Home 
Publications Online Publications Document
|
Reorganization of the Asian Development Bank
V. Analysis of Options27. As stated in paragraph 2, the purpose of the organization review was to assess the capacity of the organization to effectively deliver ADB’s strategic agenda. The findings of the diagnostic phase outlined in chapter III, and the objectives and principles presented in chapter IV are directly related to the delivery of the agenda. The operations departments are ADB’s principal instruments for such delivery, and accordingly the review concentrated on examining options for structural change in these departments. In the case of other departments, changes were considered only where required to provide more efficient and effective support to the operations departments. 28. Keeping the themes of Chapter III and principles in chapter IV in mind, a detailed analysis of options was undertaken by examining three models. Initially, two models were developed as polar opposites. Model 1 had a sector/technical focus, and stressed the need for delivering products through strong technical or sector departments at headquarters and moving programming issues to RMs. Model 2 focussed on programming and product delivery through self-contained operational teams, combining country and sector priorities at the lowest operational unit: the division. A third, intermediate model was also developed, with integration of country and sector perspectives at department level (Model 3). 29. These models were then examined in detail and their strengths and weaknesses were identified. The results of this analysis are summarized in this chapter. A. Model 130. Model 1 combined two principles: (i) to provide strong country and client focus by strengthening RMs and transferring the country strategy and programming functions and other specialized skills fully to the field; and (ii) to build on ADB’s technical skills through reconstituting headquarters’ sector departments and strengthening their capacity to implement the strategic development agenda. Model 1 proposed establishment of a single operational complex to deal with all DMCs. This would include upgraded RMs in each DMC, and three large sector departments, reconstituted to reflect ADB’s strategic agenda. RMs would be fully responsible for strategy and programming functions in close collaboration with sector departments. Sector departments would be strengthened and made fully and directly accountable for delivering ADB’s development agenda in line with the country priorities set by RMs. Coordination between sector departments and RMs would be handled by a group of regional coordinators who would integrate country and sector perspectives. This group would also align the operational program and allocate resources with country risk and performance considerations. In addition, the model proposed (i) establishment of a regional cooperation complex to help build regional knowledge, networks, and subregional cooperation; and (ii) establishment of a coordination and compliance complex comprising nonoperations offices and a quality assurance group. 31. Model 1 had the advantage of (i) enhancing client and country focus through RMs, which have the advantage of proximity to DMCs; (ii) exploiting synergies of stronger technical and sector expertise at headquarters; (iii) harmonizing and unifying policy execution across the region; and (iv) reconciling competing country and sector imperatives through a new mechanism for allocation of resources. However, model 1 would create (i) an over-centralized, very large operational complex that would be difficult to manage and administer; (ii) large sector departments that would not be able to attain a country focus, with a risk of the “project-driven” approach to ADB assistance returning; and (iii) imbalance in the responsibilities and workload of the departments in ADB, with the operational complex dominant. B. Model 232. The principle of this model was to combine all services to the client at the lowest possible managerial level within ADB, the division. This would provide the DMC with a single point of contact within ADB for all services—economic assessment, the country strategy and program, programming, project design, and portfolio management. This would also ensure clear accountability within ADB, greater flexibility in adjusting the service program to the needs of the DMC, and greater efficiencies in responding to DMC needs. 33. Under this model, a divisional manager is both a program and a project manager for specific DMCs. The manager is provided with a staffing mix that can address all of the essential services offered to a DMC. This implies skills in economic assessment and monitoring, sectoral skills for project design, and project management skills for portfolio management. The operations division is thus primarily country-focused, and is self-contained with regard to the required authority to respond to the DMC and the skills needed to provide related services. 34. This model is the one being used successfully by OPO. However, in simulations to scale it up and apply it ADB-wide, the model has proved to have one major limitation. Since the scale of ADB operations in the Pacific DMCs is relatively limited in terms of the sectors addressed, it has been possible to provide OPO with all the skills necessary in a “one-stop-shop” division. However, this will not be possible for services to a larger set of DMCs. Technical and sectoral expertise will be too fragmented across the organization, and such “one-stop-shop” country divisions will often lack the critical mass of the diverse technical expertise required to adequately address large DMC needs. C. Model 335. Model 3 gives primacy to country needs and priorities, while simultaneously avoiding the undue fragmentation of sectoral expertise by integrating all operations functions in country-based departments; and concentrating policy, advisory, and compliance functions in a separate, nonoperational “knowledge-based department.” The model also strongly emphasizes regional cooperation. 36. The model integrates “projects” and “programs” functions at the level of the regional department, each of which will be responsible for a number of countries. Regional departments will contain units to undertake all strategic programming, ESW, subregional cooperation, and project work under one umbrella, with a single line of accountability to the head of the regional department. While regional departments will undertake subregional cooperation, a separate department will promote regional cooperation. This department will also provide technical support; and ensure quality and compliance with safeguard policies, policy coherence, and application of best practices ADB-wide. 37. A close variant of this model was considered in the 1995 reorganization. Though the model was then recognized as the best way to integrate country and sector considerations, it was not pursued because of the risk of fragmenting sectoral expertise to unacceptable levels. The current model seeks to overcome this through establishing a specialized department for technical advice and knowledge dissemination. 38. No single model is ideal: all have strengths and weaknesses. On careful consideration of all models, model 3 with integration at department level, provided the best combination of increased efficiency and effectiveness, reconciling country, thematic, and sector priorities; balanced spans of responsibility and control; continuity in change; and implementation with minimum disruption. It was therefore selected for development. The organizational changes presented in Chapter VI are based on this model. 39. A more detailed presentation of the models and analysis of them is in Appendix 1.
|
RSS Feeds
Back
Top of page