CLOSEOUT REPORT

1. CLOSEOUT REPORT “To develop basic skills regarding the development of effective, realistic and credible Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIPs)”

2. “The spirit of Batho Pele must leave its ‘footprint’ on public service delivery” - The Batho Pele Handbook – A Service Delivery Improvement Guide Mainstreaming Batho Pele

3. Background Objective of Project Overview of SDIPs Context Methodology Outputs Findings Batho Pele as a Quality Standard Analysis and Recommendations Way Forward Structure of Presentation

4. To promote continuous service delivery improvement in the Public Service by developing capacity to enable all national and provincial government departments to produce and submit credible, effective and realistic SDIPs by 30 March 2007 Objective

5. Batho Pele White Paper (1997): DGs and HODs are responsible for SDIPs Ministers/MECs to approve SDIPs Copies of SDIPs must be submitted to the DPSA Public Service Regulations make service delivery improvement compulsory Background 1Legislation

6. Background 2History

7. STRATEGIC PLAN Strategic Objective Strategic Objective Strategic Objective OPERATIONAL PLAN Service Key Service Key Service Service Service Service Service SERVICE DELIVERY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Key Service Key Service Where do SDIPs belong?

8. Universally recognised as the best means of achieving continuous service delivery improvement Confirmed by international best practices, e.g. Canadian Citizen First Service Delivery Improvement Initiative Most effective way to mainstream the Batho Pele principles and culture Strategic Importance of SDIPs

9. Lack of familiarity with legislation, especially BP WP Batho Pele not ‘mainstreamed’ Batho Pele and SDIPs perceived as a ‘bolt-ons’ SDIPs confused with operational plans No appreciation of the fact that they are IMPROVEMENT plans to help enhance the way in which we deliver services – they focus on ‘how’ we behave, and not on ‘what’ we are providing: “They do not help us to build better roads, but to build roads better.” Lack of buy-in by management; SDIPs delegated to staff members remote from the coal face Why have SDIPs failed?

10. International Best Practices • The Canadian Model • “Citizen First” – 1998 • “The Service Improvement Initiative (SII)”

11. SDIP Refined Template NAME OF DEPARTMENT/BRANCH/DIRECTORATE • Vision: • Mission: Signed: ……..................................................... (Minister/MEC) Date: …………………………… Signed:………………….................................... (DG/HOD) Date: ……………………………

12. Use SMART, QQTC Standards No professional standards such as ISO, SABS, Municipal bylaws, etc but rather on ‘how’ we behave when delivering services Use BP Principles to define “Quality” Standards to be relevant to the particular “Key” Service and Service Beneficiaries Standardsfor SDIPs

13. Legislative: Constitution (1996) Public Service Act (No 103 of 1994 Public Service Regulations (2001) Public Finance Management Act (1999) Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (2000) Promotion of Access to Information Act (2000) White Paper on Transforming the PS (1995) White Paper on Transforming PS Delivery – Batho Pele (1997) Context 1

14. Promotional Activities: Batho Pele Change Management Batho Pele Learning Network Service Delivery Watch Africa Public Service Day Public Service Week Project Khaedu Know your Service Rights Context 2

15. Survey of Compliance with BP Policy, 2000 (PSC) The BP Handbook, 2004 (DPSA) Report on the Implementation and Promotion of BP, 2004 (DPSA) Evaluation of Service Standards in the Public Service, 2005 (PSC) Report on the Evaluation of Performance and Compliance with the BP Principle of Redress, 2006 (PSC) Report on the Evaluation of Performance and Compliance with the BP Principle of Access, 2006 (PSC) Context:Literature Review

16. Desktop research to establish status quo International best practices Develop refined SDIP template Develop training material – theoretical and practical Train GICS staff and provincial reps Roadshow – to meet 30 March deadline Assess and fine-tune SDIPs Closeout Report Methodology

17. For operational reasons the following national departments chose not to participate in this project: National Intelligence Agency S A Secret Services The Presidency Non-Participants

18. Defence Environmental Affairs and Tourism Home Affairs Housing Provincial and Local Government Trade and Industry Non-SubmissionsNational Departments

19. Eastern Cape: Public Works Safety and Liaison Gauteng: Economic Development Health Non-SubmissionsProvincial Departments

20. KwaZulu-Natal: Health Local Government and Housing Welfare and Population Development Non-SubmissionsProvincial Departments

21. Northern Cape: Agriculture and Land Reform Education Safety and Liaison Social Services and Population Development Sport, Arts and Culture Non-SubmissionsProvincial Departments

22. North West: Economic Development and Tourism Education Finance Social Development Sport, Arts an Culture Non-SubmissionsProvincial Departments

23. Findings

24. Key Servicesper Department • National Av = 11 • Provincial Av = 6 • Agriculture: 41 • Foreign Affairs: 26 • Land Affairs: 19 • Without them the National Av = 8

25. No apparent differences between National and Provincial Government Departments The same trends - no comparative analysis Process was largely “Inside-Out” rather than “Outside-In” – this will change in the future TrendsGeneral

26. Confuse services with functions, projects, outcomes and tasks – difficult to set SMART standards. Examples: “To popularise the 2010 office, which is inclusive of branding, marketing and communication.” (Mpumalanga) “Improve access to CPALS and ICT at Public Libraries.” (Western Cape) List too many ‘Key’ services – not realistic and difficult to manage. For SDIPs “Less is More” TrendsKey Services

27. List too many – difficult to set standards, e.g. “Citizens, Visitors, Residents, Immigrants and All persons.” (Western Cape, Community Safety) Confuse ‘end-users’, e.g. learners and patients, with ‘customers’ – difficult to set standards for “Consultation”, “Access” etc, e.g. “School Management Teams, Educators and Learners.” (Free State, Education) TrendsService Beneficiaries

28. Largely non-existent Very little evidence of SMART, QQTC standards Define current situation using “ad hoc” or narrative description of status quo or process, e.g. “Informal settlements need to be addressed” (Mpumalanga, Housing) TrendsCurrent Standards

29. Often no ‘gap’ between Current and Desired standards, thus not a service delivery IMPROVEMENT plan Much better – but still need to focus on the SMART principle Standards for BP principles tend to be vague – need to focus on making them SMART, using the QQTC standards Many SDIPs include professional standards, e.g. ISO and SABS, not relevant to SDIPs - e.g. “Compliance to set regulations.” (Mpumalanga, Agriculture and Land Administration) TrendsDesired Standards

30. Quantity (How much? How many? How often?) Difficult when services have not been properly defined: e.g. “All vehicles” where the key service is “Traffic Management” (Gauteng, Community Safety) In general “Quantity” was well defined in measurable terms: “Increase number of learners declared competent to 80%” (Mpumalanga, OTP) Use “All” as a quantity standard: e.g. “Process all applications within 3 weeks.” Often linked to a ‘time’ standard: e.g. “50% of SMS to go through all three modules by March 2008” (Mpumalanga, OTP) TrendsQuantity

31. Tendency to include professional standards: e.g. “Quality controls on housing are discussed.” (Mpumalanga, Local Government and Housing) Use of the Batho Pele principles to define “Quality”, as prescribed by the template, was well accepted Setting QQTC standards to make the principles measurable was problematic for some departments and often the spaces in the template were simply left blank TrendsQuality

32. Consultation Generally good understanding – most departments use discussion forums, meetings, surveys, izimbizo, suggestion boxes, etc, to define “Consultation” Lack of QQTC standards: e.g. “A more in-depth consultation process is planned …” (Agriculture) A few departments defined the audience rather than the means: e.g. “IDP, Eskom, Municipalities.” (DME) Recommendation: Develop minimum, generic service dimensions to ensure consistent and predictable service delivery throughout the Public Service TrendsBatho Pele Principles

33. Access Most departments have good understanding of “Access” and use signage, e-mail, meetings, remote offices, mobile units, extended working hours, etc, to define the principle Lack of QQTC standards: e.g. “Full access through office, e-mail, memos and telephonically.” (Public Enterprises) Recommendation: Develop minimum, generic service dimensions, as recommended above. TrendsBatho Pele Principles

34. Courtesy This, with “value for money” proved the most problematic. Mainly narrative descriptions without clear standards: e.g. “Revised and new practice notes user friendly.” (KZN Treasury) Often confused with “Redress”: e.g. “Departmental complaints line.” (WC, Community Safety) However, there was some evidence of QQTC standards: e.g. “Name tags, response to telephone calls within 5 rings, response to written queries within 10 days. Introduce customer service satisfaction survey.” (EC, Housing, LG and Traditional Affairs) Recommendation:Formulate generic service dimensions plus standardised training in customer care to ensure everyone ‘speaks the same language’ TrendsBatho Pele Principles

35. Information Often confused with “Openness and Transparency.” Departments were encouraged to include the publication of Service Charters here. Generally: pamphlets, brochures, circulars, meetings and one-on-ones, but still lack of SMART, QQTC standards: e.g. “Develop information leaflets to make communities aware of the service.” (FS, Public Safety, Security and Liaison) Reassuring use of local language and local media: e.g. “Quarterly newsletter, evaluation forms and KHC radio stations.” (NC, Health) Recommendation:Include publication of Service Charters under this principle TrendsBatho Pele Principles

36. Openness and Transparency Generally well understood Departments were encouraged to consider ways of making relevant information from their annual reports accessible to customers, e.g. by using local media: e.g. “Annual report (understandable language) …” (NC, Cultural Affairs and Sport) Again, there was little evidence of SMART, QQTC standardsunder this principle Recommendation: Use local media and language to publish excerpts from annual reports to define this principle TrendsBatho Pele Principles

37. Redress Generally well understood and defined in terms of complaints facilities, call centres and hot lines, and client satisfaction surveys (which overlap with “consultation”): e.g: “Complaints to be addressed within 10 days.” (NC,Health); “Establish and maintain a register of service delivery complaints and follow-up actions. Establish a help desk or hot line within the department and finalise queries within 60 days.” (NW, Agriculture, Conservation and Environment) Recommendation:All departments to have managed complaints facilities TrendsBatho Pele Principles

38. Value for Money Perhaps the most problematic quality standard Departments were advised that effective and efficient use of approved budgets as basic value for money Some departments developed unit costs and other measures: e.g. “SMME development; improve planning; improve contract management.” (NW, Public works), but still need to define SMART, QQTC criteria for this principle Recommendation: All departments to develop relevant ‘cost benefit’ standards for this principle TrendsBatho Pele Principles

39. Time Well understood and clearly defined Mostly departments used the financial year-end as a useful time standard, i.e. the envisaged service delivery improvements had to be achieved by end March 2008 Cost Generally, the Rand amount budgeted for the particular service provided the “Cost” standard Human Resources Perhaps the ‘easiest’ standard. Majority listed the number of people required to provide the improved service. However, this needs to lead to training and skills transfer TrendsTime, Cost & HR

40. Acceptance of the refined template A better than 80% response rate Project embraced by vast majority of departments Willingness to co-operate and learn Understanding of importance to mainstream BP Awareness of importance to set standards for service delivery Commitment to improved service delivery Co-operation from departments Buy-in by top management and staff Common Strengths

41. Unfamiliarity with relevant legislation, especially with the Batho Pele White Paper, which lead to: SDIPs viewed as ‘bolt-ons’ Confusion about where SDIPs belong –SDIPs vs Operational Plans Lack of appreciation that SDIPs are service delivery IMPROVEMENT plans Focus on compliance rather than service delivery improvement Challenges 1

42. Confusion with Treasury’s initiative which deals with non-financial reporting Departments claimed the DPSA was duplicating this initiative with SDIPs Training and ‘roadshow’ plus one-on-ones helped to overcome the challenges Challenges 2

43. Analysis and Recommendations 1

44. Analysis and Recommendations 2

45. Analysis and Recommendations 3

46. Obtain SDIPs from outstanding departments Assess and fine-tune all SDIPs Provide full feedback to all departments Establish database of all SDIPs Develop M&E instruments to measure quality of SDIPs and level of implementation Develop a common measurement tool (CMT) to measure customer satisfaction and establish customer satisfaction index (CSI) Way forward 1

47. Train GICS staff and departments in the use of the instruments/tools Develop assessment methodology and assess all departments, using the M&E instruments and CMT Hold awards ceremony for the best performing departments in terms of the quality of their SDIPs and the effectiveness of their implementation Way forward 2

48. The core team from GICS comprised: Dr Zwelakhe Tshandu (Project Director) David Malaza (Project Manager) Thembi Masilela (Project Administrator) Patricia Molefi Folusho Mvuba Edwin Molebale Moroesi Molosiwa Fikile Vezi and Leon Dempers (Service Providers) After the training, all of GICS staff assisted with the roadshow and hand-holding exercises Project Team

49. Refined SDIP Template Course/training material 2 PowerPoint Presentations 210 Training Manuals 2 X 2-Day Workshops Draft SDIP for the DPSA Visits to all national and provincial depts Assessments and fine-tuning of 114 SDIPs and 780 key services Progress and Closeout Reports Outputsof the Project

50. Thank you