EUPAN 2008-2009 MTP Recommendations in Berlin | Working Groups' Analysis

1. EUPAN DG-Troika20th and 21st June 2007, BerlinMedium-Term Programme (MTP)

2. EUPAN – Working groups‘ assessment of current MTP-implementation and DGs‘ priorities for future MTP Preliminary analysis of a questionnaire distributed to HRWG, IPSG and e-Government Preparing Ministerial Recommendations for theMedium-Term Programme (MTP) 2008 - 2009

3. Aim of the inquiry: To provide input to Preparation of Recommendations for the new MTP at the Ministerial Meeting in Berlin on June 22 Outlining and detailing the MTP by the Portuguese presidency July – December 2007 in order to take into account implementation of current MTP to date and to establish feed-back to DG-proposals for shaping future MTP Why ask the working groups and which questions?

4. Implementation: Questionnaire distributed to members of HRWG, IPSG, e-Government group including questions with regard to: 1.1 Implementation to date of working groups‘ contribution to current MTP priority areas 1.2 Implementation to date of own working groups‘ MTP-targets Significance of future MTP priorities compiled during DG‘s brainstorming Why ask the working groups and which questions?

5. Terms of reference: Answers up to certain degree are determined by current MTP structure as well as by selection and grouping of DG‘s priority items However: additional comments to each answer provide unbiased and specific analysis and expectations Representativity: Representativity and relevance of specific areas of interest up to a certain degree are determined by limited and varying participation of working groups in filling in questionnaires: HRWG 15, IPSG 21, e-Government 11 However: limited total number of questionnaires received and uneven distribution among working groups objectively reflect measure of interest in programming issues Does the inquiry adequately reflect EUPAN working groups’ assessments?

6. EUPAN working groups’ assessment of the significance of contributions to the priority areas or “common coordinated action plans” listed in the MTP under these headings: The way EU member states work towards the Lisbon objectives: 8 x very important 27 x substantial 4 x marginal The reduction of administrative burdens….. 10 x very important 11 x substantial 21 x marginal Efficiency of public administration 14 x very important 20 x substantial 7 x marginal Working towards European User Satisfaction Indices (only IPSG and eGov) 12 x very important 11 x substantial 7 x marginal EUPAN working goups’ assessment

7. Conclusions: While “efficiency” is perceived as overall management priority and newly introduced Lisbon objectives are accepted as political benchmarks within the framework of governance, reduction of administrative burdens for half of the respondents has marginal significance – or may be viewed as task of the Better regulation experts. Strong support for continuing working on European Saticfaction Indicies – inspite of methodological problems – seems to express persistent interest in generally applicable outcomes EUPAN working goups’ assessment

8. HRWG’s assessment of the significance of its activities with regard to HRWG topics listed in the MTP under these headings: 1) Strategic Human Resources Management in the Public Administration 8 x very important 5 x substantial 1 x marginal 2) Leadership Development and Succession Planning in the PublicAdministration 7 x very important 8 x substantial 0 x marginal 3) Modernization of Public Administration 7 x very important 7 x substantial 1 x marginal 4) Ethics and Integrity 7 x very important 7 x substantial 1 x marginal HRWG’s assessment

9. HRWG’s assessment of the significance of its activities with regard to HRWG topics listed in the MTP under these headings: 5) Pensions in the public sector 1 x very important 10 x substantial 3 x marginal 6) Training of civil servants 2 x very important 6 x substantial 6 x marginal Conclusions: Priorities are rather evenly distributed between continuous and long- term personnel management with focus on leadership and ethics, while pensions and training – recently well covered within HRWG resp. DISPA – remain to be of interest. HRWG’s assessment

10. IPSG’s assessment of the significance of its activities with regard to IPSG topics listed in the MTP under these headings: 1) Benchmarking and Best Practice 11 x very important 9 x substantial 1 x marginal 2) CAF (Common Assessment Framework) 18 x very important 1 x substantial 2 x marginal 3) Communication/Knowledge Sharing and Management 8 x very important 8 x substantial 3 x marginal 4) Quality Conferences 18 x very important 3 x substantial 0 x marginal Conclusions: Priorities clearly are given to “public“ outcomes such as Qualitiy Conferences and CAF, whereas “internal“ methodological efforts remain to be of secondary importance IPSG’s assessment

11. E-GovWG’s assessment of the significance of its activities with regard to eGovWG topics listed in the MTP under these headings: 1) Interoperability, inter & intra governmental collaboration and pan-European services 4 x very important 5 x substantial 2 x marginal 2) A focus on users needs with attention to benefits for citizens and the impact of e-government 4 x very important 5 x substantial 2 x marginal 3) Organisational changes, skills and the role of leadership required in achieving the benefits that effective use of ICT can bring to public administrations 7 x very important 1 x substantial 3 x marginal Conclusions: High priority given to organisational change and leadership with a view to users‘ need indicate potential for cooperation with IPSG and HRWG E-Government WG’s assessment

12. Rating options were 1 - very important 2 - important 3 - partially important 4 – unimportant; thus the lowest total value indicates the highest priority assessment Working groups’ ratings of DG-priority items for future MTP

13. Ranking of DG-priority items for future MTP

14. Ranking of DG-priority items for future MTP

15. Working groups' members highly valuate citizen / customer orientation represented by quality public services and service delivery. High significance is also attributed to leadership and vision as well as to transparency and trust within the public service. Closely related with these objectives is a preference for change management and for performance measurement with regard to citizens / customers and staff. However: In view of low ratings for taking into account political frameworks such as labour regulation or long-term challenges such as demographic change, these assessments need to be reflected and amended within the context of political priorities. Conclusions