Standards of Excellence for Public Sector Training Institutes

Standards of Excellence for Public Sector Training Institutes Presentation by Hanlie van Dyk-Robertson, CEO AMDIN, 5 th Forum on Modernisation of Public Administration and State Institutions, Tangiers, Morocco, 1 July 2009

Structure of presentation

• Introductory remarks • Practice and Theory pointers • Presenting the UNDESA/IASIA standards of excellence • The way forward

Introductory remarks

• Strategically important • As a collective of African MDIs/ENAs we have not adequately engaged with the proposed UNDESA/IASIA Standards of Excellence, nor with the process • By stealth a process is taking shape and becoming the future reality momentum is picking up • Context is all-important • Conceptual distinctions to remember: • • – Universities vs ENA/MDI/PSTI – Education vs professional development – Punishment vs development You get what you measure Whose standards? Whose processes? Overall positive of initiatives to improve standards HOWEVER, be mindful of the double-edged sword

AMDIN’s mandate re quality improvement Conference accepted the notion that success attracts and earns respect and recognition…. within a networked and constructive collective spirit, African MDIs will set out to achieve a multifaceted and durable agenda to raise their own standards and set continent -wide benchmarks to guide a process of continuous improvement. In this respect the All Africa Public Service Charter should provide the backdrop against which the standards discussion would be handled. AMDIN conference communiqué, July 2007

Practice & Theory observations

Drivers of the “Standards of Excellence” agenda • Quality improvement movement: benchmarking; M&E; best practices • MDIs’ desire for improvement and professionalism • Governments’ desire and pressure for improvement and more productive and professional public servants • Limited resources Increasing demand for better return on investment • Competing in a training “market”: greater competition; market share; self-sustainability; more critical “consumers”

Examples of such processes • NASPAA assesses Schools of Administration in America • OIC ranks Universities from the OIC region • Shanghai Jiao Tong Ranking System • The Times Higher Education supplement

Possible scenario’s re public service training in African/ Foreign Domestic Low quality High quality Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 2 Option 1 Option 2 African Centres of Excellence High Quality Across the Board

Hard realities of the (public sector) training industry globally and regionally • • Market at work Expansionist Varied and uneven Competitive/ cut-throat Highly entrepreneurial Largely unregulated Exploitable vehicle for “intellectual” and “values” imperialism

Different modes of evaluation Self evaluation Peer evaluation Formal outsider assessment

Different purposes with Standards of Excellence Aspirational/ Benchmark Learning/ Improvement Judging Accreditation/ Sanction

Other purposes with Standards of Excellence • Ranking for marketing purposes • Directing flow of resources (the best gets more and the weakest perish)

What are the consequences of not meeting the “Standards”? • Operations suspended • Punishment by the market • Professional disgrace OR • Additional resources and support for improvement

The main challenges to quality assurance systems in Africa are cost and human capacity requirements…. The costs of a full scale QA system are therefore unaffordable for most Sub. Saharan African countries. The World Bank (2007) Operating a national quality assurance agency typically entails an annual budget of at least US$450, 000 and requires appropriately trained and experienced staff Direct cost of accreditation averages an estimated US$5, 200 per institution Direct cost of accreditation averages an estimated US$3, 700 per program

UNDESA/IASIA STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE

UNDESA/IASIA STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Public Service Commitment Advocacy of Public Interest Values Combining Scholarship, Practice and Community Service The Faculty are Central Inclusiveness at the Heart of the Program Curriculum is Purposeful and Responsive Adequate resources are critical Balancing Collaboration and Competition

Two main dimensions of quality Institutional Programmatic – Programme development and review – Programme content – Programme management – Programme performance

Institutional dimensions • • • Strategic planning process Financial and budgetary structure Quality assurance system Human resource management system Contribution to the discipline Social and cultural diversity Facilities Student services Public relations Grievances Exemplary function Benchmarking

Programme development and review • • • Programme development and review process Programme goals and objectives Educational strategy Programme design Programme coherence and consistency Programme faculty Number of core faculty/ staff Research involvement Programme admission

Programme content (1) • Programme coherence and consistency • Programme level appropriate for target group • Formal programme requirements all prescribed requirements for certificate or degree met • Programme basis to reflect international/ state of the art concepts and insights evidence based • Multidisciplinary • Practical experience • Community consultation

Programme Content (2) • Values to be imbued: – Democratic values – Respect for individual and basic human rights – Social equity and equitable distribution of good and services – Tolerance for social and cultural diversity – Transparency and accountability – Sustainable development – Organisational justice and fairness – Recognition of global interdependence – Civic engagement • Personal capacities to be developed – – – – – Analytical and critical thinking Dealing with complexity Flexibility Dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity Operating in a political environment Building high performing organisations Involving other groups and institutions in society to realize policy goals Life time learning Applying life experiences to academic and training activities

Programme content (3) • Curriculum components should include: – – – The Management of Public Service Organizations Improvement of Public Sector Processes Leadership in the Public Sector Application of Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques of Analysis Understanding Public Policy and the Organisational Environment • Content should further address the following issues: – – – Internationalisation and globalisation Balance between centralisation and decentralisaton Impact of multinational organisations and agreements Weakening of the state (cutbacks and NPM) New modes of communication and their impact “New governance”

Programme Management and Administration • • Programme responsibility structure should be clear Adequate programme budget Adequate programme administration Accounting for student’s progress Timely and comprehensive info available for students Regular faculty/ staff reviews Adequate systems of communications between all roleplayers • Consistency in course delivery guaranteed • Continuous programme monitoring and regular reviews undertaken

Programme Performance • • Adequate system of performance management in place Various stakeholders satisfied by programme Basic operating information available Targets set, pursued, measured and attained Benchmarking Impact on community measured and assessed Financial performance considered, e. g. Return on Investment (Ro. I) • Programme impact on user/ client communities

The way forward

UNDESA/IASIA process • Currently process of regional subcommittees are consulting re indicators and process • At IASIA Brazil conference (August 2009) present indicators for electronic self assessment tool • Report on implementation modalities for accreditation at the above event

AMDIN medium term programme • Process for African ownership and agreement on criteria and measurement • Supporting processes of self and peer evaluation • Exposure trip for MDI leadership to institutions and regions where accreditation systems in place

Some lingering questions • What benefits are to be derived for African MDIs/ENAs from subjecting to an international process of accreditation? • What are the costs involved to do this properly? • Does the advantages outweigh the potential risks in the processes? • What are the indications that this will be a process that will support development of African MDIs/ENAs rather than providing the tool to ensure their demise? • Are we ready, if not, how do we get ready?