The document discusses the importance of competency assessment and performance evaluation in public service, emphasizing the need to select and retain competent individuals to enhance team performance. It outlines proposed standards and processes for assessing competencies and evaluating performance in various government roles. The aim is to ensure accountability and effectiveness in public service while promoting integrity and efficiency.

1. Competency Assessment and
Performance Evaluation
An Objective Tool to Select and Retain only the
Competent and the Good Performers in Public Service
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 1
ood ublic erviceFOR

2. SYNERGETIC
TEAM
MEMBERS
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 2
Can You be Incompetent but still be a Good
Performing Team Member and vice-versa?

3. Public Service …
… is improving the lives of the
sovereign citizen-taxpayers
Is NOT …
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 3

4. Public Service requires Teams of
Competent and Good Performers
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 4

5. GOVERNMENT
The Effects of Misfits in Public Service
WASTED
TIME
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 5
TIME
TIME

6. 6HILARIO P. MARTINEZ
It’s just a
GATE PASS!
Isn’t it?
So what
is it for?
GOV’T

7. Anchoring on the H.R.D. Component of
an Anti-Corruption Program
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 7
OFFERING AN ATTRACTIVE
ALTERNATIVE FOR GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES TO HAVE OWN BUSINESS
AND RETIRE EARLY
TEAM BUILDING,
ENFORCING JOINT
ACCOUNTABILITY,
STRENGTHENING
PLANNING,
OPTIMIZING
RESOURCE
UTILIZATION
COMPETENCY-BASED
SELECTION
PROCESS, ON-THE-
JOB BIASED
TRAINING,
PERFORMANCE–
BASED CONTRACT
DETOXI-
FYING
NOTE: Surf www.slideshare.net for “An
Integrated H.R.D. Approach to Anti-
Corruption Campaign in the Philippine
Bureaucracy” for details

8. Competence  Performance
Reference: UNESCO/UNEVOC-TVETpedia website 8HILARIO P. MARTINEZ
Job Performance
Observable
Behavior

9. huh!
Enabling and Enhancing Complementation:
COMPETENCE PERFORMANCE
Knowledge
SkillsAttitude
hmmm…
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 9
Effective
and
efficient
teams
are…
…composed
of competent
individuals
COMMITMENT

10. To be or not to be
If “…Public Servants
shall remain
accountable to the
public at all times…”
(Phil. Constitution)
…then, shouldn’t they
also prove themselves
to be competent and
committed at all times
to serve and protect
the public and the
public interest?
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 10

11. COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT
IN THE PHILIPPINE CIVIL SERVICE
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 11
See www.slideshare.net for a complete
presentation on “Competency Assessment
System for the Philippine Civil Service”[ ]

12. COMPETENCY is all about DISCIPLINE
in Public Service
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 12

13. Sample UC/Competency Standard for
a Standardized Government Job Title
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 13

14. Sample of a Competency Standard for
a Standardized Job/Position Title
CORE Competencies BASIC Competencies
Use of I.C.T.
Lead and
manage
work teams
Apply
problem
solving in
workplace
Demonstrate
profes-
sionalism in
workplace
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 14
Plan and
Direct Policy
Inputs
Design
Systems,
Projects and
Programs
Deploy
Policies to
Stakeholders
Manage
Resources
UC #1
UC #2
UC #3 UC #4

15. HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 15
Competency Standards for
Government Position Titles
are industry-determined specifications setting
out the skills, knowledge, and attitude a
person must possess in order to effectively
operate in a defined work environment
ACCOUNTANT
Bookeeper
Examiner
Secretary
Nurse
Medical Doctor
Budget Officer
Computer Programmer
DRIVER1
BUYER
Division
Chief
UTILITY
LOAN
OFFICER
REVENUE
OFFICER II
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
REGIONAL
ENCODER
ASST.

16. Competency AssessmentAssessment:
Observation
Interviews
Third Party
Report
Demonstration
Portfolio PA N E L
EMPLOYEE
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 16
# of UC / Standard:
Minimum – 2
Maximum – 7

17. In a Competency Assessment System,
there can be only ONE!
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 17

18. • Proposed primary entry requirement for employment in Gov’t
• Important requirement for renewal/extension of employment
contract and promotion
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 18
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT of BUDGET and MANAGEMENT

19. Frequency of Competency Assessment
(Ensuring Consistent Compliance to Standard)
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 19
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 1
3rd Level
Personnel
2nd Level
Personnel
1st Level
Personnel
every 3 years per level
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Yr 1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Yr 2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Yr 3 PERFORMANCE
NOTE: Certificate of Competency valid for three (3) years only

20. INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SYSTEM
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 20
PERFORMANCE is more
than about OUTPUT #
PERFORMANCE is about
how well the outputs
were produced
See www.slideshare.net for a complete presentation
on “Integrated Performance Evaluation System”[ ]

21. The Individual and the Operating
Unit/Team
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 21
INDIVIDUAL
ACCOMPLISHMENT
≈
1
n
th of an
OPERATING
UNIT’s/TEAM’s
PRODUCTION,
INDIVIDUAL ≈
1
n
th of an
OPERATING
UNIT/TEAM
INDIVIDUAL
PERFORMANCE
≈
1
n
th of an
OPERATING
UNIT’s/TEAM’s
PERFORMANCE
OPERATING UNIT/TEAM =
Individual Members with varying and
complementing Skills and RolesΣ2
n
i …
… and …
•
• •
In any Organization, persons belong to a particular Operating Unit

22. In a Bureaucracy, it is …
always about … never about …
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 22

23. HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 23

24. Performance Criteria
•the technical specifications of planned outputQUALITY
•the numerical quantity of planned output vs actualQUANTITY
•adherence to planned date of program/project
implementation
SCHEDULE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
•application of allocated funds corresponding to
programs/projects in accordance to approved cash
flow
USE OF FUNDS
•staff man-days available for program/project
implementation net of all types of absences,
tardiness and undertime, including study leaves
USE OF STAFF
MAN-DAYS
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 24

25. Performance Evaluation
Quality
Quantity
Imple-
mentation
Schedule
Use of
Funds
Use of
Staff Man-
Days
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 25

26. Project
Completion
T I M E  
∑Weights of 5 Factors = 100
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 26
QUALITY
25%
QUANTITY
20%SCHEDULE OF
IMPLEMEN-
TATION
25%
USE OF
FUNDS
20%
USE OF STAFF
MAN-DAYS
10%
100%
Utilization of
Available
Resources
TIME

27. The Annual Integrated Performance
Evaluation Process  Team System
1st Semester Perf. Review 2nd Semester Perf. Review
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
ANNUALPERFORMANCEEVALUATION
Q1
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 27

28. The Integrated Performance Evaluation
System’s Criteria and Scoring Matrix
EQUIVALENT SCORE PER CRITERIA PER DEVIATION LEVEL
DEVIATION
RANGE (%) QUALITY QUANTITY
SCHEDULE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
USE OF
FUNDS
USE OF STAFF
MAN-DAYS TOTAL
0.0 25.000 20.000 25.000 20.000 10.000 100.00
2.5 24.375 19.500 24.375 19.500 9.750 97.50
5.0 23.500 19.000 23.500 19.000 9.500 94.50
7.5 23.125 18.500 23.125 18.500 9.250 92.50
10.0 22.500 18.000 22.500 18.000 9.000 90.00
12.5 21.875 17.500 21.875 17.500 8.750 87.50
15.0 21.250 17.000 21.250 17.000 8.500 85.00
17.5 20.625 16.500 20.625 16.500 8.250 82.50
20.0 20.000 16.000 20.000 16.000 8.000 80.00
22.5 19.375 15.500 19.375 15.500 7.750 77.50
25.0 18.750 15.000 18.750 15.000 7.500 75.00
OPTIMUM ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 28
[25%] [25%][20%] [20%] [10%]

29. Computing for QUALITY Rating
In reference to Slide 26, the average of -12.25% is
equivalent to a rating of 21.875% out of 25% for QUALITY
29HILARIO P. MARTINEZ

30. Computing for QUANTITY
Rating
In reference to Slide 26, the average of -20.12% is
equivalent to a rating of 15.500% out of 20% for QUANTITY
30HILARIO P. MARTINEZ

31. Computing for SCHEDULE OF
IMPLEMENTATION Rating
In reference to Slide 26, the average of -5.0% is equivalent to a
rating of 23.5% out of 25% for SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION
* Program/Project/Activity
31HILARIO P. MARTINEZ

32. Computing for USE OF FUNDS
Rating
In reference to Slide 26, the average of -6.5% is equivalent
to a rating of 18.500% out of 20% for USE OF FUNDS
32HILARIO P. MARTINEZ

33. Computing for USE OF STAFF
MAN-DAYS Rating
In reference to Slide 26, the average of -4.5% is equivalent to a
rating of 9.500% out of 10% for the USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS
33HILARIO P. MARTINEZ

34. 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
Range of Deviation
Range of
Performance Level
Equivalent
Adjectival Rating
34HILARIO P. MARTINEZ
FAIL ZONE
ALERT ZONE
(Out-of-Control)
NOTE: In this demerit-based rating in an integrated evaluation scheme, 100% performance
level at the end of the Work & Financial Plan implementation period is not attainable!

35. A Team’s/Unit’s Averages per Criterion*
Office Performance Rating: 88.875 = Very Satisfactory
* This computation is based on one year
operation/program-project implementation
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 35

36. 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)
36HILARIO 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

37. INTRODUCING A ‘GAME CHANGER’
IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Competency Assessment
& Performance Evaluation
COMPETENCE AND GOOD PERFORMANCE = SECURITY OF TENURE
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 37

38. Strength in Unity
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 38

39. COMPETENT INCOMPETENT
A Theory wanting to be challenged!
INCOMPETENCE, on the
contrary, results in unacceptable
Job PERFORMANCE
If a measured COMPETENCE in a
Job connotes good
PERFORMANCE in such a Job,
the lack of it will most likely spell
dismal PERFORMANCE, there-
fore, contribute as LIABILITY
If individuals w/ complimenting
COMPETENCES most likely results
in better team PERFORMANCE,
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 39

40. The conduct of the annual C.A.P.E.
(Competency Assessment & Performance Evaluation)
YR 1 YR 2 YR 3
ANNUALPER
TEAM/ORG’N
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
C O M P E T E N C Y A S S E S S M E N T
&
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 40
3-YRUPDATE
CYCLEPERLEVEL
(Alternating)

41. C.A.P.E. Implementation Schedule
Level 1 - Level 2 - Level 3 -LEGEND:
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 41

42. Qualified CA x PE Combinations
Team Performance
Rating
(is also the Team
Members’ Individual
Performance Rating)
PASS Competency
Assessment Result
FAIL Competency
Assessment Result
For Positive Mgt. &
/or HRD decisions
Subject to incisive
HRD interventions
CA x PE
CA x PE
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 42
(1)
(0)

43. The CA x PE Scores Reference Matrix
The Equivalent scores of
Performance Evaluation and
Competency Assessment
The Resultant scores for
Competency Assessment x
Performance Evaluation
OPTIMUM
ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
WARNING
ZONE
FAIL ZONE
CA x PE CA x PE
97.50 0
95.00 0
92.50 0
90.00 0
87.50 0
85.00 0
82.50 0
80.00 0
77.50 0
75.00 0
72.50 0
PE
Upper Limit
CA PASS
(Value = 1)
CA FAIL
(Value = 0)
97.50 1 0
95.00 1 0
92.50 1 0
90.00 1 0
87.50 1 0
85.00 1 0
82.50 1 0
80.00 1 0
77.50 1 0
75.00 1 0
72.50 1 0
HIGHLYUNACCEPTABLE–FAILC.A.RESULT
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 43

44. Management and HRD decisions
required due to CA & PE results
PE rates CA PASS rate PE rates CA FAIL rate
Deserving of recognition,
qualified for more sensitive
tasks, higher responsibilities,
and additional incentives
Qualified for higher responsi-
bilities, coaching and
commensurate reward/s
Requires more coaching from
superior officials, closer
monitoring, and job rotation
Requires better guidance,
staff reshuffling and/or
replacement
These cases may
not be tolerable
situations and
therefore contrary
to sound
governance policy;
likewise, it probably
warrant a red flag
and farther
investigation of
concerned
operating unit/s
and members
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 44
97.50
95.00
92.50
90.00
87.50
85.00
82.50
80.00
77.50
75.00
72.50
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
DISQUALIFICATION!

45. Illustrating a Frontline Unit with Good Annual
Performance Rating but with a Member Failing
a Regular Competency Assessment
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 45
CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
Ref.: Slides 28, 35 and 44
Office Performance
Rating
88.875 = Very Satisfactory Individual Performance
Rating= =

46. Which serves Public Interest better?
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 46

47. The Breed of Workforce that should be
retained in the Bureaucracy
Only the COMPETENT …and…
GOVERNMENT
SERVICE
PORTAL
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 47
Only the Good
PERFORMERS

48. Proposed New “Rules of the Game”
[Only the Competent and Good Performers in Public Service]
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 48
is
only
thru

49. A New Civil Service
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 49

50. Making INTEGRITY an impregnable
foundation of Bureaucracy
Things that matter the most
must never be at the mercy of
things that matter the least
The needs of the many
outweighs the needs of the
few
Efficiency is doing things
right, Effectiveness is doing
the right things
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 50

51. Rationale for Implementing CAPE-GPS
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 51
PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS FOR
SOCIAL SERVICES
PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS FOR
ECONOMIC
INFRASTRUCTURES
deliversdelivers

52. A
PROBABLE
REALITY OR
JUST A
WISH?
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 52