Presentation to NCOP Committee on Local Government and Administration

The HoD Evaluation Framework27 August 2003

ContentsImportance of Performance ManagementRole of the PSC in developing frameworkPrinciples of FrameworkRole of PSC in HoD EvaluationFramework for the Evaluation of Heads of DepartmentImplementation of Framework Round 1

FindingsRecommendationsAmendments

Future Challenges

Importance of Performance Management

Government constantly seeking to improve service delivery standardsManagers are responsible for achieving institutional objectivesEffective management and monitoring of performance provide insight into institutional success and areas for improvements

Role of the PSC in developing Framework

In 1998, MPSA introduced system of PAs for senior managersBelow HoDs, system provided for constant feedback on performance between supervisors and staffNo systematic, coherent process in place for assessment of HoD performancePSC tasked by cabinet to develop a framework to assist Executing Authorities (EAs) to evaluate HoDs

Principles of Framework

Basis of evaluation is effective PA systemEvaluation process should link individual and institutional performanceEAs responsible for final decisions, but independent stakeholders and peers must make inputsProcedural framework must be credible to ensure consistency

Principles of Framework

Framework must indicate level of performance, identify inefficiency and guide performance rewardsConstitution of panels to be flexible to accommodate special sectoral needsIntegrated approach, aligned to planning and budgetary cyclesProcess should, where appropriate, identify areas for HoD development

Role of PSC in HoD Evaluations

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

HoD Evaluation Framework

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

HoD Evaluation FrameworkHoDs and EAs must sign PAs by the end of April each yearProgress against objectives must be reviewed on a quarterly basisEvaluation processes must utilize the following information:

PAs Departmental business and strategic plansBudget and expenditure reportsAnnual Reports incorporating Auditor General ReportsVerification statement detailing achievement of targets and outcomes

HoD Evaluation Framework

Panel provides written advice to EA, including:

Level of performance regarding KPAsAreas for development

EA takes decision on awarding of cash bonus and other actions

HoD Evaluation FrameworkIf HoDs are dissatisfied, they can request reviewPAs of HoDs provide for dispute resolution mechanismMediator must be identifiedIf mediator cannot resolve dispute, must be referred to Review Committee, comprising:

Deputy President and MPSA (National); orProvincial Premier and MEC nominated by PremierProvincial DGs refer disputes to Deputy President and MPSA

HoD Evaluation Framework

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

Implementation of Framework Statistical Overview

National Departments12 HoDs out of 36 evaluated 10 deferred evaluation to include 2001/20023 terminated contract5 no evaluation – reasons unknown

Provincial 23 out of 76 HoDs evaluated 3 pending 53 could not be evaluated

Implementation of Framework Reasons for Non-Evaluation

Contract terminatedHoD appointed on acting capacitySuspensionOn sick leavePerformance agreement not signedNewly appointedFramework PilotedDocuments not submitted

Implementation of FrameworkSummary of Ratings

Rating Definition ofscore

NumberOf HoDs atNational 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

Findings of the first implementation

Evaluation periods more than one financial year problematicComposition of the evaluation panels did not represent wide range of stakeholdersFar-stretched schedules of Ministers delayed the processUse of the OPSC as the secretariat beneficial

Findings of the first implementation (cont)

Executing authorities – participation commendedDocumentation

Quality and contents of performance agreementsVerifications statement did not conform to the requirementsreports did not report on achievement of departmental objectives Lack of synergy between documents

Findings of the first implementation (cont)

Use of 360-degree instrumentNationally – only 1 HoDProvincially – 12 HoDs

Advice by the panelProvided level of performance and areas of developmentRating scale – parameters of cash

Findings on Performance Agreements

A majority of senior managers had not signed performance agreementsNo clear performance criteria – limited to targetsNo quarterly reviews

RecommendationsPSC to engage SAMDI on the nature of training to be provided to HoDsExecuting Authorities to note importance of performance management and that evaluation according to the framework is obligatoryEvaluation periods one financial yearEvaluation at provincial level must be obligatoryComposition of panels

Maximum 4 plus ChairInclude external stakeholdersMake use of cluster system

Recommendations (cont.)

Performance Agreements of HoDs to be filed with PSCPSC to provide guidance on the development of quality documentationClear linkages between processes/documentsUse of 360-degree compulsory in the interimParameters of cash bonus clearly spelt out – consider NPMDS e.g.

Level 5 : 6 - 8 % Level 4 : 3 - 5 %

AmendmentsFramework – Cabinet memo

Finalisation of evaluations not later than February 2003 Performance agreements of all HoDs be filed with PSC360-degree compulsory in the interim

Rating scale in the NPMDS be used for 2001/2002 evaluationsUse of the 360-degree in the interimOPSC serves as secretariat in all HoD evaluationsImplementation at provincial level be mandatory

Future Challenges

Creating a greater awareness of the importance of Performance ManagementSensitizing EAs to the importance of concluding PAs in timeImproving the quality of PAs Linking individual and organizational performance

Future Challenges

Changing the paradigm from rewards to adding value to management and personal developmentMoving from output based approach to outcomes based approach, strengthening Cabinet Clusters:

Defining common outcomes to be incorporated in strategic planning and performance agreementsHoD Evaluation Panels be constituted by Cabinet Clusters

Consolidating the use of external stakeholders and peers