Coordinating other recovery work: Lessons identified from CERA s support programmes

Transcription

1 Coordinating other recovery work: Lessons identified from CERA s support programmes Published 18 April 2016 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Disaster recovery is made up of many moving parts that are interwoven and interdependent. In this complex and at times chaotic environment, it is easy for the different groups involved to get so focused on putting their own pieces of the puzzle back together that they don t see the wider context. One of CERA s key roles was to coordinate this complex picture stepping back, taking an overview of recovery and looking for the gaps and missed connections. The Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch (Recovery Strategy) set up a framework for a whole network of recovery programmes that many different organisations would develop and deliver. These organisations include CERA but also local government, iwi, other central government departments and sector groups. CERA needed a backroom function to monitor, support and coordinate this wider work, which it called support programmes. Several groups within CERA were given responsibility for these programmes. This report discusses CERA s approach, how it played out, lessons identified, advice and key considerations for another disaster recovery effort in the future. This report sits alongside a brief overview of the key lessons identified in this area. 1

2 Contents The context for support programmes... 3 What is a support programme?... 3 CERA s support programmes... 4 Building support functions into CERA, Development of support programmes, The support programmes experience... 6 Strategic benefits... 6 Specific benefits... 6 Brokering relationships... 7 Learning from the biggest challenges... 8 Managing complexity and variety... 8 Influencing others as time passes... 9 Advice for the future... 9 Alternative approaches to support functions Skill sets needed to support others effectively Carrying out a support function Advice for the present Preparing more effectively

3 The context for support programmes What is a support programme? Under the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch, the key components of recovery are built environment, natural environment, economic, social and cultural recovery, along with the overarching component of leadership and integration. The petal diagram summarises these components and their relationship to each other. Key components of recovery CERA set itself up under a portfolio-programme-project (PPP) approach. The recovery components identified in the Recovery Strategy became portfolios of work. Portfolios were made up of programmes, and in turn programmes were made up of projects. Portfolios set out the vision and goals of the Recovery Strategy, but it is the programmes that contain the detailed planning, actions and methods to achieve the vision and goals. To help CERA understand and resource the different types of work involved in recovery, each programme and project was categorised as Deliver, Enable or Support. With support programmes of work, other organisations were leading the delivery and budget accountability of the work, but CERA was responsible for making sure the programmes were consistent with the Recovery Strategy. However, CERA s role was one of support and influence, and it did not have the mandate to set accountabilities and require delivery. This approach went hand in hand with recovery governance arrangements that were also designed to strengthen coordination. For more information on such arrangements, such as advisory groups, forums or committees of chief executives, parliamentarians, senior officials and community leaders, go to the governance section. 3

4 CERA s support programmes The diverse group of organisations listed below includes central government departments, local and regional councils, iwi, Crown- or Council-owned entities, and non-governmental organisations. All are recovery programme leaders and all had responsibilities to lead earthquake recovery in their different fields. Programmes supported by CERA Recovery portfolio Recovery Lead organisation/s Type of organisation programmes and Recovery Plans supported by CERA Leadership and Iwi Māori Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Iwi authority Integration Economic Labour market and workforce Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Central government department Social Effective government services Canterbury Development Corporation State Services Commission Economic development agency, owned by Christchurch City Council Central government department Education renewal Ministry of Education Central government department Tertiary Education Commission Crown entity Canterbury District Health Board transition Canterbury District Health Board Ministry of Health Cultural Arts and culture Ministry for Culture and Heritage Built environment Natural environment Heritage buildings and places Ministry for Culture and Heritage District health board Central government department Central government department Central government department Sport and recreation Sport New Zealand Crown entity Sport Canterbury Charitable trust Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan The LURP was led by Environment Canterbury working with all strategic partners and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). The LURP was a project within the wider Land and Land Use Programme, which was led by CERA. Environment Canterbury Three local councils, iwi authority, regional council, and central government departments (CERA and NZTA) Regional council Natural environment Environment Canterbury Regional council 4

5 Building support functions into CERA, CERA s initial approach to support programmes was ad hoc. Different people across CERA were involved in managing relationships with other recovery programme leaders and advising them on wider work. In some cases, this was happening organically, when individuals in CERA or other organisations took the initiative. This approach was probably inevitable in the chaotic environment of However, as the pace of work picked up, it was clear that a more consistent approach would be needed. Without clearer lines of responsibility and some staff continuity, it was difficult for CERA s leaders to monitor what was happening, and for external organisations to link in. In late 2012 CERA s Senior Leadership Team decided to locate support programmes work in two key teams within CERA. A new team, Effective Government Services (EGS), within the wider Social and Cultural Recovery group, would be responsible for the economic, social and cultural support programmes (7 of 11 programmes). The existing Recovery Strategy and Planning (RSP) team, within the wider Recovery Strategy, Planning and Policy group, would be responsible for the built, natural and leadership/integration support programmes and Recovery Plans (4 of 11). We note that the name of this team and the wider group changed over time through a number of restructures including the Strategy and Governance Group and the Strategy and Recovery Policy Group. For the purposes of this report we will refer to the team as the RSP team. This report discusses general issues, challenges and successes experienced by both the EGS and RSP teams, unless specified to one team. Development of support programmes, The recovery programmes that CERA supported progressed in quite different ways. For example, the Ministry of Education finalised the education renewal recovery programme for primary and secondary schools very early, in 2012, while the arts, culture and heritage programmes were not completed until late Each programme faced different issues and challenges and a case-by-case approach was needed to support and advise this diverse set of departments and organisations. The definition of this work changed over time, so it was difficult for staff to understand the boundaries of their roles, what their mandate was and how their success could be measured. For the EGS team in particular, concept papers defining their work were not finalised until In the final version of the concept document, the role of the EGS team is defined in the following terms. Have strategic influence provide advice where needed to ensure alignment, effectiveness and efficiency of lead agencies recovery work. Facilitate issues and opportunities remove barriers, broker relationships and create linkages across agencies and programmes/projects. Undertake monitoring and reporting understand agencies goals, progress, risks and lessons. This definition of role is also consistent with the responsibilities undertaken by the RSP team. By mid-2015, the need for CERA support was diminishing. The Effective Government Services programme was closed, with the EGS team moving on to other work within or outside CERA. The role of the RSP team continued in facilitating issues and opportunities, and coordinating the monitoring and reporting of recovery to local recovery leadership groups. 5

6 The support programmes experience People within and outside CERA who participated in interviews for this report broadly identified the two key purposes of the support role as achieving: strategic benefits improving recovery coordination and the strategic value of the recovery programmes specific benefits helping individual recovery programme leaders get their work done. Strategic benefits CERA staff who worked on support programmes, in the EGS and RSP teams, were tasked with helping recovery programme leaders keep their work consistent with the wider Recovery Strategy so that public funding was being used to best effect. This work benefited both the wider recovery and these individual programme leaders. Often programme leaders were strongly focused on action, and rightly so, given the scale of the problems they had to address. However, sometimes outside help was needed to see the wider connections of their work. Julyan Falloon, Chief Executive of Sport Canterbury, noted: While we got mobilised we were pretty focused just on sport and recreation. CERA brought a context that was wider than donkey deep in sport and recreation recovery. CERA staff needed to make sure programme leaders had gone through a process to show they had carefully thought through the issues and considered all the options and linkages with other recovery programmes. In following this process, they would demonstrate that public funding was being used to best effect. Programme leaders and CERA also had to report to governance or advisory groups or to the relevant Minister, including the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. It was very important for staff in the RSP and EGS teams to think broadly and ask hard questions to prompt programme leaders to think about the effectiveness and relevance of their programme. What connections are missing? Why aren t you talking to those people about this? How might broader population shifts affect your decisions? What wasn t working well before the earthquakes? Addressing such questions was time-consuming for programme leaders. Going through this kind of process could be quite demanding, requiring more consultation and increasing the complexity of the job. Sometimes this was worthwhile, because it led to a better outcome. At other times, the benefits were less clear, which could be frustrating. This was a very difficult balance to strike, and the approach needed to achieve that balance was different in every case. Specific benefits Practical support A lot of recovery programme leaders needed to work in new ways, in an extremely uncertain and complex environment, with limited resources and many pressing concerns. Programme leaders found it useful to have a stable point of contact within the RSP or EGS teams who provided practical support. This support could include giving advice on difficult issues or decisions, reviewing documents or giving constructive criticism. It was particularly valuable when CERA helped to remove obstacles, get things happening and usher programmes through the approval process. Chrissie Williams, a programme leader for Environment Canterbury, said: The support role was fantastic. [Our RSP team contact] was willing to challenge, ask hard questions and give his opinion. Like I said, he was willing to go and knock on doors for us and try and get answers so he worked really hard to get that approval process defined for us. He spent quite a lot of time on the concept paper that we were writing to make sure it was fit for purpose... So he just helped us navigate through that [central] government process. Sometimes CERA organised extra funding or staff resourcing to help lead organisations develop their programmes. Recovery programme leaders also appreciated links to CERA resources for such things as advice from specialist teams within CERA, or communications support. 6

7 This role may have been less helpful when CERA staff started to dwell on the detail too much, or stepped too far into the doing. Although it may have seemed helpful, sometimes that approach could be seen as disempowering for programme leaders, or causing unnecessary delays and confusion about roles. It was difficult to strike the right balance in this area too, as responsibilities were not always clear. Brokering relationships As well as recovery programme leaders and CERA, many other groups often needed to be involved in the development of programmes. It was often useful for EGS and RSP staff to: help programme leaders connect with recovery governance groups or key chief executives link programme leaders with other groups that generally moved in different circles but needed to collaborate in the recovery (e.g. linking Wellington-based central government departments to local sector representatives) set up working groups that brought disparate parties together, giving them a place to debate issues or come to a mutual understanding intervene if needed to act as a circuit-breaker, or manage disagreements or misunderstandings between other groups. CERA staff were also able to press their own organisation to connect better with external organisations like these programme leaders, and to consider the needs of those organisations in decision making. Some programme leaders outside CERA found this kind of support particularly useful. For example: [It] opened me up to mayoral forums, to strategic recovery groups that I d never presented to. That did two things: that got an awareness of my organisation and my role but also allowed us to advocate for our sector and also get it on the agenda, and get key decision-makers understanding the value of sport as part of the recovery process. That was of real value. Julyan Falloon, Chief Executive, Sport Canterbury 7

8 Learning from the biggest challenges While the support role did add value, it was also really challenging work. As discussed above, CERA s involvement could increase the complexity of decision making for programme leaders, or slow things down. Adding further challenge to the work was that it was being carried out across multiple organisations. Some of the biggest challenges are discussed below. Initiation and role definition Recovery coordination work is by nature difficult to define and some ambiguity is inevitable. However, some agreed boundaries on where support might stop and start are needed. One general manager within the Recovery Strategy and Planning area explained the tensions of the support role in this way: I think it s probably been one of the more difficult roles [to define]. It s harder to do that support role because I think for many of the programmes the role was less clear in terms of what was expected of CERA from a project management sense, it s harder to describe, and it was very different for different programmes. Role clarity was a key priority for the teams that were involved. Where there was uncertainty about roles, this caused confusion, inconsistency in approach, and duplication between teams within CERA. It also meant that CERA took on some work that other organisations could have led. This was disempowering and demoralising for some staff: There s nothing worse than working on something when you re not able to feel the success or really understand the purpose, really understand why we re doing this, because otherwise you may as well pack up your lunch and go home. For the EGS team, while roles did become more clearly defined over time, there was a more extended period of uncertainty than for the RSP team. This probably shifted the balance of the work to providing mainly practical support, which was more tangible and measurable than the strategic side of the work. It also made it hard to be sure when to withdraw from the work. Managing complexity and variety The recovery programme leaders had diverse roles and backgrounds, and they faced different levels of complexity, resourcing and mandate. For some, their staff were stressed, as they were both living and working through a disaster recovery, and were also being asked to make massive decisions about the future of their sector. Unsurprisingly, in this context programmes were completed at very different rates, as the table below indicates. Contexts of recovery programmes that were completed at different rates were completed quickly (e.g. 2012: health, education) Clear priority for critical services Quick access to central government funding Pre-existing or clear mandate, expertise and experience in central government Typical circumstances for programmes that took longer to complete (e.g. 2014: the cultural recovery programmes) More complex stakeholders More uncertain or complex funding Some leaders were not involved or did not participate in local recovery governance systems The RSP and EGS teams needed to find a way to apply discipline and a framework to the way they supported other programme leaders, while recognising that every programme was different. Staff found they needed to be very flexible in some things, but help programme leaders be clear about what was expected of them in other instances. It was important to: have early conversations at the right levels about the scope of what was needed reiterate the purpose of a recovery programme to everyone who was involved be as clear as possible about how programmes would be approved 8

9 On the other hand, it was also important to: recognise that a recovery programme captures a moment in time, and that the available information will never be perfect make the right trade-off between timeliness and quality find flexible solutions for programmes where relevant not every programme needed to look the same allow the approach to evolve with the changing circumstances CERA did not always need to be fully involved. In some cases, it was appropriate for CERA to help programme leaders access additional resourcing or provide short-term expertise to do the work that was required. Influencing others as time passes At the beginning of a recovery effort, people tend to want to be more collaborative and to do things differently from business as usual. Over time, however, organisations start to return to their habitual approaches. CERA staff noticed this trend beginning particularly after about two years. As a result, CERA s approach to influencing and supporting other programme leaders had to evolve. In this kind of work, key tools for EGS and RSP staff to rely on were brokering, influencing, persuading and convincing. CERA had to work hard to build trust and confidence with its partners. Where staff had already established networks before the earthquakes, they could use them to influence others during the early phases of recovery, when they were most open to being influenced. Sometimes these tools were extremely effective, but in other cases: It does require organisations to meet and if they re not ready and if they don t want to, they ve already got their own plans, then you re pushing the proverbial [wheelbarrow uphill]. CERA staff found that it became increasingly important, as time passed and normal hierarchies were becoming more significant, for relationship management to happen at the right level in the hierarchy. Another central consideration was to be pragmatic about what could be influenced being willing to move on, make trade-offs, or focus simply on getting a recovery programme completed and out the door. Advice for the future A lead recovery agency may find the following advice helpful when setting up and carrying out support work for recovery programme leaders of outside organisations in a future recovery effort. Setting up a support function Our first piece of advice is that support work is worth doing. A lead recovery agency with a coordinating role like CERA needs to be connected with and connecting other organisations involved in the recovery. Measuring success will be challenging and an agency probably won t get everything right, but providing a support function is critical to a coordinated and effective recovery. It s hard to justify spending time on influencing other people or getting involved in their work when other urgent problems must also be addressed. However, these urgent issues are often masking more complex underlying issues on which everyone needs to work together. Approaching them in a united way later will be more difficult if this role isn t prioritised early on. However, it s also important to recognise the two major elements of integration and coordination work: being helpful to other leaders, and asking other leaders to do more. Each element has different drivers, and may need a different type of relationship management at certain times. 9

10 Under CERA s approach, these two elements were often confused and the same people were expected to take on both roles. This approach did not always work well, particularly as the mandate and roles of staff were not clearly defined. Alternative approaches to support functions In the future, a lead recovery agency could consider the following alternative approaches when it is looking to set up organisational arrangements to deliver its support work. To improve integration and coordination o Make sure external programme leaders are accountable at the appropriate level for their progress in statefunded projects. o Make sure that staff who are asked to influence other organisations are sitting at the right level in the hierarchy and have access to all the information they need. To help programme leaders deliver their recovery programmes o A team with expertise in government processes and relationship management, such as a policy team, may be best suited to take on this role. o Make sure that the level of reporting and tracking that is applied is appropriate to the relationship management role played by your staff. o Consider secondments between organisations either to help lead organisations complete their draft programmes within your organisation, or for a lead recovery agency like CERA to provide resource to other organisations which report back in. Such secondments will support and empower lead organisations more effectively, and will also help build relationships. Skill sets needed to support others effectively To resource teams so that they can support external recovery programmes effectively, look for skill sets such as: connecting, brokering and relationship management adaptability, flexibility and pragmatism strategic focus, and a good instinct for issues and risks central government experience and an understanding of how strategic and operational policy is developed, consulted and put into action. Most of the teams involved in this work were based in Christchurch, but CERA found it was also useful to have some team members who were based in Wellington, connecting with Wellington-based central government departments. Carrying out a support function At a big-picture level, the following advice is offered to future lead recovery agencies as they take on a support function. It s recommended this is put into practice as soon as the work is initiated. Understand purpose and role Understand the core function of the support team, and the nature, purpose and requirements of the programme being supported. The very first step must be to think and plan. Identify goals and responsibilities collaboratively with external programme leaders, and be as clear as possible on what the roles of each organisation are. Staff will benefit if ways can be found to measure success that can be used as a baseline. Also communicate the programme purpose clearly to other interested groups, and within the wider organisation. The organisation as a whole needs to buy in to the work, understand why it is important and different, and model the behaviour that is being sought from other recovery programme leaders. Be as strategic as possible in the approach Focus on the big picture when getting involved in the work of other programme leaders. Don t fixate on the detail, get drawn into pre-existing battles, or become an advocate for one group or another. It is useful to broker 10

11 influential relationships and help groups to collaborate, and in some cases to provide practical support, but assume that there will be a need to back away as soon as feasibly possible. Empower recovery programme leaders Recognise the leadership and expertise of the recovery programme leaders being worked with. Involve them as appropriate in recovery governance or advisory groups. The supporting organisation should do as little as possible in their business, but make it clear they can ask for help if they need it. If they need help and can t see it, offer it in a way that avoids giving them the impression they have failed. If recovery programme leaders need to be influenced to adapt or change their approach, the best tool is persuasion. Be aware of all the challenges this will create for them, acknowledge frustration, and help them to see a bigger compelling narrative. Accept that there will be trade-offs, and that building trust takes time. Take note of the shifting environment In a disaster recovery, change is the only constant changes of personnel, directions, priorities, needs and more. These changes must be managed and communicated regularly. Review the approach regularly, adapt it where necessary, communicate and explain, and know when to step away. It s likely a support organisation s ability to influence other organisations will decrease over time, and there will need to be some pragmatism about this perfectionism is the enemy. It s quite possible that over time the fundamental purpose and role of the support team might change. If it does, be aware of this change and communicate it to everyone involved. Acknowledge the stresses and constraints on external programme leaders and on supporting staff. It may seem tempting to take an organic, fluid approach, but the more clarity and continuity that can be provided in a shifting environment, the less stressful it will be. Assume complexity Don t underestimate the complexity of this type of work. Remember support organisations are likely to be working with programme leaders who are from a variety of backgrounds, have different mandates or funding capabilities, or are based in different locations. All will be facing major challenges and a case-by-case approach will be needed. Don t assume knowledge. Explain processes, and keep repeating and clarifying key messages. Advice for the present The following advice is relevant to consider now, to lay the groundwork for more effective coordination and collaboration among national, regional and local organisations in any future disaster recovery effort. Preparing more effectively In greater Christchurch, both CERA and other recovery programme leaders had to work hard to build relationships, trust and confidence in each other. Wherever relationships and an accepted framework for the work (such as the Better Public Services model) had already been established, coordination and collaboration were easier. Future recovery processes may benefit if national, regional and local players: invest in relationships now consider ways to increase and standardise the movement between sectors, perhaps through secondments, to broaden understanding across each other s systems of differing processes, drivers, needs and priorities. This will speed up much of the work required to build trust and understand roles and responsibilities, and make prompt, effective collaboration after a disaster more likely; and 11

12 develop sector strategies now, setting principles to guide decision making after a disaster, when it will be difficult to think clearly, and seek wider acknowledgement or acceptance of these strategies. It may be necessary to adapt these strategies to fit the type or scale of a particular emergency or natural disaster, but a broad framework will be a good starting point. 12