JM Dating - шаблон joomla Скрипты

 

Developed the Government Guidelines for Development Project Management (GDPM), which will explain the main principles and operational procedures for managing development projects and provide clear guidance on the policies, processes, and mechanisms. It will contain appropriately detailed instructions and references to the national and international requirements to minimize conflicting interpretations. At present there is no guideline or manual in the Kyrgyz Republic to guide the PIU staff in project PIP implementation. The GDPM will streamline existing procedures and make available practical templates and methodologies, where applicable, in all areas of the project cycle. Upon approval by the government for its mandatory use, the GDPM will be converted to an electronic form and maintained by the Public Investment and Technical Assistance Department (PITAD) of the MOF on the ministry’s official website. Capacity development activities for representatives from the Prime Minister’s Office, MOF, and other key agencies involved in policy making, and implementation of the development project management processes and procedures, will include a study tour abroad to learn about good project management practices and experiences in other countries.

 

2. Methodology

The methodology for addressing all elements identified in the relevant Terms of Reference will be based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of processes and data from primary and secondary sources, opinions of relevant actors. Beyond data collection and interviews this will also include development of questionnaires for conducting a survey of PIUs staff including staff of the MOF and MOE PI departments.

3. Approach

The GDPM development will adopt a multi-disciplinary approach and as far as possible a participatory approach including meeting with the key beneficiaries, government and parliament officials, business representatives and officials from the relevant national and international agencies involved in the project implementation. The scope of the GDPM will be on the implementation of all PIP projects in the Kyrgyz Republic. Data, information, views and opinions will be collected via three methods: process analysis, semi-structured interviews and through questionnaires:

The GDPM will be produced based on:

-       Document review: PIP documents, progress reports and final reports PCRs, IERs, etc;

-       Document review: Government national and sectoral strategies;

-       Document review: Technical advice already provided, publications and training material;

-       Document review: Reports of international forums, workshops and meetings on PIP;

-       Document review: Best international practices and case studies in emerging economies;

-       Data collection: primary and secondary sources of national data and sector-level PIP data;

-       Questionnaires for management and staff of MoF PITAD, MoE and PIU staff in ministries/agencies;

-       Interviews with Mof and MoE staff in charge of PIP implementation;

-       Interviews with international and local experts;

-       Interviews with other government and international partners working on PIP;

-       Interviews with business associations, PSD representatives, NGOs;

-       Interviews with international organizations representatives and embassy officials.

4. Target groups of the GDPM

– The core group: MOF PITAD, MOE and PIUs in ministries and agencies (survey/questionnaire and interviews).

– The key stakeholders, government and parliament officials and government agencies, foreign embassy representatives, international organizations, (interviews).

– Private sector, NGO, business associations (interviews).

5. There are variety of diagnostic tools for assessing the Public Investment Management and we list here two of them as an examples:

The International Moneraty Fund (IMF) has developed a new Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) to assess the quality of public investment management practices. The PIMA evaluates aspects for planning, allocation, and implementing public investment. The PIMA includes elements similar to other PIM diagnostic tools, but it also provides a more comprehensive assessment of the public investment decision-making process at three key stages:

Stage 1 Planning: Efficient investment planning requires institutions that ensure public investment is fiscally sustainable and effectively coordinated across sectors, levels of government, and between public and private sectors. The PIMA therefore assesses whether countries have:

  • Fiscal principles or rules, which ensure that overall levels of public investment are adequate, predictable, and sustainable;
  • National and sectoral plans, which ensure public investment decisions are based on clear and realistic priorities, cost estimates, and objectives for each sector;
  • Central-local coordination, arrangements that integrate public investment plans across levels of government, provide certainty about funding from the central government, and ensure sustainable levels of sub-national borrowing;
  • Management of public-private partnerships (PPP), which ensure effective evaluation, selection, and monitoring of PPP projects and liabilities; and
  • Regulation of infrastructure companies, which promotes open and competitive markets for the provision of infrastructure services, objective pricing of infrastructure outputs, and effective oversight of infrastructure company investment plans.

Stage 2 Allocation: Allocation of capital spending to the most productive sectors and projects requires a comprehensive, unified, and medium-term perspective to capital budgeting, as well as objective criteria and competitive procedures for appraising and selecting particular investment projects. The PIMA therefore assesses whether countries have:

  • Multi-year budgeting that provides transparency and predictability regarding levels of investment by ministry, program, and project over the medium term;
  • Budget comprehensiveness that ensures that all public investment, regardless of the funding channel, is authorized by the legislature and disclosed in the budget documentation;
  • Budget unity that ensures that decisions about individual projects take account of both their immediate capital and future operating and maintenance costs;
  • Project appraisal that ensures that project proposals are subject to published appraisal using standard methodology and taking account of potential risks; and
  • Project selection that ensures that projects are systematically vetted, selected based on transparent criteria, and included in a pipeline of approved projects.

Stage 3 Implementation: The timely and cost-effective implementation of public investment projects requires institutions that ensure projects are fully funded, transparently monitored, and effectively managed. The PIMA therefore assesses whether countries have:

  • Protection of investment that ensures project appropriations are sufficient to cover total project costs and cannot be diverted at the discretion of the executive;
  • Availability of funding that allows for the planning and commitment of investment projects based on reliable forecasts and timely cash flows from the treasury;
  • Transparency of budget execution that ensures that major investment projects are tendered in a competitive and transparent process, monitored during project implementation, and independently audited;
  • Project management that identifies an accountable project manager working in accordance with approved implementation plans, and provides standardized procedures and guidelines for project adjustments; and
  • Monitoring of public assets that ensures assets are properly recorded and reported and that their depreciation is recognized in financial statements.

The World Bank defines Eight Must-Have Features of PIM as:

– Step 1 – Strategic Guidance and Preliminary Screening: National and/or sector strategy documents are specific enough, and have sufficient coherence and authority to actually guide public investment, and are used systematically to screen new projects (with at least some projects dropped at the preliminary screening stage). Sector strategies are fully costed, and are closely integrated and consistent with medium term budgets.

– Step 2 – Project Appraisal: Project development follows a standard and well-defined set of procedures, and projects are appraised using the full range of techniques as appropriate. There are comprehensive central guidelines on project appraisal, including specific detailed guidance on the appraisal of PPPs.

– Step 3 – Independent Appraisal Review: The risk of line ministries “cooking the numbers” to ensure that a project passes appraisal is limited by an independent review of the project.

– Step 4 – Project Selection and Budgeting: In general, only projects that have been subject to thorough appraisal, and have been independently reviewed, are selected for funding in the budget. Multi-year budget authority supports effective project implementation.

– Step 5 – Project Implementation: There is a strong focus on managing the total project costs over the life of each project. Clear roles and responsibilities are in place for project implementation, with regular reporting on financial and non-financial progress and close monitoring by the MOF. Sound procurement systems are in place and are consistently implemented, with advanced techniques for allocating risks between government and contractor.

– Step 6 – Project Adjustment: A distinctive feature of these advanced PIM systems is that specific mechanisms are in place to trigger a review of a project’s continued justification if there are material changes to project costs, schedule, or expected benefits.

– Step 7 – Facility Operation and Maintenance: Comprehensive and reliable asset registers are maintained and are subject to external audit. In the UK, full accrual balance sheets are in place across the central government, and the Gateway process focuses specifically on readiness for service.

– Step 8 – Basic Completion Review and Evaluation: All advanced countries put significant effort into ex post review. Investment projects are subject to audit by the supreme audit institution, including value-for-money audits.

These eight specific features provide a degree of assurance that there are no systemic loopholes that would enable wasteful or corrupt decisions. They are considered to be must-have features, not with the intention of establishing a gold standard but to provide a logical and internally consistent system that even a low-capacity country should try to follow to establish basic disciplines for project selection and management.

The below shows an illustration of the WB approach:

 

ANNEX 9 –Methodology for the Business Process Mapping exercise

1. Purpose of BPR for Improved Project Approval and Project Implementation

As part of the requirements of output 1 of the TOR and in addition to the GDPM the TA will set the concepts for efficient use of institutional capacity and resources by optimizing roles and responsibilities of the government bodies involved in project planning, preparation, approval, implementation, monitoring, and result assessments. BPR for Public Sector is important for the following reasons:

  • Business process reengineering aims to increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency of processes and avoid duplication and overlapping of procedures.
  • Business process reengineering removes processes that produce no value to end users and reorganizes other processes to make the primary process more efficient.
  • Business process reengineering may involve redesigning procedures, eliminating steps, providing a single point of contact, and introducing technology to reduce burdens on businesses and government.

2. Methodology

The methodology for addressing all elements identified in the relevant Terms of Reference will be based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of processes and data from primary and secondary sources, opinions of relevant actors. Beyond data collection and interviews this will also include development of questionnaires for conducting a survey of PIUs staff including staff of the MOF and MOE PI departments. Legal, regulatory and procedural analysis of the laws, regulations, procedures governing the approval and implementation of PIP projects will be conducted comparing it to the real situation in approval and management of development projects. This will be done through document research of all existing laws and regulations governing this field; interviews with beneficiary Ministry of Finance and representatives of the PIU, parliamentary administration, PM office and presidential administration and Business Process Reengineering (BPR) process. In order to link the concepts of process mapping with process reengineering, we present the four basic steps of the overall methodology:

  • Identification of scope;
  • As-is process mapping;
  • To-be process mapping;

Implementation of reform through business process reengineering, business process management, or other reform methodology.

3.         Approach

The BPR development will adopt a multi-disciplinary and as far as possible a participatory approach including meeting with the key beneficiaries, government and parliament officials, business representatives and officials from the relevant national and international agencies involved in the project implementation. The scope of the BPR will be on the Project Approval and Project Implementation stages of all PIP projects in the Kyrgyz Republic. Data, information, views and opinions will be collected via three methods: process analysis, semi-structured interviews and through questionnaires:

The BPR Process Mapping and Recommendations for Improvements will be produced based on:

  • Document review: Analysis of legal and regulatory acts governing PIP approval and implementation;
  • Document review: Government national and sectoral strategies;
  • Document review: Technical advice already provided, publications and training material;
  • Document review: Best international practices and case studies in emerging economies;
  • Data collection: primary and secondary sources of national data and sector-level PIP data;
  • Questionnaires for management and staff of MOF PITAD, MOE and PIU staff in ministries/agencies;
  • Interviews with MOF and MOE staff in charge of PIP implementation;
  • Interviews with international and local experts;
  • Interviews with other government and international partners working on PIP;
  • Interviews with business associations, PSD representatives, NGOs;
  • Interviews with international organizations representatives and embassy officials.

4. Target groups of the GDPM

  • The core group: MOF PITAD, MOE and PIUs in ministries and agencies (survey/questionnaire and interviews).
  • The key stakeholders, government and parliament officials and government agencies, foreign embassy representatives, international organizations, (interviews).
  • Private sector, NGO, business associations (interviews).

 

Key deliverables:

Recommendations for Improved Project Approval & Project Implementation processes

Set of Draft Regulations for Project Approval and Project Implementation

In order to achieve these principles, there is a tried-and-test set of reforms that can be implemented. These may vary for every project, but a maximum list is presented here in the form of a checklist for consideration by project teams. The items are not mutually exclusive and they can be used in combination.

à Checklist – which reforms will meet the objectives of BPR?

Reforms Applicability to your BPR project?
  1. Get as much information correct at the beginning of the process to reduce the number of discoveries of missing documentation and iterations and subsequent delays and confusion. Professionals working on very different kinds of BPR projects have noted that the problem is very often at the beginning, and is due to incomplete documentation submitted.
    1. Develop and publish well-defined and clear eligibility criteria
 
  1. 2.Standardize processes
    1. Eliminate variances in evaluation
    2. Reduce personal discretion, but also increase accountability
 
  1. Focus only on value adding activities
    1. Only those activities that contribute to the resolution of the process, and which cannot be eliminated without impairing the process
    2. Minimize overhead activities and expenses
 
  1. 4.Reduce time for government processes
    1. Reduce preparation time
    2. Reduce processing time for each step
    3. Reduce waiting time for each step
    4. Reduce total processing time
    5. Reduce total waiting time
 
  1. Consolidate and eliminate steps and requirements where possible.
    1. Avoid duplicating efforts or doing unnecessary work
    2. Remove unnecessary paperwork forms, field visits, and committees
 
  1. Fewest levels of review possible.
    1. As a rule of thumb, there should be two administrative review levels.
    2. Problems can be escalated to a higher level but the system should be set up so that this should only occur in extraordinary cases.
    3. This, in turn, requires effective downward delegation.
    4. Empower qualified and properly trained junior staff. Make sure they are accountable for their decisions.
 
  1. Introduce concurrent or parallel review.
    1. Consecutive/sequential review is often not necessary, and it creates delays because each step is dependent on the previous step being finished. Such dependencies should be reduced by designing the review process so that two or more officials can review the application according to their area of expertise. This can occur, for example, when different utilities review a construction application.
 
  1. Reduce direct physical interaction between private sector applicants and involved officials.
    1. More than any other factor in this list, this can lead to bribery. Best practice agencies try to eliminate direct interactions entirely, and cover questions through FAQs on the website or telephone consultations.
 
  1. Reduce the size of batches for review by improving risk assessment and designating appropriate officials to review the different categories.
 
  1. Promote information sharing within a unit, among different units and among different agencies.
 
  1. Involve all officials affected by the reform by gathering their expertise and ensuring their buy-in.
    1. Continue to seek the feedback of involved officials over time as the reform is implemented and also when it becomes part of standard operating procedures.
 
  1. Implement technological and ICT solutions where feasible.
    1. There are many different options and levels of sophistication available.
 
  1. Make best use of involved officials.
    1. As a result of the reforms, some involved officials may have a reduced workload and can take on additional responsibilities. Rather than complaining about this, they are often gratified to be entrusted with new tasks.
    2. The process of BPR reform is an opportunity to generate staff support, commitment and increased loyalty because they have received hands-on training in a very important reform process including, in many cases, ICT skills.
 
  1. Introduce feedback and control systems to identify bottlenecks on a “continuous improvement” basis
    1. This occurs as the reforms become part of standard operating procedures.
    2. Both involved officials and private sector applicants can provide feedback.
    3. The methodologies include one-on-one interviews, focus group discussions, surveys, etc.
 

Most of the work on process mapping will take place within government, and most of the measurements of success will also be found there.