Smartworking Plan: monitoring the programming quality
2021
Partner: Dipartimento della Funzione Pubblica
WHAT IS THE SMART WORKING PLAN?
The Smart Working Plan (hereinafter AWOP) is a specific section of the Performance Plan, an instrument for the organisational programming of agile working, i.e. the ways of implementing and developing it, that each administration must adopt by 31 January each year.
The AWOP was introduced to support Public Administrations in the transition of agile working from the emergency phase (due to Covid-19) to the ordinary phase of programming, in keeping with the various instruments provided by the legislator.
THE AIM OF THE RESEARCH
The Public Value Research Centre (CERVAP), in a coordinated manner with the Performance Evaluation Department (UVP) of the Civil Service Department (DFP), sets itself the objective of monitoring the effective implementation, by Public Administrations, of the Guidelines no. 6/2020 “AWOP and performance indicators” drawn up by the Technical Committee for Performance and issued by the Civil Service Department.
Therefore, the need to map the programming quality is highlighted, in the sense of the level of adequacy of the content in order to make the AWOP a guiding instrument for organising ordinary agile working or smart working.
THE SUBJECT OF THE RESEARCH
The research concentrated on the Plans of the 81 administrations of the “Central Functions” sector that lie within the perimeter of the DFP, published on the Performance Portal or on institutional websites by 30 April 2021. The sample includes 34 administrations, equal to 42% of the organisations of the perimeter, divided into eight different clusters.
THE METHODOLOGY USED
The research was carried out in several phases. In the first phase, starting with the regulatory framework and the scientific literature regarding smart working and performance management a “grid for evaluating the quality of the Plans” was developed and subjected to preliminary testing. The grid was organised in the form of a survey through the LimeSurvey software in order to assess the absence, presence and frequency of the “programming quality” requirements.
In the second phase of the research, two independent evaluations were undertaken:
for the 1st evaluation (or analytical evaluation), seven CERVAP researchers undertook a double peer blind review of each individual qualitative requirement of the Plans, following a random assignment of the documents;
for the 2nd evaluation (or synthetic evaluation), the UVP assessed in an aggregate manner the components of the four parts of the Plans.