Integrated Performance Evaluation System

949 views

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 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
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
949
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
38
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Integrated Performance Evaluation System

  1. 1. PERFORMANCE is more than about OUTPUT # Integrated PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM A Strategic Way of Professionalizing the Philippine Bureaucracy 1Hilario P. Martinez INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE RATING A C T I O N S I N P R O C E S S E S
  2. 2. Hilario P. Martinez 2 Directory of the Integrated Performance Evaluation System
  3. 3. Outstanding Performance … REALLY? In WHAT?!#@? Hilario P. Martinez 3 130% Performance?! How is this possible? How can you exceed 100%? By what STANDARD? By what CRITERIA? By what SYSTEM? How did they set TARGETS? !
  4. 4. PERFORMANCE is more than Output PRODUCTION? PERFORMANCE Should it be just “the higher the better”? Hilario P. Martinez 4 How much output was produced? What was the quality level of the produce? Were the input resources used optimally? How effective and efficient were the conversion processes?
  5. 5. The Individual and the Operating Unit/Team Hilario P. Martinez 5 INDIVIDUAL ACCOMPLISHMENT ≈ 1 n th of an OPERATING UNIT’s/TEAM’s INDIVIDUAL ≈ 1 n th of an OPERATING UNIT/TEAM INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE ≈ 1 n th of an OPERATING UNIT’s/TEAM’s OPERATING UNIT/TEAM = Individual Members with varying and complementing Skills and RolesΣ2 n i … … and … • • • In an Organization, persons belong to a particular Operating Unit
  6. 6. Team Rating vs Individual Rating One for All? All for One? Hilario P. Martinez 6 or HOW? A variety of SKILLS p r o d u c i n g a n a s s e m b l y
  7. 7. Common Scenes or a Rarity in Government Offices? Hilario P. Martinez 7 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!? BONUS
  8. 8. The CHALLENGE Hilario P. Martinez 8
  9. 9. The Basic Issues Hilario P. Martinez 9
  10. 10. Theorem 10Hilario P. Martinez
  11. 11. 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 higher standards of quality and excellence Multiple 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% 11Hilario P. Martinez
  12. 12. The Transformation Process of a Bureaucratic Organization Hilario P. Martinez 12
  13. 13. THE SITUATION TODAY A Culture of Self-Promotion 13Hilario P. Martinez
  14. 14. 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 14Hilario P. Martinez
  15. 15. 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. 15Hilario P. Martinez
  16. 16. 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% 16Hilario 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?
  17. 17. Practise makes perfect! Hilario P. Martinez 17 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 ...
  18. 18. Self-justification, Self-preservation Hilario P. Martinez 18 A good number of agencies tend to produce various outputs with little regard to its mandate or real needs of its beneficiary sectors Many agencies are unable to integrate its various outputs or by- products or is unaware of the integration process to assemble its final major output
  19. 19. 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 projects to the detriment of public interest Hilario P. Martinez 19 Productivity Incentive Performance Bonus Mid-year bonus Anniversary Bonus Family Subsidies HealthMaintenance Allowance Rice/Grocery Allowance e t c ... e t c Amelioration Pay Hazard Pay PERA COLA Uniform Allowance LONGEVITY
  20. 20. 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; not monitored by CSC3/ 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 20Hilario P. Martinez 1 – Department of Budget & Management 2 – Commission on Audit 3 – Civil Service Commission
  21. 21. BASIC PREMISES Hilario P. Martinez 21
  22. 22. A is an operating unit that produces a whole, not separate parts 22Hilario P. Martinez A CEO briefing his managers of his game plan? A Manager dividing the work among his team members?
  23. 23. The organization of work processes in all agencies should follow a logical relationship of functions Hilario P. Martinez 23
  24. 24. From a well-defined core business, to the assembly of vital components, to a well-defined major final output Hilario P. Martinez 24
  25. 25. Constituting the Organizational End-Product Hilario P. Martinez 25
  26. 26. Hilario P. Martinez 26
  27. 27. DESIGN PARAMETERS OF THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM Reinforcing Objectivity, Reducing Subjectivity Hilario P. Martinez 27
  28. 28. 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 28
  29. 29. The Management Group Hilario P. Martinez 29 C.E.O. Sr. MGT. Group Office Executives
  30. 30. Teams performing other administrative/technical work The Frontline Units/ Operating Teams Hilario P. Martinez 30 The teams performing daily office routines Other support groups The teams directly servicing the public
  31. 31. Basic Principle of the Proposed Performance Evaluation System 31Hilario P. Martinez COHESION TEAMWORK PERFORMANCE OUTPUT
  32. 32. Assessing and Measuring PERFORMANCE Hilario P. Martinez 32
  33. 33. Team Performance = Operating Unit’s Performance Team Performance Operating Unit’s Performance Hilario P. Martinez 33
  34. 34. FORMULATING THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM Hilario P. Martinez 34 Contextualizing the Integration of Elements
  35. 35. The Basis of the Proposed Integrated Performance Evaluation System MANAGEMENT Manpower Materials Machine Methods Money Time Hilario P. Martinez 35
  36. 36. 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 36
  37. 37. The Conversion Process Hilario P. Martinez 37
  38. 38. Proposed Criteria to Assess Performance 38Hilario P. Martinez Quality Quantity Schedule of Implemen- tation Use of Funds Use of Staff Man- days
  39. 39. 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 39
  40. 40. A 5-in-1 View of How an Office and a Team Operates and Perform 40Hilario P. Martinez QUALITY QUANTITY USE OF FUNDS USE OF MAN-DAYS Very revealing indeed… A welcome change!
  41. 41. ∑Weights of 5 Factors = 100 Hilario P. Martinez 41 QUALITY 25% QUANTITY 20%SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMEN- TATION 25% USE OF FUNDS 20% USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS 10% 100%
  42. 42. DEMERIT APPROACH IN SCORING Measuring the use of defined and finite resources in a pre-determined plan Hilario P. Martinez 42
  43. 43. State of Utilization of Available Resources of an Implementing Unit in a Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC OPERATING FUNDS IMPLEMEN- TATION PERIOD AVAILABLE STAFF MAN-DAYS LOGISTICS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MONTH Hilario P. Martinez 43
  44. 44. Basis for adopting a Demerit System of Rating Hilario P. Martinez 44
  45. 45. Demerit Approach of Scoring MAXIMUM POINT less RATED DEVIATION 75% - hurdle limit 45Hilario P. Martinez MAXIMUM / STARTING POINT SCORE = 100
  46. 46. INPUT DOCUMENTS REQUIRED AS BASIS IN JUDGING Data as Consequential and Natural by-Product of Operation Hilario P. Martinez 46
  47. 47. Sources of Inputs for the Proposed Performance Evaluation System 47Hilario 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 STANDARDOFFICE REPORTS
  48. 48. Planned vs. Actual Hilario P. Martinez 48 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
  49. 49. MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF OPERATING UNITS Integrating Major/Critical Elements 49Hilario P. Martinez
  50. 50. Rating Tables  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  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 50Hilario 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
  51. 51. 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 51Hilario P. Martinez
  52. 52. 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 52Hilario P. Martinez
  53. 53. Adjectival rating for QUALITY Hilario P. Martinez 53 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
  54. 54. 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 54Hilario P. Martinez
  55. 55. 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 55Hilario P. Martinez
  56. 56. Adjectival rating for QUANTITY 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 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
  57. 57. 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 57Hilario P. Martinez
  58. 58. 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 58Hilario P. Martinez
  59. 59. Adjectival rating for SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION Hilario P. Martinez 59 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
  60. 60. 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 60Hilario P. Martinez
  61. 61. A Cashflow programmed for 6 projects Hilario P. Martinez 61 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
  62. 62. 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 62Hilario P. Martinez
  63. 63. Adjectival rating for USE OF FUNDS Hilario P. Martinez 63  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
  64. 64. 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 64Hilario P. Martinez
  65. 65. Basic Format of a Monthly Report on Absences* Hilario P. Martinez 65 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
  66. 66. 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 66Hilario P. Martinez
  67. 67. Effect of Temporary Decrease of Team Members Hilario P. Martinez 67 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 expense) (non-productive expense) Remaining members shares in the redistribution of unattended workload and the increased workplace tension Workload Ratio: 1::1 Workload Ratio: 1::1.5 (non-productive expense)
  68. 68. Adjectival rating for USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS Hilario P. Martinez 68 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
  69. 69. COMPUTING FOR OVERALL RATING Hilario P. Martinez 69 Assembling the Wholistic Picture of the Operation
  70. 70. 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 70Hilario P. Martinez FAIL ZONE ALERT ZONE (Out-of-Control)
  71. 71. So who is the Overall Best Performer? Or is it just the Best of the Worse? Hilario P. Martinez 71 Who produced the most? Who was most effective? Who optimize funds the most? Who has the least delay? Who has the least staff downtime?
  72. 72. 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 72Hilario P. Martinez * Note: Sample data used for this illustration is assumed to cover a period of one year
  73. 73. The Performance Meter Panel (A Graphical Summary Presentation of Performance Ratings) Hilario P. Martinez 73 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
  74. 74. Probability of Occurrence: ‼ = Less likely to happen ₽ = More probable to happen Variation of Probable I-PES Scores Probable Scores: • = High range of Positive Score • = Medium range of Positive Score • = Low range of Positive Score • = Fail range Score → Hilario P. Martinez 74
  75. 75. CONCLUSION 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 75Hilario 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.
  76. 76. Only the Frontline Units/Operating Teams shall be subject to direct Performance Evaluation Hilario P. Martinez 76 The teams performing other administrative/technical work The teams performing daily office routines Other support groups The teams directly servicing the public
  77. 77. The Group subject to rolled-up average rating of subordinate groups Hilario P. Martinez 77 C.E.O. Sr. MGT. Group Office Executives Management effectiveness and its collective leadership is best manifested and evidenced by the performance and quality of production of its subordinate frontline units and operating teams, not by what it says it was Rolled-up average Rolled-up average Rolled-up average Performance rating of subordinate frontline units
  78. 78. 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 78Hilario 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 AGENCY’S RATING 87.763 All for One, One for All (A roll-up Process of Determining Agency Rating)
  79. 79. Strength in Unity Hilario P. Martinez 79
  80. 80. A basis for establishing “Performance Standard” Hilario P. Martinez 80 Minimum of 3 consecutive years to establish a standard
  81. 81. THE I-PES AS A RECOGNITION SCHEME As a Stimulus and an Incentive for Growth and Improvement Hilario P. Martinez 81 TEAM LEADER
  82. 82. Management Improvement Award (M.I.A.) One Element Use of Staff Man-days Two Elements Use of Funds Use of Staff Man-days Three Elements Schedule of Implemen- tation Use of Funds Use of Staff Man-days Four Elements Quantity Schedule of Implemen- tation Use of Funds Use of Staff Man-days Five Elements Quality Quantity Schedule of Implementation Use of Funds Use of Staff Man-days Hilario P. Martinez 82 EASIER DIFFICULT
  83. 83. The Hierarchy of Growth Hilario P. Martinez 83 Category 1 Platinum Gold Silver Bronze Certificate 5 Elements 4 Elements 3 Elements 2 Elements 1 Element Category 5 Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 t h e H I G H E R , t h e B E T T E R
  84. 84. Level 5th yr 10% > agency average 4th yr 10% > agency average 3rd yr 10% > agency average 2nd yr 10% > agency average 1st yr 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 84 HARD EASY Category Improvement Award (C.I.A.)
  85. 85. The Hierarchy of Improvement per Category Hilario P. Martinez 85 4 successive years 3 successive years 2 successive years 1 year Platinum Gold Silver Bronze Certificate 5 successive years
  86. 86. Responsiveness or Resource Utilization? RESPONSIVENESS AGENCY RESOURCE UTILIZATION Hilario P. Martinez 86 •••
  87. 87. Recognizing Teams for Client Responsiveness and Effective Use of Resources Max. Points per Level - RESPONSIVENESS Level Quality Quantity Total High 25 20 45 Mid 22.5 18 40.5 Low 20 16 36 Max. Points per Level - RESOURCE UTILIZATION Level Schedule Funds Man- days Total High 25 20 10 55 Mid 22.5 18 9 49.5 Low 20 16 8 44 Hilario P. Martinez 87 CLIENTELE RESPONSIVE EFFECTIVE USE OF RESOURCES
  88. 88. 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 88
  89. 89. IMPLICATION OF THE I-PES AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL Hilario P. Martinez 89 Instituting a Culture of Discipline Complements an Anti- Corruption Program
  90. 90. MIA, CIA, Responsiveness or Resource Utilization Effectiveness? Hilario P. Martinez 90 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???
  91. 91. 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 91 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! hmmm
  92. 92. A score in the “Fail Zone” for… Staff Man-Days Uncontrolled Absences Numerous off- site training programs &/or Use of Funds Ineffective fiscal controls Non- responsive cashflow &/or Implmntn Schedule Inadequate project management Poor Stakeholders partnership &/or Quantity Conversion processes are questionable Erratic logistic support &/or Quality Non- responsive standards Poor client- needs analysis &/or >>> A COMBINATION INDICATE POOR MANAGEMENT SKILLS <<< Hilario P. Martinez 92 Interpreting the derogatory scores
  93. 93. T E A M S OPERATING SYSTEMS What happens to Units/Teams and Members whose rating fall in the “ALERT ZONE” or the “FAIL ZONE”? Hilario P. Martinez 93 SELECTIVETRAINING REVIEWUNITFUNCTION REPLACE TEAM LEADER
  94. 94. Hilario P. Martinez 94 Team Leaders of underperforming Units Loss of Taxpayers’ Money Erodes Public Trust Weakens Institutional Integrity MISSED TARGETS What are the consequences of unresolved under-performance?
  95. 95. D E V T M G T What does unresolved under- performance indicate? Hilario P. Martinez 95 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 & MGT
  96. 96. DEMOTION IN RANK & PAY What should happen to Team Leaders whose Unit/s fell in the “FAIL ZONE” at least two times (2x)? Hilario P. Martinez 96 SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY 2nd time 3rd time 4th time SEPARATION from SERVICE
  97. 97. Hilario P. Martinez 97
  98. 98. 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 98Hilario P. Martinez
  99. 99. 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. 99Hilario P. Martinez
  100. 100. 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 100Hilario P. Martinez
  101. 101. 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 101Hilario P. Martinez
  102. 102. The Ultimate Objective Hilario P. Martinez 102 Service/Process Optimization Change Management Employee Engagement Performance Management GOOD GOVERNMENT
  103. 103. A basic factor to realize this basic, simple but rational change . . . Hilario P. Martinez 103 w o r k f o r c e

×