Benchlearning in government reflections from eGEP experience and beyond Cristiano Codagnone Professo

1
Bench-learning in government reflections
fromeGEP experience and beyondCristiano
Codagnone Professor, Milan State
UniversityConsultant, RSO SPAcristiano.codagnone
_at_unimi.itccodagnone_at_rso.it
The Impact of eGovernment in EuropeHelsinki
13 September 2006
2
"eGEP was an EU-funded study on eGovernment
impact, running from 2005-2006
(see
www.rso.it/egep )
3
Irreconcilable positions?

• A single figure to benchmark several countries
  is
• Reality distilled in manageable form for policy
  consumption
• Apples and pears compared, context and processes
  overlooked, policy-learning and transfer
  obliterated
• Bench-learning is bottom-up benchmarking
• A learning process building transformative
  capacity

4
Hard facts, soft measurement?

• 36.5 bln for ICT public administration
  expenditure in 2004
• ICT could increase public administration
  productivity and boost EU25 GDP by up 1.54
  (2005-2010)
• Beyond supply side benchmarking?
• Yes, but data, feasibility, and comparability
  challenges

5
Private vs. public benchmarking

• Private sector
• Unit of analysis organisations
• Voluntary and flexible tool, good data
  availability
• Public sector national and international
• Unit of analysis organisations, public policy,
  policy systems
• Cooperation, comparability, feasibility
  challenges
• From management tool to regulatory instrument

6
Impact measurement difficulty
7
Why Bench-learning?

• For benchmarking only 10 eGEP indicators
• The simplest and more comparable
• Bench-learning 1
• To focus on most sophisticated impact indicators
• To build measurement capacities bottom up
• Bench-learning 2
• Opportunity to look at processes complexity
• Identify enabling and hindering factors

8
Bench-learning bottom-up benchmarking

• Bench-learning is
• Voluntary, bottom up and learning oriented
• Flexible, with no need of uniform rigid
  indicators
• Gradually scalable from micro to meso and macro
• Groups of similar organisations
• Groups of similar verticals / regions
• Groups of similar countries
• Builds capacity for a portfolio of measurement
  tools
• Variable benchmarking for horizontal policy
  learning
• Traditional EU25 benchmarking
• Micro/meso level measurement and benchmarking

9
Bench-learning Groups start simple

• Micro level only single public organisations
• 1 champion plus 3-4 learning organisations
• Groups assembled from similar countries
• Leverage existing collaboration networks
• Two Options
• Central agencies in same vertical (holistic)
• Local governments in one area (functional)
• Third party facilitators (EU contractors)
• intense and in depth work

10
Ownership and governance

• Voluntary participation
• Participant self-interested in capacity building
  and learning
• Clear mandate and leadership buy in
• Groups to be assembled not by facilitator
• Multi-stakeholders but firm governance
• Exchange and consensus
• But with clear lines of accountability

11
Four inspiring principles

• Mainstream measurement
• Know where you start from
• Use multidimensional metrics
• Dont just measure manage!

12
Mainstream Measurement

• Measurement mainstreamed to strategy/policy
• Not managed in isolation by an IT department
• Measurement targets derived from objectives
• Not from technicalities
• Responding to law and policy directives can be a
  measurement target
• Require qualitative metrics, possibly less
  comparable

13
Know where you start from

• Define a baseline for each metric, i.e.
• FTE cost of existing processes
• Waiting times for constituency
• No meaningful measurement without baseline
• Processes and workflows analysis a must
• Needed to define baseline for some metrics
• Help identify key success factors or bottlenecks

14
Use multi-dimensional metrics

• One-dimensional financial metrics inadequate to
  fully capture the public value ICT can deliver
• Match metrics to objectives
• Hard cash values
• Opportunity values
• Volume metrics
• Qualitative metrics

15
Dont just measure manage!

• Measurement not as one-shot exercise for
  investment decision
• Use it through the lifecycle of the project
• to keep costs down
• to ensure that expected benefits are delivered
• Measurement as pillar of strategic management
• Not only for accountability but also for
• strategic decision making and control, team
  motivation and risk management

16
Annex

• Selected Bibliography on Benchmarking and the
  Open Method of Coordination

17

• Arrowsmith, J., K. Sisson and P. Marginson
  (2004). What can benchmarking offer the open
  method of coordination?, Journal of European
  Public Policy, 11(2), pp. 311-328.
• Borrás, S. and B. Greve (2004). Concluding
  remarks New method or just cheap talk?, Journal
  of European Public Policy, 11(2), pp. 329-336.
• Borrás, S. and K. Jacobsson (2004). The open
  method of co-ordination and new governance
  patterns in the EU, Journal of European Public
  Policy, 11(2), pp. 185-208.
• Bowerman, M., G. Francis, A. Ball, and J. Fry
  (2002). The evolution of benchmarking in UK local
  authorities, Benchmarking An International
  Journal, 9(5), pp. 429-449.

• Cox, A. and I. Thompson (1998). On the
  Appropriateness of Benchmarking, Journal of
  General Management, 23(3), pp. 1-20.
• Dattakumar, R. and R. Jagadeesh (2003). A review
  of literature on benchmarking, Benchmarking An
  International Journal, 10(3), pp. 176-209.
• De la Porte, C. (2002). Is the Open Method of
  Coordination Appropriate for Organising
  Activities at European Level in Sensitive Policy
  Areas?, European Law Journal, 8(1), pp. 38-58.

18

• De la Porte, C., Ph. Pochet and G. Room (2001).
  Social benchmarking, policy making and new
  governance in the EU, Journal of European Social
  Policy, 11(4), pp. 291-307.
• Dolowitz, D.P. (2003). A Policy-makers Guide to
  Policy Transfer, The Political Quarterly, 74(1),
  pp. 101-108.
• Dolowitz, D. and D. Marsh (2000). Learning from
  Abroad The Role of Policy Transfer in
  Contemporary Policy-Making, Governance, 13(1),
  pp. 5-24.

• Dorsch, J.J. and M.M. Yasin (1998). A framework
  for benchmarking in the public sector. Literature
  review and directions for future research,
  International Journal of Public Sector
  Management, 11(2/3), pp. 91-115.
• Kaiser, R. and H. Prange (2004). Managing
  diversity in a system of multi-level governance
  the open method of co-ordination in innovation
  policy, Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2),
  pp. 249-266.
• Kastrinos, N. (2001). Contribution of
  socio-economic research to the benchmarking of
  RTD policies in Europe, Science and Public
  policy, 28(4), pp. 238-246.

19

• Lundvall, B.-Å. and M. Tomlinson (2001).
  Learning-by-comparing reflections on the use and
  abuse of international benchmarking. In G.
  Sweeney (ed.), Innovation, Economic Progress and
  the Quality of Life, Cheltenham Edward Elgar,
  pp. 120-136.
• Lundvall, B.-Å. and M. Tomlinson (2002).
  International benchmarking as a policy learning
  tool. In M.J. Rodrigues, The New Knowledge
  Economy in Europe. A Strategy for International
  Competitiveness and Social Cohesion, Cheltenham
  Edward Elgar, pp. 203-231.
• Magd, H. and A. Curry (2003). Benchmarking
  achieving best value in public-sector
  organisations, Benchmarking An International
  Journal, 10(3), pp. 261-286..

• Radaelli, C.M. (2003a). The Open Method of
  Coordination A new governance architecture for
  the European Union?, Report 20031, Stockholm
  Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.
• Room, G., Policy Benchmarking In The European
  Union Indicators and Ambiguities, in Policy
  Studies, Vol. 26, No 2, 2005, pp. 117-132
• Schütz, H., S. Speckesser and G. Schmid (1998).
  Benchmarking Labour Market Performance and Labour
  Market Policies Theoretical Foundations and
  Applications, Discussion Paper FS I 98 205,
  Berlin Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für
  Sozialforschung