Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/201388528/Guidebook-csc-Spms-final-Page-Proof-7-B-8jul13
Timestamp: 2018-10-21 08:53:28
Document Index: 77308601

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 4', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7']

Guidebook_csc Spms_final Page Proof 7-B_8jul13 | Performance Management | Performance Appraisal
government spms
Guidebook on the
Human Resource Policies and Standards Office CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
It has been said that a journey begins with a single step. And as the journey progresses, one has to keep track of one’s gears, one’s destination, how fast one can get to the journey’s end. Over the years, the Civil Service Commission has been at the forefront of the journey of reform and transformation of the bureaucracy. While it has logged milestones and went past crossroads, it has never lost sight of its goal—that of creating a truly responsive, motivated, and efficient workforce in government. The CSC continues the journey with yet another tool specifically for human resource management officers in the public sector. In your hands is the Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS), a step-by-step guide in establishing the agency SPMS. The Guidebook provides basic information and competencies needed to set-up the SPMS, including discussions on the system’s cycle: performance planning and commitment building; monitoring and coaching; performance review and evaluation; and rewarding and development planning. It aims to guide HRMOs in using the system to better identify, assess, and streamline performance measurement processes. The Commission has prioritized SPMS among its human resource initiatives. CSC hopes that government agencies nationwide would be able to appreciate how the system would help create a work environment where civil servants—from executives to the administrative aides—are able to link individual performance with organizational goals and perform to the best of their abilities. And through this Guidebook, the Commission hopes to stay on course in initiating definitive measures geared towards upgrading the standards of public sector governance
The production of this Guidebook would not have been possible without the invaluable support of the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) through the Philippine Australia Human Resource and Organisational Development Facility (PAHRODF). We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the following: • Representatives of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and Technological University of the Philippines (TUP) for participating in the pre-test of the Guidebook. • The CSC Public Assistance and Information Office (PAIO) for its technical inputs in the layout of the Guidebook.
Foreword	Acknowledgement	Glossary	Measuring Performance through the Years	The Strategic Performance Management System: Building on Past Initiatives	HOW TO ESTABLISH THE SPMS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION	Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team	Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND COMMITMENT	Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of Your Office	3 7 7 11 15 17 21 29 i iii vii 1
Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions under Your Office 35 Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division 39 Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale	PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING	Step 9. Develop the Performance Monitoring & Coaching Tools Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools	PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION	Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools	PERFORMANCE REWARDING & DEVELOPMENT PLANNING	Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation	CRAFTING YOUR AGENCY SPMS GUIDELINES	Tables and Charts Table 1. SPMS Paradigm Shift	Table 2. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities	Table 3. Major Final Outputs of the CSC	Table 4. CSC Scorecard	Table 5. CSC MFOs, Strategic Objectives, Measures, and Success Indicators	Table 6. Office Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators	26 33 3 8 19 22 45 59 61 67 73 75 83 85 89
Employee C Rating Matrix	Table 21. Office Level (HRPSO). and Individual Level (Staff) Success Indicators	Table 12. PSED Rating Matrix	Table 18. CSC Offices Contributing to Specific MFOs	Contributing to the MFOs	Chart 5. CSCRO Rating Matrix	Table 16. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) and Division Level (PSED) Success Indicators	Table 10. Division Level (APCCD). HRPSO’S Summary of Ratings (OPCR)	Chart 1. Division Level (PSED). CSC Logical Framework	Chart 3. and IPCR	vi vii . Sample Ratings of Accomplishments	Table 23. Review. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle Chart 2.Paper and Pencil Test Civil Service Institute Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office Department of Budget and Management Department of Labor and Employment Division Performance Commitment and Review Efficiency Executive Order Examination Recruitment and Placement Office Examination Services Division General Administration and Support Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations Human Resource Human Resource Division Human Resource Management Office Human Resource and Organization Development Human Resource Policies and Standards Office Individual Performance Commitment and Review Integrated Records Management Office International Standards Organization Key Result Area Local Government Unit Legal Services Division Local Scholarship Program Local Water District Monitoring and Evaluation Management by Objective Memorandum Circular 47 48 49 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 78 79 80 11 18 25 29 31 32 68 CS CSC CSCAAP CSCFO CSCRO CSE-PPT CSI CSLO DBM DOLE DPCR E EO ERPO ESD GAS GOCC HR HRD HRMO HR/OD HRPSO IPCR IRMO ISO KRA LGU LSD LSP LWD M&E MBO MC Table 13. Employee A Rating Matrix	Table 19. Office Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD) Success Indicators	Table 9. DPCR. Employee B Rating Matrix	Table 20. and Monitoring Collective Negotiation Agreement Civil Service Civil Service Commission Civil Service Commission Agency Accreditation Program Civil Service Commission Field Office Civil Service Commission Regional Office Career Service Examination . Ratings of Individual Staff under HRPSO	Table 24. Link between CSC’s Logical Framework and Scorecard	Chart 4.Table 7. HRPSO Rating Matrix Table 15. Employee D Rating Matrix	Table 22. Illustration of CSC Offices at the Central and Regional Levels Chart 6. Operationalization of the Rating Scale	Table 14. APCCD Rating Matrix	Table 17. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators	Table 8. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to Rate Performance 34 35 37 40 43 CNA Abbreviations APCCD ARTA ARTA-RCS CARE-HRM CB CHARM Glossary Meaning Audit and Position Classification and Compensation Division Anti-Red Tape Act Anti-Red Tape Act-Report Card Survey Continuing Assistance and Review for Excellent Human Resource Management Certifying Board Comprehensive Human Resource Management Assistance. Illustration of One CSC Office and Division at Central and Regional Levels Contributing to MFO Chart 7. Regional Office Level (CSCRO). and Individual Level (Staff) Success Indicators	Table 11. Alignment of OPCR.
Realistic.MFO MOA MORE MSD N/A NGA NPAS OFAM OHRMD OLA OPCR OPES OPIF OSM PAIO PALD PAP PERC PES PMS PMS-OPES PMT PMU PRAISE PRO PSED PSSD PRIME-HRM Q QS QSSD RA RBPMS RO SMART SPEAR SPMS STO SUC T TARD WIG Major Final Output Memorandum of Agreement Management by Objectives and Results Evaluation Management Services Division Not Applicable National Government Agencies New Performance Appraisal System Office for Financial and Assets Management Office for Human Resource Management and Development Office for Legal Affairs Office Performance Commitment and Review Office Performance Evaluation System Organizational Performance Indicator Framework Office for Strategy Management Public Assistance and Information Office Public Assistance and Liaison Division Programs. Measurable. Attainable. Projects. and Activities Performance Evaluation Review Committee Performance Evaluation System Performance Management System Performance Management System-Office Performance Evaluation System Performance Management Team Project Management Unit Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence Personnel Relations Office Policies and Systems Evaluation Division Personnel Systems and Standards Division Program to Institutionalize Meritocracy and Excellence in Human Resource Management Quality Qualification Standards Qualification and Selection Standards Division Republic Act Results-Based Performance Management System Regional Office Specific. and Time-bound Special Program for Evaluation and Assessment as Required/Requested Strategic Performance Management System Support to Operations State Universities and Colleges Timeliness Talent Acquisition and Retention Division Wildly Important Goal .
1963 PERFORMANCE RATING 1978 NEW PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM 1989 AUTONOMY OF AGENCIES IN DEVELOPING THEIR PES 1 . s. efficiency. through CSC MC No. peers. supervisors. 6. It emphasized the importance of linking the performance management system with national goals as stated in the following: • Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan • Organizational Performance Indicator/ Framework (OPIF) • Major Final Output (MFO) 1963: 1999 REVISED PES AND 360-DEGREE EVALUATION 1993 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM Performance Rating CSC Memorandum Circular No. 1963 provided the guidelines in developing a system of performance rating that would measure performance of government employees. 1978. s. quantity. integrity. the CSC has implemented several performance evaluation and appraisal systems. the CSC adopted a system called MORE (Management by Objectives and Results Evaluation) in which the employee’s accomplishments in performance and behavior are monitored weekly. 12. Similar to the NPAS and MORE. the NPAS focused on key result areas (KRAs) along the dimensions of quality. 2. 13. s. a cross rating system in which assessment of performance and behavior 1993: 1989: Autonomy of Agencies in Developing their Performance Evaluation System The CSC provided simple guidelines to empower government agencies to develop their own Performance Evaluation System (PES). the Civil Service Commission (CSC) is constitutionally mandated to adopt measures to promote morale. The CSC provided specific guidelines on setting the mechanics of the rating system. The Revised PES required each government agency to create a Performance Evaluation Review Committee (PERC) tasked to establish performance standards.Measuring Performance through the Years As the central human resource management agency of the Philippine bureaucracy. Internally. 1999 revised the PES and introduced the 360 degree evaluation. Through the years. Agency Heads were given the discretion to utilize the approved PES or devise a Performance Evaluation System based on a combination of the old PES and the revised performance evaluation system. s. Implemented through Memorandum Circular No. the PES also measured the employee’s performance and behavior in the work environment. 1993. courtesy and public accountability among government employees. 2005 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM-OFFICE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM organizational goals. In 2001. This guideline was made through Memorandum Circular No. Performance Evaluation System Through Memorandum Circular No. s. comes from the employees’ self-evaluation as well as feedback from their subordinates. s. 12. the Performance Evaluation System (PES) sought to establish an objective performance system. 1989. and timeliness. An evaluation of the cross-rating system revealed that employees perceived the system to be too complex. responsiveness. Below is a brief review of past initiatives: 1999: Revised PES and 360-Degree Evaluation Memorandum Circular No. 13. 2001. It measured the employee’s performance and behavior in the work environment. 1978: 2005: The New Performance Appraisal System The New Performance Appraisal System Peter (NPAS) was based on Drucker’s Management Performance Management System-Office Performance Evaluation System Performance Management System System-Office (PMS-OPES) Performance Evaluation sought to align individual performance with by Objectives (MBOs) system. and clients.
For a Field Office with 5 staff. Like its predecessor. the SPMS seeks to link individual performance with the agency’s organizational vision. 70% of 1. With some adjustments.” every hour of work is given 1 OPES point in the rating system. 680 points are multiplied by the number of staff in the office. the of This Field Office. Under the OPES. it also makes use of existing performance evaluation and management systems and links performance management with other human resource (HR) systems. The OPES measures performance The Strategic Performance Management System: Building on Past Initiatives The past performance evaluation and appraisal systems that CSC implemented over the years have largely focused only on individual appraisals.360 divided by 2 semesters (to reflect the two monitoring periods every year) = 680 points. The smallest unit is the division. number of appointments processed) Focus on individual (competition) To Performance management Outputs and outcomes Success indicators (e. Under this system. Performance alignment Role of supervisor Evaluator 2 3 . Although the PMS-OPES sought to create a system with objectively-measured performance outputs. that “what gets measured gets done. PMS-OPES. This Field Office can get a rating of Outstanding simply by processing a big number of appointments and examination applications. SPMS Paradigm Shift collective a unit.400 pts. an OPES Reference Table was created. 2007 called for the installation of Performance Management System in the Civil Service. and separation. targets are estimated on the basis of the number of OPES points required per individual per rating period multiplied by the number of individual members of the organizational unit. the process proved too tedious and overly activity-oriented. the PMS-OPES required each government agency to create a Measurement Development and Calibration Team that would determine the equivalent points of each major final output or the amount of time it will take an average competent employee to produce a specific output. they have not shown how employee performance has contributed to or hindered organizational effectiveness. however. However.Drawing from the rationale TO ILLUSTRATE HOW TO COMPUTE OPES POINTS: 243 working days in a year x 8 hours in a day = 1.g. To get the target points of the office. The backlog in the work of the Field Office is not considered in the rating. • Republic Act 9485 or Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) required government agencies to reengineer their systems and procedures and develop their Citizen’s Charter.g. promotion. the minimum OPES points should therefore be 3. the CSC recently introduced the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) after its pilot test in 2011.944 working hours in a year. the SPMS makes a major paradigm shift in the following areas: Table 1. The percentage of non-quantifiable outputs and activities for Regional/Field Office staff is 30%. and strategic goals. while the percentage of quantifiable outputs is 70%. • Administrative Order 241. The SPMS incorporates the positive features of past initiatives. Using this as the standard unit of measure. However. response time) Align individual to office/ organization (teamwork and collaboration) Coach and mentor issuances related to the PMS-OPES: • Memorandum Circular No. may still have pending appointments that need to be acted upon. which were used for personnel actions such as incentives. Below are the government AREA Perspective Focus Indicators PARADIGM SHIFT From Performance evaluation Activities and inputs Performance indicators (e. mission. 7. s. To address the gaps and weaknesses found in previous evaluation systems.944 is 1. Section 5 mandated agencies to institute a performance evaluation system based on objectively-measured performance outputs.
Goal aligned to agency mandate and organizational priorities. outputs. 4 authorized the President of the Philippines to modify the compensation and position classification system of civilian personnel and the base pay schedule of military and uniformed personnel in the government. s. mission. • Executive Order No. 4. The office. The individual’s work plan or commitment and rating form is linked to the division. The suggested forms for organizational and individual commitments and performance are similar and easy to complete. 3. and/or organizational performance indicator framework. mission. strategic priorities. Team approach to performance management. Basic Elements of the SPMS: 1. The SPMS promotes the establishment of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and information systems that facilitate the linkage between organizational and employee performance and generate timely. Establishing the SPMS in the organization must be accompanied by an orientation program for agency officials and employees to promote awareness and interest on the system and generate appreciation for the SPMS as a management tool to engage officials and employees as partners in the achievement of organizational goals. This inter-agency task force developed the Results-Based Performance Management System (RBPMS) that established a common set of performance scorecard and harmonized national government performance monitoring. 5. s. division. improve programs. s. unit. and reporting systems. Performance goals and measurements are aligned to national development plans. • CSC Memorandum Circular No. Communication Plan. • Administrative Order No. The SPMS focuses on the major final outputs (MFOs) that contribute to the realization of the organization’s mandate. 6. accurate. and outcomes. 6. and office work plan or commitment and rating form to clearly establish the connection between organizational and employee performance. Information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. 2011 created an inter-agency task force on the harmonization of national government performance monitoring. and strategic priorities. and reporting systems. information. 1. report accomplishments. 2012 provided the rules and regulations on the grant of step increments due to meritorious performance and length of service.The government issuances related to the SPMS are the following: • Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. and individual major final outputs and success indicators are aligned to cascade organizational goals to individual employees and harmonize organizational and staff performance ratings. 80. and reliable information that can be used to track performance. vision. and be the basis for policy decision-making. s. 2012 provided guidelines in the establishment and implementation of agency Strategic Performance Management System. agency mandate. Accountabilities and individual roles in the achievement of organizational goals are clearly defined to facilitate collective goal setting and performance rating. vision. 2012 directed the adoption of a performancebased incentive system for government employees. User-friendly. 2. Predetermined standards are integrated into the success indicators as organizational objectives are cascaded down to the operational level. • Joint CSC-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Joint Circular No. 25. information. Outputs/outcomes-based. 4 5 .
When establishing the SPMS. Form the Performance Management Team FORM THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TEAM How to Establish the SPMS in Your Organization The Performance Management Team (PMT) will spearhead the establishment of the SPMS in your organization. Highest Finance Officer 6. Highest Planning Officer 5. President of the accredited employee association The Planning Office will function as the Secretariat. Highest Human Resource Management Officer 3. Highest Human Resource Development Officer 4. The PMT shall be composed of the following: 1. Executive Official designated as Chairperson 2. it is important to have the following key players who will assume the responsibilities listed in Table 2: 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  7 .Step 1.
procedures. •Monitors submission of Office Performance Commitment and Rating Form (OPCR) and schedule the review and evaluation by the PMT. and evaluates the initial performance assessment based on accomplishments reported against success indicators and budget against actual expenses. the SPMS Champion is responsible and accountable for the establishment and implementation of the SPMS. •Consolidates. •Provides written notice to subordinates who obtain Unsatisfactory or Poor rating. •Assesses individual employees’ performance. •Conducts an agency performance planning and review conference annually. •Provides each office with the final office assessment as basis in the assessment of individual employees. •Monitors closely the status of performance of subordinates. •Conducts strategic planning session with supervisors and staff. PMT •Sets consultation meetings with all Heads of Offices to discuss the office performance commitment and rating system and tools. and budget are aligned with those of goals of the agency. •Reviews the summary list of individual performance rating. •Assumes joint responsibility with the Head of Office in attaining performance targets. •Assesses performance of offices. •Ensures that office performance management targets. skill/competency gaps. measures. Individual Employees Division Chief KEY PLAYERS Head of Office RESPONSIBILITIES •Assumes primary responsibility for performance management in his/her office. you should be able to identify the members of your PMT and draft an office order mandating the composition of the PMT. •Informs employees of the final rating and identifies necessary interventions to employees. •Reviews and approves individual performance commitment and rating form. •Coordinates developmental interventions that will form part of the HR Plan. •Provides analytical data on retention. and talent development plan. •Identifies potential top performers for awards. •Does initial assessment of office’s performance. •Sets agency performance goals/objectives and performance measures. reviews. 9 10 11 12 9 . Planning Office •Functions as the PMT Secretariat. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities KEY PLAYERS SPMS Champion RESPONSIBILITIES •Together with the PMT.Step 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 l If you follow Step 1. •Rationalizes distribution of targets and tasks. Form the Performance Management Team Table 2. •Determines agency target setting period. •Act as partners of management and co-employees in meeting organizational performance goals. •Approves office performance commitment and rating. •Determines final assessment of individual employees’ performance level. •Recommends approval of the office performance and rating system and tools. •Acts as appeals body and final arbiter. •Recommends developmental interventions. Human Resource Management Office (HRMO) •Monitors submission of Individual Performance Commitment and Rating (IPCR) Form. •Submits quarterly accomplishment report. and strategies to carry out its responsibilities. Form the Performance Management Team Step 1. •Adopts its own internal rules. validates.
Review the Existing Performance Management System REVIEW THE EXISTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Once formed. 6.Step 2. Performance Rewarding & Development Planning Stage 1. Performance Planning & Commitment 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Stage 3. Performance Monitoring & Coaching 10 11 . 2012. Performance Review & Evaluation PMS CYCLE Stage 2. the first thing that the PMT does is to review the agency’s existing performance management system (PMS) and make necessary modifications so that it is aligned with the SPMS guidelines issued through Memorandum Circular No. s. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle Stage 4. 1 2 3 4 Chart 1.
The suggested time periods for Performance Review and Evaluation are the first week of July and the first week of January the following year. ask yourself the following questions: • Is there a mechanism for the Head of Office and supervisors to discuss assessment results with the individual employee at the end of the rating period? • Is there a provision to draw up a Professional Development Plan to improve or correct performance of employees with Unsatisfactory or Poor performance rating? • Are recommendations for developmental interventions indicated in the Performance Commitment and Rating Form? • Is there a provision on your Agency Guidelines to link the SPMS with your Agency Human Resource Development Plan? • Is there a provision in your Agency Guidelines to tie up the performance management system with agency rewards and incentives for top performing individuals. The suggested time for Performance Planning and Commitment is the last quarter of the preceding year. The focus is creating an enabling environment potentials. Review the Existing Performance Management System Step 2. and the action plan? CYCLE 2 . ask yourself the following questions: • Does your SPMS calendar show that officials and employees are required to submit their commitments prior to the start of the rating period? • Does your SPMS calendar allot time for the PMT to review and make recommendations on the performance commitments? • Does your SPMS calendar indicate the period for Heads of Agency and Offices to approve the office and individual performance commitments? When reviewing Stage 3. officials. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 Stage 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 When reviewing Stage 1. units. schedule of coaching. The suggested time periods for Performance Rewarding and Development Planning are the first week of July and the first week of January the following year. Performance Rewarding and Development Planning is based on the results of the performance review and evaluation when appropriate developmental interventions shall be made available to specific employees. 1 to the start of the performance period where heads of Stage 1 offices meet with the supervisors and staff and agree on the outputs that should be accomplished based on the goals and objectives of the organization. and the individual. Review the Existing Performance Management System The SPMS follows the same four-stage PMS cycle that underscores the importance of performance management: Performance Performance Planning and Commitment is done prior Monitoring and Coaching is done regularly during the performance period by the Heads of Agency. to improve suggested team time performance and develop individual The periods for Performance Monitoring and Coaching are January to June and July to December. s. Division and Office Heads. 13. 1999 .Revised Policies on the PES? 4 • Are interventions given to those PMS 3 1 who are behind work targets? Is space provided in the Employee Feedback Form for recommended interventions? • Is there a form or logbook to record critical incidents. ask yourself the following questions: • Are feedback sessions to discuss performance of offices. ask yourself the following questions: • Are office accomplishments assessed against the success indicators and the allotted Stage4 When reviewing Stage 4. and employees provided in your Agency Guidelines and scheduled in your SPMS calendar? budget against the actual expenses as indicated in the Performance Commitment and Rating Forms and provided in your Agency Guidelines? • Does your SPMS calendar schedule and conduct the Annual Agency Performance Review Conference? • Is individual employee performance assessed based on the commitments made at the start of the rating period? • Does your agency rating scale fall within the range prescribed in Memorandum Circular No. and offices? • Are the results of the performance evaluation used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and rewards and incentives? Stage 2 When reviewing Stage 2. Performance Review and Evaluation is done at regular intervals to assess both the performance of the individual and his/her office.Step 2. Planning Office.
you shoiuld be able to identify the gaps and PMS areas for modification and enhancement. Performance Planning & Commitment .Step 2. l If you follow Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 Steps 3 to 8 are all subsumed under the first stage of the PMS cycle− Performance Planning and Commitment.
This is published by the Department of Budget and Management. 1 2 Major Final Outputs refer to the goods and services that your agency is mandated to deliver to external clients through the implementation of programs. the other possible sources of information are the following documents: For National Government Agencies (NGAs). State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and Government-owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs): • Philippine Development Plan • Agency Charter For Local Government Units (LGUs): • Agency Strategic Plan/Road Map • Scorecard • Philippine Development Plan • Local Government Code • Local Development Plan • Road Map • Strategic Plan • Scorecard . the first thing to do is to understand your agency’s Major Final Outputs.Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR AGENCY’S MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS The SPMS links staff performance with organizational performance. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 Where you can find the MFOs or strategic priorities of your agency: • The Agency Logical Framework/Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) Book of Outputs is the main source document for your organization’s MFOs. it is important to understand your organization’s mandate and strategic priorities. If your agency does not have a written Logical Framework/OPIF Book of Outputs. projects. and activities (PAPs). During the period of performance planning and commitment. As such.
Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs EXAMPLES OF MFOs FOUND IN THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK Chart 2. standards & regulations on employeemanagement relations in the public sector • Conduct training programs • Formulate/ evaluate/ administer HRD programs & service-wide scholarships Develop policies. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs Step 3. CSC Logical Framework Encircled in the logical framework matrix shown in Chart 2 are the CSC’s five Major Final Outputs: Table 3. mission. and financial services. standards & procedures on the various processes involved in recruitment. PROGRAMS. and information systems development. PROJECTS. public information programs. l If you follow Step 3. examination & placement • Certify eligible for placement • Conduct examination • Issue certificate of eligibility • Process/ review appointments for non-accredited agencies • Formulate policies on government employment • Review/ enhance/ monitor agency career systems &standards • Develop policies. human resource development. AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS) • Adjudicate administrative disciplinary & non-disciplinary cases • Formulate opinions & rulings • Render legal counseling • Develop & formulate guidelines. rules & regulations on personnel program evaluation. including personnel inspection & audit actions GAS refer to activities that deal with the provision of overall administrative management support to the entire agency operation. By themselves. standards. and goals? • What are my agency’s products and services or major final outputs? . Examples are legislative liaison services. these activities do not produce the MFOs but they contribute or enhance the delivery of goods and services.Step 3. MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS PERSONNEL POLICIES & STANDARDS SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERSONNEL DISCIPLINE & ACCOUNTABILITY ENHANCEMENT SERVICES LEGAL SERVICE EXAMINATION & APPOINTMENTS STOs refer to activities that provide technical and substantive support to the operations and projects of the agency. However. Examples include program monitoring and evaluation. statistical services. Major Final Outputs of the CSC MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO 1: Legal Services 1 2 SOCIETAL GOAL Human Resource Development Toward Poverty Alleviation 1 2 SECTORAL GOAL MFO 2: Examinations and Appointments Improved Public Service Delivery Good Governance 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services MFO 4: Human Resource Development Services MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and Accountability Enhancement Services 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 19 Merit & Rewards System in the Civil Service Strengthened and Public Accountability of Civil Servants Promoted MFOs are delivered by core business processes of operating offices/units. offices/units that do not directly deliver goods and services to external clients contribute to the delivery of the agency’s MFOs through Support to Operations (STO) or General Administration and Support (GAS) activities. you should be able to answer the following questions: • What is my agency’s mandate---vision.
Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output IDENTIFY THE SUCCESS INDICATORS OF EACH MAJOR FINAL OUTPUT After identifying the MFOs of your agency. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 21 Success indicators must be SMART: √ SPECIFIC √ MEASURABLE √ ATTAINABLE √ REALISTIC √ TIME-BOUND 20 . Where you can find the performance indicators of your agency: • Agency logical framework/OPIF is the main document that details the performance indicators and targets per MFO. • Agency Strategic Plan/Road Map /Scorecard Using these documents as basis. list down the success indicators or performance measures and targets of each MFO. the agencies must agree on the performance standards on which they want to be measured. You can determine the success indicators by referring to the following documents: • Citizen’s Charter • RA 6713 (Code of Ethics and Ethical Standards) • OPES Reference Table • Accomplishment Reports (for historical data) • Benchmarking Reports • Stakeholders’ Feedback Reports There may be other documents aside from those listed above that an agency can derive its success indicators.Step 4.
490 agencies) WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20% and its Number of NGAs.590 accredited agencies) Client Satisfaction Rating (CSC frontline services) MEASURE BASE Good 2012 (89.590 ited out of 1. and SPMS and SUCs) SUCs) OBJECTIVE C Provide excellent HR processes Step 4. and with approved agenSPMS and SUCs) SUCs) SPMS) cies A: 1 WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20% Number of NGAs.490 agencies) 2.14%) 2014 Excellent (90-100%) 2015 Excellent (90-100%) Step 4. OPES Reference Excellent (90-100%) EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS INDICATORS Examples of Success Indicators FOUND IN THE AGENCY SCORECARD found in the Agency Scorecard Table 4. Benchmarking Reports). SPMS is conditionally approved for initial GOCCs.590 selected accredited agencies) agencies) Good2013 (87. Other agencies may determine their success indicators from other documents listed above (e. (364 agencies tached with functional NGAs.490 agencies) 2. SUCs.590 accredited agencies) 50% (795 agencies Level II accredited out of 1. and SUCs out of 393 of 393 NGAs.743 out of (1. and SUCs out of 393 of 393 NGAs. GOCCs.992 out of with approved SPMS DOLE 2. OPES Reference Table. competent.(398 agencies (636 agencies (795 agencies (262 agencies validated out of Level II accredit. (Cases (Maintain thefor initial (Maintain the (Maintained) Functional SPMS – SPMS is approved and implemented support processes Adjudication.g..3% in CSC 25% ARTA-RCS & (398 agencies 99% satisfacLevel II accredittion rating of ed out ofgovt 1. Percentage of agencies accredited under the PRIME-HRM T: A: OBJECTIVE B High performing. LWDs. and credible civil servants MEASURE BASE A: N/A 2011 OBJECTIVE B High performing.743 out of (1. service offices out offices or fices service offices ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed) MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 service A: 73% 75% offices 3 WIG: Percentage 78% T: 20% 40% 85% 95% 98% (361 passed (449 passed surof high density (39 (469 service of.(560 service of(830 pass out (345 pass out of (1.590 accredited ed out of 1.590 credited out of agencies) accreditedto have complied 1.14%) 10% (159 agencies revalidated out of 1. N/A Benchmarking T:1 Acceptable Good (70-79%) (80-89%) Good (80-89%) Excellent (90-100%) PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE STAKEHOLDERS STAKEHOLDERS STAKEHOLDERS STAKEHOLDERS PROCESS 22 The Civil Service Commission derives its success indicators from its Logical Framework/ OPIF Book of Outputs as well as its Scorecard.590 accredited agencies) 2 10% 25% 40% 50% 165% (159 agencies re. and LGUs. and credible civil servants 165% 2012 2013 2014 2015 (262 agencies 3 WIG: Percentage 78% T: 20% 40% 85% 95% 98% revalidated) of high density (39 (469 service of. competent. LWDs.Level II accredLevel II acrevalidated) 1.490 agencies) out of 497 out of 599 veyed) and its service service A: N/A offices 73% offices 12 atsurveyed) surveyed) (364 agencies tached with approved agen4 WIG: 14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80% SPMS) cies Number of agencies and (498 out of (747 out of (1.590 accredited Level II accredited – an agency which meets the basic requirements after having been subjected accredited to CHARM and/or determined with the agencies)authority to agencies) agencies) recommendations of the CSCRO/FO concerned after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission take final action on appointments.490 agencies) 2.490 agencies) 2. GOCCs. Functional SPMS – SPMS is approved and implemented with functional NGAs. Reports). + Training +Project Appointments Process) Management MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Processing) Process) 5 Number of ISOT: N/A 3 4 5 5 .022 pass Levelagencies II accredited an agency which meets the basic requirements after having been subjected to and/or determined to ofhave complied with the and – their passed fices surveyed) fices surveyed) of CHARM 975 service 363 service out of 1.042 recommendations of pass the CSCRO/FO concerned after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission authority to takesurveyed) final action on appointments. 3 Processes 4 Processes Examination.490 agencies) 2.g.Examples of Success Indicators OBJECTIVE MEASURE found in the Agency Scorecard BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 A Recognized as a Center for Excellence 1 Client Satisfaction Rating (CSC frontline services) Table.992 out of (361 passed (449 passed surwith approved SPMS DOLE 2..(560 service of(830 pass out (345 pass out of (1. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Good2011 (87% in CSC ARTA-RCS and Acceptable 98% (70-79%) satisfaction rating of selected govt agencies) Good (87. The Civil Service Commission derives its success indicators from its Logical Framework/ OPIF Book of Outputs as well as its Scorecard. (315 agencies (79 agencies out A: N/A 73% 12 atGOCCs. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 23 OBJECTIVE C Provide A: 1 5 Number of ISOT: N/A 3 4 5 5 Approved SPMS – includes SPMS is conditionally approved implementation certified core and all sectors: NGAs. and LGUs.042 service offices service offices service offices passout offices or fices surveyed) service offices surveyed) surveyed) ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed) service 4 WIG: 14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80% A: 73% 75% offices Number of agencies and (498 out of (747 out of (1. Citizen’s Charter.022 pass out of 497 out of 599 veyed) agencies and their passed fices surveyed) fices surveyed) of 975 service 363 service ofout of 1. CSC Scorecard 2015 OBJECTIVE A: T:1 Good (80-89%) A 1 N/A Recognized as a Center for Excellence A: 2 Percentage of agencies accredited under the PRIME-HRM T: (87% in CSC N/A ARTA-RCS and 98% satisfaction rating of selected govt agencies) N/A N/A Good (89.490 agencies) 2. GOCCs. GOCCs. Other agencies may determine their success indicators from other documents listed above (e.3% in CSC ARTA-RCS & Good 99% satisfac(80-89%) tion rating of selected govt agencies) Good 40% (636 agencies Level II accredited out of 1. GOCCs. SUCs. (315 implementation agencies (79 agencies out Approved SPMS – includes all sectors: NGAs. Citizen’s Charter. GOCCs.
standards & regulations on employeemanagement relations in the public sector • Conduct training programs • Formulate/ evaluate/ administer HRD programs & service-wide scholarships Develop policies. and credible civil servants Employees collectively refer to the rank and file.115) RBPMS rating: Passed 3 (Cases Adjudication. standards. Ensure fairness 6 7 30% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS PERSONNEL HUMAN RESOURCE PERSONNEL DISCIPLINE & BASE SERVICE LEGAL EXAMINATION & APPOINTMENTS POLICIES & STANDARDS SERVICES N/A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES N/A N/A ACCOUNTABILITY ENHANCEMENT SERVICES MFO 4: HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES and efficiency in performing QuasiJudicial functions E. supervisory. GOCCs. examination & placement • Certify eligible for placement • Conduct examination • Issue certificate of eligibility • Process/ review appointments for non-accredited agencies • Formulate policies on government employment • Review/ enhance/ monitor agency career systems &standards • Develop policies. and SUCs with functional SPMS Number of ISO-certified core and support processes WIG: Percentage of cases resolved within 40 days from the time they are ripe for resolution 73% (4. SUCs. Ensure efficient management of financial resources 9 8 A: A: A: T: T: T: T: Percentage of CSC employees meeting their job competency standards Zero un-liquidated cash advance PROGRAMS. Examination.Step 4. GOCCs. standards & procedures on the various processes involved in recruitment. Ensure efficient management of financial resources. you will find that general administrative and support functions are part of the strategic objectives: C. Provide excellent HR processes and F. Recognized as a Center of Excellence 2 3 1 MEASURES 5 (Maintain the 4 Processes +Project Management Process) Client Satisfaction Rating (CSC frontline services) Percentage of agencies accredited under the PRIME-HRM WIG: Percentage of high density agencies and their service offices passing the ARTA-RCS 2014 100% Chart 3. SPMS is conditionally approved for initial implementation Functional SPMS – SPMS is approved and implemented 80% 98% MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO 1: LEGAL SERVICES STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES A. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS) • Adjudicate administrative disciplinary & non-disciplinary cases • Formulate opinions & rulings • Render legal counseling • Develop & formulate guidelines. CSLO and OCH. including personnel inspection & audit actions Percentage of CSC employees meeting their job competency standards WIG: Percentage of cases resolved within 40 days from the time they are ripe for resolution Number of ISOcertified core and support processes MFO 5: PERSONNEL DISCIPLINE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ENHANCEMENT SERVICES 6 Ensure fairness and efficiency in performing Quasi-Judicial functions Ensure efficient management of financial resources OBJECTIVE Provide excellent HR processes Enhance the competency of our workforce 8 5 7 Zero un-liquidated cash advance MEASURE You will note that MFO 2 (Examinations and Appointments) is not included in the Scorecard but it is one of the core functions of the CSC. Examination. rules & regulations on personnel program evaluation. Appointments Processing) Improved Public Service Delivery Good Governance 4 5 WIG: Number of agencies with approved SPMS WIG: Numbers of NGAs. CSC Logical Framework SOCIETAL GOAL Human Resource Development Toward Poverty Alleviation 80% 70% 4 (Maintain the 3 Processes + Training Process) 2013 MFO 2: EXAMINATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS B. Appointments Processing) 3 (Cases Adjudication. High performing. Provide excellent HR processes D. and LGUs.582 cases resolved) 2012 60% 80% ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES Merit & Rewards System in the Civil Service Strengthened and Public Accountability of Civil Servants Promoted MFO 3: PERSONNEL POLICIES AND STANDARDS SERVICES 2011 C. In the Scorecard. LWDs. competent. C D E 24 *Target percentage may change depending on the results of the validation being conducted by OLA. and executive/managerial groups 100% 70%* 60% SECTORAL GOAL 53% (592 out of 1. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output 5 (Maintained) LINK BETWEEN LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND SCORECARD 100% 2015 The illustration below shows the link between CSC’s Logical Framework—where the MFOs and performance targets are found.791 out of 6. PROJECTS.” FINANCE F PEOPLE PROCESS PROCESS 25 . and Scorecard—where the strategic objectives and measures are indicated: Approved SPMS – includes all sectors: NGAs. Link between CSC’s Logical Framework and Scorecard Chart 2. Enhance the competency of our workforce F.
MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Recognized as a Center for Excellence MEASURES • Percentage of agencies accredited under PRIME-HRM	SUCCESS INDICATORS • No. of HR Climate Surveys conducted as per annual work plan • No. of unions accredited according to standards • No. Measures. of agencies subjected to CHARM/CARE-HRM/ SPEAR as per annual work plan • No. determine specific targets and success indicators for each year in your annual work plan. of agencies accredited under PRIME-HRM Level II Accreditation (issued with CSC Resolution) in accordance with guidelines and set standards • No. of HRMOs assessed as per annual work plan • No. of education/information campaign conducted as per annual work plan • No. of cases adjudicated and resolved within thirty (30) working days (disciplinary cases) • No. of agencies revalidated in accordance with guidelines • No. of agencies recommended for Deregulated Status in accordance with guidelines • No. of appointments processed/ reviewed versus received in accordance with technical standards (for regulated agencies) MFO 2: Examinations and Appoinments NOTE: MFO 2 is not included in the Scorecard but it is one of the core functions of the CSC. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. of conciliation/mediation services rendered according to standards 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 26 MFO 1: Ensure fairness Legal Services and efficiency in performing quasi-judicial functions 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 27 • No. Performance targets and standards are continuously reviewed and refined. of union’s CNAs registered according to standards • No. of cases adjudicated and resolved within ten (10) working days (non-disciplinary cases) • No. CSC MFOs. of agencies conferred with Seal of Excellence Award under PRIME-HRM in accordance with Commission-approved standards • No.Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS INDICATORS The highlighted column in the table below shows CSC’s success indicators that were derived from the MFOs (found in the Logical Framework) and strategic objectives and measures (found in the Scorecard). and Success Indicators MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE MEASURES Percentage of cases resolved within 40 days from the time they are ripe for resolution SUCCESS INDICATORS • Percentage of cases resolved within 40 days from the time they are ripe for resolution • No. As such. of appointments processed/ reviewed versus received in accordance with technical standards (for regulated agencies) . of unions registered according to standards • No. of Seal of Excellence awarded under PRIME-HRM in accordance with Commission-approved standards • No. Table 5. of CSC test applications processed and administered in accordance with standards • No. Strategic Objectives. of eligibilities certified/placed • No. of eligibles granted under special laws • No.
CSCROs MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and Accountability Enhancement Services . CSCROs MFO 2: Examinations and Appointments Human Resource Policies & l If you follow Step 4. Recruitment and Placement Office (ERPO). Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office (CSLO). of complaints/feedbacks/ requests processed/acted upon versus received • Number of agencies with functional SPMS IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF YOUR OFFICE After identifying all the MFOs of your agency. Civil Service Institute (CSI). Personnel Relations Office (PRO). Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 5. CSCROs MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services 9 10 11 12 29 HRPSO. you should be able to formulate indicators that are SMART. focus on the performance goals of your office. of Distance Learning Program graduates according to standards • No. and credible civil servants	• Percentage of high density agencies & their service offices passing the ARTA-RCS • Number of agencies with functional SPMS EXAMPLES OF OFFICES CONTRIBUTING TO MFOs In the Civil Service Commission. It is also possible that one office will be contributing to two MFOs. Office for Strategy Management (OSM). Identify the Performance Goals of your Office MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO 4: Human Resource Development Services STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Enhance the competency of our workforce MEASURES Percentage of CSC employees meeting their job competency standards SUCCESS INDICATORS • Percentage of CSC employees meeting their job competency standards per annual work plan • No. CSC Regional Offices (CSCROs) MFO 1: Legal Services 5 6 7 8 Examination. CSCROs MFO 4: Human Resource Development Services HRPSO. Public Assistance and Information Office (PAIO). Ask yourself: Which MFO is my office contributing to? In most cases. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 28 MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and Accountability Enhancement Services High performing. competent.Step 4. one or several offices will be contributing to one MFO. of scholars enrolled according to standards • Good CSC Client Satisfaction Rating (CSC frontline services) for 2013 • Percentage of high density agencies and their service offices passing the ARTA-Report Card Survey per annual work plan • No. the following offices contribute to specific MFOs: Office for Legal Affairs (OLA). of personnel trained • No. Standards Office (HRPSO). Office for Human Resource Management and Development (OHRMD).
Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5.5 hours Test form developed with good reliability index within 2 days before security printing CSC client satisfaction rating (frontline services) % of agencies accredited under PRIME-HRM % of CSC employees meeting their job competency % of high density agencies & their service offices passing ARTA-RCS No.Step 5. performance targets. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office The chart below shows how each CSC office. MFO 2: EXAMINATIONS & APPOINTMENTS MFO 3: PERSONNEL POLICIES AND STANDARDS SERVICES MFO 4: HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MFO 5: PERSONNEL DISCIPLINE & ACCOUNTABILITY Chart 5. each office determines its specific performance targets or success indicators in its annual work plan. division. competent & credible civil servants % of cases resolved within 40 days % appointments acted upon within 1. As such. of agencies with approved & functional SPMS OLA CSCRO CSCROs ERPO OSM HRPSO CSCRO OHRMD CSI CSCRO OSM CSCRO HRPSO CSCRO OLA Divisions LSD CSCFOs ESD PMU APCCD PSED TARD IST HRD PMU PALD PSSD PSED Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff 31 . and MFOs and contribute to realize CSC’s vision of becoming Asia’s leading Center of Excellence for Strategic Human Resource and Organization Development by 2030. The chart. your office/unit is either implementing Support to Operations (STO) activities or General Administration and Support (GAS) activities. Illustration of CSC Offices at the Central and Regional Levels Contributing to the MFOs VISION: Asia’s Leading Center of Excellence for Strategic HR and OD by 2030 MFO 1: LEGAL SERVICES 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 30 Ensure fairness and efficiency in performance of quasi-judicial functions Recognized as a Center for Excellence Enhance the competency of our workforce High performing. 1 2 3 4 If your office/unit is not directly delivering goods and services to external clients. and individual staff in the central and regional levels work towards meeting the Based on the organizational priorities of the Civil Service Commission each year. however. strategic objectives. you should have your own SMART performance targets or success indicators from the office/unit level down to the individual staff level. does not show all the units in the CSC but only those that are directly contributing to the MFOs.
3 The other offices of the Civil Service Commission contributing to MFO 3 are the Personnel Relations Office and the Regional Offices.5 hours Test form developed with above average reliability index within 2 days before security printing CSC client satisfaction rating (frontline services) % of agencies accredited under PRIME-HRM % of CSC employees meeting their job competency % of high density agencies & their service offices passing ARTA-RCS No. the Audit Position Classification and Compensation Division (APCCD) and its counterpart office and division on the regional level. 2 Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff Individual Staff 32 . Table 6. this Guidebook will zero in on MFO 3 and one specific office in the Civil Service Commission that contributes to it: the Human Resource Policies and Standards Office (HRPSO). Illustration of One CSC Office and Division at Central and Regional Levels Contributing to MFO 3 VISION: Asia’s Leading Center of Excellence for Strategic HR and OD by 2030 MFO 1: LEGAL SERVICES MFO 2: EXAMINATIONS & APPOINTMENTS MFO 3: PERSONNEL POLICIES AND STANDARDS SERVICES MFO 4: HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MFO 5: PERSONNEL DISCIPLINE & ACCOUNTABILITY MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 33 Ensure fairness and efficiency in performance of quasi-judicial functions Recognized as a Center for Excellence Enhance the competency of our workforce High performing. the CSC Regional Office (CSCRO) and the Policies and Systems Evaluation Division (PSED). Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5. Below are the performance goals or success indicators of the HRPSO that cascade down to the APPCD. Realistic. Measurable. competent & credible civil servants % of cases resolved within 40 days % appointments acted upon within 1. and one division under it. You will note that two offices in the central office actually contribute to MFO 3: HRPSO and OSM. Note that the success indicators are SMART—Specific. Attainable. However. Office Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Recognized as a Center for Excellence MEASURES Percentage of agencies accredited under PRIME-HRM OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS INDICATORS 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 15 days from receipt of the recommendation Resolutions for accreditation of agencies approved by the Commission within 15 days from receipt of recommendation from the CSCRO PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved by the Commission by end of the 1st Quarter Orientation on PRIME-HRM conducted by EO March 2013 MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria signed by end of September 2013 Replies to queries sent within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO 1 2 3 4 Chart 6. HRPSO’s other success indicators that cascade down to the other two divisions2 under it are not included. the focus will only be on the HRPSO (central office) and the PSED (regional office). Identify the Performance Goals of your Office To illustrate how the performance goals of an office cascade down to the division and individual staff levels on the central and regional levels.Step 5. These units are highlighted in yellow below: EXAMPLE OF THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF AN OFFICE AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL The HRPSO contributes to MFO 3. of agencies with approved & functional SPMS OLA CSCRO CSCROs ERPO OSM HRPSO CSCRO OHRMD CSI CSCRO OSM CSCRO HRPSO CSCRO Divisions OLA LSD CSCFOs ESD PMU APCCD PSED TARD IST HRD PMU PALD PSSD PSED The other two divisions under the HRPSO are: Personnel Systems and Standards Division (PSSD) and Qualification and Selection Standards Division (QSSD). and Time-bound.
Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office EXAMPLE OF THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF A REGIONAL OFFICE The Regional Offices likewise contribute to MFO 3. and Qualification and Selection Standards Division (QSSD). Audit and Position Classification and Compensation Division (APCCD). MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE MEASURES OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS INDICATORS DIVISION LEVEL(APCCD) SUCCESS INDICATORS MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services Recognized as a Center for Excellence Percentage of agencies accredited under PRIMEHRM 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 15 days from receipt of the recommendation Resolutions for accreditation of agencies approved by the Commission within 15 days from receipt of recommendation from the CSCRO 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 10 days from receipt of the recommendation Resolutions for accreditation of agencies prepared within 10 days from receipt of the recommendation from the CSCRO . The highlighted column shows the performance targets on that level. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 6. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO 4: Personnel Policies and Standards Services STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Recognized as a Center for Excellence REGIONAL OFFICE (CSCRO) LEVEL SUCCESS INDICATORS Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted Level II-Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM 1 2 3 4 5 MEASURES Percentage of agencies accredited under PRIME-HRM EXAMPLE OF DIVISION LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL CSC’s Human Resource Policies and Standards Office has 3 divisions under it: Personnel Systems and Standards Division (PSSD). attached bureaus. you should be able to identify the performance goals of your office that contribute to specific MFOs. 1 2 3 4 Table 7. As such. IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF THE DIVISIONS UNDER YOUR OFFICE Units under an office must contribute towards achieving a specific MFO through a set of performance goals or success indicators.Step 5. Highlighted on the table below are the success indicators of the Audit and Position Classification and Compensation Division: Table 8. or a division must be aligned with the performance goals of the office. the performance goals of the different units such as a branch. Office Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD) Success Indicators 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 34 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 35 l If you follow Step 5.
l If you follow Step 6. 9 10 11 12 37 . division level success indicators should also be SMART—Specific. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE MEASURES OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS INDICATORS DIVISION LEVEL(APCCD) SUCCESS INDICATORS 1 2 3 4 5 PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved by the Commission by end of the 1st Quarter Orientation on PRIMEHRM conducted by EO March 2013 MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria signed by end of September 2013 Replies to queries sent within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/ Seal of Excellence approved by the Director by March 15 Proposal on the PRIMEHRM Orientation approved by the Director by the end of February Draft MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria approved by the Director by August 15 Draft replies to queries submitted to the Director within 10 days upon receipt by the HRPSO EXAMPLE OF DIVISION LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL Highlighted on the table below are the success indicators of the Policies and Systems Evaluation Division (PSED): Table 9. Measurable. Attainable.Step 6. and Time-bound. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) and Division Level (PSED) Success Indicators REGIONAL OFFICE MEASURES (CSCRO) SUCCESS INDICATORS POLICIES AND SYSTEMS EVALUATION DIVISION (PSED) SUCCESS INDICATORS 1 2 3 4 5 MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services Recognized as a Center for Excellence 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 36 Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted Level II Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted Level II Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted Level II Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM 6 7 8 Like the office level success indicators. you should be able to identify the performance goals of your division that are aligned with the performance goals of your office. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office Step 6. Realistic.
Step 7. The table also shows the alignment of individual success indicators with the division level (APCCD) and office level (HRPSO) success indicators. Like the office level and division level success indicators. 1 2 3 4 5 6 EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL Highlighted in Table 10 are the individual level success indicators of employees under the Audit and Position Classification and Compensation Division. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF THE INDIVIDUALS UNDER EACH DIVISION Each division will be staffed by at least one individual employee. Realistic. and Time-bound. c. 7 8 9 10 11 12 38 39 . The success indicators should be SMART. The performance goals of each individual employee must contribute and align with the performance goals of the division. individual level success indicators should also be SMART—Speci Attainable. Measurable.
2 and 3 ing Board (CB) Standards acted upon within 7 days from for Center/Seal of Excellence receipt of the recommendation submitted to the Division Chief Resolutions for accreditation of by February 15 agencies prepared within 7 days Proposal on the PRIME-HRM from receipt by the HRPSO Orientation submitted to the Division Chief by end of January MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MEASURES STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE MEASURES Resolutions for accreditation of agencies approved by the OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS Commission within 15 days from INDICATORS receipt of recommendation from 100% of recommendations the CSCRO for accreditation from the CSC PRIME-HRM Certifying Board Regional Offices acted upon (CB) Standards for Center/Seal within 15 days from receipt of of Excellence approved by the the recommendation Commission by end of the 1st Resolutions for accreditation Quarter of agencies approved by the Orientation on PRIME-HRM Commission within 15 days from conducted by EO March 2013 receipt of recommendation from the CSCRO OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS PRIME-HRM Certifying Board INDICATORS (CB) Standards for Center/Seal MOA betweenapproved the CSC and of Excellence by the award giving by bodies onthe the1st Commission end of integration of CB standards to Quarter their criteria signed by end of Orientation on PRIME-HRM September 2013 conducted by EO March 2013 Replies to queries sent within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS INDICATORS MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria signed by end of September 2013 Replies to queries sent within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying SUCCESS INDICATORS Board (CB) Standards for CenDraft MOA the CSC ter/Seal ofbetween Excellence approved and award giving by the Director bybodies March on 1 the integration of CB standards to their criteria approved by the Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Director by August 15 Orientation approved by the Draft replies to end queries apDirector by the of February proved by the Director within DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) 10 days upon receipt by the SUCCESS INDICATORS HRPSO Draft MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria approved by the Director by August 15 Draft replies to queries approved by the Director within 10 days upon receipt by the HRPSO INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF) Proposed PRIME-HRM CertifySUCCESS INDICATORS ing Board (CB) Standards Draft MOA between the CSC for Center/Seal of Excellence and award to giving bodies on the submitted the Division Chief integration by Februaryof 15CB standards to their criteria submitted to the Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Division Chief by 31 July 2013 Orientation submitted to the Draft replies to queries Division Chief by end of approved January by the Division Chief within 7 INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF) days upon receipt by the HRPSO SUCCESS INDICATORS Draft MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria submitted to the Division Chief by 31 July 2013 Draft replies to queries approved by the Division Chief within 7 days upon receipt by the HRPSO Step 7. Division Level (APCCD). and Individual Level (Staff 1) Success Indicators MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MEASURES Percentage of agencies accredited under PRIME-HRM 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 15 days from receipt of the recommendation 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 10 days from receipt of the recommendation MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services Recognized as a Center for Excellence STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS INDICATORS DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) SUCCESS INDICATORS INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF) SUCCESS INDICATORS 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices Nos. 1. Office Level (HRPSO). Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Resolutions for accreditation of agencies prepared within 10 DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) days from receipt by the HRPSO SUCCESS INDICATORS 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Regional Offices acted upon Board (CB) Standards for Cenwithin 10 days from receipt of ter/Seal of Excellence approved the recommendation by the Director by March 1 Resolutions for accreditation of agencies prepared within 10 Proposal on the PRIME-HRM days from receipt by the HRPSO Orientation approved by the Director by the end of February Resolutions for accreditation of agencies prepared within 7 days INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF) from receipt by the HRPSO SUCCESS INDICATORS 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Proposed PRIME-HRM CertifyRegional Offices Nos. 1.5 3 1 2 4 6 10 8 9 11 12 7 40 Table 10. 2 and 3 acted upon within 7 days from receipt of the recommendation MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MEASURES Percentage of agencies accredited under PRIME-HRM MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services Recognized as a Center for Excellence Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division 1 7 2 3 4 6 5 41 8 9 11 12 10 .
individual level success indicators should also be SMART Measurable. and Time-bound. 11 12 43 . Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL Highlighted on the table below are the individual level success indicators of employees under the Policies and Systems Evaluation Division (PSED) at the regional office level. Regional Office Level (CSCRO). Table 11. you should be able to identify the activities and outputs of individual staff that contribute to the achievement of the performance goals of your division and office. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division Step 7. The table also shows the alignment of individual success indicators with the division level (PSED) and the Regional Office success indicators.Step 7. Division Level (PSED). Like the regional office level and division level success indicators. Attainable. Speci c. and Individual Level (Staff 2) Success Indicators REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL (CSCRO) SUCCESS INDICATORS DIVISION LEVEL (PSED) SUCCESS INDICATORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE MEASURES INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF) SUCCESS INDICATORS MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services Recognized as a Center for Excellence Percentage of agencies accredited under PRIMEHRM Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted LevelII Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted LevelII Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted LevelII Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) recommended for Level-II Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 42 7 8 9 10 l If you follow Step 7. Realistic.
money... and certificates). e ciency . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE The three dimensions of performance or accomplishments are quality. and timeliness. Develop the Rating Scale DEVELOP THE RATING SCALE Developing the Rating Scale involves two sub-steps: • Determining the dimensions on which performance or accomplishments are to be rated. It refers to the degree to which objectives are achieved as intended and the extent to which issues are addressed with a certain degree of excellence. Efficient performance applies to continuing tasks or frontline services (e. clearances.g. permits. issuance of licenses. logistics. Quality or effective performance involves the following elements: Acceptability • Meeting standards • Client satisfaction with services rendered • Accuracy Efficiency is the extent to which targets are accomplished using the minimum amount of time or resources.g. office supplies) • Completeness or comprehensiveness of reports • Creativity or innovation • Personal initiative 8 9 10 11 12 44 45 . Quality or Effectiveness means getting the right things done. • Operationalizing the numerical and adjectival ratings.Step 8. It involves the following elements: • Standard response time • Number of requests/applications acted upon over number of requests/applications received • Optimum use of resources (e.
The resolutions need to be approved by the Commission. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not all performance accomplishments need to be rated along all three dimensions of quality. 2013 DETERMINING THE DIMENSIONS TO RATE PERFORMANCE Depending on how success indicators are stated. This performance target is rated on quality and timeliness because it involves:•Acceptability. and timeliness. only one dimension may be su cient. Because performance is measured within a scheduled monitoring period. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to Rate Performance EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND SUCCESS INDICATORS Resolutions for accreditation of agencies approved by the Commission within 15 days from receipt of recommendation from the CSCRO RATING DIMENSIONS This performance target is rated on quality and efficiency because it involves:•Acceptability.•Meeting a deadline on April 30. efficiency. As such. all accomplishments always involve the dimension of time. The omnibus rules need to be approved by the Commission. This performance target is rated on quality and efficiency because it involves:•Acceptability. Timely performance involves: • Meeting deadlines as set in the work plan Table 12. raters and ratees) to clarify the expected outputs at the beginning of the performance monitoring period. Develop the Rating Scale Timeliness measures if the targeted deliverable was done within the scheduled or expected timeframe.Step 8. performance is always rated on either efficiency and/or timeliness.•Standard response time of 15 days.•Meeting a deadline set at the end of the 1st Quarter. The rating needs to be discussed within the unit and between the supervisors and staff (i. The standards need to be approved by the Commission.•Standard response time of 15 days This performance target is rated on quality and timeliness because it involves:•Acceptability. In other cases. e ciency. Consider all the elements involved listed above in each dimension and use them as guides to determine how performance will be rated. The letters need to be approved by the Director. you can rate a performance along the dimensions of quality. The resolutions need to be approved by the Commission. PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved by the Commission by end of the 1st Quarter 8 9 10 11 12 46 Resolution on QS for newly-created unique positions approved by the Commission within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO of complete requirements 8 9 10 11 12 47 Draft replies to queries approved by the Director within 10 working days upon receipt by the HRPSO . 2013.e. Some accomplishments may only be rated on any combination of two or three dimensions.•Standard response time of 10 working days. This performance target is rated on quality and efficiency because it involves:•Acceptability. and/or timeliness using the listed elements above as guidelines. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments approved by the Commission upon first presentation by April 30.
Office Level Rating Matrix • The second column on the table below shows all the performance targets or success indicators of the CSC’s Human Resource Policies and Standards Office. Develop the Rating Scale 4 48 5 NUMERICAL RATING 4 3 2 1 Poor ADJECTIVAL RATING Very satisfactory Satisfactory Outstanding Unsatisfactory The following tables show examples of rating matrices on three levels—office. or timeliness) For the rating to be objective. quality.5 3 1 2 4 6 8 10 9 11 7 12 Step 8. Performance exceeded expectations by 15% to 29% of the planned targets. 1999. creativity. HRPSO Rating Matrix MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services HRPSO SUCCESS IINDICATORS DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5 – Acted upon within 10 days from receipt of the recommendation 4 – Acted upon within 11 to 12 days from receipt of the recommendation 3 – Acted upon within 13 to 16 days from receipt of the recommendation 2 – Acted upon within 17 to 22 days from receipt of recommendation 1 – Acted upon beyond 22 days from receipt of recommendation 5 – Approved upon 1st presentation of resolution to the Commission 4 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolution to the Commission with minimal changes 3 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolution to the Commission with major changes 2 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolution to the Commission with minimal changes 1 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolution to the Commission with major changes 5 – Approved upon 1st presentation of resolution to the Commission 4 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolution to the Commission with minimal changes 3 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolution to the Commission with major changes NOTE: Time frame for this activity is 3 months or 90 days 2 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolution to the Commission with minimal changes 1 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolution to the Commission with major changes MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS 49 HRPSO SUCCESS IINDICATORS Orientation on PRIMEDESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 – Average outstanding rating of participants DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5– Approved within 10 working days 4 – Approved within 11 to 14 days 3 – Approved within 15 working days 2 – Delayed by 1 to 7. efficiency. and others only on efficiency. some on quality and timeliness. impartial. if it involves deadlines required by law. rate performance using a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 5—with 1 as the lowest and 5 as EXAMPLES OF RATING MATRICES Step 8. you need to On each dimension of quality. Performance met 90% to 114% of the planned targets. Performance demonstrated was exceptional in terms of quality. division. and initiative. and verifiable. The 90% to 114% range for Satisfactory rating is based on Executive Order No. The table below explains the meaning of each rating: DESCRIPTION OR MEANING OF RATING are based on the ranges prescribed under CSC Memorandum Circular No 13..e. s. s. technical skills. Performance failed to deliver most of the targets by 50% and below. Operationalization of the Rating Scale ESTABLISHING THE RATING SCALE Adoption of a Performance-Based Incentive System for Government Employees). the range of performance should be 51% to 99% of the planned targets. if it involves deadlines required by law. Table 13. and individual staff at the central and regional levels. However. and timeliness. Central Office Level Table 14. it should be 100% of the planned targets. 2 – Delayed by 14 to 45 days 1 – Delayed by more than 45 days DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 5 – Conducted within 75 PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved by the Commission by end of the 1st Quarter Resolutions for accreditation of agencies approved by the Commission within 15 days from receipt of recommendation from the CSCRO 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 15 days from receipt of the recommendation DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS per performance target or success indicator. showing mastery of the task. However. efficiency. efficiency. Accomplishments were made in more than expected but related aspects of the target. You will note that some performance targets are only rated on quality and efficiency. The 130% and above range for Outstanding rating and the 50% and below range for Poor rating indicate the operational definition or meaning of each numerical rating under each relevant dimension (i. 80. 2012 (Directing the Performance only met 51% to 89% of the planned targets and failed to deliver one or more critical aspects of the target. Performance exceeded expectations by 30% and above of the planned targets.5 days 2 – Delayed by 8 or more days 5 – Submitted within 75 days or less 4 – Submitted within 76 to 80 days 3 – Submitted by end of 1st quarter or within 81 to 103 days. Columns 3 to 5 describe the meaning of each numerical rating along the dimensions of quality. and timeliness. the highest. Develop the Rating Scale .
and timeliness.5 days 1 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 8 or more days of each MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS on efficiency. some on quality and timeliness. you and efficiency. Develop the Rating Scale 50 50 MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria signed by end of September 2013 NOTE: Time frame for this activity is 6 months or 120 working days Replies to queries sent within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO 5 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 1st presentation 4 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 2nd presentation with minimal changes 3 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 2nd presentation with major changes 2 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 3rd presentation with minimal changes 1 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 3rd presentation with major changes 5 – Replies sent within an average of 10 days 4 – Replies sent within an average of 11 to 14 days 3 – Replies sent within an average of 15 days 2 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 1 to 7. DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 1 – Cumulative 12% or less of accredited agencies under CSCAAP granted Level 2-Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM 2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of accredited agencies under CSCAAP granted Level 2-Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM 4 – Cumulative 29% to 32% of accredited agencies under CSCAAP granted Level 2-Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM 3 – Cumulative 22% to 28% of accredited agencies under CSCAAP granted Level 2-Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM 5 – Cumulative 33% or more of accredited agencies under CSCAAP granted Level 2-Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS • The second column on Table 16 shows all the performance targets will note that some performance targets are only rated on quality and Compensation Division.tion to the Commission with minimal changes days 5 3 1 2 4 6 8 10 9 11 7 12 1 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolution to the Commission with major changes MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS HRPSO SUCCESS IINDICATORS Orientation on PRIMEHRM conducted by EO March 2013 NOTE: Time frame for this activity is 3 months or 90 days 5 – Average outstanding rating of participants 4 – Average very satisfactory rating of participants 3 – Average satisfactory rating of participants 2 – Average unsatisfactory rating of participants 1 – Average poor rating of participants DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 5 – Conducted within 75 days or less 4 – Conducted within 76 to 80 days 3 – Conducted by end of 1st quarter or within 81 to 103 days. REGIONAL OFFICE SUCCESS INDICATORS Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted Level II-Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM Regional Office Level Division Level Rating Matrix Table 15. 2 – Delayed by 14 to 45 days 1 – Delayed by more than 45 days 5 – MOA signed in less than 84 days 4 – MOA signed within 85 to 107 days 3 – MOA signed within 108 to 137 days 2 – MOA signed within 138 to 180 days 1 – MOA signed beyond 180 days 1 – Delayed by more than 45 days Step 8. and others only 51 . Like the office level rating scales. Columns 3 to 5 describe the meaning efficiency. CSCRO Rating Matrix or success indicators of the CSC’s Audit and Position Classification numerical rating along the dimensions of quality.
Approved by the Director upon 1st submission 4 .Draft MOA approved by the Director upon 1st submission 4 .Acted upon within 9 to 11 days from receipt of the recommendation 2 .Acted upon within 12 to 15 days from receipt of the recommendation 1 .Acted upon more than 15 days from receipt of the recommendation Resolutions for accreditation of agencies prepared within 10 days from receipt by the HRPSO 5 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 1 to 7 days from receipt by the HRPSO 4 – Draft resolution approved by the Director in 8 days from receipt by the HRPSO 3 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 9 to 11 days from receipt by the HRPSO 2 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 12 to 15 days from receipt by the HRPSO 1 – Draft resolution approved by the Director more than 15 days from receipt by the HRPSO APCCD SUCCESS INDICATORS Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence submitted to the Director by March 1 NOTE: Timeframe for this activity is January to March 1 DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 . Develop the Rating Scale APCCD SUCCESS INDICATORS Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence submitted to the Director by March 1 NOTE: Timeframe for this activity is January to March 1 DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 .Approved by the Director upon 2nd presentation with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director upon 2nd presentation with major changes 2 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd presentation with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd presentation with major changes 5 .proved by the Director more than 15 days from receipt by the HRPSO Step 8.Approved by the Director upon 1st submission 4 .Approved by the Director upon 2nd presentation with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director upon 2nd presentation with major changes 2 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd presentation with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd presentation with major changes 5 .Approved by the Director upon 2nd presentation with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director upon 2nd presentation with major changes 2 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd presentation with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd presentation with major changes DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 5 – Proposed standards approved by the Director before February 23 4 – Proposed standards approved by the Director from February 23 to March 4 3 – Proposed standards approved by the Director from March 5 to March 22 2 – Proposed standards approved by the Director from March 23 to April 22 1 – Proposed standards approved by the Director beyond April 22 5 – Approved by the Director before February 8 4 – Approved by the Director from February 9 to 13 3 – Approved by the Director from February 14 to March 5 2 – Approved by the Director from March 6 to 17 1 – Approved by the Director beyond March 17 Central Office Level Table 16.Acted upon in 8 days from receipt of the recommendation 3 . APCCD Rating Matrix MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS APCCD SUCCESS INDICATORS 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 10 days from receipt of the recommendation DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5 – Acted upon in less than 8 days from receipt of the recommendation 4 .Approved by the Director upon 2nd submission with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director upon 2nd submission with major changes 2 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd submission with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd submission with major changes 5 – Replies sent within an average of less than 8 days 4 – Replies sent within an average of 8.5 to 9 days 3 – Replies sent within an average of 10 days 2 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 1 to 5 days 1 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 6 or more days 8 9 10 11 12 52 Draft MOA between the CSC and award-giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria approved by the Director by August 15 NOTE: Timeframe is 30 days 5 – Approved by the Director before July 26 4 – Approved by the Director from July 26 to August 10 3 – Approved by the Director from August 11 to August 18 2 – Approved by the Director from August 19 to 31 1 – Approved by the Director beyond August 31 7 8 9 10 11 12 53 Draft replies to queries approved by the Director within 10 working days upon receipt by the HRPSO .Approved by the Director upon 2nd presentation with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director upon 2nd presentation with major changes 2 – Approved by the Director upon 3rd presentation with minimal changes DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 5 – Proposed standards approved by the Director before February 23 4 – Proposed standards approved by the Director from February 23 to March 4 3 – Proposed standards approved by the Director from March 5 to March 22 2 – Proposed standards approved by the Director from March 23 to April 22 DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Orientation approved by the Director by the end of February NOTE: Timeframe is 30 days 5 .Approved by the Director upon 1st submission 4 .Approved by the Director upon 1st submission 4 .
5 days 1 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 4 or more days DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MFO3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Central Office Level: Employee A Table 18. Develop the Rating Scale proved by the Director more than 11 days from receipt by the HRPSO Regional Office Level Table 17.Acted upon in less than 5 days from receipt of the recommendation 4 . Like the office level and division level rating matrices. MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services STAFF A SUCCESS IINDICATORS Draft replies to queries approved by the Division Chief within 7 days upon receipt by the HRPSO DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 .Acted upon within 9 to 11 days from receipt of the recommendation 1 .Acted upon in 5 days from receipt of the recommendation 3 . PSED Rating Matrix MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS PSED SUCCESS INDICATORS Cumulative 25% of agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) granted Level II Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5 – Cumulative 33% or more of accredited agencies under CSCAAP recommended for Level ll-Accredited Status under PRIME-HRM 4 – Cumulative 29% to 32% of accredited agencies under CSCAAP recommended for accreditation under PRIME-HRM 3 – Cumulative 22% to 28% of accredited agencies under CSCAAP recommended for accreditation under PRIME-HRM 2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of accredited agencies under CSCAAP recommended for accreditation under PRIME-HRM 1 – Cumulative 12% or less of accredited agencies under CSCAAP recommended for accreditation under PRIME-HRM DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS Individual Level Rating Matrices The APCCD is staffed by three employees. and others only on efficiency. some on quality and timeliness.Approved by the Division Chief upon 1st submission 4 .9 to 11 days from receipt by the HRPSO 1 – Draft resolution apStep 8. The three succeeding tables for Employees A.Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd submission with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd submission with major changes 2 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission with major changes DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5 – Replies sent within an average of 1 day 4 – Replies sent within an average of 2 to 5 days 3 – Replies sent within an average of 6 to 8 days 2 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 2 to 3. you will note that some performance targets are only rated on quality and efficiency.Approved by the Division Chief upon 1st submission DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5 – Replies sent within an average of 1 day DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 8 9 10 11 12 54 MFO3: Personnel Policies 8 9 10 11 12 55 . B.Acted upon within 6 to 8 days from receipt of the recommendation 2 .Acted upon more than 11 days from receipt of the recommendation Resolutions for accreditation of agencies prepared within 7 days from receipt by the HRPSO 5 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 1 to 4 days from receipt by the HRPSO 4 – Draft resolution approved by the Director in 5 days from receipt by the HRPSO 3 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 6 to 8 days from receipt by the HRPSO 2 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 9 to 11 days from receipt by the HRPSO 1 – Draft resolution approved by the Director more than 11 days from receipt by the HRPSO MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STAFF A SUCCESS IINDICATORS Draft replies to queries approved by the Division DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 . and C below show the performance targets and rating scales of these employees. Employee A Rating Matrix MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services STAFF A SUCCESS IINDICATORS 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 7 days from receipt of the recommendation DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5 .
5 days 1 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 4 or more days DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 5 – Proposal approved by the Division Chief before January 31 4 – Proposal approved by the Division Chief from January 31 to February 7 3 – Proposal approved by the Division Chief from February 8 to February 18 2 – Proposal approved by the Division Chief from February 19 to March 9 1 – Proposal approved by the Division Chief beyond March 9 5 – Report submitted within the day of the meeting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MFO3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 – Approved by the Division Chief from July 27 to August 3 2 – Approved by the Division Chief from August 4 to 16 1 – Approved by the Division Chief beyond April 16 4 – Report submitted within 1-2 days after the meeting 3 – Report submitted within 3 days after the meeting 2 – Report submitted within 4-5 days after the meeting 1 – Report submitted beyond 6 days after the meeting 8 9 10 11 12 56 8 9 10 11 12 57 3 – Approved by the Division Chief from July 27 to August 3 .5 days 1 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 4 or more days Step 8.Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd presentation with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd presentation with major changes 2 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd presentation with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd presentation with major changes MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services STAFF B SUCCESS IINDICATORS Draft MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria approved by the Division Chief by 31 July 2013 DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 – Draft MOA approved by the Division Chief upon first submission 4 – Draft MOA approved by the Division Chief upon second submission with minimal changes 3 – Draft MOA approved by the Division Chief upon second submission with major changes DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5 – Proposed standards approved by the Division Chief before January 31 4 – Proposed standards approved by the Division Chief from January 31 to February 7 3 – Proposed standards approved by the Division Chief from February 8 to February 18 2 – Proposed standards approved by the Division Chief from February 19 to March 9 1 – Proposed standards approved by the Division Chief beyond March 9 DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 5 – Approved by the Division Chief before July 22 4 – Approved by the Division Chief from July 22 to 26 Central Office Level: Employee C Table 20.Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd submission with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd submission with major changes 2 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission with major changes 5 – Replies sent within an average of 1 day 4 – Replies sent within an average of 2 to 5 days 3 – Replies sent within an average of 6 to 8 days 2 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 2 to 3. Develop the Rating Scale Central Office Level: Employee B Table 19.Approved by the Division Chief upon 1st submission 4 .Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd submission with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd submission with major changes 2 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission with major changes Meeting with award giving bodies convened by end of May NOTE: The required output is a meeting report and the timeframe is 30 days 5 – Meets all the content requirements with additional analyses and policy recommendations 4 – Meets all the content requirements with suggestions 3 – Meets all the content requirements of the report 2 – Incomplete report 1 – No meeting conducted / Meeting conducted but no report Draft replies to queries approved by the Division Chief within 7 days upon receipt by the HRPSO 5 . Employee C Rating Matrix MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS MFO3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services STAFF C SUCCESS IINDICATORS Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Orientation approved by the Division Chief by the end of January NOTE: Timeframe is Jan.Approved by the Division Chief upon 1st submission 4 . Employee B Rating Matrix MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STAFF B SUCCESS IINDICATORS Resolutions for accreditation of agencies prepared within 7 days from receipt by the HRPSO DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY 5 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 1 to 4 days from receipt by the HRPSO 4 – Draft resolution approved by the Director in 5 days from receipt by the HRPSO 3 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 6 to 8 days from receipt by the HRPSO 2 – Draft resolution approved by the Director from 9 to 11 days from receipt by the HRPSO 1 – Draft resolution approved by the Director more than 11 days from receipt by the HRPSO Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved by the Division Chief by February 15 NOTE: Timeframe for this activity is January to February 15 5 .Approved by the Division Chief upon 1st submission 4 .Approved by the Division Chief upon 1st submission 4 . 1 to Feb.2 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd presentation with minimal changes 2 – Proposed standards approved by the Division Chief from February 19 to March 9 1 – Proposed standards approved by the Division Chief beyond March 9 DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 5 – Approved by the Division Chief before July 22 4 – Approved by the Division Chief from July 22 to 26 Step 8.Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd submission with minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 2nd submission with major changes 2 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission with minimal changes 1 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission with major changes 5 – Replies sent within an average of 1 day 4 – Replies sent within an average of 2 to 5 days 3 – Replies sent within an average of 6 to 8 days 2 – Replies sent delayed by an average of 2 to 3. 15 DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 . Develop the Rating Scale 1 – Approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd presentation with major changes MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS MFO3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services STAFF B SUCCESS IINDICATORS Draft MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria approved by the Division Chief by 31 July 2013 DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 – Draft MOA approved by the Division Chief upon first submission 4 – Draft MOA approved by the Division Chief upon second submission with minimal changes 3 – Draft MOA approved by the Division Chief upon second submission with major changes 2 – Draft MOA approved by the Division Chief upon third submission with minimal changes 1 – Draft MOA approved by the Division Chief upon third submission with major changes Draft replies to queries approved by the Division Chief within 7 days upon receipt by the HRPSO 5 .
Develop the Rating Scale Regional Office Level: Employee D Table 21. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8.Recommendations consolidated within 9 -11 days 2 – Recommendations consolidated within 12-15 days 1 – Recommendations consolidated beyond 15 days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services 1 – Assessment conducted but no report 8 9 10 11 12 58 Recommendations for Level IIAccredited Status under PRIMEHRM of agencies accredited under CSCAAP consolidated within 10 days from receipt of all recommendations Steps 9 and 10 are subsumed under the second stage of PMS cycle-Performance Monitoring and Coaching Performance Monitoring & Coaching .Step 8. Employee D Rating Matrix MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS STAFF D SUCCESS IINDICATORS Agencies accredited under CSC Agency Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) assisted and assessed for Level IIAccredited Status Under PRIMEHRM DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY 5 – Assessment report indicates all the content requirements with additional analyses 4 – Assessment report indicates all the content requirements with suggestions 3 – Assessment report indicates all the content requirements of the report 2 – Incomplete report DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR EFFICIENCY DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR TIMELINESS 5 – Report submitted to the Division Chief within 6 days after the conduct of the assessment 4 – Report submitted to the Division Chief within 7 to 8 days after the conduct of the assessment 3 – Report submitted to the Division Chief within 9 to 11 days after the conduct of the assessment 2 – Report submitted to the Division Chief within 12 to 15 days after the conduct of the assessment 1 – Report submitted to the Division Chief more than 15 days after the conduct of the assessment 5 – Recommendations consolidated within 6 or less days 4 – Recommendations consolidated within 7 to 8 days 3 .
Below are suggested monitoring and coaching tools: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING TOOLS Major Final Output Tasks Assigned to Duration Week 1 Personnel Policies and Standards Services Prepare Resolutions for accreditation of agencies Draft PRIMEHRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence Draft replies to queries Organize meeting with award-giving bodies Staff A & B 7 days from receipt by the HRPSO January to February 15 Task Status Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Remarks Staff B 9 10 11 12 61 Staff A. B &C 7 days upon receipt the HRPSO EO May Staff C . it is important that you regularly monitor the performance of offices.Step 8. and employees. This requires an information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER EACH DIVISION During the monitoring and coaching period. divisions. You must put monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and tools in place so that timely and appropriate steps can be taken towards meeting performance targets and organizational goals.
and reliable information for program tracking and performance monitoring and reporting. 2013 Emailed on Jan. and develop individual potentials. Conducted by: Date: Noted by: Date: Please indicate the date in the appropriate box when the monitoring was conducted. Sample Performance Monitoring and Coaching Journal 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Name of Division/Field Office _____________________________ Division Chief / Director II ________________________________ Number of Personnel in the Division / FO ____________________ Activity Mechanism/s Meeting Memo One-in-One Group Others Q u a r t e r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No. or Task No. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools PERFORMANCE MONITORING FORM TASK ID NO. 9. 2013 Mailed on Jan. 2013 Jan. 2. Specify) Remarks Monitoring 2013-001 Dir. 9. No. 2013 2013-005 Ms. if Taken from WFP 1 2 3 4 5 Doc. accurate.Step 8. 7. 4. 4. Anna Santos Leave of Barangay Officials ZMO Jan. Document SUBJECT Subject Area of the Task or the Signatory of the Document and Subject Area ACTION OFFICER OUTPUT DATE ASSIGNED Date the task was assigned to the drafter DATE ACCOMPLISHED Date the Output was approved by the supervisor REMARKS SAMPLE PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING JOURNAL H. 2013 Coaching 6 7 8 Supervisors and coaches play a critical role at this stage. Signatory Subject Action Officer Date Assigned Date Signed Status Remarks (Pls. 2013 Emailed on Jan. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8. it is important that you establish an information system as a vital management tool that will support data management to produce timely. 9. They can provide an enabling environment. 9 10 11 12 62 9 10 3 Immediate Superior Head of Office 11 12 63 . To reiterate. DOLE Step Increment ABA Jan. introduce interventions to improve team performance. Juan dela Cruz. 2013 Jan.
65 . Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools l 64 If you follow Step 9. you should be able to develop appropriate performance monitoring and coaching tools.Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8.
position and signature of Head of the Performance Management Team • Name. and 7) • Actual accomplishments vis-à-vis performance targets • Ratings on quality. develop the tools that will be used to establish commitment and evaluate accomplishments at the end of a given period. efficiency and/or timeliness on a scale of 1 to 5 (Step 8) • Remarks of supervisor • Name. 6. 5. and position of supervisors that approve the completed evaluation form and the date when they made the approval • Major Final Outputs that your office and division are contributing to (Step 5) • SMART performance targets or success indicators (Steps 4 . signature. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools DEVELOP THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TOOLS At the beginning of the performance monitoring period. and position of rater and date when evaluation was completed To reflect the cascading approach of the SPMS towards achieving organizational goals. Incorporate the following essential elements in your evaluation tool: • Name. position. and signature of the Unit Head or individual staff being evaluated (ratee) • Rating period • Date when evaluation was completed • Name. three kinds of forms are suggested: • Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) Form is accomplished by Agency Directors • Division Performance Commitment and Review (DPCR) Form is accomplished by Division Chiefs • Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) Form is accomplished by individual staff in all the units of the organization Make sure that the performance targets listed in the OPCR.Step 10. signature. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 67 66 . DPCR. and IPCR are linked and aligned towards achieving your organization’s Major Final Outputs.
DPCR and IPCR is a table with several columns: The OPCR and DPCR have 7 columns • Column 1: Major Final Outputs • Column 2: Success Indicators • Column 3: Allotted Budget • Column 4: Divisions Accountable (for OPCR) / Individuals Accountable (for DPCR) • Column 5: Actual Accomplishments The IPCR has 5 columns • Column 1: Major Final Outputs • Column 2: Success Indicators • Column 3: Actual Accomplishments • Column 4 (which is further divided into 4 sub-columns): Rating for Quality (Q). DPCR. and IPCR identifies: • The name of person making the performance commitment. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools Chart 7. DPCR. Timeliness (T). and Average Score (Ave) Q E T Ave Remarks (5) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 68 10 The lower portion of the form is signed by the Supervisor and/or Rater at the beginning and end of the rating period. Efficiency (E) and Timeliness (T) and the Average (Ave) • Column 5: Remarks 4 For offices/units that perform STO or GAS activities. and IPCR OFFICE PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (OPCR) FORM DIVISION PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (DPCR) FORM INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (IPCR) FORM Below are the 7 columns in the OPCR and DPCR form: (1) Major Final Outputs (MFOs) (2) Success Indicators (Targets + Measures) (3) Allotted Budget (4) Divisions or Persons Accountable (5) Actual Accomplishments (6) Rating for Quality (Q). Timeliness (T). Efficiency (E). his/her position in the organization. indicate your core or support functions on the first column in lieu of MFOs. The main portion of OPCR. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 10. • Column 6 (which is further divided into 4 sub-columns): Rating for Quality (Q).Step 10. and Average Score (Ave) Q E T Ave (7) Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 The upper part of the OPCR. Alignment of OPCR. Efficiency (E) and Timeliness (T) and the Average (Ave) • Column 7: Remarks 11 12 69 . Below are the 5 columns in the IPCR form: (1) Major Final Outputs (MFOs) (2) Success Indicators (Targets + Measures) (3) Actual Accomplishments (4) Rating for Quality (Q). Efficiency (E). and signature • The rating period • The date when the performance commitment was made at the beginning of the rating period • The name and position of the supervisors approving the performance commitment and the date when they made the approval at the beginning of the rating period.
The OPCR Form Name and Position of Office Director (Ratee) Signature of Office Director (Ratee) Name and Position of Division Chief The DPCR Form Signature of Division Chief Rating Period: months and year Rating Period: months and year Date when performance commitment is made at the beginning of rating period Date when performance commitment is made at the beginning of rating period The supervisor (Agency Head) who approves the performance commitment signs at the beginning of rating period The supervisor (Office Director) who approves the performance commitment signs at the beginning of rating period A Representative of the PMT Secretariat assesses the completed evaluation form at the beginning and end of the rating period The Head of the PMT signs here at the beginning and end of the rating period The Agency Head gives the final rating at the end of the rating period The Office Director gives the final rating 70 71 .
However. which is the maximum. an agency may follow a quarterly rating period (every three months). and IPCR forms Performance Review & Evaluation Step 11 falls under the third stage of the PMS cycle-Performance Review and Evaluation . you should be able to develop your OPCR. or a yearly rating period (every 12 months).The IPCR Form Name and Position of Individual Staff Signature of Individual Staff (Ratee) Rating Period: months and year Date when performance commitment is made at the beginning of rating period The Office Head who approves the performance commitment signs at the beginning of rating period The SPMS suggests two evaluation periods: once every six months. which is the minimum. DPCR. The Ratee signs here after discussion of evaluation with Division Chief The Office Director gives the final rating The rater writes his/her comments on the ratee and his/her recommendations The Divsion Chief (Rater) signs here l 72 If you follow Step 10.
and IPCR—to review performance from the office and division levels down to the individual staff level. Add more rows if your office or division is contributing to more than two MFOs (Steps 5 and 6). • Column 2 – Success indicators or performance targets of your office or division per MFO for the monitoring period (Steps 5 and 6). write “none”. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools USE THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TOOLS At the end of the performance monitoring period. – Persons Accountable for each performance target for the DPCR.Step 11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 75 . DPCR. For the OPCR and DPCR forms. For performance targets that have no budget allocation. use the suggested forms—OPCR. you should have completed the first four columns of the table at the beginning of the performance monitoring period: • Column 1 – Major Final Outputs that your office or division is contributing to. • Column 4 – Divisions accountable for each performance target for the OPCR. • Column 3 – Allocated budget per performance target.
and 7). Use the Performance Evaluation Tools 1 7 77 2 3 4 6 5 8 9 11 12 10 .5 3 1 2 4 6 8 7 10 9 11 12 Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools MAJOR FINAL OUTPUT (Note: Please add rows to MFOs if necessary ) SUCCESS INDICATORS (TARGETS + MEASURES) Accountable Q Ave E T 76 Allotted Budget Actual Accomplishments Divisions Rating Remarks For the IPCR form. During the actual evaluation. 6. Step 11. and 7). • Column 2 – Success indicators or performance targets of each individual staff per MFO for the monitoring period (Steps 5. the rater describes the actual accomplishments of the ratee vis-à-vis the performance targets on the 5th column for the OPCR and DPCR forms or the 3rd column for the IPCR. 6. you should have completed the first two columns at the beginning of the performance monitoring period: • Column 1 – Major Final Outputs that your division is contributing to (Steps 5.
67 by 5 and get the final average rating of 4. The table below shows an example of actual accomplishments and the ratings. there are five accomplishments.5 Average is obtained by dividing the total by the number of dimensions: 5 + 5 + 4 = 14 ÷ 3 = 4. To illustrate. Ratings of Individual Staff under HRPSO Individual Staff under HRPSO HRPSO Secretary HRPSO Administrative Asst. The first two accomplishments are rated on quality and timeliness.Sample Ratings of Accomplishments SUCCESS INDICATORS (Targets + Measures) Draft PRIME-HRM Certifying Board Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved by the Director by March 1 Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Orientation approved by the Director by the end of February Draft replies to queries submitted to the Director within 10 working days upon receipt by the HRPSO Position paper/ comments on legislative bills submitted within the time frame prescribed by the CSLO APCCD staff recommended for training/HR programs TOTAL RATING FINAL AVERAGE RATING 20.5 + 5 = 20. To get the final average rating.67 ÷ 5 = 4.13 3 APCCD staff recommended for training/HR programs 5 5 Draft Position paper on HRMO Item in the LGUs submitted on the deadline set by the CSLO 4 3 3.13.3 + 4 + 3. draft resolution. you do not need to rate every performance accomplishment along all three dimensions of quality. The last accomplishment is rated on efficiency. the table below shows a sample summary list of individual performance ratings and the overall rating of the HRPSO: 5 5 4 4. So the average Average is COMPUTING THE NUMERICAL RATINGS As explained in Step 8 (Develop the Rating Scale). add all the average ratings vertically and divide the sum by the number of accomplishments. The fourth accomplishment is rated on quality and efficiency. and timeliness. efficiency. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11.3 + 5 + 5 = 44. Thus.5 Draft replies to 75 queries submitted to the Director within 9 working days upon receipt by the HRPSO Final Average Rating is obtained by adding all the average ratings vertically and dividing the sum (Total Rating) by the number of accomplishments: 4 + 3. draft policy)and determine under what dimension it will be rated.03 Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Outstanding Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Outstanding Outstanding Very Satisfactory Average individual rating is obtained by dividing the total of individual ratings (44. Divide this by the 3 dimensions and you get an average rating of 4. In the example above.3 4 3. you divide the total rating of 20. the average of all individual performance assessments does not go higher than the collective performance assessment of the office.1 4 3.32 ÷ 11 = 4. APCCD Chief APCCD Employee A APCCD Employee B APCCD Employee C PSSD Chief PSSD Employee A PSSD Employee B QSSD Chief QSSD Employee A Ave.03 + 2.32) by the number of individuals in the office (11): 3. Thus.99 4.32 44.67 office. Table 22. The fifth accomplishment got a single rating of 5 on efficiency. efficiency.13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Draft PRIME-HRM Certifying Board Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved by the Director upon second presentation and with minimal changes on March 3 Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Orientation approved by the Director upon first submission on March 10 Q 4 E T 4 Ave 4 obtained by dividing the total by the number of dimensions: 4+4 = 8 ÷ 2 = 4 rating is also a 5. Individual Rating 3.6 + 5 + + 4. and timeliness.67 + 3.67.6 5 4.5 + 4.3 5 5 4. The third accomplishment is rated on quality. the first accomplishment got a rating of 4 on quality and 4 on timeliness totaling 8. 5 on timeliness. The teamwork orientation of the SPMS is reflected in the overall rating of an 5 2 3..g. You get the average rating for a particular accomplishment by adding the ratings and dividing it by the number of dimensions used.99+ 4.67 Table 23.03 2.Step 11.67 4. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools In the table above. The third accomplishment got a rating of 5 on quality. there are five rows of accomplishments.03 10 11 12 78 11 12 79 . Developing the rating matrix at the beginning of the rating period should have helped clarify the expected outputs of each performance target (e. Divide this by the 2 dimensions and you get an average rating of 4.1 + 4 + 3. In the table above. activity report. and 4 on efficiency totaling 14.
11 12 81 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 4.5 4. and IPCR forms is for remarks on specific accomplishments.08 that the HRPSO obtained is likewise Very Satisfactory The rater writes his/her comments on the ratee and his/her recommendations 9 10 11 12 80 l If you follow Step 11. Filling this column is optional. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11. For the IPCR form.5 3 4 TOTAL RATING 4 24. DPCR. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Table 24. there is an allotted space below the table for the rater to write his/her recommendations on the staff s/he is 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 evaluating for development purposes or for rewards and promotion. you should be able to use your OPCR.08 FINAL AVERAGE RATING The final average rating of 4. DPCR. and IPCR forms.Step 11. however. HRPSO’S Summary of Ratings (OPCR) MFO Success Indicator Rating Q MFO 3 100% of recommendations for accreditation from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon within 15 days from receipt of the recommendation Resolutions for accreditation of agencies approved by the Commission within 15 days from receipt of recommendation from the CSCRO PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved by the Commission by end of the 1st Quarter Orientation on PRIME-HRM conducted by EO March 2013 MOA between the CSC and award giving bodies on the integration of CB standards to their criteria signed by end of September 2013 Replies to queries sent within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO 4 E 4 T Ave 4 REMARKS: QUALITATIVE EVALUATION The last column on the OPCR.
Performance Rewarding & Development Planning .At the end of the rating period. the Heads of Office and supervisors must discuss the results of the assessment with the individual employees concerned. Step 12 below falls under the fourth stage of the PMS cycle—Performance Rewarding and Development Planning.
Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation USE THE RESULTS OF THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION The focus of discussion of evaluation results must be on strengths. In coordination with the HRM Office. and the opportunities to address these gaps. the Heads of Office and supervisors must introduce appropriate developmental interventions based on the results of the performance evaluation especially for employees with Unsatisfactory and Poor performance ratings. You can use this plan to enhance the skills or develop potentials of employees who perform well and to improve or correct performance of employees who fail to meet targets. and alternatives. competency-related performance gaps. career paths.Step 12. 12 85 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Below is a suggested format of the professional development plan for the continuing career development of staff.
86 87 .
you should be able to link the SPMS with other HR systems. PRAISE Committee in determining top performers of the agency who qualify* for awards and incentives. 4. you may start crafting your Agency SPMS Guidelines using the checklist below. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation The results of the performance evaluation/assessment shall serve as inputs to the following: 1. l If you follow Step 12. The checklist provides a summary of the contents of the SPMS Guidelines.Step 12. mission ¤ OPIF Logframe ¤ Philippine Development Plan ¤ Organizational/ Sectoral/ Societal Goals • Success indicators are identified for each MFO • Success indicators are SMART • SPMS guidelines provide for cascading of organizational unit’s commitments/goals to individual staff members such that Individual Work Plans or Commitment and Rating Forms are linked to Office/ Division/ Unit Work Plan or Commitment and Rating Form • Agency Guidelines provide that the average rating of individual staff member should not go higher than the collective performance assessment of the office 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2. Goal Aligned to Agency Mandate and Organizational Priorities and Outputs/Outcomes Based (Step 3) Team approach to performance management (Step 1) 12 88 * Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence 89 . FEATURES Key Players and Responsibilities (Step 1) CONTENTS • Key players include the following: ¤ SPMS Champion ¤ PMT ¤ Planning Office ¤ HRM Office ¤ Head of Office ¤ Supervisor ¤ Individual Employees • Functions are clearly spelled out • There is an Office Order/Executive Order issued by the Agency Head • Table of MFOs enumerating all products and services of the organization •MFOs are aligned to address ¤ Agency strategic priorities ¤ Agency mandates. Performance Management Team in identifying potential PRAISE Awards nominees for various awards categories. Crafting Your Agency SPMS Guidelines As you go through the process of setting up the SPMS in your organization. vision. Agency HRM Office in consolidating and coordinating development interventions that will form part of the HR Plan and the basis for rewards and incentives. Heads of Offices in identifying and providing the kinds of interventions needed based on identified professional development needs. 3.
Performance Planning and Commitment • SPMS calendar shows that officials and employees are required to submit their commitments prior to the start of the rating period • SPMS calendar allots time for PMT review and recommendations of the performance commitments • SPMS calendar indicates period for Head of Agency/Heads of Offices’ approval of the office performance commitment and individual performance commitments 2. Performance Monitoring and Coaching • Feedback sessions on the performance of the offices as well as the officials/employees are provided in the guidelines and indicated in the SPMS calendar • Interventions are given to those behind work targets. and action plan 3. a space is provided for recommended interventions • There is a form or logbook to record critical incidents.User-friendly Agency SPMS Forms (Step 10) • One Form for Commitments (target setting) and Rating (evaluation) for both organization and individuals • Commitment and Rating Forms for both the organization and individual performance are similar and easy to accomplish • SPMS Forms that operationalize the four-stage PMS ¤ Performance Commitment and Rating Forms include columns for MFOs. success indicators (targets + measures). schedule of coaching. and rating ¤ Commitments are agreed upon by the Management and officials/employees as indicated in the OPCR and IPCR Forms ¤ Space is provided for comments and recommendations for individual employee development ¤ Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form/ Journal ¤ Professional Development Plan • M&E mechanisms and information system are established • There is a database/summary of targets and accomplishment which shall be the basis for verification of accomplishments 1. 1999 (Revised Policies on the PES) Information System that Supports M&E Communication Plan • There is a program that orients agency officials and employees on the new and revised policies on the SPMS • The orientation schedules are indicated in the SPMS calendar Four-stage PMS cycle are described in the Agency Guidelines/Manual: • Performance Planning and Commitment • Performance Monitoring and Coaching • Performance Review and Evaluation • Performance Rewarding and Development Planning SPMS Cycle (Step 2) 90 91 . s. actual accomplishments. In the Employee Feedback From. Performance Review and Evaluation • Office accomplishments are assessed against the success indicators and the allotted budget against the actual expenses as indicated in the Performance Commitment and Rating Forms and provided in the guidelines • Annual Agency Performance Review Conference is conducted as found in the SPMS calendar • Individual employee performance is assessed based on the commitments made at the start of the rating period • Agency SPMS rating scale should fall within the range prescribed in MC 13.
1999 (Revised Policies on the PES) • There is an annual calendar with activities. unit/ person responsible and timeframe for each phase • There is a schedule for the SPMS orientation and SPMS pilot test SPMS Calendar 92 93 . s. As such. The SPMS necessitates a change in the organizational culture from the leadership down to the rank and file. support. Rating Scale (Step 8) • The Agency SPMS Guidelines specifies the 5-point numerical rating scale with adjectival descriptions and ranges •Agency SPMS rating scale falls within the range prescribed in MC 13.4. it still requires a transition period and a significant shift in orientation regarding performance measurement. You will need a comprehensive change management and communication plan to orient employees on the essential features of the SPMS so that in the process. and engagement. and offices • The results of the performance evaluation are used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and rewards and incentives Rating Period The Agency SPMS guidelines performance rating period • 3-month rating period? • 6-month rating period? • 1-year rating period? specify the Although the SPMS is not totally new. l If you follow all the items in the checklist above. units. you should be able to craft your Agency SPMS Guidelines. Performance Rewarding and Development Planning • There is a mechanism for discussion of assessment results by the Head of Office and supervisors with the individual employee at the end of the rating period • There is a provision for the drawing up of a Professional Development Plan to improve or correct performance of employees with Unsatisfactory or Poor performance rating • Recommendations for developmental interventions are indicated in the Performance Commitment and Rating Form • Provision in the guidelines on the linkage of SPMS with the Agency HR Development Plan • Provision in the guidelines on the tie-up of performance management system with the agency rewards and incentives for top performing individuals. the change process needs to be managed carefully and communicated clearly to everyone in the organization. you will be able to obtain their buy-in.
gov.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Tel.ph/ . No. 931-8092 / 931-7939 http://www.csc.
fits all model which failed to take into account the mandate. priorities even peculiarities of a particular government office. To address the gaps and weaknesses found in previous evaluation systems. be among the first to start. But how does one measure outputs? Who should determine which measure to adopt? What would be a less tedious way of objectively measuring performance? Previous efforts in performance management in the public sector were anchored on a one-size. and strategic goals. 95 . mission. and • Using the results of performance evaluation for rewarding and development planning. These steps include: • Forming the performance management team. Now. These systems also did not show how employee performance has contributed to or hindered organizational effectiveness. The SPMS Guidebook presents easy steps to enable the various government agencies to draw up a more objective performance management mechanism. the CSC recently introduced the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS). One main feature of the SPMS is that it links individual performance with the agency’s organizational vision. It also makes use of existing performance evaluation and management systems and links performance management with other human resource (HR) systems. • Developing performance monitoring and coaching tools. • Developing the rating scale. • Identifying performance goals.Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System What gets measured gets done.
Documents Similar To Guidebook_csc Spms_final Page Proof 7-B_8jul13