Steps of performance management Setting performance targets - Delineating the mission and strategic objectives of the organization - Defining quantitative and/or non-quantitative performance indicators - Choosing targets for indicators Designing the program - Designating who is in charge of the program - Designing the service delivery system - Planning human and financial resources - Drawing up evaluation plans Implementing the program - Delivering service with inputs of human and financial resources - Measuring performance indicators Assessing the performance - Performance monitoring - Program evaluation
Performance information provides an opportunity to learn and improve.
Performance management can only be effective if people working within the system actually believe in the value of a results-orientation.
Use 2: Assisting in resource allocation
Performance information serves as a reference in resource allocation.
The budget authorities take other social, economic, and political factors into account when deciding on budgeting.
Poorly performing programs are not necessarily cut back or discontinued.
Use 3: Enhancing accountability
Performance information can be used to assure accountability.
But we should avoid fostering a “silo-view” in the public service.
Performance contracts can also generate rancor and lower the morale if the employees find the performance assessment as unfair.
Current Performance Management Practices in Korea
Overview Performance Management System (PMS) : MPB Government Operations Assessment System (GOAS) : OGPC Management by Objectives (MBO) : Ministry of Government Affairs and Local Administration Performance Audit : Board of Audit and Inspection Self-Assessment of Spending Programs : MPB
Those activities not involving large sums of expenditure (such as pure policy-making) are excluded from performance monitoring.
Also, activities for which the benefits of performance monitoring are expected to be small (such as wages and salaries, “basic program” expenditures, and general administrative expenses) are excluded as well.
Has not been very successful .
Lukewarm support from the top management in the MPB.
Little enthusiasm from line ministries.
Performance indicators not derived from ministerial missions in a systematic fashion.
Designed after PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) of the U.S. federal government.
Requires line ministries to assess their own programs with spending levels above a certain threshold every 3 years .
The assessment is based on 16 questions common for all types of programs and a few additional questions specific to different types of programs.
Types of programs : infrastructure investment, procurement of large-scale facilities and equipment, provision of direct services, capital injection, subsidies to private entities, grants to local governments, and R&D
The MPB reviews the assessment results and takes them into account when preparing annual draft budgets and the National Fiscal Management Plan.