G Fraser-Moleketi: NEHAWU Public Service Delivery Summit

21-23 April 2006

Introduction

Chairperson, before addressing the topic, it is necessary to consider the
paradigm shift that has occurred from what is commonly referred to as the
Washington Consensus, regarding the role of the State in service delivery in
the current period.

The Washington Consensus was based on the concept of a minimalist state and
the notion that market forces were the most efficient at providing social
services. This notion was derived from the view that the efficiencies
associated with commodity production in the private sector could automatically
be emulated in the public sector. After 15 years of experimentation with this
notion internationally, particularly in developing countries, it is clear that
this notion is not supported by reality. This has led to the implosion of the
myths of this approach.

The Washington Consensus promised, inter alia, a reduction in the cost of
service delivery and consequently greater access to basic services by the
disadvantaged, as well as greater efficiencies resulting from increased
competition. The actual experience however, has been that of the replacement of
state monopolies by private ones; and an escalation, instead of a reduction in
costs, which has placed services beyond the reach of targeted sections of the
community.

As a result, international consensus has shifted. There is now recognition
of the limitations of market forces and the unavoidable necessity for the state
to act as a regulator and also as a director of service delivery and social
developmental capital. This is evinced by the greater allocation in the budget
to social welfare expenditure and increased investment in infrastructure. The
adoption of Joint Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA) reflects
the recognition that market forces cannot be depended on for, or be responsive
to, the social needs of the populace. Furthermore, individual enterprises are
not by themselves capable of aligning their interests to that of the general
public good.

Chairperson, I wish to congratulate Labour for convening this summit where
issues such as the role of the State are being analysed in the Post-Washington
Consensus Era.

Challenges

The vision of Government in the context of building a developmental state is
delivery of development. Its primary focus being on outputs and outcomes, to
this end Cabinet has identified the following transformation imperatives of the
country:

* The eradication of poverty;
* The acceleration of service delivery;
* Building the economy; and
* Transforming the state.

One of the challenges for the South African State is to reach consensus with
Labour on a common service delivery agenda. One such initiative is the notion
of South Africa as a developmental state and its implications, a model
supported by the South African Government.

A perception may have been created that in the course of its realisation of
this goal, government has placed too much emphasis on the needs of the private
sector as a conduit for the developmental needs of South Africa. Furthermore,
this relationship, if you like, has also apparently demonstrated an excessive
sensitivity to the concerns of the private sector. The degree of investment
from the private sector in the public private partnerships has not materialised
as envisaged, nor have the partnerships yielded the intended results to the
extent that we would have wanted it to. Hence government now has to play a more
central role in service delivery in terms of its developmental agenda.

To this end, the state should champion the rights of the poor and
marginalised, while simultaneously ensuring that growth and prosperity attracts
capital. The state needs to meet the needs of a diverse and multi-cultural
citizenry, and in so doing, ensure redress for past imbalances. It also needs
to address the key question of the first and second economy, ensuring the
redistribution of wealth without alienating the participants of the first
economy. Finally, the state cannot remain focused on its own domestic agenda at
the expense of regional and global processes and accountability. This
complexity requires a flexible, strategic state that is unapologetically
developmental, regionally sensitive, and increasingly sophisticated. In light
of the above, we believe that we have adopted the appropriate model to address
the service delivery challenges.

The second decade of democracy has enunciated the challenges that still
confront Government. These are to:

* Improve the quality of life of South Africans;
* Increase investment;
* Generate economic growth;
* Create quality jobs for all; and
* Promote economic empowerment.

This in turn posits subtle and complex challenges for the country as a
developmental state. These challenges include:

* Strengthening participatory people centred governance;
* Improving service delivery through integrated governance;
* Consolidating an accountable and transparent state;
* Developing human resources; and
* Strengthening performance through monitoring and evaluation.

The public service is one of the key instruments of government to realise
these imperatives. The debates and campaigns relating to this issue, more
especially the co-operation between civil society, labour and government
attests to the afore-going assertion.

Chairperson, may I now take this opportunity to elaborate on some specific
problems that have been identified by my Department, which have arisen within
the context of the broad categories outlined above.

Scarce and critical skills

Notwithstanding government’s commitment to job creation, a capacity
assessment will reveal that while there may be many vacancies in government,
the skills base of the population does not lend itself to these employment
initiatives. On the other hand, those with the critical skills needed by
government do not enter the public service. Government is currently finding it
difficult to compete with the private sector to attract requisite skills and
more particularly, to stem the flight of skills to developed countries. One of
the purposes of JIPSA is to align education and training with the actual needs
identified for the developmental state. It is now commonly accepted that the
skills provision is not addressing the developmental needs of the country.

To address this we are considering the development of a wage policy for the
public service and a review of salary packages for identified categories of
employees, including looking at improving the general working environment as
our initiative to rebut the competition. Further, other long-term solutions
might include partnerships with the Department of Education and Institutions of
Higher Learning to increase intakes in particular fields, the strengthening of
Public Service training institutions, to mention just a few. However, in the
short-term the public service is required to continue with its mandate of
providing services, growing the economy, etc and thus we have been forced to
consider various options to grow the existing skills base, including foreign
recruitment, the introduction of skills exchange programmes, etc.

The long-term strategy of government is linked to the National Skills
Development Strategy, which sets out to ensure that there is a constant supply
of required skilled people.

Gap between planning/policy and implementation

There is an over-supply of planning activity not matched by implementation
capacity. It is easy to identify problems and offer solutions, but the
difficult part lies with the implementation. Front-line operational managers
often do policy and planning at top management level without sufficient
participation. Plans are not sufficiently embedded in task execution and huge
gaps exist between planning in head office and implementation by front line
managers. This results in a disjuncture between strategic and operational plans
and a gap between policy and implementation.

The gap is evident in the alignment between policy, planning, budgeting and
delivery of services as reflected in the management plans (strategic,
organisation structure, human resource, information technology and service
delivery plans). It impacts on the capacity to take decisions about service
delivery matters, including spending choices and the allocation of
resources.

Unaligned Departmental/Organisational structures

A pre-requisite for an effective Department is to inter alia, have an
appropriate structure that directly supports the realisation of strategic
objectives. It is clear from the problems that provincial departments
experience, that the rationalisation and restructuring process of 1994 was in
general not completed successfully.

Not all the departments view their structures as a key tool to realise
strategic objectives. Thus, when strategic direction or objectives change,
structures should be aligned. This does not always happen. Some departments
still have structures with many layers flat structures with short and direct
reporting lines are not yet very popular. This could be ascribed to the way job
evaluations are conducted by the central panel since many layers usually
guarantee a higher grading of posts. The span of control is the most common
reason advanced for why many layers are required and why many units must be
created.

There is a growing tendency to design organograms as blocks without purposes
and functions. From this it is clear that the focus of the design is to create
posts, often at senior management level, instead of addressing the strategic
transformational and service delivery objectives of each department. The ‘form
follows function’ principle is of critical importance to service delivery
achievement.

Do we constantly revisit our organograms to ensure that they are still in
line with our service delivery mandates and functions? An interesting
observation is that of departments spending/exhausting all their personnel
budgets whilst they have 20% vacancy rates. In some instances this is
indicative of outdated organograms. There is a dire need to conduct functional
analyses of our service delivery institutions to identify and eliminate
duplications and thus ensure that no functions unwittingly fall through the
cracks because the one institution expects the other to be performing a certain
function. Conversely, resources may be wasted because two departments are
performing one function and causing confusion.

Service delivery models

Integrated service delivery is difficult due to differences in the service
delivery models adopted by departments. In most instances these are not aligned
to local government service boundaries nor are they aligned within or between
sectors.

Service delivery plans

It is a legal requirement of the Public Service Regulations to develop and
implement Service Delivery Plans. These plans should be the tool that assists
and ensures that service delivery improvements take place and that informs and
links budgets, staffing, monitoring, etc. While departments produce plans, they
usually fall short in relation to these factors.

Thus in developing service delivery plans the following points must be taken
into account:

* Departments must ensure that plans are not developed in a silo the plans
should depart from an integrated service delivery model for the whole province.
For example are we going to all have the same service boundaries, are we
sharing corporate services, are we planning physical infrastructure in
consultation with other departments, etc.;

* They need to have a clear methodology or scientific model that is used to
develop a baseline against which improvements will be measured. Without a
baseline measurement that is comprehensive and detailed, reporting will
continue to be vague;

* The plan must focus on the users that the department serves and the
standards must be informed by the citizens in line with Batho Pele;

* The plan must inform human resources (recruitment/training); performance
management, equipment, and budgets. Thus the development of the plans should
follow a bottom up approach starting at the front line units where service
delivery takes place e.g. schools or clinics; and finally

The plan must be linked to and inform monitoring in each Department.

Management and leadership capacity

Management and leadership are keys in making service delivery happen. The
people we employ are a pivotal success factor. What is of great concern is the
fact that the majority of senior managers are concentrated in head offices,
thus removed from the 'service delivery coal face'. In order for provinces to
achieve their service delivery targets, the redeployment of staff to these
areas must be considered. There is a stream within the Single Public Service
Project that is tasked with pursuing avenues that will achieve this mobility,
not only within provinces but also across the different spheres and sectors of
government. This requires harmonising the conditions of service in the public
sector as a whole to ensure that the transfer of relevant staff can accompany
the transfer of functions.

Relatively large numbers of staff are appointed in acting positions at
management level and vacant management posts are not filled for lengthy
periods

Senior managers do not rotate to gain experience and exposure in all facets
of service delivery. This affects the quality of their input into the service
delivery chain (whether at the level of policy development or service delivery
planning and support) because of insufficient appreciation of the contextual
realities and challenges that obtain at other levels of the chain. The Khaedu
project, which gives senior managers exposure to the coalface of service
delivery, is addressing this particular issue.

Shortage of contract and programme management skills

Much has already been said about the shortage of requisite skills within
specific areas. As a result of this, Government relies on external providers
and has to manage various contracts. The shortage of contract management skills
in the public service thus means that many projects and programmes related to
service delivery are not completed within appropriate time frames.

Human resources and change management

Integrated human resource management and development including performance
management is generally inadequate for institutions to achieve and maintain
their service delivery standards. There are many examples where human resource
plans are developed separately from service delivery improvement plans and the
budget.

The concerns around the health and wellness of public service employees need
to be addressed by means of a comprehensive approach that recognises the
importance of improved physical working conditions. Ensuring that employees
have access to quality medical care and efficient employee assistance
programmes are further critical components in such an approach.

It is not certain whether or not ‘staff to citizen ratios’ in the post
establishments of institutions is adequate. In certain instances there is an
over-concentration of resources in urban areas with critical shortages in other
areas. Many critical posts are vacant for extended periods of time and others
are inappropriately filled.

Attitudes and professional ethos

There is a sense that some public servants in service delivery institutions
do not take pride in their work. This may in part be based on the outdated view
that jobs in the public service are guaranteed for life.

One of Batho Pele’s principles is that the state should interact with
citizens but many public servants still treat citizens as if they are doing
them a favour. Changing this attitude requires a change in the mindset of
public servants but it is also necessary to transform of the material
conditions under which people work. Many public servants are expected to work
in workplaces that are drab and depressing, impacting negatively on their
morale.

It is true that the lack of internal communication also contributes to the
de-motivation of public servants, many of whom have very little integrated
understanding of government and its programmes.

Access & sustainability

Access strategies focus on providing more services to citizens but do not
adequately take into consideration sustainability of service delivery,
convenience to citizens in terms of access, and integrated delivery involving
all key role-players. It results, for instance, in clinics being built but no
staff being available to work in them.

There is a lack of empirical evidence to show to what extent citizens are
making use of redress mechanisms and whether the mechanisms in fact do exist or
are effective.

Procurement hampering service delivery

In some departments procurement capacity remains problematic. This is of
concern, given the service delivery challenges. Tender processes also pose a
huge stumbling block because of reported red tape and bureaucracies
involved.

Monitoring and reporting

There is a significant lack of pro-active monitoring of services within
institutions and across government that would predict whether service delivery
performance might decline or fail. The use of early warning systems is only
evident in terms of financial management and expenditure.

Few service delivery institutions have dedicated mechanisms to monitor
service delivery performance quantitatively and qualitatively. There is also
little evidence of service delivery baseline information about institutions.
Further, the quality and nature of information provided in service delivery
improvement plans as well as in annual reports is generally poor. There are
also insufficient linkages between these documents. Again, baselines have not
been developed against which monitoring then takes place. Non-compliance by
departments on PERSAL records is also a huge problem.

There are no uniform and minimum national norms and standards for service
delivery across government. Where such standards have been developed
performance against the standards is not monitored and reported to Cabinet and
Parliament in a coherent manner. More often than not, institutions often
overestimate or underestimate their capability and subsequently develop
inappropriate service standards.

Overall management of the service delivery value chain

Service delivery value chains of institutions are not adequately managed. In
a number of instances there may also be a lack of knowledge and understanding
about what they are. As a result, the effective management of different key
role players, the management of interdependencies and the regular interface
between operational managers and top decision makers is not sufficiently
institutionalised.

Administration

Back-office processes that are critical for service delivery, including the
procurement process of government are still very cumbersome, protracted and
rely on too many different role players. Documentation of processes,
procedures, mechanisms and operational cycles needs to be improved and to be
made readily accessible to staff.

Basic administration across institutions is generally lacking, especially in
terms of the updating of human resource records but also in terms of other
information such as financial records. Basic systems and procedures are not
adequately adhered to. The problem is exacerbated by different information
systems that are not linked to one another. This is very critical information
for decision-making. Lack of this information leads to arbitrary decision
making.

Departments also still tend to create silos that do not effectively support
integration and coordination between functional areas within departments as
well as cooperation with other departments. This militates against
interdepartmental partnerships and joint projects.

Resources and assets management

The management and control of resources and assets like infrastructure,
technology and facilities (including transport and accommodation), maintenance
and replenishment is an area that must still be improved in the majority of
service delivery institutions. It is true that many administrative and
management systems are archaic, slow and inefficient, particularly in
implementing of joint programmes.

Adherence to regulatory requirements

Although there is a tendency towards over-regulation in government there are
also many misperceptions of and lack of knowledge about the regulatory
framework of government. This leads to cumbersome procedures, lengthy
decision-making processes, delays in turn-around time and compromises the
quality of service delivery.

This could be remedied with the introduction of a central clearing house
(fire-room) in government where regulations can be assessed in terms of
conflicting and unnecessary requirements.

I believe it important to set the record straight regarding the perception
that the agenda of government is to shed jobs and create a ‘lean and mean’
public service. On the contrary, as I have indicated at the sixth Global Forum
on Reinventing Government in Seoul, Korea: ‘Is it not time to admit that more
government is required to settle the ongoing conflicts that mark African
societies? Is it not time to admit that more regulation of the use of public
resources and assets, e.g. forests, minerals, water, labour, could be more in
the interest of the public good, rather than highly elitist, small groups that
benefit from global free market operations? Is it not time to admit that the
private sector, left to its own devices, has no inclination to act in the
interest of the public good, and that the fundamental nature of organised civil
society is focused on particularity interests, rather than the public good
generally speaking? Following this logic, it could be argued that it is only
the state who in the final instance can legitimately act in the interest of the
public as a whole, for current and future generations.”

In conclusion, I wish to state that service delivery challenges are raised
time and time again but they remain unsolved. It is my hope that this summit
will reflect on some of these challenges and seriously consider intervention
strategies that will assist government in meeting these. Labour is advised to
exploit the opportunities presented by the collective bargaining environment in
this regard.

My best wishes accompany your deliberations in this summit.

Issued by: Department of Public Service and Administration
21 April 2006