1. 1 5QC Update IPSG meeting, Bonn, May 2007

2. 2 5QC Update - IPSG meeting, Bonn, May 2007 Results of IPSG subgroup meeting on march 19. in Paris and scientific rapporteurs feed back —Themes —Best practice description format —CAF —Internet site 5QC Agora pre-program Introduction to scientific survey and study

3. 3 Follow up of Feb and march Meetings 1. Themes of the conference 2. Best practice description format 3. Best practice workshop format 4. Best practice selection process 5. The CAF at the 5QC 6. 5QC Website

4. 4 Themes of the conference Sub-themes 2 and 4 have been clarified: the 2nd referring to the citizen as an actor, and the 4th to stakeholders as a whole.  ST 2 : Citizen participation as a driving force towards public quality  ST 4 : Beyond the citizen, involving all stakeholders for quality Translation of Sub-theme 3 have been reviewed  ST 3 : Taking into account new key social issues : Businesses are taken into account In order to promote diversity, it is best for each country to present best practices belonging to different subtopics. However, this should not be considered as compulsory. The subtheme(s) related to the best practice will be indicated by the author himself. The final classification will be done by the 5QC team with the help of the scientific rapporteurs. The presentations should be adjusted to reflect the themes they illustrate.

5. 5 Best practice description format: brief one-page description A consensus has been reached over the fact that the authors of good practices provide the short description of their cases themselves. A detailed description of what is expected should be established. This description will be done by the authors themselves, with the help, and under control of national IPSG members. In order to ensure consistency, the 5QC preparation team, with the help of the scientific rapporteurs, will check through them again. Items to be included 1.Identification 2.Quality improvement issues 3.The Actors 4.The Measure of Success 5.The Lesson learned 6.Project innovation content and transferability Example provided in the guidelines

6. 6 Best practice description format detailed descriptions (10 pages max) 1.Identification What, who, where… 2.Summary 60 words 3.Quality improvement issues 4.Project background 5.The actors 6.The Work Process / Approach 7.The Measure of Success 8.The Main Obstacles of the Case 9.The Lesson learned 10.Project innovation content and transferability

7. 7 Best practice description format Video presentations Presenting a video is not unanimously agreed upon, some countries do not wish to do them and others will not be able to do them for all cases. All countries agree it should be optional. It is important to describe its contents, length, etc —Doing a video presentation remains optional —The maximum length should be 2 minutes —Contents: a one-line presentation of the best practice; it could also be used during workshops; it is up to the author of the best practice to decide. —The 5QC team will provide guidelines regarding acceptable formats.

8. 8 Best practice workshop format According to the answers to the 5QC questionnaire: —The idea of having two different workshop formats does not spark off a clear majority. —It would be better to have fewer presentations, but have them developed in depth. —A booklet compiling all practices could be published. Conclusions —One single format: 75 minute sessions: two presentations per workshop —Enough time will be kept for discussion —Choosing the facilitator, as well as preparing his/her intervention, should be done according to the theme.

9. 9 Best practice selection process A majority of countries is unfavourable to having the IPSG select best practices; the previous method seems preferable. The 5QC team and the IPSG should provide guidelines A majority of countries do not oppose the idea of limiting the number of practices to 2 per country Conclusions —The idea of having 2 best practices per country has been accepted —The 5QC team and the IPSG will provide guidelines (Guidelines for the selection of best practice cases.)

10. 10 The CAF at the 5QC The EIPA suggests updating the study conducted in 2005 during the Luxemburg Presidency. The study would analyze the situation of CAF in member states, the support of national correspondents and resource centre, and conclude with qualitative objectives and recommendations to reach the quantitative objective of 2010 CAF users in 2010. The CAF Centre would be a good opportunity to present different tools along with the CAF strategy. It would be a good meeting point for all CAF users. Countries not using the CAF could present the models they refer to, in the global context of total quality management. Space should be dedicated to work led by IPSG (Study on quality management conducted by Slovenia, Citizen charters, CSM,…)

11. 11 5QC Website Online database —Building up a documentary database directly fed by Member States would be difficult: setting up, management, updating, etc. This question has long been addressed by the IPSG, no satisfactory organizational solution has ever been found. —This database would be a doublet of the EUPAN database already online. —Having IPSG members feed the database has been rejected. discussion forum —Putting links online could give further visibility to the activities undertaken by Member States. —A discussion forum could help putting people in contact, favour exchanges, enabling participants interested by the same topics in planning meetings. —Means of building an Internet Quality community —Favour an interactive preparation of the 5QC

12. 12 BP Cases : What is next ?

13. 13 5QC Themes for the Agoras april 2007

14. 14 Agoras – themes suggested (1/2) TitlesSub-theme Are the needs of the citizens well apprehended? sub-theme 1 : Improving citizens’ lives Citizen charters: myth or reality? sub-theme 1 : Improving citizens’ lives Has e-government kept its promises? sub-theme 1 : Improving citizens’ lives Is it possible to place the citizen at the heart of the development of rules and regulations? sub-theme 2 : Citizen participation as a driving force towards public quality Is deliberative democracy the solution to further involve the citizen? sub-theme 2 : Citizen participation as a driving force towards public quality Is participative evaluation of public action useful? sub-theme 2 : Citizen participation as a driving force towards public quality

15. 15 Agoras – themes suggested (2/2) TitlesSub-theme Are public services accessible to everyone? Sub-theme 3 ::taking into account key social issues Are all citizens equal regarding public services? Sub-theme 3 ::taking into account key social issues How to make behaviours evolve? Rights and obligations of citizens in order to improve quality Sub-theme 3 ::taking into account key social issues Is it possible to foster quality without staff engagement? sub-theme 4 : Involving all stakeholders for public quality NGOs: what role should stakeholders play in the production of public services of good quality? sub-theme 4 : Involving all stakeholders for public quality Does outsourcing improve service quality? sub-theme 4 : Involving all stakeholders for public quality

16. 16 Agoras : what is next ? Presentation of first draft of agora programMay 3 2007 Comments on agora program by IPSG membersMay 21 2007 5QC team sends questionnaire for suggesting speakersMay 11 2007 Suggestion of speakers by IPSG membersJune 30 2007 Presentation of second draft agora programJuly 16, 2007

17. 17 5QC scientific survey project supervised by scientific rapporteurs april 2007

18. 18 Objectives of the 5QC survey Analyse how citizens perceive the fact of being placed at the heart of public quality and focus on the coproduction of public services: —How are they consulted and how do they perceive it? —To what extent are they ready to contribute to the improvement of the quality of the services? (question citizens on what they do rather than on what they say). —How do they perceive their interaction with public service providers? —In what way do they wish to participate to decision making? Methodology : —A variety of key public services —A variety of citizens : representative + focus cibles (disadvantaged groups) —An appropriate geographic cluster (with a different public service traditions) Survey at a European level —United Kingdom —France —Germany —Italy —Romania (?) —…

19. 19 Expected Results Analysing the citizen’s perceptions and practices pratiques : —Per country —par category (age, sex, etc.), —… Themes to tackle What are citizens ready to do? o Participating to the service delivered o Accepting the responsibility of the production o « citizen » involvement o « responsible » consumer o Developing a sense of civic responsibility —Does it depend on the socio-cultural background? —Do citizens have the same attitude toward co- production with private and public services ? —Do citizen behaviours differ when considering public or private services (self serivce)? —… Target services: —Public health (taking preventive actions, etc) —Public security (auto-protection, local giving a sense of responsibility at a local level) —environnement/ecology (recycling, water savings, protection of the environment) —education (parental involvement, personal work…)

20. 20 Planning selecting a project manager (piloting et carrying out the survey) —May-June 07 Designing and translating the questionnaires —by June/july 07 Searching and selecting a service provider in the selected countries —Sept 07 Submitting the questionnaire —Sept-Oct 07 Making the most of the results of the survey —March 08 Integrating the results to the 5QC (agoras, plenary sessions, etc.) —July 08

21. 21 Thank you for your attention