Version 3
Simplify MyPBAS related operations and
Ensure Multi-Year Planning & Budgeting in Programmes
toward FY14 Budgeting Process
PROGRAMME-LEVEL
MULTI-YEAR FUNDING COMMITMENT
Blue: added in version 2
Green: added in version 3
1
Background
•
•
•
•
•
When LEAP was introduced in 2005, Programme-Projects structure started. (previously it was
Project-its components)
Methodologies of Programme/Project Planning/Designing and Management became well
organized.
Programme/Project Financial System became complicated
– Budget files, PBAS entries, C/F and Project Core and Logframe Financial Report became 5
times
But, Donor restriction (mainly SP) is not changed
– If same Programme, it seems that many SOs have flexibility of fund allocation among
Projects
WV’s Development Programme Approach (IPM adoption) requires more flexible operation to work
with local partners
Not changing Programme-Projects structure in Development theory and
accountability-level, change to Programme-level Commitment as one figure
2
Where we stand now
•
•
•
•
Jan 21/22: Conducted two discussion WeBEX inviting SO IPG heads, SO IPG Finance
heads, SDOs, RFDs and RFMs. Feedback received from 8 SOs, 2 ROs and 10 NOs
including Operation/Programme, Ministry Quality and Finance.
Feb 20: Discussed in GFFT call (GC Finance, RFDs, SO IPG Finance heads) inviting GFO
and DPE/IM. Feedback received from 7 SOs and 2 ROs. The most of feedback required
clarifications on the proposed new business process.
The direction to simplify MyPBAS operation with the related works was endorsed by
SO&ROs/NOs, and especially NOs appreciate more flexibility so that they can
accommodate field-level timely needs.
Attached feedback summary focus on key concerns/issues, cartelized by 5 areas, and add
comments/clarification with the name of groups to follow up. Texts in blue are based on the
feedback after GFFT call.
– SO internal operation issue: SP economic model/PCPY based approach, SP
Reserve management
– Business protocol: Loosing SOs’ control power at project-level, too much
flexibility
– Programme financial management issue: why only for SOs, overspending risk,
poor agreement status of PDD/MY Budget, NOs capacity for better budget
management
– Roll-out
– Clarification: meaning of “commitment”, accounting, etc.
•
Based on the additional suggestions, this 3 rd version is developed.
3
Scope
• The funds which have no specific donor
restrictions on project allocation under the
same Programme
– Mainly Sponsorship
– But not limited, e.g., PNS general funding which
has no donor restrictions.
– Grants (Gov’t, Multi, PNS) are out of scope
• Funding commitment which is tied with the specific
activities should be made in a separated MyPBAS
document (individual T4 code) by SOs (no change)
– E.g., FY14 ADP total budget of $500K is funded by
Sponsorship mainly but a part of Education project is
funded by PNS Grant with $50K.
– SO enters $450K to SMP and $50K to Education project in
MyPBAS.
4
Pre-conditions & Directions
• Pre-conditions
– No design changes on IT systems such as
•
•
•
•
•
MyPBAS DB
SunSystem: v6 is now roll-out
Horizon: system linked with LEAP budget template
LEAP Budget Template: v10 is not yet fully implemented
Project Core & Logframe Financial Report Template: new template starts from
FY13 Q2.
– No structure change on Programme and Project
• Directions
–
–
–
–
Simplify, Reduce not-value-added work
Keep project-level accountability
Ensure the concept of Multi-Year Planning & Budgeting in Programme
Give more flexibility of annual cashflow and budget reallocation among
projects under the same programme, but no overspent in each year-end
per programme.
– Ensure responsibility of line management in NOs and ROs for
programme quality assurance functions aligned with one Operation one
Organization.
5
Overview
MY Budget
Annual Budget
ITD Budget
YTD Actual
ITD Actual
Budget Framework
MyPBAS
SO enter one big $
NO enter five $
over lifecycle
Project Core & Logframe
Financial Report
Revised CY
Budget
Living Budget
Inception-to-date (ITD) Budget/Actual is cumulative budget/actual of the phase. If in 3rd
year of the current phase, ITD budget/actual is total budget/actual from 1st year to 3rd year.
6
Budget Types
• Multi-Year Budget (MY Budget)
– This is 3 to 5 years of lifecycle budget created along with Programme
Design Document (PDD).
– MY Budget is be kept over 3 to 5 years of lifecycle unless PDD is
revised or material budget change such as caused by exchange rate,
inflation, etc.
– This will be used as Inception-To-Date (ITD) Budget.
• Revised Current Year(CY) Budget
– This is one-year (CY) updated budget along with revised one-year (CY)
Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP)
– Revised CY Budget reflect previous year’s accomplishments. For
example, if there are some remaining activities but need to carry out,
those activities are included in the Revised CY Budget.
– It is called “Annual Budget” in Project Core & Logframe Report.
• Both use LEAP Budget Template (currently v10.1)
7
Key Business Process (1)
Support Office
National Office
Note
Develop MY Budgets
If 5 projects/ADP, 5 LEAP
Budget template files created
Agree on MY Budgets
In Horizon
Enter annual programme total
budget into one project (SMP, as
SO Forecast) for entire lifecycle
based on the agreed PDD/MY
Budget .
Enter annual project budget into
5 projects (as NO Planned
Budget) for entire lifecycle
based on the agreed PDD/MY
Budget.
Final goal is to create automatic
posting system from Horizon to
MyPBAS based on the agreed
MY Budget.
These figures won’t be changed
unless PDD/MY Budget is
revised.
These figures won’t be changed
unless PDD/MY Budget is
revised.
Copy SO Forecast to SO
Proposed Budget & Approved
Budget using macro in PBAS
every year
Copy NO Planned Budget to NO
Proposed Request & Approved
Request using macro in PBAS
every year
SO Commitment in SMP = Total
NO Requests of all projects
(based on the agreed MY
Budget) Easy analysis by OLAP
cube.
NOs import the agreed MY
Budget as ITD Budget into SS
budget ledger (as one of 10
ledgers) over 5 years. (only one
time in 5 years)
If Horizon Programme/Project
profiles have enough data,
FRSC can do ITD analysis in
OLAP Cube.
8
Key Business Process (2)
Support Office
National Office
Note
SOs review based on
PSC(Programme Support Code)
or other relevant documents
NOs update CY Budget of each
project as Revised CY Budget
with the cap of SO’ CY PBAS
commitment at programme-level
(=C/F+ CY portion of MY
Budget)
LEAP Programme Budget
Summary Template to SOs.
NOs export the revised CY
Budget as Annual Budget to SS
budget ledger (as another one
of 10 ledgers)
NOs may update the CY budget
during FY.
Revised CY Budgets of all
projects ≤ SO’ CY Commitment
of SMP with programme- level
amount (not necessary to be
exactly same)
SOs review as a part of
Management Report based on
PSC or other relevant
documents
NOs prepare Project Core &
Logframe financial reports with
variance explanation (annual
budget vs. actual)
Under SMP, C/F available at
programme-level is shown.
Under each project, C/F
available at project-level is
shown.
C/F under SMP in SO = Total
C/F of all projects in NO
Settle the remaining balance as
of the phase-end
Settle the remaining balance as
of the phase-end
Settlement is done in the 1st
year of the next phase in
MyPBAS.
9
Example - MyPBAS
Agreed MY Budget (3-year & 2 Projects)
Projects
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Total
Project A(SMP)
100
120
130
350
Project B
200
250
240
690
Total
300
370
370
1,040
440(70+370) is the cap for NO for
10
Year 2 total budget for Project A & B
3-Year in MyPBAS
Project A (SMP)
Summary: NO Request
Year 1
Year 2
Summary: SO Commitment
Year 3
Year 1
Year 1
Approved Approved Approved Approved
Request
Request
Request
Request
Quality of Value
Per PDD
Per PDD
PY Carryforw ard
Budget for
Expenses at Project
(DPC)
Total Direct Expense
Forecast
Budget for NO
Allocation (IPC)
Total
Per PDD
0
Quality of Value
-25
100
120
130
100
120
105
0
0
0
$100
$120
$105
Year 2
Year 3
Year 1
Approved Approved Approved Approved
Com m itm Com m itm Com m itm Com m itm
ent
ent
ent
ent
-25
Per PDD
Per PDD
PY Carryforw ard
Budget for
Expenses at Project
(DPC)
Total Direct Expense
Forecast
Budget for NO
Allocation (IPC)
Total
Per PDD
70
45
300
370
370
0
0
0
$300
$440
$415
45
Project B
Summary: NO Request
Year 1
Year 2
Summary: SO Commitment
Year 3
Year 1
Year 1
Approved Approved Approved Approved
Request
Request
Request
Request
Quality of Value
Per PDD
Per PDD
PY Carryforw ard
Budget for
Expenses at Project
(DPC)
Total Direct Expense
Forecast
Budget for NO
Allocation (IPC)
Total
Per PDD
70
Quality of Value
70
200
250
240
200
320
310
0
0
0
$200
$320
$310
70
Year 2
Year 3
Year 1
Approved Approved Approved Approved
Com m itm Com m itm Com m itm Com m itm
ent
ent
ent
ent
PY Carryforw ard
Budget for
Expenses at Project
(DPC)
Total Direct Expense
Forecast
Budget for NO
Allocation (IPC)
Total
Per PDD
Per PDD
Per PDD
Per PDD
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
11
PCFR and NO CF Explanation Forms
CY SS Actual
MY Budget (= Cumulative amount
of PBAS fresh commitments)
Revised CY Budget
Continue to produce Project-level Financial Reports and Variance Explanation
(T2 and T6) in PCFR
•Variance explanation is for Revised CY Budget vs. Actual at Project-level
•For usual project management purpose
Stop CF Explanation Forms in Year-end process
•Become meaningless
•SOs will refer Variance Explanation in PCFR as a part of Management Report
Office
Name
Program
Number
Title
MYPBAS Doc
Number
Explanation Required?
YN
Over Spending Explanation
Over Spending Recovery
Plan
Under Spending Category
(pls select)
Under Spending
Explanation
Uganda
01166
195216 UGAOCANO0199
Vulnerable Child Advocacy
ExplainProject
Underspending
In East
Uganda
01404
Uganda
01464
182206 UGAOKREA0001
Namanyonyi Sponsorship
Explain
Management
Overspending
Project
This was caused by under
budgeted
for itemsbyfor
167789 UGAOUSAO0038
Gulu Sponsorship Management
Explain Overspending
Project
This
was caused
under
This will reduce the FY13
budget.
However
there isWV
an
WV
Uganda
will engage
Uganda
01465
188422 UGAOUSAO0240
Supporting Public Sector
Explain
Workplaces
Underspending
To Exp budgeted for items for
US in negotiations to offset 5. SO Increase Commitment at
end of grant
year project,
Ongoing
Uganda
01468
188348 UGAOEUKO0109
Civil Society Empowerment
ExplainPilot
Underspending
Project
Uganda
01468
197148 UGAOAUSO0234
Regional Child Protection
Explain
And
Underspending
Advocacy Pro
Uganda
01472
178470 UGAOUSAO0035
Title 11 Livelihood Security
Explain Underspending
Uganda
01473
189722 UGAOUSAO0301
Improved Care And Support
Explain Project
Underspending
Phase 3
Uganda
01476
170532 UGAOAUSO0010
Arapai Sponsorship Management
Explain Overspending
Project
Uganda
01476
186051 UGAOAUSO0153
Arapai Agriculture/Food
Explain
Security
Overspending
Project
Uganda
01479
Uganda
01485
181152 UGAOIREO0001
Busitema Sponsorship
Explain
Management
Overspending
Project This
was caused
by under
specialized
agricultural
budgeted
forwere
itemsbooked
for
195828 UGAOAUSO0216
Kammengo –Nkozi Livelihood
Explain Overspending
Project
All
the costs
Under
4. True Underspending - delayed
Project
Programme
runs into FY13
Implementation
and
funds will be used to
Funds to
under
spending
due
to
4. True Underspending - delayed
Programme
Implementation
C/F will b
Under
expenditure
mainly
due
to delay
completion consulta
3. Other Technical Issue
Activities
Ongoing
PNSinproject,
3. Other Technical Issue
3. Other Technical Issue
This was partly caused by
ADP closure activities
The project had
Negotiations with WV
Australia has with
started
Negotiations
WVto
FY
'13. to
under spending
due to
Funds
Project
phased out,
since the
reconciliation
to
Project
phasedgoing
out, on
SO to Funds
decommit the funds after since the
Australia
has started
to
This
will reduce
the FY13
budget but WVU
Negotiations
will will
be done to
on this document instead of transfer the unutilized funds
12
Transition Plan
• Projects that have SO Forecasts at Project-level in FY12 MyPBAS
DB (up to FY15 data)
– If SO Forecasts are based on the agreed PDD/MY Budget, keep them
at Project-level and simply copy to SO approved commitments until
FY15.
– If SO Forecasts are not the final agreed amounts,
• Either keep them at project-level forecast but reflect agreed PDD/MY budgets at
project-level, and copy them to SO commitments at project-level (up to FY15
data), or
• Change to Programme-level forecast in FY14-16 planning and budgeting
process.
– From FY16 MyPBAS data, all SOs Forecasts are shown under one
project with Programme-level total amount.
• Projects that have SO Forecasts at Programme-level in FY12
MyPBAS DB
– Keep Programme-level but update to the agreed the total Programmelevel amount.
• NOs keep to reflect agreed MY Budget to MyPBAS at project-level,
and won’t change to the revised CY budget from FY14 MyPBAS.
• NOs upload agreed MY Budget into SS budget ledger as ITD
Budget from FY14.
– If current phase is from FY11-15, upload FY14-15 ITD budget.
13
Pros and Cons
SO
Pros
Cons
•
•
Drastic reduce of PBAS work
Demonstrate multi-year planning theory in PBAS (and
internal mid-term financial planning)
OLAP Cube is available for timely and detailed
analysis
•
Reduce of PBAS work and related reconciliation work
More efficient budget control for ITD Budget and
Revised CY Budget.
More flexibility of fund allocation among projects over
the lifecycle
Driving shift from SOs’ commitment-based budgeting
to the real-needs-based budgeting
Increased Trust to SOs by communities/ADP teams
for continuation of ADPs
No more C/F negotiation and NO CF explanation form
Mitigate from trend of heavy spending in year-end
OLAP Cube is available for timely and detailed
analysis
•
•
NO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Others
•
More focus on quality programme
•
Fear for failure of
fundraising  see feedback
summary
Need additional formula of
SO C/F in PBAS will
follow up with GICT/FRSC
Risk of sloppy management
 LEAP Standards v3 will
address programme
management standards.
14