Strategic management in PA observations from the Czech Republic

David Špaček

6.2. 2014, TED, Cluj, Romania

www.econ.muni.cz

1) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT – POTENTIAL (what the advocating literature

says?)

2) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND PA (points for discussion/research ?)

3) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND CZECH PA (regions and cities - views of their representatives)

CONTENT

www.econ.muni.cz1) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT – POTENTIAL (WHAT THE LITERATURE SAYS)

not a panacea..., but a tool for more effective continuously developed systematic (integrated) management

more strategic thinking (for long-term management) SMARTer (more evidence-based, taylored and realistic)

goals more participation of stakeholders

(co-production, better communication, awareness/commitment)

and therefore smoother implementation

www.econ.muni.cz

2) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IN PA ... POINTS FOR DISCUSSION / RESEARCH?

WHERE? - GOVERNMENT LEVELS central government (coordination, political and executive stability)

vs. LGs (more visible practices, assymmetry of duties?) larger vs. small (organizations)

WHY AND HOW? - MOTIVES AND APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION regulate it, or not? if yes, to what extent? too much rhetoric, one-size fits all

(strategic management as a mere project output and one-off project, standardized strategies?)

vs. managerial tool (which brings some real effects)

FOR WHAT AND HOW PARTICIPATORY? management of regional development vs. internal processes

... AVAILABILITY OF DATA when researches are not ordered by authorities... not to be oriented only on documents

www.econ.muni.cz

3) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND (13) CZECH REGIONS

(views of their representatives, pilot survey)

March 2013, questionnaires sent to 450 representatives (heads of regional offices, directors and employees of departments for strategic / regional development), 50 Qs returned (at least 2 returned questeionnaires per every region)

surveyed aspects: perceived role of strategic management diffusion of SM and its instruments in regions achieved benefits implementation barriers stakeholder inclusion

www.econ.muni.czCZECH PA SYSTEM

State administration

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Self-government

14 ministries, (12) other central authorities

+ their “deconcentrates”

CENTRAL LEVEL

13 regions + Prague + "regions of cohesion"

TERRITORIAL LEVEL

Municipalities more than 6 200 (almost 80 %

with less than 1 000 inh.) 25 statutory cities (7 territorially

subdivided) various categories according to

their state administration (incl. 205 municipalities with extended responsibilities)

+ THEIR ORGANIZATIONS

www.econ.muni.cz

Czech regionsNumber of municipalities according to the following size structure

(number of inhabitants) Region

to 199

200 - 499

500 - 999

1000 - 1999

2000 - 4999

5000 - 9999

10000 - 19999

20000 - 49999

50000 - 99999

over 100000

Total

Praha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Středočeský 290 414 254 106 48 16 13 4 1 0 1 146 Jihočeský 243 204 80 46 30 13 2 4 1 0 623 Plzeňský 196 145 73 45 28 8 4 1 0 1 501 Karlovarský 20 39 30 17 13 6 4 2 1 0 132 Ústecký 63 127 75 39 25 8 9 3 5 0 354 Liberecký 37 62 58 28 15 10 2 2 1 0 215 Královehradecký 123 162 88 32 21 13 6 2 1 0 448 Pardubický 118 171 89 42 15 8 7 1 1 0 452 Vysočina 339 209 91 34 13 10 4 4 0 0 704 Jihomoravský 122 200 179 92 56 14 3 5 0 1 672 Olomoucký 51 130 99 71 33 3 6 3 0 1 397 Zlínský 17 88 99 48 32 11 4 4 1 0 304 Moravskoslezský 14 61 78 74 39 17 4 7 4 1 299 Czech Republic (n)

1633 2012 1293 674 368 137 68 42 16 5 6248

Czech Republic (%)

26,14 32,20 20,69 10,79 5,89 2,19 1,09 0,67 0,26 0,08 100

www.econ.muni.czCzech regions and regions of cohesion

Region Area (km2) Number of Inhabitants

Hlavní město Praha 496 1 233 211

Středočeský kraj 11 015 1 230 691

Jihočeský kraj 10 057 636 328

Plzeňský kraj 7 561 569 627

Karlovarský kraj 3 314 308 403

Ústecký kraj 5 335 835 891

Liberecký kraj 3 163 437 325

Královéhradecký kraj 4 759 554 520

Pardubický kraj 4 519 515 185

Vysočina 6 795 515 411

Jihomoravský kraj 7 195 1 147 146

Olomoucký kraj 5 267 642 137

Zlínský kraj 3 964 591 412

Moravskoslezský kraj 5 426 1 250 255

Region of Cohesion Area (Km2) Number of inhabitants Prague 496 1 186 855 Mid Bohemia 11 014 1 111 354 Southwest 17 615 1 177 982 Northwest 8 650 1 131 974 Northeast 12 440 1 489 407 Southeast 13 991 1 658 761 MidMoravia 9 100 1 240 355 Moravia-Slezia 5 554 1 281 410

www.econ.muni.czCzech regions

REGIONAL COUNCIL and its COMMITTEES

PRESIDENT (HEJTMAN) OF THE REGION +

DEPUTIES

BOARD OF COUNCILLORS

and its COMMISSIONS

REGIONAL OFFICE - Director

and (300 - 600) employees

MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OF REGIONS secondary education healthcare social services (regional coordination and evaluation) transportation (including integrated systems of transport) culture sport regional development and territorial planning management of crisis

methodical help for municipalities redistribution of central funds control of municipalities (their economy, some legal documents) registry office (for NGOs, businesses) appeals (following Administrative Procedure Act)

www.econ.muni.cz

SM AND (13) CZECH REGIONS

MAIN FINDINGS

Perceived role of strategic management mostly follows the literature dichotomy of SM of a region (political leadership) and of a regional

office (executive leadership)

Diffusion of SM and its instruments according to representatives of regions all regions have implemented

SM, but only in case of 7 regions (54 %) 100 % agreement of all respondents „we have implemented something“

these 7 regions also use an internal strategy (combination of aims related to economy, processes and personnel)

main instruments: vision statement, SWOT, process management, programme budgeting, CAF, ocasionally something from BSC (strategic maps)

www.econ.muni.cz

Achieved benefits (scale: 1 strongly agree – 4 strongly disagree; Don´t know)

Achieved benefits Average (n)

Achieved benefits Average (n)

1) Identification of strenghths and weaknesses of management of our regional office

1,56 (39) 10) Improved definition of performance for our employees

2,24 (38)

2) Clarification of targets for management of our office

1,67 (40) 11) Improved system of evaluation of our employees

1,97 (39)

3) Improvement of processes for management of our region and its office

1,83 (40) 12) Improved quality of services provided by our office

1,82 (39)

4) Interconnection: SM - bugeting 2,08 (35) 13) Improved quality of services provided by established organizations

2,21 (34)

5) Interconnection: SM - quality management

1,89 (36) 14) Idetnfication of strenghts and weaknesses of regional development

1,67 (39)

6) Establishment of a special unit responsible for SM

2,26 (35) 15) Clarification of future directions of regional development

1,78 (36)

7) Improvement of communication between our departments

2,18 (38) 16) Larger inclusion of the public into public D-M

2,39 (33)

8) Improvement of communication between our regional office and established organizations

1,94 (34)

9) Larger participation of employees in management

2,32 (38)

17) Increased public prestige 2,09 (33)

www.econ.muni.cz

Implementation barriers (scale: 1 strongly agree – 4 strongly disagree; Don´t know)

Implementation barrier we faced Average n

Administrative requirements of implementation 1,94 39

Insufficient time for implementation 2,16 37

Aims that are hardly measarable 2,42 38

Expectations that the implementation will be of no use 2,51 39

Lack of experienced employees 2,55 40

Lack of funds 2,57 37

Lack of experiences of authorities with which we cooperate 2,73 37

Wrong evaluation indicators 2,76 37

Insufficient support from political leaders 2,88 34

No evaluation indicators 2,94 36

No definition of accountability for results of responsible employees

2,94 35

Lack of ICT support 3,44 39

www.econ.muni.cz

Statements approval (scale: 1 strongly agree – 4 strongly disagree; Don´t know)

Statement Average n

Level of achievement of strategic goals is analyzed at least annually 1,53 30

Employees responsible for preparation and implementation of strategic documents are sufficiently educated in SM instruments

1,61 39

Goals follow SMART requirements 1,62 34

At our office there is a clear definition of who is accountable for SM 1,69 39

At our office there is a functional system of performance assessment 1,73 37

Our executive management is sufficiently educated in SM instruments 1,84 38

SM prioritios are defined clearly enough in current term of office 1,9 40

Our office systematically manages quality of its services 2,00 37

SM is fully linked to budget of our region 2,13 38

Our employees know how they can contribute to achieving of our mission/vision

2,13 38

The public is sufficiently included in D-M on strategic development of our region

2,29 35

Political leadership is sufficiently educated in SM instruments 2,62 29

SM instruments are implemented, but rather formally, without larger understanding of its potential

2,70 37

www.econ.muni.cz

How do they participate in SM? (scale: 1 - not at all, 2 - participate, but rather formally as passive

observers, 3 - participate actively)

SM phases

Public Political

leadership

Head of Regional

office

Employees (outside the department

for SM)

External consultants

Cooperating SGs

Analysis of status quo

1,7 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,9 2,5

Proposal of goals and strategies

1,8 2,6 2,7 2,4 2,8 2,5

Approval of goals and strategies

1,3 2,8 2,6 2,0 2,0 1,6

Communication of goals and strategies

1,7 2,7 2,6 2,3 2,4 2,2

Realization of goals and strategies

1,8 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,1 2,3

Control and evaluation

1,8 2,7 2,7 2,5 2,3 2,0

www.econ.muni.cz

WHAT OTHER STUDIES INDICATE? (MEPCO, 2012, strategic planning, views of representatives of

12 cities with 50 000 inhabitants)

citis with more than 100 000 inhabitants started with strategic planning mostly in 2000-2002, smaller in 2005-2007

9 given motives: 1st "to have clear long-term strategy", 2nd "to meet formal requirements of projects/to be eligible for funding"... the last "to include the public"

indicators for evaluation defined - 50 % ("the question is how they work with them"),

83 %: strategic plan is not linked to financial management / budget ("action plans are all-embracing and do not reflect available funds"), political leaders do not use strategic plan for management of regional development

majority of cities do not actively work with existing strategic plans (incl. updates, monitoring reports), although some paid for their preparation ... still they evaluate them as beneficial

www.econ.muni.cz

From comments on SM use in Czech PA (Conclusions?)

„I think that we are afar from using the potential of strategic management. Reasons are various, from insufficient knowledge on SM methods, over unwillingness to do something above standard job duties, to incompetence of majority of politicians to think beyond their term of office.“

„Every few months we have a new minister who states that at least a half of things will be done in a better way than before, but without analyzing anything. So we do not know what was wrong, we only know that we should do it differently. And a new future minister will come with the same.“

„Strategic management is mostly used in a limited way and it is often „tolerated“, because it is required (e.g. by legislation). Only few authorities has really implemented strategic manegement... Also a willingness of newly elected political leaders to be bound by goals stipulated by those from the past is very low.“

„A fish rots from the head down. Strategies of central authorities are missing.“

www.econ.muni.cz

Thank you for your attention.

David Špaček, Ph.D.Faculty of Economics and AdministrationMasaryk UniversityBrno, Czech Republice-mail: david.spacek@econ.muni.cz

(The presentation was elaborated within the project of the Czech Science Foundation no. P403/12/0366 “Identification and evaluation of region specific factors determining outcomes of reforms based on NPM - the case of CEE)