Performance Management Systems in the Public Sector Module3

Summary

In module three, the Asian Productivity Organization presents an overview of performance management systems in the public sector across various countries like Bangladesh, Taiwan, India, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and the Philippines. Each country has developed unique systems to align government goals with national development priorities, employing various frameworks and measurement approaches. These systems aim to enhance accountability, transparency, and efficiency in government operations, promoting a culture of continuous improvement and effective resource utilization. Despite inherent challenges in measurement and potential negative effects, these systems are evolving to address such issues, underscoring the importance of managing performance in the public sector.

Highlights

• Bangladesh uses the GPMS aligning ministry goals with national development priorities using a result-based management approach. 🇧🇩
• Taiwan's medium-term planning framework integrates key performance indicators for widespread governmental alignment. 🇹🇼
• India's MOUs and balanced scorecards emphasize organizational and individual performance accountability. 📋
• Iran's structured evaluation criteria focus on aligning performance with national goals supported by strong legal frameworks. 📜
• Malaysia's My Performance System promotes transparency and accountability, using digital tools to track performance. 🇲🇾
• Pakistan's performance contracts tie performance to budgetary allocations, promoting efficiency and accountability. 🇵🇰
• Sri Lanka implements the MFDR approach emphasizing national development goals across all government levels. 🇱🇰
• Turkey's performance-based budgeting system aligns with national development objectives, enhancing strategic organization direction. 🇹🇷
• The Philippines uses the RBPMS to harmonize performance management across government levels linked to incentive systems. 🇵🇭

Key Takeaways

• Performance management systems across various countries align with national goals, ensuring government efficiency and accountability. 🌍
• Countries use unique frameworks like GPM in Bangladesh and MOU in India to manage performance effectively. 🇧🇩🇮🇳
• Continuous improvement and feedback are essential for the evolution of these systems, especially in Iran and Sri Lanka. 🔄
• Digital tools and structured performance evaluations are becoming integral parts of these systems for better transparency and analysis. 💻
• Challenges exist, like measurability and potential performance manipulation, prompting ongoing refinement and adaptation of these systems. 💡

Overview

The Asian Productivity Organization's module three shines a light on performance management systems in the public sector across several Asian economies. These systems, varying in structure and application, essentially aim to sync overarching governmental goals with national development aspirations. Countries have developed distinctive frameworks to manage public sector efficiency and accountability. From Bangladesh’s Government Performance Management System to India’s Memorandum of Understanding framework, each nation has tailored its approach to best meet its administrative contexts, often involving dual levels of performance measurement and audits.

These frameworks focus on continuous improvement through feedback, digital tools, and strategic evaluations. Taiwan, for instance, has integrated key performance indicators, while Malaysia uses digital platforms to track performance and ensure transparency and accountability. Furthermore, countries like Iran and Sri Lanka emphasize a feedback-driven culture, wherein evaluation processes are continuously optimized to align with national goals. Such approaches are vital to navigating the complexities of public sector operations, ensuring that government activities are always aligned with comprehensive socio-economic objectives.

Despite significant advancements, performance management systems face challenges, especially in measurement and potential manipulation. Ensuring that targets remain ambitious yet realistic, and developing harmonized evaluation systems that minimize selective reporting, remain areas for growth. Countries are increasingly aware of these potential pitfalls and continue to refine their systems to enhance effectiveness and transparency. The ongoing evolution of these systems highlights the crucial role of performance management in public institutions, striving to bolster overall service delivery and governance quality.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction to Module 3: Performance Management in Practice This chapter introduces Module 3 on Performance Management in Practice. It focuses on selected performance management practices in APO member economies, drawing from the latest publication by the Asian Productivity Organization. The publication highlights recent trends in performance management assistance in the public sector across the Asia Pacific.
• 00:30 - 02:00: Performance Management Practices in Bangladesh This chapter provides an overview of performance management practices in various countries, with a focus on Bangladesh. The government of Bangladesh employs a Performance Management system known as GPMS (Government Performance Management System). A crucial element of this system is the alignment of goals across ministries to ensure cohesive functioning and achievement of national objectives. Other countries briefly mentioned in the transcript include the Republic of China in Taiwan, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and the Philippines.
• 02:00 - 05:00: Performance Management in the Republic of China (Taiwan) The chapter discusses the performance management system in the Republic of China (Taiwan), emphasizing the alignment of public sector activities with national development priorities. It highlights the use of a results-based management (RBM) approach, which focuses on making public agencies accountable for achieving outcomes rather than just completing tasks. The Government Performance Management System (GPMS) allows for implementation flexibility, enabling local governments to tailor their strategies to meet broader national progress goals.
• 05:00 - 07:00: Performance Management System in India The chapter discusses the Performance Management System in India, focusing on the implementation of annual performance agreements (APAs) between Ministries and the cabinet division. These agreements are designed to establish clear expectations by setting specific and measurable targets for the various Ministries. The chapter likely includes examples and further explanation of APAs to demonstrate their application and effectiveness in improving performance based on local needs and conditions.
• 07:00 - 09:00: Performance Evaluation in the Islamic Republic of Iran This chapter discusses the concept of performance evaluation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It begins by mentioning the Agreement of Performance Assessment (APA) which acts as a record of understanding between the minister and the ministry or division secretary. This document outlines key results for a specific financial year.
• 09:00 - 11:00: Performance Management in Malaysia In the chapter "Performance Management in Malaysia," the focus is on the country's medium-term planning framework. This framework is aligned with broader governmental goals to ensure consistency and long-term development outcomes across all government levels. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are used to measure, track progress, and evaluate performance at both the agency and individual project levels. This dual approach ensures that governmental efforts are both cohesive and effective.
• 11:00 - 13:00: Performance Contracts in Pakistan The chapter discusses the use of performance contracts in Pakistan to monitor and improve efficiency within government agencies. It highlights the system's role in tracking project commitments and integrating regular performance audits to ensure effectiveness and oversight. This allows the government to evaluate the impact of initiatives and make necessary adjustments. The chapter mentions five essential components of these performance contracts, although they are not elaborated in the provided text.
• 13:00 - 15:00: Managing for Development Results in Sri Lanka The chapter focuses on the management of development results in Sri Lanka. It highlights the public sector performance management system in Taiwan, covering both central and local governments. The performance management includes essential functions like collecting, processing, analyzing, producing, and disclosing information about governmental performance. The chapter elaborates on the roles and responsibilities in the design and management of performance systems.
• 15:00 - 17:30: Performance-Based Budgeting in Turkey The chapter discusses the mechanisms of performance-based budgeting in Turkey. It outlines the role of the National Development Council in the central government and the rde commission in local governments in assessing agency and program performance. Additionally, the chapter highlights the involvement of the Directorate General of Personal Administration in reviewing public personnel performance at the central government level. It notes that the evaluation of public spending performance is a centralized process.
• 17:30 - 22:00: Results-Based Performance Management in the Philippines This chapter discusses the Results-Based Performance Management system employed in the Philippines, detailing various control mechanisms at the central government level. It highlights the roles of different bodies: the Directorate General of Budget Accounting and Statistics is responsible for reviewing public budget performance, the legislative U1 budget center handles central government controls, and auditing is managed by the National Auditing Office. The chapter also draws parallels by referencing the performance management system in India.
• 22:00 - 26:00: Conclusion on Performance Management Challenges and Evolution The memorandum of understanding (MOU) framework plays a crucial role in performance management, especially within public sector undertakings (PSUs). PSUs sign MOUs with their respective administrative ministries or departments to lay down specific targets and performance parameters.

Performance Management Systems in the Public Sector Module3 Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 we are now in module three Performance Management in practice I chose to present to you uh selected performance management practices in APO member economies based on the most recent publication of the Asian productivity organization that is the recent Trends in Performance Management uh assistance uh in the public sector within the Asia Pacific
• 00:30 - 01:00 so this include Bangladesh the Republic of China in Taiwan India Islamic Republic of Iran Malaysia Pakistan Sri Lanka turkey and the Philippines let's start with Bangladesh in Bangladesh they have the government Performance Management uh system or the gpms a central feature of the gpms is the alignment of ministry goals with the
• 01:00 - 01:30 National development priorities and this is done to ensure that all public sector activities contribute to broader National progress the system uses the results-based management approach or the RBM to make public agencies accountable for achieving outcomes rather than just focusing on the completion of tasks the gpms provides implementation flexibility to local governments to tailor in
• 01:30 - 02:00 initiatives based on local needs and conditions the core feature of the gpms is the annual performance agreements or the apas signed between Ministries and the cabinet division the agreements establish clear Expectations by setting specific and measurable targets for the different Ministries in this slide you would see uh an example of an annual performance
• 02:00 - 02:30 uh agreement as mentioned earlier the APA is a record of understanding between the minister and the ministry or the division secretary outlining the results for a particular Financial year the next example is Performance Management in the Republic of China in Taiwan in Taiwan they have a system called the medium-term planning framework the government has EST establish a
• 02:30 - 03:00 medium-term planning framework that is aligned with broader governmental goals this alignment is key to ensuring that all levels of government work toward consistent long-term development outcomes the framework utilizes key performance indicators to measure and track progress and evaluate performance at both the agency and individual project levels this dual approach approach allows the government to
• 03:00 - 03:30 monitor large scale progress within agencies as well as track specific project commitments for targeted improvements the system integrates regular performance audits to ensure Effectiveness and provide oversight allowing the government to evaluate the impact of the various initiatives and make adjustments whenever necessary there are five essential components of
• 03:30 - 04:00 the public sector performance management system in Taiwan both in Central and local governments the five essential apparatuses are responsible for collecting processing and analyzing as well as producing and revealing the information about government's performance in reality their roles and responsibilities in designing and managing performance are as
• 04:00 - 04:30 follows reviewing agency and program performance is done by the central government's National Development Council and the local government's rde commission reviewing public personal performance is done at the level of the central government with the directory general of personal Administration in the executive uan reviewing public spending performance is a centralized
• 04:30 - 05:00 control system at the level of the central government with the directorate general of budget accounting and statistics reviewing public budget performance is done by the budget center of the legislative U1 and auditing is done by the national auditing Office of the control uan the third example is the performance management system in India the key system used there is a
• 05:00 - 05:30 memorandum of understanding or the mou framework the mou system is a critical component of the Performance Management particularly for public sector undertakings or the psus the public sector undertakings sign M us with their respective administrative Ministries or departments outlining specific targets and performance parameters for for the
• 05:30 - 06:00 fiscal year these M us serve as performance contracts and incentives are provided whenever they achieve or exceed performance Targets in the next slide you will see uh the typical uh performance indicators used in an mou such as a financial performance operational efficiency and social objectives although many psus in in India are also
• 06:00 - 06:30 using the Balan scorecard or the BSC approach in this slide is an example of a balance score card that covers multiple performance Dimensions such as Financial targets corporate governance technological advancements and human resource development the BSC is also used to further delegate the mou targets among the individ idual employees of these
• 06:30 - 07:00 organizations our next example is from the Islamic Republic of Iran in Iran they have a system called public administration and recruitment organization Le performance evaluation this organization leads a structured and comprehensive evaluation in the public sector it focuses on aligning individual performance with national goals and strategic priorities
• 07:00 - 07:30 through a structured evaluation criteria both quantitative and qualitative indicators are used to evaluate performance creating a balanced and comprehensive assessment of Effectiveness efficiency and alignment with organizational goals the evaluation process is backed by a strong legal framework such as the Civil Service management law a distinctive aspect of
• 07:30 - 08:00 the performance management system is its emphasis on feedback and ongoing Improvement the organizational performance evaluation system in Iran also requires the public sector to implement a performance management system following a calendar based on long-term strategic plans agencies set their operational goals that shape their activities and
• 08:00 - 08:30 projects for the year the evaluation process unfolds in four main stages to include visits to verify specific indicators and accomplishments the evaluation concludes in time with the national festival to honor top performing organizations organizations also receive feedback on their performance and this
• 08:30 - 09:00 is done to foster a culture of continuous Improvement in terms of evaluating employe performance goals are communicated to them at the onset of each year and their performance is assess at the end of the year throughout the year their relevant managers keep a close eye on their performance monitoring their performance regularly our next illustration is the performance
• 09:00 - 09:30 management system adopted in Malaysia the performance management system is called my performance system and this has evolved over time demonstrating their ongoing efforts to enhance efficiency transparency and accountability in the public sector the present performance system aligns individual and organizational performance with national development
• 09:30 - 10:00 goals the system adopts a no one approach that acknowledges the unique contributions of each employee and values continuous learning and professional development the enhancements to the system include clear performance contracts regular reporting and linking of performance to rewards and recognition digital tools are also used to track performance and provide
• 10:00 - 10:30 feedback the my performance system method for setting and setting the annual performance targets uh include or start with the identification of objectives all the way to the uh setting of the annual targets it also highlights clear performance evaluation criteria structured performance conversations integration of core values and
• 10:30 - 11:00 competencies as well as datadriven decision making our next example is uh that of Pakistan their system uh is called performance contracts with Ministries these performance contracts are signed between the Prime Minister and the Ministries thus establishing a formal commitment to meet predefined goals that are also aligned with national
• 11:00 - 11:30 priorities each contract includes specific key performance indicators and targets tailored to each Ministry based on their assigned impact areas regular evaluations and progress reporting ensure that Ministries remain on track toward meeting their contractual obligations this process allows for continuous monitoring reinforcing accountability and encouraging Ministries to meet their objectives
• 11:30 - 12:00 effectively performance Contracting involves a fstep method starting with uh objectives and kpis of Ministries uh being set at the beginning of each Financial year in alignment with their vision and stated contribution to National development goals performance thresholds are tied directly to budgetary allocations that's making
• 12:00 - 12:30 Ministries accountable for results as well as the utilization of public resources this setup promotes efficiency and prevents resource wastage by ensuring funds are linked to measurable outputs the next example is from Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka they adopted the managing for development results for the mfdr roach emphasizing alignment of
• 12:30 - 13:00 government actions with national development goals the mfdr operates across the various levels of government National provincial District divisional and Village levels creating an integrated structure under a strong centralized system complimenting the system is fiscal performance monitoring using digital tools such as
• 13:00 - 13:30 the integrated treasury management information system for financial reporting and Analysis all secretaries of the Ministries are required to submit annual performance plan at the beginning of a year and also required to report their performance to the parliament the performance plan of Ministries consists of specific commitments the expected output the
• 13:30 - 14:00 indicator and the unit of measure and expected cumulative progress by quarter the progress should be submitted to the secretary then to the president at the end of each quarter for the per performance to be measured this system was implemented in the year 2023 our next example is from Turkey in
• 14:00 - 14:30 Turkey they have a performance-based budgeting established under the public financial management and control law uh number 5018 in this system budgets are directly linked to specific performance targets and outcomes public sector organizations are required to prepare strategic plans that align with the country's National
• 14:30 - 15:00 development objectives this mandate ensures that all public sector initiatives are strategically oriented to support the broader socioeconomic goals creating a unified Direction across government agencies the public financial management and control law also emphasizes the importance of performance audits both internal and external the Performance Management processes used at
• 15:00 - 15:30 the government level or rather at the central government level are also implemented at the local government level in the Philippines uh they have the results-based performance management system that features a harmonized performance management system government wide and across levels of government it uses the performance informed uh budget
• 15:30 - 16:00 system to inform decisions program outcomes are being used as performance uh indicators the good governance conditions are also made part of agency accountabilities and there is a mandate to submit results based report and publish agency scorecards this system is linked to a performance-based incentives uh structure to reward those people or organizations that meet their
• 16:00 - 16:30 targets the planning budgeting and implementation of programs as well as performance monitoring and evaluation and Reporting is Guided by the results based management or the RBM framework this means planning for results budgeting for results implementing for results monitoring for results and evaluating for
• 16:30 - 17:00 results in the Philippines managing performance in the public sector involves a clear delation of roles and responsibilities among oversight and implementing agencies the office of the executive secretary oversees all executive branches of government the National Economic and Development Authority is the one monitoring and evaluating societal and sectoral goals the department of budget and management
• 17:00 - 17:30 is the one setting output and outcome targets with agencies and evaluates their uh performance the sectoral oversight agencies provide additional oversight for sector specific operations and performance and the Philippine Congress is the one conducting close scrutiny of agency performance especially during the annual budget deliberations the implement in agencies or the Departments are the ones tasked
• 17:30 - 18:00 to develop their own strategies and programs to set their performance targets to report performance and use the results of performance evaluation for improvement given the many Performance Management Systems in the public sector the tendency of agencies to report only their accomplishments the fragmented performance monitoring and EV valuation incentives being given across
• 18:00 - 18:30 the board the Philippine government sought to harmonize the performance Target setting monitoring evaluation and Reporting systems through the results based Performance Management System the rbpms is an integrated system supporting the entire Performance Management cycle in the public sector it is structured to support the realization of the national
• 18:30 - 19:00 goals and priorities it also specifies the targets and hierarchy of accountabilities from the level of departments and agencies down to the individual civil servant through the Strategic Performance Management System the rbpms is also used as basis for the new performance-based incentive system which is applied at the national and local government levels and even
• 19:00 - 19:30 government owned and controlled corporations the performance-based incentives system in the Government consists of two layers first the performance enhancement incentive or Pei a bonus that is given across the board uh to all civil servants and the Performance Based bonus or the the PBB
• 19:30 - 20:00 which is a top up incentive given based on individual contribution and performance evaluation this Performance Based bonus has four dimmensions of uh accountability the first one is performance results then process results Financial results as well as Citizen and satisfa ction results
• 20:00 - 20:30 compliance to good governance conditions such as transparency access to information having a Citizens Charter Financial accountability and legal accountability are also used as management accountability criteria another unique feature of the new incentive system was the system of ranking delivery units and person according to their performance in the
• 20:30 - 21:00 beginning delivery units were categorized into best better and good delivery unit and within the delivery units individuals were also ranked as better best or good performer the rates of incentives were calibrated according to these performance categories so expectedly the higher higher performing units and individuals receive higher
• 21:00 - 21:30 amounts of incentives refinements to this program was made recently and nowadays we use the compensation based index to account for the degree of performance accountability vital to the rbpms is the harmonization of performance monitoring reporting and evaluation across agencies this coordinated approach ensures that
• 21:30 - 22:00 performance data are collected and analyzed efficiently creating more unified view of the public sector's Effectiveness transparency is integral uh to this framework agencies are required to publicly post their targets budgets and performance scorecards this transparency mechanism prevents selective reporting ensuring that both achievements and challenges are visible to the public promoting
• 22:00 - 22:30 Integrity in reporting all in all the rbpms has enabled more objective and systematic measurement of performance and productivity of agencies and individuals within the Philippine public sector to reiterate the importance benefits of managing performance are as follows first Performance Management and enhances accountability and transparency
• 22:30 - 23:00 by assessing whether an agency or program is doing what it is supposed to do it provides insights into performance efficiency and Service delivery Effectiveness linking resource allocation to achieve outputs impacts and outcomes second Performance Management and measurement are crucial for improving performance they enable evaluation learning and enhancement of
• 23:00 - 23:30 performance transparency through performance measurement identifies strengths and weaknesses guiding necessary corrective actions and thirdly Performance Management serves as a basis for rewarding and recognizing public officials it clarifies employees contributions to organizational goals and pairs these expectations with incentives and sanctions to promote strong performance in their roles and
• 23:30 - 24:00 positions a key concern with managing performance in the public sector is measurability measuring performance in the public sector is challenging due to its multi-purpose and multifaceted nature on one hand and the absence of a single overriding goal on the other this is compounded further by the fact that managers in the public sector operate with within a political context with
• 24:00 - 24:30 different objectives obligations and accountabilities than those in the private sector also critics argue that Performance Management can lead to negative effects such as managers setting low or easy to reach targets other issues include the ratchet effect or not exceeding targets the threshold effect or just heating the Target and the output distortion that is focusing only on what is
• 24:30 - 25:00 measured thus undermining the true goals of Performance Management Performance Management can also lead to manipulation gaming and cheating and lastly the performance uh measurement system also suffers from inherent limitations although the proponents of Performance Management often remind that what gets measured gets done the downside of such logic is that what is
• 25:00 - 25:30 difficult to measure will fail to receive du attention nonetheless the Performance Management systems that I showed earlier continue to Evol to address these challenges for more information and details about this Performance Management Systems please try to read the most recent publication of the Apo on Performance Management Systems in the
• 25:30 - 26:00 public sector in the Asia region thank you