The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Management Performance Assessment...

The Presidency The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationDepartment of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Management Performance Assessment

Tool (MPAT) and progress on performance assessments review

HoDs

Standing Committee on Appropriations

19 March 2013

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Management Performance Assessments Management Performance Assessments (MPAT)(MPAT)

22


Why?Why? Improved management practices key to improved service delivery Weak administration (financial management, supply chain

management, asset management, human resource management, planning, monitoring, facilities management) is a recurring theme across the priorities and is leading to poor service delivery, e.g. Textbook delivery problems in some provinces Shortages of ARVs in some provinces Undermining of small business development policy through non-payment of

suppliers within 30 days Appointment of unqualified people in key municipal positions, leading to

poor municipal service delivery Develop a culture of continuous improvement and sharing of

good practice Link institutional performance to individual assessment of HoD

33


MPAT first implemented in the 2011/12 financial year, after Cabinet approval to annually assess national and provincial departments using MPAT – Based on international experience (Canada, Kenya, New Zealand) where Office of President or Premier assesses management practices with aim of driving improvements through competition and sharing of good practice 103 departments participated in the first round of assessments 2011/12 self-assessment results for national departments have been

published on the DPME website Important base-line established Many departments have implemented improvements as a result of

this initial assessment For 2012/13 all (156) national and provincial departments

participated in assessment

44

BackgroundBackground


How?How? Assessment is against 31 management standards, in 17

management areas

Standards based on legislation and regulations

Standards developed collaboratively (with National Treasury, DPSA, Office of the Public Service Commission, Office of the Auditor General and Offices of the Premier)

Joint initiative with Offices of the Premier – DPME facilitates national departments, OoP facilitates provincial departments

55

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 66

Self-assessment;

validation

External moderation

and feedback

Improve and monitor

Senior management agree score

Internal Audit certify process and

evidence

HOD sign off

External Moderation

DPME/OOP feedback to department

Department improvement

plan

Department monitors

Department prepares for next round

Have we improved

from baseline?


ModerationModeration DPME only started MPAT assessments and tested the

moderation process in 2011/12 Results of the 2011/12 reflect the self-assessment only For the 2012/13 assessments, detailed peer moderation of

self-assessments was conducted Policy and implementing experts from national and

provincial departments were used as moderators Moderation process also clarified policy intent and

identified shortcomings in some management areas Opportunity for identification of good practice Departments were given a further opportunity to

comment on moderated scores Moderated results will be published in July 2013 after

presentation to Cabinet

77


MPAT ratingsMPAT ratings

88

Level Description

Level 1 Non-compliance with legal/regulatory requirements

Level 2 Partial compliance with legal/regulatory requirements

Level 3 Full compliance with legal/regulatory requirements

Level 4 Full compliance and doing things smartly


1.3 Performance Area: Monitoring and Evaluation1.3.1 Standard name: Integration of monitoring and evaluation in performance and strategic managementStandard definition: The department’s ability to do monitoring and evaluation, produce useful and reliable information, and use performance information in performance and strategic management.Standards Evidence Documents LevelDepartment does not have a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework

Level 1

Department has a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework.

Department does not have standardised mechanisms and/or processes and procedures to collect, manage and store data.

M&E or Performance Management Information Policy / Framework

Level 2

Department has a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework.

Department has standardised mechanisms and/or processes and procedures to collect, manage and store data.

M&E or Performance Management Information Policy / Framework

Standardised monitoring reports generated from formal departmental performance information source(s)

Level 3

Level 3 plus:

At least one evaluation of a major programme is conducted or in process or planned

Level 3 plus:

Evaluation Reports or

Evaluation plans

Level 4


2.1 Performance Area: Service Delivery Improvement2.1.1 Standard name: Service delivery improvement mechanismsStandard definition: Departments have an approved service delivery charter, standards and service delivery improvement plans and adheres to these to improve services.Standards Evidence Documents LevelDepartment does not have a service charter and service standards.

Level 1

Department has a draft service charter and service standards

Service charter and Service standards

Level 2

Department has an approved service charter, service standards and SDIP

Department has consulted stakeholders/service recipients on service standards and SDIP

Department displays its service charter

Service charter, service standards and SDIP

Evidence of consultation with stakeholders/ service recipients

Level 3

Level 3 plus:

Department quarterly monitors compliance to service delivery standards

Management considers monitoring reports

Reports are used to inform improvements to business processes

Level 3 plus:

Minutes of management meetings reflecting discussion of service delivery improvement

Progress reports and monitoring reports

Level 4


Improving management performanceImproving management performance

1111


Value add of this processValue add of this process

MPAT provides a single holistic picture of the state of a department

Generally audits focus on compliance only, whereas MPAT focuses on getting managers to work more smartly

MPAT also covers a broader range of management areas than audits cover

Getting all departments to level 4 will improve levels and quality of service delivery For example getting departments to procure smartly would result in better

service delivery by suppliers and contractors, and savings from reducing corruption and increasing value for money

1212


Value add… contValue add… cont

The process of getting top management as a whole to assess itself against a holistic set of good practice management standards and to agree on required improvements is the main value add of the MPAT assessment process Management practices in departments are generally weak because top

management has not paid sufficient attention to improving them By carrying out annual MPAT assessments the Presidency and the Offices of

the Premier are sending out a clear message that improving administration is a priority of government

1313


Limitations of this processLimitations of this process

MPAT focuses on processes related to converting inputs into outputs Does not focus on assessing whether the right outputs are been produced to

achieved desired outcomes and impacts Risk that departments may be producing the wrong outputs very efficiently and

effectively

In viewing the overall performance of a department it is therefore also important to consider the achievement of outcomes and impacts DPME is doing this through monitoring of the 12 priority outcomes and related

delivery agreements Departments’ performance against targets for outcome and impact indicators

in their strategic plans and APPs, as reported in their annual reports, should also be used to assess this

1414


Revisions to HoD performance review systemRevisions to HoD performance review system Current system not working well – many HoDs not being regularly assessed FOSAD asked DPME and DPSA to propose changes Proposals approved by FOSAD MANCO, then Cabinet Key proposals aimed at addressing current problems:

Presidency and OtP to intervene if PAs are not submitted timeously

DG in Presidency and provincial DGs to convene assessment panels

Panels will make recommendations to EAs who will have final decision

If EAs do not respond in time, panel recommendation will be taken as final decision

Secretariat function to move from PSC to Presidency and OtP

Presidency and OtP to intervene if verification statements not submitted timeously DPSA needs to issue new PMDS policy for HoDs in terms of Public Service Act

and Public Service Regulations in order for the changes to be implemented – we are currently awaiting the new policy from DPSA

15


Ke ya lebogaKe a leboha

Ke a lebogaNgiyabonga

Ndiyabulela Ngiyathokoza

NgiyabongaInkomu

Ndi khou livhuhaDankie

Thank you

The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Management Performance Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Management Performance Assessment...