Transcript No Slide Title

1
The Common
Assessment
Framework in
European Public
Administrations
European Institute of Public Administration (NL)
March 2004
Dr. Christian Engel
2
Content
• Background and purpose of the CAF
• The state of affairs on the use of the
CAF
• The use of the CAF: the main findings
• Promoting the CAF
• Conclusions
3
The CAF: Background and purpose
• Tool for assessing and managing „quality“
in European public administration
• Common framework englobing the views
about „quality“ in different countries
• Self-assessment tool
• Entry tool
• Frames other improvement activities
• Tool highlighting the need and educating
for change in the public sector
4
Implementation to date
• Group 1 (no use at all) CY; L; NL
• Group 2 (1 to 5) CZ; F; GR; IRL; M; RO; E; UK
• Group 3 (6 to 10) P
• Group 4 (11 to 25) DK; EST; H; PL; SK; SLO; S
• Group 5 (26 to 50) A; D; FIN
• Group 6 (above 50) B; I; N
____________________________
• Roughly 500 administrations overall
5
QM in European countries: a
quick overview
Development of Goals of QM and
QM and selfself-assessment
assessment
low degree of
"publicness"
well developed
"mature"
competition
high degree of
"publicness"
less well
developed
learning and
changing
6
User-Characteristics
• Wide spread of users across sectors of
activity, levels of government and size of
the organisation
2
1%
Criminal Justice and Law
6
4%
Customs, Taxes and Finances
14
9%
Education and Research
7
4%
Health Sector
6
4%
Police and Security
2
1%
Public Works and Utilities
22
14 %
Social Services & Social Security
2
1%
Transport and Infrastructure
43
28 %
Local Government (municipalities, districts, provinces)
14
9%
General policy and oversight / co-ordination
38
24 %
Other
7
Using the CAF: the context
• On the whole specific situations prevailed:
67
Normal operating context (no particular organisational or other changes)
37
The organisation had undergone or was in the process of undergoing an important organisational
restructuring
The organisation had just introduced or was about to introduce a (new) system of performance
management / measurement
On demand of the staff, facing the opportunities of a CAF application in the context of the general quality
policy of the organisation
The organisation faces a growing need for accountability (towards the public, the politicians and other
stakeholders..)
A new top management (or political management) had been appointed / elected
32
28
28
19
17
11
The functioning (or performance) of the organisation was undergoing (or would soon undergo) a general
review (internal or external)
The responsibilities (tasks/functions) of the organisation had undergone a change (new responsibilities
added, or responsibilities were taken away)
The organisation was faced with financial cutbacks (a need to save money)
7
The organisation was in the process of cutting back the number of staff
16
8
Reasons for using the CAF
• Various reasons, most are „legitimate“
A. (> 50%)
Ranking
1 (72 %)
B.
Ranking
1 - 78 x
n) To identify strengths and areas for improvement
2 (68 %)
5 - 36 x
g) To increase sensitivity for “quality” issues
3 (63 %)
5 - 36 x
h) To promote the exchange of views in the organisation
4 (57 %)
2 - 48 x
a) Quick “health check” of the administration
4 (57 %)
3 - 40 x
i) As an input into ongoing improvement activities
6 (51 %)
4 - 39 x
f) Participation in a national quality contest or conference
5 (52 %)
6 - 34 x
j) Because the top management wanted it
7 (50 %)
7 - 26 x
e) Increasing sensitivity of the staff for quality
9
Benefits obtained
• Benefits often unexpected, many benefits
are „cultural“ in nature
Frequency
82
64
f) A clear identification of strengths and areas for improvement
i) We were able to identify a number of important actions to be undertaken
62
b) An increased level of awareness about organisational issues / problems
59
55
54
53
37
33
29
a) People developed a better understanding of the organisation
c) The sharing of information proved to be important
d) Self-assessment gave rise to new ideas and a new way of thinking
l) It helped to identify communication and information problems
g) People started to become aware and interested in quality issues
h) The ability to contribute and to share the own views was felt positively
j) We realised how previous improvement activities could be taken forward
27
24
e) People started to develop a stronger interest in the organisation
k) We developed an understanding of how different initiatives in place fit together
3
m) We did not see any benefits at all
10
Obstacles encountered
• CAF-related and „cultural“ obstacles were
relevant, and many were not prepared
Frequency
108
a) Difficulties linked to the CAF itself (criteria, language, scoring system)
68
e1) Additional work due to CAF implementation alongside business as usual
47
b) Insufficient experience in sharing views and information in the organisation
32
e2) Problems in aligning the views and experiences of different group members
29
d) Lacking methodological support
26
k) Our organisation was, on the whole, not prepared for self-assessment
22
f) Uncertainty about the purpose and outcome of the self-assessment
19
j) Problems with identifying strengths and areas for improvement
19
g) Lack of faith in the relevance of the whole exercise
16
c) Problems with being honest and outspoken
17
l) We encountered no obstacles at all
8
h) Self-assessment was imposed and not “owned” by the group members
2
i) A lack of trust in the self-assessment group
11
Values in TQM
Learn and
Criticize
Look to the
future
Problemsolving
General values
Open Communication
Managing
Conflicts
Dialogue
Dealing with
uncertainty
Culture of
Trust
Positive
Image of Men
12
4 management styles
(
h
i
g
h
)
H
i
g
h
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
H
i
g
h
GC
N O
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
S S
A
I
B
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
T
C
U
R
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
E
H S
l
o
w
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
v
eO
P
P
I
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
H
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
P
P
N
U
A
S
O
S
2 G
S
3
V
R
D S
G
S
4
I
1
N
T
I
L
o
w
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
H
i
g
h
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
O
I
R
I
T
a
n
da
n
d
E
U
V
AL
C
o
w
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
L
o
w
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
R
G
T
E
E
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
rB
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
I
L
E
D
(
l
o
w
)
N
G
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
V
E
B
E
H
A
V
I
O
U
R
(
h
i
g
h
)
13
The follow-up
• Input into running activities and
individual actions prevail, and that´s OK
60
An input into running improvement activities / actions
54
An input into the strategic planning process of the organisation
38
Some individual improvement activities (but no full action plan)
29
A full action-plan outlining the way forward and describing actions to be taken
28
A consolidated report to Management (responsible for implementation)
6
Increased financial investment in training
6
Increased financial investment in human resources
5
Increased financial investment in technology
2
Increased financial investment in benchmarking
4
Other: a very good preparation for an internal audit; development of an
operational plan; brainstorming
14
Summary: relevant preconditions
• Genuine wish to change and improve
• Some degree of „maturity“ with regard to
organisational culture
• Top management support, but also among
the staff
• Previous experience with organisational
change and improvement relevant, else
external assistance required
15
16
Resources and Organisational
Patterns
• three groups of countries:
• little or no specific resources (CY,
EST, FIN, IRL, L, M, NL, N, RO, SLO,
E, UK);
• a limited amount of specific
resources (A, CZ, DK, GR, PL, P, S);
• a substantial amount of resources
(B, D, H, I, SK).
17
Activities and Strategies
• Advice (to individual
organisations)
• Case studies
• CAF-based projects
• Database / good
practice
• E-learning
• Pilot projects
• Quality conferences
• Special training
(developed for CAF)
• Networks and
partnerships
• Quality conferences
• Worksheets
• Quality awards /
contests
18
Evaluating the evidence
• Good practices:
– national quality conferences,
– quality award contests,
– user conferences and networks
– the development of a sound set of
partnerships.
– Adaptation of the CAF to national or even
sectoral requirements.
19
Quality awards and contests
• ….have raised the interest in the CAF and
encouraged administrations to use it the
• ….but usually have several drawbacks
(often no genuine interest to change or
learn; often only demanded by top
management; often no follow-up)
• ….need to be thought of an organized
very carefully
20
Is encouragement relevant?
• Little evidence of spontaneous use
without active promotion and support
(exceptions: Norway, Finland)
• Clear link between support given and
use. Recommending it will generally not
encourage administrations to use it.
• Bottom-up approach most successful.
Pilot projects helpful
21
Conclusions
• CAF has raised the „quality“ issue, mainly
in countries yet „underdeveloped“
• Not so easy after all, or: better for
analysis then for systematic management
• „Quality is for free“! Yes, but....
• Clarifying objectives and expectations
• Promotional activities highly relevant
• Clarifying benefits for administrations
22
23