Citiznes service centers is a major succesfull public administration reform in Greece. What has happened? Which have been the factors for the succes?

1. 1
THE CITIZEN’S SERVICE CENTERS IN GREECE:
A BREAKTHROUGH REFORM
www.inerp.gr
Panagiotis Karkatsoulis
Efi Stefopoulou

2. 2
It all started with a starfish floating (connecting) among the Aegean Islands.

3. 3
KEPs idea was initiated in 1999 on the island of Serifos. Expanded to a 100 “Citizen’s Bureaus” on Greek islands.

4. 4
Services provided to citizens have mostly focused on citizens needs and demands based on the “life cycle events”.
(birth certificates, car registration, tax reporting, welfare and health services)
Cindy Sherman

5. 5
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Number of citizens visiting KEP increased annually From the first KEP in Serifos to 1067 KEPs all over Greece. From 10 certificates to 1087 procedures.
KEPs’ evolution

6. 6
TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE
PEOPLE
THE CONCEPT:
Trough a functional …
not normative
not structural
not infrastructural
not ontological
… approach

7. 7
KEPs WEREN’T
STACK TO THE
OWNER OF THE
COMPETENCE

8. 8
KEP DIDN’T START WITH A NEW STRUCTURE / INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH “AFTERWARDS” MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN SOME CONTENT.

9. 9
KEPs didn’t start with “extra-skilled” personnel coming through a series of training sessions.

10. 10
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES: OPERATIONS & FUNCTIONS
They provide services which according to the regulated task should have been provided by different agencies of the central administration.

11. THE KEPs’ PARADOXES:
OPERATIONS & FUNCTIONS
KEPs are hosted by local governments and their personnel is in the municipalities payroll …

12. THE KEPs’ PARADOXES: OPERATIONS & FUNCTIONS
… although they are centrally managed by the ministry.

13. 13
KEPs were hosted by the municipalities …
… they weren’t absorbed by the municipal clientelism
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES:
STRUCTURES

14. 14
Although the initial infrastructure was poor
A table
A home made
database
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES:
STRUCTURES

15. 15
A table
A home made
database
KEPs offered services of significantly higher complexity.
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES:
STRUCTURES

16. 16
At the initial stage we recruited only one employee per municipality, keeping all staff local.
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES: THE HUMAN FACTOR
Local staff proved to be one of the most decisive factors to build trust between the KEP’s team and experts from Athens and the islanders.
The establishment of a special job branch for KEP personnel at a later stage laid the path for corporatism instead of a positive esprit de corps.

17. 17
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES:
UNCONVENTIONAL PROJECT DESIGN
No expert advice from “abroad”, i.e., no “blue prints”, no proper digestion of “new” ideas etc…

18. 18
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES: UNCONVENTIONAL PROJECT DESIGN
No “professional” strategic planning, that means no submission of papers to various experts who are just trying to justify their salary.

19. 19
No fancy management tools (manuals, KPIs, sophisticated software to calculate risks, threads even if there were not any…)
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES: UNCONVENTIONAL PROJECT DESIGN

20. 20
KEP could have been an excellent idea, stuck in the Ministry of the Presidency of the Government
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES:
AGAINST THE BUREAUCRATIC INERTIA

21. 21
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES: AGAINST THE BUREAUCRATIC INERTIA
No normative competence of the “Ministry” of Aegean
(Symbolic ministry)
The competent Ministry of the “Presidency of the Government” was opposed to the project.
Very restricted budget.
No administrative / organizational culture for innovations.

22. 22
MOVED STRATEGY
…not the opposite
THE KEPs’ PARADOXES: AGAINST ALL ODDS

23. 23
The KEPs’ paradoxes: Islandness Focus on Diversity instead of unanimity
“Islandness” appears often as a form of Diversity:
Tailored made policies for the islands are mostly rejected due to high costs.

24. 24
The KEPs’ paradoxes: Islandness Focus on Diversity instead of unanimity
The choice to launch KEP on an island has proved that it’s worthy to invest in diversity.
Insular policies are not expensive,
are environmental friendly,
promote solidarity (instead of isolation), and
are glocal (connect local societies with the rest of the world).

25. 25
THEORY & PRACTICE
The design and the implementation of the project took place simultaneously. There was a constant interaction between theory and practice: The practice of the theory offered us more than the initial theory.

26. 26
KEP came into life without the request of any prior normative action.
A GREEK MYTH: Lack of enforcement
TRUST vs IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS

27. 27
THE HUMAN NETWORK
The network was self-evolving (not pre-designed)
The word of mouth made the difference as no communication plan existed

28. 28
Citizen
Company
Islander
Minister
Scientist
Civil Servant
Design
Certificates
People
Passionate team
(mixed political and technical)
THE INITIAL RATIONAL & IRRATIONAL DRIVES

29. 29
Facing the emerging difficulties as opportunities to improve the project.
> The scout conference of Delphi and its positive echo

30. KEPs’ design was distinguishable and embedded to the island’s architectural character.

31. 31
Deep established – almost religious belief of the protagonists – that the operation could be successful.

32. 32
Accurate knowledge of the field:
-quality movement,
- one-stop- shop trends,
- simplification

33. 33
Patriotism and love for the island civilization motivated many locals to volunteer.

34. 34
Passionate and utterly in love with homeland and especially the islands.

35. www.inerp.gr
pkarka@yahoo.gr
e.stefopoulou@inerp.gr