1. Public sector quality management: a Common European Journey The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) Nick Thijs European Institute of Public Administration ( EIPA )

2. 1.CAF and organisational improvement 2.Organisational improvement: the nature of the model 3.Organisational improvement: some figures 4.Bench learning and improvement 5.CAF future perspectives OVERVIEW

3. 3  Quality management means to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the organization (organizational performance)  Quality management = Organizational management  Continuous improvement 1.CAF and organisational improvement

4. 4 The Common Assessment Framework (CAF)

5. 5 Continuous Improvement – PDCA cycle (Deming) PLAN DO CHECK ACT

6. 6 Filosofie van de continue verbetering Q t excellence PDCA Assurance of the level of quality(quality systeem) e.g. ISO 9000 continuous improvement

7. 7  To introduce public administration to the principles of TQM and progressively guide them, through the use and understanding of self-assessment, from the current “Plan- Do” sequence of activities to a full fledged “PDCA” cycle;  To facilitate the self-assessment of a public organisation in order to obtain a diagnosis and improvement actions;  To act as a bridge across the various models used in quality management;  To facilitate bench learning between public sector organisations. Objectives of the CAF 2. Organisational improvement: the nature of the model

8. 8 898 registred users from 33 countries 898 registred users from 33 countries Others: South Korea, Dominican Republic, China, Namibia Belgium (192) Romania (22)Lithuania (4) Italy (141) Estonia (16)Luxembourg (4) Portugal (85) Bosnia-Herzegovina (16)Turkey (4) Denmark (80) Finland (14)EU Institutions (3) Austria (48) Slovakia (12)Bulgaria (2) Germany (45) France (11)Latvia (2) Czech Republic (38) Spain (7)UK (2) Slovenia (37) Cyprus (6)Netherlands (1) Poland (37) Greece (6)Switzerland (1) Hungary (32) Sweden (5)EU Commission (1) Norway (18)Ireland (4) Croatia (1) 3. Organisational improvement: some figures

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12 Promoting and supporting tools Tool or activityCountry Advice (to individual organisations)Austria; Belgium; Estonia; Germany; Italy; Norway Case studiesSpain CAF-based projectsDenmark Database / good practiceAustria; Belgium; Germany; Hungary; Slovenia; Spain E-learningAustria; Germany; Portugal Electronic application toolSweden Electronic evaluation toolAustria; Germany; Sweden Networks and partnershipsAustria; Belgium; Denmark; Germany; Italy; Portugal; Slovak Republic; Spain Pilot projectsCzech Republic; Estonia; Hungary; Italy; Norway; Portugal; Slovak Republic; Slovenia Publications (leaflets not included)Belgium; Germany Quality conferencesHungary; Italy; Norway; Slovak Republic Quality awards / contestsAustria; Belgium; Estonia; Germany; Italy; Portugal QuestionnairesPortugal Special guidelinesHungary; Portugal Special training (developed for the CAF)Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; Poland; Slovenia; Spain User ConferencesGermany; Hungary; Italy WorksheetsAustria; Germany; Ireland; Portugal

13. 13 1. Why do organizations choose the CAF? Top 15 ReasonsMeanType The organization wanted to identify strengths and areas for improvement4,20Int To develop sensitivity to quality issues3,63Int Intention to involve staff in managing the organization and to motivate them3,57Int As an input into ongoing improvement activities, restructuring etc.3,54Int The organization used the CAF as a first diagnosis in the start of a strategic planning process 3,53Int To promote the exchange of views in the organization3,51Int Because the top management wanted it3,43Int To prove that the organization is willing to change3,17Int To promote cultural change in the organization3,14Int To embed a new system of performance management/measurement3,09Int Need for a quick “health check” of the administration3,07Int Increased sensitivity of staff to quality3,07Int Because the CAF was communicated in a convincing way3,05Ext We were looking for a tool to launch benchmarking3,03Int To face a growing need for accountability and strengthen the legitimacy towards all the stakeholders 2,90Ext Use of organizational performance information

14. 14 The final decision to use the CAF was taken by:% The administrative top management33 The political level at the suggestion of the administrative top management 19 The political level15 The top management at the suggestion of a quality or improvement team 12 The top management at the suggestion of staff members or their representatives 10 The idea came up and was decided in a staff meeting9 The quality or improvement team3 2. Who is using the info ?

15. 15 Main benefitsMean Identification of the need to share information and improve communication4,12 A clear identification of strengths and areas for improvement3,97 We were able to identify a number of important actions to be undertaken3,92 People developed a better understanding of the organizational issues/problems3,89 Self-assessment gave rise to new ideas and a new way of thinking3,67 The ability to contribute and to share views was felt positively3,65 We realized how previous improvement activities could be taken forward3,28 People started to become aware and interested in quality issues3,22 We developed an understanding of how different initiatives in place fit together3,21 People started to develop a stronger interest in the organization3,15 We did not see any benefits at all1,25 3. Benefits of the model

16. 16 4. Linking the intention to improve with improvement initiatives 87% started improvement initiatives !

17. 17 5. Nature of improvement activity Improvement activitynumber Input into the strategic planning process of the organization51 A full action plan (directly linked to the results of the CAF SA)38 Implementation of surveys for the staff32 Improvement of the process30 Improvement of the quality of the leadership26 Improvement of knowledge management25 Implementation of surveys for the customers/citizens (needs and satisfaction)22 Some individual improvement activities (but no full action plan)19 Implementation of result measurement (targets)18 Input into running improvement programme(s)18 A consolidated report handed to the management (leaving the implementation to the latter)16 Implementation of HRM tools (please specify)14 Improvement of technology14 Better management of buildings and assets6 Implementation of new financial management tools6 Other1

18. 18 6. Reasons no improvement initiative ReasonsMean Lack of time3,00 Other priorities2,71 No real willingness to change2,41 Lack of financial resources2,38 Lack of support for giving follow-up2,32 The results of the self-assessment were not seen as concrete enough2,24 The results of self-assessment were not accepted as an adequate picture of the organization 2,00 Key players had not been involved in the self-assessment1,94 Self-assessment was never meant to lead to improvements (it was just a “health check” of the administration) 1,94 We did not succeed in identifying relevant areas for improvement1,81 The results of self-assessment were not accepted by key persons1,81 Other1,70 The reason for conducting self-assessment was only to take part in an award contest 1,44

19. 19 Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (1)  CAF is finding its way in the central levels of government besides its important use in local administrations and is used in different sectors of activity.  CAF suits all sizes of organisations but 50% had between 100 and 1000 employees.  It suits this group of starters with little experience on TQM.  shift from external towards internal reasons for using CAF: identify strengths and areas of improvement,  Choice for CAF instead of other TQM tools: easy to use, low cost and adaptation to the public sector.  Strong involvement of the top management.

20. 20 Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (2)  The importance of communication to create ownership by the employees is underestimated.  Ideal size of SAG: between 5 and 20 persons.  External assistance is needed, especially in the preparation of the exercise.  The best preparation: elaborate guidelines, case studies, training and exchange of experiences.  Ideal timetable: 2 to 5 days within 3 months.  Most important obstacles are linked at the organisational context rather than to the model: lack of measurement, existing workload and limited view on the organisation.

21. 21 Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (3)  Major benefits experienced match with major reasons: identification of - the need to share information and improve communication, - strengths and areas of improvement and - the actions to undertake.  Improvement actions as the result of CAF: 87% (62% in 2003)  Intention of using the CAF again: 95% (82% in 2003)  68% prepared to include the good practices they discovered into the CAF database of EIPA but benchmarking/learning on the national level is more attractive.

22. 22 Interested in taking part20052003 At the national level3627 At the European level923 Both6691 Not interested814 4. Bench learning and improvement “the continuous process of comparisons and measurements with other organisations everywhere in the world in order to obtain information about philosophies, strategy, practices and measurements which will help our organisations to undertake actions to improve its performance.”

23. 23 Subcriteria present in organisation interested in 1.1. Give a direction to the organisation: develop and communicate vision, mission and values1630 1.2. Develop and implement a system for managing the organisation2128 1.3. Motivate and support the people in the organisation and act as a role model2035 2.2. Develop, review and update strategy and planning1822 2.3. Implement strategy and planning in the whole organisation1730 3.3. Involve employees by developing dialogue and empowerment2120 4.2. Develop and implement partnerships with the citizens/customers1218 4.3. Manage knowledge622 4.4. Manage finances1413 5.1. Identify, design, manage and improve processes1828 5.3. Plan and manage modernisation and innovation2021 6.1. Results of customer/citizen satisfaction measurements1321 7.1. Results of people satisfaction and motivation measurements823 8.1. Results of societal performance614 8.2. Results of environmental performance411 9.1. Goal achievement1023 Supply and Demand / Questions and Answers

24. 24

25. 25 Self-assessment is a preliminary step before benchlearning → presentation of CAF applications (method, experiences, results etc.) Identification of good practice solutions, areas for improvements Benchlearning using CAF based on the content of CAF criteria and subcriteria Process organised by exchange of experiences and site visits Benchlearning process

26. 26 The most important phase is to integrate good practices and ideas into improvement plans Further possibilities in the subgroups: e.g.: common surveys, common action plans, if possible Summing up the results: inside, in the organisation and Results reported by subgroups to the project coordinator team at the end of the phase Benchlearning process

27. 27 Interesting projects  European bench learning project (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria)  Learning Labs (Italy), Learning cycles (Denmark)  Q-cities (www.q-cities.net)  Regional projects (Flemish network local governments)  national conferences  users conferences

28. 28 European bench learning project -> organisations 4 counties: Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria 1.Sharing of info on good practices by site visits  implementation of ISO 9001  description of processes – process maps  sharing of information and transfer of agendas by IT system 2. working on products  customer satisfaction measurements

29. 29  initiative by public management institute (University of Leuven)  Network 40 local communities and local centers for social welfare  bench learning on quality management  voluntary  informal  no boundaries – no costs Flemish network local governments

30. 30  Activities  Network meetings (2 a 3 year)  Informal contacts between members  Conferences on quality in local government (www.limburg.be/kwaliteitscongres/ also in English )www.limburg.be/kwaliteitscongres/  Website (www.qualitynetwork.be)www.qualitynetwork.be Bench learning sharing dynamic /sharing sharing Flemish network local governments (2)

31. 31 European Actors  Network of CAF Users: European CAF Users Event: 2003 Rome, 2005 Luxemburg, 2007 Lisbon  National CAF correspondents: civil servants and institutions  Network of National CAF Correspondents: meet 2 times a year  CAF Resource Centre at EIPA  Research  Training  Consulting  Database  E-community  National training centres for public administrations  Universities  Private consultants

32. 32 5. CAF Perspectives for the future (1) Mid Term Programme : 2010 registered CAF users by 2010: Register actual and future users New users New Action plan 2007- 2008 Registration of CAF as a Community Trademark (CTM) CAF Centre at 5QC (Paris, September 2008) 3 rd CAF Users Event (Lisbon, 11-12 October 2007) Further development CAF eCommunity and good practices database (www.eipa.eu/caf)www.eipa.eu/caf

33. 33 CAF newsletter CAF and other quality instruments (BSC, EFQM) CAF in different sectors (CAF and Justice, Education, Local administration...) Learning tools: eLearning, DVD Networks in specific countries (e.g. Belgium) 5. CAF Perspectives for the future (2)

34. 34 Activities CAF RC 2007  CAF and Justice - quality development in the field of justice Luxembourg (LU), 16-17 April 2007  The CAF and the Balanced Scorecard Maastricht (NL), 13-15 June 2007  Measuring Customer Satisfaction – The customer in the focus/context of TQM/CAF Maastricht (NL), 18-19 September 2007  CAF Training Event - The CAF in Action Barcelona (ES), 18-19 October 2006 Maastricht (NL), 22-23 November 2007  CAF and Leadership Maastricht (NL), 13-14 December 2007

35. Contact Nick Thijs Patrick Staes European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) Public Management and Comparative Public Administration Unit O.L. Vrouweplein 22 NL - 6201 BE Maastricht Tel.: +31 43 3296 253 E-mail: n.thijs@eipa-nl.comn.thijs@eipa-nl.com p.staes@eipa-nl.com http://www.eipa.nl