Information Technologies in Management and Delivery of Services - Essay Example

Running head: Accountability. Student name: Student number: Lecturer: Date: Accountability Accountability is the heart of management and the public governance. It is a provision that those occupy and have access to public authority should be accountable in all their dealings. However this varies depending on the governments. This revolves around the political systems whereby the citizens bear the responsibility of keeping on toes their governors through mechanisms such as elections; the political representatives who represent the citizens in the legislative assemblies hold their political counterparts and the public servants responsible on their various dealings through mechanisms such as audit and public inspection; subordinate officials too are held responsible by the political executives by the various levels of authorities. The courts, administrative tribunals and the commissions also keep on toes the legislatures, executives and the administrative officers by ensuring that they are accountable to the various forms of the law. Apart from the stated mechanisms above accountability processes are also performed by institutions such as ombudsmen, independent agencies, and admittance to government information that aids in providing accountability. The reasons as to why institutions of accountability are established are to foster three principles of governance that one holding a public office should adhere to. These include: to manage for the abuse and disrespect for the public authority, to pledge on the efficient use of the public property and the devotion to the public service ethics, to push and advance learning in quest of continuous improvement in governance and the public management. The setting of policies, management and organizational performance are linked to accountability. Accountability is a fundamental aspect of governance and public management. However the intricacies surrounding governance and public management cannot affect accountability. The governments are constantly asked to be productive and more efficient in order to scale great heights of economy and more efficiency. This also goes hand in hand with securing the desired results in reverence to the socio-economic development. The global community is championing for better governance that will enable the various economies of the governments to be competitive. On the list is the efficiency on the protection of the social unity. However the two dynamics are connected. On the same note the environments in which the governments exists have been constantly agitating for accountability amongst the government officials; more firm interest groups and social movements, more aggressive , and invasive mass media and the promising audit society have been on the fore front to demand for accountability. The global force on democracy makes all these to vary basing on its specifics. It harbors the demand for better transparency in the manner in which the public dealings by administrative and political officials, the easy access of government information by the public, the overt values of public service entitlements and rights, the boost of consultation and engagement of citizens in the policy making and the manner of service delivery, and, above all, briefing the public on its progress and giving the citizens substantial results. To act in response of all this development in accountability the government has put in place the measures to transform the public management and governance to meet these demands. In this reverence three arrays of reforms are of importance. These include; Schemes to establish a high degree of devolution in the management of the affairs of the public. These schemes provoke important questions relating to accountability, to be specific, since authority and responsibility are not anymore occupying the top of the chain of command due to decentralization, delegation or deregulation, Schemes to establish working in partnership and collective responsibility in management and the manner to handle public business. Here the government and government organizations partner in providing services to the public. Others include the commercial and voluntary private sectors, other governments, and other institutions and organizations within the same government. The consequence of this partnership between organizations is assurance of accountability to the public, Schemes to advance the manner in which the governments are administered and briefing on their performance. It means therefore that management is carried out to the outputs and outcomes and providing a comprehensive report on the measures of performance which includes briefing on how best outputs adds to the realization of preferred outcomes. The allotment of responsibilities and the resolve of accountability in both the executive and legislative arms of government and the public service officialdom is the most important in this framework of change. However various governments have various approaches on how to carry out reforms that includes either debureaucratization or devolution or both. The comparison between accountability and management is the manner in which the governments and structures of management seek to protect accountability and the performance. This can be witnessed in systems of government such Westminster whose major perspective in reforms has been decentralization of authority for the management of finance and human. This is due to the fact that they insist on executive based systems so as to improve on their accountability and performance. However this system is not common in the European countries since they had not established the same mechanisms. They had to accomplish the same by using regimes such as administrative laws. The United States too adopted the command and control systems, as for this they are the result of legislatures and executive arms of government. But even as these changes are popular in various political systems some governments have chosen to adopt new systems that substitute traditional systems for the reasons of improving management at all levels. However this is not the case with Australia and Canada where managerial authority is in the hands of traditional departments. Devolution and debureaucratization harbors schemes that help to hire out service delivery, revolving around the citizens and services within the government, and to sell the idea to the private enterprises. Debureaucratization is a system which utterly fits our reasons, basically because to contract out and commercialize reduces the degree to which those delivering services are a focus on the decentralized command and control systems. What has come out from the various reforms is a blend of varied approaches. In all the approaches the objective has been thinned to what is seen to be the obligation of decentralized corporate commands and control systems which include laws, policies and regulations. The aim is popular all over and all this is to promote efficiency. On the other hand devolution has been practiced majorly attain a better accountability in the public service. Britain and New Zealand encourage better legitimacy for the government. To assume that debureautization or devolution is a driving force behind accountability does not stand in all situations. As various operatives assume that the increase in discretion and a facing out of centralized controls will lead to better performance, especially improve in efficiency. However the assumption that replacing the lip service with accountability comes along with its disadvantages. In general devolution and debureaucratization form the ground to reject the uniformity and standardization in administration of the public. This is evident in establishment and enforcement via officialdom and corporate structures of authority and responsibility. These features however have been constantly criticized. It should be noted that the outcome in comparison to accountability for performance has been the division of the concept or discerning of performance. This has happened in two ways. Performance on the other hand is defined in terms of efficiency and the earlier reforms on management were defined in a similar manner in certain systems, efficiency is perceived as a standard of performance but as an aim that raises above other aims, such as those that is required to be protected through uniformity and standardization. The insinuation there is no efficiency dimension in the chase, for instance, of due legal process, issues of natural justice, impartiality, or equality in employment. On the chase for most efficient input-output ratios, the fundamentals of the output come to be termed as exceptional considerations that are unproductive or politically motivated makes the work of manager’s complex in the public sector. This however is a matter to managerial prudence. Performance can also be defined on the basis of bifurcation which has more importance in its consequences for accountability. This is because power and resources are utilized in various government operations. This means that they form part of public policies that man the activities of government. They are therefore essential definition to any kind of definition of outcome. However it goes therefore that reforms that are geared by intentions to transfer authority or debureacratize management of public resources provoke questions related to accountability. This often is in the perspective of control and assurance, either of these creates conflict of interest in the performance of management or governance. This should not, however, be translated to mean that control and the central command systems are the major means to advance and protect the values of the public service that are significant at all times. Nonetheless, it is not mandatory to have proper systems of accountability in place so that the aims of decentralization or debureaucratization are attained. The initiatives used to bring most of the reforms are borrowed from the Canadian explanation of having substitute means of delivering services. The collective responsibility on governance and Management has been popular in the modern years. Nevertheless, this has been due to requirements of related modern-day. This includes adopting varied but linked forms. The two most imperative novelties in this case are affiliations and frameworks for incorporated services. In the later, there is identification that government by its own cannot run effectively and therefore requires incorporation of efforts from other echelons of government. As such the government may be underfunded, lack expertise, or lack legal framework to progress. Offering of contracts is considered paramount though the legal implications do not transform it into a partnership but rather a contractual relationship. Frameworks that make up integrated service incorporate schemes of partnerships. This is between the various departments of government and bureaus that are put in place in identification of the importance deliver services to the citizens. This through ways such as single windows, one stop service, joined up services, or case management. Under this circumstance the harmonization of services is performed by the public servants and it is not the role of the citizens or the business clients. It is worth noting that this is on a horizontal foundation, this traverses the various boundaries of government boundaries. This also makes up a partnership if other echelons of government are engaged. Initiatives of collective responsibility in collaborative management and management exist in various organizational blends. The collaborative management and governance make up an acknowledgement that the jurisdiction of the state in running the public affairs, to marshal resources to solve serious problems, or to protect important adherence without involving business and citizens in the production of public services and rules. They are also conscious of specialization in organizations in development of policies, design of programs, and the delivery of services should not be an obstacle to the government effectiveness in its dealings with issues that traverse the various state organizations. The various elements of specialization required to be rejoined is to implement the horizontal or coordinate the whole government. However this is not popular in management and governance. This as largely been contributed by the increasing complexities on horizontal policies and the use of information technologies in management and delivery of services such as citizen capacities and business to engage self-service and co-production. Reference: Aucoin,Peter.(2004).The Dialectics of Accountability for performance in Public Management Reform.http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=X_ORmCynHRIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA244&dq=public+accountability+%2Bpublic+management&ots=pl-wG9mzUD&sig=8zFBgD-kUR1-0yHmjNJwT2DdBaY#v=onepage&q=public%20accountability%20%2Bpublic%20management&f=false.April 8,2011. Read More