OCHA Functional Review

Summary of Preliminary Findings

9 June 2016

Purpose
The Functional Review was commissioned by Under-Secretary-General OBrien shortly after he
took office in July 2015 with a view to address what were considered to be challenges present in
OCHA at the time.
The overall purpose of the Functional Review is to improve OCHAs effectiveness and efficiency
by ensuring that it has the optimal structure, resources and capacities to deliver on its mandate
and commitments, which emanate from GA Resolution 46/182 and OCHAs 2014-2017 Strategic
Framework. The aim of the Functional Review is not to evaluate OCHAs performance to date,
but rather to identify existing challenges and to specify opportunities for improving the
organizations long-term effectiveness.
Following the Inception phase, the specific objectives of the Functional Review were determined
to be:
1. Clarify more explicitly OCHAs role and operating model going forward, considering the
evolving humanitarian ecosystem and the diverse contexts in which OCHA operates;
2. Strengthen OCHAs management model and decision-making systems to better identify
and manage OCHAs priorities throughout the year;
3. Establish a highly effective organizational model, including a clearly defined
organizational structure, a rationalized footprint, an office typology, and reporting lines;
4. Review OCHAs staffing model in order to optimize its people and to more efficiently
support OCHAs clarified role and operating model; and,
5. Lay the foundation for a more productive and positive working culture.
Once these five objectives are addressed, the next step would be to identify the key systems and
processes that need to be improved and streamlined in order to implement the improvements to
OCHAs functioning as an organization. (Note: this final step was not covered in this phase of the
Functional Review.)
This document outlines the key preliminary findings of the Functional Review, as well as the most
important strategic decisions that OCHA will need to make on its path to becoming fully fit for
purpose. This interim report reflects the completion of the diagnostic phase, along with options
for the way forward, with recommendations for next steps to follow in the final report.

Process and Methodology

The Functional Review was launched on 11 January 2016. The exercise is jointly carried out by
the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and MANNET reporting to the USG.
1

The Functional Review has been an extremely consultative effort. As part of the exercise, the
Functional Review team has gathered input from partners across the UN System, from civil
society, host governments, and Member States, and from current and former OCHA staff. The
review incorporates the views of hundreds of internal and external stakeholders, both in the field
and at HQ/capital level.
Throughout the process, the Functional Review team has gathered qualitative and quantitative
data through a variety of means, including two all-staff surveys, confidential stakeholder
interviews, group sessions, and written inputs through a number of different channels. The
Functional Review team also gathered data on OCHAs composition and policies through the
review of hundreds of documents, including past reviews, audits and evaluations, governance
documents, organizational details for offices, annual reports, and other materials from
administrative and management sources. Additional information was collected through field visits
to Ethiopia, Kenya (including OCHA's Somalia office), the Philippines, and the Democratic
Republic of Congo.
Every OCHA staff member has had multiple opportunities to provide input. The Functional
Review gathered direct feedback through two organizational surveys, one focused on staff
perceptions of OCHAs culture and working environment, and the other focused on the current
activities of OCHA staff. Roughly 1,800 responses were received in total, reflecting views from
across the organization (61% from field offices, and 39% from headquarters) and comprising
approximately 5,000 written comments. Staff and managers shared their views through more
than 200 individual interviews and through group discussions with ~500 staff, and over 30
colleagues sent written inputs through a confidential email system. This is regarded as a good
participation rate across the demographic to give a reliable read-out.
Every member of the OCHA Donor Support Group (ODSG) and of the IASC has had an
opportunity to participate. All ODSG and IASC members were invited to send their feedback in
writing directly to the Functional Review consultants, and a number of field-based partner and
donor representatives also had an opportunity to share their views during the Functional Review
teams visits to Manila, Nairobi, Addis Ababa and Kinshasa. Some donor and partner
representatives at capital/headquarters level were also interviewed by phone.

OCHA's Mandate and the Humanitarian Context

OCHAs mandate is enshrined in GA Resolution 46/182, which set out to strengthen the
coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations, to establish guiding
principles for multilateral humanitarian emergency assistance and to create a number of tools for
its coordination. OCHA pursues its mission through five highly inter-connected core functions
that derive from its mandate: coordination, policy, advocacy, information management, and
humanitarian financing.
A number of significant trends are currently impacting the humanitarian landscape and potentially
the underlying demand for emergency response and coordination. Climate change, the growing
risk of pandemics, increased connectivity and globalization, growing inequality and political
instability, the changing nature of conflicts, and urbanization are driving an increase in the number
and complexity of humanitarian crises. Trends in digitalization, mobile connectivity and access

to social media are also impacting the nature of humanitarian assistance and interaction with
affected people.
Recent years have seen a marked increase in the need for humanitarian assistance. The number
of people targeted through inter-agency appeals increased at an average annual growth rate of
13% since 2005 to ~76M people in 2014, which represents ~38% of total affected people. There
is also an increasing gap for humanitarian assistance funding, with total humanitarian aid
requested in 2015 at ~$20B, while the gap between funds requested and funded is at an all-time
high, with only ~50% of requested aid funded.
The universe of responders is also expanding and changing. There are more NGOs than ever
before: estimates suggest that there are more than 54,000 NGOs, both local and international,
active in 2016. More national authorities are playing a significant role in coordinating humanitarian
response. The number of international actors grew by ~65% from 1985 to 2013, from ~4,700 to
~7,700 organizations. There is also sense that 'the future of response is local' and that local
actors will play a greater role in response over time. The increase in the number of responders
greatly increases the potential effectiveness of emergency response, but it also creates a greater
need for coordination. Though many governments are becoming better able to coordinate their
own responses, they increasingly look to external agencies for advice and expertise. This is
particularly evident in middle-income countries in Latin America and Asia, but it is also a rapidly
growing trend in Africa. While this may reduce or change the amount of direct response
coordination required by OCHA, the differentiated responses by country increase complexity.
Experience has validated GA Resolution 46/182 and has underlined that there is a fundamental
need for coordination in the humanitarian system. The need for coordination can be expected to
continue growing given the above-mentioned trends. While other groups have some coordination
components, no other organization is solely focused on humanitarian coordination, which
happens both at the global level through advocacy and policy, and in the humanitarian response
at the local level. OCHA is uniquely positioned in the UN and in the international humanitarian
ecosystem to be the coordinator of humanitarian response for international players. OCHA has
also been a key integration point between the international NGOs and the local organizations, a
role that becomes more important as more response is driven in-country. Lastly, OCHA has a
unique role with governments in various scenarios, as coordinator of response in some instances,
as advisor in response in others, and as a connection point to bodies such as the African Union.
OCHA has key strengths in addressing a number of these needs in coordination in the current
environment. OCHA's has unique value as a non-operational agency dedicated to coordination
and has earned a reputation as an honest broker with relevant tools and services. OCHA's ability
to act as an honest broker has in turn made it capable of providing neutral territory in order to
pursue common humanitarian goals, and has made OCHA capable of bridging a diverse set of
humanitarian actors. OCHA is also seen by many stakeholders outside of the UN as being
inclusive and as extending networks beyond the traditional UN agencies. Its focus on
humanitarian rather than development questions expands its ability to be a connection point in
some of the most challenging situations. OCHA's approach in response has also been highlighted
as a strength. Stakeholders specifically describe OCHA as entrepreneurial and responsive. The
OCHA staff are extremely committed to the organization and its mission, navigating what is often
a challenging role with little formal authority. Additionally, the ERC role is broadly seen as an
indispensable voice on behalf of the humanitarian community and the connections to the Security
Council make OCHA uniquely positioned to influence the international humanitarian system.

Consequently, OCHA is strategically very well positioned for the humanitarian system of the
future. The increasing diversity of responders beyond the traditional UN agencies calls for more
collaboration and coordination across the humanitarian system. As responders diversify, OCHA
may have a greater role in serving as a bridge among the UN, NGOs and other responders. As
a central actor that does not itself provide goods and services to affected people, OCHA is very
well positioned to work with the humanitarian community on cross-sector opportunities for longterm efficiency and impact. OCHA is already doing this; for example, in Information Management,
OCHA-driven common data standards are becoming more accepted and used by agencies, and
this can lead to standardization across the humanitarian system and consequently more efficiency
in data sharing and analysis. Likewise, global trends that ultimately influence policy have led to
outcomes such as Resolution 2165, passed in July 2014, which authorized cross-border and
cross-line humanitarian access for UN agencies and their implementing partners and established
a monitoring mechanism under the Secretary-Generals authority to monitor aid deliveries across
the designated borders into Syria.
While the Functional Review interviews reiterated that the fundamental strategic positioning of
OCHA is strong, the review was focused on opportunities for enhanced efficiency and
effectiveness. It is clear that OCHA has been hampered by internal issues for a number of years,
which have led to some of the challenges identified in the preliminary findings below. These are
substantial issues, but since many of the key adjustments apply to OCHAs internal management
and organizational model, there is also a clear pathway to resolve many of these challenges within
a relatively short timeframe through a 'back to basics' approach. Others, such as performance
management within the UN system, are more challenging to tackle over the short term. A final
category, largely pivoting around several questions on OCHAs role, should be possible to
address through a series of concerted strategic exercises that elucidate where OCHA is best
positioned to deliver these services for the system and how much additional investment, if any,
would be needed over time for OCHA to do so.

Role and Operating Model

OCHA is operating in a challenging context with increasing pressures. The changing
humanitarian landscape is driving more demand for humanitarian aid, but at the same time the
increasing funding gap for humanitarian aid and broader financial pressures are placing resource
constraints on OCHA.
OCHA serves different global and local stakeholders across each of its five core functions. In
light of the growth in demand for humanitarian assistance, however, the fact that OCHA's mandate
under GA Resolution 46/182 is broad and open to interpretation means that its stakeholders do
not all share the same view of what constitutes its core work, what its current priorities should
be, or when OCHA is best-placed to provide certain services to the humanitarian sector. OCHA
has to navigate these stakeholder demands as it arrives at its portfolio of activities.
Despite the challenges and inherent complexities involved in OCHA's role, the interviews
conducted during the Functional Review have underlined that OCHA's role is highly valued by
stakeholders across both global and local contexts. At the same time, there are a number of
challenges for OCHA, which can be grouped across four themes:

1. Demand for OCHA's services is increasing. There is more demand for OCHA across many
different settings and for services across the different core functions. Along with the
increasing demand for humanitarian aid and emergency response, there is also an increasing
number of responders to crises, which increases the need for coordination. Additionally, the
emergencies calling for humanitarian assistance are increasingly complex and protracted,
requiring more activities and longer-term engagement across each of OCHA's core functions.
Lastly, OCHAs constituents have different needs both globally and locally, which concurrently
drive different demands in OCHA. While governments are increasingly stepping into the leadcoordinator role, this typically shifts OCHA's role rather than eliminates it.
2. OCHA has an inherently complex portfolio that spans both emergency response
coordination in the field and global activities for the humanitarian system. OCHA's
mandate requires it to address both emergency response in the field and the broader strategic
needs of the global humanitarian community, including, for example, global advocacy
campaigns and inter-governmental policy dialogue. Additionally, the complex nature of
todays humanitarian emergencies requires OCHA to promote more customized humanitarian
arrangements, and while we see some evidence of OCHA customizing its footprint in-country,
some external stakeholders consider that OCHA could still do better in adapting its approach
to coordination according to the context. Looking forward, with the expectation of more
diverse players and funders engaging in humanitarian response and with the desire to better
integrate along the humanitarian/development continuum, we expect this complexity to
increase.
3. There are divergent views on OCHAs role and identity internally and externally.
External partners and donors do not share a common view of OCHA's raison dtre nor how
it should relate to its partners. Likewise, OCHAs leaders have different visions for the
organization, and have concurrently pursued different activities aligned with their individual
visions. Senior OCHA managers do not communicate a common cohesive vision, which has
led to confusion and a lack of clarity with both internal and external stakeholders. This lack
of internal cohesion is also manifested in OCHAs approach to global initiatives and
emergency response, where different parts of the organization can deploy different sets of
tools and mechanisms in parallel. In the face of increasing demand coupled with resource
constraints, lack of coherence gives the impression that OCHA is not sufficiently focused.
4. A stretched model under pressure may suffer. The increasing complexity of crises coupled
with the financial constraints faced by the humanitarian system create corresponding resource
constraints and the constant push to do more with less in OCHA. This is particularly true in
the protracted or 'forgotten crises' which often come with complex and broad demands. OCHA
staff have responded by undertaking more activities in order to meet increasing demand, and
are feeling spread thin and stretched. This introduces the risk of OCHAs performance being
inconsistent in the field, with some external stakeholders pointing to mixed results.
While recognizing the inherent challenges in defining OCHA's role, it is critical that the
organization rallies behind a joint vision of its role. OCHA will first need to go 'back to basics' and
provide clarity around its own strategy and activities, clearly communicating those activities to the
internal and external stakeholders across each core function. While doing so, there are strategic
questions to address in order to ensure that OCHA continues to be well placed and is fit for
purpose for future needs.
The Functional Review aims to lay out proposals and pathways to address concerns about
OCHAs role and operating model that have emerged as priorities from the interviews and
5

surveys. Some are relevant across functions, while others concern specific options or areas of
inquiry within each specific core function. Our approach has involved understanding both general
issues and the current state of activities across each core function. We gathered internal and
external views on which OCHA activities are of high or low value, and what new activities would
be of high value to the humanitarian community. Through this process, we were able to identify
the critical areas lacking clarity, and also to identify the pivotal strategic questions for OCHA to
address.
Within Role and Operating Model, 'back to basics' entails clarification across OCHA and within
the core functions:
OCHA needs to define its stance relative to other organizations, particularly in the field in its
role supporting the HC. Many partners expressed concern that OCHA is inconsistent in how
it presents itself, with the most commonly described positions ranging from 'secretariat' to
'influencer' to 'directive', which will be discussed in turn. There were more extreme positions
discussed which were immediately viewed as not feasible. On one side of the spectrum was
'minimalist', which would provide even less value relative to 'secretariat', and on the other side
was 'operator' which would take OCHA into the realm of providing goods and services to
affected people and this was seen as stepping beyond the mandate. The 'secretariat' stance
implies an OCHA that organizes the relevant conversations between partners and provides
more administrative support, but does not attempt to influence the outcome in any particular
way. This was broadly not seen as a viable stance for OCHA as it adds insufficient value.
The 'influencer' stance implies an OCHA that brings the relevant actors to the table, provides
the information and options to enable a decision, and facilitates the conversation to drive to a
decision for the group. This stance was seen as providing value and leadership in the
response. The next stance is a more 'directive' approach to leadership, where OCHA takes
a stronger approach in directing the activities of the overall response, rather than guiding
actors who make their own strategic and programming decisions. However, to take this as a
primary role would imply that OCHA has the authority to determine what different groups on
the ground do, which is currently not part of the mandate. With an increasing number of
partners outside of the UN system, there is no governance model that could furnish OCHA
with the formal authority in coordination across such a diverse community, and it would
therefore likely limit OCHA's convening power, which would be counterproductive. While
recognizing the need for some flexibility by context, there was strong consensus that OCHA
was most useful and effective with an 'influencer' stance - providing leadership in a less direct
way that fits with the networked nature of the humanitarian response community. This stance
strongly aligns with the indirect authority that OCHA has as a coordinator.
The broad view was that OCHA should not be operational, in the sense of engaging in aid
programme delivery, which is the domain of partners in the field. As a general and related
theme, OCHA was strongly encouraged to think very carefully about activities that it takes on
"in-house" if they did not directly relate to the response coordination mandate or to a tight set
of policy and advocacy activities for the global humanitarian community.
In order to refine its overall operating model, there is a need for OCHA to drive efficiency in
current activities across every function. There was very little available data to enable
quantitative activity-based analysis of OCHA's efficiency and effectiveness, but there was
enough evidence of overlap and service challenges to suggest that there is a need to make
this a priority. (Steps that would enable some of this improvement to the operating model are
outlined in the Management Model and Organizational Design sections of the document).
OCHAs role in public and private advocacy is critical, well defined, and seen by both internal
and external stakeholders as being adequately exercised. However, some believe that it

could be stronger on certain points in its public advocacy and that it has leeway to be more
outspoken on humanitarian issues, a role widely supported by its partners.
OCHAs policy function at the global level is recognized and valued as concerns its support
to intergovernmental and inter-agency processes. However, there is an inconsistent
understanding of the full scope of OCHAs policy function, which in reality extends beyond the
strictly global role with which it tends to be associated, and some have pointed to weak ties
between global policy activities and local field work. Providing clarity around the activities that
OCHA is doing in Policy both at the global and local level would help. Some questions also
arose as to whether the breadth of policy questions covered and the documentation was
sufficiently focused, again calling for clarity around specific activities.
OCHA's response coordination is highly valued and stakeholders typically ask for more
coordination services at the local level, with the synthesized view of a crisis response highly
valued at global level. However, while there is strong recognition of its value, there is a need
to provide transparency around activities across each field office, and ensure it looks for
opportunities for efficiency to relieve some of the administrative burden. As examples of areas
that could use more clarity, there is a feeling from some stakeholders that OCHAs approach
to emergency response coordination is sometimes not adequately context-specific. There is
also room for OCHA to be clearer in the trade-offs it has made and the services it will therefore
deliver or not deliver. In terms of efficiency, some have pointed to the country coordination
process as being overly burdensome, and the number and frequency of data requests to the
field partners as being potentially unnecessary. Some also point to the challenges of
'managing the UN cluster machine' and the need for OCHA to resist reinforcing aid
bureaucratization and keep the community's focus on priority humanitarian needs and
response.
OCHA's information management function is highly valued both internally and externally,
with the vast majority seeing it as the central pillar of how OCHA successfully drives
coordination. However there is a consensus view that an investment is required in the short
term as digital trends are changing this area rapidly and OCHA coordination would be
weakened if it does not upgrade capabilities through broader data sources and stronger
analytics. In terms of efficiency, the proliferation of IM products has been identified as a
burden, where efficiencies and rationalization of the multitude of IM products could be
achieved. A repeated theme was also how challenging data collection from agencies can be
at times, a key resource driver for OCHA.
OCHA's humanitarian financing is the function that has the least consensus across the
various stakeholders. All have pointed to the value of CERF and OCHAs role in mobilizing
resources for the appeals on behalf of the community. While Country Based Pooled Funds
are seen by many as central to engaging local NGOs in coordination and effective early
response, some partners have also pointed to the increased overhead involved, specifically
at the local level. Correspondingly, the administrative burden and heavy process that is
associated with OCHA funding has been identified as the top issue to address in the short
term. Although some expressed concern that OCHA's role in humanitarian financing might
be in conflict with its response coordination role, concrete examples to back up this concern
were not found and, on balance, comments from recipients were more focused on ensuring
efficiency and effectiveness.

Several pivotal strategic questions arose and addressing these will take building specific business
plans with resource implications while addressing the need to go 'back to basics':
Response coordination: The pivotal question for coordination is the balance of resources
to devote to readiness/response planning versus response. There are a number of elements
within readiness that must be considered, including OCHA building internal capabilities, the
7

level of engagement with local NGOs, private sector, or governments ahead of a response,
and the nature of engagement with governments. The decision of how much to focus on
readiness must be assessed against the potential risks to the quality of response if total
resources are limited. There are also additional questions to consider: Can OCHA clarify how
it implements its role in protection, including versus the cluster role? Is coordination around
IDPs sufficiently strong? How should OCHA better connect with the private sector in countries
and/or regions? How can OCHA help the system navigate the humanitarian/development
spectrum to better serve its constituents?
Information management: The pivotal question in IM is how to respond to the digital trends
and rapidly changing landscape, specifically in regards to investment in expanding the
network of existing partners and data sources. For the global humanitarian community,
shared data standards and interoperable systems are key elements of more effective
information management and evidence-based decision making in the future. This can be
accomplished through standardizing and expanding data sources on a crisis or region level,
or it can be pursued through global standards and data services which feed from more digitally
enabled and interoperable humanitarian information systems. This is complex territory, and
while OCHA is positioned better than most to supply IM services and incorporate 'digital
humanitarian' efforts for the humanitarian community, it lacks the resources to execute on its
own. There is considerable innovation already underway both within the agencies, which
have much stronger IM funding, and external to the UN, especially in the private sector. OCHA
has articulated high level elements of what it could do, but it is lacking an actionable plan with
resource implications and a clearly specified OCHA role and service model. More and
improved strategic analysis to enhance response is a must in the long term, and answering
this pivotal question would indicate how OCHA would be able to respond to that demand.
Humanitarian financing: The pivotal questions in Humanitarian Financing are around the
level of financing that OCHA should pursue in pooled funds specific to crises, the degree of
investment into developing innovative financing products for crisis response, and the extent
of its involvement in cash programming. Because of the lack of broad consensus on OCHA's
role in this function across stakeholders, OCHA must assess the potential benefits internally
and to some stakeholders, while balancing potential risks of strained relationships with
partners.

OCHA needs to take the pivotal questions embedded in some of the role choices, debate and
address them, and use this to clarify at an activity level what OCHA is or is not doing. Clearly
communicating the cohesive vision for OCHA's role and identity will help both the organization
and its external stakeholders.

Management Model
An organization's management model is the set of tools and approaches that its leadership uses
to make decisions and to promulgate them through the organization. A number of shortcomings
in OCHA's management model have led to widespread organizational dysfunction, as strongly
underlined in the results of the first all-staff survey, which put OCHA in the bottom quartile on
every dimension relative to available benchmarks.
In the current state, OCHA has six main committees that are used to make and propagate
decisions. These committees resemble the management committees that we would expect to
see in both public and private sector enterprises, with a couple of exceptions. However, while the
8

committee structures are in place, the OCHA underlying management process prevents them
from functioning as intended. This has led to a number of challenges throughout the organization
that can be grouped across three themes:
1. The management system is not codified in a clear way, and is lacking key components
and interconnections. There is no management system in place to drive a clear agenda for
the organization as a whole, one that assures that the proper topics are being prioritized and
discussed for regular and relevant decision-making. Additionally, decision rights are not
clearly delineated across the key committees, and the accountability for decentralized
decisions for managers at different levels in the organization is unclear. There are also gaps
in information-sharing both vertically throughout all levels of the organization and
horizontally across branches or sections.
2. Decision-making at the senior management level generally lacks discipline,
transparency and accountability. A lack of transparency in decision-making is felt
throughout the organization. Senior managers do not consistently execute today's
documented management model, and collective discussion and alignment as a group do not
reliably translate into cohesive action among the members of the leadership team. However,
a better codified management system would not be sufficient given the limited accountability
in the current system, so there needs to be a concerted effort to improve the overall decisionmaking and to increase transparency and accountability for decisions and execution.
3. The leadership team does not work well together. There is entrenched polarization and a
lack of trust among many of OCHAs senior managers, who do not see themselves as part of
a single, unified team. This is combined with a sense that everything is a 'zero-sum' game,
which drives what are perceived as 'turf battles' and 'kingdom building'.
To address these challenges, our approach has been to consider the best-practice management
model seen in both public and private sector enterprises to address the above challenges, and to
suggest approaches to customizing the best-practice model for OCHA. Developing, clarifying
and reliably executing the management model will rely on the following key elements:
Develop a management system to drive a clear agenda for the organization as a whole, and
ensure that the proper topics are being discussed regularly for timely and relevant decisions.
Clarify committee configuration to align to the key decisions that must be made within the
management system.
Clarify decision rights for the key decisions that must be made at the organization level,
determine the appropriate balance between individual managerial accountability and
collective decision-making, and identify opportunities to decentralize decision-making.
Bring transparency to decisions made through standardized information sharing to enable
informed decisions and ensure that there is a single authoritative source of data for
fundamental aspects of the organization.
Develop and enforce behavioral norms at the leadership level that tie together the mechanics
of a strong management model with a cohesive culture.
The specifics within each element of the management model and the tactics behind enforcing
accountability must be customized to OCHA, periodically reviewed, and adjusted as needed in
order to arrive at an effective management model. Recognizing the problem from the outset of
his tenure, the current USG has already put in place the Executive Management Committee
(EMC), a new, more inclusive senior decision making body (replacing the former, informal SLT
made up of the USG, ASG and three Division Directors). The aim is to start to build collective
9

decision-making in order to foster a new culture of collective responsibility. It is early days but it
is a clear step in the right direction to establish a team spirit and bring discipline through a novel
collective decision-making culture among the organizations senior managers.

Organizational Design
Organizational design defines the overall footprint of an organization along with the hierarchy and
reporting lines among its functional divisions and units. OCHA's organizational structure was
assessed against best practices observed across public and private sector enterprises and using
the available data on current and historic size and structure across headquarters and the field.
We conducted analysis to allocate elements of the current organizational structure into core
functions or administrative functions based on interviews and consultations. Additionally, we
relied on an all-staff activity survey that further examined issues identified in the inception phase,
including the fragmentation of functional work across branches and the formal connections
between headquarters and field. We have focused on the top-level structure and highest-priority
challenges that have been raised, and have therefore not addressed structural questions deeper
within the organization, or secondary challenges that were less prevalent or alternatively
dependent on the resolution of other organizational structure changes. It should also be noted
that while we have focused on structurally-related challenges, across almost all of these, the
weakness of the management model exacerbates all the structural elements. There are always
trade-offs in organizational structure, and the management system of the organization needs to
buffer these trade-offs. At OCHA, the lack of management cohesiveness removes that buffering
function and so organizational tensions reign unchecked.
In the most recent five-year period (2011 to 2015), OCHA grew at an average annual rate of 6%,
with headquarters and field growing proportionally at 6% each, and maintaining the historic
headquarters size at ~25% of total staff. This growth is in line with partners, with UNHCR and
WFP growing at 7% and 6% respectively over the same time frame.
The current organizational structure, as of February 2016, is spread over three divisions, and
within that, across two headquarters locations in New York and Geneva, 28 Country Offices, 9
Regional Offices, 3 Liaison Offices and 19 Humanitarian Advisor Teams. The total staff is split
across the three divisions with 1650 (78%) of staff in the Coordination Response Division, 271
(13%) in the Corporate Programmes Division, and the remaining 161 (8%) under the Geneva
Office. Physically, OCHA has ~286 staff in New York, ~257 in Geneva, and the rest of the
organization is in field offices. We did not have enough activity data to determine whether the
current size of OCHA's ROs, COs, and LOs is optimal.
There are a number of challenges with the current structure that can be grouped across five
themes:
1. Structure does not follow function, leading to confusion and inefficiency. OCHAs
organizational structure, as the result of a string of past adjustments, is not currently based
on a single discernible organizing principle but instead configured partly according to function
and partly according to geography. While OCHA's presence in both New York and Geneva
has advantages, identifying New York and Geneva as two distinct headquarters offices leads
to unnecessary additional complexity and confusion, and to perceived tensions between the
two. The span-of-control of some top-level managers is too broad, in programmatic functions
covered, in the share of resources under their control, or in the number of direct reports.
10

Fragmentation of functional work across branches leads to confusion as to who does what,
and is a driver of duplication in the organization. Additionally, the functions of the main types
of OCHA offices (CO, RO, LO) and the distinctions between them are no longer clearly defined
or agreed.
2. Functions that require strategic attention are placed too low in the hierarchy and are
blended with other functions. Certain functions may need more attention and warrant
elevating to report directly to the executive management layer. The blending of internally
facing and externally facing work de-prioritizes critical internal investment due to external
stakeholder pressures, and consequently may lead to limited attention to internal functional
issues. An oft-cited example is the placement of administrative functions within or alongside
programmatic functions.
3. Lack of formalized connections between relevant functions in HQ and the field. Formal
connections between the field and relevant functions in headquarters would allow for
improved quality and consistency throughout the organization. There are limited structural
connections or clarity in reporting-line connections between headquarters and field for units
outside of CRD. There is also a significant lack of functional connection between field
coordination and other core functions, which prevents OCHA from acting as an informed and
cohesive entity.
4. Decision-making is too centralized. Headquarters staff has grown proportionally with the
field over time, and has remained at approximately 25% of OCHAs total workforce since 2002.
This suggests that no economies of scale were achieved and that decision-making is driven
primarily at headquarters level. Given OCHAs global role, however, the size of its
headquarters might not be expected to be similar to the ~10% seen in partner organizations,
but some economies of scale would nonetheless be expected, especially during a period in
which most organizations are seeking to drive more local decision-making into their activities.
Some HQ functions may be better aligned regionally to enable closer connection with the field
and to enable more customized regional support.
5. The demands of the ERC role place stress on the USG's time to focus on internal OCHA
oversight. Relative to previous incumbents, the current USG wishes to reinforce this role so
he is taking a rigorous approach to ensuring the methods and channels he needs to support
this are available. The current structure does not adequately support the USG in managing
the organizations internal affairs on a day-to-day basis. For instance, the current structure
leads to a lack of checks and balances at senior level in the organization.
Best practices observed across public and private sector enterprises point to a set of principles
that can help inform OCHA as it crafts solutions to the above challenges:

An appropriate span-of-control for senior managers reduces potential bottlenecks.

Minimal fragmentation (i.e., grouping similar activities) drives efficiency in an organization.
Functions that require attention should be closer to the leadership.
Clearly defined relationships across groups and headquarters allow for greater efficiency,
predictability and collaboration.
Functions and decisions requiring customization to context should be located in closer
geographic proximity. (In OCHAs case, for example, an appropriate level of
representation must be maintained both in New York and in Geneva.)
Complexity should be avoided where possible in favor of a simple structure.
11

People and Staffing

Many organizations in the public and private sector assert that people are their most important
asset and then behave in ways that contradict that statement. For OCHA, such statements have
to be true. In OCHA, people really do make the difference. And it is the quality of these people,
and not their number, that makes the differencewhether they are in the field or in HQ.
There have been many reviews of OCHAs human resource management (HRM) in its broadest
sense and several unsuccessful initiatives to reform HRM. The problems of HRM in OCHA are
systemicand systemic causes need systemic solutions. One, or a few, initiatives by themselves
can never shift a complex system. There has to be a holistic and comprehensive effort to leverage
change in the HRM system. Key to this effort is building cohesive and effective senior leadership
that is committed to people management and that works cohesively to resolve the many problems
and to create the vitally necessary working environment for fostering high performance. This has
to be accompanied by a revitalized and refocused HRM services function. The constraints and
limits of action placed upon OCHA by being part of the UN Secretariat should not be under-stated.
OCHAs challenges in managing its people can be grouped across six themes:
1. OCHA currently lacks a comprehensive staffing strategy. OCHA has improved its
workforce planning at the country level but much remains to be done globally. OCHA does
not have an accurate snapshot of the current workforce. OCHAs approach to job design and
job titles is neither coherent nor consistent. There is a perennial and unresolved debate about
whether OCHA staff should be viewed as generalists or specialists. Many questions and
concerns have been raised about the increased staffing in terms of numbers and units in HQ,
primarily because it is unclear to many what these units actually do. There is a widespread
belief within OCHA that certain posts, especially managerial ones, are under-graded in
comparison with other UN departments. There are mixed perceptions by internal and external
stakeholders about the quality of staff with respect to competence. This is not simply a
recruitment issueit is about the staffing strategy and the people OCHA needs to execute its
role and operating model.
2. The recruitment and on-boarding process is not perceived to work effectively or efficiently
for OCHA, preventing the organization from getting the right people in the right place. The
HRM framework within which OCHA operates is determined by the policies of the UN
Secretariat. By their nature, these policies are suited to HRM in the relatively static setting of
UN headquarters but are a poor fit for an entity set up to respond to emergencies and crises.
A new system for staff selection and managed mobility is being introduced throughout the
Secretariat and is generally seen within OCHA as a threat to operational capacity, as many
believe that it reduces the managers influence on final decisions.
On-boarding helps prepare new staff to be up and running as soon as possible. Since about
20% of OCHAs international staff move every year, the corresponding administrative
workload is substantial. The lengthy delays in recruitment and the inadequate on-boarding
process have a significant impact on staff morale and lead to accusations of bias and
favoritism. There are many unacceptable delays in entitlements payments linked to the onboarding process.
3. OCHA still lacks an integrated, end-to-end approach to surge capacity management and
deployment, which leads to the uneven and inefficient use of resources. While OCHA has
developed and refined a range of mechanisms to improve surge capacity and has overcome
12

barriers to swift response, including slow access to needed staff and gaps in the skills and
levels available, the use of surge mechanisms has created controversy and attracted criticism
within OCHA. The surge processes are complex and involve players from numerous
divisions. (For example, responsibility for managing surge capacity is shared between ESB
and CRD, and other units may be actively involved.) As a result, workflow processes are
cumbersome. There are concerns about how demands for surge are assessed and whether
the requested surge capacity is always essential. Surge is also plagued by disincentives. (For
instance, the handover mechanisms from surge to stability are still unclear.) Many feel that
HQ does not contribute its fair share to surge. Many staff who might want to go on surge do
not feel adequately prepared for it. Surge is perceived to be costly (however, the issue is not
always about scarce resources but rather about their misuse and unintended consequences
in terms of chain reactions). The use of surge for other than humanitarian needs also runs
the risk of putting additional pressure on resources already in short supply. In January of this
year, OCHA officially adopted a revised surge concept designed to address these and other
weaknesses in the current approach. The revised approach focuses on filling gap areas with
extended rosters, on a quota for HQ surge, on training and support and on using better and
more inter-operable tools to support the tracking and management of surge. However, there
are many concerns about the commitment to the new approach and, as a result, about the
actual implementation.
4. OCHAs learning and development programmes are not demand-driven and are not
adequately targeted to closing gaps in performance. For some time, OCHA has sought to
define a learning framework and within that framework to offer coordinated development and
learning opportunities that make a difference at both the individual and organizational level.
Staff development and learning now has the guidelines, policies and frameworks to ensure a
coordinated and effective approach to learning. However, there is clearly a gap between the
plans and the implementation. OCHAs induction programme has long been identified as
inadequate and there is still insufficient organizational uptake. OCHAs training approach
does not align with its own guidelines, and some training is considered wasteful and inefficient.
OCHA does not have an integrated and cohesive talent management strategy and it currently
does not have a functioning knowledge management system.
5. Performance management is not functioning effectively in OCHA. Performance appraisals
are OCHAs key performance-management tool. The appraisals are done in e-performance,
the performance management tool of the UN Secretariat for some, but not all, staff. In spite
of the system and tools in place, performance and, above all, under-performance are not
managed. The compliance rate and use of ratings in the e-performance system do not
suggest a robust system. Staff and managers are not subject to consequences or consistently
held accountable for recording performance issues. The system does not apply to all staff,
and OCHA cannot easily access appraisals of all its staff. The root causes of the problems in
performance management are complex and systemic. There are numerous disincentives built
into the system that include a lack of consequencespositive or negativelinked to
performance, perceptions of lengthy processes for managers who try to do something about
underperformance, and a perception that managers, HR and the overall system is biased to
keep business as usual.
6. HRM services are not perceived to be adequately supporting managers and staff. There are
many serious challenges in HRM services that are not new and that affect staff morale. The
symptoms, root causes and solutions have been comprehensively documented but
inadequately addressed. The document review and the interviews have all confirmed our
finding that HRM services are not performing effectively and have not done so for many years.
13

However, the performance weaknesses are, in themselves, caused by deeper problems in

the systems and culture. HRM services do not have an articulated and/or coherent purpose
and role. HR plays primarily a transactional role; in other words, it does mostly personnel
administration. Frustrating delays in vitally important HRM and administrative related
processes have led to morale issues. There have been some short-term solutions, but even
these have ignored or even exacerbated deeper problems in the HRM systems.
In looking to the future, a number of broad recommendations are already implicit in the above
analysis: for example, on the need to develop a staffing strategy, a comprehensive workforce
plan, accurate and comprehensive data on staffing (the snapshot), and job design.
The development of the staffing strategy has to start with the implications of OCHAs role and
operating model, and organizational model. The staffing strategy should be built around five
parallel and inter-dependent tracks:
(i)
shaping OCHAs global (i.e., HQ and field) workforce
(ii)
designing key jobs, covering the main functional categories, roles and competency
profiles;
(iii)
developing a staffing strategy for country offices, regional offices, other field
presences, and HQ divisions and units, in terms of, for example, the desired staffing
footprint, jobs and numbers;
(iv)
managing the implications and constraints of the HRM (and the broader
administrative) regulatory framework (at HQ and in the field);
(v)
managing the implications and constraints of the financing and budget of OCHA.
In each of these, there are a wide range of strategic issues and questions that need to be
considered. Examples include:
(i)
Should OCHA be a career organization and/or have a career track? What degree of
importance should OCHA attach to secondments and loans as a key part of its staffing
strategy? What should be the optimal reliance on alternative personnel arrangements
(e.g., volunteers, contractors and consultants)? What should be the optimal mix
between career staff, secondments and other personnel? Should OCHA make greater
use of, and invest more resources in, its national staff (and should they be encouraged
to follow a career track with OCHA)?
(ii)
Should OCHA staff be generalists or specialists? Should the majority of OCHA staff
simply be multi-skilled humanitarian officers who can take on different jobs?
(iii)
How should OCHA optimally design its country offices, regional offices and other field
presences in order to be able to scale-up, scale down, close down?
(iv)
How best should OCHA manage the different regulatory frameworks it operates within
(including contracting modalities)? Should there be any changes?
OCHA has a number of opportunities that it could prioritize for immediate follow-up, for example:
(i)
improving recruitment, contracting, on-boarding and payment of entitlements;
(ii)
developing, in the context of IASC, a new initiative to promote secondments;
(iii)
ensuring uptake of OCHAs induction system;
(iv)
assess the new surge strategy in light of the overall conclusions of the Functional
Review, build management consensus and rigorously implement the agreed
approach;
(v)
strengthening performance management;
(vi)
improving the targeting and cost-effectiveness of specific learning events;
(vii)
overhauling and significantly strengthening OCHAs internal HR function, moving
toward the role of strategic partner and change agent to serve OCHA better;
14

(viii)

identifying and resolving process bottlenecks and workflow issues in HRM and the
broader administrative systems, and assisting in the creation of service-level
agreements this would help HR to improve its image, bring about quick wins and
engage with the staff on practical solutions to the challenges it faces.

Culture
Culture is an integral part of a reinforcing cycle of behaviors across all of the areas covered by
the Functional Review. In any organization, people are motivated by feeling useful and
recognized. Through the Functional Review, we have investigated OCHAs organizational culture
by examining staff sentiments regarding the current state of the organization and how it operates.
OCHA's current culture was assessed mainly through an all-staff survey that covered many
elements of OCHA's culture today and was representative of the whole organization, with a ~50%
completion rate and an even distribution of respondents across OCHA. The survey addressed
staff engagement and sentiment in five areas, encompassing engagement, objectives and
aspirations, accountabilities and collaboration, performance management and recognition, and
people-manager capabilities and interactions.
The results of the all-staff survey on OCHAs culture and working environment unambiguously
showed that OCHAs staff are highly committed and find inspiration and motivation in
OCHAs unique mandate. 87% of respondents indicated that they believed in what OCHA was
trying to achieve, 84% of respondents indicated that they felt they understood how their work
contributed to the mission, and 80% of respondents indicated that they were proud to work for
OCHA. This sentiment was also evident through many of the extensive interviews and group
consultations.
However, as stated above, relative to available NGO benchmarks, OCHA scored in the bottom
quartile across every area of the survey. This is highly unusual, and the stark result is a strong
indication that the challenges across the other areas covered by the Functional Review have had
a negative impact on the OCHA staff engagement, morale and satisfaction.
The clear value of OCHA engaging with actors and incorporating perspectives beyond the UN
was highlighted as a strength today and as a need for the future. Given this strength, pushing for
a culture that reinforces an externally focused perspective would serve OCHA well going forward.
There were four primary challenges highlighted through the diagnosis phase, which tie back to
the other areas of the Functional Review:
1. Aligning management on one vision and clear adherence to organizational values. As
indicated under Role and Operating Model, OCHA senior managers are not aligned behind a
consistent vision, and the perception of low adherence to organizational values is felt
throughout the organization. Staff perceive that bad behaviour is tolerated, in that they do
not believe there are clear consequences for people that act against OCHA's values. Their
trust in OCHAs senior managers, their motivations and management practices is limited.
2. Improving collaboration across OCHA. OCHA staff point to lack of cohesion and
collaboration at the senior management ranks, and refer to a pervasive culture of mistrust
15

across groups. There is a perception that senior leadership are unwilling to work together and
consequently create silos that discourage staff from collaborating; that senior leadership does
not embrace OCHA-wide prioritization but rather pursues independent approaches within their
own silos; and of an underlying rivalry which leads people to not trust each other and to
perceive that decisions are not made for the greater good. As a result, less than half of OCHA
staff find it easy to work with other Branches or Offices beyond their own. This is further
compounded by a lack of clarity in organizational structure, which leads to confusion and
potentially wasted resources in day-to-day work.
3. Strengthening performance management in OCHA. While partly beyond OCHAs
immediate control, ineffective performance management is leading to people feeling
unappreciated and undervalued. Only half of OCHA staff believe promotion is clearly tied to
performance, which suggests the organization is unable to appoint and promote individuals
primarily on the basis of merit.
4. Improving support services, and learning and development opportunities. Frustration
with services underpins the perception that OCHA does not see investment in its people as a
priority. Only 40% of respondents to the all-staff survey believe they receive the help they
need to learn and grow professionally.
The above challenges are linked to cross-cutting root causes which tie into the other areas of the
Functional Review, and point to where the solutions should be targeted. For instance, senior
leadership is unwilling to collaborate at the top level, perpetuating silos and limiting collaboration
further down. There is a perception of internal rivalry, which leads colleagues to mistrust each
other and to a sense that decisions are not always made for the greater good. And there is a
perception that OCHA is a short-term response-driven organization, with limited attention devoted
to longer-term goals.
Solutions to these challenges will involve addressing the underlying root causes related to the
other areas covered by the Functional Review:
Role and operating model: Clear articulation of OCHAs role and identity will improve
alignment around a shared vision, and reduce the perception of a 'zero-sum game' within
OCHA.
Management model: Improving collaboration and accountability at the senior level would
model behavior that would cascade through the organization if communicated in a transparent
way.
Organizational design: Enforcing checks and balances at the top would help in resolving
organizational confusion, which saps energy and introduces inefficiency.
People and staffing: Developing an integrated staffing strategy linked to talent management
and learning, along with streamlined and transparent support services, would help staff feel
valued.
Setting a clear vision for managers and staff to follow is the first step, but OCHA also has to make
better use of performance management tools in order to keep its staff motivated and energized.
Subtle shifts may reinforce the above changes and improve culture by developing a more trusting
and collaborative environment, by becoming more open and transparent, and by being more
service-oriented with both internal and external counterparts. To improve staff morale and
OCHAs working culture, OCHA will need to explicitly articulate a vision for the organizational
culture it has the ambition to develop, to choose which areas of investments to prioritize with a
view to improving staff health and morale, and to clearly state its commitments to its staff.
16

Conclusion and Next Steps

OCHA is well positioned given the changing landscape. OCHA's stakeholders typically strongly
value its mandate and the coordination services. OCHA plays a pivotal interconnection role within
the humanitarian ecosystem, and as actors in the system diversify, this interconnection point will
become increasingly critical.
But while its core role is increasingly relevant, it is also clear that OCHA has been hampered for
a number of years by internal issues that must be addressed. The current USG quickly
recognized this upon taking office, and commissioned this review. OCHAs senior management
team has also been frank and candid in recognizing the issues during the review and, through the
Executive Management Committee (EMC), has been taking steps to address them.
There is a clear pathway to resolving many of these challenges. There is a resounding need for
OCHA to go 'back to basics'. This means clarifying and communicating OCHAs current priorities
and activities, and addressing internal dysfunction. While doing so, there are strategic questions
to address to ensure that OCHA continues to be well placed and is fit for purpose for future needs.
Within Role and Operating Model, 'back to basics' entails clarification across OCHA and
within the core functions. This includes affirming OCHA's stance relative to other
organizations and the line between OCHA's focus and that of 'operational' agencies.
Within each core function, 'back to basics' entails driving towards efficiency and further
clarifying and communicating the sets of activities that OCHA does. The strategic
questions, such as how OCHA delivers on preparedness, have to be tied to longer-term
business planning and resource implications, and will have to be carefully considered
along with the work in driving efficiency and clarifying the current state.
Within the work on the Management Model, 'back to basics' entails codifying and clarifying
that model, and bringing transparency to decision-making and information-sharing within
the senior management team. Many of the elements are already present in the
management model and the required changes in structure are relatively straightforward.
The establishment of the EMC was a step in the right direction, and it was encouraging to
see that the EMC has already begun to tackle several of the challenges in the
management model, including decision rights and information sharing. It is important to
bring transparency regarding the management model to the rest of OCHA, as this was
identified as one of the key pain points to address.
Within Organizational Design, 'back to basics' in large part entails reducing complexity in
the current structure and clarifying roles and relationships among organizational groups,
both at HQ and in the field. The USG, working with members of his senior management
team, will need to address additional organizational design questions with specific focus
on the top-level structure of OCHA (for example, ensuring appropriate span of control and
balance within the organization).
Within People and Staffing, 'back to basics' entails developing a clear staffing strategy and
communicating that strategy and its implications to OCHA staff and partners. In the
process of clarifying the staffing strategy OCHA senior management will need to discuss
and consider questions, such as OCHA as a career organization and the appropriate use
of secondments. The people and staffing area will also need to wrestle with questions

17

regarding the interplay with UN Secretariat processes, for instance in performance

evaluation and recruitment.
Culture is another area where 'back to basics' entails clarity and communication. Despite
the internal issues raised, OCHA staff are extremely committed and passionate about
OCHAs mandate. OCHA senior management developing a more trusting and
collaborative environment, becoming more open and transparent, and being more serviceoriented with both internal and external counterparts will be important behavior to model
to improve OCHA culture.
The Functional Review serves as a management tool to help the USG improve the way the
organization functions and to optimize its most precious resource: its people. The external
consultants Final Report will incorporate the outcomes of the WHS and will be available in July
following additional consultations with staff, donors and partners. The USG will then announce
his Implementation Plan in September, following OCHAs Global Management Retreat in late
August, to set a number of important internal reforms in motion.

18