Quality
management in public administration:
international experience and lessons for Ukraine
Research
Paper Outline
Introduction
Quality management has undergone a
significant
evolution, from just inspecting the products to an entirely different
vision of
organisation strategy. Quality rise in business sector was followed by
its
development in public administration. Such trend is present in many
European
countries, as well as the USA and Canada. Recently, improving the
quality of
public service has become a major theme on the public sector reform
agenda in
Eastern Europe.
Public administration sector offers a number
of
quality tools. These include the ISO 9000 and third party
certification,
citizens’ charters, quality excellence models, European Foundation for
Quality
Management and Common Assessment Framework (CAF), a joint quality
framework
adopted in the EU, and others. No matter what quality management model
is
chosen, public service quality remains a key issue on the public
modernization
agenda.
Ukraine’s political leaders have put
modernization of
public sector and increased quality of public service delivery at the
top of
their reform agenda. Ukraine’s European integration efforts put
additional
pressure for enhanced administrative capacity. Quality management
offers
solutions to problems of inefficiency and poor quality of service
delivery.
Moreover, international experience shows that quality management is a
powerful
tool for capacity building in the public sector. Ukraine is undertaking
the
first small steps in the implementation of quality management and can
build on
experience of other countries.
This research paper is organized as follows.
In the
first part, I look at the history of quality management in Europe and
elsewhere. In the second part, several quality management models are
considered
in a greater detail. Case studies and country experiences are dealt
with in the
third part. Finally, in the fourth part of my research paper lessons
for
Ukraine and conclusions are offered.
1. History
of quality management in the public sector
Quality management in the private sector has
emerged
after the World War II and on the rise of mass production. Initially,
quality
management focused on output and product quality. The emphasis
gradually
shifted to customer satisfaction.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Total
Quality
Management with its focus on users of the products emerged in public
sector.
Quality thinking was initially based on users’ charters (1991 ‘Citizens
Charter’ in the UK, 1992 ‘Charte des services publics’ in France and in
1993
the Users’ Charter in Belgium, later followed by a number of other
countries).
In the late 1990s, various quality models
(EFQM, ISO)
and the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) were introduced into the
public sector.
Recently, new members of the EU have taken quality management aboard.
During 2002 a survey regarding quality
activities in
the public administrations of the European Union member states was
conducted. One of the conclusions of
this survey was that most EU members have used a number of various
quality
models. Quality initiatives are often focused at the customer
relationship
(one-stop shops, e-government), innovation, quality of life improvement
for
citizens, use of modern management techniques, simplification of
administrative
procedures and regulations and achieving higher standards of service
provision.
Quality management in public administration
is geared
towards government that is efficient, transparent, accessible and
provides
excellent quality service to customers. As a result of quality
initiatives,
number of governments developed comprehensive strategies to improve
public
service delivery. To implement such strategies, a number of
organizations/organizational divisions have been set up at the central
or local
levels to facilitate quality management in the public sector. Moreover,
private
sector is actively involved in government quality initiatives through
consulting, training and professional services.
The most popular quality management tools are
European
Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) widely used in UK and Spain;
Common
Assessment Framework in Belgium and Italy; ISO in majority of EU
countries.
Sweden has developed its own Swedish Institute Quality Model (SIQ).
United
Kingdom advanced its quality management to benchmarking . Charters and
national
quality prizes exist to improve the relationship with citizens and
reward
excellent administrations in Finland, France, Holland, Spain, UK and
Sweden.
Customer satisfaction assessment and complaint registers are used in
majority
of EU countries. Quality champions are eager to exchange experience
through
conferences and professional association.
Quality management as continuous
self-improvement
stimulates exchange of experiences. The exchange of best practices set
in
motion the development in the EU of joint quality framework, the Common
Assessment Framework (CAF). CAF is a joint product of 15 ministers of
public
administration of EU countries. It combines the most progressive
lessons of quality
management applied in business. At the same time, it is fully adapted
to the
needs and specifics of public administration. “The main purpose of the
CAF is
to provide a fairly simple, free and easy to use framework which is
suitable
for self-assessment of public sector organisations across Europe and
which
would also allow for the sharing of best practices and benchmarking
activities.”
2. Quality
management models
2.1. International Standards for Quality
Management
Systems (ISO)
ISO 9000 is a set of standards for quality
management
systems that is accepted around the world . Currently more than 90
countries
have adopted ISO 9000 as national standards in the business and public
sector.
ISO standards are most commonly used in business to ensure that the
product or
service purchased from an organization that is registered to the
appropriate
ISO 9000 standard complies with quality standard. In addition, with the
year
2000 revision of the standard, quality objectives, continual
improvement, and
monitoring of customer satisfaction provide the customer with increased
assurances that their needs and expectations will be met.
The ISO standards originate with the US
military that
developed standards for procurement contracts. In 1979 the United
States issued
the Generic Guidelines for quality systems. This was a menu of quality
management elements, and each organization chose the elements they felt
were
helpful, allowing for almost an infinite degree of tailoring.
The increase in international trade
stimulated the
development of internationally recognized quality management standards.
It was
feared that a mosaic of different national standards would be a barrier
to
international trade. The ISO Technical Committee (TC) 176 had its first
meeting
in 1980.
The first standard issued by TC 176 was ISO
8402,
which standardized quality management terminology. In 1987 the
Committee issued
ISO 9001, 9002 and 9003 establishing three different levels of quality
management system. They also issued ISO 9004, which is a set of
comprehensive
guidelines. These standards were revised in 1994, and then extensively
revised
in the year 2000. They have gained wide international acceptance.
ISO relies on a system of audits to provide
assurance
that the organization is meeting the requirements of the standard. An
audit
includes an inspection of the documents and records that make up a
quality
system. Most importantly it is an inspection of the way the people in
the
organization work and the knowledge they have about the operation of
the quality
management system.
Design and implement the quality system to
comply with
the requirements of ISO. This will typically require:
writing a quality manual, describing a
quality system
at a high level,
establishing a quality policy and measurable
quality
objectives,
writing procedure documents to describe how
most work
in the organization is carried out,
creating a system to control distribution and
re-issue
of documents,
designing and implementing a corrective and
preventive
action system to prevent problems from recurring,
identifying competency needs for all
positions in the
organization,
monitoring and measuring customer
satisfaction,
process, and product conformity,
training the staff on the operation of the
quality
management system,
planning and conducting internal quality
audits,
continual improvement of the quality
management system
.
2.2. European Foundation for Quality
Management (EFQM)
EFQM was founded at the end of the 1980s by
14 major
European companies and in 1992 EFQM introduced its excellence model as
the
framework for assessing organisations for the European Quality Award.
It has
become the basis for the majority of national and regional Quality
Awards.
The EFQM Excellence Model is a practical tool
that can
be used in a number of different ways: as a tool for Self-Assessment; a
way to
Benchmark with other organisations; a guide to identify areas for
Improvement;
basis for a common Vocabulary and a way of thinking; a Structure for
the
organisation's management system.
The EFQM Model is a non-prescriptive
framework based
on 9 criteria. Five of these are “Enablers” and four are “Results”. The
“Enabler” criteria cover what an organisation does. The “Results”
criteria
cover what an organisation achieves. “Results” are caused by “Enablers”
and
“Enablers” are improved using feedback from 'Results'.
The EFQM Model, which recognises there are
many
approaches to achieving sustainable excellence in all aspects of
performance,
is based on the premise that excellent results with respect to
performance,
customers, people and society are achieved through leadership driving
policy
and strategy, that is delivered through people, partnerships and
resources, and
processes.
2.3. Total Quality Management (TQM)
TQM is a management philosophy of continuous
improvement of goods and services with the aims of total customer
satisfaction,
optimum use of resources and better worker satisfaction, leading to
more
profitable companies and more reliable and innovative products .
TQM principally means applying quantitative
methods
(measurements and statistical analysis) of processes, use of materials
and
human resources (people) to improve the goods and services an
organization uses
to make and deliver products to its customers. The degree to which
these
satisfy customer needs and desires is then subject to further analysis
with the
aim of continuous improvement of the product, service and the processes
by
which these are generated. The key objective is continuous improvement.
Contrary to ISO which is a quality management
standard, TQM is a philosophy of perpetual improvement.
An ISO implementation is a basis for a Total
Quality Management implementation. Where there is an ISO system, about
75
percent of the steps are in place for TQM.
Implementing TQM is being proactive concerning quality rather
than
reactive and looking for ways of constant improvement.
TQM is the foundation for activities which
include:
meeting customer requirements
reducing development cycle
demand flow manufacturing
improvement teams
reducing product and service costs
improving administrative systems training
2.4. Common Assessment Framework
In 1997, following intense consultations
regarding
modernization of public administrations, the Innovative Public Services
Group
(IPSG) was set up at the EU level. In 1998, after a number of
preparatory
meetings, 15 ministers of public administration adopted a declaration
on the
general principles concerning the improvement of quality of services to
citizens. Based on those principles, in 2000 the IPSG developed a new
quality
tool adapted to the public sector – the Common Assessment Framework – a
self-assessment framework based on the principles of TQM and EFQM.
The CAF has four main purposes:
To capture the unique features of public
sector
organisations.
To serve as a tool for public administrators
who want
to improve the performance of their organisation.
To act as a bridge across the various models
in use in
quality management.
To facilitate benchmarking between public
sector
organisations .
The CAF has been designed for use in all
parts of the
public sector, applicable to public organisations at a
national/federal,
regional and local level. It may also be used under a wide variety of
circumstances, e.g. as part of a systematic programme of reform or as a
basis
for targeting improvement efforts in public service organisations. In
some
cases, and especially in very large organisations, a self-assessment
may also
be undertaken in a part of an organisation, e.g. a selected section or
department.
The CAF constitutes a blueprint of the
organisation.
It is a representation of all aspects that must be present in the
proper
management of an organisation in order to achieve satisfactory results.
All
these elements are translated into nine criteria and further
operationalised
and given concrete form in subcriteria. On the basis of these
subcriteria, a
group from within the organisation evaluates that organisation.
Using the CAF provides an organisation with a
powerful
framework to initiate a process of continuous improvement. Compared to
a fully
developed Total Quality Management model, the CAF is a "light" model,
especially suited to gaining an initial impression of how the
organisation
performs. It is assumed that any organisation that intends to go
further will
select one of the more detailed models such as EFQM. The CAF has the
advantage
of being compatible with these models and may therefore be a first step
for an
organisation wishing to go further with quality management .
3. Country
experiences
In this section, I take a closer look at
several
country cases of improved customer satisfaction without application of
specific
quality management models. These case studies offer examples that could
be
useful for Ukraine’s government.
3.1. US government experience with Customer
Satisfaction Index
Since the early 1990s, the US federal
government has
increasingly focused on how well its programs and services meet or
exceed the
needs and expectations of its citizens.
Through a combination of legislation, policy directives from the
Executive Branch, and agency initiatives, federal agencies have made
achievement in measuring satisfaction with their services and programs.
In
particular, in 1993 Clinton signed Executive order directing “all
agencies” to:
identify their customers;
ask them how satisfied they are and what they
want;
post service standards and measure results
against
them;
compare performance to the best in business;
survey employees about how to give better
service;
give customers choice;
make information, service and complaint
systems easily
accessible;
provide means to address complaints.
One of the challenges government program
managers
faced was to find a measure that would provide highly accurate
measurement of
citizen satisfaction and also enable them to benchmark agency service
performance against other similar service providers in both the
government and
the private sector. At the same time,
policymakers needed a measure that would track the quality of overall
government services delivered to its citizens.
In 1999 the federal government selected the
American
Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is a standard tool for measuring
citizen
satisfaction with the delivery of government services . The ACSI is a
uniform
and independent measure of consumers’ experiences with the purchase and
consumption of goods and services in the United States.
Participation in the ACSI is voluntary.
The ACSI measures citizen experiences with
the
services delivered by government such as social security, healthcare,
and veterans’
benefits; grants and loan programs for students, exporters, farmers,
etc.;
recreational facilities and services; services to international
travellers; tax
filing; regulatory and enforcement programs.
In addition to company-level satisfaction scores, ACSI produces
scores
for the causes and consequences of customer satisfaction and their
relationships.
By participating in the ACSI, program
managers
identify and understand which of their processes should receive the
most
immediate attention. Examples of the
kinds of activities that were identified included writing regulations
and
information in plain language, providing more services to citizens
electronically, maintaining high quality customer service, and
streamlining
processes to provide quicker responses to inquires and applications for
services or benefits. By responding to
findings from the ACSI, managers are able to improve program
effectiveness and
focus more on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.
One agency that has clearly benefited from
the results
of ACSI data has been the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the agency
responsible for tax collection. The IRS
has separately measured the satisfaction of individuals who have filed
their
tax returns using the traditional paper-based method and compared that
with the
satisfaction of individuals who have filed their tax returns
electronically. The results show that
citizens are significantly more satisfied using the electronic tax
filing process
because there are fewer errors, the filing process is much quicker, and
they
can obtain their refunds faster.
Moreover, the IRS is able to reduce its overall costs and regain
citizen
trust in the income tax system .
3.2. Poland’s “The Friendliest Office of
Government
Administration”
The competition for the “friendliest office
of
government administration” is organized by the Head of Civil Service of
Poland
annually. The purpose of the competition is to promote activities aimed
to
improve the quality of customer service and increase citizen
satisfaction,
hence building an image of the government administration as a
professional
organization characterized by legality, integrity and high competence.
The prize is awarded in two nominations:
small office
employing less than 100 employees and large office employing over 100
employees.
Competition Board comprises:
representative of the Prime Minister Office;
representative of the Commissioner for Civil
Rights
Protection;
representative of Transparency International;
two representatives of the media;
representative of the National School of
Public
Administration;
representative of the Head of the Civil
Service.
Offices seeking to participate in the
competition
complete questionnaires regarding customer satisfaction, services,
access to
information and facilities and undergo a special audit to check this
information. Short-listed offices carry out surveys among a random
sample of
its employees and customers. The winner of the competition is awarded
with a
commemorative cup and the title “the Friendliest Office of Government
Administration”, which is held for one year.
During 2002-2004 over 60 administrations of
the
regional and central level took part in the competition . The results
of the
competition play an important role regarding the performance appraisal
of line
managers and supervisors in the civil service. The questionnaire is
refined
after each competition to serve as an adaptable tool of customer
satisfaction
measurement.
3.3. Latvia’s ISO certification experience in
the
framework of civil service reform
Latvia’s experience with quality management
is by far
the most thorough among European countries. Latvia’s civil service
reform was
initiated in the mid-1990s to increase administrative capacity and make
the
public sector more effective and efficient. When a new civil service
law was
designed in 1999, the State Civil Service Administration proposed that
a new
law would not be sufficient and that quality management system is
needed. The
working group was created under the Prime Minister comprising
representatives
of various ministries and chaired by the Head of the State Civil
Service
Administration to explore possibilities of introducing quality
management into
the Latvian public administration. The working group arrived at a
conclusion
that ISO 9001 standard, which focuses on the effectiveness of the
quality
management system in meeting customer requirements, should be used for
public
administration.
The Latvian Bank, which had already
introduced quality
management as a pilot project and undergone external certification,
proposed
that ISO 9001 should be made compulsory in the public sector.
Subsequent
detailed regulations were drafted in 2000. On December 4, 2001 the
Cabinet of
Ministers approved regulation #501 “On introduction of a quality
management
system in public administration”, which put responsibility on the heads
of all
public sector organizations to introduce, implement, continuously
improve
quality management system and to appoint a quality manager.
The regulation followed a substantial
political debate
in the country on whether quality management should be compulsory. The
working
group that drafted regulation was in favour of making ISO 9001
voluntary.
Firstly, the working group was aware that the voluntary introduction of
quality
initiatives and models is common practice internationally. Secondly,
the
working group considered that a recommendation would allow public
agencies that
were against introducing ISO 9001 to choose an alternative quality
management
model such as the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) or the European
Foundation
for Quality Management Excellence Model.
By 2004, over 70 public sector organizations
received
the ISO 9001 certificate after a successful external certification. ISO
certification receives substantial media coverage in the country
promoting the
improvement of quality of public sector operations and services and
making
administration customer-friendly.
----
Public Services and quality
Theory of public services comes from the
experience of
Great Britain, Canada, the USA and other countries where since the 80s,
priorities of public administration and relations with the citizens
changes.
The needs of a person, his/her rights are a key value of the society
and the
goal of public administration is to provide quality public services to
a
citizen. Thus, citizens are consumers, not petitioners of services. The
state
orients its activity at the needs of a client just as this is done in
the
private sector.
In Ukraine, the quality of public services is
deficient:
a number of unjustified paid administrative
services;
unjustified prices for services;
limited access to information;
unjustified
----
4. Lessons
for Ukraine
Over the last 6 months, the new government of
Ukraine
has taken a number of steps to carry out public administration reform.
The
Vice-Prime-Minister of Ukraine for Administrative and Territorial
Reform is
supporting civil service reform. At the same time, he believes civil
service
reform can be effective only when sound processes and procedures as
well as standard
documentation are introduced. Moreover, European integration priority
Pilot project on introducing quality
management in the
Main Department for Civil Service following a standard ISO 9000:2000 is
a first
step to building a more efficient and customer oriented system of
public
administration.
Pilot project for building the quality
management
system in the Main Department for Civil Service can serve as basis for
introduction of a similar system in the entire system of agencies of
the
executive branch.
The international experience shows that there
are a
number of success factors for successful implementation and continuous
improvement of quality management system:
1. Ownership
of Quality Management
The primary factor for success within an
organization
is the presence of a single team, which owned the strategic, planning,
performance and improvement processes. The presence and continuity of a
team
involved in both strategy development and the analysis of present
performance
allows the deep understanding of the organization’s capability and
performance.
2. Top
Management Commitment
This is a critical factor for quality
management to be
effective. Both private and public sector experience shows that this
commitment
should be demonstrated through active communication and support in the
organization. Moreover, the more committed top managers actively sought
to
understand the quality management techniques. This would involve
training of
personnel, exchange of experience and experimenting. With such an
understanding
the top managers are better able to support and drive forward
organizational
improvement. It is also vital that politicians have a strong role in
improving
public service delivery and including this goal in the agenda of their
political parties.
3. Voluntary
vs. legislative approach
Overwhelming majority of public sector
organizations
are implementing quality management systems on a voluntary basis. The
philosophy of quality management requires that organizations gain
ownership of
the results and develop genuine interest and motivation for
self-improvement.
At the same time, voluntary approach can give very limited results for
a
country that is willing to radically reform and strengthen its
administrative
capacity.
3.
Additional Tools
Using any particular quality management model
is still
only a partial answer to organizational success. Successful public
sector
organizations used a whole mix of approaches additional tools such as
customer
surveys, benchmarking, e-government and citizen engagement, national
prizes
etc. The use of such additional tools also aids organizational learning.
4.
Continuous learning and training
The willingness to learn and develop was also
important for each organization. The public sector organizations sought
to
implement quickly and learn as they went along. Their quality
management
systems underwent continual development and reflected real-life
experience.
People within the organizations were also engaged in and entrusted to
manage
improvement activity, within a clearly communicated organizational
strategy.
The need to effectively leverage knowledge, as a core value-adding
process was
both recognized and actively promoted and managed.
5.
Partnering
The successful organizations had strong
relationships
with external partners which included other public administrations,
both
domestic and international, civil society organizations, citizens and
their
organizations, political parties, media, professional organizations,
academic
institutions, etc. It is evident that technological or instrumentalist
approach
is substantially less effective compared consultation with citizens and
other
service users and partnership working among public sector
organizations, CSO’s
and business.
Such partnering allows the administrations to
broaden
their understanding of their changing environment, both current and
future, and
continuously improve their service delivery.
6. Exchange
Many initiatives launched in the various
European
countries may be termed ad hoc initiatives of the countries themselves.
However, there is a growing tendency both in Western and Eastern
European
countries, towards a common reference framework.
The setting up of the Common Assessment
Framework in
the EU countries provides powerful lessons on how overall reform
platform creates
an impetus for exchange of best practices, which in turn creates
additional
stimuli for public administration for self-improvement.
The quality conferences prove to be an
excellent tool
to discuss problems, challenges and solutions within various
organizations.
They are also a tool to enhance effectiveness of the public sector.
Conclusions
For Ukraine with its post-soviet tradition
and deeply
rooted administrative inefficiencies, bureaucracy, neglect for customer
needs,
some legislative steps should be taken to promote quality management.
Common
legislative framework will serve as a guiding principle for public
management.
Gradually, quality management can change the mind set of civil servants
from
bureaucratic self-serving paperwork to customer service.
Training is a crucial factor for Ukraine.
International experience shows training is a central issue regarding
quality
management application. A number of countries vested public
administration
schools to provide training in quality management.
Quality management of service and policies is
also a
political and not just technical matter. It should be actively put on
the
political agenda.
5. References
Bouckaert G.,
“Charters as frameworks for awarding quality: the Belgian, British and
French
experience, Charters as frameworks for awarding quality: the Belgian,
British
and French experience, seminar on concepts and methods of quality
awards in the
public sector”, Speyer, Germany, 1993, p. 7.
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF).
Improving an
Organization through Self-Assessment. European Institute of Public
Administration. Maastricht, October 2002
Engel C., Common Assessment Framework : The
state of
affairs, Eipascope, 2002 (1), p. 35.
European Institute of Public Administration
http://www.eipa.nl/
European Foundation for Quality Management
http://www.efqm.org/
European public administration network
http://www.eupan.org/
IPSG, “Survey regarding quality activities in
the
public administrations of the European Union member states”, 2002, 95 p.
International Standards Organization http://www.iso.org/iso/en/
ISO Standard
http://www.isoeasy.org/
The International Journal of Business
Effectiveness
http://www.european-quality.co.uk/
Kulakov, A. Need for government quality
management and
effective infrastructure. // Standards and Quality, # 8, 2003, p. 18.
Public Sector Benchmarking Service:
http://www.benchmarking.gov.uk.
G. Russel. Application of ISO Standard for
Performance
Management. // Methods of Quality Management. # 12, 2003 p. 44)
A. Shadrin. Quality Management in Private
Sector on
the Basis of International Standards. // Standards and Quality, #11,
2004 p.
34)
State Statistics Committee of Ukraine.
Requirements
for Quality Management (ISO 9001:200). // State Standards Committee of
Ukraine.
Kyiv, 2001
Stone, Bob, Polite Revolutionary: Lessons
from an
Uncivil Servant. Published by the Turkish Standards Institution, 2001.
Ukrainian Association for Quality Management
http://www.quality.kiev.ua/
US customer service website
http://www.customerservice.gov/