Innovative Public Services Working Group EUPAN

(IPSG WG) – 2nd meeting

Brdo, Slovenia

12 - 13 May 2008

2

IPSG, 12–13 May 2008, Brdo

Draft Minutes, 27 June 2008

Draft Minutes

Participants

Presidency: Slovenia

Mrs Gordana Žurga

Mr Domen Butina

Mrs Ana Verbič

Delegates from States and Organizations:

Austria: Mr Michael Kallinger

Belgium: Mrs Isabelle Verschueren

Bulgaria: Mrs Marieta Todorova

Cyprus: Mr Andreas Mylonas

Czech Republic: Mrs Barbora Kuříková, Mr Jindřich Čermák

Denmark: Mrs Hanne Dorthe Sorensen, Mrs Rikke Lindholst

EIPA: Mr Patrick Staes, Mr Nick Thijs

Estonia: Mrs Karin Närep

Finland: Mrs Katju Holkeri, Mrs Johanna Nurmi

France: Mr François Beauvais, Mr Bernard Blanc, Mr Dominique Lapierre

Germany: Mr Markus Priesterath, Mr Andreas Wegend

Hungary: Mr Ákos Kovács

Ireland: Mr John Dolan

Italy: Mrs Sabina Bellotti

Latvia: Mrs Dace Aizstrauta

Lithuania: Mrs Gitana Jurjoniene

Luxembourg: Mr Guy Wagener

Malta: Mr Charles Polidano

The Netherlands: Mr Michel Savelkoul, Mr Siwert de Groot

Norway: Mr Tore - Matrin Bredal

Poland: Mrs Ewa Szustak, Mr Grzegorz Chorazy

Portugal: Mr Luís Evangelista

Romania: Mrs Irina Viorela Gligor, Mrs Monica Nicolle Dimitriu

Slovak Republic: Mrs Monika Jurkovicova

Spain: Mrs Consuelo Hidalgo

Sweden: Mr Thomas Johansson

Turkey: Mr Arif Yildirim, Mr İrfan Balamir

United Kingdom: Mrs Emma Peake

Apologies: EFQM, European Commission, Greece

Speakers form Slovenia:

Mrs Judita Bagon

Mr Branko Vidič

Mr Tadej Kurent

Mr Matija Kodra

Opening of the meeting

The Chair of the meeting, Mrs Gordana Žurga welcomed the IPSG members to the second meeting of the IPSG working group, held by the Slovenian Presidency, from 12 to 13 May 2008 at Brdo pri Kranju.

The Chair asked all participants to briefly present themselves, as some new members attended the meeting.

Agenda and objectives of the meeting Papers: 1a–c

The Chair presented proposed agenda together with the objectives of the meeting; proposed agenda was approved.

Minutes of the February IPSG Meeting at Brdo Paper 2

There was no discussion under this agenda item. Minutes of the IPSG meeting in February 2008 were approved.

Comparative Analysis of Quality Management in Public Administrations in the EU Member States (Slovenia) Papers: 3a–c

Comparative analysis of quality management in public administrations in the EU member states was presented by Gordana Žurga, with emphases on the first results: the draft matrix and the draft report.

The comprehensive work performed by all Member States was pointed out as they all contributed their national information; over 300 pages of source information were provided. Preliminary findings of the study were presented:

(1)  Quality as indispensable part of development of Public Administrations;

(2)  Reported / detected trend of broadening of: quality to excellence, benchmarking to bench learning, customer focus to good governance;

(3)  Development, activities & projects at the EUPAN level have strong influence on development of Quality Management in Public Administrations at national level;

(4)  Usage of individual QM tools should in principle not be mandatory;

(5)  Networking, gaining at its importance and being more and more widespread.

Planned activities, with proposals regarding the report and the matrix were presented:

–  Regarding the report: results of the discussion to be considered and incorporated in the report; further elaboration of the report, taking into consideration also results of previous studies; 2nd draft report to be sent to MSs for their review and feed back; publishing the report by the 5QC and presenting the area in the Infoshop at the 5QC;

–  Regarding the matrix: MSs check correctedness of country information entered in the matrix; corrigenda and addenda to be sent by 27th May 2008; updating the matrix and publishing it at the EUPAN website, in June 2008.

Several delegations expressed their contentedness with the work done and contributed their comments and/or additional proposals:

EIPA was interested in possibility of having content wise exchange of ideas on preliminary findings, and exposed that the matrix should be updated on regular bases, for example: each first presidency of the year should put the update of the matrix on the agenda.

The Presidency welcomed the exchange of ideas on preliminary findings. Member states will also be asked for their feedback on the final draft before issuing publication. According to the discussion at February IPSG meeting at Brdo, links to CAF national action plans are provided in the matrix. Regarding updating the matrix, Presidency reminded that decision in this regard has already been taken during Austrian Presidency, and welcomed the initiative to provide updates on a regular basis.

The Netherlands pointed out that it was good to broaden the topic of quality management, and commented different approaches to QM at national level (draft, page 20), as well as life cycle of different quality management tools.

Denmark commented communication – relation between the matrix and the report: namely as there is an excellent matrix containing very good information, does a report have to contain this level of detail as well? Perhaps it would be more reasonable to make it as a simpler overview of general trends and lessons learned.

Presidency explained the intended concept, namely that the report should be read in combination with the matrix. As the matrix includes a lot of valuable information, the report should not be an exact copy of the matrix but would provide added value to it. The Presidency would provide also executive summary.

Romania put forward a fact that Romania was not included into the report made by EIPA in 2003 and offered to provide additional information on country situation if required. Regarding the report, Romania agreed it should be shorter, containing also lessons learned and the findings.

Belgium exposed that it can be seen from the matrix and the draft report that the development in QM area since the Spanish study has been very impressive, and proposed to include in the report also the tips and good practices how to introduce quality into public administration. Maybe some results of other working groups could be included. In addition, Belgian delegate pointed out that there were some mistakes in the draft report, bilateral contact in this regard would be appreciated.

Italy shared the opinion that the matrix is a tool intended to circulate information inside the network. However, to update it once a year is considered too often, and proposed to update the matrix every two years in connection with the quality conferences. Regarding the report, it should not be too large, a policy brief with findings, examples and guidelines for ministerial level would be appreciated. The delegate pointed out that it was also appropriate time for the DG level to reflect on the impact.

Presidency informed that at the 50th DG Meeting at the end of May, one of the topics will be the future of EUPAN, with a time slot for work in two groups.

EIPA agreed with a management report. Regarding updating the matrix, EIPA was still in favour of updating it each year as this demanded less effort than a biannual update, and proposed a possiblity of yearly updates with obligatory updates in the years when QCs are organized. EIPA proposed that also information from CAF studies (2003, 2005) should be considered.

Spain suggested to use also other sources of information, for example OECD. Regarding guidelines in the report, Spanish delegate shared an opinion that it would not be easy to draw common guidelines. Information from Spain in the matrix needed to be updated, due to some recent organizational changes.

Germany exposed a need for having Executive Summary for the DGs, including trends, best practice examples and recommendations. Regarding updating the matrix, updating it every year would be too often and prefered biannual updating, in years when quality conferences are organized.

Denmark supported a need for a short Executive Summary with trends, examples in Europe, to learn from and recommendations, and prefered biannual updating of the matrix. Denmark exposed that in quality management it is important how to make a difference, how to combine policy and practice, and how to organize for disseminating the policy.

Hungary exposed value of the work done and proposed to consider the findings also as a possible source for preparation of the next MTP.

Italy pointed out the 10th anniversary of IPSG in 2008 and the opportunity to make something to show the DG-s what has been done during this time.

Based on the discussion, following decisions regarding the Comparative Analysis of Quality Management in Public Administrations in the EU Member States were adopted:

§  MSs check correctedness of country information entered in the matrix; they send their corrigenda, addenda / changes by 27th May 2008;

§  Slovenia updates the matrix and publishes is at the EUPAN web page, in June 2008;

§  Regular updates of the matrix: at the beginning of each year, call for updates is lounched, at least in the years of QCs updated information from MSs is expected;

§  Slovenia further elaborates the report, taking into consideration the discussion at IPSG:

§  report with findings, main results, trends, examples, … and not as an exact copy of the matrix;

§  report to serve / support also DGs and further promotion QM at national level;

§  additional information to be considered, as e.g. CAF studies (2003, 2005) and OECD.

Knowledge Management and Sharing Practices (Portugal)

Under this title, two topics were presented at the meeting:

§  Short information on Slovenian conference Good Practices in Slovene Public Administration 2008, following the topic of Comparative Analysis of Quality Management, and

§  Evaluation Report of the 3rd European CAF Users Event, presented by Portugal, as introduction to the CAF session at the meeting.

Good Practices in Slovene Public Administration 2008 Paper 5c

The 8th annual national conference entitled Good Practices in Slovene Public Administration 2008 will be held on 6th October, 2008 at Brdo. Purpose of the conference is to recognize good practices, to share knowledge and experience, and to give strategic emphases and directions at national as well as at the European level.

The national “Good Practice” Prize will be awarded, based upon the following criteria for selection of good practices: contribution to the realization of Lisbon Strategy; innovativeness; performance results; co-operation and establishment of partner relationships; inclusion of customers and other stakeholders.

The whole conference programme will be interpreted from Slovene to English and vice versa, and Conference Proceedings will be published in Slovene and English language. All IPSG members were invited to the conference.

Evaluation Report of the 3rd European CAF Users Event (Portugal)
Paper 5a

Luís Evangelista presented Evaluation report on the 3rd European CAF Users Event, CAF Inspiring Change, held on 11-12 October 2007 in Lisbon.

Comprehensive analysis of the 3rd European CAF Users Event was presented, including:

–  Participation at the event (278 participants from 25 countries, European institutions, EIPA and EFQM), with different aspects of attendance analysis;

–  Objectives and programme of the event: three perspectives of the main theme CAF inspiring Change (People, Innovate and change processes, The commitment of leaders), 6 plennary sessions, 15 parallel sessions (9 sessions with 18 national cases and 3 general parallel sessions, in two rounds);

–  Evaluation carried out upon evaluation form one week after the event: 93 replies, from 23 countries and 4 types of representations, about: content of the presentations – plenary sessions, parallel sessions, general sessions; CAF movie; new insights for the participant’s organizations; organization of the event; general suggestions / remarks;

–  Qualitative remarks regarding the strenghts and improvement opportunities, related to contents of presentations were presented;

–  What was told about CAF Movie, new insights, event organization and logistic, general suggestions / remarks;

At the end, general suggestions regarding programme and organization were given.

CAF (EIPA) Papers: 4a–c

Session on CAF covered the latest developments in the area, including the results of CAF Expert Group meeting on 20th March 2008 in Ljubljana. Presentation was delivered by Patrick Staes (EIPA), in four parts. In the continuation, each part is shortly resumed, together with the corresponding discussion.

I. Procedure on External Feedback (PEF):

–  First, preceding meetings and activities in this regard were presented, since 2007 (PEF working group meetings in Copenhagen (2007) and Brussels (2007, and 6th March 2008); CAF Expert Group meeting on 20th March 2008 in Ljubljana; pilot experiences from Belgium, Denmark and Italy, and contributions from Slovenia and Luxembourg, spring 2008);

–  Seven principles of the PEF, which should be confirmed by the DGs at the 50th DG Meeting at Brdo, related to:

(1)  PEF as a framework;

(2)  PEF promoting feedback of the implementation of CAF and its effects on the organisation;

(3)  This feed back being given by external experts and / or peers;

(4)  The PEF leading to the label of Effective CAF User (ECU), for two years;

(5)  PEF built on 3 pillars: the process of self-assessment (not the scores); the process of improvement actions (not the proven results of the actions); the TQM maturity of the organizations;

(6)  The responsibility for developing the PEF at the national level laying with the CAF National Correspondents;

(7)  Further development of these aspects, by the CAF Expert group and in close co-operation with EFQM, to be launched at the 5QC;

–  Some other conceptual issues (e.g. PEF is not mandatory; Matrix for evaluation of the TQM maturity based on the 8 principles of excellence; a code of conduct for the EFACs) as well as practical issues (e.g. need for a pool of experts; training and guidelines; ownership of the ECU label) were presented;

–  Roadmap of further activities was proposed.

Comments:

Finland agreed with the 7 principles, however suggested rephrasing the principle No 6 to avoid misunderstanding regarding establishing special organizational unit. Finland was also interested whether co-operation between EIPA and EFQM was already agreed.

Denmark strongly supports EIPA’s proposal. For Denmark it is important not to create a procedure that would overlap with EFQM but something different, and supplemental to existing possibilities. It is important to receive external feedback at the stage of maturity at which Danish PA organizations would not enter into EFQM schemes yet. Although PEF already is a framework, a lot of practical work still has to be done; it would also be good to have more member states aboard to see the experience of others.