2/4/2019 1 PEMANDU (Malaysia) Australia, New Zealand Bangladesh, Bhutan, India 2 1
2/4/2019 3 Bangladesh Bhutan India 1 Methodology 2 Structure 3 Performance Agreements Published on Web 4 Trickling Down 5 No Explicit Incentives X / 6 Results Published X 7 Budget Integration X X HR Integration X X 9 Political Commitment X 4 2
2/4/2019 T HE R ISE AND F ALL OF I NDIA ’ S G OVERNMENT P ERFORMANCE M ANAGEMENT S YSTEM 2014 The Peak Lessons Learnt 2017 2009 5 Presentation Outline 1. The Peak 2. The Rise 3. The Fall 4. Lessons Learnt 6 3
2/4/2019 7 The Peak 8 4
2/4/2019 P erformance M onitoring & E valuation S ystem 9 Results-Framework Document An Instrument for Improving Government Performance 10 5
2/4/2019 Kerala Population: 35 Million 11 12 6
2/4/2019 13 Karnataka Population: 62 Million 14 7
2/4/2019 15 16 8
2/4/2019 Coverage of RFD Policy 59 Departments 2009-2010 2010-2011 62 Departments 2011-2014 80 Departments 74 RFDs for Departments 6 Departments RFDS for RCs 800 Responsibility Centers 17 States 17 Implementation at State-Level Already Begun Implementation 9. Tripura 1. Maharashtra 10.Rajasthan 2. Punjab 11.Andhra Pradesh 3. Karnataka 12.Mizoram 4. Kerala 13.Jammu & Kashmir 5. Himachal Pradesh 14.Meghalaya 6. Assam 15.Odisha 7. Haryana 16.UP (request) 8. Chhattisgarh 17. Puducherry (request) 18 9
2/4/2019 19 20 10
2/4/2019 21 22 11
2/4/2019 Karnataka Himachal Kerala Pradesh 23 Haryana 24 12
2/4/2019 Coverage of RFD Policy S COPE OF RFD 2010-2014 Citizens’ / Clients’ Charter Grievance Redress Mechanism ISO 9001 in Government Corruption Mitigation Strategies Innovation in Government Implementing RTI in Government Compliance with CAG Audit 25 RFD Results for Four Years 45 42 40 39 37 35 32 30 28 25 2009-10 2010-11 20 19 19 19 2011-12 18 18 17 2012-2013 15 15 13 12 11 10 8 8 7 5 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 26 13
2/4/2019 The Rise 27 Origins of PMD 10 th Report of 2008 S econd A dministrative R eforms C ommission “Performance agreement is the most common accountability mechanism in most countries that have reformed their public administration systems.” 6 th Central Pay Commission 2008 “Introduce Performance Related Incentive Scheme (PRIS) 28 14
2/4/2019 Origins and Coverage of RFD Policy President announced that the June Government will within 100 days: 2009 Establish mechanisms for performance monitoring and performance evaluation in government on a regular basis September Prime Minister issued an order to implement “ Performance 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES)” 29 The Problem 30 15
2/4/2019 Problems of Government Agencies ‐ I PARLIAMENT FINANCE MINISTRY POLITICAL NON‐POLITICAL PLANNING MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTRY EQUITY EFFICIENCY MULTIPLE MULTIPLE GOALS PRINCIPALS FUZZY GOALS & OBJECTIVES 31 Problem of Government Agencies ‐II “ NOT ME ” Syndrome People Parliament Public Enterprise Government 32 16
2/4/2019 The Solution 33 Lessons from Management Principles 34 17
2/4/2019 Determinants of Performance 20 % 80 % 35 People 80 % 20 % R E Leader S T Determinants of Performance 36 18
2/4/2019 Accountability for Results Trickles Down 37 Determinants of Perception 1 Results 3 2 Grievance Citizen’s/ Redress Client’s Mechanism Perception Charter 2 + 3 3 Perception = 1 + 2 38 19
2/4/2019 Lessons from Management Practice 39 Sample Performance Agreement From New Zealand 40 20
2/4/2019 41 Sample Performance Agreement From USA Performance Agreement between The President of USA William Jefferson Clinton and The Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary 42 21
2/4/2019 43 44 22
2/4/2019 45 46 23
2/4/2019 47 48 24
2/4/2019 49 Sample Performance Agreement From Malaysia 50 25
2/4/2019 Sample Performance Agreement 51 Sample Performance Agreement 52 26
2/4/2019 53 54 27
2/4/2019 55 Our Resulting Approach 56 28
2/4/2019 1. What is RFD? (The Content of RFD) seeks to address three basic questions: 1. What are department’s main objectives for the year? 2. What actions are proposed to achieve these objectives? 3. How to determine progress made in implementing these actions? 57 Format of Result-Framework Document (RFD) Section 1 Ministry’s Vision, Mission, Objectives and Functions. Section 2 Inter se priorities among key objectives, success indicators and targets. Section 3 Trend values of the success indicators. Section 4 Description and definition of success indicators and proposed measurement methodology. Section 5 Specific performance requirements from other departments that are critical for delivering agreed results. Section 6 Outcome / Impact of activities of department/ ministry 58 29
2/4/2019 Calculation of Composite Score Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Target / Criteria Values Criteria / Raw Weighted Very Weight Achievement Excellent Good Fair Poor Success Indicators Good Score Raw Score 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% % Increase in number of .50 30 25 20 10 5 15 75% 37.5% 1 primary health care centers % Increase in number of people with access to a .30 20 18 16 14 12 18 90% 27% 2 primary health center within 20 KMs Number of hospitals with .20 500 450 400 300 250 600 100% 20% 3 ISO 9000 certification by December 31, 2009 Composite Score 84.5% 59 What’s New 60 30
2/4/2019 M & E Monitoring Evaluation Budget Performance Outcome RFD Budget Budget 1 Financial 1 Financial 1 Financial 1 Financial Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs 2 Activities 2 Activities 2 Activities 3 Outputs 3 Outputs 3 Outputs 4 Outcomes 4 Outcomes 5 Non-financial Outcomes 61 Impact 62 31
2/4/2019 Impact of RFD Grievance Redress in GOI 250000 201197 Receipts 200000 172520 Disposals 168308 147027 139240 150000 117612 107961 113896 113151 100000 53075 50000 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 63 63 Impact of RFD Reduction in Pendency of CAG Paras in GOI 4216 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 RFD 533 1000 500 0 2010 (June) 2014 (March) 64 64 32
2/4/2019 The Fall 65 66 33
2/4/2019 67 68 34
2/4/2019 Reasons for the Fall 1. The actual story did not match the election rhetoric 2. “Reality" of performance was better than the “Perception.” 3. A system based on ex-ante agreements and objective evaluation reduces discretion 4. No one likes performance management 69 70 35
2/4/2019 RFD versus India Today India RFD Today Mean (Average) Score 89 39 Median Score 93 34 Percentage of departments above average 67 36 Percentage of departments below average 33 64 Spearman Rank Correlation .02 71 Lessons Learnt 72 36
2/4/2019 We succeeded because: 1. Defined performance management as simply the ability of the department to deliver what it had promised 2. Reduced the performance measurement to a score 3. Performance management is best implemented as a big-bang effort 73 We failed because: 1. Did not enshrine the RFD policy in a law. 74 37
2/4/2019 Thank you For further discussion please write to: p.trivedi@commomnwealth.int 75 38
Recommend
More recommend
