Doing Better With Less: Unlocking Efficiency in the UN

Administrative support functions are the backbone of any organisation, ensuring smooth operations and enabling programmatic delivery. These include finance, human resources, procurement, logistics, information and communications technology (ICT), and general administrative services.⁶ These service lines are governed by a set of policies, procedures and systems, and can be further broken down into several sub-functions⁷ that can either be location dependent or independent.⁸ 

Optimising these functions is vital to enhance service delivery, reduce costs and strengthen organisational performance. UN entities have long attempted to rationalise the provision of administrative services. This objective has generally been advanced by i) improving policies, processes and systems; ii) consolidating and relocating back-office functions and iii) advancing inter-agency collaboration (see Table 1).

The following sub-sections highlight efforts made to improve administrative systems and procedures within organisations, consolidate these functions at the organisational level and streamline them across the system. Annex A provides an overview of Country Back Offices and Annex B the main Global Shared Services.

MOPAN assessments reveal persistent delays in disbursements, lengthy recruitment timelines and procurement inefficiencies as common bottlenecks. This directly affects the pace, cost and quality of programme implementation, and, therefore, the ability of organisations to deliver on their mandate. 

Procedural delays in disbursing funds to implementing partners are a widespread challenge, affecting the pace and effectiveness of operations.⁹ As for human resources, long recruitment timelines are a systemic issue across several organisations, undermining responsiveness and programme delivery.¹⁰ Procurement delays, stemming from outdated processes, are also not uncommon.¹¹ In response, several organisations are digitising processes, strengthening oversight and investing in integrated systems to address inefficiencies.

Most multilateral organisations have launched internal reforms to streamline administrative procedures and modernise systems. Some successful initiatives have been implemented to reduce recruitment time. For instance, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) created a Pathways Pool to pre-assess candidates for Chiefs of Mission and Resource Management Officers, reducing recruitment times from 110 to 40 days. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) moved recruitment for posts at the P4 level and below to country and regional levels, reducing recruitment time by 20% in 2020. Short-term needs are met through the Emergency and Temporary Staffing Unit, while human resource transformation measures, including AI-enabled pre-screening of over 30 000 talent pool applications annually and the digitalisation of personnel data, have further streamlined processes and saved time. 

Some agencies have made notable improvements in procurement, including improved oversight, speed and cost-reduction, albeit with some trade-offs. However, innovations are often constrained by fragmented systems and resource limitations, and the benefits are unevenly distributed across country contexts. 

The United Nations Office for Project Services’ (UNOPS) e-sourcing, a subset of the e-procurement platform, reduced procurement processing time by 24%, generating savings of USD 400 on each procurement exercise or over USD 1 000 000 when compared to costs in 2016. The International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) decentralised procurement system, with 90% of procurement carried out by country offices, enables agility during crises, but can limit cost-efficiency due to missed bulk purchasing opportunities. The shift towards cloud-based Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) represents a significant step towards administrative efficiency and oversight. Many UN entities assessed by MOPAN have made this transition, integrating various administrative functions into unified tools and enhancing usability through more intuitive interfaces. Annex C provides agency-specific examples. 

At a system level, some convergence has occurred on ERP, but there is still reluctance to adopt standard UN packages because of customisation and transition costs. The UN Secretariat and several UN entities have adopted the Umoja resource management platform, while many funds and programmes are aligning around Oracle Cloud ERP ("Quantum"). Still, many different ERP platforms are currently in use across the UN system. 

Many UN entities began their ERP journey before a standardised UN system was available, leading them to design their own tools and processes. For several agencies, this required multiple iterations before achieving an approach that was fit for purpose. Given the significant investment made in their own ERP systems, agencies are hesitant to abandon them in favour of a standardised UN solution, particularly when such packages are perceived to be less tailored to their operational needs. The high transitional costs of system migration further contribute to this reluctance. For instance, concerns persist among agencies that Umoja does not provide all the required functionalities. For example, MOPAN’s recently initiated assessment of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) shows that the organisation currently uses Umoja for financial management (as mandated), while maintaining its own system. This parallelism creates inefficiencies and constrains the organisation’s ability to implement fully integrated budgeting and reporting.

MOPAN assessments show that several organisations have consolidated and relocated their administrative functions through global or regional shared service centres, with the notable exception of WFP.¹² Supported by new technology, these shared service centres aim to reduce the duplication of administrative support functions across multiple locations, which diverts resources away from programme delivery. Over the past couple of decades, several UN entities have created such intra-agency shared services, centralising administrative services delivery in fewer hubs, establishing service centres and moving them to lower-cost locations.¹³ Annex C provides agency-specific examples.  

The consolidation of functions in service centres has primarily focused on transactional sub-functions, with different service delivery models emerging based on the degree of location-dependency and the nature of the task. For example, payroll is typically managed from a single, highly centralised location because the process is standardised, strictly time-bound and leaves no margin for error. In this case, the identity or location of the staff member is irrelevant, making centralisation the most efficient model. By contrast, “follow-the-sun” models distribute workloads across service centres in different time zones, ensuring continuous processing of incoming requests and reducing turnaround times, particularly for travel and logistics. Finally, some functions require regional specialisation, particularly in areas such as HR, where language proficiency, cultural familiarity and time zone alignment are critical, for instance, when scheduling and conducting interviews or handling region-specific cases.

UN entities have reported realising cost-savings from intra-agency shared services, although calculations are not straightforward, and trade-offs remain. The 2020 United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) report underscored that the highest efficiency gains in relation to the UNSDG efficiency agenda are achieved from entities individually centralising functions. Individual agencies’ statements also present a positive narrative on this. The MOPAN assessment of IOM reports that the establishment of the Manila (Global) Administrative Centre (MGAC) has saved around USD 20 million annually.¹⁴ The MOPAN assessment of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also noted that clustering services in regional hubs and global shared centres streamlined transaction processing, bringing efficiency gains.¹⁵ 

The 2016 Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) review of administrative support services confirmed personnel cost savings but cautioned against potential sunk costs. It warned that prioritising relocation to low-cost sites – a measure proposed by the UNSG as part of UN80 – can obscure the benefits of improving processes and consolidating services. The review also highlighted the risks of seeking only short-term savings and stressed the need for strong business cases that address challenges such as knowledge loss and staff turnover.¹⁶ This review was conducted nearly a decade ago at a time of expanding resources. While the current funding context demands cost savings at scale, the JIU review conclusions are a useful reminder that such short-term savings will not necessarily secure long-term efficiency.  

There has recently been a deliberate effort to expand inter-agency shared services to reduce costs, alongside a renewed focus on improving service quality. There is a longstanding tradition of shared services in the field, largely operating on an ad-hoc basis for decades. These arrangements have been progressively formalised through Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) and Long-Term Agreements (LTAs), marking the starting point for subsequent efforts on horizontal integration. Sharing of best practices and related work has also been ongoing through the High-Level Committee on Management (HLCM). Global attention to shared services gained further momentum with the appointment of the Independent Team of Advisers by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) President in 2016 and following a 2017 call from the UN General Assembly to adopt more cost-efficient support services by reducing duplication of functions, minimising administrative and transaction costs, and enhancing the quality of services by creating dedicated capacity. In 2017, the UN Secretary-General set a number of reform targets – collectively referred to as the “efficiency agenda” – and tasked the Business Innovations Strategic Results Group (BIG) to maximise programmatic gains through efficient and high-quality back-office operations (BIG, 2019)¹⁷. Some organisations now offer these services at the country, regional or global level. Common Back Offices (CBOs)¹⁸ – also known as local shared services – are country-level platforms that deliver location-specific common services outlined in the Business Operations Strategy (BOS).¹⁹ In addition, new initiatives or pre-existing Regional and Global Shared Service Centres provide location-independent shared services across several organisations.

A major milestone in 2024 was the advancement of the first UN CBO in Nairobi, serviced by the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON) as a main provider together with UNICEF. It provides harmonised cash transfers and for WFP, logistic services. It offers 101 services under 5 service lines²⁰, consolidating administrative, finance, human resources, procurement and ICT, and logistics services to over 3 500 staff members across 25 UN entities. The CBO in Brazil offers 86 services to 15 UN entities and approximately 1 200 UN personnel. The CBO in Vietnam offers 119 services, both with UNDP as the host.²¹ Similar efforts are underway, with priority initiatives in Tanzania and Senegal, and ongoing efforts in other countries like Bangladesh, Colombia, and Indonesia.²² 

Local inter-agency shared services show slow progress, limiting the ability to test efficiency gains at scale. The initial target of 100% of countries with a CBO by the end of 2022 was reduced to 50 countries by the end of 2024, with the first CBO established in early 2024 (see above).²³ To date, there are only 4 functioning CBOs, with the latest 2024 data reporting a cost-saving of USD 1 million out of the expected USD 77 million.²⁴ 

There has been progress in providing and using inter-agency Global Shared Services (GSS), although there is no set target for service uptake. As of 2024, seven UN entities had agreed to collaborate on GSS: the UN Secretariat, UNDP, UNOPS, WFP, UNHCR, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Some entities have set up their own global service centres for use by other agencies for a fee, while new inter-agency initiatives have also emerged. Out of 43 service ideas, only 10 were deemed mature and ready for scaling (see Annex B). While anecdotal evidence from MOPAN assessments confirms that agencies are increasingly using global services²⁵, there are no set targets for agency uptake as participation in shared services remains entirely voluntary. These services are mostly provided through the following initiatives, with the previously mentioned UNDP GSSC having the most signed-up entities:²⁶ 

• GSSC, established in 2003, is a UNDP-managed centre delivering tailored HR and finance services. It serves over 40 000 UN personnel from various agencies, funds and programmes across more than 170 countries. GSSC operates from eight locations: Addis Ababa, Amman, Bangkok, Copenhagen, Dakar, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur and New York.²⁷

• The UN Web Buy Plus is a global e-commerce solution, active since 2000 and managed by UNOPS. It supports procurement in 128 beneficiary countries, offering 260 product categories and over 100 suppliers.²⁸

• The United Nations Fleet is a joint initiative launched in October 2022, with WFP and UNHCR providing light vehicle leasing services to UN entities. Operating independently under a neutral governance structure, it is staffed by personnel seconded from both agencies. UN Fleet has global reach and is supported by three Vehicle Preparation Centres in Rotterdam, Dubai and Thailand.²⁹

• The United Nations Booking Hub (also called UN Mobility), launched by WFP, is a digital platform that streamlines bookings for inter-agency field services. It supports personnel in over 110 countries, offering services such as transportation, accommodation, office space, medical support, mobility and wellness services. 

Some overlap has emerged across inter-agency GSS. Multiple agencies are offering similar support, particularly in finance, human resources and procurement (see Annex B). However, among services identified for scale-up, a clearer division of labour seems to have been established in principle, with UNDP positioned as the lead provider for finance and HR, and UNOPS taking the lead on procurement. However, this structure is not binding, and, in practice, agencies are free to choose the provider that best suits their needs. Such overlaps are not inherently negative, as redundancy can support risk management and competition for greater efficiency and better-quality services. 

Shared services involve significant trade-offs that are not easily captured in cost-saving evidence. UN entities often report efficiency gains from shared services, such as reduced administrative overhead or economies of scale. Expected targets related to entity-specific savings realised through GSS were almost realised in 2024, with a USD 121 million saved out of the expected USD 126 million.³⁰ However, these figures rarely reflect the underlying loss of institutional knowledge, reduced strategic capacity and control, the persistence of parallel systems and the risk of inadequate quality that can offset expected savings.

A related observation concerns the apparent evaluation gap regarding the "efficiency agenda" component of the 2017 United Nations Development System (UNDS) reforms. In 2024, SWEO undertook an analysis of evaluation coverage across key themes identified in the 2020 Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR).³¹ The findings revealed that the inter-agency efficiency agenda – particularly in relation to business operations – has received minimal dedicated evaluative attention. Notably, even the annual evaluations of the Resident Coordinator (RC) system conducted by OIOS have explicitly excluded this area from their scope. Furthermore, evaluations focusing on Human Resources (HR) issues appear to be particularly scarce. From a sample of approximately 1 000 strategically significant evaluations published by UN entities between 2021 and 2024, only ten were identified as containing detailed analysis on HR-related matters.

Multilateral organisations continue to grapple with the tension between decentralised decision-making and the centralisation of transactional services. While local authority is valued for its responsiveness and contextual insight, the shift towards shared service centres often undermines trust due to limited transparency and control. Field representatives, for instance, may prefer proximity to processing staff to expedite urgent requests – an option unavailable with remote centres. Building trust in centralised systems requires clear service-level agreements that guarantee timeliness and quality, potentially encouraging field offices to relinquish local resources in favour of shared global services.

MOPAN assessments highlight that the principle of mutual recognition³² has been a key enabler for agencies to benefit from each other’s services and initiatives, boosting efficiency. Organisations have been able to use other entities’ policies, procedures and system contracts to implement their activities. In particular, mutual recognition has helped overcome policy heterogeneity across agencies, which is one of the main barriers to the use of other agencies’ services. However, both MOPAN and external reviews³³ find that implementation of the principle remains uneven across the system and that challenges remain. Annex C provides agency-specific examples.