Benchmarking as a management tool for continuous improvement in public services

1
Benchmarking as a management tool for continuous
improvement in public services

• Presentation to Ministry of Culture of the
  Russian Federation
• Peter Reed, DAI Europe Ltd.
• European Union PSIR Programme - March 2007

2
The Seminar Objectives

• To develop greater understanding of the uses of
  benchmarking instruments for managers to monitor
  improvement of performance
• To explain the process and benefits of
  self-assessment
• To introduce various methods including Service
  Charters and the Common Assessment Framework
  (CAF) plus existing Russian equivalents /
  derivatives.

3
What is benchmarking?

• Establishing a baseline for current performance
  standards
• Recognising where we need to improve (against
  others locally or internationally) and defining
  priorities
• Setting up improvement projects
• Repeating the exercise to measure improvements
• Comparing ourselves to partners or similar
  organisations (e.g. other Agencies of same
  Ministry).

4
A suggested toolkit

• The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) for
  self-assessment of existing capacity by
  management (Technical Team Stakeholders)
• EPUS CAF derivative aligned with Russian
  quality standards
• Service Charters to explain targets and
  promises to customers
• Project Cycle Management tools (Logical
  Frameworks etc.) to implement improvement
  projects
• Monitoring Evaluation of progress by
• benchmarking continuous improvement through
  further CAF assessments,
• Feedback from customers on charters,
• Surveys and focus groups,
• Performance Management Systems (e.g. performance
  agreements and appraisal of individuals with
  objectives cascaded from plans.

5
Benefits of Self-Assessment for benchmarking

• Widely used
• High level of international credibility
• Comprehensive basis for strategy and
  benchmarking
• Simple structure and language
• Assess Strengths and Areas for Improvement
• Methodology reviews progress (benchmarking)
• Enables Departments / Agencies to share best
  practice
• Basis for priority action planning
• Pragmatic
• Results will be owned by participants
• Interpret for areas of relevance to individual
  parts of system or Departments.

6
The Simple Model
People
Processes
Results
Achieve better results through involvement of all
employees (across the sector) in continuous
improvement of their processes
7
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) Model
8
Self-Assessment Benchmarking
9
Benefits of Self-Assessment (1)

• An objective assessment against credible and
  internationally proven criteria
• An assessment based on evidence
• A continuous improvement process, rather than a
  single shot, giving a measure of progress over
  time
• An opportunity to focus improvement where it is
  most needed, but in a systemic way
• A means to focus priorities for a continuous
  improvement / organisational development
  programme (and thus present coherent proposals
  for efficiency savings).

10
Suggested Approach to Self-Assessment

• Management Team allocate 3 days for Self
  -Assessment
• Could also be done later by Agencies or
  Departments Management Teams
• Probably start with Ministry to coordinate
  process and priorities but invite key
  stakeholders if possible
• Pro-formas and questionnaires for all CAF model
  criteria free in public domain (EPUS materials
  already translated)
• Results will further inform Strategic Plans and
  Vital Few will inform improvement programme
• Facilitate half-yearly repetition for
  benchmarking.

11
Virtuous Circle for Continuous Improvement

• Initial Self
• Assessment then
• Benchmarking

Strengths and Areas for Improvement
Improved Results
Actions to achieve Further Improvement
12
Pro-formas (one for each of 27 sub-criteria)
Areas to Address Description of Criterion
Sub-Criterion List of best practice
descriptions From CAF Pro-formas (27 sub-criteria)
How we assess ourselves against these
descriptions Strengths In context of good
established practice and processes Areas for
Improvement In context of not so good, or not yet
evident practice and processes
Evidence Brief notes on basis for decisions above
Scoring guidelines Descriptions of what scores
mean
Score 0 - 5
13
Service Charters(Also called Codes of Conduct)

• Good Charters are
• simple, accessible, living documents.
• They tell users about public services
• the standards they can expect, and
• how users can contribute to setting them
  (through feedback and user groups).

14
Good Charters are

• supported
• by well-developed systems and procedures,
  including those for staff training, complaints
  handling and feedback, as well as for reporting
  and reviewing standards -
• Otherwise they will quickly be seen as empty
  promises!

15
Good Charters are

• publicised
• in management and public documents (including
  websites), so that the organization is publicly
• accountable to users for delivering high
  standards.
• A synopsis can even be displayed in public access
  places at point of service delivery.

16
A Ministerial Charter

• is based on Principles of Public Service
  Delivery
• It will set out standards so that both users and
  staff know what the public can expect
• It will be based on widespread consultation with
  users and front line staff
• It will set out clear and effective remedies when
  things go wrong.

17
The 9 Principles

• Set clear standards of service users can expect
• Being open and providing full information
• Consultation and involvement
• Encouraging access and the promotion of choice
• Treating all people fairly
• Putting things right when they go wrong
• Using resources effectively
• Innovation and improvement
• Working with partners (e.g. other Agencies)

18
Suggestions

• Agree any actions required to confirm choice of
  tools e.g. CAF and/or Charters
• Consider what evidence will inform assessment
  scoring and external feedback (e.g. surveys)
• Agree Public Relations Strategy
• Appoint and brief Users Steering Group
• Agree and assign individual responsibilities /
  deliverables e.g. for initial self-assessment
  team
• Decide how to correlate external feedback
  (e.g.from Charter) with info from benchmarking
  (e.g. using CAF), and review of operational plans
  internally.