Public sector quality management a Common European Journey

Public sector quality management: a Common European Journey The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) Nick Thijs European Institute of Public Administration ( EIPA )

OVERVIEW 1. CAF and organisational improvement 2. Organisational improvement: the nature of the model 3. Organisational improvement: some figures 4. Bench learning and improvement 5. CAF future perspectives

1. CAF and organisational improvement § Quality management means to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the organization (organizational performance) § Quality management = Organizational management § Continuous improvement 3

The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) 4

Continuous Improvement – PDCA cycle (Deming) ACT PLAN CHECK DO 5

Filosofie van de continue verbetering excellence Q PDCA continuous improvement Assurance of the level of quality(quality systeem) e. g. ISO 9000 t 6

2. Organisational improvement: the nature of the model Objectives of the CAF § To introduce public administration to the principles of TQM and progressively guide them, through the use and understanding of self-assessment, from the current “Plan. Do” sequence of activities to a full fledged “PDCA” cycle; § To facilitate the self-assessment of a public organisation in order to obtain a diagnosis and improvement actions; § To act as a bridge across the various models used in quality management; § To facilitate bench learning between public sector organisations. 7

3. Organisational improvement: some figures 898 registred users from 33 countries Belgium (192) Romania (22) Lithuania (4) Italy (141) Estonia (16) Luxembourg (4) Portugal (85) Bosnia-Herzegovina (16) Turkey (4) Denmark (80) Finland (14) EU Institutions (3) Austria (48) Slovakia (12) Bulgaria (2) Germany (45) France (11) Latvia (2) Czech Republic (38) Spain (7) UK (2) Slovenia (37) Cyprus (6) Netherlands (1) Poland (37) Greece (6) Switzerland (1) Hungary (32) Sweden (5) EU Commission (1) Norway (18) Ireland (4) Croatia (1) Others: South Korea, Dominican Republic, China, Namibia 8

9

10

11

Promoting and supporting tools Tool or activity Country Advice (to individual organisations) Austria; Belgium; Estonia; Germany; Italy; Norway Case studies Spain CAF-based projects Denmark Database / good practice Austria; Belgium; Germany; Hungary; Slovenia; Spain E-learning Austria; Germany; Portugal Electronic application tool Sweden Electronic evaluation tool Austria; Germany; Sweden Networks and partnerships Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Germany; Italy; Portugal; Slovak Republic; Spain Pilot projects Czech Republic; Estonia; Hungary; Italy; Norway; Portugal; Slovak Republic; Slovenia Publications (leaflets not included) Belgium; Germany Quality conferences Hungary; Italy; Norway; Slovak Republic Quality awards / contests Austria; Belgium; Estonia; Germany; Italy; Portugal Questionnaires Portugal Special guidelines Hungary; Portugal Special training (developed for the CAF) Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Slovenia; Spain User Conferences Germany; Hungary; Italy Worksheets Austria; Germany; Ireland; Portugal Estonia; Poland; 12

Use of organizational performance information 1. Why do organizations choose the CAF? Top 15 Reasons Mean Type The organization wanted to identify strengths and areas for improvement 4, 20 Int To develop sensitivity to quality issues 3, 63 Intention to involve staff in managing the organization and to motivate them 3, 57 Int As an input into ongoing improvement activities, restructuring etc. 3, 54 Int The organization used the CAF as a first diagnosis in the start of a strategic planning process 3, 53 Int To promote the exchange of views in the organization 3, 51 Int Because the top management wanted it 3, 43 Int To prove that the organization is willing to change 3, 17 Int To promote cultural change in the organization 3, 14 Int To embed a new system of performance management/measurement 3, 09 Int Need for a quick “health check” of the administration 3, 07 Int Increased sensitivity of staff to quality 3, 07 Int Because the CAF was communicated in a convincing way 3, 05 Ext We were looking for a tool to launch benchmarking 3, 03 Int To face a growing need for accountability and strengthen the legitimacy towards all the stakeholders 2, 90 Ext 13

2. Who is using the info ? The final decision to use the CAF was taken by: % The administrative top management 33 The political level at the suggestion of the administrative top management 19 The political level 15 The top management at the suggestion of a quality or improvement team 12 The top management at the suggestion of staff members or their representatives 10 The idea came up and was decided in a staff meeting 9 The quality or improvement team 3 14

3. Benefits of the model Main benefits Mean Identification of the need to share information and improve communication 4, 12 A clear identification of strengths and areas for improvement 3, 97 We were able to identify a number of important actions to be undertaken 3, 92 People developed a better understanding of the organizational issues/problems 3, 89 Self-assessment gave rise to new ideas and a new way of thinking 3, 67 The ability to contribute and to share views was felt positively 3, 65 We realized how previous improvement activities could be taken forward 3, 28 People started to become aware and interested in quality issues 3, 22 We developed an understanding of how different initiatives in place fit together 3, 21 People started to develop a stronger interest in the organization 3, 15 We did not see any benefits at all 1, 25 15

4. Linking the intention to improve with improvement initiatives 87% started improvement initiatives ! 16

5. Nature of improvement activity Improvement activity number Input into the strategic planning process of the organization 51 A full action plan (directly linked to the results of the CAF SA) 38 Implementation of surveys for the staff 32 Improvement of the process 30 Improvement of the quality of the leadership 26 Improvement of knowledge management 25 Implementation of surveys for the customers/citizens (needs and satisfaction) 22 Some individual improvement activities (but no full action plan) 19 Implementation of result measurement (targets) 18 Input into running improvement programme(s) 18 A consolidated report handed to the management (leaving the implementation to the latter) 16 Implementation of HRM tools (please specify) 14 Improvement of technology 14 Better management of buildings and assets 6 Implementation of new financial management tools 6 Other 1 17

6. Reasons no improvement initiative Reasons Mean Lack of time 3, 00 Other priorities 2, 71 No real willingness to change 2, 41 Lack of financial resources 2, 38 Lack of support for giving follow-up 2, 32 The results of the self-assessment were not seen as concrete enough 2, 24 The results of self-assessment were not accepted as an adequate picture of the organization 2, 00 Key players had not been involved in the self-assessment 1, 94 Self-assessment was never meant to lead to improvements (it was just a “health check” of the administration) 1, 94 We did not succeed in identifying relevant areas for improvement 1, 81 The results of self-assessment were not accepted by key persons 1, 81 Other 1, 70 The reason for conducting self-assessment was only to take part in an award contest 1, 44 18

Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (1) § CAF is finding its way in the central levels of government besides its important use in local administrations and is used in different sectors of activity. § CAF suits all sizes of organisations but 50% had between 100 and 1000 employees. § It suits this group of starters with little experience on TQM. § shift from external towards internal reasons for using CAF: identify strengths and areas of improvement, § Choice for CAF instead of other TQM tools: easy to use, low cost and adaptation to the public sector. § Strong involvement of the top management. 19

Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (2) § The importance of communication to create ownership by the employees is underestimated. § Ideal size of SAG: between 5 and 20 persons. § External assistance is needed, especially in the preparation of the exercise. § The best preparation: elaborate guidelines, case studies, training and exchange of experiences. § Ideal timetable: 2 to 5 days within 3 months. § Most important obstacles are linked at the organisational context rather than to the model: lack of measurement, existing workload and limited view on the organisation. 20

Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (3) § Major benefits experienced match with major reasons: identification of - the need to share information and improve communication, - strengths and areas of improvement and - the actions to undertake. § Improvement actions as the result of CAF: 87% (62% in 2003) § Intention of using the CAF again: 95% (82% in 2003) § 68% prepared to include the good practices they discovered into the CAF database of EIPA but benchmarking/learning on the national level is more attractive. 21

4. Bench learning and improvement Interested in taking part 2005 2003 At the national level 36 27 At the European level 9 23 Both 66 91 Not interested 8 14 “the continuous process of comparisons and measurements with other organisations everywhere in the world in order to obtain information about philosophies, strategy, practices and measurements which will help our organisations to undertake actions to improve its performance. ” 22

Supply and Demand / Questions and Answers present in organisation interested in 1. 1. Give a direction to the organisation: develop and communicate vision, mission and values 16 30 1. 2. Develop and implement a system for managing the organisation 21 28 1. 3. Motivate and support the people in the organisation and act as a role model 20 35 2. 2. Develop, review and update strategy and planning 18 22 2. 3. Implement strategy and planning in the whole organisation 17 30 3. 3. Involve employees by developing dialogue and empowerment 21 20 4. 2. Develop and implement partnerships with the citizens/customers 12 18 4. 3. Manage knowledge 6 22 4. 4. Manage finances 14 13 5. 1. Identify, design, manage and improve processes 18 28 5. 3. Plan and manage modernisation and innovation 20 21 6. 1. Results of customer/citizen satisfaction measurements 13 21 7. 1. Results of people satisfaction and motivation measurements 8 23 8. 1. Results of societal performance 6 14 8. 2. Results of environmental performance 4 11 9. 1. Goal achievement 10 23 Subcriteria 23

24

Benchlearning process • Self-assessment is a preliminary step before benchlearning → presentation of CAF applications (method, experiences, results etc. ) • Identification of good practice solutions, areas for improvements • Benchlearning using CAF based on the content of CAF criteria and subcriteria • Process organised by exchange of experiences and site visits 25

Benchlearning process • The most important phase is to integrate good practices and ideas into improvement plans • Further possibilities in the subgroups: e. g. : common surveys, common action plans, if possible • Summing up the results: inside, in the organisation and • Results reported by subgroups to the project coordinator team at the end of the phase 26

Interesting projects § European bench learning project (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria) § Learning Labs (Italy), Learning cycles (Denmark) § Q-cities (www. q-cities. net) § Regional projects (Flemish network local governments) § national conferences § users conferences 27

European bench learning project -> organisations 4 counties: Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria 1. Sharing of info on good practices by site visits § implementation of ISO 9001 § description of processes – process maps § sharing of information and transfer of agendas by IT system 2. working on products § customer satisfaction measurements 28

Flemish network local governments § initiative by public management institute (University of Leuven) § Network 40 local communities and local centers for social welfare § bench learning on quality management § voluntary § informal § no boundaries – no costs 29

Flemish network local governments (2) § Activities § Network meetings (2 a 3 year) Bench learning § Informal contacts between members sharing § Conferences on quality in local government (www. limburg. be/kwaliteitscongres/ also in English) dynamic /sharing § Website (www. qualitynetwork. be) sharing 30

European Actors § Network of CAF Users: European CAF Users Event: 2003 Rome, 2005 Luxemburg, 2007 Lisbon § National CAF correspondents: civil servants and institutions § Network of National CAF Correspondents: meet 2 times a year § CAF Resource Centre at EIPA § Research § Training § Consulting § Database § E-community § National training centres for public administrations § Universities § Private consultants 31

5. CAF Perspectives for the future (1) • Mid Term Programme : 2010 registered CAF users by 2010: • Register actual and future users • New Action plan 2007 - 2008 • Registration of CAF as a Community Trademark (CTM) • CAF Centre at 5 QC (Paris, September 2008) • 3 rd CAF Users Event (Lisbon, 11 -12 October 2007) • Further development CAF e. Community and good practices database (www. eipa. eu/caf) 32

5. CAF Perspectives for the future (2) • CAF newsletter • CAF and other quality instruments (BSC, EFQM) • CAF in different sectors (CAF and Justice, Education, Local administration. . . ) • Learning tools: e. Learning, DVD • Networks in specific countries (e. g. Belgium) 33

Activities CAF RC 2007 Ø CAF and Justice - quality development in the field of justice Luxembourg (LU), 16 -17 April 2007 Ø The CAF and the Balanced Scorecard Maastricht (NL), 13 -15 June 2007 Ø Measuring Customer Satisfaction – The customer in the focus/context of TQM/CAF Maastricht (NL), 18 -19 September 2007 Ø CAF Training Event - The CAF in Action Barcelona (ES), 18 -19 October 2006 Maastricht (NL), 22 -23 November 2007 Ø CAF and Leadership Maastricht (NL), 13 -14 December 2007 34

Contact Nick Thijs Patrick Staes European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) Public Management and Comparative Public Administration Unit O. L. Vrouweplein 22 NL - 6201 BE Maastricht Tel. : +31 43 3296 253 E-mail: n. thijs@eipa-nl. com p. staes@eipa-nl. com http: //www. eipa. nl