Implementation of the CAF Model 2002

in the Local Self-government

(case study)

 

 

Gejza Godon, IT consultant, Exos consulting  Slovakia

Ladislav Samuelis, assistant professor, Technical University in Košice, Slovakia

Robert Kende, assistant professor, Technical University in Košice, Slovakia

 

Abstract

 

This paper describes the experiences gained during the implementation of the Webocracy (www.webocracy.sk) project.

 

 

Keywords: Webocracy, IST, local self-government, local authorities, CAF2002, SWOT analysis

 

1          About the Webocracy project

 

We have already gained some experience in the implementation of the Webocracy project in the conditions of self-government. The aim of this project is to provide citizens with new form of communication. This will allow citizens to access documents and to support open discussions. Information will be more actual and referents will be directly responsible for the contents of the documents. The estimated time saving is approximately 15% for the clerks and 80% for the citizens.

 

Discussion forum supports the communication between the interested parties. Various kinds of documents will be published in the “publication space”. Navigation and search will support the project. Relatively separated will be the “electronic public funding”, supports the publication of tenders (publish of all documents and regulations, which are necessary to enter the competition. This submodul will support only the publication and not the whole cycle.

 

We plan to widen the project with the electronic portal, which will check the status of applications etc. In order to valid the signatures, it is necessary to implement the electronic signature into the praxis.

 

It will support mini-referendums on topics, which are announced on the forums. The result of the public opinions will be presented on discussion forums.

 

2          Background

 

We obtained further information from the discussions during preparatory phase and the pre-implementation analysis. Based on this information we proposed to introduce changes in the process structure by re-engineering. The aim of this pre-implementation study was to map the critical success factors in order to check the readiness of the organization for the introduction of the new form of communication between the offices and citizens.

 

It is necessary to have good relations between the office and the citizens in order to develop the principles of democracy and which support the efficient and quality self-government. Consultancies in forms of dialogues between the offices and citizen, serve the enhancement of the culture in politics and for the innovation in provision of services.

 

 

3          Methods

 

The pre-implementation study was aimed at the internal working process in order to create new forms of communication between offices and citizens. Due to the fact that we had no previous experience with the CAF2002 methods, we had some doubts about the success of this methodology for the required purposes. That is why we decided to utilize further methods, which are routinely utilized in this area:

-         personal discussions

-         radiation diagram

-         CAF 2002

-         SWOT analysis

-         E-government indicator

 

 

4          Steps in measurement

 

We had not only silent agreement but also active support from the top management. We informed the employees and the manager about the significance of the project during personal discussions. We obtained basic information about the departments and we created radiation diagram.

 

5          Radial diagram

 

The diagram describes seven basic macroprocesses.

1. public relation

2. legislature

3. financial control

4. document flow

5. front-end communication

6. benefit of the informatics

7. human resource management


 


Figure 1:  Radial diagram of the macro-processes

6          Steps of the CAF 2002 (Common Assessment Framework) methodology

 

We utilized the following suggested steps:

 

Step 1: Decision to use the CAF at the organisation

Step 2: Introduction of the tool to all staff (general presentation)

Step 3: Consultation of staff (gathering evidence)

Step 4: Select the members of the self-assessment group

Step 5: Information session for the self-assessment group

Step 6: Individual "reflection time".

Step 7: The assessment or scoring session

Step 8: Drafting of a report to management

Step 9: Draw conclusions from the report (Management consulting with the self-assessment

group, the staff ....) and draw up an improvement plan.

Step 10: Follow-up (possibly through a second CAF application)

 

 

 

11 respondents filled in the questionnaire. They were filled anonymously (6) or unanonymously (5). The Wilcoxon test showed that they are from the same selection. In this respect there were no statistically significant differences in answers. The questionnaire consists of 258 questions. We used the arithmetic average minimum and maximum value, median and modus at the evaluation of the questionnaires.

 

The minimum value 0 was at least once on every questionnaire. The maximum 5 was given at least once 9 respondents. This means that respondents used the whole range of available answers.

 

 

7          Evaluation of the results

 

Questionnaires were divided into 2 groups. In one group were the anonymous respondents and in the second others. We used the sign based Wilcox test for the statistical evaluation of differences between the 2 groups. Taking into account the factor of significance alpha is 0.05; there were no significant differences between these 2 groups.  It means that we may suppose that they are from the same selection.

 

 

Table 1: Results of the unique tests

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

average

2,35

2,54

1,22

1,99

2,68

1,81

2,05

2,00

2,96

1,46

2,77

Min

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Max

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

5

5

5

5

Median

2

3

1

2

3

2

2

2

3

1

3

Mod

2

3

2

3

4

2

2

2

3

0

3

 

The lowest average value is 1.22 and the highest is 2.96. This response to median 1 respectively 3. The average value of all answers is 2.17. Concerning the whole range (0 –5) this is moderately under the theoretical statistical average.

 

Table 2: Average by criteria

 

 

 

average

average EU

difference *

CRITERION 1: 

LEADERSHIP

 

2,23

3,4

1,17

CRITERION 2: 

STRATEGY AND PLANNING

 

1,98

3,1

1,12

CRITERION 3: 

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

 

2,32

3

0,68

CRITERION 4: 

PARTNERSHIP AND RESOURCES

 

2,30

3,3

1,00

CRITERION 5: 

PROCESS AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT

 

1,83

3,2

1,37

CRITERION 6: 

Customer/Citizen-oriented Results

 

2,46

2,9

0,44

CRITERION 7: 

People Results

 

2,46

2,6

0,14

CRITERION 8: 

Society results

 

1,71

2,8

1,09

CRITERION 9: 

Key performance results

 

2,29

3,1

0,81

 

* The average difference of the assumptions (criteria 1 –5) is 0.17 and the results (criteria 6 – 9) is 0.62.

 

Table 3: The average values according to the respondents’ criteria

.

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Average

EU average

1

2,24

2,06

1,76

2,06

3,15

1,67

2,06

2,27

2,94

1,21

3,09

2,23

3,4

2

2,29

3,00

0,94

1,88

2,76

0,82

1,76

1,35

3,47

1,06

2,47

1,98

3,1

3

2,61

3,36

0,89

2,29

3,43

1,50

1,96

1,79

3,64

1,21

2,89

2,32

3,0

4

2,35

3,16

1,33

2,41

2,63

1,53

2,22

2,39

2,94

1,29

2,98

2,30

3,3

5

1,61

2,35

0,83

1,74

2,52

1,35

2,09

1,78

2,39

1,22

2,30

1,83

3,2

6

2,85

2,81

1,59

1,56

3,15

2,89

2,44

2,11

2,67

1,56

3,44

2,46

2,9

7

2,85

2,81

1,59

1,56

3,15

2,89

2,44

2,11

2,67

1,56

3,44

2,46

2,6

8

2,47

1,37

0,89

1,79

1,11

1,89

1,89

1,74

2,32

1,68

1,63

1,71

2,8

9

2,63

3,37

1,42

2,11

2,32

2,11

1,79

2,00

3,16

1,84

2,42

2,29

3,1

 

Table 4: Areas with the lowest scores

 

Area

average

min

Max

median

3.3f) Inviting employees to evaluate their superiors (for

example through 360° appraisals).

 

0,1

0

1

0

4.1g) Exchanging staff with partners.

 

0,1

0

1

0

1.2g) Long-term use of a TQM-system such as EFQM

or CAF.

0,2

0

1

0

6.5d. Number of interventions from an ombudsman.

 

0,2

0

2

0

7.3c. Recreational facilities.

 

0,2

0

1

0

1.2h) Developing a system of operational targeting or

performance measuring in the organisation (e.g.

Balanced Score Card, ISO 9001-2000).

 

0,5

0

4

0

8.2d. Promoting the use of environmentally friendly modes

of transport (e.g. public transport, car sharing and

bicycles).

 

0,6

0

2

0

 

Table 5: Areas with the highest scores

 

Area

average

min

max

median

6.3d. Building location (closeness to public transport, parking facilities, etc.).

4,0

0

5

5

4.4b) Ensuring financial and budgetary transparency.

3,7

2

5

4

3.1i) Managing recruitment and career development with regard to fairness of employment and equal opportunities (e.g. gender, disability, race and religion).

3,5

0

5

3

3.1d) Aligning tasks, authorities and responsibilities (e.g. through job descriptions).

3,4

2

5

4

3.1e) Aligning job descriptions to staff recruitment and development plans.

3,4

1

5

3

3.1h) Ensuring good working conditions throughout the organisation.

3,4

2

5

3

3.2a) Identifying the current competencies at the individual and the organisational level in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes.

3,4

2

5

3

4.6e) Ensuring appropriate physical accessibility of buildings in line with the needs and expectations of employees and citizens/customers (e.g. access to parking or public transport).

3,4

2

5

4

 

 

7.1         Evaluation of the CAF 2002 test results

 

The average difference of the assumptions (criteria 1- 5) is 1.07, which is almost double of0.62, the difference of results (criteria 6-9). This result may be interpreted in such way that the assumptions (conditions) are significantly behind the EU conditions. The main reason is in the inefficient implementation of the public reforms (law of the government No. 695/199, The strategy of the reforms in public affairs), very frequent legislative changes. Other reasons are described in material: Informatization of public affairs. Criterion No. 5 – Management of processes and changes supports this fact; here is the difference of the averages the highest – 1.37. This fact is also supported by the results from the criterion No. 1 (Leadership) and criterion 2 (Strategy and planning). Further order is evident from the following table.

 

Table 6: Differences of the averages in the selected criteria

 

 

 

Average

EU average

Difference

CRITERION 5: 

Process and change management

1,83

3,20

1,37

CRITERION 1: 

Leadership

2,23

3,40

1,17

CRITERION 2: 

Strategy and planning

1,98

3,10

1,12

CRITERION 8: 

Results in connection to the society

1,71

2,80

1,09

CRITERION 4: 

Partnerships and resources

2,30

3,30

1,00

CRITERION 9: 

Results of key processes

2,29

3,10

0,81

CRITERION 3: 

Management of human resources

2,32

3,00

0,68

CRITERION  6: 

Results in connection to the citizen

2,46

2,90

0,44

CRITERION 7: 

Results in connection to the employees

2,46

2,60

0,14

 

The lowest difference (0.14) is in the criterion No. 7 (Results in the relation to the employees). The second lowest is in the criterion No. 6 (Results in the relation to the citizens). We may conclude from these results that people on both sides eliminate partially the disadvantaged assumptions in criteria 1 – 6. The development in this area could be influenced with their own resources and this way to achieve the EU average.

 

We have to devote more attention to the criteria No. 5 (Management of processes and changes). We have to concentrate on those fields first of all, where processes and changes are in competency of local self-government.

 

8          SWOT analysis

 

Managers prepared materials for the SWOT analysis. This analysis is simple and universal. This does not provide means for the measurement of progress in time by the repetition of the measurement. It is not possible to provide benchmarking. In spite of this fact SWOT analysis is maybe the most frequently used method, where the verbal description dominates.

 

We prepared SWOT analysis for the self-government as a unit for stating the global and conceptual goals. We prepared SWOT analysis also for selected departments. In order to complete the analysis, it is necessary to prepare this analysis also from the citizens’ point of view. This was not finished yet.

 

9          E-gov indicator - Common list of basic public services

For eGovernment, the following two indicators are the basis for benchmarking.

· Percentage of basic public services available online,

· Use of online public services by the public.

To make these indicators operational, Member States have agreed to a common list of

20 basic public services, 12 for citizens and 8 for businesses. Progress in bringing

these services online will be measured using a four stage framework:

1 posting of information online;

2 one-way interaction;

3 two-way interaction; and,

4 full online transactions including delivery and payment.

Data will be collected in surveys twice a year.

 

Public Services for Citizens

1. Income taxes: declaration, notification of assessment

2. Job search services by labour offices

3. Social security contributions (3 out of the following 4):

· Unemployment benefits

· Child allowances

· Medical costs (reimbursement or direct settlement)

· Student grants

4. Personal documents (passport and driver's licence)

5. Car registration (new, used and imported cars)

6. Application for building permission

7. Declaration to the police (e.g. in case of theft)

8. Public libraries (availability of catalogues, search tools)

9. Certificates (birth, marriage): request and delivery

10. Enrolment in higher education / university

11. Announcement of moving (change of address)

12. Health related services (e.g. interactive advice on the availability of

services in different hospitals; appointments for hospitals.)

 

Public Services for Businesses

1. Social contribution for employees

2. Corporation tax: declaration, notification

3. VAT: declaration, notification

4. Registration of a new company

5. Submission of data to statistical offices

6. Customs declarations

7. Environment-related permits (incl. reporting)

8. public procurement

 

Several of these areas do not belong to the self-government competency. These were not measured and evaluated.

 

 

10      Conclusion

 

We have evaluated results from all 4 measurements and we may state that the numerically evaluated results give comparable results. These results coincide with the radiation diagram and CAF 2002 questionnaire There were no significant obstacles in the infrastructure. Problems arose in the legislature and social infrastructure. Problems were in the readiness for the implementation on of changes. As classic said: “Give me people and I will do it”.

 

 

About the authors:

Gejza Bodon, Ing.  IT consultant, project manager.  Expert in measuring and improving of quality of information systems. bodon@exos.sk

Ladislav Samuelis, Ing., PhD, Assistant professor, Department of Computer and Informatics, Technical University in Košice.  Interested in Web application.

Robert Kende Ing. Assistant professor, Department of Cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence, Technical University in Košice. Team leader in project Webocracy - www.webocracy.sk