Implementation Experience of CAF Model within the Czech Republic. Inhabitans satisfaction with "authorities" comparison of 1989 and 2004

Transcription

1 Implementation Experience of CAF Model within the Czech Republic Vladimír Votápek, CSQ CEO 1 Introduction Quality improvement necessity within the public administration in the Czech Republic 15 years that have elapsed since the Velvet Revolution in 1989 fundamentally changed lives of inhabitants of the Czech Republic. Even if people appreciate and support clear majority of changes they show their dissatisfaction with some changes. These areas include the public administration. A survey of daily paper Lidové noviny (see Lidové noviny, November 12 th, 2004) showed that most inhabitants of the Czech Republic are dissatisfied with the quality of the public administration. They actually qualify it as being worse than before Inhabitans satisfaction with "authorities" comparison of 1989 and Worse Equal Better Impartiality Accessibility Civil servants approach Corruption Bureaucracy One of the main steps that were and are aimed at increasing the quality of the public administration performance in the Czech Republic includes a project of mass implementation of CAF Model in 26 municipal and regional authorities. The goal of implementation was not only to implement CAF, but also to implement it in the best way. The research team thus strove to compensate for some (known) weaknesses of CAF 2002 model.

2 2 Special characteristics of CAF Model within the Czech Republic Implementing the CAF Model within the pilot projects we have identified that some special characteristics of the model impede higher efficiency of the model, namely: Absence of objective (independent) view of the organization and its assessment. A great dependence of organization staff on their inventiveness usually without any quality experience. A low responsiveness of the assessment (Enablers panel) as concerns the implementation depth (width) of particular method (approach, procedure) within any organization (e.g. foreign languages training). A weak interaction of the CAF model and other quality tools and methods. For mass CAF Model implementation, we have therefore proceeded in accordance with the following procedures: A) All organizations implementing the CAF Model worked together with a professional consultant whose knowledge of quality issues has been guaranteed by quality manager certificate corresponding the harmonised EOQ Scheme. Government compensated three days of professional consultant services for each of participated organization. Two CAF team leaders each from the concerned authority took part in five-day training providing the civil servants with view of both the CAF Model issues (2 training days) and quality as a whole (3 training days). B) After preparing the Self-Assessment Report, the reports were put before assessors of the National Award trained for CAF Model, who had prepared a Feedback Report for each concerned authority. C) For assessment of the enablers criteria, we have prepared an Alternative assessment table reflecting the implementation depth of the assessed method (approach, procedure). D) Teams were required to assess (nearly) all questions included in individual identifiers. E) All authorities participating in the project have committed to continue the process of self-improvement at least for next three years. The first period of project has run for approximately 6 months. At the beginning of the project, the training programmes have been elaborated for CAF consultants, CAF assessors, and CAF team leaders. After that a couple of staff of each authority has been trained. After several days of consultancy, the authorities elaborated a self-assessment reports being send to project organizers and CAF assessors for assessment. As far as the feedback reports of assessors observed that each authority started to implement the CAF Model conscientiously and that they improved their access to public administration performance during the implementation phase, all authorities could be awarded a certificate of successful participation in the project of CAF Model implementation in order to motivate the participants.

3 3 Results of CAF Model implementation within the Project. Criteria CAF 2002 EIPA Self-Assessment within the Czech Republic (72 organizations) (26 organizations) 1 2,9 2,3 1,91 2 2,8 2,2 1,85 3 2,7 2,1 1,83 4 2,8 2,3 2,06 5 2,8 2,1 1,67 6 2,5 1 0,77 7 2,1 0,9 0,74 8 2,2 1,4 1,12 9 2,6 1,7 1,42 Table 1 Comparisons of CAF implementation results Third party Assessment within the Czech Republic (Assessors of the National Quality Award) Based on the experience of project progress and the results included in table 1, we are able to draw several conclusions: F) Formal (numerical) results showed that the Czech public administration is significantly worse compared with the average of 72 organization included in the EIPA database. By our opinion, there are two primary causes as concerns the difference. The first cause includes impartially worse experience of the Czech public administration. For example, a number of municipalities did not measure precisely satisfaction of their customers or employees until now. The weakest results are consequently related to criteria 6 and 7. The second cause of formal worse results can be connected with severe access to self-assessment process or as the case may be, the presence of the professional consultant who usually has managed the CAF teams towards modest assessment. Not negligible influence on lower assessment can be added to practice with assessment (nearly) of all indicators within the individual subcriteria (Cfr. paragraph C). Using an independent assessor has caused even more significant decrease of results. Owing to a progressive formalization of the CAF Model (broader utilization of trained consultants or assessors), we can therefore assume some decrease of numerical results of the CAF Model also in other countries in the future. G) Government assistance of any type significantly supports CAF Model promotion. Just very modest support in the form of training provision and reimbursement of three consultancy days has motivated several authorities to join the project. We expect further expansion of the CAF Model from possible implementation of the National Quality Award (or from several initial stages of the National Quality Award) based on the CAF Model. H) The self-assessment process can be significantly improved if individual questions within the subcriteria would not be regarded as examples but indicators. As examples,

4 questions could be (but need not be) utilized by the CAF team. Considering questions as indicators, they are regarded as (more or less compulsory) indicator of organization excellence within particular subcriteria (a similar practice exists within the guidelines of Speyer University for the CAF Model). If teams are free to choose questions to be answered, they tend naturally to answer only those questions they can answer, and by virtue of that they get higher assessment. In case we consider the questions as (nearly) obligatory indicators, then the subcriteria assessment results in arithmetic average of all indicators assessment, and therefore it is greatly precise. In practice, of course, it leads to achieving formally worse numerical results. I) An option to specify a reflection of implementation depth of a particular procedure (method) in case of enablers criteria assessment means using the alternative assessment table: Scores Level of implementation 0 < 10% 1 10 to 30% 2 30 to 50% 3 50 to 70% 4 70 to 90% 5 > 90% Table 2: Alternative assessment table Score assessment 0 No evidence or only anecdotal evidence of any access. 1 Access is planned P (plan). 2 Access is planned and implemented D (do). 3 Access is planned, implemented and reviewed C (control). 4 Access is planned, implemented and reviewed based on benchmarking data and accordingly set A (act). 5 Access is planned, implemented and reviewed based on benchmarking data and accordingly set, and completely integrated within an organization. Table 3 Table Enablers Assessment As opposed to table of Enablers assessment, the proposed table allows more precise reflection of implementation depth of a particular procedure (method) within an organization. Example: If a work team reaches a view that the procedure A (e.g. foreign language training or utilization of benchmarking method) is implemented within an organization to 40 % extent, which would be desirable (ideal) then the organization

5 scores 2 for the question concerned even if the examined procedure is implemented and reviewed formally, and the organization would be entitled to score 3. 4 Further steps Based on the experience of the mentioned project, it is possible to propose further provisions that could improve efficiency of the CAF Model implementation (beside of above mentioned steps, Cfr. Chapter 2, paragraph A - E). A) Better cohesion of the CAF Model with other tools and methods of quality management improvement within organizations. As far as we have managed the methodization of the CAF Model itself (including preparation of courses for CAF leaders, CAF consultants and CAF assessors) it is appropriate to think about other provisions that could help to improve management systems within organizations. Methods of strategic control (e.g. Balanced Score Card), human resources management (IIP), and management system standards (ISO 9000, ISO 14000, etc.) as well as particular skills necessary for everyday situations within the public authorities (e.g. Project Management) may be concerned. Reinforcement of these authorities in the mentioned spheres can be achieved either by officials training or by using the experienced professional consultants. B) Benchmarking utilization In certain sense, the benchmarking utilization is expected also in the original methods of the CAF Model According to our opinion, it is very useful for the individual organizations to have access to data of already benchmarking surveys made within the particular sector. In case such surveys are not available yet, it could be very useful to include questions reflecting separate subject of benchmarking within the CAF indicators. It is possible to use at the same time both the area of Results criteria and that of the Enablers criteria. In doing so, we need not to constrain to national levels only (comparisons of the benchmarking results within individual countries) but it could be very interesting to try to define the benchmarking subjects within some broader units (e.g. within the EU member & candidate states through the European Institute of Public Administration). The CAF Model applied in this way could significantly contribute to comparing the performance level of the public administration within the Europe, thereby to enhancing the European competitiveness within the Lisbon process. 5 Conclusion The implementation of the CAF Model within the Czech Republic has confirmed the general utilization of the Model. As expected, it brought enhancement of work results in all organizations that have decided to implement it. Our experience concurrently shows in which areas it could be possible to further enhance the CAF Model or to support its broader utilization.

6 It is possible to: A) Modify the methods for model utilization so that the results of the selfassessment could be more precise and well founded. B) Get some support of the state. C) Align the CAF Model with the benchmarking activities as well as with other tools and methods supporting the improvement of organizations management systems. By our opinion, these modifications can contribute to more successful implementation of the CAF Model, to improvement of effectiveness of the European Public Administration and thereby to improvement of the competitiveness of the whole Europe.