Design of National Systems to Support
Government Organizational Development and
Excellence:
A Functional Approach
A Kaizen Company white paper
November 2012
Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 3
Background ................................................................................................................................... 4
Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Intent............................................................................................................................................. 5
Functional analysis of four national government excellence programs and proposed supporting
activities ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Sponsorship................................................................................................................................... 6
Incentives ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Technical implementation support ............................................................................................... 9
Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................................... 10
Knowledge management ............................................................................................................ 11
Feedback ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Annex A: Functional Analysis of Four National Government Excellence Programs ..................... 16
2
Executive Summary
A national program for government excellence can bring greater visibility and support to encourage
employees and organizations to deliver citizen services more effectively and efficiently. Formation and
operations of a successful national program for government excellence require commitment from the
highest levels of government. This commitment must be shown not only through resource allocation, but
also through leadership attention and visible action in support of government excellence.
This report serves as a resource for planners of national government excellence programs, based upon
demonstrated commitment to the goal of government excellence.
Successful government excellence programs fulfill six fundamental functions. We conducted analysis of
four countries with existing excellence programs, three of which are currently thriving. We took this
analysis and combined it our experience establishing supporting institutions for government excellence in
the Middle East to define these functions. These six functions must be addressed and fulfilled in order for
a national government excellence program to be sustainable and to thrive. They are:






Sponsorship
Incentives
Technical implementation support
Monitoring and evaluation
Knowledge management
Feedback
While it is recognized that it will take years to establish full operation of all these functions, a sustainable
national government excellence program must perform (or coordinate) these six functions to truly be
dynamic and sustainable for the long-term goals of government performance improvement on all levels.
Additional recommendations are made to further clarify specific activities that can be undertaken to
support these functions. All these activities require active commitment and oversight from the highest
levels of government. These activities are listed as options for gradual phasing in. It is foolhardy to
suggest that all these functions be addressed immediately within 1-2 years.
With this longer-term perspective in mind, it is intended that this paper be viewed as a resource for the
planning of the establishment of a national government excellence program, started with guidance from
stakeholders, but shifting to leadership by the national government, and ultimately, to ownership by the
country’s citizens.
Amy Watve
Director
The Kaizen Company
3
Background
This document captures the findings of research and analysis undertaken by the Kaizen Company in
support of its work establishing and extending the positive effects of capacity building to support
meaningful government reform.
We hope these findings will help define the vision and scope of national-level government excellence
programs. This report can help to define and enhance work planning of USAID-sponsored efforts to
support possible anticipated needs in this area in a number of countries.
The findings and recommendations of this report still require testing and development specialized to the
context for each country. This adjustment will depend on government priorities and the identification of
local stakeholders and actors. These stakeholders need to supply sufficient buy-in and commitment for
implementing the suggested activities and functions defined in this report.
Approach
This examination of national government excellence programs is based upon a functional analysis,
focusing upon the practical purpose that the programs fulfill within their nations in support of excellence.
The functional analysis approaches the definition of a national government excellence program by asking
“What are the essential things that a national government excellence program needs to do to be
effective?” Building from this question, the answers were used to define specific functions that a national
government excellence program must deliver to be effective.
The team chose to examine four organizations, based upon this initial functional framework hypothesis
for a national government excellence program. The functional framework was based upon practical
experience in the formation of national systems to support excellence in Palestine and Jordan, as well as
research of Gulf and international government excellence programs. These organizations are:




Jordan King Abdallah Center of Excellence
Dubai Government Excellence Program
Abu Dhabi Award for Excellence in Government Performance
Singapore iGov 2015 (Web Excellence Awards)
We chose the four programs for their regional representation, degree of public transparency and
availability of information through publically accessible means, and in the case of Singapore, for its value
to compare and contrast to systems outside the Middle East. For this the purposes of this report, the focus
was primarily on Arab nations, given Kaizen’s extensive work to develop new national excellence
programs in the Middle East. It is recommended that other countries be examined to supplement these
findings in the future, for different audiences and needs.
An iterative approach resulted in a stronger functional framework. Based upon the initial functional
framework hypothesis, the programs were analyzed. Based on findings, the functional framework was
modified to incorporate the data collected on the programs.
Based upon the revised functional framework, we also identified supporting activities to achieve the six
functions. These activities are based on Kaizen’s judgment and experience, drawing from its guidance and
4
participation in the formation of national level excellence supporting structures in Jordan, Palestine and
Iraq. These activities can be found in the final section of the report.
Intent
This report is intended to inform the conceptualization, planning, and execution of national-level
government excellence programs. This report is one resource in the definition of a national government
excellence program, rather than a final definition of its
structure and full operations. Those decisions will need to be
made by national leadership and political sponsors, with the
support of USAID and other donors, as well as other
While national-level
stakeholders. Keeping this in mind, this report will define
government excellence
programs will, by necessity,
some of the decisions that will need to be made to support
depend on individual ministries
this type of national level effort.
Functional analysis of four national government excellence
programs and proposed supporting activities
Over the last two decades, significant strides have been taken
in the Middle East in the recognition of government
excellence as a means to improving the lives of citizens.
With the Emirate of Dubai leading the way, numerous
government excellence programs have been established. This
survey closely examines the programs of Abu Dhabi, Dubai
and Jordan.
to focus on their own operations
and carry out specific reform
initiatives, these functions
should be coordinated and
carried out by an entity outside
of any one specific ministry in
order to achieve the goals of
excellence on a national level.
We also refer to the example of Singapore, an Asian nation-state. It has made significant strides since the
1990s in government performance and economic development. We will use this case as a contrast to
regional examples to highlight different approaches that may be adopted for the specific national context
Based on the examination of these four programs and practical experience, six specific functions emerge
from our observation as vital to the success and sustainability of a national-level government excellence
program.






Sponsorship
Incentives
Technical implementation support
Monitoring and evaluation
Knowledge management
Feedback
These six functions are the primary roles that national level programs should fulfill. It is recognized that
not all these functions can be built immediately, but together they establish a clear vision for a lasting
future of government excellence.
These functions can only be made real through the implementation of specific activities to support the
achievement of tangible outcomes. In the section below, we present some possible approaches to address
these functional needs. The specific implementation plan, complete with priorities, timelines and
5
responsibilities, needs to be developed locally, with input from stakeholders and ownership from local
implementers. These ideas will shift and adapt to accommodate specific context and circumstance.
Further explanation of each function and lessons from the four programs follow. Activities to support
each function are also described.
Sponsorship
Sponsorship on the national level needs to be addressed in
two separate, but related, sub-functions: political sponsorship
and financial sponsorship.
Political. Political sponsorship provides credibility and a line
of accountability for the program, ensuring public trust and
political support for reformers. This sponsorship consists of
an entity or group of entities providing political endorsement
and backing of the program and resulting reform initiatives,
most likely through a patronage or sponsoring model. It is
best for this sponsoring entity to be considered as a nonpartisan, objective figure, with all public organizations
concerned agreeing to be accountable to it for their
performance.
Political sponsorship is a
fundamental element of a
national government excellence
program. It lends credibility and
reinforces political will for
government excellence.
Resource allocation follows this
necessary first step.
In countries with a robust civil society, non-governmental organizations or business associations may
fulfill this sponsorship role.
Alternatively, this role could be assumed by a confederation of government organizations. However, in
the Middle East, the strongest national government excellence programs are backed by a strong national
figure. In Jordan, King Abdullah provides patronage to the King Abdullah Center of Excellence, a nongovernmental organization that implements the King Abdullah Awards. The Dubai Government
Excellence Program was established by the ruler of Dubai, HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al
Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This direct line to the
highest national authority holds true for all Middle Eastern countries surveyed.
It is worth noting that non-Arab countries offer different models of political sponsorship, such as the
Singapore Government Web Excellence Awards. In this case, government performance in improving
citizen access to services and information through information technology is recognized through a joint
effort of the Singapore Ministry of Finance and the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
(IDA). Singapore however, has an extremely strong and experienced central government, with clear
divisions between government organizations, which makes this exceptional sponsorship structure
possible.
Supporting activities. This function can be defined as support, encouragement, privilege, or financial
aid from a national level leader, legislative committee, civil society organization or committee that
combines the forces of these organizations. These supporting elements can be provided through the public
endorsement of the program from a well-respected and influential entity. Selection of this sponsoring
entity must take into consideration underlying political concerns, with a unifying entity selected. This is
6
not an easy selection, but success of the program, especially in the early years, will depend upon public
and public sector respect and trust of this supporting entity, as the program defines itself and gains
credibility on its own.
Financial. The excellence program will require resources to fulfill its goals for excellence. Financial
sponsorship consists of sourcing funding for public organizations to identify, prioritize, plan and
implement organizational development initiatives. It may include funding for organizations to strengthen
their capacity by training employees to implement programs, or hiring external consultants to provide
technical implementation support. In order to prioritize performance improvement, it is vital that
organizations have enough financial flexibility.
Most funding should come from the organizations themselves, based on a transparent budgeting process,
to establish meaningful buy-in based on organizational priorities and goals. However, especially during
the early stages, it may be necessary for direct earmarked funding from national levels of government, to
ensure that resources are used for this national priority. Additionally, financial resources may be
necessary to directly fund incentive programs that are administered from the national level.
In the four models examined, financial sponsorship primarily comes from the central government, though
the means of distribution may differ. It is linked to political sponsorship, in that national priorities are
funded when the political will is there. In all countries surveyed, funding seems to be provided for
national programs through national budgeting channels, and specific government organizations fund
technical implementation support and specific projects through their individual budgets.
Supporting activities. This function can take multiple, complimentary forms, including the following:
●
Monetary support provided through national funding mechanisms. This financial support may be
detailed as line items in ministry budgets to be used on the ministry level. National level programs
may be funded through the fiscal budget of the political sponsoring body, under proper governance
and oversight. Alternatively, for non-government organizations, funding may be provided by
foundations, non-governmental organizations and other public bodies.
●
Challenge Grants Fund. In the program’s adolescence, a competitive grants program can provide
funding and support for ideas and initiatives that improve how government works and what it
provides to citizens. Above all else, challenge grants are intended to create an opportunity and
incentive for motivated, forward-thinking public servants to think creatively and to access support to
implement their ideas. Challenge grants can be funded by the national government as a budget item.
Structured correctly, challenge grants programs can also receive donor funding while giving
government decision makers greater say in which ideas receive funding and support.
Incentives
It is not easy to manage change. Incentives can motivate likely civil servants to adopt new behaviors and
attitudes, as well as fully participate to support excellence. Incentives are specific programs and initiatives
that encourage participation, commitment and high achievement on the organizational and individual
employee levels.
While highly publicized award programs tend to create the most excitement and positive competition,
they are most viable when they are managed by entities that are at a more mature level, with sufficient
7
credibility and objectivity to report on government performance (and non-performance) to the public.
Certification based on achievement of defined performance levels or more general recognition for
participation in government excellence programs are less contentious and can fulfill a similar incentive
function, especially when backed by strong political support.
All countries surveyed employ an awards program as an incentive for government performance
improvement. It is worth noting, that the most sustained and
recognized awards programs are based on an integrated
approach to government performance improvement.
The Jordan King Abdullah Award incorporates a semicertification model, with specific levels recognized as
intermediate steps on the path to excellence. These levels
range from the Mark of Best Practice and the Seal of
Excellence to the highest level, the King Abdullah Award of
Excellence. By creating these intermediate steps to measure
progress towards excellence, recognition and honor can be
distributed to a greater number of participants, increasing the
value of the program as an incentive.
An excellence award has most
power as part of an integrated
government performance
improvement approach, as part
of a government excellence
program, with technical support
and orientation.
Financial incentives to motivate employee participation are also used. Financial rewards can be extended
to selected employees to recognize and further encourage their participation in organizational
development efforts.
It is important to note that there is also a very strong publicity and morale aspect to these programs –
strong participants are highlighted and set up as leaders amongst their peers. All three Arab countries
incorporate employee awards to recognize excellence on the government employee level. In Jordan and
Dubai, for example, both individual and organizational winners are given strong media attention in
newspapers and government announcements. In Singapore, winning government agencies announce their
awards through their websites and press releases. This recognition, especially when backed by a strong
political patron, is more distinctive than mere financial compensation. It also motivates additional
performance improvement by setting a strong public example for others to follow.
Supporting activities include:
Excellence Certification Board. Certification programs can provide practitioners and organizations an
opportunity to receive recognition and credit for the reforms they enact at their respective ministries.
Certification can be based on locally-developed or international standard criteria. A certifying body would
conduct such assessments as an external “outside-in” exercise, not internal government organization
teams. Objectivity and trust would be vital to the certification body’s success. Achievement steps built
into the certification process would support the ongoing pursuit of excellence at organizations over time.
A certification program would lay the foundation for the later establishment of a national awards
program, built on an external assessment model.
8
National Award for Government Excellence. A national awards program can serve as a means to
ensure that national ministries and line agencies build stable institutions that continue to improve, as well
as to recognize individual employees who work to support these institutions. Such awards programs are
relatively common. Done correctly they serve as powerful catalysts for government reform and
excellence. They also make winning ministers and ministries ‘look good’ for stressing progressive
reforms.
Employee Bonuses for Achievement of Excellence. Individual employees may receive bonuses for
meaningful participation in support of excellence at their respective institutions. While employees should
seek a higher intrinsic value in improving their institutions, monetary compensation for meaningful, extra
work can serve as a visible morale booster for active change agents achieving meaningful goals. The
application of this type of incentive must have clearly communicated, objective criteria, to avoid the
appearance of favoritism.
Technical implementation support
Advice and guidance can be provided to public organizations in at least two technical levels, (1)
Implementation of excellence program-specific activities, such as assessment and application, and (2)
Planning and implementation of performance improvement activities, usually based on best practices.
This support may be offered through workshops and orientation activities, through training and
development of organization staff, or through the use of external consultants. For all these activities, a
base of high-level performance improvement experts needs to be accessible through the local market,
whether as program employees, organization staff, or external contractors.
The technical support provided by the government excellence programs of the four countries surveyed
range from orientation workshops to assessor trainings. However, all programs provide a level of
guidance in implementation of their standards. It is also important to note, however, that all participating
organizations do also have the option of contracting external technical support through their
organizational budgets or by hiring strategically to build internal capacity. Donor aid can also be directed
by organizations to address specific priority areas based on assessments. Most access to technical support
dependent on financial sponsorship, as well as budgeting capabilities.
Supporting activities. This function may take multiple forms, with sourcing of resources from
development assistance projects and donors, training of internal employees, and the hiring of external
consultants. Technical implementation support should focus on at least two areas:
Understanding and implementation of excellence program criteria. Institutions will need to have a
clear vision of what government excellence looks like in order to work towards meaningful practice of
excellence principles. In all cases, government excellence programs need to define criteria and set
standards for government excellence. Especially in the early stages, it is preferred that this orientation
come from a centralized source, in order to ensure clarity and consistency of the messages and
incorporate feedback for ongoing improvement and adjustment of excellence criteria. In later stages, as
the criteria are more widely accepted and understood, it may fall to external entities to support the
dissemination of these concepts. External assessments will also require the use of trained external
evaluators. This training should be provided and its quality assured by the excellence program.
9
Support of ministry-specific initiatives to achieve institutional excellence. In the process of
participating in the government excellence program, government institutions will identify specific areas
for improvement. They will require technical support to take action and improve their performance, based
on a prioritized list of initiatives to address these performance gaps. In some cases, this may be best
addressed by an external consultant. In other cases, internal personnel will need to be trained and coached
for lasting performance improvement and capacity building. Technical support, whether funded through
internal organizational budget or donor support, can be used to address these issues.
Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring is one of the most important functions that national systems for excellence in government
should aspire to fulfill. Tracking the progress of organizational development activities helps to both
improve their effectiveness and establish accountability, which in turn builds credibility with citizens.
This tracking is best fulfilled through an integrated approach that establishes a baseline and measures
performance against it, followed by a comprehensive evaluation of the measured results conducted by an
external entity.
Performance assessment (self vs external). An initial accounting of the strengths and weaknesses of
each participating organization is necessary to identify areas and degrees of improvement. This baseline
needs to be continually reviewed and pressure-tested, in order to maintain ongoing improvement. Most
programs utilize a combination of internally-conducted
(self) assessment and externally-led assessment, in order to
develop internal capacity and buy-in of the program and its
Three elements define the
goals, as well as to verify the outcomes objectively and with
monitoring and evaluation
a broader perspective.
function on the national level:
Results measurement. After the initial baseline is set and
performance improvement activities are planned and
implemented, a follow-on measurement is required to assess
the benefit from this activity. This may be achieved through
a cyclical evaluation of organizational performance, similar
to the performance assessment.
1.
2.
3.
Performance
assessment
Results measurement
Evaluation of outcomes
Evaluation of outcomes. Once measurements of ongoing performance improvement are made, an
analysis needs to be made to ensure it matters and directly contributes to improved services for citizens
and the achievement of national goals. A national-level program adds value by performing a comparative
evaluation across participating organizations that takes into account the national operating environment.
All four countries surveyed deploy an integrated monitoring and evaluation system, with baseline reports
refined and re-assessed on a yearly or multi-yearly basis for each government organization. These reports
generally are drafted initially by an internal team, and then submitted to an external assessor team for
confirmation, verification and further evaluation. These are then compared across organizations to
evaluate where most performance improvement has been achieved, in all cases, employing a jury or panel
of evaluators who have been chosen to be objective. This assessment and evaluation is then shared with
the participating government agencies, in order to further define room for improvement for the next cycle.
10
In the cases of Singapore and Dubai especially, international organizations have conducted studies to
measure and assess the national impact of these programs and their efforts to improve government
performance, adding an additional layer of credibility for program results.
Supporting activities. A central feature of government excellence programs is the incorporation of
ongoing measurement and reporting on progress towards the goals of excellence. The following activities
outline the means by which this can be accomplished.
Performance assessment. This initial establishment of a baseline measure of performance would be
based on an assessment program. Kaizen has implemented the Organizational Self-assessment and
Transformation Program (OSTP) in a number of countries, as part of its work for USAID. This program
uses survey and interview tools to collect information and assess organizational performance in five
criterion areas. The European Foundation for Quality Management and International Standards
Organization also produce standards that can aid in this type of assessment. Other measures of
performance could be incorporated in the performance assessment, including employee and citizen
satisfaction surveys and secret shopper assessments, as outlined below. However, it is recommended for a
higher state of program maturity before incorporating direct feedback, due to the sensitive nature of those
findings.
Results measurement. Based on baseline performance assessment findings, it is recommended to adopt
an annual or two-year cycle for re-evaluation and comparison to previous years. Based on these on-going
outcomes, findings become more valuable through comparison, with progress measured and documented.
In this process, efforts may also be compared to relative results and benefits, to determine the most
effective measures that have been taken on the organizational level. A national program can support this
type of analysis, bringing together organizations for comparison. This function would be conducted by an
impartial, objective jury or committee of assessors, who would provide guidance to organizations on their
progress.
Evaluation of outcomes. A national program can bring the best benefits of on-going measurement by
facilitating and leading the comparison of results between ministries or against a set level based on
international standards. The broader perspective would benefit all participants, by setting realistic
standards for achievement and progress on the organizational level. This element may be readily
incorporated into a certification or awards program, incorporating a jury or committee using their best
judgment based on nationally defined or international standards.
Knowledge management
We recommend an integrated approach for knowledge management. This encompasses the capture and
internal distribution of information, as well as the distribution of results to external stakeholders.
Capture and sharing. As organizations work to improve their performance, they accumulate information
and expertise regarding what works best in their own environments. This knowledge needs to be captured
and shared within and across organizations to achieve maximum impact, as well as recognition for the
implementing team. A national program should create the mechanisms and incentives for this type of
information exchange.
11
Knowledge capture and sharing for these government excellence programs focus primarily on the
establishment of standards that are then shared with participating organizations. Workshops on local best
practices are sometimes held to further sharing, though this does vary from country to country. It is worth
noting that local external consultants can play a strong role in the sharing of best practices, by transferring
information between organizations in the course of multiple assignments.
Reporting of outcomes. Knowledge also needs to be shared with stakeholders and citizens. By creating
lines of communication between participating organizations and the public, a national program creates
greater accountability for the participating organizations. While this increased scrutiny does create higher
expectations, it also creates greater opportunity for recognition for both organizations and individuals.
Reporting in all four countries is focused on success. In all four countries, strong performance is
publicized, with winners of awards programs announced. As part of the evaluation process, all
participating organizations’ heads receive a report on their evaluated strengths and weaknesses. This
knowledge is put in the hands of those who can do most about it – the organizational leadership and staff.
No country surveyed seems to have a level of transparency that penalizes weaker performers – no ranking
seems to be distributed to the public except the top performers. This lower level of transparency aligns
with the need for incentives to support participation. By creating an environment where there is no
downside to participation, more organizations are encouraged to participate.
Supporting activities. This function encompasses not only the capture and distribution of information
amongst participating institutions, but also dissemination of information to the public. Ideally, this
distribution of information would be led by the sponsoring entity in the early stages of the program, to
lend credibility to the findings, as well as provide assurance of the veracity of the information.
Capture and sharing
●
Quarterly discussion forums. Government excellence program can sponsor forums at least once each
quarter to discuss stated PA reform priorities (i.e. government transparency, service delivery, egovernment). Forums can bring together representatives from
all participating organizations. Forums provide a regular means
for reformers to share reform experiences and lessons-learned, a
structured means to transfer best-practices from ministry-toKnowledge sharing needs to be
ministry, a repository of country-specific knowledge, and a
balanced with the need for
incentives. Sharing of positive
means for civil servants to identify and propose revisions and
outcomes can encourage
improvements to the national policy and regulatory framework.
●
Excellence resource center. The national program can establish
a virtual means of sharing information and establishing lines of
communication between excellence practitioners. If resources
are available, the center can also inhabit a physical location
containing meeting space, office equipment (computers, printer,
training facilities) and government reform support information,
tools, and resources to support understanding of excellence
criteria and program requirements and institutional
participation of a broader pool
of organizations, while full
transparency regarding poor
performance may penalize
participants, creating a
disincentive for participation.
12
implementation of reform initiatives.
●
Revision of excellence assessment criteria and methodologies. At least once every three years the
national program should formally review and, as relevant, revise the excellence assessment criteria
and methodologies. This will ensure that they better reflect both evolving best practices and the
priorities of the national government. Such a review should happen, at a minimum, every three years.
This review should be done in consultation with
representatives of executive and legislative entities.
Reporting of outcomes
Feedback is a vital element to
maintain the dynamism and
citizen focus for a mature
national government excellence
program.
●
Identification of policy issues. This activity supports
government officials to bring cross-ministry issues to the
attention of the national legislature and leadership, and
advocate policy changes that empower ministries to
improve their performance, transparency, and overall
value to citizens.
●
Formation of relevant policy, regulatory, or service advisory panels. Based on the identification of
cross-ministry issues, action can be taken to identify national level reform programs and initiatives
that would benefit from the inputs and advice from ministry reform teams, and ensure that relevant
participants from these teams have the opportunity to provide their input and perspective in such
initiatives. This will better inform ‘top-level’ decisions that will affect government agencies by
ensuring that decision makers receive the input of civil servants who will have to implement and live
with these decisions.
●
Government report cards. Working in collaboration with each ministry, the national excellence
program can publish highly transparent ‘scorecards’ for each partner ministry. Produced annually,
these report cards are a proven means to demonstrate transparency, gain trust and buy-in from
citizens, and serve as a de-facto annual report to citizens and other stakeholders. Civil society
organizations may also take on this activity, in collaboration with the national excellence program.
Feedback
Organizations need to know how they are doing in order to make meaningful improvements. National
level government excellence programs can make lines of communication two-way, by providing
mechanisms for input on how organizations are meeting their goals and serving citizens. National
programs can raise the awareness of the value of this information, while providing, through their other
functions, the means by which to do something with it.
Feedback can take two forms: Internal, creating a channel for dialogue between participating
organizations and their employees and External, to create lines of direct communication between
participating organizations and external stakeholders and public citizens.
While this type of interaction may be more difficult to manage during the establishment stages of a
government excellence program, it is an important component to support sustainability, credibility and
responsiveness of government excellence.
13
The mature programs in Dubai, Jordan and Singapore introduce and integrate a feedback mechanism
between organizations and external stakeholders, most notably citizens. By using citizen surveys and
secret shopper mechanisms as part of their evaluation methodology, this external feedback is provided to
participating organizations, highlighting its importance. Jordan and Dubai also integrate employee
satisfaction surveys, soliciting internal feedback on government reform efforts. The information from
these feedback mechanisms is vital in ensuring that the work being implemented is addressing what really
matters, most specifically, citizen service and results.
Supporting activities
Internal feedback. This function serves to create performance-enhancing lines of communication within
organizations, primarily between leadership and employees.

Employee satisfaction surveys. These can be incorporated into the baseline assessment by the
national excellence program. These would gauge employee satisfaction and its impact on
performance. The national excellence program may support this activity through administration
of the baseline and follow-on assessments. As an alternative, civil society organizations may
conduct this type of surveying, in cooperation with the national excellence program.
External feedback. This function serves to create performance-enhancing lines of communication
between organizational leadership, staff, citizens, and external stakeholders.


Citizen satisfaction surveys. These can be incorporated into the baseline assessment as well. This
feedback establishes lines of communication between the public and the participating government
organizations. If this information is solicited, however, it is very important that it result in visible
action and performance improvement for citizen services. If this visible difference is not seen by
citizens, higher levels of cynicism and skepticism around government reform may develop. The
national excellence program may support this activity through administration of the baseline and
follow-on assessments. As an alternative, civil society organizations may conduct this type of
surveying, in cooperation with the national excellence program.
Secret-shopper programs. A secret or ‘mystery’ shopper program provides government agencies
with direct, factual feedback from the perspective of trained ‘customers’ of government services
(or recipients of government regulatory oversight). Secret shopper reports provide valuable
insights from the perspective of the customer, and can help government change agents to identify
and address opportunities for improved services. The mere possibility of secret shoppers can
provide a strong incentive for government agencies to greatly improve the customer experience.
Secret-shopper programs can be conducted directly by the national excellence program, or by
civil society organizations, in collaboration with the national excellence program.
Please refer to Annex A for more details on the functions for each program surveyed.
Conclusion
The intention of this report is to aid in conceptualization and planning for a national government
excellence program. However, no action can be taken on any of the activities outlined in this report until
there is a clear and decisive mandate from national leadership to visibly demonstrate commitment to the
ideals and goals of a program of this nature.
14
This type of planning can only take place when this first and most vital step of commitment is made.
After this step, the formation of a program in support of excellence still will not be easy or guaranteed,
but at least it then becomes possible, with all six functions are addressed in a systematic manner..
This paper provides a basic vision to create and establish that level of leadership commitment. Then the
real work can begin.
15
Annex A: Functional Analysis of Four National Government Excellence Programs
Founded
Jordan King
Abdullah
Center of
Excellence
Dubai
Government
Excellence
Program
Abu Dhabi
Award for
Excellence in
Government
Performance
Mission
Sponsorship
Political
Financial
Incentives
2006 "Promote a culture of excellence in
Jordan and the Region through
developing excellence frameworks and
assessment criteria, assessing
organizations' performance, managing
King Abdullah II awards for excellence
and promoting excellence"
King; Board of Ministry
Award
Trustees
budget,
participation is
government mandatory for all
ministries and
public institutions
( on a gradual
basis); Award of
"Seal of
Excellence" to
"Award of
Excellence";
Employee awards
1998 "Achieve a quantum leap in the
Vice
Ministry
Mandatory award
performance and results of Dubai
president/
budget,
participation for all
government departments aiming at
prime
government government
attaining international levels through the minister/
departments and
provision of a guiding excellence model ruler
divisions; Trophy
and a set of sustainable improvement
and certificate for
initiatives and development practices"
government
winners; Monetary
award for
employee winners
2007 "provide the required enablers and
techniques to enhance the organizational
performance of all government bodies in
Abu Dhabi"
Singapore
part of the
Government
iGov2010
iGov 2015 (Web Masterplan
Excellence
Awards)
"aim to engender a public Internet
landscape that is integrated and
engaging, that delights customers and
connects citizens through the use of
infocomm technology "
Technical Assistance
Performance
assessment
Initally provided through development Initial selfaid, transitioned to local external
assessment
consultants and KACE; provided through report plus
mentoring, submisison of report,
external
assessment
evaluation,
including site
visit; mystery
shopper,
customer and
employee
satisfaction
surveys
Training programs and assessment
Incorporates
procedures; Team also tasked to lead
mystery shopper,
projects to develop government entities customer and
in Dubai such as, the Dubai Government employee
Customer Complaints System, Dubai
satisfaction
Knowledge Exchange Teams, and Dubai elements; along
Government Excellence Service Program with EFQM-based
self and external
assessments
Monitoring
On-going results Evaluation of
measurement
outcomes
Yearly evaluation Assessors panel
evaluation through
award
Yearly evaluation Assessors panel
evaluation through
award; measure
organizational
performance
General
Ministry
Award
Secretariat of budget,
the Executive government
Council
Workshops on best practice application
EFQM based
assessment
2-year? Cycles
Ministry of
Ministry
Award
Finance and budget,
Infocomm
government
Development
Authority of
Singapore
(IDA)
Workshops and training sessions on
website design and content
development; Infrastructure
development
Academic
Annual cycle
assessment;
Internal
Objective
Assessment,
Expert Panel
Assessment and
Public Voting
(26K)
Jury evaluation of
assessors/orgs
submissions
User voting on
websites; Receipt
of international
and local awards;
reports from World
Economic Forum,
UN and academia
(#1 or #2 in egov
since 2009)
16
Knowledge Management
Capture and sharing
Reporting
Jordan King
Abdullah
Center of
Excellence
Dubai
Government
Excellence
Program
Internal, also captured
by consultants; best
practices in assessors'
guide and criteria
Study of the Program
Impact on the
Government
performance in Dubai
undertaken (not
released publically);
training based on result
findings, incorporating
local experts; Criteria
viewed as "world-scale
benchmarking norms"
Abu Dhabi
Establishes proven
Award for
guidelines to measure
Excellence in improvement; guide
Government
entities through the
Performance sharing of information;
case study workshops
Singapore
Press releases, website
Government
announcements;
iGov 2015 (Web Internationally issued
Excellence
reports based on success
Awards)
Internal
Feedback
External
High performers
Employee
(Winners) announced
surveys
through website, local
newspapers. Letters to
participating
organizations for all,
explaining strengths and
weaknesses
Secret shopper and customer
and employee surveys
High performers
Employee
announced; success
surveys
stories distributed in
Arabic; feedback reports
issued with strengths
and areas for
improvement for each
government
department; Report sent
to department head.
Secret shopper and customer
and employee surveys
Winners announced;
Feedback report
provided, highlighting
org strengths and
weaknesses
Winners announced;
Press releases, website
announcements;
Internationally issued
reports based on success
Annual egovernment
perception surveys "to
determine the level of
receptivity, adoption and
satisfaction that businesses and
the general public have with eGovernment initiatives."
Feedback unit formed in 1985,
with average of two to four
public consultation exercises
launched each month in 2010.
17