Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

1-2 (22-23) 2015 .

Volume 7 Number 1-2

Journal of
international
scientific
researches

Agris

ISSN 2076-9563

Measuring Quality of Management System through Application of


the Common Assessment Framework (CAF Model)
D.V. Maslov,

. . ,
, () (420012, , . , . , 4; e-mail: maslow@bk.ru)

. CAF.
. (-)
, .
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.
: , , , , , .
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;

, 1-2, 2015 .

13

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
Q19
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.

, 1-2, 2015 .

15

: , 2008.
152 .
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. . []
/ . , .. //
. 2014. 10. . 88-92.
4. . [] / . , ..
// . 2011. 2. . 7275.
5. . :
[] / . ,
.. // . 2014.
3. . 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. 4149.
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. Common Assessment Framework (CAF).
[] / . . ..
, .. . , : , 2013. 68 .
10. ..
()
[] / .. , .. , ..
. : : , 2006. 50 .
11. .. [] /
.. , .. , .. //
. 2007. 6. . 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. .. : [] / .. //
. 2010. 8. . 58-62.
14. ..
CAF -
[] / .. , ..
// . 2010. 11. . 1416.
15. .. :
CAF [] /
.. // . 2010.
10. . 56-58.
16. ..
[] /
-

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. .. . EFQM. [] / .. -

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.

,
, ,
29 2010 . . 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

, 1-2, 2015 .

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
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4

5
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


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
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
0

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
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

Оценить