" B enchmarking E uropean standards in S ocial services T ransnationally"

1. "Benchmarking European standards in Social services Transnationally"

2. Creating common rules and maintaining the diversity in doing so once upon a time. ... Quality: Vision Impossible? or the answer to the question in which way Fairy Tales could help to identify a common framework for BEST Quality Good work, but maybe we should get more in detail?! BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

3. Snowwhite and the 7 dwarfs Development of a guideline how to compare, evaluate, improve the quality of social service providers throughout Europe regarding the special needs of people with disability and elderly people with and without disabilities BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

4. Diversity of management systems and target groups Social service providers Politicians Sponsors Service users Social partners FRAMEWORK BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

5. How to manage and how to get the benefit of european diversity … • Which QM systems are used preferably in the representing countries? • What are the focuses of the same? BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

6. Main focusses and targets of the single QMsystems • The transparency of the different characters • Sphere of activities • Overview about the achievement of objectives BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

7. roots and approaches of QMsystems Identification of roots and approaches BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

8. Identification of a QM-requirement profile a common framework for a universal QM, which contains all perspectives, applied in all kind of social services and which is useable, understandable and affordable for each user BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

9. Cinderella – we need a „fitting“ QM System • Freedom of choice, what system will be used • Frame of reference, (recognised by stakeholders) • Proven added value to service providers • Applied in all kind of social services • Framework criteria • How Quality can be developed? • How Quality can be promoted (aspects of people with disabilities and elderly)? • How Quality can be proven? BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

10. Identification of a QM-requirement profile • Which standards and interfaces can be asserted advantageously for the whole of Europe and still take into consideration national specifics? • Which expectations are connected to a QM system from the corresponding perspectives? • Which systems ensure the standards specified by the EU? • Where are adaptations and modifications for an improved QM system required? • How do such adaptations and modifications have to be designed, implemented, and realised, in order to achieve the excellence striven for in the fields of assistance to people with a disability and elderly people? • Which functions can be transferred to a common European QM system? BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

11. Core components for QM systems I: • Know, what customers need (identifying needs) • Requirements and management for Human Resources • Measurement of benefits and results • Transparency and clarity how to organize social services (resources) • Accountability to service users, funders, policy makers (stakeholders) Mechanisms for quality development and continuous improvement • Systematic Quality improvement results BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

12. Core components for QM systems II: • Internationally / nationally approved • Assure the quality of the services • Research-based • Independent review • Certified auditors • Used by a large group of organizations • Supporting network results BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

13. The Valiant Little Tailor • Tailor made and fitting tools improve quality • Quality management “gets 7 at one go”: Social Services avoid aimless and random permanent and expanded evaluations; they only cause strategies of defense and avoiding. two main options:  new – conception  modification BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

14. A Common QM-System for quality in the social services sector should contain: • Affordability, • Availability, • Accessibility 7 Principles for Quality 9 Core Elements MATRIX 1.0  MATRIX 2.0 BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

15. The MATRIX 1.0 – between ‚modification and reset‘ • High variety in answers • Answers between partners • (ISO: 38 vs 189) • (EQUASS-E: 53 vs. 286) • Answers between ‘experts’ • (E-Qualin: 875) • (EFQM: 78) • (EQUASS-A: 72) • Answers between partners & experts • (E-Qualin: 87 vs. 875) • (EFQM: 59 vs. 78) BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

16. The Emperor's new clothes I - It´s not useful to be quiet about ‚mistakes‘ and ‚errors‘ … • How did you proceed in filling the matrix? • Translated into national language • To get an overview we put all items on a pin board • Get some advise from ‚external‘ experts to fill in the single items to the fitting catergory • Was the matrix understandable? Were there unclarities?  Very helpful were the descriptions of the criteria  Translation from English into a national language caused sometimes comprehension problems BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

17. The Emperor's new clothes II - It´s not useful to be quiet about ‚mistakes‘ and ‚errors‘ … • What was easy and what were difficulties? • Overview of the matrix (to many information into one document) • Unusual to think in two dimensions • Difficult to assign the indicators of the QM-System to the criteria of the matrix • To think from a theoretical perspective instead of the used practical perspective  etc. BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

18. Conclusion • Results were too complex – huge challenge to fill the matrix • The results are less verifiable, caused on different hits • Different hits caused on different perspectives • Lack of knowledge about the own used system • Staff – quantitative and qualitative gap of knowledge to handle with the criteria, indicators and system structures • Acceptance of the institution members / Staffs is fed up of documentation/more workload BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

19. Conclusion • The MATRIX 1.0 is a well working initial point to  compare  evaluate  improve the quality of social service providers throughout Europe regarding the special needs of people with disability and elderly people with and without disabilities BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

20. … on the way to the Happy End Diversityas a usefulinstrument BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

21. „Future-Workshop“ Howshould a perfectfitting Quality systemlooklike?

22. Structure of the Future-Workshop-Concept • Imaginative and utopian phase • Complaint and criticism phase • Implementation and practical phase What requirements must we have in order to give our chosen idea(s) a chance and where should we start? What kind of suggestions we should “send” to the commission? What (EU) parameters must definitely be observed? Faculty of Rehabilitation Science BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

23. Methodical Modification • Simplification of the matrix • Inclusion of the identified core elements and criterias (standards) in the simplified matrix • Glossary Modification of the Scope MODIFIED APPROACH: Identification of a common framework to create a guideline and to give an inspiration how to • compare (self-directedbenchmarks) • evaluate (self-evaluation) • improvement (core business) BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

24. Recommendation - Ideas • a quality management system offers “just” a framework • a quality management system gives you orientation • a quality management system asks for needs • a quality management system gives you examples- but they are just(!) examples • a quality management system “forces” you to act from a multi - perspective point of view BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

25. The Cross Reference MATRIX ... as an universal tool: • Systems – comparison • Self – evaluation • Explanatorycaption BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

26. Recommendation - Ideas • The matrix can be used in different ways: • to decide what type of QM system you want to use • to compare the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems • to identify your “extra activities” as parts of a QM system • to reduce complexity of QM systems • to identify the right questions to ask yourself and to improve BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

27. AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE… with other QM-systems ?! • Meeting needs of person served • Respecting Human rights • Competence of staff - volunteers • Respecting human dignity • Self determination – participation of person served • Person centered • Quality of life of person served • Benefits for persons served BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

28. Matrix 2.0 Cross-Reference Matrix 2.0 - “Ask for needs not for musts”  provides an orientation aid (e.g. benchmark and bench-learning)  design a reference level within Europe • balance of compulsory common and openness and flexibility • provides supervision, controlling and monitoring Open Cross Matrix 2.0 – „Do it (for) yourself“  allows (self-) evaluation  optimises the activity of institutions  providesan overview over the quality efforts of social facilities (for the same) exposes limits, gaps, redundancy efforts and outcomes and provides links modification and adaption option Conclusion and Recommendations BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

29. Conclusions and recommended procedures on sustainable qualityimprovement and assurance of services of general interest from the project Happy End? BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

30. Conclusions and recommended procedures on sustainable qualityimprovement and assurance of services of general interest from the project 1. A compulsory or a non–compulsory system? QM systems as a standard or as a guideline? 2. Prescriptive or non-prescriptive ? 3. Universal approach or sector specific Sector specific or branch specific? 4. Single stakeholder perspective or multi stakeholder perspective? 5. Measuring performance or encouraging improvement? 6. Assuring/promoting quality or quality control? 7. Peer review or external (independent) review Certification or no certification? 8. National approach or European approach? BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

31. A compulsory or a non–compulsory system? QM systems as a standard or as a guideline? Compulsory:The 7 criteria and 9 core elements of matrix 2.0 = compulsory standardised framework of a common understanding of quality Non-compulsory: In order to be able to take into account national, political- legal, social-economic, and cultural particularities, the creation of convergence to the EU guidelines has to remain open and freely selectable Matrix: • An overview over the valid and compulsory criteria and principles • a guideline and orientation aid on the basis of human rights, self-determination and participation • nationally adapted solution scenarios resorting to existing QM systems and with the ability to be expanded by new ideas and options balance between compulsory standards and open guidelines and orientation aids by defining and providing generalised categories and criteria, the interpretation and configuration of which remains freely selectable and adaptable through the individual Nations. BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

32. Prescriptive or non-prescriptive ? Prescriptive: • Processes of transferring and representing proprietary quality efforts • Drawing conclusions from the representation and transfer results and deriving action consequences Non – prescriptive: • Configuration of the action consequences, whether adaptations, modifications, or even system changes, etc. has to be freely selectable Matrix: it is not required to reach 100% convergence of proprietary quality efforts and CQF. “Gaps” only have to be mentioned and consequences as well have to be derived there of. Matrix: transparency and comparability – also of “gaps/blind areas” – provide a contribution to sustainable quality development of management systems. BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

33. Universal approach or sector specific Sector specific or branch specific? • Sectorspecific QM-System: • cross-branch level of function and application, • adequately react to the manifold requirements of different • claimants, but • also prevents unnecessary and costly transfer, coding, and • adaptation measures entailed by universal QM systems • Institutions can focus on their core businesses without disregarding adaptation and modification options of related services sectors BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

34. Single stakeholder perspective or multi stakeholder perspective? A multi-perspective approach • ensure a holistic approach • balancing different spheres of interest and claims • Afford a complementary dialogue level a jointly adopted strategic approach is determined providing contribution to sustainable quality assurance, improvement, and development of social services of general interest BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

35. Measuring performance or encouraging improvement? Precondition for establishing benchmarking and bench-learning networks that may result in a large number of modification and adaptation options and ultimately in a performance increase on the basis of qualityefforts. Measurement does not describe any directive or categorising evaluation, but provides for clues and links for options of performance increase both in the individual partial areas and in the overall area of the used QM system. Matrix: as a instrument, which supports the creation of comparability and transparency required for benchmarking andbench-learningby: • Measuringperformancebased on standards • Initiatingconclusionsandlearningprocessescaused on theanalyse • Combiningrecommendedprocedure, performancemeasurement, and performance increase basis of the non-evaluating fix, institutions are able to search for individual and matching solution scenarios within a European framework BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

36. Assuring/promoting quality or quality control? Control: means processes of guidance, control, and regulation • conflating assuring/promoting and control e.g. by PDCA cycle • uniform and standards-oriented (European standard CQF) control is necessary for benchmark and bench-learning • determine the own position for further development and quality • rigid test rules leaving no room for openness, flexibility, and bench-learning. Matrix: allows users to compare proprietary actual values to command values agreed upon on European level, Matrix: allows as well conclusions regarding their own actions, without exposing themselves to the risk of sanctions in case of deviations BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

37. Peer review or external (independent) review Certification or no certification? “Don´t fool yourself”. certifications in principle do not provide any guarantee for the quality • The situation-oriented, intention-free, nationally adaptable application of the • selected procedures is important • On European level, certifications are only desirable if it is about confirming • the described transfer and monitoring performance BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings

38. National approach or European approach? European approach: offers an orientation-providingandaction-guidingcommon European boundaryframeat which the same can be adapted to national requirements and configured in a flexible and open manner • The common European QM framework contains guidelines and orientation aids, and provides for the option of being able to comply with national-specific requirement criteria within this framework at the same time. Matrix: • gain access to national system worlds, to transfer the same to a European level and to compare the same at the level, • draw conclusions from the analyses, • derive action consequences from the resulting in the quality • being assured, developed, and increased sustainably on national and European level without having any restrictive effects on the national system worlds. BEST Quality Symposium 2010| Dipl. Rehapäd. Stefanie Frings