European Institute of Public Administration (NL)

Purpose of the Study to help develop a better understanding of the conditions under which the CAF can be a useful tool for public administrations to identify the role of national agencies in promoting the CAF to obtain information to be used to launch benchmarking projects

Scope of the Study One questionnaire for users, closed questions. 156 replies received; 106 from the CAF database at EIPA (53%) 50 via the national correspondents One for national CAF Correspondents. 24 replies received.

Chapter I: National correspondents and resources CAF – the current status in Member States The CAF – Resources and Organisational Patterns Promoting the CAF – Activities and Strategies The CAF – its implementation to date Evaluating the evidence

Chapter II: Using the CAF in practice Basic characteristics of the administrations The use of the CAF: the context The self-assessment process (the implementation of the CAF) The follow-up Benchmarking

Conclusions Appendix A: Dissemination and promotion at national level - Good practice Appendix B: List of national correspondents Appendix C: List of organisations who participated in the survey (156) Appendix D: CAF Questionnaire for national correspondents Appendix E: CAF Questionnaire for administrations

Chapter II - Using the CAF in practice

Replies received

Level of government Also: Type of administration Sector of activity Size of the organisation

The use of the CAF: the context Use of CAF 2002 is growing rapidly. Re- use after two years seems best. Organisational change and restructuring but by far the majority were in a normal operating context. >50% first experience of quality management, others used ISO & EFQM

The use of the CAF: the context Reasons for using the CAF: to identify strengths and areas for improvement, as a quick “health check” of the administration, as an input into ongoing improvement activities, to increase sensitivity for “quality” issues and to promote the exchange of views in the organisation. Participation in a national quality conference, but…. willingness to change?

The use of the CAF: the context Decision taken by top management or the management team; recommended approach for support of management to follow-up. Need to establish a shared vision No discernable co-relation between the context in which the decision to use the CAF was taken and the actual use and follow-up of the CAF.

The implementation of the CAF Only 92 let all their staff know that the CAF exercise was to take place. Group size: 7 to 15. Involving as many people as possible, to benefit from the resulting “buy-in” New guidelines on how to involve as many as possible? >50% had less than a tenth. Increased awareness and better internal communication would also be positive indicators.

The implementation of the CAF Type or level of staff: Top and middle management well represented, supporting staff less so Guidelines on how participants are selected to join the self-assessment group? Expert assistance (100) for explanation of CAF external assistance seems to have had no real impact on problems/obstacles

Obstacles Time spent Reaching consensus Difficulties with the CAF itself ( criteria, language, scoring system). Having to conduct the exercise while conducting business as usual Lack of experience in sharing views and information

The follow-up Input into improvement activities input into strategic planning individual improvement activities full action-plan to be implemented. Demand for additional methodological and supporting material Better communication is seen as very important by most organisations.

Benchmarking 1/3 did benchmarking project to learn from others, Performance comparison mentioned by many. Obstacles were: too many other priorities, a lack of time, a lack of human resources and financial resources. Identifying suitable partners. 93% willing to consider the idea.

Conclusions CAF meets its objectives very well. Honesty needed on motives for using CAF from the beginning. Use presumes willingness to change Resource intensive. Dedicated budget and level of effort from participants within the organisation.