Integrated performance evaluation system

Integrated PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION SYSTEM

A Strategic Way of Professionalizing the Philippine Bureaucracy

1 Hilario P. Martinez

INDIVIDUAL

PERFORMANCE

RATING

TEAM

PERFORMANCE

RATING

PERFORMANCE

is more than about

OUTPUT #

Outstanding Performance … REALLY? In WHAT?!#@?

Hilario P. Martinez 2

130% Performance?

How is this possible?

How can you exceed 100%?

By what STANDARD?

By what CRITERIA?

By what SYSTEM?

How did they set TARGETS?

!

PERFORMANCE is more than Output PRODUCTION?

PERFORMANCE The higher the better?


How much output was produced?

What was the quality level of the produce?

Were the input resources used optimally?

Were the conversion processes effective and efficient?

Team Rating vs Individual Rating

One for All? All for One?


or

Common Scenes or a Rarity?


High Output but

High Wastage

of Resources!

OMG!

?

High Production but

High Cost Overrun!

AGAIN?

This is

too much!

Auditor

High Output!

but Low Quality!

Frequent Project Delays &

High Level of Unexpended

Project Funds!

Oh WOW!

Savings!?

Practise makes perfect!


Boss, our records show our agency outputs are not at

par with the year-end performance assessment criteria. What do we do?

Is that so? We’ll work it out, as we always do! Hmmm, by

the way, make sure my individual performance rating

sheet warrants a rating of “Outstanding”

Boy, talking about culture ...

The CHALLENGE


The Basic Issues


Theorem

No Team Member or Leader can be

better than the overall Performance

Rating of its Team or Operating

Unit!


Assumptions Planning, Programming and Budgeting System is a formal process in all government organizations

Capabilities are selected for a defined production of goods and/or services

All production units aspire for high standards of quality and excellence

Multi-project monitoring is inherent and implemented in all offices

Resources , including time, are finite. Optimum utilization of such for production of goods and services are therefore equitable to a maximum efficiency rating of 100%.

Tolerable/acceptable deviation in target vs output is only ±5%


The Transformation Process of a Bureaucratic Organization


THE SITUATION TODAY

A Culture of Self-Promotion


Teamwork vs Competition

More often than

not, members of

a team are

competing

against each

other, rather than

complementing

or supporting

each other to

attain a common

good


Self-Interest vs Organizational Goal

There are people in

organizations that think,

and some even believe,

that they are bigger than

the organization itself.

They think that they are

very special, even

indispensable. And thus,

regardless of logic and

situations, they believe they

deserve a performance

rating above the rating of

the organizations they

belong to.


A typical

Planning Session?

Those factors are not part of the usual

evaluation system. Just focus on what is

politically correct, that is “Outputs” only.

Remember, output +30 percentage points

above the target will get a performance rating of

“Outstanding”. So you know what to do ...

Planning and Vested Interest

Last year’s output = 30,000 clients served

10% increment of this year’s target = 3,000

This year’s target = 33,000

Yearend output = 37,000

Accomplishment = 112%


An illustration of an apparent typical practice in agencies:

What about “Quality”,

standards, fund and

workforce utilization, and

project schedules? Do

we need to factor it in?

Self-justification, Self-preservation


A good number of agencies tend to produce various outputs with less regard to its mandate or real needs of its beneficiary sectors

Many agencies are unable to integrate its various outputs/by-products or is unaware of the integration process to assemble its final major output

Assessment of fund usage by DBM1/

Audit of “value for money” is charged to COA2/

Quality is not a factor in monitoring and assessment of agency outputs

Losses in productive man-days incurred through tardiness, programmed and unprogrammed absences, and early departure from office are not factored in

office performance assessment

Agency target setting follows no integrated framework: not an area-based development approach nor a 10-20 year strategic plan

Office performance and individual performance are not necessarily linked: individual performance assessment particularly of level 3 personnel are distinct and apart from evaluation of performance of the organization

17 Hilario P. Martinez 1 – Department of Budget & Management

2 – Commission on Audit

Justifying Additional Remuneration: Performance-driven or “Creativity”-driven?

By law, all government personnel are entitled to a standard 13th-month pay as a year-end bonus and a modest cash gift.

Most, if not all agencies, are able to give more “in-kind” and monetarial benefits to themselves under various in-house crafted justifications and rationale, using programmed and/or “savings”-dependent funds to the detriment of public interest


Productivity Incentive

Performance Bonus Mid-year bonus

Anniversary Bonus

Family Subsidies

Health Maintenance Allowance

Rice/Grocery Allowance

e t c ... e t c

Amelioration pay

Hazard

Pay

PERA

COLA

BASIC PREMISES


A team is an

operating unit that produces a whole,

not separate

parts


A CEO

briefing his

managers of

his game

plan?

Or

A manager

dividing the

work among

his team

members?

The organization of work processes in all agencies should follow a logical

relationship of functions


From a well-defined core business, to the assembly of vital components, to a

well-defined major final output


Constituting the Organizational End-Product


MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF OPERATING UNITS

Integrating Major/Critical Elements


Performance vs Output

Performance

Art of teamwork

and orchestration

Application of science

Is about purposeful

actions

Output

Tangible end result

of a process,

Quantifiable produce,

Defined end

user/s


The Management Group


C.E.O.

Sr. MGT.

Group

Office

Executives

The Frontline Units/ Operating Teams


The teams directly

servicing the public

Teams performing other

administrative/technical

work

The teams performing

daily office routines

Other support

groups

Basic Principle of the Proposed Performance Evaluation System


COHESION

TEAMWORK

PERFORMANCE

OUTPUT

Assessing and Measuring PERFORMANCE


T A R G E T O U T P U T

Team Performance = Operating Unit’s Performance

Team Performance Operating Unit’s Performance


The Basis of the Proposed Integrated Performance Evaluation System

MANAGEMENT

Manpower

Materials

Machine

Methods

Money

Time


Factors of Measure to be Used Inputs used in Conversion into Goods and Service

• Use of staff man-days Manpower

• Use of funds Money

• Schedule of Implementation

Time

Measures of Control, Capability and Capacity

• Specification of public goods that must be produced

• Specification of public services that must be rendered

Quality

• Amount of public goods that must be produced

• Amount of public services that must be rendered

Quantity


The Conversion Process


Proposed Criteria to Assess Performance


Quality

Quantity

Schedule of Implemen-

tation

Use of Funds

Use of Staff Man-days

What does these measures indicate?

• Reflects on the agency’s adherence to standards and end-users’ expectations

Q u a l i t y

• Reflects on its capacity to produce

Q u a nt i t y

• Reflects on its capability to implement multiple undertakings

S c h e d u l e o f I m p l e m e nta t i o n

• In conjunction with ‘Implementation Schedule’, reflects on its ability to utilize funds in accordance to its cashflow

U s e o f F u n d s

• Reflects on its ability to minimize loss of productive man-days

U s e o f S ta f f M a n - d ay s


A 5-in-1 View of How an Office and a Team Operates and Perform


QUALITY QUANTITY USE OF FUNDS

USE OF MAN-DAYS

TEAM PERFOR-MANCE

∑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%

Rating System

DEMERIT SYSTEM OF RATING

MAXIMUM POINT less RATED DEVIATION

75% - hurdle rate


MAXIMUM / STARTING POINT SCORE = 100

Basis for adopting a Demerit System of Rating


Sources of Inputs for the Proposed Performance Evaluation System


QUALITY QUANTITY USE OF FUNDS

USE OF MAN-DAYS

ANNUAL WORK AND FINANCIAL

PLAN

ACTUAL MONTHLY PROJECT PROGRESS

& TERMINAL REPORTS

ACTUAL MONTHLY FUND

UTILIZATION REPORTS

MONTHLY REPORT OF ABSENCES

Operating Units Finance Office Operating

Units

Operating Units

Planned vs. Actual


Work and

Financial Plans

Cashflow

Schedules

Accomplishment

Reports

Monthly Report

of Allotment and

Obligation

Monthly Report

of Absences

and Undertime

Standard

Man-days

per Unit

per Month

STANDARD OFFICE REPORTS

25 – (25 x 0.000) = 25.000

25 – (25 x 0.025) = 24.375

25 – (25 x 0.050) = 23.500

25 – (25 x 0.075) = 23.125

25 – (25 x 0.100) = 22.500

25 – (25 x 0.125) = 21.875

25 – (25 x 0.150) = 21.250

25 – (25 x 0.175) = 20.625

25 – (25 x 0.200) = 20.000

25 – (25 x 0.225) = 19.375

25 – (25 x 0.250) = 18.750

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

Rating Tables

20 – (20 x 0.000) = 20.000

20 – (20 x 0.025) = 19.500

20 – (20 x 0.050) = 19.000

20 – (20 x 0.075) = 18.500

20 – (20 x 0.100) = 18.000

20 – (20 x 0.125) = 17.500

20 – (20 x 0.150) = 17.000

20 – (20 x 0.175) = 16.500

20 – (20 x 0.200) = 16.000

20 – (20 x 0.225) = 15.500

20 – (20 x 0.250) = 15.000


10 – (10 x 0.000) = 10.000

10 – (10 x 0.025) = 09.750

10 – (10 x 0.050) = 09.500

10 – (10 x 0.075) = 09.250

10 – (10 x 0.100) = 09.000

10 – (10 x 0.125) = 08.750

10 – (10 x 0.150) = 08.500

10 – (10 x 0.175) = 08.250

10 – (10 x 0.200) = 08.000

10 – (10 x 0.225) = 07.750

10 – (10 x 0.250) = 07.500


TABLE #1

For Criteria with

25 pts weight

TABLE #2

For Criteria with

20 pts weight

TABLE #3

For Criteria with

10 pts weight


Max.

Pt.

Computed

Deviation Score Max.

Pt.

Computed

Deviation Score

Max.

Pt.

Computed

Deviation Score

OPTIMUM ZONE CONTROLLED

DEVIATION WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE

QUALITY: the technical specifications of planned output Examples of qualitative indicators: Acceptability to clients

Type of clients served

Passing rate

Employment rate

Accuracy rate

Speed

Durability

Number of complaints

Etcetera . . .

Application of Rating System

For each P/P/A*, the maximum points for the quality of deliverable = 25

To determine the score for a team or operating unit, the ∑ of P/P/A ratings for quality should be averaged

Deviation: planned specifi-cations of target output compared with the actual quality specification attained

25 pts = 100%

Quality

* Program/Project/Activity 44 Hilario P. Martinez

P/P/A CRITERIA PLANNED ACTUAL DEVIATION

Graduates % passed Post-Test

80% 85% 6.25%

Project Proposals

% approved for implementation

80% 90% 12.5%

Training Programs

% sponsored by business firms

100% 80% -20%

New Standards

% approved by Industry Boards

100% 80% -20%

New Partners % in critical sectors

100% 60% -40%

Average -12.25%

Computing for QUALITY Rating

In reference to Table #1, the average of -12.25% is

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


Adjectival rating for QUALITY


Max.

Pt.

Computed

Deviation Score



Planned QUALITY of output are optimally

produced according to specifications

Planned QUALITY of output are being

produced within tolerable deviation

Substantial deviation from planned QUALITY

of output indicative of plan error/s

Out-of-control deviation from planned

QUALITY of output definitive of plan error/s

25 – (25 x 0.000) = 25.000

25 – (25 x 0.025) = 24.375

25 – (25 x 0.050) = 23.500

25 – (25 x 0.075) = 23.125

25 – (25 x 0.100) = 22.500

25 – (25 x 0.125) = 21.875

25 – (25 x 0.150) = 21.250

25 – (25 x 0.175) = 20.625

25 – (25 x 0.200) = 20.000

25 – (25 x 0.225) = 19.375

25 – (25 x 0.250) = 18.750


TABLE #1

For Criteria with

25 pts weight

QUANTITY: the numerical quantity of planned output vs actual Examples of quantitative indicators: Number of graduates

Number of project proposals submitted

Number of training programs conducted

Number of applications reviewed and assessed

Number of new standards developed

Number of existing standards updated

Number of new partnerships

Number of new assessment instruments developed

Etcetera . . .


For each P/P/A*, the maximum points for the quantity of deliverable = 20

To determine the score for a team or operating unit, the ∑ of P/P/A ratings for quantity should be averaged

Deviation: planned quantity compared to actual produced

20 pts = 100%

Quantity

* Program/Project/Activity 47 Hilario P. Martinez

Computing for QUANTITY Rating

P/P/A TARGET ACTUAL DEVIATION

Graduates 7,000 6,489 -7.3%

Proposals 15 13 -13.3%

Training Program 15 12 -20%

New Standards 5 4 -20%

New Partners 5 3 -40%

Average -20.12%

In reference to Table #2, the average of -20.12% is

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


Adjectival rating for QUANTITY


20 – (20 x 0.000) = 20.000

20 – (20 x 0.025) = 19.500

20 – (20 x 0.050) = 19.000

20 – (20 x 0.075) = 18.500

20 – (20 x 0.100) = 18.000

20 – (20 x 0.125) = 17.500

20 – (20 x 0.150) = 17.000

20 – (20 x 0.175) = 16.500

20 – (20 x 0.200) = 16.000

20 – (20 x 0.225) = 15.500

20 – (20 x 0.250) = 15.000


TABLE #2

For Criteria with

20 pts weight

Max.

Pt.

Computed

Deviation Score



Planned QUANTITY of output are optimally

produced according to specifications

Planned QUANTITY of output are being

produced within tolerable deviation

Substantial deviation from planned

QUANTITY of output indicative of plan error/s

Out-of-control deviation from planned

QUANTITY of output definitive of plan error/s

SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION

Number of Working Days Delayed/Extended to Start 01 to 02 days = -02.5% = 24.375 pts

03 to 05 days = -05.0% = 23.500 pts

06 to 07 days = -07.5% = 23.125 pts

08 to 10 days = -10.0% = 22.500 pts

11 to 12 days = -12.5% = 21.875 pts

13 to 15 days = -15.0% = 21.250 pts

16 to 17 days = -17.5% = 20.625 pts

18 to 20 days = -20.0% = 20.000 pts

21 to 22 days = -22.5% = 19.375 pts

23 to 25 days = -25.0% = 18.750 pts


For each P/P/A, the maximum points for the schedule delivery = 20

To determine the score of delay incurred by a team or operating unit, the ∑ of P/P/A ratings for implementation schedule should be averaged

Deviation: planned schedule of implementation compared to actual date

25 pts = 100% on Schedule


Computing for SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION Rating

P/P/A* Number Average Number of

Days of Deviation Percentage

Deviation

P/P/A #1 3 -5.0%

P/P/A #2 6 -7.5%

P/P/A #3 4 -5.0%

P/P/A #4 2 -2.5%

P/P/A #5 5 -5.0%

P/P/A #6 3 -5.0%

Average -5.0%

In reference to Table #1, the average of -5.0% is equivalent to a

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

* Program/Project/Activity


Adjectival rating for SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION


Max.

Pt.

Computed

Deviation Score



Actual SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION of

projects are in accordance to specifications

Actual SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION of

projects are within tolerable deviation

Substantial deviation from planned SCHEDULE

OF IMPLEMENTATION is indicative of plan error/s

Out-of-control deviation from planned SCHEDULE

OF IMPLEMENTATION is definitive of plan error/s

25 – (25 x 0.000) = 25.000

25 – (25 x 0.025) = 24.375

25 – (25 x 0.050) = 23.500

25 – (25 x 0.075) = 23.125

25 – (25 x 0.100) = 22.500

25 – (25 x 0.125) = 21.875

25 – (25 x 0.150) = 21.250

25 – (25 x 0.175) = 20.625

25 – (25 x 0.200) = 20.000

25 – (25 x 0.225) = 19.375

25 – (25 x 0.250) = 18.750


TABLE #1

For Criteria with

25 pts weight

USE OF FUNDS Allocated MOOE Funds for P/P/As

01.0% to 02.5% unobligated = 19.5 pts











Each operating unit is subject to a cashflow schedule covering all P/P/As for the entire year

For simplification purposes, comparison of actual obligation incurred as against allocation is made monthly for each and all P/P/As

To determine the score for “Use of Funds” by a team or operating unit, the ∑ of monthly deviation is averaged

20 pts = 100% on

Use of Funds


A Cashflow programmed for 6 projects


PPA Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total

PPA1 625,000 536,000 450,000 712,500 2,323,500

PPA2 625,000 536,000 450,000 712,500 907,500 3,231,000

PPA3 625,000 536,000 450,000 1,611,000

PPA4 536,000 450,000 712,500 907,500 1,425,000 4,031,000

PPA5 625,000 536,000 450,000 1,611,000

PPA6 450,000 712,500 907,500 1,425,000 3,495,000

Total 2,500,000 2,680,000 2,700,000 2,850,000 2,750,000 2,850,000 16,330,000

Computing for USE OF FUNDS Rating

MOOE

Month Allocation Obligated Unobligated Deviation

Jan 2,500,000 2,100,000 400,000 -16%

Feb 2,680,000 2,967,000 113,000 -3.7%

Mar 2,700,000 2,803,658 9,342 -0.3%

Apr 2,850,000 2,748,222 111,120 -3.9%

May 2,750,000 2,874,401 -13,281 0.5%

Jun 2,850,000 2,402,553 434,166 -15.3%

Average -6.5%

In reference to Table #2, the average of -6.5% is equivalent

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


Adjectival rating for USE OF FUNDS


20 – (20 x 0.000) = 20.000

20 – (20 x 0.025) = 19.500

20 – (20 x 0.050) = 19.000

20 – (20 x 0.075) = 18.500

20 – (20 x 0.100) = 18.000

20 – (20 x 0.125) = 17.500

20 – (20 x 0.150) = 17.000

20 – (20 x 0.175) = 16.500

20 – (20 x 0.200) = 16.000

20 – (20 x 0.225) = 15.500

20 – (20 x 0.250) = 15.000


TABLE #2

For Criteria with

20 pts weight

Max.

Pt.

Computed

Deviation Score



Actual USE OF FUNDS are in accordance to

specifications and schedule

Actual USE OF FUNDS are in within tolerable

deviation

Substantial deviation from scheduled USE

OF FUNDS are indicative of plan error/s

Out-of-control deviation of scheduled USE

OF FUNDS are definitive of plan error/s

USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS

Percentage of Total Productive Man-days Lost =<02.5% lost man-days = 09.75 pts

=<05.0% lost man-days = 09.50 pts










Applicable to the total available productive man-days for an operating unit (number of staff x working days for the month)

Shall include all approved leave of absences regardless of type and nature; and total tardiness and undertime incurred

To determine the score for use of man-days by a team or operating unit, the ∑ of monthly deviation is averaged

10 pts = 100% on

Use of Man-days


Basic Format of a Monthly Report on Absences*


Monthly Report on Absences, Tardiness and UndertimeDivision/Unit: ____________________________ Month: ______________, 20__20__

Office: __________________________________ Regular Working Days: ____

Vacation

Leave Sick Leave

Maternity

/Paternity

On Study

Leave Tardiness Undertime Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Certified Correct:

Attached: Individual Time Cards Division Chief

Tardiness and Undertime

Sum Total

Net

Productive

Man-days

Total

No. Name of Employee

Absences

w/o Official

Leave

Number of Authorized Absences

Total

Absences

* Prepared and submitted monthly by division chiefs to their personnel office; format may vary per department

NOTE: Regular working days = number of calendar days –

(all Saturdays and Sundays + regular holidays) for the month

Mo

nth

Total M

an-

days

Tardin

ess

Un

de

rtime

Sick Leave

Vac. Le

ave

Mat./P

at. Le

ave

Stud

y Leave

/o

n Train

ing

Force

d

Leave

Total Lo

st P

rod

uctive

M

an-d

ays

Deviatio

n

Jan 440 0.89 0.03 12 1 0 0 0 13.92 -3.2%

Feb 400 1.34 0.08 8 3 0 20 3 35.42 -8.9%

Mar 420 1.267 0.04 7 0 0 8 4 20.307 -4.8%

Apr 440 2.23 0.00 4 3 0 0 3 12.23 -2.8%

May 420 2.33 0.50 6 1 0 8 3 20.83 -5.0%

Jun 440 3.25 0.09 3 0 0 0 5 11.34 -2.6%

Total 2,560 11.307 0.74 40 8 0 36 18 114.047 -4.5%

Average -4.5%

Computing for USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS Rating

In reference to Table #3, the average of -4.5% is equivalent to a

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


Effect of Temporary Decrease of Team Members


T A R G E T R E M A I N S C O N S T A N T

(after management approval) A TEAM of 9

MEMBERS

1 Member

on offsite

training

A staff on

maternity

leave

One on

extended

sick leave

or

or

(investment)

(non-productive)

(non-productive)

Remaining members shares in the redistribution of

unattended workload and the increased workplace tension

Adjectival rating for USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS


Max.

Pt.

Computed

Deviation Score



Actual NET PRODUCTIVE MAN-DAYS are in

accordance to planned specifications

Actual NET PRODUCTIVE MAN-DAYS are within

tolerable deviation

Substantial deviation from planned NET

PRODUCTIVE MAN-DAYS is indicative of plan error/s

Out-of-control deviation from planned NET

PRODUCTIVE MAN-DAYS is definitive of plan error/s

10 – (10 x 0.000) = 10.000

10 – (10 x 0.025) = 09.750

10 – (10 x 0.050) = 09.500

10 – (10 x 0.075) = 09.250

10 – (10 x 0.100) = 09.000

10 – (10 x 0.125) = 08.750

10 – (10 x 0.150) = 08.500

10 – (10 x 0.175) = 08.250

10 – (10 x 0.200) = 08.000

10 – (10 x 0.225) = 07.750

10 – (10 x 0.250) = 07.500


TABLE #3

For Criteria with

10 pts weight

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

Average Deviation

Equivalent

Numerical Value

Equivalent

Adjectival Rating


FAIL ZONE

ALERT ZONE

(Out-of-Control)

So who is the Overall Best Performer? Or is it just the Best of the Worse?


Who produces the most?

Who was most

effective?

Who optimize funds the

most?

Who has the least delay?

Who has the least staff

downtime?

Summary of Factor Ratings *

QUALITY QUANTITY

SCHEDULE OF IMPLE-

MENTATION USE OF FUNDS

USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS TOTAL

AVERAGE DEVIATION

-12.25% -20.12% -5.0% -6.5% -4.5% -9.674%

EQUIVALENT RATING

21.875 15.5 23.5 18.5 9.5 88.875

Office Performance Rating: 88.875 = Very Satisfactory


* Note: Sample data used for this illustration is assumed to cover a period of one year

The Performance Meter Panel (A Graphical Summary Presentation of Performance Ratings)


25.000 -

24.375 -

23.500 -

23.125 -

22.500 -

21.875 -

21.250 -

20.625 -

20.000 -

19.375 -

18.750 -

F A I L -

20.000 -

19.500 -

19.000 -

18.500 -

18.000 -

17.500 -

17.000 -

16.500 -

16.000 -

15.500 -

15.000 -

F A I L -

10.000 -

09.750 -

09.500 -

09.250 -

09.000 -

08.750 -

08.500 -

08.250 -

08.000 -

07.750 -

07.500 -

F A I L -

25.000 -

24.375 -

23.500 -

23.125 -

22.500 -

21.875 -

21.250 -

20.625 -

20.000 -

19.375 -

18.750 -

F A I L -

20.000 -

19.500 -

19.000 -

18.500 -

18.000 -

17.500 -

17.000 -

16.500 -

16.000 -

15.500 -

15.000 -

F A I L -

QUA-

LITY

QUAN

-TITY

SCHE-

DULE FUNDS

MAN-

DAYS

21.875 15.5 23.5 18.5 9.5

QUALITY

Conclusion

Office Performance Rating

EQUALS Team Members’ Individual Performance Rating

If the ∑ of individuals with select capabilities = an office or team, and

the ∑ of efforts of these individuals = groupwork, and groupwork results

in group output, therefore, individual performance ≠ team output


Office Performance Rating = 88.875 = Individual Team Member’s

Performance Rating

The STANDARD that challenges the organization and each individual-

member to improve on every year if it is to justify itself.

Only the Frontline Units/Operating Teams shall be subject to direct Performance Evaluation


The teams directly

servicing the public The teams performing other

administrative/technical

work

The teams performing

daily office routines

Other support

groups

The Group subject to rolled-up average rating of subordinate groups


C.E.O.

Sr. MGT.

Group

Office

Executives

Performance rating

of subordinate

frontline units

The effectiveness of Management and its collective leadership is best manifested and evidenced by the performance and production of its subordinate frontline units and operating teams, not by what it says

Rolled-up average

Rolled-up average

Rolled-up

average

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 roll-up Process of Determining Agency Rating)


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

Subor-

dinates’

Average

87.763

A basis for establishing “Performance Standard”


Minimum of 3 consecutive years to establish a standard

THE I-PES AS A RECOGNITION SCHEME

As a Stimulus and an Incentive for Growth and Improvement


The Hierarchy of Growth


Category 1

Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Certificate

5 Factors

4 Factors

3 Factors

2 Factors

1 Factor

Category 5

Category 4

Category 3

Category 2

Management Improvement Award (M.I.A.)

Category 1

Use of Man-days

Category 2

Use of Funds

Use of Man-days

Category 3

Schedule of Implementation

Use of Funds

Use of Man-days

Category 4

Quantity


Use of Funds

Use of Man-days

Category 5

Quality

Quantity


Use of Funds

Use of Man-days


LOWEST HIGHEST

The Hierarchy of Improvement per Category


4 successive

years

3 successive years

2 successive years

1 year

Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Certificate

5

successive

years

Level

5th year 10% > agency average

4th year 10% > agency average

3rd year 10% > agency average

2nd year 10% > agency average

1st year 10% > agency average

Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Certificate

Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Certificate

Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Certificate

Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Certificate

Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Certificate


HIGH

LOW

Category Improvement Award (C.I.A.)

Criteria for Frontline Units to be eligible for recognition in any category

Must have a rating of at least two percent (2%) higher than the latest performance evaluation average of the agency

Must not have a performance rating in the “fail zone” area for the immediate preceding two successive rating periods


Going for a MIA, CIA or both?

Management Improvement? Category Improvement?


The Most Improved Award

hmmm– an MIA! Sounds good but

it seems damn difficult!!

Oh Really? And you think a

CIA is easier?!! Who thought

of this idea anyway?

Will there ever be an

MIA Category 5 winner?

Managing absences is hard enough!

How will it be raising expectations in

managing projects???

Why should you be

rewarded for doing a job

you were mandated to do

as public servants?

So what does the instrument really communicate?


OMG!! How do we justify additional

benefits given this kind of a system?

What is this, a Training Needs Analysis, a Core

Competency Assessment, or an Organization

Capacity Assessment?

Let’s see you back-up your “Outstanding” rating now with real

& live data!

T

E

A

M

OPERATING

SYSTEMS

What happens to Units/Teams/Members whose rating fall in the “ALERT ZONE” or the “FAIL ZONE”?


SELE

CTI

VE

TRA

ININ

G

REVIEW UNIT FUNCTION

REPLACE TEAM LEADER

What are the consequences of unresolved under-performance?


Team Leaders of

underperforming Units

Loss of

Taxpayers’ Money

Erodes

Public Trust

Weakens Institutional

Leadership

D

E

V

T

M

G

T

What does unresolved under-performance indicate?


Team Leaders of

underperforming Units

PRODUCTION

PLANNING &

CONTROL

May have over

abundance of

paper qualifications

but may be lacking

competence in …

IMPROVING &

MAINTAINING

QUALITY

STANDARDS

FUND

MANAGEMENT

PROJECT

PLANNING &

MANAGEMENT

What should happen to Team Leaders whose Unit/s fell in the “FAIL ZONE” at least two times (2x)?


SEPARATION

from SERVICE

DEMOTION

IN RANK

SUSPENSION

WITHOUT PAY

The least that we hope to see in the transition process?


Design

It integrates 5 important factors into one simple and comprehensive performance evaluation system

It simplifies and unifies the rating systems for organizational functions, units and individuals into one integrated scheme

It makes performance evaluation evidence-based and therefore, very objective, verifiable and impartial


Development Perspective

It provides a wholistic view of how an

organization is being managed through the

performance ratings of individual units

It focuses attention and resources to the very

important frontline units of an organization to be

better delivery units

It enables the evolution of higher standards:

work processes, group work, performance, resource utilization,

project management, etc.


Management

It reinforces the primary responsibility of supervisory personnel to mentor,

coach & coordinate with subordinates to attain agreed output specifications

It encourages managers to give more weight to technical competence and interpersonal capability in selecting

staff as members of their teams

It encourages management to better understand and build up the capability requirements of its operating units as

teams, not stand-alone individuals


Organizational Competence and Culture

It encourages teamwork in all

levels of the organization in

order to accomplish

multiple tasks

It reinforces the principles of

accountability, command

responsibility and discipline

It encourages managerial personnel to give more serious effort in planning to

optimize resources and responsiveness to beneficiary needs


The Ultimate Objective


Service/Process Optimization

Change Management

Employee Engagement

Performance Management

Good Government

A basic factor to realize this basic, simple but rational change . . .


Integrated performance evaluation system

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Integrated performance evaluation system