RELAUNCHED THE LISBON STRATEGY

1
RELAUNCHED THE LISBON STRATEGY

• What should be the meaning of
• this decision of March 2005 taking by the
  European Council?

2

• A confession of failure ?
• A strategy with extreme optimism goals?
• The affect of external factors in economic
  activity in the EU?
• Lack of resilience among European economies?
• The missing core priority?

3
The answer is, that all these factors should be
taken in consideration

• In other words, the clear message concerning
  the Unions priorities must be focused on three
  vital Pillars

4
Growth and Employment
5
Social Cohesion
6
Environmental sustainability
7
However the EU economy is in several respects
further away from its goal of becoming the
worlds most competitive economy than was in the
case of March 2000

• Which are the factors that sluggish the EU
  economy recovery ?

8
From mid-2003 to the second half of 2004 the EU
economy was effected by the following external
factors

• High and Volatile oil prices
• The slowdown in world trade expansion
• The appreciation of Euro

9
There are also two explanations for the continued
underperformance of the EU economy

• Unemployment rates decrease slowly to 8,7 in
  2006
• (Employment rate is 63.0 for the EU 25 in 2003)
• Low level of productivity growth
• (exists for several decades)

10
The Lisbon Strategy

• Sustainable Growth Better and More Jobs

A more attractive place to invest and
work Quality of business environment
Knowledge and innovation for growth Quality of
education
Creating more and better works Quality of Working
life
11
ENABLES

• Strategy Structure
• European Union National and
• Governance subnational Governance
• Quality of Public Governance

12
quality of public governance

• High quality public governance includes issues
  such as
• openness, innovation, productivity and
  efficiency, ethics and integrity,
• research and development,
• e-government, strategic leadership,
• strategic programming,
• a life-cycle view of learning and employment,
• performance management and knowledge creation.

13
Lisbon relaunched and public sector.In other
words how P.S should become an importantfactor
in the achievement of the Lisbon objectives.

• The successful implementation of this
• strategy depends
• to a large extent on a highly competent,
• professional and competitive public sector,
  characterized
• by effective governance structures, innovative
• and effective policy-making practices and a
  performance-oriented provision of services.

14
the development of theCommon Assessment
Framework (CAF)

• Its about a new quality management system in the
  public sector that focus to clients satisfaction,
  which means better results for the citizens .
• and plays an important role in the modernization
  process in Europes public
• sector organizations.

15
CAF in practice

• CAF is a tool to assist public sector
  organizations across Europe to use quality
  management techniques to improve performance.
• Between first and second Presidency of Austria in
  EU (2000 and 2006) put substantial efforts into
  the creation of the modified CAF ( version 2006).

16

• A CAF self-evaluation is a simple but very
  innovative process that acts as a launching pad
  for the process of continuous improvement. It
  enables organizations lacking experience in
  quality subjects, as well as more advanced
  organizations, to pursue quality at low financial
  cost.
• The CAF focuses on measurement in order to
  manage the organisation and improve results.

17

• The CAF requires a clear stake holder's analysis,
  as it
• stimulates the involvement of the relevant
  stakeholders
• and increases awareness of and the response to
• their needs. Partnerships with citizens are
  established
• by enquiring about their needs and including them
• in the decision-making process. In some cases,
  this
• has led to the introduction of citizens'
  charters. Involving
• customers and suppliers.
• Staff participation is essential to ensure their
• full commitment to the strategic objective of
  improving
• the organisation. Self-evaluation is a very
  useful
• development tool for creating this involvement in
  the
• implementation of improvement projects.

18
15 reasons for a public organization to use CAF

• The organisation wanted to identify strengths and
  areas for improvement 4
• To develop sensitivity to quality issues
• Intention to involve staff in managing the
  organisation and to motivate them
• As an input into ongoing improvement activities,
  restructuring etc.
• The organisation used the CAF as a first
  diagnosis in the start of a strategic planning
  process
• To promote the exchange of views in the
  organisation
• Because the top management wanted
• To prove that the organisation is willing to
  change
• To promote cultural change in the organisation
• To embed a new system of performance
  management/measurement
• Need for a quick health check of the
  administration
• Increased sensitivity of staff to quality
• We were looking for a tool to launch benchmarking
• Because the CAF is promoted across Europe
• The CAF as part of the normal operating context
  of the organisation (no particular
• organisational or other changes)

19

• 29 cases come from 15 European countries have
  already applied the CAF system in local and
  regional administration sectors
• The Results Criteria of CAF are based in a
  better service delivery to the citizens. More
  specifically the criteria are ranked as below
• Criterion 6 Customer/citizen-oriented results
• Criterion 7 People results
• Criterion 8 Society results
• Criterion 9 Key performance results

20
Criterion 6

• Customer/Citizen-Oriented Results
• the predominant method of measuring results is
  the traditional paper questionnaire, whereas
• more and more organizations are starting to use
• modern information and communication technologies
• such as online forms or e-mail to get proper
  feedback.
• Key issues are the frequency of measurements and
  the
• combination of different data sources used to
  acquire
• new knowledge of the organization.

21
Criterion7

• People Results also reveals a predominance
• of traditional paper questionnaires and staff
• interviews as the most frequently chosen method
  for
• measurement. Innovative elements such as open
  space
• events and electronic idea collection systems are
  arising.
• Performance appraisal interviews are also used
• more and more to better involve the employees in
  the
• daily business processes. which are mainly
  collected by surveys and related statistics
• about contacts and visits which were used to
• interpret the society results.

22
CRITERION 8

• Criterion 8 Society Results is clearly
  difficult to
• address. This is most probably linked to the fact
  that -
• contrary to private sector organisations the
  public
• sector most often has society results in its core
  business.
• It therefore has difficulties in distinguishing
  between
• results on society belonging to its core business
• (cr. 9) and those society results which it
  achieves outside
• its core business (cr.

23
Criterion 9

• Key performance results are mainly collected
• by surveys and related statistics. Interviews
• with stakeholders and cost accounting systems
  seem
• to be more innovative elements.

24
The CAF cases in alphabetical order of the
countries

• Country Organization Sector
• 1 Austria The Austrian Study Grant Authority
  Education and Research
• 2 Austria Municipal District Office for the 15 th
  District/Vienna Local Administration
• 3 Austria District Administration Rohrbach
  Regional Administration
• 4 Belgium Birth and Children Office (ONE) Social
  Services and Social Security
• 5 Belgium National Employment Office of Belgium
  (RVA/ONEM) Social Services and Social Security
• 6 Belgium Federal Public Service for Social
  Integration (POD MI) Social Services and Social
  Security
• 7 Czech Republic Regional Authority of the
  Olomouc region Regional Administration
• 8 Czech Republic Municipality of Chomutov Local
  Administration
• 9 Denmark Engineering College of Aarhus Education
  and Research
• 10 Denmark Bygholm Agricultural College Education
  and Research
• 11 Spain Madrid City Hall Local Administration
• 12 Spain Municipal School Hello Rochapea
  Education and Research
• 13 Estonia Estonian Animal Recording Centre
  Economy and Agriculture
• 14 Finland The Pirkanmaa Employment and Economic
  Development Centre Economy and Agriculture
• 15 Finland The Pirkanmaa Hospital District Health
• 16 France Regional Directorates for Industry,
• Research and the Environment (DRIRE) of Aquitaine
  Economy and Agriculture
• 17 Germany District Administrator's Office
  Ebersberg Regional Administration

25

• 19 Germany German Aerospace Center
  Administrative Infrastructure Transport and
  Infrastructure
• 20 Hungary Office of Public Administration in
  Bács-Kiskun County Regional Administration
• 21 Italy Institute D. Romanazzi of Bari Education
  and Research
• 22 Italy Municipality of Faenza Local
  Administration
• 23 Norway Seven municipal Music and Art schools
  Education and Research
• 24 Poland Tax Office Plonsk Economy and
  Agriculture
• 25 Poland Swietokrzyskie Voivodship Office in
  Kielce Regional Administration
• 26 Portugal The Municipality of Porto Local
  Administration
• 27 Portugal Fund Management Institute Economy and
  Agriculture
• 28 Portugal Institute of Social Security Social
  Services and Social Security
• 29 Slovenia Administrative Unit Krsko Local
  Administration

26

• Modern methods of human resource management can
• often be observed as an improvement action. Job
  descriptions,
• skill profiles, job interviews, individual target
• setting etc. lead to better results in criterion
  7.
• The importance of open information and
  communication
• policy as well as public relations efforts to
  gain better
• results has to be stressed. This shows that a
  fresh
• modern culture arises in the public
  organizations.
• CAF provides a framework for introducing public
  management
• strategy and tools. This can be seen when CAF
• is used to define a strategy for the organization
  or
• simply by defining the initial measures,
  responsibilities
• and time schedules for improvement actions.