Presentation to NCOP Committee on Local Government and Administration

1
Presentation to NCOP Committee on Local
Government and Administration

• The HoD Evaluation Framework
• 27 August 2003

2
Contents

• Importance of Performance Management
• Role of the PSC in developing framework
• Principles of Framework
• Role of PSC in HoD Evaluation
• Framework for the Evaluation of Heads of
  Department
• Implementation of Framework Round 1
• Findings
• Recommendations
• Amendments
• Future Challenges

3
Importance of Performance Management

• Government constantly seeking to improve service
  delivery standards
• Managers are responsible for achieving
  institutional objectives
• Effective management and monitoring of
  performance provide insight into institutional
  success and areas for improvements

4
Role of the PSC in developing Framework

• In 1998, MPSA introduced system of PAs for senior
  managers
• Below HoDs, system provided for constant feedback
  on performance between supervisors and staff
• No systematic, coherent process in place for
  assessment of HoD performance
• PSC tasked by cabinet to develop a framework to
  assist Executing Authorities (EAs) to evaluate
  HoDs

5
Principles of Framework

• Basis of evaluation is effective PA system
• Evaluation process should link individual and
  institutional performance
• EAs responsible for final decisions, but
  independent stakeholders and peers must make
  inputs
• Procedural framework must be credible to ensure
  consistency

6
Principles of Framework

• Framework must indicate level of performance,
  identify inefficiency and guide performance
  rewards
• Constitution of panels to be flexible to
  accommodate special sectoral needs
• Integrated approach, aligned to planning and
  budgetary cycles
• Process should, where appropriate, identify areas
  for HoD development

7
Role of PSC in HoD Evaluations

• Evaluation panels at National level chaired by
  the Chair or Deputy Chair of the PSC
• Evaluation panels at Provincial level chaired by
  resident Commissioner or a nationally nominated
  Commissioner
• Role of PSC on panels is independent role-player,
  to ensure that process is fair, consistent and
  equitable
• PSC has availed secretarial services to Executing
  Authorities (who may also appoint their own
  secretariat)

8
HoD Evaluation Framework

• EAs must appoint evaluation panels comprising EA
  colleagues, independent stakeholders and HoD
  peers
• Panel advice is not binding, and EAs must take
  final decisions
• Evaluations must cover a period of one financial
  year, and must be aligned to the MTEF and
  planning cycles

9
HoD Evaluation Framework

• HoDs and EAs must sign PAs by the end of April
  each year
• Progress against objectives must be reviewed on a
  quarterly basis
• Evaluation processes must utilize the following
  information
• PAs
• Departmental business and strategic plans
• Budget and expenditure reports
• Annual Reports incorporating Auditor General
  Reports
• Verification statement detailing achievement of
  targets and outcomes

10
HoD Evaluation Framework

• Panel provides written advice to EA, including
• Level of performance regarding KPAs
• Areas for development
• EA takes decision on awarding of cash bonus and
  other actions

11
HoD Evaluation Framework

• If HoDs are dissatisfied, they can request review
• PAs of HoDs provide for dispute resolution
  mechanism
• Mediator must be identified
• If mediator cannot resolve dispute, must be
  referred to Review Committee, comprising
• Deputy President and MPSA (National) or
• Provincial Premier and MEC nominated by Premier
• Provincial DGs refer disputes to Deputy President
  and MPSA

12
HoD Evaluation Framework

• PSC issues Guidelines to assist EAs on annual
  basis
• Guidelines specify administrative arrangements
  and proforma documents and instruments

13
Implementation of Framework Statistical Overview

• National Departments
• 12 HoDs out of 36 evaluated
• 10 deferred evaluation to include 2001/2002
• 3 terminated contract
• 5 no evaluation reasons unknown
• Provincial
• 23 out of 76 HoDs evaluated
• 3 pending
• 53 could not be evaluated

14
Implementation of Framework Reasons for
Non-Evaluation

• Contract terminated
• HoD appointed on acting capacity
• Suspension
• On sick leave
• Performance agreement not signed
• Newly appointed
• Framework Piloted
• Documents not submitted

15
Implementation of FrameworkSummary of Ratings
Rating Definition of score Number Of HoDs at National Level Number of HoDs at provincial level Total
5 Excellent 5 0 5
4 Above satisfactory 7 9 16
3 Satisfactory 0 10 10
2 Below satisfactory 0 3 3
1 Unacceptable 0 1 1
16
Findings of the first implementation

• Evaluation periods more than one financial year
  problematic
• Composition of the evaluation panels did not
  represent wide range of stakeholders
• Far-stretched schedules of Ministers delayed the
  process
• Use of the OPSC as the secretariat beneficial

17
Findings of the first implementation (cont)

• Executing authorities participation commended
• Documentation
• Quality and contents of performance agreements
• Verifications statement did not conform to the
  requirements
• reports did not report on achievement of
• departmental objectives
• Lack of synergy between documents

18
Findings of the first implementation (cont)

• Use of 360-degree instrument
• Nationally only 1 HoD
• Provincially 12 HoDs
• Advice by the panel
• Provided level of performance and areas of
  development
• Rating scale parameters of cash

19
Findings on Performance Agreements

• A majority of senior managers had not signed
  performance agreements
• No clear performance criteria limited to
  targets
• No quarterly reviews

20
Recommendations

• PSC to engage SAMDI on the nature of training to
  be provided to HoDs
• Executing Authorities to note importance of
  performance management and that evaluation
  according to the framework is obligatory
• Evaluation periods one financial year
• Evaluation at provincial level must be obligatory
• Composition of panels
• Maximum 4 plus Chair
• Include external stakeholders
• Make use of cluster system

21
Recommendations (cont.)

• Performance Agreements of HoDs to be filed with
  PSC
• PSC to provide guidance on the development of
  quality documentation
• Clear linkages between processes/documents
• Use of 360-degree compulsory in the interim
• Parameters of cash bonus clearly spelt out
  consider NPMDS e.g.
• Level 5 6 - 8
• Level 4 3 - 5

22
Amendments

• Framework Cabinet memo
• Finalisation of evaluations not later than
  February 2003
• Performance agreements of all HoDs be filed with
  PSC
• 360-degree compulsory in the interim
• Rating scale in the NPMDS be used for 2001/2002
  evaluations
• Use of the 360-degree in the interim
• OPSC serves as secretariat in all HoD
• evaluations
• Implementation at provincial level be
• mandatory

23
Future Challenges

• Creating a greater awareness of the importance of
  Performance Management
• Sensitizing EAs to the importance of concluding
  PAs in time
• Improving the quality of PAs
• Linking individual and organizational performance

24
Future Challenges

• Changing the paradigm from rewards to adding
  value to management and personal development
• Moving from output based approach to outcomes
  based approach, strengthening Cabinet Clusters
• Defining common outcomes to be incorporated in
  strategic planning and performance agreements
• HoD Evaluation Panels be constituted by Cabinet
  Clusters
• Consolidating the use of external stakeholders
  and peers