Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 46

2/5/2015

Performance Monitoring & Evaluation System

Dr. Prajapati Trivedi


Former Secretary to Government of India
Performance Management Division
Cabinet Secretariat

Results-Framework Document
An Instrument for Improving Government Performance

Dr. Prajapati Trivedi


Former Secretary to Government of India
Performance Management Division
Cabinet Secretariat

2/5/2015

Presentation Outline
1.

What do we do?

2.

What is new about it?

3.

Why do we do it this way?

4.

Impact of what we do?

Kerala
Population: 35 Million

2/5/2015

Karnataka
Population: 62 Million

2/5/2015

RFD Results for Four Years

Results for 2011-2012


Poor
9%
Fair
18%

Excellent
8%
Very Good
37%

Good
28%

Excellent(100%-96% )
Very Good (86% to 95%)
Good (76% to 85%)
Fair (66% to 75%)
Poor (65% and Below)

2/5/2015

How does RFD work? (The Process)


1

Beginning
of Year

During
the Year

End
of Year

Prepare
RFD

Monitor
Progress

Evaluate
Performance

April 1

October 1

June 1

How does RFD work? (The Process)

RFDs reviewed by
PMD and ATF

Departments send RFD to


Cabinet Secretariat

Minister approves RFD

Departments incorporate
PMD / ATF suggestions

RFDs approved by HPC on


Government Performance

Departments place RFDs


on Departmental Websites

2/5/2015

Origins of PMD
2008 10th Report of

Second Administrative Reforms Commission


Performance agreement is the most
common accountability mechanism in
most countries that have reformed their
public administration systems.

2008 6th Central Pay Commission


Introduce Performance Related Incentive
Scheme (PRIS)

Origins and Coverage of RFD Policy


June
2009

President announced that the


Government will within 100 days:
Establish mechanisms for
performance monitoring and
performance evaluation in
government on a regular basis

September Prime Minister issued an order to


implement Performance
2009
Monitoring and Evaluation
System (PMES)

2/5/2015

Current Coverage of RFD Policy


2009-2010

59 Departments

2010-2011

62 Departments

2011-2014

80 Departments
74 RFDs for Departments
6 Departments RFDS for RCs
800 Responsibility Centers
17 States

Implementation at State-Level
Already Begun Implementation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Maharashtra
Punjab
Karnataka
Kerala
Himachal Pradesh
Assam
Haryana
Chhattisgarh

9. Tripura
10.Rajasthan
11.Andhra Pradesh
12.Mizoram
13.Jammu & Kashmir
14.Meghalaya
15.Odisha
16.UP (request)
17. Puducherry (request)

2/5/2015

Current Coverage of RFD Policy

S C O P E O F RFD
2010-2014

Citizens / Clients Charter


Grievance Redress Mechanism
ISO 9001 in Government
Corruption Mitigation Strategies
Innovation in Government
Implementing RTI in Government
Compliance with CAG Audit

Presentation Outline

What do we do?
2.

What is new about it?

3.

Why do we do it this way?

4.

Impact of what we do

2/5/2015

M&E

Monitoring

Budget

1 Financial
Inputs

Evaluation

Performance
Budget

Outcome
Budget

RFD

1 Financial
Inputs

1 Financial
Inputs

1 Financial
Inputs

2 Activities

2 Activities

2 Activities

3 Outputs

3 Outputs

3 Outputs

4 Outcomes

4 Outcomes
5 Non-financial
Outcomes

2/5/2015

Meta Evaluation:
Evaluating Evaluation Systems
Success Indicator
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Budget

How closely is it related to Organizational


Objectives
Are the objectives prioritized?
Are the success indicators prioritized?
Are the deviations agreed ex-ante?
What percentage of success indicators are
outcome-oriented?
How high does the accountability rest for results?
How well aligned are the targets with budget?
Is there an independent scrutiny of targets as well
as achievements?
Is there a built in mechanism for medium term
expenditure and results perspective?
Is it linked to incentives?
Does it have political support?
Does the system produce a composite index?

Performance Outcome
RFD
Budget
Budget

No
No
No

No
No
No

No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Presentation Outline

What do we do?
What is new about it?
3.

Why do we do it this way?

4.

Impact of what we do

10

2/5/2015

3. Why do we do it this way?


3.1 Diagnosis
3.2 Prescription
3.3 Overall Approach

Problems of Government Agencies - I


PARLIAMENT
FINANCE MINISTRY

POLITICAL

NON-POLITICAL

PLANNING MINISTRY
ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTRY

EQUITY

MULTIPLE
PRINCIPALS

EFFICIENCY

MULTIPLE
GOALS
FUZZY GOALS &
OBJECTIVES

11

2/5/2015

Problem of Government Agencies -II

NOT ME Syndrome
People
Public Enterprise

Parliament

Government

3. Why do we do it this way?


3.1 Diagnosis
3.2 Prescription
3.3 Overall Approach

12

2/5/2015

Determinants of Performance
20 %

80 %

People
80 %

Leader

20 %
R
E
S
T

Determinants of Performance

13

2/5/2015

What can be done to solve the problem?

Government Agencies have not delivered


what was expected from them

Reduce Quantity of
Government
Privatization

Traditional
Civil Service Reforms

Increase Quality of
Government
Trickle-down
Approach

Direct
Approach

3. Why do we do it this way?


3.1 Diagnosis
3.2 Prescription
3.3 Overall Approach

14

2/5/2015

Elements of
Government Performance Management

Stool # 1

Government Performance
Management

Elements of
Performance Improvement
Stool # 2

Performance
Improvement

15

2/5/2015

Determinants of
Performance Perception
Performance
Perception

Stool # 3

What explains the Perception Gap?

Perception =

Achieving Targets

+ Quality of Interface
+ Communication
Citizens /
Clients
Charter

Grievance
Redress
Mechanism

16

2/5/2015

Determinants of Perception
1

Results

2
Citizens/
Clients
Charter

3
Grievance
Redress
Mechanism

Perception

Perception = 1 + 2 + 3

Compendium of Citizens / Clients Charters (CCC):

17

2/5/2015

18

2/5/2015

19

2/5/2015

CCC Evaluation Results

20

2/5/2015

Evaluation Criteria

21

2/5/2015

GRM
Evaluation
Results

22

2/5/2015

Sample
Performance
Agreement
From
New Zealand

23

2/5/2015

Sample
Performance
Agreement
From
USA
Performance
Agreement
between
The President of USA
William Jefferson Clinton
and
The Secretary of Energy
Hazel OLeary

24

2/5/2015

25

2/5/2015

26

2/5/2015

27

2/5/2015

A Message From The President's


Management Agenda...

"Government should be results-orientedguided not by


process but guided by performance. There comes a time
when every program must be judged either a success or
a failure. Where we find success, we should repeat it,
share it, and make it the standard. And where we find
failure, we must call it by its name." - President George
W. Bush

28

2/5/2015

29

2/5/2015

Sample
Performance
Agreement
From
Malaysia

30

2/5/2015

Sample
Performance
Agreement

Sample
Performance
Agreement

31

2/5/2015

32

2/5/2015

33

2/5/2015

34

2/5/2015

Karnataka

Kerala

Himachal
Pradesh

Haryana

35

2/5/2015

Presentation Outline

What do we do?
What is new about it?
Why do we do it this way?
4.

Impact of what we do

Impact of PMES / RFD


Caveats
1. System not fully implemented
Coverage (all remaining departments should be covered)
Results (results should be declared officially)
Consequence (there should be explicit consequence)

2. Impact follows 2-3 years after full implementation

Quantitative Evidence
1. Impact on departments

72

36

2/5/2015

Impact of RFD
Grievance Redress in GOI
250000

201197

Receipts

200000

172520

Disposals

147027

139240

150000

168308

117612

107961

113896 113151

100000

53075

50000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

73

Impact of RFD
Reduction in Pendency of CAG Paras in GOI
4500

4216

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000

RFD

533

500
0

2010 (June)

2014 (March)

74

37

2/5/2015

Impact of RFD
Solar Power - Fresh Capacity Addition
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
1000
900
800

Fresh Capacity Additon (MW)

700
600
500
400
300

RFD

200
100
0
2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

75

Coverage of SC students for Post-matric scholarship

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Average 2005-08

Average 2009-14

76

38

2/5/2015

Coverage of SC students for Post-matric scholarship


50
45
40
35
30

47.26

25
20
15

28.13

10
5
0

Average 2005-08
Average 2009-14

77

Impact of RFD
8

Rural Teledensity (Average Annual Growth Rate)


Department of Telecommunications

RFD

2005-06 to 2009-10
(Pre - RFD period)

2009-10 to 2013-14
(Post - RFD period)

78

39

2/5/2015

Impact of RFD
Fresh Capacity Addition of Power
(Ministry of Power)

25000

Fresh Capacity Addition (MW)


20000

RFD

15000

10000

5000

79

Impact of RFD
Reduction in Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) per 1000 live births
60

Health and Family Welfare


55.75
43.8

50
40
30
20

RFD

10
0

Average 2005-08

Average 2009-14

80

40

2/5/2015

Impact of RFD
Increase in Enhancement of Milk Production
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries
125
140
120

104

100

Average
Annual Milk
Production
(MMT)

80
60

RFD

40
20
0

RFD
PrePreRFD
2005-2009

Post RFD

Post RFD
2009-2014

81

Impact of PMES / RFD


Qualitative Evidence
1. Findings of Ph. D. thesis on RFD
Conclusion that RFD has made a huge impact through

a. Development of a template to assess the


performance of Ministries objectively
b. Facilitating objective performance appraisal of
civil servants
c. Inculcating performance orientation in the civil
servants by channelizing their efforts towards
meeting organizational objectives
82

41

2/5/2015

Impact of PMES / RFD


Qualitative Evidence
d. Facilitating a critical review of the schemes, programs
and internal organisational processes
e. Facilitating the policy makers to re-evaluate and redefine
the Ministrys Vision, Mission and Objectives

2. New Initiatives Introduced


a. Complete liquidation of stocks procured up to 2012-13
b. Procurement in non-conventional states
c. Preparation of National Register for GOI Lands

83

Impact of PMES / RFD


Qualitative Evidence
3. Larger Outputs
Target for Housing for Bidi workers increased from 10 K to
25 K (150% increase)

4. More Efficient Service Delivery


Target for settlement of EPF claims in 20 days 69 % to 90 %

5. Procedural Reforms
Introduced Award for best employer of Ex-Service Men
(ESM)
84

42

2/5/2015

Impact of PMES / RFD


Qualitative Evidence
6. Better Decision Making
a. Timelines as Success Indicator have accelerated the
process of decision making, issue of sanctions and
release of funds, etc.
b. helped in development and adoption of better and
regular systems of monitoring and faster
introduction of IT based monitoring systems.

85

Impact of PMES / RFD


Qualitative Evidence
6. Better Decision Making
c. With a focus on RFDs for the Responsibility
Centres which are directly involved in
implementation of the schemes, the implementation
of the programmes and its monitoring has
improved.
d. RFDs clearly identify the shortcomings and critical
areas of concern in each Min/Dept.
86

43

2/5/2015

Impact of PMES / RFD


Qualitative Evidence
6. Impact of MOUs
MOUs represent the counterpart of RFDs in public
enterprises. Given that they have had an overall
significant positive impact on the performance of
Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs), it is
reasonable to expect RFDs to have a similar impact on
the performance of Government Departments.
Some data on CPSEs performance is presented next
87

Contribution of CPSEs to Exchequer


Series1

180,000

165,994

160,000

148,783

151,672

162,762
162,402
156,124

139,918
140,000

125,384

120,000

110,599

100,000

89,036
81,867

80,000
62,753
56,157
61,037
60,000
40,000
20,000

46,934
42,289
39,009
27,47230,878
22,449
18,264
19,52019,951 22,988
16,352
15,132
9,061
12,084

88

44

2/5/2015

www.performance.gov.in

45

2/5/2015

Thank You
prajapati.trivedi@gmail.com

46

Оценить