EUPAN DG-Troika 3rd May 2007, Berlin Medium-Term Programme (MTP)

EUPAN – Working groups‘ assessment of current MTP-implementation and Preparing Ministerial Recommendations for the Medium-Term Programme (MTP) 2008 - 2009 EUPAN – Working groups‘ assessment of current MTP-implementation and DGs‘ priorities for future MTP Preliminary analysis of a questionnaire distributed to HRWG, IPSG and e-Government

Why ask the working groups and which questions? Aim of the inquiry: To provide input to Preparation of Recommendations for the new MTP at the Ministerial Meeting in Berlin on June 22 Outlining and detailing the MTP by the Portuguese presidency July – December 2007 in order to take into account implementation of current MTP to date and to establish feed-back to DG-proposals for shaping future MTP

Why ask the working groups and which questions? Implementation: Questionnaire distributed to members of HRWG, IPSG, e-Government group including questions with regard to: 1.1 Implementation to date of working groups‘ contribution to current MTP priority areas 1.2 Implementation to date of own working groups‘ MTP-targets Significance of future MTP priorities compiled during DG‘s brainstorming

Does the inquiry adequately reflect EUPAN working groups’ assessments? Terms of reference: Answers up to certain degree are determined by current MTP structure as well as by selection and grouping of DG‘s priority items However: Additional comments to each answer provide unbiased and specific analysis and expectations Representativity: Representativity and relevance of specific areas of interest up to a certain degree are determined by limited and varying participation of working groups in filling in questionnaires: HRWG 15, IPSG 20, e-Government 8 However: limited total number of questionnaires received and uneven distribution among working groups objectively reflect measure of interest in programming issues

EUPAN working goups’ assessment EUPAN working groups’ assessment of the significance of contributions to the priority areas or “common coordinated action plans” listed in the MTP under these headings: The way EU member states work towards the Lisbon objectives: 8 x very important 27 x substantial 4 x marginal The reduction of administrative burdens….. 10 x very important 10 x substantial 20 x marginal Efficiency of public administration 11 x very important 20 x substantial 6 x marginal Working towards European User Satisfaction Indices (only IPSG and eGov) 11 x very important 10 x substantial 7 x marginal

EUPAN working goups’ assessment Conclusions: While “efficiency” is perceived as overall management priority and newly introduced Lisbon objectives are accepted as political benchmarks within the framework of governance, reduction of administrative burdens for half of the respondents has marginal significance – or may be viewed as task of the Better regulation experts. Strong support for continuing working on European Saticfaction Indicies – inspite of methodological problems – seems to express persistent interest in generally applicable outcomes

HRWG’s assessment HRWG’s assessment of the significance of its activities with regard to HRWG topics listed in the MTP under these headings: 1) Strategic Human Resources Management in the Public Administration 8 x very important 5 x substantial 1 x marginal 2) Leadership Development and Succession Planning in the Public Administration 7 x very important 8 x substantial 0 x marginal 3) Modernization of Public Administration 7 x very important 8 x substantial 1 x marginal 4) Ethics and Integrity 7 x very important 7 x substantial 1 x marginal

HRWG’s assessment HRWG’s assessment of the significance of its activities with regard to HRWG topics listed in the MTP under these headings: 5) Pensions in the public sector 1 x very important 10 x substantial 3 x marginal 6) Training of civil servants 2 x very important 6 x substantial 6 x marginal Conclusions: Priorities are rather evenly distributed between continuous and long- term personnel management with focus on leadership and ethics, while pensions and training – recently well covered within HRWG resp. DISPA – remain to be of interest.

IPSG’s assessment IPSG’s assessment of the significance of its activities with regard to IPSG topics listed in the MTP under these headings: 1) Benchmarking and Best Practice 10 x very important 9 x substantial 1 x marginal 2) CAF (Common Assessment Framework) 17 x very important 1 x substantial 2 x marginal 3) Communication/Knowledge Sharing and Management 8 x very important 7 x substantial 3 x marginal 4) Quality Conferences 17 x very important 3 x substantial 0 x marginal Conclusions: Priorities clearly are given to “public“ outcomes such as Qualitiy Conferences and CAF, whereas “internal“ methodological efforts remain to be of secondary importance

E-Government WG’s assessment E-GovWG’s assessment of the significance of its activities with regard to eGovWG topics listed in the MTP under these headings: 1) Interoperability, inter & intra governmental collaboration and pan- European services 2 x very important 4 x substantial 2 x marginal 2) A focus on users needs with attention to benefits for citizens and the impact of e-government 3 x very important 3 x substantial 2 x marginal 3) Organisational changes, skills and the role of leadership required in achieving the benefits that effective use of ICT can bring to public administrations 4 x very important 1 x substantial 3 x marginal Conclusions: Although the small number of questionnaires received does not allow for adequate analysis, priorities seem to focus on users‘ need and the resulting implications

Working groups’ ratings of DG-priority items for future MTP Rating options were 1 - very important 2 - important 3 - partially important 4 – unimportant; thus the lowest total value indicates the highest priority assessment

Priority ranking according to working groups

Thank you for your attention! If you would like to comment, please mail to: Manfred.Spaeth@bmi.bund.de or Olaf.Sinnigen@bmi.bund.de