1. EUPAN DG-Troika 20th and 21st June 2007, Berlin Medium-Term Programme (MTP)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 21, e-Government 11
However: limited total number of questionnaires received and uneven
distribution among working groups objectively reflect measure of
interest in programming issues

6. 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 11 x substantial 21 x marginal
Efficiency of public administration
14 x very important 20 x substantial 7 x marginal
Working towards European User Satisfaction Indices (only IPSG and eGov)
12 x very important 11 x substantial 7 x marginal

7. 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

8. 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 7 x substantial 1 x marginal
4) Ethics and Integrity

9. 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.

10. 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
11 x very important 9 x substantial 1 x marginal
2) CAF (Common Assessment Framework)
18 x very important 1 x substantial 2 x marginal
3) Communication/Knowledge Sharing and Management
8 x very important 8 x substantial 3 x marginal
4) Quality Conferences
18 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

11. 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
4 x very important 5 x substantial 2 x marginal
2) A focus on users needs with attention to benefits for citizens and the impact of e-government
3) Organisational changes, skills and the role of leadership required in achieving the benefits that effective use of ICT can bring to public administrations
7 x very important 1 x substantial 3 x marginal
Conclusions:
High priority given to organisational change and leadership with a view to users‘ need indicate potential for cooperation with IPSG and HRWG

12. 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

13. Ranking of DG-priority items for future MTP
Policy assessment / interface:
Image of the Public Service 7
Leadership (1,56) 5
Trust (1,50) 21
Better regulation 11
Ethics
European Labour regulation 4
Transparency (1,49) 27
Social Dialogue 13
Openness
Citizen/Customer orientation 16
Competitiveness/Recruitment 1
Quality of services (1,33)
Demographic Change 8
Service delivery (1,65) 18
Ageing 15
Satisfaction Indicators 25
Diversity 26
Migration

14. Ranking of DG-priority items for future MTP
Strategic Management
Productivity 3
Vision of public service (1,48) 24
Working conditions 12
Strategic Human Resources Management 14
Motivation 2
Leadership (1,40) 20
Sustainability 22
Mobility
Performance Measurement 18
Reward systems 9
Personnel (1,66) 23
Coping with reduction of work force 6
Services (1,54) 10
Change Management (1,67) 16

15. Conclusions
Working groups' members highly valuate citizen / customer orientation represented by quality public services and service delivery. High significance is also attributed to leadership and vision as well as to transparency and trust within the public service. Closely related with these objectives is a preference for change management and for performance measurement with regard to citizens / customers and staff.
However:
In view of low ratings for taking into account political frameworks such as labour regulation or long-term challenges such as demographic change, these assessments need to be reflected and amended within the context of political priorities.