Introduction
The literature review confirmed that there are a number of common performance-management concepts that are not well or consistently applied by HOs, or whose application is challenging or open to interpretation. These included alignment with national priorities, evidence-based interventions, managing by results, results-based budgeting and sustainability. Based on the first phase of the research, the Reference Group identified two focus areas for the case studies: managing for results, and the incorporation of system-wide humanitarian reform commitments into the organisational performance standards for individual HOs. During the second research phase, we set out to explore in each area what factors constrained the performance of the organisation and whether the standards used to assess organisational performance accorded with their own understanding of good performance. We chose four case study organisations. Two of them – United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and United Nations High Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs (UNHCR) – were selected from MOPAN’s list of HOs scoring poorly in these areas. The other two – United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – were chosen as having both humanitarian and development mandates, providing an opportunity to compare how they undertook performance management across the two spheres. The case studies were light-touch desk reviews, involving synthesis of past and ongoing MOPAN reviews and other relevant reviews and evaluations, and key informant interviews with headquarters staff and field staff in two countries, Afghanistan and Chad. We also held consultations with a range of key informants, including MOPAN members, humanitarian organisations and independent experts. Our Reference Group for the study, made up of Canada, the European Union, Norway and the United States, provided extensive advice and support throughout.
1.2 Limitations of the study The study is a preliminary exploration of a complex set of issues, touching on some of the key strategic challenges facing the international humanitarian system. It makes no claim to be comprehensive. In exploring humanitarian reform commitments, our focus was on institutional factors that facilitate or impede implementation, rather than on overcoming implementation challenges in the field, on which there is a growing literature. This is an area where generalisations need to be drawn with care. The four case study organisations are diverse in their mandates and ways of operating, and also face distinct challenges across different operating contexts. While this study focuses on humanitarian action, all the organisations discussed here engage in activities that go beyond the delivery of material support to people in crisis. For example, UNHCR builds national protection capacity and promotes durable solutions for displaced populations, while OCHA is focused on humanitarian co-ordination and advocacy. UNICEF and FAO have mandates that incorporate both humanitarian and development action. This is a rapidly moving field, and each of the case study organisations has ongoing initiatives to strengthen their performance. The study therefore seeks to identify broad lessons and principles that HOs can adapt to their own unique circumstances.
17
