This chapter examines how the centre of government (CoG) can strengthen its role in monitoring the implementation of priority reforms. It examines the evolution of Greece’s General Secretariat for Co‑ordination as a central actor in tracking government priorities and bridging political decision making with administrative execution. It analyses Greece’s monitoring framework, centred on annual action plans, structured reporting processes, and the MAZI digital platform, which provides the CoG with system-wide visibility over reform progress and supports more regular engagement with line ministries. It also identifies several considerations for shifting from tracking to outcome-and impact-based assessment, such as resource and capacity limitations within line ministries, variations in data quality and opportunities to better integrate monitoring insights into decision-making. It emphasises the importance of embedding these tools within routine cabinet processes, strengthening incentives for performance, and decentralising responsibilities to enhance ownership across government. It highlights opportunities to strengthen the centre’s monitoring of reform outcomes through improved data infrastructure, clearer policy taxonomies, and the potential use of AI-enabled tools for risk assessment and forecasting.
Building Centre of Government Capabilities to Steer and Deliver Complex Priorities
Abstract
As outlined in the introduction to this report, CoGs globally take a variety of different forms, but typically perform common functions (bridging, stewardship, guiding public administration, communicating, stabilising in times of crisis). Most relevant to this chapter are the dual functions of acting as a bridge between the political and administrative levels of government, and acting as a steward of cross-cutting, complex, and long and short-term issues by supporting strategic prioritisation, co‑ordination of policy development, and driving sound decision-making practices.
Greece’s CoG takes the form of the office of the Presidency of the government. One of the key responsibilities of the CoG in Greece is co‑ordinating the implementation of key strategic reforms, and investments and decisions that underpin the government’s core agenda. To support this, the CoG monitors the relevant progress of line ministries through strategic planning documents such as Annual Action Plans. Monitoring can often be a key responsibility of the CoG, as it helps to co‑ordinate the implementation of the highest-level priorities of government across multiple policy areas and actors, as well as stewarding long-term vision and strategic planning. This chapter presents the current state of play of the monitoring system in Greece, as led by the General Secretariat of Co‑ordination (GSCo) within the CoG, and examines some potential pathways for enhancement and further development.
The GSCo was established in 2013 when its main role was to follow Memoranda of Understanding related to the economic adjustment measures taking place at the time. In 2019, following the legislative elections, new legislation was issued which reshaped the role of the GSCo within the executive branch. The Office of the Presidency of the government was created at this time, under Law 4622/2019 which describes the functions of the office and its individual units and areas of policy. The GSCo became a part of the newly created Presidency of the government, and now acts as a single structure responsible to the Prime Minister (Government of Greece, n.d.[1]). It has a mandate to support the PM in order to ensure the “coherence and effectiveness of the government work,” which is consistent with most OECD CoGs key roles.
The Minister of State Responsible for the Co‑ordination of Government Policies leads the work of the GSCo on whole of government co‑ordination and monitoring efforts. The GSCo also serves to support the decision-making process at Cabinet, through the meetings of the Council of Ministers (CoM). The Council of Ministers consists of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, all Ministers, and Deputy Ministers by invitation. The GSCo prepares monthly reports for the CoM, which are then reviewed by the Minister of State for Co‑ordination. The Ministerial report is based on existing monthly reporting routines in the GSCo.
The CoM provides an essential means of co‑ordination. The CoM typically convenes once per month, and occasionally twice per month when the policy agenda is particularly full. The CoM serves as a central forum for endorsing all new policy initiatives. Within this process, proposals are first matured through the GSCOs structured engagement with line ministries, including a series of interministerial consultations. Initiatives that reach a sufficient level of maturity through this preparatory work are subsequently channelled to the Council of Ministers for final comments and approval. While this process applies to ministry-specific initiatives, it plays an especially critical role in addressing cross-cutting or inter-ministerial issues, ensuring coherence and alignment across government priorities.
Secondary legislation is generally required to refine and implement policies contained in primary legislation. Often, this involves “multi-ministerial decisions” where the input of more than one line ministry is needed. Cross-cutting policy matters – whether reforms, legislation or investments, tend to be more complex and dispersed responsibilities have previously created challenges in correctly designating the lead ministry. Historically, unclear policy ownership produced administrative friction and execution delays across overlapping ministerial jurisdictions. The GSCo now leads the internal decision-tracking process in such cases.
The GSCo also has centralised data collection and monitoring functions. Most critical governmental reforms and investments are monitored directly by the GSCo throughout their whole lifespan of implementation, through a single digitalised system (MAZI NG). This mapping, aligned with the project management methodology applied by the Recovery and Resilience Fund (RRF), has strengthened the communication and data flows between line ministries and the CoG, as well as enhanced the visibility of the CoG over individual project level implementation.
6.2.1. Monitoring routines developed and used by the CoG
Monitoring performance refers to the ongoing and systemic collection and analysis of data on indicators to provide policymakers and stakeholders with information on the progress of commitments. This differs from policy evaluations, which are structured and data-based assessments of the design, implementation, and/or results of a planned, ongoing, or completed public intervention (OECD, 2022[2]). CoGs have taken on a greater role in monitoring performance in recent years, with 19 out of 26 CoGs reporting that monitoring whole‑of-government performance was their top or significant priority function in 2023 (Figure 6.1). The CoG typically takes on a number of different roles in monitoring performance (see Figure 6.2). Greece is aligned with these results and conducts high-level monitoring through their CoG, specifically in the GSCo.
Note: n=26, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Türkiye, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States.
Source: OECD, Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government, unpublished.
Note: n=8, Australia, Poland, Bulgaria, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Estonia, Slovak Republic.
Source: OECD, Strengthening Impact Assessments of Reforms and Investments at the Centre of Government, unpublished.
Greece maintains a well-established hierarchy of reporting processes and timelines, beginning with the Consolidated Government Policy Plan, which incorporates the ministries’ Annual Action Plans and is approved by the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister. The General Secretariat for Co‑ordination has the responsibility to ensure the compatibility of proposed legislative and regulatory provisions with government policy through the Annual Action Plan (AAP) process. Ministries begin preparing their AAPs in the summer, the Council of Ministers approves them in December, and Ministries may update them once a year in July. The AAPs include the planned primary legislation for the upcoming year, as well as key secondary legislation required to regulate and implement primary legislation, projects classified under investment programmes, and the quarter in which they will be issued. The GSCo may also set annual goals for the reduction or rationalisation of the regulatory volume, based on which the final Regulatory Planning of the government is prepared.
Regulatory planning is strongly and clearly linked to AAPs through the legislative planning sheet – legislative acts are listed with their respective target as it appears in the AAP. The GSCo monitors the timeplans for publication and implementation of the legislation (both primary and secondary). Each of these stages led by the GSCo are also recorded and monitored as “milestones” in the AAPs.
The Annual Action Plans are monitored through the GSCo and are an important means through which the government ascertains progress on a national level. AAP monitoring takes place through multiple stages and mechanisms, including weekly and monthly narrative reports produced within the GSCo and monthly updates to the milestones listed as associated with specific legislative acts in the AAP. The AAPs monitor at five levels, from the highest-level strategic choices, to goals, actions, projects, and finally milestones. The high-level strategic choices are informed by the “Five Greeces”, linked to EU priorities, set by the PM following his election in 2019, and updated in 2023. These form the basis of the Blue Files that are shared with Ministries and support the development of the AAPs.
For enhanced monitoring – particularly of priority projects, defined as those assessed to have heightened significance for improving citizens’ daily lives and the functioning of the state, and for ensuring proper implementation of EU law – a dedicated classification has been established within the Action Plans; these projects are designated as emblematic and subjected to distinct, focused oversight. Similarly, projects falling under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan are assigned a specific category that enables real‑time tracking of all interim steps necessary for the successful completion of milestones, as well as discrete monitoring of milestones tied to each payment request.
On a weekly and monthly basis, policy officers in the GSCo for each department prepare standardised narrative‑based reporting templates. The GSCo has undertaken measures to train line ministries on the reporting mechanism and its importance through the development of a dedicated manual and monthly meetings between the GSCo and line ministries.
During the monthly narrative reports, any discrepancies in the timeline of implementation of the line ministry such as a delay or other issue can be raised between the GSCo and the line ministry. The Minister of Co‑ordination has the mandate to drive forward work across ministries based on these reporting outputs and can therefore meet directly with Ministers from implicated line ministries in order to develop a better understanding of potential barriers to continued implementation.
Efforts are being undertaken to develop a whole‑of-government version of this reporting system, which would enable all of the line ministries to see and understand each other’s progress. Preparatory work is underway to ensure that all ministries will be able to access, update and monitor the implementation status of their respective projects through the system, thereby strengthening transparency, ownership and real-time oversight across government. This project could serve to enhance cross-ministerial collaboration, as well as building better networks of communication between the GSCo and line ministries. With increased visibility from all line ministries, a comparative view on implementation could be a channel for more joined-up results. In parallel, a systematic stock-take of progress on government priorities is carried out at least on a semi-annual basis for each policy area and is published on the GSCo’s website, drawing on the data recorded in the MAZI II platform.
6.3.1. Enhancing data collection and reporting processes
The reporting system is clearly mapped out and strategically implemented. Τhe GSCo has developed a standardised monthly reporting template with specific fields to be completed by the ministries. This template enables homogeneous monitoring and the extraction of comparable results across ministries, thereby facilitating consistent performance assessment, timely identification of implementation gaps, and data‑based decision making.
The electronic platform MAZI II functions as the primary mechanism for the effective management, monitoring, and co‑ordination of the implementation of the full portfolio of projects under the remit of the GSCo, including the portfolio of reforms financed by the National Recovery and Resilience Fund. By consolidating project data, progress indicators, and governance workflows within a single information system, MAZI II enhances transparency, enables timely identification of implementation bottlenecks, and supports data and analysis‑based decision making across responsible bodies. As the successor to MAZI, the platform preserves institutional continuity while introducing updated functionalities to better align oversight practices with the demands of large‑scale reform programmes and to facilitate coherent reporting to national and European stakeholders.
By the end of 2019 a dedicated mechanism for monitoring secondary legislation had been advanced and a pilot version of the supporting information system went live in the first quarter of 2020. The mechanism comprises clearly defined teams, roles, deliverables, and procedures, all underpinned by a purpose‑built information system. Since its launch the project has expanded substantially, adding functionalities such as a Business Intelligence dashboard and advanced search tools, and has been adjusted to reflect evolving institutional needs and the broader administrative environment. Co‑ordinated and managed by the GSCo, the mechanism has operated effectively for more than four years, demonstrating both practical value and sustainability. The government’s performance budgeting framework now includes a specific KPI on the issuance of mandatory secondary legislation, which the GSCo monitors and reports. The information system was developed in‑house by GSCo personnel and was neither complemented by nor financed through other NRRP measures or national programmes. Its formal inclusion in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan under the Reform “Enhancement of Policy Planning and Coordination” further reinforced implementation, broadened institutional engagement, and facilitated integration into the wider governance and reporting architecture, thereby strengthening systematic oversight and compliance with EU legal obligations. Currently, line ministries do not have direct access to MAZI, but a version which would allow line ministries to fill in their own milestone tracking is in development. This could also serve to further clarify and specify some aspects of secondary legislation tracking in MAZI.
Since 2024 the GSCo has delivered a series of targeted training programmes, implemented through the National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government, for co‑ordination units within each ministry and for ministerial political offices. These programmes focus on the Annual Action Plans and the sectoral and horizontal actions overseen by the GSCo and are designed to standardise planning and reporting practices, strengthen interministerial co‑ordination, and build institutional capacity for the consistent implementation and monitoring of priority measures. By familiarising both administrative and political actors with plan structure, performance indicators, and procedural requirements, the trainings have improved the quality and comparability of submissions to the GSCo, enhanced alignment between strategic objectives and operational execution, and supported more data‑based performance assessment across ministries.
While the process of preparing the AAPs is well-understood and integrated into the line ministry workflow, the administrative capacity of ministries to propose projects that are appropriately linked to corresponding performance indicators remains a significant challenge. To address this, the GSCO, in collaboration with the Council of Economic Experts and the Expert Unit on Employment, Social Security, Welfare and Social Affairs, provides ministries with specialised indicator proposals tailored to their planned projects, with the aim of strengthening the quality, measurability and policy relevance of the AAPs. Building a meaningful culture of performance will therefore require not just new tools but also sustained capacity-building within line ministries to improve their ability to develop, interpret, and act on data. Providing line ministries with access to MAZI for their own milestone tracking and management, including the ability to input their own milestones, together with targeted efforts to raise data literacy, would enhance monitoring processes and better underpin the analysis-based policymaking embodied in the AAP tool. There is a need to build a culture around monitoring that has real buy-in and engagement from line ministries, which requires creating an enabling environment and gives them capacity-building efforts to scale up data abilities as well as agency to participate in the process.
For the optimal management of government priorities, the monitoring system incorporates a prioritisation of emblematic projects by policy sector and of critical legislative work. This prioritisation enables focused oversight, targeted resource allocation, and accelerated implementation of measures that have the greatest impact on public service delivery and regulatory compliance. The example in Box 6.1 below highlights how monitoring progress can have a real impact on delivery. By distinguishing flagship initiatives and essential legislative milestones within the tracking framework, the system supports timely decision making, enhances interministerial co‑ordination, and facilitates the systematic evaluation of progress against strategic objectives. Finally, a feature that is currently in development in MAZI ΙΙ is the risk profile assessment. This feature uses historical data – both from the relevant project, and from other similar projects – such as past delays or barriers to implementation, to calculate a risk percentage of the project being off-track or incomplete. This feature, once developed, could also serve as a way for the GSCo to focus attention on those areas that are not progressing as anticipated.
Led by Israel's Ministry of Interior and Prime Minister's Office, this reform (2018-2022) overhauled the licensing regime for around 200 business types. Previously, licensing took an average of 10 months, roughly a quarter of businesses operated without a license and requirements were fragmented and unclear. The reform introduced risk-based licensing tracks with binding timeframes, a “silence is consent” mechanism granting automatic approval when regulators miss deadlines, extended license validity, sworn compliance declarations placing responsibility on business owners and one-stop-shop centres for complex cases. The Prime Minister's Office Regulatory Policy Team evaluated implementation and published progress publicly. The 2022 update cut annual compliance costs by ILS 58 million for around 40 000 businesses. The reform shifted regulatory focus from pre-licensing bureaucracy toward post-licensing enforcement, strengthening both efficiency and legitimacy of the system.
6.3.2. Strengthening competencies in line ministries
Strengthening competencies for project management and reform implementation within line ministries would be a key enabler for more decentralised monitoring. As monitoring responsibilities evolve and the complexity of reform implementation deepens, line ministries will need the capacity – not only technical, but also institutional – to manage, interpret, and act upon their own implementation milestones. This shift would require targeted capacity-building efforts, including training on project management and implementation methodologies, as well as ensuring the necessary digital reporting tools. It could also entail the establishment or reinforcement of internal co‑ordination structures within ministries, for example through the data units present in some line ministries, to oversee reporting and liaise directly with the GSCo. Greece’s approach thus far is linked to their approach to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). Ministries in a number of EU Member States monitoring RRF activities are often required to report directly into centralised dashboards but are also supported by sectoral co‑ordination units with clear mandates. One other example that may be useful Greece’s context is in Ireland, which has developed robust public administration reform plans, including the Civil Service Renewal Plan and Public Sector Reform Plan (Box 6.2). In the long term, building a culture of shared responsibility and accountability for monitoring can further enhance the outcomes from the GSCo.
Ireland is currently in the process of implementing an ambitious 10-year reform strategy for the civil service. Civil Service Renewal 2030 is being implemented through a series of 3-year action plans, and the CoG, through the Department of Public Expenditure and Results, has a lead responsibility for monitoring its implementation. Ireland’s Civil Service Renewal Strategy (CSR2030) is supported by a central Programme Management Office (PMO) that co‑ordinates implementation using structured project and programme management methods. Project Managers are appointed for each strategic goal, while Secretaries General act as Project Sponsors. Reform initiatives are guided by detailed project plans with clear milestones and indicators, and progress is reported regularly to the Civil Service Management Board, which oversees delivery at the highest level.
The approach leverages existing structures to foster collaboration while embedding accountability through transparent reporting and annual public progress updates. A strong focus on staff engagement, supported by dedicated communications and regular Employee Engagement Surveys, helps build a culture of shared ownership and continuous improvement across the civil service.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[4]), Civil Service Renewal 2030, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-public-expenditure-ndp-delivery-and-reform/publications/civil-service-renewal-2030/
6.3.3. Strategic long-term approaches to data needs
AI practices
One area of importance is the potential for future implementations of AI and other data-driven practices to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of these outcomes. Looking ahead, future‑oriented governance will increasingly rely on high-quality, structured data to enable more sophisticated AI-driven analytics, including for example scenario modelling. The use of AI in the public sector is a complex undertaking as outlined by the OECD’s Framework for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Government.
Source: OECD (2021[5]), Tools for trustworthy AI: A framework to compare implementation tools for trustworthy AI systems, https://doi.org/10.1787/008232ec-en.
The OECD’s work in this area has highlighted five core actions to support the advancement of a more coherent and trustworthy development, deployment, and use of AI in and by the public sector. These include:
providing a whole‑of-government approach through strategic guidance, clear objectives and oversight to steer the integration and procurement of AI across sectors, ministries, and agencies in accordance with expected values and guiding principles.
embedding participatory mechanisms within institutional arrangements to increase the engagement of and oversight by citizens and other relevant stakeholders in the design, development, and deployment of AI in the public sector.
establishing robust data governance for the whole public sector to support access to and sharing of high-quality government data, often integrating data governance strategies with AI strategies; acknowledging that trustworthy use of AI relies on high quality data.
ensuring the reliability of AI systems used in the public sector. This entails developing or using the right metrics and tools to systematically scrutinise AI systems and models used in the public sector to make sure they deliver wide‑ranging and fair results. This includes also having guardrails to identify and mitigate risks such as biased or skewed outcomes, and other unintended consequences that may undermine fairness and trust in government.
enhancing accountability in the deployment of AI within the public sector through greater transparency, explainability, and traceability, for instance through the establishments of algorithmic accountability standards and open registries of public algorithms (OECD, 2025[6]).
The OECD has also developed a simple classification of common types of AI tasks, some of which could be potentially integrated into the MAZI system and the monitoring process at the CoG more generally (Table 6.1).
Source: OECD (2024[7]), Governing with Artificial Intelligence: Are governments ready?, https://doi.org/10.1787/26324bc2-en.
While much of the current focus remains on existing monitoring inputs and outputs, a more strategic investment in data infrastructure is likely to be needed in the medium-term to support anticipatory and predictive analytics. Such analytics could serve not only to track implementation progress but also to model risks, forecast implementation bottlenecks, and ultimately better calibrate public policy responses. This will require a step-change in the granularity, quality, and timeliness of data collected across the public sector, as well as political commitment to data transparency and sharing. For example, Korea’s e‑RFP Assistance System uses AI to automate the drafting of procurement documents and ensure regulatory compliance, reducing administrative workloads and streamlining internal processes ( (OECD, 2025[8])In another example, the United Kingdom’s “Parlex” system uses AI to analyse historical parliamentary data and forecast likely reactions to proposed policies, helping decision makers anticipate risks and adjust policy design accordingly (Government of the United Kingdom, 2025[9]; OECD, 2024[7]). For the GSCo, this type of automation could for example be used to take inputs from weekly and monthly reporting systems and automatically make the transfer between line ministries and the CoG, and ultimately to decision makers, thus making the work more efficient. Ideally, it could be linked to the systems line ministries are using, so that any update from the line ministry creates an automatic update in MAZI. This type of Application Programming Interface (API) would remove a significant reporting burden for the CoG. In this scenario, with AI fully integrated, reports could be generated to provide more than just general overviews, but targeted responses to specific questions to support more tailored information for decision makers.
AI could also eventually be used for forecasting and scenario modelling. Multiple governments are beginning to use AI in evaluating future scenarios or risks. In Brazil, the Federal Court of Accounts uses its “ALICE” system to analyse large volumes of procurement data and identify risks of irregularities, supporting more proactive oversight and prevention (OECD, 2025[6]). Spain’s Comptroller General has used AI to identify high-risk instances of potential fraud in grant and subsidies programmes (OECD, 2021[10]). In France, the Paris-Saclay agglomeration of municipalities is using AI to simulate different energy management scenarios through a digital twin of their territory (Berryhill et al., 2019[11])and in New South Wales, digital twin technology is used to create dynamic models of infrastructure and urban environments, allowing authorities to simulate development scenarios and assess the potential impacts of planning decisions before implementation (OECD, 2026[12]). This is allowing officials to more effectively evaluate the environmental and financial impacts of projects and improve long-term planning capabilities. For the GSCo, this type of feature could be used to enhance for example the risk assessment calculation feature that is currently in development.
Better horizontal monitoring
In parallel, there was a recognition of the need to improve data interoperability across line ministries and public agencies in order to support the monitoring of increasingly complex and interdependent policy priorities. Paradoxically, although the data and monitoring systems are well-integrated and centralised through the GSCo, they are still somewhat fragmented, with siloed data representations for each project and limited mechanisms for horizontal integration or synthesis. The primary grouping for each project is based on the ministry who has a lead responsibility for the project, rather than any horizontal policy classification. A more interoperable data system, with shared definitions, integrated monitoring platforms, and common data standards, would allow for more holistic oversight of complex and cross-cutting reforms and facilitate cross-government monitoring and progress. The aim would not be to replace line ministry-level monitoring, but to create an additional layer of information which would allow the GSCo to focus its attention on long-term vision and aligning complex frameworks at the national and international level for cross-cutting priorities – something which is a priority for most CoGs (Figure 4.1 in Chapter 4). The new horizontal sector within the CoG, established in 2026, is moving in this direction and has responsibilities to propose and plan public policies; monitor and co-ordinate their implementation; and ensure uniform, systematic evaluation of policies through common methodologies, performance indicators, ensure data interoperability by policy area, and identify best practices in relation to National Plans and National Strategies.
One pathway to enable this could be the development and adoption of standardised taxonomies. This type of categorisation and labelling could improve visibility across reforms, allow for easier aggregation and comparison of progress across ministries, and reduce the monitoring burden through greater clarity and consistency. They are a key enabler to link activities related to the same policy fields across many ministries. Existing international frameworks and taxonomies such as the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) could serve as a useful reference point (Box 6.3). While adaptation to the specific context in Greece may be necessary, anchoring monitoring efforts in internationally recognised standards could also enhance comparability with other countries and signal alignment with global good practices. COFOG is one of the standard classifications used within the System of National Accounts, specifically for categorizing government expenditure by function and in this case could be used to facilitate the linkages between monitoring and other important data, such as budgetary, and facilitate alignment with an international comparative perspective.
The Classification of the Functions of Government, abbreviated as COFOG, was developed in its current version in 1999 by the OECD and published by the United Nations Statistical Division as a standard classifying the purposes of government activities. The classification has three levels of detail:
divisions;
groups;
classes.
Divisions describe the broad objectives of government, while groups and classes both define the means by which these broad objectives are achieved.
Source: Eurostat. (n.d.[13]), Classification of the functions of government (COFOG), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Classification_of_the_functions_of_government_(COFOG)
6.3.4. Steering long term monitoring practices
Aligning government activity in order to achieve long-term priorities is considered to be one of the most important roles CoGs play – but it is also the area they find most challenging (Figure 6.4). Some of the key enablers in this area could include developing a longer-term planning instrument.
Note: n= 10, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Poland, Finland, Romania, Ireland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, New Zealand.
Source: OECD, Survey: Stewardship and Monitoring of Long-Term and Cross-Cutting Commitments at the CoG, unpublished.
Enhancing the development of the monitoring and tracking system within the GSCo could entail a shift from a focus primarily on inputs and outputs, to one that can link these to outcomes and impact. This transition implies asking not only “Are we doing things right?” – a question largely within the remit of line ministries – but also “Are we doing the right things?” – a much broader strategic question that the CoG through the GSCo can help to inform. While line ministries should continue to be responsible for the technical and procedural dimensions of implementation, the GSCo can help foster a culture of results by embedding impact-based performance logic into the design and monitoring of AAPs.
Once the horizontal tagging and taxonomising system is developed and implemented, there could be potential to develop cross-cutting indicators that track progress on complex and cross-cutting priorities, for example on the multi-ministerial decisions. These types of horizontal metrics would allow the government through the GSCo to better monitor reforms that transcend traditional institutional silos, and which are often the most transformative but also the most complex to implement. To ensure coherence over time, this effort could be linked to the exploratory development of a multi-year monitoring framework – one that moves beyond the current annual cycle of the AAPs. At present, unfinished actions are simply rolled over from year to year, which limits the capacity to evaluate long-term policy effectiveness or trajectory.
The long‑term planning instrument currently used by the GSCo is the Consolidated Government Policy Plan (CGPP) issued annually and aligned with the four‑year governance cycle established by Law 4622/2019. The CGPP is approved each November by the regular Cabinet alongside each ministry’s Annual Strategic Plan and is published on the GSCo website in accordance with Article 49 of Law 4622/2019, ensuring public accessibility to strengthen transparency and governmental accountability. Embedding AAPs within the CGPP framework enables planners to align short‑term milestones with medium‑ and long‑term outcome indicators, set explicit expectations for success across the four‑year cycle, and provide a coherent basis for evaluating impact beyond procedural outputs. The UGPP comprises: (a) a concise report of each ministry’s work for the previous year; (b) a four‑year work programme for each ministry; (c) the government Policy Plan for the reference year; (d) Annex I – key projects and milestones for each ministry for the reference year; (e) Annex II – the government’s annual regulatory programming for the reference year; (f) Annex III – annual recruitment planning for Public Administration and Local Government for the reference year; and (g) Annex IV – ministerial certification confirming the CGPP’s consistency with the General Government Budget and the Medium‑Term Fiscal Strategy Framework.
Integrating these elements into the AAP cycle leads to a more strategic, data and analysis‑based approach to planning, implementation, and evaluation, thereby enhancing the government’s capacity to deliver on complex, cross‑cutting policy objectives over the medium and long term. A deeper formation and systematic utilisation of long‑term outcome and impact indicators within the UGPP, would materially improve the government’s capacity to plan, implement, and evaluate complex, cross‑cutting policies over the medium and long term. This approach would also support continuity and coherence across policy cycles. As reforms often take several years to mature, especially those with behavioural or institutional dimensions, the ability to monitor them over multiple planning cycles is crucial. Establishing mechanisms for ministries to report back on these longer-term indicators, even as new AAPs are developed, could ensure that reform momentum is not lost and that lessons learned from implementation are fed back into policy design. This could be supported by the use of logic frameworks or results chains that link inputs and outputs to intermediate and long-term outcomes – thus helping to create a clear, structured narrative of change. This is something that has been developed at the GSCo, however faced challenges in implementation and uptake throughout line ministries. One common analytical framework to structure a results chain is through the theory of change approach. This framework, as outlined below (Figure 6.5), focuses on what a policy does (inputs, activities, and outputs) and how these are linked clearly with what it aims to achieve (outcomes and impacts). The toolkit for the preparation, implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of public administration reform and sector strategies offers a comprehensive monitoring framework to support this approach, ensuring long-term priorities progress through the theory of change by assigning specific indicators, baselines, and targets to each stage of the results chain, enabling the systematic tracking of reform progress over time (Vági and Rimkute, 2018[14]).
Source: OECD (2024[15]), Guidance for a Monitoring and Evaluation System for Italy’s Universal Civil Service, https://doi.org/10.1787/a8b73d4b-en.
6.3.5. Data communication through enhanced visualisation and analytical tools
Securing the engagement of both decision makers and line ministries for this type of reform is critical but often challenging. Historically, governments have developed projects aimed at improving indicator development where many line ministries struggled to internalise and apply the new frameworks. This underscores the importance of not only designing technically sound indicators but also creating the institutional conditions for their use, through leadership engagement, consistent political support, capacity-building efforts, and the co-development of tools that are user-friendly and responsive to the realities of work being undertaken in line ministries or at the centre. Simply mandating the use of longer-term indicators is unlikely to succeed unless ministries see a clear benefit, both in terms of policy learning and in meeting their strategic objectives. The CoG, through the GSCo, is well placed to provide this support and can serve to standardise methodologies, promote good practices, and ensure that monitoring becomes an integral part of a broader performance and accountability culture across government.
The GSCo has already taken on a role as a catalyst for more sophisticated and digital monitoring and tracking processes. Continuing to act as a development hub for strengthening monitoring capacities across the administration could enhance the system of monitoring throughout the whole‑of-government. Going beyond central reporting, the GSCo has taken on a more proactive role in building the tools, methodologies, and capabilities needed to support high-level monitoring across the whole of government, with for instance the in-house development of MAZI. This pathway could be further explored to use the GSCo as a hub for elevating capacities to monitor progress across government. This could involve not only training and technical assistance as the GSCo has already done with the manual and monthly meetings with line ministries, but also the co-design of monitoring solutions with line ministries to ensure usability and relevance. A concrete starting point could be the development of more accessible and interactive dashboards to visualise progress on reforms and investments. Such a dashboard, being developed within the GSCo, ideally embedded within the existing MAZI platform, would allow users to drill down by sector, policy area, or specific reform trajectory – enabling both vertical and horizontal visibility across monitoring efforts.
Such tools would be particularly useful for tracking cross-cutting, multi-ministerial reforms, where policy ownership is distributed and co‑ordination challenges are greater. By providing a clear and intuitive interface – linked to milestone frameworks and enriched with narrative reporting and risk assessments – the GSCo could ensure that decision makers at all levels have access to cross-cutting horizontal information. Filtering systems that allow users to sort by sector, thematic area, or emblematic priority would further support targeted oversight and reduce the risk of information overload.
There is also work towards creating a more visual and interactive presentation of the monitoring system, which is being undertaken in Spain (see Box 6.4 below). This could enable clearer and more effective communication of high-level information to decision makers, enhancing data and analysis-based decision-making processes. Other countries such as Australia and Canada have developed similar tools to synthesise and present data in more sophisticated ways (Box 6.4).
Performance Reporting Dashboard in Australia
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Performance Dashboard, launched in 2017, provides a transparent, color-coded overview of how states and territories are progressing on intergovernmental commitments across areas like health, education, and disability services. Replacing lengthy annual reports, the dashboard enabled quick, accessible tracking of policy implementation and highlights where jurisdictions are meeting targets or falling behind. Managed by the Productivity Commission, it promotes accountability and data-driven decision making in a federal context, while also enhancing public visibility into government performance.
Executive Project Dashboards in Canada
The Government of Canada, through the CoG, has developed an executive project dashboard tool to monitor progress at the project level. The tool includes three worksheets: the Dashboard worksheet, the Financials worksheet, and the Supplementary Information worksheet.
The Dashboard worksheet contains the executive project dashboard template. Most information is entered directly into this template, except for the financial data, which are entered in a separate worksheet.
The Financials worksheet contains tables in which to enter financial data. These tables are then used to populate the Financial Summary table located in the Dashboard worksheet.
The Supplementary Information worksheet is for projects included in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat CIOB oversight portfolio. This worksheet contains tables in which to enter project information regarding Treasury Board briefings and alignment to the whole‑of-government framework.
In 2013, the Government of Canada developed the GC Infobase, an interactive data-visualisation platform to improve the availability and accessibility of complex federal government data. By combining multiple sources of data into one common platform, GC Infobase makes understanding government’s operations more accessible to parliamentarians, public servants, and Canadian citizens.
The platform consolidates information from several key sources, currently organised around five thematic pillars: finances, COVID-19, people, results, and services. The finances module provides a breakdown of government expenditure over the previous five years alongside projected expenditure for the following three years, enabling users to identify spending trends and assess fiscal trajectories over time. The people module presents data on the federal public service workforce, while the results module links departmental spending to planned and actual outcomes, supporting performance accountability. The services module tracks how federal services are delivered and used across government.
GC Infobase is designed as an interactive and visual tool, allowing users to filter and explore data at varying levels of granularity, ranging from government-wide data, specifying down to departmental levels. This flexibility makes it a valuable resource not only for oversight and accountability, but also for evidence-based policy analysis and public transparency.
Cumpliendo dashboard in Spain
The Government of Spain’s Cumpliendo dashboard, launched in 2020, provides an interactive digital overview of how the executive branch is delivering on its key political commitments. Identifying progress on election commitments as “fulfilled”, “activated”, or "not activated", allows citizens to track legislative processes and the actions of government. Developed alongside independent academic experts, the platform democratises access to complex administrative data, allowing citizens to filter performance metrics at varying levels of granularity. Such a tool makes it easy to understand the progress of government, enhancing public understanding and trust in the government’s delivery of public policies.
Sources: Australian Government (2017[16]), Enhanced Transparency and Accountability, https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/reports/publications/annual_reports/2016-17-HTML/content/about.html; Government of Canada (Government of Canada, n.d.[17]), GC Infobase, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/ems-sgd/edb-bdd/index-eng.html#start; OECD (2025[18]), Empowering fiscal reporting with digital and interactive approaches, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/support-materials/2025/02/empowering-fiscal-reporting-with-digital-and-interactive-approaches_3bd128d8/Case%20study-Canada.pdf; Government of Canada (2010[19]), Guide to executive project dashboards, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/sct-tbs/BT48-4-4-2010-eng.pdf; Government of Spain, (2026[20]), Informe 'Cumpliendo', https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/paginas/cumpliendo/rendicion-de-cuentas-diciembre-2025.aspx
Below are a number of options for Greece to consider to better support the CoG’s functions around monitoring and tracking key reforms. It is complemented by the online Annex with practical solutions that are in use by other countries.
Identify opportunities to shift some of the monitoring responsibilities to line ministries, by prioritising the development of functions and a common set of processes and procedures that allow them to input and track their own data. This will also require efforts from GSCo to train and develop line ministries capacities in high-level monitoring for performance management. This could also entail supporting the development of more sophisticated performance management systems within line ministries in order to fluidly link with portfolio level management carried out at the GSCo level.
Continue enhancing and developing more sophisticated data collection and monitoring systems, by taking a long-term strategic approach to data needs.
Investments in digital infrastructure could enable system upgrades to drive more efficient and effective work, for example through integrating AI.
Implementing a taxonomy for policy areas and integrating it with existing systems could allow greater understanding of complex and interdependent policy priorities, and enable a more whole‑of-government approach to monitoring that is currently based on line ministry area of responsibility.
Continue to enable and strengthen long-term vision through the CoG and GSCo by developing mechanisms for longer term planning, to ensure continuity and cohesion between AAPs.
Further engagement with developing more sophisticated outcome and impact-focused indicators will require significant engagement with line ministries, but could enable progress towards long-term priorities.
Enhance communication and knowledge‑sharing throughout the CoG and line ministries by working towards enhanced means of data presentation and communication, such as dashboards. These types of communication mechanisms can also enable better horizontal co‑ordination by allowing cross-ministerial visibility into performance management and monitoring. Tools such as these can also be used to enable public-facing communications, which could contribute to reinforcing trust in government.
References
[16] Australian Government (2017), Enhanced Transparency and Accountability, https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/reports/publications/annual_reports/2016-17-HTML/content/about.html.
[11] Berryhill, J. et al. (2019), “Hello, World: Artificial intelligence and its use in the public sector”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/726fd39d-en.
[13] Eurostat (n.d.), Classification of the functions of government (COFOG), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Classification_of_the_functions_of_government_(COFOG) (accessed on 10 April 2025).
[19] Government of Canada (2010), Guide to executive project dashboards, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/sct-tbs/BT48-4-4-2010-eng.pdf.
[17] Government of Canada (n.d.), GC Infobase, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/ems-sgd/edb-bdd/index-eng.html#start.
[1] Government of Greece (n.d.), Presidency of the Government | The Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic, https://www.primeminister.gr/primeminister/proedria-tis-kivernisis (accessed on 10 April 2025).
[4] Government of Ireland (2021), Civil Service Renewal 2030, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-public-expenditure-ndp-delivery-and-reform/publications/civil-service-renewal-2030/ (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[20] Government of Spain (2026), Informe ’Cumpliendo’, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/paginas/cumpliendo/rendicion-de-cuentas-diciembre-2025.aspx.
[9] Government of the United Kingdom (2025), Parlex, https://ai.gov.uk/knowledge-hub/tools/parlex/ (accessed on 7 July 2026).
[12] OECD (2026), Digital Government Review of Biscay, Spain: Towards a Future-Oriented Public Sector, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ab35c0ea-en.
[8] OECD (2025), Digital Government Review of Korea: Harnessing Digital and Data to Transform Government, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9defc197-en.
[18] OECD (2025), Empowering fiscal reporting with digital and interactive approaches, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/support-materials/2025/02/empowering-fiscal-reporting-with-digital-and-interactive-approaches_3bd128d8/Case%20study-Can.
[6] OECD (2025), Governing with Artificial Intelligence: The State of Play and Way Forward in Core Government Functions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/795de142-en.
[3] OECD (2025), Simplifying for Success: Insights from OECD Surveys, Prepared for the OECD High-level Symposium 17-18 November 2025, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/administrative-simplification/s4s-key-insights/OECD%20S4S%20Symposium%20Brief_Simplifying%20for%20success_Insights%20from%20OECD%20surveys.pdf.
[7] OECD (2024), “Governing with Artificial Intelligence: Are governments ready?”, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26324bc2-en.
[15] OECD (2024), Guidance for a Monitoring and Evaluation System for Italy’s Universal Civil Service, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a8b73d4b-en.
[2] OECD (2022), Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy: Preparing the Ground for Government Action, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76972a4a-en.
[10] OECD (2021), Countering Public Grant Fraud in Spain: Machine Learning for Assessing Risks and Targeting Control Activities, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ea22484-en.
[5] OECD (2021), “Tools for trustworthy AI: A framework to compare implementation tools for trustworthy AI systems”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 312, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/008232ec-en.
[14] Vági, P. and E. Rimkute (2018), “Toolkit for the preparation, implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of public administration reform and sector strategies: Guidance for SIGMA partners”, SIGMA Papers, No. 57, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/37e212e6-en.