ETHICS – 10 (Brijendra Singh)

QUALITY OF SERVICE DELIVERY

The concept of SERVQUAL establishes five criteria, represented by RATER, to assess service
quality.

i) Reliability: the transparency and consistency in the conditions and delivery of the
service.
ii) Assurance: the competence of the service provider as well as the affordability of the
service if compared with an alternate provider.
iii) Tangibles: the physical validation of service standards and commitments e.g. bills,
charters, acknowledgements etc.
iv) Empathy: the presence of an element of courtesy and an appropriate grievance
redressal mechanism.
v) Responsiveness: the delivery of the service in a time-bound and convenient manner.

PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY

The State enjoys a position of dominance, with the citizens being perceived as only beneficiaries,
with little control over what is delivered to them. This happens because:

1. Public services are monopolistic and lack competition. The provider does not need to
entice the customers and the citizens themselves do not have any alternatives available.
Service quality can be improved by promoting competition but in services where the
sovereign role of the State is critical, an element of responsibility becomes essential.
2. The provider-customer relationship is imbalanced. Payment for the services is mandatory,
regardless of their quality. Further, the payment is not made directly to the service
provider. This weakens customer control and creates an administration-centric paradigm
where the administration is able to establish accountability towards the state but is often
unable to display a similar sense of responsibility towards the citizens.
3. Public services are often difficult to access, low in technical quality and lack an element
of innovation. This makes them unresponsive to the crucial needs of a helpless society.
4. Public services lack proper information sharing among the different stakeholders. This
leads to a poor communication process which is characterised by multiple layers of
hierarchy and a lack of consensus about the intended outcomes.

Page 1 of 5

IMPROVING SERVICE QUALITY

Improving the quality of public services requires interventions on the supply as well as the
demand side. The supply-side factors are internal to administration and include:

i) Establishing objectivity in service standards through mechanisms such as citizen’s

charters, Sevottam etc.
ii) Inculcating a service orientation by selecting and nurturing a good quality of human
capital. This includes interventions and improvements in the recruitment policies,
training programs, performance appraisal etc.
iii) Providing scope for inspection and corrections through tools such as a Grievance
Redressal Mechanism, Whistleblower Protection etc.
iv) Information dissemination.
The demand-side factors promote citizen engagement and a citizen-centric culture within
administration. The common factor in both these mechanisms is increased transparency and
better information sharing.

TRANSPARENCY & INFORMATION SHARING

Transparency refers to the availability of information not only to the public but also among the
agencies involved in service delivery. For the public, this enables easy access to information
which is presented in a simplified form. For the agencies, it involves clarity regarding the scope
of the service, the intended outcomes and the responsibilities involved.

In a poor information sharing network, the flow of information is unidirectional, from the State
to the people, with a weak or dysfunctional feedback mechanism. However, unless citizen
concerns are understood and addressed, service delivery will remain ineffective and often meet
resistance from the citizens themselves.

But even if a feedback mechanism is provided, service delivery will not improve unless there is
clarity and consensus within the Govt. regarding the citizen’s concerns. Thus, a good information
sharing system must begin with a focus on strengthening transparency among the governmental
agencies itself. This creates a framework of information sharing across 3 dimensions and stages.

Page 2 of 5

PROMOTING CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT

Any attempts to improve the quality of public services cannot be meaningful without effective
citizen engagement. It is only when citizens proactively demand better services that the State will
be compelled to innovate and improve. As such, there are four broad factors involved in
promoting citizen engagement:

1. Information Dissemination:
Generating awareness among citizens and granting them access to relevant information enables
them to:

i) acquire a clear understanding of their entitlements.

ii) identify benchmarks to accurately judge the quality of a service.
iii) learn how to seek redressal if the service is unsatisfactory.

2. Capacity Building & Community Mobilisation:

Information sharing is necessary but not sufficient for citizen engagement. It is equally important
for citizens to possess the ability to meaningfully process and utilise such information so that
they can clearly identify, appropriately prioritise and persuasively voice their concerns. This can
be achieved by:

i) Capacity building, by investing in a high quality of human capital. Such human

capital is essential for good governance since it strengthens accountability,
facilitates social unity and enables the delivery of atleast some services at the
local level itself. This requires a focus towards education, regular training,
vocational opportunities etc.
ii) Community mobilisation, to establish consensus among different stakeholders
on important issues. Channelizing a community in a common direction increases
mutual understanding, prioritises shared values, promotes collective participation
and reduces the possibility of conflict.

3. Grievance Redressal:
Citizen engagement can be sustained only if citizens believe that their participation will not
create any undue problems for them. Thus, there must be provisions for a convenient and
functional grievance redressal mechanism that:

i) enables individuals to report any malpractices or misconduct that may have been
observed or perceived.
ii) provides penalties against the concerned offenders.
iii) protects the welfare of those who report such grievances e.g. whistleblower
protection legislation.

Page 3 of 5

 4. Institutionalization:
Institutionalization refers to the establishment of formal and standardised provisions that
facilitate citizen engagement. Such institutional support provides uniformity and permanence to
ad hoc or voluntary initiatives that have yielded progressive results. This provides incentives and
encouragement to the people and widens the scope of participation beyond the voluntary actions
of only a few concerned citizens.

CHALLENGES TO CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT

While the demand-side factors emphasize the importance of citizen engagement, they also
presume that the citizens are expected to challenge the established power dynamics, in the
process often placing themselves at risk. The vulnerabilities to these mechanisms include:

1. Resistance to reform, from within society as well as the govt.

2. Risk of collusion among stakeholders. This implies that deviations in service delivery
will not be reported and no measure of accountability or justice will be enforced.
3. Disruption by vested interests, through threats and coercion. This becomes especially
significant in the context of social dynamics.
4. Lack of institutionalised support from the govt., as manifested through the absence of
an appropriate grievance redressal system.

SEVOTTAM

Sevottam is a 7-step model for citizen centricity that aims at service delivery excellence. The
focus of the model is on three broad parameters:

1. Citizens Charters, to establish and promote expected service standards within the
public as well as govt. organisations.
2. Grievance Redressal, that aims to not only design and implement an appropriate
mechanism but to also identify grievance prone areas and prevent their re-occurrence.
3. Service Delivery Capabilities, which are sought to be improved through
infrastructural support, better human resource management and the use of technology
to provide convenience and standardisation in service delivery.

Page 4 of 5

RIGHT TO SERVICE BILL (2011)

1. Specifies a time-frame of 6 months for publishing a Citizens Charter and provides for
its annual updating.
2. Provides for the establishment of an Information & Facilitation Centre by every
public authority (e.g. customer care centre, call centre etc.)
3. Provides for designating Grievance Redress Officers (GRO) within 6 months.
- GRO shall assist citizens in filing complaints (even orally).
4. Provides for acknowledging receipt of a complaint within 2 days.
5. If a complaint is not redressed within 30 days, the GRO shall report the same to the
Designated Authority.
-such a report shall be treated as an appeal filed before the DA.

-the burden of proof to establish non-redressal of complaint shall vest upon the
GRO.

6. Provides for imposition of penalties upto Rs. 50,000/-, to be recovered from the salary
of the concerned official.
7. Provides for establishment of multi-member State and Central Public Grievance
Redressal Commissions

Page 5 of 5