Philippine Government Performance Evaluation

PERFORMANCE
is more than about
OUTPUT #
Integrated PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SYSTEM
A Strategic Way of Professionalizing
the Philippine Bureaucracy
1Hilario P. Martinez
INDIVIDUAL
PERFORMANCE
RATING
A C T I O N S I N P R O C E S S E S

Hilario P. Martinez 2
Directory
of the
Integrated
Performance
Evaluation
System

Outstanding Performance …
REALLY? In WHAT?!#@?
130% Performance?!
How is this possible?
How can you exceed 100%?
By what STANDARD?
By what CRITERIA?
By what SYSTEM?
How did they set TARGETS?
!

PERFORMANCE is more than
Output PRODUCTION?
PERFORMANCE Should it be just
“the higher the
better”?
How much output
was produced?
What was the
quality level of the
produce?
Were the input
resources used
optimally?
How effective and
efficient were the
conversion processes?

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

Team Rating vs Individual Rating
One for All? All for One?
or HOW?
A
variety
of SKILLS
p r o d u c i n g
a n a s s e m b l y

Common Scenes or a Rarity in
Government Offices?
High Output but
High Wastage
of Resources!
OMG!
?
High Production but
High Cost Overrun!
AGAIN?
This is
too much!
Auditor
High Output!
but Low Quality!
Frequent Project Delays &
High Level of Unexpended
Project Funds!
Oh wow!
SAVINGS!?
BONUS

The CHALLENGE

The Basic Issues

Assumptions
Planning, Programming and Budgeting System is a formal process
in all government organizations
Capabilities are selected for a defined production of goods and/or
services
All production units aspire for higher standards of quality and
excellence
Multiple project monitoring is inherent and implemented in all
offices
Resources , including time, are finite. Optimum utilization of such
for production of goods and services are therefore equitable to a
maximum efficiency rating of 100%.
Tolerable/acceptable deviation in target vs output is only ±5%

The Transformation Process of a
Bureaucratic Organization

THE SITUATION TODAY
A Culture of Self-Promotion

Teamwork vs Competition
More often than
not, members of
a team are
competing
against each
other, rather than
complementing
or supporting
each other to
attain a common
good

Self-Interest vs Organizational Goal
There are people in
organizations that think,
and some even believe,
that they are bigger than
the organization itself.
They think that they are
very special, even
indispensable. And thus,
regardless of logic and
situations, they believe they
deserve a performance
rating above the rating of
the organizations they
belong to.

A typical
Planning Session?
Those factors are not part of the usual
evaluation system. Just focus on what is
politically correct, that is “Outputs” only.
Remember, output +30 percentage points
above the target will get a performance rating of
“Outstanding”. So you know what to do ...
Planning and Vested Interest
Last year’s output = 30,000 clients served
10% increment of this year’s target = 3,000
This year’s target = 33,000
Yearend output = 37,000
Accomplishment = 112%
An illustration of an apparent typical practice in agencies:
What about “Quality”,
standards, fund and
workforce utilization, and
project schedules? Do
we need to factor it in?

Practise makes perfect!
Boss, our records show our
agency outputs are not at
par with the year-end
performance assessment
criteria. What do we do?
Is that so? We’ll work it out,
as we always do! Hmmm, by
the way, make sure my
individual performance rating
sheet warrants a rating of
“Outstanding”
Boy, talking
about culture ...

Self-justification, Self-preservation
A good number of agencies tend to
produce various outputs with little
regard to its mandate or real needs
of its beneficiary sectors
Many agencies are unable to
integrate its various outputs or by-
products or is unaware of the
integration process to assemble its
final major output

Justifying Additional Remuneration:
Performance-driven or “Creativity”-driven?
By law, all government
personnel are entitled to a
standard 13th-month pay as a
year-end bonus and a modest
cash gift.
Most, if not all agencies, are able to give
more “in-kind” and monetarial benefits
to themselves under various in-house
crafted justifications and rationale, using
programmed and/or “savings”-
dependent projects to the detriment of
public interest
Productivity Incentive
Performance Bonus
Mid-year bonus
Anniversary Bonus
Family
Subsidies
HealthMaintenance
Allowance
Rice/Grocery Allowance
e t c ... e t c
Amelioration Pay
Hazard
Pay
PERA
COLA
Uniform
Allowance
LONGEVITY

Assessment of fund
usage by DBM1/
Audit of “value for money” is
charged to COA2/
Quality is not a factor in monitoring
and assessment of agency outputs
Losses in productive man-days incurred through tardiness, programmed and
unprogrammed absences, and early departure from office are not factored in
office performance assessment; not monitored by CSC3/
Agency target setting follows no integrated framework: not an
area-based development approach nor a 10-20 year strategic plan
Office performance and individual performance are not necessarily linked:
individual performance assessment particularly of level 3 personnel are
distinct and apart from evaluation of performance of the organization
1 – Department of Budget & Management
2 – Commission on Audit
3 – Civil Service Commission

BASIC PREMISES

A is an operating unit that
produces a whole, not separate parts
A CEO briefing
his managers of
his game plan?
A Manager
dividing the work
among his team
members?

The organization of work processes in
all agencies should follow a logical
relationship of functions

From a well-defined core business, to
the assembly of vital components, to a
well-defined major final output

Constituting the Organizational
End-Product

DESIGN PARAMETERS OF THE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
SYSTEM
Reinforcing Objectivity,
Reducing Subjectivity

Performance vs Output
Performance
Art of
teamwork
and
orchestration
Application
of science
Is about
purposeful
actions
Output
Tangible
end-result
of a
process,
Quantifiable
produce,
Defined
end
user/s

The Management Group
C.E.O.
Sr. MGT.
Group
Office
Executives

Teams performing other
administrative/technical
work
The Frontline Units/
Operating Teams
The teams performing
daily office routines
Other support
groups
The teams directly
servicing the public

Basic Principle of the Proposed
Performance Evaluation System
COHESION
TEAMWORK
PERFORMANCE
OUTPUT

Assessing and Measuring
PERFORMANCE

Team Performance = Operating
Unit’s Performance
Team Performance
Operating Unit’s
Performance

FORMULATING THE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SYSTEM
Contextualizing the Integration of Elements

The Basis of the Proposed Integrated
MANAGEMENT
Manpower
Materials
Machine
Methods
Money
Time

Factors of Measure to be Used
Inputs used in Conversion into
Goods and Service
• Use of staff man-
daysManpower
• Use of fundsMoney
• Schedule of
Implementation
Time
Measures of Control,
Capability and Capacity
• Specification of
public goods that
must be produced
• Specification of
public services that
must be rendered
Quality
• Amount of public
goods that must be
produced
• Amount of public
services that must be
rendered
Quantity

The Conversion Process

Proposed Criteria to Assess
Performance
Quality
Quantity
Schedule of
Implemen-
tation
Use of
Funds
Use of
Staff Man-
days

What does these measures indicate?
• Reflects on the agency’s adherence to standards and end-
users’ expectations
Quality
• Reflects on its capacity to produce
Quantity
• Reflects on its capability to implement multiple undertakings
Schedule of Implementation
• In conjunction with ‘Implementation Schedule’, reflects on its
ability to utilize funds in accordance to its cashflow
Use of Funds
• Reflects on its ability to minimize loss of productive man-days
Use of Staff Man-days

A 5-in-1 View of How an Office and
a Team Operates and Perform
QUALITY QUANTITY USE OF
FUNDS
USE OF
MAN-DAYS
Very
revealing
indeed…
A welcome change!

∑Weights of 5 Factors = 100
QUALITY
25%
QUANTITY
20%SCHEDULE OF
IMPLEMEN-
TATION
25%
USE OF
FUNDS
20%
USE OF STAFF
MAN-DAYS
10%
100%

DEMERIT APPROACH IN SCORING
Measuring the use of defined and finite
resources in a pre-determined plan

State of Utilization of Available Resources
of an Implementing Unit in a Year
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
OPERATING
FUNDS
IMPLEMEN-
TATION
PERIOD
AVAILABLE
STAFF
MAN-DAYS LOGISTICS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MONTH

Basis for adopting a Demerit
System of Rating

Demerit Approach of Scoring
MAXIMUM POINT less RATED DEVIATION
75% - hurdle limit
MAXIMUM / STARTING POINT SCORE = 100

INPUT DOCUMENTS REQUIRED AS
BASIS IN JUDGING
Data as Consequential and Natural by-Product of Operation

Sources of Inputs for the Proposed
QUALITY QUANTITY
USE OF
FUNDS
USE OF
MAN-
DAYS
ANNUAL WORK
AND FINANCIAL
PLAN
ACTUAL MONTHLY
PROJECT PROGRESS
& TERMINAL
REPORTS
ACTUAL
MONTHLY FUND
UTILIZATION
REPORTS
MONTHLY
REPORT OF
ABSENCES
Operating Units Finance Office Operating
Units
Operating Units
STANDARDOFFICE
REPORTS

Planned vs. Actual
Work and
Financial Plans
Cashflow
Schedules
Accomplishment
Reports
Monthly Report
of Allotment and
Obligation
Monthly Report
of Absences
and Undertime
Standard
Man-days
per Unit
per Month
STANDARD OFFICE REPORTS

MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE
OF OPERATING UNITS
Integrating Major/Critical Elements

Rating Tables
 25 – (25 x 0.000) = 25.000
 25 – (25 x 0.025) = 24.375
 25 – (25 x 0.050) = 23.500
 25 – (25 x 0.075) = 23.125
 25 – (25 x 0.100) = 22.500
 25 – (25 x 0.125) = 21.875
 25 – (25 x 0.150) = 21.250
 25 – (25 x 0.175) = 20.625
 25 – (25 x 0.200) = 20.000
 25 – (25 x 0.225) = 19.375
 25 – (25 x 0.250) = 18.750
 FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
 20 – (20 x 0.000) = 20.000
 20 – (20 x 0.025) = 19.500
 20 – (20 x 0.050) = 19.000
 20 – (20 x 0.075) = 18.500
 20 – (20 x 0.100) = 18.000
 20 – (20 x 0.125) = 17.500
 20 – (20 x 0.150) = 17.000
 20 – (20 x 0.175) = 16.500
 20 – (20 x 0.200) = 16.000
 20 – (20 x 0.225) = 15.500
 20 – (20 x 0.250) = 15.000
 10 – (10 x 0.000) = 10.000
 10 – (10 x 0.025) = 09.750
 10 – (10 x 0.050) = 09.500
 10 – (10 x 0.075) = 09.250
 10 – (10 x 0.100) = 09.000
 10 – (10 x 0.125) = 08.750
 10 – (10 x 0.150) = 08.500
 10 – (10 x 0.175) = 08.250
 10 – (10 x 0.200) = 08.000
 10 – (10 x 0.225) = 07.750
 10 – (10 x 0.250) = 07.500
TABLE #1
For Criteria with
25 pts weight
TABLE #2
For Criteria with
20 pts weight
TABLE #3
For Criteria with
10 pts weight
Max.
Pt.
Computed
Deviation Score
Max.
Pt.
Computed
Deviation Score
Max.
Pt.
Computed
Deviation Score
OPTIMUM ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
WARNING ZONE FAIL ZONE

QUALITY: the technical
specifications of planned output
Examples of qualitative
indicators:
Acceptability to clients
Type of clients served
Passing rate
Employment rate
Accuracy rate
Speed
Durability
Number of complaints
Etcetera . . .
Application of Rating System
For each P/P/A*, the
maximum points for
the quality of
deliverable = 25
To determine the score for
a team or operating unit,
the ∑ of P/P/A ratings for
quality should be averaged
Deviation: planned specifi-
cations of target output
compared with the actual
quality specification attained
25 pts =
100%
Quality
* Program/Project/Activity

P/P/A CRITERIA PLANNED ACTUAL DEVIATION
Graduates % passed Post-
Test
80% 85% 6.25%
Project
Proposals
% approved for
implementation
80% 90% 12.5%
Training
Programs
% sponsored by
business firms
100% 80% -20%
New
Standards
% approved by
Industry Boards
100% 80% -20%
New Partners % in critical
sectors
100% 60% -40%
Average -12.25%
Computing for QUALITY Rating
In reference to Table #1, the average of -12.25% is
equivalent to a rating of 21.875% out of 25% for QUALITY

Adjectival rating for QUALITY
Max.
Pt.
Computed
Deviation Score
OPTIMUM ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
Planned QUALITY of output are optimally
produced according to specifications
Planned QUALITY of output are being
produced within tolerable deviation
Substantial deviation from planned QUALITY
of output indicative of plan error/s
Out-of-control deviation from planned
QUALITY of output definitive of plan error/s
 25 – (25 x 0.000) = 25.000
 25 – (25 x 0.025) = 24.375
 25 – (25 x 0.050) = 23.500
 25 – (25 x 0.075) = 23.125
 25 – (25 x 0.100) = 22.500
 25 – (25 x 0.125) = 21.875
 25 – (25 x 0.150) = 21.250
 25 – (25 x 0.175) = 20.625
 25 – (25 x 0.200) = 20.000
 25 – (25 x 0.225) = 19.375
 25 – (25 x 0.250) = 18.750
TABLE #1
For Criteria with
25 pts weight

QUANTITY: the numerical quantity
of planned output vs actual
Examples of quantitative
indicators:
Number of graduates
Number of project proposals submitted
Number of training programs conducted
Number of applications reviewed and
assessed
Number of new standards developed
Number of existing standards updated
Number of new partnerships
Number of new assessment instruments
developed
Etcetera . . .
For each P/P/A*, the
maximum points for the
quantity of deliverable = 20
a team or operating unit,
the ∑ of P/P/A ratings for
quantity should be averaged
Deviation: planned
quantity compared to
actual produced
20 pts =
100%
Quantity

Computing for QUANTITY Rating
P/P/A TARGET ACTUAL DEVIATION
Graduates 7,000 6,489 -7.3%
Proposals 15 13 -13.3%
Training Program 15 12 -20%
New Standards 5 4 -20%
New Partners 5 3 -40%
Average -20.12%
In reference to Table #2, the average of -20.12% is
equivalent to a rating of 15.500% out of 20% for QUANTITY

Adjectival rating for QUANTITY
 20 – (20 x 0.000) = 20.000
 20 – (20 x 0.025) = 19.500
 20 – (20 x 0.050) = 19.000
 20 – (20 x 0.075) = 18.500
 20 – (20 x 0.100) = 18.000
 20 – (20 x 0.125) = 17.500
 20 – (20 x 0.150) = 17.000
 20 – (20 x 0.175) = 16.500
 20 – (20 x 0.200) = 16.000
 20 – (20 x 0.225) = 15.500
 20 – (20 x 0.250) = 15.000
TABLE #2
For Criteria with
20 pts weight
Max.
Pt.
Computed
Deviation Score
OPTIMUM ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
Planned QUANTITY of output are optimally
produced according to specifications
Planned QUANTITY of output are being
produced within tolerable deviation
Substantial deviation from planned
QUANTITY of output indicative of plan error/s
Out-of-control deviation from planned
QUANTITY of output definitive of plan error/s

SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Number of Working Days
Delayed/Extended to Start
01 to 02 days = -02.5% = 24.375 pts
03 to 05 days = -05.0% = 23.500 pts
06 to 07 days = -07.5% = 23.125 pts
08 to 10 days = -10.0% = 22.500 pts
11 to 12 days = -12.5% = 21.875 pts
13 to 15 days = -15.0% = 21.250 pts
16 to 17 days = -17.5% = 20.625 pts
18 to 20 days = -20.0% = 20.000 pts
21 to 22 days = -22.5% = 19.375 pts
23 to 25 days = -25.0% = 18.750 pts
For each P/P/A, the
maximum points for the
schedule delivery = 20
To determine the score of
delay incurred by a team or
operating unit, the ∑ of P/P/A
ratings for implementation
schedule should be averaged
Deviation: planned schedule
of implementation
compared to actual date
25 pts =
100% on
Schedule

Computing for SCHEDULE OF
IMPLEMENTATION Rating
P/P/A* Number
Average Number of
Days of Deviation
Percentage
Deviation
P/P/A #1 3 -5.0%
P/P/A #2 6 -7.5%
P/P/A #3 4 -5.0%
P/P/A #4 2 -2.5%
P/P/A #5 5 -5.0%
P/P/A #6 3 -5.0%
Average -5.0%
In reference to Table #1, the average of -5.0% is equivalent to a
rating of 23.5% out of 25% for SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION

Adjectival rating for SCHEDULE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
Max.
Pt.
Computed
Deviation Score
OPTIMUM ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
Actual SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION of
projects are in accordance to specifications
Actual SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION of
projects are within tolerable deviation
Substantial deviation from planned SCHEDULE
OF IMPLEMENTATION is indicative of plan error/s
Out-of-control deviation from planned SCHEDULE
OF IMPLEMENTATION is definitive of plan error/s
 25 – (25 x 0.000) = 25.000
 25 – (25 x 0.025) = 24.375
 25 – (25 x 0.050) = 23.500
 25 – (25 x 0.075) = 23.125
 25 – (25 x 0.100) = 22.500
 25 – (25 x 0.125) = 21.875
 25 – (25 x 0.150) = 21.250
 25 – (25 x 0.175) = 20.625
 25 – (25 x 0.200) = 20.000
 25 – (25 x 0.225) = 19.375
 25 – (25 x 0.250) = 18.750
TABLE #1
For Criteria with
25 pts weight

USE OF FUNDS
Allocated MOOE Funds for
P/P/As
01.0% to 02.5% unobligated = 19.5 pts
Each operating unit is
subject to a cashflow
schedule covering all
P/P/As for the entire year
For simplification purposes,
comparison of actual
obligation incurred as against
allocation is made monthly
for each and all P/P/As
“Use of Funds” by a team or
operating unit, the ∑ of
monthly deviation is averaged
20 pts =
100% on
Use of
Funds

A Cashflow programmed for 6
projects
PPA Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total
PPA1 625,000 536,000 450,000 712,500 2,323,500
PPA2 625,000 536,000 450,000 712,500 907,500 3,231,000
PPA3 625,000 536,000 450,000 1,611,000
PPA4 536,000 450,000 712,500 907,500 1,425,000 4,031,000
PPA5 625,000 536,000 450,000 1,611,000
PPA6 450,000 712,500 907,500 1,425,000 3,495,000
Total 2,500,000 2,680,000 2,700,000 2,850,000 2,750,000 2,850,000 16,330,000

Computing for USE OF FUNDS
Rating
MOOE
Month Allocation Obligated Unobligated Deviation
Jan 2,500,000 2,100,000 400,000 -16%
Feb 2,680,000 2,967,000 113,000 -3.7%
Mar 2,700,000 2,803,658 9,342 -0.3%
Apr 2,850,000 2,748,222 111,120 -3.9%
May 2,750,000 2,874,401 -13,281 0.5%
Jun 2,850,000 2,402,553 434,166 -15.3%
Average -6.5%
In reference to Table #2, the average of -6.5% is equivalent
to a rating of 18.500% out of 20% for USE OF FUNDS

Adjectival rating for USE OF FUNDS
 20 – (20 x 0.000) = 20.000
 20 – (20 x 0.025) = 19.500
 20 – (20 x 0.050) = 19.000
 20 – (20 x 0.075) = 18.500
 20 – (20 x 0.100) = 18.000
 20 – (20 x 0.125) = 17.500
 20 – (20 x 0.150) = 17.000
 20 – (20 x 0.175) = 16.500
 20 – (20 x 0.200) = 16.000
 20 – (20 x 0.225) = 15.500
 20 – (20 x 0.250) = 15.000
TABLE #2
For Criteria with
20 pts weight
Max.
Pt.
Computed
Deviation Score
OPTIMUM ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
Actual USE OF FUNDS are in accordance to
specifications and schedule
Actual USE OF FUNDS are in within tolerable
deviation
Substantial deviation from scheduled USE
OF FUNDS are indicative of plan error/s
Out-of-control deviation of scheduled USE
OF FUNDS are definitive of plan error/s

USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS
Percentage of Total Productive
Man-days Lost
=<02.5% lost man-days = 09.75 pts
Applicable to the total available
productive man-days for an
operating unit (number of staff
x working days for the month)
Shall include all approved leave
of absences regardless of type
and nature; and total tardiness
and undertime incurred
To determine the score for use
of man-days by a team or
operating unit, the ∑ of
monthly deviation is averaged
10 pts =
100% on
Use of
Man-days

Basic Format of a Monthly Report
on Absences*
Monthly Report on Absences, Tardiness and Undertime
Division/Unit: ____________________________ Month: ______________, 20__20__
Office: __________________________________ Regular Working Days: ____
Vacation
Leave Sick Leave
Maternity
/Paternity
On Study
Leave Tardiness Undertime Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Certified Correct:
Attached: Individual Time Cards Division Chief
Tardiness and Undertime
Sum Total
Net
Productive
Man-days
Total
No. Name of Employee
Absences
w/o Official
Leave
Number of Authorized Absences
Total
Absences
* Prepared and submitted monthly by division chiefs to their
personnel office; format may vary per department
NOTE: Regular working days = number of calendar days –
(all Saturdays and Sundays + regular holidays) for the month

Month
TotalMan-
days
Tardiness
Undertime
SickLeave
Vac.Leave
Mat./Pat.
Leave
StudyLeave
/onTraining
Forced
Leave
TotalLost
Productive
Man-days
Deviation
Jan 440 0.89 0.03 12 1 0 0 0 13.92 -3.2%
Feb 400 1.34 0.08 8 3 0 20 3 35.42 -8.9%
Mar 420 1.267 0.04 7 0 0 8 4 20.307 -4.8%
Apr 440 2.23 0.00 4 3 0 0 3 12.23 -2.8%
May 420 2.33 0.50 6 1 0 8 3 20.83 -5.0%
Jun 440 3.25 0.09 3 0 0 0 5 11.34 -2.6%
Total 2,560 11.307 0.74 40 8 0 36 18 114.047 -4.5%
Average -4.5%
Computing for USE OF STAFF
MAN-DAYS Rating
In reference to Table #3, the average of -4.5% is equivalent to a
rating of 9.500% out of 10% for the USE OF STAFF MAN-DAYS

Effect of Temporary Decrease of
Team Members
T A R G E T R E M A I N S C O N S T A N T
(after management approval)
A TEAM of 9
MEMBERS
1 Member
on offsite
training
A staff on
maternity
leave
One on
extended
sick leave
or
or
(investment
expense)
(non-productive
expense)
Remaining members shares in the redistribution of
unattended workload and the increased workplace tension
Workload
Ratio: 1::1
Workload
Ratio: 1::1.5
(non-productive
expense)

Adjectival rating for USE OF STAFF
MAN-DAYS
Max.
Pt.
Computed
Deviation Score
OPTIMUM ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
Actual NET PRODUCTIVE MAN-DAYS are in
accordance to planned specifications
Actual NET PRODUCTIVE MAN-DAYS are within
tolerable deviation
Substantial deviation from planned NET
PRODUCTIVE MAN-DAYS is indicative of plan error/s
Out-of-control deviation from planned NET
PRODUCTIVE MAN-DAYS is definitive of plan error/s
 10 – (10 x 0.000) = 10.000
 10 – (10 x 0.025) = 09.750
 10 – (10 x 0.050) = 09.500
 10 – (10 x 0.075) = 09.250
 10 – (10 x 0.100) = 09.000
 10 – (10 x 0.125) = 08.750
 10 – (10 x 0.150) = 08.500
 10 – (10 x 0.175) = 08.250
 10 – (10 x 0.200) = 08.000
 10 – (10 x 0.225) = 07.750
 10 – (10 x 0.250) = 07.500
TABLE #3
For Criteria with
10 pts weight

COMPUTING FOR OVERALL RATING
Assembling the Wholistic Picture of the Operation

OVERALL RATING SCHEDULE
.01 to 2.5 = 95.01 - 97.5 Excellent
2.51 to 5.0 = 92.51 - 95.0 Outstanding
5.01 to 7.5 = 90.01 - 92.5 Almost Outstanding
7.51 to 10.0 = 87.51 - 90.0 Very Satisfactory
10.01 to 12.5 = 85.01 - 87.5
Satisfactory
12.51 to 15.0 = 82.51 - 85.0
15.01 to 17.5 = 80.01 - 82.5
Fair
17.51 to 20.0 = 77.51 - 80.0
20.01 to 22.5 = 75.01 - 77.5 Poor
22.51 to 25.0 =< 75.00 Fail
Average Deviation
Equivalent
Numerical Value
Equivalent
Adjectival Rating
FAIL ZONE
ALERT ZONE
(Out-of-Control)

So who is the Overall Best Performer?
Or is it just the Best of the Worse?
Who
produced
the most?
Who was
most
effective?
Who optimize
funds the
most?
Who has
the least
delay?
Who has the
least staff
downtime?

Summary of Factor Ratings *
QUALITY QUANTITY
SCHEDULE
OF IMPLE-
MENTATION
USE OF
FUNDS
USE OF
STAFF
MAN-
DAYS TOTAL
AVERAGE
DEVIATION
-12.25% -20.12% -5.0% -6.5% -4.5% -9.674%
EQUIVALENT
RATING
21.875 15.5 23.5 18.5 9.5 88.875
Office Performance Rating: 88.875 = Very Satisfactory
* Note: Sample data used for this illustration is assumed to cover a period of one year

The Performance Meter Panel
(A Graphical Summary Presentation of Performance Ratings)
25.000 -
24.375 -
23.500 -
23.125 -
22.500 -
21.875 -
21.250 -
20.625 -
20.000 -
19.375 -
18.750 -
F A I L -
20.000 -
19.500 -
19.000 -
18.500 -
18.000 -
17.500 -
17.000 -
16.500 -
16.000 -
15.500 -
15.000 -
F A I L -
10.000 -
09.750 -
09.500 -
09.250 -
09.000 -
08.750 -
08.500 -
08.250 -
08.000 -
07.750 -
07.500 -
F A I L -
25.000 -
24.375 -
23.500 -
23.125 -
22.500 -
21.875 -
21.250 -
20.625 -
20.000 -
19.375 -
18.750 -
F A I L -
20.000 -
19.500 -
19.000 -
18.500 -
18.000 -
17.500 -
17.000 -
16.500 -
16.000 -
15.500 -
15.000 -
F A I L -
QUA-
LITY
QUAN
-TITY
SCHE-
DULE
FUNDS
MAN-
DAYS
21.875 15.5 23.5 18.5 9.5
QUALITY

Probability of Occurrence:
‼ = Less likely to happen
₽ = More probable to happen
Variation of Probable I-PES
Scores
Probable Scores:
• = High range of Positive Score
• = Medium range of Positive Score
• = Low range of Positive Score
• = Fail range Score
→

CONCLUSION
If the ∑ of individuals with select capabilities = an office or team, and
the ∑ of efforts of these individuals = groupwork, and groupwork results
in group output, therefore, individual performance ≠ team output
Office Performance Rating = 88.875 = Individual Team Member’s
Performance Rating
The STANDARD that challenges the organization and each individual-
member to improve on every year if it is to justify itself.

Only the Frontline Units/Operating Teams shall
be subject to direct Performance Evaluation
The teams performing other
administrative/technical
work
The teams performing
daily office routines
Other support
groups
The teams directly
servicing the public

The Group subject to rolled-up average
rating of subordinate groups
C.E.O.
Sr. MGT.
Group
Office
Executives
Management effectiveness
and its collective leadership is
best manifested and evidenced
by the performance and quality
of production of its subordinate
frontline units and operating
teams, not by what it says it
was
Rolled-up average
Rolled-up average
Rolled-up
average
Performance rating
of subordinate
frontline units

Head of Agency
Deputy 1
Dir A Dir B
Div 1 Div 2 Div 3 Div 4
Deputy 2
Dir C Dir D
Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8
NOTE:
Planning – Top-down
Evaluation – Bottom-up
88.875 89.025 86.354 87.63489.832 87.389 86.973 89.059+ + + +
88.950 88.093 87.511 88.016+ +
88.521
88.142
+
Average of
scores of
immediate
subordinate
Units & Unit
Members
BASIC SCORES – FRONTLINE LEVEL
Subor-
dinates’
Average
Subor-
dinates’
Average
AGENCY’S
RATING
87.763
All for One, One for All
(A roll-up Process of Determining Agency Rating)

Strength in Unity

A basis for establishing
“Performance Standard”
Minimum of 3 consecutive years to establish a standard

THE I-PES AS A RECOGNITION
SCHEME
As a Stimulus and an Incentive for Growth and Improvement
TEAM
LEADER

Management Improvement Award
(M.I.A.)
One
Element
Use of Staff
Man-days
Two
Elements
Use of
Funds
Use of Staff
Man-days
Three
Elements
Schedule of
Implemen-
tation
Use of Funds
Use of Staff
Man-days
Four
Elements
Quantity
Schedule of
Implemen-
tation
Use of Funds
Use of Staff
Man-days
Five
Elements
Quality
Quantity
Schedule of
Implementation
Use of Funds
Use of Staff
Man-days
EASIER DIFFICULT

The Hierarchy of Growth
Category 1
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Certificate
5 Elements
4 Elements
3 Elements
2 Elements
1 Element
Category 5
Category 4
Category 3
Category 2
t h e H I G H E R , t h e B E T T E R

Level
5th yr 10% >
agency
average
4th yr 10% >
agency
average
3rd yr 10% >
agency
average
2nd yr 10% >
agency
average
1st yr 10% >
agency
average
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Certificate
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Certificate
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Certificate
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Certificate
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Certificate
HARD
EASY
Category Improvement Award (C.I.A.)

The Hierarchy of Improvement per
Category
4
successive
years
3 successive
years
2 successive
years
1 year
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Certificate
5
successive
years

Responsiveness or Resource Utilization?
RESPONSIVENESS
AGENCY RESOURCE
UTILIZATION
•••

Recognizing Teams for Client Responsiveness
and Effective Use of Resources
Max. Points per Level -
RESPONSIVENESS
Level Quality Quantity Total
High 25 20 45
Mid 22.5 18 40.5
Low 20 16 36
Max. Points per Level -
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
Level Schedule Funds
Man-
days
Total
High 25 20 10 55
Mid 22.5 18 9 49.5
Low 20 16 8 44
CLIENTELE
RESPONSIVE
EFFECTIVE
USE OF
RESOURCES

Criteria for Frontline Units to be
eligible for recognition in any category
Must have a rating of at least two percent
(2%) higher than the latest performance
evaluation average of the agency
Must not have a performance rating in
the “fail zone” area for the immediate
preceding two successive rating periods

IMPLICATION OF THE I-PES AS A
MANAGEMENT TOOL
Instituting a Culture of
Discipline
Complements an Anti-
Corruption Program

MIA, CIA, Responsiveness or
Resource Utilization Effectiveness?
The Most Improved Award
hmmm– an MIA! Sounds good
but it seems damn difficult!!
Oh Really? And you think a
CIA is easier?!! Who thought
of this idea anyway?
Will there ever be an
MIA Category 5 winner?
Managing absences is hard enough!
How will it be raising expectations in
managing projects???

WHY SHOULD YOU
BE REWARDED FOR
DOING A JOB YOU
WERE MANDATED TO
DO AS PUBLIC
SERVANTS?
So what does the instrument really
communicate?
OMG!! How do we
justify additional
benefits given this
kind of a system?
What is this, a Training
Needs Analysis, a Core
Competency Assessment,
or an Organization
Capacity Assessment?
Let’s see you back-up
your “Outstanding”
rating now with real
& live data! hmmm

A score in the “Fail Zone” for…
Staff
Man-Days
Uncontrolled
Absences
Numerous off-
site training
programs
&/or
Use of
Funds
Ineffective
fiscal controls
Non-
responsive
cashflow
&/or
Implmntn
Schedule
Inadequate
project
management
Poor
Stakeholders
partnership
&/or
Quantity
Conversion
processes are
questionable
Erratic logistic
support
&/or
Quality
Non-
responsive
standards
Poor client-
needs analysis
&/or
>>> A COMBINATION INDICATE POOR MANAGEMENT SKILLS <<<
Interpreting the derogatory
scores

T
E
A
M
S
OPERATING
SYSTEMS
What happens to Units/Teams and Members whose
rating fall in the “ALERT ZONE” or the “FAIL ZONE”?
SELECTIVETRAINING
REVIEWUNITFUNCTION
REPLACE TEAM LEADER

Team Leaders of
underperforming
Units
Loss of
Taxpayers’ Money
Erodes
Public Trust
Weakens Institutional
Integrity
MISSED
TARGETS
What are the consequences of
unresolved under-performance?

D
E
V
T
M
G
T
What does unresolved under-
performance indicate?
Team Leaders of
underperforming
Units
PRODUCTION
PLANNING &
CONTROL
May have over
abundance of
paper qualifications
but may be lacking
competence in …
IMPROVING &
MAINTAINING
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FUND
MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
PLANNING
& MGT

DEMOTION IN
RANK & PAY
What should happen to Team Leaders whose Unit/s
fell in the “FAIL ZONE” at least two times (2x)?
SUSPENSION
WITHOUT PAY
2nd time 3rd time 4th time
SEPARATION
from SERVICE

Design
It integrates 5 important factors into one
simple and comprehensive performance
evaluation system
It simplifies and unifies the rating systems
for organizational functions, units and
individuals into one integrated scheme
It makes performance evaluation
evidence-based and therefore, very
objective, verifiable and impartial

Development Perspective
It provides a wholistic
view of how an
organization is being
managed through the
performance ratings
of individual units
It focuses attention
and resources to the
very important
frontline units of an
organization to be
better delivery units
It enables the
evolution of higher
standards: work
processes, group
work, performance,
resource utilization,
project management,
etc.

Management
It reinforces the primary responsibility
of supervisory personnel to mentor,
coach & coordinate with subordinates
to attain agreed output specifications
It encourages managers to give more
weight to technical competence and
interpersonal capability in selecting
staff as members of their teams
It encourages management to better
understand and build up the capability
requirements of its operating units as
teams, not stand-alone individuals

Organizational Competence and Culture
It encourages
teamwork in all
levels of the
organization in
order to
accomplish
multiple tasks
It reinforces the
principles of
accountability,
command
responsibility
and discipline
It encourages
managerial personnel
to give more serious
effort in planning to
optimize resources
and responsiveness
to beneficiary needs

The Ultimate Objective
Service/Process
Optimization
Change
Management
Employee
Engagement
Performance
Management
GOOD
GOVERNMENT

A basic factor to realize this basic,
simple but rational change . . .
w o r k f o r c e

Philippine Government Performance Evaluation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Philippine Government Performance Evaluation

Similar to Philippine Government Performance Evaluation (20)

More from Hilario Martinez

More from Hilario Martinez (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Philippine Government Performance Evaluation