4. 3
Session Objective and Agenda
• Increase understanding of AM Process (AMS , approvals,
tools available)
• Understand scope and purpose of AMCP (Phase 1 and Phase
2) How to link with AM function and maintain momentum after
AMCP
• Increase understanding on KPIs:
how they’re generated,
how they are measured and
what they seek to achieve
5. 4
New AM Manual: In SCI we refer to 'Award Management' rather than
‘Grant’ or ‘Contract management’ to reflect that funding for projects
may come from a wide range of sources such as:
• On-going framework agreements with donors
• Members' undesignated funds
• Contracts
• Gifts in Kind (GIK) donations
• Grants/Cooperative Agreements
All SCI and Member staff must follow the core processes for managing
SCI awards, of both cash and non-cash (GIK) donations
Award Management (AM) at SCI
7. 6
The Award Cycle – other version!
Prepare Opportunity Proposal Inception Implement Report Close
Portfolio
Planning
Securing an
Award
Managing
an award
Lay the
groundwork
for success
Create and
pursue the
right
opportunities
Develop
winning
proposals
Set-up
delivery
fast and
right
Proactively
manage
compliance
Inspire
donor
confidence
in our
results
Finish as
strong as
you
start
8. 7
The Award Management System (AMS) is our central repository: must be
used by Members and SCI to store information and manage processes;
the approvals of opportunities, concept notes, proposal, agreements
and amendments.AMS is used by SCI and Members to:
• Share information about opportunities, awards, partnerships and donors;
• Manage the joint approvals of opportunities, concept notes, proposals,
agreements and amendments;
• Support AM activities such as proposal development and review, donor
reporting, donor compliance and close out;
• Manage the legal vetting of SCI partners and approval of SCI partner
agreements;
• Store and share documents relating to awards, partners, donors and
projects;
• Provide management reporting and analysis to support teams to monitor
and manage their Award Portfolios.
AMS: Award Management System
9. 8
• Opportunity: Member can decide to issue single or many SOFs;
single SOF must have Lead implementing office (RO or CO)
• Proposal:The Lead ( RO or CO) will have full oversight and must
ensure this role is adequately budgeted for under the award.
• Inception:
• Ensure that all countries are involved in the kick-off (the notes and actions from
the meeting should be saved on AMS for all to reference).
• The lead implementing office must clearly assign all roles and responsibilities and
ensure these are understood by all parties.
• Where you have multi-country awards, monitoring progress can be more
complicated because of the number of players; therefore, you must agree the
monitoring mechanism at the kick-off meeting.
AM For Multi Country Awards
10. 9
• Implement: Regular Award Reviews must occur for multi-country
awards, and must involve all offices.The process for monitoring
implementation must be agreed at the kick-off meeting.
• The “lead” can facilitate regular oversight BVA discussions on the overall
project with the Member and other implementing COs via a Program
Implementation Committee (PIC) call
• Participants on the PIC call include Member, the “lead” and
representatives from each implementing CO. Minutes of each PIC call
must be kept and added to the award file.
• Report: Either the Member or SCI can “lead” and be responsible for
monitoring and consolidating narrative and financial reports from each
implementing CO, as required by the donor.Within SCI, the RO can take
this role, or they can designate one CO.This must have been agreed at
the inception phase.
• Close: close out plan should be coordinated and all relevant
documentation saved on AMS; whether single or CO specific
AM For Multi Country Awards
11. 10
Scope of AMCP 2015–2017
To implement a consistent, efficient and effective end-to-end Award Management
process across Save the Children:
• Single-point accountability for each step in the process
• Consistent monitoring of performance and clear definition of expected standards
• Close co-ordination between Award Management and other programming functions
• Clear definition of responsibilities
• Capable and properly resourced COs, able to deliver high quality programs and
working with local donors directly
• ROs acting as the 'first port of call' for escalation and issue resolution
• Members being able to focus more fully on their account management remit, including
strategic alignment and ensuring programming and reporting meet donor
requirements
13. 12
Roll Out Approach
Phase 1 (January 2015 to March 2016)
• Development of improved processes, procedures and tools to provide the organisation with a full
set of guidance on managing awards within Save the Children. Simplification and consistency.
• Conduct pilots in two COs to test the functional and structural changes to demonstrate what a well
resourced CO can achieve and learn lessons for application in other CO during phase 2 roll out..
Phase 2 (CO Specific)
Develop Country Owned Action Plan and Implement:
1. Recommended structure for Award Management
2. Reviewing roles and responsibilities within the office for key Award Management processes
(i.e. proposal, reporting, close out) against the Functional Responsibilities Matrix, identifying
areas for change and working through the implementation of changes as agreed by the SLT*
3. Ensuring processes, tools and templates for Award Management have been embedded and
are being used
14. 13
What Do we want to see after phase 2?
Exit Criteria: CO need to fully embed AMCP changes into ‘AM normal Business as
Usual’. Or CO must demonstrate they are on trajectory to meeting these in full.
1.Empowered single point accountability for AM allowing handover to BAU activity
2.There is an AM team in place and it follows the recommended structure
3.The roles and responsibilities of the AM team follow the Functional Matrix and
process maps (any exceptions have been discussed & agreed by the CO and
AMCP)
4.AMCP indicators show that AMCP changes have been fully embedded:
Guidance, tools and templates are being used consistently and within useful
timeliness.
5.KPI performance meets Global targets or demonstrate trajectory improvement
15. 14
So What are we asking of you?
• Understand the AM cycle and Engage fully with all the requirements
• Coordinate and fully engage with AM function through out the AM cycle
(from Prepare to close outs).
• Commit to continuous improvements and supporting other functions
• Remember if you do not understand the governing processes and
procedures you might think you are doing a great job and winning only to
realise you have lost it all at close out!
19. 19
Award Management Processes
1. Prepare and Opportunity
2. Proposal
3. Agreement to Fund Summary
4. Partner Agreement
5. Kick Off
6. Regular Award Reviews
7. Report
8. Amendments
9. Audits and Evaluations
10.Close Out
11. GIK (Gift In Kind)
12. Match Funding Key steps
24. KPIs Overview
References
• AMS - Portfolio Analysis
Report
• Onenet – Core KPIs
• Regional Multi-Country Programme awards are
implemented by Nairobi and Pretoria offices.
• The overall KPIs results for ESARO however
are calculated to combine EARO and RMCPU
awards.
• To calculate the RMCPU KPIs, one manually
drills the RMCPU awards and calculate
individual performance based on KPI guidance
25. KPIs Calculation Process/Explanation
On Time Reporting to Member:
Includes award reports in current month as per the
‘date due to Member’ field in AMS: Only Lead
Implementing Office is considered (not including
where CO is 'Other Implementing Office'
Numerator: Total # of reports submitted to
member on time in the period. Denominator: Total
# of reports to member to be submitted for the
period
Quality of Donor Reporting: Numerator: # of
reporting schedules with a ‘date submitted to donor’ in the
reporting period (Types of reports included in list below)
that have been given a Member effort rating of ‘Minor’
Denominator: # of all reporting schedules with a ‘date
submitted to donor’ in the reporting period. Ratings are
triggered when the ‘date submitted to donor’ is entered in
AMS.
FS or PAL in place within 14 days of Award Start
Date Numerator: Sum of 'total award amount to
implementing office' for all awards activated in the
period where 'Date 1st made active' is within 14 days of
'award start date' Denominator: Sum of 'total award
amount to implementing office' for all awards activated
in the period. PALs are taken in to consideration, if they
were signed within the timeframe (above), and cover the
full period until the FS is signed
Awards Closed Out on Time. Looks at value (USD) of
awards that are closed by the target close out date as a
percentage of all awards close during the month Target
close out date is 90 days after the date of the final report
to the donor or 180 days after the award end date if there
is no final report. Numerator: Sum of 'Total Award
Amount to Implementing Office' of all awards that should
close in the period that are closed on or before the 'target
close out date' Denominator: Sum of 'Total Award
Amount to Implementing Office' of all awards that should
close in the period
26. How To Extract RMCPU KPIs fro ESARO
KPIs
Run KPIs Report
on onenet
Use any Dashboard to select
parameters for Year-2016, Region
ESARO, CO-ESARO
All KPIs will show from January to October
with all the Quarterly Cumulative
Linking to
Individual awards
contributing to the
KPIs performance
Click the individual KPI performance to
link to award detail (Quarterly
Cumulative)
Extract the awards details to sort the RMCPU
award by lead implementing person/programme
location
Calculating
RMCPU KPIs
Performance
Sort only RMCPU awards by drilling
down based on the parameters of
lead implementing person or Cost
centre
Exa: KPI on on time reporting to member: take all
RMCPU reports due for the period—and note the
number. Select reports submitted on time for
RMCPU awards selected. Then proceed to calculate
the KPIs based on KPIs guidance explanation.
27. Overall KPI Performance as at October
2016 KPIs for ES Africa RO Country in East and Southern Africa
Region
2016
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Year
TotalJanuary February March Total April May June Total July August Septemb
er
Total October Total
Code KPI Indicators
KPI06 On-time reporting
(Member)
38% 33% 63% 41% 33% 60% 33% 41% 50% 57% 0% 39% 71% 71% 46%
KPI07 Quality of reporting 0% 20% 17% 40% 89% 50% 69% 0% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 58%
KPI08 FS or PAL in place within
14 days of Award Start
Date
18% 18% 52% 100% 56% 100% 85% 100% 100% 100% 92%
KPI09 Awards closed out on time 0% 57% 22% 44% 0% 0% 13% 3% 100% 0% 5% 10%
KPI10 Funding Gap, as % of
Latest Budget
0.36% 0.36% 0.36% 0.36% 1.78% 1.38% 1.38% 1.38% 1.38% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Code MI Indicators
MI06 On-time reporting (Donor) 8% 43% 0% 20% 40% 75% 25% 54% 25% 0% 50% 31% 54% 54% 40%
MI07 Outstanding Reports to
Members
13 15 19 19 15 13 13 13 13 7 9 9 7 7 7
MI08 Awards Close-out Backlog 16 10 9 9 8 10 7 7 10 7 5 5 5 5 5
28. RMCPU Quarterly KPIs in 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
%ageUnit %ageUnit %ageUnit %ageUnit
Quality of donor reporting 20% 5 64% 11 100% 2 75% 4
On time reporting to member 48% 25 40% 5 20% 10 70% 10
FS or PAL in Place withing 14days Not ranked 0 54% 2 100% 2
Not
Ranked 0
Awards closed out on time 0% 1 4% 4 0% 3
Not
Ranked 0
29. RMCPU Contribution to ESARO KPIs
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RMCPUESARO RMCPUESARO RMCPUESARO RMCPUESARO
Quality of donor reporting 20% 17% 64% 69% 100% 75% 75% 50%
On time reporting to member 48% 41% 40% 41% 20% 39% 70% 71%
FS or PAL in Place withing
14days Not ranked 18% 54% 56% 100% 100% Not Ranked 100%
Awards closed out on time 0% 44% 4% 3% 0% 5% Not Ranked Not Ranked
34. Key Issues
Pain points
• RMCPU Contribution to KPIs performance is indispensable and the outcome of best
performance depends on their active contribution.
• RMCPU Contributes to most awards in ESARO as compared to EARO programme specific
awards which majorly support staff and few which support PDQ hence EARO programme
awards have less reporting requirements as compared to RMCPU.
• Lower trends of RMCPU KPI performance results in lower trends in ESARO KPIs
• Blockers to timely award close out from RMCPU and Member side MUST be jointly
identified and managed (outside of awards pending Audit, receivable from donor and
response from donor of the final reports submitted.
• The cost of late FS activation to RMCPU should be assessed and the members concerned be
engaged too.
• Each number of award or report due counts equally in the reporting period. Case scenario
RMCPU closeout in Q2 Vs number of awards
• A KPI cannot be ranked if it has 0 awards in the reporting period.
• All KPIs updates are reflected after the hard close for that month hence even if 100% effort
is directed to KPIs after target dates it will not improve the KPIs after the hard close update.
35. ESA Awards Offer to RMCPU
Portfolio Planning
Information sharing on donors funding likeminded initiatives within SCI
globally
Pipeline Monitoring
Portfolio analysis for senior management
Donor specific analysis based on what is available within AMS and FMS
Securing an Award Interpretation of the fundraising protocol
Management of SCI directly received funds
Development and Reviewing of proposal documents where need be
Guidance on match funding , including engagement with members on the same
Guidance on systems specific issues from opportunity to close out stage
Review of Partner Agreements , Member to Member Agreements (Where
Applicable),
Managing of Awards
Guidance on donor specific guidelines or policies vis a vis emerging issues during
implementation
Periodically monitoring the health of RMCPU awards portfolio
Partner reviews
Guidance on close out processes and engaging members on the same
People Gap filling / Backstopping (where need be)
Supporting recruitment of awards staff and performance oversight (technically)
Cross country peer support (presently doing this for Uganda and Sudan)
Opportunities for secondments within the region and globally on awards
management
Linking up awards staff with donor specific trainings
