bulgaria reimbursable advisory services - world bank
TRANSCRIPT
1
www.eufunds.bg
Bulgaria Reimbursable Advisory Services
Implementation of Shared Services in the Organization and
Functioning of the Central Administration
DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Project №BG05SFOP001-¬2.001-0009: Implementation of the Principle of the Shared Services
in the Organization and Functioning of the Central Administration, funded by Operational
Program Good Governance, co-funded by the European Union through the
European Social Fund
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
www.eufunds.bg
2
DISCLAIMER
This report is developed by the World Bank team. The findings, interpretations and conclusions
expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World
Bank or the governments they represent. The report was produced to provide advisory support to
the Council of Ministers (COM) and does not necessarily represent the views of Government of
Bulgaria or of the COM.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was produced by a core team led by Christian Filipov, comprised of Verena Maria
Fritz, Sylvia Indjova-Vassikova and Dobrina Gogova. The team was supported locally by Adela
Delcheva. The team is grateful to Fabrizio Zarcone, Country Manager, for his valuable support
and guidance. The team is extending appreciation to the officials of the Council of Ministers for
their excellent collaboration and feedback during our work.
Country Manager: Fabrizio Zarcone
Practice Manager:
Task Team Leader:
Roby Senderowitsch
Christian Filipov
www.eufunds.bg
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................................ 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 4
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 6
2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 9
3. FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SHARED
SERVICES UNITS ....................................................................................................................... 11
4. SETTING GOALS AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE SHARED SERVICES
UNITS ........................................................................................................................................... 14
5. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO MONITOR PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS
SHARED SERVICES UNITS’ OBJECTIVES ............................................................................ 18
6. METHODOLOGY FOR KPI MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING ............................... 26
BASELINE AND PERIODIC DATA COLLECTION ............................................................ 26
Objective 1: Full Automation and Standardization of HR services ...................................... 33
Objective 2: Enable Self-service functionalities ................................................................... 33
Objective 3: Internal Process ................................................................................................ 34
Objective 4: Improve Cost Efficiency .................................................................................. 42
Objective 5: Customer Satisfaction ...................................................................................... 43
BENCHMARKING .................................................................................................................. 44
REPORTING ............................................................................................................................ 47
Dashboard ............................................................................................................................. 47
Service Level Agreement (SLA) .......................................................................................... 51
7. FEEDBACK MECHANISM FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF SHARED
SERVICES FUNCTIONAL MODEL .......................................................................................... 51
8. METHODOLOGY FOR COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF SHARED SERVICES
MODEL ........................................................................................................................................ 53
9. METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE ON HOW TO PERFORM EVALUATION OF
SHARED SERVICES MODEL ................................................................................................... 59
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED SHARED
SERVICES MODEL .................................................................................................................... 65
www.eufunds.bg
4
11. FURTHER ELABORATED ROADMAP FOR INTRODUCING AND
IMPLEMENTING SHARED SERVICES BASED ON LESSONS LEARNED FROM PILOT
ADMINISTRATIONS .................................................................................................................. 65
ANNEX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES ................................................................................ 72
Initial Diagnostic Survey HR: ................................................................................................... 72
Performance Management Survey: ........................................................................................... 80
Change Management Survey: ................................................................................................... 91
ABBREVIATIONS
AA Administration Act
BFSA Bulgarian Food Safety Agency
BPR Business Process Re-engineering
BU Budgetary Unit
COM Council of Ministers
CSA Civil Service Act
EDECSA Electronic Document and Electronic Certification Services Act
EU European Union
FLBU First Level Budget Unit
FM Financial Management
FMCPSA Financial Management and Control in the Public Sector Act
FMIS Financial Management Information System
HQ Headquarters
HR Human resources
HRM Human Resource Management
HRMIS Human Resource Management Information System
ICT Information and Communications Technologies
IISDA Integrated Information System of the State Administration
MDA Ministries, Departments, Agencies
MOH Ministry of Health
NSI National Statistical Institute
NSSI National Social Security Institute
NRA National Revenue Agency
RD Regional Directorate
RFSD Regional Food Safety Directorate
RHI Regional Health Inspectorate
SLBU Second Level Budget Unit
SS Shared Services
SSB Shared Services Board
SSC Shared Services Center
www.eufunds.bg
6
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Bulgaria’s Public Administration Development Strategy 2014-2020 envisages the
introduction of shared services as a measure to modernize the Bulgarian public
administration and improve its efficiency. In May 2017, the Government of Bulgaria
commissioned advisory services from the World Bank to assist with the introduction of shared
services in the areas of public financial management, human resource management and managing
public property. The approach to shared services in Bulgaria draws on the lessons learned of fellow
EU Member States that have successfully introduced shared services in their administrations; as
well as on the experience of the World Bank in integrating shared services in its organization. 2. International practice shows that efficiency gains - including through streamlined and
faster transaction processing - are the main motivation for introducing shared services.
Reducing costs through economies of scale, eliminating duplications and redundancy of operations
and reducing staff costs are the more prominent benefits of the reform. Shared services, however,
deliver benefits beyond cost savings. The reform enhances the service culture within the public
sector, but the focus is on serving fellow public administration staff, rather than citizens. As the
reform evolves, shared services providers inevitably improve the quality of administrative support
services because of the concentration of expert knowledge and more effective information
management. What has been observed in all international cases is not only increased service
quality, but also a noticeable increase in the quality of information management due to the use of
service standards and the applied performance management framework. 3. Introducing a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for shared services is one of the
critical elements to demonstrate the success of the proposed model. Monitoring and evaluation
is a powerful public management tool to help policymakers track progress and demonstrate the
impact of a given policy, programme or intervention. In the past many government activities in
Bulgaria have been implemented without systematic efforts to measure performance and success.
The shared service program has been designed to “break this cycle” by introducing continuous
monitoring of shared services against pre-defined benchmarks, as well as by developing the
capacity of the Bulgarian administration to measure results of discharging administrative functions
in shared service setting. 4. Managing the provision of shared services and is critical to modernizing and
transforming current practices and shifting the focus of the Shared Services Unit (SSU) on
achieving better results for its client-administrations. In Bulgaria, monitoring the performance
of administrative bodies that are delivering public services is gaining ground but is still not the
norm. A strong recommendation is to establish a Shared Service Board (SBB), a special body that
guides the performance of the SSU. The SBB would use the data collected in the SSU performance
management process to set the annual goals for the SSU, to survey customer satisfaction and set
targets for next year, to study the work of the helpdesk and set indicators for quality of customer
service. Similar bodies have been established in all countries that have successfully introduced
shared service in the work of their administrations.
www.eufunds.bg
7
5. In Bulgaria the shared service reform is being introduced on a pilot basis in two
administrations: Ministry of Health and the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency.1 The presented
monitoring and evaluation methodology would help determine if the established shared services
units are fulfilling their mandate to create value for its customers. Tracking how the performance
of the shared services units is evolving over time in turn will ensure the continual improvement of
processes and procedures related to performing administrative support service in a shared service
setting. The proposed shared services model is expected to produce reliable comparative
information and encourage administrations to keep improving their organization and performance. 6. The report builds on the findings and recommendations on the framework for
performance management for shared services.2 The discussion on key performance indicators,
establishing a baseline and periodic reporting, setting-up a regular feedback mechanism are
continued and deepened in this report. This report presents how to best monitor whether set goals
are achieved or not, and how to compare the performance of individual shared services units
against predefined targets. The Balance Scorecard (BSC) method is recommended for reporting
on shared service implementation. In this regard, this report provides an example on how
dashboards could help the shared services unit visualize the entire performance management
framework, while keeping track of the most strategic key performance indicators. 7. A key recommendation discussed throughout the report is the establishment of a
Shared Services Board (SSB). The board’ role will be to determine the vision, goals and strategic
objectives of the SSU as well as lead the adoption of a performance framework and standards.
International best practice examples show that an effective shared services model is based on the
close collaboration of leaders, SSU employees and end users across the administration. An SSB
would provide the necessary leadership to ensure that the performance of the various actors in the
process is aligned with the commitments defined in the Service Level Agreements between
provider and users of the shared services.3 8. The report also presents a methodology for ex-post evaluation of the implemented
shared service model to determine whether it yielded satisfactory results against set
effectiveness and efficiency criteria. The methodology is prepared following the most applicable
international guidelines on how to evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and
sustainability of the shared services model. It includes a four-step methodological guidance on
how to perform ex-post evaluations – a working tool for conducting ex-post evaluations after the
shared services units are fully operational. 9. Effective monitoring and evaluation systems are based on collecting baseline and
follow-up data for key performance indicators to determine whether targets are met. This
process requires identifying the type of data required to assess progress, the availability of such
1 Both the Ministry of Health and the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency are introducing shared services in the human
resource management, while the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency is also piloting the introduction of shared services in
the financial management area. 2 Report “Developing a methodological framework for introducing shared services”, World Bank, March 2019;
formal deliverable under Activity 3 of the agreed shared services program 3 For a detailed discussion on the SBB and SLA topics, please see Report "Pilot establishment of two centralized
units for the provision of shared services", World Bank, May 2019; a formal deliverable under Activity 2 of the
agreed shared services program.
www.eufunds.bg
8
data, how it will be collected and by whom, as well as the frequency and format of monitoring
activities: collection, reporting, communication. As the pilot implementation of shared services in
Bulgaria has just begun, data on the performance of the pilot shared services units is rather limited;
correspondingly the presented methodology and collected baseline data is more geared towards
monitoring the shared services units on a forward going basis. 10. The World Bank team also revisited the Roadmap for introduction and
implementation of shared services model submitted in early 20184, based on lessons learned
and observations made during the implementation of the shared services program over the
past 2 years. The administrations adopting the shared service principle are strongly urged to
develop a strategy defining the vision and mission of their shared services unit. In EU Member
States that have successfully implemented the reform, such vision and direction is being provided
by a Shared Services Board, set up to provide a long-term strategic direction, set the shared services
unit’s annual goals, define the methodology for measuring results and use strategic insight for
continuous improvement of operations of the units.
4 Report: “Baseline Diagnostic” of March 2018, a formal deliverable under Activity 1 of the agreed shared services
program
www.eufunds.bg
9
2. INTRODUCTION
10. The Government of Bulgaria recognizes that the provision of administrative support
services is decentralized, fragmented and is implementing the shared services reform to
modernize the administration and improve its efficiency. The World Bank is supporting this
reform initiative of the Government, including on the model for introducing shared services in
Bulgaria’s central administration. The proposed model has been tested in two pilot administrations
- Ministry of Health (MOH) and Bulgarian Food Safety Agency (BFSA).5 MOH launched its
shared services unit (SSU), end of May 2019, while the launch of the SSUs of the BFSA is
expected in late June 2019. This report discusses the recommended methodological framework to
monitor and evaluate the provisions of administrative support functions in a shared service setting.
11. This report builds upon the proposed framework for performance management6 and
presents the World Bank recommendations on introducing a methodological framework to
monitor and evaluate the provision of administrative support functions in a shared service
setting. The proposed framework is drawn upon the general principles of performance
management for shared services and the experience of Estonia, Finland, the United States and the
World Bank in monitoring and evaluation of the shared services organizations. The report presents
(a) set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor the achievement of the shared services
units’ objectives, (b) methodology for baseline and periodic reporting; (c) feedback mechanism to
ensure continuous improvement of the functional model; and (d) methodology for comprehensive
ex-post evaluation of the functional model for shared services.
12. The methodology developed in this document follows the Performance Management
cycle and its 5 elements which guides how a performance management system should be
implemented. The cycle follows the following critical steps:(i) Setting of strategic objectives; (ii)
Identifying performance measures; (iii) Measuring the performance; (iv) Reporting on results; and
(v) Making changes to improve performance. The report also proposes the use of a Shared Services
Dashboard for reporting on results.
13. Given that shared services are at an early stage of development in the pilot
administrations, the report places the emphasis on measuring progress towards establishing
the shared services organization. Here, some of the key performance indicators (KPI) track
progress towards achieving key prerequisites such as the adoption of legal amendments and the
uniform use of the Government’s information system for HR management EISCHURDA by all
pilot administrations, while others measure standard shared services productivity and quality
indicators. Some of the discussed indicators may not be achieved to the same degree as in
established shared service organizations. At the current stage of shared service reform, the focus
5 For detailed discussion see Report "Pilot establishment of two centralized units for the provision of shared
services" of May 2019; a formal deliverable under Activity 2 of the agreed shared services program. 6 Report “Developing a methodological framework for introducing shared services” of March 2019, a formal
deliverable under Activity 3 of the agreed shared services program.
www.eufunds.bg
10
is on finalizing various aspects of the transition and stabilizing operations. Without ensuring that
all critical prerequisites for the successful operationalization of shared services are in place, the
success of the reform will be at risk.
14. The monitoring and evaluation of the pilot administrations’ performance can inform
the scale-up of shared services in Bulgaria’s central administration. The shared services
reform is spearheaded by two pilots and their experience will inform on the effectiveness and
efficiency gains following the introduction of the shared service principle in the organization of
their work. Measuring performance is a critical component of the shared services model in both
the initial and more mature stages of the reform. Presented are various tools used to measure the
quality and efficiency of service provision. Best practice experience shows that successful shared
services organizations are committed to performance monitoring and engage and collaborate on
meeting predefined service standards as set out in Service Level Agreements (SLA). The lessons
learned from the pilot implementation in Bulgaria will establish the path, which other
administrations will then follow, including the pace and scope by which reforms are introduced.
15. A key consideration for the adoption of shared services by the pilot administrations
is that the key legal, information technology and institutional prerequires are met prior to
establishing performance monitoring. In line with these considerations, the World Bank team
recommends that the pilot administrations work to meet the necessary pre-conditions for adoption
of shared services. Performance monitoring is based on readily available IT infrastructure with the
necessary characteristics, a legal framework and human resources that support the introduction of
shared services. The electronic exchange of documents is at the core of enabling a shared service
model and correspondingly, shared services are best piloted in administrations with adequate IT
systems and uniform use of IT packages for HRM and FM at the ministry and subordinated
departments’ and units’ level.
16. It should be noted that given the evolving nature of the results management culture
in the Bulgarian administration, the proposed framework needs to be built gradually. As a
first step the pilots should develop a set of strategic objectives that are clear, quantifiable and
measurable in nature. Baseline and achievable targets should be assigned to each objective that are
depictive of historical performance and the pilot’s vision for the future. These should be
communicated to the SSU’s staff and its clients. Some of these metrics will be incorporated in the
SLAs. A continuous review and feedback of performance throughout the process is an integral part
of results management. This would also include customer satisfaction feedback, obtained directly
from client employees and managers throughout the process, and which forms part of the evidence
for the next stage of performance management.
www.eufunds.bg
11
3. FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SHARED
SERVICES UNITS
7 Performance monitoring is an ongoing, systematic approach to improving results
through evidence-based decision making, continuous organizational learning, and a focus on
accountability for performance. It is an integral part of the policy-making and managing the
provision of shared services and is critical to transforming the practices and shifting the focus of
the SSU on achieving better results for its clients. Monitoring the achievements of the SSUs
following a performance management framework agreed and adopted by all participants, is the
enabling factor achieving the desired outcomes of the shared service model i.e., improved service
quality, greater efficiency, reduced processing times etc.
8 In Bulgaria, monitoring the performance in delivering public services is gaining
ground but is still not the norm. Many public bodies have introduced some form of a
performance management; however, it is not applied under a common framework. Also, there is
no central entity in charge of the process. Under Bulgarian law, the Secretary General of each
administration is responsible for monitoring the performance of various units and for achieving
the annual goals of the administration.7 Correspondingly, it is up to the individual Secretary
Generals whether they discharge their planning and implementation functions following the
commonly accepted principles of performance management.
9 Many of the countries that have successfully introduced shared services reforms have
established a Shared Service Board (SBB), which adopts a methodology for measuring the
quality of work of the SSU. The SSB would use the data collected in the SSU performance
management process to set the annual goals for the SSU, to survey customer satisfaction and set
targets for next year, to study the work of the helpdesk and set indicators for quality of customer
service.
10 The SSB will also enable the creation of a strong governance model to ensure the
successful piloting of shared services in Bulgaria. Governance refers to the mechanisms used to
manage the SSUs relationship with its client administrations. Through the establishment of an
effective governance model, the SSB together with the SSUs will: i) build accountability
mechanisms for each party; ii) define the ways in which the parties interact with each other through
SLAs; iii) help to keep all parties' strategies and goals aligned with each other; iv) establish
performance management framework; v) build a variety of planning, performance reporting and
control systems and tools. The ultimate goal is for M&E and performance management practices
to become an integral part of the pilots’ organizational culture. The chart below provides an
example of a high-level shared services organizational structure. When developing the SSC’s
organizational structure it is important to take into account key institutional requirements, such as
the scope and scale of operations, as this will help identify the most appropriate structure.
7 The Secretary General is also responsible for providing the organizational link and communication lines between
the units within the administration and securing the resources necessary for efficient operation of the administration.
www.eufunds.bg
12
Chart 1: Example high-level SSC organisational chart
Source: Adopted from Deloitte’s Shared Services Handbook: Hit the Road
(https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/dk/Documents/finance/SSC-Handbook-%20Hit-the-Road.pdf )
6 According to Deloitte, the main functions in the generic shared services organization,
as they relate to the core processes and performance measurement should have the following
roles and responsibilities:
• SSU Director: Responsible for the SSU’s day-to-day operations and strategic direction,
and is accountable to the SSB and Client organization for service quality and levels. Leads
the negotiation of service level agreements (SLAs) with the client alongside the SSB;
• Operations manager: Responsible for M&E and performance management activities.
Liaises with the SSB, the SSU Director and HR managers in collecting data, preparing and
disseminating reports. Manages the relationship between the client and the SSU,
administers the SLAs and acts as the primary point of contact for the Client;
• FM/HR Manager: Accountable for ensuring that all transactions associated with that
process are carried out in a timely and efficient manner and are delivered to, or exceed the
cost, quality and time related performance standards as set out in the SLAs. Continually
looks for enhancements and improvements in the processes;
www.eufunds.bg
13
• Process Specialist: Carries out transaction processing for a specific process or group of
processes agreed with the client administration.
7 The proposed organizational chart can serve as a guide for the pilot SSUs in incorporating
a performance management role in their structures. Such role could be entrusted to the Operations
departments. The role is multifaceted in that it carries responsibilities for the day-to-day operations
of the centre, ensures adherence to the SLAs and the agreed performance standards, as well as the
achievement of operational excellence. Further, the role can be expanded to serve as the link
between the SSU director and the SSB in areas concerning performance management, monitoring
and reporting.
Box 1: Key Lessons in Performance Management from theory and practice:
Performance measurement is much more than simply tracking KPIs. Often the success or failure of the framework
has less to do with the chosen KPIs and more with the credibility, commitment and readiness of the managers, staff,
and those overseeing SSCs to deliver on the agreed terms of service with the client, and to ensure that SSCs reach
their potential.
Performance measurement evolves with the SSU. For example, at the initial maturity level (where Bulgaria is now)
the SSU may have some facts and data, but the collection and usage of this data is more likely to be sporadic and
uncoordinated. At this stage, data collection would support the transition into shared services environment by assisting
in building a business case, performing cost-benefit analysis and establishing a baseline for benchmarking purposes.
The most widely used indicators are the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) in transactional and non-transactional
functions and the level of HRMIS or other IT systems’ usage by administrative entities etc. At this stage, it is useful
to gather data that measures time and costs per process.
As the SSU matures, more emphasis could be placed on data collection and analysis. Indicators around cost-
efficiency and productivity of full-time equivalents (FTEs), as well as customer satisfaction are being collected and
analysed by most of the mature shared service organizations. Such data is used for performance reporting purposes as
well as for the generation of data dashboards for better informed managerial decision-making. Mature shared service
organizations use performance data to make operational and strategic decisions and to develop strategic forecasts.
8 A common performance management framework to measure and guide the
performance of the SSUs could be implemented in Bulgaria. This framework is often defined
as a “cycle”8 with 5 distinct elements informing how a performance management system should
be implemented in a given organization (Figure 1). These elements illustrated in Figure 1 below
include: i) Setting of strategic objectives; ii) Identifying performance measures; iii) Measuring the
performance; iv) Reporting on results; and v) Feedback mechanism to improve performance.
8 Mabey et al, 1999
www.eufunds.bg
14
FIGURE 1. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CYCLE
9 The proposed methodology follows the performance management “cycle” described
above. Its application can facilitate the process of measuring the success of the shared services
units in achieving their set of objectives, as well indicate the need to change course if needed. The
approach addresses some of the key questions to be considered when designing and implementing
measurement standards in the SSU, namely:
• What is the defined strategy/objectives
• What to measure/identifying the right KPIs
• How to measure data/performance effectively
• How to report on results
• How to use results for process improvement and innovation.
4. SETTING GOALS AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE SHARED
SERVICES UNITS
10 Given the Bulgaria context, a strong recommendation is the establishment of a Shared
Service Board (SSB) that will then lead the adoption of performance standards and design
measures to achieve the desired outcomes. Implementing an effective shared services model is
www.eufunds.bg
15
based on the close collaboration of leaders and end users across the administration within an SSB
to determine the vision, goals and strategic objectives of the SSU. Following the development of
the strategic goals and objectives, the SSU can focus on aligning functions and activities with the
overall strategy of the administration. These are natural preconditions for successful
implementation of the shared service model as it is difficult to identify and link KPIs to objectives
and goals without having an overarching vision. An SSB would provide the necessary leadership
to ensure that the performance of the various actors in the process is aligned with the commitments
defined in the Service Level Agreements between provider and users of the shared services.9
11 The strategic planning function plays an important role not only in marking a path
to achieving the desired outcomes, but also in holding the SSU accountable to its customers.10
In Bulgaria, the strategic planning function is defined as “a comprehensive decision-making
process for implementing the vision and strategic goals to achieve the most efficient use of
financial, material and human resources.” While this function is defined and understood as in most
countries across the globe, neither this function nor developing and following a performance
monitoring methodology and monitoring performance against pre-defined targets is mandatory.
12 Introducing shared services on a pilot basis is an opportunity to adopt a common
strategic planning process. The pilot administrations could follow the example of their peers in
fellow EU Member States and adopt a strategic planning process that sets clear goals and
objectives, that are well-defined, achievable and communicated to external and internal
stakeholders. Their experience shows that the objectives of an SSU evolves as the organization
matures. Correspondingly, strategic planning is a process that should be flexible and revisited
annually or even twice a year as needed.
13 The strategic objectives for the pilot phase of the shared services reform will differ
from the objectives of the more mature phases of the reform. The most important objective of
the piloting stage is to test the shared services model. The primary focus of this phase is meeting
the critical preconditions for the introduction of shared services, such as IT system integration,
process standardization, automation, amending the legal foundation and organizational
restructuring to enable the provision of administrative support functions in a shared service setting.
14 Proposed below is a set of objectives that could guide the administrations through the
strategic planning exercise and serve as a starting point for the broader discussion on the
desired outcomes in implementing the shared services model in organization and work of
Bulgaria’s central administration.
9 For a detailed discussion on the SBB and SLA topics, please see Report "Pilot establishment of two centralized
units for the provision of shared services", World Bank, May 2019; a formal deliverable under Activity 2 of the
agreed shared services program. 10 This section highlights strategic goals and objectives, designed following international best practice, the guidance
received from Directorate “Modernization of the Administration” within the Administration of the Council of
Ministers and inputs and feedback of the pilot administrations: Ministry of Health and the Bulgarian Food Safety
Agency.
www.eufunds.bg
16
Figure 2: Goals and Objectives for the Pilot Phase of the Shared Services Reform
15 The Bulgarian Government could also use the experience in the United States to
enrich its own strategic planning and performance management framework.
Box 2: United States Performance Management Law
Performance management is governed by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)11 of 1993. The
GPRA established project planning, strategic planning, and set up a framework of reporting for agencies to show
the progress they make towards achieving their goals. GPRA was amended in 201012 and mandates that agencies
publish their strategic and performance plans and reports in machine-readable formats on their websites. In
addition to setting standards for transparency in publishing of results, GPRA requires agencies to:
• Establish performance goals for two years
• Express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form
• Identify which of these goals are the agencies’ priority goals
• Provide description of how these goals are to be achieved (training, resources, processes, milestones,
collaboration with other entities)
• Establish a balanced set of performance indicators be used in measuring or assessing progress toward
each performance goal, including, as appropriate, customer service, efficiency, output, and outcome
indicators
• Benchmarking - provide a basis for comparing actual program results with the established performance
goals
• Describe how the agency will ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress
towards its performance goals, including an identification of—
11 Pub. L. 103–62 12 U.S. Congress, GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-352
Overall Goal: Test the shared services model to inform successful scaling-up shared services across the Bulgaria's central administration
Objective 1: Achieve Automation and Standardization of
Systems and Processes
Objective 3: Improve Personnel/Process
Efficinecy
Objective 4: Improve Cost
Efficiency
Objective 2: Enable Self-service
functionalities
Objective 5: Improve Customer
Satisfaction
www.eufunds.bg
17
o the means to be used to verify and validate measured values;
o the sources for the data;
o the level of accuracy required for the intended use of the data; and
o any limitations to the data at the required level of accuracy.
16 As the shared services being to mature, the pilot implementers (and other MDAs
following them later on) may wish to consider the following strategic objectives:
Automatization and standardization:
• Achieve full process standardization and integration of IT systems to enable consolidation
of information and more timely preparation of government-wide financial and personnel
reports;
• Uniform use of information systems for HR and FM (HRMIS, FMIS) across all central
administration entities, leading to productivity improvements and savings though
consolidated management, maintenance and upgrades;
• Achieve full automation of processes and eliminate the share of manual, repetitive work
shortening cycle times and reducing the chance of human error;
• Improve the timeliness of operations and processes. The speed of retrieving information
from the IT systems should be increased from days and hours to minutes
Self-service functionality:
• Enable self-service modules for employees and managers and simplify procedures,
automate HR operations, and eliminate the need for intermediaries between the employee
and manager in order to take action
• Allow employees access to the HR systems and grant them rights to control information
pertaining to their employee records
Wider improvements in efficiency and supporting managerial effectiveness:
• Free up time for managers and experts in the public administration to focus on their core
functions
• The client/partner organizations are receiving better and more reliable services
• Facilitate the professionalization of SSU staff and the development of process innovation
and continuous improvement
• Improve cost efficiency
• Continuously innovate and transform the organization from a process center to an
excellence center.
Build internal capacity to develop performance management standards and M&E practices:
• Implement performance management systems which is flexible and adaptive
www.eufunds.bg
18
• Raise awareness about the importance of results monitoring and reporting
5. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO MONITOR PROGRESS MADE
TOWARDS SHARED SERVICES UNITS’ OBJECTIVES
17 Presented in this chapter are strategic KPIs to monitor whether the main goals of the
pilot implementation are being achieved and to provide guidance on how to establish an
ongoing mechanism for monitoring and measurement of those objectives. The rationale for
selecting the proposed indicators falls on those that can enable the meaningful validation of the
progress made towards meeting the desired objectives. The focus of these indicators is on
finalizing various aspects of the transition and stabilizing operations.
18 The scope of the report covers the area of HR shared services. The reasons being that
there is no equivalent to the government-owned information system for HRM (i.e., EISUCHRDA)
in the area of Financial management (FM). This makes the introduction of shared FM services
impossible. Further the SSU to be established under the Ministry of Health (MoH) is only
introducing HR shared services and the team was able to collect sufficient amount of baseline
information which was used to develop baseline and target indicators.
19 Once the strategic objectives of the SSUs have been identified, it is time to select KPIs
that are SMART.13 The SMART criteria are a best practice approach for developing indicators
that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely (SMART). A guiding principle in
selecting the right KPIs is that they help the organization track progress against its identified goals.
There is no point in selecting KPIs that convey little information or serve no purpose in tracking
progress against the pre-defined goals.
Objective 1: Achieve automation and standardization of systems and processes
20 The shared services reform will introduce uniform HRMIS and FMIS systems, which
will enable data integration and consolidation at the ministry level.14 Under the pilot, the use
of uniform HRMIS will allow online sharing of HRM and FM information among central
government agencies and their subordinated entities. Its use will also facilitate the process of
analysing information and ensuring that consistent distribution of planning, strategy and operations
work among civil servants and an even workload.
13 SMART criteria were originally proposed as a management tool for project and program managers to set goals and
objectives (Doran 1981 and others), but these days the SMART criteria have been well accepted in the field of
monitoring and evaluation and have become an engrained, common best practice approach in developing indicators. 14 The Government-owned information system for HRM i.e., EISUCHRDA, was just introduced in the pilot
administrations - Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency (BFSA). Prior to that, 5
different HRMIS were used within the MOH, while BFSA central office and many of its regional offices did not
have an HRMIS system at all. The absence of a common HRMIS has made aggregation and consolidation of
information of HRM data a very cumbersome process.
www.eufunds.bg
19
21 Introducing shared services in the HRM area15 is dependent on the availability and
common use of a single HRMIS. Once the systems have been implemented by both pilots, the
process of standardization and automation of the HRM processes in the EISUCHRDA, will
proceed after EISUCHRDA is implemented in both pilots.16 The optimization of business
processes done during the business process reengineering phase can be used to map the new
simplified process flows, shortening cycle times and reduce administrative burdens. The indicators
on the frequency and intensity of use of EISUCHRDA are easily measured.17
22 The use of EISUCHRDA should be tracked by a set of KPIs that answer the following
questions: Has EISUCHRDA been implemented in the pilot/the MDA to be covered? Is it being
used as the primary HRMIS for all processes in HRM? Are HRM processes fully automated? Is
HRM data aggregated at the central entity level, allowing for report generation and analysis of data
relating to HR management for all entities within the administrative system?
KPI Definition Responsible
% HR Experts using
EISUCHRDA as their
primary HRMIS system
Share of HR FTEs using the
common government HRMIS
EISUCHRDA, % of total
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
% HR Experts using
EISUCHRDA for all
business processes
Share of HR FTEs using the
common government HRMIS
EISUCHRDA for all processes,
% of total
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
% Processes standardized
Share of processes standardized
across the pilot entities within
the respective ministry or
agency based on the Process
reengineering exercise done
during the previous phase of the
project
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
15 EISUCHRDA is the government-owned HRMIS. There is no equivalent to EISUCHRDA in the FM area, which
makes the introduction of shared FM services impossible. The World Bank team strongly recommends the
introduction of a FMIS, where the desired functionalities are defined in prior reports developed under the shared
services program. 16 For a detailed discussion on the technical aspects of implementation please see Report "Pilot establishment of two
centralized units for the provision of shared services", World Bank, May 2019; a formal deliverable under Activity 2
of the agreed shared services program. 17 Currently this is done mostly by Technologica, the original developer of the government’s HRMIS, which is
currently providing maintenance and technical support.
www.eufunds.bg
20
KPI Definition Responsible
% appointments done in
EISUCHRDA
Share of appointments done
through EISUCHRDA, % of
total
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
% documents done in
EISUCHRDA
Share of documents processes
through EISUCHRDA, % of
total
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
% Processes Partially
Automated
Share of processes that are
partially automated, % total
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
% Processes Fully
Automated
Share of processes that are fully
automated, % total
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
% of user problems
resolved within agreed
time period
Share of problems reported by
users of the system that are
resolved within an agreed
period (e.g. one, two, or three
business days)
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director/IT unit
Generation of aggregate
reports meeting needs of
senior MDA management
Reports are produced at the
aggregate level that respond to
key information needs of senior
managers and supporting
strategic priorities such as
workforce planning,
performance and wage bill
monitoring
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director/IT unit
Objective 2: Enable self-service functionalities
23 The use of the self-service modules of the HRMIS reduces the workload of the HR
experts and speeds-up business processes.18 Self-service eliminates intermediaries and reduces
errors in the management of personnel files. It allows employees to cross-check the accuracy of
18 For example, at the World Bank, the sub-process of applying for paid and unpaid leave is fully automated,
including self-service module for both employees and the managers responsible for approving the requests.
Typically, the self-service module of the HRMIS allows for checking annual leave balances, to choose from which
calendar/fiscal year to withdraw days of leave, to choose the type of leave (paid, unpaid, sick, training, etc.) as well
as to nominate a back-up colleague.
www.eufunds.bg
21
the data generated in the system and self-upload various documents in their employee records. The
use of self-service modules and automatic workflows for paid leave quota and other payroll-related
calculations does not require the direct involvement of HR experts. However, the SSU is still
owning the process and provides guidance on how to use the system (via the sub-process of HR
consulting), the preparation of reports and their use for decision making purposes, as well as for
the continuous improvement of the processes.
24 Enabling the self-service functionalities within EISUCHRDA will optimize the most
time-consuming HR processes; examples include as applying for annual and sick leave,
administration of trainings, HR consulting, access to employee certificates electronic files and
dossiers. Using EISUCHRDA’s self-service modules will lead to increased efficiency due to
shorter approval times, reduced number and duration of steps and elimination of manual handling
of HR service requests. Further, the possibility of online access of staff to remaining annual leave
balances will likely eliminate the need to contact HR on this topic and will lower the risk of human
error.
25 Self-service functionalities of EISUCHRDA are used by various administrations;
however, a broader application of these functionalities would require legal changes.19 Despite
the obvious benefits of the self-service function, the legality of the mode of identification for
remote access to EISUCHRDA and the traceability of remote access to employee files and records
prevent the broader use of self-service functionalities.20 The adoption of the necessary legal
changes could be considered as a separate KPI, along with the availability of self-service
functionalities and tracking the frequency of their use by managers and employees. For a detailed
list of proposed legal amendments please see Table 3 in section 5. Methodology for KPI
measurement and reporting. The following KPIs are proposed:
KPI Definition Responsible
Legal Amendments
% of Adopted legal amendments
enabling the use of self-service
functionalities, % total proposed
Council of Ministers/Shared
Services Board
% Employees with
Certificates for
mass electronic
signatures
Share of employees that have
certificates for mass electronic
signatures, % total
Council of Ministers/Shared
Services Board
Number of
Processes that have
Number of processes that that have self-
service functionalities
Council of Ministers/Shared
Services Board
19 The Council of Ministers, together with Council of Administrative Reform are in the “driver’s seat” on drafting and
enforcing the legal changes needed to introduce the shared service model in the work and organization of the central
administration. 20 For detailed discussion on the legal amendments required to facilitate a broader use of self-service functionalities
of EISUCHRDA see Report "Pilot establishment of two centralized units for the provision of shared services",
World Bank, May 2019; a formal deliverable under Activity 2 of the agreed shared services program.
www.eufunds.bg
22
self-service
functionalities
Use of self-service
functionality
Share of actual processes that are done
as self-service once legally permitted
and enabled
Pilot Director
26 The proposed KPIs answer the following questions: Are the proposed legal amendments
necessary to allow for the use of self-service modules been adopted? Are certificates for electronic
signature issued to all employees/managers who need them for intra-office uses, such as the
electronic submission and approval of leave requests and other tasks? How many
processes/subprocesses have a self-service module? Do staff and managers use the self-service
functionality in practice?
Objective 3: Improve personnel/process efficiency
27 The benefits associated with the economies of scale after introducing shared HR
services in the HRM area are expected to be substantial and consistent. The indicator used by
both private and public shared service organizations to measure the efficiency of back-office
functions is calculated as the average number of customers (employees of the administration)
served by one HRM employee. The indicator could also be used as a measure of the effectiveness
of HR strategies and the organization’s management. The HRM and FM surveys conducted during
the diagnostic phase of the shared service program, show that the ratios increase steadily and
predictably with the increase of the number of staff served by one HRM expert. This effectively
means that small units are more efficient as they have higher number of HR full time equivalents
(FTEs).21
28 With the implementation of shared services reform in Bulgaria, the efficiency ratio
HR indicator will increase, as evidenced by the experience of other countries that have
embraced the reform. The FTE indicator could be used to measure the total employee headcount,
as well as the number of different groups of employees for the purposes of internal and external
analysis: management versus expert level staff, staff in different departments of the administration
or company etc.
21 FTE is a wide-spread and important concept in human resource management, accounting and budgeting.
According to Eurostat, a Full-time equivalent or FTE, is a unit to measure employed persons in a way that makes
them comparable although they may work a different number of hours/days per week. The Bulgarian National
Statistical Institute (NSI), cites EU requirements according to which FTE is the norm in measuring the size of an
enterprise in terms of number of employed persons. FTE is obtained by comparing an employee's average number of
hours worked to the average number of hours of a full-time worker. A full-time person is therefore counted as one
FTE, while a part-time worker gets a score in proportion to the hours he or she works. For example, a part-time
worker employed for 20 hours a week where full-time work consists of 40 hours, is counted as 0.5 FTE. The
workforce of an enterprise, activity, or country etc. can then be added up and expressed as the number of full-time
equivalents.
www.eufunds.bg
23
KPI Definition Responsible
Ratio Managerial to
Expert-level HR Staff
Number HR Expert level FTEs for every
Manager level HR FTEs
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
Efficiency Ratio HR
Number of customers per HR FTE (total
number of employees in the
administration serviced by the SSC
divided by the number of HR FTEs in the
SSC)
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
Productivity of HR
staff
Number of documents/certificates
processed per HR FTE per
day/week/month
Processing time for SSU ‘portions’ of HR
processes
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
Staff surveys confirm
efficient functioning
Share of staff in shared service units and
in client units reporting that process run
efficiently
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
29 The proposed KPIs try to answer the following questions: Is HR staff more productive
as a result of the shared services? Is staff able to process more HR requests for shorter cycle times?
Is staff serving more clients than prior to the shared services implementation? Staff satisfaction
can be used as an additional indicator to check that service ratios are indeed increased due to
processes taking less time, rather than due to other factors such as increased overtime efforts (time
use surveys could also be an additional element).
Objective 4: Improve cost efficiency
30 Achieving cost efficiency is one of the main benefits of the shared services model,
however, it needs to be balanced against the many other benefits of the reform during the
initial stages. Shared services is a multifaceted and complex reform and one of the lessons learned
from implementing the reform in Bulgaria, is that focusing on efficiency during the initial stages
discourages staff to embrace the reform and breeds opposition. Experience shows that following
the introduction of shared services, staff numbers decrease. However, this is only with respect to
staff dedicated to transactional tasks that are automated with the introduction of modern
technology. Training and re-deployment can be used to reduce negative impacts in terms of
redundancies as well as loss of expertise, while managing the shift towards greater public sector
efficiency.
31 It is expected that the number of HRM and FM staff dedicated to transactional tasks
will decrease significantly over time with the introduction of IT solutions that would
automate transactional tasks. The reduction in the number of this group of staff should be tracked
www.eufunds.bg
24
and measured by the indicator, rather than a blanket overall reduction of staff within the
administration; it can also include monitoring of the re-deployment to higher value added tasks
and natural attrition. The staff remuneration component of the indicator would also need to be
adjusted to the Bulgarian case. Applying the staff pay component of the indicator “direct cost per
FTE” without considering the current situation in Bulgaria may lead to a negative trend over time
as the SSU evolves and offers more competitive pay to its staff.22
KPI Definition Source Responsible
Cost per HR
FTE*
Total expenses include gross salary,
employer contributions, other
benefits etc. divided by the number
of HR employees;
EISUCHRDA;
Payroll module
Shared Services
Board/Pilot
Director
Number of
Transactional
HR FTES
Number of HR full time equivalents
engaged in carrying out transactional
HR tasks
EISUCHRDA;
Payroll module
Shared Services
Board/Pilot
Director
Value for
Money
Time and effort saved on transaction
tasks (before and after comparison);
total staff and IT costs (before and
after comparison) 23
Time use
protocols
HR units/Pilot
Directors
Cost of
operating and
maintaining the
IT systems
The continuous IT costs (IT support,
upgrades, etc.) should be monitored
with regards to efficiency
Shared
Services
Department.
Payroll for IT-
related staff; IT
maintenance
contracts
Shared Services
Board/Pilot
Director
32 Questions the proposed KPIs try to answer: Has the SSU achieved better value for
money? Have economies of scale been realized and has the shared services organization been able
to reduce costs as a result? Are the additional IT efforts that are required cost-effective?
Objective 5: Improve customer satisfaction
33 Customer satisfaction is another common tool for measuring the performance of the
SSU and informs decision-making. In more mature shared services organizations the focus is on
22 In illustration, a positive trend would be easily achieved by lowering the remuneration of staff that is tracked under
the indicator, which is the opposite that the reform intends to achieve, namely a better technically equipped, capable
and correspondingly well-remunerated SSU staff who performs on par with their EU member state peers. Thus, lower
costs would primarily result from the larger number of client staff being served by each HR or FM employee. 23 This KPI may be challenging to measure, but at least an approximation may be attempted by the pilots.
www.eufunds.bg
25
the client and the level of satisfaction with the services provided by the SSU is carefully tracked
through corresponding customer feedback mechanisms. Surveys are frequently used to collect
information on perceptions and attitudes towards the level of service quality over a certain period.
34 At the transitional phase of the shared services system in Bulgaria, the collection and
measurement of customer satisfaction is not only possible but strongly recommended. Results
management practices can be implemented in Bulgaria’s public service, regardless of existing
limitations with respect to availability and quality of the IT infrastructure. Measuring performance
using key indicators is critically important in these early stages of the SSU. Customer satisfaction
is a key measure used to gauge customer perception regarding the quality of back-office services.
Having a case-management system can facilitate the collection, automation and systematization of
case processing and customer responses. However, the lack of such system, should in no way be
viewed as a deterrent in collecting feedback from customers. As a matter of fact, in the country
cases reviewed, SSUs rely on surveys rather than on their case management systems to collect
customer feedback. With the capabilities of open source technologies and online data collection
tools, it is rather easy and inexpensive to carry out extensive surveys online. What is more
important is not how data should be collected, but rather the robustness in the design of the survey
and the use of results to inform service improvements.
KPI Definition Responsible
Improve
Customer
Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction Index -Client
satisfaction with the service provider based on
the feedback collected from the client via
survey, scale 0-10 (survey form); including
comparison across processes and over time
Shared Services
Board/Pilot Director
35 The proposed KPIs help answer the following questions: Are public sector employees
satisfied with the services provided by the pilot administrations? Which processes provide greater
customer satisfaction, and which are lagging behind? Has customer satisfaction improved because
of implementing shared services?
www.eufunds.bg
26
6. METHODOLOGY FOR KPI MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING
BASELINE AND PERIODIC DATA COLLECTION
36 This chapter proposes a methodology for collecting baseline and periodic data for
monitoring and benchmarking purposes. During the project the team has collected baseline
information from the two pilot administrations, other central government entities and international
SSCs with the objective to establish a baseline and benchmark performance against industry’s best
practice. The applied methodology uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative data
collection tools, such as surveys, focus groups, individual interviews and case studies to establish
a baseline for the identified KPIs. For the purposes of establishing initial values for the headcount,
productivity, efficiency and customer satisfaction, the team conducted three surveys – initial
diagnostics survey, a change management survey and a performance management survey. As a
way of cross-validating the results from the surveys the team conducted several focus groups and
individual interviews with HR and expert-level employees from the Ministry of Health, the
Bulgarian Food Safety Agency and HR representatives from other administrations within the
central government. To inform the development of target values and best practice benchmarks, the
team collected data from shared services organizations in the EU and the United States.
37 The team encountered certain limitations with respect to collecting reliable data on
process cycle times from the pilot administrations. Data on process cycle times was difficult to
collect from the surveyed administrations based on the realization that the Civil Service Act either
doesn’t stipulate times for the execution of HR tasks or that there are discrepancies between the
specified and actual times in the pilot administrations. Further, where times are cited they are in
the form of “up to X number of days”. The team worked around these limitations to collect some
data on the times to completion of the main HR processes. The importance of collecting such data
is on one hand justified by the need to measure improvements in the processing times because of
the shared services implementation, and on the other by the differences between the actual times
it takes to complete a process and the times specified in the normative guidelines. Further, the
survey results showed that every administration adheres to different processing times for every HR
process. The impact of standardization of HR processes can thus help mitigate such inconsistencies
and demonstrate the positive effect of shared services.
38 The data collection tools used during the project are summarized in the Table below.
Most of the data required for this analysis was not readily available in standard reports;
correspondingly relevant information was collected using various data collection tools
summarized in the Table below. They feature a description of each tool’s intended purpose and
how it has been used in the collection of baseline data for the pilots’ KPIs. Some of these tools and
approaches are complementary; while some are substitutes. Some have broad applicability, while
others are quite narrow in their uses. The choice of which is appropriate for any given context
depends on a range of considerations. For the purposes of this Report, these instruments have been
used in the collection of baseline information and the identification of targets for the key KPIs
discussed in the previous section of the report. They are also useful tools in the carrying out of
www.eufunds.bg
27
internal and external benchmarking assessments of the pilots and the rest of the administration
(See section on Benchmarking).
Table 1: Main Data Collection Tools
Instrument Description Used in the collection of KPIs:
Sample Surveys
Collect a range of data
through structured
questionnaires. Could be
delivered electronically, via
e-mail or face to face.
Initial Diagnostic Survey:
• EISUCHRDA related KPIs
• Cost per FTE
• Productivity Indicators
(Efficiency Ratios, Headcount)
Performance Management Survey:
• Productivity Indicators
(transaction volume)
• Quality Indicators (process
cycle times, output quality)
• Feedback collection
Change Management Survey:
• Customer Satisfaction
Group interviews/
Focus Groups
Collect largely qualitative
data through structured
discussions amongst small
groups of pre-selected
participants. Usually these
groups will comprise no more
than 12 people. These
discussions are managed by
an appointed facilitator who
is not a research participant.
• Customer Satisfaction
• EISUCHRDA related KPIs
• Process Reengineering
• Quality Indicators (process
cycle times, output quality)
Individual
interviews
Collect a range of data
through one on one
discussions with stakeholders
often called ‘informants’.
These can be "open"
interviews or "structured"
interviews, with
questionnaires as part of a
sample survey. Often
stakeholders who are viewed
as being critical will be
selected for interviews - ‘key
informant’ interviews.
• EISUCHRDA related KPIs
• Process Reengineering
• Quality Indicators (process
cycle times, output quality)
www.eufunds.bg
28
Instrument Description Used in the collection of KPIs:
Case Studies
Collection of data usually
face-to-face interviews with a
particular individual,
business, group, location or
community on more than one
occasion and over a period of
time. The questioning
involves open-ended and
closed type questions
questioning and involves the
preparation of ‘histories’.
• External benchmarking data
from Country Case Studies: US,
Finland, Estonia, Denmark, the
Netherlands
• Methodology for performance
management
• Reporting of results
39 An initial diagnostic survey was conducted at the beginning of the project with the
objective to: (i) take inventory of the headcount and wage bill of staff engaged in human resource
management within the Bulgarian central government, both at a line ministry level, and at a
decentralized or subordinated level; and (ii) gain a better understanding of the prevalent HRM
practices, as well as the availability and functionalities of the HRMIS used by different government
entities, including the Government-owned EISUCHRDA. The target audience of the survey were
HR experts within the central administration of Bulgaria, both at a line ministry and agency level,
and includes the regional and specialized territorial administrations within each administrative
system. A total of 276 administrations participated in the survey.
40 A change management survey collected customer satisfaction feedback from 188
employees of the Ministry of Health. The objective of the survey was to collect qualitative
information on the satisfaction with the HR processes and services provided by the HR unit. A
total of seven services were evaluated: job descriptions, appointments, mobility and termination;
leave requests, trainings, salary changes based on annual evaluations and HR Consulting. The
target audience of the survey were experts of the administration using the services of the HR unit.
41 A performance management survey was conducted with the objective to collect
information pertaining to HRM process quality and personnel productivity, as well as
understand HR results management practices. The survey collected data from 10
administrations within the system of the Ministry of Health and the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency,
including 2 central entities and secondary and tertiary budgetary holders. The target audience were
the HR units of each administration. The participating administrations from the system of MOH
included: Ministry of Health, Regional Health Inspectorate Sofia-Grad, Regional Health
Inspectorate Sofia Region, Executive Agency of "Medicines", Regional Health Inspectorate
Pazardzik.
42 Due to the limitations is collecting reliable data on processing times, the analysis has
certain caveats in reporting and the results should be considered accordingly. The report
recommends that a Value Mapping Exercise is performed on all HR processes to be migrated to
www.eufunds.bg
29
the pilot administrations, to document in detail baseline and target processing times for every
process. (See section on Value Stream Mapping)
43 The team conducted several Focus Groups to cross-validate the results of surveys. As
part of the focus groups, the team met with HR experts from MOH and BFSA. The focus groups
intended to further delve into the existing practices and gaps in performance standards as well as
collect baseline information on process cycle times and HR productivity. Another Focus Group
was conducted to validate the results from the change management survey with representatives
from the MOH and BFSA, which included expert level staff sharing their views and satisfaction
with HR services and processes.
44 Several country case studies we prepared based on face-to-face and phone interviews
with representatives from Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Netherlands and the United States.
The case studies informed the methodology for introducing performance management in the public
shared service sphere. The case studies collected primary and secondary qualitative and
quantitative data through conversations with decision makers from partner shared services
organizations. Several tools and indicators were compiled to inform the process of measuring
results and serve as benchmarks for the Bulgarian shared services project.
• Interview Statens IT - Denmark IT Shared Services Agency (Michael Ørnø - Director
General);
• Interview HR line of business (LOB) initiative under the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) United States Federal Government;
• Interview P-Direkt - Netherlands HR Shared Services Agency - (Annechien van Velzen)
• Workshop SEGA ICT component- SEGA ICT Team, (guest speakers from Denmark’s IT
Shared Services Agency)
• Interview Palkeet FM&HR Shared Services Finland - Mikael Mantila - Service Director
• Interview RTK FM & HR Shared Services Estonia - Mr. Marek Iles
• Interview World Bank HR Shared Services - Intro meeting (Director Sanjeev - Kumar
Sahgal, Samit Nag – Manager)
• Interview World Bank HR Shared Services - Performance Management (Monica Tripati -
Senior HR Specialist HR shared services)
• Interview World Bank HR Shared Services - Operations - (Samit Nag, Monica Tripati)
• Interview Palkeet FM&HR Shared Services Finland - (Mikael Mantila - Service Director)
45 Following the data collection process, the team developed a set of baseline and target
values to guide the measurement of goals broken into small trackable initiatives and
indicators. The report recommends that an interim target of 12 months after the pilots’ launch is
set. The pilots and the BBS should re-valuate and adjust targets accordingly based on whether
interim targets are met. Moving forward, performance should be assessed annually. Table 2
www.eufunds.bg
30
illustrates the indicative baseline and target values for the proposed KPIs, as well the frequency of
reporting for the Ministry of Health.
46 Some of the identified target values may appear ambitious but their achievement is
deemed necessary (i.e. legal amendments, standardization and automation of processes). The pilot
SSUs, should prioritize meeting the set targets with the help of the CoM, the SSB and the client
administrations. The report further reiterates that these KPIs reflect goals that are considered
critical success factors and pre-requisites for the successful implementation of the shared services
reform in Bulgaria. As such their partial or limited implementation may jeopardize the entire
reform effort.
47 Introducing shared services in the public administration is complex reform with a
significant impact on the way the administration does its business. Its success requires a change
of the mindset within the administration, and in this context the reform should not be rushed.
Correspondingly, a strong recommendation is not to set targets that are time-bound but rather
define targets based on reaching a certain outcome overtime, without specifying at the outset a
strict timeline by which this target should be reached. A good approach is to set intermediate
timeline to achieve the target, for example 12 months after pilot launch.
Table 2: Baseline and Target Values – System of the Ministry of Health24
KPI BASELINE TARGET SOURCE RESPONSIBLE FREQUENCY
Objective 1: Achieve Automation and Standardization of Systems and Processes
% HR Experts using
EISUCHRDA as
their primary
HRMIS system
0% 100%
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
% HR Experts using
EISUCHRDA for all
business processes
0% 100%
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
% Processes
standardized 0% 100%
Actual: Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
% Appointments
done in
EISUCHRDA
0% 100%
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
24 Baseline data calculated as the average value for the system of MOH which includes the following entities:
Ministry of Health, Regional Health Inspectorate Sofia-Grad, Regional Health Inspectorate Sofia Region, Executive
Agency of "Medicines", Regional Health Inspectorate Pazardzik
www.eufunds.bg
31
% Documents
processed in
EISUCHRDA
0% 100%
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
% Processes
Partially Automated 0% 100%
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
% Processes Fully
Automated 0% 100%
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Council of
Ministers/Sha
red Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Generation of
aggregate reports
meeting needs of
senior MDA
management
0% 100%
Actual: Performance
Management
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Council of
Ministers/Sha
red Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Objective 2: Enable self-service functionalities
Legal Amendments 0% 100%
Actual: Focus Groups
Recommended:
Council of Ministers
Council of
Ministers/Sha
red Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
% Employees with
Certificates for electronic
signatures
n.a tbd
Actual: Council of
Ministers
Recommended:
Council of Ministers
Council of
Ministers/Sha
red Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Number of Processes that
that have self-service
functionalities
0% 100%
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey/Technologica
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Objective 3: Improve personnel/process efficiency
Ratio Managerial to
Expert-level HR Staff n.a tbd
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Efficiency Ratio HR
(Number of clients
serviced by 1 HR
Employee)
56 tbd
Actual: Performance
Management
Survey/Focus Groups
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
www.eufunds.bg
32
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Quality of HR Processes
(Processing times-number
of days to appoint an
employee)
40 -20%
Actual: Performance
Management
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Productivity of HR
Employees (Volume of
transactions per employee
– annual leave requests)
486 +20%
Actual: Performance
Management
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Share of employees with
training plans (Percentage
of employees with
individual training plans
as a share of total
employees)
26% 100%
Actual: Performance
Management
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Availability of Data on
Received general
requests25
40% 100%
Actual: Performance
Management
Survey/Focus Groups
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/
Technologica
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
Objective 4: Improve cost efficiency
Cost per HR FTE* BGN
33,442 tbd
Actual: Diagnostic
Survey
Recommended:
EISUCHRDA/ Payroll
module
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12-24
months after
pilot launch
Objective 5: Improve customer satisfaction
Improve Customer
Satisfaction 6.3 8
Actual: Customer
Satisfaction Survey (1
lowest to 10 highest)
Recommended:
Customer Satisfaction
Survey
Pilot
Administratio
ns/Shared
Services
Board
12 months
after pilot
launch
25 The baseline value of 40% comes from averaging the answers from question: Availability of Data on Received
general requests, where Yes takes the value of 1 and No takes the value of 0.
www.eufunds.bg
33
Objective 1: Full Automation and Standardization of HR services
48 The indicators under Objective 1 closely track the implementation of EISUCHRDA
as means to ensure full automation and standardization of HR services. The baseline values
for all KPIs under objective 1 are 0, because EISUCHRDA is not yet the primary HRMIS in the
pilot administrations. The data was collected during the diagnostic phase of the project which
asked administrations to reflect on whether EISUCHRDA is implemented and is being used to
perform HR administrative tasks. The collected responses showed that HR employees do not use
the system to perform HR tasks and processes. The target values for all KPIs is 100%, signifying
that the deployment of EISUCHRDA is a critical success factor in the implementation of shared
services in Bulgaria. Establishing whether the target value has been met, should be the
responsibility of the SSB and by extension the Council of Ministers as well as the pilots’ directors.
The follow-up monitoring process should take place a year after the pilots have adopted
EISUCHRDA and could be performed in a form of a survey or by pulling reports out of the HRMIS
itself.
Objective 2: Enable Self-service functionalities
49 For indicators under Objectives 2: Enable self-service functionalities, the baseline
data has a value of 0, with targets of 100%. This group of indicators would be best measured by
the SSB while evaluating progress on adopting the required legal changes or expressly providing
for the use of electronic approvals by management. The indicator tracking the progress of adopting
the necessary legal changes is arguably the most important indicator in that group. Removing any
ambiguity in the law about electronic files and electronic signatures will remove any hurdles to
the use of self-service functionalities. It is currently unclear what the number of civil servants with
electronic signatures is. As discussed in earlier analytical reports developed by the World Bank
team under the shared services program26, the current wording of the legal provisions is ambiguous
and leaves open the question of whether mass electronic signatures for intra-office use by state
employees (that can cheaply and easily be issued to all civil servants and employees in an
administration) could be used for intra-office purposes unrelated to “assigning, implementing and
supervising the execution of tasks”. Therefore, as per the legal recommendation the amendment
for electronic signatures should apply to all intra-office uses (leave requests etc.), thereby
facilitating the use of mass electronic signatures by the employees in the pilot administrations.
50 The adoption of the proposed legal amendments should be prioritized and put in place
with urgency. In an ideal scenario situation, these legal changes should have preceded the
launch of the pilots
Table 3: Proposed legal amendments to enable the use of self-service functionalities
Law Proposed Change 27
26 See Report "Pilot establishment of two centralized units for the provision of shared services", World Bank, May
2019; a formal deliverable under Activity 2 of the agreed shared services program 27 The legal foundation for providing administrative support services in a shared service setting is still not in place.
The pilot administrations, MOH and BFSA, and especially the Directorate “Modernization of the administration”,
www.eufunds.bg
34
Civil Service Act (CSA)
rt. 17. (1) For each civil servant the respective
administration shall draw up and keep an official
file.
Expressly provide that the file or part of it may be
kept and stored in electronic form / on a technical
medium. Provide that an Ordinance of the Council
of Ministers should be issued to regulate the
requirements to the information systems on which
the official file is kept, by analogy with the relevant
Ordinance issued in relation to employment files.
Provide a provision according to which if the file
or part thereof is in electronic form, the employee
should be entitled to automatic access to the file
and to making free extracts from the file through a
self-service system.
Electronic Document and Electronic
Certification Services Act (EDECSA)
Relationship between the EDECSA and the
Electronic Identification Act
(currently it is not regulated)
Clarify the link between the electronic signatures
regulated by the EDECSA and the Electronic
Identity Certificates regulated by the Electronic
Identification Act. Introduce a provision defining
whether and in which cases statements made
through the use of electronic identity certificates
are treated as self-signed statements.
Ordinance on electronic signature certificates in
administrations (Art. 2, p. 3 and 4)
Expand the possibilities for use of the simplified
electronic signatures to extend beyond “assigning,
implementing and supervising the execution of
tasks”.
Allow for electronic signatures to be used across all
administrations (remove “relative” from the
ordinance”)
Objective 3: Internal Process
51 Indicators under Objective 3 reflect the quality of output of HRM tasks, productivity
of personnel and overall efficiency of internal HR processes. The proposed indicators are the
industry standard in measuring internal process efficiency and are widely used by shared services
organizations across the globe. Indicators such as processing time are considered a measure of
process quality and efficiency, while indicators such volume of transactions and efficiency ratios
are a measure of HR productivity. Shared service organizations use diverse measuring techniques
that the Bulgarian Government could apply as well. The quality of the HR processes, for example,
could be measured by the number of errors made and the number of system outages within a certain
period i.e., quarterly, annually. Even if the pilots currently lack the capability to measure such
part of the Administration of COM worked diligently to introduce the legal changes identified by the World Bank
team; however, their adoption by Parliament, including of laws that set the foundation and enable the introduction of
the shared services principles in the work of Bulgaria’s administration, has been significantly delayed, which in turn
stalls the introduction of the reform.
www.eufunds.bg
35
indicators, we recommend that these are incorporated in the performance management system at
a later stage, once the pilots reach sufficient internal capacity.
Table 4: HR Process quality indicators – HR Processing times - Ministry of Health
Indicator Administration Baseline/
Actual
Median
Time
(Days)
Target28
Median
Time
(Days)
HR Process
Quality: Description
RHI
Sofia-
City
Ministry
of
Health
Central
Unit
RHI
Sofia
Region
Executive
Agency of
"Medicines
"
RHI
Pazardzik
Average
time to hire
(civil
servants)
Number of
business days
from Memo on
starting a
competition to
Job Offer to
successful
candidate
45 45 40 25 25 40 32
(-20%)
Mobility
Number of
business days
from Memo on
starting
mobility
procedure to
Three-party
agreement form
30 n.a 30 25 14 28 22.4
(-20%)
Appointme
nts
Number of
business days
from Protocol
stating basis for
appointment to
entry into
service
14 n.a 7 25 25 20 16
(-20%)
Terminatio
n
Number of
business days
from
Request/Notice
of termination
to Signed and
registered
termination
order
30 n.a 7 n.a 22 22 17.6
(-20%)
28 At the initial stages of the reform, it is better not to set strict timelines for reaching the targets; recommended is to
set targets based on reaching a certain outcome overtime with an indicative timeline such as 12 months after pilot
launch
www.eufunds.bg
36
Indicator Administration Baseline/
Actual
Median
Time
(Days)
Target28
Median
Time
(Days)
HR Process
Quality: Description
RHI
Sofia-
City
Ministry
of
Health
Central
Unit
RHI
Sofia
Region
Executive
Agency of
"Medicines
"
RHI
Pazardzik
Training
Number of
business days
from
Distributed
information on
training
opportunities to
Updated
register for
completed
training courses
n.a n.a 4 n.a 2 3 2.4
(-20%)
Annual
Leave
Number of
business days
from
Coordinated
leave request to
Signed and
issued order+
sent info to
payroll
1 n.a 7 1 1 1 0.8 (
-20%)
Sick Leave
Number of
business days
from Issued
medical
certificate to
Filed medical
certificate copy
+ sent info to
payroll
3 n.a 3 0 1 2 1.6
(-20%)
Consulting
Responding to
Employee
dossier
requests&
dossier
management
1 n.a 1 n.a 1--5 1 0.8
(-20%)
52 Baseline values are calculated for seven HRM business processes based on the staff
responses from the performance management survey. The target values are indicative and are
based on the conservative assumption that standardization will lead to a 20 percent improvement
in HR processing times. However, given the lack of detailed and comprehensive normative
guidelines for HR process turnaround times as well as discrepancies in the application of those
www.eufunds.bg
37
guidelines by different administrations, the report recommends that the pilots define average
processing times for the HR processes that are to be consolidated.
53 A critical first step would be to establish a baseline for every HR process that is to be
standardized within the pilots. A common approach is to estimate the average time and financial
resources used to complete a process, broken down by steps. One widely used method is the Value
Stream Mapping. As a tool, it assists in the visualization, identification and elimination of
inefficiencies by helping to identify options for reducing processing time and cost along the
process chain. It features a time-line that provides information about the actual processing times
needed to complete each step of the process. This value stream map records both lead time and
processing time, which allows an organization to focus on reducing time spent on non-value adding
activities to increase efficiency.
Box 3: Value Stream Mapping at the World Bank HR Shared Services Center:
The World Bank's HR SSU uses this approach on ongoing bases as the center evaluates performance regularly by
collecting and analyzing various performance indicators around internal business processes, customer satisfaction and
case management. The approach allows the organization to continuously improve processes and reinvent itself by
shortening process cycle times and improving the quality of services.
This is not a one-off exercise but is regularly carried out by established SSUs. Data should be collected and
analyzed prior to migration to shared services and at regular intervals afterwards. Once a baseline of the current or
“As-Is” state is established for each pilot, the shared services team identifies and eliminates inefficiencies along the
process chain by creating the desired “To-Be” state with calculated target times, cost and productivity ratios. The “To-
Be” state reflects the new optimized process featuring shorter times and cost savings after migration to shared services.
The availability of baseline and target data will allow factual comparisons of the SSU performance levels with that of
other public administrations and demonstrate whether the SSU is achieving better results. These comparisons should
be regularly carried out, discussed, and disseminated to demonstrate the effects of adopting shared services.
54 The diagram below presents a value stream mapping of the current or “As-Is”
Appointment process at the Ministry of Health (central entity), as well as the reengineered
“To-Be” process to be implemented in the HR SSU at the Ministry of Health. The indicator
being tracked reflects the processing times for Appointments at the Ministry of Health
www.eufunds.bg
38
Figure 3: Example Value Stream
Mapping – MOH Central Office
a) AS- IS Process Appointments
www.eufunds.bg
40
55 The proposed optimization and standardization of the appointment process is estimated
to cut processing time in half. The optimization of HR processing times done in the “To-Be”
state of the Appointment process, are based on the optimization of some aspects of the process,
specifically:
• The sub-process starts with an application for appointment by the successful candidate,
which does not follow a candidate-centric model;
• Drafting, pre-approval and issuance of the order of appointment can imply in some
cases up to seven signatures which makes this part of the process time-consuming,
especially in administrations where these steps are managed in a paper-based manner;
• There are many declarations and other documents (code of conduct, health & safety
instructions, etc.) which the candidate is expected to fill in and sign manually;
• In some cases, the information necessary for FM purposes is provided manually; and
• There is no unified way of handling on-boarding training in different administrations.
In some it is considered part of the recruitment process where HR is involved, and in
other it is perceived as a be start of the employment and a duty of the appointing unit.
56 The proposed process is initiated with the acceptance of the job offer by the candidate,
which will substitute the current process detailed in the Civil Service Act (CSA). In the future,
the acceptance should happen only via HRMIS, following a template-based system-generated text
referring to a deadline for entering the position. This will shorten the existing process which
currently doesn’t have a pre-defined deadline. During the transition period, alternatively to the
online option, the successful candidate can submit their acceptance in person. The candidate to be
appointed will receive an automatic notification with links to all declarations, code of conduct,
health and safety instructions, etc. with an option to sign them electronically via HRMIS.
57 The order of appointment will be drafted, pre-approved, signed and registered in
HRMIS. For the signing of the order, the Appointing authority will use qualified electronic
signature. The HRMIS will execute automatic workflows towards the FM unit for the calculations
of compensation and benefits calculations, as well as to as Security and IT for granting access to
the building. Further, the optimized process implies an interaction between the local HR function
and the SSU at the stage when the local HR hands in the order of appointment to the newly
appointed employee, verifies the authenticity of their documents, takes their oath and lets them
sign the oath statement. Here the local HR sends via HRMIS confirmation to the SSU to start filing
all documents in the file of the newly appointed employee. The currently executed on-boarding
training in some administrations is proposed to become part of a separate on-boarding sub-process.
58 HR Employee Productivity Indicators measure the output per HR employee. Output
could be the transaction volume of leave requests, sick leave certificates or the number of HR
requests received and processes by one HR employee. Other productivity indicators could be the
share of employees with training plans as a share of total employees in the administration, as well
the availability of statistics on key HR data such as absenteeism and number of received and
processed HR requests.
www.eufunds.bg
41
59 The baseline information presented in the table below has been collected during the
performance management survey data collection effort and represents the average values
for the 5 participating administrations within the Ministry of Health. The target values for the
indicators Share of employees with training plans and Availability of Data on received general
request is 100%. The assumption is that all employees should have individual training plans as
well information on HR requests should be regularly documented and tracked.
60 The proposed targets for the two productivity indicators, Transaction volume of sick
leave certificates and Leave requests per HR employee assumes that productivity will
increase by 20% because of consolidation of functions and implementation of HRMIS and
self-function functionalities. This is a conservative assumption.
61 The implementation of shared services will allow for the digitalization of employee
records and facilitate easy access to key employee data for the performance of basic HR
analysis. The indicator Time it takes to perform Sickness Absenteeism analysis (days), tracks the
number of business days needed to perform the analysis. Sickness Absenteeism rate is the number
of all sick days divided by the number of employees in the last 12 months. In providing the needed
information, the amount of time needed by the 5 administrations to perform the analysis ranged
from minutes to 3 days. Performing such analysis is a basic function of every HR department and
international peer organizations have access to such data is seconds.
Table 5: HR Employee Productivity Indicators
HR Employee
Productivity:
Transaction
Volume per HR
Employee
Description
RHI
Sofia-
City
Ministr
y of
Health
Central
Unit
RHI
Sofia
Region
Execut
ive
Agenc
y of
"Medi
cines"
RHI
Paza
rdzik
Baseline
Value
Target
Value29
Share of
employees with
training plans
Share of
employees with
individual
training plans
(%)
88 0 n.a 15 0 26% 100%
Availability of
Data on
Received
general
requests (HR
Consulting)
Data on Total
number of
employee
requests
submitted to HR
available?
Yes/No
no no yes no Yes 40% 100%
Productivity of
HR Employees
(Volume of
transactions per
Total number of
leave requests
divided by the
1090 182 191 420 548 486
+50%
29 Recommended is to set targets based on reaching a certain outcome overtime with an indicative timeline such as
12 months after pilot launch
www.eufunds.bg
42
employee –
annual leave
requests)
number of HR
employees
Productivity of
HR Employees
(Volume of
transactions per
employee –
sick leave
requests)
Total number of
sick leave
certificates
divided by the
number of HR
employees
217 40 59 131 125 114 +50%
Time it takes to
perform
Sickness
Absenteeism
analysis (days)
Number of
business days
needed to
perform Sickness
Absenteeism
analysis.
Sickness
Absenteeism rate
is the number of
all sick days
divided by the
number of
employees in the
last 12 months
3 n.a 1 0 10 2 1
Objective 4: Improve Cost Efficiency
62 Given the emphasis on recruiting and training highly skilled and experienced
individuals for the purposes of building a strong shared services organization, the cost efficiency gain will come from the reduction of transactional HR employees. Experience
gained in implementing the shared services program in Bulgaria shows that focusing exclusively
on efficiency during the early stages of the reform is counterproductive and creates opposition.
The impact of this indicator will occur gradually, due to the commitment to personnel reduction
in the form of natural attrition, i.e., retirement, re-training staff and employee transfer to other
departments. Nevertheless, the SSU should have an indicative target for reducing staff dedicated
to transactional tasks by a certain percent over a 12 or even a 24-month period. Focusing only on
transactional tasks will help achieve one of the main goals of the shared services reform – cost
efficiency. For the Ministry of Health, this means that the current number of 53 HR employees
could be reduced based on the strategic staffing and planning exercise done for the purposes of
creating the pilot. Given that economies of scale are capped at 2964 – which is the total number of
staff in the administrative system, the target number should ensure continuation of the work
process and consolidation of transactional functions. 30
30 The SSU may wish to consider linking the employee performance bonus pay system to the performance
management system – a practice that exists in many EU countries – but not before the centers are well established.
www.eufunds.bg
43
Objective 5: Customer Satisfaction
63 The World Bank team surveyed 188 employees from the system of the Ministry of
Heath about their satisfaction with the services provided by the HR department. The
administrations surveyed were: the central entity at the Ministry of Health, Regional Health
Inspectorate Montana, Pazardzik, Sofia-Oblast and Sofia-Grad.31 The administrations evaluated
seven services, specifically: Job descriptions, Appointments, mobility and termination; Leave
management, Trainings, Salary changes based on annual evaluations and HR Consulting.
64 Among the services that received the lowest satisfaction ratings were Salary changes
based on annual evaluation and Trainings, while those with the highest ratings were the
Leave management process. The results of the survey indicate that, on average, small
administrations tend to have higher customer satisfaction due to the small HR team and stronger
personnel relationship with HR employees.
65 Table 6: Customer Satisfaction Question: What is your satisfaction with the HR
services in your administration? Please rank every service on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is
least satisfied and 10 is most satisfied.
Ministry of
Health RHI-Sofia City
RHI-Sofia
Region
RHI -
Montana Average
Job Descriptions 5.9 6.1 5.1 7.7 6.2
Appointments,
Mobility, Termination 6.2 6.1 5.3 7.8 6.3
Leave Requests 7.6 7.3 5.5 8.4 7.2
Trainings 5.2 5.9 5.1 7.8 6.0
Salary changes based
on annual evaluation 5.2 5.9 5.1 7.8 6.0
HR Consulting 5.7 6.3 4.2 8.0 6.0
66 Following best practice approaches to measuring customer satisfaction, the team
verified the survey results with an open-ended request for elaboration, soliciting the reasons
for a customer's rating in several focus group discussions. During the discussions,
administrations from both pilots shared their experience and satisfaction dealing with HR and FM
departments and services. In BFSA, all participants were satisfied with the human resource
management services. It became clear that their highly positive assessment is mainly related to
good personal contact with the relevant employees. The dissatisfaction was expressed by the
Aligning the existing performance bonus pay system with the proposed performance managements system may
increase transparency in the way bonuses are allocated by rewarding employees based on merit, in a quantifiable way. 31 *The results from Executive Agency of "Medicines” and RHI -Pazadzik were excluded from the analysis due to
the very low number of respondents, 2 and 4 respondents respectively.
www.eufunds.bg
44
financial management and budget services, but only in the central entity. The main criticisms were
directed at the poor attitude towards the employees and the frequent lack of willingness to respond
to queries and requests.
Box 4: International experience in measuring customer satisfaction
Estonia - The center has been using survey platforms to collect feedback. In previous years, the Ministry of Finance
was responsible for collecting and preparing reports on customer satisfaction with service delivery. In 2018, the center
opted for a private survey company – Recommy which specializes in customer feedback collection. The new model
collects customer data, on regular day-to-day bases which is a typical practice in the private sector.
US Shared Services Authority - The US HR shared services authority has a provider assessment team which
evaluates performance over the past 12 months through a satisfaction survey. Respondents include
executives/directors, managers/supervisors, and end-users who regularly interface with the shared service providers
as a routine job function. The survey provides confidential, constructive feedback for providers, policymakers and the
shared services community at large.
The assessment team employs a structured process developed with the involvement of a customer work group that
compiles the assessment practices and develops the assessment questions. The aim of the work group is to establish
an assessment process that considers both customer and provider viewpoints. The process and supporting tools and
templates are documented in detail to ensure the process is: (i) for customer questions, data is gathered directly from
the online customer questionnaire; additional data is collected during customer interviews that are conducted with a
subset of questionnaire respondents; (ii) for provider questions, data is gathered during structured interviews with
provider personnel.
For evidence questions, evidence is collected from providers and is used to determine assessment results.
67 At the Ministry of Health, where shared services will only be introduced in HR
management, employees also attribute the relative satisfaction with HR services to the good
personal relationship with the HR employees providing these services. The highest-ranking
service is the Leave management process, which is a result of the well-run, entirely electronic,
process of annual leave in the ministry. Employees at the Ministry of Health proudly explained
how the process is happening, how quickly and seamlessly they use the service, as well as how
they manage their administration better than others they know. Some employees have expressed
concern that the introduction of Shared Services may "spoil" the existing system. The lowest
ranking service is the Salary changes based on performance evaluations and Trainings, followed
by HR consulting.
BENCHMARKING
68 Benchmarking in the context of the Bulgarian shared services project should consider
the early stage of development of the shared services organization. Benchmarking can bring
benefits when done both externally and internally, as well as prior to and after the migration to
shared services. A strong recommendation is to benchmark performance against all of the key
performance indicators discussed in this report and it precursor report on establishing a framework
for performance management. 32For example, comparing the current or “As-Is” state of back-office
services in the public administration with that of established international SSUs can serve to build
32 See Report “Developing a methodological framework for introducing shared services” of March 2019, a formal
deliverable under Activity 3 of the agreed shared services program.
www.eufunds.bg
45
a business case for transitioning to shared services in Bulgaria, establish targets and identify best
practices. Once the SSU operation is established, the pilots can benchmark performance against
one another, as well as against the “status quo” or “business-as-usual” case.
69 Because there are unique benefits to both internal and external benchmarking,
organizations that perform both have the most to gain. When benchmarking externally,
organizations compare processes and performance with other organizations. Without external
benchmarks, an organization may lack an understanding of what constitutes “good” performance.
When the focus is internal, organizations benchmark against their own internal processes and
business practices. Internal benchmarking examines trends within the organization and the impact
of actions undertaken to improve performance. External benchmarks are generally considered to
provide the greater advantage, but internal benchmarking is useful where no external benchmarks
are available.
70 The following example illustrates what constitutes external and internal
benchmarking in the context of the Bulgaria Shared Services project. Using information on a
key HR metric such as the HR Efficiency ratio (Number of clients serviced by 1 HR Employee),
the chart below compares the key metric in the 2 pilot administrations with that of the shared
services leaders from Estonia and Finland. In the external benchmarking example, the resulting
performance gap stands at 90%. It should be noted that economies of scale in both pilots are
expected to be realized although at a smaller scale due to the nature of consolidation - vertical on
a line ministry level and not horizontal consolidation like in the best practice benchmarks used in
the example. Thus, for the indicator HR Efficiency, it would make more sense to use internal
benchmarking – at least at this stage of the shared services reform - and compare performance over
a period, for example 12 months after the launch of the shared services pilots. The assumption here
is that efficiency will improve against the backdrop of IT automation and fewer number of
transactional HR employees in the shared services pilots (the assumption used in the example is
for a 50% decline in the first year). The efficiency ratio is expected to increase as a result and
surpass the current average for the central administration of 100 clients per 1 HR FTE.
www.eufunds.bg
46
Figure 4: Example: HR Efficiency Ratios
a) External Benchmarking
b) Internal Benchmarking
71 Benchmarking satisfaction with HR services is another key metric that can be
measured both internally and externally. The example below uses external benchmarking to
showcase the customer satisfaction gap between the Estonian HR Shared Services Center and the
current level of satisfaction with HR services in the system of the Ministry of Health. As the
leading peer, RTK Estonia currently has an average rating of 8.3. The assumption here is that with
the adoption of shared services, customer satisfaction is the Bulgarian MOH will increase to an
average rating of 8 at the end of the 12 months since the launch of the pilot. This means that MOH
may close the gap by 75%. A word of caution is needed to signal that the assumption of improving
customer satisfaction may not materialize immediately. The Estonian center has been operational
since 2013 and has a long-standing track record of expanding operations with strong emphasis on
performance monitoring and reporting.
www.eufunds.bg
47
Figure 5: Example Customer Satisfaction
REPORTING
Dashboard
72 The report recommends the use of the Balance Scorecard (BSC) method for reporting
on results following the identification of KPIs and introducing a methodology for
measurement and monitoring of performance.33 The wide-variety of metrics and KPIs can be
overwhelming for anyone who is attempting to implement performance measurement principles.
The BSC identifies four strategic areas that gauge the financial strength of the organization, its
customer satisfaction, the internal process performance and its innovation potential:
• a financial perspective;
• a customer perspective;
33 The BSC was originally developed as a performance measurement system in 1992 by Dr. Robert Kaplan and Dr.
David Norton at the Harvard Business School. Through the use of the four perspectives, the BSC captures both leading
and lagging performance measures, thereby providing a more “balanced” view of SSC performance. Leading
indicators include measures, such as customer satisfaction, new product development, on-time delivery, employee
competency development, etc. Traditional lagging indicators include financial measures, such as revenue growth and
profitability. The BSC performance management systems have been widely adopted globally, in part, because this
approach enables organizations to align all levels of staff around a single strategy so that it can be executed more
successfully.
www.eufunds.bg
48
• an internal business process perspective;
• and a people and innovation perspective.
73 The current capabilities of the pilots do not fully allow for the application of the BSC
method, although its adaptation can serve useful in establishing early performance
measurement standards. In the example provided in Figure 6, the strategic objectives of the SSU
are organized by the respective BSC perspective. Only a select number of KPIs is measured –
those KPIs that are most aligned to the strategic objectives and inform progress towards meeting
those objectives. Emphasis has been placed on those KPIs that are the highest priority indicators,
given the availability and reliability of data. The dashboard also features baseline and targets
values for every featured indicator.34
74 Thinking of the BSC as a dashboard can help the SSUs visualize the entire
performance management framework, while keeping track of the most strategic KPIs. The
BSC dashboard can help the SSUs go from limited/simple reporting to a smarter use of analytics,
enabling pilots and their managers to track and predict performance, make better-informed talent
decisions, improve processes quality and customer satisfaction. Metrics are the core of this phase
and understanding which metrics to prioritize can save the pilots time and financial resources. The
pilots should stay laser focused on the right indicators, those that give the greatest insight into
operational excellence. During the phase, performance gaps and successes are identified, enticing
other administrations to adopt shared services practices. The sample dashboard provided below,
prioritizes the customer and internal process perspectives, as well as indicators that ensure
prerequisites in automation and self-service functionalities are met. Among the most critical
indicators to track by the pilots are the HR efficiency ratio, customer satisfaction, adoption of
EISCHURDA and functioning of self-service functionalities.
75 The review of international best practices shows that SSCs generally track two types
of KPIs: strategic KPIs and operational KPIs. Strategic KPIs track progress against the
organization’s strategic goals and measure the high-level outcomes of SSC’s operations.35
Operational KPIs on the other hand typically follow the process flow for every service line/process
provided by the organization and measure process outcomes. Operational KPIs are also used for
internal reporting purposes, as well as for process reengineering and cost-benefit exercises. Some
operational KPIs fall under the financial and internal business process perspective of the BSC
approach. While Finland’s SSC Palkeet follows the principles embedded in the BSC, Estonia’s
SSC Riigi Tugiteenuste Keskus (RTK) follows the EU’s Common Assessment Framework (CAF).
Palkeet has organized its performance metrics into two groups: (i) strategic KPIs – featuring the
four categories of the BSC and (ii) operational KPIs, which track more than 100 operational
indicators. RTK tracks two main groups of KPIs around process efficiency and customer
34 The “Performance Management Framework Report” details that as the SSUs mature, the efforts are devoted not
so much on collecting data but on analytical tasks and extracting valuable insight for decision making purposes.
Collecting data takes a lot of time initially, but that time diminishes drastically as SSU automates and standardizes
transactional tasks. 35 A more detailed discussion can be found in a previous deliverables under the RAS, specifically “Performance
Management Framework Report” (page 16, What to measure: Choice of KPIs).
www.eufunds.bg
49
satisfaction. The World Bank’s SSC has identified strategic KPIs as those that are “Critical to
Quality”. The SSC ensures that the services are delivered at the highest quality possible and the
most user-friendly way. KPIs are a common and necessary feature of the SLA. In all cases the
SSCs have prioritized and adopted transparency and accountability standards by reporting results
and making their reports public.
76 International experience also teaches that for newly established SSCs, online tools
and MS Office remains a popular and less costly option, and could be effectively used for
data analysis and reporting while the SSC builds its IT capabilities. Many organizations use
tools such as online surveys (such as SurveyMonkey), spreadsheets, Word documents and
PowerPoint presentations as their main instrument in collecting, storing, analyzing and reporting
performance. Office tools may have many limitations when it comes to interactivity, data storage,
quality control, while online tools raise concerns about data security, but to some organizations
they are the only available data mining and analytics tool and if used well and consistently, can
lay the foundation for a strong performance management culture. A track record of success in using
even more rudimentary tools for data interpretation for decision making can go a long way prior
to procuring more expensive solutions that are too complicated or costly for an immature
organization. A few good rules of thumbs from the review of international best practices are:
• Allocate adequate resources and time
• Identify common rules and methodologies
• Focus on the outcomes and meaningful analysis
• Use integrated analytic tools.
www.eufunds.bg
51
Service Level Agreement (SLA)
81. The Service Level Agreement (SLA) is the basis for the relationship between the
service provider and the client administration on certain performance standards. Since it
specifies the agreed performance standards and service quality levels, the agreement enables
reporting on the performance of the SSU. In all reviewed comparative examples, these standards
were not in the SLA itself; rather, to ensure that indicators are flexible and regularly updated,
reference to these indicators is made also in other documents. Similarly, on performance standards
(or KPIs), each service line that is subject of the SLA, points to certain time limits for performance
of the obligations of the SSU. International best practice reveals that most common candidates for
KPIs to be included in an SLA are two types of indicators; these are widely used in public shared
services administrations:
• Processing time indicator: it composes compliance requirements regards to service
deadline
• Quality indicator: that relates to data service quality and accuracy of reporting
82. Beyond performance standards, the SLA defines the roles and obligations of both the
SSU and the client organization. Fundamental rights and provisions such as accessibility to the
services are laid out in the SLA.36 The right to access has been addressed in detail in the draft SLA
agreement proposed in the PMFR under the previous deliverable. The general provisions in the
agreement grant the client access to systems and information on all issues pertaining to the
provision of shared services. As far as system malfunctions, such as power outages, glitches and
system inaccessibility, the SSU needs to work closely with its IT team and system developer. In
addition to having an IT disaster recovery plan, the SSU with the support of the system developer
should have well documented procedures and manuals in place for instances that impact the quality
of service or limit access to core HR or FM systems. Such malfunctions can result in lost
productivity as a result of outages, transaction or human errors and negatively impact serve levels.
In the long-term, the SSU can introduce indicators such as number of system malfunctions, power
outages in a year or number of payroll glitches/errors per month, following best practice examples.
The technical aspects of the EISUCHRDA are further discussed in the Report "Pilot establishment
of two centralized units for the provision of shared services", World Bank, May 2019; a formal
deliverable under Activity 2 of the agreed shared services program.
7. FEEDBACK MECHANISM FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF SHARED
SERVICES FUNCTIONAL MODEL
83. The last link of the performance measurement cycle is to make changes based on the
results with the objective to improve performance. This requires a careful and open
consideration of the performance information, as well as consideration of the kind of changes that
36 The “Performance Management Framework Report” has a comprehensive section on SLAs (See Section II and
Annex II), including a draft SLA covering the general provisions of the agreement as well as the specific rights and
obligations of every party for all proposed line of services in the new SSUs.
www.eufunds.bg
52
are most likely to deliver improvements. The latter can include how the SSU is set up
(management, SLAs, range of activities), its day to day operations, or other aspects. Some
improvements may require relatively simple process optimization, while others might only be
achievable with significant further IT investments. During the initial stages, it will be very
important for stakeholders in Bulgaria to regularly take stock and consider what improvements to
pursue, and how to balance considerations about initial investment costs, efficiency gains, and the
quality enhancements to public sector management that the SSUs are expected to deliver.
84. An effective performance management requires a commitment to transparency and
accountability in achieving and improving results. Data collection and analysis as a process
necessitates the allocation of time, resources and technical skills, none of which yet exists in the
pilot administrations. Therefore, it is recommended that the responsibility of strategic decision
making should be entrusted to an independent body that is not primarily engaged in the day-to-day
management of the pilots’ operations. Coordinating communications efforts should also be
overseen by the independent body. All communications should be two-way and actively seek
feedback from different groups at different stages. This ensures that there is every opportunity to
raise important issues, provide feedback and ask questions; it allows the effectiveness of the
communication efforts to be understood.
85. In this regard, the key recommendation is the establishment of a Shared Services
Board (SSB) responsible for the following tasks:
• perform strategic planning and staffing exercise for the pilot SSUs and remaining HR staff
in the administrative system
• define a methodology for measuring the quality of work of the SSU;
• set annual goals for the SSU;
• examine periodically users' satisfaction with the shared services provided by the SSU by
means of electronic surveys and other relevant tools;
• define and update indicators for the quality of work of the SSU;
• define measures for overcoming the deficiencies in the work of the SSU and improving
processes; and
• rule on disputes that arise between SSU and organizations that use shared services.
86. These tasks are critical enabling factors to ensure commitment to performance and
continuous improvement of the pilots. The SSB would survey customer satisfaction and set
targets for next year based on the key findings and identified performance gaps in the SSU
performance management process. It would also review, reassess and revise the annual goals of
the SSU, identify performance improving initiatives, implement a helpdesk and renegotiate SLAs.
87. An effective feedback mechanism also involves a broad stakeholder engagement. The
pilots, with the help of SSB should engage with internal and external stakeholders in the
development of feedback mechanism for the continuous improvement of the shared services
organization. Similarly, to international SSUs, the pilots should conduct employee focus groups to
www.eufunds.bg
53
help identify what issues facing the agency are important to the employees of the newly established
SSCs and the client administration. The employees could ask what values are important to shared
services pilots and where the pilots should be in 12 months after pilot launch. The pilot’s leadership
should consider and prioritize these comments, and the feedback should be reflected in the strategic
plan. As the SSU matures, and as per international best practice examples, the SSU may consider
adding an indicator on employee satisfaction or employee happiness index. (See Table 3 of the
PMFR report) In addition an indicator on employee suggestions can ensure that the SSU is
regularly seeking feedback and suggestions for process improvements from its internal
stakeholders.
Box 5: Feedback mechanism in the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
As an example, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) performs a wide stakeholder engagement once every
year and seeks feedback on its yearly strategic plan., Federal agencies, executive councils, advisory groups, affinity
groups, and consultants, and solicited their feedback on the prior strategic plan as well as OPM’s strengths and
challenges. The agency also conducts 16 interviews with OPM executives. After completing the interviews, the
agency performs a SWOT analysis with the feedback received, developing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats (challenges) that OPM can use as it looks towards the future. While OPM identified many challenges during
the interview process, the agency also identified a number of strengths and opportunities. One strength identified by
the stakeholders was OPM’s human resources expertise. Some of the opportunities included the improvement of
Government-wide issues that OPM has direct authority or is otherwise responsible for, improving internal and
external communication, using the data that OPM has access to more effectively, and emerging as the leader in
human capital management. This information served as the foundation for the new strategic plan.
https://www.datapine.com/dashboard-examples-and-templates/human-resources
8. METHODOLOGY FOR COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF SHARED
SERVICES MODEL
88. The OECD37 defines monitoring and evaluation as:
• Monitoring is a continuous function that uses the systematic collection of data on specified
indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development
intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and
progress in the use of allocated funds.
• Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed project,
program, or policy, including its design, implementation, and results. The aim is to
determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, development efficiency,
effectiveness, impact, and sustainability. An evaluation should provide information that is
credible and useful, enabling the in- corporation of lessons learned into the decision-
making process of both recipients and donors.
89. Evaluation is complementary to monitoring. Building a monitoring system to
continuously track performance is essential for managers. The monitoring system gives ongoing
information (through selected indicators) on the direction and pace of change. It can also identify
37 OECD Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management (2002)
www.eufunds.bg
54
unanticipated changes. The evaluation function in the M&E system significantly expands and
moves beyond what is understood as the traditional ex-post (after-the-fact) approach to evaluation.
Evaluation is not restricted to assessing changes after an intervention / implementation is over. It
is considered, that ex-post evaluation is restrictive because this type of evaluation information does
not feed back into the ongoing management of the government organizations and units aimed at
achieving public sector results.
90. It is to emphasize on the importance of the development of an evaluation capacity in
public administration and how the evaluation shall be performed and how managers can
make use of evaluation information.
91. Good evaluative information can provide answers to a broad range of questions
relevant to performance and the achievement of outcomes.
Evaluation provides information on:
• Strategy - Are the right things being done?
o Rationale or justification
• Operations - Are things being done right?
o Effectiveness in achieving expected outcomes
o Efficiency in optimizing resources
o Client satisfaction
• Learning - Are there better ways?
o Alternatives
o Best practices
o Lessons learned
92. The evaluation objective is to examine to which extent the shared services
implementation has contributed in improving the quality and efficiency of the provision of
public services (global objective). The evaluation, more specifically, assesses the impact and
sustainability of results of shared services (specific objective) as well as ownership, support and
involvement of the main stakeholders.
93. An evaluation must entail all methodological dimensions, namely the relevance,
efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The findings and recommendations are to
be structured according to the main evaluation criteria stated.
94. The main features of the evaluation methodology point out the need to:
• Evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of functioning of shared
services model;
• Assess the performance and impact of shared services over public service;
www.eufunds.bg
55
• Identify lessons learned and provide recommendations for improving the implementation
of shared services.
95. Quantitative and qualitative methods will be used for conducting the evaluation and
impact assessment, as complementary instruments, with respect to specific questions seeking to
better understand shared services implementation and stakeholder involvement and perspectives.
Specifically, the report proposes the adoption of a methodology that is in line with the European
Commission’s methodology for conducting evaluations and considering good practices. In this
regard, a mix of methods are proposedto address the different components of the evaluation and
to answer the key evaluation questions.
96. Elements of the proposed evaluation method are document study, quantitative
surveys, interviews with key stakeholders, (focus) group discussions with wide groups of
stakeholders. The combination of different techniques that balance each other out is central to the
proposed approach, which involves triangulation based on the integration of quantitative and
qualitative data, not merely to validate the research results, but to put the data into a more
comprehensive explanatory framework.
97. It shall be noted that the evaluation method applied for shared services model does
not differ substantially from the one applied for programme and project evaluation. Even
more, under programme budgeting introducing shared services for public administration (for a
single ministry or central administration) should be presented as a programme and respectively
evaluated as such.
98. Example of recommended approach in examination of evaluation criteria of shared
services reform in its pilot phase is presented:
Relevance and coherence
99. The correlation (relevance) of the shared services reform to the identified needs will
be analysed using a “correlation matrix” as shown in the table below.
Objective
Needs / Priorities
TOTAL Human Resource
Management
Financial
Management
Objective 1: Achieve Automation
and Standardization of Systems
and Processes
Objective 2: Enable Self-Service
Functionalities
Objective 3: Improve Personnel /
Process Efficiency
www.eufunds.bg
56
Objective 4: Improve Cost
Efficiency
Objective 5: Improve Customer
Satisfaction
TOTAL
Each cell in the table can obtain a value in the range of 3 to -3, according to the following scale:
3 – highly beneficial contribution -1 – low adverse contribution
2 – medium beneficial contribution -2 – medium adverse contribution
1 – low beneficial contribution -3 – highly adverse contribution
0 –no contribution
100. This evaluation would examine coherence with other government strategies /
interventions in the fields of public administration to identify synergy and complementarity
opportunities, as well as for potential overlapping or conflicting priorities. The evaluation
questions38 to be answered are the following:
• To what extent have the objectives of shared services units proven to be appropriate for the
needs of the public administration? To what extent did the shared services proved relevant
to address those needs?
• To what extent did shared services complement public administration strategies /
programmes for efficient and effective public funds management?
• To what extent are shared services coherent with other activities / priorities implemented
which have similar objectives?
Effectiveness
101. Effectiveness examines the extent to which the shared services functioning has led to
the intended change in the administration / public service. The evaluation considers whether
planned results have been achieved, whether results delivered are used for the purposes
intended and seeks to identify examples of negative factors in the achievement of the results.
The quality of monitoring mechanisms and indicators is considered as a key factor in assessing
performance.
102. For the evaluation of the effectiveness evaluators use information from KPIs analysis
supplemented by interviews with the managers and stakeholders during the field phase. An
important part of the evaluation is the assessment of the system of indicators. Indicators are
used to monitor, assess and review the performance of shared services units. They must make it
possible to determine the progress vis-à-vis the objectives, including the effectiveness of targets
38 The evaluator(s) can further redefine them at the evaluation start, in consultation with relevant stakeholders
www.eufunds.bg
57
set regarding KPIs. The evaluation examines the relevance of KPIs and the level of achievement
of their targets.
103. Furthermore, appropriateness, quality and clarity of the indicators will be examined
through an analysis of the indicators with the use of a table in which, as a first step, all
indicators will be listed and commented. The relevance and clarity of the indicators refer to the
analysis of the criteria of robustness, statistical validation of values and data sources providing
baseline values and allowing for setting target values, that are amongst the quality criteria set out
for result indicators. Furthermore, the evaluation will examine the level of achievement of the
indicators. Evaluation questions:
• To what extent shared services units have achieved/are achieving their overall objective(s)
and what type/level of impact (outcomes) they have obtained/are obtaining in the target
population? To what extent have the objectives of shared services unit been achieved?
• What have been the (quantitative and qualitative) effects of shared services in the sector of
public administration?
• To what extent do the observed effects correspond to the set objectives?
• To what extent can these changes/effects be credited to shared services?
• What factors influenced the achievements observed?
• To what extent did different factors influence the achievements observed?
• Were there any unexpected results achieved?
Efficiency
104. Efficiency is considered in the evaluation in the context of several factors: the
timeliness of the delivery of inputs (human & financial resources), the appropriateness of the
implementation modalities (i.e. the management framework of the shared services in terms of
quality - reliability and clarity, competence, suitability and effectiveness and the quality of the
arrangements for monitoring and evaluation) and the quality of implementation as contributing
factors in determining whether value for money was achieved in shared services functioning. The
evaluation will therefore assess the extent to which the services delivered are implemented on
schedule using appropriate implementation modalities.
105. For the evaluation of the efficiency, this will mainly use information from KPIs
analysis / reports and where information is missing, appropriate data will be collected from the
managers and/or the stakeholders. Evaluation questions:
• To what extent were shared services units properly set up? To what extent the tasks and
duties were appropriate for the achievement of expected results?
• To what extent have the shared services units been designed to deliver impacts and benefits?
www.eufunds.bg
58
What could be improved in the future?
• To what extent have shared services contributed to building the capacity of the stakeholders?
• To what extent are the monitoring systems set up capable of collecting data, detecting
problems and issues? To what extent were the indicators appropriately designed to measure
the progress in relation to the baseline situation and the effectiveness of the targets
implementing the priorities? To what extent were the targets set realistic?
Impact and sustainability
106. Impact is measured by the extent to which the SSU objectives have been achieved
throughout the period of implementation. A key consideration here is the extent to which impact
can be attributed to SSUs only amongst the efforts and interventions of other stakeholders within
the administration. The evaluation also considers how SSUs worked to meet public administration
overall objectives.
107. The evaluation of impact is measured mainly based on KPIs analysis, interviews with
key stakeholders (managers, etc.) and questionnaire surveys to end-recipients of the service,
to develop subjective as well as objective data on SSU performance. Unplanned impacts, both
positive and negative, will also be identified.
108. Sustainability looks at the extent to which the benefits deriving from SSU
performance are, or are likely to be, sustained. The evaluation will therefore review both
performance and more systemic factors that contribute to the longer-term success of the shared
services. Information on sustainability will be identified in KPI analysis / reports and other SSU
activities related documentation, supported by focus group(s) to identify those factors affecting
sustainability. Evaluation questions:
• Have the shared services led to improved public services?
• To what extent have the shared services increased the transparency of public services
• Which sustainable impact has shared services achieved and how can this be measured?
• Which impact, and outcomes can be identified across shared services provided by SSU?
• Has sustainable capacity been created in the SSU / stakeholder institutions?
• Have the SSU / stakeholder institutions ensured full ownership, incl. through involvement
of the main stakeholders?
• Is there a risk that impact and outcomes achieved cannot be being sustained over time (e.g.
through policy or legal reversal)?
www.eufunds.bg
59
9. METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE ON HOW TO PERFORM EVALUATION OF
SHARED SERVICES MODEL
109. The work under the proposed methodology can be divided into the following
sequential components:
• Desk Phase
• Field Phase
• Synthesis Phase
110. Desk Phase includes reviewing documents of relevance and collecting all necessary
information and data for the evaluation, conducting quantitative and qualitative analyses.
111. Desk research will be done through a rigorous review of information / reports, data
from the indicator system and more specific analysis of key performance indicators that
monitor the achievement of shared services units’ objectives. Recommendations will be
formulated regarding the improvement of shared services implementation. In case of previous
evaluation studies, carried out at different shared services implementation periods (ex-ante, on-
going, etc.), the latter will be examined, outlined and given due attention.
During the desk phase, preparation of on-line questionnaire survey with all stakeholders aiming
at collecting quantitative data on shared services implementation shall be done.
112. Field Phase encompasses:
• carrying out on-line questionnaire surveys
• conducting one-to-one interviews with relevant stakeholders
• interviews with managers and executives at the stakeholder institutions
• organising focus groups meetings, etc.
113. Synthesis Phase covers analysis of the theory of change and of the intervention logic,
assessment of the internal/external coherence of the interventions, verification of cause-and-effect
relations, findings and conclusions for all evaluation questions, etc. It will also involve detailing
the findings in a comprehensive report and formulating concrete recommendations for improving
shared services implementation and supporting decision makers in implementation of shared
services and in the formulation of policies and strategies for further improvement and upgrades.
Based on good international practices in performing evaluation and in line with the EC
guidelines on evaluation policy for EU development cooperation the following steps shall be
respected in performing evaluation:
www.eufunds.bg
60
114. Step 1: Initiating the evaluation process relates to checking the readiness for
evaluation. Before formally initiating an evaluation process, the stakeholders’ responsible staff
for evaluation should assess whether the subject of evaluation is ready for evaluation. This entails
determining whether the proposed evaluation is: still relevant and feasible as planned, designed to
be complementary to the previous analysis, and likely to add value to existing information and
other planned and future evaluations. Proposed below is a checklist for determining the degree of
readiness for evaluation.
KEY QUESTIONS TO ASSESS THE READINESS FOR
EVALUATION YES NO
Does the subject of evaluation have a clearly defined results map?
Is there a common understanding as to what is the subject of evaluation?
Is there well-defined results framework for evaluation?
Are the objectives, inputs, outputs clearly defined?
Are there SMART indicators?
Is there enough capacity to provide required data for evaluation? Is there
baseline data? Is there enough data collected from monitoring against a
set of targets?
Is the planned evaluation still relevant?
Is there still a need for evaluation?
Is the purpose of the evaluation clearly defined and commonly shared
amongst stakeholders?
Will political and economic factors allow for an effective performance of
the evaluation and its use as envisaged?
Are there enough resources - human and financial - allocated to
evaluation?
115. Staff responsible for the evaluation need to organize a session with relevant
stakeholders to make improvements to the results map or the results framework. This
includes reviewing the current framework/ map and clearly articulating the intended outcomes,
outputs and indicators and initiate a quick exercise to gather primary data through surveys and a
Step 1 Initiating the
evaluation process
Step 2
Preparation
Step 3Managing the
evaluation
Step 4Using the evaluation
www.eufunds.bg
61
desk review. This also presents an opportunity to establish baselines, which may not have been
made available at the time of planning. If a decision to carry out an evaluation is taken, all parties
concerned should be informed of the decision to ensure buy-in, credibility and transparency of the
evaluation. It is critical to ensure ownership of the evaluation process.
116. Step 2: Preparation - an evaluation manager needs to be appointed who assumes the
day-to-day responsibility for managing the evaluation and serve as a central person
connecting other key players. The evaluation manager should be independent from those directly
responsible for the subject of an evaluation. It is important to ensure ownership of the stakeholders
of evaluation process from the very start. In principle, for every evaluation, there should be a
reference group comprised of key stakeholders to work closely with the evaluation manager to
guide the process. With regard the evaluation of shared services model Shared Services Board will
play that role. For each evaluation, there should also be a mechanism for assuring the quality of
the process and outputs of evaluation, such as Terms of Reference (ToR) and evaluation reports.
A quality ToR should be explicit and focused and provide a clear mandate for the evaluation team
(external, professional and independent) about what is being evaluated and why, who should be
involved in the evaluation process, and expected outputs.
117. While considering the limited capacity in public administration to perform
evaluations and that introducing shared services model is new for the Bulgarian
administration, it is recommended that external evaluators will be hired. It is worthy to use
external evaluator to get professional, independent and realistic assessment supported with
constructive recommendations, though some may consider related costs as extra to other
investments to be done for introducing shared services model and making it fully functional.
118. Selecting the evaluators is important to the quality of evaluations. Independent
evaluation institutions / evaluators will be engaged to carry out the evaluation. A mapping of
key players in the national evaluation system and an assessment of their capacity should be done
prior to commissioning the work. This way necessary arrangements, such as working with
experienced international evaluators or institutions and incorporating capacity development
training as part of the exercise, can be made to address the capacity gaps while making sure that
the end product will meet the agreed quality criteria. The selection of evaluators will be done
through a competitive and transparent process in accordance with the applicable procurement rules
and regulatory framework. Areas of expertise to be considered in the team composition, among
others, include the following:
• Proven expertise and experience in conducting evaluations
• Technical knowledge and experience in shared services and areas of services (HRM, FM),
with specifics depending on the focus of the evaluation and capacity development
• Familiarity with impact assessment and policy-making processes (design, adoption and
implementation).
119. Step 3: Managing the evaluation - It is often misunderstood that safeguarding the
independence of an evaluation means not interfering with the evaluation teams. On the
www.eufunds.bg
62
contrary, the success of the evaluation depends on the level of cooperation and support rendered
by the stakeholders / SSU to the evaluation team. Evaluators will be adequately briefed on the
purpose and scope of the evaluation and explain in terms of the required standards for the quality
of the process and the evaluation products. The evaluators will be:
• ensured with all information available for the evaluation. Support will be provided to
evaluators if they encounter any difficulty in obtaining information.
• organized a forum to be introduced to the stakeholders to facilitate the initial contact. The
evaluation team can also take this opportunity to receive inputs from the stakeholders in
the formulation of the evaluation questions, seek clarifications in the ToR, and exchange
ideas about the ways in which the evaluation will be carried out.
• arranged interviews, meetings and field visits.
• provided comments on and quality assurance of the work plan and the inception report (if
existing) with elaborated evaluation methodology prepared by the evaluation team.
120. Reviewing the inception report prepared by the evaluation team will ensure that the
evaluators understand the assignment. It is recommended that the review and approval of
inception report is done by the Shared Services Board. The inception report should include:
• Evaluation purpose and scope - a clear statement of the objectives of the evaluation and the
main aspects or elements to be examined.
• Evaluation criteria and questions that the evaluators will use to assess performance and
rationale.
• Evaluation methodology - a description of data collection methods and data sources to be
employed, including the rationale for their selection (how they will inform the
evaluation); data collection tools, instruments and protocols and discussion of reliability
and validity for the evaluation.
• Evaluation matrix that identifies the key evaluation questions.
• Resource requirements tied to evaluation activities and deliverables detailed in the work
plan.
121. Following the submission of the first draft of the evaluation report, the evaluation
task manager with key evaluation stakeholders should assure the quality of the report and
provide comments. The evaluation report should be logically structured; contain evidence-based
findings, conclusions, lessons and recommendations; and be presented in a way that makes the
information accessible and comprehensible. If shortcomings exist and there are questions about
the methodological rigour, the evaluators will be asked to improve the report. Care must be taken
to safeguard the independence of judgments made in the evaluation. Evaluation is an independent
exercise. Comments should be limited to issues regarding the applied methodology and factual
errors and omissions. Indicative structure of the evaluation reports is presented below.
www.eufunds.bg
63
INDICATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT
Executive summary
1. Introduction
2. Background and context
Information on the background of shared services introduction and implementation
Other information (details on the strategic approach, links to the theory of change, logical
framework, indicators, etc).
3. Description of the evaluation performed
4. Evaluation method and main findings
5. Findings
The findings will be structured in chapters corresponding to the evaluation questions.
Sub-chapters may be structured as appropriate.
Only the most relevant tables/graphs supporting the analysis must be included in the body of
the report.
The full sets of the quantitative data will be presented in the Annexes.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Annexes
indicatively:
• list of people interviewed;
• key documents consulted;
• data sets;
• data collection instruments.
At this point, the evaluation manager will discuss with key stakeholders the preparation of the
management response, for example, who will be involved in the preparation; when, how and to
what degree; and what issues should be highlighted.
122. Step 4: Using the evaluation - the evaluation process does not end when the evaluation
report is complete. In fact, learning and active use of knowledge generated from the evaluation is
the most important element of the evaluation exercise. Time and resources required for effective
follow up and learning should be allocated at the outset of the shared services units. Lessons
learned, and knowledge generated from evaluations, as well as recommendations provided will be
reviewed together with stakeholders to ensure they are incorporated in the design and functioning
shared services model. International practice shows different approach in performance of
evaluation - in Ireland the administration uses own resources where the team of evaluators is
separate from SSU and they are specialized in evaluation in principle, other countries commission
www.eufunds.bg
64
external evaluators aiming to benefit of specialized companies with international experience. Both
approaches require that evaluators’ independence shall be ensured from SSU day-to-day activities
and management, and necessary financial resources should be planned well in advance and ensured
on time.
123. Managing evaluations and using them, as a management tool requires building
institutional capacity in the administration. It shall be emphasized that despite of the approach
applied - using internal (own resources) or external evaluators, building evaluation capacity in the
Bulgarian central administration and specifically in the shared services organization should start
from the very beginning. The focus should be on building capacity to manage evaluations -
educating and training evaluation managers (referred in step 2 Preparation of the evaluation
process - para 116) and to integrate evaluative thinking and approaches, such as rapid evaluation39,
into the day-to-day operating of the SSU.
124. In this respect the SSB will play an important role in building the internal capacity of
the pilots to carry out regular evaluations and performance management activities. At the
onset, the SSB perform a strategic diagnostic of the desired M&E functions, the existing gaps in
measurement and reporting in terms of both demand (the actual use of M&E information) and
supply (the technical quality of monitoring information and evaluation reports). The SSB should
also identify the key capacity constraints and the capacity-building priorities, and work with the
SSUs to address them. Diagnoses can also help raise awareness and agreement on the priority for
M&E among the staff and leadership of the pilots.
39 Fast and cost-effective approach in evaluation that uses intensive, team-based fieldwork, multi-method data
collection, simultaneous data analysis, and community participation; usually used where time or resources are short.
www.eufunds.bg
65
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED SHARED
SERVICES MODEL
125. The pilot administrations acknowledge that the shared service reform is contributing
to the modernisation of Bulgaria’s central administration. Increasing the knowledge and
understanding of the shared service reform has helped build the capacity of the administration in
managing human resources, payroll and financial management and for improving the capability
and professional skills of the staff. The Government continues its commitment to introducing
shared services to create an innovative public service environment and delivering a quality
administrative services under a constantly improving standard.
126. Ownership of the shared service reform is high. The establishment of the pilot SSUs
was driven by the staff of both pilot administrations and benefited from the strong political support
of the senior management and decision-makers. Despite of difficulties faced in introducing shared
services and institutional set up of SSU, representatives of pilot administrations agree that shared
services is improving how the administration delivers services and has contributed towards
introducing a professional approach to customer service within Bulgaria’s central administration
127. The reform was initiated despite the absence of the most critical preconditions for a
successful reform. Correspondingly, the selected pilot administrations faced formal obstacles,
most notably significant delays in adopting legal changes to enable the reform to move forward;
lack of staff due to limitations on appointing staff in the public administration because of
considerable cuts of staff with general administration functions within the administration in the
past, followed by a blanket restriction on increases of total staff numbers. Short-sightedness
associated with the timing slowed the introduction of the reform within the pilots because of many
actions that were scheduled for the beginning of the calendar year when workload of the “already
lean” HRM and FM staff within the pilots it at its highest.
128. Three SSUs were established - MOH established its SSU for HRM as a separate new
directorate; BFSA established separate SSUs for HRM and FM within the existing
directorates. These SSU’s are at their very initial stage of development. The FM SSU in BFSA
has revised the accounting policy, methodology and chart of accounts following the reengineered
business processes proposed by the World Bank team. The HRM SSU in MOH is now serving a
new government department - Implementing Agency for Medical Audit, proving its capacity to
respond quickly to new and emerging requirements.
11. FURTHER ELABORATED ROADMAP FOR INTRODUCING AND
IMPLEMENTING SHARED SERVICES BASED ON LESSONS LEARNED
FROM PILOT ADMINISTRATIONS
129. The initial roadmap for introducing and implementing the shared services is further
elaborated, taking into account the formal obstacles and constraints faced by the pilot
administrations in introducing shared services. Key considerations for the roadmap are:
www.eufunds.bg
66
• A core precondition is the early adoption and enforcement of required legal changes,
which appears to be most challenging and time demanding process.
• The Strategy for introducing shared services need to be adopted by the government and
related budget appropriations (ICT, human resources, other costs) need to be included in
three-years budget forecast and bill on annual state budget.
www.eufunds.bg
67
Table 7: Further Elaborated
Roadmap for Introduction and Implementation of Shared Services
Pillars Phases 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
I. Strat
egy for
introducin
g shared
services
1. Preparation of Strategy for introducing shared
services
1.1 Baseline report elaboration
1.2 Definition of functions
1.3 Proposal for legislative changes
1.4 Preparation of roadmap for introducing
shared services in public administration
2. Adoption of the Strategy for introducing shared
services by the Government
3. Adoption and enforcement of proposed
legislative changes for shared services
implementation
4. Adoption by the Government of required
investment expenditure for ICT infrastructure
and introduction (elaboration / purchase /
adaptation) of unified HRM and FM
information systems; start of procurement
procedures
5. Adoption of budget appropriations for ensuring
necessary operational expenditure for SSU
functioning
II. Verti
cal shared
1. Introducing shared services in the pilot
administrations
1.1 Design
www.eufunds.bg
68
Pillars Phases 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
services –
pilot
administr
ation
1.2 Establishment
1.3 Implementation
2. Establishment of SSUs - ensuring necessary staff
(by re-organisation and recruitment of new staff)
3. Elaborating a methodology for ex-post
evaluation of shared services model to be used
after one year (as a minimum) effective
functioning of shared services units in pilot
administrations
4. Further implementation of shared services in
pilot administrations and stabilization
4.1 Stabilization
5. Overall evaluation of shared services
implementation in pilot administrations
5.1 Identify lessons learned and provide
recommendations for improving the
implementation of shared services
6. Mid-term review of the Strategy for introducing
shared services based on the overall evaluation of
shared services implementation in pilot
administrations
6.1 Functional scope adaptation
6.2 Analysis of additional legislative changes
6.3 Preparation of proposal for expanding
vertical shared services so to encompass all
ministries, where applicable
www.eufunds.bg
69
Pillars Phases 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
6.4 Elaborating regulatory framework for legal
requirements for standardization of working
processes and use of unified / integrated
information systems for HRM and FM
7. Adoption of government decision for preparation
of horizontal introducing of shared services for
the central administration
III. Expa
nding of
vertical
shared
services
1. Enforcement of legal requirement for introducing
shared services in ministries
2. Introducing shared services in each ministry
2.1 Design
2.2 Establishment
2.3 Implementation
3. Establishment of SSUs - ensuring necessary staff
(by re-organization and recruitment of new staff)
1.1 Implementation of shared services at
ministry level and establishing Shared
Services Boards for the shared service units
(ministry level)
4.
1.2 Overall evaluation of share services
5.
6. Ex-post review of the Strategy for introducing
shared services based on the overall evaluation of
www.eufunds.bg
70
Pillars Phases 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
shared services implementation in the
administration
IV. Hori
zontal
shared
services
1. Development a Strategy for introducing
horizontal shared services at central government
level, including all ministries (possible
exceptions):
1.3 Establishment of Shared Services Board
(for a central shared service center)
1.4 Defining functional scope
1.5 Identifying additional legal changes
1.6 Defining the requirements for ICT
platforms for SS at central government
level
2. Design of horizontal SS:
2.1. Adoption a decision for the functional
model
3. Adaptation of the Strategy for Horizontal SS
based of the evaluation of expanded vertical
shared services model functioning
4. Introducing unified integrated IT system for
horizontal shared services
5. Establishment of Shared Cervices Center (CSS)
5.1. SSC staff recruitment and appointment
5.2. Being fully operational
6. Horizontal share services implementation
www.eufunds.bg
71
Pillars Phases 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
7. Overall evaluation of horizontal shared cervices
7.1 Stabilization
8. Ex-post evaluation of the Strategy for
horizontal shared services
8.1 Adaptation of functional scope
8.2 Proposing additional legal changes
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
72
ANNEX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
Initial Diagnostic Survey HR:
Въпросник за управлението на човешките ресурси в държавната
администрация на Република България
Цел: Въпросникът има за цел да ce запознае с използването на информационни
технологии за управлението на човешките ресурси в министерства и ведомства
на държавната администрация на Република България на централно ниво
Респонденти: Ръководители на отдели за управление на човешките ресурси
1. Обща информация за администрацията
1.1 Наименование на
администрацията
1.2 Брой заети служители в
администрацията към 31.12.2016
г.
1.3 Брой служители на срочни
договори към 31.12.2016 г.
2. Въпроси относно централното управление за 2016 г.
2.1 Брой служители с функции в областта на
управлението на човешките ресурси,
включително ръководителят на звеното за УЧР
към 31.12.2016 г.
2.2 Общ размер на разходите на
администрацията за служителите с функции в
областта на управлението на човешките
ресурси за 2016 г.
2.3 Приблизителен размер на разходите за
издръжка за служителите с функции в областта
на управлението на човешките ресурси за 2016 г.
2.4 Брой служители с функции в областта на
финансово-счетоводни дейности към 31.12.2016
г.
2.5 Общ размер на разходите на
администрацията за служителите,
изпълняващи финансово-счетоводни дейности
за 2016 г.
2.6 Брой териториални звена в
администрацията през 2016 г.
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
73
3. Следващата група въпроси са свързани с всяко от териториалните
звена във вашата администрация, с оглед броя записан по-горе.
3.1 Брой служители с функции в областта на
управлението на човешките ресурси в
териториалното звено към 31.12.2016 г.
3.2 Общ размер на разходите за заплати, други
възнаграждения и социални осигуровки на
служителите с функции в областта на
управлението на човешките ресурси в
териториалните звена за 2016 г.
3.3 Приблизителен размер на разходите за
издръжка за служителите с функции в областта
на управлението на човешките ресурси за 2016 г.
3.4 Брой служители с функции в областта на
финансово-счетоводните дейности в
териториалните звена към 31.12.2016 г.
3.5 Общ размер на разходите за заплати, други
възнаграждения и социални осигуровки на
служителите изпълняващи финансово-
счетоводни дейности в териториалните звена за
2016 г.
3.6 Приблизителен размер на разходите за
издръжка за служителите с функции в областта
на финансово-счетоводните дейности за 2016 г.
The next section will ask questions on the human resource management and
labor force of the central entity and each decentralized and subordinate units
under your management. It seeks to gather information on the Human Resource
Management Information System (HRMIS) that your unit uses. Please check the
box that best describes your answer. Please enter text or numbers where
indicated.
4. Информация за системата използвана за управление на човешките
ресурси
4.1 Използва ли вашата администрация автоматизирана
система за управление на човешките ресурси (АСУЧР)?
Ако Не, моля
преминете към 4.5
Ако Да, моля посочете
името на системата
4.2 Какъв е броят на офисите (помещения в различни сгради)
в централното управление на администрацията, които
използват АСУЧР за управление на служителите?
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
74
4.3 Какъв е броят на териториалните звена, които използват
АСУЧР?
4.4 What are the number of subordinated entities using HRMIS?
4.5 Централното управление обработва заявките и изпълнява
дейностите в областта на човешките ресурси на ръка или
посредством софтуер различен от АСУЧР (ако е така, моля
посочете наименованието на софтуера)?
4.6 Какъв е броят на офисите (помещения в различни сгради)
към централното управление, които извършват дейностите на
ръка или посредством софтуер различен от АСУЧР?
4.7 Има ли териториални звена, които изпълняват дейностите
си на ръка или посредством софтуер различен от АСУЧР?
4.8 Колко териториални звена изпълняват дейностите си на
ръка или посредством софтуер различен от АСУЧР?
4.9 Моля посочете дали във вашата администрация следните
функции се извършват от звеното/експертите по управление
на човешките ресурси или от звеното/експертите във
финансово-счетоводната област:
• Изчисляване и удържане на приложимите данъци и осигуровки
• Изчисляване на СБКО
• Удържане на суми за наеми на ведомствени жилища и за
сметките за мобилни телефони, ако има съгласие на служителя
за това
• Изпълнение на запорните съобщения – удържане на сумите от
заплатите и превеждането им към съдебен изпълнител
• Намаляване на заплатата поради отсъствия поради неплатен
отпуск
• Отсъствия поради болест – обезщетения, уведомяване на НОИ
и пр.
• Изчисляване на заплати
УЧР __ ФС___
УЧР __ ФС ___
УЧР __ ФС ___
УЧР __ ФС ___
УЧР __ ФС ___
УЧР __ ФС ___
5. Следващата група въпроси е свързана ЕИСУЧРДА.
Statement Options for response X
5.1 Администрацията е запозната
с ЕИСУЧРДА
Да ___ (преминете към 5.2)
Не___ (преминете към 11)
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
75
5.2 Администрацията е внедрила
ЕИСУЧРДА
5.2.1 Да, ЕИСУЧРДА е внедрена,
но само в централното управление
(преминете към 6),
5.2.2 Да, ЕИСУЧРДА е внедрена в
централното управление и в
териториалните звена (преминете
към 6)
5.2.3 Не, ЕИСУЧРДА не е
внедрена в администрацията
(преминете към 11)
5.3 Преминали ли са служителите на вашата администрация обучение за работа с
ЕИСУЧРДА? • Да, в рамките на проект „Подобряването на управлението на човешките ресурси чрез
усъвършенстване на ЕИСУЧРДА – предпоставка за ефективна администрация”
• Да, неформално обучение от служители в други администрации, които използват
системата
• Да, друг вид обучение за работа с ЕИСУЧРДА
• Не
6. Функционалности на ЕИСУЧРДА
6.1 Функционалностите, които
ЕИСУЧРДА предлага напълно
отговарят на нуждите на
администрацията.
6.1.1 Да, ЕИСУЧРДА напълно
отговаря на нуждите на
администрацията (преминете към
7.1)
6.1.2 Не, ЕИСУЧРДА само
частично отговаря на нуждите на
администрацията
6.2 В ЕИСУЧРДА липсват важни
функционални
характеристики
6.2.1 Структурата на длъжностите
в ЕИСУЧРДА не е съвместима с
длъжностното разписание в
администрацията
6.2.2 Липсва модул за изчисление
на разходите за персонал
6.2.3 Липсват други
функционалности. Ако изберете
този отговор, преминете към 6.3
6.3 ЕИСУЧРДА не разполага с
важна за администрацията
функционалност. Моля
посочете коя е тази
функционалност.
7. Удобство при използване на ЕИСУЧРДА (моля изберете всички
приложими отговори)
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
76
7.1 Служителите в областта на
управление на човешките
ресурси намират ЕИСУЧРДА
лесна за използване
7.1.1 Да, интерфейсът е интуитивен
и лесен за използване
7.1.2 Не, използването на
ЕИСУЧРДА е неудобно и отнема
много време
7.1.3 Не, използването на
ЕИСУЧРДА е трудно и липсва
помощ за това
(инструкции/наръчник и/или лице
за контакт)
7.1.4 Не, потребителите
непрекъснато трябва да използват
наръчника за употреба, за да
работят с ЕИСУЧРДА
7.1.5 Не, служителите по УЧР
непрестанно се консултират със
звеното в АМС за помощ при
използване на системата
8. Степен на автоматизация на функциите и задачите в областта на УЧР,
при използване на ЕИСУЧРДА
8.1 ЕИСУЧРДА почти изцяло
премахва всички процеси
изпълнявани на ръка в
областта на управлението на
човешките ресурси
8.1.1 Да, нашата администрация
изцяло автоматизира функциите в
областта на УЧР посредством
ЕИСУЧРДА, (преминете към 9)
8.1.2 Не, все още има
необходимост от извършване на
голям обем от работа на ръка от
служителите по УЧР (преминете
към 8.2)
8.2 Ако сте посочили отговор
8.1.2 моля да изброите
функциите, които все още се
изпълняват на ръка
9. Наличие и използване на функции за самообслужване от служителите,
посредством ЕИСУЧРДА
9.1 Запознат съм с функционалностите за служители в ЕИСУЧРДА и
служители в нашата администрация ги използват.
9.2 Функционалностите за служители в ЕИСУЧРДА не са активни в
нашата администрация
9.3 Запознат съм с функционалностите за служители в ЕИСУЧРДА и
планираме да ги активираме и да насърчим служителите да ги
използват, за да автоматизираме процесите по обработка на искания и
заявления в областта на УЧР
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
77
9.4 ЕИСУЧРДА позволява не служителите в нашата администрация да
влязат в системата, да направят справка за информация за служителя,
както и да подадат заявления в областта на УЧР
9.5 ЕИСУЧРДА предлага функционалности за служители и
служителите в нашата администрация влизат в системата, за да
обработват техните заявления в системата.
9.6 Обработването на заявления все още се извършва на ръка, тъй като
действащите правила и процедури изискват хартиена следа за всички
решения, касаещи служителите.
10. Цялостна удовлетвореност от използването на ЕИСУЧРДА
10.1 Цялостно сме удовлетворени от функционалностите и
използването на ЕИСУЧРДА, тъй като системата напълно отговаря на
нашите потребности в областта на УЧР, спестява време и ресурси.
10.2 Доволни сме от използването на ЕИСУЧРДА и виждаме
потенциал за бъдещото й развитие.
10.3 ЕИСУЧРДА значително подобри и опрости работата в областта
на УЧР
10.4 ЕИСУЧРДА не отговаря напълно на нуждите на администрацията
и системата трябва да бъде доразвита.
10.5 Нашата администрация трябва да използва и други системи
паралелно, за да може да използва важни функционалности, които
липсват в ЕИСУЧРДА
10.6 Администрацията има проблеми с достъпа до интернет, което
прекъсва работата.
10.7 Липсва помощ при администрирането на ЕИСУЧРДА
11. Алтернативи на ЕИСУЧРДА
11.1Нашата администрация
използва собствена
информационна система за
управление на човешките
ресурси
Да (преминете към 11.2)
Не (преминете към 12)
11.2 Нашата администрация използва система, която е специално
разработена, за да отговори на нуждите ни в областта на УЧР
11.3 Нашата администрация закупи готова система, която е
конфигурирана, за да отговори на нуждите ни в областта на УЧР
11.4 Запозната ли е Вашата администрация с ЕИСУЧРДА?
11.5 Причината нашата
администрация да използва
собствена информационна
система за УЧР е:
11.5.1 Нашата система е ефикасна и
изцяло отговаря на изисквания в
областта на УЧР, както и предлага
връзка с други системи
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
78
11.5.2 Имаме ограничения за
информационната сигурност, които
не ни позволяват да
споделяме/разкриваме информация
за служителите
11.5.3 Нямаме нужда (или стимул)
да сменяме системата, която
използваме в момента
11.5.4 Нашата администрация не
може да използва уеб-базирана
система, защото нямаме добра
връзка с интернет
11.5.5 В ЕИСУЧРДА липсват
функционалности, които са важни
за нашата администрация
11.6 Ако сте избрали
отговор 11.5.5, моля
посочете какви
допълнителни
функционалности
предлага вашата
информационна система, с
които ЕИСУЧРДА не
разполага
12. Нашата администрация би използвала ЕИСУЧРДА при определени
обстоятелства
12.1Нашата администрация би
преминала към използване на
ЕИСУЧРДА ако …
12.1 Ползите от системата се
комуникират по-ясно
12.2 предостави се помощ при
внедряване, обучение на
потребителите и помощ при
използването
12.3 Добавят се допълнителни
модули и функционалности
12.4 Системата предоставя по-
навременни отговори на нашите
изисквания
12.5Разполагаме със стабилна
интернет връзка
12.2 Моля посочете и други
фактори, които считате за
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
79
необходими, за да премине
вашата администрация към
използване на ЕИСУЧРДА
13. Делегиране на УЧР функции към външно звено
13.1Ако можехте да намалите
натоварването на служители
чрез делегиране на рутинни
функции в областта на УЧР,
кои бихте избрали от
посочения списък?
13.1 предварителен подбор на
подходящи кандидати за запълване
на свободни позиции
13.2 администриране на досиетата
на служителите
13.3 изготвяне на стандартни
документи/удостоверения, свързани
със статута на служителите
13.4 предоставяне на консултации
на служителите по въпроси от
областта на УЧР
13.5 обработване на заявленията за
отпуск
13.6 отчитане на отработеното
време
13.7 изчисляване и администриране
на възнагражденията (заплати,
допълнителни възнаграждения и
пр.)
13.8 разработване на планове за
развитие на служителите
13.9 дейности, свързани с
предоставяне на обучение за
професионално развитие
13.10 помощ при разрешаване на
конфликти
13.11 изчисления при пенсиониране
13.12 друго (моля посочете в 13.2)
13.2 Други функции, които
могат да бъдат делегирани на
външно звено
14. Обратна връзка
This is the last section. It will ask questions about feedback used in HRM. Please
indicate the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
14.1 Редовно се събира обратна връзка за услугите
предоставяни от звената по УЧР
Да (преминете
към 14.2)
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
80
Не
(преминете
към 14.9)
14.2 Обратната връзка за услугите предоставяни от звената
по УЧР се взема предвид и се прилага впоследствие
14.3 Обратната връзка за услугите предоставяни от звената
по УЧР е полезна
14.4 Нашата администрация разполага с добре развити
механизми и канали за събиране на обратна връзка за
услугите предоставяни от звената по УЧР от служителите
14.5 Кой събира обратната връзка?
14.6 Колко често се събира обратната връзка?
14.7 Какъв е механизмът за събиране на обратна връзка?
14.8 Използвате ли събраната информация за промяна на
действащите процедури?
14.9 Смятате ли, че събирането на обратна връзка е/може да
бъде полезно за подобряване на предоставяние услуги в
областта на УЧР?
14.10 Колко често смятате, че следва да се събира обратна
връзка?
Благодарим Ви за попълването на въпросника!
Вашите отговори ще допринесат за разработването на предложения, свързани с
модернизиране на дейностите, свързани с управление на човешките ресурси в
държавната администрация.
Performance Management Survey:
АНКЕТА ЗА СИСТЕМАТА ЗА ОЦЕНКА НА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕТО
ПРИ УПРАВЛЕНИЕТО НА ЧОВЕШКИТЕ РЕСУРСИ
Информция на администрацията и лицето попълващо анкетата
№ Въпрос Поле за отговори
1 Име на aдминистрацията
2 Лице за контакт
2.1 Име
2.2 Длъжност
2.3 Имейл адрес
3 Брой УЧР служители в
администрацията
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
81
№ Въпрос Поле за отговори
4 Общ брой служители в
администрацията
Въпроси свързани със системата за оценка на изпълнението
№ Въпрос Поле за отговори
5 Вашата администрация има ли
Система за оценка по
изпълнението?
6 Смятате ли че използването на
Система за оценка по изпълнението
е/би било полезено за вашата
организация? И защо?
7 Събира ли УЧР звеното обратна
връзка от служителите в
администрацията?
Ако да, колко често?
8 Изготвя ли звеното за УЧР анализи
по ключови УЧР индикатори?
Ако да преминете към следващия
въпрос, ако не обяснете защо не
изготвяте такива анализи
9 Моля опишете какви анализи
изготвяте и кои ключови
индикатори покривате?
Каква е целта на УЧР анализите и
кой е основния ползвател на тези
анализи?
10 Централно звено включва ли
регионалните администрации при
изготвянето на УЧР анализи?
Централното звено събира ли
количествени данни от
регионалните звена? Ако да колко
често? Ако да как се събират данни
от регионалните звена?
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените
услуги в организацията и работата на централната администрация, финансиран
по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз
чрез Европейския социален фонд
82
№ Въпрос Поле за отговори
11 Как бихте подходили при
изчисляване на средната
заболеваемост на служителите в
администрацията, за централно и
регионалните звена?
(моля опишете стъпките и
източниците на информация при
изпълнението на запитването)
12 Колко време би ви отнело
изпълнението на едно такова
запитване?
13 Поддържа ли звеното електронна
база данни с актуална информация
за служителите в адинистрацията?
(ако да опишете какви бази данни
поддържа звеното)
14 Какво смятате че би улеснило
работата на УЧР отдела при
изготвяне на анализии и запитвания
за състоянието на човешките
ресурси в администрацията?
15 Моля посочете дали срещнахте
проблеми при попълването на
Следващата група въпроси и какви:
Процеси по УЧР Количествени.
Моля преминете на следващата
група въпроси и се върнете на
настоящия въпрос след попълването
на количествените въпроси.
Затруднихте ли се да издотвите
исканата информация? Колко време
ви отне изготвянето на справката,
имаше ли въпроси за които нямахте
достъп до необходимата
информация?
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
83
Въпроси свързани с Процесите по УЧР и наличието на количествена информация
№ Процес
Време/Срок за изпълнение на
процеса
(в дни)
Брой работни дни
Крайни и междинни
резултати от
изпълнението на
услугата от УЧР
звеното
Брой
изготвени
документи за
2018 г
(пример: брой
изготвени
докладни
записки към
органа по
назначаване;
брой
допуснати
кандидат;)
Колона за
коментари
16 ПОДБОР (на
конкурсен принцип)
Какво е средното
време/срок за
назначаване на
държавен служител?
(от издаване на
Докладна за започване
на конкурс до
Отправяне на
16.1
Отправено предложение
за заемане на длъжност
към най-успешния
класиран кандидат
(Докладна записка към
Органа по назначаване с
предложение за
назначаване)
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
84
№ Процес
Време/Срок за изпълнение на
процеса
(в дни)
Брой работни дни
Крайни и междинни
резултати от
изпълнението на
услугата от УЧР
звеното
Брой
изготвени
документи за
2018 г
(пример: брой
изготвени
докладни
записки към
органа по
назначаване;
брой
допуснати
кандидат;)
Колона за
коментари
предложение за за
заемане на длъжността) 16.2
Изготвени проекти на
конкурсна
документация
16.3 Проведени конкурси
16.4 Приети документи от
кандидати
16.5 Допуснати кандидати
до изпит и интервю
16.6 Жалби от недопуснати
кандидати
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
85
№ Процес
Време/Срок за изпълнение на
процеса
(в дни)
Брой работни дни
Крайни и междинни
резултати от
изпълнението на
услугата от УЧР
звеното
Брой
изготвени
документи за
2018 г
(пример: брой
изготвени
докладни
записки към
органа по
назначаване;
брой
допуснати
кандидат;)
Колона за
коментари
17 МОБИЛНОСТ
Какво е средното
време/срок за
преминаване на служба
в приемна
администрация? (От
Изготвяне на
мотивирана докладна
записка за започване на
процедура за
мобилност до
Сключени тристранни
споразумения )
17.1
Сключени тристранни
споразумения за
преминаване на
държавна служба в
приемащата
администрация на
одобрения кандидат
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
86
№ Процес
Време/Срок за изпълнение на
процеса
(в дни)
Брой работни дни
Крайни и междинни
резултати от
изпълнението на
услугата от УЧР
звеното
Брой
изготвени
документи за
2018 г
(пример: брой
изготвени
докладни
записки към
органа по
назначаване;
брой
допуснати
кандидат;)
Колона за
коментари
18 НАЗНАЧЕНИЯ
Какво е средното
време/срок за
назначаване на
служители? (От
Подаване на заявление
и документи за
кандидатстване до
Встъпване в длъжност)
18.1 Встъпване в длъжност
18.2 Издаване на Досиета
18.3 Издаване на Служебна
карта
18.4 Заповед за назначаване
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
87
№ Процес
Време/Срок за изпълнение на
процеса
(в дни)
Брой работни дни
Крайни и междинни
резултати от
изпълнението на
услугата от УЧР
звеното
Брой
изготвени
документи за
2018 г
(пример: брой
изготвени
докладни
записки към
органа по
назначаване;
брой
допуснати
кандидат;)
Колона за
коментари
19 ПРЕКРАТЯВАНЕ НА
ПРАВООТНОШЕНИЕ
Какво е средното
време/срок за
прекратяване на
правоотношение? (От
Подаване на заявление
или предизвестие до
Връчена заповед за
прекратяване на
правоотношение)
19.1
Издадена заповед за
прекратяване на
правоотношение
20 ОБУЧЕНИЕ И
РАЗВИТИЕ
Какво е средното
време/срок за
подготовка на
обучение? (От
20.1 Проведени обучения
20.2 Завършени обучения с
получени сертификати
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
88
№ Процес
Време/Срок за изпълнение на
процеса
(в дни)
Брой работни дни
Крайни и междинни
резултати от
изпълнението на
услугата от УЧР
звеното
Брой
изготвени
документи за
2018 г
(пример: брой
изготвени
докладни
записки към
органа по
назначаване;
брой
допуснати
кандидат;)
Колона за
коментари
Разпространяване на
информация отн.
възможности за
обучение до
Съхраняване на
сертификати от
обучения в досиетата
на служителите)
20.3
Служители с
Индивидуален план за
обучение
21 ОТПУСКИ
Какво е средното
време/срок за издаване
на заповед за отпуск?
(От Заявление за отпуск
21.1 Заявление за ползване
на годишен отпуск
21.2 Заявление за ползване
на неплатен отпуск
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
89
№ Процес
Време/Срок за изпълнение на
процеса
(в дни)
Брой работни дни
Крайни и междинни
резултати от
изпълнението на
услугата от УЧР
звеното
Брой
изготвени
документи за
2018 г
(пример: брой
изготвени
докладни
записки към
органа по
назначаване;
брой
допуснати
кандидат;)
Колона за
коментари
до Изпращане на копие
от заповедта до ФСД за
изчисляване на
заплати)
21.3 Издадена заповед за
отпуск
21.4
Ползвани дни платен
годишен отпуск общо за
администрацията
21.5
Ползвани дни неплатен
годишен отпуск общо за
администрацията
21.6
Дни неползван платен
годишен отпуск общо за
администрацията
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
90
№ Процес
Време/Срок за изпълнение на
процеса
(в дни)
Брой работни дни
Крайни и междинни
резултати от
изпълнението на
услугата от УЧР
звеното
Брой
изготвени
документи за
2018 г
(пример: брой
изготвени
докладни
записки към
органа по
назначаване;
брой
допуснати
кандидат;)
Колона за
коментари
22 БОЛНИЧНИ
Какво е средното
време/срок за
регистриране на
болничен лист?
22.1 Регистриране на
болнични листове
22.2
Регистрирани дни
временна
неработоспособност
общо за
администрацията
23 УЧР
КОНСУЛТИРАНЕ
Какво е средното
време/срок за решеване
на казуса/запитването?
23.1 Получени запитвания
23.2 Разрешен УЧР казус
Проект №BG05SFOP001-2.001-0009: Въвеждане на принципа на споделените услуги в организацията и работата на централната
администрация, финансиран по Оперативна програма „Добро управление“, съфинансиран от Европейския съюз чрез Европейския
социален фонд
91
Change Management Survey:
ИЗСЛЕДВАНЕ НА НАГЛАСИТЕ СПРЯМО ВЪВЕЖДАНЕТО НА СПОДЕЛЕНИ УСЛУГИ В ЗВЕНАТА, ОТГОВАРЯЩИ ЗА УПРАВЛЕНИЕ НА ЧОВЕШКИТЕ РЕСУРСИ И НА ФИНАНСОВАТА ДЕЙНОСТ
19а. Каква е вашата удовлетвореност от предоставените услуги по УЧР? Оценете, като използвате скала от 1 до 10, където 10 отговаря на най-голямо удовлетворение, а 1 - най-ниска степен на удовлетвореност
база: 188, данните се четат по ред
1 - Най-малка удовлетвореност
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - Най-голяма
удовлетвореност
Длъжностни характеристики
Назначаване, Преназначаване и Прекратяване
Отпуски
Обучения
Изменение на заплатите на база годишни оценки
Консултиране по УЧР въпроси