2/4/2019 1 PEMANDU (Malaysia) Australia, New Zealand Bangladesh, - - PDF document

2/4/2019 1

Australia, New Zealand Bangladesh, Bhutan, India

PEMANDU (Malaysia) 1 2

2/4/2019 2

Bangladesh Bhutan India 1 Methodology    2 Structure    3 Performance Agreements Published on Web    4 Trickling Down    5 No Explicit Incentives    6 Results Published X  X / 7 Budget Integration X  X HR Integration X  X 9 Political Commitment   X

3 4

2/4/2019 3

The Peak Lessons Learnt

THE RISE AND FALL OF INDIA’S GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

2009 2014 2017

Presentation Outline

1. The Peak 2. The Rise 3. The Fall 4. Lessons Learnt

5 6

2/4/2019 4

The Peak

7 8

2/4/2019 5

Performance Monitoring & Evaluation System

Results-Framework Document

An Instrument for Improving Government Performance

9 10

2/4/2019 6

Kerala

Population: 35 Million 11 12

2/4/2019 7

Karnataka

Population: 62 Million 13 14

2/4/2019 8

15 16

2/4/2019 9

2009-2010 59 Departments 2010-2011 62 Departments

Coverage of RFD Policy

2011-2014 80 Departments 74 RFDs for Departments

6 Departments RFDS for RCs 800 Responsibility Centers 17 States

Implementation at State-Level

• 1. Maharashtra
• 2. Punjab
• 3. Karnataka
• 4. Kerala
• 5. Himachal Pradesh
• 6. Assam
• 7. Haryana
• 8. Chhattisgarh
• 9. Tripura

10.Rajasthan 11.Andhra Pradesh 12.Mizoram 13.Jammu & Kashmir 14.Meghalaya 15.Odisha 16.UP (request)

• 17. Puducherry (request)

Already Begun Implementation

17 18

2/4/2019 10

19 20

2/4/2019 11

21 22

2/4/2019 12 Karnataka Kerala Himachal Pradesh

Haryana

23 24

2/4/2019 13

2010-2014 Citizens’ / Clients’ Charter Grievance Redress Mechanism

ISO 9001 in Government Corruption Mitigation Strategies Innovation in Government

Coverage of RFD Policy

SCOPE OF RFD

Implementing RTI in Government Compliance with CAG Audit

39 32 19 2 8 18 42 19 13 8 7 37 28 17 11 4 19 18 12 15 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1 2 3 4 5 6

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-2013

RFD Results for Four Years

25 26

2/4/2019 14

The Rise

10th Report of

Second Administrative Reforms Commission

“Performance agreement is the most common accountability mechanism in most countries that have reformed their public administration systems.”

Origins of PMD

6th Central Pay Commission

“Introduce Performance Related Incentive Scheme (PRIS)

2008 2008

27 28

2/4/2019 15

June 2009 September 2009

Prime Minister issued an order to implement “Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES)” President announced that the Government will within 100 days: Establish mechanisms for performance monitoring and performance evaluation in government on a regular basis

Origins and Coverage of RFD Policy

The Problem

29 30

2/4/2019 16

Problems of Government Agencies ‐ I

ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTRY EQUITY EFFICIENCY

MULTIPLE PRINCIPALS MULTIPLE GOALS FUZZY GOALS & OBJECTIVES

PLANNING MINISTRY FINANCE MINISTRY PARLIAMENT POLITICAL NON‐POLITICAL

Problem of Government Agencies ‐II

“NOT ME” Syndrome

People Public Enterprise Government Parliament

31 32

2/4/2019 17

The Solution

Lessons from Management Principles

33 34

2/4/2019 18

80 % 20 %

Determinants of Performance

Leader

R E S T

People 80 % 20 %

Determinants of Performance

35 36

2/4/2019 19

Accountability for Results Trickles Down

2 Citizen’s/ Client’s Charter

3 Grievance Redress Mechanism

Perception = 1 + 2

2 + 3 3

1

Results

Determinants of Perception

Perception

37 38

2/4/2019 20

Lessons from Management Practice

Sample Performance Agreement From New Zealand

39 40

2/4/2019 21 Sample Performance Agreement From USA Performance Agreement between The President of USA William Jefferson Clinton and The Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary

41 42

2/4/2019 22

43 44

2/4/2019 23

45 46

2/4/2019 24

47 48

2/4/2019 25 Sample Performance Agreement From Malaysia

49 50

2/4/2019 26

Sample Performance Agreement Sample Performance Agreement

51 52

2/4/2019 27

53 54

2/4/2019 28

Our Resulting Approach

55 56

2/4/2019 29

• 1. What is RFD?

(The Content of RFD)

• 1. What are department’s main
• bjectives for the year?
• 2. What actions are proposed to

achieve these objectives?

• 3. How to determine progress made in

implementing these actions?

seeks to address three basic questions:

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

57 58

2/4/2019 30

Criteria / Success Indicators

Weight

Target / Criteria Values

Achievement

Raw Score Weighted Raw Score

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 1 % Increase in number of primary health care centers

.50 30 25 20 10 5 15 75% 37.5%

2 % Increase in number of people with access to a primary health center within 20 KMs

.30 20 18 16 14 12 18 90% 27%

3 Number of hospitals with ISO 9000 certification by December 31, 2009

.20 500 450 400 300 250 600 100% 20%

Composite Score

84.5%

Calculation of Composite Score

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

What’s New

59 60

2/4/2019 31

M & E

Monitoring Evaluation

Budget Performance Budget Outcome Budget

RFD

1 Financial Inputs 1 Financial Inputs 2 Activities 3 Outputs 1 Financial Inputs 2 Activities 3 Outputs 4 Outcomes 1 Financial Inputs 2 Activities 3 Outputs 4 Outcomes 5 Non-financial Outcomes

Impact

61 62

2/4/2019 32

Impact of RFD

Grievance Redress in GOI

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

107961 139240 172520 201197 113896 53075 117612 147027 168308 113151

Receipts Disposals

63

4216 533

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

2010 (June) 2014 (March)

Impact of RFD

Reduction in Pendency of CAG Paras in GOI RFD

64

63 64

2/4/2019 33

The Fall

65 66

2/4/2019 34

67 68

2/4/2019 35

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
• bjective evaluation reduces discretion
• 4. No one likes performance management

69 70

2/4/2019 36

RFD India 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

RFD versus India Today

Lessons Learnt

71 72

2/4/2019 37

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

We failed because:

• 1. Did not enshrine the RFD policy in a law.

73 74

2/4/2019 38

Thank you

For further discussion please write to: p.trivedi@commomnwealth.int

75