Nick Thijs European Institute of Public Administration ( EIPA )
description
Transcript of Nick Thijs European Institute of Public Administration ( EIPA )
Public sector quality management: a
Common European Journey
The Common Assessment Framework
(CAF)
Nick Thijs
European Institute of Public Administration ( EIPA )
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
OVERVIEWOVERVIEW
3
Quality management means to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the organization (organizational performance)
Quality management = Organizational management
Continuous improvement
1. CAF and organisational improvement
4
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF)
The CAF Model
LeadershipKey
PerformanceResults
Processes
People
Strategy & Planning
Partnerships& Resources
SocietyResults
Citizen/CustomerOrientedResults
PeopleResults
ENABLERS RESULTS
INNOVATION AND LEARNING
5
Continuous Improvement – PDCA cycle (Deming)
PLAN
DOCHECK
ACT
6
Filosofie van de continue verbetering
Q
t
excellence
PDCA
Assurance of the level of quality(quality systeem) e.g. ISO 9000
continuous improvement
7
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.
Objectives of the CAF
2. Organisational improvement: the nature of the model
8
898 registred users from 33 countries898 registred users from 33 countries
Others: South Korea, Dominican Republic, China, Namibia
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)
3. Organisational improvement: some figures
9
Level of government of the organisation
Local government
Subreg government
Regional government
State government
Central government
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
27
18
12
5
38
10
Type of administration
Other
Local/regional admin
State-owned/run
Agency
Government ministry
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
8
46
4
11
31
11
Size of the organisation
> 5000
1001-5000
251-1000
101-250
51-100
10-50
< 10
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0 2
6
29
24
20
13
5
12
Promoting and supporting toolsTool 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; Estonia; Poland; Slovenia; Spain
User Conferences Germany; Hungary; Italy
Worksheets Austria; Germany; Ireland; Portugal
13
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
Use of organizational performance information
14
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
2. Who is using the info ?
15
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
3. Benefits of the model
16
4. Linking the intention to improve with improvement initiatives
Sustainable improvement & importance of
identifying strengths and areas for improvement
Sustainable improvement activities because of use of CAF
NoYes
Pe
rce
nt
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Strength&Improvement
5 (very important)
4
3
2
2948
7
34
50
1714
87% started improvement initiatives !
17
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
18
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
19
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.
20
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.
21
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.
22
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
4. Bench learning and improvement
“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.”
23
Subcriteriapresent
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
Supply and Demand / Questions and Answers
24
25
• 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
Benchlearning process
26
• 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
Benchlearning process
27
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
28
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
29
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
Flemish network local governments
30
Activities
Network meetings (2 a 3 year)
Informal contacts between members
Conferences on quality in local government (www.limburg.be/kwaliteitscongres/ also in English)
Website (www.qualitynetwork.be)
Bench learning
sharing
dynamic /sharing
sharing
Flemish network local governments (2)
31
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
32
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)
33
• 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)
5. CAF Perspectives for the future (2)
34
Activities CAF RC 2007
CAF and Justice - quality development in the field of justiceLuxembourg (LU), 16-17 April 2007
The CAF and the Balanced ScorecardMaastricht (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 ActionBarcelona (ES), 18-19 October 2006Maastricht (NL), 22-23 November 2007
CAF and LeadershipMaastricht (NL), 13-14 December 2007
ContactNick 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]
http://www.eipa.nl