№ 1-2 (22-23) 2015 г. Volume 7 Number 1-2
Международные научные исследования
Journal of international scientific researches
Индексируется в Agris и РИНЦ
ISSN 2076-9563
ЭКОНОМИКА
Measuring Quality of Management System through Application of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF Model) D.V. Maslov,
канд. экон. наук, руководитель Центра исследований эффективности и качества государственного и муниципального управления, Казанский (Приволжский) федеральный университет (420012, Россия, г. Казань, ул. Бурлерова, 4; e-mail: maslow@bk.ru)
Аннотация. В статье рассматривается инициатива Татарстана в сфере эффективности и качества государственного управления – внедрение европейской модели Общей схемы оценки CAF. В работе представлены методы организационной самооценки. Автор предлагает Индекс качества системы управления (КСУ-индекс) как «приборную панель» для принятия решений в различных областях государственного управления от сферы образования и здравоохранения до полиции, местного самоуправления или сельского хозяйства. Abstract. The paper presents recent Tatarstan initiative in field of effectiveness and quality of public administration – implementation of the European Common Assessment Framework (CAF model). Paper is focused on methods of internal organisational self-assessment. Author proposes a Quality Management System Index (QMSIndex) as a "dashboard" for decision making in various areas of public administration from education and healthcare to police, local government or agriculture. Ключевые слова: качество, эффективность, оценка результативности, самооценка, государственное управление, сельское хозяйство. Keywords: quality, effectiveness, performance measurement, self-assessment, public administration, agriculture. tion (EIPA) started its quality journey with CAF Model as a pilot region in Russia. First findings of adapting CAF to Russian conditions could consider that model as a methodological framework for the development of an integrated system of performance measurement and quality improvement for Public Administration in Russia. Being a national partner of the EIPA CAF Resource centre in Russia, Kazan Federal University develops CAF in this area and supports Public Administrations in Russia and CIS countries to implement CAF model and exchange best practices in field of quality and effectiveness in Public Sector. Proposed Quality Management System Index (QMS-Index) which will be described below is based upon CAF criteria and methodology of selfassessment. It can be implemented as a diagnostic technique and a TQM instrument. Attached questionnaire will help practitioners from public sector to conduct self-assessment and start to implement CAF model in their organisations. CAF in brief Since 2000 in European Public Sector is widely used The Common Assessment Framework – a TQM Model inspired by the EFQM Excellence Model. The CAF is a result of co-operation among the EU Ministers responsible for Public Administration. The CAF Resource Centre at the European Institute of Public Administration is in charge of further development of CAF methodology and coordination of the network of CAF users across Europe. The CAF is offered as an easy to use tool to assist public sector organisations to introduce quality management thought the comprehensive selfassessment framework that is conceptually similar to the major TQM models, EFQM in particular, but is specially conceived for the public sector. Among CAF users there are organisations from such field like Education [3], Social Services, Healthcare, Transport and Infrastructure, Police [4, 5] and even Churches. But the most CAF-claimed area is Fed-
Introduction The Russian public administration sphere, in an effort to achieve higher administrative efficiency, is receiving a massive injection of western management techniques, like management by results, performance-based budgeting, e-government, and many others. Quality and Effectiveness issues look very important in reform agenda. But largely recognized common methodology for measuring, analyzing and improving effectiveness in public administrations, efficiency of civil servants and quality of public services still does not exist both at the regional and federal level of the Russian Federation. One of the recent European trends in improving quality of public services and raising efficiency of public administration is the Common Assessment Framework (CAF Model). The CAF provides a selfassessment framework that is conceptually similar to the major TQM (total quality management) models, in particular EFQM Excellence Model [1], but is specially conceived for the public sector, taking into account its differences. The most recent information of CAF developments in Europe is presented in the EIPA CAF Study Research Report [2]. More than 3000 public organisations have registered to use the CAF Model since its launch and thousands more across and outside Europe use it for their own specific development purposes. Despite CAF originally focused on the Member States of the European Union, other countries actively use CAF in order to support people working in public administrations in their day-to-day journey of delivering a quality service. Tatarstan Republic is one of the leading regions of Russia in terms of effectiveness of public administration. Tatarstan government undertakes various initiatives in order to enhance its efficiency, improve performance results and raise satisfaction of citizens/customers. Tatarstan Government with methodological and organisational support of Kazan Federal University and European Institute of Public Administra-
Journal of international scientific researches, Vol. 7, Nom. 1-2, 2015
12
D.V.Maslov Measuring Quality of Management System through Application of the Common Assessment Framework (CAFModel)
Further description of the CAF Model is given by CAF-2013 brochure [8], which is available online on the CAF website www.eipa.eu/CAF (as well as Russian language version [9]).
eral Governmental Bodies as well as Local and Regional Administrations [6, 7] Being a generic tool CAF includes the 9 criteria, 28 sub criteria and the scoring system. The structure of the CAF Model is illustrated on fig. 1.
Figure 1 The CAF Model.
The nine-box structure identifies the main aspects requiring consideration in any organisational analysis. Criteria 1-5 deal with the managerial practices of an organisation: the so-called Enablers. These determine what the organisation does and how it approaches its tasks to achieve the desired results. In criteria 6-9, results achieved in the fields of citizens/customers, people, social responsibility and key performance are measured by perception and performance measurements. Each criterion is further broken down into a list of sub-criteria. The 28 sub-criteria identify the main issues that need to be considered when assessing an organisation. They are illustrated by examples that explain the content of the sub-criteria in more detail and suggest possible areas to address, in order to explore how the administration fulfills the requirements expressed in the sub-criterion. These examples represent a lot of good practices from all over Europe. Not all of them are relevant for every organisation, but many can be considered as points of attention during selfassessment. Integrating the conclusions from the assessment of the enablers and results criteria into the managerial practices constitute the continuous innovation and learning cycle that accompanies organisations on their way towards excellence. The CAF aims to be a catalyst for a full improvement process within the organisation and has five main purposes: 1. to introduce public administrations into the culture of excellence and the principles of TQM; 2. to guide them progressively to a fullyfledged PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) cycle; 3. to facilitate the self-assessment of a public organisation in order to obtain a diagnosis and a definition of improvement actions; 4. to act as a bridge across the various models used in quality management, both in public and private sectors; 5. to facilitate bench learning between public sector organisations. Since its launch, nearly 3000 public sector organisations across and outside Europe have used the model, and the number of CAF users continues to grow.
CAF in Russia The CAF model came to Russia in 2006 when the Effective Public Service (EPUS System) was introduced as an adaptation of the Common Assessment Framework [10, 11]. The EPUS System offered: Self-assessment and external expert assessment techniques; Decision making toolkit (including software) for analysis of self-assessment outcomes and identifying areas for improvement; Mechanisms for best practice identifying, gathering and exchange through the networking and benchmarking upon the EPUS multilevel database. EPUS includes a number of specific innovation features: Establishment of Expert Councils (Federal and regional) for external expert assessment and best practice selection process; Adaptation to various functional types and hierarchical levels of public authorities through the proposed scheme of public service and changing weight among the nine criteria; Two-sided self-assessment (managersto-employees) approach; Multilevel database and networking of regional benchmarking centres in seven Federal Districts of the Russian Federation. Further development of CAF model was flowed under the aegis of the Russian Organisation for Quality which became the National Partner of the CAF Resource Centre of the EIPA. In 2009 the Regional Centre for Public Administration Reform (RCPAR) of the United Nations Development Programme Bratislava Regional Centre (UNDP BRC) supported multi-country activity IQUAL “Improving quality of public management through application of the CAF model”. The IQUAL project was initiated by RCPAR Focal Point in Russian Federation - the Scientific Centre for Benchmarking and Excellence of Ivanovo State Power University. Other official IQUAL partners are: Ministry of Public Administration of the Republic of Slovenia; Ministry of Welfare of the Republic of Latvia;
Международные научные исследования, № 1-2, 2015 г.
13
ЭКОНОМИКА
QMS-Index is calculated on the basis of selfassessment helps to identify good practices and areas for improvement in the municipality and increase the level of quality of municipal services provided to citizens-customers. One of the main QMS-Index feature is involving employees in the process of diagnostic selfassessment which covers various aspects of the organisation in the framework of desired and achieved level of quality management system in the municipality. QMS-Index is harmonized with the criteria of the CAF Model and the EFQM Excellence Model. Proposed system is not considering as a "punitive" tool or a mechanism of dismissal. In contrast, the QMS-Index aims to establish channels of communication between management and employees for more accurate diagnosis and better adjustment of the management system. QMS-Index structure consists of 9 indicators divided into two groups: Enables and Results. Each group has equal ratio - 50/50. Indicators within groups have weights, shown in Table 1:
Organizational Work and Public Administration Policy Department under the Administration of President of the Kyrgyz Republic; Agency for Civil Service Affairs under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan [12]. Ivanovo oblast represented Russia in IQUAL with a numerous of CAF implementations: in the Regional Government [13], the Chamber of Accounts [14], Plyos Local Administration [15], Rodniki Municipality [16]. Tatarstan CAF-context The national effectiveness assessment framework was introduced in Russia by the Presidential Decree in 2007. These system is resulted in annual rank of all subjects of federations. Tatarstan is always on top of this rating. One of the reasons is searching for new methods and techniques to raise quality and efficiency of public administration. In the end of 2012 Kazan (Volga region) Federal University (KFU), supported by the government of Tatarstan Republic, signed a bilateral agreement with the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) and became National partner in field of distributing CAF Model in Russia (with focus on Tatarstan and Volga region). In 2013-2014 in the framework of this agreement KFU has implemented a numerous of activities: 1. Training and Site visits to European CAF user in Germany, Netherlands and Belgium for civil servants of Tatarstan Republic, April 2013; 2. CAF version 2013 had been translated into Russian, July 2013; 3. CAF training in Kazan for 150 civil servants delivered by EIPA experts, August 2013; 4. First International Quality Conference in Kazan in December 2013 for 200 participants with contributions from National Ministries and Agencies, Administration of the President of Russian Federation, EIPA experts, CAF practitioners from Norway, Lithuania, Slovenia; 5. Research fellowship in Norway hosted by The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities KS and Norwegian CAF users, May 2014; 6. International conference “Sustainable territorial development” held in kazan federal University, December 2014; 7. Numerous articles and conference presentations. In 2013, Kazan Federal University had launched a research project “Methodology of analysis and evaluation of effectiveness and quality in public administration (Volga region case)”. The CAF model is considered to be a theoretical framework of developing methodology, and experience of CAF practitioners from EU countries are to form practical basis for further research and bench-learning. One of the outcome of the research was the Quality Management System Index [17]. QMS-Index Quality Management System Index (QMSIndex) is a set of indicators characterizing the level of quality management system in organisation. Proposed method of calculating the QMS-Index was designed especially for municipal level of public administration in the Republic of Tatarstan. This technique can also be scaled to the level of a region, or used to assess the quality management system in the national context.
Table 1
Wight coefficient of QMS-Index criteria coefficient, k Enables Criteria 0,50 Criterion 1: Leadership 0,10 Criterion 2: Strategy and Planning 0,08 Criterion 3: People 0,09 Criterion 4: Partnerships and Resources 0,09 Criterion 5: Processes 0,14 Results Criteria 0,50 Criterion 6: Citizen/Customer-oriented 0,20 Results Criterion 7: People Results 0,09 Criterion 8: Social Responsibility Results 0,06 Criterion 9: Key Performance Results 0,15
score 50 10 8 9 9 14 50 20 9 6 15
Self-assessment is conducted by nonpersonalized survey. Respondents fill in paper questionnaire or on-line form, where the first part includes questions regarding importance of different areas of organisation, and the second part achieved level on the same areas (questionnaire is attached Annex 1). The e-survey can be created using an open application (e.g. Google Drive or SurveyMonkey) or developed an app upon special terms and conditions. Link to the survey has to be sent individually to the work email address of each respondent. To ensure the validity of research results with a statistical error of less than 5% it is necessary to provide participation in the survey from 50 to 80 % of employees, depending on their total population in the organisation. It is recommended to conduct selfassessment quarterly (or at least annually) to measure the dynamic of improvements. QMS Dashboard based on consolidated and interrelated results of two part in the questionnaire, harmonized with each other. In the first part, respondents evaluate to what extent this or that area of organisation important for its further development – it will be desired profile of management system. In the second part, respondents form actual profile of management system evaluating the same areas in terms of achieved results. Each line in the questionnaire is harmonized with QMS-Index criteria as shown in the table 2.
Journal of international scientific researches, Vol. 7, Nom. 1-2, 2015
14
D.V.Maslov Measuring Quality of Management System through Application of the Common Assessment Framework (CAFModel) Table 2 Questionnaire and QMS-Index Criteria Relationship Question No QMS-Index Criteria Part 1 Part 2 Enables Criteria 1: Leadership 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 7 50; 51; 52; 53; 54; 56 2; 6; 8; 9; 10; 11; 51; 55; 57; 58; 59; 60; 2: Strategy and 12; 13; 14 61; 62; 63 Planning 3: People 11; 15; 16; 17; 18; 60; 64; 65; 66; 67; 68; 19; 20; 21; 22 69; 70; 71 4: Partnerships and 13; 23; 24; 25; 26; 62; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; Resources 27; 28 77 5: Processes 10; 13; 24; 27; 28; 59; 62; 73; 76; 77; 78; 29; 30; 31; 32 79; 80; 81 Results Criteria 6: Citizen/Customer31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; oriented Results 36; 37; 38 86; 87 7: People Results 30; 32; 39; 40; 41 79; 81; 88; 89; 90 35; 36; 42; 43; 44; 84; 85; 91; 92; 93; 95 8: Social Responsi46 bility Results 9: Key Performance 45; 46; 47; 48; 49 94; 95; 96; 97; 98 Results
∑
6 100
where i – Criterion No n – Question No k – Weight coefficient (Table 1) qn – Score (0 – 5 points): qmax – Maximum score 5 points m – Total amount of respondents QEnables – Achieved score in “Enables” QResults – Achieved score in “Results” Q1…9 – Achieved score on criterion 1 (achieved score on criteria 2-9 is calculated with regard to the relevant coefficients and questions indicated in Tables 1 and 2).
Consolidated QMS-Index reflecting the current state of the quality management system is calculated based on the evaluation result of the second part of the questionnaire by the following formulas:
Figure 2. QMS-Dashboard.
Международные научные исследования, № 1-2, 2015 г.
15
ЭКОНОМИКА
лов – М: РИА «Стандарты и качество», 2008. – 152 с. 2. Staes P., Thijs N., Stoffels A., Geldof S. Five Years of CAF 2006: From Adolescence to Maturity – What Next? A study on the use, the support and the future of the Common Assessment Framework. – Maastricht: EIPA, 2011. – 160 p. 3. Фоссум Свендсен Э. Управление качеством в школьном образовании Норвегии [Текст] / Э. Фоссум Свендсен, Д.В. Маслов // Стандарты и качество. – 2014. – №10. – С. 88-92. 4. Виртик Ф. Менеджмент качества в полиции Словении [Текст] / Ф. Виртик, Д.В. Маслов // Стандарты и качество. – 2011. – №2. – С. 7275. 5. Виртич Ф. Полиция Словении: от этики и порядочности к качеству [Текст] / Ф. Виртич, Д.В. Маслов // Менеджмент качества. – 2014. – №3. – С. 194-203. 6. Thijs N., Staes P. The Common Assessment Framework in European public administration: a state of affairs after five years // Eipascope. – 2005. – №3. – P. 41‐49. 7. CAF works – Better results for the citizens by using CAF. Austrian Federal Chancellery, 2006. – 102 p. 8. CAF 2013. Improving Public Organisations through Self-Assessment. Maastricht: European CAF Resource Centre. EIPA, 2012. – 78 p. 9. Общая схема оценки Common Assessment Framework (CAF). Совершенствование организаций публичного сектора через самооценку [Текст] / перевод с англ. под ред. Д.В. Маслова, Л.А. Нургатиной. – КФУ, Казань: Издательство Казанского университета, 2013. – 68 с. 10. Маслов Д.В. Система оценки эффективности деятельности аппаратов органов государственной власти и местного самоуправления «Эффективная публичная служба» (ЭПУС) [Текст] / Д.В. Маслов, А.Ю. Короленко, В.В. Смирнов. – М: Флинта: Наука, 2006. – 50 с. 11. Маслов Д.В. Система «ЭПУС» как механизм повышения эффективности государственного и муниципального управления [Текст] / Д.В. Маслов, А.Ю. Короленко, В.В. Смирнов // Государственная служба. – 2007. – №6. – С. 7081. 12. Common Assessment Framework Good Practice Book / Adv. Dmitry Maslov. Regional Centre for Public Administration Reform of UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre, June 2011. – 62 p. 13. Поляков М.Б. Эффективность и качество государственного и муниципального управления Ивановской области: курс на модернизацию [Текст] / М.Б. Поляков // Стандарты и качество. – 2010. – №8. – С. 58-62. 14. Гаспаров А.В. Самооценка по модели CAF в контрольно-счетной палате Ивановской области [Текст] / А.В. Гаспаров, А.Ю. Короленко // Стандарты и качество. – 2010. – №11. – С. 1416. 15. Мочалов А.А. Плёс: опыт самооценки по модели CAF в городском поселении [Текст] / А.А. Мочалов // Стандарты и качество. – 2010. – №10. – С. 56-58. 16. Пахолков А.В. Самооценка деятельности администрации муниципального образования «Родниковский муниципальный район» [Текст] / Сборник материалов международной конференции «Эффективность и качество госу-
In order to evaluate effectiveness of organisation QMS-Effect could be calculated: Both indicators: achieved QMS-Index and QMS-Effect are reflected at the top of the QMS Dashboard (Figure 2). Following the same algorithm desired level indicators of QMS-Index are calculated. Proposed self-assessment technique allows to define gaps between desired and achieved level of performance of organisation through the prism of 9 criteria, as well as within groups of Enables and Results. In addition, the gap between desired and achieved levels of consolidated QMS-Index can be shown (middle part of the Dashboard in Figure 2). To define a level of maturity for each criterion it is suggested to use the scale similar to CAF methodology where the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle is integrated into scoring system. If an organisation performs no data or only has plans in this or that area, that means only beginning phase of continues improvement. If organisation performs plan, do, check and act (review and improve), that means high level of maturity. If organisation has fully integrated PDCA cycle – it can be consider as a best practice. PDCA scale is applicable to Enable group. Maturity of Results criteria is characterized by trends shown by arrows. For in-depth analysis of the achieved level (results of the second part of the questionnaire) it is suggested to divide respondents into two groups “managers” (or decision makers) and employees; and calculate all the results separately for each group. The gap in score of managers related to score of employees (overestimation/underestimation) is determined for each specific area (subject) to identify areas of critical differences in the estimates over 25 % (low part of the Dashboard in Figure 2). If necessary, separate analysis by gender and/or age can be done. In order to present all the results of selfassessment it is suggested to use QMS-Dashboard presented in Figure1. It is simple and easy to understand info-graphics of organisational performance that can be used by decision makers in public administration sphere of different levels in Russia and in Europe.Conclusion The CAF model is expected to become standard in Russia. The two main instruments of the CAF self-assessment (which is about people) and good practice exchange or benchmarking (which is about innovation and learning) could ensure the success in modernizing public administration in Russia. QMS-Index methodology is still developing. QMS-Dashboard could be interesting for all CAF users or organisations starting quality journey. It is easy to use express instrument allows to get “quick wins” after first self-assessment, to understand better organisational performance and communication gaps between decision makers (managers/executives) and decision doers (employers/workers). References: 1. Маслов Д.В. От качества к совершенству. Полезная модель EFQM. [Текст] / Д.В. Мас-
Journal of international scientific researches, Vol. 7, Nom. 1-2, 2015
16
D.V.Maslov Measuring Quality of Management System through Application of the Common Assessment Framework (CAFModel)
(CAF model): Tatarstan Case / D. Maslov, L. Nurgatina // The 22nd Conference "From PreWeberianism to Neo-Weberianism?", May 22-24, 2014, Budapest, Hungary.
дарственного и муниципального управления», Правительство Ивановской области, Иваново, 29 апреля 2010 г. – С. 47-51. 17. Maslov D. Raising Effectiveness and Quality in Public Administration through Application of the European Common Assessment Framework Annex. Questionnaire
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Your role in organisation: ☐ manager/decision maker ☐ employee/worker Gender: ☐ man ☐ woman Age: ☐ under 25 ☐ 26 – 35 ☐ 36 – 45 ☐ 46 – 60 ☐ over 60 Part 1. Rank the following statements in terms of its contribute to organisational excellence. Use proposed scale: 0 – No answer 1 – Not important 2 – Rather not important 3 – Rather not important 4 – Important 5 – Very important Statement Score Leaders are citizen- and society-oriented in strategic planning 0 1 2 3 Leaders report overall development goals to each employee in the organisation 0 1 2 3 Leaders demonstrate their loyalty to employees 0 1 2 3 Leaders support initiatives from employees 0 1 2 3 Leaders provide all necessary resource to carry out all set organisational functions 0 1 2 3 Organisation has long-term development strategy 0 1 2 3 Former leaders demonstrate their efficiency as informal leaders too 0 1 2 3 Organisation is focused on maximal satisfaction of needs of each citizen and society in whole 0 1 2 3 Staff are well informed about mission and strategy of organisation 0 1 2 3 Intra-and inter-organisational relations function well and provide optimal processes 0 1 2 3 Personal goals of employees correspond with the mission and strategy of organisation 0 1 2 3 Implementation of the mission and strategy are under regular monitoring 0 1 2 3 Organisation systematically gather, analyse and employ information external sources 0 1 2 3 Organisation analyses information about performance of other organisations 0 1 2 3 Organisation encourages knowledge and good practices exchange among employees 0 1 2 3 Organisation develops staff rewarding system 0 1 2 3 Organisation improve working conditions for staff 0 1 2 3 Organization carries out social support, pays much attention to healthcare, safety and recreation 0 1 2 3 Organisation set communication channels for claims and offers from employees up to leaders 0 1 2 3 Organisation has an effective staff appraisal system 0 1 2 3 Employees have opportunities to get further education and professional development 0 1 2 3 Equal opportunity of getting job for men and women, representatives of different religions and 0 1 2 3 nationalities Organisation has sufficient financial security 0 1 2 3 All resources are planned and managed 0 1 2 3 Saving energy and material resources, waste management 0 1 2 3 Information about organisation are available for all stakeholders 0 1 2 3 Organisation is in continues search for new efficient management approaches 0 1 2 3 Finance resource are under control 0 1 2 3 Systematic analysis and improvement of all organisational processes 0 1 2 3 Leaders delegates power to responsible employees in their professional field 0 1 2 3 Regular monitoring of citizens and other stakeholders satisfaction with quality of delivered public 0 1 2 3 services Organisation use ideas on improvement received from different stakeholders 0 1 2 3 Organization analyzes how citizens, society and other stakeholders perceive its activities 0 1 2 3 Organisation analyses needs and expectations of citizens, society, other stakeholders related to 0 1 2 3 delivered public services Organisation cares about its image (media coverage, number of awards, etc.) 0 1 2 3 Organisation analyses what benefit does it bring to citizens, society, other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 Organisation develops additional services to their stakeholders 0 1 2 3 Organisation evaluates the level of confidence of citizens, society, other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 Organisation motivates employees to be more involved in organisational activities 0 1 2 3 Organisation measures people satisfaction 0 1 2 3 Organisation pays attention to achievements of employees (training courses, awards, etc.) 0 1 2 3 Organisation contributes to local society 0 1 2 3 Organisation monitors opinions and complaints from citizens, society and other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 Organisation cooperates with private companies and NGOs in systematic way 0 1 2 3 Organisation analyses results of audits and inspections 0 1 2 3 Organisation analyses its partnerships 0 1 2 3 Organisation conducts cost analysis and optimises its expenses 0 1 2 3 Organisation has solid financial management system 0 1 2 3 Organisation manages its material assets and equipment in effective 0 1 2 3
Международные научные исследования, № 1-2, 2015 г.
17
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4
5
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4
5
4 4
5 5
4
5
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
ЭКОНОМИКА Part 2. Rank the same statements in terms of achieve results of your organisation. Use proposed scale (Assessment panels of CAF-2013 - classical scoring are used [8]): 0 – We are not active in this field, we have no information or very anecdotal. No results are measured and/or no information is available. 1 – We have a plan to do this. Results are measured and show negative trends and/or results do not meet relevant targets. 2 – We are implementing / doing this. Results show flat trends and/or some relevant targets are met. 3 – We check / review if we do the right things in the right way. Results show improving trends and/or most of the relevant targets are met. 4 – On the basis of checking / reviews we adjust if necessary. Results show substantial progress and/or all the relevant targets are met. 5 – Everything we do, we plan, implement, check and adjust regularly and we learn from others. We are in a continuous improvement cycle on this issue. Excellent and sustained results are achieved. All the relevant targets are met. Positive comparisons with relevant organisations for all the key results are made. n 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Statement Leaders are citizen- and society-oriented in strategic planning Leaders report overall development goals to each employee in the organisation Leaders demonstrate their loyalty to employees Leaders support initiatives from employees Leaders provide all necessary resource to carry out all set organisational functions Organisation has long-term development strategy Former leaders demonstrate their efficiency as informal leaders too Organisation is focused on maximal satisfaction of needs of each citizen and society in whole Staff are well informed about mission and strategy of organisation Intra-and inter-organisational relations function well and provide optimal processes Personal goals of employees correspond with the mission and strategy of organisation Implementation of the mission and strategy are under regular monitoring Organisation systematically gather, analyse and employ information external sources Organisation analyses information about performance of other organisations Organisation encourages knowledge and good practices exchange among employees Organisation develops staff rewarding system Organisation improve working conditions for staff Organization carries out social support, pays much attention to healthcare, safety and recreation Organisation set communication channels for claims and offers from employees up to leaders Organisation has an effective staff appraisal system Employees have opportunities to get further education and professional development Equal opportunity of getting job for men and women, representatives of different religions and nationalities Organisation has sufficient financial security All resources are planned and managed Saving energy and material resources, waste management Information about organisation are available for all stakeholders Organisation is in continues search for new efficient management approaches Finance resource are under control Systematic analysis and improvement of all organisational processes Leaders delegates power to responsible employees in their professional field Regular monitoring of citizens and other stakeholders satisfaction with quality of delivered public services Organisation use ideas on improvement received from different stakeholders Organization analyzes how citizens, society and other stakeholders perceive its activities Organisation analyses needs and expectations of citizens, society, other stakeholders related to delivered public services Organisation cares about its image (media coverage, number of awards, etc.) Organisation analyses what benefit does it bring to citizens, society, other stakeholders Organisation develops additional services to their stakeholders Organisation evaluates the level of confidence of citizens, society, other stakeholders Organisation motivates employees to be more involved in organisational activities Organisation measures people satisfaction Organisation pays attention to achievements of employees (training courses, awards, etc.) Organisation contributes to local society Organisation monitors opinions and complaints from citizens, society and other stakeholders Organisation cooperates with private companies and NGOs in systematic way Organisation analyses results of audits and inspections Organisation analyses its partnerships Organisation conducts cost analysis and optimises its expenses Organisation has solid financial management system Organisation manages its material assets and equipment in effective
Journal of international scientific researches, Vol. 7, Nom. 1-2, 2015
18
Score 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5