Centre for Public Service Innovation & Public Sector Education Training Authority: briefing on performance in the previous year

Meeting report

Centre for Public Service Innovation (CPSI) briefing
Mr Lindani Mthethwa, Chief Director, Solution Support, CSPI, said that the Minister for Public Service and Administration had established the CPSI in 2001 as a Section 21 Company with a mandate to develop innovative, sustainable and responsive models for improved service delivery in the public sector. Its work was guided by understanding innovation as 'applied creativity that is contextually relevant'. In 2008 it became the first Government component through the Public Service Act as amended in 2007 which allowed for the creation of an entity dedicated to a specific mandate to deliver with as little as possible bureaucratic constraints. The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) was the principal department. The final stage in the administrative process, the publishing of a notice in the Government Gazette, was in process by the Ministry.

The CPSI had four work streams - comprehensive sub-programmes with strong matrix arrangements: research and development to investigate and recommend sustainable models and solutions for innovative service delivery; solution support and incubation to test and pilot, demonstrate, and mainstream Innovative solutions for the public sector; enabling environment to entrench a culture of innovation in the public sector; and programme management to provide internal corporate support, ensure compliance and manage the shared services arrangement with the DPSA.

The CPSI sought to enhance Government’s response to service delivery and governance challenges. It was mandated to form cross-sector partnerships and was enabled to facilitate and mobilise donor funding for testing and piloting of innovative solutions. It served as a platform for tapping private sector, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and academia support for addressing Government’s priorities.

The CPSI set up integrated stakeholder teams to explore potential solutions and appropriate funding models, ensured that intellectual property issues were addressed, and oversaw testing and piloting to conform with legislation whilst challenging outdated rules and regulations (slide 6).

Highlights of 2009/10 included the CPSIs securing of its own accommodation, corporate identity and branding. It had created space for the first multi-media public sector innovation centre on the continent with smart building features strong energy efficiency measures. It had hosted the Third Innovation Conference in August 2009. This had attracted more than 400 public sector delegates and significant international interest. The outcome of the conference included numerous value-adding engagements and establishment of partnerships with national and provincial departments and local government. The journal Ideas that Work was launched in August 2009, and 10 000 copies distributed.

Further highlights included the CPSIs Awards Programme with the aim of changing mindsets and behaviour by encouraging members of the public service to challenge themselves to think and act differently. The Programme had encouraged support from the private sector including the Information Technology (IT) Association and IT companies. The 7th Annual Innovation Awards Ceremony was held in November 2009. It had received 103 entries, with 15 projects awarded in 5 categories. The replication of two to three finalists started in 2009 with support from the Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) support. Projects included the Baseline study on Auxiliary Nursing; the Men on Side of Road – an engagement with Labour; and the Pula-madibogo School Network.

An assistive device for visually impaired teachers had been developed in partnership with the Department of Basic Education, visually impaired (VI) teachers, and the South African National Council of the Blind, and in consultation with the Meraka Institute and the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry.

The CPSI had established the On-line Regional Centre (ORC) for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region and the SADC network of United Nations Online Network in Public Administration and Finance (UNPAN) contributors; this had led to increased participation by SADC countries. The CPSI had uploaded the second highest number of items to the portal in 2009. Ideas that Work was amongst the 50 most read documents in the world on the portal. The CPSI rewarded in the form of a Special Award for Knowledge Management by the United Nations on 23 June 2009. Its Innovation Training module was piloted, reviewed, revised with the Public Administration, Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA) and ready to be aligned with the National Qualifications Framework (NQF).

In December 2009 the Minister was requested to champion the All Africa Public Service Innovation Awards thematic area. This was translated into a continent-wide programme managed by the CPSI with intensive engagement with African Union (AU) member states. Existing partnerships were strengthened. Microsoft was now organising the CPSI Awards Call for Entries Event in co-operation with the ICT industry and sponsoring the ceremony. GTZ continued support for replication of innovative projects. The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) and the Meraka Institute supported CPSIs innovations. Other new partnerships were established.

CPSIs workplans for alignment with outcomes were described (slides 13-18). In this regard, the CPSI was also responding to the seven priority outcomes as articulated by the President. Major cost drivers were indicated (slide 19). Funding and budget were indicated. It was noted that CPSI shared services with the DPSA. As a Government component it was able to secure additional funding for projects through partnerships; it could not use the Public Finance Management Act 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999) (PFMA). There was future potential for funding through exploiting own IP, consulting and knowledge management (KM) products. It was noted that the budget allocation was only 3% of the DPSAs allocation (slide 20). Capacity and organisational structure were indicated (slides 21-22). CPSI urged the DPSA to fill CPSIs vacant posts as a matter of urgency.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that it was evident that Members would benefit from visiting the CPSI to see the issues for themselves.

Mr Mthethwa replied that CPSI would welcome the Committee’s visits to projects, but advised that some of them were located in various Government departments.

The Chairperson asked about the partnership with GTZ and the mechanisms for partnership.

Mr Mthethwa replied that GTZ was the German funder. CPSI was working with the modalities.

The Chairperson was especially interested in the assistive device for persons with disabilities. If Government could not reach its targets for persons with disabilities, it would indicate a lack of synergy. She suggested a more extensive presentation on such issues at a later date.

Mr Mthethwa replied that CPSI hoped to assist persons with disabilities to obtain their matriculation certificate. This project fell under the Department of Basic Education.

Mr Khethani Hlongwa, Deputy Director, Innovation Research, CPSI, gave further details on assisted devices. One of its features was to assist in reading email messages. He hoped that this project would later reach a broader public. It was a small step towards helping Government to achieve its targets.

Mr A Williams (ANC) asked which other partners CPSI had besides Microsoft. He noted that many South African companies spent money on innovation internally. 

Mr Mthethwa replied that CPSI had other partners like Sun Microsystems.

Ms M Mohale (ANC) said that Mr Williams had covered her question. 

Mr Mthethwa replied that CPSI was more of an industrial unit. The private sector was a challenge. CPSI was not selling a product and worked with the private sector in partnerships that were not exclusive. Its partners were aware of that.

Mr L Suka (ANC) asked about CPSIs position in relation to the PFMA, and about vacant posts.

The Chairperson asked for more information about CPSIs funding.

Mr Mthethwa replied that public funds were not easy to access. CPSI usually used donated funds. Grants were managed through grant procedures. All legal requirements were met. The CPSI was restructuring itself.

Public Sector Education and Training Authority (PSETA) briefing
Mr Tahir Maepa, Deputy Chairperson, PSETA, explained the entity’s legislative framework: Section 195 (1) of the RSA Constitution, Act 108 of 1996; the Skills Development Act 1998 (Act No. 97 of 1998); the Skills Development Levies Act 1999 (Act No. 9 of 1999); and the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS). PSETAs scope was national and provincial governmental departments; Parliament and legislatures; and parastatals. Its mandate was to facilitate, co-ordinate and monitor the implementation of the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS) in the development of transverse skills in the public services, and co-ordinate public services interests across line-function sector education training authorities (SETAs).

Representation on the board of PSETA was indicated (slide 6) and board structure described (slide 7). The funding model and governance challenges were described (slides 8-9). Representivity on the board was an issue. Only some Government Departments and labour are represented. Parliament, legislatures and parastatals were not represented. There was an incomplete mix of skills in the board.

PSETA described its transformation and turnaround model to create beneficiary value. The strategic model was a new grand strategy for fulfilling PSETAs mandate (slide 12-13). Under the heading ‘Integration’ this included conducting an overall transversal skills analysis in the public service; consolidation of WSPs into one public sector skills plan; developing a Public Sector Career Progression Strategy; and development of a Public Recruitment Review Plan.

The PSETA’s institutional model was described (slide 14). PSETA would undertake an audit of its organisational structure (organogram). A funding model was to be agreed upon to support such an organogram. ‘A strategic imperative process [was] to be developed.’

PSETA described the status quo in regard to its relationships with Government departments (slide 16). Reporting for NSDS had moved from the Department of Labour (DoL) to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DoHET). The PSETA was accountable to the DPSA on financial and management issues: it had no staff and assets of its own. PSETA could not draw its own revenue for administrative purposes and carry out its own projects. PSETA was not self-sustaining.

PSETA submitted that for the future it needed to be independent according to the same model envisaged in the enabling legislation framework. This would entail ownership of separate operational systems; and receipt of direct funding from Treasury as a realistic reflection of what would be due in a levy-driven environment. To ensure sustenance, PSETA was increasing its stakeholder directory and developing a long term revenue strategy (slide 17).

During the ‘incubation period for turnaround’ the board was utilising 2010/11 as the period for ‘strategic modelling’. The year 2011/12 was targeted as the period of migration towards the future desired status of the PSETA operations - direct funding and institutional independence. The year 2012/13 was envisaged as the conclusion of the transformation and turnaround of the PSETA following ‘a determined Exit Dependency Strategy’.

PSETA emphasised its lack of funds.

Discussion
Ms A Dreyer (DA) referred to the Authority’s latest annual report, noted an audit disclaimer and pages and pages of problems, shortcomings and non-compliance, and questioned why the Authority should exist. What had it done right? She demanded a copy of the forensic report on the Authority.

Mr Williams (ANC) agreed with Ms Dreyer ‘on the despicable circumstances’ in which the PSETA found itself. It was incredible that it received an audit disclaimer while so lacking in money and independence. It was ironic that PSETA was involved in trying to train the public sector which was being urged to comply with legislation, while PSETA itself had been found so wanting as to compliance. He asked what PSETA would do if it achieved autonomy.

Ms H van Schalkwyk (DA) asked why the Authority was needed when the Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy existed.

Ms F Mbikane (ANC) said that PSETAs progress was not good enough. She asked about cross-sectoral relationships with PALAMA. She referred to page 42 of the annual report for 2008/09, and asked what PSETA had done with allocated funds.

Mr Maepa replied that if PSETA ceased to exist, one would fail the people. So long as there was a need for skills, PSETA was needed. The PSETA board members had worked hard to put the organisation’s house in order. Most of the offending officials had been prosecuted.

Mr Lawrence Tsipane elaborated on the need for PSETA, its role in training and in relation to PALAMA. He discussed the nature of a developmental state.

The Chairperson interrupted Mr Tsipane and asked him to confine himself to the specific issues.

Mr Tsipane continued.

The Chairperson again interrupted.

Mr Williams said that the Committee should send PSETA back. It was achieving nothing and merely blaming the DPSA.

Ms Dreyer asked when the Committee would receive a copy of the report on the forensic investigation.

Ms Van Schalkwyk agreed with Mr Williams that the Department must convene a meeting with PSETA. She noted that only 39% of the allocation for PSETAs programme 2 – human resources – had been used. One of the reasons was that insufficient money had been transferred to PSETA, so the Department also had a problem.

Mr L Ramatlakane (COPE) urged that PSETA must prepare themselves well for a future meeting with the Committee. He said that the slide on the turnaround strategy did not really address the strategy. He asked for details.

Mr L Suka (ANC) appreciated Mr Maepa’s transparency in giving his presentation. He observed that Mr Maepa had given some very important information from his own notes that was not included in the presentation document and suggested that this would be reported on later. He agreed with Mr Ramatlakane that more details were required of the turnaround strategy to convince Members. PSETA needed a political intervention to assist it. PSETA must motivate why Members should support its budget requests. PSETA gave the impression that it could not manage a budget, and had not sufficiently taken Members into its confidence on how it proposed to turn itself around.

Mr Msimang noted that Mr Maepa, in trying to defend the existence of PSETA, had said that many people would loose out if PSETA closed. However, Mr Msimang asked how many people had actually benefited from the years of PSETAs existence.

The Chairperson said that she would not give PSETA a chance to respond. It was the Committee’s view that PSETA was at a crisis point. The Department would be required to appear before the Committee to give its account of the situation. Members would be neglecting their duties as public representatives if they did not take this matter further.

The meeting was adjourned.