PPM Re-Write: Map of Changes Made

Specific Changes to Improve Productivity and Reduce Burden

Current PPM Proposed Change Relevant CO1 Est. Time
Policy Saving (avg.
days per year)
Projects often implemented in in siloes, Introduce project portfolios, enabling corporate
with numerous requirements required requirements to be combined for projects Formulate 113.2
for each individual project contributing to joint results
The development project is the primary More flexible instruments to deliver results, with
instrument to deliver results less (and more appropriate) requirements,
including introduction of Development Services to
deliver results with less requirements. Also Formulate 294.2
embeds innovative financial instruments into suite
of programming options, including Performance
Based Payments and On-Granting.
RBx approval required for DIM projects Eliminate requirement for RBx approval of DIM
and projects with large equipment projects and approval of projects with large Formulate 37.5
components. equipment components
Project concept notes required for each Eliminate requirement for project concept notes
Formulate 21.9
pipeline project/concept (it can still be done if helpful)
Initiation Plans require LPAC Eliminate need for LPAC review of initiation plans Formulate 15.4
Contradictory evaluation requirements Simplify evaluation planning requirements and
Formulate 12.6
with guidance as prescriptive. remove guidance that should not be prescriptive
Requirement for separate Theory of Eliminate the need for a separate project Theory
Change for each project of Change; connects the project TOC to the Formulate 29.4
programme TOC instead
Two IP capacity assessments required – Reduce Capacity Assessment burden. Removed
Select
one IP capacity checklist for all possible requirement for IP capacity assessment checklist
Implementing 29.9
IPs, plus HACT for the selected IP and incorporated core project management issues
Partner
into HACT for one streamlined assessment
Requires preliminary approval from the Remove requirement that the CO must seek
Government of the IP in writing, based preliminary approval of the Government in writing Select
on findings of assessing capacity of the of the proposed implementation arrangements. Implementing 20.2
“maximum number of appropriate Government approval of the IP is secured upon Partner
organizations” signing the UNDAF work plan or project document
PPM is silent on the need for capacity Clarifies that capacity assessments are required Select
assessments for RPs because the for Responsible Parties (RPs) as well as Responsible
interagency HACT guidance only speaks Implementing Partners (IPs) [Note: This has Party
of Implementing Partners as the always been the case, but it was unclear in the N/A
concept of RPs does not exist in other prescriptive content. Capacity assessment for the
agencies. This is leaving the private sector to be developed]
organization exposed to significant risk
Unclear if capacity assessments are Clarifies that capacity assessments of IPs & RPs Select
16.4+
required for all IPs & RPs, regardless of are not required if the partner receives under Implementing
addition
how much will be transferred $300,000 per programme cycle. For full support to Partner
reduction with
NIM with no cash transfers, capacity assessment is Select
$300K
not required Responsible
threshold
Party

1
14 COs completed the workload estimate for the PPM reforms (see last page for details)
 PPM Re-Write: Map of Changes Made
All projects require separate formal
LPAC minutes
All projects require a pre-PAC before
the formal LPAC
For projects with equipment exceeding
50% of the budget or over $1M the CO
must make a critical assessment and
write a report on comparative
advantages of UNDP and capacities of
partners before approving the project
All beneficiaries of training funded by
UNDP must “prepare a report not more
than one month after training ends”
Requires completion of separate issues
logs, lessons learned logs and a lessons
learned report at the end of a project
Output verification required twice per
year for every project
Minimum frequency of project board
meetings is quarterly
CPD extensions require completion of a
time-consuming Statement of
Challenges and Performance
Project reports required every quarter
at a minimum
Two project reports required – the
Project Progress Report and the Annual
Review Report
Separate annual reporting required to
UNDP HQ and the UNCT
Two steps in project closure:
operational and financial closure. Once
a project is operationally closed, it
cannot fund project staff to complete
the project closure process
SS&TrC project type the only one that
can accommodate a project working in
multiple countries
Government has to sign every project
document
Any changes to programmes and
projects require formal signatures
No clarity on planning, monitoring,
reporting and Atlas set-up for multi-
country programmes and offices
Project QA with notes and uploaded attendance Appraise &
28.1
serves as LPAC minutes; nothing else required Approve
Removed requirement for a project pre-PAC. It Appraise &
22.1
can still be held in cases where it is useful Approve
Removed special procedures for projects with
large equipment components. UNDP has
developed much stronger capacities in Appraise &
20.4
procurement since this procedure was introduced. Approve
Sustainability issues included in the sustainability
plan of the full project
Removed this requirement
Deliver 24.7
Eliminated these requirements. Issues and
lessons are captured through ongoing processes, Monitor 61.6
such as quality assurance and ROAR reporting.
Lowered minimum frequency of output
Monitor 26.3
verification to once per year
Reduced minimum frequency of project board
Oversight 162.2
meetings to Annually
Eliminated this requirement for CPD extensions.
Manage
This information is already captured in the ROAR, 12.1
Change
and doesn’t need to go to the EB for extensions
Reduced minimum frequency of project reports to
annually. More complex projects can make Report 147.8
reporting more frequent, if required
Consolidated requirements for the Project
Progress Report and the Annual Review Report Report 72.9
Streamline ROAR with One UN reporting
Report 18.0
requirements at country level
Simplified the Project Closure process into one
step, enabling project staff to be funded by the
Closure and
project to support closure activities like asset 33.6
Transition
transfer, final reporting and final project reviews,
evaluations and Project Board meetings
Expand the SS&TrC project type to be used for Formulate
any Multi Country Project. Burden reduction in 9.3
Multi-Country
not having to re-invent the wheel
Project
Government agreement to a project may be
through an exchange of letters or LPAC minutes if Formulate 21.0
needed
Changes to programming require evidence of
Manage
Programme/Project Board agreement, not 35.2
Change
necessarily formal signatures
Clear instruction on planning, monitoring,
reporting and Atlas set up in MCOs, project offices Significant
and special development situations. Burden MCO Guidance for relevant
reduction in corporate processes in some offices only
contexts, and not having to re-invent the wheel
 PPM Re-Write: Map of Changes Made

No clarity on how to engage state- Academia, state owned enterprises and

owned enterprises, academia and
foundations as Responsible Parties.
Project QA required annually for
ongoing projects
foundations added as possible RPs, with clarity
on which templates to use and ability to use Select
collaborative advantage. Burden reduction in not Responsible 24.3+
having to reinvent the wheel to figure out Party
requirements. Academia and foundations treated
the same regardless of ownership structure.
Project QA required every other year for ongoing New - not yet
projects estimated

Cost Efficiency, Effectiveness and Value for Money

Current PPM Proposed Change Relevant Est. Time
Policy Saving
(per yr)
Fragmented, ad-hoc approach to Introduce Partnership and Communications
+4
partnership, communications and strategy with a Resource Mobilization and Formulate
resource mobilization pipeline plan as part of CPD development
(increase)
Pipeline used as a tool for resource More deliberate pipeline management linked to
planning based on RM opportunities results/theories of change and the Resource Formulate +2
rather than identifying gaps and Mobilization Strategy Monitor (increase)
advocating with funding partners
Workplans are not prioritized in the For projects that are not fully funded, the
case of funding gaps. This can lead to workplan needs to be prioritized to indicate what
poor resource planning and lack of results are dependent on additional resource Formulate N/A
clarity on what results will be achieved mobilization.
with less resources.
No principles for quality and results- Introduce quality results-based budgeting
Formulate N/A
based budgeting principles
DPC not incorporated into Incorporate DPC into programming instruments
programming instruments, templates and processes (templates will follow policy Formulate 20.8
and processes content)
Engagement Facility only for country Expand use of Engagement Facility for use of
offices; does not allow core resources Regional Programmes and Global Initiatives.
Engagement
nor funding UNDP staff Allow core and funding of UNDP staff. Enabled to N/A
Facility
respond to crisis or test innovations with scale-up
potential.
Implementing partner selected based Introduced clear criteria for selecting the most
on assessing capacities of the appropriate implementing partner without Select
maximum number of potential prejudice. Capacity is assessed only of the most Implementing 27.0
partners, and based on “NIM is the appropriate partner. Partner
norm.”
Each project requires RBx approval for CO performance-based capacity assessment done
all DIM projects in most cases (unless during programme design, led by the RBx with Appraise &
authority is specifically delegated relevant central Bx providing support. Capacities Approve
following a capacity assessment). for DIM incorporated into project budgets.
The RR cannot approve a project if it Removed restriction of delegated authority when
budgets for staff to be supervised by a project includes staff to be supervised by the Appraise &
2.0
the country office approving the office approving the project, as it is outdated in Approve
project. light of the DPC policy
 PPM Re-Write: Map of Changes Made

Support Innovation and Learning

Current PPM Proposed Change Relevant Est. Time
Policy Saving
(per yr)
Vague, cumbersome process to revise More straightforward to revise a project in
projects in light of changing contexts response to testing, iterative improvement and Manage
33.5
and learning scaling up/down in response to learning what Change
works and what does not work
HQ PAC appraises CPDs at the end of HQ PAC appraises UNDP inputs to UNDAF TOC to
the process so changes can only be bring knowledge, innovation and lessons from Formulate
cosmetic and editorial in nature. It is global and regional experiences, and to feed into Appraise & 28.8
too late to incorporate knowledge, prioritization Approve
innovation & lessons into prioritization.
Challenges prizes and innovation Integrates challenge prizes and open innovation Select
processes not integrated into the PPM processes Responsible N/A
Party
No provision for pro-bono support Included provision for pro-bono support, enabling
UNDP to issue contracts equivalent to ICs to
professionals supported by a third party (such as a Deliver N/A
company, foundation, academic institution) up to
two years. Due diligence applies for private sector.
No mention of tolerance for failure Clarified tolerance for failure, as long as we make
Oversight N/A
course corrections and learn from failure

Enable Delivering as One & Country Platforms (as per the SP)
Current PPM Proposed Change Relevant Est. Time
Policy Saving (per
yr)
Separate UNDP process serving the Where DaO process can serve UNDP’s Formulate
same or similar purpose to DaO requirements, i.e., for design, monitoring, Oversight 40
processes oversight, reporting, this is made clear Report
Includes references to old UNDAF Updated to respond to the new UNDAF
guidance and requirements guidance, including requirement for the CCA,
Formulate 5.3
introduction of Vision 2030 and the development
of a Theory of Change for the UNDAF
Service level agreements (SLA) limited Introduces an agreement for advisory services to
to operational transactions included in enable reimbursement for programmatic
Select
the Universal Price List (UPL), such as contributions of staff from other UN agencies.
Responsible N/A
procurement and payments. This helps facilitate UN collaboration in ways
Party
beyond joint programmes and cash transfers to
implement project activities.
Programming principles based on old Introduced new UNDG programming principles
UNDG guidance. (included in new UNDAF guidance) as UNDP’s Formulate N/A
programming principles
No/limited reference to SDGs Updated to incorporate consideration of the
Formulate N/A
2030 Agenda and SDGs
 PPM Re-Write: Map of Changes Made

Greater Flexibility
Current PPM Proposed Change Relevant Est. Time
Policy Saving
(per yr)
All contexts use same procedures and Introduces “Bridging Programmes” in crisis
templates for country programming, settings, which are short country programmes (up
including fast changing crisis settings to 18 months) in uncertain contexts when a full
programme cannot be developed and an Manage
10
extension does not add value due to the rapidly Change
changing context. The Crisis Board reviews
Bridging Programmes, which are submitted to the
next EB session.
No provision for remote monitoring in Includes provision for remote monitoring by third Monitor
20
crisis settings party contractors in crisis settings
Advance Authorization for 60 days only Advance Authorization extended to max 90 days Appraise &
5
Approve
Substantive CPD changes need to be Process for substantive CPD changes clarified and
Manage
appraised and submitted for approval simplified. Otherwise, changes are not being 39.4
Change
using the same process as new CPDs. recorded or managed because it is too difficult.
Initiation Plans can be for a max of 12 Duration of Initiation Plans increased to 18
months, and are only for designing a months. The scope of when it can be used is Formulate 12.0
project. expanded to include responding to crisis.
No accommodations for funding If a funding partner requires a specific Select
partner condition in selecting an implementing partner or responsible party to be Implementing
implementing partner. selected as a pre-condition of funding, this Partner
partner may be selected as long as adequate 18.5+
capacity is in place and the national government Select
agrees. This includes private sector partners as Responsible
responsible parties. Party
Only way to engage the private sector Provides additional options to engage the private
Formulate
is through a contract for professional sector in programming, including through
Select RP
services performance based payments and development N/A
Development
service agreements in areas supporting
Services
programme results and the SDGs.
No modifications of oversight Added greater flexibility in crisis settings,
mechanisms in crisis settings including modified oversight mechanism and Oversight 41.7
enabling oversight mechanisms to meet remotely
Strict asset transfer rules - not allowing More flexible asset transfer at the end of a
civil society to keep any assets project, including removed requirement for civil
Closure &
(regardless of capacity development society needing to return assets, removed asset 18.4
Transition
objectives), asset custody period, and custody period, and clarified ability to dispose of
disposal of worthless assets worthless assets

Other Changes for Greater Effectiveness (no time implication)

Proposed Change Relevant Policy
Introduced a new programming architecture with the programmes in the center. Introduced clear
relationship between CPD outputs and project outputs, where projects should deliver or directly Formulate
 PPM Re-Write: Map of Changes Made

contribute to CPD outputs for stronger programme management and easier ROAR reporting. CPDs
are more actively monitored, with outputs and indicators adjusted when needed.

Merged the programme and project cycles to show how projects are delivery instruments to Formulate
implement programmes, along with other flexible instruments
Strengthen integration of risk management, ensuring alignment with ERM Policy and Corporate Formulate
Risk Register for a consistent approach across all levels of risk [ERM Policy updated to ensure a
Monitor
unified policy on risk management that includes programme/project risks]
Added content on the quality of donor reporting, with the template earlier approved by the OPG
Report
(yet never distributed)
Introduced standards for quality analysis Formulate
Clarified accountabilities of Implementing Partners Select Implementing
Partners
Clarified expectations on horizon scanning (need new guidance as well) Monitor
Introduced knowledge as a core area to be analyzed as part of monitoring Monitor
Broadened sustainability plan to “scale and sustainability plan” to bring these linked issues
Monitor
together for coherence
Embedded communications across the PPM Monitor
Improved communications expectations of results achieved through programming Report
Clarified prescriptive content for projects not part of a programme, such as projects implemented
Formulate
in project offices and Bureaus without a programme like BERA
Embedded requirements for specific donors, such as vertical funds Monitor
Oversight

CO Workload Estimation (14 COs2)

Average Time Implication stated by COs:
 1,705.6 Person Days Per Year, Avg. 52 programme staff per responding CO
 Average time saving of 32.8 days per programming staff per year (~16%
burden reduction)
Other initiatives linked to the PPM re-write:
1. New Innovative Financial Instruments (led by BMS, BPPS and BERA)
2. Updates to HACT (led by BMS/OFRM)
3. Coherence with policy and procedure changes in operations (BMS)
4. Corporate Planning System upgrades (BMS and ExO)
5. ERM Update (co-led by BMS and BPPS)

2
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Iran, Tanzania, DRC, Barbados & the OECS, Rwanda, Belarus, Uganda, South Sudan, Nepal,
Cambodia, Montenegro, Moldova, Ukraine