pmmme1 - iag-agi.orgiag-agi.org › img › pdf › performance-management-including-measure… ·...

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT INCLUDING

MEASUREMENT, MONITORING AND

EVALUATION:

A Management Guide For African Public Service

Managers

CAMPS secretariat

5th Floor, Kenyatta International Conference Center (KICC)

PO BOX 350-00100

Nairobi, Kenya

2011

GUIDE ON PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING MEASUREMENT, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

2011

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents………………………………………………………………………………….ii

List of tables………………………………………………………………………………………v

List of figures……………………………………………………………………………………..vi

List of abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………….vii

Glossary of terms………………………………………………………………………………..viii

Preamble ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Background, Context and Rationale for Developing the Guide ..................................................... 1

Purpose of the Guide. ...................................................................................................................... 3

PART ONE .................................................................................................................................... 4

Performance Management: Conceptual and Definitional Issues .................................................... 5

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5

2. Objectives of Performance Management System ....................................................................... 6

3. Characteristics of Performance Management System ................................................................ 6

PART TWO ................................................................................................................................... 8

A Comprehensive Performance Management Guide for Africa: ................................................... 8

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8

1. Planning ...................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 National Vision ......................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 National Medium Term Development Strategy ........................................................................ 9

1.3 National Medium Term Expenditure Framework ..................................................................... 9

1.4 Institutional Medium Term Strategic Plan ................................................................................ 9

1.5 Institutional Medium Term Expenditure Framework ............................................................. 10

1.6 Institutional Annual Plan (AIP) .............................................................................................. 10

2. Implementation of the Plans ..................................................................................................... 10

2.1 The Design of Institutional Performance Agreements............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1.1 Criteria for determining performance .................................................................................. 13

2.1.2 Performance Targets ............................................................................................................ 14

2.2 Implementation of Performance Agreements ......................................................................... 15


2011

iii

3. Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance Results ................................................................. 15

3.1 Choice of Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................. 16

3.1.1Weighting the Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................ 17

3.1.2 Criteria Value ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.1.3 Developing a Composite Score. ........................................................................................... 17

3.1.4 Ranking of Institutions Results into an Order of Merit ....................................................... 18

4. Rewards and Sanctions ............................................................................................................. 18

PART THREE ............................................................................................................................. 20

Implementation of a Comprehensive Performance Management System .................................... 20

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 20

2. Phasing of Implementation ....................................................................................................... 20

2.1Phasing by elements ................................................................................................................. 20

2.2Phasing by Institution .............................................................................................................. 22

3. Institutional Arrangements for Implementing PMS ................................................................. 22

3.1Oversight Bodies ...................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1National Oversight Committee (PMSNOC) ......................................................................... 23

3.1.2The Performance Management System Implementation Committee (PMSIC) ................... 23

3.1.3Ministerial PMS Task Forces (MPMSTF) ............................................................................ 23

3.2 Implementation Management Bodies ..................................................................................... 24

3.2.1PMS Secretariat in the President/Prime Minister’s Office ................................................... 24

3.2.2Independent Performance Evaluation Task Forces ............................................................... 24

PART FOUR ............................................................................................................................... 26

Institutionalization of Performance Management Systems: ......................................................... 26

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 26

2. The need for an Underlying Guiding Vision ............................................................................ 26

3. Leadership ................................................................................................................................. 26

4. Appropriate legal framework .................................................................................................... 27

5. Alignment with other systems e.g. budget and HR .................................................................. 27

6. Adequate and Appropriate Capacity ......................................................................................... 27


2011

iv

7. Performance Related Pay (PRP) ............................................................................................... 28

8. Implementing PMS within a Decentralized Governance Framework ...................................... 28

9. Adoption and use of Information Communication Technology ............................................... 29

10. Building Partnerships with stakeholders:The Need for a Robust Information Education and

Communication Strategy .............................................................................................................. 29


2011

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Attributes for Determining Performance Values ............................................................ 15


2011

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Steps in Determination of Perfomance Targets……………………………………….11

Figure 2: Elements of Performance Management……………………………………………….17 Figure 3: Institutional Framework for Implementation of

PMS………………………………………………………….…………………………………..25


2011

vii

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

OAU Organization of African Unity

AU African Union

CAMPS Conference of African Ministers of Public Service

PMS Performance Management Systems MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies MTDS Medium Term Development Strategy MTISP Medium Term Institutional Strategic Plan MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework AIP Annual Institutional Plan IPA Institutional Performance Agreements PRP Performance Related Pay PMSNOC National Oversight Committee PMSIC Performance Management System Implementation Committee

MPMSTF Ministerial PMS Task Forces

HR Human Resources


2011

viii

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Service Charters

A service charter is a statement by a public institution that provides information on what an

agency does, service users can expect, the standard of the service to be expected, requirements

for customers to qualify for the service as well as cost of the service, where applicable and how

dissatisfied users may seek redress. The service charter could where appropriate form part of the

targets for measuring the quality of service delivery.

Performance Targets

Performance targets are the required, expected or desired level or extent of achievement of

specified performance indicators.

Weighted Score

The weighted score is a quantification of the extent of achievement of an indicator computed

against a predetermined criteria value scale (which distinguishes merit levels of performance for

each criterion) and a pre-specified indicator weight.

Composite Score

A composite score is an aggregation of weighted scores.

Performance Agreements

These are freely negotiated performance agreements between the government acting as the

owner of a government institution and the management of the institution. The mutual

expectations, obligations, intentions and responsibilities of the parties to the agreement to

facilitate achievement of commitments are also specified.

Performance Criteria

A Performance criterion is a fragment of a strategic objective. Also referred to as management

perspectives in some dispensations, they are broad performance segments designed to indicate

achievement dimensions of strategic objectives.

Preamble

Background, Context and Rationale for Developing the Guide

For more than two decades, African countries have demonstrated a commitment to work as a

collective to enhance governance and public administration effectiveness across the continent.

Initially collective efforts involved exchange of ideas and policy dialogues that were for the most

part supported by management improvement organizations such as the African Training and

Research Centre in Administration and Development (CAFRAD), the Development Policy

Management Forum (DPMF) and the African Association for Public Administration and

Management (AAPAM).

While the policy dialogues (conferences and seminars) provided some learning opportunities and

exchange of information and, on occasion, involved undertaking research projects and resultant

publications did not translate into sustainable collective efforts to support improvements in

governance and public administration on the continent. In recognition of that deficiency, the

Second African Conference of Ministers of Public/Civil Service decided that there was need to

move beyond the exchange of information and take concrete actions to improve public

administration systems of African countries. In that regard, during that conference Ministers

agreed on elements of a Charter for the Public Service in Africa which came to be subsequently

endorsed formally at the 3rd Pan-African Conference of Ministers of Public Service which took

place in Windhoek, Namibia in 2001.

Between 2001 and 2008 the collective efforts of the Conference of African ministers of public

service to improve governance and public administration continued through two fronts. On one

hand efforts were directed at ensuring the Charter for the Public Service in Africa was refined for

adoption by the relevant policy organs of the African Union as well as strengthening the

relationship and programmatic alignment of the Ministerial Conference into AU processes. On

the other hand the programmatic work of the Conference of Ministers was to be reconciled with

the Charter. In future the Charter is meant to be the cornerstone for defining elements of

collective continental, regional and national engagements and reform efforts in public

administration.


2011

2

It is against this background that the 6th Conference of African Ministers of Public/Civil Service

adopted the Implementation Framework for the Long Term Strategy (LTS) on Governance and

Public Administration. The LTS is anchored on the African Charter for the Values and

Principles of the African Public Service, which serves as the key instrument to guide the

transformation process of the African public service. The Charter is a strategic approach to

bringing about capable developmental states in Africa that are people-oriented, accountable, and

driven by service to the citizenry. It seeks to promote good governance, efficient and effective

public service delivery, as well as provide a framework for engaging with global partners.

As part of implementing the LTS at a practical level, early last year the Conference of Ministers

decided to develop standards and management guides for select aspects of public service

administration and governance in Africa within the framework of the African Charter on Public

Service, and to begin with, guides would be developed on three thematic areas including human

resource architecture and policy planning, leadership/management development processes and,

performance management systems.

Rationale and Justification

In majority of the African countries, economic growth and development is constrained by poor

performance resulting from inefficient utilization of resources and unresponsive service delivery

culture. Corruption, multiple accountability, inadequate resource utilization and institutional

capacity are some of the biggest challenges facing the public sector in Africa today. African

governments, therefore, need to increase their efforts to address these challenges through

effective public sectors reforms.

This presents a need for a radical change in the public service on the continent in terms of

performance management to be able to deliver services to citizens and in the process eliminate

poverty. This concern is allied to the notion that performance management guide can contribute

by enabling state policies to make better impact. The problem in Africa is compounded by the

continuation of high levels of unemployment, crime, HIV and AIDS and other issues that can


2011

3

easily be collectively viewed as a rather depressing picture, and one requires a response in terms

of effective policies.

Seen in the above context, the subsequent adoption of the performance management guide

addresses deep-rooted imperatives to democratize the determination and implementation of

developmental priorities and institutionalize the processes for accountability for those employed

to deliver public services. It is therefore important to put in place a performance management

system that ensures that this is realized. This guide is therefore meant to provide practitioners

with a code of standard that is an international benchmark to leverage their respective

performance management and measurements systems and practices including monitoring and

evaluation. The guide is also meant to provide an easy to use and applicable tool to all member

states in their respective public/civil services in order to improve service delivery.

Purpose of the Guide

The Guide is about performance management in the public service in its comprehensive sense. It

goes beyond addressing performance appraisal of individual employees and focuses on measures

to generate improvements in service delivery across the entire public service spectrum.

The Guide has two specific objectives.

• It aims at actualizing the long-term strategy that spells out measures to be taken to realize

the objectives outlined in the African Charter on Values and Principles of Public Service

and Administration.

• It provides strategic framework that AU Member States can use with adaptations in

designing nationally-owned, country specific performance management systems to secure


2011

4

improvements in the performance of public sector organizations with a view to enhancing

service delivery.

The Guide spells out strategic approaches and operational tools that public service managers can

use to generate enhanced performance at institutional and individual levels. The Annex to the

Guide titled Report on the Adoption and Use of Performance Management Systems including

Measurement, Monitoring and Evaluation in Africa contains information on global and African

good practices that users of the guide may also want to consult.


2011

5

PART ONE

Performance Management: Conceptual and Definitional Issues

1. Introduction

There are multiple definitions of performance management. For purposes of this guide, the

operational definition of performance management system will be a holistic (all-embracing) and

systematic process for getting better results from the organization, teams and individuals by

managing performance within an agreed framework of planned goals, objectives and standards.

This definition has three related perspectives, the first emphasizes the organizational level

interventions for results to be achieved, the second perspective places emphasis on the role of the

individual while the third suggests the need to take an integrated approach. Each of the three

perspectives is briefly elaborated below and illustrated in Appendix 1.

Performance management using the institutional/organizational focus

This perspective focuses on the determination of the organization’s strategy and the

implementation of that strategy through the organization’s structure, technology, business system

and procedures. In this regard, employees are not the primary focus, although they will be

affected by the changes in technology, structure and operating systems.

It comprises three main processes which are; planning, improving and reviewing. Under this

perspective, performance planning is concerned with activities such as formulating the

organization’s vision and strategy and defining what is meant by performance. Performance

improvement includes activities such as business process re-engineering, continuous process

improvement, benchmarking and total quality management. Performance review embraces

performance measurement and evaluation.

Performance management as an approach to managing people

Under this perspective the focus of performance management is on people as individuals and

teams working together and supporting one another to achieve shared goals and objectives.


2011

6

Integrating Performance management at institutional and individual levels.

This perspective suggests the need for an integrated performance process that will encourage

open, ongoing communication between the manager and the employee. It should be viewed as a

flexible process which involves managers and their staff as partners, but within a framework

which sets out how they can best work together

2. Objectives of Performance Management System

A good Performance Management System should aim among other things to:

� Provide a planning and change management framework that is linked to the national

development planning and budgeting process to ensure that the people get maximum

benefit out of the national resource use.

� Enhance the capacity of the public service to deliver its services more efficiently and

effectively, pitch itself at the desired level of socio-economic governance and be able to

compete at the global level.

� Improve the capacity of the public servants in terms of skills, competence and adequacy.

� Focus the efforts of the Public Service on the facilitation of the achievement of the

National Vision.

3. Characteristics of Performance Management System

A good PMS framework should have:

� The vision and developmental objectives of the nation should guide and inform sector

and institutional development plans while leaving space for each institution to act

autonomously.

� The institutional development plans should be broken into manageable/measurable

activities cascaded down the organization up to the individual employee level.

� Mechanisms for ensuring accountability for results at institutional, teams and individual

level should be a built in feature of the PMS framework.

� Tools and mechanisms for monitoring and measuring performance results should be

established.


2011

7

� Incentive systems (rewards and sanctions) for achieving results at institutional, teams and

individual levels should also be built into the PMS framework.


2011

8

PART TWO

Performance Management Framework

Introduction

A performance management framework for public sector organizations in a developing country

situation needs to take into account aspirations of what the public service is expected to

accomplish, the desired performance situation, the gap between the current and desired situation.

The PMS framework adopted should to address that gap, and aim at securing performance

improvements both at the institutional as well as at the individual level within the overall

national planning development framework.

An effective PMS comprises four main elements: planning, implementation of the plans,

monitoring and evaluation as well as rewards and sanctions.

1. Planning

Ideally, a PMS system should be anchored around a national planning system that gets cascaded

to the entire public sector and maintains links to the non governmental sector (private and civil

society).Good practice would suggest that countries approach planning using the approach

outlined below (See Figure 1).

1.1 National Vision

The national vision is essentially an articulation of a shared desirable future condition or

situation which a nation envisages to attain in the long term and the plausible course of action to

be taken for its achievement. A national vision provides goals which all the citizens direct their

efforts to achieve and instills the courage and determination to rise to challenges at the

individual, community and national levels. It is advisable that the national vision be formulated

through a consultative process with all the stakeholders making contributions.


2011

9

Having formulated and adopted a national vision, the next step should involve developing

medium term implementation strategies that specify roles to be played by stakeholders within the

various sectors.

1.2 National Medium Term Development Strategy

The medium term development strategy (MTDS) sets out a broad framework of policies and

programmes, which the government seeks to pursue over the medium period. Linked up with

PMS the plan serves as an important tool to direct individual and organizational performance

efforts towards achieving socio economic and political development in medium term basis.

1.3 National Medium Term Expenditure Framework

The national medium term development strategy will need to be operationalized by being linked

to the performance budget preferably by sector.

1.4 Institutional Medium Term Strategic Plan

The formulation of the medium term institutional strategic plans (MTISP) should be a major

element of the PMS process. The medium term institutional strategic plan sets out critical

information regarding priorities, verifiable indicators and targets, linkages and dependencies,

phasing and sequencing, and preliminary cost estimates within the institution set up in a medium

time framework. The plan clearly spells out the goals; objectives; results; activities; cross-cutting

issues; implementation strategy; risks and risk mitigation monitoring, evaluation and reporting;

institutional arrangements; summary work plan as well as budget and financing strategy. In this

regard, PMS should be designed and aligned with a view to ensure the successful

implementation of MTISP within the MDA’s.


2011

10

1.5 Institutional Medium Term Expenditure Framework

After the preparation of the strategic plan, it is advisable that each MDA prepare a medium term

expenditure framework (MTEF) as a tool for operationalizing the strategic plan. It is at this level

that the plans are linked to performance budget by taking the objectives and targets in the plan

and developing activities, determining inputs and undertake costing.

1.6 Institutional Annual Plan (AIP)

Annual institutional plans should be derived from the institutional strategic plan and budget. This

should provide an important link between planning, implementation and the resource envelop.

The plan is critical to an institution as it sets out a broad framework of policies, objectives and

programmes, which the institution seek to pursue on annual basis. Given the fact that the annual

plans are eventually implemented at the lowest organizational level (individual level), it is

important to cascade the annual planning process to that level. Likewise, the annual planning

process should be undertaken through a consultative process.

2. Implementation of the Plans

Once the annual plans, which are consistent with the medium term institutional strategic plans,

have been developed up to the lowest level, focus should move to ensuring that the plans are

implemented effectively and the intended results are achieved. While there are various

methodologies/tools under PMS, the most popular one in public service organizations is

performance agreements.

2.1 The Design of Institutional Performance Agreements

The design of performance agreements should be undertaken in a manner that enables

government to effectively measure and evaluate the performance of public institutions. The

preparation of the performance agreement will need to be preceded by a number of processes

with performance targets being the most important.


2011

11

The establishment of performance targets will in turn require the organization to develop a

mission, strategic objectives, performance criteria and performance indicators. These are

elaborated below;

Mission

This entails the formulation of the business purpose, direction and future thrust of an institution

agency, which should be communicated to all employees to ensure that their thinking, planning,

and actions is aligned to the corporate direction.

Strategic Objectives

Following the formulation of the mission, the next step would involve the determination of the

strategic objectives. This involves the establishment of performance levels to be achieved on

priority issues and would include:

• measures of success in fulfilling critical mission statement elements; and

• expected performance in key result areas.

Performance Criteria

Following the setting of strategic objectives, the next step is to break them into manageable

components which are delegated to work units and individuals. A performance criterion is a

standard of judgement; an established rule or principle for evaluating achievement. The latter

should subsequently be given the responsibility, resources, and authority that is needed to

achieve the components for which they are to be held responsible. It is performance on each of

the components (performance criteria) that is measured in a performance contract. Examples of

performance criteria are finance and stewardship, service delivery, non financial, operations and

dynamic/qualitative.


2011

12

Performance Indicators

A performance indicator is a device for measuring the direction and extent of achievement of

performance criteria. Each criterion may invariably have several indicators. The extent of

achievement of each indicator determines the extent of achievement of the performance criteria.

For example, in the case of finance and stewardship criteria, you may utilization of budget levels,

development index and debt equity ratio as performance indicator.

Performance Targets

Targets are measures or indicators of what an institution wants to achieve in terms of

improvement of performance. Of necessity the targets will have to be informed and be

contributing to the realization of the institution’s missions and strategic objectives. Examples of

a target under finance and stewardship criteria, and utilization of budget level performance

indicator, would be 100%. The sequencing of steps in determining the performance targets can

be depicted by the figure 1 below

It should be noted that ordinarily at the institutional level all of these parameters, viz strategic

objectives, performance criteria, performance indicators and targets, will have been developed in

the course of developing the strategic plan because the latter subsumes all of them.


2011

13

Figure 1: Steps in Determination of Performance Targets

2.1.1 Criteria for determining performance

Invariably the criteria may want to include measures on financial performance, semi-financial

performance, operations criteria, service delivery, policy and compliance and

dynamic/qualitative criteria.

• Financial Criteria: Related to budget monitoring efforts and systems, proper

management of funds, cost effectiveness of service projects. For income generating

organizations, financial criteria as those used in business are recommended. These

include return on the invested capital and profit made as per projected profit.

MISSION

OBJECTIVES

PERFOMANCE CRITERIA

PERFOMANCE INDICATORS

PERFOMANCE TARGETS


2011

14

• Semi- Financial Criteria: these include outreach, ability of the organization to extend its

service to a large part of the population, portfolios and market share

• Operations Criteria: Related to the core business of the ministry or department. For

example, a university could be evaluated in terms of the quality of the learning process,

and qualifications/competence of staff.

• Service Delivery: they include changes in quality and quantity of services, customers’

satisfaction and public relations. In most cases quantifiable indicators are preferred

• Affordability should also be included as a critical attribute.

• Policy and Compliance: for example abiding to policies and procedures, budgetary

procedures, Executing HR policies in relation to the required procedures

2.1.2 Performance Targets

Targets are measures or indicators of what an institution wants to achieve in terms of

improvement of performance. They should not be mistaken for performance measures or

performance indicators. The performance targets should be derived from the Institutional

Medium Term Strategic Plan (MTSP) and Annual Action Plan. (The process of preparing the

Agency MTSP is expected to involve a number of internal processes that include among other

things, preparation of an institutional vision, mission and internal and external service delivery

level assessments). The Institutional Medium Term Strategic Plan should in turn be consistent

with and informed by the Sector Objectives and National Medium Term Strategic Plan and

Vision. More importantly and in the interest of global comparability and competitiveness,

performance targets should also be referred to international best standards.

Good targets should have the following attributes;

• They should represent the best an institution can achieve in the future and should

challenge management to show improvement over previous performance.

• Since the performance agreements involve two parties namely government as the owner

of the public institution and the institution itself the agreement should be negotiated

between them with technical support provided by independent parties, before contracts

are signed.


2011

15

• They should have defined values that are comprehensive, relevant to the institution

mandate, specific, realistic, simple and measurable.

• They should also be benchmarked on past trends and against performance of a

corresponding organization in the public or private sector locally, regionally and/or

internationally.

• Performance targets should be significantly growth-oriented i.e. targets for the next year

should be more demanding than the preceding year,

• The provisions of the performance agreement should specify the need for assessing and

reporting implementation progress to the Principal (in terms of timeliness and

consistency to the planned direction).

• To secure accountability in the intermediate period, the performance agreement may

enjoin the institution to develop service charters within which the quality and quantity of

public service that the citizens should expect from the institution are outlined.

2.2 Implementation of Performance Agreements

Once the contract has been signed the respective institution is expected to cascade accountability

for meeting the targets to the departments, sections, units up to the individual employee along

with the rest of the activities contained in the respective institutional annual work plan. The

manner for undertaking individual agreements to secure personal accountability at levels below

the institution may be determined by the institution’s management. However, for MDAs it is

advisable that it be determined by the Government Institution responsible for Human Resource

Management, although because the emphasis is on institutional accountability there could be

discretion on how it should be managed even in such institutions.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance Results

The monitoring, measurement and evaluation of performance results should be critical stages in

the overall process of performance management in general and performance agreements in

particular. The monitoring of performance should be undertaken by the institution on the one

hand with the results reported to the principal, while on the other hand the principal may also


2011

16

need to develop capability of its own to undertake monitoring of progress as necessary.1

Evaluation should involve assessing the extent to which a public institution has achieved targets

agreed upon at the beginning of the agreement period (ex-ante) as well as its ranking compared

to other institutions involved in similar undertakings.

The evaluation of results should be anchored on the following aspects:

• Period of Evaluation - The evaluation covers the entire agreement period of one financial

year.

• On methodology of determining performance as agreed during the determination of the

agreement.

• Focus of Evaluation -The evaluation should target the performance of the institution

rather than that of the top management.

• Evaluation should preferably be carried out by the independent assessors.

• The evaluation should be undertaken by an independent entity to ensure objectivity and

integrity to both the process and the results

• To ensure controllability of resultant outcomes the results should be owned by both the

institution and the top managers, with the latter taking greater responsibility.

3.1 Choice of Evaluation Criteria

The criteria for evaluating performance will have been agreed during negotiations and has been

outlined in item 2.1. During the development of the performance agreement a number of other

issues pertaining to evaluation will also have been addressed. The critical ones include weights

given to the various criteria, criteria value and approaches to developing composite scores. These

are addressed in turn below

1 The UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (OGC) has developed a user’s guide to measuring public administration performance that provides in depth insights on this subject. The guide is accessible on line at http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs09/Measuring Public Administration.pdf. Also the Annex to the guide provides variants of approaches to assessment of institutional performance. These have been useful to the consultant when constructing this part of the guide.


2011

17

3.1.1Weighting the Evaluation Criteria

During the negotiations on the performance targets, agreement will have been reached on

weights to be accorded to each criteria depending on the importance attached to it by the

principal and the institution. For example, the financial indicator will tend to be given greater

weight in business organizations compared to public service delivery institution. During the

evaluation stage, it is advisable the weighting that was agreed earlier will be used.

3.1.2 Criteria Value

The other important point to consider is the criteria value which distinguishes merit levels of

performance for each criterion. Good practice from African countries that have instituted PMS

successfully would suggest the adoption of a five point scale as indicated in the table below

Table 1: Attributes for Determining Performance Values

S/N Criteria Value Attribute:

1

Excellent

Any significant achievement above the agreed

target

2

Very Good

Achievement of the agreed target

3

Good

Performance below agreed target but above last

year’s achievement

4

Fair

Performance equal to last year’s achievement

5 Poor Performance below last year’s achievement

3.1.3 Developing a Composite Score.

Following the determination of values of achievement for each of the criterion by the institution

the next stage in the assessment process is to compute a composite score. This activity is best


2011

18

undertaken by the independent evaluation taskforces, which have already been mentioned above,

and it is advisable that the teams use a common methodology.

3.1.4 Ranking of Institutions Results into an Order of Merit

The ranking of the results of all institutions into an order of merit could best be undertaken by (i)

grouping the institutions into a number of cohorts (for example-ministries, public corporations,

local governments, tertiary learning institutions) and (ii) for each cohort having the ranking

undertaken by the independent evaluation/assessment teams.

4. Rewards and Sanctions

A final and critical element of the performance management system is the element of rewarding

good results and imposing sanctions on poor performers. This could take various forms, with the

most distinctive rewards and sanctions system being public recognition of good and poor

performers by the highest political authority in the country. The recognition may best be made at

a public function and given high publicity. Other rewards could include financial rewards,

trophies and decorations.


2011

19

Figure 2: Elements of Performance Management

KEY:

NV NATIONAL VISION

NMTDP NATIONAL MEDIUM TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN

NMTEF NATIONAL MEDIUM TERM EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK

IMTSP INSTITUTIONAL MEDIUM TERM STRATEGIC PLAN

IMDEF INSTITUTIONAL MEDIUM TERM EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK

AIAP INSTITUIONAL ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

IPA INSTITUIONAL PERFOMANCE AGREEMENTS

M MONITORING

E EVALUATION

R&S REWARDS & SANCTIONS

EPA EMPLOYEE PERFOMANCE APPRAISSAL

NMTDP

NMTEF

NV

IPA

IMTSP

IMTEF

AIAP

EPA

E

M

R&S


2011

20

PART THREE

Implementation of a Comprehensive Performance Management System

1. Introduction

As noted earlier, implementation of a PMS on a comprehensive basis requires that the country

installs and institutionalizes all the PMS elements that have been mentioned and described in

Part I of the Guide. Issues to be considered in implementing the PMS are (i) whether the

installation of the elements has to be undertaken holistically and across the entire spectrum of the

public service at a go and (ii) arrangements for managing the implementation process.

2. Phasing of Implementation

Ideally, the most preferred approach would be for a country to install all the elements identified

in Part I above and across the entire spectrum of the public service at a go. However, lessons of

experience that are reviewed in the annex show that adopting that approach would be a tall order

for most countries. One of the reasons why it is may be a tall order to adopt that approach is that

the successful implementation of PMS requires a country to have in place a minimum set of

socio-economic and political conditions (that are mentioned in item 5) which many countries do

not have.

Given that situation, while countries should aim to develop a comprehensive PMS framework,

they may approach implementation on a phased basis. The phasing may take the following forms

– phasing by type of elements and phasing by institution

2.1Phasing by elements

As noted earlier PMS Elements could be divided into four sets. These are (i) planning, (ii)

implementation of the plans at both institutional and individual levels, (iii) monitoring and

evaluation as well as (iv) rewards and sanctions.


2011

21

In as much as countries may want to phase the elements of PMS based on their particular

circumstances and their readiness in terms of the preconditions cited earlier, it is advisable that in

all cases they should aim to anchor the PMS framework on a national vision. As a first step

therefore efforts should be directed at the formulation of a national vision reached through a

consensus as a prerequisite to developing a comprehensive PMS framework. Also having

developed the vision, countries should in all cases focus on developing the national medium term

development strategy outlining the actions to be taken and key results to be achieved by the

sector in the medium term towards the realization of the national objectives outlined in the

vision.

Following the formulation and adoption of the national medium term development strategy, it

would also be advisable for countries to facilitate the formulation of the medium strategic plans

as well as annual institutional action plans .The process of developing the institutional medium

term strategic plans would provide opportunity to the institutions to examine institution capacity,

and take remedial measures to deal with identified weaknesses.

Having installed the aforementioned PMS elements, the preferred next step is to install the

performance agreements at the institutional level. The approach adopted in cascading the

performance agreements to the individual level will be determined by the human resource

management policies and frameworks for each country. The strengthening of HR management

systems is a subject of the sister guide on HR management.

With regard to implementation of the downstream processes relating to performance agreement

including monitoring, assessment/measurement and rewards and sanctions countries may want to

start by using simple tools and instruments to undertake the processes and progressively move to

more complex ones subject to capacity and capability.


2011

22

2.2Phasing by Institution

As noted earlier to achieve maximum impact the installation of PMS is best undertaken through

a frontal approach across the entire public service spectrum. To do so would demand that the

government mobilise huge resources (human, financial and logistical) which most African

countries do not have. In view of that fact countries may approach implementation of PMS by

dealing with agencies in phases. For example they may start with ministries in the first phase,

deal with public corporations in phase two and end up with local governments in phase three.

Alternatively, they could tackle a few ministries, public corporations and local governments in

phase one and move on in phase two to deal with the second set and finalise the installation by

dealing with remaining institutions. While there is no magic regarding the approach that may

best produce optimal results, good practices from the case studies in the attached annex suggest

that the second alternative which involves combining institutions from the three clusters at a time

tend to produce better results.

3. Institutional Arrangements for Implementing PMS

The implementation of the PMS involves a number of complex processes which can only be

managed effectively through a coherent and well articulated institutional framework. On the one

hand there is a need for providing leadership and guidance over the entire spectrum of the

various PMS elements as they are formulated/designed at the centre, installed in public

institutions and used on regular basis by the same. On the other hand, there is a need for

undertaking the technical aspects related to design/formulation, providing technical support

including training of staff in institutions as well as leading the process of monitoring,

measurement/assessment.

3.1Oversight Bodies

The first set of institutional arrangements involves setting up oversight bodies that would provide

overall guidance, review reports, make decisions on broad resource allocations at various stages

of the PMS implementation. These bodies would operate as committees and meet from time to

time and the membership would include senior politicians and senior members of the


2011

23

administrative class. Learning from good practices, the oversight bodies may include the

following:

3.1.1National Oversight Committee (PMSNOC)

The Committee should be a Subcommittee of Cabinet chaired by the President/Vice

President/Prime Minister depending of the circumstances of the country and would meet on a

quarterly basis. Its responsibilities would be to champion the PMS at the highest political level,

approve the PMS framework paying particular attention to the Vision and National Medium

Term Development strategy, receive PMS implementation progress reports and provide direction

to the rest of government on PMS related aspects including issues related to rewards and

sanctions.

3.1.2The Performance Management System Implementation Committee (PMSIC)

This should consist of Permanent Secretaries of central ministries (finance, planning, public

service management and representatives of major sector ministries) and chaired by the

Permanent Secretary to the President. The Committee should meet every quarter to provide

guidance to the technical body responsible for managing the PMS process, review and approve

quarterly reports including follow up on implementation of decisions by PMSNOC and prepare

the agenda for the quarterly meeting of PMSNOC.

3.1.3Ministerial PMS Task Forces (MPMSTF)

Each Institution will be expected to set up a PMS implementation Task Force that will

drive/steer the process within the Institution and work closely with PMS Management Office in

the Office of the President/Prime Minister. The Task Force should be chaired by the Permanent

Secretary/Chief Executive.


2011

24

3.2 Implementation Management Bodies

3.2.1PMS Secretariat in the President/Prime Minister’s Office

Given the complexity of a comprehensive PMS there is need for setting an office located either

in the office of the President or Prime Minister with responsibility for managing the technical

aspects of PMS. The office should take responsibility for technical design, installation PMS and

provision of technical support to MDAs on all the PMS elements. The Office will also serve as

the secretariat of both the PMSIC and PMSNOC. It should therefore be staffed by high level

experts in PMS including visioning, planning, budgeting, contracting, monitoring measurement

etc. The office should be headed by a Permanent Secretary who would be reporting to the

President/Prime Minister or the Head of Public Service.

3.2.2Independent Performance Evaluation Task Forces

As countries adopt performance contracting at institutional level, it may be advisable to avoid

using public servants to evaluate the performance of public institutions to avoid possible conflict

of interest. Instead it may be advisable to set up performance assessment task forces composed of

individuals from the private sector, civil society organizations, universities and independent

think tanks, who have relevant expertise. The same task forces could be used to support public

institutions in selecting appropriate targets at the performance contracting stage. The approach

has been adopted by Kenya and information available is that it has increased the objectivity of

the assessment and ranking process.


2011

25

Figure 3: Institutional Framework for Implementatio n of PMS

Oversight Bodies

Management Bodies

PMS Secretariat

PMSNOC

Independent Performance Evaluation Task Force

PMSIC

MPMSTF


2011

26

PART FOUR

Institutionalization of Performance Management Systems:

Conditions for Success

1. Introduction

While it is undeniably true that the requirements for successful adoption of performance

management systems in African countries will depend on social economic and political

conditions of the respective countries, there are nevertheless certain minimum conditions for

successful adoption of PMS that countries may need to remain conscious of. This part of the

guide presents those conditions.

2. The need for an Underlying Guiding Philosophy

The developed world are adopting and using PMS in the public sector to address performance

related problems in situations where there is already national consensus on the role of the public

sector in development. Most developing countries including those in Africa have yet to develop

coherent developmental visions with clear objectives and well defined roles of the public sector

in the development process. In those circumstances, African countries will need to give priority

to developing national visions that will provide an underlying guiding development philosophy

that will also in turn define the role of the public sector in development as a precondition to

designing PMS.

3. Leadership

Successful installation and institutionalization of the performance management systems

presupposes a strong, committed and result oriented leadership. The case studies that are

included in the Annex to the Guide clearly show that to successfully install PMS and produce

service delivery improvements can only be possible if leadership at the highest level

(President/Prime Minster) either drive or at the least endorse the system. The commitment and

demonstrable leadership from both the politicians at the next level and senior public servants to

diligently and honestly champion the PMS course is highly needed to effectively install and


2011

27

institutionalize the performance management systems. Likewise, this requires motivated

employees in the public service who are able to create synergy and strive for continuous

performance improvement in service delivery and an enlightened public which is able to agitate

and demand good performance from public servants.

4. Appropriate legal framework

To ensure the PMS framework is effectively installed and institutionalized on a sustainable basis,

requires proper legislation that informs and guides its operation. In most African countries the

installation of PMS in public services is new and, many times PMS is being installed within the

framework of public service reforms. There is clear evidence that when public sector reforms

backslide as indicated in the attached annex, PMS may also backslide. Therefore, given the need

to ensure PMS processes are sustained countries adopting the frameworks should ensure there is

appropriate legislation in place.

5. Alignment with other systems e.g. budget and HR

Installation and implementation of the components of Performance Management Systems

requires linkages, coherence and integration within and across the PMS components. Effective

operation and positive impacts on MDA’s use of PMS elements should depend on their effective

linkage, coherence and integration within and across them. Since the PMS components are meant

to be dependent and operate in unison, the emphasis should be on establishing coherence and

making sure that MDAs understand clearly the linkages within and across the components.

6. Adequate and Appropriate Capacity

The case studies in the attached annex indicate that the successful design and installation of PMS

systems requires a critical mass of expertise of highest order located at a central point. The

experts will not only lead the process of developing PMS instruments at the central level, they

will also provide guidance and technical support to MDAs regarding the use of various elements

of the PMS process (from the formulation of the strategic plans to assessment of performance).


2011

28

Where such expertise does not exist, there will therefore be a need to develop them through

training and secondments to similar institutions in other countries.

Since PMS is being installed within MDAs, measures to develop capacity and provide

continuous training to manage the process at those levels will also be needed. This undertaking

will be the responsibility of the institution charged with managing PMS at the centre. It is also

advisable that the central institutions cooperate with the national management development

institution in undertaking the continuous development of capacity of MDAs staff to handle PMS

related issues.

7. Performance Related Pay (PRP)

Another measure that governments may consider to support the effectiveness of PMS at

institutional level is to demand that senior public servants (Permanent Secretaries, Chief

Executives) enter into performance employment contracts with government which are also

linked to performance related pay. This measure has its own complications including problems

related to career progression and should therefore be approached with care.

8. Implementing PMS within a Decentralized Governance Framework

Most African governments are currently transferring power and authority for governance and

development functions to autonomous entities through decentralization by devolution (Local

governments), delegation of responsibilities (executive agencies etc). To effectively ensure PMS

achieves its service delivery improvement objectives it needs to be implemented across the entire

machinery of government. The twin objectives have the potential of conflicting. To avoid such

situations from taking place, the design and implementation of PMS should be crafted in a way

that minimizes the possibility for such conflict to occur.


2011

29

9. Adoption and use of Information Communication Technology

Effective installation of PMS involves complex and intensive activities that could be made easier

by use of information and communication technologies. This is especially with regard to

monitoring and evaluation aspects. Countries are therefore advised to invest in the acquisition

and installation of ICT including training of staff at central and MDA levels.

10. Building Partnerships with stakeholders: The role of Information Education and

Communication

To be able to achieve the intended results, the adoption of PMS should not only involve technical

public service staff rather the exercise ought to involve all stakeholders including politicians,

senior public servants, nongovernmental organizations as well as members of the general public.

This will demand building into the implementation framework a strategy for informing,

educating and communicating to the various stakeholders.


2011

30

Appendix 1

Spangenberg’s Integrated Model of Performance Management S/N

Organization

Process/function

Team/individual

1 PERFORMANCE PLANNING

• Vision • Mission • Strategy • Organizational goals set

and communicated

• Goals for key processes

linked to Organizational and

customer needs

• Team mission, goals,

values and performance

strategies defined

Individual goals,

responsibilities, and

work-planning aligned

with process/function goals

2 DESIGN

• Organization design ensures structure supports strategy

• Process design facilitates efficient goal achievement

• Teams are formed to

achieve

process/function goals • Job design ensures

process requirements reflected in jobs; jobs logically constructed in ergonomically sound environment

3

MANAGING PERFORMANCE(AND IMPROVEMENT)


2011

31

• Continual organization

development and

change efforts

• Functional goals (in support of

organizational goals)managed, reviewed and adapted quarterly

• Sufficient resources allocated

• Interfaces between functions

managed

• Appropriate sub-goals set;

process performance

managed and regularly

reviewed


• Interfaces between process steps managed

• Active team-building efforts, feedback, co-ordination and adjustment

• Developing individual understanding and skills; providing feedback


4 REVIEWING PEFORMANCE

• Annual review,

Input into strategic

planning

• Annual review

• Annual review

5 REWARDING

PERFORMANCE

• Financial

performance of

organization

• Function rewards

commensurate with value of organizational performance and function contribution

• Rewards commensurate with value of organization performance, and for team contribution, for individual; function/team performance and individual contribution


2011

32

REFERENCES

Spangenberg, H. (1994), Understanding and Implementing Performance Management, Cape

Town, Juta & Co. Ltd.

pmmme1 - iag-agi.orgiag-agi.org › img › pdf › performance-management-including-measure… ·...

Documents