CLOSEOUT REPORT

1
CLOSEOUT REPORT

• To develop basic skills regarding the
  development of effective, realistic and credible
  Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIPs)

2
Mainstreaming Batho Pele

• The spirit of Batho Pele must leave its
  footprint on public service delivery
• - The Batho Pele Handbook A Service Delivery
  Improvement Guide

3
Structure of Presentation

• Background
• Objective of Project
• Overview of SDIPs
• Context
• Methodology
• Outputs
• Findings
• Batho Pele as a Quality Standard
• Analysis and Recommendations
• Way Forward

4
Objective

• To promote continuous service delivery
  improvement in the Public Service by developing
  capacity to enable all national and provincial
  government departments to produce and submit
  credible, effective and realistic SDIPs
• by 30 March 2007

5
Background 1Legislation

• Batho Pele White Paper (1997)
• DGs and HODs are responsible for SDIPs
• Ministers/MECs to approve SDIPs
• Copies of SDIPs must be submitted to the DPSA
• Public Service Regulations make service delivery
  improvement compulsory

6
Background 2History
7
Where do SDIPs belong?
8
Strategic Importance of SDIPs

• Universally recognised as the best means of
  achieving continuous service delivery improvement
• Confirmed by international best practices, e.g.
  Canadian Citizen First Service Delivery
  Improvement Initiative
• Most effective way to mainstream the Batho Pele
  principles and culture

9
Why have SDIPs failed?

• Lack of familiarity with legislation, especially
  BP WP
• Batho Pele not mainstreamed
• Batho Pele and SDIPs perceived as a bolt-ons
• SDIPs confused with operational plans
• No appreciation of the fact that they are
  IMPROVEMENT plans to help enhance the way in
  which we deliver services they focus on how
  we behave, and not on what we are providing
  They do not help us to build better roads, but
  to build roads better.
• Lack of buy-in by management SDIPs delegated to
  staff members remote from the coal face

10
International Best Practices

• The Canadian Model
• Citizen First 1998
• The Service Improvement Initiative (SII)

11
SDIP Refined Template

• NAME OF DEPARTMENT/BRANCH/DIRECTORATE
• Vision
• Mission

KEY SERVICE SERV BEN CURRENT STANDARD CURRENT STANDARD DESIRED STANDARD DESIRED STANDARD
Quantity Quantity
Quality Quality
Consultation Consultation
Access Access
Courtesy Courtesy
Open Tran Open Tran
Information Information
Redress Redress
Val for Mon Val for Mon
Time Time
Cost Cost
HR HR
Signed ........................................
............. (Minister/MEC) Date
Signed........................
............ (DG/HOD) Date
12
Standardsfor SDIPs

• Use SMART, QQTC Standards
• No professional standards such as ISO, SABS,
  Municipal bylaws, etc but rather on how we
  behave when delivering services
• Use BP Principles to define Quality
• Standards to be relevant to the particular Key
  Service and Service Beneficiaries

13
Context 1

• Legislative
• Constitution (1996)
• Public Service Act (No 103 of 1994
• Public Service Regulations (2001)
• Public Finance Management Act (1999)
• Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (2000)
• Promotion of Access to Information Act (2000)
• White Paper on Transforming the PS (1995)
• White Paper on Transforming PS Delivery Batho
  Pele (1997)

14
Context 2

• Promotional Activities
• Batho Pele Change Management
• Batho Pele Learning Network
• Service Delivery Watch
• Africa Public Service Day
• Public Service Week
• Project Khaedu
• Know your Service Rights

15
ContextLiterature Review

• Survey of Compliance with BP Policy, 2000 (PSC)
• The BP Handbook, 2004 (DPSA)
• Report on the Implementation and Promotion of BP,
  2004 (DPSA)
• Evaluation of Service Standards in the Public
  Service, 2005 (PSC)
• Report on the Evaluation of Performance and
  Compliance with the BP Principle of Redress, 2006
  (PSC)
• Report on the Evaluation of Performance and
  Compliance with the BP Principle of Access,
• 2006 (PSC)

16
Methodology

• Desktop research to establish status quo
• International best practices
• Develop refined SDIP template
• Develop training material theoretical and
  practical
• Train GICS staff and provincial reps
• Roadshow to meet 30 March deadline
• Assess and fine-tune SDIPs
• Closeout Report

17
Non-Participants

• For operational reasons the following national
  departments chose not to participate in this
  project
• National Intelligence Agency
• S A Secret Services
• The Presidency

18
Non-SubmissionsNational Departments

• Defence
• Environmental Affairs and Tourism
• Home Affairs
• Housing
• Provincial and Local Government
• Trade and Industry

19
Non-SubmissionsProvincial Departments

• Eastern Cape
• Public Works
• Safety and Liaison
• Gauteng
• Economic Development
• Health

20
Non-SubmissionsProvincial Departments

• KwaZulu-Natal
• Health
• Local Government and Housing
• Welfare and Population Development

21
Non-SubmissionsProvincial Departments

• Northern Cape
• Agriculture and Land Reform
• Education
• Safety and Liaison
• Social Services and Population Development
• Sport, Arts and Culture

22
Non-SubmissionsProvincial Departments

• North West
• Economic Development and Tourism
• Education
• Finance
• Social Development
• Sport, Arts an Culture

23
Findings
GOVT DEPTS SUBMITTED No of Key SERVICES NOT SUBMITTED
NATIONAL 27/33 (82) 293 Av 11 6
PROVINCIAL 87/106 (82) 487 Av 6 19
OVERALL 114/139 (82) 780 25
24
Key Servicesper Department

• National Av 11
• Provincial Av 6
• Agriculture 41
• Foreign Affairs 26
• Land Affairs 19
• Without them the National Av 8

25
TrendsGeneral

• No apparent differences between National and
  Provincial Government Departments
• The same trends - no comparative analysis
• Process was largely Inside-Out rather than
  Outside-In this will change in the future

26
TrendsKey Services

• Confuse services with functions, projects,
  outcomes and tasks difficult to set SMART
  standards. Examples
• To popularise the 2010 office, which is
  inclusive of branding, marketing and
  communication. (Mpumalanga)
• Improve access to CPALS and ICT at Public
  Libraries.
• (Western Cape)
• List too many Key services not realistic and
  difficult to manage.
• For SDIPs Less is More

27
TrendsService Beneficiaries

• List too many difficult to set standards, e.g.
  Citizens, Visitors, Residents, Immigrants and
  All persons. (Western Cape, Community Safety)
• Confuse end-users, e.g. learners and patients,
  with customers difficult to set standards for
  Consultation, Access etc, e.g. School
  Management Teams, Educators and Learners. (Free
  State, Education)

28
TrendsCurrent Standards

• Largely non-existent
• Very little evidence of SMART, QQTC standards
• Define current situation using ad hoc or
  narrative description of status quo or process,
  e.g. Informal settlements need to be addressed
  (Mpumalanga, Housing)

29
TrendsDesired Standards

• Often no gap between Current and Desired
  standards, thus not a service delivery
  IMPROVEMENT plan
• Much better but still need to focus on the
  SMART principle
• Standards for BP principles tend to be vague
  need to focus on making them SMART, using the
  QQTC standards
• Many SDIPs include professional standards, e.g.
  ISO and SABS, not relevant to SDIPs - e.g.
  Compliance to set regulations. (Mpumalanga,
  Agriculture and Land Administration)

30
TrendsQuantity

• Quantity (How much? How many? How often?)
• Difficult when services have not been properly
  defined e.g. All vehicles where the key
  service is Traffic Management (Gauteng,
  Community Safety)
• In general Quantity was well defined in
  measurable terms Increase number of learners
  declared competent to 80 (Mpumalanga, OTP)
• Use All as a quantity standard e.g. Process
  all applications within 3 weeks.
• Often linked to a time standard e.g. 50 of
  SMS to go through all three modules by March
  2008 (Mpumalanga, OTP)

31
TrendsQuality

• Tendency to include professional standards e.g.
  Quality controls on housing are discussed.
  (Mpumalanga, Local Government and Housing)
• Use of the Batho Pele principles to define
  Quality, as prescribed by the template, was
  well accepted
• Setting QQTC standards to make the principles
  measurable was problematic for some departments
  and often the spaces in the template were simply
  left blank

32
TrendsBatho Pele Principles

• Consultation
• Generally good understanding most departments
  use discussion forums, meetings, surveys,
  izimbizo, suggestion boxes, etc, to define
  Consultation
• Lack of QQTC standards e.g. A more in-depth
  consultation process is planned (Agriculture)
• A few departments defined the audience rather
  than the means e.g. IDP, Eskom,
  Municipalities. (DME)
• Recommendation Develop minimum, generic service
  dimensions to ensure consistent and predictable
  service delivery throughout the Public Service

33
TrendsBatho Pele Principles

• Access
• Most departments have good understanding of
  Access and use signage, e-mail, meetings,
  remote offices, mobile units, extended working
  hours, etc, to define the principle
• Lack of QQTC standards e.g. Full access through
  office, e-mail, memos and telephonically.
  (Public Enterprises)
• Recommendation Develop minimum, generic service
  dimensions, as recommended above.

34
TrendsBatho Pele Principles

• Courtesy
• This, with value for money proved the most
  problematic. Mainly narrative descriptions
  without clear standards e.g. Revised and new
  practice notes user friendly. (KZN Treasury)
• Often confused with Redress e.g. Departmental
  complaints line. (WC, Community Safety)
• However, there was some evidence of QQTC
  standards e.g. Name tags, response to telephone
  calls within 5 rings, response to written queries
  within 10 days. Introduce customer service
  satisfaction survey. (EC, Housing, LG and
  Traditional Affairs)
• Recommendation Formulate generic service
  dimensions plus standardised training in customer
  care to ensure everyone speaks the same
  language

35
TrendsBatho Pele Principles

• Information
• Often confused with Openness and Transparency.
• Departments were encouraged to include the
  publication of Service Charters here.
• Generally pamphlets, brochures, circulars,
  meetings and one-on-ones, but still lack of
  SMART, QQTC standards e.g. Develop information
  leaflets to make communities aware of the
  service. (FS, Public Safety, Security and
  Liaison)
• Reassuring use of local language and local media
  e.g. Quarterly newsletter, evaluation forms and
  KHC radio stations. (NC, Health)
• Recommendation Include publication of Service
  Charters under this principle

36
Trends Batho Pele Principles

• Openness and Transparency
• Generally well understood
• Departments were encouraged to consider ways of
  making relevant information from their annual
  reports accessible to customers, e.g. by using
  local media e.g. Annual report (understandable
  language) (NC, Cultural Affairs and Sport)
• Again, there was little evidence of SMART, QQTC
  standards under this principle
• Recommendation Use local media and language to
  publish excerpts from annual reports to define
  this principle

37
Trends Batho Pele Principles

• Redress
• Generally well understood and defined in terms of
  complaints facilities, call centres and hot
  lines, and client satisfaction surveys (which
  overlap with consultation) e.g Complaints
  to be addressed within 10 days. (NC,Health)
  Establish and maintain a register of service
  delivery complaints and follow-up actions.
  Establish a help desk or hot line within the
  department and finalise queries within 60 days.
  (NW, Agriculture, Conservation and Environment)
• Recommendation All departments to have managed
  complaints facilities

38
Trends Batho Pele Principles

• Value for Money
• Perhaps the most problematic quality standard
• Departments were advised that effective and
  efficient use of approved budgets as basic value
  for money
• Some departments developed unit costs and other
  measures e.g. SMME development improve
  planning improve contract management. (NW,
  Public works), but still need to define SMART,
  QQTC criteria for this principle
• Recommendation All departments to develop
  relevant cost benefit standards for this
  principle

39
TrendsTime, Cost HR

• Time
• Well understood and clearly defined
• Mostly departments used the financial year-end as
  a useful time standard, i.e. the envisaged
  service delivery improvements had to be achieved
  by end March 2008
• Cost
• Generally, the Rand amount budgeted for the
  particular service provided the Cost standard
• Human Resources
• Perhaps the easiest standard. Majority listed
  the number of people required to provide the
  improved service. However, this needs to lead to
  training and skills transfer

40
Common Strengths

• Acceptance of the refined template
• A better than 80 response rate
• Project embraced by vast majority of departments
• Willingness to co-operate and learn
• Understanding of importance to mainstream BP
• Awareness of importance to set standards for
  service delivery
• Commitment to improved service delivery
• Co-operation from departments
• Buy-in by top management and staff

41
Challenges 1

• Unfamiliarity with relevant legislation,
  especially with the Batho Pele White Paper, which
  lead to
• SDIPs viewed as bolt-ons
• Confusion about where SDIPs belong SDIPs vs
  Operational Plans
• Lack of appreciation that SDIPs are service
  delivery IMPROVEMENT plans
• Focus on compliance rather than service delivery
  improvement

42
Challenges 2

• Confusion with Treasurys initiative which deals
  with non-financial reporting
• Departments claimed the DPSA was duplicating this
  initiative with SDIPs
• Training and roadshow plus one-on-ones helped
  to overcome the challenges

43
Analysis and Recommendations 1
KEY FINDING RECOMMENDATION
gt 80 response Maintain momentum
Submission of SDIPs not legislated for Amend Public Service Act
Use of refined template not obligatory Amend Public Service Act
44
Analysis and Recommendations 2
KEY FINDING RECOMMENDATION
No generic service dimensions for BP principles Develop Minimum Service Dimensions for BP principles
Confusion re Treasury initiative DPSA to take over responsibility for all non-financial reporting
Submission of SDIPs seen as compliance only Introduce recognition and rewards programme
45
Analysis and Recommendations 3
KEY FINDING RECOMMENDATION
SDIPs still seen as ad-ons Include SDIPs in strategic planning process
SDIPs have limitations, e.g. what is a key service? Develop ME tools for institutional assessments plus common measurement tool and customer satisfaction index external survey
46
Way forward 1

• Obtain SDIPs from outstanding departments
• Assess and fine-tune all SDIPs
• Provide full feedback to all departments
• Establish database of all SDIPs
• Develop ME instruments to measure quality of
  SDIPs and level of implementation
• Develop a common measurement tool (CMT) to
  measure customer satisfaction and establish
  customer satisfaction index (CSI)

47
Way forward 2

• Train GICS staff and departments in the use of
  the instruments/tools
• Develop assessment methodology and assess all
  departments, using the ME instruments and CMT
• Hold awards ceremony for the best performing
  departments in terms of the quality of their
  SDIPs and the effectiveness of their
  implementation

48
Project Team

• The core team from GICS comprised
• Dr Zwelakhe Tshandu (Project Director)
• David Malaza (Project Manager)
• Thembi Masilela (Project Administrator)
• Patricia Molefi
• Folusho Mvuba
• Edwin Molebale
• Moroesi Molosiwa
• Fikile Vezi and Leon Dempers (Service Providers)
• After the training, all of GICS staff assisted
  with the roadshow and hand-holding exercises

49
Outputsof the Project

• Refined SDIP Template
• Course/training material
• 2 PowerPoint Presentations
• 210 Training Manuals
• 2 X 2-Day Workshops
• Draft SDIP for the DPSA
• Visits to all national and provincial depts
• Assessments and fine-tuning of 114 SDIPs and 780
  key services
• Progress and Closeout Reports

50
Thank you