1. EUPAN DG-Troika 3rd May 2007, Berlin Medium-Term Programme (MTP)

2. EUPAN – Working groups‘ assessment of current MTP-implementation and
Preparing Ministerial Recommendations for the Medium-Term Programme (MTP)
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 20, e-Government 8
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 10 x substantial 20 x marginal
Efficiency of public administration
11 x very important 20 x substantial 6 x marginal
Working towards European User Satisfaction Indices (only IPSG and eGov)
11 x very important 10 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 8 x substantial 1 x marginal
4) Ethics and Integrity
7 x very important 7 x substantial 1 x marginal

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
10 x very important 9 x substantial 1 x marginal
2) CAF (Common Assessment Framework)
17 x very important 1 x substantial 2 x marginal
3) Communication/Knowledge Sharing and Management
8 x very important 7 x substantial 3 x marginal
4) Quality Conferences
17 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
2 x very important 4 x substantial 2 x marginal
2) A focus on users needs with attention to benefits for citizens and the impact of e-government
3 x very important 3 x substantial 2 x marginal
3) Organisational changes, skills and the role of leadership required in achieving the benefits that effective use of ICT can bring to public administrations
4 x very important 1 x substantial 3 x marginal
Conclusions:
Although the small number of questionnaires received does not allow
for adequate analysis, priorities seem to focus on users‘ need and
the resulting implications

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. Priority ranking according to working groups

14. Thank you for your attention!
If you would like to comment,
please mail to: or