1. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS MINISTRY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
COMPARATIVE REVIEW
QUALITY MANAGEMENT in
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS
of the EU Member States
Dr Gordana Žurga
REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
MINISTRY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

2. The contents Purpose and Goals What is the CR Potential Users
Costs and Benefits
Methods
Current Status
Further Actions
Proposal for Continuation

3. Purpose and Goals
To round the area of Benchmarking with assuring brief and transparent overall picture of the QM approaches, initiatives and tools;
To have accurate and standardized information on QM in PA of the EU MS

4. The Comparative Review IS:
Oriented towards having a transparent matrix of the QM approaches, initiatives and tools in the EU MS;
Standardized information on each country at the broadest level;
Gathering together variety of existing information on QM in EU PAs

5. The Benchmarking Model
LEARNING
Enabling
Leading to
INFORMATION
APPLICATION
Approving
EVALUATION
Measurement

6. Fitting in the Benchmarking Model
LEARNING
Enabling
Leading to
INFORMATION
APPLICATION
Approving
EVALUATION
Measurement

7. Potential Users Any person interested in the QM of EU PAs
To have comparative information;
Seeking for countries (or cases) for his/her Benchmarking activities;
Identifying sources for more detailed information

8. Costs & Benefits Costs & effort needed:
Initial effort of IPSG members with filling in the template for gathering the existing information;
Including the matrix at the EUPAN website;
Periodically updating the information

9. Costs & Benefits Benefits - direct:
Information for Benchmarking purposes;
Support to different approaches to Benchmarking;
Reliable and standardized coverage information on QM in Pas;
Rounding up the IPSG Benchmarking work area by assuring contextual information at international level

10. Costs & Benefits Undirect benefits and implications:
Greater visibility of EUPAN website;
F-info to EU MS which information should be additionally available, or in English, etc;
Valuable source of ideas for future MTPs, etc.

11. Methods for: Gathering the information: Template
Representing the information: Matrix at the EUPAN website
Accessing the information: EUPAN website and links
Updating the information: Protocol, periodically

12. Fitting in the Benchmarking Model
LEARNING
Enabling
EUPAN
Leading to
INFORMATION
APPLICATION
Template
Protocol
Approving
EVALUATION
Measurement

13. Current Status
Information provided by 19 EU MS (26th August, 2005): Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlans, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom
Information announced for September 2005: Italy;
The Matrix prepared in Excel

14. Preliminary Findings and Implications
Information gathered is very valuable;
Info shows variety of approaches, priorities, etc; different level of evidence of the results achieved;
Valuable feed back info to countries participating in the CR;
CR as a valuable source for MTP

15. Further Actions, by the end of 2005:
Providing info by the rest of EU MS and potential updating of the gathered info: September 2005;
Customizing the Matrix: Sept/Oct 2005;
Putting the Matrix to the EUPAN website: October 2005;
Defining the Protocol for updating the info, to be discussed at December IPSG Meeting: November 2005

16. Proposal for Continuation
Contents analysis/Study of the QM in the EU PAs and presentation of the findings at the 4QC;
Leading country: Slovenia; G. Žurga;
Participating countries: seeking for volunteers;
Duration: October 2005 – September 2006