Transcript Inspiration Kit

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)
The CAF Model
ENABLERS
Leadership
RESULTS
People
People
Results
Strategy &
Planning
Citizen/Customer
Oriented
Results
Processes
Partnerships
& Resources
Key
Performance
Results
Society
Results
INNOVATION AND LEARNING
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 “PlanDo” 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
Level of government of the organisation
50
40
38
30
27
20
18
12
Percent
10
5
0
Central government
Regional government
State government
Local government
Subreg government
9
T ype of administration
50
46
40
30
31
20
Percent
10
11
8
4
0
G overnment ministry
Agency
State-owned/run
O ther
Local/regional admin
10
Size of the organisation
40
30
29
24
20
20
13
Percent
10
6
5
2
0
10-50
> 5000
251-1000
51-100
< 10
101-250
1001-5000
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
Int
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
Sus tainable im prov em ent & im portanc e of
identif y ing s trengths and areas f or im prov em ent
100
48
29
90
80
70
7
60
50
50
Strength&Improvement
34
40
5 (very import ant )
Percent
30
4
20
10
17
3
14
0
2
Yes
No
Sustainable improvement activities because of use of CAF
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 users
• New Action plan 2007- 2008
• Registration of CAF as a Community Trademark (CTM)
• CAF Centre at 5QC (Paris, September 2008)
• 3rd CAF Users Event (Lisbon, 11-12 October 2007)
• Further development CAF eCommunity 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: eLearning, DVD
• Networks in specific countries (e.g. Belgium)
33
Activities CAF RC 2007
 CAF and Justice - quality development in the field of justice
Luxembourg (LU), 16-17 April 2007
 The CAF and the Balanced Scorecard
Maastricht (NL), 13-15 June 2007
 Measuring Customer Satisfaction – The customer in the
focus/context of TQM/CAF
Maastricht (NL), 18-19 September 2007
 CAF Training Event - The CAF in Action
Barcelona (ES), 18-19 October 2006
Maastricht (NL), 22-23 November 2007
 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: [email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.eipa.nl