1. lecture 1 - frontiers of pulic sector managemet

8/7/2019 1. Lecture 1 - Frontiers of Pulic Sector Managemet

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-lecture-1-frontiers-of-pulic-sector-managemet 1/84

How to Improve Government Performance(Challenges, Possible Solutions and Lessons of International Experience)

Dr. Prajapati Trivedi

Secretary, Performance Management

Cabinet Secretariat



Select Key Points

• The one picture I want to etch in your minds



Select Key Points

• Accountability for results trickles down

• Countries in the world can be classified according to

their ability to implement policies and programs

• Implementation depends on effective follow-up

(M&E) (another name for accountability andResults-Based Management)

• Effectiveness of follow-up and monitoring dependson quality and not quantity of M&E (Effective

evaluation requires explicit rankings).



Select Key Points

• Degree of Accountability for results is synonymouswith Evaluation.

• Evaluation techniques for management control ingovernment are different from evaluation techniquesfor strategic control.

• Evaluation is one of the three systems required forperformance improvement – Information andincentive systems being other two.

• Performance Evaluation is different fromPerformance Explanation and PerformanceMonitoring.



Presentation Outline

• Perceptions about Government Performance

• Explanations about Government Performance

• Meaning of Government Performance

• How to Improve Government Performance

• International Best Practice and Options

• Lessons of Experience – Summing Up



Perceptions aboutPerformance of Government Agencies

Government Agencies have not delivered

what was expected from them






Perceptions about Government Performance

• Explanations about Government Performance



• International Best Practice and Options

• Lessons of Experience – Summing Up



Problems of Government Agencies - I

ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTRY EQUITY EFFICIENCY

MULTIPLEPRINCIPALS MULTIPLEGOALS

FUZZY GOALS &

OBJECTIVES

PLANNING MINISTRY

FINANCE MINISTRY

PARLIAMENT

POLITICAL NON-POLITICAL



Problem of Government Agencies -II

“NOT ME”Syndrome

People

Public Enterprise

Government

Parliament



Performance Deficit Vs. Financial Deficit

Performance Deficit

Low Credibility

Lower Funding

Financial Deficit

Poor Performance

Symptom:





Explanations about Government

Performance




80 %

20 %

Determinants of Performance



Leader

RE

ST

People

80 % 20 %




System

80%

People

20%

SystemPeople




System

80%

Leader

16%

Rest4%

System

Leader

Rest

People

80 % 20 %




Reduce Quantity of

Government

Reduce Quantity of

Government Increase Quality of Government

Increase Quality of Government

What can be done to solve the problem?





Trickle-down

Approach

Direct

Approach

Privatization Traditional

Civil Service Reforms



Increasing Quality of Government

Trickle Down

Approach

Direct

Approach

Performance Agreement Client Charter

E-Government

ISO 9000

E-Procurement

Quality Mark

Enabling

Environment

Peer Reviews

Knowledge Management



Concept of Performance Agreement

1. In the words of Second Administrative Reform

Commission:

– “ Performance agreement is the most common

accountability mechanism in most countries that have

reformed their public administration systems.”

– “ At the core of such agreements are the objectives to be

achieved, the resources provided to achieve them, theaccountability and control measures, and the autonomy

and flexibilities that the civil servants will be given.”



2. Performance Agreements in India are proposedto:– be signed between a Minister representing people’s

mandate and Secretary of the correspondingdepartment responsible for implementing the mandate

– contain agreed objectives, policies, programmes andprojects / schemes

– include success indicators and targets– outline resources required and operational autonomy

provided to departments

Concept of Performance Agreement

S l



Sample

Performance

AgreementFrom

USAPerformance

Agreement

between

The President of USAWilliam Jefferson Clinton

and

The Secretary of Energy

Hazel O’Leary



Sample

Performance

Agreement

From

New Zealand



SamplePerformance

Agreement

From

Malaysia



Sample

Performance

Agreement



Problems of Government Agencies I



ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTRY EQUITY EFFICIENCY

MULTIPLE

PRINCIPALS

MULTIPLE

GOALS

FUZZY GOALS &OBJECTIVES

A SOLUTION

Performance Agreement

PLANNING MINISTRY

FINANCE MINISTRY

PARLIAMENT

POLITICAL NON-POLITICAL

Problems of Government Agencies - I

P bl f G A i II



“NOT ME”Syndrome

People

Public Enterprise

Government

Parliament

A SOLUTION

Performance Agreement

Problems of Government Agencies - II



Why the Focus on Performance ?

• First general point– The power of performance management is now

widely recognized.



The Power of Performance Measurement

• What Gets Measured Gets Done

• If you Don’t Measure Results,You Can’t Tell

Success from Failure• If You Can’t See Success, You Can’t Reward It

• If You Can’t Reward Success, You are Probably

Rewarding Failure• If You Can’t See Success, You Can’t Learn From

It

• If You Can’t Recognize Failure, You Can’tCorrect It

• If You Can Demonstrate Results, You Can WinPublic Support





Explanations about Government

Performance

How to Improve Government Performance




What is meant by the term:

PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?

• Ex-post versus Ex-ante Performance

• Managerial versus Agency Performance

• Partial versus Comprehensive Performance



Meaning of Performance

Ex-post versus Ex-ante




Performance Evaluation

• based on comparison of achievements against agreed

targets

• typically involves a formal agreement

• most common in professionally run organizations

Ex-ante Performance Evaluation is:




Ex post versus Ex ante


• based on selection of criteria by the evaluator at

the end of the year

• typically undertaken by researchers

• useful for future projects

• more comprehensive

Ex-post Performance Evaluation is:




Ex post versus Ex ante


• based on comparison

of achievements

against agreed targets

• typically involves a

formal agreement

• most common inprofessionally run

organizations

• based on selection of criteria by theevaluator at the end of

the year• typically undertaken

by researchers

• useful for futureprojects


Ex-ante Performance Evaluation is: Ex-post Performance Evaluation is:

• based on comparison

of achievements

against agreed targets

• typically involves a

formal agreement

• most common inprofessionally run

organizations

Ex-ante Performance Evaluation is:

• based on selection of

criteria by the

evaluator at the end of

the year

• typically undertaken

by researchers

• useful for future

projects


Ex-post Performance Evaluation is:








Managerial versus Agency





• based on observed performance of the agency

Agency Performance Evaluation is:






• calculated by adjusting agency performance for

factors beyond the control of the management

(government officials):

Managerial Performance Evaluation is:






• calculated by adjusting agency performance for

factors beyond the control of the management

(government officials):

Managerial Performance Evaluation is:

AgencyPerformance =

Managerial

Performance -+ExogenousFactors




g g y


Change inAgency

Performance=

Change inManagerial

Performance -+Exogenous

Factors

- 100,000Hospital

Beds =

+75,000Hospital

Beds -+-175,000Hospital

Beds

Impact of Budgetary Cuts

An Heuristic Illustration

Wh t i t b th t








Partial versus Comprehensive



Partial versus Comprehensive


• Partial Performance Evaluation is:

– based on selected aspects (or activities) of the agency

• Comprehensive Performance Evaluation is:

– based on all activities of agency

A Taxonomy of



A Taxonomy of

Performance Evaluation Approaches

Managerial

Performance AgencyPerformance

Ex

-ante

Pe

rformance

Ex-po

st

Performance

Cell # 1Cell # 2

Cell # 3 Cell # 4

Results-Based

ManagementFramework

Impact Studies



Best Practice Methodology



A SOLUTION!



Performance Information

System

Criteria

( “ How

” to

Evaluate)


System

Institutional Arrangements ( “ Who ” Should

Evaluate)

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM

Performance Incentive System

A SOLUTION!



Performance Information

System

Criteria

( “ How

” to

Evaluate)

Results-Based Management Framework

Institutional Arrangements ( “ Who ” Should

Evaluate)

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM

Performance Incentive System

Results Based Management Framework



BEGINNING OF YEAR

Step 1Criteria Selection

“ FAIR ” to Officials

END OF YEAR

Step 2 Criteria Weight

Selection

Step 3 Criteria Value

Selection

“ FAIR ” to

country Negotiated “ FREELY ”

Step 4 Performance Evaluation (Composite

Score)


Example of Results Framework



Target / Criteria Values

PoorFairGood

Very

GoodExcellent

250

12

5

60%

300

14

10

70%

400

16

20

80%

450

18

25

90%

.20

.30

.50

Weight

500Number of hospitals with ISO

9000 certification by December

31, 2009

3

20% Increase in number of people

with access to a primary health

center within 20 KMs

2

30% Increase in number of primary health care centers

1

100%

Criteria /

Success Indicators

Step 1




BEGINNING OF YEAR



END OF YEAR


Selection


Selection

“ FAIR ” to



Score)






PoorFairGood

Very

GoodExcellent

250

12

5

60%

300

14

10

70%

400

16

20

80%

450

18

25

90%

.20

.30

.50

Weight



31, 2009

3




2


1

100%

Criteria /

Success Indicators

Step 1 Step 2




BEGINNING OF YEAR



END OF YEAR


Selection


Selection

“ FAIR ” to



Score)

Results Based Management Framework





PoorFairGood

Very

GoodExcellent

250

12

5

60%

300

14

10

70%

400

16

20

80%

450

18

25

90%

.20

.30

.50

Weight



31, 2009

3




2

30% Increase in number of primary health care centers1

100%

Criteria /

Success Indicators

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3




BEGINNING OF YEAR



END OF YEAR


Selection


Selection

“ FAIR ” to



Score)

g




84.5%Composite Score

20%

27%

37.5%

Weighted

Raw Score

100%

90%

75%

Raw

Score

600

18

15

Achievement


PoorFairGoodVery

Good

Excellent

250

12

5

60%

300

14

10

70%

400

16

20

80%

450

18

25

90%

.20

.30

.50

Weight

500Number of hospitals with

ISO 9000 certification by

December 31, 2009

3

20

% Increase in number of

people with access to a

primary health center

within 20 KMs

2


1

100%

Criteria /

Success Indicators

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Performance Obligations for National Authority 2009-2010



100%Total Weight =

6070809010020%Aggregate score for the 3-

Point Performance Agenda20%Effective

Implementation of

Performance Agenda

for 2009-2010

Objective 4

1714118525%Number of errors committed

by NACWC Escort Officers25%Effective

Management of

OPCW Inspections

Objective 3

0%5%10%15%20 %25%Percentage reduction in the

discrepancies between

declarations submitted and

inspection results

25%Effective

Management of the

Declarations

Objective 2

Three

incidents

Two

incidents

One major

incident

One

minor

incident

No incidents15 %b. Safety of the program

By June

30, 2009

By June

15, 2009

By May

31, 2009

By May

15, 2009

By April 28,

2009

15 %a. On-time Completion

30%

Effective

Management of theChemical Weapons

Destruction Program

Objective 1

60%70%80%90%100%Relative

WeightDescription

PoorFairGoodVery

GoodExcellent

TargetSuccess Indicator

WeightObjective



For comments and further dialogue please contact:



Cabinet Secretariat

[email protected]

1. lecture 1 - frontiers of pulic sector managemet

Documents