Insights from Outside the Bubble: The Great Mix-Up

When the volcano erupts, the tsunami hits the shore, the currency dissolves, the army stages a coup d'état - then we know that certain external risks have materialized.

These events ruin our programme. Counterparts do not show up in our meetings, operations officer are busy on the phone to Copenhagen, and the young people have no time for our future lab. Our programme has ground to a halt, we appeal for emergency funding and deplore that our programme objectives are at risk.

Whatever the UNICEF plan has been for promoting a particular early childhood parenting practice, it is of no matter to the families when their houses get washed away. An event such as a sudden flood is a risk for the people living in the lowlands, and most likely a constraint for government to achieve national or international development goals. Having to turn our attention and deal with the flood – instead of promoting parenting practices - is not a risk to UNICEF’s objectives; it is UNICEF’s job.

There is a difference between risks for children and risks to UNICEF as an organization.

• Countries have to deal with the biggest risks that children face. Sustainable Development Goals are for countries to achieve. Governments have to lower child mortality, increase learning, reduce discrimination, and to guarantee justice.
• The greatest risk to UNICEF is to become irrelevant to governments. To be constrained by the rigidity of an outdated programming concept; to get bogged down in paperwork und inflexible budget lines; to be unable to go with the flow.

Instead of setting numeric targets for how many children UNICEF will ‘reach’, the UNICEF strategic plan should lay down the measures that will help UNICEF to stay relevant to the countries where those children live.

👉Differentiate between the risk to children and the risk to UNICEF. The focus of UNICEF strategy should be to remain useful for countries and be the partner of choice for child related matters.

Endnote

The first UNICEF Risk Management Policy was introduced in 2009. A main concern at the time was the suffocating bureaucracy and a weak accountability system. The main idea was to reduce clutter, create a better understanding of risk management, and strengthen the system by which managers can be held accountable for their decisions and indecisions.

This was 12 years ago and more processes and matrices have been added to the existing bureaucracy. Risk aversion has gotten the upper hand, again. Here is my litany of conclusions from the last ten thoughts on risk management.

• Excessive bureaucracy is risk management spun out of control
• Staff need to have a balanced, pragmatic understanding that risks lurk everywhere; anything can go wrong
• UNICEF’s business is inherently risky; micromanagement is not the solution; and indecision is also a decision
• We need to become better at considering the cumulative effect of minor risks and adverse events, including time wasters, needless discussions, and bureaucratic requirements
• The biggest risks are the uncertainties when dealing with people, government systems and lack of knowledge of the programme environment
• UNICEF must openly and transparently deal with failed or less successful projects, and take a portfolio view when assessing performance
• There is a lot of common sense about managing risk; your biggest regret will be the risk not taken
• Less bureaucracy translates into higher levels of accountability
• Every business process should describe the risks that the current process is trying to manage; guidance may distinguish between mandatory and optional controls; and set the boundaries and expectations on how decisions should be made
• Differentiate between the risk to children and the risk to UNICEF. The focus of UNICEF strategy should be to remain useful for countries and be the partner of choice for child related matters.

More on Risk

More Insights from Outside the Bubble