A RECOMMENDATION FOR PRESIDENCY GOVERNMENT SYSTEM: DIRECTORATE OF QUALITY

Yıl 2024, , 1 - 17, 31.10.2024

Hasan Özkan

https://doi.org/10.62080/kmfed.1457807

Öz

The Presidential Government System (PGS), which was passed in 2017 as a result of the changes in the government system
that the Republic of Türkiye has experienced since 1923, can essentially be expressed as a part of the evolution of Türkiye's
administrative culture. It is foreseen that PGS's ability to cope with the country's difficulties and to work effectively can be
achieved by increasing the quality of government administration. It is recommended to establish a Directorate of Quality for
PGS in order to establish a successful management strategy with citizen focus. This is a process that requires commitment to
quality and the adoption of an effective quality management structure. This article, which presents a new theoretical
framework for the Directorate of Quality; It is thought that by prioritizing the concepts of good governance, performance
management, quality assurance, complexity theory, network governance, agile management and learning organization, it will
support Türkiye's ability to respond to the complex challenges of the 21st century with quality government services. From a
practical point of view, the establishment of the Quality Directorate in Türkiye and the implementation of this framework
can increase the capacity to provide high quality public services. This framework offers an approach that can benefit citizens
and other stakeholders. It is stated that the Directorate of Quality can promote a more efficient, effective and responsive
public sector by effectively applying these principles

Anahtar Kelimeler

quality management, complexity theory, network governance

CUMHURBAŞKANLIĞI HÜKÜMET SİSTEMİNDE BİR İYİLEŞTİRME ÖNERİSİ: KALİTE BAŞKANLIĞI

Öz

Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin 1923’ten bu yana yaşadığı hükümet sistemi değişiklikleri sonucunda 2017’de geçilen Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sistemi (CHS) esas itibariyle Türkiye’nin yönetim kültürünün evriminin bir parçası olarak ifade edilebilir. CHS’nin ülkenin zorluklarıyla başa çıkabilmesinin ve etkin bir şekilde çalışabilmesinin devlet yönetiminde kalitenin arttırılması ile sağlanabileceği öngörülmektedir. Vatandaş odaklılık ile başarılı bir yönetim stratejisi oluşturulması için CHS için bir Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kalite Başkanlığı kurulmas önerilmektedir. Bu, kaliteye olan bağlılığın ve etkik bir kalite yönetim yapısının benimsenmesinin gerektirdiği bir süreçtir. Kalite Başkanlığı için yeni bir teorik çerçeve sunan bu derleme makalenin; iyi yönetişim, performans yönetimi, kalite güvencesi, karmaşıklık teorisi, ağ yönetişimi, çevik yönetim ve öğrenen organizasyon kavramlarını önceleyerek 21. yüzyılın karmaşık zorluklarına Türkiye’nin kaliteli devlet hizmetleri ile yanıt verebilmesine destek olacağı düşünülmektedir. Pratik açıdan bakıldığında, Türkiye'de Kalite Başkanlığının kurulması ve bu çerçevenin uygulanması, yüksek kaliteli kamu hizmetleri sunma kapasitesini artırabilir. Bu çerçeve, vatandaşlara ve diğer paydaşlara fayda sağlayabilecek bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Kalite Başkanlığının, bu ilkeleri etkin bir şekilde uygulayarak, daha verimli, etkili ve duyarlı bir kamu sektörü teşvik edebileceği belirtilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

kalite yönetimi, karmaşıklık teorisi, ağ yönetişimi, çevik yönetim, öğrenen organizasyon, performans yönetimi.

Kaynakça

• Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of public administration research and theory, 11(3), 295-326.
• Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance Management. Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. (2004). Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference. Oxford University Press.
• Alesina, A., & Weder, B. (2002). Do Corrupt Governments Receive Less Foreign Aid? American Economic Review, 92(4), 1126-1137.
• Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization science, 10(3), 216-232.
• Andrews, M. (2010). Good government means different things in different countries. Governance, 23(1), 7-35.
• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.
• Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (1998). Performance Management: The New Realities. Institute of Personnel and Development.
• Behn, R. D. (1995). The Big Questions of Public Management. Public Administration Review, 55(4), 313-324.
• Behn, R. D. (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.
• Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2010). State Capacity, Conflict, and Development. Econometrica, 78(1), 1-34.
• Bouckaert, G. (1993). Measurement and Meaningful Management. Public Productivity & Management Review, 17(1), 31-43.
• Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing Performance: International Comparisons. Routledge.
• Bovaird, T. (2014). Attributing outcomes to social policy interventions–‘gold standard’or ‘fool's gold’in public policy and management?. Social Policy & Administration, 48(1), 1-23.
• Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2003). Evaluating the Quality of Public Governance: Indicators, Models and Methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 313-328.
• Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.
• Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (2008). Public Accountability. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (pp. 1-20). Oxford University Press.
• Boyne, G. A., Farrell, C., Law, J., Powell, M., & Walker, R. M. (2003). Evaluating Public Management Reforms: Principles and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2015). Public sector management reform in developing countries : Perspectives beyond NPM orthodoxy. Public Administration and Development, 35(4), 222-237.
• Brown, K., & Osborne, S. P. (2005). Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. Routledge.
• Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of Cross‐Sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public administration review, 66, 44-55.
• Carothers, T. (1998). The rule of law revival. Foreign Affairs, 77(2), 95-106.
• Chiarini, A., & Bracci, E. (2013). Implementing lean six sigma in healthcare: issues from Italy. Public Money & Management, 33(5), 361-368.
• Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Pearson Education.
• Conforto, E. C., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., Di Felippo, A., & Kamikawachi, D. S. L. (2016). The agility construct on project management theory. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 660-674.
• Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking 'Participation': models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269-283.
• De Bruijn, H. (2007). Managing Performance in the Public Sector. Routledge.
• Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2003). The new public service: An approach to reform. International Review of Public Administration, 8(1), 3-10.
• Denning, S. (2018). The age of agile: How smart companies are transforming the way work gets done. Amacom.
• Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of systems and software, 85(6), 1213-1221.
• Dubnick, M. J. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376-417.
• Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization science, 13(2), 128-146.
• Ferlie, E., & Ongaro, E. (2015). Strategic Management in Public Services Organizations: Concepts, Schools, and Contemporary Issues. Routledge.
• Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and society, 15(4),20.
• Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management accounting research, 23(2), 79-119..
• Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66-75.
• Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization?. Harvard business review, 86(3), 109.
• Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399-2410.
• Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Brookings institution press.
• Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49-72.
• Grindle, M. S. (2004). Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries. Governance, 17(4), 525-548.
• Güler, T. (2018). Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sistemi Ve Kamu Yönetimine Etkileri. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 21 (39) , 299-322 . DOI: 10.31795/baunsobed.443821
• Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Urban Institute Press.
• Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: creating innovative products. Pearson education.
• Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc..
• Holland, J. H. (2006). Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of systems science and complexity, 19, 1-8.
• Hollyer, J. R., Rosendorff, B. P., & Vreeland, J. R. (2011). Democracy and transparency. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1191-1205.
• Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.
• Jabbra, J. G., & Dwivedi, O. P. (2004). Globalization, Governance, and Administrative Culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(13-14), 1049-1065.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press.
• Kettl, D. F. (1997). The global revolution in public management: Driving themes, missing links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 16(3), 446-462.
• Kim, D. H. (1993). The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37-50.
• Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. Sage.
• Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity Theory and Public Administration: What's New? Public Management Review, 10(3), 299-317.
• Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (2000). Public management and policy networks: foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory, 2(2), 135-158.
• Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling Lean & Agile Development: Thinking and Organizational Tools for Large-Scale Scrum. Pearson Education.
• Mandell, M., & Steelman, T. (2003). Understanding what can be accomplished through interorganizational innovations The importance of typologies, context and management strategies. Public Management Review, 5(2), 197-224.
• Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004). Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 1-39.
• McLaughlin, C. P., & Kaluzny, A. D. (2004). Continuous quality improvement in health care: theory, implementation, and applications. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford university press.
• Moulin, M. (2002). Delivering excellence in health and social care. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The Big Question for Performance Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849-866.
• Nacak, O. (2020). Parlamenter Ve Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sistemlerinden Hareketle Bakan Ve Bakanlıkların Karşılaştırmalı Analizi. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 18 (1) , 138-157 . DOI: 10.11611/yead.678462
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
• Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422.
• Pande, P. S., Neuman, R. P., & Cavanagh, R. R. (2014). Six Sigma Way: How to Maximize the Impact of Your Change and Improvement Efforts. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/content/book/9780071497329
• Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics, and the state. St. Martin's Press.
• Poister, T. H. (2008). Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
• Pollitt, C. (1993). Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s? Blackwell Publishers.
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis - Into the Age of Austerity. Oxford University Press.
• Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Strategic management journal, 16(1), 15-37.
• Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(2), 229-252.
• Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(2), 229-252.
• Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public‐sector organizational networks. Public administration review, 61(4), 414-423.
• Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Georgetown University Press.
• Radnor, Z. J., & Barnes, D. (2007). Historical analysis of performance measurement and management in operations management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(5/6), 384-396.
• Rihani, S. (2002). Complex systems theory and development practice: Understanding non-linear realities. Zed Books.
• Rubin, K. S. (2012). Essential Scrum: A practical guide to the most popular Agile process. Addison-Wesley.
• Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational dynamics, 22(2), 40-52. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. Currency Doubleday. New York.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian political studies, 28(3), 195-218.
• Sutherland, J., & Schwaber, K. (2013). The scrum guide. The definitive guide to scrum: The rules of the game. Scrum. org, 268, 19.
• Swiss, J. E. (1992). Adapting total quality management (TQM) to government. Public administration review, 356-362.
• Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.
• Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8-9), 891-913.
• Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance Management in the Public Sector. Routledge.
• Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. John Wiley & Sons.
• Yılmaz, V. & Yıldız, M. Ş. (2022). Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sistemi Üzerine Tartışmalar ve Yeni Sistemin Etkileri . Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi , 6 (2) , 507-532 . DOI: 10.33399/biibfad.1133083