Programme Management Structure Summary Table 19 provides a summary of the required theoretical programme management principles as identified in Section 3.2.3, and compares these requirements which what was in place both before the restructure of 2010, and currently (Post-Restructure). 19: Programme Management Structure Summary Theoretical Programme Management Requirements Applied to MIG Programme? Component Aspects Pre-Restructure in 2009/2010 Post-Restructure in 2009/2010 Programme Planning Programme Policy and Charter Yes; in MIG Policy Framework on 05 February 2004. No; the policy from 2004 was assumed to be applicable. Implementation Plan Yes; in terms of phasing out existing grants and introducing MIG. No; it was business as usual. Periodic Revisions to Plan on Changes Yes; was covered by management committee structure but not formally documented. No. Review of existing policies and procedures in organisation to ensure no conflicts Yes; was covered by management committee structure but not formally documented. No. Programme Governance and Organisation Governance structure, including steering committee and programme management team Yes; a national committee structure was defined to include all stakeholders for decision making. No; management committee structure fell away. Programme Organisational Structure Yes; capacity provided at national and municipal level but capacity not built in all Sector Departments and Provinces. No. National management unit was split between at CoGTA. Capacity not built in all Sector Departments and Provinces. Municipal capacity continued through PMUs. Programme Processes and Procedures Yes; but not updated. No; continued with previous process and procedures, despite restructuring. Centralised Programme Management Team Yes; national MIG Management Unit. No; national management unit was split between in CoGTA. Clearly defined roles, responsibilities and authority Yes; but roles and responsibilities became blurred. No; too much ambiguity in roles and responsibilities, e.g. monthly site report. Programme authority split between 3-Branches at CoGTA. Personnel not dedicated to MIG. Metrics to Measure Health and Process of the Programme Yes; metrics defined at programme (elimination of service delivery backlogs) together with a proposal to gather them that was not implemented. Other metrics focussed on project health to be gathered through MIG MIS. Yes; metrics defined at programme (elimination of service delivery backlogs) but not gathered. Other metrics focussed on project health to be gathered through MIG MIS. Information Management Systems Yes; but MIS not adequately maintained, updated or enhanced. Continued with out-of-date MIS.
Programme Management Committed Senior Level Programme Sponsor/Champion Yes. No; across 3-Branches at CoGTA. Clearly Defined Steering Committee Representative of Key Stakeholders Yes. Yes; but representatives at national level are out of date. Programme manager with clearly defined roles and responsibilities Yes. No; became 3-managers (financial, non-financial and information system) split across the 3-Branches at CoGTA. Programme managers at Province and Sector Departments not always capacitated. Experienced team of project managers Yes; inherited CMIP teams. Mixture. Some areas retained and gained experienced staff. Some lost experienced staff. Financial Management Programme-specific policies, processes and procedures for planning, implementing and reporting expenditure Yes; but overlapped with non-programme aspects from DoRA and reporting tool (MIG-MIS) became ineffective. Yes; but overlapped with non-programme aspects from DoRA and reporting tool (MIG-MIS) became ineffective. Ensuring conformance with internal and external financial policies and guidelines for expenditure and reporting Yes; from expenditure perspective but failed in reporting on grant conditions. Yes; from expenditure perspective but failed in reporting on conditions since payment transfer made even if conditions ignored. Stakeholder Management Stakeholder management strategy and plan identifying all key stakeholders and their potential impact on the programme Not specified but management plan was intrinsic part of national management committees. No; since the national management committees were eliminated. Communication strategy and plan which maps the type of information required by various stakeholder groups and the requisite communication channels No. No. Formal communications structure governing programme-related communication No. No. Sustainable change management strategy and plan No. No. Risk Management Risk management strategy and plan No. No. Regular monitoring and evaluation of risks to mitigate effectively No. No. Identification of triggers to take corrective action No. No.
Appraisal Process 4.2.2.9 Lack of Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) 4.2.2.10 Limited Monitoring of Municipalities 4.4.1.1 Municipalities Reluctant to Provide Content of the Quarterly and Monthly Reports 4.4.1.2 Lack of Provincial PMU Insight into the Payment Draw-Down Schedule Submitted 4.4.1.3 Provincial M&E More Focused on Financial Reporting 4.4.1.4 Slow Supply Chain Management 4.4.1.5 4.5.1.4 Lack of Provincial Involvement in Municipal Supply Chain Management Processes: 4.4.1.6 Lack of Adherence to DORA Reporting Timelines 4.4.1.7 4.5.1.1 Lack of Integrated Planning 4.5.1.5 23: Summary of Findings on People and Organisation Summary of Findings: People and Organisation Section Reference Lack of Consolidated Structure 4.2.3.1 Job Descriptions do not Contain MIG Tasks: 4.2.3.2 MIG not Addressed in Performance Agreements 4.2.3.3 Lack of Clarity on MIG Responsibilities 4.2.3.4 4.4.2.2 4.5.2.3 Insufficient Training of Staff 4.2.3.5 4.4.2.4 Insufficient Technical Subject Matter Expertise 4.2.3.6 Lack of Capacity 4.4.2.1 4.5.2.1 Vacant Technical Posts 4.5.2.2 Use of External Service Providers to the Municipal PMU Resulting in MIG Project Management Out of Municipalities’ Control 4.5.2.4 PMU Appointments are not sufficiently structured 4.5.2.5 Salaries and Bonus Payments of PMU Staff are unregulated 4.5.2.6 Table 24: Summary of Findings on Data Summary of Findings: Data Section Reference Project Progress Data Not Collected 4.2.4.1 4.4.3.1 4.5.3.1 Lack of Accurate Data Available 4.2.4.2 4.4.3.2 4.5.3.2 Unclear Backlog Data Definitions 4.2.4.3 Lack of Coordination of Information Gathering 4.2.4.4
5.8 The National MIG Unit will continue monitoring the expenditure of funds for the up-grade of the MIG Programme. 1 TBC 30 June 2016 National MIG Management Unit , PSP Continuation of Section 5.2 Monitor Expenditure 5.9 The National MIG Unit will continue providing the required MTREF input for the implementation of the MIG Programme, including funding requirements for the transition to the MIG II Programme if required. 1 TBC 30 June 2016 Programme Manager , National MIG Management Unit Continuation of Section 5.6 Inputs to the MTEF 5.10 The National MIG Unit will continue monitoring and evaluating the application of the intervention standards for non-performance on the MIG Programme. 1 TBC 30 June 2016 Programme Manager , National MIG Management Unit Continuation of 5.4 Monitor Expenditure 5.11 As required, will transfer the knowledge gained from the MIG Programme into the MIG II Programme or to National Treasury’s Municipal IDMS as dictated by the needs of the new programmes. 1 TBC 30 June 2016 Programme Manager , National MIG Management Unit Medium Transition the intervention standard for MIG non-performance to MIG II