state needs: Internet conf. / Ros. economy acad. them. G.V. Plekhanov. M., 2010. Access mode: http://www.rea.ru.
4. Tazhetdinov S. Features of the public procurement market // Competition and the market: a network magazine. St. Petersburg, 2002. No. 5. Access mode: http://www.konkir.ru.
Features of regional and municipal purchases
The author was made the system analysis of features of purchases at the level of subjects of the Russian Federation and municipal unions.
Key words: government and municipal purchases, to set requirements, preference.
N.S. Mirzoyan, assistant, 8-915-690-29-77, [email protected], (Russia, Tula, TulGU)
ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF PROVIDING STATE (MUNICIPAL) SERVICES
The category "quality of life" and "quality of service" is considered. The concepts of "municipal function" and "municipal service" are distinguished. A comprehensive methodology for assessing the quality of the provision of public (municipal) services based on the joint consideration of objective and subjective characteristics is proposed.
Keywords Keywords: quality of life, assessment of the quality of the state (municipal service), municipal function, municipal service, index of the quality of state (municipal) services provided.
One of the main strategic goals of state policy Russian Federation over the past five years is to improve the quality and standard of living of citizens. Without improving the quality of life of the population, it is impossible to achieve the competitiveness of the country as a whole. In our opinion, one of the main directions for improving the standard of living of the population is to improve the quality and accessibility of public (municipal) services.
Today, the active development of the service sector is one of the trends of modern Russian economy. In the process of implementation by the state of social policy to provide the population with public goods (services in the field of health, education, culture and art, etc.), a reliable assessment of their quality becomes important. This assessment, in our opinion, should be
complex nature, i.e. based on a joint accounting of objective (quantitative from the position of the manufacturer) and subjective (qualitative from the position of consumers) characteristics.
An analysis of the existing methodological support showed that, despite the relevance of solving the problem of improving the quality and accessibility of public (municipal) services,
declared as part of the ongoing reforms in Russia, a unified methodology for their comprehensive assessment has not yet been developed.
The systematization of existing theoretical and methodological approaches in this area made it possible to build a new integrated model for assessing the quality of public (municipal) services. On a larger scale, this technique includes two main stages (Fig. 1).
Assessment of the quality of the provision of state (municipal) services
Differentiation between the concepts of "municipal function" and "municipal service"
Rice. 1. Logical scheme for assessing the quality of the provision of public (municipal) services
An analysis of publications on the problems of public services shows that among the ranks of scientists there is no agreement not only on the norms of the bill, but even on terminology. Thus, in practice, we are faced with methodological difficulties in distinguishing between the concepts of state (municipal) "function" and state
(municipal) "service".
Despite the apparent simplicity of the task of distinguishing between these concepts, there are significant terminological discrepancies (Fig. 2).
Rice. 2. The scheme of effective management of the quality of life of the population
Thus, in order to improve the efficiency of managing the quality of life of the population, it is necessary to:
a) work more efficiently (increasing the scope of socially significant results) by providing better services for the least cost;
b) it is necessary that each action of the authority (its functions) can be described according to the principle of “final socially significant result + indicator of its measurement”, as well as that all its functions are carried out openly and transparently;
c) duplicate and redundant functions should be eliminated.
A necessary condition for effective public administration and
quality provision of public and municipal services is the regulation and standardization of the main processes and results.
At the second stage of assessing the quality of the provision of public (municipal) services, it is proposed to rank projects of municipal target programs (based on an assessment of their impact on improving the quality and volume of services provided), which will most clearly and clearly determine the priority target programs that are submitted for consideration by the approving body .
To begin with, we will try to clarify the definition of the concept of "quality of service". The analysis shows that the quality of services can be considered from the following positions:
1) as the degree of satisfaction of consumer expectations, it is in this sense that the term is enshrined in international standards ISO 9000 1994;
2) as the degree of compliance with prescribed requirements and standards;
3) from the standpoint of the compliance of the services provided with their cost;
4) as a total set of technical, technological and operational characteristics, through which the service will meet the needs of the consumer.
The difference between this methodology and the existing ones is the use as a criterion for a comprehensive assessment of the components of the (three-dimensional) quality system:
1) the quality of the content of the end result of the service;
2) the quality of receiving the service, related to the comfort and availability of the conditions in which the service is provided;
3) the amount of resources spent by the consumer to obtain it.
The first element involved in assessing the quality of the state (municipal) service - assessing the quality of the content of the final result of the state (municipal) service - is proposed to be evaluated according to the three most important criteria for the quality of the provision of state (municipal) services, namely:
Service acquisition procedure (% (proportion) of cases correct
executed documents (correctly made calculations);
Time spent receiving the service (total amount of time spent directly receiving the service);
The quality of personnel work (professional competence) (the number of employees with higher education in this area).
In turn, the assessment of the quality of receiving a service, related to the comfort and availability of the conditions in which the service is provided, is proposed to be assessed according to the following criteria:
Awareness of the consumer about the receipt of the service (% (share) of consumers satisfied with the quality of information about the procedure for providing the service);
Comfort of waiting for the service (number of institutions with all types of amenities, units);
Comfort of receiving services (security technical means per 100 people, units);
The ratio of personnel to the consumer of the service (% (share)
consumers satisfied with the courtesy of the staff);
Opportunity to appeal the actions of staff (% (share)
justified complaints to the total number of served consumers for this type of service).
The final element used in assessing the quality of a state (municipal) service - an assessment of the amount of resources spent by the consumer to receive it - is proposed to be assessed according to the following criteria:
Financial accessibility of the service (% (share) of consumers,
able and willing to pay for this service);
Territorial (transport, walking);
Physical accessibility of the service (% (share) of consumers,
living near the place where the service is provided).
The methodology underlying the objective assessment of the quality of the state (municipal) service is proposed to be carried out in two stages:
Stage 1 - calculation of the assessment of each indicator of the compliance of the quality of the actually provided public service with the quality standard of the state (municipal) service;
2nd stage - calculation of the summary assessment of quality conformity in fact
provided state (municipal) services to the quality standards of state (municipal) services for each
institution providing public services.
The priority of each indicator of compliance of the quality of the actually provided municipal service with the quality standard of the municipal service in the summary assessment is established by the executive authority in such a way that their sum for each institution is 100%.
Based on the results of calculating the assessment of each indicator for each institution, a summary assessment of compliance is determined according to the following formula:
Y(^*p1)s n''
where 1 \u003d 1; K - the number of indicators of the municipal service; Bo - a summary assessment of the compliance of the quality of the actually provided municipal service with the quality standard of the municipal service for each institution providing municipal services; -
the actual value of the indicator of the quality standard of the budgetary service; N1 is the normative value of the indicator of the quality standard of the municipal service; P1 - the priority of each indicator of the compliance of the quality of the actually provided municipal service with the quality standard of the municipal service in the overall assessment.
Evaluation of the results of compliance of the quality of actually provided public services with the quality standards of public services for each institution is subject to qualitative interpretation. In the event that the summary assessment takes a value in
range from 91-100, this means that the services fully comply with quality standards. With a complete non-compliance of services with quality standards, the value of the summary assessment ranges from 0 to 20.
In order to subjectively assess the quality of the provision of state (municipal) services, the method of questioning the population was used, the results of which were taken to calculate the corresponding index.
As an information base for calculating the index at the expert level, four most important criteria for the quality of the provision of state (municipal) services were identified:
K1 - assessment of satisfaction with the quality of the content of the final result of the service;
K2 - assessment of satisfaction with the quality of the service, related to the comfort and availability of the conditions in which the service is provided;
K3 - assessment of satisfaction with the number of resources,
spent by the consumer to receive the service;
K4 - assessment of satisfaction with the quality of parameters
electronic interface for the provision of state and municipal services.
Evaluation according to these criteria is carried out on the basis of a sociological study (questionnaire). The quality of public service is proposed to be assessed on a four-point system. The data on respondents' answers for each criterion (K1-K4) are further subject to quantitative gradation (high quality of service is estimated at 10 points, while low quality is 0 points).
Next, the index of the quality of public (municipal) services provided (I) is calculated. Based on the obtained values of the index, a qualitative characteristic of the quality of the state (municipal) services provided is given. With 1 = 5, we observe a high level of service quality, and if the value of this index ranges from 1< I < 1,9, то это говорит о низком уровне качества предоставления услуг. По итогам расчета индекса удовлетворенности качеством предоставления государственных (муниципальных) услуг формируется «рейтинг» проектов целевых программ на основе влияния этих программ на повышение качества и объема предоставляемых услуг.
Thus, the application of an integrated approach proposed in this methodology makes it possible to obtain reliable assessments of the quality of public (municipal) services with the identification of bottlenecks and develop a set of measures aimed at improving the quality of this type of municipal service.
Bibliographic list
1. About general principles organizations local government In Russian federation: the federal law dated October 06, 2003 No. 131-FZ (as amended on December 25, 2008).
2. Nedelko S.I., Ostashkov A.V. Monitoring of state and
of municipal services in the region as a strategic tool for improving the quality of regional governance: experience, problems,
3. Ponomareva T.A., Supryagina M.S. Quality of services: qualitative parameters of assessment // Marketing in Russia and abroad. 2008. No. 1. S. 4-9.
Evaluation of quality of public services
The author reviewed "life quality" and "quality of service" categories. "municipal function" and "municipal service" categories were differentiated. The author offered complex method of estimating the quality of public services, which is based on combined accounting of objective and subjective features.
Key words: quality of a life, an estimation of quality state (municipal service), municipal function, municipal service, an index of quality of rendered state (municipal) services.
UDC 332.1:005.591.6
S.S. Eletskaya, postgraduate student, 8-919-203-96-12, (Russia, Orel, OrelGTU)
SYSTEM OF INDICATORS FOR THE SELECTION OF A SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL PLATFORM AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL
The process of formation of technological platforms at the regional level is considered and its features are revealed. Methodological recommendations are proposed for choosing a priority direction for the functioning of the technological platform at the regional level.
Key words: technological platform, modernization of the regional economy.
An evolutionary analysis of foreign and domestic experience in the implementation and use of innovative technologies allows us to conclude that one of the possible tools for the technological modernization of the regional economy is the development of so-called technological platforms widely used in the EU countries. Technological platforms are created on a share basis for
Yuri Kozlov. Algorithm for assessing the quality of public services // STATE SERVICE,
2015, №4 (96)
.Yuri Kozlov, postgraduate student of the Russian Academy National economy and public service under the President of the Russian Federation (119606, Moscow, Vernadsky Avenue, 84). Email: [email protected]
Annotation: The quality of public services provided by the executive authorities is the main problem of service development in this area. The purpose of the study is to develop specific practical recommendations for improving the quality and efficiency of the public service delivery system.
The work used the methods of a systematic approach, mathematical modeling, sociological research, as well as various methods of graphical interpretation of information.
A well-built quality management system will allow not only to control the activities of bodies implementing law enforcement practice, but also to provide the feedback necessary for a sustainable and capable of developing the system of executive power.
Keywords: executive authorities, public services, quality assessment.
The main indicator of the effectiveness of executive authorities is the quality of public services.
The value of quality analysis cannot be overestimated. The results obtained can be the basis for developing policy directions for improving the system government controlled. The results of the analysis will make it possible to determine the effectiveness of the decisions made and the activities being implemented.
The author's research in the field of existing methods for assessing the quality of public services made it possible to identify the main problems that hinder the increase in the efficiency of the activities of executive authorities: this is the lack of legislative standards in this area, the lack general rules assessing the quality of public services, insufficient legal support, and so on.
A review of the main areas of activity aimed at achieving an effective state shows that one of the most challenging tasks is the identification of optimal parameters for evaluating ongoing activities. The effectiveness of the state should have clear evaluation criteria and appropriate methods that would stimulate the desire to improve the quality of public and municipal government[Bartsits, 2011. P. 9].
Modern realities dictate the need to search for new methods for assessing quality, which, in accordance with the principles of a systematic approach, would allow us to consider the complex process of providing public services from the point of view of an inextricable relationship with its components.
Figure 1 proposes a universal algorithm for determining the quality level of the administrative and legal process, based on the use of modern standards and the calculation of deviations relative to the expected level of indicators. The author proposes to determine the quality of the service through consumer perception, that is, the feeling after receiving a public service, to what extent it matches the expectations before contacting the executive authorities.
Picture 1. Universal three-dimensional algorithm for assessing the quality of a public service
An important advantage of the proposed algorithm is the possibility of three-dimensional construction of the administrative-legal process, that is, the assessment of its quality in three interrelated aspects. Thus, the algorithm was based on the methodology proposed by K. Mayby and D. Pugh, called the “data collection cube” and which allows you to visualize a comprehensive picture of the quality of the legal process by building a cube in a three-dimensional coordinate system. When conducting an analysis, various factors are taken into account that determine the structure of the process of providing a public service. It becomes possible to visualize what the final result is made up of, to note the weak and strengths, as well as quantitatively express the complex social component of the administrative-legal process. The use of mathematical methods makes it possible to transform complex administrative and legal issues into a mathematical form.
The final clarification regarding the practical use of the proposed algorithm, it is advisable to consider the example of the State registration of vehicles by the State Traffic Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. The object of study and the subject area for a practical example were not chosen by chance. Today, as part of the administrative reform, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia is being reformed, which is currently this moment is the leader in terms of the number of public services transferred to electronic form (36 services). This ministry is not only an active provider of information through the system of interdepartmental electronic interaction (in the first nine months of 2014, more than 37.8 million interdepartmental electronic requests were processed), but also a consumer of information (2.3 million interdepartmental electronic requests were sent). A special contribution to the achievement of these indicators was made by the General Directorate for Security traffic Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.
It should also be noted the work carried out in the department to improve the quality of the provision of public services, within the framework of which an instruction was developed for organizing monitoring of the satisfaction of applicants. A survey form has been introduced containing criteria such as:
- awareness of the procedure for the provision of public services in electronic form;
- efficiency and waiting time in the queue;
- the competence of an employee of the internal affairs body interacting with the applicant;
- comfort conditions in the room;
- assessment of the availability of information on the procedure for the provision of services.
However, the proposed quality criteria do not fully reflect the complex structure of the process, since there is no comprehensive description of the public service delivery system. The obtained estimates cannot be compared with the results of other executive authorities, which once again indicates the need to develop a unified standard for the quality of public services and a universal algorithm that allows displaying the multifaceted administrative and legal process of providing public services. So, using the example of the State Traffic Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, we will consider the algorithm developed by the author in stages.
The first stage is the creation of a working group. Particularly noteworthy is the importance of participation in the work on assessing the quality of the administrative and legal process of the executors themselves. Civil servants exercising powers in areas directly related to the process of providing public services have high-quality, reliable information obtained during direct work. By analyzing the parameters of the administrative and legal process, employees, already in the course of implementing law enforcement practice, can track the necessary moments in the formation of a future policy for the quality of public services.
The second stage is the construction of a pyramid of the efficiency of the system of public services for the executive branch. To solve the problem of developing a system for the provision of public services, it is necessary to formulate goals for all areas of activity, that is, to build the so-called efficiency pyramid. Here it should be taken into account that the goals are passed down, and the indicators are collected from the bottom up, according to the organizational hierarchy of the executive authority (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Pyramid of the effectiveness of the system of public services of the executive branch
In order to ensure the successful implementation of activities aimed at improving the quality of the administrative and legal process, it is necessary to develop a strategic map that displays all key goals. Main function maps - a cause-and-effect mapping of goals in the process of implementing a quality strategy (Figure 3).
Figure 3 strategic map executive authority
The third stage is the identification of key aspects that determine the state of the system and its assessment from the standpoint of quality standards. Executive authorities, like other enterprises, regardless of ownership, must rely on modern quality standards in their work and, accordingly, evaluate their activities from their position. Thus, the basis for assessing the quality of public services should be based on a standard containing a range of quality indicators. Due to the absence of such a specific list of indicators, it is proposed to use the criteria given in the standard of the Russian Federation - GOST R 52113-2003. However, it is not focused on the activities of executive authorities; accordingly, the above criteria do not fully reflect the specificity of public services. In our example, the author proposes to assess the quality level of the public vehicle registration service in the following three areas:
- the level of quality of the executive authority;
- ability to lead - knowledge and compliance with the law;
- knowledge and observance professional ethics behavior.
These criteria must be entered in the evaluation table (table 1) and assessed in three blocks:
- expectations of consumers of a public service prior to its provision;
- perception, that is, the opinion of a citizen or organization regarding the compliance of the executive authority providing the service with the listed criteria;
- importance, that is, determining the significance of each criterion for the qualitative organization of the process of providing state or municipal services.
Table 1. Evaluation of the quality of the process of providing the state service of registration of vehicles in the Russian Federation
In the course of the analysis, 42 registration and examination divisions of the State traffic inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation were studied. Thus, the consumers of this service in various registration departments were given questionnaires, as a result, an assessment was made according to the criteria of interest to us. To determine the average score, each indicator was evaluated on a five-point scale, then the indices were calculated. For commercial organizations offering a wide range services, at 0.60 ≤ Qi ≤ 0.79 – the state of the aspect is recognized as satisfactory, however, given the specificity of the activities of executive authorities, the state of the process of providing public services with such indicators can be considered good.
A visual display of the state of the system is possible by building a service quality assessment cube, where the axes of the coordinate system are the selected aspects of the service (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Cube for assessing the quality of the state service for registering vehicles in the Russian Federation
The position of the cube characterizes the system as follows: 1st, 2nd and 3rd row - unsatisfactory, satisfactory and good state of the aspect, respectively. The calculation of the generalizing index of compliance of the quality of the service with the needs of consumers is carried out as follows:
where β * , β ** , β *** are, respectively, the indicators of the degree of significance of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd aspects of the service for the researcher [Sekerin, Sekerin, 1997. P. 43–53]:
where k is the significance rank assigned by the researcher (or experts) for each aspect of the service.
Thus, both the graphical display of the state of the system under study and the calculation of the generalizing index of compliance of the quality of the service with the needs of consumers indicate that the process of providing public services for registering vehicles in the Russian Federation is sufficiently consistent with the requirements of consumers.
However, the position of the quality assessment cube indicates that this executive body has minor problems in maintaining professional ethics of conduct. Despite the fact that most of the consumers of the public service under study admitted that this aspect is the least important for them, it should be noted that this executive authority is not very capable of creating an atmosphere of hospitality.
Another, larger-scale example is the assessment of the activities of the Main Directorate for Road Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation in achieving socially significant goals (Table 2).
Table 2. Evaluation of the activities of the Main Directorate for Ensuring Road Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation in achieving socially significant goals
The data in the table were subjected to expert opinion, during which such quantities as "perception" and "expectations" are quantified (Figure 5).
Figure 5 Expectations and perceptions of experts
Comparison base for calculation relative indicators in this case is the actual, achieved level of the process, that is, the "perception" of the experts. Graphically, the state of the system under study is shown in Figure 6. The central position of the cube (level “2” along all coordinate axes), as well as the quantitative expression of the calculated relative values, indicates that for the period from 2013–2014, the Main Directorate for Ensuring road safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation has carried out serious work. The milestone of the average level of development of the process has been reached, which is a good indicator, and the low value of the generalizing index is explained by the fact that the final achievement of the goal is scheduled for 2018.
Figure 6 Graphical display of the state of internal processes of the State traffic inspectorate
The fourth stage is the development of instructions for managing the quality of the system. At the moment, the role of instructions for managing the quality of the process of providing a public service can be an administrative regulation that regulates the procedure for performing a public function, containing a flowchart of the entire process of providing a public service.
In the future, the instructions will be technological schemes provision of public services. Department state regulation The Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, together with the Ministry of Communications of Russia, developed a draft methodological recommendations for their formation and approval. Already today this project is being discussed with executive authorities.
It is also necessary to develop a procedure for the continuous revision of regulatory legal acts in order to timely identify gaps in legislative support.
The fifth stage is the choice of a system for monitoring the state of the process of providing public services. To manage the quality of the system for the provision of public services by executive authorities, continuous legal monitoring of activities is necessary in order to determine the variation of the process over time. Of course, any process must be in a state of control, that is, be predictable and manageable. Given the specifics of the public services provided by the Main Directorate for Road Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to use a control system with two threshold quality levels (Figure 7).
Figure 7 The system of quality control of the state of the system of public services with two threshold levels.
In the course of the study, cases were identified when the created favorable conditions were a prerequisite for the development of such a concept as “consumer extremism”, which required the definition of restrictive measures at the legislative level. A dangerous trend is the state of the system when its parameters fall below the established minimum quality level. Such conditions generate consumer dissatisfaction, which leads to a conflict of interest.
In the event that the quality parameters of the public service delivery process have reached one of the threshold values, it is necessary to conduct a gap analysis and apply pre-designed corrective actions. The parameters of a well-managed process must be within the established limits; it is such a process that is able to provide a quality public service.
The sixth stage is the logistical support for the provision of public services, which largely determines the final quality of the service itself.
The seventh stage is interaction with the consumer. Activities related to the management of communication with the public are necessary for the success of all state structures. it managerial function within the framework of which the public opinion necessary for state institutions and the image of public administration as a whole are formed, the principles of democratic governance are implemented. Due to the competent management of public relations, trust, mutual understanding is created and public support is provided for the executive authorities, which is the basis for the stability of the state.
It should be noted that the approbation of this algorithm for assessing the compliance of public services with consumer needs has shown that the presented methodology may well serve as a tool for depicting a comprehensive picture of the quality of a service. Further author's research confirmed the fact that the scope of this algorithm, with a slight modification, can be used to assess the quality of various processes in the activities of executive authorities. The proposed methodology needs to be fixed in legal acts, as well as to develop instructions for its implementation in the activities of executive authorities.
Literature
Bartsits I.N. The system of state and municipal government: training course: in 2 vols. T. 2. M .: Publishing house of the RAGS, 2011.
Sekerin V., Sekerin D. Requirements of consumers and marketing // Marketing. 1997. No. 4.
Yuzhakov V.N. Quality of state and municipal services: efforts and results of administrative reform // Issues of state and municipal management. 2014. No. 1.
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 7, 2012 No. 601 "On the main directions for improving the public administration system."
At present, it is difficult to identify several conceptual models for improving the efficiency of the work of the state bureaucracy and institutions of the state, linking efficiency with certain factors.
1. An approach based on the concept of leadership. Representatives this direction(R. Stogdill, R. Mann, K. Levin, R. Likert, Blake, Mouton, R. House, P. Hersey, K. Blanchard, Schidt.) link the effectiveness of the organization with leadership skills, management style, individual characteristics and qualities heads of ministries and departments, systems for their selection, evaluation of tasks, motivation and professional development.
2. An approach that develops the theory of Weber's rational bureaucracy, in which attention is focused on the division of administration and hierarchical structure, functional specialization, clear rules of work, strict regulation of the professional activities of civil servants, separation from property, which creates the necessary prerequisites for effective work (M. Weber, K. Seyfarth, M. Sprondel, G. Schmidt)
3. Another approach to performance efficiency is the theory of life cycles. The main idea of this school (P. Hersey, C. Blanchard, F. Modigliani, I. Adizesi, etc.) is the relationship between the effective work of government departments and the influence of constantly and cyclically forming coalitions or groups within the organization. This determines the process and nature of decision-making in bureaucratic structures, which, in turn, is connected with the life cycle of the organization's development.
4. Within the framework of the concept of professionalism (G. Becker, E. Durkheim, M. Weber, T. Parsons, Millerson, Abrahamson, etc.) efficient operation is directly dependent on the professionalization of public authorities, the availability of career (professional) officials, their level of professionalism and competence.
5. The concept of economic responsibility (models of Hart - Shleifer - Vishna, John Stuart Mill, D. North) is based on an economic approach, proving that increasing the efficiency of public authorities is associated with the presence of a competition mechanism among departments, a system for introducing innovations, as well as political accountability of state bodies, primarily to taxpayers.
An important component of all concepts is to improve the quality of the public administration system. Quality assessment has, as a rule, objective and subjective components. On the one hand, it is the observance of certain standards and regulations, and on the other hand, the satisfaction of needs social groups, organizations or individuals. The task set to improve the quality of management and services requires the identification of the most important factors that affect the work of public authorities, which makes it possible to purposefully manage and regulate this process in the future.
The list of factors affecting the quality of work of state structures can be visualized in the form of a diagram (Figure 1)
Figure 1 - Factors affecting the quality of work of state structures
Evaluation of the effectiveness of management in social systems also depends on understanding the essence and criteria of development, methods of its correlation with the processes in the political sphere. Many works are devoted to various aspects of the general problem of development, including the problems of social development. The theory of political development has also established itself in political science, without giving, however, unambiguous and convincing criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of political management.
In systems that are formed and developed in a natural way, control arises as a mechanism that ensures the preservation of the order that arises as a result of self-organization, and on this basis - their further development. In the absence of control, the spontaneously arising order is unstable to the extent that its appearance conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics. Thus selecting the most stable forms, nature ensures the improvement of control mechanisms, the meaning of which is to ensure the stability and development of systems.
Studying issues related to the creation organizational structures capable of effectively producing the desired results; the ability to make effective management decisions in bureaucratic structures and measure the results of such decisions; the study of organizational factors and political forces that shape administrative behavior, and, finally, whether it is possible to achieve that behavior is accountable to politically responsible public officials, involves the formation of certain theoretical concepts taking into account both the diverse world experience in this area and domestic traditions.
In different fields of activity, the understanding of efficiency has its own characteristics. Thus, in politics, "efficiency" is seen as something positive and desirable, and therefore receives the meaning of a value characteristic of the organization's activities. In relation to the work of authorities, this term has become a "very effective political symbol" capable of organizing public opinion in support of certain proposals. Influenced by organized public opinion efficiency becomes the goal management activities authorities and the criterion for external evaluation of this activity.
In the most general case, efficiency is the result of the action or activity of the system over a certain time interval normalized to resource costs (the ratio of the effect to the spent resource, the difference between them, the effect with a limited resource, a functional that takes into account the effect and the spent resource).
Efficiency can only be determined in relation to a specific goal. In other words, there is no abstract "performance system", performance evaluation should be carried out only in the context of a specific activity.
The effectiveness of the organization's activities can be considered both as a goal, and as a motivating factor, and as a criterion for evaluating the processes and results of management. Under the influence of public opinion, efficiency becomes the goal of the management activities of the authorities and the criterion for external evaluation of this activity. The essence of management, its functions and specifics are determined, on the one hand, by the tasks that it solves, on the other hand, by the content of the “simple” moments of the managerial labor process, that is, its subject, means and labor itself.
The main goal of management as such is to create necessary conditions(organizational, technical, social, psychological and others) for the implementation of the tasks of the organization, "establishing harmony" between individual labor processes, coordination and harmonization joint activities employees in order to achieve specific planned results. Thus, management is, first of all, work with people, and their labor activity serves as an object of control.
The concept of "efficiency" of the activities of public authorities is often identified with its concept of "productivity". Efficiency in the field of public administration is understood as conditional productivity, which is expressed by the ability of labor to perform the corresponding work per unit of time and at the same time ensure the efficiency, reliability and optimality of production management.
With all the available discrepancies, most authors understand performance as the performance of work with the lowest costs of labor, time and materials. With this understanding, the effectiveness of managerial or administrative work is assessed by determining the ratio between the result obtained and the resources expended.
However, in relation to public authorities, many researchers insist on the inclusion in this concept of assessing the effectiveness and quality of services, and not just the relationship between the result and costs. Moreover, productivity is defined by such terms as "costs", "work", "output" and "efficiency". At the same time, due attention was not always paid to the results and outcomes. It was taken for granted that the higher the efficiency of an institution, the better the results and outcomes of its activities. According to G. Buchart, the term "performance" covers such concepts as "planning-programming budgeting", "management by objectives", as well as "budgeting on a zero basis", savings, efficiency and effectiveness.
Productivity, according to American experts in the field of management, is characterized not only by the corresponding efficiency, but also by the correctly set goal, the ways to achieve it, which cannot always be quantified. Labor productivity, for example, of managers is proposed to be considered from the point of view of goals, in the methods of determining and achieving which lies general concept productivity and efficiency of managerial work.
The approach to the effectiveness of public administration is characterized by two main aspects. First, the position of public authorities in the public administration system is analyzed. Secondly, all attention is focused on performance, with little regard to the issue of efficiency. Both approaches emphasize the importance of a clear description of costs. However, the method of evaluating efficiency by measuring the level of costs already, by definition, does not take into account productivity. At the same time, it is necessary to note such an important fact that the ultimate goal of providing services to the authorities is not these services themselves as such, but the extent to which they are able to satisfy the interests and needs of citizens or consumers.
In economics and management studies, there are two approaches to performance evaluation. The first is related to the assessment technical efficiency, second - economic efficiency, Technical performance measures reflect the nature of the activity being assessed: it indicates that "the right thing is being done".
Indicators of economic efficiency characterize how the assessed activity is implemented, how productively the expended resources are used, that is, how "these things are done correctly."
Some scientists, when evaluating the effectiveness of managerial or administrative work, focus on comparing the resources used and the income received. On the other hand, the problem was also looked at in a different way: "the costs of human labor were analyzed, as well as the satisfaction of the employee corresponding to them and the results obtained." J. Burke understands efficiency quite broadly: he considers the costs incurred (costs), the work performed (workload / output) and the results obtained (output). Although this definition includes inputs (costs), outputs (work performed) and outputs (results), the focus is on the input-output cycle: organizational norms, management practices, specifications, work performed, cost units, and needs to be satisfied.
An analysis of theoretical and methodological approaches to determining the effectiveness of the activities of public authorities allows us to conclude that, as a rule, they distinguish the economic efficiency of the activities of public authorities and social.
The independence of these types of efficiency, of course, is relative, since they are in close unity and interrelation. In terms of their role in ensuring harmonious functioning in society, they are not equivalent: social efficiency as a generalizing, final, and in this sense, the main one; economic - as primary, initial, and in this sense the main one. On the present stage The criterion of economic efficiency of the activities of government bodies has received the greatest development, since it makes it possible to quantify the efficiency in the sphere of labor. But the social impact is also important. Its significance in the type of activity under consideration is very high, but it does not have quantitative measures. The qualitative side of the result (effect) obtained is usually denoted by the term "criterion", and the quantitative side - by the term "performance indicator". The term "criterion" is used in this case in its generally accepted sense - a sign on the basis of which a fact, definition, classification, measure is evaluated.
Following the statement of G.V. Atamanchuk, a fundamentally important place for all state life should be given to the social effect that society receives during and as a result of everything. life cycle product, service, idea. The main thing here is technological organization providing high quality products and services. The essence of the social effect also lies in the fact that it must be stable, reproducible, progressive, contain not only the result, but also the source and means for subsequent development, act as a constant and strong link in the chain of continuous reproduction of social life.
G.V. Atamanchuk divides the social efficiency of public administration in general, and the activities of public authorities, in particular, into three types:
1. General social efficiency. It reveals the results of the functioning of the public administration system (that is, the totality of state bodies and objects managed by them).
2. Special social efficiency. It characterizes the state of organization and functioning of the state itself as a subject of management of social processes. This type of criteria includes:
a) The expediency and purposefulness of the organization and functioning of the public administration system, its large subsystems and other organizational structures, which is determined through the degree of compliance of their control actions with goals objectively based on their position and role in society. It is necessary to establish by law what goals each state body should implement and, upon their achievement, evaluate the relevant leaders and officials;
b) Standards for the time spent on solving managerial issues, on the development and passage of any managerial information;
c) The style of functioning of the state apparatus - regulations, technologies, standards that every leader and civil servant must follow;
d) The complexity of the organization of the state apparatus, resulting from its "fractionality", multi-stage and abundance of managerial interdependencies;
e) The cost of maintaining and ensuring the functioning of the state apparatus.
3. Specific social efficiency. It reflects the activities of each management body and official, each individual management decision, action, relationship.
Among the criteria, one can distinguish such as the degree of compliance of the directions, content and results of the management activities of bodies and officials with those of its parameters that are indicated in legal status(and competence) of the body and public office; legality of decisions and actions of state authorities and local self-government, as well as their officials; reality of control actions.
In my opinion, X. Rainey's statement is important, that in order to determine the degree of social effect, public procedures are needed that would be sustainable, necessarily existing and influencing state bodies.
When analyzing the effectiveness of the activities of public authorities, it is necessary to identify the main models, aspects, mechanisms and technologies for evaluation. At present, there are several efficiency models: system-resource, target, participant satisfaction model, complex model containing contradictions. general characteristics efficiency models allows you to discover complex complex, the components of which are targets and the external environment, organizational activities and structure, management technologies and methods for evaluating efficiency. The system-resource model is based on the analysis of the ratio "organization - environment". Efficiency in this model is the ability of an organization to operate its environment for the acquisition of rare and valuable resources in order to maintain its functioning. From the point of view of the target model, an organization is effective to the extent that it achieves its goal.
The participant satisfaction model is based on individual or group assessments of the quality of the organization's activities by its members. The organization is seen as a cooperative incentive-distributive mechanism, set up to get a return on its members through providing a decent reward for their work.
The complex model considers efficiency as an integral and structured characteristic of the organization's activities. It includes evaluation of economy, efficiency, productivity, product or service quality, effectiveness, profitability, quality of work life and innovation. The contradictory model assumes that effective organizations does not exist. They can be effective to varying degrees because:
1) face multiple and conflicting environmental constraints;
2) have multiple and conflicting goals;
3) have multiple and conflicting internal and external "voices" (sources of estimates);
4) have multiple and conflicting time frames.
Analysis various models efficiency allows us to conclude that each of them has its own advantages and at the same time limitations.
Various approaches to the organization, its activities and results are manifested in structured complexes - aspects of organizational effectiveness: functional, structural, organizational, subject-target. At the same time, in different types of organizations (state, commercial, non-commercial), the relationship of these elements has a certain configuration, due to the goals and characteristics of the activity. Thus, there are several approaches to the efficiency and productivity of activities. The effect approach focuses on replacing indicators with performance measures. K. Ridley believes that it is possible to improve the performance of public authorities by changing policies (training personnel, strengthening discipline, improving equipment, improving management). "Evaluation should be based on the results obtained, and not on the methods used or the work performed, the results are measurable." "The effectiveness of management is determined by the ratio between the results actually obtained with the available resources and the maximum results that could be obtained with their help."
Any approaches to assessing the effectiveness of the activities of government bodies involve the formulation of the uncertainty of the task. Differentiating different degrees of task uncertainty means differentiating between different styles of valuation, different types of valuation, and different styles of management and control.
Thus, from the point of view of efficiency, any aspect (side) or characteristic of the activities of public authorities, considered as a social integrity and system, can be evaluated. The characteristics of the effectiveness of public authorities are multidimensional and depend on the goals formulated by the subject of evaluation. At the same time, when applying this or that technology for evaluating efficiency, it is necessary to clearly distinguish:
The subject of evaluation (his position, target and value orientations);
The object of evaluation (it can be the entire management system or its individual element, for example: scope of activity - process, result or consequences; structural and institutional aspect, personnel);
Efficiency tools (models, aspects, types and technologies for evaluating efficiency).
To assess the activities of public authorities, it is necessary to single out specific ones from general criteria (economics, efficiency and effectiveness). This moment is the main one in preparation for the assessment.
Some flexibility is needed in developing evaluation criteria. Among the main requirements for the evaluation criteria, it can be noted that, firstly, the criteria should lead to the implementation of the evaluation tasks and cover all identified problems; secondly, the criteria must be specific enough to enable the assessment to be carried out in practice; thirdly, the criteria must be supported by appropriate arguments and/or come from authoritative sources. In addition, the criteria used to evaluate performance should be consistent with each other and with those used in previous evaluations.
The analysis of the essence of the concepts of "efficiency" and "productivity" of the activities of public authorities allows us to draw a number of conclusions. Within the framework of some models, the concepts of "efficiency" and "productivity" of the activities of public authorities are identified, in others these concepts are interpreted either very narrowly or too broadly.
Assessment of the quality of the provision of public services by authorities
One of the main tasks of public administration is the formation of a sustainable technology for organizing and conducting a study of the quality of performance of regulated state functions (provision of public services), which would allow monitoring the implementation of administrative regulations on a regular basis. In the context of constant changes in the regulatory and legal field, law enforcement practice, issues of the system and structure of executive authorities, the formalization of indicators of the quality of public services (execution of public functions) comes to the fore among the factors that allow monitoring on a regular basis. Development single list indicators of the study of the quality of performance of public functions (provision of public services) allows us to formalize the analysis process.
In this case, the variable part remains the development of sampling criteria-quotas for conducting the field stage of research and analysis of the quality of performance of public functions (provision of public services), the definition of a monitoring zone (administrative regulations, executive authorities, types of applicants, experts, etc.) and the variable part of the sociological toolkit, relating to the specifics of the state functions themselves, included in the selected monitoring area.
The main factor determining the strategy for constructing a study is the choice of monitoring zone, in our case, administrative regulations. Obviously, at the second and third stages of monitoring, the list of regulations subject to monitoring should be updated. However, already at the first stage of the organization of the study, it is necessary to build a typology of administrative regulations in terms of the subject of law enforcement, subjects of interaction, the scope of competence of authorized executive bodies, coverage of regulated services by real life situations citizens and organizations.
The main questions that need to be answered in the development of a methodology for research and analysis of the quality of performance of state functions (provision of public services) of federal executive authorities, executive authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation are:
To what extent is the population informed about administrative regulations? How to raise awareness?
What is the degree of compliance of the actual procedure for the provision of public services with the prescribed procedure for the provision of services in administrative regulations?
How to improve the efficiency of using the results of the provision of public services? What factors influence the inefficient implementation of administrative regulations from the point of view of the recipients of public services?
Are there inter-regional differences in the implementation of approved administrative regulations at the federal and regional levels?
To what extent are citizens and organizations satisfied with the introduction of administrative regulations: how much has the situation changed for recipients of public services? Has it become easier and more convenient to receive public services?
How easy/difficult it is to work as a civil servant in accordance with the introduced regulations. Have their functions been simplified? How important is the role of resource provision?
How to organize a regular effective channel feedback from interested structures of civil society to responsible executive authorities?
The effectiveness of the implementation of the system of administrative regulations and the quality of the provision of public services are determined by many factors: cultural values, the legacy of past experience, the degree of bureaucratization, corruption, and the behavioral strategies of the administrative and managerial personnel themselves. public institutions for the provision of public services. In order to fully study the problem of the effectiveness of the implementation and quality of public service delivery, it is necessary to analyze all aspects of the public service delivery process, namely from the side of recipients, from the side of "sellers" of public services and third-party representatives of public opinion and experts. Such an integrated approach involves the use of several sociological methods of collecting and analyzing data, both quantitative and qualitative, to analyze information received from consumers of public services, from those who provide these services, experts and representatives. public organizations.
The main parameter of this study is the quality of public service delivery in the broadest sense. I propose to measure the quality of public service delivery in two ways:
Firstly, it is an objective indicator of the quality of the effectiveness of the implementation of regulations and the execution of the procedure for the provision of public services in accordance with the regulations. This is a complex collective indicator, consisting of a set of more fractional indicators and indices that reflect the compliance of the process of providing public services with the adopted administrative regulations of the federal and regional levels.
Secondly, it is a subjective indicator of quality, which is based solely on value judgments and opinions of service consumers and representatives of public organizations. This quality indicator is also complex and fractional.
All initiatives aimed at measuring the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of activities face a standard set of limitations, which can be clearly seen in Figure (10).
Figure 10 - A set of restrictions that impede the measurement of the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of the provision of public services
Based on the above limitations, a basic requirement for the quality of systems of indicators of the quality of public services can be formulated: such a system should be complex (i.e. include indicators of different types), and also, to the maximum extent, based on proven pairwise correlations of each of the incoming indicators in it.
I). An objective quality indicator consists of a set of the following indicators:
Compliance of the standard for the provision of public services with the prescribed procedure and requirements for the standard for the provision of services.
Expert assessment of the quality of infrastructure related to the provision of public services
Expert assessment of the work (competence, level of service) of employees of public institutions for the provision of public services
Expert assessment of the optimal organization of the procedure for obtaining public services.
To assess objective indicators of the quality of public services provided, the following methods of collecting and analyzing information are used:
1. The method of participant observation at the point of provision of public services (will allow to assess the compliance of the process of providing public services with the prescribed standard for the provision of public services in the regulation).
2. The test purchase method (will allow in a real situation to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the process of providing public services).
3. Questionnaire survey of the population and entrepreneurs at the point of provision of public services (will allow for an expert analysis of the quality of infrastructure and the optimality of the procedure for obtaining public services).
4. The method of group interviews with civil servants (will allow assessing the quality of work of employees of state institutions in the provision of public services). (See Figure 11)
Figure 11 - Methods for collecting and analyzing information to assess objective indicators of the quality of public services provided
II). The quality of the process of providing public services significantly affects the assessment by citizens and organizations of activities state institutions. It is assumed that the consumers of public services themselves will evaluate the quality of services provided by public authorities in several ways. Thus, the subjective quality indicator includes:
Evaluation by consumers of the quality of the infrastructure associated with the receipt of the service
Evaluation by consumers of the quality of interaction with a public service provider
Evaluation of optimality and satisfaction with the procedure for receiving the service (see Figure 12)
Figure 12 - Components of the subjective indicator of the quality of the provision of public services
To assess subjective indicators during the study, the following methods of collecting information should be used:
1. Questionnaire survey of consumers of public services at the point of provision of public services (allows you to collect and analyze information about the value judgments of respondents about the quality of public services, about problems of interaction with civil servants and satisfaction with the process of providing public services in general).
2. Public opinion survey (allows you to track changes in the attitude of consumers of public services to public institutions, changes in the degree of public awareness of the problems of providing public services, as well as to obtain an assessment of the quality of work of public institutions on a wide range of issues of the quality of performance of public functions, the provision of public services).
3. The method of group discussions (focus groups) with representatives of public organizations (allows you to collect information about the opinion of representatives of public organizations on the problems of implementing administrative regulations, track their assessment and assess the degree of readiness to participate in discussions, both of the administrative regulations themselves and of problems, most often faced by consumers of public services, as well as to identify proposals for establishing a process for regular monitoring of the quality of public services). (See Figure 13)
Figure 13 - Information collection methods for assessing subjective indicators of the quality of public services provided
Below are the following systems of indicators for assessing the quality of the provision of public services and the procedure for the implementation of administrative regulations, which can be considered in detail in the figures: 14,15,16
Figure 14 - Indicators of compliance of the actual standard for the provision of public services with the provisions of the approved administrative regulations
Figure 15 - Indicators for informing applicants
Figure 16 - Consumer feedback indicators
Methods for assessing the effectiveness of public authorities
The experience of the governments of many countries has confirmed a new trend in public administration - the replacement of vertical administrative structures with a horizontal network of state organizations that perform certain tasks. At the same time, new mechanisms will be introduced into management practice, such as contract management, internal and external audit, and exchange funds.
The problem of qualitative changes and management, the transformation of the management system is inextricably linked with the development of a mechanism for coordinating the interests of the governed and managers, which should be based in legislation, in the public consciousness and political culture of civil servants, politicians and citizens. The objective needs of social development at the present stage are organically linked with the need to form a new type of public administration, develop a new strategy for relations between the state and society, built on the basis of dialogue, partnerships.
An important aspect is the improvement of public finance and budget management, the introduction of a top-down budgeting mechanism; introduction of practice financial management applied in the private sector; greater use of medium-term indicators and estimates in budgeting. In the modernization of the public administration system, information and telecommunication technologies play a special role, contributing to the increase and transparency of the activities of public authorities in general and its individual links.
If at the initial stage the task of informatization of public administration bodies was solved, the provision of equipment, then at present the focus is shifting to increasing the return on investment in information technology, which is linked to the process of improving organizational structures, increasing the communicative competence of civil servants, developing an information and communication culture in public authorities.
At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century, most of the world's states carried out large-scale reforms aimed at radically transforming public administration systems. The main reason for implementing these reforms was the need to solve the following tasks:
1) increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the work of public authorities;
2) strengthening the confidence in the state on the part of the population and the business community;
Administrative reform in most countries is understood at first glance as similar and interrelated, but still different transformations in certain areas of public administration. There are at least a few typical ideas about the content of administrative reform:
1) modernization of state power, including the reform of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities:
2) reform of the administrative-territorial structure of the state;
3) delineation of powers and subjects of jurisdiction between the federal, regional and municipal authorities;
4) civil service reform:
5) reform of the functions and structure of the executive power.
The first two reforms are not included in the contents of the administrative reform. They are not aimed at a radical revision of the functions of the executive, legislative and judicial authorities, and relate, in particular, to improving the procedures for implementing the existing functions of the judiciary, bringing the judicial system in line with them, and for the legislature, they are more related to changing the procedure for the formation of representative bodies. authorities - the election of members of the Federation Council or the formation of the State Duma and regional representative bodies of power on a mixed basis (proportional and majoritarian principle).
The development of administrative regulations and, on their basis, the establishment of specific criteria and indicators of the performance of a civil servant in their job regulations can be a significant step towards building a comprehensive system for assessing the effectiveness of public authorities in the Russian Federation.
The main purpose of an assessment is to collect and analyze information on outcomes or intermediate results, to identify past and current developments in the area, to assess benefits and costs, to identify areas for future policy improvement, and then to use this data to address subsequent objectives. .
AT general view efficiency can be defined as the ratio of the results achieved and the resources spent on it. Accordingly, in order to evaluate the effectiveness, it is necessary to evaluate the results according to pre-selected criteria and indicators (for example, in the private sector of the economy - profit), then - the resources spent on this, and only then correlate them.
However, in relation to the activities of public authorities, this scheme, which "ideally" works in the private sector, cannot be fully applied due to the specifics of managerial activities in the public sphere. The resources spent to obtain a managerial result can be material, organizational, informational. As a rule, most of the costs of public authorities are labor costs, but at present there is a tendency to increase the costs associated with the use of information resources. Cost estimation is the simplest method for evaluating efficiency. However, cost estimation methods are also the most inaccurate, since they do not allow obtaining any objective information that is significant for the control subject about the state and change of the control object. This is a formal method that is used in the developed countries of the world mainly to evaluate intra-organizational activities.
With regard to the assessment of the activities of state bodies and civil servants, cost assessment methods are practically not used and are gradually being replaced by results-based assessment methods. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the result of management is not only not expressed by profit, but is not directly manifested and, moreover, can appear in such forms that are very difficult to evaluate in relation to the resources expended (for example, the result can be not only economic, but also social, political, socio-psychological).
It is important to take into account external "indirect" results, such as improving the quality of life of citizens, mortality rates, birth rates, real incomes of the population, the normal development of management objects (commercial and non-profit organizations), the moral and ideological influence of managerial activity on the "external" environment, on the object of management. In this regard, certain problems arise due to the fact that this group of results also includes preventive, preventive activities of public authorities and civil servants.
As a rule, it is impossible to assess these results in the current perspective (the end result of such activities is manifested only in the long term). In addition, internal "indirect" results can be distinguished (advanced training, retraining of personnel, repair of equipment, creation of a creative environment in the team, computer network upgrades) that can have a significant, though not direct, impact on performance.
It is almost impossible to fully assess the external "indirect" results in relation to a particular civil servant (unlike, say, a state body or its division), therefore, in this case, the object of assessment will be the goals set for the civil servant in accordance with his competence and official duties established in the regulations.
It is advisable to evaluate "indirect" results according to the criteria of technical efficiency. Technical efficiency is related to the end result - progress towards the desired goals - and is determined by the degree to which the goals of the civil servant's activity are achieved in relation to the resources spent on their achievement. Thus, when assessing economic efficiency, " internal factors", the civil servant's own activities, while the assessment of technical effectiveness analyzes the compliance of this activity with the requirements external environment taking into account the impact that the activity of a civil servant has on the object of management. There is also a broader definition of technical efficiency, in which goals are primarily understood as "public goals", and the main criterion for effectiveness is the compliance of activities with the needs and desires of the client, user or consumer of public services and, ultimately, the whole society. A broad understanding of technical efficiency practically coincides with the third type of efficiency, often singled out in the scientific literature - social efficiency.
Public administration professionals use it to account for external "indirect" results of performance. A separate complex and complex problem is the ratio of quantitative and qualitative indicators of the activities of public authorities and their assessment. AT last years quality has become the main characteristic of the activity of not only the private, but also the public sector in a number of foreign countries. The problems of transition from quantitative criteria in assessing the activities of civil servants to qualitative ones were actively studied in the 70s in the United States. To do this, it was proposed to evaluate not so much the "output" of products / services as the results of performance. In addition, the researchers came to the conclusion that although the assessment of the qualitative parameters of activities based on economic efficiency criteria is possible in some cases, it is preferable and cheaper to carry out this assessment on the basis of program-target methods in close connection with the assessment of satisfaction and opinion of "clients" (objects of management consumers of public services). The main criterion for effectiveness, as already mentioned, is the achievement of pre-established, well-defined and realistic goals. This criterion makes it possible to evaluate not only any "indirect" results, but also "direct results" (if it is necessary to evaluate their social effect or quality level).
The choice of one or another evaluation method at the level of individual public authorities is inextricably linked with the choice of methods for assessing the effectiveness of public administration as a whole. To date, it seems that the most effective among the methods of evaluation is the method of management by objectives. It has been found to be most consistent with current trends performance evaluation in foreign countries, allows you to give an objective assessment of not only economic, but also managerial and social efficiency, and, unlike many other methods, can be applied not only at the level of individual public authorities, but also throughout the country.
The materials of sociological studies show that the institutional and structural changes that have taken place in recent years in the sphere of administration and political system Russian society had a significant impact on the self-identification of civil servants as the main implementers of the modernization of the public administration system, on the assessments and attitudes of a significant part of the population related to the role of the state in society, and finally, on political culture society as a whole.
Evaluation of the implementation process and the results of the activities of public authorities makes it possible to determine to what extent the activities of existing state institutions correspond to the proclaimed goals and national interests, how public authorities cope with the performance of their functions and powers. The applied aspect of the assessment is that based on the received analytical information, proposals and recommendations are developed to improve public financial management, optimize the mechanism for implementing targeted programs, and the quality of public services. Ultimately, the assessment provides a basis for adopting the best policy and management decisions.
Thus, the main task of this management tool is to evaluate, a) the activities of state structures; b) the content of the policy or programs being implemented; c) the results and consequences of the policy for target groups and/or society as a whole.
The assessment is given to the work of state bodies on implementation, the emphasis is shifted towards studying the processes of functioning of organizational structures. In practice, the choice of an assessment model and methods for conducting assessment studies is usually situation-specific and depends on the following factors:
The goals and objectives of the assessment;
Interests of the organization, individual groups or individuals;
political conditions;
Availability necessary resources and time for it.
In addition, evaluation can take place at different levels, depending on the scale of the work and the amount of resources used. As a rule, at the macro level, this is an assessment of state policy in a particular public area or when solving a major socio-economic Problems. For example, an assessment is given of the results of state policy in the field of combating economic crime, eradicating poverty or migration policy in the country. Another, medium (meso) level is associated with the assessment government programs when the results of specific actions of state or regional authorities to implement the target program are analyzed. At the micro level, projects aimed at solving rather narrow, local problems are evaluated. Projects on the introduction of new information technologies for collecting taxes from economic entities, the use of a unified state exam for schoolchildren in certain regions can be evaluated. The assessment is carried out according to such indicators as quality, time cycle, productivity, costs.
We emphasize that planning and carrying out work to assess the performance of public authorities require an answer to a number of complex methodological issues, among which are the choice of indicators and criteria, the feasibility of using quantitative and qualitative assessments, ensuring the accuracy and objectivity of assessments, using the results of assessment studies, influence of political and other factors.
In general, the conduct of evaluation studies involves the development of a special program and consists of several successive stages.
1. Planning an assessment study:
Selection of the evaluated state program/policy or legislation in a certain area;
Determination of the program objectives of the study and performance indicators;
Choice of research strategy, methods and means of evaluation;
Training terms of reference and plan for the evaluation (objectives, problems, methods of collection and analysis, schedule, cost estimates, composition of experts, report outline).
2. Preparation of the assessment study:
Clarification of the terms of reference;
Development of questions and indicators;
Identification of sources of information.
3. Database preparation:
Measuring results;
Collection and processing of information.
4. Analysis and evaluation of program or policy results
5. Preparation of an informational or analytical report
One of the methods of improving the quality of work is also the use of standards - appropriate methods and models for achieving "Best Values in the Civil Service". The philosophy of this concept means the obligation of the authorities to provide quality services to all citizens in accordance with standards in the most economical and efficient way. Standardization covers various aspects, but the main areas are:
Standards of services provided by executive authorities to citizens and organizations;
Management and document management standards;
Standards for training and advanced training of civil servants;
Standards of ethical behavior of state and municipal leaders and employees.
The discussion of service standards should take place between different categories and groups, namely: politicians and citizens; citizens and government officials; politicians and officials; representatives of central and local authorities. From the point of view of clients, the quality of services is usually assessed by such indicators as the time of services, their relevance to the needs of citizens, the right to appeal, the impact on service providers. One of the tools is regular surveys of the population to assess the level of satisfaction with services - the quality of services, their performance, cost, variety.
The standardization of the quality of services makes it possible to convey to the consumer of the public service information about what the quality of the service he paid for should be, thereby creating the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of each civil servant. Indicators for assessing the quality of services are necessary to assess the activities of public authorities and their subordinate institutions in dynamics (quarterly, annual). At the same time, the indicators serve as a basis for making managerial decisions on the areas of application of the efforts of the system as a whole, helping to identify areas of inefficient activity.
In the context of the problem under consideration of the effectiveness of the activities of public authorities, the assessment of the quality of public services is of fundamental importance. The provision of quality services to the population is one of the most urgent problems of public administration reform in Russia, since citizens evaluate the work of public authorities by their level and quality.
An important aspect is the reduction of administrative barriers for citizens. One of the effective means to reduce the time and costs of the population to receive services is the "one-stop shop" or "One-stop shop" system. This system is used in many countries and is designed to help citizens who use the services of government agencies. The essence of this popular system is that citizens can receive different kinds services or information about them in one place (one window). One stop system can be of two types: real, when a person comes to a certain place to receive services or information; virtual when using the phone or the Internet.
This technology leads to a more efficient use of resources by those who provide services, and also reduces the number of costs for the population when they receive public services, and helps to reduce bureaucracy in the state apparatus. One of the indicators of the quality of public services is the convenience of their use by end users, the extent to which they are suitable for the user to solve a particular problem. There was even a special term - usability, that is, a set of specific properties that affect the effectiveness of their use.
One of the modern and significant technologies for evaluating the effectiveness of government activities is management audit, which is a tool that contributes to increasing the openness of the public administration system, while openness is seen as the ability of public authorities to make changes aimed at obtaining a greater social effect. Any public authority has a certain managerial potential and, accordingly, greater or lesser opportunities to ensure the implementation of the declared policy, the achievement of related goals, the fulfillment of all contractual obligations and legal requirements. Existence of correspondence between available potential and volume assumed responsibility is subject to audit.
Management audit may be intended to clarify the actual model of the organization of the administration; obtaining objective evidence of the need for improvements in certain areas; assessing the availability and viability of organizational procedures; finding out what improvements are needed to existing procedures and processes to make better use of resources.
The audit of performance factors can be divided into parts that correspond to aspects that directly depend on management and affect the efficiency of public authorities:
Organizational structure;
organizational procedures;
Quantitative and qualitative assessment of public services provided (to external clients);
Quantitative and qualitative assessment of mutual services within the organization (to internal clients);
Evaluation of costs, both related and non-related to the provision of services.
In my opinion, it is important to note that the technologies for assessing the effectiveness of government activities cannot be presented only as a set of methods and procedures used to control and improve the organization of government work. The basis for the application of these technologies is the understanding of the essence, content and role of government as a special type of organization. The use of performance evaluation technologies will be effective to the extent that the meaning and functions of organizational effectiveness are understood.
In our opinion, improving the quality of services provided by public authorities is inextricably linked with the improvement of the management and control system. In this regard, it is necessary:
1. Implementation of a systematic approach. Orientation towards continuous improvement of the activities of the entire policy development system or the activities of public authorities, rather than individual parts or divisions.
2. Use of assessment methods at all levels of government. The main task is to determine the indicators of the final result and service standards.
3. Creation of conditions for the provision of services at the lower levels of management, the introduction of innovative technologies into management practice, for example, "single window".
4. Obtaining objective information at all levels of management
According to Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated May 7, 2012 No. 601 “On the main directions for improving the public administration system”, the Government of the Russian Federation needs to ensure the achievement of the following indicators:
The level of satisfaction of citizens of the Russian Federation with the quality of the provision of state and municipal services by 2018 is at least 90%;
The share of citizens who have access to public services on the principle of "one window" at the place of residence by 2015 - at least 90%;
The share of citizens using the mechanism for obtaining services in electronic form by 2018 - at least 70%;
Reduction of the waiting time in the queue when the applicant applies to the state authority to 15 minutes.
To implement these indicators, methodological recommendations should be developed for assessing the quality of public services provided. According to the Order of the Ministry of Labor and social protection RF dated March 18, 2013 No. 106 “On the organization of monitoring the quality of the provision of socially significant services by the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation and the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in 2013” The Social Insurance Fund and the Pension Fund must organize monitoring of the quality of socially significant services. From the report on the results of monitoring the quality of the provision of socially significant services by the Social Insurance Fund in 2013, the assessment was carried out on one indicator - the degree of satisfaction of citizens and, therefore, based on the definition of quality assessment, this is unacceptable. But, in the Irkutsk region, these guidelines for assessing socially significant services have not yet been developed.
Since 2011, monitoring has been carried out to assess the quality of state and municipal services in the Irkutsk region, and methodological recommendations have been developed. The methodology follows the recommendations of the Ministry of Economic Development, as well as the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated May 7, 2012 No. 601 “On the main directions for improving the public administration system”.
Monitoring of the quality of public services is carried out annually. The monitoring of the quality of public services is provided by the executive authority of the Irkutsk region, whose field of activity includes the provision of public services.
For the purpose of monitoring, the monitoring body develops and approves the following documents:
1. Sectoral calendar plans-schedules for monitoring the quality of the provision of state and municipal services in the relevant areas of activity, indicating: the list of public services for which monitoring is scheduled (when choosing services for monitoring, preference should be given to the most widespread, most problematic for citizens and organizations public services, as well as services for which a change in the order of delivery is planned or has been carried out, in order to assess the costs of recipients before and after the transformations); points of provision of state and municipal services where monitoring is planned; specific timing of monitoring; specialists responsible for monitoring.
2. Industry criteria for assessing the quality of public services, which are monitored, including standard values studied parameters of quality and accessibility of public services.
Based on the analysis of the main and additional parameters that characterize the provision of the studied public services, a summary assessment of the fulfillment of the requirements of the administrative regulations of the public service is formed for the studied points of public service provision in municipalities and an integrated assessment of the quality of the provision of public services (separately for each of the studied services).
The executive authority carrying out the monitoring conducts a comparative analysis of the procedures for the provision of services, terms and fees, using data on the provision of similar services by the executive authorities of other constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
Compliance with the standards of state and municipal services;
Problems encountered by applicants when receiving state and municipal services;
Satisfaction of the applicants with the quality and availability (in general and in terms of the studied parameters) of the state and municipal services, their expectations regarding the improvement of the quality of the provision of the studied state and municipal services;
Appeals of the applicant to executive bodies and local governments, as well as appeals to organizations, due to the requirements of executive bodies and local governments, necessary to obtain the final result of state and municipal services;
The financial costs of the applicant when he receives the final result of the state and municipal services: normatively established and real (for all actually necessary applications and in general for receiving state or municipal services), deviation of real from the normatively established values;
The time costs of the applicant when he receives the final result of the state and municipal service: normatively established and real (for all necessary appeals, state and municipal services as a whole) and their deviation from the normatively established values;
Presence of informal payments (payments that do not have documentary evidence) in connection with the receipt of state and municipal services;
Engagement by applicants of intermediaries in obtaining state and municipal services, including due to the requirements (inducement) of executive bodies and local governments providing state and municipal services.
Let us consider in more detail how and by what indicators each indicator is evaluated.
1. Compliance with the standards of state and municipal services. When monitoring compliance with standards for the provision of state and municipal services, the following methods can be used:
Method of observation in accordance with the estimated characteristics of the implementation of standards for the provision of state and municipal services;
The method of studying administrative regulations for the provision of state and municipal services, in order to identify established requirements for the quality of the provision of state and municipal services;
Semi-formalized interviewing or questioning of applicants for state and municipal services.
2. The assessment of compliance with the standards for the provision of state and municipal services in the Irkutsk region is carried out by an expert group formed by the institution itself, by the method of observation in accordance with the estimated characteristics of the implementation of the standards for the provision of services. Each member of the expert group puts "yes" or "no" in front of each assessment characteristic (a convenient place for applicants, the location of the building of the institution, the buildings are equipped with ramps for people with disabilities, the sector for informing the applicant is equipped with an information stand, the waiting room is equipped with seating, as well as tables (racks) for the possibility of processing documents with the presence of paper and pens in the indicated places for recording information, etc. Based on the results of the assessment, the expert identifies the most common violations of the standards for the provision of state and municipal services, gives recommendations for improving the conditions for its provision.
In addition to the evaluation characteristics of the implementation of standards for the provision of state and municipal services, during the monitoring, some questions of the Questionnaire for monitoring the quality of the provision of state and municipal services by executive bodies and local governments (hereinafter - the Questionnaire) are evaluated. Based on the established characteristics and the study of the answers to the questions of the Questionnaire, an analysis is made of the compliance of the provision of state and municipal services with the established standards; the main problems due to which these standards are not met are identified.
For overall assessment compliance of the quality of state and municipal services with the standards of its provision, the index of compliance with the standards for the provision of state and municipal services (Est) is calculated. In the calculation of the index of compliance with the standards for the provision of state and municipal services (Est), the Questionnaire questions presented in Table 1.2 are involved
Table 1.2. The list of Questionnaire questions involved in the calculation of the index of compliance with the standards for the provision of state and municipal services and their weighting coefficients
|
Question Questionnaire |
|
|
Did you need to contact somewhere else to find out full information about where exactly you can resolve your issue and what documents will be required? |
5 - did not apply anywhere else; 4-one additional appeal; 3-two additional calls; 2-four additional hits; 1-more than 5 hits. |
|
What alternative ways of informing about the provision of state and municipal services do you know? |
1-normative legal acts; 2-personal consultations of employees; 3-information on stands; 5-neighbors, colleagues, acquaintances; 6 publications in newspapers; 7 programs on television; 8 - "Portal of public services of the Irkutsk region" on the Internet. |
|
Were you satisfied with the communication with the employees of the institutions with the general level of service from the employees? |
5-very satisfied; 4-satisfied; 3-rather satisfied; 2-rather dissatisfied; 1-completely dissatisfied. |
|
Have you ever had to wait in line at an employee of institutions? |
3-no, never had to; 2-in different ways, and had to, and no; 1-yes, every visit |
|
Were the conditions for waiting for an appointment comfortable for you? |
5-quite convenient; 4-rather convenient; 3-in something it is convenient, in something it is not; 2-rather, uncomfortable; 1 - uncomfortable |
The index of compliance with standards for the provision of state and municipal services (Est) is defined as the sum of the average scores for each question included in the calculation of the index, multiplied by the weight of the question:
where Bav. - the sum of the average scores for each question
where K b - the sum of points on the issue;
To about - the number of respondents;
K is the weighting factor of the question.
To calculate the value of the general index of compliance with the standards for the provision of state and municipal services in percent, the following formula is used:
The assessment of the compliance of the state and municipal services with the standards of its provision is carried out in accordance with the values given in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3. Interpretation of the values of the index of compliance with standards for the provision of public services
|
Index value, % |
Interpreting Index Values |
|
Very high level |
|
|
High level |
|
|
Average level |
|
|
Low level |
|
|
Very low level |
The index of compliance with the standards for the provision of state and municipal services is calculated both in general for all services and for each service separately.
Based on the obtained value of the index of compliance with the standards for the provision of state and municipal services, state and municipal services are ranked according to this parameter. The highest index value is assigned a value of 1.0 (first place).
Monitoring of problems that applicants have when receiving a public service, assessing the satisfaction of applicants with a state and municipal service with its quality and accessibility, assessing time costs is carried out by the method of semi-formalized interviewing or questioning of applicants for a state or municipal service. As well as in monitoring the assessment of standards for the provision of services, the indices of the corresponding monitoring (I pr, I y, I vz) are calculated.
Monitoring of the composition and number of applications of the applicant to institutions is carried out using the following methods:
The method of studying administrative regulations for the provision of state and municipal services, in order to identify the established composition and number of appeals to executive bodies, local governments;
Semi-formalized interviewing or questioning of applicants.
The final index of the quality of the provision of public and municipal services is determined as the sum of the index values for each parameter of the quality of the provision of public and municipal services, multiplied by their weighting coefficients:
where East is the index of compliance with quality standards for the provision of state and municipal services;
And pr - an index of the level of problems that applicants face when receiving state and municipal services;
Uo - general index of satisfaction of recipients of state and municipal services with its quality and accessibility (in general and according to the studied parameters;
And arr - the index of compliance of the number and composition of applicants' applications with their normatively established values;
And fz - the index of the level of financial costs of the applicant when he receives the final result of the state and municipal services;
And vr - index of the level of time costs;
I np - index of the level of informal payments;
And n - the index of involvement of intermediaries in the course of obtaining state and municipal services.
According to the obtained value of the final index of the quality of the provision of state and municipal services, the ranking of state and municipal services is carried out. The highest value of the final quality index for the provision of state and municipal services is assigned the value of 1.0 (first place). The possibility of assigning one place to several services is not excluded. The ranking of executive bodies, local self-government bodies is carried out in accordance with the quality factor for the provision of state and municipal services (K kach), calculated as the arithmetic mean of the quality indices for the provision of state and municipal services for each service provided by the executive body, local self-government body.
This methodology could also be suitable for assessing the quality and socially significant public services of the Pension Fund. But for now, the assessment of the quality of services based on clear criteria developed remains at the development stage.
So, in the first chapter, we examined the concept of a service, a socially significant public service, and, based on their characteristics, we came to the conclusion that the Pension Fund provides precisely socially significant public services. An important characteristic of a service is its quality, which determines the ability to meet the established or expected needs of the recipient, reflects the level of implementation of service standards. But in order to maintain the quality of the services provided, it is necessary to evaluate the quality. For an adequate, objective assessment in the practice of service, specific evaluation criteria are developed that characterize the activities of the institution from different angles, and for each criterion, specific indicators are selected, which, as a rule, are quantitative. The evaluation rules are described in guidelines. The main problem is that these recommendations are of a generalized nature, and it is not the institution as a whole that is evaluated, but a specific one service. The Pension Fund does not have clear methods for assessing the quality of services that can characterize the institution as a whole, as, for example, in the methods for assessing the quality in the system social services, where clear criteria and evaluation indicators are developed up to the evaluation economic activity etc.
Further, in the second chapter, we will try to assess the quality of the services provided, using the example of the UPFR in the Pravoberezhny and Oktyabrsky districts, based on studying the degree of satisfaction of service recipients, based on studying the opinions of experts, based on the results of the provision of services (volumes of work performed), compare the existing performance indicators with planned. But, first you need to disclose the content of the services provided.
The introduction of a system for assessing the quality and accessibility of public services provided by consumers is effective method study state of the art in the area of service delivery and developing ways to further improve these services, taking into account the needs and expectations of the recipients of the services themselves. Monitoring can be based on the system of indicators proposed below, detailing the criteria for the quality and accessibility of public services.
Indicators distributed according to the criteria characterizing the quality and comfort of public services can be divided into two main groups: 1) general; 2) specific.
The composition of general indicators is mandatory for all services, as it reflects the main problems faced by consumers of public services. In addition to general indicators, specific indicators should also be developed that reflect the specific features of the process of providing a certain type of service. Specific indicators for each type of service are determined individually, based on its specific features and problems in the process of providing.
Indicators for assessing the quality and accessibility of public (municipal) services:
More on the topic 5.2. The system of indicators for assessing the quality and availability of public services:
- 4. Evaluation of the quality of work of medical and preventive institutions
- 2.2. Methodology for assessing the quality of services of a socio-economic organization
- ALGORITHM FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF SERVICES OF A SOCIO-ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION
- 2.3. Assessment of the quality of public administration in modern Russia at the federal level
For beginners: breeding a broiler at home Boiled water for broilers
Only lovers will survive
Features of advertising aimed at children
retouching old photos in photoshop retouching old photos
What is an NPO: decoding, definition of goals, types of activities Does a non-profit organization have the right