CAPE-GPS

Competency Assessment and

Performance Evaluation

An Objective Tool to Select and Retain only the Competent and the Good Performers in Public Service

HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 1

ood ublic ervice FOR

Public Service … … is improving the lives of the sovereign citizen-taxpayers

Is NOT …


Public Service requires Teams of Competent and Good Performers


GOVERNMENT

The Effects of Misfits in Public Service

WASTED

TIME


TIME TIME

5 HILARIO P. MARTINEZ

It’s just a GATE PASS!

Isn’t it?

So what is it for?

GOV’T

Anchoring on the H.R.D. Component of an Anti-Corruption Program


OFFERING AN ATTRACTIVE

ALTERNATIVE FOR GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES TO HAVE OWN BUSINESS

AND RETIRE EARLY

TEAM BUILDING,

ENFORCING JOINT

ACCOUNTABILITY,

STRENGTHENING

PLANNING,

OPTIMIZING

RESOURCE

UTILIZATION

COMPETENCY-BASED

SELECTION

PROCESS, ON-THE-

JOB BIASED

TRAINING,

PERFORMANCE–

BASED CONTRACT

DETOXI-FYING

NOTE: Surf www.slideshare.net for “An Integrated H.R.D. Approach to Anti-Corruption Campaign in the Philippine Bureaucracy” for details

http://www.slideshare.net/

Competence Performance

Reference: UNESCO/UNEVOC-TVETpedia website 7 HILARIO P. MARTINEZ

Job Performance

Observable Behavior

huh!

Enabling and Enhancing Complementation: COMPETENCE PERFORMANCE

Knowledge

Skills Attitude

hmmm…


Effective and efficient teams are…

…composed of competent individuals

COM

MIT

MEN

T

To be or not to be

If “…Public Servants shall remain

accountable to the public at all times…”

(Phil. Constitution)

…then, shouldn’t they also prove themselves to be competent and

committed at all times to serve and protect the public and the

public interest?


COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT IN THE PHILIPPINE CIVIL SERVICE


See www.slideshare.net for a complete presentation on “Competency Assessment System for the Philippine Civil Service” [ ]






COMPETENCY is all about DISCIPLINE in Public Service


Sample UC/Competency Standard for a Standardized Government Job Title


Sample of a Competency Standard for a Standardized Job/Position Title CORE Competencies BASIC Competencies

Use of I.C.T.

Lead and manage

work teams

Apply problem

solving in workplace

Demonstrate profes-

sionalism in workplace


Plan and Direct Policy

Inputs

Design Systems,

Projects and Programs

Deploy Policies to

Stakeholders

Manage Resources

UC #1 UC #2

UC #3 UC #4


Competency Standards for Government Position Titles

are industry-determined specifications setting out the skills, knowledge, and attitude a person must possess in order to effectively operate in a defined work environment

ACCOUNTANT

Bo

oke

ep

er Ex

am

ine

r

Secretary

Nu

rse

Medical Doctor

Budget Officer Computer Programmer

DR

IVER

1

BU

YER

Division

Chief

UTILITY

LOA

N

OFFIC

ER

REVENUE OFFICER II

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

REG

ION

AL

ENCODER

ASST.

Competency Assessment A

sse

ssm

en

t: Observation

Interviews

Third Party Report

Demonstration

Portfolio PA N E L

EMPLOYEE


# of UC / Standard: Minimum – 2 Maximum – 7

In a Competency Assessment System,

there can be only ONE!


• Proposed primary entry requirement for employment in Gov’t

• Important requirement for renewal/extension of employment contract and promotion


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT of BUDGET and MANAGEMENT

Frequency of Competency Assessment (Ensuring Consistent Compliance to Standard)


YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 1

3rd Level Personnel

2nd Level Personnel

1st Level Personnel

every 3 years per level

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Yr 1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Yr 2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Yr 3 PERFORMANCE

NOTE: Certificate of Competency valid for three (3) years only

INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM


PERFORMANCE is more than about OUTPUT #

PERFORMANCE is about how well the outputs were produced

See www.slideshare.net for a complete presentation on “Integrated Performance Evaluation System” [ ]


The Individual and the Operating Unit/Team


INDIVIDUAL ACCOMPLISHMENT

≈ 1

n th of an

OPERATING UNIT’s/TEAM’s

PRODUCTION,

INDIVIDUAL ≈ 1

n th of an

OPERATING UNIT/TEAM

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE

≈ 1

n th of an

OPERATING UNIT’s/TEAM’s

PERFORMANCE

OPERATING UNIT/TEAM = Individual Members with varying and complementing Skills and Roles Σ 2

n

i …

… and …

• • •

In any Organization, persons belong to a particular Operating Unit

In a Bureaucracy, it is …

always about … never about …


Performance Criteria

•the technical specifications of planned output QUALITY

•the numerical quantity of planned output vs actual QUANTITY

•adherence to planned date of program/project implementation

SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION

•application of allocated funds corresponding to programs/projects in accordance to approved cash flow

USE OF FUNDS

•staff man-days available for program/project implementation net of all types of absences, tardiness and undertime, including study leaves

USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS


Performance Evaluation

Quality

Quantity

Imple-mentation Schedule

Use of Funds

Use of Staff Man-

Days


Project Completion

T I M E

∑Weights of 5 Factors = 100


QUALITY 25%

QUANTITY 20% SCHEDULE OF

IMPLEMEN-TATION

25%

USE OF FUNDS

20%

USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS

10%

100%

Utilization of

Available Resources

T

I

M

E

The Annual Integrated Performance Evaluation Process Team System

1st Semester Perf. Review 2nd Semester Perf. Review

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

AN

NU

AL

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E EV

ALU

ATI

ON

Q1 HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 26

The Integrated Performance Evaluation System’s Criteria and Scoring Matrix

EQUIVALENT SCORE PER CRITERIA PER DEVIATION LEVEL DEVIATION RANGE (%) QUALITY QUANTITY

SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION

USE OF FUNDS

USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS TOTAL

0.0 25.000 20.000 25.000 20.000 10.000 100.00

2.5 24.375 19.500 24.375 19.500 9.750 97.50

5.0 23.500 19.000 23.500 19.000 9.500 94.50

7.5 23.125 18.500 23.125 18.500 9.250 92.50

10.0 22.500 18.000 22.500 18.000 9.000 90.00

12.5 21.875 17.500 21.875 17.500 8.750 87.50

15.0 21.250 17.000 21.250 17.000 8.500 85.00

17.5 20.625 16.500 20.625 16.500 8.250 82.50

20.0 20.000 16.000 20.000 16.000 8.000 80.00

22.5 19.375 15.500 19.375 15.500 7.750 77.50

25.0 18.750 15.000 18.750 15.000 7.500 75.00

OPTIMUM ZONE CONTROLLED DEVIATION

WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE


[25%] [25%] [20%] [20%] [10%]

Computing for QUALITY Rating

In reference to Slide 26, the average of -12.25% is

equivalent to a rating of 21.875% out of 25% for QUALITY


Computing for QUANTITY Rating

In reference to Slide 26, the average of -20.12% is

equivalent to a rating of 15.500% out of 20% for QUANTITY


Computing for SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION Rating

In reference to Slide 26, the average of -5.0% is equivalent to a

rating of 23.5% out of 25% for SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION

* Program/Project/Activity


Computing for USE OF FUNDS Rating

In reference to Slide 26, the average of -6.5% is equivalent

to a rating of 18.500% out of 20% for USE OF FUNDS


Computing for USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS Rating

In reference to Slide 26, the average of -4.5% is equivalent to a

rating of 9.500% out of 10% for the USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS


OVERALL RATING SCHEDULE

.01 to 2.5 = 95.01 - 97.5 Excellent

2.51 to 5.0 = 92.51 - 95.0 Outstanding

5.01 to 7.5 = 90.01 - 92.5 Almost Outstanding

7.51 to 10.0 = 87.51 - 90.0 Very Satisfactory

10.01 to 12.5 = 85.01 - 87.5 Satisfactory

12.51 to 15.0 = 82.51 - 85.0

15.01 to 17.5 = 80.01 - 82.5 Fair

17.51 to 20.0 = 77.51 - 80.0

20.01 to 22.5 = 75.01 - 77.5 Poor

22.51 to 25.0 =< 75.00 Fail

Range of Deviation Range of

Performance Level Equivalent

Adjectival Rating


FAIL ZONE

ALERT ZONE

(Out-of-Control)

NOTE: In this demerit-based rating in an integrated evaluation scheme, 100% performance level at the end of the Work & Financial Plan implementation period is not attainable!

A Team’s/Unit’s Averages per Criterion*

Office Performance Rating: 88.875 = Very Satisfactory

* This computation is based on one year operation/program-project implementation


Head of Agency

Deputy 1

Dir A Dir B

Div 1 Div 2 Div 3 Div 4

Deputy 2

Dir C Dir D

Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8

All for One, One for All ( A ro l l - u p P ro c e s s o f D e t e r m i n i n g A ge n c y R a t i n g )


NOTE: Planning – Top-down Evaluation – Bottom-up

88.875 89.025 86.354 87.634 89.832 87.389 86.973 89.059 + + + +

88.950 88.093 87.511 88.016 + +

88.521

88.142

+

Average of scores of

immediate subordinate Units & Unit

Members

BASIC SCORES – FRONTLINE LEVEL

Subor-dinates’ Average

Subor-dinates’ Average

AGENCY’S Rating

87.763

INTRODUCING A ‘GAME CHANGER’ IN PUBLIC SERVICE

Competency Assessment

& Performance Evaluation

COMPETENCE AND GOOD PERFORMANCE = SECURITY OF TENURE


Strength in Unity


COMPETENT INCOMPETENT

A Theory wanting to be challenged!

INCOMPETENCE, on the contrary, results in unacceptable

Job PERFORMANCE

If a measured COMPETENCE in a Job connotes good

PERFORMANCE in such a Job,

the lack of it will most likely spell dismal PERFORMANCE, there-fore, contribute as LIABILITY

If individuals w/ complimenting COMPETENCES most likely results

in better team PERFORMANCE,


The conduct of the annual C.A.P.E. (Competency Assessment & Performance Evaluation)

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3

AN

NU

AL

PER

TE

AM

/OR

G’N

LEVEL 1

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 3

C O M P E T E N C Y A S S E S S M E N T

&


3-Y

R U

PD

ATE

C

YCLE

PER

LEV

EL

(Alt

ern

atin

g)

C.A.P.E. Implementation Schedule

Level 1 - Level 2 - Level 3 - LEGEND:


Qualified CA x PE Combinations

Team Performance Rating

(is also the Team Members’ Individual Performance Rating)

PASS Competency

Assessment Result

FAIL Competency

Assessment Result

For Positive Mgt. & /or HRD decisions

Subject to incisive HRD interventions

CA x PE

CA x PE


(1)

(0)

The CA x PE Scores Reference Matrix The Equivalent scores of

Performance Evaluation and Competency Assessment

The Resultant scores for

Competency Assessment x Performance Evaluation

OPTIMUM ZONE

CONTROLLED DEVIATION

WARNING ZONE

FAIL ZONE

CA x PE CA x PE 97.50 0 95.00 0 92.50 0 90.00 0 87.50 0 85.00 0 82.50 0 80.00 0 77.50 0 75.00 0 72.50 0

PE Upper Limit

CA PASS (Value = 1)

CA FAIL (Value = 0)

97.50 1 0 95.00 1 0 92.50 1 0 90.00 1 0 87.50 1 0 85.00 1 0 82.50 1 0 80.00 1 0 77.50 1 0 75.00 1 0 72.50 1 0

HIG

HLY

UN

AC

CEP

TAB

LE – FAIL C

.A. R

ESULT


Management and HRD decisions required due to CA & PE results

PE rates CA PASS rate PE rates CA FAIL rate

Deserving of recognition, qualified for more sensitive tasks, higher responsibilities, and additional incentives

Qualified for higher responsi-bilities, coaching and commensurate reward/s

Requires more coaching from superior officials, closer monitoring, and job rotation

Requires better guidance, staff reshuffling and/or replacement

These cases may not be tolerable situations and therefore contrary to sound governance policy; likewise, it probably warrant a red flag and farther investigation of concerned operating unit/s and members


97.50

95.00

92.50

90.00

87.50

85.00

82.50

80.00

77.50

75.00

72.50

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

CA x PE = 0

DISQUALIFICATION!

Illustrating a Frontline Unit with Good Annual Performance Rating but with a Member Failing

a Regular Competency Assessment


CA = 1

CA = 1

CA = 1

CA = 1

CA = 1

CA = 1

CA = 1

Ref.: Slides 26, 33 and 41

Office Performance Rating

88.875 = Very Satisfactory Individual Performance Rating = =

Which serves Public Interest better?


The Breed of Workforce that should be retained in the Bureaucracy

Only the COMPETENT …and…

GOVERNMENT

SERVICE

PORTAL


Only the Good PERFORMERS

Proposed New “Rules of the Game” [Only the Competent and Good Performers in Public Service]


A New Civil Service


Making INTEGRITY an impregnable foundation of Bureaucracy

Things that matter the most must never be at the mercy of

things that matter the least

The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the

few

Efficiency is doing things right, Effectiveness is doing

the right things


Rationale for Implementing CAPE-GPS


PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS FOR

SOCIAL SERVICES

PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS FOR

ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURES

delivers delivers

A PROBABLE REALITY OR

JUST A WISH?


CAPE-GPS

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of CAPE-GPS