There has been an increasing demand/pressure from citizens to improve service delivery. There is a call for results-based performance management policies, programs, projects and the need to create and sustain a healthy, effective, results-oriented culture in public sector organizations.
It is imperative to take positive actions to shift paradigm from input and output to outcome and impact perspective in the way the public sector does in its business.
Performance management is the way to go. Realizing the gaps or leakages in managing performance such as but not limited to addressing planning, implementing, reviewing, evaluating and reporting the effectiveness and efficiency of the policies, programs, and projects, the workshop addresses these gaps and recognizes the gains already realized.
OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP
a) Discussing the public sector productivity and innovation including relevant national and local government policies;
b) Examining and confirming the direction of APO initiatives for public sector productivity and its framework;
c) Sharing and exchanging information and experiences on performance management for the public sector, including best practices and success stories, and examining relevant government policies promoting public sector productivity; and
d) Reviewing and developing relationship between productivity promotion strategies and performance management and evolve appropriate methodology for their management.
OBJECTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION
T. Salud, DBM
My work is mainly service delivery to the Department client agencies and private persons and organizations. This requires adaptive and effective performance management and skills. Learnings and skills obtained from the workshop will definitely improve both my performance management skills and service delivery to all clients. Sharing lessons and skills learned from other participants, governments and experts will tremendously strengthen my service-oriented responsibilities and performance management skills. I expect to further benefit from this project/workshop particularly on the good practices of other countries on the implementing performance management tools and methodologies and from insights of experts and derive inspiration from them and apply lessons learned.
PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS
There are thirty four (34) participants representing fourteen (14) countries who attended the workshop.
The other two (2) Filipino participants are:
Ms. Edelwina B. Peregrino
Administrative Officer V/OIC-Chief
Human Resource Development Service
Department of Labor and Employment
Mr. Peter Dan B. Baon
Associate Project Officer III
Center for Governance
Development Academy of the Philippines
SCOPE, CONTENT, METHODOLOGY
I. Presentation of APO Resource Speaker–Prof Prajapati Trivedi on Results-Framework Document (RFD): An Instrument for Improving Government Performance
The RFD consists of priorities set out by the Minister, agenda spelt out in the party manifesto if any, President’s Address, announcements/agenda as spelt out by the Government from time to time. The Minister-in-charge approves the inter se priority among the departmental objectives.
The RFD prepared by each department seeks to address three (3) basic questions:
a) What are department’s main objectives for the year?
b) What actions are proposed to achieve these objectives?
c) How to determine progress made in implementing these actions?
Further, the RFD, a codification of answers to the above-mentioned questions, consists of six (6) Sections which include the following:
Section 1- Ministry’s Vision, Mission, Objectives and Functions
Section 2- Inter se Priorities among key objectives, success indicators and targets
Section 3- Trend values of the success indicators
Section 4- Description and definition of success indicators and proposed measurement methodology
Section 5- Specific performance requirements from other departments that are critical for delivering agreed results
Section 6- Outcome/Impact of activities of Department/Ministry
In the absence of explicit weights attached to each target and a specific scale of deviations, it is impossible to do a proper evaluation. This is the reason why a five-point scale and weights are used for RFDs.
To improve performance of any organization, we need a multi-dimensional efforts – three (3) systems such as 1. Performance Information System; 2. Performance Evaluation System; and Performance Incentive System.
II. Presentation on (South) Korean Framework on Performance Management and Measurement of Public Sector Organizations by APO Resource Speaker Dr. Shin Kim – Senior Research Fellow of Korea Institute of Public Administration:
The experience of the government of South Korea was shared which include performance management at the National level: whole-of- government approach and the performance management at the Ministerial level.
At the National level, the overall structure of looking/addressing the vision, goals, strategies, tasks and action plans are essential elements in performance management. Apart from these elements, the implementation and monitoring are likewise vital. The government agencies will implement policy tasks assigned to them, while checking their progress in real time via the government’s online “policy tasks management system The Office of the Prime Minister prepares the implementation updates to present to a :national policy task review council” each Quarter.
Furthermore, the government will revise the list of policy tasks every year according to changing environments at home and abroad, making new additions and checking if the completed tasks have achieved the desired goals.
At the Ministerial level, it is important to establish a five-year Strategic Plan (future-oriented mission, vision, strategic objectives and performance targets), and Annual Performance Plan (performance targets/tasks/performance indicators for the year) and examine, evaluate and feedback the implementation of tasks (examine the implementing condition quarterly or half-yearly and implement the self-evaluation and the result of feedback based on the year-end result).
III. Presentation on the Canadian Best Practices in Measuring Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of the Public Sector by Dr. Brian Marson, APO International Expert
The presentation consisted of two (2) parts. Part One: The Canadian Results-Based Performance Management and Reporting System wherein Dr. Brian emphasized that Canada’s system of performance measurement, performance management, and performance reporting is perhaps the most comprehensive for the OECD countries given the following:
1. Advanced results-based budgeting and results reporting system;
2. Use of management Accountability Framework (MAF) to hold heads of departments accountable for performance in ten management result areas;
3. Comprehensive system of systematic program effectiveness and efficiency evaluation, linked back to the resource allocation process;
4. Developed a system for reporting back to citizens on economic and social outcomes
Efficiency and effectiveness evaluations are linked to annual budget decisions. There are two (2) level review processes being observed by the Government of Canada, such that:
a. There is rigorous up-front reviews by the Treasury Board of all new spending programs for efficiency, effectiveness and links to Government priorities.
b. Presence of cyclical Strategic Review of all ongoing government programs over a four year cycle to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of departmental programs to government objectives and priorities.
The Treasury Board supports the program review processes through both a Program Evaluation Policy and a Centre of Excellence in Evaluation.
Part II of the presentation focused on the Canada’s Management Accountability Framework (MAF) which is used across the federal government to support management accountability of Department Heads and improve management practices.
Performance criteria of the Management Accountability Framework includes:
1. Leadership and Strategic Direction
2. Results and Accountability
3. Public Sector Values
4. Continuous learning and Innovation
5. Governance and Strategic Management
6. People management
7. Financial and Asset Management
8. Information Management
9. Management of Policy and Programs
10. Management of Service Delivery
1. Leadership at the top is critical to improve management practices
2. Recognize at the outset that managing with a focus on results requires a culture shift and that progress will take time and sustained focus
3. Performance management assessments should be constructive and encourage continuous improvement, not be a means to penalize organizations
Part III of the presentation dealt with Management and Service Results. The equation for implementing strategic human resources management in the Government of Canada:
Excellent Leadership + Excellent Workforce+ Excellent Workplace = Excellent Results.
IV. Presentation on Sri Lanka Success Stories on Measuring Efficiency and Effectiveness and Performance of the Public Sector. Launch of “ANT FLOW” An Influencing Performance Solution by J. Dadallage with Maddya Digital Pvt. ltd
This is a web-based solution, highly compatible with modern technology to influence features for good governance. There is an activity tracking system at a glance (dash board).
There is also a facility to sign performance agreements (management level). All managers are expected to sign performance agreements with their respective supervisors or manager in the system. In addition, there is also a facility for one to one discussion or evaluation periodically or any time and a facility to evaluate operational management (ongoing tasks
or due activities, tasks and projects). Performance agreement marks will average with manager’s team marks (operational level).
V. Presentation of Productivity Award System as an Instrument for Improving Performance Management in Public Sector by Upali Marasinghe
The National Productivity Award Competition was presented which is aimed at motivating all public institutions to follow good practices for improving the quality, productivity and services, among others. The assessment criteria or marking system include leadership, enablers (physical environment), process improvement (application of productivity tools), and results.
VI. Presentation on Citizen-Centered Service Delivery by Dr. Brian Marson, APO International Technical Expert
The “Citizen-Centered Service incorporates citizens’ concerns at every stage of the service design and delivery process, that is, citizens’ needs become the organizing principle around which the public interest is determined and service delivery is planned.”
The Four-Step Service Improvement Process include:
1. Where are we now? (measure clients’ satisfaction)
2. Where do our clients want us to be? (measure clients’ expectations and priorities)
3. How will we get there? (set targets and develop service improvement plan)
4. How do we make it happen? (implement, monitor, measure and ensure accountability)
In all these processes, the staff involvement is a critical element.
The citizen-centered service agenda in Canada is now being linked to the broader public management agenda (People–Service–Trust)
Staff satisfaction, service satisfaction, and trust in public organizations are linked (People-Service– Trust). The public sector service value chain proposes that these three (3) aspects of public management are linked:
Link One: Engages employees provide better service, and in the other direction good service to clients results in proud and engaged employees
Link Two: Excellent service is one important factor (along with good management) that helps build trust and confidence in public institutions
“Through collaboration and new management tools, we can measurably improve government services, productivity and public trust”
VII. Presentation on Importance of Performance Management and Measurement of Productivity by Dr. Shin Kim, Korean Senior Research Fellow, Korea Institute of Public Administration
Importance of Productivity:
Factors of inputs (labor and capital) cannot increase indefinitely. Productivity gains enable an economy to produce more for the same amount of inputs, leading to economic growth in the long run.
There are types of productivity measures: efficiency measures = quantitative measures and effectiveness measures = qualitative measures
Use outcome or at least output measures for result-oriented productivity management.
Participants were divided into group to formulate and evaluate Result-Framework Documents (RFD). They were assigned to select a Ministry/Department to craft RFD with the following sections:
Section 1- Ministry’s Vision. Mission, Objectives and Functions
Section 2- Inter se Priorities among key Objectives, Success Indicators and Targets
Section 3- Trend Value of the Success Indicators
Section 4- Description and Definition of Success Indicators and Proposed Measurement Methodology
Section 5 Specific Performance Requirements from Other Departments that are critical for Delivering Agreed Results
Section 6- Outcome/Impact of Activities of Department/Ministry
Thereafter, an evaluation was made on the designed RFD using an RFD Evaluation Methodology (REM). The evaluation involves comparing the achievements against targets. There are assessment criteria against which a score is assigned, using the 5 points rating scale already in use for the RFDs. These criteria (quantitative and qualitative) are largely based on the RFD guidelines document. Qualitative criteria are applied to assessment areas for which numerical analysis is not feasible but can be measured against the agreed Guidelines for preparing the RFD.
During the plenary, the formulated RFDs were presented by each group and were peer- rated and finally the group which got the highest votes was adjudged the best performer.
OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION
T. Salud, DBM
The Workshop on performance Management for the Public Sector provided a venue for sharing insightful experiences of other participating countries during the workshop. There were new learnings on methods or evaluation tools for assessing the Results-Framework Document (RFD) developed.
The RFD, as emphasized, is a document to improve performance of an organization by giving the department manager clear, meaningful and unambiguous targets and evaluating their performance by comparing their achievements against the targets. The significance of targets depends, among other things, on their alignment with vision, mission and objectives. This can be better illustrated in a heuristic equation as:
Performance against RFD Targets x Quality of RFD = True Performance of the Organization
The objectives of the workshop were very satisfactorily met. The Resource Persons are very knowledgeable and very effective lecturers. The presentation aids/tools or materials are comprehensive. Examples were used to illustrate the concepts discussed.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION STEPS
T. Salud, DBM
It was suggested that a standardized methodology for evaluating RFDs will definitely help in measuring performance and ability to manage effectively and efficiently.
The Philippine NPO (DAP), Philippine Government and DBM can implement a similar tool like RFD. In fact, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has been at the forefront of the efforts on reform and transformation of the bureaucracy. Strategic Performance Management system (SPMS) is being implemented. It is a system that government agencies nationwide would appreciate on how the system would help create a work environment where civil servants-from executives to the administrative aides are able to link individual with organizational goals and able to perform to the best of their abilities.
As a grantee of the program, I committed to disseminate the knowledge gained by preparing a news article on the seminar and have it published in the DBM Bulletin and likewise make myself available to DAP/APO as Resource Person to some of its activities/projects /advocacies and share my technical skills as part of the NPO pool of productivity experts.
TERESITA SYLVIA M. SALUD
Acting Director III (OIC-Director IV)
Planning and Management Office
Department of Budget and Management