The VESPRA method in detail: from the first data collection to the implementation plan

Organisational reviews rarely fail for want of will. They fail because analysis and implementation are not thought through together.

Many authorities have had organisational reviews carried out in recent years. The results are set out in reports, often carefully prepared and professionally sound. What is frequently missing is the connection between what was analysed and what actually happens afterwards. The report is noted, individual recommendations are taken up, and the rest is lost in day-to-day operations. This is exactly where the VESPRA method comes in: as an end-to-end approach that connects the analysis of an administrative organisation with its further development. This article describes how it works in detail.

Why isolated reviews miss their target

Three patterns can be observed again and again in the practice of administrative modernisation. The first is structural reform without a look at processes: organisational units are rearranged without analysing the underlying workflows and interfaces. The result is new organisation charts with old inefficiencies, plus freshly created conflicts at the interfaces. The second pattern is digitalisation projects without organisational development: technologies are introduced without changing the organisational conditions, so that analogue inefficiencies are reproduced digitally. The third is staffing requirement assessments based on existing structures, which determine the requirement without questioning whether those structures are fit for purpose. In doing so they cement, for the long term, precisely the ways of working that are actually up for discussion.

What all three patterns have in common is that they overlook the interactions between the dimensions of the organisation. An administration is a complex system in which structural, procedural, technological and cultural factors are interwoven. An isolated intervention in one area inevitably creates tension elsewhere. Anyone who wants a lasting effect therefore needs an approach that takes in the system as a whole without getting lost in detail.

The three dimensions: structures, potential, resources

The name VESPRA stands for Administrative Structure, Potential and Resource Analysis. Behind it lie three dimensions of analysis which together produce a complete picture of the organisation.

The structural analysis examines the organisational and operational structure, the distribution of tasks, responsibilities and interfaces. It makes visible how formal structures and real workflows interact. The point is explicitly not to draw up new organisation charts but to understand the organisational logic and its effects on the quality of work.

The potential analysis assesses efficiency levers, capacity for innovation, feedback culture, readiness for change and scope for development. It identifies dormant capabilities and cultural success factors that have a bearing on whether modernisation succeeds. The guiding question is: which strengths can we build on, and which obstacles do we have to overcome?

The resource analysis quantifies staffing resources as well as technical and financial provision. It does not merely determine the current requirement but develops scenarios for different organisational options. This creates a robust basis for decisions on staff development and on the deployment of technology and people.

The added value lies in integrating these three fields. Instead of isolated optimisation, a coherent overall picture emerges that makes strengths as visible as development potential. This transparency is the precondition for evidence-based decisions in place of opinion-driven reform.

Kick-off and data collection: the foundation

The project runs through six phases. The kick-off phase looks like a formality at first glance, but it often determines everything that follows. A planning workshop with the steering group sharpens the project objectives and clarifies specific requirements. An information event for staff explains the process and the opportunities to take part, and already prepares people for the data collection formats to come. Where this phase is skipped, rumours take hold and participation formats later come to nothing.

The data collection phase is the heart of the process, the part that generates the findings. It opens up the dimensions of structures and potential, and deliberately works with several formats: document analysis reveals formal structures and lines of historical development. Stakeholder interviews capture the strategic experience of senior managers and key individuals. SWOT workshops use the collective intelligence of the organisation to develop a shared view of the problems. The staff survey taps the experience of the entire workforce. Process analysis workshops add the operational workflow to the structural view.

This variety of methods is not an arbitrary collection of tools; it follows a logic. Different aspects of organisational reality call for different approaches to data collection. Three dimensions of insight interlock. The factual dimension records objectively verifiable structures, processes and resources, and prevents discussions from being conducted on the basis of differing assumptions. The perspective dimension opens up the subjective judgements and assessments of those involved, in other words the lived reality of the organisation beyond its formal structures. The participative dimension uses facilitated workshops for collective reflection and the joint development of solutions. Only in combination does this methodological triangulation produce a robust foundation.

Staffing assessment: from estimates to robust figures

The staffing assessment phase focuses on the resource dimension and turns qualitative findings into figures that can be planned with. At its centre is the systematic recording and evaluation of all tasks required to fulfil the organisation’s remit properly.

The starting point is a draft task catalogue based on the schedule of responsibilities and the job descriptions. These documents give a good overview, but they often do not reflect the completeness, currency or level of detail required. Tasks that have grown over the years or been added tacitly are regularly missing from them. The document-based groundwork is therefore followed by a participative validation with the specialists and managers who are responsible for these tasks every day.

The procedures used follow the standards of the federal Organisationshandbuch (the federal government’s organisation manual) as well as the requirements that the Bundesrechnungshof (the Federal Court of Audit) places on staffing requirement assessment. What is decisive is the double validation loop: the as-is validation with the managers ensures that the data collected match the reality of the organisation. The to-be validation checks the calculated requirements for plausibility and feasibility. This double check is the reason the results hold up in later discussions at the top of the administration and in the political arena.

Analysis: individual findings become fields of action

The analysis phase marks the shift from collecting data to gaining strategic insight. Its central instrument is the project-specific analysis matrix. Each row documents one particular data collection exercise with its date, its format and the organisational unit concerned. The columns are structured along the dimensions of analysis such as leadership, collaboration, structures, processes and digitalisation, with each area systematically divided into findings and needs for action.

The matrix is not a final document but a living working tool that is updated throughout the data collection. Its particular value lies in making recurring patterns visible: when the same problem appears in several interviews and workshops, that becomes apparent immediately and is weighted accordingly. Three principles guide the evaluation. Triangulation treats the different collection formats as views of the same phenomena; what is confirmed by several sources counts as robust, while isolated statements are scrutinised. Pattern recognition identifies structural connections. Strategic prioritisation leads to a manageable number of fields of action that are analytically sound, strategically relevant and practically workable.

Concept and implementation planning: the bridge into practice

In the concept phase, alternative organisational scenarios are developed from the prioritised fields of action, differing in scope, complexity of implementation and strategic direction. Alternatives are deliberately worked out rather than a single recommendation, because the decision on the future direction belongs in the organisation and not in a consultant’s report. In the to-be structure workshop the scenarios are put to specialist and management expertise for critical appraisal. The outcome is a properly mandated decision in favour of a to-be organisational model that is analytically sound and supported within the organisation.

Implementation planning turns this target operating model into a structured plan: concrete transformation measures are derived, milestone plans set out for the move from the as-is to the to-be state, resources planned and risks managed. This phase largely determines whether the whole process succeeds, because an agreed to-be model initially describes nothing more than a target. Only planning the steps of change, their sequence in time and the resources they require turns it into something that can actually be implemented.

Three levels of design that belong together

One principle runs through all the phases: the linking of three levels of design. The strategic level develops long-term direction and target operating models. The operational level delivers concrete process improvements and noticeable relief in day-to-day work. The structural level connects the two through medium-term organisational concepts and resource planning.

This link prevents two common failings: strategic concepts with no grounding, and operational patchwork with no strategic compass. In practice it means different speeds of change within the same programme. Quick wins create early success and motivation, medium-term structural changes systematically build new capacity, and long-term development paths secure the lasting effect. The early, visible improvements matter more than they appear at first glance: they show everyone involved that the effort of the data collection phase leads somewhere.

What the method delivers and what it does not

The approach is deliberately tailored to the conditions of German public administration. Legal requirements are understood as design parameters within which optimisation is possible, not as insurmountable obstacles. Instruments specific to public administration such as task review, staffing requirement assessment and the participation rights of staff councils are integral parts of the process, not tiresome extra demands. And the methodology is designed so that a typical authority can apply it with the resources and skills it already has.

What the method does not promise matters just as much. It offers no easy solutions and no short cut around uncomfortable decisions. It replaces neither leadership responsibility nor the work of adapting it to the organisation’s own context. What it does offer is a reliable compass: a methodological framework that gives direction without hardening into formalism, and that lets an analysis actually turn into change.

How to tell where your organisation stands

For those leading an authority who want to judge whether such an approach will work for their organisation, three questions help. First: are there findings from earlier reviews that were never translated into concrete measures? That suggests analysis and implementation planning were not connected. Second: are staffing requirements in your administration determined on the basis of today’s way of working, or on the basis of a to-be structure that has been consciously decided? Only the second route creates room to shape things. Third: do you know which subjects come up again and again in your organisation, whoever you ask? If those patterns are not recorded systematically, they remain anecdotes rather than robust findings.

Anyone who answers these questions honestly has already taken the first step. The second is to look at your own organisation as a whole rather than in separate parts.