CAF Model and QMS Index

№ 1-2 (22-23) 2015 г. ISSN 2076-9563 Volume 7 Number 1-2

Международные научные исследования

Journal of international

scientific

researches

Индексируется в Agris и РИНЦ

Э К О Н О М И К А

Journal of international scientific researches, Vol. 7, Nom. 1-2, 2015

12

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. Ка-зань, ул. Бурлерова, 4; e-mail: [email protected])

Аннотация. В статье рассматривается инициатива Татарстана в сфере эффективности и ка-чества государственного управления – внедрение европейской модели Общей схемы оценки CAF. В работе представлены методы организационной самооценки. Автор предлагает Индекс качества сис-темы управления (КСУ-индекс) как «приборную панель» для принятия решений в различных областях государственного управления от сферы образования и здравоохранения до полиции, местного само-управления или сельского хозяйства.

Abstract. The paper presents recent Tatarstan initiative in field of effectiveness and quality of public admin-

istration – 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 (QMS-Index) 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, государ-

ственное управление, сельское хозяйство. Keywords: quality, effectiveness, performance measurement, self-assessment, public administration, agri-

culture. Introduction The Russian public administration sphere, in

an effort to achieve higher administrative efficiency, is receiving a massive injection of western man-agement 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 recog-nized common methodology for measuring, analyz-ing and improving effectiveness in public administra-tions, 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 improv-ing quality of public services and raising efficiency of public administration is the Common Assessment Framework (CAF Model). The CAF provides a self-assessment framework that is conceptually similar to the major TQM (total quality management) mod-els, 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. De-spite 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 deliv-ering a quality service.

Tatarstan Republic is one of the leading re-gions 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 Uni-versity and European Institute of Public Administra-

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 perfor-mance measurement and quality improvement for Public Administration in Russia.

Being a national partner of the EIPA CAF Resource centre in Russia, Kazan Federal Universi-ty develops CAF in this area and supports Public Administrations in Russia and CIS countries to im-plement CAF model and exchange best practices in field of quality and effectiveness in Public Sector.

Proposed Quality Management System In-dex (QMS-Index) which will be described below is based upon CAF criteria and methodology of self-assessment. It can be implemented as a diagnostic technique and a TQM instrument. Attached ques-tionnaire 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 Administra-tion. The CAF Resource Centre at the European Institute of Public Administration is in charge of fur-ther development of CAF methodology and coordi-nation 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 quali-ty management thought the comprehensive self-assessment 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-

D.V.Maslov Measuring Quality of Management System through Application of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF Model)

Международные научные исследования, № 1-2, 2015 г.

13

eral Governmental Bodies as well as Local and Re-gional Administrations [6, 7]

Being a generic tool CAF includes the 9 crite-ria, 28 sub criteria and the scoring system. The structure of the CAF Model is illustrated on fig. 1.

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 Rus-sian language version [9]).

Figure 1 The CAF Model.

The nine-box structure identifies the main aspects requiring consideration in any organisation-al 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 possi-ble 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 self-assessment. 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 im-provement 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 fully-fledged 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 mod-els 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 Sys-tem offered:

Self-assessment and external expert as-sessment techniques;

Decision making toolkit (including soft-ware) 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 innova-tion features:

Establishment of Expert Councils (Feder-al 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 chang-ing weight among the nine criteria;

Two-sided self-assessment (managers-to-employees) approach;

Multilevel database and networking of re-gional benchmarking centres in seven Federal Dis-tricts 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 Ad-ministration Reform (RCPAR) of the United Nations Development Programme Bratislava Regional Cen-tre (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 Rus-sian Federation - the Scientific Centre for Bench-marking and Excellence of Ivanovo State Power University. Other official IQUAL partners are: Minis-try of Public Administration of the Republic of Slo-venia; Ministry of Welfare of the Republic of Latvia;



14

Organizational Work and Public Administration Poli-cy Department under the Administration of Presi-dent of the Kyrgyz Republic; Agency for Civil Ser-vice 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 Ac-counts [14], Plyos Local Administration [15], Rodniki Municipality [16].

Tatarstan CAF-context The national effectiveness assessment

framework was introduced in Russia by the Presi-dential 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 govern-ment 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 serv-ants 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 Federa-tion, 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 ter-ritorial development” held in kazan federal Universi-ty, December 2014;

7. Numerous articles and conference presentations.

In 2013, Kazan Federal University had launched a research project “Methodology of analy-sis 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 (QMS-

Index) is a set of indicators characterizing the level of quality management system in organisation. Pro-posed 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 re-gion, or used to assess the quality management system in the national context.

QMS-Index is calculated on the basis of self-assessment helps to identify good practices and areas for improvement in the municipality and in-crease the level of quality of municipal services pro-vided to citizens-customers.

One of the main QMS-Index feature is involv-ing employees in the process of diagnostic self-assessment 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 con-trast, the QMS-Index aims to establish channels of communication between management and employ-ees for more accurate diagnosis and better adjust-ment 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:

Table 1 Wight coefficient of QMS-Index criteria

coefficient, k

score

Enables Criteria 0,50 50Criterion 1: Leadership 0,10 10Criterion 2: Strategy and Planning 0,08 8Criterion 3: People 0,09 9Criterion 4: Partnerships and Resources 0,09 9Criterion 5: Processes 0,14 14Results Criteria 0,50 50Criterion 6: Citizen/Customer-oriented Results

0,20 20

Criterion 7: People Results 0,09 9Criterion 8: Social Responsibility Results 0,06 6Criterion 9: Key Performance Results 0,15 15

Self-assessment is conducted by non-personalized 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 condi-tions. 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 self-assessment 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, re-spondents 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.



15

Table 2 Questionnaire and QMS-Index Criteria Relationship

QMS-Index Criteria Question No Part 1 Part 2

Enables Criteria 1: Leadership 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 7 50; 51; 52; 53; 54; 562: Strategy and Planning

2; 6; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14

51; 55; 57; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63

3: People 11; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22

60; 64; 65; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71

4: Partnerships and Resources

13; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28

62; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77

5: Processes 10; 13; 24; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32

59; 62; 73; 76; 77; 78; 79; 80; 81

Results Criteria 6: Citizen/Customer-oriented Results

31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38

80; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87

7: People Results 30; 32; 39; 40; 41 79; 81; 88; 89; 908: Social Responsi-bility Results

35; 36; 42; 43; 44; 46

84; 85; 91; 92; 93; 95

9: Key Performance Results

45; 46; 47; 48; 49 94; 95; 96; 97; 98

Consolidated QMS-Index reflecting the cur-

rent state of the quality management system is cal-culated based on the evaluation result of the second part of the questionnaire by the following formulas:

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).

Figure 2. QMS-Dashboard.



16

In order to evaluate effectiveness of organi-sation 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 organi-sation performs no data or only has plans in this or that area, that means only beginning phase of con-tinues improvement. If organisation performs plan, do, check and act (review and improve), that means high level of maturity. If organisation has fully inte-grated 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 (overestima-tion/underestimation) is determined for each specific area (subject) to identify areas of critical differences in the estimates over 25 % (low part of the Dash-board in Figure 2). If necessary, separate analysis by gender and/or age can be done.

In order to present all the results of self-assessment it is suggested to use QMS-Dashboard presented in Figure1. It is simple and easy to un-derstand info-graphics of organisational perfor-mance that can be used by decision makers in pub-lic 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 bet-ter organisational performance and communication gaps between decision makers (manag-ers/executives) and decision doers (employ-ers/workers).

References:

1. Маслов Д.В. От качества к совершен-

ству. Полезная модель EFQM. [Текст] / Д.В. Мас-

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 Ma-turity – What Next? A study on the use, the support and the future of the Common Assessment Frame-work. – Maastricht: EIPA, 2011. – 160 p.

3. Фоссум Свендсен Э. Управление каче-ством 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 по-лиции Словении [Текст] / Ф. Виртик, Д.В. Маслов // Стандарты и качество. – 2011. – №2. – С. 72-75.

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 Assess-ment 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 citi-zens by using CAF. Austrian Federal Chancellery, 2006. – 102 p.

8. CAF 2013. Improving Public Organisa-tions through Self-Assessment. Maastricht: Europe-an CAF Resource Centre. EIPA, 2012. – 78 p.

9. Общая схема оценки Common As-sessment Framework (CAF). Совершенствование организаций публичного сектора через само-оценку [Текст] / перевод с англ. под ред. Д.В. Маслова, Л.А. Нургатиной. – КФУ, Казань: Изда-тельство Казанского университета, 2013. – 68 с.

10. Маслов Д.В. Система оценки эффек-тивности деятельности аппаратов органов госу-дарственной 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 ме-ханизм повышения эффективности государст-венного и муниципального управления [Текст] / Д.В. Маслов, А.Ю. Короленко, В.В. Смирнов // Государственная служба. – 2007. – №6. – С. 70-81.

12. Common Assessment Framework Good Practice Book / Adv. Dmitry Maslov. Regional Cen-tre for Public Administration Reform of UNDP Brati-slava Regional Centre, June 2011. – 62 p.

13. Поляков М.Б. Эффективность и каче-ство государственного и муниципального управ-ления Ивановской области: курс на модерниза-цию [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. 14-16.

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 деятельно-сти администрации муниципального образова-ния «Родниковский муниципальный район» [Текст] / Сборник материалов международной конференции «Эффективность и качество госу-



17

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

(CAF model): Tatarstan Case / D. Maslov, L. Nurgatina // The 22nd Conference "From Pre-Weberianism to Neo-Weberianism?", May 22-24, 2014, Budapest, Hungary.

Annex. Questionnaire

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

n Statement Score 1 Leaders are citizen- and society-oriented in strategic planning 0 1 2 3 4 52 Leaders report overall development goals to each employee in the organisation 0 1 2 3 4 53 Leaders demonstrate their loyalty to employees 0 1 2 3 4 54 Leaders support initiatives from employees 0 1 2 3 4 55 Leaders provide all necessary resource to carry out all set organisational functions 0 1 2 3 4 56 Organisation has long-term development strategy 0 1 2 3 4 57 Former leaders demonstrate their efficiency as informal leaders too 0 1 2 3 4 58 Organisation is focused on maximal satisfaction of needs of each citizen and society in whole 0 1 2 3 4 58 Staff are well informed about mission and strategy of organisation 0 1 2 3 4 510 Intra-and inter-organisational relations function well and provide optimal processes 0 1 2 3 4 511 Personal goals of employees correspond with the mission and strategy of organisation 0 1 2 3 4 512 Implementation of the mission and strategy are under regular monitoring 0 1 2 3 4 513 Organisation systematically gather, analyse and employ information external sources 0 1 2 3 4 514 Organisation analyses information about performance of other organisations 0 1 2 3 4 515 Organisation encourages knowledge and good practices exchange among employees 0 1 2 3 4 516 Organisation develops staff rewarding system 0 1 2 3 4 517 Organisation improve working conditions for staff 0 1 2 3 4 518 Organization carries out social support, pays much attention to healthcare, safety and recreation 0 1 2 3 4 519 Organisation set communication channels for claims and offers from employees up to leaders 0 1 2 3 4 520 Organisation has an effective staff appraisal system 0 1 2 3 4 521 Employees have opportunities to get further education and professional development 0 1 2 3 4 5

22 Equal opportunity of getting job for men and women, representatives of different religions and nationalities 0 1 2 3 4 5

23 Organisation has sufficient financial security 0 1 2 3 4 524 All resources are planned and managed 0 1 2 3 4 525 Saving energy and material resources, waste management 0 1 2 3 4 526 Information about organisation are available for all stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 527 Organisation is in continues search for new efficient management approaches 0 1 2 3 4 528 Finance resource are under control 0 1 2 3 4 529 Systematic analysis and improvement of all organisational processes 0 1 2 3 4 530 Leaders delegates power to responsible employees in their professional field 0 1 2 3 4 5

31 Regular monitoring of citizens and other stakeholders satisfaction with quality of delivered public services 0 1 2 3 4 5

32 Organisation use ideas on improvement received from different stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 533 Organization analyzes how citizens, society and other stakeholders perceive its activities 0 1 2 3 4 5

34 Organisation analyses needs and expectations of citizens, society, other stakeholders related to delivered public services 0 1 2 3 4 5

35 Organisation cares about its image (media coverage, number of awards, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 536 Organisation analyses what benefit does it bring to citizens, society, other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 537 Organisation develops additional services to their stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 538 Organisation evaluates the level of confidence of citizens, society, other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 539 Organisation motivates employees to be more involved in organisational activities 0 1 2 3 4 540 Organisation measures people satisfaction 0 1 2 3 4 541 Organisation pays attention to achievements of employees (training courses, awards, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 542 Organisation contributes to local society 0 1 2 3 4 543 Organisation monitors opinions and complaints from citizens, society and other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 544 Organisation cooperates with private companies and NGOs in systematic way 0 1 2 3 4 545 Organisation analyses results of audits and inspections 0 1 2 3 4 546 Organisation analyses its partnerships 0 1 2 3 4 547 Organisation conducts cost analysis and optimises its expenses 0 1 2 3 4 548 Organisation has solid financial management system 0 1 2 3 4 549 Organisation manages its material assets and equipment in effective 0 1 2 3 4 5



18

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 cy-

cle 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 Statement Score 50 Leaders are citizen- and society-oriented in strategic planning 0 1 2 3 4 551 Leaders report overall development goals to each employee in the organisation 0 1 2 3 4 552 Leaders demonstrate their loyalty to employees 0 1 2 3 4 553 Leaders support initiatives from employees 0 1 2 3 4 554 Leaders provide all necessary resource to carry out all set organisational functions 0 1 2 3 4 555 Organisation has long-term development strategy 0 1 2 3 4 556 Former leaders demonstrate their efficiency as informal leaders too 0 1 2 3 4 557 Organisation is focused on maximal satisfaction of needs of each citizen and society in whole 0 1 2 3 4 558 Staff are well informed about mission and strategy of organisation 0 1 2 3 4 559 Intra-and inter-organisational relations function well and provide optimal processes 0 1 2 3 4 560 Personal goals of employees correspond with the mission and strategy of organisation 0 1 2 3 4 561 Implementation of the mission and strategy are under regular monitoring 0 1 2 3 4 562 Organisation systematically gather, analyse and employ information external sources 0 1 2 3 4 563 Organisation analyses information about performance of other organisations 0 1 2 3 4 564 Organisation encourages knowledge and good practices exchange among employees 0 1 2 3 4 565 Organisation develops staff rewarding system 0 1 2 3 4 566 Organisation improve working conditions for staff 0 1 2 3 4 567 Organization carries out social support, pays much attention to healthcare, safety and recreation 0 1 2 3 4 568 Organisation set communication channels for claims and offers from employees up to leaders 0 1 2 3 4 569 Organisation has an effective staff appraisal system 0 1 2 3 4 570 Employees have opportunities to get further education and professional development 0 1 2 3 4 571 Equal opportunity of getting job for men and women, representatives of different religions and nationali-

ties 0 1 2 3 4 5

72 Organisation has sufficient financial security 0 1 2 3 4 573 All resources are planned and managed 0 1 2 3 4 574 Saving energy and material resources, waste management 0 1 2 3 4 575 Information about organisation are available for all stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 576 Organisation is in continues search for new efficient management approaches 0 1 2 3 4 577 Finance resource are under control 0 1 2 3 4 578 Systematic analysis and improvement of all organisational processes 0 1 2 3 4 579 Leaders delegates power to responsible employees in their professional field 0 1 2 3 4 580 Regular monitoring of citizens and other stakeholders satisfaction with quality of delivered public ser-

vices 0 1 2 3 4 5

81 Organisation use ideas on improvement received from different stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 582 Organization analyzes how citizens, society and other stakeholders perceive its activities 0 1 2 3 4 583 Organisation analyses needs and expectations of citizens, society, other stakeholders related to deliv-

ered public services 0 1 2 3 4 5

84 Organisation cares about its image (media coverage, number of awards, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 585 Organisation analyses what benefit does it bring to citizens, society, other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 586 Organisation develops additional services to their stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 587 Organisation evaluates the level of confidence of citizens, society, other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 588 Organisation motivates employees to be more involved in organisational activities 0 1 2 3 4 589 Organisation measures people satisfaction 0 1 2 3 4 590 Organisation pays attention to achievements of employees (training courses, awards, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 591 Organisation contributes to local society 0 1 2 3 4 592 Organisation monitors opinions and complaints from citizens, society and other stakeholders 0 1 2 3 4 593 Organisation cooperates with private companies and NGOs in systematic way 0 1 2 3 4 594 Organisation analyses results of audits and inspections 0 1 2 3 4 595 Organisation analyses its partnerships 0 1 2 3 4 596 Organisation conducts cost analysis and optimises its expenses 0 1 2 3 4 597 Organisation has solid financial management system 0 1 2 3 4 598 Organisation manages its material assets and equipment in effective 0 1 2 3 4 5

Documents

CAF Model and QMS Index