Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Executive Summary
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
i
Background
1. Commissioned by the Education and Manpower Bureau, the
Management Services Agency (MSA) conducted a scoping
study in November 2001 on the operations of the Quality
Education Fund (QEF). The scoping study report was
endorsed by the QEF Steering Committee (QEFSC) on
30.1.2002. MSA proceeded with the main study on re-
engineering the QEF operations in February 2002.
Findings
2. Among the issues identified, major ones are highlighted
below –
Organisation and planning issues
3. The assessment and monitoring processes are interrelated
but they are handled by two separate subcommittees, namely
the Assessment Subcommittee (ASC) and the Promotion
and Monitoring Subcommittee (PMSC). Members of the
two subcommittees may not fully understand both the
assessment and monitoring processes of individual projects.
4. Since the QEF does not have an annual budget, it is difficult
to maintain its ability to fund worthwhile projects in the long
term, given the fluctuation in the number of applications and
capital nature of the Fund.
Process issues
5. Both ASC and QEFSC are required to assess all applications
received under a call for applications. However, under the
existing structure, it is difficult deploy resources effectively
to handle fluctuated assessment workload.
6. Because of the large number of projects approved in recent
application calls, the QEF has experienced difficulties to
cope with the monitoring workload.
7. Many existing processes are performed manually. There is
room for improvement with the assistance of information
technology.
Customer services issues
8. The introduction of major changes to application
arrangements when calling for applications may render
some projects being designed ineligible for QEF funding
and lead to abortive work of applicants. In addition, some
key QEF operation information are not publicised.
Executive Summary
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
ii
Recommendations
9. To address the above issues, the following major
recommendations are made –
On organisation and planning
Ø Restructure ASC and PMSC to form four subcommittees
overseeing projects throughout the project periods;
Ø Formulate an annual budget for the QEF;
On process re-engineering
Ø Delegate the authority for endorsement of small-value
applications to ASC (or the proposed subcommittees);
Ø Explore the feasibility of peer review;
Ø Categorise projects for performance monitoring;
Ø Rationalise the financial monitoring mechanism;
Ø Transfer the ownership of project assets to grantees;
Ø Automate manual operations;
On customer services
Ø Announce new funding policies and application
arrangements at the earliest possible time;
Ø Publicise key operational information.
10. A summary of the recommendations is at page 錯誤! 尚未定
義書籤。.
11. The recommendations will bring about a total saving of 8
posts and improved customer service upon full
implementation.
Way forward
12. The Project Steering Group (PSG)’s endorsement on the
recommendations should be sought. Upon the PSG’s
endorsement, the QEF is recommended to form a working
group to work out the implementation plan and details.
Table of Contents
Page
Background.......................................................................................1
Introduction...................................................................................1
Project Steering Group..................................................................1
Study objective and scope .............................................................2
Terms of reference.........................................................................2
Study methodology .......................................................................3
Overview of the QEF Operations ...................................................4
Organisation structure ...................................................................4
Business objective .........................................................................5
Business processes ........................................................................5
Workload statistics ........................................................................6
Work profile of QEF Secretariat staff ...........................................7
Management initiatives .................................................................8
Survey on External Practices........................................................10
Fund granting organisations surveyed.........................................10
Comparison of the practices of the QEF and fund granting
organisations surveyed................................................................11
Findings and Recommendations ...................................................13
Organisation and planning issues ................................................13
Process issues ..............................................................................17
Customer services issues .............................................................30
Summary of Recommendations and Benefits .............................33
Next Steps .......................................................................................35
Implementation............................................................................35
Acknowlegement ............................................................................35
Appendices
Appendix 1 List of IntervieweesAppendix 2 Core Business Processes of the QEFAppendix 3 (A) – Procedural Flowchart of the Existing System
(B) – Procedural Flowchart of the Proposed SystemAppendix 4 Caseload Statistics of the QEFAppendix 5 Work Profile of QEF SecretariatAppendix 6 Summary of External PracticesAppendix 7 Available Grants for Allocation under Different Budget ModelsAppendix 8 Merits and Constraints of Peer Review SystemAppendix 9 Financial Implication of Peer Review SystemAppendix 10 Evaluation Instruction of the Louisiana Quality Education Support FundAppendix 11 Estimated Savings from Computerisation
Background
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.1
Introduction
1. Commissioned by the Education and Manpower Bureau
(EMB), the Management Services Agency (MSA) conducted
a scoping study in November 2001 on the operations of the
Quality Education Fund (QEF). The scoping study report
recommended –
(a) a detailed study be conduced by MSA to re-engineer the
operations of the QEF; and
(b) an external advisor be engaged to develop an effective
evaluation methodology for project monitoring and to
formulate a promotion and dissemination strategy.
2. The QEF Steering Committee (QEFSC) endorsed the
recommendations on 30 January 2002.
3. This report presents the findings and recommendations of
the detailed study conducted by MSA.
4. A consultant, Melbourne University Private, has been
employed to conduct (b)1.
1 The consultancy study does not cover the promotion strategy which will be
developed separately at a later stage.
Project Steering Group
5. A Project Steering Group (PSG) is formed to –
Ø oversee and steer the study;
Ø monitor progress and provide guidance to the Project Team;
and
Ø consider and accept the study recommendations.
6. The PSG comprises –
Ø Chairman: Chairman, QEFSC
Ø Members:
- QEFSC: Chairmen of Assessment Subcommittee
(ASC) and Project Monitoring
Subcommittee (PMSC)
- EMB: DS(EM)2 and PAS(EM)8
- ED: DD of E
- MSA: ADMS(A) or PMSO(A)
Ø Secretary: AS(8)3
Background
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.2
Study objective and scope
7. The study objective is to re-engineer the work processes of
the QEF with a view to improving the efficiency, cost-
effectiveness and user-friendliness in service delivery.
8. The scope of the study is confined to the work processes of
application call, assessment and project monitoring.
Terms of reference
9. The terms of reference of this study are –
(a) to review the application call arrangement and to streamline
the application procedure (e.g. simplifying processes and
forms, making use of IT solutions, etc.);
(b) to review the assessment arrangement, budget negotiation
and documentation system for application assessment, with
a view to speeding up the assessment process and reducing
the workload of parties involved;
(c) to review the arrangement for monitoring project
implementation and expenditure status, including the
control mechanism, fixed asset management, project
closure/ termination arrangement, terms of project
agreement and grants payment arrangement;
(d) to review the QEF budgetary arrangement so that the QEF
could better coordinate its investment and funding
programmes;
(e) to conduct surveys of practices in other local and overseas
fund granting organisations with similar functions with a
view to identifying the best practices for delivery of QEF’s
services;
(f) to explore, evaluate and recommend appropriate
improvement measures; and
(g) in the light of the improvement measures identified, to
recommend changes to the organisation structure and duties
of the QEFSC, ASC, PMSC and the QEF Secretariat.
Background
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.3
Study methodology
10. The Study Team has adopted the following methodology in
the study –
Ø studying committee papers, case files, past study reports and
other relevant documents;
Ø analysing work profile of QEF Secretariat;
Ø analysing relevant statistics and management information;
Ø interviewing QEF committee members, external/expert
reviewers, grantees, and staff of QEF Secretariat, the
Treasury and Education Department (ED); and
Ø collecting information on local and overseas practices of
fund granting organisations by interviewing local staff and
Internet research.
11. A list of interviewees is at Appendix 1.
Overview of the QEF Operations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.4
Organisation structure
12. QEF Secretariat has a strength of 49 staff. The organisation structure of the QEF is shown at Diagram 1.
Diagram 1 - Organisation Structure of the QEF as at 1.4.2002
QEF Steering Committee(12 members)
QEF Steering Committee(12 members)
QEF Investment Committee(5 members)
QEF Investment Committee(5 members)
Assessment Sub-committee(23 members)
Assessment Sub-committee(23 members)
Promotion and Monitoring Sub-committee(38 members)
Promotion and Monitoring Sub-committee(38 members)
QEF Committee
QEF Committee
QEF Secretariat
QEF Secretariat PAS(EM)8PAS(EM)8
PS IPS I
AS(8)2AS(8)2
1 PO1 APO
1 PO1 APO
SBM/ER
SPOSPO AS(8)3AS(8)3
PS IIPS IIPS IIPS II
1 PO1 APO
1 PO1 APO
EL
2 POs2 APOs
2 POs2 APOs
AR
2 POs2 APOs
2 POs2 APOs
IT Dissemination
2 POs2 PjAs
2 POs2 PjAs
Administration Section
1 ComputerCo-ordinator
2 PjAs
1 ComputerCo-ordinator
2 PjAs
General Registry
1 ACO1 CA1 Clerk1 WM
1 ACO1 CA1 Clerk1 WM
Finance Unit
1 ACO1 CA1 Clerk
1 ACO1 CA1 Clerk
AccountsUnit
1 Accountant1 Accountant
6 Clerks6 Clerks 2 Clerks2 Clerks
1 EO1 EO
5 Clerks5 Clerks
1 SEO1 SEO
Project Support
QEF Steering Committee(12 members)
QEF Steering Committee(12 members)
QEF Investment Committee(5 members)
QEF Investment Committee(5 members)
Assessment Sub-committee(23 members)
Assessment Sub-committee(23 members)
Promotion and Monitoring Sub-committee(38 members)
Promotion and Monitoring Sub-committee(38 members)
QEF Committee
QEF Committee
QEF Secretariat
QEF Secretariat PAS(EM)8PAS(EM)8
PS IPS I
AS(8)2AS(8)2
1 PO1 APO
1 PO1 APO
SBM/ER
SPOSPO AS(8)3AS(8)3
PS IIPS IIPS IIPS II
1 PO1 APO
1 PO1 APO
EL
2 POs2 APOs
2 POs2 APOs
AR
2 POs2 APOs
2 POs2 APOs
IT Dissemination
2 POs2 PjAs
2 POs2 PjAs
Administration Section
1 ComputerCo-ordinator
2 PjAs
1 ComputerCo-ordinator
2 PjAs
General Registry
1 ACO1 CA1 Clerk1 WM
1 ACO1 CA1 Clerk1 WM
Finance Unit
1 ACO1 CA1 Clerk
1 ACO1 CA1 Clerk
AccountsUnit
1 Accountant1 Accountant
6 Clerks6 Clerks 2 Clerks2 Clerks
1 EO1 EO
5 Clerks5 Clerks
1 SEO1 SEO
Project Support
Overview of the QEF Operations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.5
Business objective
13. The business objective of the QEF is to fund worthwhile initiatives on a pilot basis and one-off projects that aim to raise the quality of
school education, and to promote quality school education at all levels (source: Finance Committee paper, FCR(97-98)81).
Business processes
14. Core business processes of the QEF are outlined at Diagram 2 below.
Diagram 2 - Core Business Processes
15. Details of the core business processes and the existing process maps are at Appendices 2 and 3A respectively.
Application call�
Pre-assessment�
Assessment�
Approval
Application call andassessment
Grant payment
�Performance monitoring
Financial monitoring
Project variation processing
Project monitoring
Dissemination
Promotion
Dissemination andpromotion
Process outside the scope of this study
Administration and support
Overview of the QEF Operations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.6
Workload statistics
16. The QEF deploys PMSC members, Secretariat staff and
external/expert reviewers to monitor ongoing projects. The
overall distribution of projects monitored by these reviewers
since the inception of the QEF in 1998 is shown below.
17. Key workload statistics of the core business processes under
this review are tabulated below.
Activity No. completed in 2001Applications assessed 3 507Progress/final reports evaluated 2 291Site visit/interview conducted 1 842Financial reports checked 4 675
18. The backlog of various cases is summarised below.
Item Outstanding caseas at 5 April 2002
Progress/final reports to be evaluated 4 701Financial reports to be checked 1 0772
19. Detailed workload statistics are shown at Appendix 4.
2 Including 609 financial reports pending further clarification from grantees
Experts2% External
Reviewers40%
PMSCmembers
28%
SecretariatStaff30%
Overview of the QEF Operations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.7
Work profile of QEF Secretariat staff
20. With the assistance of the QEF Secretariat staff, the Study
Team collected statistics on time spent by Secretariat staff in
various activities during the period November 2000 to
October 2001 by questionnaire survey.
21. The workload distributions of PO/APO, project clerk and
account clerk during the survey period are shown at
Diagrams 3 to 5. Detailed workload distributions are at
Appendix 5.
Diagram 3 - Workload distribution of PO/APO
Diagram 4 - Workload distribution of Project Clerk
Diagram 5 - Workload distribution of Account Clerk
Liaise with grantees22%
Liaise with PO / APOs11%
Conduct checking andcounter-checking of
financial reports50%
Re-group budget itemsaccording to ScheduleII of the Agreement
9%
Answer enquiries5%
Other duties3%
Applicationassessment
48%
Projectmonitoring
40%Other duties
6%
Promotion &dissemination
6%
Post/faxdocuments (e.g.progress reports
to reviewers)28%
Data input(e.g. members'
assessment,evaluationreports)
25%
General clericalduties
(e.g. filing andphotocopying)
47%
Overview of the QEF Operations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.8
Management initiatives
Initiatives implemented
22. The QEF has implemented the following initiatives in recent
years –
On application and assessment
Ø split assessment panels into smaller groups to speed up the
assessment process (the lead time was reduced by as much
as 50%);
Ø introduced standard projects (e.g. Reading Schemes, Parent
Resource Centres, Multimedia Learning Centres) to
simplify the application procedures [Note: A more focussed
approach has been adopted in the fifth call. Only secondary,
primary, pre-primary and special schools without on-going
QEF project in hand may apply and each eligible applicant
can submit only one application];
On project monitoring
Ø reduced the submission frequency of progress and financial
reports (from four times a year to two times a year for
projects costing not more than $100,000 and three times a
year for the remaining projects) to reduce the workload of
grantees and QEF;
Ø streamlined the audit procedure (by adopting a more
systematic sample check approach) to speed up the vetting of
financial reports;
On promotion and dissemination
Ø launched various promotion activities (e.g. expositions,
roving exhibitions, seminars, Saturday talks) to promote the
QEF and disseminate best practices of funded projects;
Ø revamped the QEF Cyber Resource Centre to improve its
user-friendliness and to facilitate better sharing of
information; and
Ø formed a Working Group on QEF Dissemination Work in
October 2001 to develop a long-term strategy and work out
the implementation details.
New initiates being developed
23. We understand that the QEF Secretariat is developing the
following new initiatives to further improve the operations
of the QEF –
Overview of the QEF Operations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.9
Operation manual
Ø The QEF Secretariat is developing an operation manual
which documents the QEF policies and procedures, e.g.
assessment procedures, assessment criteria, pricing
standards, guidelines on conflict of interest, project progress
monitoring and financial monitoring.
Ø The operation manual will serve as a clear and actionable
documentation for the QEF. It will increase the consistency
in decision-making and facilitate staff training.
Transfer the QEF Secretariat to the Education Department (ED)
Ø Given its operational nature, EMB is now considering the
transfer of the QEF Secretariat to ED. It is anticipated that
the reorganisation will facilitate greater collaboration
between the Secretariat and ED in the dissemination of best
practices of funded projects. We understand that the transfer
will be considered in the context of the overall
reorganisation of EMB and ED.
Survey on External Practices
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.10
Fund granting organisations surveyed
24. In the course of the study, the Study Team researched on practices of the following six fund granting organisations –
Organisation Grants ProgrammeLocalResearch Grants Council Competitive Earmarked Research Grant (CERG)Innovation and Technology Commission Innovation and Technology Fund (ITF)Hong Kong Arts Development Council Project Grants Programme (PGP)Hong Kong Jockey Club Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust Fund (HKJCCTF)OverseasAustralian Research Council Discovery – Projects (DP)Louisiana State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education Louisiana Quality Education Support Fund (LQESF)
25. A summary of practices adopted by these organisations is at Appendix 6.
Survey on External Practices
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.11
Comparison of the practices of the QEF and fund granting organisations surveyed
26. In general, the funding organisations researched operate in an open and transparent manner. They engage independent assessors to vet
funding applications. They monitor projects by examining regular reports submitted by grantees and conducting site visits on an ad hoc
basis.
27. A comparison of the practices of the QEF and the fund granting organisations surveyed is shown below.
Aspect Practice of QEF Good practice of organisations surveyedApplication assessmentAssessor Vet and approve applications by in-house staff and
committee membersAssess applications by independent peers (except ITFand HKJCCTF) and approve applications by in-houseboard of trustees or committee
Assessment criteria Use relatively general assessment criteria(e.g. quality of proposal)
Set out clear and specific assessment criteria(e.g. whether unique characters have been identified inthe project, whether student’s performance will beimproved as a result of the project?)
Transparency Limited publicity on some operational information High transparency (e.g. publicise details of assessmentprocess, disclose assessors’ assessment to applicants)
Appeal mechanism No publicity on appeal mechanism Accept appeals against procedural matters only.Appeals against professional judgement not accepted
Survey on External Practices
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.12
Aspect Practice of QEF Good practice of organisations surveyedProject monitoringProject progressmonitoring
Ø Monitor progress of projects by in-house staff,committee members, external/expert reviewers
Ø Examine progress reports submitted by grantees atregular intervals
Ø Conduct at least one site visit or interview for eachproject
Similar practices adopted except that site visits areusually conducted on an ad hoc basis
Financial monitoring Ø In-house staff check financial reports and paymentreceipts
Ø Disburse grants upon receipt of satisfactoryprogress/financial reports
Ø Delegate financial monitoring responsibility torecipient organisations
Ø Require recipient organisations to appointindependent auditors to audit project expenditure
OthersElectronic submission ofapplications
Not accepted Accepted
Customer service No formal channel to collect feedback fromapplicants
Collect feedback from grantees periodically
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.13
28. We have identified the following issues for re-engineering –
(a) Organisation and planning
(b) Process
- Application call and assessment
- Project monitoring
- Administration and support
(c) Customer services.
29. The following paragraphs describe the issues and proposed
improvements. Unless otherwise specified, tangible
benefits of the proposed improvements are estimated based
on the workload in 2001 and findings of the workload
estimation by the QEF Secretariat.
Organisation and planning issues
Committee structure
30. QEFSC is assisted by two subcommittees, namely ASC and
PMSC. The two subcommittees are served by different
members. Each subcommittee is divided into four subject
panels3. Most of the panel convenors are members of
QEFSC.
31. In general, ASC only functions in the first half of each year
to assess funding applications whilst PMSC monitors
projects round the year. Apart from cross membership with
QEFSC, there is no formal channel for information flow
between ASC and PMSC.
32. While the current structure enables the two subcommittees to
specialise in their own tasks, it has the following constraints –
Ø ASC members may not be aware of the implementation
issues and outcomes of the supported projects. On the other
hand, PMSC members may not fully understand the
rationale behind the decisions made by ASC; and
3 The four subject panels are effective learning, all-round education, school-
based management and education research, and information technology.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.14
Ø ASC has to process a large number of applications in a few
months’ time. The workload of PMSC is more evenly
spread since ongoing projects are implemented at different
time.
þ Restructure ASC and PMSC to form specialised
subcommittees to oversee projects throughout the
project periods
33. Two options are identified to address the above constraints –
Option
(a) - redeploy ASC andPMSC members on arotational basis
(b) - Restructure ASCand PMSC to formspecialisedsubcommittees tooversee projectsthroughout the projectperiods
Feature
Members are subject toposting to another sub-committee on a regularbasis
Members take care ofprojects from assessmentto monitoring
Pros Existing committeestructure maintained
More flexible deploymentof subcommittee membersto meet fluctuatedworkload
Cons Members’ contributionmay not be maximised
Structural change required
34. Having evaluated the pros and cons of the above two options,
it is recommended that Option (b) be adopted.
35. To tie in with the existing categorisation of projects, four
specialised subcommittees, viz Effective Learning, All-
round Education, School-based Management and Education
Research, and Information Technology, can be established.
The number of subcommittees and their size may vary
according to the prevailing workload. Under the new
structure, subcommittee members can follow each project
from application assessment to project completion. With the
through-process approach, more members can be deployed
to vet applications thus speeding up the assessment process.
Benefits
36. The new structure has the following benefits –
Ø as the assessment and monitoring processes are interrelated,
members of the proposed subcommittees will be able to
apply the knowledge and experience gained from one
process to another;
Ø with greater understanding of the approval rationale,
members will be able to discharge their monitoring duty
more effectively; and
Ø the earlier completion of the assessment work would allow
more time for QEFSC to conduct the post-assessment
review to explore improvement opportunities, if any.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.15
Budget planning
37. The QEF usually calls for application annually but it does
not have an annual budget. It allocates grants based on
merits of individual funding applications. In 2000/01, the
Fund had a loss of $551 M from investment. However, the
QEF spent a record high amount of $1,026 M on grants and
other expenses (e.g. promotion and dissemination activities,
honorarium payment, etc.).
38. Under the existing practice, it is difficult for the QEF to
maintain its ability to fund worthwhile projects to promote
quality education in the long term, given the fluctuation in
number of applications and capital nature of the Fund.
þ Formulate an annual budget for the QEF
39. To tie in with its annual grants programme, the QEF is
recommended to formulate an annual budget taking into
account the fund balance and fund flow.
40. The following budget models can be considered –
(a) Projected cash income (perpetual fund)
- Use the projected cash yield (e.g. dividends from
equities, bond yield and interest from time deposit) to
fund the grants programme. This model is adopted by
the Sir David Trench Fund for Recreation.
- Cash yield provides a relatively steady source of
funds for allocation. As advised by the Treasury, the
current rate of return is about 3% per annum.
- The available grant per annum is about $100M.
- Since the investment tools can always generate
income to the Fund, no floor level on the fund
balance is required.
(b) Expected return on investment (perpetual fund)
- Use the expected investment return (i.e. cash yield
and capital gain) to fund the grants programme. The
Beat Drugs Fund uses this budget model.
- The availability of funds for allocation hinges on the
investment return, which is relatively volatile and
subject to the fluctuation of the economic cycle. As
advised by the Treasury, the expected rate of return
in medium term is about 4% per annum.
- The available grant per annum is about $139M.
- If it is intended to maintain the Fund’s sustainability,
a floor level needs to be set for the Fund.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.16
(c) Fixed expenditure (non-perpetual fund)
- Limit the life span of the Fund to say, 20 years, and
deduce the amount of funds that can be made
available each year. The Fund will deplete in a pre-
determined period. By then, the funding support for
promoting quality education will discontinue.
- Based on the expected rate of investment return of
4% per annum, the available grant (including
income/loss on investment) per annum is about
$268M for 20 years.
41. Detailed fund flow projections of the above three models are
shown at Appendix 7.
42. QEFSC is recommended to explore, in consultation with
the QEF Investment Committee, the feasibility of operating
as a perpetual fund to maintain its sustainability. It is necessary
to decide on the appropriate budget model for the fund to
maximise its contributions to support quality education.
43. Upon implementation of chosen option, the QEF should
publicise the amount of funds available for allocation in
each application call. The QEF should also prioritise
worthwhile projects according to their assessment scores
and fund the most meritorious ones to gear with the
availability of funds in the financial year.
Benefits
44. The following benefits will be achieved –
Ø with a budget model in place, the QEF is able to formulate a
long term strategy for its grants programme;
Ø funds are available to provide continual support to quality
education projects (for perpetual fund model only); and
Ø it facilitates the applicants’ planning for new projects by
disclosing the funds available for allocation in each year.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.17
Process issues
AApppplliiccaattiioonn CCaallll aanndd AAsssseessssmmeenntt PPrroocceesssseess
45. The QEF usually calls for funding applications annually. It
classifies applications into the following three categories for
processing –
Category Grant soughtSmall Not exceeding –
Ø $1M for IT projectsØ $0.6M for all-round education projectsØ $0.5M for all other projects
Medium Between the grant limits of small-valueapplications and $5M
Large More than $5M
46. The Secretariat assesses small-value applications whilst
ASC and QEFSC vet applications of medium to large value.
47. Upon endorsement by QEFSC, successful applicants are
required to sign an agreement with the Trustee, the Director
of Education Incorporated. The agreement stipulates the
grant conditions, grant disbursement arrangement and
termination conditions.
Endorsement mechanism for small-value applications
48. Currently, all small-value applications, which represent 70%
of the applications received in the fourth call or 21% of the
total grant sought, have to go through the QEF Secretariat,
ASC and QEFSC. The average amount of grant sought by
these applications is about $0.3M.
49. The Secretariat assesses small-value applications. ASC
considers the Secretariat’s assessments and makes
recommendations to QEFSC for endorsement. QEFSC
examines ASC’s recommendations and makes the final
decision. The process requires QEFSC to assume an overall
control of the assessment results.
50. In recent calls, QEFSC largely accepted the recommendationsof ASC in endorsing small-value applications –
Call No. of small-value applicationsReceived With different views
3 2 465 7 (0.28%)4 2 465 2 (0.08%)
51. The existing mechanism has the following drawbacks –
Ø multiple handling of small-value applications by ASC and
QEFSC; and
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.18
Ø longer assessment time.
þ Delegate the authority for endorsement of small-value
applications to ASC (or the proposed subcommittees)
52. QEFSC is recommended to delegate its authority for
endorsement of small-value applications to ASC (or the
subcommittees proposed in paragraph 34 above) in
accordance with Clause 4(e)(iii) of the QEF trust deed4. The
terms of reference of QEFSC and ASC should be amended
accordingly.
53. For ease of implementation, a separate budget should be
established for funding such applications. The amount or
portion of budget should be made based on the past fund
allocation pattern for small projects (the average share for
small projects in the third and fourth calls is 23%).
Benefits
54. The proposed endorsement mechanism will –
4 Clause 4(e)(iii) stipulates that QEFSC may make and subsequently amend
standing orders on matters relating to application assessment includingconsideration of applications for funding and to make recommendations to theTrustee
Ø enable QEFSC to concentrate its effort on the assessment of
medium- and high-value applications;
Ø shorten the assessment time of small-value applications by
about 21 days5 and hence reducing the lead time for project
endorsement; and
Ø in the Secretariat, save about 0.27 PO/APO and 0.06 project
clerk (or $0.16 M per annum).
Budget items of QEF projects
55. Although the QEF requests all applicants to provide an
itemised breakdown of the budget proposal, there is not a
standard list of budget items established for reference by
applicants.
56. The lack of standardised budget items creates the following
unnecessary workload –
Ø In preparing the project budget at Schedule II of the
Agreement, project teams of the Secretariat group the
detailed expenditure items of each approved project into no
more than ten block items.
5 Based on the ASC and QEFSC decision dates of some 2 400 small-value
applications processed in the 4th call.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.19
Ø When the Accounts Unit audits the financial reports, it
breaks the block items down again into detailed expenditure
items.
þ Introduce standard budget items
57. To facilitate preparation of budget and financial checking,
the QEF is recommended to standardise the budget items
and define their ambit.
58. The application form should be re-designed so that each
budget item can be clearly presented and explained in the
application.
Benefits
59. The following benefits will be achieved –
Ø eliminate the workload on grouping/re-grouping of budget
items by project teams and the Accounts Unit; and
Ø save about 0.34 account clerk and 0.08 accountant (or
$0.06M per annum).
Peer review
60. Application assessment, by nature, is a complex task which
involves expertise and professional judgement in different
fields. The peer review system can provide an option for
speeding up the application assessment while maintaining
the quality.
61. According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, a peer review is defined as –
A documented, critical review performed by peers who are
independent of the work being reviewed. The peer’s
independence from the work being reviewed means that the
peer, (a) was not involved as a participant, supervisor,
technical reviewer, or advisor in the work being reviewed,
and (b) to the extent practical, has sufficient freedom from
funding considerations to assure the work is impartially
reviewed.
62. It features the following characteristics –
Ø expert inputs;
Ø independence; and
Ø wider access to external support.
63. According to the above definition, the QEF system of using
QEFSC and ASC members, who are part of the endorsement
authority, to assess applications is not considered as a peer
review system.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.20
64. Peer review is widely used in local and overseas academic
communities. Indeed, apart from the Innovation and
Technology Commission and Hong Kong Jockey Club, all
fund granting organisations surveyed in this review use
independent peers to assess applications. Merits and
constraints of peer review are highlighted at Appendix 8.
Feasibility of adopting peer review
65. The cost of adopting the peer review will depend very much
on the review fee, the number of applications received and
their complexity. Taking the fourth call as an example, our
analysis at Appendix 9 indicates that peer review is
financially viable.
66. There are concerns that the QEF may not be able to engage
sufficient peers to process the large amount of applications.
However, if the number of applications remains at the
current level of about 1 0006, only 150 peers7 will be needed.
The QEF may be able to engage the required peers. Hence,
the peer review may be a viable option.
6 A total of 857 applications are received in the current call (i.e. the 5th call).7 Assuming that each application is assessed by 3 peers and each peer assesses
20 applications
67. The QEF engages peers to monitor some of the approved
projects. There are currently over 700 peers of education
professionals on QEF’s “reserved” list. It can serve as base
for the QEF to solicit peers for application assessment. The
QEF should further expand the list to broaden its coverage in
various educational fields.
þ Examine the feasibility of peer review
68. The QEF is recommended to examine, in the longer term,
the feasibility of peer review taking into account the
following –
Ø expected number of applications having regard to the budget
system;
Ø willingness of peers in taking on assessment work; and
Ø availability of peers with the required expertise.
69. The implementation of peer review will bring about
profound changes to the QEF operations. ASC (or the
proposed subcommittees) will consider the peers’
assessment and make endorsement on small-value
applications. For medium- and large-value applications, the
subcommittee(s) will recommend worthwhile projects for
QEFSC’s endorsement. As such, the role of ASC (or the
proposed subcommittees) will be shifted from assessment to
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.21
endorsement of applications and members will be able to
focus on formulating strategy and policy to further promote
quality education.
70. Upon confirmation of the feasibility of peer review, the QEF
should draw up a plan to implement the system by phase to
ensure that qualified peers are available for assessment work.
The QEF may conduct a pilot exercise for the peer review on
one to two categories of projects to test and refine the
handling procedures.
71. To ensure the consistency in assessment, the QEF Secretariat
should develop, in consultation with QEFSC and ASC, clear
and specific assessment criteria for reference by the peers.
The numerical marking scheme adopted by the Louisiana
Quality Education Support Fund may serve as a good
reference ( Appendix 10).
Benefits
72. Peer review system could bring about the following benefits –
Ø provide wider access to expertise of different fields;
Ø encourage greater participation of education professionals in
QEF work;
Ø enhance the credibility of assessment;
Ø provide greater flexibility in handling fluctuated workload;
Ø reduce workload of the QEF committees and Secretariat;
and
Ø save about 3.87 PO/APO (or $80,000 per annum after
offsetting the review fee payable to peers) upon smooth
running of the peer review system.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.22
PPrroojjeecctt MMoonniittoorriinngg PPrroocceessss
Monitoring mechanism
73. The QEF monitors approved projects to ensure that they
comply with the agreement and to identify good practices
for dissemination. The monitoring process includes –
Performance monitoring
Ø paper monitoring: evaluate progress/final reports (including
products and deliverables) submitted by grantees; and
Ø on-site monitoring: conduct at least one site visit/interview
with grantees and parties concerned, or on-site observation
at project functions.
Financial monitoring
Ø examine financial reports and end-of-project financial
statements submitted by grantees.
Grant disbursement
74. The QEF disburses grants to grantees according the agreed
payment schedule set out in the agreement. The actual
payment is subject to the timely submission of satisfactory
progress and financial reports by grantees. This
arrangement is generally in par with the practice of other
fund granting organisations surveyed.
Project termination/closure
75. During the implementation stage, the Trustee may terminate
the agreement if the grantee –
Ø fails to commence or proceed with the project after the
agreed commencement date;
Ø is in breach of the grants conditions (e.g. persistently
neglecting to carry out its obligations, misuse of fund, etc.);
Ø shall die or become bankrupt or being a corporation shall go
into liquidation; or
Ø provides incorrect or untrue project information and/or
intends to mislead the Trustee.
76. The termination arrangement effectively protects the right of
the QEF.
77. A project is considered completed when the grantee
completes the project in accordance with the agreement and
QEF satisfies with its reports and deliverables.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.23
Performance monitoring
78. Irrespective of the project nature and complexity, the
Secretariat, PMSC and external/expert reviewers observe
the performance of approved projects by paper and on-site
monitoring.
79. As at 1 April 2002, the QEF has over 4 700 progress/final
reports to be evaluated and some 770 site visits to be
conducted. Based on the current pace of work, it will take
about 23 man-months8 to complete these assignments.
Given the large amount of workload, the QEF has to change
its existing mode of performance monitoring.
þ Classify projects for monitoring
80. To enable more efficient monitoring of projects, the QEF is
recommended to classify projects into the following two
categories –
8 Assuming that 30% of the projects are monitored by Secretariat staff (i.e. the
existing distribution) and only the latest progress reports of ongoing projectsand final reports of completed projects will be evaluated.
Category
Description
A Projects that require both paper monitoring andon-site monitoring
B Projects that can be monitored effectively bypaper monitoring alone (on-site monitoring canbe conducted on a sampling basis)
81. The followings are some useful criteria for categorising
projects –
(a) project complexity;
(b) past performance of similar projects;
(c) track record of grantee;
(d) amount of grants allocated; and
(e) project duration.
The QEF may devise further objective yardsticks, taking
into consideration members’ professional advice and past
monitoring experience. These criteria should be publicised
for applicants’ information.
82. All projects should be categorised at the assessment stage.
The category should be reviewed during progress evaluation
and site visits. The progress evaluation and site visit forms
should be redesigned accordingly.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.24
Benefits
83. The proposed arrangement will bring about the following
benefits –
Ø reduce the workload of the QEF Secretariat (since
professional judgment is required in determining the project
category, the saving cannot be quantified at this stage); and
Ø enable the QEF to concentrate its resources on monitoring
“high-risk” projects.
Financial monitoring
84. The QEF supports a wide range of projects with grants
allocated ranging from about $2,000 to over $160 M. To
ensure the proper use of grant money, the QEF requests all
grantees to submit periodic financial reports and end-of-
project financial statements together with supporting
invoices/receipts. Grantees have to certify that the
information provided is true and correct.
85. The Accounts Unit is responsible for checking financial
reports and end-of-project financial statements according to
a set of systematic accounting procedures. The Accountant
focuses on financial reports submitted by tertiary institutions
and performs sample check on the financial reports
examined by account clerks.
86. Majority of the grantees are from public sector schools,
which have stringent internal financial control in place (as
required by the Education Department). The existing
financial control over small projects could be relaxed.
þ Rationalise the financial monitoring mechanism
87. The QEF is recommended to relax the submission
frequency of interim financial reports –
Ø from twice/thrice a year to once a year for small projects
(say, those costing $0.4M or below); and
Ø from thrice a year to twice a year for large projects (say,
those costing over $0.4M).
88. In line with the general practice, the QEF should also request
grantees to certify that the grant has been spent in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.
The contents of the financial report and end-of-project
financial statement should be modified to the effect that
grantees are explicitly made accountable for project
spending.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.25
89. In addition, the practice of submission of invoices/receipts
to the QEF Secretariat should be ceased. However, the
requirement for grantees to keep such documents for two
years should be retained.
90. It is expected that the proposed change for monitoring small
projects will not bring about significant risk to the QEF
because transactions are reported in the financial reports and
end-of-project financial statements.
91. Nevertheless, to safeguard the interest of the QEF, it should
conduct random check on the project expenditure on site
(say, on 10% of the projects).
92. The QEF should also consider barring application from a
recipient organisation in the coming call if –
Ø there are serious irregularities on project expenditure; or
Ø the overall rating of the project (as evaluated in the final
report) is below average or poor.
93. Similar practices are also adopted by the Arts Development
Council and the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education (see Appendix 6 for reference).
Benefits
94. The revised procedure will bring about the following
benefits –
Ø the administrative workload of both the grantees and the
QEF will be reduced;
Ø notional space savings arising from reduction of report
submission frequency and cessation of submission of
invoices/receipts; and
Ø 1.15 account clerk and 0.19 accountant ($0.18M per annum)
can be saved.
Project variation
95. The QEF grants funding to each project on a cash-limited
basis. It sets out the funds allocated to individual items of
the project on the project agreement. According to the
prevailing terms and conditions of the agreement, grantees
are required to seek prior approval from the QEF for
incurring expenditure exceeding 10% of the earmarked
funding for individual budget items.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.26
96. Under this arrangement, grantees have to apply to the QEF
for virement even if the amount involved is very small.
þ Empower grantees of small projects to reallocate funds
among non-salary budget items
97. The QEF is recommended to allow grantees to reallocate
funds freely among non-salary budget items for projects
costing no more than $400,000 (which covers about 70% of
the approved projects). The fund vired should not deviate
from the ambit of the project.
98. Grantees should seek approval from the QEF for
reallocation of funds between salary and non-salary budget
items or for other purposes.
99. It is anticipated that the proposed change will not cause
significant risk to the QEF as grantees are still required to
submit end-of-project financial statements for auditing
purpose. After all, they are subject to random audit from the
QEF.
100. For projects costing over $400,000, grantees should
continue to observe the existing practice.
101. The terms and conditions of the project agreement should be
revised accordingly.
Benefits
102. The new arrangement will have the following benefits –
Ø increase the flexibility of fund reallocation;
Ø reduce the workload of both the grantees and QEF;
Ø speed up the implementation of projects which require
virement under the existing practice; and
Ø save about 0.18 PO/APO and 0.13 project clerk (or $0.11 M
per annum).
Project asset
103. Grantees are required to maintain a register of fixed assets
acquired with QEF grants. Majority of the fixed assets
includes audio-visual equipment, musical equipment, sports
equipment, computer hardware and software, and office
equipment. Many of the assets, particularly those IT and
electronic equipment, are of short life cycles. Their values
will depreciate significantly in a few years’ time.
104. Due to heavy workload on checking financial reports, the
Accounts Unit has just started checking the fixed asset
registers submitted by grantees.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.27
105. As all the assets are owned by the QEF, it needs to spend
efforts to manage the fixed assets. Similarly, grantees are also
required to check and maintain the inventory for reporting to
the QEF.
þ Transfer the ownership of project assets to grantees
106. To reduce the inventory checking work, the QEF is
recommended to allow grantees to hold the titles of –
Ø all IT project assets (which are of short life cycle);
Ø less expensive non-IT project assets, say, those with a total
value below $100,000; and
Ø assets without reallocation potential, e.g. air-conditioning
plant room, computer network, etc.
107. For valuable assets, the QEF should –
Ø reserve the right to request grantees to make available the
assets for share use with other grantees;
Ø retain titles of valuable assets and the right to demand the
return of the assets within, say, three years after project
completion; and
Ø request grantees to check and confirm annually inventory of
the assets with allocation potential.
Benefits
108. The following benefits will be achieved –
Ø clear ownership and accountability of project asset;
Ø reduce the workload of the QEF on inventory checking; and
Ø cultivate a sense of belongings and enable efficient
deployment of assets.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.28
AAddmmiinniissttrraattiioonn aanndd ssuuppppoorrtt pprroocceessss
Manual operations
109. Many daily operations of the QEF are labour intensive.
Some examples are given below –
Ø enter key information of applications/reports received into
the QEF database system, including 4 791 progress reports,
2 291 evaluation reports, 5 037 financial reports and 1 842
site visit reports (2001 statistics);
Ø input payment information into Treasury’s Payment of
Creditors System (POCS); and
Ø prepare and post or fax over 40 000 routine correspondence
annually to applicants, grantees, QEF committee members,
external reviewers, etc.
þ Automate manual operations
110. To streamline the operating procedures for greater efficiency,
the QEF is recommended to computerise its manual
operations. An illustration of the proposed computerisation
is at Diagram 6.
Diagram 6 - The proposed computer system
Funding applications,progress reports,financial reports,deliverables, etc
Applicants/grantees
Proposedcomputer system
付 款 給$
Secretariat staff, committee/sub-committee members,external/expert reviewers
PublicLAFIS/POCS
Internet
Project proposals,deliverables
Assessment reports,evaluation reports,site visit reports, etc
Funding applications,progress reports,financial reports,deliverables, etc
Grant payment
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.29
111. The main functions of the proposed system are as follows –
Ø accept submission of customisable electronic forms (e.g.
application form, progress report, etc) and project
deliverables or their particulars through Internet and e-mail;
Ø validate completed electronic forms against pre-defined
business rules (e.g. check whether application for virement
is required for a financial report)
Ø automate data capture of electronic forms received;
Ø provide matching function to facilitate the selection of peers
for application assessment and project monitoring;
Ø support the option of e-Agreement (i.e. electronic agreement
authenticated by e-certificate);
Ø provide alert function on pre-defined events (e.g. reports
outstanding for 2 weeks);
Ø automate issue of reminders electronically;
Ø automate grant payment through interface with POCS;
Ø compile and generate standard and ad hoc management
information reports;
Ø export data or records into common PC software formats,
e.g. Excel, Access and dBASE, for further analysis; and
Ø as part of the dissemination exercise, provide access to
approved proposals and deliverables by the public.
112. Details of the system requirements and development option
(i.e. client-own system versus lease-based IT service) should
be further refined at the Feasibility Study stage.
113. It is estimated that the capital cost of the proposed system is
about $4.5 M.
Benefits
114. The proposed computerisation will –
Ø speed up information flow between the Secretariat and other
parties, e.g. QEF committees, applicants, external/expert
reviewers;
Ø reduce workload of the Secretariat on data entry;
Ø increase data accuracy and consistency; and
Ø allow sharing of data and management information.
115. Preliminary assessment indicated that a total of $1.1M
(0.5 PO/APO, 3 project clerk and 0.4 ACO posts (or $0.7M
per annum) and production cost for CD-ROM and
maintenance cost of the Cyber Resource Centre ($0.4M per
annum)) could be saved annually. The detailed calculation
is at Appendix 11.
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.30
Customer services issues
Application arrangements
116. The QEF usually calls for applications annually. It
announces the application arrangements in September and
invites funding applications from October to December.
117. The QEF introduces new measures from time to time to
improve the application process. Some major changes
introduced in the recent two calls are listed below –
Call Major change4 Ø Accept a maximum of 3 applications per
organisation5 Ø Accept 1 application per school
Ø Not accept applications from tertiaryinstitutions and non-school organisations
118. According to the grantees interviewed, they usually plan and
design projects well before the application call. The
introduction of major changes in October may render some
projects being designed ineligible for QEF funding and lead
to abortive work.
þ Announce new application arrangements earlier
119. The QEF is recommended to formulate and announce new
funding policies and application arrangements at the earliest
possible time, preferably before the summer break.
Benefit
120. Adequate time is allowed for applicants to prepare their
applications. Thus, abortive work of applicants will be
reduced.
Conflict of interest
121. All Secretariat staff, including those employed on contract
terms, are required to observe the provisions stipulated in the
Civil Service Regulations and Civil Service Bureau
Circulars on avoidance of conflict of interest. At present, all
members will not participate in assessing applications from
organisations they belong to.
122. In the past four calls9, government departments made 47
applications seeking a total grant of $475 M. The QEF
approved 19 of the applications with grants amounting to
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.31
$296 M (or 58%). The success rate was much higher than
the overall average of 25%. It may give an impression that
government departments have an edge over other applicants.
123. Almost half of the government applications were submitted
by ED. Given that ED will likely take over the management
of the QEF Secretariat from EMB after the anticipated re-
organisation of the EMB and ED, it is appropriate to
establish a mechanism to avoid any perceived conflict of
interest of the Secretariat staff in handling applications from
government.
þ Government applications should be processed by
committee members or peer reviewers
124. The QEF Secretariat is recommended to refrain from
assessing government applications which should be
processed by committee members or peer reviewers
proposed in paragraph 68 instead.
Benefit
125. Potential conflict of interest will be reduced.
9 The QEF does not accept applications from non-school organisations,
including government departments, in the 5th call.
Operation transparency
126. The QEF has introduced a number of measures to ensure that
funding applications are processed in a fair manner.
However, some of the measures are not publicised.
127. Findings of the interview with grantees reveal that they are
generally unsatisfied with the existing level of operation
transparency of the QEF.
þ Publicise key operational information
128. To enhance its operation transparency, the QEF is
recommended to adopt the following measures –
Ø establish and issue clearer assessment criteria (which are
being reviewed by the QEF) and funding policy;
Ø publicise all information on the assessment procedures and
mechanism on avoidance of conflict of interest;
Ø publicise all information on the assessment regime, e.g.
profession and working experience of committee members;
Ø make available pricing standards (which are being compiled
and documented by the QEF in the operation manual) for
reference by applicants;
Findings and Recommendations
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.32
Ø provide more details on assessors’ assessment to applicants,
particularly on high-value applications. This would enable
applicants to better appreciate the professional views of
assessors and to improve the quality of their future proposals;
and
Ø conduct a post-assessment review after each application call
and publicise QEF’s general comments on the applications
received, e.g. common problems spotted such as including
irrelevant activities in project proposals;
129. In addition, the QEF should establish formal channels for
collecting feedback from applicants and grantees. For
example, the QEF could request grantees to complete a
questionnaire on QEF services in the final report.
Benefits
130. The following benefits will be achieved –
Ø reduce unnecessary misunderstanding and speculation from
grantees;
Ø speed up the budget negotiation process since pricing
standard and funding policy are made known to applicants;
Ø reduce abortive work by both grantees and the QEF. Being
familiar with the funding policy, grantees will be more likely
to submit proposals meeting the requirements of the QEF;
and
Ø better understand the requirements of applicants and
grantees. The QEF will be in a better position to further
enhance its service delivery and credibility.
Appeals and complaints
131. The QEF has a mechanism to handle appeals and complaints.
It considers all types of appeals and complaints filed by
applicants on its grant decisions, which include appeals and
complaints against professional judgement and procedural
matters. The QEF will review the appeal/complaint and
inform the applicant of the review result. This mechanism
has however not been publicised properly.
þ Accept appeals against procedural matters only
132. To mirror the practices of other funding organisations, the
QEF is recommended to accept appeals against procedural
matters only.
133. To improve the operation transparency, the QEF should
publicise this arrangement for handling appeals and
complaints in its application procedure pamphlet.
Summary of Recommendations and Benefits
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.33
134. Omitted.
The proposed organisation structure
135. There is no major change to the organisation structure of the QEF Secretariat. As a result of the proposed restructuring of ASC and PMSC
into four subcommittees, and the introduction of the peer review system, the overall organisation structure of the QEF is changed as
follows.
• Formulate policies and strategies• Allocate grants for medium and large projects
QEF Steering Committee
• Formulate policies and strategies• Allocate grants for medium and large projects
QEF Steering Committee
• Allocate grants for small projects• Monitor and promote QEF -funded projects• Allocate grants for small projects• Monitor and promote QEF -funded projects
•Provide secretariat support to all QEF committees/subcommittees•Perform daily QEF operations
QEF Secretariat
•Provide secretariat support to all QEF committees/subcommittees•Perform daily QEF operations
QEF Secretariat
•Assess projects•Monitoring projects assigned
(external or expert reviewers)
Peers
•Assess projects•Monitoring projects assigned
(external or expert reviewers)
Peers
•Formulate investment policies•Monitor fund investment
QEF Investment Committee
•Formulate investment policies•Monitor fund investment
QEF Investment Committee
ELSC ARSC SBM/ERSC ITSC
Summary of Recommendations and Benefits
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.34
Manpower planning
136. The workload of the QEF Secretariat fluctuates from time to time according to the number of funding applications and approved projects.
The funding and budget policy will also have an impact on the workload. To facilitate the manpower planning of the Secretariat, we have
worked out the average manpower requirements for various tasks based on 1 000 cases –
137. The QEF Secretariat should further refine the manpower requirement for performance monitoring taking into account the expected saving
from categorising projects for monitoring which cannot be quantified at this stage (paragraph 80 refers).
No. of staff required
Existing Proposed (% saving)
PO/APO ProjectClerk
AccountsClerk
Accountant PO/APO Project Clerk AccountsClerk
Accountant
Assessment 1 000 applications 2.05 0.32 0.87 (58%) 0.21 (36%)
Performance Monitoring
Progress / final report 1 000 projects
- by Secretariat 3.89 1.41 3.58 (8%) 0.13 (91%)
- by External parties 2.54 4.71 1.96 (23%) 0.74 (84%)
Site Visit 1 000 site visits
- by Secretariat 3.12 0.21 3.12 (0%) 0.08 (64%)
- by External parties 0.76 0.21 0.67 (12%) 0.07 (65%)
Financial Monitoring 1 000 projects
Checking of financial reports 1.97 0.49 1.24 (37%) 0.36 (26%)
Project Related Administration 1 000 projects 0.28 0.17 0.24 (15%) 0.14 (18%)
* Excluding the staffing requirement for promotion and dissemination
Type of WorkUnit of
Measurement
Next Steps
Review of the Operations of the Quality Education Fund Management Services Agency
P.35
Implementation
138. Upon PSG’s endorsement of this study report, the QEF is
recommended to form a working group to work out the
implementation plan.
139. As some recommendations could only be implemented with
the support of other agents, the QEF should closely liaise
with –
Ø Independent Commission Against Corruption on the
proposed procedures;
Ø Department of Justice regarding the terms and conditions for
transfer of project assets;
Ø Information and Technology Services Department on the
feasibility study and system design of the proposed
computer system; and
Ø The Treasury on the technical arrangement regarding
interfacing the proposed computer system with POCS.
Acknowledgement
140. The Study Team would like to express their gratitude to QEF
committee/subcommittee members, staff of EMB and QEF
Secretariat, grantees, external/expert reviewers, staff of the
fund granting organisations surveyed for their valuable
inputs and support to the study.