Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Integrated performance evaluation system

410

Published on

Performance is more than output production. it is about how well the output was produced This system is a wholistic approach of evaluating performance of organizational units, focusing on …

Performance is more than output production. it is about how well the output was produced This system is a wholistic approach of evaluating performance of organizational units, focusing on effectiveness of leadership as reflected in the performance of frontline units. it utilizes a demerit system in evaluating and rating the performance of operating units. the performance rating of operating team is also the performance rating of individual team members, including the team leader. the concept integrates the criteria on quantity, quality, use of funds, schedule of implementation and use of staff man-days, making up the 100% scale of the maximum rate. only the frontline units are subject to performance assessment, the average of operating units become the performance rating of the higher office.

it is a check on malpractices in operation as well as on competence, both of operating units and team members

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
410
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Integrated PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM A Strategic Way of Professionalizing the Philippine Bureaucracy 1Hilario P. Martinez INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE RATING TEAM PERFORMANCE RATING PERFORMANCE is more than about OUTPUT #
  • 2. 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? !
  • 3. PERFORMANCE is more than Output PRODUCTION? PERFORMANCE The higher the better? Hilario P. Martinez 3 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?
  • 4. Team Rating vs Individual Rating One for All? All for One? Hilario P. Martinez 4 or
  • 5. Common Scenes or a Rarity? Hilario P. Martinez 5 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!?
  • 6. Practise makes perfect! Hilario P. Martinez 6 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 ...
  • 7. The CHALLENGE Hilario P. Martinez 7
  • 8. The Basic Issues Hilario P. Martinez 8
  • 9. Theorem No Team Member or Leader can be better than the overall Performance Rating of its Team or Operating Unit! 9Hilario P. Martinez
  • 10. 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% 10Hilario P. Martinez
  • 11. The Transformation Process of a Bureaucratic Organization Hilario P. Martinez 11
  • 12. THE SITUATION TODAY A Culture of Self-Promotion 12Hilario P. Martinez
  • 13. 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 13Hilario P. Martinez
  • 14. 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. 14Hilario P. Martinez
  • 15. 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% 15Hilario P. Martinez 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?
  • 16. Self-justification, Self-preservation Hilario P. Martinez 16 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
  • 17. 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 17Hilario P. Martinez 1 – Department of Budget & Management 2 – Commission on Audit
  • 18. 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 Hilario P. Martinez 18 Productivity Incentive Performance Bonus Mid-year bonus Anniversary Bonus Family Subsidies Health Maintenance Allowance Rice/Grocery Allowance e t c ... e t c Ameliorationpay Hazard Pay PERA COLA
  • 19. BASIC PREMISES Hilario P. Martinez 19
  • 20. A team is an operating unit that produces a whole, not separate parts 20Hilario P. Martinez A CEO briefing his managers of his game plan? Or A manager dividing the work among his team members?
  • 21. The organization of work processes in all agencies should follow a logical relationship of functions Hilario P. Martinez 21
  • 22. From a well-defined core business, to the assembly of vital components, to a well-defined major final output Hilario P. Martinez 22
  • 23. Constituting the Organizational End-Product Hilario P. Martinez 23
  • 24. Hilario P. Martinez 24
  • 25. MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF OPERATING UNITS Integrating Major/Critical Elements 25Hilario P. Martinez
  • 26. 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 Hilario P. Martinez 26
  • 27. The Management Group Hilario P. Martinez 27 C.E.O. Sr. MGT. Group Office Executives
  • 28. The Frontline Units/ Operating Teams Hilario P. Martinez 28 The teams directly servicing the public Teams performing other administrative/technical work The teams performing daily office routines Other support groups
  • 29. Basic Principle of the Proposed Performance Evaluation System 29Hilario P. Martinez COHESION TEAMWORK PERFORMANCE OUTPUT
  • 30. Assessing and Measuring PERFORMANCE Hilario P. Martinez 30 T A R G E T O U T P U T
  • 31. Team Performance = Operating Unit’s Performance Team Performance Operating Unit’s Performance Hilario P. Martinez 31
  • 32. The Basis of the Proposed Integrated Performance Evaluation System MANAGEMENT Manpower Materials Machine Methods Money Time Hilario P. Martinez 32
  • 33. Factors of Measure to be Used Inputs used in Conversion into Goods and Service • Use of staff man- daysManpower • Use of fundsMoney • 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 Hilario P. Martinez 33
  • 34. The Conversion Process Hilario P. Martinez 34
  • 35. Proposed Criteria to Assess Performance 35Hilario P. Martinez Quality Quantity Schedule of Implemen- tation Use of Funds Use of Staff Man-days
  • 36. What does these measures indicate? • Reflects on the agency’s adherence to standards and end-users’ expectations Quality • Reflects on its capacity to produce Quantity • Reflects on its capability to implement multiple undertakings Schedule of Implementation • In conjunction with ‘Implementation Schedule’, reflects on its ability to utilize funds in accordance to its cashflow Use of Funds • Reflects on its ability to minimize loss of productive man-days Use of Staff Man-days Hilario P. Martinez 36
  • 37. A 5-in-1 View of How an Office and a Team Operates and Perform 37Hilario P. Martinez QUALITY QUANTITY USE OF FUNDS USE OF MAN-DAYS TEAM PERFOR- MANCE
  • 38. ∑Weights of 5 Factors = 100 Hilario P. Martinez 38 QUALITY 25% QUANTITY 20%SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMEN- TATION 25% USE OF FUNDS 20% USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS 10% 100%
  • 39. Rating System DEMERIT SYSTEM OF RATING MAXIMUM POINT less RATED DEVIATION 75% - hurdle rate 39Hilario P. Martinez MAXIMUM / STARTING POINT SCORE = 100
  • 40. Basis for adopting a Demerit System of Rating Hilario P. Martinez 40
  • 41. Sources of Inputs for the Proposed Performance Evaluation System 41Hilario P. Martinez 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
  • 42. Planned vs. Actual Hilario P. Martinez 42 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
  • 43.  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  FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL  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  FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL TABLE #1 For Criteria with 25 pts weight TABLE #2 For Criteria with 20 pts weight TABLE #3 For Criteria with 10 pts weight 43Hilario P. Martinez Max. Pt. Computed Deviation Score Max. Pt. Computed Deviation Score Max. Pt. Computed Deviation Score OPTIMUM ZONE CONTROLLED DEVIATION WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE
  • 44. 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 44Hilario P. Martinez
  • 45. 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 45Hilario P. Martinez
  • 46. Adjectival rating for QUALITY Hilario P. Martinez 46 Max. Pt. Computed Deviation Score OPTIMUM ZONE CONTROLLED DEVIATION WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE 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  FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL TABLE #1 For Criteria with 25 pts weight
  • 47. 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 . . . Application of Rating System 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 47Hilario P. Martinez
  • 48. 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 48Hilario P. Martinez
  • 49. Adjectival rating for QUANTITY Hilario P. Martinez 49  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  FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL TABLE #2 For Criteria with 20 pts weight Max. Pt. Computed Deviation Score OPTIMUM ZONE CONTROLLED DEVIATION WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE 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
  • 50. 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 Application of Rating System 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 50Hilario P. Martinez
  • 51. 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 51Hilario P. Martinez
  • 52. Adjectival rating for SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION Hilario P. Martinez 52 Max. Pt. Computed Deviation Score OPTIMUM ZONE CONTROLLED DEVIATION WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE 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  FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL TABLE #1 For Criteria with 25 pts weight
  • 53. USE OF FUNDS Allocated MOOE Funds for P/P/As 01.0% to 02.5% unobligated = 19.5 pts 02.6% to 05.0% unobligated = 19.0 pts 05.1% to 07.5% unobligated = 18.5 pts 07.6% to 10.0% unobligated = 18.0 pts 10.1% to 12.5% unobligated = 17.5 pts 12.6% to 15.0% unobligated = 17.0 pts 15.1% to 17.5% unobligated = 16.5 pts 17.6% to 20.0% unobligated = 16.0 pts 20.1% to 22.5% unobligated = 15.5 pts 22.6% to 25.0% unobligated = 15.0 pts Application of Rating System 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 53Hilario P. Martinez
  • 54. A Cashflow programmed for 6 projects Hilario P. Martinez 54 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
  • 55. 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 55Hilario P. Martinez
  • 56. Adjectival rating for USE OF FUNDS Hilario P. Martinez 56  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  FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL TABLE #2 For Criteria with 20 pts weight Max. Pt. Computed Deviation Score OPTIMUM ZONE CONTROLLED DEVIATION WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE 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
  • 57. 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 =<07.5% lost man-days = 09.25 pts =<10.0% lost man-days = 09.00 pts =<12.5% lost man-days = 08.75 pts =<15.0% lost man-days = 08.50 pts =<17.5% lost man-days = 08.25 pts =<20.0% lost man-days = 08.00 pts =<22.5% lost man-days = 07.75 pts =<25.0% lost man-days = 07.50 pts Application of Rating System 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 57Hilario P. Martinez
  • 58. Basic Format of a Monthly Report on Absences* Hilario P. Martinez 58 Monthly Report on Absences, Tardiness and Undertime Division/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
  • 59. Month TotalMan- days Tardiness Undertime SickLeave Vac.Leave Mat./Pat. Leave StudyLeave /onTraining Forced Leave TotalLost Productive Man-days Deviation 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 59Hilario P. Martinez
  • 60. Effect of Temporary Decrease of Team Members Hilario P. Martinez 60 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
  • 61. Adjectival rating for USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS Hilario P. Martinez 61 Max. Pt. Computed Deviation Score OPTIMUM ZONE CONTROLLED DEVIATION WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE 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  FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL TABLE #3 For Criteria with 10 pts weight
  • 62. 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 62Hilario P. Martinez FAIL ZONE ALERT ZONE (Out-of-Control)
  • 63. So who is the Overall Best Performer? Or is it just the Best of the Worse? Hilario P. Martinez 63 Who produces the most? Who was most effective? Who optimize funds the most? Who has the least delay? Who has the least staff downtime?
  • 64. 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 64Hilario P. Martinez * Note: Sample data used for this illustration is assumed to cover a period of one year
  • 65. The Performance Meter Panel (A Graphical Summary Presentation of Performance Ratings) Hilario P. Martinez 65 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
  • 66. 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 66Hilario P. Martinez 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.
  • 67. Only the Frontline Units/Operating Teams shall be subject to direct Performance Evaluation Hilario P. Martinez 67 The teams directly servicing the public The teams performing other administrative/technical work The teams performing daily office routines Other support groups
  • 68. The Group subject to rolled-up average rating of subordinate groups Hilario P. Martinez 68 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
  • 69. 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) 69Hilario P. Martinez NOTE: Planning – Top-down Evaluation – Bottom-up 88.875 89.025 86.354 87.63489.832 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
  • 70. A basis for establishing “Performance Standard” Hilario P. Martinez 70 Minimum of 3 consecutive years to establish a standard
  • 71. THE I-PES AS A RECOGNITION SCHEME As a Stimulus and an Incentive for Growth and Improvement Hilario P. Martinez 71
  • 72. The Hierarchy of Growth Hilario P. Martinez 72 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
  • 73. 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 Schedule of Implementation Use of Funds Use of Man- days Category 5 Quality Quantity Schedule of Implementation Use of Funds Use of Man- days Hilario P. Martinez 73 LOWEST HIGHEST
  • 74. The Hierarchy of Improvement per Category Hilario P. Martinez 74 4 successive years 3 successive years 2 successive years 1 year Platinum Gold Silver Bronze Certificate 5 successive years
  • 75. 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 Hilario P. Martinez 75 HIGH LOW Category Improvement Award (C.I.A.)
  • 76. 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 Hilario P. Martinez 76
  • 77. Going for a MIA, CIA or both? Management Improvement? Category Improvement? Hilario P. Martinez 77 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???
  • 78. Why should you be rewarded for doing a job you were mandated to do as public servants? So what does the instrument really communicate? Hilario P. Martinez 78 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!
  • 79. T E A M OPERATING SYSTEMS What happens to Units/Teams/Members whose rating fall in the “ALERT ZONE” or the “FAIL ZONE”? Hilario P. Martinez 79 SELECTIVETRAININGREVIEWUNITFUNCTION REPLACE TEAM LEADER
  • 80. What are the consequences of unresolved under-performance? Hilario P. Martinez 80 Team Leaders of underperforming Units Loss of Taxpayers’ Money Erodes Public Trust Weakens Institutional Leadership
  • 81. D E V T M G T What does unresolved under- performance indicate? Hilario P. Martinez 81 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
  • 82. What should happen to Team Leaders whose Unit/s fell in the “FAIL ZONE” at least two times (2x)? Hilario P. Martinez 82 SEPARATION from SERVICE DEMOTION IN RANK SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY
  • 83. The least that we hope to see in the transition process? Hilario P. Martinez 83
  • 84. Hilario P. Martinez 84
  • 85. 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 85Hilario P. Martinez
  • 86. 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. 86Hilario P. Martinez
  • 87. 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 87Hilario P. Martinez
  • 88. 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 88Hilario P. Martinez
  • 89. The Ultimate Objective Hilario P. Martinez 89 Service/Process Optimization Change Management Employee Engagement Performance Management Good Government
  • 90. A basic factor to realize this basic, simple but rational change . . . Hilario P. Martinez 90

×