New releases in GMS – July 2018 Project closure workflow enhancement ​New workflow status “UNDER FINAL REPORTING” Once the project reaches the final reporting stage, and the first final report is activated from the timelines (either Final Financial report or Final Narrative report), the system will automatically push the project workflow from “IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING” status to “UNDER FINAL REPORTING” status. No action will need to be taken from the users to move the project.  Note: if the report activation date (visible in the timelines) is greater than the project end date, the automation will not happen and the report will remain in its current “inactive” status. The report will need to be activated manually, which will trigger the project workflow to “UNDER FINAL REPORTING”. Closure workflow from Final Narrative Report, Refund and Final Disbursement The project closure workflow has been updated to facilitate the closure of projects. A closure button will be available from the Final Narrative Report, Refund, and Disbursement instances.  Closure validation When the workflow action button that will push the project to "Under Closure" stage appears, a validation will display what final stages are still pending/closed for the project. If final instances are displayed as pending, the validation will not allow the user to push the project for closure.  The validation will take into account the following: Audit last approval stage has been reached (for Non UN); Balance due must be between 0 and 1; Refund required if balance due is negative or refund not finalized; Final Disbursement required if balance due greater than 1 or not finalized; Final Financial Report last approval stage has been reached; Final Narrative Report last approval stage has been reached.   2. Allocation Management Type updates Blocking project proposal submission The HFU will be able to manage the deadline for the submission of project proposals from the “Manage Allocation Type” page. After the given end date, partners will not be able to submit any project proposal. Note: if the allocation window end date is greater than the submission deadline the window will be closed at the submission deadline, not taking into account the allocation window end date.  In addition, the user will be able to add a permanent message, visible from the allocation window display in the partner home page, to announce the deadline for the blockage. An additional message can also be configured to be displayed after the deadline to inform that project proposals can no longer be submitted.  Managing clusters Only the clusters configured through the “SSO Linkage” in the “Manage HRP” page will be available in the drop down for the partner in the cluster drop down menu from the “create proposal” page.  The clusters selected in the “Allocation Type Configuration” page will be linked to the Allocation. These clusters will be displayed in the “Manage Allocation Type” page, on the right side of the allocation edit page.    3. Project Duration automation  In the “create project” page, the project duration is no longer selected by the user but is automated based on the start and end date provided. The duration will also display any additional days (e.g. 8 months 15 days instead of 8 months). In addition, a new filter in the Advance Switchboard will allow to filter projects based on the project Implementation Duration. The filter will allow to filter based on “greater than”, “lesser than” and “between”.  Note: The duration filter will not allow to filter on the days. The duration filter will only work on the number of months of the project duration.   4. Due Diligence update - Certificate expiry date A new mandatory field "Certificate expiry date" has been added to the Due Diligence Application form. This will be a first step towards setting a new reminder module to inform HFU of the expiration of the registration certificate.  Note: For certificates that do not have an expiry date, a dummy future date can be entered, without having any impact for the partner.

New releases in GMS – May 2018 1. New Refund waiver feature  New “Refund Waiver”: When the Balance (after FFR or Audit completion) is lesser than $75, FCS Finance/UNDP will have the possibility to process a refund waiver, which will skip the “IP/HFU Refund processing stage” in the refund workflow.  Note: button will be visible only to FCS Finance /UNDP users, if Balance is lesser than $75 (this value is configurable).    2. New fields in Audit report Module   New fields displaying “other income”: Actual Income Reported by IP: displays the values for “other income”, as reported by IP in the Final Financial Report. Total Eligible Income: allows the user to report on the eligible income amount, as provided in the audit report document.  Updated balance due formula:  The balance due formula has been updated, as follows, in order to reflect the inclusion of the other income: Balance Due = (Total Eligible Expenditure – Total Eligible Income)- Amount Disbursed to IP + (Refund Amount Received)    3. Partner Risk Dashboard update   Updated Partner Risk and Performance Index visual display: The Partner Risk and Performance Index legends now show the scores’ range for each category. In addition, the coloring of some categories has been updated. In this regard, categories 3-4 and 5-6 of Performance Index have been assigned separate colors.    Note: the scores themselves have not been changed, only the visual display has been updated.    4. Tasks Overview search update  New Fields:  Partner Project Risk: Partner Risk at the time of the project approval (budget approval stage), for the specific project (as displayed in the timelines); Partner Risk: Partner Risk at the time of the search.   5. New Partner Risk and CA user control  Partner Risk and CA Risk will now be visible to HFU and FCS Finance users on the Financial Report (Financial report, Signed Financial Report tabs) and Disbursement pages. This will help FCS Finance /UNDP/HFU STOP the disbursement processing in case CA risk changes to “Ineligible”   Note: the section will not be visible to Implementing Partners.    6. Narrative report analysis update  New filter option: A new filter feature has been added to the Narrative Report analysis module, which now allows the user to generate the output based on the projects’ implementation date. Similarly, two new columns with implementation start and end date were introduced into the new Narrative Report analysis excel output.    7. Country Funding Process (Revision) update  New Fields:  Revision Request Submitted by IP: date of the partner’s latest revision request submission  Revision Request Approved by HFU: date of approval of the revision request

New releases in GMS – February 2018 New Common 8+3 Template   Tab Descriptions:   General Info: displays the basic project information such as project duration, total original budget, reporting period, disbursement details, additional narrative reports and other funding. This page allows reporting on the overall performance of the project, as well as any changes and amendments from the initial project. Project revisions and monitoring information are also displayed here. Measuring Results: shows the overall project and specific cluster objectives and review thereof through comments on the outcomes, outputs and activities achieved. Affected Persons: displays targeted and actual reach of beneficiaries, as well as affected persons per location/activity. Other Info: displays general questions on: participation and accountability of the affected population, risk management, exit strategy, lessons learned, and coordination. Implementing Partners: displays information on sub-implementing partners. Documents: allows to upload documents to support the report. Report Tracking: shows the report workflow.     Feedback for the Pilot     The Feedback for the Pilot section at the bottom of the 8+3 reports will enable those man aging the common reporting pilot to collect feedback and concerns from users and evaluate how the pilot is working. Partners will need to fill out the questions at the same time they finalize the report form for the information provided to be as accurate as possible.  2. New OCHA Assurance updates    The following updates have been made in OCHA Assurance:  New filter options:   Filter Field Descriptions: Project Processed: includes projects started, completed (reached project closure), ongoing or both started and completed during the given dates. Allocation Year: displays information on project for the selected Allocation Year (Note: project from one allocation year with actual start date or approval date from the next calendar year would be included here). Disbursement Date: displays data for projects, which disbursement has been processed during the given dates. Implementation Start Date: enables to filter projects based on project implementation date (i.e. Actual Start Date of the project). Project Approval Date: enables to filter projects based on project the project approval date (i.e. EO signature Date of the projects). Project Closed Date: enables to filter projects based on the project closure date. Note: the definition for each filter will be displayed in yellow box when selecting different filters Updated reporting timelines for the Final Financial Reports for UN agencies: Until now OCHA Assurance considered the Final Reports’ due date (both Narrative and Financial) as : project end date + 2 months. This has been revised for UN agencies Final Financial Reports. Due date is now considered as the 31 May of the year after the project end date (MPTF Fund) or the 30 June of the year after the project end date (non MPTF Fund). For those projects, OCHA Assurance will not take into consideration the timeline for final reports. E.g. : if a UN agency project end date is 15 February 2017, the Final Financial Report will be due: - on 31 May 2018 (MPTF Fund) - on 30 June 2018 (non MPTF Fund) Note: This does not apply to Final Narrative Reports (UN, NGO, and Red Cross/Crescent), and to non UN agencies Final Financial Reports (e.g. NGO and Red Cross/Crescent). For those reports, the due date remains project end date + 2 months. Reminder: For Interim and Progress reports the due date is picked up from the project timeline. Updates for Audit: Click on ‘Completed Audits’ red highlighted value for a breakdown of Audit completed but not approved by Finance Updates for Monitoring: New lines: Monitoring visits conducted late and Monitoring visits NOT conducted Note: after project end date + 6 months, as per filters set above Updates or Financial Spot Check: New lines: Spot check visits conducted late and Spot Check Visits NOT conducted Note: after project end date + 6 months, as per filters set above 3. New FTR report updates   The following updates have been made in the FTR report: New option of creating a FTR Report with multiple allocations: One or more allocations can be selected from the filters. This will display the respective projects for each allocation. Button to create a new FTR from the FTR Overview board:   4. Advance Switchboard Update   New filter to select projects based on their implementation Date:    

New releases in GMS (2nd blog) – November 2017 New Partner risk dashboard  A new Partner Risk Dashboard has been launched, below you can find an overview of how it works.  Filter Field Descriptions:  • Pooled Fund(s): Displays the Pooled Fund(s) to which you have an access. By default, the Pooled Fund you are currently in will be selected. • Partner Type: Displays the different types of partners in GMS. • Partner Risk Level: Displays the different risk levels in GMS (Ineligible, Low, Medium and High) that the partners currently have. [Old terminology: current or running risk] • Partner: Displays the different partners for the pooled funds selected. The pooled fund is mentioned as a prefix because one partner might have a different name in different funds. For example, OCHA could be registered as OCHA in the Iraq CBPF and as OCHA Myanmar in the Myanmar CBPF. • PI Adjusted Risk: Displays the different risk levels in GMS (Ineligible, Low, Medium and High) that are currently calculated by the system for the partners. [Old terminology: calculated risk]  Important to Note: The system will not display live data on the PI Dashboard, it will be refreshed every 2 hours. The date and time (always shown according to Geneva time, UTC +1) at which the data was taken for the displayed PI Dashboard is indicated in red above the table.  Column Descriptions:  • Pooled Fund: Displays the Pooled Fund of the Partner. • Partner: Displays the name of the Partner in a specific Pooled Fund. • Partner Risk Level: Displays the current Risk Level a Partner has in the system. • PI Adjust Risk: Displays the risk as calculated by the system for a specific Partner – this may or may not have been accepted by the user. • CA: Displays the score a Partner received during Capacity Assessment. • P1 – P6: Displays the score a Partner received for his projects. P1 is the first project, the last column value with a value refers to the most recent project of that Partner.    The Formula to calculated the PI Adjusted Risk is CA + SUM (P1:P6). A PI score is calculated for each project and displayed in the column with its overall score and the percentage below indicates the weightages given to this score in the formula.  Colour legends for this screen:  • Partner Risk: Displays the colours used to determine the Partner Risk Level and PI Adjusted Risk. • Partner Performance Index: Displays the colours used to determine the PI based on the PI for each project.  Note: Users will be able to Export to PI Dashboard to Excel by clicking on the Excel icon. Common Performance Framework v 1.0 The Common Performance Framework (CPF) is a new module which can be found under the HFU Management Module. It has been merged with the Direct Cost module in one page (two different tabs)  Note: Per year only one record can be added.  Within the CPF for each year 5 areas have been defined: Inclusiveness, Flexibility, Timeliness, Efficiency and Accountability & Risk Management. Each of these areas has its own set of indicators and for each indicator the HFU has an option to edit. Setting Targets  Upon clicking the [Edit] icon the HFU can set the target for each indicator. To assist the HFU to set a target, data is pulled automatically from GMS regarding this specific indicator for the year and pooled fund selected (visible on the right hand side).  Note: After making changing for a specific CPF Indicator, the HFU will need to click on the [Save] button to save the information. By clicking on the [Previous Indicator] or [Next Indicator] button without doing so, the information will be lost. In the future a confirmation message will be implemented that displays to notify you that there has been a change in data and whether you would like to save those changes, but this has not been implemented yet. Once the targets have been set, they need to be approved by the Fund Manager (HFU) and Endorsed by the Advisory Board (AB). From that moment onwards the results can be captured. The workflow followed for the CPF can be tracked via the [Tracking] tab.  Capturing Results For the moment the target is editable (this might become a fixed field, this is being discussed at the Doha Workshop). The HFU will then need to record the Results and pick a score from the dropdown menu. A results analysis can be added. The maximum value for the CPF is 1 and each area has the same weight (0.2 out of 1). Currently it is not mandatory to add a score for each indicator, but of course not adding a score for a specific area will result in a lower total score (total CPF score is the sum of all CPF areas). Actions can be provided by the HFU via the [Add New Actions] button. Here the HFU will be able to have an overview of all task that needs to be performed related to that specific CPF Indicator. Action By Role displays a dropdown menu for the HFU to indicate who should take the action. The HFU can specify if the action has been completed or whether is still pending via the action taken check box. Remarks can be specified if needed but this is not mandatory.  Note: Action By Role will only provide the HFU with a better overview.  Currently there is no tracking or notification of actions required available in GMS. The CPF (and the required actions) could be made visible to other user profiles if required, but it will remain editable for HFU only.  New OCHA Assurance updates The following updates have been made in OCHA Assurance:  Inclusion of Country Based Operational Modalities into Monitoring and Spot Checks  • It will depend on the Country Based Operational Modalities how many Monitoring and Spot Checks will need to be carried out. • The system will assume the number that comes out of the country based OMs as the starting point (the 100 percent). It will then be split up per line how many percentage has been e.g. carried out or need to be done.    Audit  • Audit completed: Audit process has been done and the audit workflow has been completed. • Ongoing: Audit has started in the last six months. • Audit to be initiated: Audit needs to be initiated. • Overdue: Audit has not been completed within six months.    Monitoring  • Inclusion of Country Based Operational Modalities (see higher). • New category names are: Monitoring visits conducted on time and Monitoring not conducted. 

During this open forum HFUs from all funds are given the opportunity to ask questions related to any GMS topic. Project Code Question: After the IPs created a project proposal or concept note and they use the cover page enhancement to modify the cluster we see that the project code will still have for example the letter for Health (H) instead of Nutrition (N)? (Sudan HFU)  This should not be the case; we are showing you the impact when you try to modify the cluster. If there is a change in the logical framework, the project code will be changed. If it is not happening that is a bug in the system which you need to report to us. Risk level - Performance Index Question: We see new information appearing in each project regarding the risk level - what steps should we take? (Colombia HFU) First of all, the risk level is completely country based. The initial capacity assessment will be considered as the Partner Risk Level (old terminology Partner Running Risk) until the partner has a first PI (Performance Index) score. As soon as you have a first PI calculated you will be shown an overall scorecard. The matrix displayed in the Help Portal will be followed for the calculation of the risk. Here you might see a mismatch between the current Partner Risk Level of the IP and the PI Adjusted Risk (old terminology Partner Calculated Risk): a pop up will then come to you as HFU if which states that there is a mismatch between Partner Risk Level and PI Adjusted Risk. It will ask you if you want to change it. The ‘Next’ button will take you to the screen where you put an agreement or disagreement to update or not update the value. E.g. This partner was first assessed as High and the score was kept as 0. Now the IP has implemented a project and receives a first PI index score of 64.72 which is Medium (based on 60 percent weightage of the CA and 40 percent of the PI1). If you put zero we consider it as 100 percent so we will take a scoring of 50 percent. On the left is the current Partner Risk Level, on the right is the PI Adjusted Risk that is being calculated now. HFU keeps full freedom to say if they want to agree to this change or not and update. For both agree and disagree you need to leave a comment and update. No further pop-up will be shown unless if there is a new mismatch. Make sure to discuss with your team before making changes, because this decision will determine the operational modalities for that partner. Partner Risk Level will be used for all instances for this partner. Remark: PI questions on Final Financial Report approval: how do you assess quality and performance of report? At this particular time the HFU would not have a specific understanding if this reporting is correct or not. Need to think about wording / re-phrase. Expenditures are good or correct (Jordan HFU) Question: The PPI questions on project revision are not giving us the option to indicate how many revisions have been done. GMS only gives the last revision that has been endorsed. Is there a possibility of having a mechanism to determine how many revisions the project has been granted and to weigh a project accordingly? (Jordan HFU)  To see the number of revisions you can look at the revision overview. Here you can see the previous revisions, meaning both revision requests and the actual revision that has been done before they were overwritten. In the questionnaire we are not capturing how many revisions there are. It is made to be completely flexible to HFU how you want to consider them. Make sure to put a proper comment so HFU colleagues and auditors, can see why it would be justified to have e.g. 4 revisions.    Question: The PPI questions on the evaluation of progress narrative reports only provide 4 options. When we click one of these options to evaluate a report, usually progress narrative report is returned a couple of times – there will be a session of back and forth between IP and HFU. So to answer a question on whether it the report was on time and of good quality, do we take the first instance of sending the report or the last submission after taking into account our comments? (Syria HFU) Can we please ask you to bring any requests on changes on the questionnaire, in the text or options that are not there or not suitable for the current management of the different instances to the Fund Managers. There will be a session on PI in the Global Pooled Fund WS in Doha and we can pick those questions up over there. Re-analyze and brainstorm, take up inputs and bring them to this meeting. The questionnaire in GMS right now has been endorsed in last PF WS. Also please note that the Quick fixes on the guidelines have already been incorporated in GMS, except for those providing for new options. Remark: The scores for each risk level are different per country (Syria HFU) In principle the risk levels are the same for every country, it is a score associated in CA and that range we (GMS team) do not touch. If you have put a score and put a risk level, we will respect that. If you put the score as 0 we will take an average of our range (in our range, high is e.g. 50). CA values are clearly country-values. The PI score range has been defined in the system as agreed upon with POU and HFUs. Because these cannot be changed, we show you what the value is of the Partner Risk Level and PI Adjusted Risk. Therefore, within your context, you can agree or disagree (e.g. if the score is 60 and in your country that is still high and the system wants to update to Medium, you can simply disagree and leave a comment that this due to your specific country context). Question: The categories for scoring in PPI are a bit rigid and do not always contain all the options we need. If possible we would like to put the scores in again manually. ‘Little or no’ for example is not really an absolute term, or break the categories into different sections? (Turkey HFU)  Meron (POU) is the focal point on this. Technically it is feasible to customize further and give an option for HFU to choose between a range of values (e.g. between 9-7), but this is a huge change in the system. It is good to be highlighted in the Doha Workshop by a Fund Manager. As I said it is technically feasible but for the moment there is no agreement that we will allow this. We need to develop a common understanding of how we will operate, what the values are and what the range is. Question: When the PPI was implemented we had a number of projects that were passing to a milestone and so we had to give some scores. Is it possible to revise the scores before we update the partner risk level? Right now there is no option for revising the existing / already assigned scores. (Turkey HFU)  We are creating a dashboard where you can have an overview of the partner scores you have already put in the system and where you can update them. It is a slightly complex module, so it will be added by the end of the year. The pop-up to make changes in the risk level will only come if there is mismatch and you can again agree or disagree. Question: Regarding the audit questions in PPI, when monitoring colleagues enter the final report they have to answer questions on the audit. Can it be made mandatory when the audit results are being uploaded? (sometimes audit is done during the project implementation or after project closure). (Sudan HFU and Pakistan HFU)  This is a configuration issue – just make sure that for the time being you indicate that an audit is not done / not required until you have that information. When calculating the score, the PPI will not consider this audit module (nullified) until you have completed the audit. Question: What should be done for users that already have PI for implemented / finished or closed projects?  If you have a project that is already scored offline and that is now getting close to closure and you are not sure how it was assessed with the new scorecard: Map the offline scorecard with the existing scorecard and decide on how you want to score via your own methodology and manually score them based on the new score. Unfortunately, we cannot help you on that because it cannot be automated. For projects that are already closed you can contact us and we can look at them and take them into account in the system. E.g. CAR has submitted their scores and we will look into that. Question: When answering PPI questions on financial reporting (Natia) – when there are things missing / wrong on a report. Do we disregard these kind of errors, as there is a lot of back and forth between IP and HFU? (Turkey HFU)  Let us give an example, when the PPI asks about expenditure quality and timeliness. If they are missing a report, pages, … it is your own personal justification which you have to put. For example, regarding timing and correct expenditure, if a document page is missing we don’t believe you should be penalizing them. In the system we don’t know the context in which you are operating, your relationship with the partner or whatever has happened. Just make sure to put a comment on your side with the score. If something is not impacting the quality of expenditure, give more weightage on the actual quality of expenditure and how the IP reported on rather than to penalize the IP on esthetics. Question: Monitoring overview is updated based on if we have done RCM, field visits, etc. Is there a way to link that with the PPI? In many instances we have people review the report and before we approve we have the section to ensure that the monitoring and financial section have been updated. To link monitoring overview with what we have in theP PI is the only way to analyze so could we link that? (Sudan HFU)  For the PPI we are currently not linking that information of what has been done and what needs to be done from a consolidated overview. What we are planning to do with the operational modalities and OCHA assurance module is to link and make visible for you all monitoring that has been done according to the operational modalities, how many have been done in total and how many have not been touched so far. It is a placeholder for overview, so we are not linking with performance of the partner. Overall quality of monitoring is picturized here, but we are trying to create a specific category for spot checks in the PI. Question: TPM and third party monitoring are important to take into consideration. Ratings are given in monitoring overview, but questions presented in the PPI have no weight. If we go back to what we have in monitoring overview: you can rate a partner based on info put in there, feedback from RCM, field visit info, etc. – linking this with the PPI would work better than doing it separately (Sudan HFU)  Let us bring this to the team during the discussion of the new guidelines and we would be surely able to incorporate that in the revised PPI. We can discuss further during the Doha Workshop on the requirements for the overall monitoring dashboard you would like to create. Question: When scoring the audit on the PI scoring the info not always readily available, for example on reporting, revision, this information comes from different people. We are trying to capture this info for 2016 so we can come up with the risk, but if the info is not available it becomes very difficult to put a correct score. We are updating the CA and working offline for PPI and when we put all info in GMS (coming from various sources). If we put the total score as it is now in GMS the questions will be coming again and again to score the 2016 projects or will it not do so if we already put the CA and the current score? (South Sudan HFU)  Whatever the risk for running projects of 2015/2016 is, if they are not closed and those questions are not answered then each time when it reaches a stage for mandatory question answering it will pop up again. To exclude the 2016 projects because you lack the info would not work – somehow you need to gather that info and bring it into the system and give them a score to fit into the current Partner Risk Level. Based on that it has to be imported into the system for the existing projects not yet closed. The system is not designed to exclude projects that have not yet been closed. For projects closed, we can import the date into the system and associate scores with them. Their might be a lot of scenarios that come into the picture for other aspects of it like for example how the CA is done (e.g. HACT modality) or how you revisit and recalculate a version of the CA. Regarding Partner Risk some countries already had some scores associated with them before we launched this module. However, we were only told that there was offline data that needed to be imported when we finished developing this new module. In the longer run we will create a dashboard were you can do a complete change in bulk for projects that have closed or that are under closure and play around with the values so you can get to a risk level. On that dashboard you will be able to re-change the scores to fit into the existing data you have in the offline data. It will be coming by the end of the year. It is important to reflect scores in the PPI because this is going to be used for a longer term: the PPI score is going to affect and impact overall partner performance in the longer run. The score has to be properly updated as it will affect operational modalities. When you apply operational modalities you do so on the basis of the running risk, and this cannot be changed again. There are longer consequences, so make sure to finish (manually) importing the data. Question: If we upload this data, the organizations that received funding from us already have the scores for them. Question that comes will perhaps have to do with audit and the parameters. (South Sudan HFU)  The GMS Team will hold a session with South Sudan team to look at some IPs and the offline template you have and find a roadmap on how we can help you out. Please contact us bilaterally to set this up. Online BoQ Question: On the online BoQ, if the IP wants to enter something, whatever they entered on the online BoQ itself automatically gets transferred to the budget line. When we used BoQ before we wanted to just identify a group of items or utilities, but in the online BoQ it is impossible to do so. For utilities they have to indicate for the entire project funding period, they cannot indicate the monthly ones. The budget lines then do not show data the IP actually wants to reflect because of the automatic transfer. Is there a possibility to maintain the online BoQ separately and do the calculations as it is without automatically transferring? The total cost should go into the unit cost of the budget line so the IP can modify both unit cost and quantity (Turkey HFU)  Unfortunately, this automatic transfer requirement was given to us in GMS when we designed for the the online BoQ to be populated to the budget line. When the online BoQ is there you cannot edit the budget line, even during the revision it has to be done in the online BoQ. Whatever the unit and monthly costs are fixed/percentage you can change. Please give us an exact scenario on how you want to handle it if there is any segregation in the split which is required. A temporary solution from a technical point of view would be to put a comment that you cannot use the online BoQ and attach an excel sheet and send in the comment that it is in the documents tab. Before you do this, make sure to get an approval from the FCS Finance team, as only they can authorize you to do that for a specific project. Discuss with them offline to approve the requirement. Reply: But the percentage cannot be adjusted in the BoQ once it enters on the budget line. When you get on online BoQ you cannot change percentages (the IP might charge different percentages on a monthly basis).  If we allow you to change percentage, month and duration that will help you? Reply: Let me give an example: it might be required because they might charge us for gas (80) and power (20) and in this case they have to put them in separate budget lines, not in one BoQ. Or for example when talking about 200 kits in the BoQ the IP needs to put all separate items of the kit so in total it is a lot more than 200 and it transfers to the budget line so they cannot reflect the actual quantity of kits. In this case partners get confused, because they have to do the actual multiplication of the kits.  Please send us a sample of scenarios and have a discussion with Finance team. We cannot advise you because you need their approval first. Remember there will be an impact in many places in GMS, so we cannot just change this. Remark: We have a suggestion for when the HFU creates the GA, when the dropdown menu comes up to certify who is supposed to sign on behalf of the organization. To fulfil conditions of internal control procedures, we encourage partners to have more than one authorized signatory and to enhance their internal procedures in transparency for the UN financial regulations and rules. Would it be possible to have more than one authorized signatory to finalize the GA? (Syria HFU)  GMS allows it and does not control the signatories. However, we are currently developing a digital signature to be used on the HC side. If you need multiple signatories on the GA from the IP side, the document can always be signed by one or multiple signatories, but if somebody pushes the (workflow)button GMS assumes that the GA has been signed by IP. This question is quite relevant for the oversight and finance unit, so please send them this requirement and they can ensure it is approved by the Executive Officer.

New releases in GMS – November 2017 Soft launch of Humanitarian ID (HID) Authentication A soft launch took place on 2 November 2017 to get users acquainted with the HID interface: we will be showing both HID and OCHA Single-On Passport authentication mechanisms.  Note: You should use the same e-mail ID as you are using to access GMS now. HID will not be using the same password as Single Sign On (request a reset). For more information on the authentication process for Humanitarian ID see our separate blog on HID. HFU in each country needs to decide if they want to do a broadcast or training for IPs. The HID guidance from the blog can be used for this purpose. From 7 November onwards using the HID authentication mechanism will become mandatory for all users. Users without an HID will be migrated automatically, there account will be created and they will receive a link to reset their password. Single-Sign-On will no longer be available.  How about IP users?  They will be seeing the same screens. If they are no on HID, we will push them automatically on HID. A user account is created with exactly the same profile as is there in GMS and a password reset link will be sent to the e-mail ID used in GMS. Partners who have created a HID to access OPS can use the same HID to access GMS. One profile to access multiple applications and HID will decide where you are coming from. For new users we discourage the use of Single Sign-On. Please ask them to go to HID and register an account there and use that to log in to GMS. Uploading of documents under Capacity Assessment When opening the Capacity Assessment, there will now be 2 tabs: a scorecard tab and a documents tab. Under this documents tab you can upload all files related to an IPs CA and in different categories. It will be possible to upload and download multiple files.  Limitations: Maximum size of 1 file will be 10Mb. Sum of all files you upload under one IP’s capacity assessment is limited to 1GB. Message will be displayed to show how much of the available capacity you have used. Linking an Allocation Type with the SRC scorecard Currently the ability to link up an existing scorecard with an allocation is available in the system. From now on only 1 scorecard is going to be accessible and linked to 1 allocation.    Existing allocations have been migrated so when you open an allocation, you will be shown which scorecards were linked to this allocation. Once an allocation has been updated and linked and a project is linked, you will no longer be able to change the data (scorecard linkages cannot be changed anymore). Changes can only be made before a project is created against this allocation. This will help us to ensure that all parameters (e.g. abbreviation code, scorecard, etc.) are matching across that allocation. In the past we have seen that people made changes in these values mid-allocation which resulted in conflicts in project codes and other areas.    In the ‘Project status info’ matrix (under the Fund Project Allocations – System Setup -> Allocation Management -> Manage Allocations Types) you will be able to see which projects are linked to this allocation and what their status is.   The Cluster-users who are logging into the system, when filtering for an allocation type will be able to only see the scorecard linked to that allocation.  Multiple project codes/IDs for filtering Now it will be possible to filter in all overviews for multiple codes, similar to what you are able to do on the cover page when filtering in the advanced switchboard.  FAQ-Mapping From now on an FAQ-icon will be available on the different GMS screens. When users click on it they will be directed to the Help Portal topic related to the screen they are on.  New user registration – additional features The ‘new user registration’ has the following new features: users can no longer submit a request to be registered as an HFU or as an Administrator in GMS. A comment box is made available for users to submit additional data. For example, if someone wants to submit a request to get an HFU profile, they have to submit the registration as 'Others' and put a comment.    HFU can see this when approving the user and adapt the profile according to what has been requested. This means in our example that they HFU while approving the user will change the 'Other' profile for the HFU profile before saving the profile.  Bulk changes in later releases A new Webex session will be held on the changes in the later releases very soon.

Dear GMS-user, As you might have noticed, the GMS system is migrating to a new authentication mechanism called Humanitarian ID (HID). Humanitarian ID is a global contact directory for humanitarians to connect and collaborate faster and smoother. Moving to this unique platform allows our users to maintain one profile to access multiple humanitarian based applications. If you would like more information on what HID is exactly, you can take a look at the HID introduction video in English, French or Arabic.   A soft launch is taking place now which will still allow you to log in via the OCHA Single Sign-On Passport (User Guidance 1). On 9 November 2017 at 9 AM UTC+1, the Humanitarian ID Sign In will be fully launched and all users will from that date onward be requested to use HID (mandatory) (See User Guidance 2).    User Guidance 1 (Before 9 November 2017 at 9 AM UTC+1)  On click of the Login Page, from the GMS Home page, users will be redirected to a new intermediate page. The screen below displays the intermediate page during the soft launch of the Humanitarian ID authentication mechanism, which will be displayed until 9 November 2017. We have opted for a soft launch as this will enable users to use their existing HID account to access GMS and allow users to get acquainted with the HID interface.   In this section, two login buttons will be displayed. On click of the “Sign In” button, users will be redirected to Humanitarian ID authentication page or the OCHA Single Sign-On Passport page.  For more information on how to register in HID, please watch this video.  The OCHA Single Sign-On Passport page will operate as users are used to from prior login. The HID Sign In will take place as described in User Guidance 2 (see below).   User Guidance 2 (Post 9 November 2017)  On click of the Login Page, from the GMS Home page, users will be redirected to a new intermediate page. The screen below displays the page of the Humanitarian ID authentication mechanism, which will be displayed from 9 November 2017 onwards. In this section, a login button [Continue] will be displayed. On click of the [Continue] button, the user will be redirected to the Humanitarian ID authentication page (scenario 1 and 3), or to a page that displays a password reset (scenario 2).  The users will have to provide credentials in the Humanitarian ID and complete the authentication process. It will depend on whether the user is already registered in GMS, HID, one of them or neither which procedure needs to be followed (different procedures described in detail below). Please note that the GMS team will carry out a bulk migration process on 9 November 2017 to facilitate the transition. This means that users with a GMS account will not need to create a new HID account. They will automatically receive a reset password link in the inbox of the e-mail ID under which they are registered in GMS. These users would fall under scenario number 2 below. Scenario 1: For users that are already registered in HID AND GMS Users that already have an HID account will be directed straight to the HID Authentication Page (without requiring a password reset). Once the user is successfully authenticated, the user will be redirected back to GMS web site. Here the user can continue to work as per the his / her profile.  Scenario 2: For users that are registered in GMS but that are NOT registered in HID yet We have created an HID-account by default based on your GMS e-mail ID. The new profile will not have a password: users need to use the 'Set Password' button to set up a new password.    The user will be redirected to the Reset Password page where the user can enter his/her e-mail ID. By doing so the user will receive an e-mail that will have a link to set up the new password.    When clicking on the link received via e-mail a new screen will open, prompting the user to enter a new password. The password needs to fulfill all password requirements.    Once the password has been set up, the user will be redirected to the Login page of HID. Upon login via this screen, the user will be redirected to GMS.    Note: Once a user has successfully authenticated to any GMS instance using HID, the [Set Password] button will no longer be displayed. On click of [Continue] (after entering the e-mail ID), the user will be redirected to HID Authentication page. Once the user is successfully authenticated, the user will be redirected back to GMS web site. Here the user can continue to work as per the his / her profile. Scenario 3: For new users that are NOT registered in GMS and HID yet The user will be directed from GMS to the HID Authentication page.    The user needs to click on the ‘Register’-button and fill out the information in the form as shown below. For more information on how to register in HID, please watch this video.    Once the user is successfully authenticated, the user will be redirected back to GMS web site. Here the user can continue to work as per the his / her profile.

General questions Contact person of the Fund has changed Discuss with POU on which person’s contact details should be put there until a replacement is found. Send an e-mail to GMS Support with the new contact details, we can update the application parameters for you. Operational modality GA operation on the GMS: Additional features in GMS? And if so when will they be active on the system? Please follow-up with George Petropoulos (who sent the e-mail on 4 July 2017), and keep GMS-Support in copy so that we can assist if necessary. James is aware of this e-mail and we will keep you posted if any changes are made in the system. Country fund overview – dashboard / Country funding process - interim financial report – reports submitted but does not show the amount reported. Would be helpful to bring the latest expenditure (now only the total budget is shown). Noted, we will take a look at the possibility to display the latest expenditures there. Organization registration Organization registration in GMS and Due Diligence: What documents need to be submitted to GMS Support? If you want to register a new organization in the GMS we prefer that you send us the Registration Certificate of the organization in your country. The reason is that because sometimes there are spelling mistakes or differences in the name and later on this creates problems when creating GA. So, for that reason we ask both the registration certificate and a Bank Information document (like a transcript of their bank statement to check the names used).In some countries, this might not be applicable, some of them are written in Arabic and not everybody can read that, so then we will accept the translation by the HFU because we are sure that the HFU looked at it / made sure the translation is correct.At this moment we can also check if the name on the bank transcripts is different from the name under the registration certificate and we can request you to have the NGO to get a letter from the bank to confirm that both names are the same. In this way, while they are doing the project proposal, it saves a lot of time by the time they submit the proposal. The letter can be uploaded under the Due Diligence right away so that FCS Finance can immediately check it. Project proposal submission Application window – submissions after deadline: possibility to block after the deadline? The window to apply (create a new project proposal) will no longer be visible after the call for applications end date, but if a partner has already created a draft project then the partner will still be able to submit it after the application end date closes. It is left it open for flexibility, some countries might have issues on for example internet-connections. Maybe what we can do is to look in to the possibility of blocking it which does not exist right now. To do so we might have to discuss with the HFUs on their specific country situation. The blocking of the project proposal is under development. Reporting and proposal submission for hard to reach areas and target populations We have this item on the task list but yet to be prioritized Logical Framework Risks and assumptions at outcome level: not shown in the logframe but shown on the printed copies Assumptions and risks are displayed as a tooltip (see screenshot) – you will need to hover over this symbol to see the Assumptions and Risk appear on your screen   Different clusters not properly visible We will try to increase the visibility of these headings in the different formats. Currently these are being displayed as follows: HTML File Word document and PDF Budget (review) If a partner only has to change a couple of budget lines but changes others – possibility to highlight the changes? Technically we would like to block the budget-lines and open only what is allowed to be edited. This work is in our task list. Hard to track what the original budget was when the IP changes the budget after TR (lots of back and forth) For now, what you can do is download the Excel file and save it to your computer before the budget goes back to the IP to address the comments. Our team will need to see how we can simplify this. Documents Suggestion for documentation relating to monitoring (categories for uploading these files): Supporting documents vs. monitoring (only if there is a monitoring report)? What about files with big sizes? All documents should be captured under the monitoring right now, ideally when dealing with bigger file sizes we would like to incorporate in the future a possibility to give a link to where the documents are stored Timelines / Reporting GMS reporting - Is there an e-mail alert going out when we click the box? Can we for example when we activate a report click on it or will it automatically send it when the report is activated. Sometimes IPs do not submit timely so instead we send them a reminder from our e-mail address. Would it be possible to send out an additional e-mail alert via the system? Currently, there is no switch off or reminder at this moment in the system but it can be developed. The possibility of developing this feature will be discussed further with James.Alerts are sent when reports are activated. Reminder modules are under development, but not yet activated. We need to discuss this further internally. Reporting comments - only one box, Possible to upgrade to provide sub-boxes? We would need to provide comments box tagging, this is a planned development Narrative Reporting: Executive summary – direct beneficiaries are reported here. Cover page has a note saying that the total direct beneficiaries should match to beneficiary group (highlighted) – total from beneficiary groups should not exceed the direct total (sum of beneficiary groups). Can we put a similar note in the executive summary for the narrative report? This should not be a problem; it is just an enhancement. We can discuss with the team if we can put a similar note there stating to that fact (as we did on the cover page for the project proposal). Financial Report – disbursements: Signed financial report tab – disbursement or disbursement request box where you can see the tranches that have already been disbursed. If the IP has already received the second tranche, in this drop-down menu the second tranche will still appear in addition to third trance – can we make it go out of the lines? It is possible, we wanted to add this feature. Where there are cases that the same trance is in multiple financial reports, this was a requirement why the trances are kept available. We will check if that is not a requirement, we can try to disable already paid tranches.We need to discuss this with FCS Finance and formulate the final strategy.   Strategic / Technical Review Access to review board members to do scoring (SR, TR): would it be possible for them not to have access to everything? Give them a specific profile instead of calculating the average and then enter this in the GMS? For now, for the score cards, we have the clusters and the sector co-leads profile, so I am guessing a similar profile to that would work. It depends little bit on how much access they would need so maybe if you can write us an email and say which access they would specifically require so we do not disclose too much?At the moment GMS will not allow for different persons to put in a score, one person will have to put in the data (and calculate the average of all people scoring). This might be difficult to estimate with some scoring answers such as e.g. 3 people saying average and 1 person saying below average and 1 person saying above average – in such a scenario you would go for average. If there is really a big clash, then it should probably be discussed amongst the people scoring as to find out why they disagree. In the meantime, it would be a solution to put all people scoring around the table and have them decide together on a mutually agreed score. Project Revision Revision of a project – when is the project updated? The partner sends a request for a revision (revision request, step 1) to the HFU – if you approve you can open the specific tabs that want to allow them to amend in the project revision (step 2). Depending on the changes that were made, a GA amendment will need to be created or not.The last stage of a project revision (with or without GA amendment) is pushing the ‘overwrite’ button. Once you have pushed this button there is no way back – the system will put all the new data from the revision into the project proposal that you see displayed in GMS. There is no way to get the original project proposal data back. The system will however save a PDF version of the original proposal, so you can still consult it to see what it looked like.See Workflow screenshot  

Performance Index: To measure performance of the partner. Did you know that OCHA analyzes partner performance throughout project implementation? The scores assigned to the partner in the factors as defined in the GMS are summarized in a Partner Performance Index (PI). So, PI plays a very important role with respect to the partner rating and the GMS has made it mandatory for the HFU to score the partner. So, at every stage of the project cycle the HFU must score the partner thus presenting a clear picture of the performance of the partner with respect to the selected project. Click here for a more detailed overview on the Performance Index module

Country-based pooled funds (CBPFs) are multi-donor humanitarian financing instruments established by the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC). They are managed by OCHA, which is a United Nations (UN) body, at the country-level under the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC). CBPFs are intended to allocate funding based on humanitarian priorities. With the increasing focus on pooled funds, there is a greater pressure on the various pooled funds to ensure transparency and efficiency; guarantee robust procedures to comply with donor conditions; and respond to prioritized humanitarian needs without imposing undue burdens on humanitarian actors. This can be achieved with the help of the Grants management system (GMS). Grants management system (GMS) is a web-based grant tracking solution package that supports the working of the entire grant life cycle for all Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs) which includes management of tasks, reports and important grant documents. Functions can include grant discovery, budget planning, peer collaboration, regulatory compliance, proposal submission, administrative reporting and project tracking and plus provides personalized email reminders for application deadlines and report due dates. GMS is a mandatory tool for CBPFs and an essential management tool for OCHA's fund managers. The GMS promotes efficiency, effectiveness and supports risk management. GMS enables to combine business processes while also catering to the special needs of each fund. The system strengthens OCHA's data analysis and information management capacity. GMS not only acts as a platform for the smooth allocation of funds but also enables the stakeholders to exchange information among them and to support them in performing their functions. From project proposal submission by grant recipients till project completion which involves various stages like evaluation, allocation, reporting, monitoring, performance management of partner and risk management, all are tracked into the GMS system in real time. This ensures that procedures, tools, decisions, and mechanisms are clearly and openly communicated – in a timely and transparent manner – which helps to build greater trust in the funding mechanism. GMS provides tools for sending reminders and also to receive feedback. Tools are available to schedule and automate sending of personalized bulk emails and monitoring and reporting activities. The interactive dashboards in GMS allow easily keeping track of and managing grant programs, applications and reviews. The system supports fund managers in the implementation of due diligence processes and agreed upon control mechanisms. Helps to maintain audit trails, generate powerful reports and keep track of all monitoring activities and disbursements. Enables to customize workflows and tasks for individual CBPFs. The GMS system is integrated with other related online systems, including OCHA Contribution Tracking System, OCHA Financial Tracking Service, and UNDP's MPTF Gateway. This real time access to data allows OCHA to quickly provide information and analysis on questions raised both at the field and headquarters level. GMS' Business Intelligence modules are publicly accessible and will provide real time data, including commitments, contributions, allocations, recipient partners, geographical coverage, and funding distribution among clusters. Some of the features provided by GMS are Managing donors, contacts, key relationships. Providing a summary of the funding proposals submitted in the past, present and applying for. Track important information on each funding opportunity – such as amount requested, amount awarded, proposal deadline, decision date, grant term, funding program category, and current status and many more. Tracks the tasks and deadlines for each application and follow up report. Reminders are sent automatically to remind everyone of their commitments. Provides an accessible and secure online system to intuitively organize and quickly retrieve your grant-related documents. GMS comes with flexible, prebuilt reports with powerful filters to help Pooled funds get a current, up-to-date overview of the grant efforts and results which can be easily exported in Excel, PDF format. Provides tools to evaluate the performance of the participating partners through Partner Capacity Assessments and Due Diligence Processes GMS allows tools for proper monitoring and accounting of fund management performance. The system monitors the speed and the quality of different processes, including allocations, disbursement of funds, monitoring, reporting and audits. Transparency and Openness in the funding process. Quick Decision-Making and Timely Disbursements A repository of the various procedures, guidelines, etc. is available to share information that can be used by new and existing pooled funds.