Presentation. Workshop to discuss the joint EC/SIGMA comments to the draft BiH PAR strategy

© OECD
WORKSHOP ON PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION REFORM
STRATEGY
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN CURRENT PAR
STRATEGY
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
25-26 January 2018

Presentation outline
• Summary of EC/SIGMA comments to the BiH
draft PAR Strategy
• PAR strategy methodological concepts and
logic of intervention
• Objectives and indicators challenges
• Examples of intervention logic – BiH PAR
Strategy
1

© OECD
EC/SIGMA COMMENTS
SUMMARY
2

EC/SIGMA comments 1/2
• To start on a positive note…
• However, challenges still remain…
3
6th draft - an attempt to provide common vision, objectives,
problem analysis
PARS structure reflects the Principles of PA
PARS drafting has been an all-levels inclusive process
Preferred option for the Action Plan (6th draft PARSF)
Use of SIGMA assessment report to explain/substantiate
measures

EC/SIGMA comments 2/2
• Challenges and unaddressed issues remain…
4
Need for enhancing
priorities, challenges,
objectives, and activities
Lack of good performance
indicators

© OECD
Methodological concepts and
intervention logic
5

Methodological concepts &
approach
• Respect for PAR strategy process phases –
path to quality PAR strategy
• Intervention logic – the core of PAR and any
other strategy
6

PAR Strategy Process Stages
7
PROBLEM
ANALYSIS
PRIORITI-
SATION
OBJECTIVE
SETTING
INDICATOR
SETTING
ACTION
PLANNING
COSTING
M&R&E

Problem analysis
8
Problem analysis - beginning
Problems + causes (problem tree)
Supported by evidence
Presented in separate section or next to
objectives
Leads to objectives, actions, indicators

Problem tree
9
POOR QUALITY PUBLIC
SERVICE
Dissatisfied service
users
High costs for
service users
Long waiting time
Poor quality front
line service
Overlapping
requirements for
documents
Lengthy and plenty
procedures
Lack of
knowledge
Lack of/poor training
of front staff
Low public trust
CORE PROBLEM
EFFECTS
CAUSES
Lack of services
standards
Lack of
mechanism for
process analysis
Lack of digital
solutions
Limited access
Lack of
requirement
&
enforcement

Objective setting - framework
10
Problem
analysis
Problems
Causes
Political
context
Political
agenda
Government
Programme
External/
domestic
pressure
EU
Civil society

Hierarchy of objectives
• Rule of thumb – 2 levels of objectives:
 General - more general and longer-term aspiration
 Specific - specifies more concrete results, focusing
more narrowly on an aspect of an area (or set of
areas) defined under a general objective
• Encourages action, improvement
• Defines the scope of policy or intervention
11
More specific
More
general,
aspirational
More
specific

Objective setting
13
• PAR objectives are not set in isolation

Linkages
14
Problem
analysis
General
objectives
• INDICATORS
Specific
objectives
• INDICATORS
Activities • INDICATORS

From problems to objectives
PROBLEM:
Poor-quality public
services
GENERAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC
SERVICES
Cause:
Long waiting time
SO: Establish a mechanism for public service business
process re-engineering
Activity: Conduct business process re-engineering for 10
services
Cause:
Limited access to
services
SO: Increase digitisation of services
Activity: Digitise ten public services to reach level 4 interaction
SO: Expand physical access to services in regions using
current public infrastructure
Activity: Establish service centres in post offices and
community centres
Cause:
Poor-quality front-line
services
SO: Develop service standards
Activity: Train the service providers to comply with service
standards
15

Next step – action planning
• Action is tangible activity to achieve specific objective:
 Linked to specific objective
 Linked to resources/ inputs
 Leads to deliverables
 Attributed to institution/ individual
• No of actions MUST be limited:
 Achieve effort and resources concentration
 Be reform and innovation oriented
• Action MUST be well-formulated:
 Clearly written, avoiding technical terminology and bureaucratic/
legalistic language
 Short
16

Types of actions
17
REGULATORY
setting forth rights, obligations, restrictions, or standards
stipulated in laws and secondary legislation.
ADMINISTRATIVE
including direct or indirect (i.e. outsourced) provision of
services, infrastructure investment, capacity development
(training), inspection, etc.
INFORMATIVE
including information dissemination campaigns, publications
and the development of new information websites, etc.
INSTITUTIONAL
including the establishment or rearrangement of public
institutions to ensure the fulfilment of necessary state
functions or provision of public services and to improve
service quality.
FINANCIAL
including subsidies, tax deductions, guarantees, favourable
trade conditions, etc. In PAR these are seldom used, however,
although new fines or financial incentives may be introduced.

Examples of actions
18
SPECIFIC
OBJECTIVE
LINKED ACTIONS
Improve evidence-
based policy
making in public
investment
planning
1. Develop and start the application of a new public
investment project appraisal methodology (Cost–Benefit
Analysis), including thorough training of all ministry staff
from 2018 onward.
2. Develop and start the application of a Standard Operating
Procedure to prepare a pipeline for public investment
projects across the sectors from 2019. The first pipeline to
be developed by the end of 2019.
Increase access to
public information
and data
1. Oblige all public institutions, through changes to the Law on
Access to Information, to provide information proactively
on their websites.
2. Define criteria for the provision of open data by all public
institutions and oblige all public institutions to start
providing open data by the end of 2019.
3. Design and launch a centralised open data portal by the end
of 2020.

Action formulation process
• Reform oriented and innovative actions take
time to emerge
 Devote ample time
 Aim for interactive sessions
 Expect an iterative process
19

Action plan template
• Action Plan may include:
 a brief description of the action
 the deadline(s) for implementation (specified by quarter/ month)
 the required financial and human resources for implementation
and sources of funding
 responsibility for implementation in terms of the entities/units in
charge and any institutions contributing to the implementation
 output-/process-level indicators for each action, if so decided
20
Activity Deliverable Responsible Timeframe Resources
Draft manuals regarding
legislative technique when
drafting legislative and
regulatory acts
Manual adopted by
Government
resolution
Ministry of Justice,
Legislative technique
department
1Q2018 33,000.00
euro
Train units dealing with
drafting legislation and
central monitoring units
230 civil servants
successfully trained
Department of Public
Administration
4Q2018 38,000.00
euro

Developing indicators
• Indicator refers to the means by which an
objective or action can be assessed as having
been achieved/implemented or not:
 Linked to objectives and actions
• Indicator expresses progress, success or
failure, like a thermometer measures the
temperature, from cold, warm to hot
21

Types of indicators
22
• Impact indicatorGeneral
objective
• Outcome indicatorSpecific
objective
• Output indicatorActivity
• Input indicatorResources
• Indicators are linked to objectives/ activities:

Logical framework (intervention logic)
23
23
GENERAL OBJECTIVE:
Improve the quality of public services
PROBLEM: Poor quality of public service - access, timeliness
IMPACTS INDICATORS:
Trust of citizens in government (%)
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1:
Improve citizen access to services
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2:
Set quality standards for service
OUTCOME INDICATORS:
Citizen satisfaction with services (%)
OUTCOME INDICATORS: Share of
services with quality standards (%)
ACTIVITIES: (1) Establish one-stop
shops (2) Establish interoperability
platform (3) Digitalise priority services
OUTPUT INDICATORS: (1) # of one stop
shops (2) Interoperability platform
functional 100% (3) % of priority services
digital
ACTIVITIES: (1) Sign citizen charters
(2) Set standards for hospitals, schools
OUTPUT INDICATORS: (1) % of local
government with citizen charters (2)
% of hospitals, schools using service
standards

Setting baseline and target
values
• Baseline value - expression of the current
state of affairs (ideally the current or historic
performance on the measured aspect)
• Target value - desired level of performance
24

Setting targets
• Target can be set based on:
25
Priorities of
government/
institution
has the objective to be measured been declared as a priority by the
government or institution? Is there public pressure to substantially
improve performance?
Peer average
what is the level of performance of other similar institutions or
jurisdictions, and how must the country’s performance be improved if it is
to become a comparative front-runner? If there is a big gap between the
peers.
Available
resources
what is it possible to achieve using current resources, and should
resources be re-allocated? If the achievement of a target is directly
linked to financial resources (the digitisation of public services has, for
example, direct financial implications), the target should take into account
the projected necessary budget.
National or
international
performance
standards
are there any benchmarks established by national or international
organisations for measuring the expected performance on the given
aspect of the functioning of public administration?
Past trends
what is the performance trend for the last several years (say three, five
or more years) and what are the reasons behind any ups and downs in
performance? What is the size and tendency of annual
increase/decrease?

SIGMA proposed approach to
target setting in BIH PARS 1/6
• Challenge: how to set an indicator target in
the presence of 4 levels of administrations?
• SIGMA proposed approach – 3 options:
26
1. Different targets for the different
Entities and BD
2. One indicator target for the whole
country
3.
One indicator target for the whole
country based on highest/ worst
performing level

27
1. Different targets for the different Entities and BD
48
77
39
52
38
100
77
0
20
40
60
80
100
BiH State FBiH RS BD
Backlog of legislative commitments
Backlog of strategy development
commitments
BiH FBiH RS BD
Baseline 48% 77% 39% 52%
Target 30% 60% 25% 40%
Target is considered as met if all level achieve

28
2. One indicator target for the whole country (e.g. average)
48
77
39
52
38
100
77
0
20
40
60
80
100
commitments
BiH FBiH RS BD Average
Baseline 48% 77% 39% 52% 54%
Target 30% 60% 25% 40% 38%

29
3. One indicator target for the whole country: the highest of
all levels
48
77
39
52
38
100
77
0
20
40
60
80
100
commitments
BiH FBiH RS BD
Baseline 48% 77% 39% 52%
Target 30% 60% 25% 40%

30
3. One indicator target for the whole country: the worst of all
levels
48
77
39
52
38
100
77
0
20
40
60
80
100
commitments
BiH FBiH RS BD
Baseline 48% 77% 39% 52%
Target 30% 60% 25% 40%

31
1.
Different targets
for the different
Entities and BD
PROS: individual approach; most realistic
CONS: aggravates further gaps between
levels; does not encourage co-operation
2.
One indicator
target for the
whole country
PROS: incentivises co-operation among
levels; still individual
CONS: too ambitious and unrealistic; may
dis-incentivise most levels
3.
One indicator
target for the
whole country: the
highest/ worst of
all levels
PROS: incentivises co-operation among
levels
CONS: too ambitious and unrealistic; may
dis-incentivise the best performing level

Action Plan 1/2
• SIGMA proposed approach – 3 options:
32
1.
One common Action Plan for all levels
with a possibility to “opt out” when
irrelevant (1)
2.
Once common Action Plan for all levels
+ extended/ level-specific Action Plans
(1 + 4)
3.
Four separate Action Plans for each
level with harmonised template,
reporting, monitoring that would lead to
1 consolidated report

Action Plan 2/2
33
1
.
One common Action Plan
for all levels with a
possibility to “opt out”
when irrelevant (1)
PROS: harmonised approach to PAR
and hence service delivery; still
tailored and flexible approach; easier
management and reporting
CONS: search for harmonised
approach may delay preparation
2
.
One common Action Plan
for all levels + extended/
level-specific Action
Plans (1 + 4)
PROS: highly tailored approach;
easier search for agreement; more
realistic
CONS: aggravates further gaps
between levels; complex management
and reporting and comparison
3
.
Four separate Action
Plans for each level with
harmonised template,
reporting, monitoring that
would lead to 1
consolidated report
PROS: individual approach; most
realistic
CONS: aggravates further gaps
between levels; super complex
management/ reporting and
comparison impossible; difficult to
ensure harmonised service delivery

© OECD
Challenges and suggestions for
improvement in BIH PAR SF
34

Challenges regarding PARS
structure
• Still complex structure:
 Overlaps between sections 1 to 5 (e.g. approach,
priorities, objectives, problem analysis)
 Unclear links between priority areas and expected
results (section 2) and objectives, indicators and
measures (section 5)
 Approach to development of PARS appears in 2
places (sub-section 1.3 and section 3)
• Scattered information on methodology and
process of PARSF development and contents
• Section 2 does not include strategic objective35

Objectives 1/2
• 2 levels of objectives:
 Specific objectives
 Measures
• 6th draft PARS brought more substantiation for measures/
objectives
• Challenges related to specific/general objectives:
 Long and complex formulations
 Formulated as expected results
37
SPECIFIC
OBJECTIVE
Strengthening coherence, participation,
efficiency, control and transparency in the
development management system and the
decision-making process in public administration
Strengthen coherence,
participation, efficiency and
accountability of public
management and decision-
making
SPECIFIC
OBJECTIVE
Public administration in BiH is user-oriented by
professionally monitoring and understanding their
needs and expectations, and based on them
improves its business processes and
administrative operations, reduces administrative
burden, enables accessibility of services through
various communication channels, while ensuring
high quality and reduction of the costs of services.
Design and provide citizen-
centred, affordable, efficient,
and accessible public
services
➜ GENERAL OBJECTIVES
➜ SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

Objectives 2/2
• Challenges related to measures/ specific objectives:
 Fragmented and hence overlapping and numerous
 “Empty” measures
38
SPECIFICOBJECTIVES
1. Establishing the legislative and policy frameworks for development
of modern human resource management practice
1. Improve policy and legal framework
for HRM and capacity for its effective
application
2. Building the capacities for efficient implementation of HRM-related
regulations at the level of central administration and individual public
administration institutions in BiH
Merge with No 2
3. Ensuring the overall respect for the principles of merit, equal
treatment and transparency in all HRM areas
2. Establish selection, recruitment,
appraisal and promotion of civil service
based on merit and professionalism
4. Ensuring the observance of the principle of political impartiality in
the work of civil servants, in particular civil servants with managerial
powers
Merge with No 3
5. Establishing modern human resource planning
3. Establish modern HR planning and
professional development
6. Establishing a fair and transparent remuneration system
4. Establishing a fair and transparent
remuneration system
7. Ensuring the continuous professional development of employees
based on functional needs of the institution
Merge with No 5
8. Ensuring that codes of conduct are respected by the employees of
administrative structures
5. Strengthen code of conduct and
integrity of employees
9. Improving the quality of general management in civil service
structures
6. Strengthen recruitment and
development of senior management
10. Efficient use of adequate information systems Merge with No 5

Indicators
40
PDC
Extent to which the strategic planning
and policy development system is
implemented in practice, is transparent,
legally adjusted, based on the
developed performance evaluation,
evidence, with consultations conducted,
its implementation monitored through
monitoring and reporting (1/4)
What methodology to measure that SP& PD system 1) is
implemented 2) transparent 3) legally adjusted 4) based
on performance 5) evidence 6) consultative 7) monitored
and reported.
How to measure 7 different dimensions of SP & PD?
Using 7 separate indicators? Using 1? Composite
indicator?
How to set baseline and target values? E.g. % of citizens
who trust in public institutions; Government effectiveness
(WWG indicator); Regulatory quality (WWG indicator)
CS &
HRM
Extent to which adequate legislative
framework for development of the
function of human resource
management established and applied
(1/2)
What methodology will be used to measure establishment
and application of legal framework of HRM? What does
adequate mean?
How to measure establishment and application and
adequate in 1 indicator? Or several indicators wil be used?
Or 1 composite? How to set baseline and target values?
E.g. SIGMA approach
ACC
Established mechanism for monitoring
cases pertaining to accountability of
administrative authorities in practice in
procedures involving compensation of
damage (1/5)
What is important – monitoring mechanism or effective
compensation? Both? How will you know that monitoring
mechanism for compensation of damage is functioning? %
of compensated damage compared to total damage? Can
you define baseline and target values? E.g. % of
compensated damage compared to total calculated
damage
SD
Level at which policy for user-oriented
service delivery is in place and applied
Number/ level of development of various
channels for availability of services NEW
Number of eliminated administrative
obstacles (interventions in legislation)
with goal of simplifying procedure for
solving applications by users (3/6) NEW
How will you define the level (1 to 5 or bad to excellent,
etc.)? How will you define user-friendly? Can you define
baseline and target values? E.g. % of service users fully
satisfied/ satisfied with service delivery.
What are the channels? How do you define the level? Can
you define baseline and target values? E.g. Percentage of
services which are of level 3 or 4
E.g. Number of eliminated administrative barriers in X
priority services

Gaps against SIGMA assessment
42
Missing function of co-ordinating the content of proposals and their implementation
(mentioned under measures)
Lack of formal guidance in the areas of policy development and sectoral-
strategy development (mentioned under measures)
Weak prioritisation of the annual work and collaboration between CoG
institutions in reviewing ministerial proposals (mentioned under measures)
Limited co-ordination for EI
Lack of costing of strategies and links with financial planning document
(mentioned under measures)
Extensive use of the urgent procedure for the approval of laws. (mentioned under
measures)
Publication of legislation (mentioned under measures)

Challenges regarding objectives
43
SPECIFICOBJECTIVES
1: Strengthening the decision-making capacities at all
administrative levels in BiH to develop competent and
consistent decision-making system at all
administrative levels
Unclear contents. Can it be merged
with No 3 and 4?
E.g. Create an evidence based and
participatory decision making
system harmonised at all
administrative levels
2: Improving the strategic, medium-term and annual
planning in BiH at all administrative levels, in line with
the budgeting process, available financial resources
and the European integration requirements, observing
the BiH constitutional and legal set-up
Lengthy and complex formulation.
E.g. Improve policy planning
system in line with budget planning
3: Strengthening evidence-based decision-making
and analytical capacities at all administrative levels
through improved use of the relevant decision-making
analytical tools
Can it be merged with No 1 and 4?
4: Ensuring inclusive approach and public
participation in the design, implementation and
monitoring of strategic plans, public policies and
regulations
Could be shortened and merged
with No 1 and 3
5: Improving the intra- and inter-institutional
cooperation within particular administrative levels.
Overlap with No 2
6: Increasing the efficiency and consistency by
establishing functional connections and harmonised
action in drafting and implementing public policies
between ministries and “centres of government” and
between the executive and legislative bodies
Complex, lengthy and unclear
Too many dimensions
Potential overlaps with
accountability
Overlap with No 2 and 5

Objectives & indicators: PDC/1
44
No
General
Objective
Specific Objective Action Indicator
I.
Strengthen coherence, participation, efficiency, accountability, and
transparency in the public management and decision-making process
Government effectiveness
% of public who trust in politicians
1.1.
Strengthen evidence-based decision-making and
analytical capacities at all administrative levels through
improved use of analytical tools
Regulatory quality
% of legal drafts/ public polices
preceded by impact assessment
1.1.1
Develop and adopt Impact
Assessment Methodology to be
applied for laws, bylaws,
regulations and public policies
adopted by Government/Council
of Ministers
Government/ CoM decree on IA
Methodology adopted and published
1.1.2.
Mandate the Ministry of Finance
and Government Office to carry
out quality control of IA (revise
Rules of Procedure of the
Government)
% of laws, bylaws, regulations and
public policies having MoF and GO
opinion on IA
1.1.3.
Carry out executive training on IA
for ministry management (heads
and department directors)
% of ministry heads and department
directors who successfully completed
executive training on IA
1.1.4.
Carry out advanced IA training for
MoF and Government Office staff
in charge of quality control of IA
% of trained MoF and GO staff in
charge of IA quality control
1.1.5.
Establish support centre to
provide advice to ministries
related to IA
Support centre operational as of 1
Jan’19

Objectives & indicators: PDC/2
45
No
General
Objective
Specific Objective Action Indicator
I.
Strengthen coherence, participation, efficiency, accountability, and
transparency in the public management and decision-making
process
Government effectiveness
% of public who trust in
politicians
1.1.
Improve public participation in policy
management process
Percentage of legal drafts/ public
polices exposed to public
consultation
1.1.1
Develop framework public
consultations methodology for
ministries and public bodies
Methodology developed and
adopted by the end of 2018
1.1.2.
Conduct training for ministries
and public bodies to promote
application of new
methodology
% of ministries with at least 2
civil servants trained in new
methodology
1.1.3.
Design and launch a single
public consultation platform
Platform functional by the end of
2018.
At least 5 public consultations
organised within 6 months of
launching the platform.

47
No comprehensive strategic document and
legal framework (mentioned under measures)
Lack of resources for training (mentioned
under measures)
Mobility and transfer of civil servants rarely
used in practice
Disciplinary sanctions rarely used in practice

Objectives & indicators: CS/1
48
No
General
Objective
Specific
Objective
Action Indicator
I.
Established legislative framework and built capacities for development of
the human resource management function based on the principles of
professionalism, merit and efficiency
institutions
1.1.
Establish fair, transparent, and competitive civil service
remuneration system
Competitiveness of civil
service salaries (%)
1.1.1
Conduct country-wide comparative
analysis of jobs and their grading as
basis for improvement of
systematisation of jobs
Analysis accomplished with
recommendations for
improvement of job
systematisation
1.1.2.
Develop common principles for job
grading and basic salary and enshrine
these in the laws of entities
Laws on salaries revised to:
- align job grading and basic
salaries
- reduce allowances and
supplements
1.1.3.
Remove allowances and
supplements

Objectives & indicators: CS/2
49
No
General
Objective
Specific
Objective
Action Indicator
I.
Established legislative framework and built capacities for
development of the human resource management function based
on the principles of professionalism, merit and efficiency
institutions
1.1.
Consolidate and strengthen senior civil service
management corps
Number of senior civil
service managers included
in the corps
1.1.1
Develop a concept paper for the
senior civil service management
corps (selection and recruitment,
motivation and retention,
professional development)
Concept paper developed
and adopted by the end of
2018
1.1.2.
Introduce new senior civil service
management selection and
recruitment system (revise/ develop
necessary by-laws)
% of senior civil service
management selected and
recruited through new
system
1.1.3.
Conduct executive tailor made
training for newly recruited senior
civil service management
management who have
successfully completed
training
1.1.4.
Introduce senior civil service
management rotation system
management rotated within
5 years

51
Efficiency in dealing with
administrative cases remains uneven
across the country (mentioned under
measures)
Judges do not have sufficient support
from legal assistants

52
SPECIFICOBJECTIVES
1: Organisational alignment of public
administration system at all levels of
administration
Unclear contents – what
organisational alignment
means?
E.g. Rationalise organisation
of public administration
2: Increase of accessibility of
information held by public
administration
Increase of accessibility of to
information held by public
administration
3: Improvement of the process of
internal and external supervision over
the work of public administration
E.g. Improve mechanisms to
protect rights of the individual
to good administration and
public interest

Objectives & indicators: ACC
53
No
General
Objective
Specific
Objective
Action Indicator
I.
Establish functionally aligned, rational, accountable and transparent system
of public administration
institutions
1.1.
Align the structure and functions of administrative bodies
with official typology
% of public administrative
bodies aligned with formal
requirements
1.1.1
Review the official typologies of
administrative bodies at all levels to
ensure that all bodies subordinated to
the Governments are subject to a
uniform and comprehensive
accountability scheme in terms of
planning (including financial planning),
reporting and supervision.
Revised Government
Decree(s) on typologies of
administrative bodies
1.2.
Improve public access to information
% of information proactively
disclosed by ministries
pursuant to the Law on Free
Access to Information
1.2.1.
Develop framework regulation for
ministries and public bodies for website
structure
Framework regulation
adopted by end of 2018
1.2.2.
Design and launch transparent and
public access to information monitoring
system for ministries and public bodies
% of ministries and public
bodies disclosing monitoring
information on access to
information

GAPS against SIGMA assessment
55
Incoherent service delivery
across the BiH
People with disabilities face a
highly-fragmented strategy
framework (mentioned under
measures)

56
SPECIFICOBJECTIVES
1: Identification of the
instruments of quality of
services delivered by public
administration and orientation to
users of services
Lack of ambition – only identification of
instruments?
Focus should be on improving quality
of services.
E.g. Improve quality of services
through application of quality control
tools
2: Improvement of accessibility
of services through different
channels of communication
The difference between quality and
access to services is very “thin”.
Possible to merge objectives No 1 and
2.
E.g. Improve quality and access to
services through modern service
provision approaches and quality
management
3: Coherent improvement of
administrative and legal
framework
The main purpose is not clear. What is
the main problem with administrative
procedures?
E.g. Simplify? Streamline
administrative procedures

Objectives & indicators: SD/1
57
No
General
Objective
Specific
Objective
Action Indicator
I.
Design and provide citizen-centred, affordable and accessible public
services
Percentage of citizens
satisfied with service
delivery
1.1. Improve access to public services Waiting time
1.1.1
Create interoperability platform for
effective exchange of data and
information among public sector
institutions
Platform operational and
functioning from 1 Jan’2019
1.1.2.
Introduce and mandate institutions to
comply with “once only” rule
Government Decree(s)
revised to introduce “once
only” rule
1.1.3.
Develop methodology and Roadmap
for public service business process
reengineering
Methodology developed
and adopted
1.1.4.
Review and redesign public services
to make them faster and cheaper
Percentage of redesigned
public services
1.1.5.
Digitise public services to reach level
3 or 4
Percentage of services
which are of level 3 or 4

Objectives & indicators: SD/2
58
No
General
Objective
Specific
Objective
Action Indicator
I.
Design and provide citizen-centred, affordable and accessible public
services
Percentage of citizens
satisfied with service
delivery
1.1.
Improve quality of public services through introduction
of quality management tools
% of public service
measured using citizen
satisfaction
1.1.1
Develop, adopt, and enforce
methodology for measuring citizen
satisfaction
Citizen satisfaction
methodology adopted
1.1.2.
Support design of the questionnaires
for measuring citizen satisfaction
% of services for which
questionnaires have been
developed
1.1.3.
Adjust CAF methodology and pilot it
in selected institutions
Number of institutions
which have completed
piloting CAF methodology
1.1.4.
Provide training for institutions
piloting CAF
Percentage of CAF pilot
staff who have successfully
completed training
1.1.5.
Design monitoring and reporting
system for CAF results enforcement
At least 50 % of CAF
recommendations
implemented during 2 years
after report production

Presentation. Workshop to discuss the joint EC/SIGMA comments to the draft BiH PAR strategy

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Presentation. Workshop to discuss the joint EC/SIGMA comments to the draft BiH PAR strategy (20)

More from Support for Improvement in Governance and Management SIGMA (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Presentation. Workshop to discuss the joint EC/SIGMA comments to the draft BiH PAR strategy

Editor's Notes