Policy
Paper
Commitments of the Ukrainian
government made during
Orange Revolution put pressure to invest in improving the performance
of the
public sector and launch.
In order to meet the rising
expectations of the
society and re-establish trust in government, public administration in
Ukraine has
to introduce some solutions from the private sector regarding customer
service,
external communication, innovation, process improvement, human resource
management, internal communication, and motivation to provide high
quality of
services. The ultimate aim is to achieve tangible improvements in the
quality
of public services delivered to citizens.
Over the past two decades, many
European countries
have also embarked upon public sector modernization and development
programs
aimed to fundamentally change the ways in which citizens are served.
These
programs have varied both in character, emphasis and pace of change
from
country to country. One common feature of these programs has been the
efforts
made by different public agencies to improve the quality of services
delivered,
to reduce “red tape”, and to assist in the development of policy
initiatives
more geared to the needs of those for whom they are intended. The drive
has
been towards quality and the tools employed quality management models.
Quality management offers
solutions to improve organization’s operation and increase management
and
administrative capacity. Examples
of quality management application in public sector are present in a
number of
countries and are becoming increasingly popular in public
administrations of the
new EU member states.
The first step in applying
quality management has
been taken at the Main Civil Service Department of Ukraine (MCSD), a
government
agency responsible for functional management of the civil service of
This policy paper serves two
goals. It serves as discussion
document and an instrument for policy campaign and consultation on the
benefits
of quality management in public administration. It also offers a
strategy and
concrete steps to introduce quality management, a set of practical
guidelines
and tools for policymakers when planning and undertaking quality
management
implementation in public administration.
Theory of public services comes
from the experience
of
Firstly,
government activity is focused on sustaining bureaucratic culture and not focused on policy work or citizen
service; secondly, low quality of policy
documents produced by public administration; and thirdly, heavy
workload and
pressure on civil servants is not reflected in any measurable results.
conflict of responsibilities;
diffusion of responsibility for
and lack of
ownership of the final outcome;
waste of time while working with
routine papers
that have no effect on the final outcome;
waste of time due to constant
need to correct
mistakes as documentation standards are lacking;
limited access to information;
extremely high staff turnover (20% civil servants annually);
lack of prioritization.
Based on the
functional review of the MCSD the following problems were identified:
areas of
responsibility among structural divisions and positions are unclear;
strong organizational
barriers among structural divisions;
weak horizontal
communication;
strategic planning is
not related to budget planning, which causes ineffective use of budget
resources and lack of concrete measurable outputs and outcomes;
effectiveness and
efficiency criteria of government activity are not developed;
quality of services measurements
are not identified;
monitoring of
activity is limited to formal deadline control and does not ensure
quality;
policy function is
poorly implemented; red tape and paper work override policy initiatives;
policy consultations
are weak or nonexistent;
feedback from
customers of government services is not collected. Customer needs and
customer
satisfaction are not studied;
uneven distribution of tasks
causing conflict
between qualification (competency) and job descriptions;
internal processes are not
structured and not
documented;
typical documents are not
standardized in terms
of form, structure, and content;
lack of quality control.
The purpose of public
administration reform is to make the government more responsive to
society’s
needs and demands and promote efficiency. Public administration is
expected to
provide better services at a smaller cost. Government should also be
able to
respond to changing demands with new solutions. Equally important is
strengthened communication with citizens and engagement.
Some key benefits of quality
management are twofold. Firstly, quality management benefits
administrative and
management capacity and promotes good management practices. The most
common
benefits are improved day-to-day operations; improved information flow;
overall
improvement of the organization; qualitative service delivery;
professional
development for employees. Quality initiatives result not only in
efficient
management and satisfied clients but also in job satisfaction.
Secondly, quality management
is crucial for increased quality of public service delivery and
customer
satisfaction. Quality management requires that client needs and
perceptions are
examined regularly and serves to ensure quality service and result
irrespective
of regulatory, personnel, market and other changes. Public sector
organizations
that employ quality models learn to be dedicated to public service.
The very process of
implementation changes organizational culture motivating staff to share
the
same concept of quality. Quality thinking is a driver of cultural
change from
“bureaucratic” administration to customer-oriented organization.
Commitment to
values serves as a driver of change towards the development of
professionalism,
integrity, service and quality.
Organizations that introduced
quality management enjoyed improved image of the organization.
Unlike Western European
countries, the emergence of quality thinking is rather a new trend. The
best-known quality models in these countries are ISO 9000 series, the
EFQM
Excellence Model and the Common Assessment Framework. The ISO standards
are the
most often utilized quality management tool in CEE. There are a number
of
reasons for that. ISO certifications are considered to be attractive as
public
sector managers want to follow their private sector counterparts in
service
delivery. ISO certification does not affect organizational structure
significantly.
External:
reduced number of client complaints;
increased number of clients willing to engage in
cooperation;
increased respect towards the government on behalf of the
citizens.
Internal:
reduced overtime;
reduced number of low
quality documents or services;
reduced number of
arguments
such as: “I have not done it because I was hoping somebody else
would”, “I
have done it because I did not know somebody else already had”, “I
fulfilled
half of the assignment and somebody else conducted the other half. It’s
not my
fault that these two parts in incompatible”, “I have done it this way
because I
didn’t understand the assignment” etc.
Benefits gained by everyone:
significant savings of time;
fair distribution of
responsibility;
every employee will understand
where his/her
responsibility lies;
every line manager will
understand what
priorities are and where quality is crucial (which would allow to
prioritize
and determine deadlines);
top managers will be able to
focus on
strategies and oversight.
After the government
functions are reviewed and re-structuring is done, internal process
efficiency
and customer orientation of the government should be improved. This can
be done
through quality management system.
Quality management guarantees
the organizational capability of the government to carry out aims and
objectives assigned to it. The key is to define a “customer” and
“service”.
This should come out as a result of functional review. Customers of
services of
government agencies are (most often) the state leaders (President of
Ukraine,
the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine), members of the Parliament of
Ukraine,
other agencies of government, institutions and organizations, and (in
certain
cases) individuals and organizations.
The first step in quality
management is
documentation of processes, which includes:
clear definition of the roles
and contributions
of every employee in every process;
identification of steps to be
taken and
interactions in each process;
development and regulation of
documentation
standards.
Carry out diagnostic
audit and get recommendations.
Identify key categories
of customers of public administration. Typically, they are:
Citizens and
businesses.
Local
self-government.
Government agencies.
Top government authorities
(Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, Cabinet of Ministers of
Identify key
processes:
Organizational
management processes.
Processes ensuring
service delivery.
Service delivery.
Resource and logistical
support.
Develop structure of
documentation of quality management system.
Carry out survey of
organization’s staff and clients.
Set up Quality
Management Commission and appoint quality management representatives.
Conduct training in
quality management for representatives.
Develop key policy
objectives of the MDCS.
Develop structure of
all processes of the MDCS.
Organize internal
audits:
Approve timeline of
regular audits;
Identify internal
auditors;
Carry out training
for internal auditors.
Test process
structure documentation in every day work.
Client feedback
Set up client telephone
line.
Regular opinion polls
among MDCS customers.
On-line communication
with customers.
E-government
solutions
Planning and
organization of internal processes
Develop strategic
plan
Quality management
documentation:
MDCS Regulation– key
document, road map, guideline.
Process structure –
annexes to Regulation, graphical step-by-step algorithms.
Technical guidelines
providing details for structured processes.
Institutional
framework for quality management system
Commission for
Quality Management and its Regulation.
Quality management
representatives and their Regulation.
Commission for
Quality Management
Permanent working
body
Led by the Head of
organization
Key tasks – organize
development, introduction and continuous improving of the quality
management
system.
Quality management
representatives
Objectives:
Ensure effective
functioning of the quality management system;
Coordinate and
monitor of activity of quality management officers’ activity;
Control over
implementation of decisions of the Commission for Quality Management.
Quality management
officers
Key tasks for quality
management officers:
Develop documentation
for quality management in all structural divisions;
Inform employees of
structural divisions about requirements of ISO standard;
Monitor execution of
decisions of the Commission for Quality Management.
Typical
regulation for internal organization of a ministry work
Typical
methodology of document management for a ministry
Performance
and quality indicators for a ministry
Methodology
to assess organizational capacity to introduce quality
management and identify related problem areas
Shift from routine
work to initiation and implementation of public policy.
Introducing
process-oriented approach, identification and consistent analysis of
effectiveness and quality criteria.
Clear separation of
lines of responsibility, strengthening horizontal links and overcoming
organizational barriers inside government agencies.
Challenges and
prospects
Evaluating personal
contribution of each employee into common goal.
Organization of
consistent specialized in-service training for civil servants.
Introducing change management
as a continuous process of improvement to increase efficiency and
effectiveness.
Annex
1
Analysis of
the survey results of MDCS staff
Objective:
This survey
was conducted to find out some important
facts about MDCS
1. Out of
total 88 distributed questionnaires, 62 were collected, with 70.4%
response
rate.
Out of
those who responded, 16 respondents stated that they are line managers
and 30
are not (16 no-responses).
27 staff
members stated that they work at the MDCS over a year, 25 – less than a
year
(10 no-responses).
Despite
anonymity of the survey, only 22 staff members stated structural
division they
work in.
2. Level of
satisfaction and understanding of work duties at the MDCS (4 –
completely
agree, 0 – entirely disagree)
|
Statement |
Overall |
Managers |
Employees |
Over 1 yr |
Less than 1 yr |
|
I am proud to
work at the MDCS |
3.4 |
3.1 |
3.5 |
3.2 |
3.4 |
|
I clearly
understand general goals and objectives of the MDCS |
3.3 |
3 |
3.4 |
3 |
3.4 |
|
I always have
updated information on legislative and regularoy acts needed in my work
|
3.3 |
3.5 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
3.1 |
|
I always
understand instructions from my supervisors |
3 |
2.6 |
3.5 |
2.8 |
3.3 |
|
I have
sufficient responsibility needed for effective work |
3 |
2.9 |
3 |
2.9 |
3.1 |
|
I regularly
receive feedback from my supervisors |
2.9 |
3 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
2.8 |
|
I have
sufficient possibility for direct coordination with MDCS Head |
2.8 |
2.9 |
2.9 |
3.7 |
3.9 |
|
I clearly
understand the criteria of my performance appraisal by supervisors |
2.8 |
2.5 |
2.9 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
|
I always
understand my tasks and instructions from supervisors |
2.7 |
2.6 |
2.7 |
3.4 |
3.8 |
|
General
atmosphere in my organization is beneficial and conducive for
productive work |
2.7 |
2.8 |
2.6 |
3.6 |
3.7 |
|
I am free to
voice my opinion on how to improve the effectiveness of the MDCS
activity |
2.7 |
2.3 |
3 |
3.5 |
3.7 |
|
I am provided
with updated statistical information, reports, etc. necessary for my
work |
2.6 |
2.5 |
2.7 |
3.7 |
3.4 |
|
I have
sufficient opportunities to upgrade my qualification level to perform
quality work |
2.5 |
2.3 |
2.5 |
3 |
3.7 |
|
I am satisfied
with my work conditions |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.6 |
3.6 |
3.4 |
|
I fully
understand separation of responsibility among structural divisions of
the MDCS |
2.3 |
1.9 |
2.5 |
3.3 |
3.2 |
|
Responsibility
of my structural division is clearly defined and not in conflict with
responsibility of other divisions |
2 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
|
I have enough
time to perform quality work |
1.7 |
1.2 |
2.1 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
Distribution
of responses to the question:
3. Evaluate
your own work
„Do you
always perform your duties with good quality?”:
Always - 7
In majority
of instances– 15
50/50 – 4
In minority
of instances – 33
No
response– 3
„What are
the reasons for poor quality of work? (share of respondents who chose a
reason;
more than 1 could be selected):
|
|
Overall |
Managers |
Employees |
Over 1 yr |
Less than 1 yr |
|
Not enough time |
0.63 |
0.69 |
0.55 |
0.52 |
0.71 |
|
Unclear task or
performance criteria |
0.39 |
0.25 |
0.41 |
0.48 |
0.33 |
|
Insufficient
knowledge and/or skills, insufficient training |
0.32 |
0.25 |
0.38 |
0.37 |
0.33 |
|
No access to
necessary information |
0.18 |
0.13 |
0.14 |
0.15 |
0.17 |
|
Insufficient
level of responsibility |
0.15 |
0.06 |
0.14 |
0.07 |
0.25 |
|
Lack of
motivation for good quality of work |
0.08 |
0.13 |
0.1 |
0 |
0.04 |
|
Managers allow
poor quality |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.03 |
0.15 |
0.04 |
|
Regulator
restrictions |
0.03 |
0 |
0.03 |
0.07 |
0.04 |
Also, 2
staff members noted that sometimes they are forced to do some other
division’s
work.
4. „Do you
believe that quality management could be a tool for improved service
delivery?”:
Yes – 46
Unsure – 12
No – 3
5. „Who in
your opinion are key customers of the MDCS services?” 46 respondents,
more than
1 option could be selected):
|
Civil servants |
29 (63%) |
|
Citizens, NGOs |
20 (43%) |
|
Other government
agencies |
19 (41%) |
|
President of |
8 (17%) |
|
Local
self-governing bodies |
7 (14%) |
|
Research
institutions |
1 (2%) |
|
Universities |
1 (2%) |
|
MDCS staff |
1 (2%) |
|
HR units of
government agencies |
1 (2%) |
|
Retired civil
servants |
1 (2%) |
6. 39
respondents gave their opinion on the key results of the MDCS work. The
most
important results are direct output (i.e., regulatory acts, draft
government
decisions, explanation, etc.) and changes in the work of civil servants
(i.e.,
increased status of civil servants etc.). A number of staff members
stated that
customer satisfaction and service delivery should be the results of the
MDCS
work.
|
Direct output
(i.e., regulatory acts, draft government decisions, explanation, etc.)
and |
11 (28%) |
|
Changes in the
civil service (increased status and professionalism of civil servants
etc.) |
14 (36%) |
|
Customer
satisfaction, quality service delivery |
6 (15%) |
|
Internal
improvement of the MDCS (increased status, improved image, improved
internal organization and management etc.) |
6 (15%) |
7. 29 staff
members provided suggestions to improve internal organization of the
MDCS work.
The most frequent suggestions are:
clearly regulate
internal procedures (9);
clearly
identify and separation functions among divisions, eliminate overlaps
(7);
reduce red
tape, reduce document flow (6);
increase
opportunities for professional training (4);
improve
recruitment and selection procedures (3);
improve
technical equipment of workplace (3).