Kawani ng Bayan: Tatak-UP – Magalang, Mahusay

Transcription

University of the Philippines Diliman
“Kawani ng Bayan: Tatak-UP – Magalang, Mahusay, Mapagmalasakit”
Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)
Orientation and Workshop
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administration
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
DEVELOPING THE
RATING SCALE
Mr. Rogelio Estrada
Division Chief, HRPRD of HRDO
Measuring Performance through the Years
2005
Performance Management
System-Office Performance
Evaluation System
1999
1993
Revised PES and
360-Degree
Evaluation
1963
Performance
Rating
Performance
Evaluation System
1978
New Performance
Appraisal System
1989
Autonomy of Agencies in
Developing their PES
SPMS Paradigm Shift
PARADIGM SHIFT
AREA
From
To
Perspective
Performance evaluation
Performance
management
Focus
Activities and inputs
Outputs and outcomes
Indicators
Performance indicators
Success Indicators (e.g.
(e.g. number of
response time)
appointments processed)
Performance alignment
Focus on individual
(competition)
Align individual to office/
organization (teamwork
and collaboration
Role of Supervisor
Evaluator
Coach and Mentor
Source: Guide Book on the STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, page 3
DEVELOPING THE RATING SCALE
Two sub-steps:
• Determining the dimensions on which
performance or accomplishments are to be
rated.
• Operationalizing the numerical and adjectival
ratings.
DIMENSIONS TO RATE PERFORMANCE
How to determine?
• Depending on how success indicators are stated
– Performance can be rate along the dimensions of quality,
efficiency, and/or timeliness using the listed elements above as
guidelines.
– rating needs to be discussed within the unit and between the
supervisors and staff (i.e., raters and ratees) to clarify the
expected outputs at the beginning of the performance
monitoring period.
• Because performance is measured within a scheduled
monitoring period, all accomplishments always involve
the dimension of time. As such, performance is always
rated on either efficiency and/or timeliness.
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (IPCR)
I,_______________________________________
of
the
____________________________________________________
Division
of
________________________________________________ commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets in accordance
with the indicated measures for the period ____________________________ to ___________________, 20 ______.
Outstanding
130% and above
5
Very Satisfactory
115%-129%
4
Satisfactory
90%-114%
3
Unsatisfactory
51%-89%
2
Poor
50% and below
1
Ratee
Date: ________________
Reviewed by:
Date
Approved by:
Date
Immediate Supervisor
Head of Office
Rating
Success Indicator
(Targets+Measures)
Output
Actual Accomplishments
1
Q
E2
T3
A4
Remarks
Support Functions:
Final Average Rating
Comments and Recommendations for Development Purposes
Discussed with
Date
Assessed by:
Date
Final Rating by:
I certify that I discussed my assessment of
the performance w ith the employee
Employee
Legend: 1 – Quantity
Supervisor
2 – Efficiency
3 – Timeliness
4- Average
Head of Office
Date
THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE
• Quality or Effectiveness
• Efficiency
• Timeliness
THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE
1. Quality or Effectiveness - getting the right things done.
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.
Quality or Effectiveness involves the following elements:
– Acceptability
– Meeting standards
– Client satisfaction with services rendered
– Accuracy
– Completeness or comprehensiveness of reports
– Creativity or innovations
– Personal initiatives
DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE
2. Efficiency - is the extent to which targets are
accomplished using the minimum amount of time or
resources.
Efficient performance applies to continuing tasks or frontline services
(e.g., issuance of licenses, permits, clearances, and certificates). 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.g. money, logistics, office supplies)
– Meeting deadlines as set in the work plan
DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE
3. Timeliness – measures if the targeted deliverable was
done within the scheduled or expected timeframe.
Timely performance involves:
– Meeting deadlines as set in the work plan
Note: Not all performance accomplishments need to be
rated along all three dimensions of quality, efficiency and
timeliness. Some accomplishments may only be rated on
any combination of two or three dimensions. In other
cases, only one dimension may be sufficient. Consider all
the elements involved listed above in each dimension and
use them as guides to determine how performance will be
rated.
DIMENSIONS TO RATE PERFORMANCE
ESTABLISHING THE RATING SCALE
“On each dimension of quality, efficiency, and timeliness, rate performance using a numerical scale ranging
from 1to 5—with 1as the lowest and 5as the highest. The table below explains the meaning of each rating:
RATING SCALE OPERATIONALIZATION
Adjectival Rating
Outstanding
Very Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Poor
%
130% and above
115% - 129%
90% - 114%
51% - 89%
50% and below
Numerical
Rating
5
4
3
2
1
The 130% and above range for Outstanding rating and the 50% and below range for
Poor rating are based on the ranges prescribed under CSC Memorandum Circular No
13, s. 1999. The 90% to 114% range for Satisfactory rating is based on Executive Order
No. 80, s. 2012 (Directing the Adoption of a Performance-Based Incentive System for
Government Employees).
CSC SAMPLE RATING SCALE
DEVELOPING A RATING SCALE
FORM 4 – HRDO SAMPLE
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
1
Q
T3
2
E
Planning and Research Section
MFO Manpower needs
analysis and
management of
items based on
government and
university
policies
100% of requests
for filling up vacant
positions evaluated
with completet
required
documents on a
first in first out
basis. Processing
per request is
seven (7) days
including evaluation
and draft
preparation until
forwarded to the
Division Chief.
5 With no revision on
draft of evaluation
4 Returned once with
minor revision on
draft
3 Returned once with
major revision on
draft
2 Returned twice with
minor/major revision
on draft
1 Returned thrice or
more for revision on
draft
5 Processed request
5 Processed a
within 5 days or less
4 Processed request
within 6 days
3 Processed request
within 7 days
2 Processed request
within 8-13 days
1 Processed request for
14 days or more
4
request in 1
day
Processed a
request in 2-3
days
3 Processed a
request in 4-5
days
2 Processed a
request in 6-7
days
1 Processed a
request beyond
7 days
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
Q1
E2
T3
Monitoring and Evaluation Section
MFO - Employee
(REPS and
Administrative)
Performance
Target/Rating
Monitoring and
Evaluation
100% Percent of
Submitted PRs
Encoded and
Recorded by
second week of
October 2013.
5 Work is approved
5
or Earlier
and accepted as
final; Accuracy
100%.
4 Work is highly
4
acceptable; Work
revised on first
submission with
minimal changes.
3 Work is fairly good
2 Draft frequently
4 Within 59-65
Days
3
and normally
acceptable; Work
revised 2-3 times;
with few errors
Note: Time frame for
this activity is 2 1/2
months or 75 days
5 Within 58 Days
3 Within 66 - 83
Days
2
revised with major
corrections and
mistakes
1 Work is consistently 1
not acceptable
2 Within 84 149 Days
1 Within 150
Days or more
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
Q1
T3
E2
Training Section Section
MFO- Develop
and Implement
Training
Programs
Training course
5 Average outstanding 5 Monthly
5
implementation of
implemented within rating of participants
training course, but not
45 days upon
more than 45 days
receipt of approved
4 Average very
4 Quarterly
4
design proposal
satisfactory rating of
participants
implementation of
training course
3 Average satisfactory 3 Semi-Annual
3
rating of participants
implementation of
training course
2 Average
2 Annual implementation 2
unsatisfactory rating
of training course
of participants
1 Average poor rating
of participants
1 No training
implemented
1
THANK YOU!

Kawani ng Bayan: Tatak-UP – Magalang, Mahusay

Transcription

Similar documents

Jimcor Agencies - Montvale, NJ - I

Selection Report Sample

Bayan Mo iPatrol Mo

ENCR - HLURB

BR - HLURB

UP Integrated School is now hiring a for 2 K-2 TEACHER

View Project - nadia osokin

Higher profitability and increased customer satisfaction!

SubConn® Circular

Loida Nicolas Lewis, Chair - Commission on Filipinos Overseas