United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

Portugal had been characterized by a burocratic and inefficient public administration which affected the quality of the deliverance of public services. Public administration suffered from a lack of culture of evaluation and transparency, with a management input-oriented and mainly concerned with the assurance of the conformity to the law.

Citizens perceived public administration as inefficient as they didn´t acknowledge which objectives were pursed by public services and that public expenditure was wasted to pay civil servants wages. In fact, management in public administration was not output-oriented, objectives and results achieved by departments were not available, and accountability was deficient, leading to an overall lack of motivation to perform better or even to be innovative.

There were no mechanisms to distinguish public departments’ achievements and allow performance evaluation and benchmarking. Even for civil servants the performance assessment was based on career antiquity without linkage to merit.

In this context, it was established an Integrated System for Management and Performance Evaluation of the Public Administration (SIADAP, the acronym in Portuguese) which represented a cornerstone of the recent reform of the Portuguese Public Administration. SIADAP applies to the performance of civil servants, managers and public departments, being these last one the innovative aspect compared to previous systems. The evaluation of public departments is based on a tool named Framework of Evaluation, Accountability and Responsiveness (QUAR, the acronym in Portuguese).

The Evaluation of Public Departments Framework, which is the initiative hereby submitted, represents the solution for a better management of the Public Administration directed towards citizens needs and to align the activity of services with the goals of public policies.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
The Evaluation of Public Departments applies to central, regional and local government, following a principle of universality by applying the same methodology to all departments. Since it is an all-encompassing system, flexibility and adaptation mechanisms had to be developed to allow for specific situations or institutions. SIADAP liaises with the planning system and management cycle of each ministry, and is instrumental in assessing compliance with multiple-year strategic objectives, annual objectives and activity plans. The performance evaluation of each public department is based on QUAR, published in the department’s website (following a principle of transparency), containing effectiveness, efficiency and quality objectives, which relates to performance indicators and targets and their results (whenever possible, comparable to national and international standards), the reason for negative deviations, and planned and available human and financial resources. Promotion of the participation of users in the evaluation is also done in QUAR, through questionnaires about the quality of delivery of services to citizens. An electronic mechanism (www.siadap.gov.pt) was also created to increase public’s ability to acknowledge, monitor and analyse public departments decision-making and performance results, simultaneously improving coordination and increasing efficiency in public administration. Although this mechanism integrates civil servants, managers and public department evaluation, only the latter is publicly available. It is worthwhile mention that this mechanism is similar to US electronic website “ExpectMore.gov” (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/), appraised by OECD as a best practice. 2008 was the first year of the implementation of this initiative, covering roughly 225 central government departments of the 15 ministries. Final performance evaluation is expressed in three qualitative levels (Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory). The departments with the highest level of performance in each ministry may also receive a merit award, which can be attributed to up to 20% of the services in each ministry. Preliminary results for 2008 evaluation showed that it was completed for 9 ministries, with impact being measured by the 21 departments with a merit award. These performance results were made available to the public, for the first time in the history of Portuguese public administration, and were news headlines in the media. The attribution of this award provides for: i) a 10 percentage points increase in the maximum percentages applicable to middle management and all other employees to differentiate the highest level of performance and merit; ii) the increase in funds allocated in the budget in order to finance changes in remuneratory positions of or the award of bonuses; iii) the possibility of obtaining budgetary appropriations for other projects. The successive attribution of the “unsatisfactory” classification may, on the other hand, provide grounds for the reassessment of the service’s existence, its mission, organisation and activities. Summarizing, this initiative has lead to a modernization of public administration, through the development of evaluation and self-discipline practices within a large framework and the introduction of innovative methods and tools, stimulating an excellence culture. Besides the organizational change, translated in a more output-oriented management, emphasis was put on a client-orientation in public department delivery.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
The initiative is legislated by a law published in December 2007 and that enter into force in January 2008. The responsible for the implementation and coordination is a council named Council for the Coordination of the Evaluation of Public Departments (CCAS, the acronym) which is chaired by the Secretary of State of Public Administration (Ministry of Finance and Public Administration), and is constituted by the general directors of planning departments (named GPEARI) in each of the 15 ministries. These departments are responsible for the evaluation public departments within their own ministry, among other responsibilities. In fact, the role of the planning departments of each ministry is to advise on the identification of performance indicators and objectives and evaluation mechanisms and their validation; monitorize the information and performance indicators systems regarding the data reliability and integrity; promote the creation of results and outcomes indicators in the programs and projects developed for one or more departments in order to allow national and international comparison. Aiming to harmonize concepts, procedures and models of performance evaluation of public services, informal coordination meetings with the planning departments of all ministries, chaired by the GPEARI of the Ministry of Finance have began in 2009 (called GPEARI network). The main task of this network is to share knowledge by producing guidelines and instruments to spread good practices and the purpose is to identify and implement strategies and practices common to all planning departments in the management and evaluation in the public administration and to enhance the information and knowledge sharing while promoting best practices to the overall public administration. Additionally, the Information Technology Institute of the Ministry of Finance and a public enterprise named GERAP, which manages shared resources of the public administration, both provide an electronic tool, named GEADAP, to support the performance evaluation of public services and also of civil servants (www.siadap.gov.pt). This electronic site makes available the QUAR tool for all public departments, which is the starting point for the self-evaluation. Self-evaluation is the general principle, while hetero-assessment, which is performed by a council for the internal control system grouping the sectorial General Inspectorate, may occur in relation to unsatisfactory performance or whenever the outcome of a self-evaluation is contested by the department responsible for planning, strategy and assessment within each ministry. Hetero-evaluation may also be performed by external entities, such as consumer associations or other external users, provided that the operating independence from the entities to be assessed is guaranteed. National Administration Institute (INA), a public institute of the Ministry of Finance, is responsible for training in this área. After the departments have defined their objectives, they are validated by the GPEARI and approved by the Minister or Secretary of State in charge. In the final stage of the evaluation process, the Minister in charge deliberates, based on a assessment note by the ministry’s GPEARI, which departments deserve a merit distinction. The results of the evaluation are available on the web, accessible to all citizens (www.siadap.gov.pt, websites of ministries and departments).

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The public services evaluation main objectives are (i) improving performance and quality of public services by developing and consolidating evaluation and self-discipline and expanding management practices in public administration; (ii) the orientation for efficiency, effectiveness and quality in public departments driven by citizens’ needs; (iii) to stimulate the development of a culture of excellence and quality; (iv) to recognize and distinguish departments for their performance and results obtained; (v) to align public departments activity with public policies goals; (vi) to improve the design of the process for the users in terms of time, cost and quality; (vii) to improve the availability of information and the transparency of the activities of public departments; and (viii) to support the strategic decision-making process, through availability of information on results and costs, namely in terms of the pertinence of the existence of departments, their functions, organization and activities. The strategy used to implement this initiative was based on a top-down approach. In December 2007, before the law entered in force, the Minister of Finance held a meeting of CCAS with all general directors of the planning departments to inform and sensibilize all public administration for the strategy relevance of the new initiative. Secondly, in each of the 15 ministries, the political team (ministry and secretary of state) held a meeting with the general directors of their public departments with the same goal of explaining and sensibilizing for this new initiative. And lastly, each GPEARI held meetings with the remaining departments of their ministry to elaborate the first QUAR for 2008. The law entered in force on the 1st January 2008. In this implementation strategy the role of the GPEARI of the Ministry of Finance was crucial to support and advise all public administration (inclusive hospital, schools and so on).

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
In January 2008, the law that regulated this initiative entered into force. After that, public departments had 21 days to elaborate their QUAR. Meanwhile, an electronic application to support QUAR was created by two departments of the ministry of finance (GPEARI, responsible for its conception and contents, and the Information Technology Institute, responsible for the electronic application itself). That electronic application was improved in 2009 to allow a linkage between the three public administration’s evaluations (departments, heads of departments and civil servants). In 2009, the second year of implementation, the initiative was resumed and public departments were evaluated for the 2008 performance results. Until April 2009, public departments had to submit their self-evaluation and until September, GPEARI evaluated public departments of their ministry, stating if they agreed or not with the self-evaluation proposed by the departments. GPEARI also proposed to the Minister in charge of their ministry which departments were worthy of merit. This assessment note presents a ranking for best performers which results of a comparative analysis with 11 criteria aiming to assess excellence. These criteria to compare and distinguish departments’ performance, resulted from a consensus on the GPEARI network meetings in the beginning of 2009. In October and November 2009, the ministries published the departments worthy of merit. Preliminary results for 2008 evaluation showed that it was completed for 9 ministries, with impact being measured by the 21 departments with a merit award. The leadership, inventiveness and resourcefulness of the Ministry of Finance’s GPEARI were crucial for the success and development of this initiative, and this was recognized by their peers.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
The main obstacles were the lack of adequate training of civil servants to this new management tool and a resilience of departments to change from an input-oriented to a results-oriented management. These obstacles were overcome with a strong leadership by the ministry of finance, which provided guidelines and whenever necessary created additional mechanisms of enforcement. In fact, when the departments had to elaborate, for the first time, their QUAR (QUAR 2008), only a limited number of public departments was able to do it (due to lack of organizational culture and also because the deadline was too short), and only after additional mechanisms of enforcement were created by the ministry of finance (with a note to enforce the implementation with a delayed date) the majority of public departments published their QUAR (96%). At a technical level, GPEARI network meetings, held during 2009, chaired by ministry of finance’s GPEARI, had a strong role to overcome these obstacles. In fact, GPEARI network provided advice in order to improve management and performance. The management and evaluation of public departments performance is a process of learning by doing, and the outputs and outcomes are continuously improving, which means that the final results of this initiative only can be seen in a medium and long term.

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The initiative implies mainly human and financial resources costs. Regarding human resources, the initiative implies the creation and maintenance of a specialized team to manage and evaluate in each planning departments of the 15 ministries (average team is composed of 2-4 persons), and a structure in each public department to elaborate and monitor their own objectives and indicators (average team 2 persons). Due to restriction to hiring in public administration, GPEARI teams were created with reallocation of civil servants from other public departments (mainly qualified as economists). Associated with human resources there were training costs, which were supported by each department and held by INA (on average, a training course of one week costs 250 euros). Until now, human resources are below optimal since this area of planning and strategy is new in public administration and civil servants lacked adequate qualifications. In financial terms, there was public investment as the Information Technology Institute of the Ministry of Finance and GERAP resourced to a private sector enterprise to create and implement the electronic platform which supports the evaluation of civil servants, managers and public departments (values are not available at the moment but can be provided at request).

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The initiative is sustained by the compliance of the law and the coordination role of the ministry of finance, in particular the ministry of finance’s GPEARI. The GPEARI network, coordinated by ministry of finance’s GPEARI, have an essential role in the replication and dissemination of the initiative throughout the Portuguese public administration. In a first phase the initiative was enforced in central government’s departments, but it is forecasted to be adapted to the regional and local government. It is not applied to public enterprises. However, some hospitals, for instance, did elaborate QUAR for their departments, albeit not obliged to do it, as they regard the initiative of the utmost importance. The initiative can be replicated at international level. For instance it can be replicated to public administration of African countries which have Portuguese as official language, and where the Portuguese Ministry of Finance has agreements to supply technical assistance in public finances and public administration. There was already some interest for the initiative showed in 2008 from the minister of finance of Cape Verde. It is worthwhile to note that this initiative was appraised by the international organizations that regularly make assessments of the Portuguese economy, like the European Commission, OECD and IMF.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The impact of the initiative was a deepen cultural and behavior change (still going on) conveyed by changing input for results-oriented management implying a broad reform in management and framework in public administration (applied to all departments of central public administration - roughly 225 departments). The results-oriented management implied a clear orientation for the citizen translated in an improvement of public efficiency and of the quality of public service delivery. The reinforcing of accountability and responsiveness of public departments enhanced transparency and promoted the visibility of public administration to citizens through the publishing of the performance evaluation results, allowing public ability to observe and monitorise public departments’ activity. The lessons learned were the following. Planning and simulating is essential, meaning that an initiative like this, even more within a large framework, should be carefully staged and appropriately sequenced in the implementation. It is important to have a clear implementation plan with defined timetables, stages and actions to be taken, and milestones to be achieved. This would avoid some of the obstacles found when the initiative was implemented in a very short timetable. It is also crucial to establish clear rules and responsibilities for the key actors in the process and to hold individuals to account for fulfilling their responsibilities. Another lesson is that reforms, like this initiative, that involve cultural and behavioral change are generally a long-term process and hard to implement mainly in countries like Portugal with no tradition in management for results. In fact, the management in Portuguese public administration is burocratic, input-oriented and more concerned with the compliance to the law than with the outcome of public policies or programs. Within this context, it is only possible to be successful with a strong leadership and coordination by the Ministry of Finance and, in particular, the GPEARI of the ministry of finance. Actually, the engagement of all key actors was driven by a clear definition of the motivation behind the initiative, and this role has been appraised by other planning departments.


Institution Name:		Office for Strategic Planning, Economic Policy and International Affairs - Ministry of Finance
Institution Type:		Government Department
Contact Person:		Conceição Amaral
Title:		Head of Service Planning and Management Control
Telephone/ Fax:
Institution's / Project's Website:
E-mail:		camaral@gpeari.min-financas.pt
Address:
Postal Code:
City:
State/Province:
Country:		Portugal

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information