Report: Performance Management Systems for the Public Sector Study Meeting, 4-7 September 2012, Bali, Indonesia

Group Photo of Participants

BRIEF DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT

The Asian Productivity Organization (APO) conducted various study meetings in Asia aimed at enhancing productivity in the public sector. The meetings identified applicable tools and techniques for promoting public sector productivity. One such initiative of APO was Performance Management (PM) which could be used as an effective tool to enhance productivity within organizations. Accordingly, a Study Meeting was designed by the APO focusing on the Performance Management Systems (PMS) currently operating in public sector organizations in all member Asian countries.

The undersigned was selected first by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and subsequently by NPO/APO to represent the Philippines in the Study Meeting on PMS for the Public Sector held in Bali, Indonesia on September 4-7, 2012.

The objectives of the study meeting are:

1. To assess the various PM frameworks in the public sector in member countries;
2. To exchange key elements of best practices, emerging trends, issues and implementation of PM in the public sector; and
3. To develop and recommend a road map (e.g. short, middle and long terms) for the application of PM in the public sector for further APO initiatives in the public sector productivity.

OBJECTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION

I was chosen by the DBM to participate in the study meeting mainly because the subject matter is related to my line of work in the Corporate Planning and Reforms Service (CPRS), the unit of my assignment in DBM. As the internal planning unit, the CPRS is tasked to strengthen the culture of strategic planning and accountability in the organization by setting up the necessary systems and processes.  As part of its function to mainstream budgetary reforms, CPRS leads in the institutionalization of the Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF), a performance management, planning, budgeting and accountability tool, within DBM.  The office is also instrumental in the DBM’s efforts to implement the OPIF system in the national government.

PM provides steps to improve organizational performance by aligning individual, team and organizational objectives and results and eventually will recognize and reward outstanding performers.  This is similar to what the OPIF system wants to achieve.  My participation in this activity paves the way for me to apply best practices and insights from other countries, which would be helpful in improving the execution of PM in the department and, hopefully later on, in the entire Philippine bureaucracy.

PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS

The undersigned was accompanied by another representative from the Philippines, Mr. Gilbert Lumantao, Program Supervisor/Project Officer III of the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP). As per APO Guidelines, both participants has to prepare a single country presentation on the subject.

There were 19 participants in total from across different Asian Countries like Taiwan (China) (1), Fiji (1), India (2), Indonesia (6), Iran (1), Pakistan (1), Philippines (2), Sri Lanka (2), and Thailand (3). Most of the participants were very senior dignitaries from their respective governments. Undersigned was the only person in the entire group who was not part of a core policy team which has been involved in designing a PMS in an organization. The rest of all the participants were functionaries who were there to share what is existing in their organization.

There were three resource persons during the Study Meeting. They were very senior government professionals from the Philippines (DAP), Singapore (Housing Development Board), and Korea (Korea Institute of Public Administration). They too shared about the prevalent practices in their country as well as certain best practices in their organization. The Vice Regent of Badung also presented the PMS in the local government setting.

SCOPE, CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY

The scope of the study meeting centered on performance management frameworks in the central/national, local governments and public enterprises, the key elements of best practices and emerging trends, and the steps to implement and sustain performance management frameworks in the public sector.

The study meeting used experts presentations on various topics The group conducted a half-day site visit to the Province of Badung.

The methodology used in the study meeting covers lectures, country presentations, and group discussions.

Our country presentation was originally scheduled for Day 2 (second half) but it was moved to Day 3 to give way for the site visit. The undersigned presented the first half of the report and the other half was delivered by Mr. Gilbert Lumantao. The OPIF, a performance–based budgeting system, a major reform initiative of the DBM, was presented. Using the template given by APO, the DBM mandate, its vision and mission preceded the presentation of the OPIF framework.  We basically reported the history of OPIF, before and after OPIF, the OPIF as a budgeting and planning tool, and OPIF as a results-based management tool. What was emphasized in our report that OPIF is a homegrown system and indigenous to the Government of the Philippines, and a unique model of performance-based budgeting. Since 2007, departments and agencies have been presenting their activities, outputs, outcomes and performance indicators in a logical framework and the performance indicators are published annually in the OPIF Book of Outputs, which is accessible to all. The challenge with the OPIF is on the alignment as well as systems for analysis and integrating performance information, the linkage of the 2011-16 Philippine Development Plan (PDP), the planning, budgeting and implementation of programs, and performance monitoring, evaluation and reporting, which  will be guided by a Results-Based Management (RBM) framework that is focused on the results of public spending.

In addition, our report also pointed out the underlying OPIF framework and the results matrix of the PDP which were used for the 2012 pilot implementation of the results based PMS, for purposes of the grant of Performance-Based Bonus, which will be paid for the first time in December, 2012. Further, the Strategic Performance Management System being introduced by the Civil Service Commission was revealed in the report. I also thanked the resource persons with special mention of Mr. Masaya Amau of Tokyo, and Ms. Mendoza of DAP.

Similarly, the other participants shared with the group their PMS which are currently being operated in their respective country.

Towards the end of the study meeting, participants were asked to write down the one most important issue / topic from among the country presentations which struck us most. Subsequently, we were asked to share with the group what we had written down. I was impressed by India’s presentation, the fact that their PMS is not only e-enabled, but internet based. The cascading process, the integration of the balanced score card concept and the influence of the Indian government, in establishing a robust and transparent, progressive PMS in the public sector organizations in India, were the highlights of my sharing.

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION

From the study meeting, member countries have PMS. They have similarities in their PMS models being used like balanced scorecard and results-based management. Every member country is adopting the models in their own public sector contexts and its application ranges from whole of government sector organization level down to individual performance. The PMS are at different stages of implementation and levels of maturity. Almost all member countries face several challenges and weaknesses to make PMS more effective to achieving the intended purpose. Nevertheless, member countries can learn from each other experiences including the inputs from the resource persons. The different approaches and framework of PMS in the public sector of other Asian countries are valuable and useful in my line of work.

With the expert’s guidance and cooperation among the participants, the project objectives were definitely met. The experts were knowledgeable and very effective in their presentations. They are all experts in their own field.  It was summarized that the elements of PMS identified are:  Inputs > Process > Outputs > Outcomes > Impact. The first three cover goal setting, measurements and evaluation system using performance information. The last two can be seen at the individual, organizational, and whole of government.

I gathered that a successful PM is the combination of people, processes, skills and infrastructure that allows agencies to make significant strides in improving their performance.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION STEPS

The participants’ general recommendation to APO is to develop a common PMS template or framework for Asian member countries and that each country may use the framework and suit the process in their own country. Another recommendation is for APO to at least group the participants by sector, i.e., national, local or public enterprise.

Moreover, APO will undertake a survey on performance productivity reform initiatives, and they will maintain ongoing inventory of new initiatives as they unfold.  The learning I got from the study meeting will be applied in my day to day tasks as Planning Officer of DBM.

SUBMITTED BY:

DIMPNA O. LEJOS
Planning Officer V
Corporate Planning and Reforms Service
Department of Budget and Management

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s