Strategic planning was added to the Constitution and the Convention at APP-92 as a result of the report of the HLC, which stated that “the ITU must become more forward-looking in planning its activities and adapting its work programmes to a rapidly changing environment”, and recommended the establishment of a strategic planning unit in the Office of the Secretary-General.43 The Union’s first strategic plan, for 1995-1999, was adopted in Resolution 1 (Kyoto, 1994); the second, for 1999-2003, in Resolution 71 and its two annexes (Minneapolis, 1998).44 A new approach to strategic planning was adopted at the Minneapolis PP whereby the Secretary-General would be responsible for supplying inputs, while the membership would actually elaborate the plan.
The 1999-2003 strategic plan is a lengthy document that contains details of activities and priorities for each Sector which might be considered more the purview of the Sector operational plans, and there appears to be scope for streamlining the strategic plan to remove this overlap. The Inspectors also note that the financial implications of the 1999-2003 strategic plan are not assessed. The section on financial considerations found in the 1995-1999 strategic plan, which briefly reviews significant factors on the income and expenditure sides of the budget, is omitted from the later plan.
Annual reporting on the implementation of the strategic plan is listed as a duty of the Secretary-General in the Convention of the Union.45 Resolution 71 provides for reporting by the Secretary-General on both the strategic plan and the goals, strategies and priorities for the General Secretariat and the three Bureaux. The Secretary-General is instructed not only to provide progress reports annually to the Council, but also to include recommendations for adjustments to the plan in response to changes in the telecommunications environment,46 which offers an important element of flexibility. Annual reporting to Council, including recommendations for adjustments, was also a requirement of the strategic plan for 1995-1999.
In their review of the documentation presented to Council in the 1997-2000 period, the Inspectors were not able to identify separate reporting by the Secretary-General on the strategic plan per se, as provided for in the pertinent resolutions. It could be considered that the Secretary-General’s annual omnibus report to the Council on the activities of the Union fulfils this reporting requirement.47 However this report, which covers the Sectors, as well as each department of the General Secretariat, including TELECOM, is essentially a review of recent achievements.
The issue of strategic reorientation is being addressed to some extent under the Secretary-General’s “New Initiatives Programme” which formed part of the budget approved by the Council for 2000-2001.48 One of these initiatives has been the establishment of strategic planning workshops with the main purpose of advising the Secretary-General on new, cross-sectoral topics that are emerging from the dynamic telecommunication environment. Furthermore, the Secretary-General is required to submit an annual report to Council on activities carried out under the “New Initiatives Programme” in order that the Council can decide on appropriate follow-up.49
Prior to a Plenipotentiary Conference, the Secretary-General prepares, with the assistance of the Coordination Committee, the next four-year draft financial plan. This is submitted to Council and, subsequently, to the Plenipotentiary Conference. On the basis of this draft financial plan the Council also fixes the provisional amount of the contributory unit and the total number of contributory units for the period in question.50
When drawing up the draft financial plan of the Union for 2000-2003, the “[p]riorities expressed in the Strategic Plan [were] taken into consideration, together with new initiatives”.51 The draft plan provides estimates of expenditures by the General Secretariat and the three Sectors, at various levels of disaggregation, as well as estimates of income by source, and identifies excess of expenditure over income for the period. It also lists options for expenditure and for cost recovery. However, the Inspectors note that the Minneapolis PP of 1998 did not actually agree on a financial plan for the 2000-2003 period.
Part II of the draft financial plan provides a cost analysis of the activities of the Union in 2000-2003, which is “ a continuation of the efforts made since 1996 to identify more clearly the full cost of the activities of the Union”.52 This distinguishes between direct costs attributable to a particular activity, product or service, and the indirect costs that are charged to a Department of the General Secretariat or a Sector which require an allocation process so that they can be attributed to a particular activity.
The system of cost allocation endeavours to compute the total costs of activities, products or services, and provide a basis for obtaining full cost recovery from users where that is deemed appropriate. In reallocating the costs of the centralized services of the General Secretariat to the consuming departments, the administrative services are reallocated on a headcount basis and the support services on a forecast workload basis. In the interviews for this report, some officials indicated that not all of the Member States and Sector Members of the Union were satisfied with the methodology and results of the cost allocation exercise.
