2.
the relevant period, and approval of the Management Review would constitute authority to travel. Overall presentation would be succinct bordering on a checklist and the length of the paper would not exceed five pages. Compilation would be a collabora- tive effort by a management team consisting of geographical departments and their advisers, with the latter regarded as jointly responsible for delivering the programme and therefore jointly accountable for results.
5.
In order to ensure that it was taken seriously as a means of selecting management tasks and of monitoring their achievement, the Management Review would be the subject of critical scrutiny
It would obviously and approval at a high level within the Office. not be possible to clear each Review at Deputy Secretary level - although this would continue to apply to Aid Policy Reviews - but I would hope that the burden they imposed would not be an
One intolerable addition to the work-load of Under Secretaries. way to spread the work of compilation and approval would be to adopt two or more planning cycles within a Division - say one
An alternative would be based on April and another on September. to let responsibility for approval rest on Heads of Departments, but with a more senior panel undertaking a periodic sample audit.
6. I have not dealt with the question of how Development, Division would fit into the Management Review process, but. T sce no reason why their existence should unduly complicate it. Nor, incidentally, would I envisage the Management Review as necessarily confined to the Geographical Divisions. It has equal
Nevertheless, if it were relevance to the Functional Divisions. felt that the approach had merit, I think it could best be tried out on an experimental basis at the sharp end of the Ministry, that is to say in a Geographical Division.
Anthony Tami
Anthony Beattie DTEU
31 January 1977
cc.
Mr Porter (ODM) Mr Kirkness (ODM)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.