PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM- OFFICE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM (PMS - OPES)

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Office for Planning and Management Information System

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Section 1 Guidelines on the Performance Management System 1 I. Introduction 3 Background 3 The PMS Concept 4 The PMS Objectives 5 Components of the PMS 5 II. Scope 7 III. Procedures 7 Performance Planning and Commitment 7 Performance Monitoring and Coaching 10 Performance Review and Feedback 12 Performance Evaluation and Development Planning 14 Effectivity 15 IV. Forms 17 Performance Contract (PMS Form No. 1 DC) 19 Performance Commitment (PMS Form No. 1 HO) 20 Performance Monitoring Form (PMS Form No. 2) 21 Accomplishment Report (PMS Form No. 3) 22 Overtime Accomplishment Report (PMS Form No. 3a) 23 PMS Performance Continuum (PMS Form No. 4) 24 Performance Review Report (PMS Form No. 5) 25 Rating Scale for Managerial Competency 26 Supplemental Performance Contract (PMS Form No. 6) 27 Increase/Decrease in Staff Work Time Capture Form 28

(PMS Form No. 7) V. Performance Management System Calendar 29 VI. Flow Charts 31 Section 2 PMS Output Table 37 I. Common Outputs 39 II. CSC Reports 56 III. Output Table for Central Offices
Office of the Chairman 77 Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office 80 Examination, Recruitment and Placement Office 82 Human Resource Development Office 85 Internal Audit System 86 Integrated Records Management Office 87 Office for Financial and Assets Management 90 Office for Legal Affairs 94 Office for Personnel and Management and Development 96 Office for Planning and Management Information System 100 Public Assistance and Information Office 104 Personnel Policy and Standard Office 111

Personnel Relations Office 112 IV. Output Table for Regional Offices 113 V. Output Table for Field Offices 118

__________________________________________________________________
Performance Management System Guidelines

SECTION I
1

_________________________________________________________________

Performance Management System Guidelines

__________________________________________________________________
Performance Management System Guidelines

GUIDELINES ON THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION
Human resources are an agencys most valuable asset. They define the efficiency, effectiveness and over-all quality of service in any industry. The government sector is no exception. The need to establish an effective system that accurately evaluates the performance of its workers for the purpose of determining tenure, transfers or promotions, and appropriate incentives is of absolute urgency. While policies and systems for employee performance evaluation have long been in place in government, there has been an increasing demand to review the existing system, i.e. demand for public servants to produce tangible results by making a difference instead of just keeping busy, demand for increased accountability by performing the mandate of the organization, the need to correct the notion that a permanent appointment guarantees security of tenure. Hence, the call for the Civil Service Commission (CSC), as the central personnel agency of the government, to revisit and, as necessary, re-invent the performance management system of the bureaucracy. Background The development of the Performance Management System (PMS) was initiated in 2003 by a re-assessment of the existing Performance Evaluation System (PES) and the development of a new tool/instrument that will establish a culture of performance and accountability in the bureaucracy. The PMS meaningfully and objectively links employee performance vis--vis its Organizational Vision, Mission, and Strategic Goals. The PMS employs the concept of performance contracting. In the private sector, performance contracting, also known as pay-for-performance, is the practice of linking pay to performance indicators mutually agreed upon by the contractor and the contractee. In business, CEOs are paid on the basis of their performancethey get a bonus if profits increase; a decrease for ailing financial results. The user of performance contracts, at least insofar as the business sector is concerned, has demonstrated repeatedly and frequently how accountability and consequently, results are assured when pay is tied to performance.
3

In a similar manner, CSC contemplates the institutionalization of performance-based security of tenure in government. It endeavors to purposely link performance with ones

security of tenure in the service as a means of professionalizing the Civil Service and in so doing, redeem the perverted notion of security of tenure as the shield and protector of incompetence in the bureaucracy. The new tool developed was first tested to assess the performance of the Division Chiefs (DCs). The DCs, as middle managers, were chosen as a focal point because it was recognized that they are the fulcrum in agency operations and are pivotal in the organizations success. Being the fulcrum, the DCs provide both support and balance; on one hand, the management or their director-superiors demands them to execute strategy and deliver results; and on the other, subordinates expect them to develop, lead, motivate and inspire them to perform exceptionally. The DCs are situated at the intersection of almost all horizontal and vertical transactions in the government. At the time that the PMS was undergoing development, the CSC was also developing the Office Performance Evaluation System (OPES), which uses the concept of a points system to measure the collective performance of people under an office. In the 2005 Directorates Conference of the CSC, the Chairperson presented the OPES to all Central Office and Regional Office Directors for validation. By the second semester of 2005, the common standards for common outputs across divisions, offices and regions were incorporated in the OPES Output Table. After noticing that the OPES points system is easier to understand and implement, the original PMS for Division Chiefs was revised to incorporate the points system with the performance contracting concept to measure the performance of the DCs. Thus, the OPES is the missing link in the development of an objective and user-friendly Performance Management System. The system was then used as the standard in CSC offices to rate 2005 performance. The PMS Concept The CSCs PMS is a system which would meaningfully and objectively link employees performance vis--vis the agencys Organizational Vision, Mission and Strategic Goals. It is a technology composed of strategies, methods, and tools for ensuring fulfillment of the functions of the offices and its personnel as well as for assessing the quality, quantity and timeliness of the accomplishments.
4

_________________________________________________________________
Performance Management System Guidelines

__________________________________________________________________
Performance Management System Guidelines

The system is also seen as a significant link in the entire process of attaining the Commissions goals because it aims to produce information useful in planning, management and decision-making processes and to help address crucial management issues and constraints. The PMS hopes to successfully implement a contribution-based and accountability-based security of tenure and meet the ever increasing clients' demands and expectations for excellent service from the highly initiated corps of public servants. Currently, the Commission uses the term PMS to denote the integrated evaluation system which composes a set of different sub-systems that measure the performance of the offices (collective performance of the individuals), the Directors, the Division Chiefs, and other office staff. The PMS Objectives The following are the objective of the PMS:

To align individual performance goals with the organizations strategic goals/vision;

To ensure organizational effectiveness by cascading institutional accountabilities to the various levels of the organizations hierarchy;

To have performance management linked to other HR systems; and

To link agency overall performance to the Organizational Performance Indicator Framework, to the Agency Strategic Plan, and to the Medium- Term Philippine Development Plan. Components of the PMS Initially, CSC used the term Performance Management System for the system it developed for managing the performance of the DCs. However, as the development of the OPES, the term PMS is now used by CSC as the integrated system for managing performance composed of the following sub- systems: 1. Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES) This is an evaluation system for measuring the performance of the Directors or the third level officials of the Commission.
5

2. Performance Evaluation System (PES)

This is an evaluation system for measuring the performance of the first and second level employees of the government. There are two different tools currently being employed for this purpose. One is for measuring the performance of the Division Chiefs (DC-PES) and the other is for measuring the performance of the staff below the DC level position (PES). 3. Office Performance Evaluation System (OPES) This is a system for measuring the collective performance of the individuals in an Office or Division. It uses a point system to simplify the measurement process. A major activity in the development of the OPES is the creation of the PMS Output Table which is a listing of the different outputs of the offices together with the corresponding points per output, performance indicators, and operational definitions. The PMS Output Table is a major tool for measuring the performance of the offices. The points per output is determined by using the conversion one hour of work equals one point (1 work hour = 1 point). In other words we give one point for every hour it takes to complete an output. It is based on the average time it takes to complete an output if performed continuously by an average competent worker. Based on the PMS Output Table, the accomplishments of an office will be measured by counting the number of outputs it produced for a given period and calculating the corresponding points and then benchmarking it to the set target at the beginning of the rating period. The total working hours of an employee in a year is 1944 hours, which is equivalent to 1944 points. The target points for each office is set by computing a certain percentage of the total working hours available for each office personnel and then multiplying it by the total number of personnel in that office. Recognizing the fact that not all working time is being spent on producing outputs listed in the PMS Output Table, the Commission provided a discount of 972 points (50% of the target) for Central Offices to account for the time each spent on nonquantifiable activities.1 On the other hand, the Commission provided a lower discount of 583.2 points (30% of the target) for the Regional Offices given that there are less non-quantifiable activities performed in the regions and the type of work is usually more routine than in the Central Office. Hence, for Central Offices the target is 50% of the 1944 multiplied by the number of office personnel while for Regional Offices the target is 70% of the 1944 multiplied by the number of office personnel.
1 Non-quantifiable activities are activities that are done routinely, regularly or occasionally in the workplace and support functions that do not produce a tangible output such as attendance to office meetings, phone-calls, un-programmed non- working holidays, travel time, office ceremonial programs, entertaining walk-in visitors, photocopying, faxing, etc.

_________________________________________________________________
Performance Management System Guidelines 6

__________________________________________________________________
Performance Management System Guidelines

SCOPE
This set of guidelines is only for managing and measuring the performance of Division Chiefs (DC-PES) and Offices/Divisions (OPES) which both use the point system. The CESPES and the PES have separate guidelines.

PROCEDURES
The CSC implements the system following the PMS Cycle Framework described in the diagram below:

A. PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND COMMITMENT

This is done at the start of the performance period where all division heads will meet with their staff and agree on the employees Performance Contract for the period based on the Office Work Plan finalized and approved during the Performance Planning which is conducted on the last quarter of the previous year. For the DC-PES, it must clearly define expectations in terms of performance objectives or technical outputs (80%) and managerial competencies (20%). 1. The Office/Division shall set its targets for the year, through the following steps: 1.1 Consider the strategic plan of the Commission and the function of the Office/Division, identify what needs to be done for the year, whether routine or project.
7

_________________________________________________________________

Performance Management System Guidelines

1.2 Determine the total Office target points based on the actual number of personnel in the Office x 1944 points x Target Factor.2 Employees on detail and those under casual or contractual employment status should be excluded in the counting of actual number of Office personnel. 1.3 In setting the Divisions corresponding target, the Division shall determine its target points based on the actual number of the Division personnel3 plus a certain number of points to account for the personnel assigned in the Office of the Director.
For example, a CO Office has 34 personnel. It has three Divisions. There are four staff assigned in the Office of the Director (Director IV, Director III, Secretary, Clerk) and the other 30 personnel are equally distributed to the three Division. A Division will compute its target points in this manner: 10 x 1944 points x 0.5 (using CO Target Factor) = 9720 points. However, the personnel under the Office of the Director should also be accounted for and thus their weight should be distributed in each Division. Thus, a total of 3888 points (4 x 1944 x 0.5) should be distributed to each Division or additional 1296 points per Division. Therefore, the correct target for each Division should be 9720 points + 1296 points = 11016 points.

1.4 Using the PMS Output Table, determine the type and number of output it intends to produce to achieve the target points calculated in 1.2 and giving priority to producing the work identified in 1.1. In cases where the work outputs identified in 1.1 do not have corresponding output and points in the PMS Output Table, the Office/Division shall recommend estimated points. This will be subject to the evaluation of the Office for Planning and Management Information System (OPMIS).
2 Target Factor: 50% for Central Offices and 70% for Regional Offices. 3 Excluding the detailed, casual or contractual personnel for they will have to set a separate commitment. An individual who is assigned concurrently to two or more offices/divisions shall be counted only in his or her primary office/division for the purpose of the target setting. Time spent on the other offices/divisions will be later deducted from the primary office/division during the reporting of accomplishments.