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 Results Processes Achieve better results through involvement of all employees (across the sector) in continuous improvement of their processes

7. People Management Employee Satisfaction K E Y P E R F O R M A N C E R E S U L T S L E A DERSHIP P R O C E S S E S Customer Satisfaction Strategy & Planning Impact on Society Resources & Partners Enablers Results The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) Model

8. Plan and Prepare for Self-Assessment Collect Views, Information and Data on Where We are Now Identify Strengths and Areas for Further Improvement Identify the Priority Opportunities (and ensure inclusion in Plans) Develop and Implement Actions on these Opportunities (and ensure inclusion in Departmental Action Plans) Review and Repeat to BENCHMARK improvements (half-yearly) 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 Improved Results Strengths and Areas for Improvement 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 Scoringguidelines 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 outstandardsso 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 effectiveremedieswhen 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.