Guidebook-on-the-Strategic-Performance-Management-System.pdf

 Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System Human Resource Policies and Standards Office CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION  Foreword It has been said that a journey begins with a...

 Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System Human Resource Policies and Standards Office CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION  Foreword It has been said that a journey begins with a single step. And as the journey progresses, one has to keep track of one’s gears, one’s destination, how fast one can get to the journey’s end. Over the years, the Civil Service Commission has been at the forefront of the journey of reform and transformation of the bureaucracy. While it has logged milestones and went past crossroads, it has never lost sight of its goal—that of creating a truly responsive, motivated, and efficient workforce in government. The CSC continues the journey with yet another tool specifically for human resource management officers in the public sector. In your hands is the Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS), a step-by-step guide in establishing the agency SPMS. The Guidebook provides basic information and competencies needed to set-up the SPMS, including discussions on the system’s cycle: performance planning and commitment building; monitoring and coaching; performance review and evaluation; and rewarding and development planning. It aims to guide HRMOs in using the system to better identify, assess, and streamline performance measurement processes. The Commission has prioritized SPMS among its human resource initiatives. CSC hopes that government agencies nationwide would be able to appreciate how the system would help create a work environment where civil servants—from executives to the administrative aides—are able to link individual performance with organizational goals and perform to the best of their abilities. And through this Guidebook, the Commission hopes to stay on course in initiating definitive measures geared towards upgrading the standards of public sector governance Francisco T. Duque III, MD, MSc CHAIRMAN   Acknowledgement The production of this Guidebook would not have been possible without the invaluable support of the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) through the Philippine Australia Human Resource and Organisational Development Facility (PAHRODF). We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the following: Representatives of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and Technological University of the Philippines (TUP) for participating in the pre-test of the Guidebook. The CSC Public Assistance and Information Office (PAIO) for its technical inputs in the layout of the Guidebook. ii iii  Table of Contents Foreword i Acknowledgement iii Glossary vii Measuring Performance through the Years 1 The Strategic Performance Management System: Building on Past Initiatives 3 HOW TO ESTABLISH THE SPMS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION 7    Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team 7    Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System 11 PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND COMMITMENT 15    Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs 17    Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output 21    Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of Your Office 29    Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions under Your Office 35    Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division 39    Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale 45 PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING 59    Step 9. Develop the Performance Monitoring & Coaching Tools 61    Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools 67 PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION 73    Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools 75 PERFORMANCE REWARDING & DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 83    Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation 85 CRAFTING YOUR AGENCY SPMS GUIDELINES 89 Tables and Charts Table 1. SPMS Paradigm Shift 3 Table 2. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities 8 Table 3. Major Final Outputs of the CSC 19 Table 4. CSC Scorecard 22 Table 5. CSC MFOs, Strategic Objectives, Measures, and Success Indicators 26 Table 6. Office Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators 33 iv   Table 7. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators 34 Glossary Table 8. Office Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD) Success Indicators 35 Abbreviations Meaning APCCD Audit and Position Classification and Compensation Division Table 9. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) and Division Level (PSED) ARTA Anti-Red Tape Act Success Indicators 37 ARTA-RCS Anti-Red Tape Act-Report Card Survey Table 10. Office Level (HRPSO), Division Level (APCCD), and Individual CARE-HRM Continuing Assistance and Review for Excellent Human Resource Management Level (Staff) Success Indicators 40 CB Certifying Board Table 11. Regional Office Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and CHARM Comprehensive Human Resource Management Assistance, Individual Level (Staff) Success Indicators 43 Review, and Monitoring CNA Collective Negotiation Agreement Table 12. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to CS Civil Service Rate Performance 47 CSC Civil Service Commission Table 13. Operationalization of the Rating Scale 48 CSCAAP Civil Service Commission Agency Accreditation Program Table 14. HRPSO Rating Matrix 49 CSCFO Civil Service Commission Field Office CSCRO Civil Service Commission Regional Office Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix 51 CSE-PPT Career Service Examination - Paper and Pencil Test Table 16. APCCD Rating Matrix 52 CSI Civil Service Institute Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix 54 CSLO Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office Table 18. Employee A Rating Matrix 55 DBM Department of Budget and Management DOLE Department of Labor and Employment Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix 56 DPCR Division Performance Commitment and Review Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix 57 E Efficiency Table 21. Employee D Rating Matrix 58 EO Executive Order Table 22. Sample Ratings of Accomplishments 78 ERPO Examination Recruitment and Placement Office ESD Examination Services Division Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staff under HRPSO 79 GAS General Administration and Support Table 24. HRPSO’S Summary of Ratings (OPCR) 80 GOCC Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations HR Human Resource Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle 11 HRD Human Resource Division Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework 18 HRMO Human Resource Management Office HR/OD Human Resource and Organization Development Chart 3. Link between CSC’s Logical Framework and Scorecard 25 HRPSO Human Resource Policies and Standards Office Chart 4. CSC Offices Contributing to Specific MFOs 29 IPCR Individual Performance Commitment and Review Chart 5. Illustration of CSC Offices at the Central and Regional Levels IRMO Integrated Records Management Office Contributing to the MFOs 31 ISO International Standards Organization KRA Key Result Area Chart 6. Illustration of One CSC Office and Division at Central LGU Local Government Unit and Regional Levels Contributing to MFO 32 LSD Legal Services Division Chart 7. Alignment of OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR 68 LSP Local Scholarship Program LWD Local Water District M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MBO Management by Objective MC Memorandum Circular vi vii MFO Major Final Output MOA Memorandum of Agreement MORE Management by Objectives and Results Evaluation MSD Management Services Division N/A Not Applicable NGA National Government Agencies NPAS New Performance Appraisal System OFAM Office for Financial and Assets Management OHRMD Office for Human Resource Management and Development OLA Office for Legal Affairs OPCR Office Performance Commitment and Review OPES Office Performance Evaluation System OPIF Organizational Performance Indicator Framework OSM Office for Strategy Management PAIO Public Assistance and Information Office PALD Public Assistance and Liaison Division PAP Programs, Projects, and Activities PERC Performance Evaluation Review Committee PES Performance Evaluation System PMS Performance Management System PMS-OPES Performance Management System-Office Performance Evaluation System PMT Performance Management Team PMU Project Management Unit PRAISE Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence PRO Personnel Relations Office PSED Policies and Systems Evaluation Division PSSD Personnel Systems and Standards Division PRIME-HRM Program to Institutionalize Meritocracy and Excellence in Human Resource Management Q Quality QS Qualification Standards QSSD Qualification and Selection Standards Division RA Republic Act RBPMS Results-Based Performance Management System RO Regional Office SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound SPEAR Special Program for Evaluation and Assessment as Required/Requested SPMS Strategic Performance Management System STO Support to Operations SUC State Universities and Colleges T Timeliness TARD Talent Acquisition and Retention Division WIG Wildly Important Goal  1999: Revised PES and Measuring Performance through the Years 360-Degree Evaluation Memorandum Circular No. 13, s. 1999 revised the PES As the central human resource manage- and introduced the 360 degree evaluation, a cross rating system in which assessment of performance and behavior ment agency of the Philippine bureau- comes from the employees’ self-evaluation as well as cracy, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) 1993: Performance feedback from their subordinates, peers, supervisors, is constitutionally mandated to adopt Evaluation System and clients. The Revised PES required each government measures to promote morale, efficiency, 1989: Autonomy Through Memorandum Circular agency to create a Performance Evaluation Review integrity, responsiveness, courtesy and No. 12, s. 1993, the Performance Committee (PERC) tasked to establish performance of Agencies in Developing Evaluation System (PES) standards. An evaluation of the cross-rating system public accountability among government their Performance sought to establish an objective revealed that employees perceived the system to be employees. Evaluation System performance system. The CSC too complex. The CSC provided simple guidelines Through the years, the CSC has imple- provided specific guidelines In 2001, through CSC MC No. 13, s. 2001, Agency Heads to empower government agencies mented several performance evaluation on setting the mechanics of were given the discretion to utilize the approved PES to develop their own Performance the rating system. Similar to or devise a Performance Evaluation System based on a and appraisal systems. Evaluation System (PES). This guide- the NPAS and MORE, the PES combination of the old PES and the revised performance line was made through Memorandum Below is a brief review of past initiatives: also measured the employee’s evaluation system. Circular No. 12, s. 1989. Internally, performance and behavior in the the CSC adopted a system called work environment. 1978: MORE (Management by Objectives 2005: Performance Management New Performance and Results Evaluation) in which System-Office Performance Appraisal System the employee’s accomplishments in Evaluation System performance and behavior are moni- The New Performance Appraisal The Performance Management System-Office tored weekly. System (NPAS) was based on Performance Evaluation System (PMS-OPES) Peter Drucker’s Management sought to align individual performance with by Objectives (MBOs) system. organizational goals. It emphasized the importance Implemented through Memo- 2005 of linking the performance management system randum Circular No. 2, s. 1978, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT with national goals as stated in the following: the NPAS focused on key result SYSTEM-OFFICE PERFORMANCE Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan areas (KRAs) along the dimen- EVALUATION SYSTEM Organizational Performance Indicator/ sions of quality, quantity, and Framework (OPIF) timeliness. It measured the em- Major Final Output (MFO) ployee’s performance and be- 1999 1993    havior in the work environment. REVISED PES AND 360-DEGREE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION EVALUATION SYSTEM 1963: Performance Rating CSC Memorandum Circular No. 1963 1978 1989 6, s. 1963 provided the guide- PERFORMANCE NEW PERFORMANCE AUTONOMY OF AGENCIES lines in developing a system of RATING APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN DEVELOPING THEIR PES performance rating that would measure performance of gov- ernment employees.   Drawing from the rationale TO ILLUSTRATE HOW TO that “what gets measured gets done,” every hour of work COMPUTE OPES POINTS: The Strategic Performance Management System: is given 1 OPES point in the 243 working days in a year x 8 hours in a Building on Past Initiatives rating system. day = 1,944 working hours in a year. Using this as the standard unit The percentage of non-quantifiable The past performance evaluation and appraisal systems that CSC imple- of measure, the PMS-OPES outputs and activities for Regional/Field required each government Office staff is 30%; while the percentage mented over the years have largely focused only on individual appraisals, agency to create a Measurement of quantifiable outputs is 70%. 70% of which were used for personnel actions such as incentives, promotion, Development and Calibration 1,944 is 1,360 divided by 2 semesters (to and separation. However, they have not shown how employee perfor- Team that would determine reflect the two monitoring periods every mance has contributed to or hindered organizational effectiveness. the equivalent points of each year) = 680 points. major final output or the To address the gaps and weaknesses found in previous evaluation systems,    To get the target points of the office, amount of time it will take an 680 points are multiplied by the number the CSC recently introduced the Strategic Performance Management average competent employee of staff in the office. System (SPMS) after its pilot test in 2011. The SPMS incorporates the to produce a specific output.    For a Field Office with 5 staff, the Under the OPES, targets are positive features of past initiatives. estimated on the basis of the minimum OPES points should therefore be number of OPES points required 3,400 pts. Like its predecessor, PMS-OPES, the SPMS seeks to link individual per individual per rating period    This Field Office can get a rating of performance with the agency’s organizational vision, mission, and multiplied by the number of Outstanding simply by processing a big strategic goals. With some adjustments, it also makes use of existing individual members of the number of appointments and examination performance evaluation and management systems and links performance organizational unit. applications. This Field Office, however, management with other human resource (HR) systems. The OPES measures the may still have pending appointments that collective performance of need to be acted upon. The backlog in the However, the SPMS makes a major paradigm shift in the following areas: a unit. The smallest unit is work of the Field Office is not considered the division. in the rating. Table 1. SPMS Paradigm Shift Under this system, an OPES Reference Table was created. PARADIGM SHIFT AREA Below are the government From To issuances related to the PMS-OPES: Perspective Performance evaluation Performance management Memorandum Circular No. 7, s. 2007 called for the installation of Performance Management System in the Civil Service. Focus Activities and inputs Outputs and outcomes Republic Act 9485 or Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) required government agencies to reengineer their systems and procedures and develop their Citizen’s Charter. Indicators Performance indicators (e.g. Success indicators (e.g. Administrative Order 241, Section 5 mandated agencies to institute a performance number of appointments response time) evaluation system based on objectively-measured performance outputs. processed) Although the PMS-OPES sought to create a system with objectively-measured Performance Focus on individual Align individual to office/ performance outputs, the process proved too tedious and overly activity-oriented. alignment (competition) organization (teamwork and collaboration) Role of supervisor Evaluator Coach and mentor    The government issuances related to the SPMS are the following: 3. Team approach to performance management. Accountabilities and individual roles in the achievement of organizational goals are clearly Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4 authorized defined to facilitate collective goal setting and performance rating. The the President of the Philippines to modify the compensation and position individual’s work plan or commitment and rating form is linked to the classification system of civilian personnel and the base pay schedule of division, unit, and office work plan or commitment and rating form to military and uniformed personnel in the government. clearly establish the connection between organizational and employee Administrative Order No. 25, s. 2011 created an inter-agency task performance. force on the harmonization of national government performance 4. User-friendly. The suggested forms for organizational and individual monitoring, information, and reporting systems. This inter-agency task commitments and performance are similar and easy to complete. The force developed the Results-Based Performance Management System office, division, and individual major final outputs and success indicators (RBPMS) that established a common set of performance scorecard and are aligned to cascade organizational goals to individual employees and harmonized national government performance monitoring, information, harmonize organizational and staff performance ratings. and reporting systems. 5. Information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. The CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012 provided guidelines in the SPMS promotes the establishment of monitoring and evaluation establishment and implementation of agency Strategic Performance (M&E) and information systems that facilitate the linkage between Management System. organizational and employee performance and generate timely, Joint CSC-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Joint Circular accurate, and reliable information that can be used to track performance, No. 1, s. 2012 provided the rules and regulations on the grant of step report accomplishments, improve programs, and be the basis for policy increments due to meritorious performance and length of service. decision-making. Executive Order No. 80, s. 2012 directed the adoption of a performance- 6. Communication Plan. Establishing the SPMS in the organization based incentive system for government employees. must be accompanied by an orientation program for agency officials and employees to promote awareness and interest on the system and generate appreciation for the SPMS as a management tool to engage officials and Basic Elements of the SPMS: employees as partners in the achievement of organizational goals. 1. Goal aligned to agency mandate and organizational priorities. Performance goals and measurements are aligned to national development plans, agency mandate, vision, mission, and strategic priorities, and/or organizational performance indicator framework. Predetermined standards are integrated into the success indicators as organizational objectives are cascaded down to the operational level. 2. Outputs/outcomes-based. The SPMS focuses on the major final outputs (MFOs) that contribute to the realization of the organization’s mandate, vision, mission, strategic priorities, outputs, and outcomes.    Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team FORM THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TEAM 11 How to Establish the SPMS in Your Organization The Performance Management Team (PMT) will spearhead the 2 establishment of the SPMS in your organization. The PMT shall be composed of the following: 1. Executive Official designated as Chairperson 3 2. Highest Human Resource Management Officer 3. Highest Human Resource Development Officer 4 4. Highest Planning Officer 5 5. Highest Finance Officer 6. President of the accredited employee association The Planning Office will function as the Secretariat. When establishing the SPMS, it is important to have the following key 6 players who will assume the responsibilities listed in Table 2: 7 8 9 10 11 12    Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team Table 2. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities KEY PLAYERS RESPONSIBILITIES KEY PLAYERS RESPONSIBILITIES SPMS Champion Together with the PMT, the SPMS Champion is responsible and accountable for Head of Office Assumes primary responsibility for performance management in his/her office. the establishment and implementation of the SPMS. 11 Conducts strategic planning session with supervisors and staff. 1 Sets agency performance goals/objectives and performance measures. Reviews and approves individual performance commitment and rating form. Determines agency target setting period. Submits quarterly accomplishment report. Approves office performance commitment and rating. Does initial assessment of office’s performance. 2 Assesses performance of offices. Determines final assessment of individual employees’ performance level. 2 PMT Sets consultation meetings with all Heads of Offices to discuss the office Informs employees of the final rating and identifies necessary interventions to performance commitment and rating system and tools. 3 3 employees. Ensures that office performance management targets, measures, and budget are Provides written notice to subordinates who obtain Unsatisfactory or Poor rating. aligned with those of goals of the agency. Division Chief Assumes joint responsibility with the Head of Office in attaining performance targets. 4 4 Recommends approval of the office performance and rating system and tools. Rationalizes distribution of targets and tasks. Acts as appeals body and final arbiter. Monitors closely the status of performance of subordinates. Identifies potential top performers for awards. 5 Adopts its own internal rules, procedures, and strategies to carry out its responsibilities. Assesses individual employees’ performance. 5 Planning Office Functions as the PMT Secretariat. Recommends developmental interventions. 6 Monitors submission of Office Performance Commitment and Rating Form Individual Act as partners of management and co-employees in meeting organizational 6 (OPCR) and schedule the review and evaluation by the PMT. Employees performance goals. 7 7 Consolidates, reviews, validates, and evaluates the initial performance assessment based on accomplishments reported against success indicators and budget against actual expenses. 8 Conducts an agency performance planning and review conference annually. 8 Provides each office with the final office assessment as basis in the assessment of individual employees. If you follow Step 1, you should be 9 Human Resource Management Office (HRMO) Monitors submission of Individual Performance Commitment and Rating (IPCR) Form. l able to identify the members of your PMT and draft an office order mandating the composition of the PMT. 9 10 Reviews the summary list of individual performance rating. 10 Provides analytical data on retention, skill/competency gaps, and talent 11 11 development plan. Coordinates developmental interventions that will form part of the HR Plan. 12 12    Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System REVIEW THE EXISTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Once formed, the first thing that the PMT does is to review the 1 agency’s existing performance management system (PMS) and make 2 necessary modifications so that it is aligned with the SPMS guidelines issued through Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012. Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle 3 4 Stage 4. Performance 5 Rewarding & Development Planning 6 Stage 1. 7 PMS Performance Planning & Commitment 8 CYCLE Stage 3. Performance Review & Evaluation 9 Stage 2. Performance 10 Monitoring & Coaching 11 12 10 11  Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System The SPMS follows the same four-stage PMS cycle that underscores the Performance Review and Evaluation importance of performance management: is done at regular intervals to Performance Monitoring and assess both the performance of Coaching is done regularly during the individual and his/her office. Performance Planning and Commitment is done prior the performance period by the Heads The suggested time periods for to the start of the performance period where heads of Performance Rewarding and Development Planning 1 1 of Agency, Planning Office, Division Performance Review and Evaluation Stage 1 offices meet with the supervisors and staff and agree on and Office Heads, and the individual. are the first week of July and the first is based on the results of the performance review and the outputs that should be accomplished based on the The focus is creating an enabling week of January the following year. evaluation when appropriate developmental interven- goals and objectives of the organization. The suggested 2 2 environment to improve team tions shall be made available to specific employees. The time for Performance Planning and Commitment is the Stage 3 performance and develop individual suggested time periods for Performance Rewarding and last quarter of the preceding year. potentials. The suggested time Development Planning are the first week of July and the periods for Performance Monitoring first week of January the following year. 3 When reviewing Stage 1, ask yourself the and Coaching are January to June and Stage4 3 following questions: July to December. When reviewing Stage 3, Does your SPMS calendar show that officials and 4 4 ask yourself the following When reviewing Stage 4, ask yourself the employees are required to submit their commitments Stage 2 questions: following questions: prior to the start of the rating period? Are office accomplishments Is there a mechanism for the Head of Office and 5 5 Does your SPMS calendar allot time for the PMT assessed against the success supervisors to discuss assessment results with the to review and make recommendations on the indicators and the allotted individual employee at the end of the rating period? performance commitments? When reviewing Stage 2, budget against the actual Is there a provision to draw up a Professional 6 Does your SPMS calendar indicate the period for Heads of Agency and Offices to approve the office ask yourself the following expenses as indicated in the Development Plan to improve or correct performance 6 questions: Performance Commitment and of employees with Unsatisfactory or Poor and individual performance commitments? Rating Forms and provided in performance rating? 7 7 Are feedback sessions to discuss performance of offices, officials, your Agency Guidelines? Are recommendations for developmental and employees provided in your Does your SPMS calendar interventions indicated in the Performance 8 8 Agency Guidelines and scheduled schedule and conduct the Commitment and Rating Form? in your SPMS calendar? Annual Agency Performance Is there a provision on your Agency Guidelines to Are interventions given to those Review Conference? link the SPMS with your Agency Human Resource 9 4 who are behind work targets? Is Is individual employee Development Plan? 9 1 space provided in the Employee performance assessed based on Is there a provision in your Agency Guidelines to PMS Feedback Form for recommended the commitments made at the tie up the performance management system with 10 interventions? start of the rating period? agency rewards and incentives for top performing 10 CYCLE Is there a form or logbook to Does your agency rating scale individuals, units, and offices? record critical incidents, schedule fall within the range prescribed Are the results of the performance evaluation 11 3 of coaching, and the action plan? in Memorandum Circular No. 13, used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and rewards 11 2 s. 1999 - Revised Policies on and incentives? 12 12 the PES? 12 13  Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System 1 2 3 4 5 6 Steps 3 to 8 are all subsumed under the first stage 7 of the PMS cycle− Performance Planning 8 and Commitment. Performance 9 If you follow Step 2, you shoiuld be able 10 l to identify the gaps and PMS areas for modification and enhancement. 11 Planning & 12 Commitment 14  Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR AGENCY’S MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS The SPMS links staff performance with organizational performance. As 1 such, it is important to understand your organization’s mandate and 2 strategic priorities. During the period of performance planning and commitment, the first thing to do is to understand your agency’s Major Final Outputs. 3 Major Final Outputs refer to the goods and services that your agency is mandated to deliver to external clients through the implementation of programs, projects, and activities (PAPs). 4 Where you can find the MFOs or strategic 5 priorities of your agency: The Agency Logical Framework/Organizational Performance 6 Indicator Framework (OPIF) Book of Outputs is the main source document for your organization’s MFOs. This is published by the 7 Department of Budget and Management. 8 If your agency does not have a written Logical Framework/OPIF Book of Outputs, the other possible sources of information are the following documents: For National Government Agencies (NGAs), State Universities and Colleges 9 (SUCs) and Government-owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs): Philippine Development Plan Agency Strategic Plan/Road Map 10 Agency Charter Scorecard For Local Government Units (LGUs): 11 Philippine Development Plan Road Map Local Government Code Strategic Plan Local Development Plan Scorecard 12 17  Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs EXAMPLES OF MFOs FOUND IN THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK Encircled in the logical framework matrix shown in Chart 2 are the Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework CSC’s five Major Final Outputs: SOCIETAL GOAL Human Resource Table 3. Major Final Outputs of the CSC 1 Development Toward Poverty Alleviation MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS 1 MFO 1: Legal Services 2 SECTORAL GOAL MFO 2: Examinations and Appointments 2 Improved Public Good MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services Service Delivery Governance 3 MFO 4: Human Resource Development Services MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and Accountability Enhancement Services 3 ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES Merit & Rewards Public Accountability MFOs are delivered by core business processes of operating offices/units. 4 System in the Civil Service Strengthened and of Civil Servants Promoted However, offices/units that do not directly deliver goods and services 4 to external clients contribute to the delivery of the agency’s MFOs 5 MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS through Support to Operations (STO) or General Administration and Support (GAS) activities. 5 PERSONNEL PERSONNEL HUMAN 6 6 DISCIPLINE & STOs refer to activities that provide technical and substantive support LEGAL EXAMINATION POLICIES & RESOURCE ACCOUNTABILITY SERVICE & APPOINTMENTS STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT to the operations and projects of the agency. By themselves, these ENHANCEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES activities do not produce the MFOs but they contribute or enhance the 7 delivery of goods and services. Examples include program monitoring 7 and evaluation, public information programs, statistical services, and PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS) 8 8 information systems development. Adjudicate Develop & for- Formulate Conduct Develop policies, GAS refer to activities that deal with the provision of overall administrative administrative mulate guidelines, policies on training programs standards, rules disciplinary & standards & government Formulate/ & regulations on management support to the entire agency operation. Examples non-disciplinary procedures on the employment 9 9 evaluate/ personnel cases various processes Review/ administer program evalua- are legislative liaison services, human resource development, and involved in recruit- Formulate enhance/ HRD programs tion, including ment, examination opinions & monitor agency & service-wide personnel financial services. & placement rulings career systems scholarships inspection & 10 10 Certify eligible &standards audit actions Render legal for placement counseling Conduct Develop policies, If you follow Step 3, you should be able to examination standards & answer the following questions: 11 l 11 regulations on Issue certificate of eligibility employee- management What is my agency’s mandate---vision, Process/ review relations in the mission, and goals? appointments for public sector What are my agency’s products 12 12 non-accredited agencies and services or major final outputs? 18 19  Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output IDENTIFY THE SUCCESS INDICATORS OF EACH MAJOR FINAL OUTPUT After identifying the MFOs of your agency, list down the success 1 indicators or performance measures and targets of each MFO. Where you can find the performance indicators of your agency: 2 Agency logical framework/OPIF is the main document that details the 3 performance indicators and targets per MFO. Agency Strategic Plan/Road Map /Scorecard 4 Using these documents as basis, the agencies must agree on the performance standards on which they want to be measured. You can determine the success indicators by referring to the following documents: Citizen’s Charter 5 RA 6713 (Code of Ethics and Ethical Standards) OPES Reference Table 6 Accomplishment Reports (for historical data) 7 Benchmarking Reports Stakeholders’ Feedback Reports There may be other documents aside from those listed above that an agency can derive its success indicators. 8 9 √ SPECIFIC Success indicators must be SMART: √ MEASURABLE 10 √ ATTAINABLE √ REALISTIC 11 √ TIME-BOUND 12 20 21 22 The Civil Service Commission derives its success indicators from its Logical Framework/ Examples EXAMPLESofOFSuccess INDICATORS SUCCESSIndicators OPIF Book of Outputs as well as its Scorecard. Other agencies may determine their success FOUND IN THE AGENCY SCORECARD indicators from other documents listed above (e.g., Citizen’s Charter, OPES Reference found in the Agency Scorecard Table, Benchmarking Reports). Table 4. CSC Scorecard The Civil Service Commission derives its success indicators from its Logical Framework/ Examples of Success Indicators OPIF Book of Outputs as well as its Scorecard. Other agencies may determine their success OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 indicators from other documents listed above (e.g., Citizen’s Charter, OPES Reference PERSPECTIVE found in the Agency Scorecard A Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction Table, N/A Benchmarking T:1 Reports). Acceptable Good Good Excellent Excellent as a Center Rating (CSC frontline (70-79%) (80-89%) (80-89%) (90-100%) (90-100%) for Excellence services) OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE A: Good2011 Good 2012 Good2013 2014 2015 PERSPECTIVE (87% in CSC (89.14%) (87.3% in CSC A Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction N/A T:1 ARTA-RCS and Acceptable Good ARTA-RCS & Good Excellent Excellent as a Center Rating (CSC frontline 98% (70-79%) (80-89%) 99% satisfac- (80-89%) (90-100%) (90-100%) for Excellence services) satisfaction rat- tion rating of ing of selected selected govt A: govt agencies) Good Good agencies) Good (87% in CSC (89.14%) (87.3% in CSC 2 Percentage of T: N/A ARTA-RCS and 10% 25% ARTA-RCS & 40% 50% agencies accredited 98% (159 agencies re- (398 agencies 99% satisfac- (636 agencies (795 agencies STAKEHOLDERS under the satisfaction rat- validated out of tion II accredit- Levelrating of Level II accred- Level II ac- Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output PRIME-HRM ing of selected 1,590 accredited selected 1,590 ed out ofgovt ited out of 1,590 credited out of govt agencies) agencies) accredited agencies) accredited 1,590 accredited agencies) agencies) agencies) 2 Percentage of T: N/A 10% 25% 40% 50% A: N/A 165% agencies accredited (159 agencies re- (398 agencies (636 agencies (795 agencies (262 agencies STAKEHOLDERS under the validated out of Level II accredit- Level II accred- Level II ac- revalidated) PRIME-HRM 1,590 accredited ed out of 1,590 ited out of 1,590 credited out of agencies) Level II accredited – an agency which meets the basic requirements after having been subjected accredited to CHARM and/or determined 1,590 accredited accreditedto have complied with the recommendations of the CSCRO/FO concerned after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission agencies) agencies)authority to agencies) take final action on appointments. OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE A: N/A 2011 165% 2012 2013 2014 2015 (262 agencies B High 3 WIG: Percentage 78% T: 20% 40% revalidated) 85% 95% 98% performing, of high density (39 (469 service of- (560 service of- (830 pass out (345 pass out of (1,022 pass competent, II accredited Levelagencies an agency which meets and –their passed the basic requirements after having fices surveyed) ficesbeen subjected to surveyed) of CHARM and/or determined 975 service 363 service have complied to of- with the out of 1,042 and credible recommendations service offices the CSCRO/FO concerned of pass- out after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission offices orauthority tofices takesurveyed) appointments. final action onservice offices civil servants ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed) OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 service A: 73% 75% B High 3 WIG: Percentage offices 78% T: 20% 40% 85% 95% 98% (361 passed (449 passed performing, of high density sur- (39 (469 service of- (560 service of- (830 pass out (345 pass out of (1,022 pass out of 497 out of 599 competent, agencies and their veyed) passed fices surveyed) fices surveyed) of 975 service 363 service of- out of 1,042 service offices service offices and credible service offices pass- out offices or fices surveyed) service offices surveyed) surveyed) civil servants ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed) 4 WIG: service 14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80% A: 73% 75% Number of agencies offices and (498 out of (747 out of (1,743 out of (1,992 out of (361 passed (449 passed with approved SPMS sur- DOLE 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) out of 497 out of 599 veyed) and its A: service N/A offices service 73% offices 12 at- STAKEHOLDERS surveyed) surveyed) (364 agencies tached with approved 4 WIG: agen- 14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80% SPMS) Number of agencies cies and (498 out of (747 out of (1,743 out of (1,992 out of with approved SPMS DOLE 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20% and its Number of NGAs, A: N/A 73% (315 agencies (79 agencies out 12 at- STAKEHOLDERS GOCCs, and SUCs (364 agencies out of 393 of 393 NGAs, tached with functional with approved NGAs, GOCCs, GOCCs, and agen- SPMS SPMS) and SUCs) SUCs) cies A: 1 WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20% Number of NGAs, Approved SPMS – includes all sectors: NGAs, GOCCs, SUCs, LWDs, and LGUs; SPMS is conditionally approved for initial agencies (315 implementation(79 agencies out Functional and SUCs GOCCs,SPMS – SPMS is approved and implemented out of 393 of 393 NGAs, with functional NGAs, GOCCs, GOCCs, and SPMS and SUCs) SUCs) OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 A: 1 C Provide 5 Number of ISO- T: N/A 3 4 5 5 Approved – includes SPMS is conditionally approved implementation Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output excellent HR certified SPMScore and all sectors: NGAs, GOCCs, SUCs, LWDs, and LGUs;(Cases (Maintain thefor initial (Maintain the (Maintained) processes Functional SPMS support – SPMS is approved and implemented processes Adjudication, 3 Processes 4 Processes Examination