

functions and core research activities.

The study recommends enhanced managerial training so as to build adequate capacity for the

decentralised structure. The organisation should clearly define the decentralisation process

provide simple updates to all staff in addition to carrying out awareness campaigns. Most

importantly, the organisation needs to create consultation and e-groups for staff in the regions

for ease of processes integration.

Keywords:

Decentralisation, Centralisation, Shared Services, Attitudes, Change, Efficiency, Cost

Saving, Creativity, Innovation and Organisational culture, Resource sharing, Customer

service.

v

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I acknowledge my God in Heaven for his favour throughout my research.

Secondly, to my husband and best friend Richard Kasyoki for his invaluable support,

patience, motivation and encouragement never to give up. To my bundle of joy Irene, Ian and

Halima for giving me the desire and a big push to catch up with them and to push ahead –

thanks for your patience too and for giving me space to study. I must admit that keeping up

with the young has been a challenge but it‘s been a great joy. To the special women in my

life (they know themselves) giving up was not an answer to them. I thank you very much.

To my immediate family members, Intel College Director and Management Team, my

colleagues in Cohort (4) at Intel, my boss Dr. Peter Minang and my very special ICRAF

colleagues (they know themselves) your support is beyond words description and expressions

– thank you.

To my Masters in Business Administration, (MBA) degree course supervisor, Dr. Amos

Njuguna it would have not been possible without your unconditional support and invaluable

guidance at every step. You have made it possible for me to bridge the knowledge gap.

Thank you.

To my dedicated employees both in my town home and at the farm in Kibwezi – thank you

for your understanding and patience throughout my research. I would also like to offer my

thanks to all World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) staff who filled out the research

questionnaire and gave extra feedback even when not required to. To my friends, social

networks and relatives to whom I have not been available as much as I wanted while I was

confined in my world of reviews, I apologize in advance and thank you for your

understanding and care at all times. The list is endless, feel acknowledged as you read

through.

Thank you all!

vi

Dedication

I dedicate this work to my dear late mother Mrs. Tabitha Munyasya. Mama you were and

still you remain very special to me, you gave me the best values in life including education.

Even in your last days at the Nairobi Hospital, Kenya in 2006, you encouraged me to go back

to school and study. You showed me invaluable love always. Your special words as you

called me echoed throughout out my MBA study and this has remained my strong hold

―soma Mama Mukui mwiitu wakwa, soma vyu‖ meaning read my daughter read and until you

can read no more........ Mama you are irreplaceable.

Mama you were the queen of my heart. I love you, mom continue to sleep well in Jesus.

To my dad – I have accomplished a milestone that you have always wanted me to complete.

I thank you for your encouragement and love in life. Thanks dad; you are the best ever!

To my best friend and the love of my life Richard, our two children Irene and Ian. Thank you

for being there at all times for me. Your love and support is irrevocable, and this is my hope

and strength.

vii

Table of Contents

ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET / FEEDBACK FORM ................................................................................ i Declaration and copyright .................................................................................................................................... i Declaration ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. iii Keywords: .......................................................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ........................................................................................................................................................... v

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................. vii List of figures ......................................................................................................................................................... x List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ v Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1.1 About the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry ........................................................... 3 1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Purpose of the Research ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Specific Objectives................................................................................................................................ 4

1.4.1 To determine the benefits of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF. .................................... 4 1.4.2 To determine the criteria that should guide the decentralisation process at ICRAF. ........................ 4 1.4.3 To determine the challenges to implementation of decentralised shared services at ICRAF. .......... 5

1.5 Justification ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Scope of the Research ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.7 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................................... 6

1.7.1 Decentralisation ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.7.2 Shared Services ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.7.3 Organisational Structure ................................................................................................................... 6 1.7.4 Business Unit .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.7.5 Decentralised Shared Services Model............................................................................................... 6

1.8 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Benefits of Decentralisation .................................................................................................................. 8

2.2.1 Faster Delivery of Services ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Staff Motivation ................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.3 Frees Senior Management from Day to Day Tasks .......................................................................... 9 2.2.4 Elimination of Bureaucracy .............................................................................................................. 9 2.2.5 Reduction of Overhead Costs ......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.6 Elimination of Redundant Employees and Facility ........................................................................ 10 2.2.7 Staff are More Customer Focused .................................................................................................. 11 2.2.8 Business Unit Autonomy Enhancement ......................................................................................... 11 2.2.9 Alignment of Staff to the Organisation Structure ........................................................................... 12 2.2.10 Cross-Regional Collaboration of Shared Services...................................................................... 12

2.3 Decentralisation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Clearly Defined Objectives ................................................................................................................. 13 2.3.2 Clarity on Services to be Shared ......................................................................................................... 13

2.3.3. Agreement on Tasks to be Decentralised Beforehand .................................................................... 13 2.3.4 Identification of Core Competencies .............................................................................................. 14 2.3.5 Clarity on Functions to be Decentralised ........................................................................................ 14 2.3.6 Clarity on Functions to be Centralised ............................................................................................ 14 2.3.7 Vision, Scope and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 15 2.3.8 Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.9 Geographic Location....................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.10 Leaders in the Organisation ........................................................................................................ 16 2.3.11 Volume of Work ......................................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Challenges to Decentralisation of Shared Services ............................................................................. 16 2.4.1. Inadequate Management Skills ....................................................................................................... 17 2.4.2 Potential Job Loss ........................................................................................................................... 17

viii

2.4.3 Resistance to Change ...................................................................................................................... 17 2.4.4 Time to Train on Decentralisation .................................................................................................. 18 2.4.5 Additional Work Load in Certain Departments .............................................................................. 18 2.4.6 Lack of Understanding by Staff of Role in the Decentralised Set Up ............................................ 19 2.4.7 Lack of Finance .............................................................................................................................. 19 2.4.8 Duplication of Services ................................................................................................................... 19 2.4.9 Changes in Work Policy ................................................................................................................. 20 2.4.10 Changes in Organisational Culture ............................................................................................. 20 2.4.11 Inadequate Facilities ................................................................................................................... 21

2.5 Ensuring Effective Decentralisation .................................................................................................... 21 2.5.1 Development of Concrete Policies to Effectuate Shared Services at ICRAF ................................. 21 2.5.2 Timely Communication to Staff on Workforce Turnover .............................................................. 23 2.5.3 Communication to Staff on the Financial Status of the Centre ....................................................... 23 2.5.4 Preparedness in Managing the Change Process .............................................................................. 24 2.5.5 Strong Leadership in the Decentralisation Process at HQ level ...................................................... 24 2.5.6 Strong Leadership at the Level of Decentralised Units................................................................... 25 2.5.7 Transparent Procedures and Guidance on Process .......................................................................... 25 2.5.8 Adequate Funds Allocated to Support the Decentralisation Process From the Onset .................... 25 2.5.9 Senior Leadership Team and Global Research Coordinators ......................................................... 25 2.5.10 Ensure that Differences in Geographic Conditions are Considered ........................................... 25 2.5.11 Ensure Decentralisation Process Aligns to ICRAF‘s Mission and Vision ................................. 26 2.5.12 Automation of ICRAF (internet and intranet) ............................................................................ 26 2.5.13 Staff Involvement in the Decentralisation Process ..................................................................... 27 2.5.14 Changing the Organisation Structure to Reflect the Newly Decentralised Units ....................... 27 2.5.15 Avoid Discrimination (location, gender, race, age, religion) on Placement of Staff .................. 28 2.5.16 Constantly Update Staff on Status of the Decentralisation Process ........................................... 28 2.6 Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................................... 29

2.7 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................................................... 31 3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLGY ........................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Research Philosophy ........................................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Research Design .................................................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Population ........................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5 Sampling and Sampling Design .......................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1 Sample Frame ..................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.2 Sample Size ......................................................................................................................................... 33 3.6 Research area ...................................................................................................................................... 33 3.6.1 Inclusion criteria ................................................................................................................................. 34 3.6.2 Exclusion criteria ................................................................................................................................ 34 3.7 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 34 3.7.1 Data Collection Instrument ................................................................................................................. 34 3.7.2 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................................. 35 3.9 Ethical considerations ......................................................................................................................... 35 3.10 Research limitations ............................................................................................................................ 35 3.11 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................................ 37 4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 37 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 37

4.2.1 Gender ............................................................................................................................................ 37 4.2.2 Age of the Respondents .................................................................................................................. 38

CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................................................. 76 5.0 Discussion, Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 76 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 76 5.2 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................... 76 5.3 Empirical Results in Relation to Previous Research Findings ............................................................ 78 5.3.1 Benefits of Decentralisation of Shared Services ................................................................................. 78 5.3.2 Critical Success Factors for Decentralisation of Shared Services ....................................................... 78 5.3.3. Challenges to the Decentralisation of Shared Services ....................................................................... 78 5.3.4 Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services ................................................................ 79 5.4 Communicative Validity of the Results .............................................................................................. 79

ix

5.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 85 5.5.3 Challenges to Decentralisation of Shared Services ............................................................................. 86 5.5.4 Strategies to enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services ................................................................. 86 5.6. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 86 5.6.1 Measures for Immediate Implementation ............................................................................................ 86 5.6.2 Short Term Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 87 5.6.3 Long Term Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 87

x

List of tables

Table 3.1 Distribution of Respondent across sample categories .................................................... 32

Table 4.1: Benefits of Decentralisation……………………………………..................................... 44

Table 4.2: Differences in Perceptions of the Benefits of Decentralisation…................................... 46

Table 4.3: Post Hoc Analysis on Enhancing Standardization of Procedures by Region using

Tukey Method.................................................................................................................................. 47

Table 4.4: Post Hoc Analysis on Reducing Bureaucracy by Area of Specialization using Tukey

Method............................................................................................................................................. 48

Table 4.5: Post Hoc Analysis on Re-alignment of the organisational structure to better support

the strategic direction of ICRAF by Duty Station............................................................................. 49

Table 4.6: Important Steps in Decentralisation of Shared Services.................................................. 52

Table 4.7: Differences in Perceptions of the Important Steps in the Decentralisation of Shared

Services at ICRAF............................................................................................................................ 53

Table 4.8: Post Hoc Analysis on Region using the Tukey Method.................................................. 54

Table 4.9: Post Hoc Analysis on Job classification using the Tukey Method.................................. 55

Table 4.10: Post Hoc Analysis on Area of Specialization using the Tukey

Method................................................................................................ ............................................. 57

Table 4.11: Decentralisation challenges........................................................................................... 59

Table 4.12: ANOVA on the Challenges of Decentralizing Shared Services at

ICRAF................................................................................................ ............................................. 60

Table 4.13: Post Hoc Analysis on Time to train on decentralisation as a challenge of

decentralisation by age .................................................................................................................... 61

Table 4.14: Post Hoc Analysis on Challenges by Region using the Tukey Method

.......................................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 4. 1: Post Hoc Analysis of the Challenges by Education Level .......................................... 63

Table 4.16: Post Hoc Analysis Challenges by Duty Station – Resistance to Change

................................................................................................................... ...................................... 64

Table 4.17: Strategies to enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services ......................................... 66

Table 4.18: ANOVA on the Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services

.......................................................................................................................................................... 68

Table 4.19: Post Hoc Analysis for Factors for Effective Decentralisation – Work Experience and

Area of Specialization ..................................................................................................................... 69

Table 4.20: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Age......................................... 70

Table 4. 21: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Region................................... 71

Table 4.22: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Duty Station Avoiding

Discrimination.................................................................................................................................. 72

Table 4.23: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Area of Specialization............ 74

xi

List of figures

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework. Source: Author, 2011 .................................................................................. 29

Figure 4. 1: Gender distribution of respondents ................................................................................................... 37

Figure 4.2: Age distribution of respondents ......................................................................................................... 38

Figure 4.3: Regions of study respondents ............................................................................................................. 39

Figure 4. 4: Educational qualifications of respondents ......................................................................................... 40

Figure 4.5: Job classifications of respondents ...................................................................................................... 40

Figure 4. 6: Duty stations of respondents ............................................................................................................. 41

Figure 4. 7: Work experience (years) of ICRAF respondents .............................................................................. 42

Figure 4. 8: Area of staff specialisation ................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 4. 9: ICRAF‘s organisational structure does not reflect its decentralised nature of operation .................. 43

xii

Acronyms

ADP Accenture Development Partnerships

AITEC Africa‘s development of ICT

ALGA Australian Local Government Association

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

ANU Australia National University

BOT Board of Trustees

BPO Business Process Outsourcing

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CG Consultative Group

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

GRPLs Global Research Project Leaders

GRPs Global Research Projects

HRU Human Resource Unit

HRS Human Resources Strategy

ICRAF International Centre for Research and Agroforestry

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

IRS International Recruited Staff

IS Information Services

IT Information Technology

MBA Masters in Business Administration

NRS National Recruited Staff

PhD Doctor of Philosophy

PPM Personnel Policy Manual

PwC PriceWaterhouseCoopers

R&D Research and Development

ROI Return On Investments

SLT Senior Leadership Team

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SRF Strategy and Results Framework

SSUs Shared Service Units

TU Training Unit

WALGA Western Australian Local Government Association

1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

For many companies, the pressure from the current global financial recession means cutting

down on expenditure and leveraging on economies of scale. One of the avenues to the

achievement of these objectives is the decentralisation of shared services. The move towards

decentralisation of shared services began in the 1980s and has been accelerating ever since

(Beard, 2004; Oracle White Paper, 2001). Decentralisation aims to achieve cost reduction,

better service delivery and best practices in delivering internal services to users (Goold,

Pettifer, and Young 2001; Benassi, 2002). Decentralized shared services generally involve

removing work activities from business units then standardising and consolidating the way in

which those services are delivered to provide value to the business units in the form of

reduced overall general and accounting costs and increased service performance. The bottom

line is that decentralised shared services are designed to organise and deliver internal support

services more efficiently and effectively. With decentralisation, organisations have to get rid

of structures that are highly concentrated and substitute them with independent business units

each running its own administrative services. Decentralisation thus encourages specialization

and hence lesser time is taken in producing management reports. In a decentralised shared

service environment therefore, an organisation pulls activities that support core business

processes out of each business unit and consolidates them into a separate operating unit that

runs these supporting processes as its core business process, (Longton and Robbins, 2007;

Kreklow and Kinney, 2007).

Bergeron (2003); Crusciolo and Narula (2007) argue that the decentralised shared services

model is not without its limitations. Bergeron mentions some of the limitations as creation of

multiple centers of power, unnecessary departmental competition, duplication of activities,

application to large organisations only and if not checked, may lead to increased operating

costs. Bergeron thus advises that to achieve a successful decentralised shared services model

implementation requires attentiveness to the corporate culture, the addition of the appropriate

technologies to the mix and investing the time and resources to manage employee

expectations.

According to Bergeron (2003), the decentralised shared services model is fundamentally

about managing resources to improve internal services and enhance the competitiveness of

2

the parent organisation. In many aspects, decentralisation is a hybrid approach that shares

characteristics with more traditional models such as centralisation (for example access to the

latest technology, economies of scale, and downsizing), decentralisation (for example

customer focus and ability to better meet customer needs), and outsourcing (for example

offloading of non-strategic activities).

A number of international organisations, such as the Consultative Group on International

Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (Accenture, 2009) and PriceWaterHouseCoopers (PwC,

2005), practising Decentralisation of Shared Services models and are successful. Many

multi-divisional firms have been moving towards Decentralisation of Shared Services since

the early 1990s (Quinn, Cooke and Kris, (2000). Large organisations such as the BBC,

Bristol Myers Squibb, Ford, GE, HP, Pfizer and Rolls-Royce operate Decentralisation of

Shared Services with great success (Quinn et.al, 2000). A survey by the English Institute of

Chartered Accountants found that more than 30% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies have

implemented a shared service centre, and are reporting cost savings in their general

accounting functions of up to 46%. (Quinn et.al, 2000). However, not every implementation

of shared services is a success. A failing shared service operation not provide the high-quality

services it should to the business in a cost effective, customer-centric fashion, it will not

exhibit the best-in-class attributes of successful shared service operations such as leveraging

standardized processed and core technology and will not run with an energetic, highly

motivated team (Farrel, 2004).

Governments and NGOs have not been left behind as far as Decentralisation of Shared

Services is concerned (De Vries, 2000; Akai and Masayo, 2002). In Kenya, the first

outsourcing and decentralised shared services forum for NGOs and development partners was

organized by AITEC Africa in June 2009. The event brought together over 250

representatives of NGOs and development partners as well as Business Process Outsourcing

(BPO) service providers (AITEC, 2009). Some of the outstanding case studies on shared

services highlighted were: (1) NetHope, a unique collaboration of 28 of the world's leading

international humanitarian organisations working together to solve common problems in the

developing world and serving tens of millions of end beneficiaries each year in over 150

countries. Its affiliates include Action Aid, Catholic Relief Services and World Vision, all of

which have regional and country offices operating in Kenya; (2) Soma-source, linking US-

based aid organisations and development agencies with BPO operators in Africa; (3) The

3

Shared Service partnership between ICRAF and ILRI that highlighted potential benefits such

as turning fixed costs to variable costs (transport and catering), flexibility of choice (service

and providers), enabling setting of minimum performance standards as well as allowing high

independence

1.1.1 About the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

In the year 2002, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry rebranded as World

Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). ICRAF was retained as the official acronym for identification.

The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) is an autonomous, non-profit research organisation

whose vision is a rural transformation in the developing world where smallholder households

strategically increase their use of trees in agricultural landscapes to improve food security,

nutrition, income, health, shelter, energy resources and environmental sustainability. The

Centre generates science-based knowledge about the diverse role that trees play in

agricultural landscapes, and uses its research to advance policies and practices that benefit the

poor and the environment, (ICRAF Strategy, 2008-2015).

ICRAF is one of the 15 centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR). Headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, it operates in six regions of the world

namely - Eastern Africa, Latin America, South Asia, Southern Africa, South East Asia and

West & Central Africa. The regional offices are located in Kenya, Brazil, India, Malawi,

Indonesia, Cameroon and Mali. The World Agroforestry Centre conducts research in

eighteen other countries around the developing world as it is documented in (ICRAF

Strategy, 2008-2015).

The CGIAR is a strategic Alliance of countries, international and regional organisations and

private foundations supporting 15 international agricultural Centers that work with national

agricultural research systems and civil society organisations including the private sector. The

alliance mobilizes agricultural science to reduce poverty, foster human well-being, promote

agricultural growth and protect the environment. The CGIAR generates global public goods

that are available to all, (CGIAR Strategy, 2005).

ICRAF receives funding from over 50 different governments, private foundations,

international organisations and regional development banks. Its current top ten donors are

Canada, the European Union, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),

4

Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States of

America and the World Bank (ICRAF audited financial report, 2009-2010).

ICRAF‘s vision (ICRAF, 2006) is a rural transformation in the developing world where

smallholder households strategically increase their use of trees in agricultural landscapes to

improve food security, nutrition, income, health, shelter, energy resources and environmental

sustainability (ICRAF Strategy, 2008-2015).

ICRAF‘s mission is to generate science-based knowledge about the diverse roles trees play in

agricultural landscapes and to use its research to advance policies and practices to benefit the

poor and the environment (ICRAF Strategy, 2008-2015).

1.2 Problem Statement

Empirical studies focus on the rationale for decentralisation with less focus on

implementation and the challenges that befall managers in their attempt to decentralise

(Kreklow, and Kinney, 2010 p.1-2). Accenture (2009) in their evaluation of the 15 CGIAR

Centres, found that organisations today are adopting the decentralisation of shared services

model to maximise on its benefits. It is CGIAR‘s desire to see its 15 centres including ICRAF

adopting this model. However, it is necessary to carry out an assessment among ICRAF staff

to get views on decentralisation of shared services. There is lack of knowledge and data on

the nature, structure, functions and outcomes of the organisational decentralisation processes,

especially in some CGIAR Centres. The explicit objective of this study is to address the

knowledge gap by considering the benefits of decentralisation and the criteria that should

guide such efforts. The study also adds to the existing literature as it identifies the critical

success factors for decentralisation and develops strategies that can enhance application of

decentralisation of shared services in an international organisation.

1.3 Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this study is to assess decentralisation of shared services model for ICRAF.

1.4 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the research are:-

1.4.1 To determine the benefits of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF.

1.4.2 To determine the criteria that should guide the decentralisation process at

5

ICRAF.

1.4.3 To determine the challenges to implementation of decentralised shared

services at ICRAF.

1.4.4 To establish the measures that can be put in place to enhance implementation

of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF.

1.5 Justification

This study is of importance to the following stakeholders;

1.5.1 ICRAF Staff

Decentralisation of shared services will enhance staff collaboration, performance without

strong supervision, staff motivation and will reduce bureaucracy.

1.5.2 ICRAF Management

Decentralisation of shared services will ensure that level of responsibility is maintained,

facilitate transparent and timely decision making hence freeing management time to focus on

the research agenda.

1.5.3 Other international organisations

The findings of the study can be applied to other international organisations, especially those

with a similar core business and structure to ICRAF.

1.5.4. Future Researchers

The research will contribute to existing literature and theories of decentralisation of shared

services and this will be added value to interested parties.

1.5.5 Donors

Decentralisation is given the responsibility for cost reductions and this cost cutting move

presents a good success indicator for donors to increase investments to the work of ICRAF.

1.6 Scope of the Research

The research only focuses on ICRAF functions and therefore excludes other international

organisations. The research was conducted within the organisational setting and respondents

were selected among a cross section of employees covering National and International Recruited

6

Staff (NRS and IRS) at the headquarters in Nairobi and those at Regional Offices across the

world.

1.7 Definition of Terms

The following terms are used in this research.

1.7.1 Decentralisation

This is the systematic delegation of authority at all levels of management and in the entire

organisation (Quinn et.al, 2000).

1.7.2 Shared Services

This is a collaborative strategy in which a subset of existing business functions are concentrated

into a new semi-autonomous business unit that has a management structure designed to promote

efficiency, value generation, cost savings and improved service for the internal customers on the

parent corporation like a business competing in the open market (Bergeron, 2003).

1.7.3 Organisational Structure

This is the way within which an organisation arranges its lines of authority and

communications, and allocates rights and duties. Organisational structure determines the

manner and extent to which roles, power, and responsibilities are delegated, controlled, and

coordinated, and how information flows between levels of management (Mintzberg, 1981).

1.7.4 Business Unit

It is part of an organisation that operates as a distinct function, department, division, or stand-

alone business. Business units are usually treated as a separate profit center within the overall

business.(Rao, 2006).

1.7.5 Decentralised Shared Services Model

According to Economist Intelligence Unit (1998), this model apportions standardized and

consolidated business functions or processes with a service mentality to ensure effective

operation. The model helps organisations to save costs, increase available time for value-

added activities in line positions, improve measurement capability, and achieve better service

quality due to a more focused management attention.

7

1.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter has detailed the background to the study, identified the research problem as the

knowledge gap on the effectiveness of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF and

identified the research objectives as the determination of benefits and challenges to the

decentralisation of shared services and the development of strategies to enhance

decentralisation. The study is of great importance to the ICRAF members of staff,

management, scholars and donors.

Chapter two reviews literature on the subject, chapter three addresses the research

methodology, chapter four discloses the findings of the study while chapter five draws

pertinent conclusions on the topic.

8

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings of previous studies on the benefits, challenges, and

criteria to guide decentralization and the critical success factors to implementation of

decentralised shared services. The chapter concludes by reviewing the conceptual framework

that guided the study.

2.2 Benefits of Decentralisation

Empirical studies identify the benefits of decentralisation as; faster delivery of services, staff

motivation, frees senior management from day-to-day tasks, elimination of bureaucracy,

reduction of overhead costs, elimination of redundant employees and facility, staff are more

customer focussed, business unit autonomy enhancement, alignment of staff to the

organisation structure and cross-regional collaboration of shared services. Each of these

benefits are discussed in turn.

2.2.1 Faster Delivery of Services

According to Bergeron (2003) the shared services model is about optimizing people, capital,

time and other corporate resources. Accenture (2009) adds that decentralisation of shared

services enhances faster delivery, quality and effectiveness of all services as they provide

enhanced support to staff, programmes and the consortium in general. The rapid globalization

of business; with deregulation of world markets makes shared services a powerful facilitating

tool for global expansion (Shah, 1998). Shah adds that decentralisation increases the

efficiency of the provision of these services, and strengthens delivery systems and impact of

the consortium research agenda through appropriate shared service delivery mechanisms,

including the possibility to outsource some of these services and functions for effectiveness

and efficiency.

2.2.2 Staff Motivation

Decentralization of shared services contributes to a feel good factor in an organisation as

tasks are leveraged based on specialization (Bergeron, 2003). According to Bergeron, staff

are motivated as the firm cuts costs, increasing the quality of the back-end services and

9

freeing management to focus on the organisation‘s core competencies. Less motivation

behind the initiative is may be to move part of the management team away from core

business unit and send it into political exile (Bergeron, 2003). Similarly, since

decentralisation lends itself to innovative accounting practices, the model may be appealing

and motivating to members of senior management who are under pressure to move their

company to a greater profitability in the market argues Bergeron.

When considered alongside the work done by Janssen and Joha (2006), the structure can be

seen to receive depth from their focus on the motivation for shared services while adding

breadth to it. As it stands the structure characteristic of strategy has economies of scale as the

only motivation. Janssen and Joha (2006) not only provide greater detail regarding the

specifics of such a motivation, for example the importance of the predictability of costs as

well as their absolute value but also does identify other realms of motivation such as political

and technical. At the same time, outline dimensions such as structure and management

provide potential mechanisms through which motives they suggest such as solving internal

conflicts in an organisation can be realised.

2.2.3 Frees Senior Management from Day to Day Tasks

The purpose of implementing decentralisation of shared services in an organisation is to

reduce costs, time spent on managerial and administrative functions and increase quality,

accuracy and timeliness of information (Oracle White Paper, 2001). Bergeron (2003)

concludes that the decentralised shared-service model is designed to improve the

effectiveness and quality of performance of senior managers by allowing them ample time to

focus on core business activities rather than micro managing staff in administrative matters.

The model also increases collaboration and knowledge sharing within and across the business

units through the introduction of standards and collaboration tools. Increased productivity and

efficiencies of research support, administrative and financial services through use of common

templates leads to good practices and collaboration tools for doing the work easily,

overcoming workload and burnout within top management.

2.2.4 Elimination of Bureaucracy

According to Melchior (2007) decentralization of shared services is instrumental in

eliminating red tape in the performance of specific internal services such as payroll, accounts

payable, and travel and expense processing. The model thus equips organisations with a

10

flexible tool for elimination of bureaucracies, improving processes, generating profits, and

reducing costs.

Quinn, Cooke and Kris, (2000) document that shared services enable companies to retain

internal control of core functions while still maximizing cost efficiency without interruption

of the systems in place. According to Ulbrich (2006); Longwood and Harris (2007) the

concept of decentralised shared services is that back-office services are classified within a

single area for provision across an entire organisation thus easing on the office politics and

the need to transverse various management channels to have a simple task executed.

2.2.5 Reduction of Overhead Costs

Janssen and Joha (2006) suggest that shared services can offer multiple benefits to the public

sector and international organizations such as reducing costs, improving access to innovation

and allowing an increased focus on core operations. For the CGIAR Centres the cost cutting

move presents a good success indicator for donors to increase investments in the CGIAR

Centres (Accenture, 2009). Borman (2010) argues that decentralization is the avenue for

reducing costs through economies of scale and process improvement of multiple transaction-

oriented tasks. An enterprise resource planning system is seen as key to realising those

savings concludes, Borman. Decentralised shared services can deliver ‗quick win‘ cost

savings and financial advantages, but truly successful shared services solutions also provide a

parallel opportunity to improve operational processes (Quinn, Cooke and Kris, (2000).

Although this may initially involve additional capital investment and fundamental

organisational change, the long-term rewards include a stronger return on investment and

wider performance benefits across the centre (Quinn, et.al, 2000). Schulz, Hochstein,

Ubernickel, and Brenner, (2009) concluded that the common characteristics of

decentralization are an aggregation of support processes to cut costs.

2.2.6 Elimination of Redundant Employees and Facility

Dove (2004) showed evidence that decentralization increases efficiency, brings benefits and

provides various advantages such as:

Elimination of redundant structures, resources and equipment;

It is not always that the standardization in procedures from different units is easy or

possible, but at least decentralization enables harmonization between each and

facilitates the consistency and coherency between them. Once all the processes

11

become standard, this makes business management easier to report and even easier to

implement change across the university (even to the employees it is easier to

assimilate future changes);

The reengineering of who makes what, and where, increases controllability, as the

responsibilities becomes clear and concentrated.

Decentralised shared services is said to reduce redundancies, for example big spending in

technology software and operational resources as these are done by sharing common back-

office and research support services (Bergeron, 2003). This assumption is yet to be assessed

in addition to the criteria, effectiveness and challenges associated with its implementation

(Meyer 2002).

2.2.7 Staff are More Customer Focused

Schulz et.al. (2009) argues that some common characteristics of decentralisation of shared

services is an emphasis on delivering customer satisfaction and performance benchmarked

externally. According to Shah (1998) decentralisation of shared services was found to be

customer-focused and provides services to business units at competitive prices. Rather than

the typical cost-center focus, shared service organizations have a profit-center focus. He

continues to say that decentralisation is just a cost reduction scheme. He emphasizes that

centralisation is another means to downsize and reduce, but a decentralised shared-service

organisation is that and more. The focus of shared services is to provide a customer-oriented

organization since the customer can provide input on the services, information, and

performance.

2.2.8 Business Unit Autonomy Enhancement

Schulman, Dunleavy, Harmer, and Lusk (1999) notes that decentralisation is gaining

competitive advantage in today's fierce business environment that requires focus throughout

the company on value, as measured by quality, cost, speed, and service. In the quest for

superior performance, a growing number of companies are now turning to shared services, a

tactical technique by which corporations can organize financial and other transaction-oriented

activities to reduce costs and provide better service to business unit partners.

Schulman asks: ―of all the tools available for gaining competitive advantage, why shared

services?‖ One of the principal reasons is that it creates, through consolidation of often

disparate activities, more of a ―one company‖ feel among business units. The benefits of this

12

are twofold: first, it enables companies to show a consistent face to clients and customers,

vendors and suppliers, shareholders and potential shareholders and secondly it provides

increased flexibility to all of the business' operations, allowing corporate leaders to maintain

a global perspective while at the same time allowing business unit leaders to take strong,

customer-focused actions.

2.2.9 Alignment of Staff to the Organisation Structure

According to Shah (1998) a carefully planned and rigorously implemented decentralised

shared services organisation can deliver significant benefits. The success critical benefits

include;

Alignment of staff to the organisation structure and living its vision and mission.

Strong support and buy-in from the senior leadership team, regional and global

coordinators.

Clear differentiation of responsibilities, acceptance and commitment to change by

staff.

Standardised, streamlined and, where appropriate, fully automated processes to ensure

clarity and control,

Measurable structures with the capacity and flexibility to manage new business and

higher volumes with appropriate representation across-the-board.

Decentralised shared services also represent a key enabler for managing change.

Availability of sufficient funds to core business of the organisation, support projects,

common processes and improved service levels across to deliver quality on tasks.

2.2.10 Cross-Regional Collaboration of Shared Services

Decentralisation of shared services allows the organisation to collectively develop new

capabilities that an organisation cannot afford to develop singly. Unlike the traditional set-up,

decentralisation of shared services facilitates an organization like ICRAF to increase the total

research base without a proportional growth in overhead and back-office support (CGIAR

Secretariat, 2009).

2.3 Decentralisation Criteria

A review of literature on decentralization discloses the key criteria in decentralization as;

clearly defined objectives, clarity on services to be shared, agreement on tasks to be

decentralised beforehand, identification of core competencies, clarity on functions to be

13

decentralised, clarity on functions to be centralised, vision, scope and objectives, costs,

geographic location, leaders in the organisation and volume of work. These issues are

discussed in turn.

2.3.1 Clearly Defined Objectives

According to Dollery, Akimov and Byrnes, (2009) the importance of decentralisation of

shared services is to concretely identify ‗appropriate – well defined‘ objectives that can

deliver the desired services. Dollery, et.al. (2009) defined the following objectives:

Strategic services requiring expert local knowledge should be retained ‗in-house‘;

‗Non-strategic, low risk, rule-based‘ and ‗high volume transaction processing‘

services could be shared;

Services requiring ‗access to the latest technology without ongoing significant capital

investment or a requirement for specialist expertise‘ could be shared;

Services in which expert skills not readily attainable by councils should be garnered

through service sharing at least.

2.3.2 Clarity on Services to be Shared

Hewlett-Packard (2010) advises that when beginning shared services in an organisation, the first

step is to determine the services that must be provided in-house and those that can be shared

across other departments or regions. The actual steps taken can however vary from one

organisation to another.

2.3.3. Agreement on Tasks to be Decentralised Beforehand

Shah (1998) advises that tasks to be decentralised be agreed upon before the service begins.

Being transparent with business units or staff members involved is very important for

example:-

High quality service standards and measures—A decentralised shared-service

organisation will have service-level agreements with its customers (i.e., business

units) as well as performance targets and systems that capture and report data on how

well the shared service organisation is performing with its customers.

Performance-based rewards and incentives—A decentralised shared-service

organisation might have its own reward, compensation, and incentive systems that

differ from the rest of the larger organization. These incentives might be team-

oriented bonuses and may be focused on key measures of performance.

14

2.3.4 Identification of Core Competencies

CGIAR Secretariat (2009) reports that there are common tasks that one should complete or

isolate while planning any shared services project such as; determining core competencies, the

functions that can or cannot be shared, defining a strategic vision, scope and objectives, gaining

support from the senior leadership and setting of measurable goals and achievable timelines.

Allan (2006) identified numerous ‗back office‘ and ‗front office‘ activities suitable for sharing

that promise substantial scale economies and thus represent good candidates for decentralised

shared service models.

2.3.5 Clarity on Functions to be Decentralised

Decentralisation of shared services functions featured in (Accenture 2009) gives clarity as

follows:-

Identify which services are not decentralised and what service needs to be

decentralised.

Carry out a needs assessment at the headquarter level, for shared financial, human

resource, administrative and research support services over the coming two-three

years to establish facts.

Review and assess the current arrangements of shared services at the regional and

headquarter level, including drawing lessons from current set-ups.

Assess the current costs and benefits of fully linking up the ICRAF regions to the

headquarter services to enhance support for its research programmes and

scientists.

Assess the current costs and benefits of the individual provision by each Centre of

research support functions to its research programmes and scientists.

2.3.6 Clarity on Functions to be Centralised

Decentralisation of shared services goes hand-in-hand with centralization according to

Schulman, et.al. (1999). The authors show that the opposition comes about because to many

managers, especially to business unit management, decentralisation of shared services

contrasts centralisation and corporate control. However, he argues that when created for the

proper reason, implemented appropriately, and run as if it were a business unit, and for the

benefit of business-unit partners, centralisation of shared services is actually a key to

successful decentralisation.

15

2.3.7 Vision, Scope and Objectives

Accenture (2009) reports that the Vision and Scope – in decentralisation must be clear, have a

common strategy and plan to achieve results needs to be agreed and communicated to all

involved. Vision, Scope and objectives are key components of decentralisation of shared

services (Shah, 1998). Implementing a decentralised shared-services business includes

business events similar to starting up a new business and shutting down operations.

2.3.8 Costs

As the global market becomes more competitive, businesses are seeking new means of using

their resources efficiently and effectively (Shah, 1998). Porter (1980) stated ―The ability to

share activities is a potent basis for corporate strategy because sharing enhances

comprehensive advantage by lowering differentiation costs.‖ Enabled by improvements in

technology, deregulation, competition, and globalisation in the 1990s, the trend in business is

to use decentralised shared services to support people-intensive areas such as human

resources, finance, materials management and information technology says Shah. Schulman,

et.al., (1999) adds to say that efficiency is a step function; only so many costs can be

eliminated at any one time.

2.3.9 Geographic Location

Accenture (2009) found that the CGIAR Consortium is uniquely positioned as many facility

sites are located in low cost locations. As such, typical decentralisation of shared service

savings gained from moving to a low cost location will not have the same implication for the

Consortium. It is important to note that, as in other areas across the Consortium, some

sharing is already taking place between CG Centres with success. Large sites host scientists

from other Centres providing housing, transportation and other valuable facility services. For

example, IRRI has temporary housing on site for employees working in the Philippines short

term while ICRISAT provides vehicle transport for visitors and scientists. These elicit

positive reactions because employees feel that in addition to receiving a valuable service they

feel more comfortable and safe being picked up by a familiar face or working with their

colleagues to arrange housing. This cross sharing of services and facilities is a move in the

right direction and should continue to be leveraged (CGIAR Secretariat, 2009).

16

2.3.10 Leaders in the Organisation

Leadership and management team is another key component of decentralisation of shared

services (Shah, 1998). Schulman, et.al., (1999) says that working as a team in one company

provides increased flexibility to all of the business‘s operations. It allows corporate leaders to

maintain a global perspective while at the same time allowing regional and country-specific

business unit leaders to work administrative functions as well as taking strategic decisions.

Borman (2010) says that Leadership was the most solid direction-related factor. He

suggested that leadership was different from the administration or regulation of the

decentralization of shared services and related more to setting the direction, having a strong

passion to deliver and energising the workforce and the entire organisation to buy into the

vision.

2.3.11 Volume of Work

Decentralisation of shared services reduces the burden of work volume. This is reflected in

the argument by Dollery et.al. (2009) who considers the importance of decentralisation of

shared services as a fundamental tool that optimizes work, people, capital time and other

corporate resources. This contributes to work plans with clear targets and time. The volume

of work is shared across as the service is taken closer to the people. Mano (2010) notes that

decentralisation of shared services is a high volume low cost transactional service provider.

Through the consolidation of back-office operations and business process re-engineering,

greater economies of scale can be obtained.

Mano (2010) adds that decentralisation encourages a high degree of specialisation by freeing

―professionals from transactional activities, allows them to concentrate on more specialised

technical areas (Shah, 1998). Decentralised shared services leverage the skills and knowledge

base in an organisation. Individual business units might not be able to afford the services of

specialist. Shared services can afford these specialists because of the sharing aspect, their

larger clientele base, and offer these services to other business units (Shah, 1998). According

to Quinn et.al. (2000), these hired specialists could definitely protect the overall assets of the

organisation through teamwork hence improving on efficiency and effectiveness.

2.4 Challenges to Decentralisation of Shared Services

The key challenges to decentralisation of shared services are; inadequate management skills

potential job loss, resistance to change, time to train on decentralisation, additional work load

17

in certain departments, lack of understanding by staff of role in the decentralised set up, lack

of finance, duplication of services, changes in work policy, changes in organisational culture

and inadequate facilities. These challenges are discussed in turn.

2.4.1. Inadequate Management Skills

Blaser (2003) expresses the challenges that hinder effective implementation of

decentralisation. He says that effective and operational decentralisation of shared services

requires improvements in fiscal management and a stronger financial capacity at the regional

and/or local level. Decentralisation does not necessarily lead to greater equity. In some

instances it can also contribute to an increase in inequality. However, there are no permanent

challenges in work environment because work evolves. With team work synergies, devoted

staff that are willing to embrace change, decentralisation of shared services can yield positive

contributions in an organisation that wants to excel in this era of globalisation.

2.4.2 Potential Job Loss

Accenture (2009) says that shared services can be used to drive standard policies, processes

and tools across important support functions focus on the Centre. This can lead to significant

efficiency gains and increase the time spent by centre resources on more strategic functions

and core research activities. However, change management is never taken lightly in most

cases by members of staff. Staff can refuse to support the introduction of decentralised shared

services in the organisation for fear of job insecurity. Job redundancies are possible with the

introduction of shared services.

2.4.3 Resistance to Change

There are bottlenecks with any change management process. According to Meyer (1998) some

corporate groups see their role as controlling business units, for example, limiting business units'

spending on a function or forcing one-size-fits-all solutions on them inappropriately. These

corporate functions may be shared, but they are very different from being service oriented.

Additionally, decentralisation may be expensive as new functions need to be created and may

result to confusion and duplication of activities and it inevitably leads to a change in the

organisation culture, (Henricks, 2001; Sherman, 1999; Meyer, 1988).

There is already evidence of the range and complexity of the challenges that organisation

management face when implementing new strategies that demand that things be done

18

differently (Lightfoot, 2003; Kidd, Lamers, Ficarelli, and Hoffmann., 2000). These details

can make or break the performance of new approaches such as decentralised shared services,

especially during its pilot stages. Of particular importance is the development of support

systems to develop new skills, encourage new attitudes and give people the motivation to

take on new roles. These changes take time and continue to be a challenge to the

implementation of decentralised shared services.

Schulman et.al. (1999), states that in order to achieve the full intangible benefits, companies

must actively manage the expectations of individuals as their roles within the business

change. Removing the transactional aspects of human resources or finance from a business

unit, does not mean that there is no need for a head of business unit human resources or

finance. Rather, it means that these people will be able to take new and different roles in the

business unit, roles in which they act more as strategic business advisors with the business

unit head. But many of these senior functional managers are more comfortable managing the

transactional aspects of their jobs than they are in being business analysts and business

advisors. Managing the change in the roles of these senior functional managers whose

transactional activities are moved to a shared service organization is as important as

managing the change encountered by those who go to the shared service organization.

2.4.4 Time to Train on Decentralisation

Scott-Morton (1991); Dunphy and Griffiths (1998) have focused on job design and the broad

level of skills required of employees. Public sector employees are spared from downsizing so

they have the obligation to adjust and embrace the new concepts in SSC model philosophy

through training. In this context and to prevent employees‘ resistance to a shared service

implementation, it is useful that public institutions and universities, offer training and

seminars about the decentralization model (Bergeron, 2003). To get best value from staff,

Reilly and Williams (2006) states that staff training at various stages is important in the move

to fully operationalise decentralization of shared services. Organisations must invest training

staff to equip them into taking up new roles, adds Reilly and Williams.

2.4.5 Additional Work Load in Certain Departments

Bergeron (2003) states that shared services is a collaborative strategy in which a subset of

existing business functions are concentrated into a new, semi-autonomous business unit that

19

has a management structure designed to promote efficiency, value generation, cost savings,

and improved service for the internal customers of the parent corporation. A shared service

center is a separate and accountable semi-autonomous unit within an (inter) organisational

entity, used to bundle activities and provide specific pre-defined services to the operational

units within that (inter) organizational entity, on the basis of agreed conditions.

Decentralization of shared services seems to be especially suitable for outreach offices and

business units since in current practice each unit develops and maintains its own systems and

services. By bundling the development, maintenance and use of services, the costs can be

shared among the units, innovations out of-reach might become feasible, and the money freed

can be used to improve service levels without any of the units having to give up their

autonomy.

2.4.6 Lack of Understanding by Staff of Role in the Decentralised Set Up

Janssen and Joha, (2004) found that anyone who has managed a transition to shared services

experienced problems with the people. Recognition of this fact is the single most important

step to take, as managing of people is commonly misunderstood. Transitioning roles is a

complex process requiring significant time and effort. Strong executive support, continuous

communication and comprehensive training; for both the shared service center and the

business units are critical to success. Lightfoot (2003) states that there are no blueprints to

make the transition toward decentralisation of shared services, but communication can help

develop strategies to identify who needs what, where and how – to a large extent a

communication strategy works like a management audit by highlighting challenges and

providing solutions.

2.4.7 Lack of Finance

Accenture (2009) reports that lack of finance should not be an issue where proper planning is

done. However, lack of finance within the finance function in an organisation could hinder

better standards and the automation of core finance activities, whereby this insufficiency

makes it difficult for finance staff to focus more time on strategic financial management

priorities.

2.4.8 Duplication of Services

According to Shah (1998), while the benefits of decentralised shared services are numerous,

there are drawbacks. For example: duplication of management efforts, ineffectiveness from

20

small-scale operations, inadequate non-standard systems, inefficient localized practices,

outdated processes and duplication of infrastructure. Decentralised shared services provide a

means to alleviate the above drawbacks. It will provide immediate and uniformed services

across the regional offices and headquarters for example in the case of ICRAF (Accenture,

2009).

2.4.9 Changes in Work Policy

Change Management is the effective management of change to help the Centre inform,

involve and prepare all staff for the implementation of new and decentralised shared services.

Accenture (2009), states that shared services can be used to drive standard policies, processes

and tools across important centre‘s support functions. This can lead to significant efficiency

gains and increase the time spent by centre resources on more strategic functions and core

research activities. However, change management is never taken lightly in most cases by

members of staff. Staff can refuse to support the introduction of decentralised shared services

in the organisation out of job insecurity. Redundancy declaration is one of the biggest

challenges to the introduction of shared services policy. There is already evidence of the

range and complexity of the challenges that organisation management face when

implementing new strategies and policies that do things differently (Lightfoot, 2003; Kidd et

al., 2000).

Peckham, (2003) reports that it is important for policy-makers and managers to recognise

inter-relationships between inputs, processes and outcomes and levels in the sense that any

organisation (or individual) can gain and lose. They also need to be aware that the evidence

base for the impact of decentralisation of shared services on organisational performance is

poor and that there is little substantive evidence to support the key assumptions made about

decentralisation.

2.4.10 Changes in Organisational Culture

Mano (2010) agrees that there is no doubt the decentralization of shared services also has its

disadvantages and challenges to its implementation. The organisational culture changes for

employees can cause tension and resistance that can get in the way of getting results; high

start-up costs, for example, if organisations adopt the decentralised model, they must incur

the cost of hiring new staff and installing new technology; implementing shared services

takes time and can be a long process, not only during implementation but in seeing the gains

21

too; in terms of control, shared service centre could mean a loss of autonomy of the units and

finally, it can represent some risks once the control, confidentiality and security of

information is compromised.

2.4.11 Inadequate Facilities

In the evaluation done for CG Centres, (Accenture, 2009) found out that current facility

services include safety & security, housing, transport, physical facilities (buildings,

auditoriums, labs and schools), storage, food & catering, installations, architecture, utilities,

maintenance (electricians etc.) and site operation management. Many headquarter centres

have a robust offering of facility services and are essentially self sufficient in this area.

Facility services are largely delivered by in-house capacities although some Centres use

external providers for limited facility services. For example, ICRAF out sources mail room

functions while IRRI uses third parties for food and janitorial services.

2.5 Ensuring Effective Decentralisation

Empirical studies disclose the measures that ICRAF can use to enhance the decentralisation

process as; development of concrete policies to effectuate shared services at ICRAF, timely

communication to staff on workforce turnover, communication to staff on the financial status

of the centre, preparedness in managing the change process, strong leadership in the

decentralisation process at HQ level, strong leadership at the level of decentralised units,

transparent procedures and guidance on process, adequate funds allocated to support the

decentralisation process from the onset, senior leadership team and global research

coordinators ensure that differences in geographic conditions are considered, ensure

decentralisation process aligns to ICRAF‘s mission and vision, automation of ICRAF

(internet and intranet), staff involvement in the decentralisation process, changing the

organisation structure to reflect the newly decentralised units, avoid discrimination (location,

gender, race, age, religion) on placement of staff and constantly update staff on status of the

decentralisation process. The measures are discussed in turn.

2.5.1 Development of Concrete Policies to Effectuate Shared Services at ICRAF

ICRAF (2006) ICRAF Senior Management must champion the process by putting in place a

policy to effect decentralisation of shared services and to oversee its successful

implementation. According to Meyer (1998), it is good to involve staff in new processes

irrespective of locations as change management forms a basis for major decisions in an

22

organisation in regards to what decentralisation of shared services model can do for it

holistically such as a means to innovate, reduce costs and increase service levels. During the

implementation, planning, frequent reviews must be done on shared services progress.

According to (CGIAR Secretariat, 2009), enhancing the implementation of a decentralised

shared-services model means overhauling business functions similar to starting up a new

business and shutting down old operations process. Therefore, to effectuate successful

decentralisation of shared services, ICRAF‘s SLT must lead by example to buy-in concept

and to ensure that the following measures are in place beforehand:-

ICRAF’s vision - centre‘s policies and the strategy to guide ICRAF‘s work through

the transformation (ICRAF, 2006).

ICRAF’s operations strategy - Service agreements, space-planning, work

environment, security measures both for staff and assets as well as financial

management streamlined.

Senior Leadership Team and middle management team - to steer the process

ahead. Get everyone involved and on board. Monitor progress from time to time.

Business plan/Strategy – ICRAF goals well written in the strategy document, clear

definition of customers, procurement and supplier policies provided for, human

resource manual in use, funding requirements shared with donors, other investors and

staff, strategic performance measures, and initial budget. All these items have to be

made clear to all staff to avoid confusion or duplication of efforts.

Research – creating common research services can improve the efficiency of research

and laboratory support services (which may not be fully utilized today) and in

research data being more effectively shared across Centres.

Grant and Project Management – Centres using common templates,

indicators/metrics and processes for managing grants and projects can result in more

efficient management of the overall research pipeline with higher percentages of

winning proposals and greater focus on high-priority opportunities.

Human Resource – by standardizing the management of salaries, benefits and

entitlements for internationally recruited staff (IRS) and nationally recruited staff

(NRS) within countries, the consortium can more effectively utilize resources across

Centres and can more effectively offer HR services across multiple Centres.

Procurement – the Consortium can realize gains by leveraging the most mature

procurement processes across the Centres and by leveraging the best negotiated

23

purchasing agreements. For example, one Centre, the International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture (IITA), recently acquired a purchasing agent in the UK, now

called IITA Limited.

Finance – common processes and systems can reduce time in the finance department

spent on manual processes, reconciliation and reporting.

Information and Collaboration – standards for collecting, managing and

disseminating information can increase collaboration within and across Centres, and

also reduce the risk of losing data and institutional knowledge

Information Technology – shared services in IT can drive improved specialization

and increased services. Efficiency gains can potentially free up IT personnel to focus

on strategic uses of technology to help drive the future research agenda instead of

tactical IT support within a specific Centre.

2.5.2 Timely Communication to Staff on Workforce Turnover

It is very important to inform staff on any upcoming processes that relate to work and the

work environment. Through close communication, management assesses employees‘ ability

to execute new processes within their roles. Communication is key in an organization that

wants to excel. The exercise must be driven from the top. Having the Board of Trustees

(BOT) and Senior Leadership Management as champions creates confidence at middle-

management level which is a real asset (ICRAF Strategy 2008-2015). Furthermore, without

this clear direction from the top, personal agendas can take precedence – deflecting the

programme from its original goals. Decentralisation of shared services is a key enabler for the

reform effort. Open communications with staff from time-to-time will help to bring clarity on

whatever issues. Communication improves service levels across the Centre and this will

allow ICRAF to deliver on its mission and on programmes that require increased

coordination across the board. Communication is thus a concrete component for

decentralisation efforts to succeed.

2.5.3 Communication to Staff on the Financial Status of the Centre

ICRAF must give timely updates on the Centre‘s financial status to staff. The financial

health of the Centre is key as staff will only work well when their jobs are assured and

secured. Job insecurity is cancerous. Communication can become one of the many challenges

that organisations face when implementing new strategies if not done properly and in good

time, (Lightfoot, 2003; Kidd et al., 2000). These details can make or break the performance

24

of the new approaches such as decentralised shared services, especially during its pilot stages.

Of a particular importance is clear and simple communication with staff to develop new skills

to support systems, encourage new attitudes and give people the motivation to take on new

roles. The bottom line for management is communications – Communicate, communicate and

communicate. Communication is important attribute to shared services success.

2.5.4 Preparedness in Managing the Change Process

A management team with a passion for a step change in performance, which is prepared to

make and stand by tough decisions, is crucial for its success in the new strategy.

In preparation to effect change process, ICRAF management will need to ensure that:

Staff are aligned with ICRAF‘s defined vision and mission;

Senior Leadership Team working together to maintain the new business processes;

Entire organisation committed to work towards making the new processes work;

Employees able to execute new processes within their roles;

Effective Change Network Organisation; and

Training materials and on-going performance support as an ongoing process.

Accenture (2009) says that shared services can be used to drive standard policies, processes

and tools across important centre‘s support functions. This can lead to significant efficiency

gains and increase the time spent by centre resources on more strategic functions and core

research activities. However, change management is never taken lightly in most cases by

members of staff. Staff can refuse to support the introduction of decentralised shared services

in the organisation for fear of job insecurity. Redundancy declaration is one of the biggest

challenges to the introduction of shared services.

2.5.5 Strong Leadership in the Decentralisation Process at HQ level

Senior Leadership Team (SLT) must buy-in the process to be successful. SLT is to work

with change agents inside the organisation to make the change process a success. Change

agents are people who assume the responsibility of managing the change process within an

organisation. It is very important to SLT to communicate with staff on any upcoming

processes that relates to work and the work environment at HQ. Staff can never be taken for

granted.

25

2.5.6 Strong Leadership at the Level of Decentralised Units

As stated above, ICRAF management is to lead the process. A holistic approach to change

management is needed to help ensure that other units are committed to the new service.

Change Management has to lay the foundation for a productive use of the processes and

system, thus minimizing the implications of deployment in the decentralised units.

2.5.7 Transparent Procedures and Guidance on Process

ICRAF has to operate with consistent, transparent policies and procedures across the board.

ICRAF management must lay steps in the right direction by having simple guidance manuals

to guide the process and these efforts should be further leveraged. The procedures must

communicate the same message both at the HQ and regions.

2.5.8 Adequate Funds Allocated to Support the Decentralisation Process From the

Onset

Accenture (2009) and CGIAR Secretariat (2009) on commitment and donor funds – updates

on leadership, budget and resource commitment from key stakeholders (CGIAR Consortium,

donors and key partners) need to be communicated to staff early to ensure buy-in and

continued support thus improving effectives of decentralization process.

2.5.9 Senior Leadership Team and Global Research Coordinators

SLT and RCs working together to ensure Common Systems / Policy – HR policies /

processes are streamlined to ensure effective and efficient services. Benefits and Entitlement

should be harmonized at country / regional level to support mobility of resources at during

the launching of full decentralisation of shared services. This will also facilitate the

implementation of regional / HQ shared services at the later stage of implementation. Human

Resources Strategy (HRS) to support cross regional in collaboration with SLT leadership and

regional HR teams advocating the same. This will:

Increase efficiency – Increase efficiency and satisfaction of internal employees;

Improved collaboration – Standardized HR policies will allow improved collaboration

across HQ and the regions.

2.5.10 Ensure that Differences in Geographic Conditions are Considered

Same principles applied at HQ on decentralisation of shared services to be replicated at the

regions a consistent way of doing business. ICRAF SLT to ensure that there is improved

26

facility services across regions. Regional decentralised shared services – regional support is

consolidated within a logical geographic area to provide a higher level of service to

underserved regions or projects (e.g. IT and research/lab services). ICRAF in all fairness

needs to:

Optimize cross-learning opportunities across the board;

Simplify implementation and support of enabling technologies across the board;

Potential to cross-train staff as activities grow in scale – need to be prioritized;

Ensure that there is greater sharing and collaboration across the board.

In addition, the wide geographical coverage of ICRAF increases the need for strong

communications and connectivity within and between all locations.

2.5.11 Ensure Decentralisation Process Aligns to ICRAF’s Mission and Vision

Decentralised shared services are intended to improve the capabilities and efficiency of

ICRAF as well as supporting the operation of the Centre‘s mission and vision. ICRAF SLT

will ensure that a clear, common strategy and plan to achieve results is agreed upon and

communicated to all staff across the board. In regards to ICRAF mission and vision,

processes in place will ensure:-

Employees are aligned with defined vision;

Senior Leadership Team is working together to maintain the new business processes;

Entire organisation committed to work towards making the new processes work;

That are processes and systems are geared towards the mission and vision of the

Centre.

2.5.12 Automation of ICRAF (internet and intranet)

Ulbrich, F. (2008) information systems improves business ideas by adding value. Today‘s

technological infrastructure and availability of highly qualified, multilingual staff enables

shared service organisations to conduct relationships with local, regional, and global entities,

such as suppliers, banks, audit firms, international scientists, consultants and administrative

management of programmes (Shah, 1998).

For ICRAF, there is added value in sharing services and collaboration between the regional

offices and headquarters to achieve the organisation‘s common goal and objectives, improve

27

efficiency and save costs. Some of the services that are currently being shared across by

ICRAF include internal audit, the procurement of information technology (IT) software,

publications, payroll, insurance and retirement package for the International Recruited Staff

(IRS). Other services are provided more locally within a single country or region, such as

shared IT and library services and office space for Global Research Projects (GRPs).

2.5.13 Staff Involvement in the Decentralisation Process

According to (Accenture, 2009 & CGIAR Secretariat, 2009) the following factors would

influence effectiveness of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF.

Senior Leadership Team – strong top-down direction and guidance is needed to

ensure that priorities are clearly set and decisions enforced by all staff.

ICRAF Vision and Roadmap – a clear, common strategy and plan to achieve results

needs to be agreed and communicated among the staff (ICRAF Strategy 2008-2015).

Outcomes – objectives and measurements of success need to be defined early and

monitored regularly by management and staff responsible.

2.5.14 Changing the Organisation Structure to Reflect the Newly Decentralised Units

ICRAF Strategy – a clear and compelling business case for each service needs to be

defined and understood at all levels of the organisation.

ICRAF core business and geographic considerations – differences in centre‘s

research focus and geographical locations need to be factored into shared services

beforehand, including quality of connectivity and use of different research services.

Communication – need direct and effective communications to encourage Centre

involvement and build buy in by staff.

Cultural Change – need to consider cultural and personnel differences and actively

manage change impacts across the Consortium.

Capacity Building – need to build and maintain skills and capabilities within the

Consortium to sustain and grow shared services.

Kolehmainen (1998) successful decentralisation requires that new organisational structures,

roles, and responsibilities be clearly defined, form a functional whole, and be acceptable to

the health staff. A review of decentralisation in ten countries demonstrated that this area is

one of the most problematic for human resources. Difficulties arise for several reasons. First,

the definition of organisational structures, roles, and responsibilities may be unclear or

28

inappropriate in view of health sector needs. Second, the roles and responsibilities may

conflict with each other. Third, the organisational structures and allocation of roles and

responsibilities may be disputed. Fourth, these organisational changes may be inadequately

communicated below the central level or change so frequently that no one is clear on the

current status.

2.5.15 Avoid Discrimination (location, gender, race, age, religion) on Placement of Staff

ICRAF Personnel Policy Manual (ICRAF PPM 2006) advocates for one ICRAF one staff

concept. ICRAF is an equal employer to all; hence the issue of discrimination does not occur.

ICRAF‘s SLT and HR team will to ensure that the operational efficiency is felt across the

board and that there exists further opportunities to increase collaboration between HQ and the

regions.

2.5.16 Constantly Update Staff on Status of the Decentralisation Process

ICRAF needs to fully operationalise what it has already started and bring it to full fruition.

New training, performance measurements, and reward systems are needed to encourage

employees to act in accordance with the values of shared services (Shah, 1998). Employees in

a shared-services organisation usually have to accept a flatter organisation with less

promotional opportunities, but one that rewards outstanding performance and the

development of new competencies (ICRAF PM, 2007). There is also an effort for the Global

Research Project Leaders (GRPLs) and head of units to get staff to accept and support shared

services. Effort is required to overcome employee fears about downsizing and loss of control.

Human resource in conjunction with the Training Unit should plan for staff to get training

that will enhance existing skills as well as develop new skills required in the fresh initiative.

Staff may have to specialise, learn new skills or be redeployed.

Too often the current technology and systems cannot fully support a shared services

environment (Shah, 1998). Decentralised shared services calls for major transformation in the

way a function operates. It requires a transformation of people – mind change, process, and

technology. In order for transition from a current to the desired state, major consultations

(top-down-top) are required to avoid confusion. Staff must be encouraged to transform

alongside the organisation. A shared services infrastructure builds on this concept to enabled

shared services to be implemented even when business requirements necessitate formal

barriers inside an organisation.

29

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework. Source: Author, 2011

2.6 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework explains the approach and relationships included to understand

the decentralisation process at ICRAF. The current situation is not fully decentralised, hence

the reason why the current structure is overloaded with tasks because it is semi-decentralised.

The centralised structure has challenges. It is expected that when decentralisation is fully

achieved, then decentralisation benefits will accrue, this include enhanced organisational

synergy and positive spirit among others. It is clear that enhancing and hindering factors

Current Situation: -High overhead costs -Compromised skills -Compromised infrastructure -Resistance to change -ICT challenges -Organisation structure is overloaded

Benefits: -Increased competitive advantage -Leveraging scale and competencies -Enhanced organisational synergy -Focused outputs

Decentralisation

process

Enhancing Factors: -Defined decentralisation

vision, mission, objectives, pathway -Understanding organisational structure -Process cost benefits -Effective leadership, management, and participation. -Collective attitudes and skills

Hindering Factors: -Resistance to change

-Poor/inadequate organisational infrastructure -Poor skills and attitudes

ls and attitudes

Dependent variables

Independent variables

30

interact to determine the course and outcomes of the decentralisation process (Figure 2.1)

above.

The independent variables include variable groups, measuring decentralisation benefits,

challenges, enhancing factors and hindering factors, while dependent variables included those

characteristics that cannot be manipulated by the research. This framework tries to classify

the types of benefits that ICRAF will get through decentralisation of shared services. The

current situation, hindering and enhancing factors have been mapped towards decentralisation

and does provide a comprehensive foundation for planning, justifying, and managing the

process.

This framework is in line with today‘s cost-reductions and limited resources and a bridge for

supporting other systems. ICRAF Senior Leadership Team is supportive and it is hoped that

it will considerer this model because of its advantages, such as increasing efficiency and

effectiveness. However, that notwithstanding, it is made aware of some risks, especially

because it requires a deep change of culture and organisational restructuring. The option of

adopting a decentralisation model is justified by inefficiencies and high services costs

incurred in the past. The process of decentralisation and its implementation is essential and

must be carefully executed for its success.

2.7 Chapter Summary

In summary, it is true from the literature review that decentralisation of shared services is a

very contemporary theme. It is a major focus by many international organisations as it

focuses on the requirements and solutions for effective management. The benefits of

decentralisation; include reduced costs and bureaucracies. The main challenges to

decentralisation include; poor skills within a decentralised framework and potential job-losses

among others. Finally, in the case of ICRAF to ensure effective decentralisation;

development of concrete policies to effectuate shared services at ICRAF, timely

communication to staff on workforce turnover, communication to staff on the financial status

of the centre, preparedness in managing the change process and constantly updating staff on

status of the decentralisation process is a must do.

31

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the methods that were used to carry out the research. It constitutes the

outline used for the collection, measurement and methods of data analysis.

3.2 Research Philosophy

The positivist research philosophy was adopted since decentralization of shared services was

studied using empirical and scientific approaches. The positivist position is derived from that

of natural science and is characterised by the testing of hypothesis developed from existing

theory (hence deductive or theory testing) through measurement of observable social realities

(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). This position presumes the social world exists

objectively and externally, that knowledge is valid only if it is based on observations of this

external reality and that universal or general laws exist or that theoretical models can be

developed that are generalisable, can explain cause and effect relationships, and which lend

themselves to predicting outcomes. Positivism is based upon values of reason, truth and

validity and there is a focus purely on facts, gathered through direct observation and

experience and measured empirically using quantitative methods – surveys and experiments -

and statistical analysis. Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) relates this to the organisational context,

stating that positivists assume that what truly happens in organisations can only be discovered

through categorisation and scientific measurement of the behaviour of people, and systems

and that language is truly representative of the reality.

3.3 Research Design

This is a management business research that is undertaking a critical assessment of the same

according to (Saunders et al, 2009). To achieve the broad objective of this research, the

research is both explorative and descriptive survey in the case research of ICRAF, where an

assessment of employees‘ perception on decentralised shared services was done. Descriptive

survey method was chosen because it serves both qualitative (verbal) or quantitative (written)

communication with representatives sample of individuals or respondents from the target

population. It enabled the researcher to gather data at a particular point in time and use it to

describe the nature of the existing conditions. The descriptive design was chosen because it

basically describes the characteristics of the population as they exist at present minimizing

32

biases and maximizing the reliability of the evidence collected.

3.4 Population

Saunders et al., (2009), defined target population as the set of individuals, cases or objects

with some observable characteristics, to which a researcher wants to generalise the results of

the research. Population refers to an entire group of persons or elements that have at least one

thing in common (Kombo and Tromp, 2006). This research covered all ICRAF employees

across the globe. The target population for this research was 331 and the sample size was 84

employees of ICRAF both at scientific and non-scientific levels (Table 3.1).

3.5 Sampling and Sampling Design

Sampling techniques is a statistical determination of the appropriate sample size and enables the

researcher to generalise results to the population. Stratified random sampling was used to

determine the respondents to be included in the sample. According to Saunders et al., (2009),

the population is divided into several sub-populations, which are then subdivided in to other sub-

populations until observation units are selected. Table 3.1 shows the distribution of the sampled

respondents.

Table 3.1 Distribution of Respondent across sample categories

Category Frequency Percentage

GRP Leader 8 9.5

Unit Head 2 2.4

Manager 1 1.2

Scientist/Researcher 25 29.8

Technicians and field Employees 21 25.0

Administrative Staff 6 7.1

Communication 4 4.8

Research Intern 17 20.2

Total 84 100.0 Source: Author, 2011

3.5.1 Sample Frame

The sampling frame in this research was all employees of World Agroforestry Center

(ICRAF) which are 331 in total; male being 200 and 131 being females. The sampling frame

was obtained from ICRAF payroll. A total of 84 responded out of the sample of 118

calculated using the Yamane‘s formula (Israel, 1992) which represents about 46.4%. The

sampling fraction, for the respondents, which is the proportion of the total population that

33

was selected, was a quarter. This means one person was selected out of every group of 4 staff.

3.5.2 Sample Size

Israel (1992), states that in trying to respond to frequently asked questions concerning sampling

such as, "What size sample do I need?" The answer to this question is influenced by a number of

factors, including the purpose of the study, population size, the risk of selecting a "bad" sample,

and the allowable sampling error. In this research, the sample size was reached at by using

Yamane‘s formula (Yamane, 1967).

The sample determination formula is as follows.

21

Nn

Ne

Whereby:

n = sample size

N = size of the population

e = the error of 5 percent

Therefore,

2

331181

1 331 0.05n

3.6 Research area

This research was conducted at ICRAF headquarters in Nairobi and in the five regions

namely East Africa (Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda), South Asia (India, Sri-Lanka) South East

Asia (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, China and Vietnam), Southern Africa (Malawi,

Zambia, Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe) and West and Central Africa (Mali,

34

Cameroon, Nigeria), with a presence in Latin America (Peru and Brazil),

3.6.1 Inclusion criteria

Consenting staff at the ICRAF offices

Research fellows or interns physically present in the ICRAF offices

3.6.2 Exclusion criteria

Non-consenting staff or undelivered emails

Staff out of office

Persons not working for ICRAF

3.7 Data Collection

Data were collected using semi-structured self administered questionnaires. Semi-structured

interviews were carried out to gain more insights and get information that may not have been

captured in the questionnaires. The questionnaire was pretested on 30 sampled respondents

whose results were not included in the final analysis. Tests of reliability and validity were

conducted to ensure data quality.

3.7.1 Data Collection Instrument

The methods used in data collection were; questionnaires, interviews and observation and

document reviews. The main data was collected using questionnaires. Dwivedi (2008)

defines questionnaires as ―devises for securing answers to questions using a form which the

respondent fills in himself or herself‖. The questionnaires (Appendix two) were of

standardized format with a balanced mixture of both open-ended and close-ended questions.

Saunders et al (2009) notes that the use of questionnaires is advantageous because:

They are a less expensive procedure than personal or telephone interview

Require, especially mailed questionnaires, less administrative skills than interview

They can be administered simultaneously to a large number of respondents

They can provide uniformity from one measurement situation to another.

Likert rating scales were used to capture perceptions of ICRAF respondents in relation to

decentralisation (where ―1‖ = strongly disagree and "5"= strongly agree).

35

3.7.2 Data Collection Procedures

The questionnaire was administered using Survey Monkey an online tool and was pre-tested

on 30 respondents to confirm the flow and ease of understanding of the subject matter. The

highlighted changes were effected and the questionnaire was sent out to 118 ICRAF staff.

However responses were only received from 84 staff representing a 71% response rate. The

entire data was collected from 15th December, 2010 to 31st January, 2011. The data was

then cleaned and keyed in SPSS 18.0 for analysis.

3.8 Data Analysis and Presentation

Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18. Bar

graphs, tables and pie charts were used to display summarised data. Cross-tabulations were

generated to determine the relationships between variables. One way analysis of variances

(ANOVA) was used to test whether the differences between the means of the various items

reported in the study differed significantly. Tukey‘s Post Hoc test was used to explain the

factors that had higher mean ratings.

3.9 Ethical considerations

As a staff member of World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), the researcher had an advantage

of getting all the email contacts through the ICRAF global contacts list. However, due to

ethical considerations, the researcher sent out an initial contact email (Appendix one) alerting

recipients that they would be receiving an e-mail to participate in a questionnaire through

Survey Monkey and that there was an option for opting-out if one did not want to participate.

Confidentiality of all participants was assured at all levels of the research. Names of

the respondents were not to be included in the questionnaire.

The respondents had the option of participating or declining.

3.10 Research limitations

Some colleagues refused to give consent to request sent via email;

Some colleagues feared change management as result of this research;

Some staff are spread in various regions and with busy field work schedules. It was

difficult in reach them.

36

3.11 Chapter Summary

Chapter 3 presents the research methods applied in the research. The section describes the

research philosophy which is positivism. Other materials include the research design, sample

size determination. In the sample size, 84 respondents were randomly selected from sample

frame of 331 ICRAF workers. Questionnaires were used to collect the data using

SurveyMonkey software, an online tool that facilitates email-based surveys. Data was

analysed using SPSS version 18.0 for descriptives, means, ANOVAs and Post hoc analysis

was conducted by use of Tukey method.

Chapter four discusses the findings of the study.

37

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings and results of the study in the order of the research

objectives. It begins by analyzing the demographic characteristics of the sample, reviews the

benefits of decentralisation in ICRAF, and discloses the findings on the criteria that should

guide decentralisation. In the last part, the chapter documents the findings on the measures

that should be put in place to enhance decentralisation of shared services. For each of the

objectives, descriptive statistics are first calculated and the objective variables analyzed by

use of one way ANOVA to determine whether the responses differ significantly on the basis

of the demographic characteristics. The results are based on a response rate of 71% (n=84).

4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

4.2.1 Gender

Figure 4.1 shows that majority of the respondents were female (51%) while the male

respondents constituted 49% of the sample. The female to male ratio in the sampling frame

was 53%.

Figure 4. 1: Gender distribution of respondents

38

4.2.2 Age of the Respondents

Figure 4.2: Age distribution of respondents

Figure 4.2 shows that the 25-29 age group of respondents consisted of 11% of the

respondents, the others were as follows; 30-34 (28%), 40-44 (14%), 45-49 (13%), > 50

(14%). The 30-39 age groups formed the largest proportion of the study population, with

more than 20% representation from the age categories in this group (Figure 4.2).

39

4.2.3 Geographical Distribution of the Respondents

72.6

13.1

4.81.2 1.2

7.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Africa Asia Australia Europe North

America

South

America

Region

Pe

rce

nta

ge

re

sp

on

de

nts

Figure 4.3: Regions of study respondents

Respondents were sampled from various regions (Figure 4.3). The highest representation was

Africa with 61 respondents (73%), followed by South America (7%) and Australia (5 %).

Other regions including Europe and North America had few staff, <2% from each of those

regions (Figure 4.3). ICRAF headquarters is based in Kenya, Africa and has the largest staff

population working in headquarters with less people in the regional offices.

40

4.2.4 Education Level

Figure 4. 4: Educational qualifications of respondents

Figure 4.4 shows that 64% of the respondents held postgraduate degrees (Masters and PhD)

23% had undergraduate degrees and advanced diploma holders accounted for 11% of the

respondents.

4.4.5 Job Classification

9.5

2.4 1.2

29.8

25

7.14.8

20.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

GRP le

ader

Unit h

ead

Man

ager

Scien

tist/

Res

earc

her

Techn

ician

Adm

inistra

tive

staf

f

Com

mun

icat

ion

Res

earc

h inte

rn

Job classfication

Pe

rce

nta

ge

re

sp

on

de

nts

Figure 4.5: Job classifications of respondents

1.2 1.2

10.7

22.6

32.1 32.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Certificate Diploma Advanced

diploma

Graduate Post-

graduate

Masters

Post-

graduate

PhD

Educational level (completed)

Pe

rce

nta

ge r

es

po

nd

en

ts

41

Figure 4.5 shows that scientists and researchers constituted almost 30% of the respondents.

ICRAF‗s core business is in research in agroforestry, hence this result is not surprising. The

other major staffs are distributed as follows; technicians (25%), interns (20%). GRP leaders

and administrative staff constituted 9.5 and 7% of the sample respectively.

4.4.6 Duty Stations of the Respondents

45.2

20.2

8.36

8.3

2.4

9.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ICRAF h

eadqu

ater

s

Eas

t Afri

ca

West

and

Cen

tral A

frica

Sou

th A

sia

Latin

Americ

a

Sou

ther

n Afri

ca

Sou

th E

ast A

sia

Duty station

Pe

rce

nta

ge

re

sp

on

de

nts

Figure 4. 6: Duty stations of respondents

Figure 4.6 above indicates that most employees were located at the ICRAF headquarters,

Nairobi (45%). Others were stationed in regional offices in East Africa, South East Asia,

West and Central Africa and Latin America.

42

4.4.7 Job Experience

Figure 4. 7: Work experience (years) of ICRAF respondents

Figure 4.7 shows that over 55% of the employees had worked for 1- 6 years at ICRAF. This

was followed by those who had worked for 7-12 years (23.8%), and 13-18 years (8.3%). The

least group of workers were those who had worked for more than 18 years (5%).

43

4.4.8 Area of Specialization

31

56

13.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Research/ Science Technical/ Field

operations

Administrative

Area of specialisation

Pe

rce

nta

ge

re

sp

on

de

nts

Figure 4. 8: Area of staff specialisation

Figure 4.8 shows the areas of staff specialisation of the respondents. The technicians

comprised 56% of the sample, while researchers were 31%. Administrative staff constituted

13% of the sample.

4.4.9 Perception on whether ICRAF is Decentralised

10.7

40.5

27.4

17.9

1.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither agree

nor disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

Agreement

Pe

rce

nta

ge

re

sp

on

de

nts

Figure 4. 9: ICRAF’s organisational structure does not reflect its decentralised nature

of operation

44

Figure 4.9 shows that most of the respondents disagreed with the assertion that ICRAFs

organisational structure reflected its decentralised nature of operation (40.5%).

4.3 Benefits of Decentralisation

4.3.1 Frequencies and Means on the Benefits of Decentralisation

Most respondents were in agreement with the empirical benefits of decentralisation as shown

in Table 4.1.

Table 4. 2: Benefits of Decentralisation

Benefits

Rating

Total

Mean Rank

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither agree

nor disagree Agree

Strongly

agree

Enhances standardization of

operations

0 (0) 12 (16.4) 18 (24.7) 36 (49.3) 7 (9.6) 73 (100) 3.52

8

Enhances cross-regional

collaboration

0 (0) 10 (13.9) 12 (16.7) 36 (50) 14 (19.4) 72(100) 3.75

4

Performance with minimized

supervision

1(1.4) 7 (9.9) 16 (22.5) 35(49.31) 12 (16.9) 71 (100) 3.70

5

Motivates regional staff 0 (0) 7 (9.7) 7 (9.7) 39 (54.2) 19 (26.4) 72(100) 3.97 1

Reduces bureaucracy 0 (0) 10 (13.9) 6 (8.3) 37 (51.4) 19(26.4) 72 (100) 3.90 2

Reduces overhead cost 1 (1.4) 8 (11.1) 18 (25) 32 (44.4) 13 (18.1) 72 (100) 3.67 6

Staff become customer focused 1 (1.4) 8 (11.1) 17 (23.6) 35 (48.6) 11 (15.3) 72 (100) 3.65 7

Re-align organisational structure

to better support the strategic

direction of ICRAF

0 (0) 8 (11.1) 9 (12.5) 41 (56.9) 14 (19.4) 72 (100) 3.85

3

Values in parentheses ( ) are row percentages, while values outside parentheses are

frequencies.

Table 4.1 shows that 49.3% of the respondents agreed that decentralisation enhances

standardization of operations, 50% agreed that decentralisation enhances cross-regional

collaboration, while 17% neither agreed nor disagreed. Over 50% of staff agreed that

decentralisation motivates staff, reduces bureaucracy, and re-aligns organisational structure

better to suit ICRAF strategic direction. Forty nine percent of respondents agreed that

45

decentralisation led to improved performance with minimal supervision, while 22% neither

agreed nor disagreed.

Ranking the perceptions of the respondents on the benefits of decentralisation on the basis of

the mean, shows that the benefits in order of popularity are; staff motivation, reduction in

bureaucracy, realignment of the structure to support the strategic direction, enhancing cross

regional collaboration, minimizing supervision, reduction in overhead costs, staff becoming

more customer focused and enhancing the standardization of operations.

4.3.2 Differences in Perceptions of Benefits of Decentralisation - ANOVA

One way ANOVA was conducted to test whether there were significant differences in the

perception of the respondents regarding the benefits of decentralisation on the basis of

gender, age, region, education level, job classification, duty station, work experience and area

of specialization. The results are presented in table 4.2.

46

Table 4. 3: Differences in Perceptions of the Benefits of Decentralisation

Benefits Gender Age Region Education

Job

classification Duty station

Work

experience

Area of

specialisation

Enhances standardization of

procedures 0.325 0.793 0.033* 0.584 0.419 0.878 0.426 0.887

Enhances cross-regional

collaboration 0.754 0.506 0.536 0.276 0.102 0.27 0.411 0.26

Performance with minimized

supervision 0.868 0.759 0.494 0.377 0.246 0.139 0.288 0.258

Motivates regional staff 0.944 0.206 0.614 0.863 0.061 0.718 0.665 0.668

Reduces bureaucracy 0.377 0.761 0.582 0.266 0.078 0.255 0.377 0.03*

Reduces overhead cost 0.412 0.604 0.823 0.109 0.200 0.567 0.453 0.674

Staff become customer focused 0.83 0.969 0.961 0.526 0.459 0.37 0.142 0.974

Re-align organisational structure

to better support the strategic

direction of ICRAF 0.208 0.505 0.579 0.163 0.107 0.041* 0.804 0.615

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

47

Table 4.2 shows that the perceptions on the benefits of decentralisation do not differ on the

basis of gender, age, education level, job classification and work experience. This implies

that the benefits would be realized by all regardless of gender, age, education level, job

classification and work experience. Table 4.2 however shows that the perception that

decentralisation enhances standardization of procedures differs significantly on the basis of

the regions where the respondents hailed, the benefit on reduction of bureaucracy differed on

the basis of the area of specialization while the benefit on realignment of the organisation

structure to favour the strategic direction of ICRAF differed on the basis of the duty station.

Post Hoc analysis was conducted to determine the regions, areas of specialization and duty

stations that had significantly different than others. These results are reported in table 4.3, 4.4

and 4.5.

Table 4. 4: Post Hoc Analysis on Enhancing Standardization of Procedures by Region

using Tukey Method

Region Mean I Mean J Mean difference

(I-J)

Sig. Value

Africa and Asia 3.7 2.9 0.8 0.000**

Africa and Australia 3.7 3.0 0.7 0.109

Africa and Europe 3.7 2.0 1.7 0.085

Africa and North America 3.7 4.0 -0.3 0.208

Africa and South America 3.7 3.8 -0.1 0.097

Asia and Australia 2.9 3.0 -0.1 0.986

Asia and Europe 2.9 2.0 0.9 0.132

Asia and North America 2.9 4.0 -1.1 0.215

Asia and South America 2.9 3.8 -0.9 0.150

Australia and Europe 3.0 2.0 1 0.406

Australia and North America 3.0 4.0 -1 0.854

Australia and South America 3.0 3.8 -0.8 0.012

Europe and North America 2.0 4.0 -2 0.412

Europe and South America 2.0 3.8 -1.8 0.263

North America and South America 4.0 3.8 0.2 0.063

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Post Hoc tests on enhancing standardization as a benefit of decentralisation showed that

48

Africa valued this benefit higher than Asia (Table 4.3). (See chapter 5 for interpretation of

the result).

Table 4 5: Post Hoc Analysis on Reducing Bureaucracy by Area of Specialization

using Tukey Method

Area of Specialization (I

and J)

Mean I Mean J Mean difference

(I-J)

Sig. Value

Research and Technical 4.14 3.95 0.19 0.725

Research and Administrative 4.14 3.2 0.94 0.025*

Technical and Administrative 3.95 3.2 0.75 0.061

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Table 4.4 shows that Researchers and Administrators had significant differences in rating of

reducing bureaucracy, with researchers rating this benefit higher than administrators. (See

chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).

There were no significant differences in between any other groups of specialisation.

49

Table 4. 6: Post Hoc Analysis on Re-alignment of the organisational structure to

better support the strategic direction of ICRAF by Duty Station

Duty Station Mean I Mean J Mean difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

ICRAF HQ and East Africa 3.68 4 -0.32 0.872

ICRAF HQ and West and Central Africa 3.68 4.43 -0.75 0.33

ICRAF HQ and South Asia 3.68 3.6 0.08 1

ICRAF HQ and Latin America 3.68 4.29 -0.61 0.586

ICRAF HQ and Southern Africa 3.68 4.5 -0.82 0.817

ICRAF HQ and South East Asia 3.68 3.14 0.54 0.717

East Africa and West and Central Africa 4 4.43 -0.43 0.909

East Africa and South Asia 4 3.6 0.4 0.962

East Africa and Latin America 4 4.29 -0.29 0.987

East Africa and Southern Africa 4 4.5 -0.5 0.983

East Africa and South East Asia 4 3.14 0.86 0.258

West and Central Africa and South Asia 4.43 3.6 0.83 0.603

West and Central Africa and Latin

America 4.43 4.29 0.14 1

West and Central Africa and Southern

Africa 4.43 4.5 -0.07 1

West and Central Africa and South East

Asia 4.43 3.14 1.29 0.066

South Asia and Latin America 3.6 4.29 -0.69 0.786

South Asia and Southern Africa 3.6 4.5 -0.9 0.845

South Asia and South East Asia 3.6 3.14 0.46 0.962

Latin America and Southern Africa 4.29 4.5 -0.21 0.000**

Latin America and South East Asia 4.29 3.14 1.15 0.002*

Southern Africa and South East Asia 4.5 3.14 1.36 0.387

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Table 4.5 indicates that the perception that decentralisation will help to realign the

organisation structure to better support the strategic direction of ICRAF differs significantly

between Latin America and Southern Africa (p< 0.01) with Latin America rating the factor

50

higher than Southern Africa and between Latin America and South East Asia (p<0.05) with

Latin America rating the benefit higher than South East Asia. (See chapter 5 for

interpretation of the results).

4.3 Critical Success Factors for Decentralisation of Shared Services at ICRAF

4.3.1 Frequencies and Means on the Critical Success Factors for Decentralizing

Shared Services at ICRAF

Table 4.6 shows that fifty six percent (56%) of the respondents regarded regional

involvement as very important in decentralisation while 34% considered it somehow

important in decentralisation. Regarding the involvement of scientists (the bureaucrats), 48%

found this step to be very important, while 58% found involvement of administrative staff to

be very important (54%). Clarifying the functions to be decentralised and using a qualified

team of leaders were viewed by 61% and 64% of the respondents as very important steps to

decentralisation of shared services. The involvement of administrative staff from all regions

was rated very important by 58% of the respondents, while 32% rated it as important.

Definition of the decentralisation process was rated as very important by 54% of the

respondents, while 33% rated it as important. Staff feed-back was rated as somewhat

important (42%). More and regular information sharing was rated very important by 35% of

the respondents. Defined organisational structure was rated as very important by 57% of the

respondents.

The critical success factors to decentralisation of shared services were ranked on the basis of

the mean and reported in Table 4.6. The results indicate that the important steps in order of

preference are; involving staff from all the regions and headquarter, reducing paperwork

involved, clarifying functions that can be decentralised, making use of qualified team

members, defining the organisation structure, involving all regions in the process, clearly

defining decentralisation, identifying and documenting (mapping) the geographic locations,

regular information sharing, giving staff feedback and basing decentralisation on the volumes

of work.

One way analysis of variances (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether the critical

success factors differ on the basis of gender, age, region, education, job classification, duty

51

station, experience and areas of specialization. The results; reported in table 4.7 discloses that

the responses do not differ at all on the basis of age and education level but expose significant

differences on the basis of gender, region, job classification, duty station, work experience

and area of specialization. On the basis of gender (does not require Post Hoc analysis), the

issue on information sharing differs significantly between men and women. Women perceive

it to be more important than men (mean difference, 1.1). Post Hoc analysis was conducted to

further understand the differences in terms of region, job classification, duty station, work

experience and area of specialization. The results are reported in tables 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10.

52

Table 4. 7: Important Steps in Decentralisation of Shared Services

Important steps in

decentralisation

Rating

Total

Mean Rank

Not important

at all Not important Don’t know

Somewhat

important Very Important

Regional involvement 1 (1.4) 2 (2.9) 4 (5.7) 24 (34.3) 39 (55.7) 70 (70) 4.40 6

Involve scientists 0 (0) 7 (10.1) 6 (8.7) 23 (33.3) 33 (47.8) 69 (100) 4.19 10

Involve administrative staff from

regions and HQ

0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (10.1) 22 (31.9) 40 (58) 69 (100) 4.48

1

Define decentralisation process 0 (0) 3 (4.3) 6 (8.7) 23 (33.3) 37 (53.6) 69 (100) 4.36 7

Staff feed-back 1 (1.4) 1 (1.4) 13 (18.8) 29 (42.61) 25 (25) 69 (100) 4.10 11

More and regular information

sharing

0 (0) 2 (2.9) 10 (14.5) 24 (34.8) 33 (47.8) 69 (100) 4.28

9

Clarity on functions that can be

decentralised

1 (1.4) 1 (1.4) 5 (7.2) 20 (29) 42 (60.9) 69 (100) 4.46

3

Defined organisational structure 1 (1.4) 2 (2.9) 4 (5.8) 23 (33.3) 39 (56.5) 69 (100) 4.41 5

Reduced paperwork 0 (0) 1 (1.4) 3 (4.3) 28 (40.6) 37 (53.6) 69 (100) 4.46 2

Identify and document

geographic locations

0 (0) 1 (1.4) 3 (4.3) 37 (53.6) 28 (40.6) 69 (100) 4.33

8

Qualified team leaders 2 (2.9) 2 (2.9) 3 (4.3) 18 (26.1) 44 (63.8) 69 (100) 4.45 4

Volume of work 0 (0) 6 (8.8) 11 (16.2) 29 (42.6) 22 (32.4) 68 (100) 3.99 12

Values in parentheses ( ) are row percentages, while values outside parentheses are frequencies.

53

4.3.2 Differences in Important Steps in Decentralisation at ICRAF – ANOVA

Table 4.8: Differences in Perceptions of the Important Steps in the Decentralisation of Shared Services at ICRAF

Important steps in decentralisation Gender Age Region Education

Job

classification

Duty

station

Work

experience

Area of

specialization

Regional involvement 0.068 0.966 0.021* 0.331 0.002* 0.006* 0.763 0.000**

Involve scientists 0.697 0.256 0.652 0.301 0.175 0.630 0.916 0.028*

Involve administrative staff from regions and HQ 0.668 0.970 0.627 0.261 0.002* 0.235 0.159 0.001*

Define decentralisation process 0.553 0.955 0.670 0.915 0.018* 0.202 0.642 0.000*

Staff feed-back 0.709 0.083 0.102 0.238 0.347 0.268 0.626 0.388

More and regular information sharing 0.041* 0.498 0.02* 0.692 0.026* 0.078 0.539 0.025*

Clarity on functions that can be decentralised 0.429 0.447 0.910 0.638 0.029* 0.088 0.444 0.000*

Defined organisational structure 0.864 0.888 0.246 0.272 0.01* 0.219 0.384 0.014*

Reduced paperwork 0.912 0.413 0.583 0.467 0.65 0.334 0.678 0.043*

Identify and document geographic locations 0.257 0.759 0.901 0.966 0.663 0.683 0.303 0.658

Qualified team leaders 0.284 0.313 0.350 0.933 0.052 0.013* 0.032* 0.003*

Volume of work 0.699 0.131 0.816 0.759 0.155 0.067 0.320 0.012*

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

54

Table 4.9: Post Hoc Analysis on Region using the Tukey Method

Region

I and J

Regional

Involvement

More and Regular

Information Sharing

Mean

Difference

(I – J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Africa and Asia 0.48 0.000** 0.2 0.834

Africa and Australia 1.00 0.411 1.2 0.023*

Africa and Europe 0.63 0.561 -0.6 0.108

Africa and North America 0.52 0.645 -0.6 0.364

Africa and South America 0.80 0.342 0.8 0.114

Asia and Australia 1.30 0.035* 1 0.167

Asia and Europe 1.23 0.068 -0.8 0.830

Asia and North America -0.45 0.059 -0.8 0.254

Asia and South America 1.10 0.035* 0.5 0.538

Australia and Europe 0.68 0.069 -1.8 0.137

Australia and North America -0.87 0.235 -1.8 0.980

Australia and South America -0.20 0.509 -0.4 0.835

Europe and North America 1.10 0.413 0.0 0.102

Europe and South America 0.69 0.615 1.3 0.914

North America and South America 0.55 0.875 1.3 0.321

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Table 4.8 shows that regional involvement as a success factor to decentralisation was rated

significantly different between Africa and Asia (p<0.01) as Africa considered it more

important than Asia; Asia and Australia (p<0.05); Asia considered it more important than

Australia and Asia and South America (p<0.05); Asia considered it more important than

South America. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of the results).

55

Table 4.10: Post Hoc Analysis on Job classification using the Tukey Method

Job Classification Regional

Involvement

Involve admin staff Define Decentralisation Regular Info sharing Defined Org. Structure

Mean Difference (I – J) Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

GRP leader and Unit head -0.86 0.105 -0.43 0.624 -0.71 0.426 -0.86 0.098 -1 0.058

GRP Leader and Manager -0.86 0.291 -0.43 0.187 -0.71 0.310 -0.86 0.326 -1 0.951

GRP Leader and Researchers 0.24 0.977 0.47 0.527 0.39 0.85 0.29 0.952 -0.3 0.949

GRP Leader and Technicians -0.75 0.226 -0.15 0.994 -0.54 0.579 -0.58 0.535 -0.67 0.388

GRP Leader and Admin Staff 0.31 0.975 0.57 0.575 0.46 0.887 0.31 0.978 0.67 0.632

GRP Leader and communication -0.86 0.552 -0.43 0.919 -0.38 0.977 -0.53 0.918 -1 0.425

GRP Leader and Research Interns -0.55 0.614 -0.12 0.998 -0.25 0.979 -0.24 0.984 -0.69 0.404

Unit head and manager 0.25 0.520 0.13 0.651 0 0.489 0 0.068 0 0.950

Unit head and researcher 1.1 0.516 0.9 0.957 1.1 0.644 1.15 0.152 0.7 0.653

Unit head and technician 0.11 0.065 0.28 0.620 0.17 0.947 0.28 0.302 0.33 0.460

Unit head and administrative staff 1.17 0.546 1 0.542 1.17 0.574 1.17 0.983 1.67 0.146

Unit head and Communication 0 0.129 0 0.330 0.33 0.792 0.33 1.000 0 0.762

Unit head and research interns 0.31 0.875 0.31 0.425 0.46 0.498 0.62 0.997 0.31 0.997

Manager and Researchers 1.1 0.236 0.9 0.103 1.1 0.714 1.15 0.991 0.7 0.729

Manager and technician 0.11 0.765 0.28 0.500 0.17 0.625 0.28 0.941 0.33 0.288

Manager and administrative staff 1.17 0.281 1 0.369 1.17 0.891 1.17 0.998 1.67 0.214

Manager and communication 0 0.396 0 0.460 0.33 0.328 0.33 0.254 0 0.522

Manager and research intern 0.31 0.120 0.31 0.725 0.46 0.230 0.62 0.958 0.31 0.602

Researcher and technician -0.99 0.001* -0.62 0.037* -0.93 0.004* -0.87 0.01* -0.37 0.689

Researcher and Administrative staff 0.07 0.000** 0.1 0.999 0.07 1 0.02 1 0.97 0.092

Researcher and communication -1.1 0.174 -0.9 0.201 -0.77 0.571 -0.82 0.52 -0.7 0.687

Researcher and Research interns

-0.79 0.042* -0.59 0.099 -0.64 0.178 -0.53 0.374 -0.39 0.71

Technician and administrative staff

1.06 0.041* 0.72 0.156 1 0.067 0.89 0.15 1.34 0.007

Technician and communication -0.11 1 -0.28 0.98 0.16 0.999 0.05 1 -0.33 0.982

Technician and research intern 0.2 0.978 0.03 1 0.29 0.888 0.34 0.828 -0.02 1

Administrative staff and communication -1.17 0.241 -1 0.227 -0.84 0.622 -0.84 0.638 -1.67 0.037*

Administrative staff and research interns -0.86 0.191 -0.69 0.235 -0.71 0.412 -0.55 0.689 -1.36 0.000**

Communication and research interns 0.31 0.987 0.31 0.972 0.13 1 0.29 0.992 0.31 0.596

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

56

Table 4.9 discloses that the perception that regional involvement as a success factor for decentralisation of

shared services differs significantly between researchers and technicians (p<0.05) as technicians consider it

to be a more important factor, researchers and administration assistants (p<0.01) researchers consider it to be

more important, researchers and interns (p<0.05) interns consider it to be more important and technicians

and administrative staff (p<0.05) since technicians consider it to be more important. Table 4.9 further shows

that researcher and technicians had different perceptions on; the involvement of administration staff,

defining decentralisation and information sharing at (p<0.05) as critical in ensuring successful

decentralisation. Technicians considered the three elements as more important than the researchers. Lastly,

Table 4.9 discloses that definition of the organisational structure was rated differently by administrative staff

and research interns (p<0.01) and the staff involved in communication (p<0.01). In both cases, the

administrative staff had lesser mean. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).

57

Table 4.11: Post Hoc Analysis on Area of Specialization using the Tukey Method

Regional

Involvement

Involve admin staff Define Decentralisation Regular Info sharing Clarity on Functions Defined Org.

Structure

Job Classification (I

and J)

Mean

Difference (I –

J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

differe

nce

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Research and Technical -0.74 0.002* -0.64 0.001* -0.34 0.261 -0.6 0.019* -0.46 0.046 -0.34 0.261

Research and

Administrative 0 1 -0.2 0.667 0.49 0.265 -0.3 0.595 0.83 0.007 0.49 0.265

Technical and

Administrative 0.74 0.023* 0.44 0.124 0.83 0.014* 0.3 0.535 1.29 0.000** 0.83 0.014*

*p<0.05 **p<0.01

58

Table 4.10 shows that regional involvement as a critical success factor to decentralisation differs

significantly depending on the respondents‘ job classification as technical staff view it as more important

than researchers (p<0.05) and technical staff view it as more important than the administrative staff

(p<0.05). Regarding the involvement of staff, the responses between the research ant technical staff are

significantly different (p<0.05) with the technical staff rating it as more important than researchers.

Technical staff on the other hand consider the definition of decentralisation as more important in

decentralisation than the administrative staff (p<0.05). On the other hand, the technical staff regard regular

information sharing, clarity of functions and defining the organisation structure as more important than the

administrative staff (p<0.05). (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).

59

4.4 Challenges of Decentralizing Shared Services at ICRAF

4.4.1 Frequencies and Means on the Challenges of Decentralizing Shared Services at ICRAF

Most of the respondents agreed to some extent or were mostly not sure of the challenges likely to arise from

decentralisation (Table 4.11). Table 4.10 further shows that twenty five (25%) of the respondents regarded

management under a decentralisation mechanism as constrained by poor management skills. However, 20%

of the respondents were not sure of the same, while 15% thought that poor skills would be a challenge to

some extent (Table 4.11). In relation to potential job losses, 41% of the respondents were not sure if

decentralisation could cause this. Other challenges that would arise from decentralisation included resistance

to change, as indicated by 35% of the respondents (Table 4.11).

Table 4.12: Decentralisation challenges

Decentralisation challenges

Rating

Total

Mean Rank

Not at all

Small

extent Not sure

Some

extent

Large

extent

Inadequate management

skills

12(20.7) 9 (15.5) 12 (20.7) 15 (25.9) 10 (17.2) 58 (100) 3.03

9

Potential job loss 4 (6.9) 11 (19.0) 24 (41.4) 13 (2.4) 6 (10.3) 58 (100) 3.10 8

Resistance to change 5 (8.8) 4 (7.0) 14 (24.6) 20 (35.1) 14 (24.6) 57 (100) 3.60 1

Time to train on

decentralization

3 (5.2) 19 (32.8) 4 (6.9) 17 (29.3) 15 (25.9) 58 (100) 3.38

4

Additional work load in

certain departments

3 (5.2) 8 (13.8) 14 (24.1) 23 (39.7) 10 (17.2) 58 (100) 3.50

2

Lack of understanding by

staff of role in the

decentralised set up

6 (10.3) 15 (25.9) 7 (12.1) 18 (31.0) 12 (20.7) 58 (100) 3.26

6

Lack of finance 6 (10.3) 9 (15.5) 18 (31.0) 17 (29.3) 8 (13.8) 58 (100) 3.21 7

Duplication of services 5 (8.8) 9 (15.8) 11 (19.3) 22 (38.6) 10 (17.5) 57 (100) 3.40 3

Changes in work policy 5 (8.6) 10 (17.2) 15 (25.9) 20 (34.5) 8 (13.8) 58 (100) 3.28 5

Values in parentheses ( ) are row percentages, while values outside parentheses are frequencies.

Additional workload was also seen as a decentralisation challenge to some extent (40%), lack of

understanding of staff role was seen as a major challenge to some extent or to a large extent by over 50% of

the staff. Time to train staff on decentralisation was also seen to be a likely challenge to some extent (29%)

or to a large extent (26%). Thirty one percent of the respondents were not sure whether lack of finance was

to be a major challenge. Duplication of services and changes in work policy would arise as decentralisation

challenges to some extent as rated by over 35% of the staff (Table 4.11). Most of the factors ensuring

60

effectiveness of the decentralisation process at ICRAF were found to be very important by 40-60% of the

employees (Table 4.11). Table 4.11 also shows that resistance to change is the main challenge to

decentralisation in ICRAF. This is followed by additional workload, duplication of services, time to train on

decentralisation, changes in work policy, lack of understanding by staff on the role of the decentralised set

up, lack of finance, potential job loss, and inadequate management skills.

4.4.2 Differences in Perceptions of Challenges of Decentralisation - ANOVA

One way ANOVA was conducted to discern whether the challenges would be experienced differently on the

basis of age, gender, region, education level, job classification and duty station. Table 4.12; includes the

results of the analysis and shows that resistance to change differs on the basis of education level, duty station

and area of specialization; time to train differs on the basis of age; lack of understanding differs on the basis

of gender and education level; lack of finance and duplication of services differ on the basis of region;

change in work policy and organisation culture differ on the basis of education level and inadequate facility

on the basis of gender. Post Hoc analysis was conducted to explain where the exact differences would be

noted. These results are communicated in table 4.13, 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16.

Table 4. 13: ANOVA on the Challenges of Decentralizing Shared Services at ICRAF

Decentralisation challenges Gender Age Region Education

Job

classification

Duty

station

Inadequate management skills 0.345 0.077 0.285 0.697 0.838 0.122

Potential job loss 0.428 0.726 0.178 0.231 0.663 0.363

Resistance to change 0.914 0.376 0.460 0.008* 0.454 0.033*

Time to train on decentralization 0.051 0.026* 0.107 0.181 0.440 0.147

Additional work load in certain

departments 0.071 0.052 0.541 0.087 0.117 0.443

Lack of understanding by staff of

role in the decentralised set up 0.016* 0.234 0.148 0.015* 0.367 0.461

Lack of finance 0.099 0.116 0.013* 0.099 0.307 0.334

Duplication of services 0.585 0.855 0.040* 0.594 0.695 0.790

Changes in work policy 0.141 0.245 0.173 0.01* 0.052 0.399

Changes in organisational

culture 0.798 0.209 0.680 0.05* 0.220 0.606

Inadequate facility 0.07* 0.073 0.246 0.238 0.408 0.123

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

61

Table 4.14: Post Hoc Analysis on Time to train on decentralisation as a challenge of

decentralisation by age

Age Mean I Mean J Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig. Value

25 to 29 and 30 to 34 2.286 3.714 -1.429 0.139

25 to 29 and 35 to 39 2.286 2.917 -0.631 0.887

25 to 29 and 40 to 44 2.286 3.111 -0.825 0.765

25 to 29 and 45 - 49 2.286 4.250 -1.964 0.036*

25 to 29 and 50 + 2.286 3.875 -1.589 0.043*

30 to 34 and 35 to 39 3.714 2.917 0.798 0.570

30 to 34 and 40 to 44 3.714 3.111 0.603 0.858

30 to 34 and 45 to 49 3.714 4.250 -0.536 0.921

30 to 34 and 50+ 3.714 3.875 -0.161 0.834

35 to 39 and 40 to 44 2.917 3.111 -0.194 0.999

35 to 39 and 45 to 49 2.917 4.250 -1.333 0.183

35 to 39 and 50+ 2.917 3.875 -0.958 0.532

40 to 44 and 45 to 49 3.111 4.250 -1.139 0.409

40 to 44 and 50+ 3.111 3.875 -0.764 0.795

45 to 49 and 50+ 4.250 3.875 0.375 0.990

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Table 4.13 shows that the time to train on the new roles of the decentralised system will differ significantly

(p<0.05) between age groups 25-29 and 45-59 and also those aged 50 years or more. Those aged 25-29

would take lesser time to train than their older colleagues. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).

62

Table 4. 15: Post Hoc Analysis on Challenges by Region using the Tukey Method

Region

I and J

Lack of Finance Duplication of Services

Mean

Difference (I

– J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Africa and Asia -1 0.043* 1.4 0.000**

Africa and Australia 2.1 0.130 2.5 0.004*

Africa and Europe 1.1 0.325 2.5 0.000**

Africa and North America 2.1 0.771 1.5 0.000**

Africa and South America -0.2 0.899 0.3 0.003*

Asia and Australia 3.1 0.362 2.9 0.411

Asia and Europe 2.1 0.324 2.9 0.347

Asia and North America 3.1 0.121 1.9 0.991

Asia and South America 0.8 0.365 0.7 0.450

Australia and Europe -1 0.838 0 0.563

Australia and North America 0 0.658 -1 0.410

Australia and South America -2.3 0.984 -2.2 0.907

Europe and North America 1 0.594 -1 0.058

Europe and South America -1.3 0.388 -2.2 0.999

North America and South America -2.3 0.134 -1.2 0.264

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Table 4.14 shows that Africa and Asia have significantly different mean differences (p<0.05) with regard to

perceptions on lack of finance as a challenge to decentralisation, with Asia considering it a more severe

constraint. Interestingly, significant mean differences are noted between Africa and all other regions with

regard to the perception that decentralisation will lead to duplication of services. In all cases, Africa views

duplication of services as a more severe challenge compared to the other regions.

63

Table 4. 16: Post Hoc Analysis of the Challenges by Education Level

Education Level Resistance to Change Lack of Understanding Changes in work policy Change in

organisation

structure

Mean

Differenc

e (I – J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Certificate and diploma -0.850 0.251 -0.482 0.653 -0.321 0.061 -0.649 0.527

Certificate and graduate -2.10 0.000** -0.743 0.000** -0.214 0.000** -0.756 0.414

Certificate and postgraduate -1.60 0.000** -0.966 0.001* -0.623 0.003* -0.869 0.116

Diploma and Graduate -0.610 0.498 -0.143 0.003* -0.774 0.291 0.893 0.197

Diploma and post graduate -1.326 0.015* -0.553 0.004* -1.447 0.005 -0.462 0.550

Graduate and post graduate -0.716 0.153 -0.410 0.624 -0.673 0.148 -1.355 0.001*

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

64

Table 4.15 discloses that the level of resistance to change would differ significantly on the basis of education

level. Interestingly, those with lesser education qualifications; certificate holders and diploma would resist

the changes more than those with graduate or post graduate degrees. Similar conclusions are noted with

regard to the lack of understanding and adaptation to the newly decentralised structures as certificate holders

perceive it as a challenge as opposed to the diploma holders and the graduates. With regard to the changes in

the organisation structure table 4.15 discloses that graduates and post graduate degree holders have

significantly different means (p<0.05). (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).

Table 4.17: Post Hoc Analysis Challenges by Duty Station – Resistance to Change

Duty Station Mean I Mean J Mean difference

(I-J)

Sig. Value

ICRAF HQ and East Africa 3.28 4 -0.72 0.555

ICRAF HQ and West and Central Africa 3.28 2.4 0.88 0.000**

ICRAF HQ and South Asia 3.28 4.33 -1.05 0.629

ICRAF HQ and Latin America 3.28 3.86 -0.58 0.825

ICRAF HQ and Southern Africa 3.28 5 -1.72 0.671

ICRAF HQ and South East Asia 3.28 4.29 -1.01 0.291

East Africa and West and Central Africa 4 2.4 1.6 0.118

East Africa and South Asia 4 4.33 -0.33 0.997

East Africa and Latin America 4 3.86 0.14 0.999

East Africa and Southern Africa 4 5 -1 0.995

East Africa and South East Asia 4 4.29 -0.29 0.941

West and Central Africa and South Asia 2.4 4.33 -1.93 0.178

West and Central Africa and Latin

America 2.4 3.86 -1.46 0.234

West and Central Africa and Southern

Africa 2.4 5 -2.6 0.060

West and Central Africa and South East

Asia 2.4 4.29 -1.89 0.057

South Asia and Latin America 4.33 3.86 0.47 0.989

South Asia and Southern Africa 4.33 5 -0.67 0.103

South Asia and South East Asia 4.33 4.29 0.04 0.996

Latin America and Southern Africa 3.86 5 -1.14 0.753

Latin America and South East Asia 3.86 4.29 -0.43 0.978

Southern Africa and South East Asia 5 4.29 0.71 0.147

Table 4.16 shows that resistance to change as a challenge to decentralisation will be applicable across all the

65

duty stations. Significant mean difference (p<0.01) is however noted between ICRAF headquarters and

West and Central Africa, with ICRAF headquarter staff rating it as a more severe challenge. (See chapter 5

for interpretation of this result).

66

4.5 STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE DECENTRALISATION OF SHARED SERVICES

4.5.1 Frequencies and Means on the Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services

Table 4.17: Strategies to enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services

Factors Rating Total

Not important Less important Not sure Important Very important Mean Rank

Development of concrete policies 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 4 (7.0) 24 (42.1) 27 (47.4) 57 (100) 4.33 9

Timely communication 0 (0) 1 (1.8) 12 (21.4) 27 (48.2) 16 (28.6) 56 (100) 4.04 16

Change preparedness 1 (1.8) 3 (5.3) 7 (12.3) 25 (43.9) 21 (36.8) 57 (100) 4.09 15

Staff communication 2 (3.5) 2 ( 3.5) 3 (5.3) 27 (47.4) 23 (40.4) 57 (100) 4.18 13

Strong leadership at HQ level 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 5 (8.8) 16 (28.1) 34 (59.6) 57 (100) 4.44 4

Strong leadership at decentralised units 0 (0) 1 (1.8) 2 (3.6) 18 (32.1) 35 (62.5) 56 (100) 4.55 2

Transparency 0 (0) 1 (1.8) 0 (0) 30 (52.6) 26 (45.6) 57 (100) 4.42 5

Funds allocation 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 1 (1.8) 25 (43.9) 29 (50.9) 57 (100) 4.42 5

SLT and global research coordinators working

together

0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 22 (38.6) 33 (57.9) 57 (100) 4.54

3

Accounting for geographic differences 0 (0) 3 (5.3) 7 (12.3) 21 (36.8) 26 (45.6) 57 (100) 4.23 11

In line with mission and vision 0 (0) 3 (5.4) 1 (1.8) 23 (41.1) 29 (51.8) 56 (100) 4.39 8

Automation 1 (1.8) 0 (0) 10 (17.5) 25 (43.9) 21 (36.8) 57 (100) 4.14 14

Staff involvement 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (8.8) 24 (42.1) 28 (49.1) 57 (100) 4.40 7

Changing the organisational structure 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 9 (15.8) 23 (40.4) 23 (40.4) 57 (100) 4.18 12

Avoiding discrimination 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3.5) 19 (33.3) 36 (63.2) 57 (100) 4.60 1

Constantly updating staff 0 (0) 1 (1.8) 7 (12.3) 24 (42.1) 25 (43.9) 57 (100) 4.28 10

Values in parentheses ( ) are row percentages, while values outside parentheses are frequencies.

67

Table 4.17 shows that development of concrete policies was found to be very important

(47%) or important (42%). Timely communication was rated important (48%), or very

important (29%). Change preparedness was also rated important (44%). Strong leadership at

decentralised units was rated as very important (63%), while avoiding discrimination was

also rated as a very important factor by 63% of respondents (Table 4.17). Staff

communication was rated as very important by 40% of respondents. Strong leadership at the

decentralised units was very important (62.5%) or important (32%). Process transparency

was also rated important (53%) or very important (46%). The allocation of funds was also

very important (51%) or important (44%). The working together of SLT and global teams

was rated very important (58%) or important (39%). Being in line with mission and vision

was rated as very important (52%). Staff involvement was an important (42%) or a very

important (49%) requirement for a successful decentralisation process at ICRAF. Constant

staff updates were rated as very important processes for decentralisation. Table 4.17 further

shows that avoiding discrimination was the most highly rated strategy to enhanced

decentralisation, followed by strong leadership at decentralised units, SLT and global

research coordinators working together, Strong leadership at HQ level, Funds allocation,

Transparency, Staff involvement, being in line with ICRAF mission and vision .The least

rated was timely communication.

4.5.1 ANOVA on the Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services

One way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the strategies need to be applied

differently on the basis of gender, age, region, education, job classification, duty station,

work experience and area of specialization. The results; presented in table 4.18 shows that all

the strategies do not have to be applied differently on the basis of gender, work experience

and education level. However, communication, changing the organisation structure, avoiding

discrimination and constantly updating staff needs to be applied differently to members in

different age groups. Similarly, staff communication, changing the organisation structure and

constantly updating staff must be implemented differently to people in different job

classifications. Additionally, table 4.18 shows that avoidance of discrimination must be in

tune with people in different duty stations. Lastly, development of concrete policies, timely

communication, change preparedness, staff communication, strong leadership at the

headquarters and the alignment of the decentralisation process to the mission and vision of

ICRAF appear to vary widely on the basis of the area of specialization of the respondents.

68

Post Hoc analysis was conducted to understand the differences in a better way. The results of

the Post Hoc analysis are reported in table

Table 4.18: ANOVA on the Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared

Services

Factors of effective

decentralization Gender Age Region

Educatio

n

Job

classification

Duty

station

Development of concrete

policies 0.492 0.675 0.234 0.372 0.234 0.329

Timely communication 0.980 0.018* 0.288 0.403 0.288 0.118

Change preparedness 0.190 0.518 0.843 0.317 0.843 0.444

Staff communication 0.727 0.188 0.013* 0.624 0.013* 0.35

Strong leadership at HQ

level 0.959 0.980 0.24 0.227 0.240 0.517

Strong leadership at

decentralised units 0.434 0.131 0.761 0.927 0.761 0.323

Transparency 0.473 0.100 0.708 0.877 0.708 0.210

Funds allocation 0.545 0.618 0.254 0.709 0.254 0.946

SLT and global research

coordinators working

together 0.885 0.134 0.855 0.782 0.855 0.685

Accounting for geographic

differences 0.140 0.287 0.08 0.854 0.080 0.115

In line with mission and

vision 0.680 0.074 0.712 0.614 0.712 0.227

Automation 0.574 0.847 0.465 0.781 0.465 0.736

Staff involvement 0.445 0.572 0.482 0.37 0.482 0.110

Changing the organisational

structure 0.473

0.060*

0.046* 0.667 0.049* 0.460

Avoiding discrimination 0.174 0.028* 0.735 0.858 0.735 0.037*

Constantly updating staff 0.397 0.016* 0.036* 0.344 0.036* 0.218

69

Table 4.19: Post Hoc Analysis for Factors for Effective Decentralisation – Work

Experience and Area of Specialization

Factors of effective decentralization

Work

experience

Area of

specialization

Development of concrete policies 0.918 0.000**

Timely communication 0.885 0.028*

Change preparedness 0.957 0.007*

Staff communication 0.548 0.007*

Strong leadership at HQ level 0.311 0.000**

Strong leadership at decentralised units 0.344 0.205

Transparency 0.620 0.127

Funds allocation 0.415 0.068

SLT and global research coordinators working together 0.579 0.850

Accounting for geographic differences 0.549 0.615

In line with mission and vision 0.458 0.001*

Automation 0.954 0.253

Staff involvement 0.612 0.311

Changing the organisational structure 0.156 0.655

Avoiding discrimination 0.956 0.660

Constantly updating staff 0.15 0.480

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Post Hoc analysis on the application of the strategies to people in different age groups (Table

4.19) shows that the timely communication strategy is rated differently by age groups 30-34

and 45-49; changing the organisation structure is rated differently by age groups 25-29 and

30-34 and constantly updating staff is rated differently by age groups 25-29 and 30-34 on one

hand and 30—34 and 45-49 on the other. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).

70

Table 4.20: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Age

Age

I and J

Timely

Communication

Changing

Organisation

Structure

Avoiding

Discrimination

Constantly updating

staff

Mean

Differen

ce (I – J)

Sig.

Valu

e

Mean

differen

ce

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

differen

ce

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

differen

ce

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

25 to 29 and 30 to

34 -0.643

0.39

6 -1.110

0.043

* -0.275 0.871 -0.978 0.042*

25 to 29 and 35 to

39 -0.143

0.99

8 -0.905 0.165 -0.095 0.999 -0.786 0.175

25 to 29 and 40 to

44 -0.032 1 -0.683 0.519 -0.095 0.999 -0.508 0.687

25 to 29 and 45 –

49 0.482

0.76

7 -0.446 0.878 0.571 0.298 -0.036 1.000

25 to 29 and 50 +

-0.518

0.70

9 -0.946 0.199 -0.054 1.000 -0.661 0.44

30 to 34 and 35 to

39 0.500

0.50

7 0.205 0.986 0.179 0.955 0.192 0.981

30 to 34 and 40 to

44 0.611

0.36

8 0.427 0.805 0.179 0.968 0.470 0.618

30 to 34 and 45 to

49 1.125

0.01

1* 0.663 0.422 0.846 0.009 0.942 0.040*

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Post Hoc analysis of the strategies to enhance decentralisation of shared services on the basis

of region (Table 4.20), shows that; staff communication as a strategy differs significantly

(p<0.01) between Africa and Australia with Asia perceiving the strategy as more effective,

Australia and Europe, Australia perceiving the strategy as more effective and Australia and

North America, with North America perceiving the strategy as more effective. The strategy

on constantly updating staff, was rated significantly different (p<0.01) by Australia and South

America with Australia regarding it as a more effective strategy and Europe and South

America with Europe regarding it as more effective. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this

result).

71

Table 4. 2118: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Region

Region

I and J

Staff Communication Constantly updating

staff

Mean

Difference

(I – J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Africa and Asia -0.1 0.935 0 0.962

Africa and Australia 0.3 0.000** -0.7 0.107

Africa and Europe 3.3 0.457 2.3 0.214

Africa and North

America -0.7

0.121

-0.7

0.412

Africa and South

America 0.5 0.520 0.1 0.860

Asia and Australia 0.4 0.358 -0.7 0.257

Asia and Europe 3.4 0.624 2.3 0.135

Asia and North

America -0.6

0.104

-0.7

0.658

Asia and South

America 0.6 0.480 0.1 0.970

Australia and Europe 3 0.000* 3 0.107

Australia and North

America -1

0.000**

0

0.162

Australia and South

America 0.2

0.350

0.8

0.000**

Europe and North

America -4

0.784

-3

0.102

Europe and South

America -2.8

0.302

-2.2

0.003*

North America and

South America 1.2 0.141 0.8

0.065

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

72

Table 4.22: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Duty Station

– Avoiding Discrimination

Duty Station Mean I Mean J Mean

difference (I-J)

Sig. Value

ICRAF HQ and East Africa 4.65 4.89 -0.24 0.853

ICRAF HQ and West and Central

Africa 4.65 4.4 0.25 0.918

ICRAF HQ and South Asia 4.65 4.67 -0.02 0.996

ICRAF HQ and Latin America 4.65 4.57 0.08 0.999

ICRAF HQ and Southern Africa 4.65 4.00 0.65 0.003*

ICRAF HQ and South East Asia 4.65 4.33 0.32 0.754

East Africa and West and Central

Africa 4.89 4.4 0.49 0.554

East Africa and South Asia 4.89 4.67 0.22 0.988

East Africa and Latin America 4.89 4.57 0.32 0.833

East Africa and Southern Africa 4.89 4.0 0.89 0.001*

East Africa and South East Asia 4.89 4.33 0.56 0.349

West and Central Africa and South

Asia 4.4 4.67 -0.27 0.981

West and Central Africa and Latin

America 4.4 4.57 -0.17 0.993

West and Central Africa and

Southern Africa 4.4

4.0 0.4 0.000**

West and Central Africa and South

East Asia 4.4 4.33 0.07 1

South Asia and Latin America 4.67 4.57 0.1 1

South Asia and Southern Africa 4.67 4.0 0.67 0.000**

South Asia and South East Asia 4.67 4.33 0.34 0.944

Latin America and Southern

Africa 4.57

4.0 0.57 0.006*

Latin America and South East

Asia 4.57 4.33 0.24 0.963

Southern Africa and South East

Asia 4.0 4.33

-0.33 0.094

*p<0.05; **p<0.001

Table 4.21 shows that staff at ICRAF headquarters, East Africa, West and Central Africa,

South Asia, Latin America perceive the avoidance of discrimination as an effective strategy

to enhance decentralisation of shared services compared to their counterparts in Southern

Africa. (See The strategy on constantly updating staff, was rated significantly different by

73

Australia and South America with Australia regarding it as a more effective strategy and

Europe and South America with Europe regarding it as more effective. The strategy on

constantly updating staff, was rated significantly different by Australia and South America

with Australia regarding it as a more effective strategy and Europe and South America with

Europe regarding it as more effective. (See chapter 5 for interpretation of this result).

74

Table 4.23: Post Hoc Analysis on Strategies of Implementation by Area of Specialization

Area of

specialization

Development of

concrete policies

Timely

communication

Change

preparedness

Staff

communication

Strong Leadership

at HQ

Mission and Vision

Mean

Difference

(I – J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Mean

difference

(I-J)

Sig.

Value

Research and

Technical 0 1.000 -0.26 0.480 -0.31 0.506 -0.04 0.984 0.13 0.796 -0.13 0.832

Research and

Administrative 1.36 0.000** 0.6 0.222 0.86 0.092 1.15 0.019* 1.57 0.000** 1.1 0.006*

Technical and

Administrative 1.36 0.000** 0.86 0.025* 1.17 0.006* 1.19 0.005* 1.44 0.000** 1.23 0.001*

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

75

The results in Table 4.23 show that employees involved in research and technical work view

the development of concrete policies to guide the decentralisation process, strong leadership

at the ICRAF head quarters and alignment of the decentralisation process to the mission and

vision of ICRAF as more effective strategies than their counterparts involved in

administration. Additionally, timely communication and staff communication are considered

more effective strategies by technical staff compared to the administrative staff (p<0.05). (See

chapter five for interpretation of this result)

4.6 Chapter Summary

Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Women were the majority respondents, all

disciplines and regions were included and well represented in the study. Decentralisation of

shared services is advocated for by many staff across all disciplines as well as ICRAF Senior

Leadership Team. Decentralisation is seen to enhance standardization of operations across the

board for as long as discrimination is avoided under all costs. Overall, there were minimal

differences in the rating of decentralisation benefits by different staff groups, therefore;

indicating that staff generally agreed with the potential decentralisation benefits. This

generally shows that decentralisation would be largely beneficial to ICRAF, and should be

encouraged and adopted fully. While implementing decentralization, however, strategies will

have to be applied differently to different regions, age groups and job classifications.

Chapter five interprets the results and draws pertinent conclusions.

76

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 Discussion, Discussion and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the summary of findings of the research, discusses the results, draws

conclusions and makes recommendations for the implementation of decentralisation of shared

services at ICRAF.

5.2 Summary of Findings

Significant findings that arose from the study on decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF

were;

(i) The benefits of decentralising shared services at ICRAF in order of popularity are;

staff motivation, reduction in bureaucracy, realignment of the structure to support the

strategic direction, enhancing cross regional collaboration, minimizing supervision,

reduction in overhead costs, staff becoming more customer focused and enhancing the

standardization of operations. The perception that decentralisation enhances

standardisation of procedures differs significantly on the basis of the regions where

the respondents hailed, the benefit on reduction of bureaucracy differed on the basis

of the area of specialisation while the benefit on realignment of the organisation‘s

structure to favour the strategic direction of ICRAF differ on the basis of the duty

station.

(ii) The steps to take to ensure that decentralisation of shared services is successful in

ICRAF in the order of importance are; involving staff from all the regions and

headquarter in the process, reducing the paperwork involved, clarifying functions that

can be decentralised, making use of qualified team members, defining the

organisation structure, involving all regions in the process, clearly defining

decentralisation, identifying and documenting (mapping) the geographic locations,

regular information sharing, giving staff feedback and basing decentralisation on the

volumes of work. Respondents however significantly differed in perception of some

of the steps of decentralisation. The steps are; regional involvement differs on the

basis of region, job classification, duty station and area of specialization; involvement

77

of scientists differ on the basis of the area of specialization; involving administrative

staff and defining the decentralisation process differs on the basis of job classification

and area of specialization; more and regular information sharing differs on the basis

of gender, region, job classification and area of specialization; clarity on functions to

be decentralised and defining the organization structure differs on the basis of job

classification and area of specialisation; reduced paperwork differs on the basis of

area of specialisation; the use of qualified team leaders differs on the basis of the duty

station, work experience and area of specialisation while the volume of work differs

on the basis of specialisation.

(iii) The challenges to decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF in the order of

severity are; resistance to change, additional workload, duplication of services, time to

train on decentralisation, changes in work policy, lack of understanding by staff on

the role of the decentralised set up, lack of finance, potential job loss, and inadequate

management skills. Some of the challenges are however experienced differently on

the basis of some independent variables. For instance, resistance to change differs on

the basis of education level and duty station, time taken in training differs on the basis

of age, lack of understanding of the decentralization process differs on the basis of

gender and education level, lack of finance differs on the basis of region, duplication

of services differs on the basis of region and changes in work policy and organisation

culture differ on the basis of education level of the respondents.

(iv) The strategies that ICRAF can use to enhance decentralisation of shared services in

the order of importance are; avoiding discrimination, strong leadership at the

decentralised units, SLT and global research coordinators working together, ensuring

strong leadership at the head quarters, funds allocation, transparency, staff

involvement, ensuring that the decentralization policy is aligned to the ICRAF

mission and vision and ensuring timely communication. Communication, changing

the organisation structure, avoiding discrimination and constantly updating staff needs

to be applied differently to members in different age groups; staff communication,

changing the organisation structure and constantly updating staff must be

implemented differently to people in different job classifications; avoidance of

discrimination must be in tune with people in different duty stations and development

of concrete policies, timely communication, change preparedness, staff

78

communication, strong leadership at the headquarters and the alignment of the

decentralisation process to the mission and vision of ICRAF vary widely on the basis

of the area of specialization of the respondents.

5.3 Empirical Results in Relation to Previous Research Findings

5.3.1 Benefits of Decentralisation of Shared Services

The present study shows that decentralisation will be a real benefit within ICRAF and a value

added to Senior Leadership Team, researchers, technical staff as it will help to bridge the gap

between them and administrative support, hence minimising on any future bureaucracies; a

further benefit of decentralisation. Decentralisation will motivate staff as they will have better

and open working relationships and team building activities. Decentralisation of shared

services contributes to a feel good factor in an organisation as tasks are leveraged based on

specialization (Bergeron, 2003). These compares very well with other literature done for

example by Bergeron (2003) who said that shared services model is about optimizing people,

capital, time and other corporate resources. Shah, (1998) adds that decentralisation increases

the efficiency of the provision of these services, and strengthens delivery systems and impact

of the consortium research agenda through appropriate shared service delivery mechanisms,

including the possibility to outsource some of these services and functions for effectiveness

and efficiency.

5.3.2 Critical Success Factors for Decentralisation of Shared Services

The present study sought to determine the criteria that should guide the decentralization

process at ICRAF. The research shows the need for ICRAF to clearly redefine the criteria for

effective decentralisation to guide staff in their work. There is need to bring clarity on

services that are to be shared beforehand, identify core competencies, agreement on tasks to

be identified and ensuring that qualified and capable team leaders are available among others.

This outcome matches with literature review done by Dollery et al (2009) who documents on

the importance of decentralisation of shared services as to concretely identify ‗appropriate –

well defined‘ objectives that can deliver the desired services well in advance.

5.3.3. Challenges to the Decentralisation of Shared Services

The third objective of the study was to determine the challenges to implementation of

decentralised shared services at ICRAF. The research shows that there are challenges for the

79

effectiveness of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF. Training for ICRAF staff in

decentralisation is highly required to cope with the ever evolving technological environment

and improvement in management skills, staff need to be prepared well so as not to resist

change when it comes for change is good only when handled well. These results compares

very well with literature review done by Blaser (2003) who expresses the challenges that

hinder effective implementation of decentralisation as inadequate management skills and

resistance to change. Blaser shows that effective and operational decentralisation of shared

services requires improvements in fiscal management and a stronger financial capacity at the

regional and or local level. In regards to resistance to change Meyer (1998) shows that

corporate groups see their role as controlling business units, for example, limiting business

units' spending on a function or forcing one-size-fits-all solutions on them inappropriately.

These corporate functions may be shared, but they are very different from being service

oriented.

5.3.4 Strategies to Enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services

The last objective sought to establish the measures that can be put in place to enhance

implementation of decentralisation of shared services at ICRAF. The research shows that in

ICRAF it is paramount for ICRAF to have in place a clear communication strategy, staff

development plans, have transparent work policies and clearly define the organisational

structure. The research shows a big need for enhanced managerial training so as to build

adequate capacity for the decentralised structure. These findings compares very well with

other challenges for decentralisation; for instance, Quinn et al (2000), who indicates that not

every implementation of shared services is a success. In relationship to this, empirical

research focuses on the rationale for decentralisation with less focus on implementation and

the challenges that befall managers in their attempt to decentralise (Kreklow and Kinney,

2010).

5.4 Communicative Validity of the Results

The researcher constituted a focus group of 12 respondents to discuss the empirical results of

the present study. This was done because, the significant differences in perceptions of the

respondents with regard to benefits, critical success factors, challenges and the strategies to

enhance decentralisation of shared services could not be explained by use of previous

empirical studies. TerreBlanche, Durrheim and Kelly (2006 p.381) recommends the

80

communicative validity (veracity of truthfulness) of knowledge be tested in dialogue with

either the respondents, general public or scientific community of scholars in such instances.

The following is a summary of the questions posed to the focus group and the feedback that

was obtained.

Question One: The results show that Africa valued ―enhancing standardization as a benefit

of decentralisation‖ higher than Asia. Why is it so?

African respondents are based at the headquarters and hence had a higher need for

standardising institutional procedures. Additionally, the Asian respondents are inclined

towards centralisation processes and resistance to change for fear of losing their jobs as well

as limited resources to enable staff undertake training in management skills.

Question Two: The results show that researchers and administrators had significant

differences in rating of reducing bureaucracy (as a benefit of decentralisation), with

researchers rating this benefit higher than administrators. Why is it so?

This result is consistent with ICRAF because of the researchers (viewed to be bureaucrats)

want to reduce the gap between them and administrators and would like to see

administrators becoming more involved in research activities at some level for effective

support especially in budgets and donor reporting of scientific activities and deliverables.

While this enhances the research activity (core mandate of ICRAF) administrators view it as

added responsibilities. The researchers are interested in creating synergy for effective and

efficient operations in the core business of ICRAF.

Question Three: The perception that decentralisation will help to realign the organisation

structure to better support the strategic direction of ICRAF, differs significantly between

Latin America and Southern Africa with Latin America rating the factor higher than Southern

Africa and between Latin America and South East Asia with Latin America rating the benefit

higher than South East Asia. Why is it so?

The reason why Latin America rates this benefit much higher is because the team is much

smaller and reasoning together is much easier compared to the large and diverse team in

81

South East Asia. Secondly, there is no fear of job insecurities in Latin America as human

capital is already limited and operational capital is sufficient. South East Asia is the largest

region and funds are a big constraint and would not see how decentralisation is to aid

realignment of the structure, instead retrenchment is much feared.

Question Four: Regional involvement as a success factor to decentralisation was rated

significantly different between Africa and Asia as Africa considered it more important than

Asia; Asia and Australia; Asia considered it more important than Australia and Asia and

South America; Asia considered it more important than South America. Why?

As mentioned elsewhere in this study, Africa and Asia are the largest regions with biggest

staff population and views shared services as a means to alleviate drawbacks.

Decentralisation will provide immediate and uniformed services across the regional offices

Question Five: The differences in information sharing were noted between Africa and

Australia as Africa considered it more important in enhancing decentralisation than Australia.

Why?

The reason for high rating by Africa; is because Africa is the home of ICRAF headquarters,

and has the largest staff population working at headquarters and fewer people in Australia

region. The activities in Africa cannot be compared with those in Australia in terms of

output, hence the reason why decentralisation is much preferred in Africa since it will ease

work overload and reduce on budget expenditures. There are no known bureaucracies in

Australia as it is one of the smallest locations with no work pressure because it is mainly

used as a capacity building location where two or three staff members go for training at the

Australia National University (ANU).

Question Six: The perception that regional involvement as a success factor for

decentralisation of shared services differs significantly between researchers and technicians

as technicians consider it to be a more important factor, researchers and administration

assistants; researchers consider it to be more important, researchers and interns; interns

consider it to be more important and technicians and administrative staff since technicians

consider it to be more important. Why is it so?

82

The reason for the low perception of the administrative staff is that they are not involved

much in decision making. Their level of understanding of the ICRAF structure is low and

there is need to get them more engaged in the structure of ICRAF work.

.

Question Seven: Researchers and technicians had different perceptions on; the involvement

of administration staff, defining decentralisation and information sharing as critical in

ensuring successful decentralisation. Technicians considered the three elements as more

important than the researchers. Why is it so?

Technical staffs have a much clearer understanding of the organisational structure and

strategy compared to the administrative staff, hence the reason for the high rating of the

definition of decentralisation. Technical staff are more responsible for development of the

strategy much more than administrative staff. They engage more with donors as they develop

research proposals as well as resource mobilisation. With these observations, this gives

technical staff an upper hand with regards to their perception for a decentralised model

Question Eight: Definition of the organisational structure was rated differently by

administrative staff and research interns and the staff involved in communication. In both

cases, the administrative staff had lesser mean. Why is it so?

The reason for administrative staff to score less indicates that they are not involved much in

decision making. Their level of understanding of the ICRAF’s structure is low and there is

need to get them more engaged in the structure of ICRAF’s work.

Question Nine: The results show that regional involvement as a critical success factor to

decentralisation differs significantly depending on the respondents‘ job classification as

technical staff view it as more important than researchers and technical staff view it as more

important than the administrative staff. Why is it so?

Majority of the staffs of ICRAF work is in the regions where we have the tropical forests.

Decentralisation is more meaningful to staff who go to the field compared to staff at the

headquarters who handle policy matters.

Question Ten: The results show that the research and technical staffs rate the definition of

83

decentralisation as a critical success factor to decentralisation differently; with the technical

staff rating it as more important than researchers. Technical staff on the other hand considers

the definition of decentralisation as more important in decentralisation than the administrative

staff. On the other hand, the technical staff regards regular information sharing, clarity of

functions and defining the organisation structure as more important than the administrative

staff. What explains these results?

Technical staffs have a much clearer understanding of the organisational structure and

strategy compared to the administrative staff, hence the reason for the high rating of the

definition of decentralisation. Additionally, technical staffs are more responsible for

development of the strategy much more than administrative staff; they engage more with

donors as they develop research proposals as well as resource mobilisation. With these

observations, the technical staff an upper hand with regards to their perception for a

decentralised model.

Question Eleven: The results show that the time to train on the new roles of the decentralised

system will differ significantly between age groups 25-29 and 45-59 and also those aged 50

years or more. Those aged 25-29 would take lesser time to train than their older colleagues.

However, there would be no discrepancies between all the other age groups. Why?

This implies that a different training program is required for those the two groups. The age

groups 25-29 want to enhance existing skills as well as develop new skills required in the

fresh initiative, they are much interested in new methods that would enhance their

performance, while Age group 45-59 and beyond belong to the old school and the ever

evolving technological environment has overwhelming challenges and multi-tasking is never

easy for this group and that is why they resist change.

Question Twelve: Africa and Asia have significantly different mean differences with regard

to perceptions on lack of finance as a challenge to decentralisation, with Asia considering it a

more severe constraint. Significant mean differences are noted between Africa and all other

regions with regard to the perception that decentralisation will lead to duplication of services.

In all cases too, Africa views duplication of services as a more severe challenge compared to

the other regions. Why?

84

As mentioned elsewhere in this study, Africa is the largest region with biggest staff

population and views shared services as a means to alleviate drawbacks. Decentralisation

will provide immediate and uniformed services across the regional offices

Question Thirteen: the level of resistance to change would differ significantly on the basis

of education level. Interestingly, those with lesser education qualifications; certificate holders

and diploma would resist the changes more than those with graduate or post graduate

degrees. Similar conclusions are noted with regard to the lack of understanding and

adaptation to the newly decentralised structures as certificate holders perceive it as a

challenge as opposed to the diploma holders and the graduates. With regard to the changes in

the organisation structure the graduates and post graduate degree holders have significantly

different means. Why?

Staff with higher level of education reason wisely and can take concrete and strategic

decisions that are beneficial to the organisation. This is a dependable group of professionals

as opposed to staff with little education and exposure.

Question Fourteen: The results indicate that resistance to change as a challenge to

decentralisation will be applicable across all the duty stations. Significant mean difference is

however noted between ICRAF headquarters and West and Central Africa, with ICRAF

headquarter staff rating it as a more severe challenge. Why?

ICRAF is headquartered in Kenya and change management is never taken lightly in Kenya.

Jobs are hard to find in Kenya and especially good openings in international organisation

are a dream of many people and probably the reason is because that the introduction of

decentralised shared services in the organisation will cause job insecurity. Redundancy

declaration is one of the biggest challenges in Kenya. Past experiences have not rested well

with staff, hence the reason to fight it and prefer status quo.

Question Fifteen: The application of the strategies to people in different age groups shows

that the timely communication strategy is rated differently by age groups 30-34 and 45-49;

Timely and accurate communication with staff is key to any organisation that wants to excel

and ICRAF regions would not agree to be left behind in this noble aspect. Regular

85

information sharing and defined organisational structure is appreciated where it is seen to be

working well.

Question Sixteen: The strategy on constantly updating staff, was rated significantly different

by Australia and South America with Australia regarding it as a more effective strategy and

Europe and South America with Europe regarding it as more effective. Why?

The simple reason is that timely and accurate communication with staff is key to any

organisation that wants to excel and ICRAF regions would not agree to be left behind in this

noble aspect. Regular information sharing and defined organisational structure is

appreciated where it is seen to be working well.

Question Seventeen: The results disclose that staff at ICRAF headquarters, East Africa,

West and Central Africa, South Asia, Latin America perceive the avoidance of discrimination

as an effective strategy to enhance decentralisation of shared services compared to their

counterparts in Southern Africa. Why?

Past history is clear about discriminations of various aspects in Southern Africa. Past

experience and actions of apartheid could still be a barrier to contemporary thinking of the

staff in the region, hence the rating in this section. However, things are changing and the

region has seen good success from other regions that are similar and it does understand that

discrimination is detrimental to its success.

Question Eighteen: Timely communication and staff communication are considered more

effective strategies by technical staff compared to the administrative staff. Why?

ICRAF is a research organisation and therefore, its technical staff guide research and make

polices that are beneficial to staff and directs the achievement of ICRAF strategic document.

5.5 Conclusions

5.5.1 Benefits of Decentralisation of Shared Services

An international organization like ICRAF can get substantial benefits by decentralising its

operations. These benefits would however not be experienced universally. Some regions

86

(those with much workload and many employees) may experience the benefits more than

others, employees in different areas of specialisation (line managers) will also experience the

benefits differently and employees in certain duty stations (where core activities take place)

will also experience the benefits differently.

5.5.2 Critical Success Factors for Decentralisation of Shared Services

Presence of certain factors expounded in the study will enhance decentralisation of shared

services in international organizations such as ICRAF. The success of these factors in

enhancing decentralisation will however depend on; the region involved, job classification of

the employees, duty stations and area of specialization.

5.5.3 Challenges to Decentralisation of Shared Services

International organizations such as ICRAF are bound to experience challenges in their

attempt to decentralize operations. The most severe challenge would be resistance to change.

The challenges will however be experienced differently depending on the education level of

the employees, duty stations, age and the regions where the employees work.

5.5.4 Strategies to enhance Decentralisation of Shared Services

International organizations such as ICRAF can use various strategies to augment

decentralisation of shared services. The strategies include; avoiding discrimination, strong

leadership at the decentralised units, SLT and global research coordinators working together,

ensuring strong leadership at the head quarters, funds allocation, transparency, staff

involvement, ensuring that the decentralization policy is aligned to the mission and vision and

ensuring timely communication. These strategies may however need to be implemented

differently on the basis of age of the employees, regions, duty stations and areas of

specialization.

5.6. Recommendations

5.6.1 Measures for Immediate Implementation

The following measures should be implemented immediately;

Start preparing employees for decentralisation to reduce resistance to change

87

Take immediate steps to reduce the perception that some employees are

discriminated against

Ensure that more and regular information on decentralisation is dispersed to

all employees

Educate the administrators on the operations of a decentralised structure

Determine the services that need to be centralised and those that can be

decentralised

5.6.2 Short Term Recommendations

In the short term the following interventions should be undertaken:

Involve administration staff in decision making

Have different training programs (management skills and decentralisation) for people in

different ages

Ensure timely communication of information

Definition of decentralisation process and pathway and with simple updates to all staff

Awareness creation and consultation groups and E-groups for staff in the regions

Impact assessment of the decentralisation process. This should include a cost-benefit

analysis.

5.6.3 Long Term Recommendations

In the long-term; the following interventions should be undertaken to enhance

decentralisation of shared services;

Development of a long-term training policy to ensure that all managers are effectively

trained

Creation of an organization structure that is more receptive to decentralisation of

shared services

Employ more staff in Latin America

Make budgetary provisions to improve the facilities and other aspects in the Asian

region.

88

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akai, N. and Masayo S (2002). Fiscal Decentralization Contributes to Economic Growth:

Evidence from State-Level Cross-Section Data for the United States. Journal of Urban

Economics, Vol.52 (1), pp. 93-108.

Allan, P. (2006). What Drives Councils’ Efficiency: Population Size or Density. Independent

Inquiry into Local Government Inquiry. Sydney: NSW Local Government and Shires

Association.

AITEC, (2009). The First Outsourcing & Shared Services Forum for NGOs and Development

Partners. Theme: Optimising service delivery through shared services, Laico Regency Hotel,

Nairobi.

Baggott, R. (2004). Health and Health Care in Britain, 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Benassi, F.E. (2002). Shared services: running IT as a business. Energy IT, Vol.7 (1), pp.24-9.

Bergeron, B (2003). Essentials of Shared Services. John Wiley & Sons Press, Baffins Lane,

Chichester, England.

Blaser, J, Besdziek, D, and Byrne, S. (2003). Lessons Learned on Decentralization: A

Literature Review. Working paper. Institute of Federalism and Swiss Agency for

Development Cooperation.

Bramante, J. (2003). Introducing and Managing Organisational Change in Support of Business

Performance Management. Business Performance Management, Vol. 11 (1). Penton Media Inc.,

USA

Borman, M. (2010). Characteristics of a successful shared services centre in the Australian

public sector", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 4 (3). Pp.220 – 231.

89

Burns, D., Hambleton, R. and Hoggett, P. (1994). The Politics of Decentralisation.

Basingstoke: Macmillan

CGIAR Secretariat (2009). Shared Services Key Findings and Recommendations. Alliance

Office, FAO, Via delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 - Rome ITALY. Pp.9

Criscuolo P, Narula R. (2007). Using multi-hub structures for international R&D:

organisational inertia and the challenges of implementation. Management International

Review, 2007, Pp:639-660

De Vries, M. (2000). The rise and fall of decentralization: a comparative analysis of

arguments and practices in European countries. European Journal of Political Research.38:

193–224

Dove, C. (2004). The Shared Service Center: A Model for University Efficiency. Dissertation

in HE Management, Faculties of The University of Pennsylvania, USA.

Duarte,C.M.C., Esperança, J.P., Curto, J.D., Santos, M.C., and Carapeto, M. (2010). The

determinants of gender pay gap in Portuguese private firms. Gender in Management: An

International Journal, Vol. 25 (6), pp.438 - 461

Dunphy, D. and Griffiths, A. (1998). The Sustainable Corporation: Organizational Renewal

in Australia. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Dollery, B, Akimov, A and Byrnes, J. (2009). Shared Services in Australian Local

Government: Rationale, Alternative Models and Empirical Evidence. The Australian Journal

of Public Administration, vol. 68, (2), pp. 208–219.

Dwivedi, Y. K. (2008). Development of Survey Instrument: Exploratory Survey and Content

Validity. In Dwivedi, Y. K. (Ed.), Consumer Adoption and Usage of Broadband. (pp. 76-

116). doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-783-6.ch004

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Research Report, (1998). Decentralised Shared Services

Model: A new business architecture for Europe. Written in cooperation with Baker &

90

McKinzie, The Chase Manhattan Bank, KPMG, PeopleSoft)

Exworthy, M. (1994). The contest for control in community health services - general

managers and professionals dispute decentralisation. Policy and Politics 22(1): 17–29.

Farrell, D., (2004). Beyond Offshoring: Assess Your Company's Global Potential. Harvard

Business Review. vol.82, 12; p. 82.

Galbraith, J.R. (2002). Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide to Strategy, Structure

and Process. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Goold, M, Pettifer, D. and Young, D., (2001). Redesigning the Corporate Center. European

Management Journal, vol. 19 (1), pp. 83-91.

Hatch, M. J. and Cunliffe, A. L. (2006), Organization Theory. 2nd ed, Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Henricks, M. (2001). Learn to Share. Entrepreneur.

Howard, M.H and Wilson, D.A. (2006). Shared Services Insights (Part 1): An Implementation

Model for Successful Public Sector Programs. Outlook Point of View Vol (1). July issue.

Israel, G.D. (1992) . Sampling The Evidence Of Extension Program Impact. Program

Evaluation and Organizational Development, IFAS, University of Florida. PEOD-5. October.

Janssen, M., Joha, A. and Weerakkody, V. (2007). Exploring relationships of shared service

arrangements in local government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy,

Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 271-84.

Janssen, M., and Joha, A. (2006). Motives for establishing shared service centers in public

administration. International Journal of Information Management (26), pp 102 - 115.

Janssen, M (2005). Managing the development of shared service centers: stakeholder

considerations. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 113 (564-570),

ACM, New York, USA.

91

Janssen, M., and Joha, A. (2004). Issues in relationship management for obtaining the

benefits of a shared service center. In M. Janssen, R. W. Wagenaar, & H. G. Sol (Eds.), Sixth

International conference on electronic commerce. Pp. 219–228. New York: ACM Press.

Kidd, A.D., Lamers, J.P.A., Ficarelli, P.P. and Hoffmann, V. (2000). Privatising agricultural

extension: Caveat emptor. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol.16, pp. 95–102.

Kombo D.K and Tromp D. L.A (2006). Proposal writing and thesis proposal: An

introduction. MBA Thesis. Paulines Publications, Africa: Nairobi

Kothari, C.R. (1999). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age

International (P) limited publishers, New Delhi.

Langton, N. and Robbins, S.P (2007). Organisational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies,

Applications. Pearson Education, Inc. Fourth Canadian Edition (ISBN: 0131971107).

Lightfoot, C. (2003). Demand-driven extension: some challenges for policy makers and

managers. Presentation to CTA’s Sixth Consultative Expert Meeting of its Observatory on

ICTs. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No.136. Wageningen, the

Netherlands:

Longwood, J. and Harris, R.G. (2007), ―Leverage business process outsourcing lessons to

build a successful shared business service organisation‖, Report G00144283, Gartner,

Stamford, CT.

Mano, M. (2010). The Shared Service Center: Anew possibility for high education

Institutions. University of Coimbra, Reitoria, Portugual.

Megginson, D, Clutterbuck, D (2007). Techniques for coaching and mentoring.

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005ISBN 075065287X, 9780750652872. Pp.187

Melchior, D.C, (2007). Shared Services: A Manager's Journey. In John Wiley and Sons,

2007 - Business & Economics - 245 pages

92

Meyer, N.D. (2002). An Introduction to the Business-Within-a-Business Paradigm. NDMA, Inc.

Publications. 641 Danbury Road, Suite D, Ridgefield, CT 06877, USA. Pp. 47

Meyer, N.D (1998). DECENTRALIZATION: Decentralization: Fantasies, Failings, and

Fundamentals. NDMA, Inc. Publications. 641 Danbury Road, Suite D, Ridgefield, CT 06877,

USA. Pp.147

Mugenda, O.M and Mugenda, A.G (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and

Qualitative approaches. African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi

Megginson, D. (2007). Continuing Professional Development. 2nd

Edition Chapter 5; Chapter

6-9).

Mintzberg, H. (1981). Organization Design: Fashion or Fit. Harvard Business Review

(January February).

Nissel, M. (1980). The Welfare State – Diversity and Decentralisation. London: PSI

Peckham, S. and Exworthy, M. (2003). Primary care in the UK: policy, organisation

and mangement. Basingtoke: Palgrave

Pollitt, C (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Second Edition. Chapter 16.

(ISBN 0-19=926848-7; 0-19-926849-5 (pbk). Pp.371-377

Pollitt, C., Brichall, J. and Putnam, K. (1998). Decentralising Public Service Management.

London: Macmillan

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and

Competitors. The Free Press, New York, NY.

PwC, (2005). Shared Services for Even Greater Efficiency in Local Government. London:

PricewaterhouseCoopers.

93

Quinn, B., Cooke, R. and Kris, A. (2000). Shared Services: Mining for Corporate Gold.

Prentice-Hall, Harlow.

Ramírez, R. and Quarry, W. (2004). Communication strategies in the age of

Decentralisation and Privatisation of rural services: Lessons from two african experiences.

Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No.136. ODI, London SE1 7JD, UK.

Rao, M.P. (2006). A performance measurement system using a profit-linked multi-factor

measurement model. Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol 106 (3), pp. 362-79.

Reilly, P. and Williams, T, (2003). How to get best value from HR. The shared services

option. Gower publishing Ltd., Aldershot, Hants, Gull 3HR, UK.

Sarikas, O.D. and Weerakkody, V. (2007). Realising integrated e-government services: a UK

local government perspective. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 1

(2). pp. 153-73.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A (eds) (2009). Research Methods for Business Students

(5th ed), London: Prentice Hall.

Schulman, D.S., Dunleavy, J.R., Harmer, M.J. and Lusk, J.S. (1999). Shared Services:

Adding Value to the Business Unit. Wiley, New York, NY.

Schulz, V., Hochstein, A., Ubernickel, F. and Brenner, W. (2009). . Definition and

classification of IT-shared-service-centre. Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on

Information Systems. San Francisco, August 6-9.

Scott-Morton, M.S. (1991). The Corporation of the 1990s,. Oxford University Press, New

York, NY.

Shah, B. (1998). Shared Services: Is it for you? Industrial Management Magazine.

Sharp, J.A., Peters, J. And Howard, K. (2002). The Management of a Student Research Project.

(3rd

edn). Aldershot: Gower.

94

Sherman, E. (1999). The Shared Services Challenge: Retooling IT as an Internal Vendor to

Deliver Better Service Works for Many, but It's Easy to Hit Snafus along the Way.

Computerworld.

Smith, B.C. (1985). Decentralization: the territorial dimension of the state. London: Allen

and Unwin.

Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K. & Kelly, K. (2006). First Steps in Qualitative Data

Analysis. Reserach in Practice. Applied Methods for Social Sciences. Cape Town. University

of Cape Town.

Ulbrich, F. (2006). Improving shared service implementation: adopting lessons from the BPR

movement. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 (2). pp. 191-205.

Ulbrich, F. (2008). The Adoption of IT-enabled Management Ideas. The Economic Research

Institute, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.

Ulrich, D (1997). Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and

Delivering Results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Wagenaar, R. (2006). Governance of share service centers in public administration:

dilemma‘s and trade-offs., paper presented at International Conference on Electronic

Commerce. Fredericton, Canada, August 14-16.

WALGA, (2006). Systemic Sustainability Study: In Your Hands – Shaping the Future of

Local Government in Western Australia. Perth:Western Australian Local Government

Association.

White Paper, The World Development Report 2008 on Agriculture for Development,

Washington, WB

Willcocks, L.P., Lacity, M. and Cullen, S. (2007). Outsourcing: fifteen years of learning. In

Mansell, R., Averou, C., Quah, D. and Silverstone, R. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of

Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

95

World Agroforestry Centre, (2008), Transforming Lives and Landscapes. Strategy 2008-2015.

Nairobi, Kenya. WorldAgroforestry Centre.

World Agroforestry Centre. (2007). ICRAF Personnel Manual. Nairobi, Kenya.

WorldAgroforestry Centre.

Yee, C and Powell, J (2007). Shared Services as an Asset in Supporting Innovation and Growth.

Shared Services & Outsourcing Network articles. SSON. Vol. 9 (8).

World Agroforestry Centre. (2006). Trees of Change: A vision for an agroforestry

transformation in the developing world. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.

World Agroforestry Centre. (2004). Senior Leadership Team (SLT) Minutes. World Agroforestry

Centre, Nairobi

Blogs

Beard, M. and Rupp, T (2004). The Future of Shared. Services Montgomery Research Institute,

CFO Projects. [Solutions Development]. JPMorgan Treasury Services. [Online] Available from

www.cfoproject.com/documents.asp?grID=291&d_ID=1475. [15 January 2011]. Pp.1-5

Hewlett-Packard, (2010). Hewlett-Packard Development Company. [Online] Available from

http://h30187.www3.hp.com/articles/viewArticleAllPages.jsp?courseSessionId=305985&lessonI

d=60564&courseId=32169 . [15 January, 2011]

Israel, G.D. (1992). Determining Sample Size. Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006

Kreklow, S.R and Kinney, A.S (2010). The effective organisation of administration functions

through shared services. [Online] Available from http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-

insurance/4498393-1.html. Government Finance Review. Pp.1-2. [16 January, 2011].

96

Lightfoot, C. (2003). Demand-driven extension: some challenges for policy makers and

managers. Presentation to CTA‘s Sixth Consultative Expert Meeting of its Observatory on

ICTs. Wageningen, the Netherlands: CTA. [Online] Available from

www.cta.int/observatory2003/keynote_papers/Challenges_in-demanddriven_extension.pdf.

[19 April, 2011].

Oracle White Paper (2001). Consolidate Business Operations Through Shared Service

Centers. Shared Services and Multi-Org Architeture, Applications Development, Oracle

Corporation. [Online] Available from http://www.oraclewhitepapers.com/. [23 February,

2011]

97

Appendix 1: Survey introductory letter

From: j.kasyoki@cgiar.org [mailto:j.kasyoki@cgiar.org]

Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:06 AM

To: Kasyoki, Joyce (ICRAF)

Subject: Dissertation Survey_ "Decentralisation of shared Services: A case study of World

Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF‖

Dear Name of Respondent,

Very warm greetings.

My name is Joyce Kasyoki. I need your support. I am a student at the University of

Sunderland, UK undertaking a Masters Degree in Business Administration. I am carrying out

a survey and kindly request you to participate by filling in the questionnaire at your earliest

convenience but not later than 31st January, 2011

My dissertation research title is "Decentralisation of shared Services: A case study of World

Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF.‖ All responses are confidential. In this study, a decentralized

shared services organization is one which decision-making authority is not confined to the

Senior Leadership Team (SLT) but rather is throughout the organization, with leaders at

various levels making key operating decisions relating to their roles and responsibilities. The

information obtained will be used strictly for academic purposes.

Here is a link to the survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=D4AsAjhxYUiWOtXHUEaeZA_3d_3d

This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this

message.

Thanks for your participation!

Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link below,

and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx?sm=D4AsAjhxYUiWOtXHUEaeZA_3d_3d

Sincerely yours,

Joyce Kasyoki

Manager, Administration

ASB—Partnership for Tropical Forest Margins

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

UN Avenue, P.O. Box 30677-00100

Nairobi, Kenya

Tel +254 20 722 4114

Fax +254 20 722 4001

E-mail: J.Kasyoki@cgiar.org

http://www.asb.cgiar.org// www.worldagroforestrycentre.org

98

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

Decentralisation of shared services at World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF

A].GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF

1. What is your gender?

-Male

- Female

2. What is your age bracket?

18-24yrs

25-29yrs

30-34yrs

35-39yrs

40-44yrs

45-49yrs

50 and above.

3. Please select your region:

Africa,

Asia,

Australia,

Europe,

North America,

south America

4. Level of education (Already completed):

Certificate,

Diploma,

Advanced diploma,

Graduate,

Postgraduate (masters level),

Postgraduate (PhD level)

5. Job classification:

DG & Director,

Coordinator,

GRP Leader,

Unit Head,

Manager

Scientist/Researcher,

Technicians & field employees,

Administrative staff

99

6. Please indicate your duty station.

ICRAF Headquarters

East Africa

West and Central Africa

South Asia

Latin America

Southern Africa

South east asia

8. How long have you worked for ICRAF?

Less than 6 months

1-6 years

7-12 years

13-18 years

+18 years

9. What is your area of specialisation

Research/Science

Technical/Field Operations

Administrative

B] To what extent do you agree that ICRAF would get the following benefits if it

adopts decentralization of shared services?

Rate each item on the scale shown to indicate your level of agreement

Score Strongly

disagree

Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

1. Faster delivery of services to the

clients

2. Staff motivation

3. Will free senior management

from the day to day tasks and so

they will concentrate on strategic

aspects of their job

4. Elimination of bureaucracy

5. Will reduce the costs of

operation

6. Will eliminate redundant

employees and facility

7. The staff will become more

customer focused

100

8. Business Unit (department)

autonomy will be enhanced

9. Staff will be strategically aligned

to the organization.

Please state any other benefits that a decentralized structure will result to ICRAF.

C]. In a ranking of 1-5 (5 being the highest), to what extent do you think the

following criteria should guide the decentralisation process at ICRAF?

Please rank between 1-5 (5 being the highest priority)

Score 1 2 3 4 5

10. Clearly defined objectives of decentralisation

11. Clarity on services that are to be shared across the

board

12. Agreed tasks to be identified and completed

before embarking on a shared services mode

13. Identified core competencies for decentralisation

14. Clarity on functions that can be decentralized

15. Clarity on functions that cannot be decentralized

16. Clear Centre strategic vision, scope and objectives

17. Costs required in decentralization are allocated

across the board

18. Geographic location of functions and departments

well identified and documented

19. Availability of qualified and capable team leaders

20. Volume of work in the department

In your opinion what other step/criteria would you add to the above?

______________________________________________________

D]. To what extent would you consider the following to be the challenges if ICRAF

was to fully decentralise shared services?

Please rank between 1-5 (5 being the highest priority)

Not at

all

Small

Extent

Not

Sure

Some

Exte

nt

Large

Extent

1. Managers have inadequate skills to

manage decentralized units

2. Potential loss of jobs

3. Resistance to change

4. Time required in educating staff

members on the importance of

decentralisation

101

5. Additional work load in certain

departments

6. Lack of understanding by the staff on

their role in the decentralized set up

7. Lack of finance

8. Duplication of services

9. Changes in work policy

10. Changes in organizational culture

11. Inadequate facility

What other challenges would the decentralization process face? (please list)

______________________________________________________

E]. Please rate the importance of the following factors in ensuring effectiveness of

the decentralisation process at ICRAF.

Please rank between 1-5 (5 being the highest priority)

Not At

All

Importa

nt

Less

Importa

nt

NOT

SURE

Importa

nt

Very

Importa

nt

1. Development of concrete policies

to effectuate shared services at

ICRAF

2. Timely communication to staff on

workforce turnover

3. Communication to staff on the

financial status of the Centre

4. Preparedness in managing the

change process

5. Strong leadership in the

decentralization process at HQ

level

6. Strong leadership at the level of

decentralized units

7. Transparent procedures and

guidance on ICRAF‘s

commitment to decentralisation

process

8. Adequate funds allocated to

support the decentralisation

process from the onset

9. Senior Leadership Team and

Global Research Coordinators

working together to carry out the

process

10. Ensure that differences in

geographic conditions of the

regions are considered during

decentralisation

102

11. Ensure that the decentralization

process is in line with ICRAF‘s

mission and vision

12. Automation of the ICRAF centers

(internet and intranet)

13. Staff involvement in the

decentralization process

14. Changing the organization

structure to reflect the newly

decentralized units

15. Avoid discrimination (location,

gender, race, age, religion) on

placement of staff

16. Constantly update staff on status

of the decentralization process

Please state any other factors that you would consider important in enhancing the

decentralisation process

______________________________________________________

Thank you for participating.

103

Appendix 3: Lessons Learned – Personal developmetn

Through this study, I have been able to identify and document my own research proposal that

was followed by thesis. At this point, I feel that I am able to develop good writing and study

skills that help in retention of information and putting it in to good use. The feel good factor

associated with personal development plan is motivating it promotes understanding and

dealing with reality in life. (Megginson, 2007).

In terms of personal abilities and competencies, I have advocacy ideas for excellent

coordination and organization skills, as well as interpersonal skills. As a team player I would

work effectively in research oriented tasks and provide support to colleagues. Nevertheless,

my study has provided me with fresh knowledge and after this research, I have no doubt that I

am able to work well independently under minimal supervision, taking decisions as

circumstances require. Above notwithstanding, I am very confident that this research has

equipped by bridging the knowledge. I am now able to perform the following with vigour

and confidence:

Identify the needs of my organization and elaborate an effective organisational

strategy based upon the goals and objectives.

Understand the basics of good leadership, effective management and communication

skills within an organisation.

Deliver effective and quality services to members through decentralisation model.

Assess the different aspects and processes within an organisation.

Develop effective lobby and advocacy strategies through decentralisation of shared

services

Understand the socio-cultural issues affecting my work environment and the ICRAF

as a global international organisation.

104

Appendix 4: Workplan

Key Activities

(Milestones) Time-scale

(Plan of action)

Resources required

(Equipment, software, personnel etc)

1. To identify my own area

of interest January, 2010 Supervisor‘s support, internet

connectivity, course book

2. Select topic

February, 2010 Supervisor, office Supervisor and

myself to explain interest

3. Confirm topic and begin

to develop dissertation

proposal

February, 2010

Supervisor, internet, computer

4. Proposal written and

submitted to Supervisor at

Intel College Sept, 3

rd, 2010

Supervisor, computer, internet

5. Process proposal feedback Sept, 17th

2010 Supervisor, computer and internet

6. Design questionnaire October, 2010

Supervisor, office supervisor,

computer, course book, internet

7. Pre-test the questionnaire

November, 2010

Introduction letters, Pilot respondents,

computer, office supervisor, computer

and internet

8. Begin to collect data and

background information

November, 2010

Internet, Library, Research Intern,

course book, journals and references

9. Analysis and

interpretation of data December, 2010 Research Intern, additional computer

for intern and internet

10. Make desirable changes in

the questionnaire based on

feedback received December, 2010

Myself, the research intern, computer

and internet

11. Data collection December, 2010

Myself, research intern, colleagues

computer and internet

12. Writing up 1st draft

December, 2010 Supervisor reviews, Computer and

internet, office supervisor‘s time

13. Handle feedback and

corrections to 1st draft December, 2010

Supervisor 2nd

review, computer,

internet

14. Final proposal draft

prepared submission of

dissertation

December, 2010

Supervisor, computer, internet

15. Approval to write the full

proposal

Early January, 2011 – 12 May 2011 writing

full dissertation chapter 1-5 including

bibliography back and forth with

supervisor‘s reviews comments and

direction.

Supervisor, office supervisor,

computer

16. Submission of complete

dissertation 13 May, 2011 Supervisor, Computer and internet,

MBA –Sunderland Admin Support

Graduation November 2011

Family, Supervisors, Office

supervisor, Peers, Friends and Well

wishers