CAF, knowledge loss and a quick intranet fix
The National Public Employment Agency has 1,200 staff across 14 regional offices. After a CAF self-assessment, the quality unit reports: only 38% of staff know the agency's strategic objectives; 9 of 14 offices keep client-case knowledge in personal files; average time to answer an inter-office query is 11 days; staff turnover is 18% in the first two years; and the last two customer surveys had a 12% response rate. The director-general wants a 'quick win' and proposes buying a new intranet with a search engine, to be launched in three months. The quality unit favours a full CAF improvement plan with nine projects. The budget for improvement is €400,000 for the year, and the agency is also preparing for an audit by the national audit office.
1. How should the agency sequence its improvement actions, using CAF logic and knowledge-management principles?
Read the worked answer
CAF is a PDCA cycle, not a project list. The agency should:
- Diagnose before buying: The data point to two linked problems: weak strategic communication and unstructured knowledge retention. The intranet is a tool, not a diagnosis.
- Prioritise two or three actions with clear owners: (a) a structured case-file and handover standard for client cases; (b) a short, regular strategic dialogue in each office; (c) a simple query-routing and response-time service.
- Use knowledge-management principles: capture knowledge where it is created, assign custodians, reward sharing, and build communities of practice across regional offices. Personal files are a symptom of missing process, not a technology gap.
- Sequence: start with the case-file standard and query routing in two pilot offices, then scale. Launch the intranet as a supporting channel only after the content ownership and taxonomy are defined.
- Respect the audit: keep a decision log and measurable baselines so the audit sees a managed improvement cycle, not uncoordinated spending.
A full nine-project plan may exceed the €400,000 and management capacity. The CAF logic is to select a few high-leverage actions and review them.
2. What indicators would show that the actions are working, and how should the director's intranet proposal be handled?
Read the worked answer
Indicators:
- % of staff who can state two strategic objectives (baseline 38%).
- % of client cases with a completed structured handover record (baseline: 9 of 14 offices rely on personal files).
- Average inter-office query response time (baseline 11 days), with a target and trend.
- First-two-year turnover (baseline 18%) and exit-reason data.
- Customer survey response rate (baseline 12%) and a small set of service-quality measures.
- Audit findings on documentation and control.
Handling the intranet proposal: Do not reject it outright, but reframe it as a dependent action. Ask: who owns each content area, what taxonomy will be used, how will outdated content be removed, and how will use be measured? A three-month launch with no content ownership will produce a search engine over chaos. Approve a small pilot licence or existing-tool configuration if needed, conditional on the case-file standard. This gives the director a visible quick win without locking the agency into an unmeasured IT spend.
3. How should the quality unit present the trade-off between the 'quick win' and the full improvement plan to the director-general?
Read the worked answer
Present the trade-off in terms of risk and evidence, not preferences:
- Quick win alone: visible in three months, but does not address the 11-day query time, knowledge loss or low strategic awareness. Risk: the audit finds a technology purchase without process change.
- Nine projects alone: comprehensive but may exceed €400,000 and management capacity, and delays any visible result.
- Recommended portfolio: two or three foundational actions plus a bounded intranet pilot. This gives a quick win, stays within budget, and creates evidence for the next CAF cycle.
Use a one-page decision note: problem, action, cost, owner, indicator, risk. Ask the director-general to approve the portfolio, not the tool. This keeps the quality unit in a facilitating role and gives the director clear accountability.