6.1 Introduction
6.2 What Public Service are we trying to build?
6.2.1 Context of transformation
6.2.2 Development in the field of Public Management
6.2.3 Local lessons learnt over the last five years
6.2.4 Themes for changing the Public Service
6.2.5 Strengthening management capacity
6.2.6 Uniformity and differentiation
6.2.7 Improving quality of service delivery
6.2.8 Better people management
6.2.9 Electronic government
6.3 Conclusion
As highlighted in the previous Chapters of this report, despite the major advances in the transformation of the public service, we remain faced with important challenges as we enter the new century. This Chapter focuses on the challenges facing public service transformation in the next five years and explores opportunities to confront these challenges. As will be elaborated on later in the chapter, it has become a trend in the developing world among public institutions, to optimise the allocation of public resources and raise the quality and accessibility of services. The contextual demands and requirements of the South African state inform the direction in which we seek to take the development of the public service over the next five years. We are however also learning from experiences across the developing and developed world in the field of public management.
The last five years was a period of great change for the public service. As highlighted in earlier sections of the report, significant progress was made in implementing the priorities stated in the White Paper on Public Service Transformation that was adopted by government in 1995.
The priorities for the public service as articulated in the White Paper are:
In line with the above priorities, the development of the public service over the last five years highlights two interconnected but distinct phases in the transformation process. These are the first generation reforms marked by rationalisation and integration of previous administrations between 1992 and 1996, and the second-generation reforms more recently of modernising the public service.
The first-generation reforms of between 1992 (with the Transitional Executive Authority) and 1996 focused on the rationalisation of former homeland and ”RSA“ administrations, the creation of provincial administrations, and the like. Overall it resulted in the establishment of a single public service and the democratisation of governance in South Africa. There was a focus on the removal of historical inequalities in the legislation and in the exercise of government affairs, including equalisation of conditions of service and benefits, and on increasing the accessibility of public service employment to allow for greater representivity.
For the first time, a government in this country involved citizens and communities in the formulation and design of policy through a variety of consultative fora. Hence a culture of greater community and stakeholder involvement and participation was started and remains a key component of governance in South Africa today. The democratisation process also involved the setting up of numerous independent bodies, agencies and ombuds-persons to facilitate transparency and protect citizens against any government excesses.
The second-generation reforms entail various attempts to modernise what was (and in some instances, still is) largely a highly bureaucratic, unaccountable and archaic public service into a modern instrument for the delivery of developmental policies. The public service prior to 1994 employed outdated and archaic organisational and management systems. The organisational form was highly centralist, hierarchic, and relied heavily on Taylorist work study principles. The systems for personnel and financial management were inadequate, and the use of information technology was minimal.
Although efforts to modernise the public service continue to be on our agenda today (and will be for some time to come), significant progress is being made to modernise the public service. Some of the significant achievements in modernising the public service are:
The implementation of the new Public Service Regulations on the 1st of July 1999 and the Public Finance Management Act on the 1st of April 2000 is part of our effort to deepen the modernisation of the public service. The effort to modernise the public service will remain on our agenda for some time to come. Progress in implementing these second-generation reforms remains uneven across national and provincial departments. Although we have created a single public service, there are still outstanding issues from the rationalisation phase, e.g. supernumeraries, integration of systems, etc. Various reports on the public service, including the Presidential Review Commission, have continued to sensitise us to the fact that the public service is made up of diverse organisations, which, although governed by a single framework, are different in relation to context, capacity, resource availability and delivery challenges. Although we have created a single public service, there are still outstanding issues from the rationalisation phase, e.g. supernumeraries, integration of systems, etc.
As the President emphasised in his Opening Address to Parliament, “We are still faced with the task of completing the restructuring of the machinery of government”.
The key questions are:
As we continue the search for excellence in providing quality public services and plot our course for the next few years, we will focus our minds on the following issues:
All this must be within our capacity and in terms of prevailing conditions.
6.2.1 Context of transformation
The public service, as the primary institution and basis for the realisation of government objectives, follows the strategy, character and structure of the state. Since the public service is essentially a political institution, it is imperative that efforts to transform state institutions be located within the context of politically defined objectives. The South African state is characterised as a national democratic and developmental state whose primary role is the transformation of society in line with the values of the Constitution. The content of this transformation is defined in the Reconstruction and Development Programme adopted by government as the democratisation of state and society, the building of the economy, the meeting of the basic needs of society and the development of our human resources. The state thus has a mission to redress historical inequalities, empower the disadvantaged and intensify the war against poverty and underdevelopment.
Given the challenges that arise out of our history, there is overwhelming consensus that the state must strengthen its ability to pursue developmental objectives. Transformation in the public service context is, therefore, about maximising the impact of the state on society. The objective of transforming the state system is to ensure that public goods and services have the maximum desired impact on society. Our starting point should thus be based on the menu of public goods and services provided by the state and how we can improve these to ensure the state system achieves politically defined objectives.
Acceleration of the provision of public goods and services is thus about accessibility and quality of services; how efficiently they are provided; and whether these services are achieving the desired impact on society. This is what the public service is ultimately accountable for. Notwithstanding this unity of purpose, South Africa is a highly diverse and divided society and the state has to cope with the economic and political imperatives of a modern global system and the local realities of underdevelopment. 6.2.2 Development in the field of public management
Internationally, the transformation of the state has centred on a review of policy outcomes, modernisation, management reforms, efficiency, budgeting and financial management, value for money, quality of services, ethos and accountability.
As countries have realised that the demands of the modern economy and complex social relations require something more than an administration based on principles of rationality and formalistic legal control, so has been the ascendancy of reforms generally referred to as ‘managerial public administration’ or ‘managerialism’. Mainly as a response to the economic crisis and the failure of bureaucratic public administration, managerialism emerged in the second half of the last century as a strategy for focusing on accountability for outcomes and for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the state.
Managerialism is outcome and citizen oriented, focuses on empowering management, holding them accountable and on modernising the operations of government. Managerial public administration is result-oriented, focuses less on bureaucracy, procedures and regulations and more on decentralisation, delegation of authority to managers and accountability for performance. Managerialism also focuses on partnerships with other sectors in society to achieve the desired outcomes of the state.
The danger with managerialism is that the approach has been historically associated with what has been characterised as neo-liberalism and the rise of the so called ‘new right’. Managerialism ascended in Britain after a conservative government took power in 1979 and has been closely linked to the rise of public choice theory and ‘cut back management’. Yet these ideas emerged in New Zealand, France, Australia and Sweden when the social democrats were in office most of the time. In Brazil, these ideas arose first in 1969, years before the rise of neo-liberalism in that country. In developing countries, managerialist ideas and approaches were taken on board as part of a genuine search for public sector management improvement, not as an ideological exercise to cut back government. Admittedly some of the changes have been undertaken at the behest of international financial donors and lenders. However countries interested in establishing sound governance have also adopted some of these reforms in pursuit of strong and effective government.
After almost three decades of international experimentation with managerialism and similar approaches, it is now clear that there is no ‘one best way’ of managing public service organisations. Countries have approached public service reform in different ways and, over time, there has been a significant amount of diffusion in approaches to transformation. Despite the high level of policy borrowing and exchanges, approaches to transformation have varied by country and even within a country, by sector. Managerialist approaches have been implemented in varying forms and configurations by different public services and to varying degrees of success. Although some of these approaches have been presented as ‘the only right way’, recent research and evaluation reflects that not all these concepts have universal application. Different types of approaches are suitable to different types of institutions, depending on context, type of service, capacity and resource availability. Another important variable has been the value systems and developmental impact intended by the governments implementing these reforms.
Learning from international experience and from the various reforms executed by our Southern African Development Community partners and, indeed, the rest of the continent, we are committed to pursuing initiatives that fit with our local peculiarities, resource constraints and capacity. We adopt the approach of ‘global challenges, local solutions’ to ensure we are not ignorant of global developments but, equally, remain focused on local solutions. The answers to most of our challenges lie in our creative ability, commitment and the continuous openness to learn from those who have tried similar initiatives elsewhere.
6.2.3 Local lessons learnt over the last five years
After five years of rationalising and modernising the public service we have had varied degrees of success and we have drawn some hard lessons that should guide our future actions. Some of these are that:
- The time lines for transformation were over-optimistic.
- There was a tendency to tackle transformation in an unplanned way (doing too many things at the same time) and not necessarily properly sequenced.
- The importance of management development was underestimated.
- The complexity of introducing new policies as well as the expected pace of change and the devolution of powers were not commensurate with the pace of developing new managers.
- The focus of change initiatives was mainly at senior management level. A lot remains to be done at middle management and institutional management levels.
- The public service remains to a large extent issue and crisis driven. Very little strategic planning and visionary management takes place in practice.
- The regulatory frameworks needs to be made more flexible to accommodate the creative approaches that were coming forward. Instead they tended to act as barriers to innovation.
- With hindsight, our transformation approach in some instances may have undermined the resilience and self-protecting nature of the bureaucracy.
- Our accountability framework remains unclear. Are our managers empowered and capacitated enough to be really accountable for delivery of services? There are many accountability models that have been applied by different countries in this regard. Some have had the thrust of ”letting managers manage“ fairly autonomously and then account for performance and policy outcomes. Some have ensured a much closer and tighter political-administrative interface in which executing authorities and accounting officers have virtually unified accountability for management and policy implementation. Some have had a much wider but clearly defined distinction between Ministries and Departments. There are many models. Each of these is an attempt to create an accountability framework that works for the local circumstances and public service system.
As we seek to accelerate the transformation process, we need to take into account several guidelines regarding reforms.
The first of these is that reform or transformation is a medium- to long-term agenda. We should, therefore, avoid overloading the public service with too many initiatives without regard to sequencing and/or appropriateness. We should also always take into account or consolidate our capacity to manage the changes and processes, to ensure more effective execution of these initiatives.
The second is that reforms should be comprehensive rather than piecemeal. We should guard against compartmentalisation and seek to integrate the various reform initiatives. At the moment we have a set of reforms focusing on the budget and financial management, another set on deregulation, another on performance management, and another on reforming wage practices. Budgeting cannot be reshaped without also restructuring the management framework within which financial resources are spent and activities carried out. We need effective integration and clarity on the collaborative and interdependent nature of the reforms. Another point to consider is that reforms should rely on incentives, not just formal rules, to change behaviour. The assumption that changing formal rules alters the actions and performance of public servants has never been proved correct. A succession of failed reforms and evidence from various disciplines has driven home a conclusion that the best way to motivate managers and employees is to set clear and reachable performance targets, provide sufficient flexibility and hold them personally and organisationally accountable.
Furthermore, reforms should be concentrated on operations and service delivery. The focus has shifted from policy-making overkill to modernising line operations, improving process and approaches for the delivery of services and responding to the needs of the public service to society. A focus on improving service delivery requires that we abandon a ”one size fits all“ approach to reform and deepen our understanding of line departments and sectoral strategies and operations.
Finally, learning should be an integral part of the process. In any reform process, mistakes are bound to happen. Our only safeguard is to build into our strategy processes for reflection and learning as well as sharing of experiences. We have neither sufficient knowledge nor experience about public service reform to reject processes of learning and reflection.
6.2.4 Themes for changing the public service
Our efforts over the next five years will be focused on consolidating the successes of the rationalisation process, intensifying the modernisation of public service systems and continuing the quest for better quality services. Based on an assessment of the state of the public service, various reports, including the Presidential Review Commission and internal deliberations within the public service, future changes will be around the following themes, which are discussed below:
6.2.4.1 Improving co-ordination of government efforts to transform the public service
There are many initiatives throughout the public service aimed at improving the effective and efficient functioning of government institutions. The existence of these multiple projects, both locally and internationally funded, indicate the commitment of government to transform institutions of delivery. The problem, however, is that these initiatives tend to work in parallel and to duplicate each other. The problem with such duplication is not only that the same thing is done twice or thrice, it is also that it spreads the resources we have for transformation too thin. Duplication also creates a degree of cynicism about the transformation processes, and creates a risk of contradictions. When such duplication is between the regulatory departments, it creates impossible demands for line departments and public managers. All this is a cost that diverts energy away from the core function of delivering services. Of particular importance is the need for greater co-ordination among central departments, especially the DPSA, PSC, Finance and State Expenditure, Provincial Affairs and Local Government, and the Presidency. This would ensure harmonisation of regulatory initiatives, as well as align our efforts to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of government programmes.
6.2.4.2 Improving the monitoring and evaluation of government programs
One of the lessons from the last five years is that we have developed more policies more than we have developed the requisite capacity to implement. To that extent, we are not convinced about whether our implementation processes are achieving intended policy objectives. We also have not put in place systems that assist us to know whether, indeed, we are achieving the desired impact on society. Such systems would be at different levels, to accommodate the different departments.Such policy and programme evaluation includes assessment of appropriateness of current policy, regular monitoring of programmes to ensure outcomes are realised, expenditure evaluation, efficiency of implementation processes and other ethical dimensions.
There are numerous efforts under way to improve the monitoring and evaluation of government programs. Amongst these are the MTEF process, sectoral reviews, 4x4 partnerships, the work of the Public Service Commission and the Auditor General, the President's Co-ordinating Council and the policy unit in the Presidency. The current cabinet cluster system and greater integration through the various cluster committees presents an opportunity for government to tighten its ability to monitor and evaluate government programs and performance on a consistent basis. Additional efforts to improve the monitoring and evaluation of government programmes must focus on the three points outlined below.
Firstly, provision should be made for a systematic review of government programmes beyond mere financial information. Currently, we are over-reliant on financial information to make judgements about the performance of government programmes. There is a need to factor other quality indicators such as societal outcomes, outputs against set targets, extent of equitable delivery and accessibility of services and standards. The first step should be to require all departments to adhere to the principles outlined in the Batho Pele White Paper by publishing information and thus developing a reliable data base on service delivery. If this process was already in place, the nature of the debate about unspent funds in departments would have been a substantially different one, since the focus would have been more on impact rather than a narrow quantitative focus on spending.
Secondly, at the centre of government, the Presidency, Departments of Finance, Public Service and Administration, Provincial and Local Government, as well as the Public Service Commission, must enhance the ability to monitor government performance and develop early warning systems about failures of government programmes. Work has already started to enhance the capacity of the Presidency and other central institutions to monitor performance of programmes and these will hopefully lead to better policy analysis and decision making.
Thirdly, critical to improving the monitoring and evaluation of government performance is the need for reliable on-time management information. Our current information on the public service requires fundamental improvements and even more real time information is required to improve management and better decision making. Various initiatives are underway to improve these and there is a need for greater co-ordination amongst the various institutions responsible for transversal systems. An improved monitoring and evaluation process will ensure that citizens and communities are better informed about government performance, instead of relying on perception-based media ratings. Citizens and communities will be better informed about the successes and failures of government programmes, have a better sense of the impact of such programs and, more importantly, appreciate the causes of government failure, where appropriate.
6.2.5 Strengthening management capacity
Of all the key challenges facing the public service today, none can be said to be more central than the need to attract, develop and sustain capable managers. The Presidential Review Commission and subsequent reports on the performance of public service organisations have highlighted the need to attract and retain talented managers within the public service system. As articulated in the WPPSTF, we had set ourselves on a process to empower managers and hold them accountable.
It is proposed to move increasingly towards a system under which managerial responsibility will be devolved and decentralised, while at the same time accountability for specified objectives will be increased.
”As part of this process, it is proposed that the contracts of Directors-General be tied to the achievement of specific performance objectives and targets. At the same time, DGs will be given the necessary flexibility, autonomy and resource control to ensure that such objectives and targets are met.“ (WPPSTF: 38, 1995)
As part of the process to equip public managers and hold them accountable for performance, legislative and regulatory amendments were made to decentralise human resource and financial management responsibilities to managers. A system of fixed-term employment contracts was introduced, performance based pay increases came into effect and there is now greater focus on the accountability of Heads of Departments. Even the initial teething problems about the political-administrative interface seem to have been resolved after the Forum of Directors-General agreed on a protocol to guide their relationship with politicians. The assignment of more responsibilities to managers will given further impetus by the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act that comes into effect on the 1st of April 2000.
In the course of this year, we will continue consolidating the strengthening of management capacity in the public service by launching initiatives, both legislative and regulatory, which will be aimed at the objectives outlined in the four paragraphs below.
There needs to be a broadening of the definition of management to include managers of public institutions such as hospitals, prisons, schools and other operational entities. Management, and consequently all responsibilities, forms of accountability and benefits associated with managing, must be extended to all appropriate levels of management in the public service. This should be part of a process to encourage management positions in the public service to be filled by experienced and capable managers, as opposed to being part of a career progression for professionals and technicians in various fields.
There needs to be a clarification of the accountability of managers at various levels in the public service. The public service regulations and the Public Finance Management Act all advocate devolution and delegation of responsibilities to managers and, although the systems are not contradictory, they harbour different assumptions about accountability. Additional measures are required to align the performance agreements with delegations and accountability expectations of management in the public service. Accountability for policy appropriateness, performance and impact should remain at a political level, whereas accountability for output, quality and efficiency should be at management level. All parties should be provided with the necessary responsibilities and tools to be held accountable. A significant part of these reforms will be providing Executing Authorities with relevant instruments and support to evaluate the performance of their Heads of Department.
Improvement in the quality of the recruitment process is needed in order to attract better and more capable managers as well as improving the conditions of service of managers. A greater portion of the remuneration of management will be risk-based and linked to performance, and the salaries of managers will be brought in line with international trends of clean and transparent remuneration. Without effective incentive regimes, the current system of performance agreements for managers will be under-utilised and not serve as an instrument for improving service delivery. As part of improving the quality of recruitment of managers and providing for more effective management development, all management positions in the public service will be subjected to competency profiling. This will be complemented by the launching of a high-level learnership programme for Directors General and Heads of Departments and later on to other levels of public service management.
The establishment of a professional association for managers in the public domain would be invaluable. Managers in the public service require a professional body to canvass opinions and cater for their professional development and to agree on a code of ethics. We are currently investigating the setting up of an institutional framework for senior public servants, which will not only cater for professional development and career progression, but will also remove the necessity for managers becoming members of trade unions. To complement the framework for disclosure of financial interests that became operational from the 1st of April 2000, additional steps will be taken to remove managers from the bargaining council and to establish special provisions for expediting disciplinary procedures against managers in cases of poor conduct and corruption.
The real test of our continuing efforts to strengthen management capacity in the public sector will be the nurturing of a ‘mandarin culture’, where a cross section of skilled personnel from society will constantly strive to become managers dedicated to furthering the public interest and where managing public service organisations becomes part of the national pride. This would require that we improve the prestige of the senior management service and other echelons of the public service.
6.2.6 Uniformity and differentiation
Uniformity and differentiation refer to the extent to which public service institutions function in terms of similar rules and the nature and form of the differentiation in the management of public institutions. The public service has historically been over-centralised and subjected to a practice where all rules applied to all departments, irrespective of sector, capacity or resource availability. It is now evident that there is a substantial difference between public sector organisations and that it is not possible to sustain the current ‘one size fits all’ approach.
The constitution requires a single public service and yet the public service is a diverse institution, in terms of types of services to be delivered, capacity and geographic needs. A framework is required to satisfy the political and constitutional require ment for a single public service whilst catering for the need for differentiation. The current differentiation between types of state institutions does not always make sense from the point of view of rational analysis. Also the roles between national, provincial and local government, although clear from a legal/constitutional point of view, vary in practice. This is also related to the degree of centralisation, decentralisation, relative autonomy of public institutions, private/public partnerships and our terminology in defining the state sector.
The limitation has also been in defining the state sector in terms of different laws without a clear legal and values framework that delineates the state sector. The PFMA starts moving in that direction by applying to all institutions that receive public funds, but the current public service legislation is limited to a legal definition in terms of the Public Service Act. A recent trend is that increasing numbers of organisations are seeking to move out of the public service legislative framework in search of a more flexible regulatory framework.
The key questions are the following: Is it necessary to develop a management framework for all these types of institutions? What is the justification for state institutions falling into one category or another? How do we define uniformity whilst recognising the differences amongst state institutions?
As was stated in the White Paper, it was always the intention of government to, “Replace the excessive and debilitating centralism of the current system of public administration with an approach that permits maximum departmental autonomy and managerial responsibility within a coherent national public service”. The current deregulation focus has been more on personnel and finance, necessarily so, because it is these two areas that are heavily regulated. Under the current dispensation, recruitment, selection, labour relations, training and personnel size are incorporated in the public service regulations with the emphasis on developing Good Management Guides within a context where departments remain responsible for ultimate decision making. Such a guide will be authoritative on issues such as organisation al design, human resources, information technology, organisational development and offer “practical examples of suitable managerial instruments available for departmental, provincial and institutional use.”
Equally, managers require more flexibility and control over expenditure-related issues and the National Treasury is already examining ways of enhancing financial management and resource flexibility. It is hoped that the new regulations supporting the implementation of the PFMA will address the following issues:
- deregulation by removing micro-level controls;
- decentralisation by expanding the delegation of Treasury and State Tender Board authorities;
- expanding the scope of spending agency budgets to include more of the costs that directly affect spending agency management decisions;
- retention and utilisation of revenue generated by spending agencies;
- expanding the percentage of virement from recurrent to non-recurrent expenditure
These additional measures to relax the regulations applicable to public service organisations may not be sufficient to allow for desirable levels of differentiation between sectors. Such measures do not cover issues related to wages and conditions of service, coverage in terms of the labour relations legislation and other operational flexibility. There is also a pervading sense that operating within the public service legislation restricts opportunities for creativity and excellence.
A framework thus needs to be developed that allows for public service organisations to conform to uniform values and norms and subscribe to minimum standards on transversal systems such as procurement. The framework should also allow for maximisation of economies of scale on issues such as information technology infrastructure, property management, pension benefits and for common regulations on other issues of national priority. Beyond such issues of uniformity, public service organisations should be allowed to be organised differently on the basis of type of services, capacity and resource availability.
Such a framework should allow different government functions to be organised differently.Some to be autonomous agencies could be under direct political control (such as the South African Revenue Service, research institutions); some could be arm’s-length agencies (Weather Bureau), others could be government owned commercial entities (e.g. Shared Services Centres); others could be service delivery departments (such as Health, Education and SAPS, etc); and policy departments (such as DPSA and Finance). This framework should be possible whilst avoiding excessive remuneration differences usually associated with agencies, particularly of senior management, and thus creating unnecessary competition within public service institutions.
6.2.7 Improving quality of service
A recent DPSA analysis of the way government delivers services has highlighted the following amongst other challenges related to the improvement of service delivery. That:
- the separation of government into different units, though necessary for administrative purposes, often means that people do not receive services in the most convenient manner;
- people often have to give the same information more than once to different government units or sometimes to the same unit;
- there is a lack of information on government services, no clarity of where to go or which person to seek help from (government institutions are not friendly and the Batho Pele principles are far from being implemented);
- most government services are not accessible and people have to travel long distances to access them;
- accessing services is time-consuming and there is not sufficient advice on the requirements for accessing such services. (Most people spend time in the queue only to be told that additional information is required);
- in almost all cases, no services can be transacted telephonically, on-line or through mobile units, and forms necessary to access government services are often difficult to find and complex to complete;
- there is no information on business hours for most government offices and almost all services are only provided during business hours (other than Health and Police Services, there are very few other services provided around the clock or after hours).
A key strategy for improving the quality of public services is the development of a culture of accountability to citizens and consumers of government services. Our agenda for action will therefore build on the Batho Pele principles and focus on practical initiatives to ensure that services are oriented to the needs of citizens. In addition to the Batho Pele initiatives, some of the practical actions will include those listed below.
- There will be greater use of information technology in the delivery of services. Government will identify services that can be provided on-line and without visiting a government office, capitalising on the internet, telephone and postal services. The launch of the Public Information Terminal by the post office and the provision of universal telecommunications services will ensure increased electronic access to services by most communities.
- There will be an identification of services that can be made more accessible through collaboration with the private sector and other state institutions such as the post office, police stations, mobile units, etc. Focus will also be on increasing information about government services and the location of offices, as well as information about procedures for accessing services.
- Efforts will be made to streamline information required to provide services and make better use of advances in information technology. Better integration of government data-bases will eliminate the need for citizens to provide the same information to more than one government agency. The advent of smart cards will be exploited to ease the burden on users of government services and citizens.
- Intense focus will be placed on generally improving the accessibility of government services by reviewing business hours, developing one-stop-shops, mobile units and other measures.
- To ensure that services are of the appropriate quality, there will be greater focus on soliciting the feedback of users of services through surveys and focus groups as well as instituting mechanisms for recourse when the government bureaucracy frustrates citizens. There must be greater need for motivation, empowerment and incentives for frontline staff.
Increasingly, departments are exploring innovative ways to deliver services. Methods such as shared services, outsourcing, greater use of agencies, commercialisation and public/private partnerships are being investigated and piloted. In most instances where this has occurred, there have been no frameworks and guidelines for dealing with staff transfers, pensions of transferring staff and relaxation of procurement processes. In the course of the year, remaining legislative and regulatory barriers for innovative service delivery will be attended to.
6.2.8 Better people management
A core component of our efforts to transform the public service is the quality of our human resources. Over the last few years, public servants have come under the spotlight. Publicity of incidents such as teachers drinking with school children, high-level corruption and pensioners dying while waiting for their welfare grants have sometimes blurred the achievement and dedication of thousands of public servants. Such unintended consequences of the public focus, coupled with weak human resource practices, has led to demotivation and low morale amongst public servants. Poor human resource practices and, in essence, poor people management is thus reflected in the poor work ethic prevalent within sections of the public service. Offices being non-functional during lunch breaks and any time after four o’clock in the afternoon and other such tendencies bear testimony to the need to improve the culture and work ethic within public servants. An upswing in the morale and motivation of public servants and an improvement in the work ethic will be key indicators of our success in human resource management.
The following measures, some articulated in the wage policy, will be consolidated to ensure that our human resource practices support the development objectives of government and our efforts to transform the system of government.
- There is a need to replace automatic promotions with appropriate career-pathing and pay progression systems linked to performance. The appropriate systems will be developed sectorally and will ensure that promotion is linked to a substantial change in responsibility and competency levels. A more acceptable system of career-pathing will also alleviate the high incidence of job-hopping within the public service.
- There is a need to introduce a range of flexible employment practices, including greater use of fixed-term contracts for senior appointments, secondment to and from the private sector, unpaid leave and seasonal employment, where appropriate.
- A culture of performance management needs to be nurtured by developing and implementing performance management systems and instituting appropriate mechanisms to reward performance. In this regard, greater flexibility will be given to departments to deter mine relevant levels for rewarding performance, as long as the money is available in departmental budgets.
- Ethical conduct can be promoted through advocating adherence to the Code of Conduct. A recent addition is the requirement for public servants to declare their assets, an initiative that will first be implemented at senior level and then later apply to all public servants.
- The development of a labour relations framework suitable for the public sector is vital. The application of certain aspects of national labour legislation in the public sector, particularly the Labour Relations Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, has potential disruptive effects to the operation of key sectors within the public service. It is almost impossible for the Health and Security sectors to comply with the BCEA without disrupting the quality of services. Efforts are underway to negotiate exemptions but also develop frameworks more appropriate to the public sector.
- There needs to be an intensification of the programme to develop skills and empower public servants. Through the implementation of the Skills Development Act, sectors are finalising skills development plans and the restructuring of the South African Management and Development Institute will lead to more development activities for public servants. There is continuing interaction with technikons, universities and schools of public management to inform public management curricula and also attract internships of graduates to the public service.
All the above will be fruitless unless matched by an equally, if not more, dedicated focus on addressing the issues of HIV/AIDS within the public service. A co-ordinated program is underway to determine, with precision, the likely impact of HIV/AIDS on the workforce and to determine suitable responses for government as employer. This programme is unfolding amidst an already intensive education programme, provision of condoms in all government buildings and implementation of universal precaution in key sectors.
6.2.9 Electronic government
The new millennium heralds an era where information and knowledge are fast becoming the new forms of capital. It is often said that over the next few years, inequality will be on the basis of access to information technology as the gateway to knowledge. The global revolution of electronic commerce, convergence of systems and wire less applications is intensifying. South Africa is well positioned to rise to the challenge. We have the highest number of internet connections in Africa, our technology sector is not only growing fast, but is also attracting international attention and we are one of the largest exporters of information technology skills. Our key challenge is that levels of access to technology for the majority of our citizens is low and there is a desperate need for increasing our investment in skills development in information technology.
Government should become a major player in the development of electronic commerce, not only as policy-maker and regulator, but also as an actor in the market. Government procures more than half of the information technology services and infrastructure in the country and the number of public servants connected to the internet is quite high. As part of the effort to extend services to more citizens, government will be exploiting the advantages of using information technology to deliver services. Such efforts begin by:
- increasing the number of departments participating in the State Information Technology Agency, thus leading to greater economies of scale and reducing duplication;
- rationalising information technology infrastructure by sharing networks, applications and systems;
- streamlining the procurement of information technology to provide for more co-ordination, efficiency and reduce duplication of cost and effort;
- setting national norms and standards for information technology systems across the public service.
As we continue laying the building blocks for electronic government, government will also finalise policy on information technology in the course of the year. Such policy will provide for the integration of existing government systems and databases, map out a single coherent window for providing government services online, address issues of certification and security in the conduct of government business electronically, paperless administration, and, generally, suggest strategies for increasing the rate of information technology use by government agencies.
The Chapter provided an overview of the thematic platforms that will be of priority focus in the next few years. Other areas of equal importance were not highlighted and will be the subject of further reports. These include the various measures to curb corruption and maladministration. A report of this nature also limits the extent of information that can be provided. In the course of the year, we will continue our efforts to provide information and disseminate research outputs that we hope will contribute to debate and discussions on the transformation of the public service.