Downloaded 12 times
Uploaded byjo bitonio
CDA SPMS Rating Scale
The document outlines the CDA-SPMS rating scale used to evaluate office and individual performance in the Philippines. It describes four categories - Quantity, Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality - and provides the numerical and adjectival ratings for each. Quantity is measured against targets, Efficiency looks at budget usage, Timeliness examines deadlines, and Quality assesses standards, revisions, accuracy and client feedback. Ratings range from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Outstanding). The PMT calibrates results and the agency head determines final office ratings based solely on performance.
More Related Content
More from jo bitonio
CDA SPMS Rating Scale
- 1. THE CDA SPMS-RATING SCALE CSC-NCRapproved the CDA-SPMS on October 21, 2016 By Filipina H. Porio Sr CDS
- 3. Rating scale forquantity B.1. For fix or regulatory targets 02 Amet, consectetur adipiscing elite. Curabitur eleifend a diam quiz suscipit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra. 03
- 4. Performance Review andEvaluation ➔ Office performance is assessed. ➔ Performance Management Team (PMT) calibrates and consolidates result. ➔ Head of agency determines final office ratings ➔ Individual ratings are based solely on performance, no need for self rating.
- 5. Performance measurement FOUR CATEGORY A.Quantity- Measures the extent of accomplishment vis-a-vis targets expressed in numerical value. B. Efficiency- Measures the magnitude to which resources are used for the intended task or purpose with the objective of accomplishing targets with a minimum amount of budget. C. Timeliness - Measures whether the deliverable was done on time based on the requirements of the law and/or the office. D. Quality - Measures the degree to which objectives are achieved based on the expectation of clients/customers and/or applicable standards.
- 6. A. Rating scalefor quantity A.1. For fix or regulatory targets (Regn, amend, mandatory reports, trngs etc.) non Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding 100% of targets accomplished 4 Very satisfactory 90-99.99% 3 Satisfactory 80-89.99% 2 Unsatisfactory 70-79.99% 1 Poor Below 70%
- 7. A.2 . Nonregulatory targets Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding Exceeding 130% and above of the planned targets 4 Very satisfactory 115-129% 3 Satisfactory 100-114% 2 Unsatisfactory 51-99% 1 Poor Below 50% A. Rating scale for quantity
- 8. B. Rating scalefor efficiency Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding 96-100% budget spent 4 Very satisfactory 90-95% 3 Satisfactory 80-89% 2 Unsatisfactory 70-79% 1 Poor Above 100% or Below 70% B.1 . for fix or regulatory targets
- 9. C. Rating scalefor timeliness C.1. For fix or regulatory targets Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding Submitted 3 days before the deadline 4 Very satisfactory Submitted on the deadline 2 Satisfactory Submitted after the deadline
- 10. Rating scale fortimeliness C.2 . for non regulatory targets Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding Submitted 3 days before the deadline 4 Very satisfactory Submitted on the deadline 2 Satisfactory Submitted after the deadline
- 11. D. Rating scalefor quality D.1. for reports, letters, memoranda, and IEC development Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding No revisions 4 Very satisfactory 1 revision 3 Satisfactory 2 revisions 2 Unsatisfactory 3 revisions 1 Poor 4 and above revisions
- 12. D. Rating scalefor quality D.2. for evaluation completeness of documents Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding 100% accurate in checking of requirements 3 Satisfactory Once returned due to inaccurate checking of documents 1 Poor Twice returned
- 13. D. Rating scalefor quality D.3. for evaluation of documents as to substance and accuracy Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding Evaluation approved with no corrections to findings or recommendations 3 Satisfactory Evaluation approved with 2 corrections 1 Poor Evaluation approved with more than 2 corrections
- 14. D. Rating scalefor quality D.4. for evaluation of TAS rendered registration process by clients and training assessment Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding No rating below good or better 3 Satisfactory Rating received is fair 1 Poor Poor/unsatisfactory rating
- 15. D. Rating scalefor quality D.5. for data accuracy Numerical Adjectival Description 5 Outstanding 100% accurate data 3 Satisfactory Rating 10% standard degree of error 1 Poor More than 10% degree of error
- 16.
- 17.