Service delivery
In ancient Athens, Roberts (1982) observed that service delivery was a significant concern. Politicians were responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of service delivery to the public, and the effectiveness of leadership was measured by the quality of services provided to the people. Similarly, more than 1000 years later in Medieval England, Joliffe (1937) found that service delivery was also a priority for citizens. Leaders were expected to be accountable to the people, and service delivery effectiveness became a hallmark of accountability, separate from political democracy. The king bore the responsibility for ensuring effective service delivery and was accountable to God for his actions. By the 12th century, a rudimentary system of fiscal accountability had developed, with a division of labor among the king’s servants, necessitating mechanisms to control and hold them accountable for their tasks. These developments reinforced the importance of service delivery.
By the sixteenth century, Locke (1947) noted that England’s constitutional history largely centered on whether Parliament could replace divine accountability by holding the king or his ministers responsible, particularly regarding expenditure and service delivery. Developing countries today continue to face significant challenges in meeting their populations’ needs and achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Over the past few decades, sectors such as education and health have gained global recognition as critical components of human development and poverty eradication (World Health Organization [WHO], 2002; Annual Health Sector Performance Report, 2010/2011; United Nations Development Programme, 2010; Ministry of Health, 2010).
WHO (2004) highlights that this recognition stems from the fact that one-third of the global population lacks access to essential medicines, contributing to poverty, mortality, and indebtedness. Sub-Saharan African countries face severe shortages in healthcare workforce capacity as recommended by WHO. Chronic underfunding has led to inadequate recruitment and deployment of trained personnel, frequent stockouts of essential medicines, and insufficient medical supplies and equipment for operationalizing new health centers, impacting service delivery (Martinear, 2009; World Health, 2005/2006–2009/2010). The Department for International Development (2009) further emphasizes that while the MDGs, adopted by 189 nations and signed by 147 heads of state at the 2000 United Nations Summit, aim to combat extreme poverty globally, regions like sub-Saharan Africa and much of Asia remain off track in meeting these goals.
In Uganda, studies conducted after the launch of the decentralization policy in 1993 showed improved service delivery in districts. For instance, a report by the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES, 2010) revealed that classroom construction led to a reduced pupil-teacher ratio, while the number of health units increased by 8% in 2006 (Ministry of Health, 2010).
Service delivery remains a contemporary issue for governments and researchers alike. Many scholars agree that public service delivery is crucial for ensuring national welfare and stimulating economic development (Mampe, 2012; Bola, 2011; Nandain, 2006; Kaunda, 2005; Shan, 2005). Government parastatal bodies are increasingly recognizing that efficient service delivery enhances value for money (Duggan et al., 2008), and they must seek ways to improve service delivery efficiency and effectiveness.
In public procurement, service delivery management involves ensuring that deliverables are fully met according to the agreed contract (Shah, 2005). This requires close monitoring of suppliers and implementing contract management based on the deliverables outlined in the contract. The Clackmannanshire Council (2013) underscores the importance of managing service delivery throughout the contract’s lifetime to ensure alignment with performance expectations.
Contract management significantly influences service delivery in public procurement (Oluka et al., 2014). Ineffective management of supplier contracts and unclear policies can lead to cost overruns and risks for both parties involved, negatively impacting service delivery (Aberdeen Group, 2006). A study by Joshua et al. (2004) comparing contracting processes across city, state, and federal governments in the United States found that contract management and accountability are weak points in the system. Walton (2009) and Elsey (2007) argue that contract management helps parties meet their obligations to deliver the objectives outlined in the contract.
Lynch (2013) believes that contract management in public procurement has been a neglected area. In Australia, an audit by the Australian Government Audit Office (2007) found irregularities in 30% of the audited contract management processes, indicating that the deliverables specified in the statement of works were not fully received. In Uganda, the Baseline Survey Report on Public Procurement Systems (PPDA, January 2010) revealed significant variances in contract completion timelines. Sabiiti (as cited in Rwothungeyo, 2013) also noted instances where the government paid for incomplete or substandard work, negatively affecting service delivery.
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) Audit reports (2009 and 2013) found that 27% and 19% of risks, respectively, were associated with service delivery management, including missing contract management records, delayed payments, and deliveries. The PPDA regulations (2014) emphasize the need for enhanced contract management across all public bodies.
