STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

1
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT Mr S Ntombela
25 February 2009
1
2
OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION

• Background to Project
• Other initiatives impacting on the project
• Overview of the Strategic Framework
• Focus of discussions during break away sessions

3
BACKGROUND

• The legal and regulatory framework of the Public
  Service assigns authority over departmental
  performance management to each executive
  authority, resulting in different PM systems for
  the various institutions and in the different
  spheres below the level of senior management.
• The decentralisation and fragmentation of
  performance management systems has brought about
  unintended challenges, which are compounded by
  the fact that the MPSA has little direct
  authority over performance management in
  departments and hence to deal with non-compliance

4
BACKGROUND (continued)

• Due to a lack of capacity in the area of policy
  development in many departments, the development
  of both organisational and employee performance
  management systems was outsourced to consultants
• This has resulted in many different systems and
  approaches being implemented, many of which tend
  to be too complicated and difficult to apply
  properly in the public sector environment, e.g.
  the Balanced Scorecard, Dashboard Models and
  different forms of the Excellence Model

5
BACKGROUND (continued)

• The absence of measures to enforce compliance to
  performance management systems has resulted in
  widespread failure to properly manage performance
  and performance management systems
• This problem is compounded by an abundance of
  evidence from departments countrywide that many
  line managers do not seem to be strongly
  committed to performance management, i.e. people
  management as such, resulting in poor service
  delivery

6
BACKGROUND (continued)

• The Cabinet and the Public Service Commission has
  on a number of occasions over the past few years
  expressed serious concern with the poor state of
  affairs concerning the implementation of the
  framework for the evaluation of HoDs, as well as
  the SMS PMDS on which this evaluation is based
• In a report on the Implementation of the
  Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs in the
  Public Service (February 2007), the PSC
  highlighted a number of serious challenges in
  this regard

7
BACKGROUND (continued)

• Problems include-
• Executive authorities not initiating the
  evaluation process
• the poor quality of documentation to support the
  evaluation process
• a noticeable decline in the number of HoDs who
  are being evaluated
• the late and non-submission of performance
  agreements The PSC is of the view At the heart
  of failure with the evaluation process is the
  non- and late submission of performance
  agreements

8
BACKGROUND (continued)

• Verification Statements (VS) on HoD performance
  were not signed by either the HoD or the EA, or
  both
• Some VSs were submitted without any ratings
  attached to them
• Some of the VSs were also not aligned with the
  HoDs performance agreement
• In some cases an apparent lack of congruence
  existed between an HoDs performance and that of
  his/her department

9
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR PM

• DPSA initiated a project to develop a strategic
  framework for performance management to provide a
  basis for integrating organisational and
  individual performance within the Public Service
  context

10
PROGRESS TO DATE

• Following the initiation of the project a
  workshop was conducted with a reference group
• The thrust and outline of the strategic framework
  to be consulted at this HR Forum
• The Strategic Framework will be further refined
  and consulted on during the next financial year
• Once the Strategic Framework and a revised
  assessment methodology and instruments have been
  endorsed by role players such as FOSAD
  implementation can commence

11
OTHER INITIATIVES IMPACTING ON THE PROJECT

• A number of transverse systems related to
  performance management and measurement have been
  developed
• Presidency GWME System
• NT Framework for Managing Programme Performance
• OPSC Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs
• Systems used by the Auditor-General
• Some departments have also developed/ introduced
  their own internal systems to improve the
  management of performance

12
Objectives of the Strategic Framework

• To provide a framework for policies, processes
  and tools to ensure that the performance
  management of Heads of Department and the SMS is
  fully integrated with all relevant frameworks
  that govern the performance management of
  organisations within the public service
• To provide a framework for the policies, standard
  operating procedures and applicable tools for
  standardised performance management of Heads of
  Department and members of the senior management
  service
• To provide guidelines and a framework for
  performance management of employees appointed at
  Levels 1 -12 within the Public Service
• To improve the credibility, effectiveness and
  outcomes of performance management of employees
  in the Public Service
• To establish credible mechanisms for
  accountability of individual employees within the
  Public Service and
• To improve substantive compliance with
  performance management systems through
  simplification of procedures, protocols and
  instruments.

13
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
Parliament President/PM Portf Com. Clusters FOSAD
National Planning Framework Presidency FOSAD
National Treasury/ Provincial Treasury FOSAD
Annual Performance Reports, Quarterly Reports
SOCIETY
Outputs
Resources
Governance Management
Programme Performance
Financial Performance
Employee Performance
Outcomes
Physical
Impact
Governance Mgt Systems Structures
Strategic Planning Processes
Financial Planning Processes
Strategic Control Points
Human
Financial
Service Delivery
Mandates
MINEXCO MANCO ORGANOGRAM
STRATEGIC OPERATIONAL PLAN, WORKPLANS
MTEF ANNUAL BUDGET, BUDGET COM.
MEASURES BEHAVIOUR CMCs
Constitution
CITIZENS
MPSA PS Act
MF PFMA
Performance
Operating platforms and soft issues
Dept Specific
Leadership, Culture, Values, Ethics, Batho Pele,
Styles Processes
Feedback loop
Monitoring Evaluation of compliance progress
14
What is currently measured by the SMS PMDS
Governance Management
Programme Performance
Financial Performance
Employee Performance
KPA 1 KPA 2 KPA 3 KPA 4 KPA 5 KPA 6

• Core Competencies
• SCL
• PME
• PPM
• Fin Mgt
• Ch Mgt

15
What needs to be measured by the SMS PMDS
Governance Management
Programme Performance
Financial Performance
Employee Performance
Key Performance Areas KPA 1 KPA 2 KPA 3 KPA
4 KPA 5

• Core Competencies
• SCL
• PME
• PPM
• Fin Mgt
• Ch Mgt
• (With process competencies)

• Responsibility manager
• Financial planning
• Budgeting
• Cash Flow
• Audit results
• In-year monitoring

• Management processes
• Org Processes
• Internal control points
• Systems
• External relationships

16
Organizational Strategic Objectives
Strategic Plan / Operational Plan / Annual
Performance Plan
Programme Performance
60
20
Core Management Competencies
KPA 1 KPA 2 KPA 3 KPA 4 KPA 5
Deliverables 1 Deliverables 2 Deliverables
3 Deliverables 4 Deliverables 5

• Core Competencies
• SCL
• PME
• PPM
• Fin Mgt
• Ch Mgt

10
10
Financial Performance
Governance Management

• Process Competencies
• Kn Mgt
• SDI
• PSA
• Client OCF
• Communication

• Responsibility manager
• Financial planning
• Budgeting
• Cash Flow
• Audit results
• In-year monitoring

• Management processes
• Org Processes
• Internal control points
• Systems
• External relationships

17
Programme Performance
This dimension focuses on the main deliverables
to be contracted for the assessment cycle. These
deliverables are cascaded from the departmental
strategic plan and operational plan (annual
performance plan). Key Performance Areas must
reflect the main areas of focus and should
generally not be more than eight. For each KPA
specific deliverables must be identified and
relevant standards must be agreed on during the
performance contracting phase. It is proposed
that this dimension may be weighted at 60 of the
overall assessment and the different KRAs can be
weighted differently to reflect their importance
and complexity.
18
Core Management Competencies
This dimension focuses on the actual behaviour
displayed by the manager in achieving operational
goals and managing resources. It is proposed that
this dimension should represent 20 of the
overall assessment. The elements must be assessed
and rated against the standards that will be set
in the assessment tool. The CMCs can be weighed
differently to differentiate their importance.
When the CMCs are assessed and rated, the
different process competencies must also be taken
into account as these support the display of the
desired behaviour.
19
Governance and Management
This dimension focuses on the participation of
the manager in the generic departmental
management processes as well as the management
processes institutionalised at the level of
his/her component. It is proposed that this
dimension should represent 10 of the overall
assessment and the elements listed below must be
assessed and rated against the standards listed
below. The weighting of the elements can be fixed.
20
Financial Performance
This dimension focuses on the execution of
responsibilities attached to the role of a
responsibility manager, the participation of the
manager in the budgeting processes of the
department and the actual management of his/her
budget at component level. It is proposed that
this dimension should represent 10 of the
overall assessment and the elements listed below
must be assessed and rated against the standards
listed below. The weighting of the elements can
be fixed.
21
Objectives of the focus group discussion

• To bring the expertise of participants to bear on
  determining the key considerations that should
  inform the development of the strategic framework
  (including the instruments contained within it)
  by considering -
• The current challenges with PM
• Methodologies that can be utilised to align
  organisational and individual performance
  assessment

21
22
Objectives (Continued)

• Debate the principles and objectives informing
  the strategic framework
• Debate the cascading of PM to lower levels
• Debate dimensions for measurement to be included
  in a revised assessment instrument
• Anticipate challenges to be encountered with
  implementation and identify possible solutions

22
23
The Process for today

• Four break away groups with assigned facilitators
  
• Discussions to focus on points mentioned
• Groups to report back to plenary

23
24

• Thank you/Siyabonga

24