Standards of Excellence for Public Sector Training Institutes

Presentation by Hanlie van Dyk-Robertson, CEO AMDIN, 5th Forum on Modernisation of Public Administration and State Institutions, Tangiers, Morocco, 1 July 2009

Structure of presentation

• Introductory remarks• Practice and Theory pointers• Presenting the UNDESA/IASIA

standards of excellence• The way forward

Introductory remarks

• Strategically important• As a collective of African MDIs/ENAs we have not

adequately engaged with the proposed UNDESA/IASIA Standards of Excellence, nor with the process

• By stealth a process is taking shape and becoming the future reality momentum is picking up

• Context is all-important• Conceptual distinctions to remember:

– Universities vs ENA/MDI/PSTI– Education vs professional development– Punishment vs development

• You get what you measure• Whose standards? • Whose processes?• Overall positive of initiatives to improve standards

HOWEVER, be mindful of the double-edged sword

AMDIN’s mandate re quality improvement

Conference accepted the notion that success attracts and earns respect and recognition…. within a networked and constructive collective spirit, African MDIs will set out to achieve a multifaceted and durable agenda to raise their own standards and set continent-wide benchmarks to guide a process of continuous improvement. In this respect the All Africa Public Service Charter should provide the backdrop against which the standards discussion would be handled.

AMDIN conference communiqué, July 2007

Practice & Theory observations

Drivers of the “Standards of Excellence” agenda• Quality improvement movement:

benchmarking; M&E; best practices• MDIs’ desire for improvement and

professionalism• Governments’ desire and pressure for

improvement and more productive and professional public servants

• Limited resources Increasing demand for better return on investment

• Competing in a training “market”: greater competition; market share; self-sustainability; more critical “consumers”

Examples of such processes

• NASPAA assesses Schools of Administration in America

• OIC ranks Universities from the OIC region

• Shanghai Jiao Tong Ranking System

• The Times Higher Education supplement

Possible scenario’s re public service training in Africa

Low quality High quality

Scenario 1 Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 4

For

eign

Afr

ican

/ D

omes

tic

Option 1African Centres of Excellence

Option 2High Quality Across the Board

Hard realities of the (public sector) training industry globally and regionally• Market at work • Expansionist• Varied and uneven• Competitive/ cut-throat • Highly entrepreneurial• Largely unregulated• Exploitable vehicle for “intellectual” and

“values” imperialism

Different modes of evaluation

Self evaluation

Peer evaluation

Formal outsider assessment

Different purposes with Standards of Excellence

Learning/ Improvement

Judging

Accreditation/ Sanction

Aspirational/ Benchmark

Other purposes with Standards of Excellence• Ranking for marketing purposes

• Directing flow of resources (the best gets more and the weakest perish)

What are the consequences of not meeting the “Standards”?

• Operations suspended• Punishment by the market• Professional disgrace

OR

• Additional resources and support for improvement

The main challenges to quality assurance systems in Africa are cost and human capacity requirements…. The costs of a full scale QA system are therefore unaffordable for most Sub-Saharan African countries.

The World Bank (2007)

Operating a national quality assurance agency typically entails an annual budget of at least US$450,000 and requires appropriately trained and experienced staff

Direct cost of accreditation averages an estimated US$5,200 per institution Direct cost of

accreditation averages an estimated US$3,700 per program

UNDESA/IASIA STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE

UNDESA/IASIA STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE1. Public Service Commitment2. Advocacy of Public Interest Values3. Combining Scholarship, Practice and Community

Service4. The Faculty are Central5. Inclusiveness at the Heart of the Program6. Curriculum is Purposeful and Responsive7. Adequate resources are critical8. Balancing Collaboration and Competition

Two main dimensions of quality

– Programme development and review

– Programme content

– Programme management

– Programme performance

Institutional Programmatic

Institutional dimensions

• Strategic planning process• Financial and budgetary structure• Quality assurance system• Human resource management system• Contribution to the discipline• Social and cultural diversity• Facilities• Student services• Public relations• Grievances• Exemplary function• Benchmarking

Programme development and review• Programme development and review process• Programme goals and objectives• Educational strategy• Programme design• Programme coherence and consistency• Programme faculty• Number of core faculty/ staff• Research involvement• Programme admission

Programme content (1)

• Programme coherence and consistency• Programme level appropriate for target group• Formal programme requirements all

prescribed requirements for certificate or degree met

• Programme basis to reflect international/ state of the art concepts and insights evidence based

• Multidisciplinary• Practical experience• Community consultation

Programme Content (2)

• Values to be imbued:– Democratic values– Respect for individual and basic

human rights– Social equity and equitable

distribution of good and services

– Tolerance for social and cultural diversity

– Transparency and accountability

– Sustainable development– Organisational justice and

fairness– Recognition of global

interdependence– Civic engagement

• Personal capacities to be developed

– Analytical and critical thinking– Dealing with complexity– Flexibility– Dealing with uncertainty and

ambiguity– Operating in a political

environment– Building high performing

organisations– Involving other groups and

institutions in society to realize policy goals

– Life time learning– Applying life experiences to

academic and training activities

Programme content (3)

• Curriculum components should include:– The Management of Public Service Organizations– Improvement of Public Sector Processes– Leadership in the Public Sector– Application of Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques of Analysis– Understanding Public Policy and the Organisational Environment

• Content should further address the following issues:– Internationalisation and globalisation– Balance between centralisation and decentralisaton– Impact of multinational organisations and agreements– Weakening of the state (cutbacks and NPM)– New modes of communication and their impact– “New governance”

Programme Management and Administration• Programme responsibility structure should be clear• Adequate programme budget• Adequate programme administration• Accounting for student’s progress• Timely and comprehensive info available for students• Regular faculty/ staff reviews• Adequate systems of communications between all

roleplayers• Consistency in course delivery guaranteed• Continuous programme monitoring and regular reviews

undertaken

Programme Performance• Adequate system of performance management in place• Various stakeholders satisfied by programme• Basic operating information available• Targets set, pursued, measured and attained• Benchmarking• Impact on community measured and assessed• Financial performance considered, e.g. Return on

Investment (RoI)• Programme impact on user/ client communities

The way forward

UNDESA/IASIA process

• Currently process of regional subcommittees are consulting re indicators and process

• At IASIA Brazil conference (August 2009) present indicators for electronic self assessment tool

• Report on implementation modalities for accreditation at the above event

AMDIN medium term programme

• Process for African ownership and agreement on criteria and measurement

• Supporting processes of self and peer evaluation

• Exposure trip for MDI leadership to institutions and regions where accreditation systems in place

Some lingering questions

• What benefits are to be derived for African MDIs/ENAs from subjecting to an international process of accreditation?

• What are the costs involved to do this properly?• Does the advantages outweigh the potential risks in

the processes?• What are the indications that this will be a process

that will support development of African MDIs/ENAs rather than providing the tool to ensure their demise?

• Are we ready, if not, how do we get ready?