1. 1

2. 2 European Institute of Public Administration (NL) March 2004 Dr. Christian Engel The Common Assessment Framework in European Public Administrations

3. 3 Content Background and purpose of the CAF The state of affairs on the use of the CAF The use of the CAF: the main findings Promoting the CAF Conclusions

4. 4 Tool for assessing and managing „quality“ in European public administration Common framework englobing the views about „quality“ in different countries Self-assessment tool Entry tool Frames other improvement activities Tool highlighting the need and educating for change in the public sector The CAF: Background and purpose

5. 5 Implementation to date Group 1 (no use at all) CY; L; NL Group 2 (1 to 5) CZ; F; GR; IRL; M; RO; E; UK Group 3 (6 to 10) P Group 4 (11 to 25) DK; EST; H; PL; SK; SLO; S Group 5 (26 to 50) A; D; FIN Group 6 (above 50) B; I; N ____________________________ Roughly 500 administrations overall

6. 6 QM in European countries: a quick overview

7. 7 User-Characteristics Wide spread of users across sectors of activity, levels of government and size of the organisation 21 %Criminal Justice and Law 64 %Customs, Taxes and Finances 149 %Education and Research 74 %Health Sector 64 %Police and Security 21 %Public Works and Utilities 2214 %Social Services & Social Security 21 %Transport and Infrastructure 4328 %Local Government (municipalities, districts, provinces) 149 %General policy and oversight / co-ordination 3824 %Other

8. 8 Using the CAF: the context On the whole specific situations prevailed: 67Normal operating context (no particular organisational or other changes) 37The organisation had undergone or was in the process of undergoing an important organisational restructuring 32The organisation had just introduced or was about to introduce a (new) system of performance management / measurement 28On demand of the staff, facing the opportunities of a CAF application in the context of the general quality policy of the organisation 28The organisation faces a growing need for accountability (towards the public, the politicians and other stakeholders..) 19A new top management (or political management) had been appointed / elected 17The functioning (or performance) of the organisation was undergoing (or would soon undergo) a general review (internal or external) 16The responsibilities (tasks/functions) of the organisation had undergone a change (new responsibilities added, or responsibilities were taken away) 11The organisation was faced with financial cutbacks (a need to save money) 7The organisation was in the process of cutting back the number of staff

9. 9 Reasons for using the CAF Various reasons, most are „legitimate“ A. (> 50%) Ranking B. Ranking 1 (72 %)1 - 78 xn) To identify strengths and areas for improvement 2 (68 %)5 - 36 xg) To increase sensitivity for “quality” issues 3 (63 %)5 - 36 xh) To promote the exchange of views in the organisation 4 (57 %)2 - 48 xa) Quick “health check” of the administration 4 (57 %)3 - 40 xi) As an input into ongoing improvement activities 6 (51 %)4 - 39 xf) Participation in a national quality contest or conference 5 (52 %)6 - 34 xj) Because the top management wanted it 7 (50 %)7 - 26 xe) Increasing sensitivity of the staff for quality

10. 10 Benefits obtained Benefits often unexpected, many benefits are „cultural“ in nature Frequency 82f) A clear identification of strengths and areas for improvement 64i) We were able to identify a number of important actions to be undertaken 62b) An increased level of awareness about organisational issues / problems 59a) People developed a better understanding of the organisation 55c) The sharing of information proved to be important 54d) Self-assessment gave rise to new ideas and a new way of thinking 53l) It helped to identify communication and information problems 37g) People started to become aware and interested in quality issues 33h) The ability to contribute and to share the own views was felt positively 29j) We realised how previous improvement activities could be taken forward 27e) People started to develop a stronger interest in the organisation 24k) We developed an understanding of how different initiatives in place fit together 3m) We did not see any benefits at all

11. 11 Obstacles encountered CAF-related and „cultural“ obstacles were relevant, and many were not prepared Frequency 108a) Difficulties linked to the CAF itself (criteria, language, scoring system) 68e1) Additional work due to CAF implementation alongside business as usual 47b) Insufficient experience in sharing views and information in the organisation 32e2) Problems in aligning the views and experiences of different group members 29d) Lacking methodological support 26k) Our organisation was, on the whole, not prepared for self-assessment 22f) Uncertainty about the purpose and outcome of the self-assessment 19j) Problems with identifying strengths and areas for improvement 19g) Lack of faith in the relevance of the whole exercise 16c) Problems with being honest and outspoken 17l) We encountered no obstacles at all 8h) Self-assessment was imposed and not “owned” by the group members 2i) A lack of trust in the self-assessment group

12. 12 Learn and Criticize Look to the future Problem- solving Values in TQM General values Open Com- munication Dealing with uncertainty Dialogue Managing Conflicts Culture of Trust Positive Image of Men

13. 13 4 management styles

14. 14 The follow-up Input into running activities and individual actions prevail, and that´s OK 60An input into running improvement activities / actions 54An input into the strategic planning process of the organisation 38Some individual improvement activities (but no full action plan) 29A full action-plan outlining the way forward and describing actions to be taken 28A consolidated report to Management (responsible for implementation) 6Increased financial investment in training 6Increased financial investment in human resources 5Increased financial investment in technology 2Increased financial investment in benchmarking 4Other: a very good preparation for an internal audit; development of an operational plan; brainstorming

15. 15 Summary: relevant preconditions Genuine wish to change and improve Some degree of „maturity“ with regard to organisational culture Top management support, but also among the staff Previous experience with organisational change and improvement relevant, else external assistance required

16. 16

17. 17 Resources and Organisational Patterns three groups of countries: little or no specific resources (CY, EST, FIN, IRL, L, M, NL, N, RO, SLO, E, UK); a limited amount of specific resources (A, CZ, DK, GR, PL, P, S); a substantial amount of resources (B, D, H, I, SK).

18. 18 Activities and Strategies Advice (to individual organisations) Case studies CAF-based projects Database / good practice E-learning Pilot projects Quality conferences Special training (developed for CAF) Networks and partnerships Quality conferences Worksheets Quality awards / contests

19. 19 Evaluating the evidence Good practices: –national quality conferences, –quality award contests, –user conferences and networks –the development of a sound set of partnerships. –Adaptation of the CAF to national or even sectoral requirements.

20. 20 Quality awards and contests ….have raised the interest in the CAF and encouraged administrations to use it the ….but usually have several drawbacks (often no genuine interest to change or learn; often only demanded by top management; often no follow-up) ….need to be thought of an organized very carefully

21. 21 Is encouragement relevant? Little evidence of spontaneous use without active promotion and support (exceptions: Norway, Finland) Clear link between support given and use. Recommending it will generally not encourage administrations to use it. B ottom-up approach most successful. Pilot projects helpful

22. 22 Conclusions CAF has raised the „quality“ issue, mainly in countries yet „underdeveloped“ Not so easy after all, or: better for analysis then for systematic management „Quality is for free“! Yes, but.... Clarifying objectives and expectations Promotional activities highly relevant Clarifying benefits for administrations

23. 23