the experience of performance measurement in asian...
Post on 06-Feb-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE EXPERIENCE OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN ASIAN COUNTRIES:
THE CASE OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Performance
Measurement and Government Innovation
Hosted by the OECD Asian Centre for Public Governance in cooperation with Shejiang Universitycooperation with Shejiang University
Hangzhou, July 9-12, 2007
by
Komarudin
STATE MINISTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMTHE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
2007
Performancea. Condition that should be known and informed to the
stakeholders so that the level of achievement to the vision and
mission of an institution is also known.
b. Necessary in order to identify the positive and negative impacts
of certain policy taken during the process.
c. Performance information: management tool to observe and c. Performance information: management tool to observe and
evaluate the progress that have been achieved so far or in a
certain period of time: take necessary actions as revising the
policy, aligning the core activities to the organization’s
main duties, plan and determine the desired level of
organization’s achievement, and decide an action, etc.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT� Six Categries: (1) finance; (2) operation; (3) quality; (4) safety; (5)
personnel; and (6) customer satisfaction.” (Chun-Ho Ko, 1998)
� PM can be divided into input, process, output, outcome, benefit,
and impact.
� To be measured: financial, internal business operation,
customer-employee-community satisfaction, stakeholders, and
time.
� Performance Indicator: process, output, outcome, benefit, and � Performance Indicator: process, output, outcome, benefit, and
impact.
� PM Success Strategy: leader commitment, sense of urgency,
alignment to strategic dirction, framework, communication,
employee involvement, custmer oriented strategic plan (logic
model, techniques, SWOT analysis, just in time. accountability,
data collection, reporting, statistical process – operations
research, quality control, evaluation, report to customer and
stakeholders, and develop performance cycle.
• Five Stages: strategic plan, performance indicator, Data Performance System, Improvement of Performance Measure, and Integration with Management Process.
• GOAL OF PM: Effectiveness, Efficiency, Quality, Timeliness, Productivity. And safety. Quality, Timeliness, Productivity. And safety.
• The final result: “good public government” (comparison of mission and goal with output/outcome) and “good corporate government” profit.
Government Agency Performance Accountability System
(SAKIP): inspired by the Government Performance Result Act
(GPRA) 1993 of the US, followed by some related regulation: a. Presidential Instruction No. 7/1999, “Government Performance
Accountability” (INPRES 7/1999)
b. Law 25/2004 on National Development Planning System
c. Law 17/2003 on State Finance
d. Law 1/2004 on State Treasury
e. Law 15/2004 on Control of the Management and Responsibility of
Treasury
f. Law 22/1999 jo 32/2004 on Regional Governance
g. Presidential Instruction 5/2004 on the Acceleration of Corruption
Eradication
h. Presidential Regulation 8/2005 on Finance Report and
Performance Report.
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
(SAKIP):
� A decree of the Indonesian People Consultative Assembly
No. XI/MPR/1998 on Administering Clean and Free of
Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism.
� Followed by Law 28/1999 on Law No. 28/1999 on The State � Followed by Law 28/1999 on Law No. 28/1999 on The State
Organizer Who is Clean and Free From Corruption, Collusion,
and Nepotism.
� Presidential Excecutive Order (Instruction) No. 7/1999 on
Performance Accountability of Government Institution (Inpres
No. 7/1999 on Government Performance Accountability,
“Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah, AKIP”).
Government Performance Accountability System
is intended to:a. recover and sustain the people trust to the government;
b. drive transparency and responsiveness of government institutions;
c. encourage people participation in national development programs;
d. make government institutions operate effectively, efficiently, as well
as economically and responsively to the people needs and as economically and responsively to the people needs and
requirements;
e. drive the development of proper evaluation system through the
development of performance management;
f. establish positive and healthy working atmosphere as well as
improved disciplines; and
g. encourage the impromenet of service quality to the people.
The Orientation of SAKIP not only covers the indicators of
input and outpout but also widens to the indicators of
outcome, benefit, and impact as well as indicator of process to
alter the orientation of the previous performance measurement
of government institutions, while monitoring their
implementation processes.
� SAKIP employs strategic management approach� SAKIP employs strategic management approach(including performance measurement) in order to stimulate the
changing
a. from the orientation of inputs and processes to the
effectiveness of outputs and outcomes (outcome oriented);
b. from the short-term orientation (yearly) to the measurable
and sustainable middle-term orientation (five yearly); and
c. the quality improvement of accountability reports.
• The main focus of SAKIP is to enhance
accountability by boosting the government
performance and avoiding authority misuses.
SAKIP also emphasizes an integrated and
non-separable performance accountability
cycles from:
a. Strategic Planning; a. Strategic Planning;
b. Performance Planning;
c. Performance Measurement (including performance evaluation and performance accountability analysis); and
d. Performance Reports.
These cycles reflects a strategic management approach which aims at strategic planning, performance planning, outcome based b
� SAKIP addresses the importance of focusing on high
priority strategic goals (in terms of result) and defining
right programs to achieve the goals or objectives
(efficiently and effectively).
� The new features introduced by the system to the public
governance in Indonesia are performance measurement
and performance evaluation, utilizing performance and performance evaluation, utilizing performance
indicators and measures.
� Both performance measuremet and performance
evaluation were about barely been done under neither act
nor government regulation in the past. The system was
aimed to help both central and regional/local government
agencies to sustainably improve performance and
accountability simultaneously.
Presidential Instruction No. 7/1999 (INPRES 7/1999):requires Ministries, Chief Commander of National Army, Central
Bank Governor (is no longer required to comply with the President
Instruction due to Act No. 23/1999 on Bank Indonesia), Attorney
General, Police Chief, Head of Non-Departmental Agencies,
Secretary of the Highest and High State Institutions (Secretary
General of People Consultative Asssembly is no longer required of
comply with the President Instruction due to Constitution
Ammendment the third, 2001), Governors of the Province, Regents Ammendment the third, 2001), Governors of the Province, Regents
(Districts) and Mayors (Municipalities) to implement performance
accountability system:
a. to prepare a practical guideline on performance accountability to
report as well as to disseminate the guidelines;
b. to evaluate performance accountability report;
c. to coordinate and to monitor the implementation of the INPRES
7/1999.
DISSEMINATION SCENARIO, EFFORTS, AND PROGRESS
OF SAKIP:
• Development of SAKIP: learning based approach; adopting
some good performance management practices which are considered
applicable in Indonesian environment.
• Benchmarking through hunting any performance management
models in website. Study of relevant subjects: Strategic Management
System, Performance Based Management, Performance Based System, Performance Based Management, Performance Based
Budgeting, Reinventing Government, Change Management, etc.
• Dissemination: seminars, workshops, pilots, and socialization;
intended to communicate (regulations or guidelines) and gathering
feedback from public particular participants.
• First National Seminar: pilots in some ministries and regional
governments. The pilots done until the President Instruction No.
7/1999 was issued in June 1999.
� Feisal Tamin, Minister of Adminisrative Reform
(2001-2004): increases the task and function in terms of
accountability and control.
� Taufiq Effendi, Minister of Adminisrative Reform
(2004 up to now): developed cooperation between the
Ministry, Governor, and the Legislative Body of the Province,
witnesses by the Corruption Eradicating Commission to witnesses by the Corruption Eradicating Commission to
implement “ISLAND OF INTEGRITY”. The Minister also
develops coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of the
implementation of INPRES No. 5/2004 on The Acceleration of
Eradicating Corruption.
� The prime public services were the end of bureaucratic
reform to achieve good governance, clean govenment,
and avoiding corruption, collution, and nepotism.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
• Cooperation between the Ministry of Administrative Reform and
Corruption Eradication Committee to prevent corruption, collusion,
and nepotism.
• Good mentality and behaviour of government officials along with the
implementation of SAKIP could make them avoid breaking laws.
• Annual Performance Agreement is required between a government
official, a subordinate, and his or her superior, starting from budget
year 2005. year 2005.
• President Instruction No. 5/2004 on Acceleration of Corruption
Eradication: along with the statement of Performance Agreement,
have to be attached a summary of Annual Performance Plan revealing
the main programs that must be accomplished by the signing official,
strategic objectives that were expected to attend, performance
indicators (outputs and or outcomes), and the budget of each
program.
• Socialization 5 Modules: Accountability and Governance; Strategic
Planning; Performance Measurement; Performance Evaluation; and
Reporting.
� Act or Law No. 17/2003 on State Finance intends to
integrate performance accountability system with budgeting
system, so the state budget becomes a performance based
budget, or either central government or regional/local
government. Implementation of performance based budgeting
have been started for budget year 2005.Fully implementation of
it is expected to be done in the next couple years.
� Act No. 1/2004 on State Treasury intends to include � Act No. 1/2004 on State Treasury intends to include
performance achievement information accompanying financial
report and statements in the government annual report.
Transparency of government agencies performance
information is being encouraged.
� Act 32/2004 on Regional Governance intends to include
regulation in autonomy and decentralization.
� Act 25/2004: National and Regional Development Planning
� INPRES 7/1999: Government Performance Accountability
(Accountability, Control, and related Performance
Measurement and Management)
� INPRES 5/2004: Acceleration of Corruption Eradication
� Government Regulation No. 79/2005 on Guidance and
Control of Regional Governance.Control of Regional Governance.
� Government Regulation No. 8/2006 on Finance Report and
Performance Report
� Government Regulation No. 3/1007 on Regional
Development Report, Responsibility Report, and
Information of Regional Development Report.
INPRES 5/2004 on ACCELERATION OF CORRUPTION
ERADICATION
Ten General Instruction to Government Officials:Regular report, reporting-registering-announcing, and
controling; Signing Performance Contract; Increasing the
quality of public services; Integrity Act and Island of
Integrity to buid free of corruption region; Implement
Presidential Decree No. 80/2003 on Goods and Services
Provision without corruption; Efficient, effective, and low
profile character of government officials; Support law
enforcement handled by Police, Judge, and Anti
Corruption Agency; Increasing coordination and
cooperation with all law enforcement bodies or agencies;
and Avoiding corruption habits and increasing guidance
and control to government officials.
1. To develop and implement E-Procurement for government goods and
services provision. .
2. Increases control of taxes, customs, and avoid corruption eradication in
financial activities.
3. Develops National Action Plan of Corruption Eradication (RAN-PK) through
coordination with related institutions.
4. To develop public services policy, performance agreement, implementation
of good governance characteristics, develop government employee system,
and coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the implementation of Inpres No.
5/2004.
Eleven Special Instruction to he Ministries and Related
Chairman of Institution:
5/2004.
5. To prepare the amendment of Law and revise the Act on Corruption
Eradication.
6. To make guidance for the implementation of good corporate governance.
7. To design education curriculum cover anti corruption
8. To socialize and campaign anti corruption program
9. To increase coordination among law enforcement institution
10. To increase awareness and coordination on corruption eradication
11. To implement good governance, to create public services and increase
coordination
All government officials should implement this Presidential Instruction with full
responsibility and report to the President regularly. Signing on December 9,
2004.
Performance Indicator:a. Increase efficiency and effectiveness, public services, Human
Development Index (HDI), Human Poverty Index (HPI), citizen
participation, transparency, accountability, and perception corruption
index (IPK).
b. Key Success Factors in implementing Island of Integrity and
Performance Measurement: commitment from the leader, law as
guidance, system or systemic, internal initiative, coaching, close
monitoring and evaluation, and can do spirit.
c. Best Practices of Island of Integrity covers role of leader (strong c. Best Practices of Island of Integrity covers role of leader (strong
leadership), increasing capacity of regional government, institutional
arangement, system and procedure, management system, human
resources development, the prime and quality of public services,
performance-based governance management, and the acceleration of
corruption eradication.
d. Island of Integrity Program already implemented in 2006 in the
Province of (Riau, South Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan, and
Gorontalom and in 2007, this program will be implemented in another
some provinces.
BUREAUCRATIC REFORM: SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING
1) CHANGE OF MIND, SET, (PATTEN OF THOUGHT, ACTION, ATTITUDE,
CHARACTER AND IDENTITY,
2) SHIFT FROM AUTHORITY PARADIGM TO SERVANT PARADIGM
3) PUTTING ROLE AHEAD OF AUTHORITY
4) OUTCOME ORIENTED
5) PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMEN
6) ADOPTION OF BEST PRACTICES IN MATERIIALIZING GOOD GOVERNANCE,
CLEAN GOOVERNMENT, AND FREE OF CORRUPTION, COLLUSION, AND
NEPOTISM.NEPOTISM.
7) PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY SHOULD MAKE VERY CLEAN THE REQUIRMENT,
COST, AND TME OF COMPLETION
TO SPEED THE ERADICATION OF CORRUPTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AD
HOC COMMISSION
TO HELP CLAMP DOWN CORRUPTION AGENCIES
9) “START FROM THE END, AND END AT THE BEGINNING.” (FROM
UPSTREAMS: A RIVER AS AN EXAMPLE) RIVER STARTS ITS FLOW.
10) ENCOURAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF “INTEGRITY PACT” (COMMITMENT
OF HONESTY).
11) APPLICATION OF GOOD GOVERNANCE, GOOD PUBLIC GOVERNANCE,
GOOD CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
BUILDING A CREDIBLE, TRANSPARENT,
ACCOUNTABLE, AND PROFESSIONAL NATION
CORRUPTION ERADICATION SHOULD START FROM OURSELVES, FAMILY,
MORALITY.
ISSUANCE OF SUCH REGULATION
a. A BUREAUCRATIC REFORM IN INSTITUTION SERVICE DELIVERY
b. SUPERVISION and ACCOUNTABILITY
c. SYSTEM AND PROCEDURE
d. HUMAN RESOURCEd. HUMAN RESOURCE
e. PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY
g. SHIFTING PARADIGM and CHANGE OF MIND-SET
WORK ETHICS: COMMITMENT AND CONSISTENCY, AUTHORITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY, HONESTY AND SENSITIVITY, INTEGRITY AND
PROFESSIONALISM, CREATIVITY, LEADERSHIP AND EXEMPLARY,
TOGETHERNESS AND GROUP DYNAMICS, PRECISION AND ACCURCY,
FASTNESS AND RATIONALITY, DEDICATION AND LOYALLY, EMOTIONAL
QUOTIENT, FIRMNESSAND TOUGHNESS, DISCIPLINE AND WORK
REGULARITY, BREVELY AND WISDOM, SPIRIT AND MOTIVATION,
DILIGENCE AND AND PATIENC, JUSTICE AND OPENNES, AND MASTERY
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
Good Public Governance (GPG) 1) equity
2) supervision/control
3) law enforcement
4) responsiveness
5) effectiveness and efficiencies
6) participation
7) professionalism
8) accountability8) accountability
9) strategic vision
10) transparency
Good Corporate Government (GCG)GCG covers transparency, accountability, responsibility,
independent, and fairness to be implemeted in
government entrepresises.
REGIONAL GOVERNANCE BEST PRACTICES � Best Practices as basic for innovation (criteria and parameter)
– UN HABITAT, as “initiative which is create significant
contribution (outstanding contribution) in increasing the
quality of life in urban, rural or other environment or
circumstances.”
� Best Practices (UN; Dubai Municipality, 2003): big impact in
increasing the quality of life, result of good an effective increasing the quality of life, result of good an effective
coordination, partnership within the government, private
sector, and communities, and sustainable in terms of social,
culture, economic, and environment.
� Stressed of best practices focused on outstanding
contributions from initiatives, success of initiative, increase
quality of life, reality, impact, process, and sustainabiliy, and
transfer to other environment, and peer to peer learning.
CRITERIA OF BEST PRACTICES BY THE UN
Five criteria: Impact, partnership, sustainability and
leadership, community empowerment,gender equity and
social inclusion, innovation within local context and social inclusion, innovation within local context and
transferability or replication.
Seven parameter of Best Practices:situation of region, motivation, innovation,
result measurement, sustainability, lessons learned,
transfer or replication to other area.
BEST PRACTICES OF PROVINCIAL LEVEL
OUT OF 33 PROVINCES AND 462
DISTRICTS/MUNICIPALITIES, THERE WERE SOME
PROVINCES/DISTRICTS/MUNICIPALITIES COULD BE
SEEN AS BEST PRACTICES
Provinces: Gorontalo, East Java, Special Region Yogyakarta Provinces: Gorontalo, East Java, Special Region Yogyakarta
South Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan, Riau,
Riau Island
Districts and Municipalities: Solok, Jembrana, Sragen,
Karanganyar, Pekanbaru, Parepare, Tarakan, Banjarbaru,
Palangkaraya, etc.
DEVELOPING NEW ACT ON
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM1) RUU on Public Services,
2) RUU on Governance Administration,
3) RUU on State Ministries),
4) RUU on Ethic of Government Employee,
5) RUU on Government Employee, 5) RUU on Government Employee,
6) RUU on Responsibility of Central and Regional
Government and Their Interrelation,
1) RUU on Non-Profit Public Services,
2) RUU on Pension of Government Employee,
3) RUU on National Control System, and
4) RUU on Accountability (SAKIP).
SUGGESTIONS TO IMPLEMENT BUREAUCRATIC REFORM,
INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTIBILITY, AND
CORRUPTION ERADICATION
1) Clear and accurate vision, mission, policy, strategy and action plan.
2) Implementing 4-W (well planned, well-organized – who brings what,
well-arranged, and well controlled/supervised).
3) Implementing 4-C (clear, comprehensive, and innovative Concept,
Competence, Connection, and Commitment – meaning, know your Competence, Connection, and Commitment – meaning, know your
mission, know your men, and keep them involved).
4) Consistency and Seriousness
5) Shifting mind-set and culture-set, ethics and code of conduct, and
shifting paradigm.
6) Starting to rewrite Indonesia, rewrite the Republic, and rewrite the
Nation.
7) Developing attitude, knowledge, motivation, and knowledge-based
society and knowledge-based economy.
OBSTACLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAKIP
1. Political and Systemic: SAKIP AS AN INSTRUMENT;
2. Organisational Culture: IF YOU WANT, EXACTLY YOU CAN!
3. Performance Measurement AND Performance Indicator
4. Connotation: there are still varies in describing performance.
SAKIP defines that performance means result in terms of output and SAKIP defines that performance means result in terms of output and
or outcome.
5. Legal Base: Government Regulation, Law/Act?
6. Budget Constraints
7. General Problems: institutional and organizational management,
system, procedure, mechanism, and management system,
performance-based human resources management and development,
public services, understanding of accountability, and
control/supervision; discipline, ethic code, character, and shifting
paradigm.
VI. CONCLUSIONGood Governance: laws and regulations, transparent public policies,
people’s participation and public accountability.
The indicator of successful performance of government
institution: emphasized on the successful organization’s vision and
mission accomplishment, and not by inflexible standardized indicators.
The government bureaucracy is encouraged to have clear pre-defined
vision, missions, goals, and objectives which can later be used as the vision, missions, goals, and objectives which can later be used as the
basis of performance measurement and accountability information to its
stakeholders.
Accountability and transparency, the core elements of good
governance on public administration system, have been implemented
through, among others, the development of performance accountability
of government institution system (INPRES 7/1999).
Accountability and transparency is based on classification of managerial
responsibility on each level of the government organization as means of
measurement of the organization’s success or failure in achieving its pre-
defined vision, mission, goals, and objectives.
We should increase our understanding (definition)
about performance measurement and
accountability: accountability:
What kind of material to be meassured? (financial, customer
satisfaction, internal business operation, personal satisfaction,
community satisfaction (shareholders and stakeholders), time frame,
and requirements of the success of performance measurement.
What is the strategy of the success of performance
measurement? full commitment from the leader (top management),
sense of urgency, alignment with strategic direction,
conceptual framework, communication, involvement of employee,
customer-based strategic plan (logic model, using techniques),
SWOT analysis,
“start doing performance measurement norm, revise tomorrow”,
Improve performance measurement, goal and objective, achieve Improve performance measurement, goal and objective, achieve
performance accountability, data collection, consistent reporting,
analysis and revise performance data, evaluate and use performance
information, regular report to customer and stakeholders, and manage
performance measurment cycle (strategic plan, integration with
management process, improve performance measurement, develop
accurate data and information, and perfornace indicator).
The target of performance measurement and
accountability is the reality of good governance, clean government,
and free of corruption,collusion, and nepotism.
Komarudin,Komarudin,
Expert Staff to the Minister of Administrative Reform, Indonesia
Jalan Jenderal Sudirman Kav. 69, Jakarta Selatan 12190,
Phone 62-21-7398347; Fax 62-21-5252720
Home: Phone 52-21-5848242, 5848311; Fax 62-21-5848311
e-mail: komar_udi@yahoo.com HP 0812 926 9650
top related