presentation to ncop committee on local government and administration
DESCRIPTION
Presentation to NCOP Committee on Local Government and Administration. The HoD Evaluation Framework 27 August 2003. Contents. Importance of Performance Management Role of the PSC in developing framework Principles of Framework Role of PSC in HoD Evaluation - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Presentation to NCOP Committee on Local Government and Administration
The HoD Evaluation Framework
27 August 2003
Contents
Importance of Performance ManagementRole of the PSC in developing frameworkPrinciples of FrameworkRole of PSC in HoD EvaluationFramework for the Evaluation of Heads of DepartmentImplementation of Framework Round 1
FindingsRecommendationsAmendments
Future Challenges
Importance of Performance Management
Government constantly seeking to improve service delivery standards
Managers are responsible for achieving institutional objectives
Effective management and monitoring of performance provide insight into institutional success and areas for improvements
Role of the PSC in developing Framework
In 1998, MPSA introduced system of PAs for senior managersBelow HoDs, system provided for constant feedback on performance between supervisors and staffNo systematic, coherent process in place for assessment of HoD performancePSC tasked by cabinet to develop a framework to assist Executing Authorities (EAs) to evaluate HoDs
Principles of Framework
Basis of evaluation is effective PA system
Evaluation process should link individual and institutional performance
EAs responsible for final decisions, but independent stakeholders and peers must make inputs
Procedural framework must be credible to ensure consistency
Principles of Framework
Framework must indicate level of performance, identify inefficiency and guide performance rewardsConstitution of panels to be flexible to accommodate special sectoral needsIntegrated approach, aligned to planning and budgetary cyclesProcess should, where appropriate, identify areas for HoD development
Role of PSC in HoD Evaluations
Evaluation panels at National level chaired by the Chair or Deputy Chair of the PSC
Evaluation panels at Provincial level chaired by resident Commissioner or a nationally nominated Commissioner
Role of PSC on panels is independent role-player, to ensure that process is fair, consistent and equitable
PSC has availed secretarial services to Executing Authorities (who may also appoint their own secretariat)
HoD Evaluation Framework
EAs must appoint evaluation panels comprising EA colleagues, independent stakeholders and HoD peers
Panel advice is not binding, and EAs must take final decisions
Evaluations must cover a period of one financial year, and must be aligned to the MTEF and planning cycles
HoD Evaluation Framework
HoDs and EAs must sign PAs by the end of April each yearProgress against objectives must be reviewed on a quarterly basisEvaluation processes must utilize the following information:
PAs Departmental business and strategic plansBudget and expenditure reportsAnnual Reports incorporating Auditor General ReportsVerification statement detailing achievement of targets and outcomes
HoD Evaluation Framework
Panel provides written advice to EA, including:
Level of performance regarding KPAs
Areas for development
EA takes decision on awarding of cash bonus and other actions
HoD Evaluation Framework
If HoDs are dissatisfied, they can request reviewPAs of HoDs provide for dispute resolution mechanismMediator must be identifiedIf mediator cannot resolve dispute, must be referred to Review Committee, comprising:
Deputy President and MPSA (National); orProvincial Premier and MEC nominated by PremierProvincial DGs refer disputes to Deputy President and MPSA
HoD Evaluation Framework
PSC issues Guidelines to assist EAs on annual basis
Guidelines specify administrative arrangements and proforma documents and instruments
Implementation of Framework Statistical Overview
National Departments12 HoDs out of 36 evaluated 10 deferred evaluation to include 2001/20023 terminated contract5 no evaluation – reasons unknown
Provincial 23 out of 76 HoDs evaluated 3 pending 53 could not be evaluated
Implementation of Framework Reasons for Non-Evaluation
Contract terminated
HoD appointed on acting capacity
Suspension
On sick leave
Performance agreement not signed
Newly appointed
Framework Piloted
Documents not submitted
Implementation of FrameworkSummary of Ratings
Rating Definition of
score
Number
Of HoDs at
National Level
Number of HoDs at provincial
level
Total
5 Excellent 5
0 5
4 Above satisfactory 7 9 16
3 Satisfactory 0
10 10
2 Below satisfactory 0 3 3
1 Unacceptable 0
1 1
Findings of the first implementation
Evaluation periods more than one financial year problematic
Composition of the evaluation panels did not represent wide range of stakeholders
Far-stretched schedules of Ministers delayed the process
Use of the OPSC as the secretariat beneficial
Findings of the first implementation (cont)
Executing authorities – participation commended
DocumentationQuality and contents of performance agreements
Verifications statement did not conform to the requirements
reports did not report on achievement of
departmental objectives
Lack of synergy between documents
Findings of the first implementation (cont)
Use of 360-degree instrumentNationally – only 1 HoD
Provincially – 12 HoDs
Advice by the panelProvided level of performance and areas of development
Rating scale – parameters of cash
Findings on Performance Agreements
A majority of senior managers had not signed performance agreements
No clear performance criteria – limited to targets
No quarterly reviews
Recommendations
PSC to engage SAMDI on the nature of training to be provided to HoDsExecuting Authorities to note importance of performance management and that evaluation according to the framework is obligatoryEvaluation periods one financial yearEvaluation at provincial level must be obligatoryComposition of panels
Maximum 4 plus ChairInclude external stakeholdersMake use of cluster system
Recommendations (cont.)
Performance Agreements of HoDs to be filed with PSCPSC to provide guidance on the development of quality documentationClear linkages between processes/documentsUse of 360-degree compulsory in the interimParameters of cash bonus clearly spelt out – consider NPMDS e.g.
Level 5 : 6 - 8 % Level 4 : 3 - 5 %
Amendments
Framework – Cabinet memoFinalisation of evaluations not later than February 2003 Performance agreements of all HoDs be filed with PSC360-degree compulsory in the interim
Rating scale in the NPMDS be used for 2001/2002 evaluationsUse of the 360-degree in the interimOPSC serves as secretariat in all HoD evaluationsImplementation at provincial level be mandatory
Future Challenges
Creating a greater awareness of the importance of Performance Management
Sensitizing EAs to the importance of concluding PAs in time
Improving the quality of PAs
Linking individual and organizational performance
Future Challenges
Changing the paradigm from rewards to adding value to management and personal development
Moving from output based approach to outcomes based approach, strengthening Cabinet Clusters:
Defining common outcomes to be incorporated in strategic planning and performance agreements
HoD Evaluation Panels be constituted by Cabinet Clusters
Consolidating the use of external stakeholders and peers