Introduction 5 Background Information 5 Preliminary Findings 7



Download 1.31 Mb.
Page13/23
Date conversion03.05.2018
Size1.31 Mb.
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   23

10 Benchmarking




Member State

A

B

Austria

Yes

Several ministries benchmark their subordinated organisations (e.g. tax offices)

Belgium

Yes

The social security agencies made on regulary basis benchmarking with their peer review organisation.

We are doing internal benchmarking in the social security with the customer enquiry. We are doing on the federal level a benchmarking with human resource indicators such as absenteisme, turn over, delay to engage people, day of training, …

In the flemisch region they do a benchmarking with the ministeries on the customer satisfaction. They compare for the same question raised the mark obtained. They present the report at the parliament each year.


Bulgaria

Not in use




Cyprus

Not in use




Czech Republic

Yes, since 2000

For the first time the method was tested in a pilot project „Price and Performance, which concentrated on cooperation among 6 statutory cities by comparing quality of public services and costs of their provision in the area of collection and liquidation of domestic waste. Implementation of the project proceeded in year 2000.

Experience of this project was followed by the current Czech-Canadian project „Benchmarking in the Area of Extended Powers of Municipalities of the 3rd Type“. The project aimed at assistance to municipalities of the 3rd type (it means to the municipalities with extended powers). The procedure was following: by the means of the method of benchmarking the contemporary performance of delegated powers were analyzed, its comparison among selected municipalities was made and the finally the optimal method of its provision was then found. The project was commenced in the first half of the year 2003 and lasted till the end of the year 2004. Financial resources for the project were provided by the Canadian Governmental Agency for International Development. 49 municipalities have entered into the project and were divided according to the size of their administrative territory into five working groups. Methodology of 30 areas of performance (e.g. issuing of IDs and driving licences, registers of inhabitants, construction authorities, 9 areas of environment protection, etc.) were developed. 392 data items were collected in each of 49 municipal authorities and processed in 648 comparable quantitative and qualitative indicators describing the processes. The comparisons showed the best performers as well as the weak ones and provide the management of the municipalities with figures and background information for decision-making concerning the performance management and operation of the authority. Results and outputs of the project were presented at the 1st National quality conference in the autumn 2004.

In 2005 the follow-up project "Benchmarking initiative 2005" started. Above mentioned 49 cities decided to continue in the project activities and finance project themselves. The same data items were collected again and once again repeated in February 2006; these data provided for a basis of followed trends. The added value of the method was that the local government staff members were directly involved in the whole process. They themselves choose the areas for benchmarking and developed the methodology deciding what was relevant and important for them. This regulated the process and kept it very practical. Moreover, the learning process based on learning from each other's best practices, experiences and approaches was equally very valuable.

In 2006 the collected data were spread among the self-government units and totally 57 agendas were observed. Data have been sharing in the on-line database however accessible only for the project members.

The project continues in 2008 too.
Benchlearning project of regions in Czech Republic

This project started in September 2005 and was based on comparison of agendas and finding of the best practices among 12 Regional Authorities. Model CAF is basic framework for this comparison. In 2006 areas were observed: HR, company car agenda, IT, telephoning and internal processes.





Denmark

Yes

Benchmarking is systematically used by the organisations that apply the Excellence and KVIK models. The institutions KREVI and IKAS both systematically conduct Benchmarking analyses for the government by comparing the municipal and regional jobsolving in a number of different areas. Benchmarking of indicators and results level is also widespread at the local government level. Link: http://www.fokus-net.dk/composite-1625.htm.

Estonia

Not in use

There are no benchmarking projects taking place as centrally coordinated and implemented. The agencies themselves might have used this approach, but there is no centrally gathered information about that.

Finland

Yes

Benchmarking is promoted by the same organisations as quality management in general eg MoF.

France

Yes

As a support for the general review of public policies, the Directorate general for State modernisation is in charge of promoting benchmarking. This activity is conducted among private and public bodies, at international and national level.


Germany

Yes

benchmarking takes place in the federal administration in different areas.

The possibility to learn from each other, takes place trough the engagement in the projects of the Modernization Program and moreover during other events e.g. with the Top Management of Administration authorities



Greece

Not in use




Hungary

Yes

Benchmarking has widespread among the public administration agencies using quality management tools. In practice, several organisations apply principles based on learning from each other inside the given sector and among sectors, too.
Hungarian organisations contributed to regional CAF bench-learning cooperation with their Austrian, Slovak and Czech partner organisations intensely in 2005-2006.
We have disseminated online the European CAF good practices handbook in Hungarian language.

(Link: https://caf.meh.hu/)


We have created a Hungarian good practices handbook. The European CAF good practices handbook was used as a model. (Link: https://caf.meh.hu/)

Ireland

Yes

The OECD has recently undertaken a major benchmarking review of the Irish Public Service, comparing it with other administrations. As part of this process, the approach taken by Ireland to customer service was examined.

At national level, surveys undertaken can be utilised in benchmarking across Public Service organisations.


Italy

Yes

Benchmarking and definition of common standards are not a widespread practice, even for those administrations which have adopted Citizens Charters. Whereas other bodies are promoting benchmarking in PAs using data related to the local authorities.

The recent National Plan for quality in Public Administrations has relaunched benchmarking practices through two projects: the Quality Barometer (definition of administrative performance indicators relating to the quality dimensions linked to the administrative capacities in sectors such as Justice and Education); Benchmarking Q Club (several municipalities adopting a sole set of quality indicators for State-transferred services and for communication services.



Latvia

Yes

For example, as already mentioned, the Ministry of Finance organised a benchmarking project together with the Ministry of Finance of Finland, and introduced CAF in 2007. But co-operation of different kind and level takes place not only internationally, but also between local institutions. (It is also rather popular way of learning among local governments)

Lithuania

Yes

Benchmarking is implementing according Quality conferences, CAF events, seminars…

Luxembourg

Yes

For Central Public Administration :

  • Quality day for public sector

  • Conference during the annual national Quality week
  • Breakfast quality meetings in


  • Quality clusters meetings

  • European Conferences and Meetings, presentation of best practises.

Malta

Not in use




The Netherlands

Yes


Benchmarking public services is not a simple matter. Comparing the performance of public organisations can be very complicated, because their objectives, being social, are often difficult to measure. We also have to take account of the political and administrative aspects of operations in public organisations. The exchanging knowledge gained in benchmarking public services can help speed up the learning process.

There are several coordinating organisations within the public sector that stimulate and facilitate benchmarking:

- The Ministry of the Interior established a Benchmark Centre in 2008 which goals are to:


  • Position ourselves as a centre of expertise on benchmarking, with the focus on the learning aspect of benchmarking

  • Advise organisations on which methods of research to use, which existing benchmark they can join, which organisations they can approach, how you can turn benchmark results into action, etc.

  • Take part in actual benchmark projects

  • Develop and market new benchmark tools & instruments, which are easy to use and inexpensive, so the threshold to start a benchmark will be as low as possible

- The VNG is the coordinating organisation for municipalities in the Netherlands. They have developed ‘the house of benchmarks”. This virtual house helps municipalities to improve the quality of public service, to offer transparency of performance and to improve performance through learning from others.

One of their initiatives is the website www.waarstaatjegemeente.nl. On this website hundreds of municipalities are compared by means of 350 index numbers (key indicators). Everyone who is interested in these comparisons (public servants, citizens, etc.) can look them up on this website.

Another initiative is their Mark of Quality. Every year municipalities can send in their benchmark (carried out by themselves or private organisation). Benchmarks that meet a list of VNG-criteria gets a VNG Mark of Quality. This separates the wheat from the chaff.

- The RBB-group (Government Benchmark Group) consists of 28 implementing organisations, such as Tax authorities, Patent Centre of the Netherlands, department of waterways and public works, etc. It’s centre point is learning and sharing knowledge through good practices, learning sessions and resultancies. Their benchmark focuses on deepening of understanding and giving meaning to the results/statistics. The benchmark is carried out by the participating organisations themselves. www.rbb-groep.nl (not in English).


Poland

Yes

Benchmarking is used by some institutions from tax administration and it will be further developed in the project Quality Management System for Tax Adminsitration.

The benchmarking tool was used after the implementing of the Institutional Development Program (IDP) which was aimed at increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of selected local and regional government pilot units in primarily rural communities of Poland and at developing and testing a methodology of institutional analysis. The implementation priorities selected by local government taskforces were based upon a prioritisation of activities from the institutional development (ID) plans and a catalogue of local and regional government management tools. The IDP results from an understanding of the organization's state of development in each management area as a result of an institutional analysis, and in the setting of priorities for improvement.

As a result of that project a benchmarking internet platform was created: www.dobrepraktyki.pl as a useful tool for ideas exchange place for all interested bodies.


Portugal

Not in use

Portugal doesn’t have a structured strategy or instruments for promoting benchmarking on PA on a regular or formal basis.

Romania

Not in use




Slovak Republic



There are certain initiatives of benchmarking but not based on the CAF Model or any other model. These initiatives are not coordinated by the SOSMT. The Slovak Republic participated in the International Regional Bench learning Project based on the CAF Model together with Austria, Hungary and Czech Republic in 2005 – 2006. Main reasons for International bench learning were that many areas of activity demonstrate good practices in an organisation, looking for innovative and creative solutions, the aim is to measure the level of performance in the view of global partners, bench learning partners were located outside the country (most of participated organisations were monopolies).


Slovenia

Yes

More and more used among the same type or organizations of public administration, in the case of Slovenia practical usage usually among the administrative units. In addition to the identification of area of improvement, this type of learning among the Slovene administrative units also encourages the exchange of experiences among the colleagues (peer review) and the raising the level of employee satisfaction. Example: focused professional excursion among administrative units.

Spain

Not in use sistematically.

As a matter of fact, there are not systematic ways for comparing results of public performance, as formal approaches for benchmarking. Data bases are seldom available for this purpose.
Nevertheless, there are some instruments for promotion and sharing of good practices in public administrations, as it is shown in the corresponding paragraph of this template.

Sweden

NA




United Kingdom

Yes

No centrally held records of the benchmarking initiatives underway or current use.


LL regarding Benchmarking
Finland

Benchmarking is something that is being done all the time but not to a very large extent. There are however some very good examples of benchmarking with public as well as with private sector organisations. Also international benchmarking is being done to some extent.


Hungary

Benchmarking is an important quality management tool both on Hungarian and European levels.


Italy

Benchmarking activity is not particularly widespread especially with reference to the less innovative sectors



Latvia

Benchmarking is seen as a good way to exchange experience and implement different policies more and more often.



Luxembourg

Success of exchange of good practice meetings and events.



The Netherlands:

Benchmarking public services is not a simple matter. Comparing the performance of public organisations can be very complicated, because their objectives, being social, are often difficult to measure. We also have to take account of the political and administrative aspects of operations in public organisations. The exchanging knowledge gained in benchmarking public services can help speed up the learning process.



Poland:

The benchmarking internet platform should be more wider publicised, advertised among local leaders and other interested authorities.




1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   23


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page