Date post: | 18-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | peregrine-walters |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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?
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 99
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 1010
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
Improving management performanceImproving management performance
1111
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
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
The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
Ke ya lebogaKe a leboha
Ke a lebogaNgiyabonga
Ndiyabulela Ngiyathokoza
NgiyabongaInkomu
Ndi khou livhuhaDankie
Thank you