Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

Part I

Governance

1. Purpose

The Institutional Relationship Management System (IRMS) is the official system through which the Systems Thinking Research and Leadership Development Institute (STRLDi) plans, coordinates, records and stewards its institutional relationships. It serves as the operational foundation of the Institutional Liaison Office by providing a structured and consistent approach to managing engagements across government, business, professional bodies, universities, development partners, communities and regional institutions.

The purpose of the IRMS is to preserve institutional memory, support informed decision-making and ensure continuity in the Institute’s relationships irrespective of changes in personnel, programmes or organisational priorities. By maintaining an accurate and current record of institutional engagements, commitments and collaboration opportunities, the system enables the Institutional Liaison Office to operate as a coordinated whole while supporting the Institute’s broader work in systems thinking and leadership development.

The IRMS is designed to record sufficient institutional information to understand patterns of collaboration, institutional dynamics and relationship development. It is not intended to become an exhaustive repository of information, but rather a practical stewardship tool that supports effective institutional engagement and long-term organisational learning.

2. Scope

This Standard Operating Procedure applies to all institutional engagements undertaken on behalf of STRLDi through the Institutional Liaison Office. It governs the planning, recording, management, review and reporting of relationships with institutions at national, regional and international levels.

The SOP applies to the Office Lead, all Stewardship Offices and the Coordination Office. Every institutional engagement conducted under the authority of STRLDi shall be managed through the IRMS in accordance with this procedure. No parallel institutional records shall be maintained outside the IRMS except where required by law or approved by the Office Lead.

The IRMS shall support institutional engagements throughout their lifecycle, from the initial identification of an institution through to the establishment of long-term strategic partnerships and ongoing stewardship.

3. Guiding Principles

The IRMS is founded upon principles that reflect both good governance and the Institute’s philosophy of systems stewardship.

3.1 Institutional Stewardship

The purpose of the IRMS is to strengthen long-term institutional relationships rather than simply record institutional contacts. Every entry within the system should contribute to building trust, continuity and productive collaboration between STRLDi and the institutions with which it works.

3.2 Accuracy and Integrity

Information recorded within the IRMS shall be factual, current and capable of verification. Officers are responsible for ensuring that records accurately reflect institutional engagements and that updates are made promptly following significant interactions.

3.3 Continuity

Institutional relationships belong to the Institute rather than to individual officers. The IRMS ensures that knowledge accumulated through engagements is preserved, allowing relationships to continue effectively despite changes in personnel or organisational responsibilities.

3.4 Coordination

The IRMS provides a shared institutional picture across the four Stewardship Offices. Information shall therefore be recorded in a manner that enables coordinated planning, avoids duplication of effort and supports collaborative engagement across the Institute.

3.5 Professional Confidentiality

Institutional information shall be treated with appropriate discretion and accessed only by officers whose responsibilities require such access. Confidentiality is essential to maintaining trust between STRLDi and its institutional partners.

4. Ethical Boundaries

The IRMS exists to support the stewardship of institutional relationships. It is not a surveillance system, a political intelligence platform or a mechanism for collecting information beyond the Institute’s legitimate operational requirements.

Information shall be collected solely for purposes directly related to institutional engagement, relationship management, programme coordination and organisational learning. The Institute shall neither collect nor retain information that is unrelated to these purposes, regardless of whether such information is publicly available or easily obtainable.

The IRMS is designed to support STRLDi’s work in understanding dynamic complexity. It therefore records institutional interactions, patterns of collaboration, commitments, decisions and relationship development that help the Institute understand how institutions interact within broader social, economic and governance systems. It does not seek to analyse or profile individuals beyond what is reasonably necessary to facilitate official institutional engagement.

Personal information shall be limited to official contact details and professional roles required for institutional communication. Sensitive personal information, political opinions, private affairs or matters unrelated to institutional responsibilities shall not be recorded unless there is a clear legal or operational obligation to do so.

Every officer entrusted with access to the IRMS has a duty to exercise sound judgement, professional integrity and respect for institutional trust. Information shall be used only to advance the Institute’s mission of strengthening systems thinking, leadership development and institutional collaboration.

Part II

Governance and Responsibilities

5. Governance Structure

The Institutional Relationship Management System (IRMS) is governed through the Institutional Liaison Office. Responsibility for the system is distributed across leadership, stewardship and operational coordination to ensure that institutional relationships are managed consistently, information remains accurate and engagements are coordinated across the Institute.

The governance structure distinguishes between strategic stewardship, portfolio stewardship and operational stewardship. Strategic stewardship provides direction and accountability for the system. Portfolio stewardship ensures that institutional relationships within each area of responsibility are actively maintained. Operational stewardship maintains the quality, continuity and day-to-day functioning of the IRMS.

No single officer is solely responsible for the effectiveness of the IRMS. The system functions through coordinated responsibilities that collectively support the Institute’s institutional engagement strategy.

6. Office Lead

The Office Lead is responsible for the overall governance of the Institutional Liaison Office and serves as the executive steward of the IRMS. The Office Lead ensures that the system remains aligned with the Institute’s mission, strategic priorities and standards of institutional stewardship.

The Office Lead approves institutional engagement priorities, allocates responsibilities across the Stewardship Offices, monitors national institutional coverage and resolves matters requiring cross-portfolio coordination. The Office Lead also reviews institutional reports, identifies emerging strategic opportunities and ensures that institutional engagements contribute to the Institute’s long-term objectives.

While the Office Lead exercises overall governance of the system, responsibility for maintaining institutional records and coordinating engagements is delegated to the Coordination Office in accordance with this SOP.

7. Stewardship Offices

The four Stewardship Offices are responsible for initiating, developing and maintaining relationships within their respective institutional portfolios. Each Office acts as the primary steward of its assigned institutions while collaborating with other Offices whenever institutional responsibilities overlap.

Every Stewardship Office is responsible for ensuring that engagements are planned appropriately, institutional developments are communicated to the Coordination Office and all significant engagements are accurately reflected within the IRMS. Stewardship Offices remain accountable for the quality of their institutional relationships, while the Coordination Office maintains the integrity of the institutional record.

7.1 Government, Media and International Relations

The Government, Media and International Relations Stewardship Office leads relationships with government institutions, Parliament, constitutional bodies, diplomatic missions, international organisations and the media. It ensures that government engagements are coordinated appropriately and that institutional developments within its portfolio are communicated promptly for inclusion within the IRMS.

7.2 Economic Partnerships and Development Cooperation

The Economic Partnerships and Development Cooperation Stewardship Office leads relationships with the private sector, investors, development partners, business associations and productive-sector institutions. It identifies opportunities for collaboration, resource mobilisation and strategic partnerships while ensuring that all engagements are documented within the IRMS.

7.3 Institutional, Professional and Knowledge Partnerships

The Institutional, Professional and Knowledge Partnerships Stewardship Office leads relationships with universities, research institutes, professional bodies, statutory organisations and other knowledge institutions. It is responsible for cultivating long-term institutional collaboration that strengthens research, learning and professional practice within the Institute’s areas of work.

7.4 Community, Political, Traditional Leadership, Knowledge and Regional Partnerships

This Stewardship Office leads relationships with community organisations, traditional leadership, political leadership, regional networks and other societal institutions that contribute to national and regional systems leadership. The Office strengthens relationships that broaden institutional participation and support the long-term expansion of the Institute’s work across Southern Africa.

8. Coordination Office

The Coordination Office provides the operational foundation of the Institutional Liaison Office. It ensures that institutional engagements are properly prepared, accurately documented, systematically recorded and effectively followed through. Working closely with the four Stewardship Offices, it maintains the continuity, consistency and quality of institutional information contained within the IRMS.

The Coordination Office is composed of three complementary functions: Institutional Records Management, Executive Liaison and Documentation, and Institutional Engagement Coordination. Although each function has distinct responsibilities, they operate as an integrated team supporting the Institute’s institutional stewardship.

9. IRMS Custodian

Purpose

The IRMS Custodian is responsible for maintaining the integrity, quality and completeness of the Institutional Relationship Management System. The role safeguards the Institute’s institutional memory by ensuring that information remains accurate, well organised and readily available to authorised users.

Responsibilities

The IRMS Custodian shall:

establish and maintain institutional profiles;
ensure that institutional records are complete, current and accurately classified;
maintain the chronological history of institutional engagements;
manage document control and version integrity within the IRMS;
conduct periodic audits of institutional records;
identify missing or incomplete information and coordinate corrective action;
maintain institutional registers and archives; and
prepare institutional intelligence reports and summary dashboards for the Office Lead.

Authority

The IRMS Custodian may request additional information from any Stewardship Office or member of the Coordination Office where institutional records are incomplete or require clarification. The Custodian may also recommend improvements to record structures, reporting formats and document standards.

The Custodian shall not amend the substantive content of engagement records without consultation with the responsible Stewardship Office.

10. Executive Liaison and Documentation

Purpose

The Executive Liaison and Documentation function ensures that every institutional engagement is properly prepared, documented and incorporated into the Institute’s official records. It provides the documentary foundation upon which institutional continuity depends.

Responsibilities

The Executive Liaison Officer shall:

coordinate official correspondence relating to institutional engagements;
prepare briefing notes, agendas and meeting documentation;
support the preparation of presentations and engagement materials;
record meeting proceedings and agreed actions;
prepare engagement summaries and action registers;
ensure that approved documentation is uploaded into the IRMS;
maintain document version control; and
coordinate the circulation of official records following meetings.

Authority

The Executive Liaison Officer may request information required to complete official documentation and may return incomplete submissions for correction before they are incorporated into the IRMS.

11. Institutional Engagement Coordination

Purpose

The Institutional Engagement Coordination function ensures that institutional relationships remain active between engagements. It maintains the operational rhythm of the Institutional Liaison Office by coordinating appointments, monitoring commitments and supporting timely follow-up.

Responsibilities

The Institutional Engagement Coordinator shall:

coordinate institutional appointments and engagement schedules;
confirm meeting logistics and attendance;
maintain the engagement calendar;
monitor progress against agreed commitments;
issue reminders for outstanding actions;
update institutional relationship status following engagements;
coordinate follow-up activities with the relevant Stewardship Office; and
prepare weekly operational engagement reports.

Authority

The Institutional Engagement Coordinator may communicate directly with institutional representatives on administrative and scheduling matters and may request progress updates from responsible officers regarding outstanding commitments.

Part III

Institutional Relationship Management

12. Institutional Relationship Lifecycle

Institutional relationships develop over time. The IRMS provides a structured framework for managing this progression, ensuring that engagements are coordinated, documented and continuously strengthened. Every institution shall be managed through a common relationship lifecycle that enables consistent stewardship across the Institute.

The relationship lifecycle comprises six stages:

Identification – The institution is identified as strategically relevant to the Institute’s work.

Qualification – The institution’s mandate, relevance, leadership and potential contribution are assessed to determine whether engagement should proceed.

Engagement – Initial contact is established and the first formal interactions are undertaken.

Relationship – Regular communication and collaboration begin to develop mutual understanding and confidence.

Partnership – The relationship progresses into structured collaboration through agreed programmes, joint initiatives or formal arrangements.

Stewardship – The relationship becomes an ongoing institutional partnership requiring continuous engagement, review and renewal.

Progression through these stages shall be determined by the quality of the relationship rather than the passage of time. Institutions may remain within a particular stage until the objectives of that stage have been achieved.

13. Institutional Profiles

An Institutional Profile is the primary record maintained within the IRMS. It provides a consolidated view of each institution and serves as the reference point for all subsequent engagements.

Each profile shall contain sufficient information to support informed institutional engagement while remaining focused on the Institute’s operational needs.

An Institutional Profile shall include:

official name of the institution;
institutional category and sector;
national or regional jurisdiction;
mandate and core functions;
strategic relevance to STRLDi;
principal office bearers and authorised institutional contacts;
assigned Stewardship Office;
relationship status;
engagement history; and
references to associated documents and commitments.

Institutional Profiles shall be reviewed periodically to ensure that leadership information, institutional mandates and relationship status remain current.

14. Institutional Engagement Records

Every formal engagement undertaken on behalf of STRLDi shall be recorded within the IRMS. The engagement record provides a factual account of the interaction and establishes continuity for future engagements.

Each engagement record shall include:

date and location of the engagement;
participating institutions and representatives;
purpose of the engagement;
summary of matters discussed;
decisions reached;
commitments made;
agreed actions;
responsible officers; and
proposed follow-up activities.

Engagement records shall be prepared promptly following each engagement and incorporated into the institutional record after review.

15. Institutional Documents

The IRMS serves as the official repository for documents supporting institutional relationships. Documents shall be organised in a manner that enables authorised users to locate relevant information efficiently while preserving an accurate historical record of institutional engagement.

Documents maintained within the IRMS may include:

official correspondence;
briefing notes;
meeting agendas;
presentations;
minutes of meetings;
reports;
memoranda of understanding;
partnership agreements; and
other documents directly supporting institutional engagements.

Only approved versions of official documents shall be retained within the IRMS. Draft documents may be maintained during active preparation but shall be archived or removed following final approval.

16. Commitments and Action Management

Institutional relationships are strengthened through the consistent fulfilment of commitments. The IRMS shall therefore maintain a structured record of commitments arising from meetings, correspondence and collaborative activities.

Each commitment shall identify:

the agreed action;
the responsible officer;
the responsible institution, where applicable;
the expected completion date;
progress status; and
the date of completion.

Outstanding commitments shall be reviewed regularly by the Institutional Engagement Coordinator and reported to the relevant Stewardship Office. Where delays occur, corrective action shall be agreed and recorded.

17. Institutional Intelligence

The IRMS supports institutional learning by recording observations that assist the Institute in understanding institutional relationships and the broader systems within which they operate. Institutional intelligence should improve the quality of engagement, strengthen collaboration and inform strategic planning.

Institutional intelligence may include observations relating to organisational priorities, emerging opportunities for collaboration, changes in institutional leadership, significant policy developments and patterns of institutional interaction that are relevant to the Institute’s work.

Institutional intelligence shall remain objective, evidence-based and directly relevant to institutional engagement. Personal opinions, speculative commentary and information unrelated to the Institute’s legitimate mandate shall not be recorded.

18. Relationship Maturity

The strength of an institutional relationship is determined by the depth of trust, collaboration and continuity that has developed between STRLDi and the institution. The IRMS shall therefore record the maturity of institutional relationships to assist the Office in prioritising future engagement.

Relationship maturity shall be assessed against the following levels:

Emerging – Initial contact has been established.

Developing – Regular engagement has commenced and mutual understanding is increasing.

Established – Collaboration has become consistent and reliable.

Strategic – The institution is an active long-term partner supporting the Institute’s programmes and strategic objectives.

Relationship maturity shall be reviewed periodically and updated where evidence demonstrates that the relationship has progressed or requires renewed attention.

19. Institutional Registers

The IRMS shall maintain a series of registers that provide a consolidated view of institutional activity across the Institute. These registers support coordination, reporting and strategic planning without duplicating information contained within individual institutional profiles.

The core registers shall include:

Institutional Register;
Engagement Register;
Commitments Register;
Partnership Register;
Document Register; and
Follow-up Register.

The IRMS Custodian shall ensure that these registers remain complete, current and consistent with the underlying institutional records.

Part IV

Standard Operating Procedures

20. Procedure for Creating an Institutional Record

Purpose

To establish a complete and consistent institutional record before formal engagement commences.

Responsibility

Lead Stewardship Office

Supported by:

IRMS Custodian
Executive Liaison and Documentation

Procedure

An institutional record shall be created whenever STRLDi identifies an organisation that is strategically relevant to its work.

The responsible Stewardship Office shall confirm the institution’s relevance and provide the initial institutional information to the IRMS Custodian.

The IRMS Custodian shall establish the Institutional Profile, allocate a unique institutional reference number, assign the responsible Stewardship Office and record the institution’s relationship status as Identification.

Where additional information is required, the Custodian shall consult the responsible Stewardship Office before activating the institutional record.

Outcome

A verified Institutional Profile is established within the IRMS and becomes the official record for all future engagements.

21. Procedure for Planning Institutional Engagements

Purpose

To ensure that every institutional engagement is properly prepared and aligned with the Institute’s objectives.

Responsibility

Lead Stewardship Office

Supported by:

Executive Liaison and Documentation
Institutional Engagement Coordination

Procedure

The responsible Stewardship Office shall define the purpose of the proposed engagement and identify the desired outcomes.

Executive Liaison shall prepare the engagement brief, agenda and supporting documentation.

Institutional Engagement Coordination shall liaise with the institution regarding scheduling, venue, logistics and attendance.

The engagement shall only proceed once the briefing documentation has been reviewed by the responsible Stewardship Office.

Outcome

The engagement is fully prepared, documented and scheduled.

22. Procedure for Conducting Institutional Engagements

Purpose

To ensure that institutional engagements are conducted professionally and that discussions are accurately captured.

Responsibility

Lead Stewardship Office

Supported by Executive Liaason and Documentation.

Procedure

The Stewardship Office shall lead the engagement and ensure that discussions remain consistent with the agreed agenda and institutional objectives.

Executive Liaison shall record the principal matters discussed, decisions reached, commitments made and agreed follow-up actions.

Where significant strategic issues emerge during the engagement, these shall be recorded separately for consideration by the Office Lead.

Outcome

A complete and accurate record of the engagement is available for inclusion within the IRMS.

23. Procedure for Recording Engagement Outcomes

Purpose

To preserve an accurate institutional history following every formal engagement.

Responsibility

Executive Liaison and Documentation

Supported by:

IRMS Custodian

Procedure

Following the engagement, Executive Liaison shall prepare the official engagement summary.

The summary shall include the purpose of the meeting, principal discussions, decisions, commitments, actions and proposed follow-up.

The IRMS Custodian shall review the submission for completeness before incorporating it into the Institutional Profile.

The institutional relationship status shall be updated where appropriate.

Outcome

The institutional record accurately reflects the latest engagement.

24. Procedure for Managing Commitments

Purpose

To ensure that commitments made by STRLDi are monitored until completion.

Responsibility

Institutional Engagement Coordinator

Supported by:

Relevant Stewardship Office

Procedure

Every commitment arising from an engagement shall be entered into the Commitments Register.

Each commitment shall identify the responsible officer, completion date and current status.

The Institutional Engagement Coordinator shall review outstanding commitments weekly and remind responsible officers of approaching deadlines.

Completed commitments shall be verified before being marked as closed.

Outcome

Institutional commitments are fulfilled consistently and transparently.

25. Procedure for Maintaining Institutional Relationships

Purpose

To sustain institutional relationships beyond individual meetings.

Responsibility

Relevant Stewardship Office

Supported by the Coordination Office.

Procedure

The responsible Stewardship Office shall maintain regular communication with institutions within its portfolio and identify appropriate opportunities for continued engagement.

The Coordination Office shall ensure that significant interactions, correspondence and developments are recorded within the IRMS.

Relationship maturity shall be reviewed periodically to determine whether additional engagement or strategic intervention is required.

Outcome

Institutional relationships remain active, progressive and aligned with the Institute’s long-term objectives.

26. Procedure for Managing Institutional Documents

Purpose

To maintain a complete and reliable documentary record supporting institutional relationships.

Responsibility

IRMS Custodian

Supported by Executive Liaison.

Procedure

All approved correspondence, reports, presentations, agreements and meeting documentation shall be filed within the appropriate Institutional Profile.

Documents shall be classified according to the Institute’s document management standards and linked to the relevant engagement where applicable.

Superseded versions shall be archived to preserve the historical record.

Outcome

Institutional documentation remains organised, accessible and complete.

27. Procedure for Reviewing Institutional Relationships

Purpose

To ensure that institutional relationships continue to support the Institute’s strategic objectives.

Responsibility

Office Lead

Supported by:

All Stewardship Offices

Procedure

Institutional relationships shall be reviewed periodically to assess relationship maturity, strategic relevance, engagement frequency and outstanding opportunities.

The review shall identify institutions requiring increased engagement, renewed attention or revised stewardship priorities.

Recommendations arising from the review shall inform future engagement planning.

Outcome

Institutional engagement remains proactive, balanced and strategically aligned.

28. Procedure for Archiving Institutional Records

Purpose

To preserve institutional history while maintaining an efficient and current IRMS.

Responsibility

IRMS Custodian

Procedure

Institutional records shall only be archived where relationships have concluded, institutions have ceased to exist or records have become inactive for an extended period.

Archiving shall preserve the complete institutional history, including engagement records, documents and commitments.

Archived records shall remain retrievable for organisational learning and historical reference.

Outcome

Institutional memory is preserved without compromising the effectiveness of the active IRMS.

Excellent. The final part should answer one question:

“How does the IRMS strengthen the Institutional Liaison Office over time?”

It moves from managing engagements to managing organisational performance.

Part V

Reporting, Performance Management and Continuous Improvement

29. Reporting Framework

Purpose

The reporting framework enables the Institutional Liaason Office to monitor institutional coverage, relationship development, engagement activity and organisational performance. Reports produced from the IRMS shall support planning, coordination and informed decision-making at operational, managerial and strategic levels.

Reporting shall be timely, objective and focused on supporting institutional stewardship rather than measuring activity alone.

30. Operational Reporting

Operational reporting provides the Coordination Office and Stewardship Offices with a current picture of institutional engagement activities.

Weekly Operational Report

The Institutional Engagement Coordinator shall prepare a weekly report summarising:

engagements completed;
engagements scheduled;
outstanding commitments;
overdue actions;
institutions requiring follow-up; and
significant operational issues requiring attention.

The report shall be circulated to the Office Lead and the relevant Stewardship Offices.

Monthly Institutional Report

The IRMS Custodian shall prepare a monthly report summarising:

new institutional relationships established;
institutional engagements undertaken;
relationship maturity movements;
partnership opportunities identified;
institutional records requiring review; and
overall institutional coverage.

31. Strategic Review

Institutional relationships shall be reviewed on a quarterly basis to determine whether the Institutional Liaison Office is progressing towards its strategic objectives.

The review shall consider:

balance of institutional coverage;
progression of institutional relationships;
development of strategic partnerships;
emerging opportunities;
institutional risks; and
priorities for the following quarter.

The review is intended to guide future engagement rather than evaluate individual performance.

32. National Institutional Coverage Review

The Institutional Liaison Office shall periodically assess the extent to which the Institute has established meaningful relationships across the national institutional landscape.

The review shall identify:

sectors that have been adequately engaged;
sectors requiring further attention;
institutions of strategic importance not yet engaged;
duplication of engagement effort; and
opportunities for cross-sector collaboration.

The findings shall inform the refinement of the National Institutional Liaison and Coverage Roadmap.

33. Institutional Performance Indicators

The effectiveness of the IRMS shall be assessed using indicators that reflect the quality of institutional stewardship rather than the volume of activity.

Performance indicators may include:

completeness of institutional records;
timeliness of record updates;
completion of agreed follow-up actions;
progression of relationship maturity;
breadth of national institutional coverage;
continuity of institutional engagement; and
development of strategic partnerships.

The Office shall avoid using numerical activity measures in isolation. The quality and continuity of institutional relationships remain the primary measures of success.

34. Continuous Improvement

The IRMS shall be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to support the Institute’s work effectively.

Continuous improvement shall be informed by:

experience gained through institutional engagements;
feedback from users;
changes in organisational priorities;
improvements in institutional stewardship practices; and
lessons emerging from national and regional implementation.

Recommendations for improvement shall be submitted to the Office Lead for consideration and, where approved, incorporated into subsequent revisions of the SOP.

35. Review of the SOP

This Standard Operating Procedure shall be reviewed at least annually or whenever significant changes occur within the Institutional Liaison Office, the governance of the Institute or the operation of the IRMS.

Amendments shall be approved by the Office Lead following consultation with the Stewardship Offices and the Coordination Office.

Superseded versions of the SOP shall be retained as part of the Institute’s governance record.

Appendices

Appendix A – Institutional Profile Template

Standard template for recording institutional information.

Appendix B – Institutional Engagement Brief

Template for preparing meetings and institutional engagements.

Appendix C – Institutional Engagement Record

Standard format for documenting meetings, decisions and commitments.

Appendix D – Commitments Register

Template for recording and monitoring agreed actions.

Appendix E – Institutional Register

Master register of all institutions within the IRMS.

Appendix F – Relationship Maturity Guide

Guidance for assessing the progression of institutional relationships from initial engagement to long-term stewardship.

Appendix G – Reporting Templates

Standard formats for weekly, monthly and quarterly reports.

Appendix H – Roles and Responsibilities Matrix

Summary of responsibilities for:

Office Lead
Government, Media & International Relations Steward
Economic Partnerships & Development Cooperation Steward
Institutional, Professional & Knowledge Partnerships Steward
Community, Political, Traditional Leadership, Knowledge & Regional Partnerships Steward
IRMS Custodian
Executive Liaison and Documentation
Institutional Engagement Coordinator

Closing Statement

The Institutional Relationship Management System is the operational foundation of the Institutional Liaison Office. It enables STRLDi to steward institutional relationships with consistency, integrity and continuity while preserving the organisational knowledge necessary to support long-term systems leadership.

The value of the IRMS lies not in the volume of information it contains, but in the quality of institutional understanding it provides. By maintaining accurate records, coordinated engagement processes and disciplined stewardship practices, the system enables the Institute to build enduring relationships that strengthen collaboration across government, business, academia, communities and regional partners.

As the Institute expands beyond Botswana, the IRMS provides a common governance framework through which Institutional Liaison Offices in different countries can operate consistently while responding to their respective national contexts. In doing so, it supports the Institute’s broader mission of strengthening leadership, institutional capability and systems stewardship across Southern Africa.

Appendix A

Institutional Profile Template

The Institutional Profile is the primary record maintained within the Institutional Relationship Management System (IRMS). It provides a consolidated view of an institution, its relationship with STRLDi and the history of institutional engagements. The profile serves as the authoritative reference for all Stewardship Offices and the Coordination Office and shall be maintained throughout the life of the relationship.

Section A

Institutional Identification

Item	Details
Institution Reference Number
Institution Name
Institution Acronym
Institution Type	Government / Private Sector / Development Partner / University / Professional Body / Community Organisation / Traditional Authority / Regional Institution / Other
Sector
Country
Province/State/Region
Physical Address
Postal Address
Website
General Contact Information

Section B

Institutional Overview

Mandate

Brief description of the institution’s statutory or organisational mandate.

Core Functions

Summary of the institution’s principal responsibilities.

Strategic Relevance to STRLDi

Describe why the institution is strategically important to the Institute and how it contributes to STRLDi’s work.

Section C

Institutional Leadership

Position	Name	Contact Details
Minister / Chairperson / President
Permanent Secretary / Chief Executive Officer
Deputy
Principal Contact
Other Key Contacts

Only official institutional contacts required for legitimate engagement shall be recorded.

Section D

Stewardship Assignment

Item	Details
Lead Stewardship Office
Supporting Stewardship Offices
Assigned Steward
Assigned Coordinator
Date Assigned

Section E

Relationship Status

Item	Details
Current Lifecycle Stage	Identification / Qualification / Engagement / Relationship / Partnership / Stewardship
Relationship Maturity	Emerging / Developing / Established / Strategic
Date Relationship Initiated
Last Engagement
Next Planned Engagement

Section F

Institutional Engagement Summary

Provide a concise narrative describing the current relationship between STRLDi and the institution.

Include:

major engagements;
principal areas of collaboration;
current priorities;
significant commitments; and
immediate next steps.

Section G

Strategic Opportunities

Record opportunities that may strengthen collaboration.

Examples include:

leadership development
systems thinking programmes
policy dialogue
research collaboration
training
institutional partnerships
regional cooperation

Each opportunity should briefly describe its strategic value to the Institute.

Section H

Institutional Considerations

Record institutional factors that should be considered when planning engagements.

Examples include:

institutional priorities;
governance structures;
decision-making processes;
significant organisational developments; and
known coordination requirements.

This section should remain factual and directly relevant to institutional engagement. Personal opinions or speculative observations shall not be recorded.

Section I

Documents

Reference all documents associated with the institution.

Document	Date	Reference
Correspondence
Presentations
Meeting Notes
Reports
Agreements
Other

Section J

Commitments Summary

Date	Commitment	Responsible Officer	Status

This table provides a summary only. Detailed commitment management is maintained in the Commitments Register.

Section K

Relationship History

Maintain a chronological summary of significant institutional engagements.

Date	Engagement	Outcome

The Relationship History provides a high-level narrative of how the relationship has evolved over time. It is intended to enable any authorised officer to understand the context of the relationship quickly before undertaking further engagement.

Section L

Profile Review

Item	Details
Profile Created By
Date Created
Last Updated By
Date of Last Review
Next Scheduled Review

Guidance Notes

The Institutional Profile is a living record. It should evolve as the relationship develops and be reviewed following significant engagements or changes in the institution’s leadership, mandate or strategic relevance.

The profile should contain sufficient information to enable informed institutional stewardship while remaining concise and focused. Information shall be recorded objectively, verified where possible and limited to what is necessary for STRLDi’s legitimate institutional engagement. The Institutional Profile is intended to preserve institutional memory, support continuity across the Stewardship Offices and provide a reliable foundation for the Institute’s work in systems thinking and dynamic complexity.

The next appendix should naturally support Appendix A by providing the standard preparation process for institutional engagements.

Appendix B

Institutional Engagement Brief Template

Purpose

The Institutional Engagement Brief provides the Stewardship Office, the Office Lead and the Coordination Office with a common understanding of the purpose, context and intended outcomes of an institutional engagement. It ensures that engagements are properly prepared, strategically aligned and adequately documented before they take place.

An Engagement Brief shall be prepared for all planned meetings, strategic consultations, presentations, partnership discussions and official institutional visits conducted on behalf of STRLDi.

Section A

Engagement Information

Item	Details
Engagement Reference Number
Date
Time
Venue
Mode	Physical / Virtual / Hybrid
Institution
Stewardship Office
STRLDi Lead Officer
Supporting Officers

Section B

Purpose of the Engagement

Provide a concise statement describing why the engagement is taking place.

The purpose should answer three questions:

Why are we meeting?
Why now?
What strategic value does this engagement create?

Section C

Desired Outcomes

Identify the outcomes expected from the engagement.

Examples include:

Introduction of STRLDi
Presentation of a flagship study
Establishment of a working relationship
Identification of collaboration opportunities
Agreement on next steps
Development of a partnership
Policy dialogue
Invitation to participate in programmes

The desired outcomes should be realistic and measurable.

Section D

Institutional Context

Provide a concise overview of the institution.

Include:

institutional mandate;
current strategic priorities;
previous engagements with STRLDi;
existing collaborations; and
recent developments relevant to the meeting.

The objective is to ensure that all participants understand the institutional environment before the engagement.

Section E

STRLDi Context

Summarise the STRLDi initiatives that are relevant to the engagement.

Examples may include:

Systems Thinking Research
Leadership Development
National Unemployment Study
Institutional Capacity Development
Public Workshops
Strategic Advisory Services
Regional Systems Leadership
Knowledge Partnerships

Only information directly relevant to the meeting should be included.

Section F

Proposed Agenda

Item	Time
Welcome and Introductions
Purpose of the Meeting
Institutional Discussion
STRLDi Presentation
Discussion and Questions
Opportunities for Collaboration
Agreed Next Steps
Closing

The agenda should remain flexible and may be adjusted during the engagement where appropriate.

Section G

Key Discussion Points

Identify the principal issues to be discussed.

Examples include:

institutional priorities;
areas of common interest;
strategic challenges;
collaboration opportunities;
research interests;
leadership development;
implementation arrangements.

Discussion points should support the desired outcomes identified earlier in the brief.

Section H

Questions for the Institution

Identify questions that will improve STRLDi’s understanding of the institution.

Questions should seek insight rather than confirmation.

Examples include:

What are the institution’s current strategic priorities?
Which systemic challenges are receiving greatest attention?
Where does the institution see opportunities for collaboration?
Which capabilities require strengthening?
What future initiatives are being considered?

Section I

Key Messages from STRLDi

Identify the principal messages that should be communicated during the engagement.

Messages should remain concise, consistent and aligned with the Institute’s strategic positioning.

Examples include:

STRLDi’s mission.
STRLDi’s systems thinking methodology.
Current research initiatives.
Leadership development programmes.
Partnership philosophy.
Long-term institutional commitment.

Section J

Risks and Considerations

Identify any issues that should be considered before or during the engagement.

Examples include:

protocol requirements;
confidentiality considerations;
political sensitivity;
institutional restructuring;
leadership transitions;
scheduling constraints.

Only factual observations relevant to the engagement should be recorded.

Section K

Supporting Documents

List documents accompanying the engagement.

Document	Attached
Institutional Profile	□
Previous Meeting Notes	□
Presentation	□
Flagship Study	□
Proposal	□
Briefing Note	□
Other	□

Section L

Proposed Follow-up

Identify the actions anticipated following the engagement.

Examples include:

submission of additional information;
preparation of a proposal;
technical meeting;
follow-up presentation;
establishment of a working group;
partnership discussions;
future visit.

Section M

Approval

Item	Details
Prepared By
Reviewed By
Approved By
Date Approved

Guidance Notes

The Engagement Brief is a planning instrument, not a meeting record. It should provide sufficient context for any authorised STRLDi representative to participate confidently in the engagement, while remaining concise and focused on the intended objectives.

Preparation of the brief should draw upon the Institutional Profile, previous engagement records and the strategic priorities of both STRLDi and the institution. Following the engagement, the brief should be read alongside the Institutional Engagement Record (Appendix C), thereby creating a complete account of what was planned, what occurred and what actions are required thereafter. Together, these documents strengthen institutional continuity, support informed stewardship and ensure that organisational knowledge is preserved regardless of changes in personnel or leadership.

The next appendix should complete the engagement cycle by documenting what actually occurred. While the Engagement Brief looks forward, the Institutional Engagement Record looks back. Together they provide the planning and institutional memory that underpin the IRMS.

Appendix C

Institutional Engagement Record Template

Purpose

The Institutional Engagement Record is the official record of every formal institutional engagement undertaken by STRLDi. It captures the purpose of the engagement, the matters discussed, decisions reached, commitments made and agreed follow-up actions. It provides continuity for future engagements and contributes to the Institute’s institutional memory.

An Engagement Record shall be completed promptly following every official meeting, consultation, presentation, workshop, courtesy visit or partnership discussion conducted on behalf of STRLDi.

Section A

Engagement Information

Item	Details
Engagement Reference Number
Institutional Profile Reference
Date
Time
Venue
Mode	Physical / Virtual / Hybrid
Institution
Stewardship Office
STRLDi Lead Officer
Record Prepared By

Section B

Participants

STRLDi Representatives

Name	Position	Role During Engagement

Institutional Representatives

Name	Position	Responsibility

Only participants directly involved in the engagement shall be recorded.

Section C

Purpose of the Engagement

Provide a concise summary of the intended purpose of the meeting.

Where an Engagement Brief was prepared, this section should correspond with the stated objectives while noting any changes that occurred during the engagement.

Section D

Summary of Discussions

Provide an objective summary of the principal matters discussed.

The summary should describe:

the issues raised;
information shared;
questions considered;
responses provided;
areas of agreement;
matters requiring further consideration.

The discussion should be recorded factually without interpretation or commentary.

Section E

Key Observations

Record significant observations arising from the engagement that are relevant to future institutional stewardship.

Examples may include:

institutional priorities;
organisational developments;
emerging collaboration opportunities;
changes in leadership;
policy directions;
implementation considerations.

Observations should remain evidence-based and directly related to institutional engagement.

Section F

Decisions Reached

Record decisions formally agreed during the engagement.

No.	Decision
1
2
3

Only confirmed decisions should be recorded.

Section G

Commitments Made

Record commitments made by STRLDi, the institution or jointly.

No.	Commitment	Responsible Party	Target Date
1
2
3

Commitments recorded here shall be transferred to the Commitments Register.

Section H

Opportunities Identified

Describe opportunities arising from the engagement that may strengthen collaboration.

Examples include:

research partnerships;
leadership development programmes;
policy dialogue;
technical cooperation;
institutional capacity development;
regional collaboration;
joint publications;
future strategic engagements.

Each opportunity should include a brief description of its strategic significance.

Section I

Risks or Constraints Identified

Record factors that may influence future engagement.

Examples include:

organisational restructuring;
policy uncertainty;
resource limitations;
legislative changes;
competing institutional priorities;
implementation constraints.

This section should record institutional realities rather than speculative assessments.

Section J

Agreed Follow-up Actions

No.	Action	Responsible Officer	Due Date
1
2
3

All follow-up actions shall be monitored through the Commitments Register.

Section K

Relationship Assessment

Following the engagement, the responsible Stewardship Office shall assess the current status of the institutional relationship.

Item	Assessment
Current Lifecycle Stage
Relationship Maturity
Overall Engagement Outcome
Recommended Next Engagement
Recommended Timeframe

The assessment should be supported by evidence arising from the engagement.

Section L

Documents Generated

List documents resulting from the engagement.

Document	Reference
Minutes
Presentation
Proposal
Correspondence
Reports
Other

These documents shall be linked to the Institutional Profile within the IRMS.

Section M

Record Approval

Item	Details
Prepared By
Reviewed By
Approved By
Date Approved

The approved Engagement Record becomes part of the official Institutional Profile and shall not be amended except through approved record management procedures.

Guidance Notes

The Institutional Engagement Record is intended to preserve an accurate and objective account of institutional engagements. It is not a verbatim transcript of proceedings, nor is it a personal account of events. Its purpose is to capture the information necessary to ensure continuity of engagement, support informed decision-making and strengthen institutional stewardship over time.

Every record should be written with sufficient clarity that another authorised officer can understand the context, substance and outcomes of the engagement without having been present. This continuity is essential to maintaining enduring institutional relationships that transcend changes in personnel, leadership or organisational structures.

Information recorded should remain factual, concise and directly relevant to the Institute’s legitimate institutional purposes. Personal opinions, unverified assumptions or information unrelated to institutional engagement shall not be included. By maintaining disciplined and consistent records, the Institutional Engagement Record contributes to the integrity of the IRMS and supports STRLDi’s mission of advancing systems leadership through sustained institutional collaboration.

The logical next appendix is the Commitments Register. Unlike the Engagement Record, which captures everything that happened during a meeting, the Commitments Register becomes the Institute’s operational management tool. It ensures that commitments are not forgotten and that every agreed action is carried through to completion.

Appendix D

Commitments Register Template

Purpose

The Commitments Register is the official record of commitments arising from institutional engagements conducted by STRLDi. It enables the Institutional Liaison Office to monitor agreed actions, coordinate follow-up activities and ensure that commitments made by the Institute and its institutional partners are fulfilled in a timely and accountable manner.

The Register supports institutional continuity by providing a single, consolidated record of all active and completed commitments. It serves as the operational bridge between institutional engagements and sustained institutional relationships.

Register Information

Item	Details
Register Name	Commitments Register
Responsible Office	Institutional Liaison Office
Register Custodian	IRMS Custodian
Operational Coordinator	Institutional Engagement Coordinator
Review Frequency	Weekly
Strategic Review	Quarterly

Commitments Register

Ref. No.	Institution	Engagement Ref.	Commitment	Responsible Officer	Supporting Officer(s)	Due Date	Status	Date Completed	Remarks

Status Definitions

The following status classifications shall be applied consistently throughout the Register.

Status	Definition
Planned	Commitment has been agreed but implementation has not yet commenced.
In Progress	Work towards fulfilling the commitment is underway.
Awaiting Response	Progress depends upon a response or action from the external institution.
Deferred	Implementation has been postponed for legitimate operational reasons.
Completed	Commitment has been fulfilled and verified.
Closed	No further action is required.
Cancelled	Commitment has been formally withdrawn or superseded.

Status definitions shall be applied consistently to enable accurate operational reporting.

Priority Classification

Commitments may also be assigned a priority level to support operational planning.

Priority	Description
Critical	Immediate attention required due to strategic importance or agreed deadlines.
High	Important commitment requiring timely completion.
Medium	Significant commitment with moderate urgency.
Routine	Standard follow-up activity with no immediate urgency.

Priority classifications assist in planning but do not replace agreed completion dates.

Weekly Review Summary

During the weekly operational review, the Institutional Engagement Coordinator shall prepare a summary including:

Indicator	Number
New Commitments
Commitments Completed
Commitments Outstanding
Overdue Commitments
High Priority Commitments
Deferred Commitments

The summary provides management with a current overview of operational performance and areas requiring attention.

Escalation Register

Commitments that exceed agreed completion dates or require executive intervention shall be recorded separately.

Ref. No.	Institution	Issue	Escalated To	Date	Resolution

Escalation should be used only where routine coordination has been unable to resolve the matter.

Performance Indicators

The effectiveness of commitment management shall be assessed using indicators such as:

percentage of commitments completed within agreed timeframes;
average completion period;
number of overdue commitments;
number of commitments requiring escalation;
number of commitments awaiting external responses; and
percentage of completed commitments verified by the responsible Stewardship Office.

These indicators are intended to improve organisational performance rather than evaluate individual staff members.

Governance Notes

Every commitment recorded within the Register shall be traceable to an approved Institutional Engagement Record. Commitments shall not be entered on the basis of informal conversations, assumptions or undocumented agreements.

Where a commitment is amended, deferred or cancelled, the reason for the change shall be recorded to preserve the integrity of the institutional record. Completed commitments shall remain within the Register as part of the Institute’s organisational memory and shall not be deleted.

The Commitments Register is a shared governance instrument. While the Institutional Engagement Coordinator is responsible for monitoring progress, ownership of each commitment rests with the responsible Stewardship Office or designated officer. The IRMS Custodian shall ensure that the Register remains accurate, complete and consistent with the official institutional records.

Excellent. We now move from managing commitments to managing the entire institutional landscape. The Institutional Register is the master index of every institution under the stewardship of STRLDi. Unlike the Institutional Profile, which contains detailed information about one institution, the Institutional Register provides leadership with a consolidated view of institutional coverage across Botswana and, in future, across Southern Africa.

Appendix E

Institutional Register

Purpose

The Institutional Register is the master register of all institutions managed through the Institutional Relationship Management System (IRMS). It provides a consolidated overview of the Institute’s institutional landscape, enabling the Institutional Liaison Office to coordinate engagement, monitor national coverage and identify opportunities for strengthening strategic relationships.

The Register serves as the principal institutional index for the Institute. Every Institution Profile maintained within the IRMS shall have a corresponding entry in the Institutional Register.

Governance

The Institutional Register shall be maintained by the IRMS Custodian on behalf of the Institutional Liaison Office.

The Register shall be reviewed regularly to ensure that:

institutional information remains current;
stewardship assignments remain appropriate;
relationship classifications accurately reflect current engagement;
institutional coverage remains aligned with the National Institutional Liaison and Coverage Roadmap; and
duplicate or obsolete records are eliminated.

The Register shall remain the authoritative source for determining whether an institution has already been engaged by the Institute.

Institutional Register

Ref. No.	Institution	Sector	Country	Lead Stewardship Office	Assigned Steward	Lifecycle Stage	Relationship Maturity	Last Engagement	Next Planned Engagement	Status

Institutional Classification

Each institution shall be assigned to one primary institutional sector.

The following classifications provide consistency throughout the IRMS.

Classification	Description
Executive Government	Presidency, Ministries, Executive Agencies
Parliament	Parliament and Parliamentary Committees
Judiciary	Courts and Judicial Institutions
Independent Constitutional Institutions	Ombudsman, Auditor General, Electoral Bodies and similar institutions
Local Government	District Councils, City Councils, Municipal Authorities
State-Owned Enterprises	Public Enterprises and Statutory Corporations
Development Finance Institutions	National and Regional Development Banks
Private Sector	Companies, Industry Associations and Chambers of Commerce
Professional Bodies	Professional Councils and Associations
Academic Institutions	Universities, Colleges and Research Institutes
Civil Society Organisations	NGOs, Foundations and Community Organisations
Traditional Leadership	Dikgosi, Traditional Councils and Customary Institutions
Political Leadership	Political Parties and Parliamentary Caucuses
Faith-Based Organisations	Religious Institutions and Interfaith Bodies
Media Organisations	Public and Private Media Institutions
Regional Organisations	SADC Institutions and Regional Bodies
Continental Organisations	African Union Institutions and Pan-African Organisations
International Organisations	United Nations Agencies, Multilateral Institutions and International Development Partners
Other	Institutions not falling within the above classifications

Each institution shall have one primary classification, although secondary classifications may be recorded within the Institutional Profile where appropriate.

Relationship Status

The Register shall record the current relationship stage for every institution.

Stage	Description
Identification	Institution identified for possible engagement.
Qualification	Institutional relevance under assessment.
Engagement	Initial formal engagement underway.
Relationship	Regular institutional interaction established.
Partnership	Structured collaboration in progress.
Stewardship	Long-term institutional relationship requiring continuous management.

The relationship stage reflects where the institution currently sits within the Institutional Relationship Lifecycle described in Part III of this SOP.

Relationship Maturity

Relationship maturity reflects the quality and resilience of the institutional relationship.

Level	Description
Emerging	Initial institutional familiarity has been established.
Developing	Communication has become regular and trust is increasing.
Established	Collaboration is consistent and mutually beneficial.
Strategic	The institution is regarded as a long-term strategic partner supporting the Institute’s mission and programmes.

Relationship maturity is determined by the quality of engagement rather than the number of meetings held.

National Coverage Summary

The Institutional Register shall enable the Institutional Liaison Office to monitor the breadth and balance of institutional engagement.

Periodic reviews should summarise institutional coverage by:

sector;
Stewardship Office;
geographic location;
relationship lifecycle stage;
relationship maturity;
level of government;
national, regional or international scope; and
strategic priority.

These summaries assist the Office Lead in identifying areas requiring additional engagement or strengthened stewardship.

Strategic Priority Classification

Institutions may also be assigned a strategic priority to support engagement planning.

Priority	Description
National Anchor Institution	Institutions central to Botswana’s long-term transformation and systems leadership.
Strategic Partner	Institutions with substantial potential for sustained collaboration.
Programme Partner	Institutions directly supporting specific STRLDi programmes or projects.
Emerging Partner	Institutions with promising opportunities for future collaboration.
Relationship Under Development	Institutions where engagement has commenced but long-term direction remains under consideration.

Strategic priority should be reviewed periodically as institutional relationships evolve.

Register Review Cycle

The Institutional Register shall be reviewed according to the following governance rhythm.

Activity	Frequency	Responsible Officer
Verification of New Entries	As Required	IRMS Custodian
Operational Review	Monthly	Institutional Engagement Coordinator
Stewardship Review	Quarterly	Stewardship Offices
National Coverage Review	Bi-annually	Office Lead
Strategic Review	Annually	Institutional Liaison Office

The review cycle ensures that the Register remains an accurate representation of the Institute’s institutional landscape.

Guidance Notes

The Institutional Register is not merely an administrative list of organisations. It is a strategic governance instrument that enables the Institute to understand, coordinate and strengthen its relationships across the national institutional system. It provides visibility over institutional coverage, supports coordinated stewardship across the four Stewardship Offices and enables leadership to identify opportunities, gaps and emerging priorities.

As STRLDi expands its work beyond Botswana, the Institutional Register will become the foundation for a federated network of Institutional Liaison Offices. While each country office will maintain its own national register, the common structure established by this appendix will enable regional analysis, cross-country learning and coordinated institutional engagement across Southern Africa. In this way, the Register becomes more than a record of relationships; it becomes an instrument for building an interconnected community of institutions committed to systems leadership, institutional learning and long-term societal transformation.

The next appendix should move beyond recording relationships to evaluating their quality. Up to this point, the IRMS tells us who we engage, what we did, and what we committed to. The next question is:

“How do we know whether an institutional relationship is becoming stronger?”

Rather than relying on subjective judgement, STRLDi should adopt a structured assessment framework that reflects its philosophy of stewardship rather than transactional relationship management.

Appendix F

Institutional Relationship Maturity Assessment Framework

Purpose

The Institutional Relationship Maturity Assessment Framework provides a consistent method for evaluating the development, resilience and strategic value of institutional relationships. It enables the Institutional Liaason Office to assess relationships objectively, identify areas requiring attention and monitor progress over time.

The Framework recognises that institutional relationships evolve through sustained trust, shared understanding and collaborative action. Maturity is therefore determined by the quality of the relationship rather than the frequency of meetings or the volume of correspondence.

The Framework supports evidence-based stewardship and contributes to strategic planning across the Institute.

Assessment Principles

Relationship maturity shall be assessed in accordance with the following principles:

Continuity
Relationships are built through sustained engagement over time rather than isolated interactions.

Mutual Value
Relationships should create value for both STRLDi and the institution.

Strategic Alignment
Institutional collaboration should support the missions and long-term priorities of both organisations.

Trust
Confidence, reliability and professional credibility form the foundation of enduring institutional relationships.

Systems Stewardship
Relationships should contribute to strengthening institutions, improving collaboration and advancing systems leadership.

Relationship Maturity Levels

Level 1 – Emerging Relationship

An Emerging Relationship is characterised by initial contact and the establishment of institutional awareness.

Typical characteristics include:

introductory meetings have taken place;
institutional mandates are understood;
communication channels have been established;
opportunities for collaboration have been identified; and
no formal collaborative activity has yet commenced.

Stewardship Objective

Build familiarity and establish confidence.

Level 2 – Developing Relationship

A Developing Relationship demonstrates increasing engagement and growing institutional confidence.

Typical characteristics include:

regular communication;
exchange of information;
participation in discussions;
growing understanding of mutual interests;
initial collaborative activities.

Stewardship Objective

Strengthen trust and identify opportunities for sustained collaboration.

Level 3 – Established Relationship

An Established Relationship demonstrates consistent institutional collaboration supported by mutual confidence and shared objectives.

Typical characteristics include:

recurring engagements;
collaborative initiatives;
regular executive interaction;
shared learning;
coordinated activities; and
reliable communication.

Stewardship Objective

Deepen institutional collaboration and expand strategic value.

Level 4 – Strategic Partnership

A Strategic Partnership represents a mature institutional relationship that contributes significantly to the Institute’s mission and long-term strategic direction.

Typical characteristics include:

sustained executive-level engagement;
formal partnership arrangements where appropriate;
collaborative programmes;
shared strategic initiatives;
trusted advisory relationships;
long-term institutional commitment.

Stewardship Objective

Sustain, strengthen and continuously renew the partnership.

Assessment Dimensions

Each institutional relationship shall be assessed across the following dimensions.

1. Strategic Alignment

Question

To what extent are the objectives of STRLDi and the institution aligned?

Rating	Description
1	Minimal alignment
2	Limited alignment
3	Moderate alignment
4	Strong alignment
5	Highly integrated strategic alignment

2. Executive Engagement

Question

How effectively are senior leaders from both organisations engaging with one another?

Rating	Description
1	No executive engagement
2	Occasional engagement
3	Periodic engagement
4	Regular executive engagement
5	Strong executive relationship

3. Communication

Question

How effective is communication between STRLDi and the institution?

Assessment should consider:

responsiveness;
openness;
consistency;
clarity; and
continuity.

4. Collaboration

Assess the extent to which both organisations work together.

Examples include:

joint programmes;
research;
workshops;
policy dialogue;
advisory work;
knowledge exchange.

5. Trust

Trust should be assessed using evidence such as:

reliability;
fulfilment of commitments;
willingness to share information;
openness during discussions;
confidence in future collaboration.

6. Institutional Learning

Assess whether both organisations are learning through the relationship.

Indicators include:

shared reflection;
knowledge exchange;
joint learning;
improved understanding of systemic issues;
collaborative problem-solving.

7. Long-Term Sustainability

Assess whether the relationship is likely to remain productive despite changes in leadership, programmes or organisational priorities.

Consider:

institutional rather than personal relationships;
diversity of engagement;
documented commitments;
organisational support;
succession readiness.

Assessment Summary

Dimension	Rating (1–5)
Strategic Alignment
Executive Engagement
Communication
Collaboration
Trust
Institutional Learning
Long-Term Sustainability

Overall Assessment

Total Score	Relationship Category
7–13	Emerging
14–21	Developing
22–29	Established
30–35	Strategic

The overall rating provides a structured indication of relationship maturity. It supports professional judgement but does not replace it. Significant contextual factors should be considered alongside the assessment results.

Improvement Planning

Following each assessment, the responsible Stewardship Office should identify practical actions to strengthen the relationship.

The improvement plan should include:

Improvement Area	Proposed Action	Responsible Officer	Target Date

Improvement actions should focus on strengthening institutional capability, collaboration and long-term stewardship rather than increasing the number of engagements.

Assessment Frequency

Institutional relationships shall be assessed according to their level of maturity.

Relationship Level	Assessment Frequency
Emerging	Every six months
Developing	Every six months
Established	Annually
Strategic	Annually, with an executive review where significant changes occur

Additional assessments may be undertaken following major institutional developments, leadership transitions or significant collaborative initiatives.

Guidance Notes

The Institutional Relationship Maturity Assessment Framework is designed to encourage reflective stewardship rather than mechanical scoring. While numerical ratings provide consistency, the primary purpose of the framework is to stimulate informed discussion about the health, direction and potential of institutional relationships.

The Framework reflects STRLDi’s systems thinking philosophy by recognising that enduring partnerships are built through trust, shared purpose, institutional learning and continuity. It therefore encourages Stewardship Offices to look beyond individual engagements and consider the broader dynamics that influence collaboration over time.

As the Institute expands across Southern Africa, the use of a common assessment framework will enable country offices to evaluate institutional relationships consistently while respecting national contexts. This shared approach will strengthen regional learning, improve stewardship practices and contribute to the development of a resilient network of institutional partnerships dedicated to advancing systems leadership and long-term societal transformation.

Excellent. The next appendix should enable the Institutional Liaison Office to convert information into management insight. Everything captured in the IRMS should culminate in structured reporting that supports operational coordination, executive decision-making and strategic planning.

Rather than producing reports for their own sake, the reporting framework should answer three questions:

What have we accomplished?
Where are our relationships strengthening or weakening?
Where should we focus next?

Appendix G

Institutional Engagement Dashboard and Reporting Templates

Purpose

The Institutional Engagement Dashboard provides the Institutional Liaison Office with a structured view of institutional engagement across the Institute. Drawing information directly from the Institutional Relationship Management System (IRMS), it enables leadership to monitor institutional coverage, relationship development, stewardship performance and strategic priorities.

The Dashboard is intended to support evidence-based decision-making rather than administrative reporting. It enables the Office Lead, Stewardship Offices and Coordination Office to identify emerging opportunities, address gaps in institutional engagement and continuously improve the Institute’s stewardship of strategic relationships.

Reporting Architecture

The reporting framework comprises four complementary reporting levels.

Report	Frequency	Primary Purpose
Weekly Operational Dashboard	Weekly	Operational coordination and follow-up
Monthly Institutional Dashboard	Monthly	Portfolio management and institutional coverage
Quarterly Strategic Review	Quarterly	Strategic oversight and stewardship planning
Annual Institutional Stewardship Report	Annually	Institutional learning, performance and strategic direction

Each report builds upon the preceding level, ensuring that operational information contributes progressively to strategic learning and organisational development.

1. Weekly Operational Dashboard

Purpose

The Weekly Operational Dashboard provides the Coordination Office with a current overview of institutional activities and commitments.

Weekly Summary

Indicator	Current Week
Engagements Conducted
Engagements Scheduled
New Institutions Added
Commitments Created
Commitments Completed
Outstanding Commitments
Overdue Commitments

Engagement Schedule

Institution	Stewardship Office	Engagement Date	Status

Operational Issues

Record operational matters requiring attention.

Examples include:

scheduling conflicts;
overdue actions;
documentation outstanding;
pending approvals;
logistical constraints.

Each issue should include the responsible officer and proposed corrective action.

2. Monthly Institutional Dashboard

Purpose

The Monthly Institutional Dashboard provides leadership with an overview of institutional engagement across all Stewardship Offices.

Institutional Coverage

Sector	Institutions Engaged	Strategic Partners
Government
Private Sector
Academia
Development Partners
Professional Bodies
Community Organisations
Traditional Leadership
Regional Organisations

Relationship Lifecycle

Stage	Number of Institutions
Identification
Qualification
Engagement
Relationship
Partnership
Stewardship

Relationship Maturity

Level	Number
Emerging
Developing
Established
Strategic

Stewardship Office Summary

Stewardship Office	Active Institutions	New Engagements	Strategic Partnerships
Government, Media & International Relations
Economic Partnerships & Development Cooperation
Institutional, Professional & Knowledge Partnerships
Community, Political, Traditional Leadership, Knowledge & Regional Partnerships

3. Quarterly Strategic Review

Purpose

The Quarterly Strategic Review enables the Office Lead to evaluate the effectiveness of institutional engagement and determine strategic priorities for the next quarter.

Executive Summary

Provide a concise narrative addressing:

significant institutional developments;
major achievements;
emerging opportunities;
strategic risks;
recommended priorities.

Strategic Opportunities

Opportunity	Institution(s)	Recommended Action

Institutional Risks

Risk	Institution(s)	Mitigation Strategy

National Coverage Assessment

The review should assess:

balance of institutional coverage;
under-represented sectors;
opportunities for cross-sector engagement;
institutional relationships requiring renewed attention;
opportunities for strategic partnerships.

Recommendations

Recommendations should identify practical actions for the following quarter.

Examples include:

initiating engagement with priority institutions;
strengthening existing strategic relationships;
expanding regional collaboration;
developing partnership proposals;
improving institutional stewardship practices.

4. Annual Institutional Stewardship Report

Purpose

The Annual Institutional Stewardship Report provides a comprehensive review of the Institute’s institutional engagement during the reporting year.

The report serves as the principal governance report of the Institutional Liaison Office.

Executive Overview

Summarise the year’s institutional engagement.

Include:

significant achievements;
institutional milestones;
strategic partnerships established;
national coverage;
regional engagement;
major lessons learned.

Institutional Landscape

Summarise institutional engagement by:

sector;
region;
Stewardship Office;
relationship maturity;
partnership status.

Graphs and charts may be incorporated where appropriate to support interpretation.

Strategic Partnerships

Provide a narrative describing significant institutional partnerships developed during the year.

Rather than listing activities, explain how these partnerships contributed to STRLDi’s mission and strengthened institutional capability.

Systems Learning

Reflect on lessons emerging from institutional engagement.

Examples may include:

recurring systemic challenges;
successful stewardship practices;
institutional innovation;
opportunities for improving collaboration;
implications for future strategy.

This section reinforces STRLDi’s commitment to becoming a learning organisation.

Priorities for the Coming Year

Identify strategic priorities for the next reporting period.

These priorities should align with:

the National Institutional Liaison and Coverage Roadmap;
the Strategic National Institutional Engagement Roadmap;
the Institute’s strategic plan.

Dashboard Performance Indicators

The Dashboard should present a balanced view of institutional stewardship through a concise set of governance indicators.

Indicator	Purpose
National Institutional Coverage	Measures breadth of engagement across the institutional landscape.
Relationship Maturity Distribution	Indicates the depth of institutional relationships.
Strategic Partnerships	Monitors the development of enduring collaborative relationships.
Engagement Continuity	Measures consistency of institutional interaction.
Commitment Completion Rate	Assesses organisational reliability in fulfilling agreed actions.
Institutional Learning Initiatives	Tracks knowledge generation and shared learning arising from institutional engagement.
Cross-Sector Collaboration	Monitors collaboration across government, business, academia, civil society and regional institutions.

These indicators should be interpreted collectively. No single measure adequately reflects the quality of institutional stewardship.

Guidance Notes

The Institutional Engagement Dashboard is a governance instrument rather than a performance scorecard. Its purpose is to support thoughtful stewardship by providing leadership with a clear understanding of the Institute’s institutional relationships, patterns of engagement and areas requiring attention.

Reports should emphasise trends, learning and strategic implications rather than simply recording activities. Narrative interpretation should accompany quantitative indicators wherever possible, enabling leadership to understand not only what has occurred but why it matters and how institutional engagement can be strengthened.

As STRLDi develops Institutional Liaison Offices in additional countries, this common reporting architecture will enable comparable reporting across the region while allowing each national office to reflect its own institutional context. Over time, the Dashboard will become a strategic management tool for monitoring the growth of a regional network of institutional partnerships committed to systems thinking, leadership development and societal transformation.

Excellent. The final appendix should bring together the governance of the entire Institutional Liaison Office. Up to this point we have defined the structures, procedures, templates and reporting mechanisms. The final appendix should clarify who is accountable, responsible, consulted and informed for every major IRMS process.

Rather than a simple job description, this appendix should function as the Office’s governance matrix. It establishes clear accountability while reinforcing that stewardship is collaborative rather than hierarchical.

Appendix H

Institutional Liaison Office Roles and Responsibilities Matrix

Purpose

The Roles and Responsibilities Matrix defines the governance responsibilities associated with the Institutional Relationship Management System (IRMS). It clarifies accountability for the principal functions of the Institutional Liaison Office and promotes coordinated stewardship across the Office Lead, Stewardship Offices and Coordination Office.

The Matrix is intended to reduce ambiguity, improve coordination and ensure that institutional engagements are managed consistently throughout the Institute.

For the purposes of this appendix, responsibility is assigned using the following governance classifications:

Classification	Meaning
A – Accountable	Ultimately answerable for the quality and completion of the activity. Only one role should normally be accountable.
R – Responsible	Performs or leads the operational work required to complete the activity. One or more roles may be responsible.
C – Consulted	Provides advice, specialist input or review before decisions are taken or actions completed.
I – Informed	Kept informed of progress or outcomes after decisions or actions have been completed.

Governance Roles

For ease of reference, the following abbreviations are used throughout the Matrix.

Abbreviation	Role
OL	Office Lead
GMI	Government, Media & International Relations Steward
EPD	Economic Partnerships & Development Cooperation Steward
IPK	Institutional, Professional & Knowledge Partnerships Steward
CTR	Community, Political, Traditional Leadership, Knowledge & Regional Partnerships Steward
IC	IRMS Custodian
EL	Executive Liaison and Documentation
EC	Institutional Engagement Coordinator

Governance Matrix

Activity	OL	GMI	EPD	IPK	CTR	IC	EL	EC
Establish Institutional Profile	I	C	C	C	C	A/R	C	I
Assign Stewardship Office	A	C	C	C	C	R	I	I
Maintain Institutional Register	I	I	I	I	I	A/R	C	C
Update Institutional Records	I	R	R	R	R	A	R	C
Prepare Engagement Brief	I	R	R	R	R	C	A/R	C
Schedule Institutional Engagement	I	C	C	C	C	I	C	A/R
Conduct Institutional Engagement	I	R	R	R	R	I	C	C
Record Engagement Outcomes	I	C	C	C	C	R	A/R	I
Update Commitments Register	I	R	R	R	R	C	C	A/R
Monitor Outstanding Commitments	I	C	C	C	C	I	I	A/R
Review Relationship Maturity	A	R	R	R	R	C	I	C
Quarterly Institutional Review	A	R	R	R	R	C	C	C
National Coverage Review	A	C	C	C	C	R	I	C
Dashboard Reporting	I	C	C	C	C	A/R	C	R
Annual Stewardship Report	A	C	C	C	C	R	C	C
Archive Institutional Records	I	I	I	I	I	A/R	C	I

Collaborative Working Principles

The Institutional Liaison Office operates through shared stewardship. Although responsibilities are clearly defined, effective institutional engagement depends upon collaboration across all functions.

The following principles shall guide coordination within the Office.

Strategic Leadership

The Office Lead provides strategic direction, approves institutional priorities and ensures that institutional engagement remains aligned with the Institute’s mission and long-term objectives. Strategic leadership focuses on institutional outcomes rather than operational administration.

Portfolio Stewardship

Each Stewardship Office serves as the principal custodian of relationships within its assigned institutional portfolio. Stewardship includes identifying opportunities for collaboration, maintaining regular engagement, strengthening institutional trust and ensuring that institutional developments are communicated promptly to the Coordination Office.

Institutional Memory

The IRMS Custodian safeguards the quality, integrity and continuity of institutional records. The Custodian ensures that institutional knowledge remains accurate, accessible and preserved for future learning while maintaining the overall coherence of the Institutional Relationship Management System.

Executive Coordination

The Executive Liaison and Documentation function provides the documentary foundation for institutional engagement by preparing correspondence, briefing materials, meeting records and official documentation. Through disciplined documentation practices, the role ensures continuity across engagements and preserves the Institute’s institutional knowledge.

Operational Coordination

The Institutional Engagement Coordinator maintains the operational rhythm of the Institutional Liaison Office by coordinating meetings, monitoring commitments, tracking follow-up activities and supporting effective communication between Stewardship Offices and institutional partners. This role ensures that institutional relationships remain active and that agreed actions progress to completion.

Delegation of Authority

Where responsibilities are delegated, accountability remains with the designated accountable role. Delegation enables operational efficiency but does not transfer governance responsibility.

Temporary delegation may occur during periods of absence or organisational restructuring, provided that the delegation is formally recorded and communicated to the relevant Stewardship Offices and the Coordination Office.

Governance Review

The Roles and Responsibilities Matrix shall be reviewed whenever:

the governance structure of the Institutional Liaison Office changes;
new Stewardship Offices or Coordination functions are established;
significant amendments are made to the IRMS;
the Institute expands into additional countries; or
the Office Lead determines that responsibilities require clarification.

Any amendments shall be approved by the Office Lead and incorporated into the next authorised revision of this Standard Operating Procedure.

Concluding Note

The Institutional Liaison Office is founded on the principle that institutional relationships are strategic assets that require disciplined stewardship. Accordingly, roles within the Office are not defined merely by administrative tasks but by their contribution to building trust, preserving institutional memory and strengthening long-term collaboration.

This Roles and Responsibilities Matrix completes the governance architecture of the Institutional Relationship Management System by translating the Institute’s philosophy of systems stewardship into clear operational accountability. When applied consistently, it enables every member of the Institutional Liaison Office to understand not only what they are expected to do, but also how their work contributes to STRLDi’s broader mission of developing institutional capability, advancing systems thinking and supporting sustainable societal transformation across Botswana and, ultimately, Southern Africa.

Part VI

Governance Charter of the Institutional Liaison Office

36. Purpose of the Charter

This Charter establishes the governance philosophy of the Institutional Liaison Office and affirms its role within the Systems Thinking Research & Leadership Development Institute (STRLDi). While the preceding sections of this Standard Operating Procedure prescribe how the Office operates, this Charter defines the principles by which it shall be governed and the institutional values it shall uphold.

The Charter recognises that institutional relationships are among the Institute’s most valuable strategic assets. They represent more than opportunities for collaboration; they embody the trust, continuity and collective learning through which the Institute advances its mission of strengthening leadership, institutional capability and systems stewardship.

Accordingly, the Institutional Liaison Office exists not merely to coordinate engagements but to cultivate enduring institutional relationships that contribute to national development, regional cooperation and long-term societal transformation.

37. Institutional Stewardship

The Institutional Liaison Office shall exercise stewardship rather than ownership of institutional relationships. Relationships are established between institutions, not individuals, and shall therefore be managed in a manner that ensures continuity beyond changes in personnel, leadership or organisational structures.

Every engagement undertaken on behalf of STRLDi shall seek to strengthen institutional understanding, promote constructive collaboration and contribute to the long-term capability of both the Institute and its institutional partners.

Stewardship requires patience, consistency and professional integrity. The Office shall therefore value enduring relationships over short-term transactions and collaborative learning over institutional competition.

38. Institutional Integrity

The Institutional Liaison Office shall conduct all engagements with honesty, professionalism and respect for institutional independence.

The Office shall neither seek nor accept improper influence, nor shall it use institutional relationships to obtain personal, political or organisational advantage inconsistent with the mission of STRLDi.

Institutional information shall be collected, maintained and used solely for legitimate organisational purposes and in accordance with the ethical principles established within this Standard Operating Procedure.

Trust constitutes the foundation of institutional stewardship and shall therefore be protected through disciplined governance, responsible information management and professional conduct.

39. Learning Organisation

The Institutional Liaison Office forms part of STRLDi’s broader commitment to becoming a learning organisation.

Every institutional engagement shall therefore be regarded as an opportunity to improve organisational understanding, strengthen institutional capability and enhance systems leadership.

Lessons arising from institutional engagements shall inform research, programme development, leadership practice and continuous organisational improvement.

Institutional learning shall be shared across Stewardship Offices in a manner that strengthens collective capability while respecting confidentiality and professional obligations.

40. National Stewardship

The Institutional Liaison Office shall pursue balanced engagement across Botswana’s institutional landscape.

Institutional priorities shall be determined by their contribution to national capability, productive transformation, institutional resilience and societal wellbeing rather than organisational visibility alone.

The Office shall seek constructive engagement across government, business, academia, professional bodies, communities, traditional leadership, civil society, regional institutions and international partners, recognising that sustainable transformation emerges through collaboration across the entire institutional system.

41. Regional Stewardship

As STRLDi expands throughout Southern Africa, each national Institutional Liaison Office shall operate according to a common governance framework while respecting the constitutional, cultural and institutional contexts of the respective country.

National Offices shall contribute to a regional community of institutional stewardship by sharing knowledge, strengthening institutional learning and supporting collaboration across borders.

The common governance architecture established by this Standard Operating Procedure shall enable consistency without imposing uniformity, allowing each country office to respond appropriately to its own institutional environment.

42. Systems Stewardship

The Institutional Liaison Office recognises that institutions do not operate in isolation but form part of interconnected national and regional systems.

Institutional engagement shall therefore seek to understand not only individual organisations but also the relationships, interdependencies and systemic dynamics that influence national development.

The Office shall encourage collaboration across sectors, facilitate dialogue among diverse institutional actors and promote shared understanding of complex societal challenges. In doing so, it supports STRLDi’s mission of advancing systems thinking as both a discipline and a practical approach to leadership.

43. Legacy

The Institutional Liaison Office shall preserve the institutional memory of STRLDi for the benefit of future generations of leaders, practitioners and researchers.

Institutional knowledge accumulated through engagement, collaboration and reflection shall be maintained responsibly so that future members of the Institute may build upon the work of those who came before them.

The Office therefore serves not only the present needs of the Institute but also its long-term institutional continuity, ensuring that relationships, lessons and partnerships are sustained across generations.

Final Declaration

The Institutional Liaison Office is established as the permanent steward of STRLDi’s institutional relationships. Through disciplined governance, professional engagement and principled stewardship, it shall strengthen the Institute’s capacity to learn, collaborate and contribute to the advancement of systems leadership.

Its purpose is not merely to coordinate meetings or maintain records. Its purpose is to cultivate enduring institutional relationships that strengthen the capability of organisations, deepen collaboration across sectors and contribute to the long-term transformation of Botswana, Southern Africa and the wider international community.

By preserving institutional memory, promoting shared learning and fostering relationships founded on trust, the Institutional Liaison Office becomes an essential pillar of STRLDi’s commitment to building institutions capable of understanding and responding to dynamic complexity. It therefore stands not simply as an administrative office, but as a strategic instrument through which the Institute advances its mission of developing leaders, strengthening institutions and enabling societies to navigate complexity with wisdom, resilience and purpose.