Guidebook_csc Spms_final Page Proof 7-B_8jul13 | Performance Appraisal | Performance Management

G

u
i
d
e
b
o
o
k

o
n

t
h
e
STRATEGIC
PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
Guidebook on the
Strategic Performance Management System
Human Resource Policies and Standards Ofce
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
¡
Foreword
It has been said that a journey begins with a
single step. And as the journey progresses,
one has to keep track of one’s gears, one’s
destination, how fast one can get to the
journey’s end.
Over the years, the Civil Service Commission
has been at the forefront of the journey
of reform and transformation of the
bureaucracy. While it has logged milestones
and went past crossroads, it has never
lost sight of its goal—that of creating a
truly responsive, motivated, and efcient
workforce in government.
The CSC continues the journey with yet another tool specifcally for human
resource management ofcers in the public sector. In your hands is the
Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS),
a step-by-step guide in establishing the agency SPMS. The Guidebook
provides basic information and competencies needed to set-up the SPMS,
including discussions on the system’s cycle: performance planning and
commitment building; monitoring and coaching; performance review and
evaluation; and rewarding and development planning. It aims to guide
HRMOs in using the system to better identify, assess, and streamline
performance measurement processes.
The Commission has prioritized SPMS among its human resource
initiatives. CSC hopes that government agencies nationwide would be
able to appreciate how the system would help create a work environment
where civil servants—from executives to the administrative aides—are
able to link individual performance with organizational goals and perform
to the best of their abilities. And through this Guidebook, the Commission
hopes to stay on course in initiating defnitive measures geared towards
upgrading the standards of public sector governance
Francisco T. Duque III, MD, MSc
CHAIRMAN
¡¡
¡¡¡
Acknowledgement
The production of this Guidebook would not have been possible without
the invaluable support of the Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAid) through the Philippine Australia Human Resource
and Organisational Development Facility (PAHRODF).
We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the following:
• Representatives of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM),
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and Technological
University of the Philippines (TUP) for participating in the pre-test of
the Guidebook.
• The CSC Public Assistance and Information Ofce (PAIO) for its technical
inputs in the layout of the Guidebook.
Acknowledgement Acknowledgement
¡v
v
Table of Contents
Foreword i
Acknowledgement iii
Glossary vii
Measuring Performance through the Years 1
The Strategic Performance Management System:
Building on Past Initiatives 3
HOW TO ESTABLISH THE SPMS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION 7
Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team 7
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System 11
PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND COMMITMENT 15
Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs 17
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output 21
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of Your Ofce 29
Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions under Your Ofce 35
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division 39
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale 45
PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING 59
Step 9. Develop the Performance Monitoring & Coaching Tools 61
Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools 67
PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION 73
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools 75
PERFORMANCE REWARDING & DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 83
Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation 85
CRAFTING YOUR AGENCY SPMS GUIDELINES 89
Tables and Charts
Table 1. SPMS Paradigm Shift 3
Table 2. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities 8
Table 3. Major Final Outputs of the CSC 19
Table 4. CSC Scorecard 22
Table 5. CSC MFOs, Strategic Objectives, Measures,
and Success Indicators 26
Table 6. Ofce Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators 33

v¡¡
Table 9. Regional Ofce Level (CSCRO) and Division Level (PSED)
Success Indicators 37
Table 10. Ofce Level (HRPSO), Division Level (APCCD), and Individual
Level (Staf) Success Indicators 40
Table 11. Regional Ofce Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and
Individual Level (Staf) Success Indicators 43
Table 12. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to
Rate Performance 47
Table 13. Operationalization of the Rating Scale 48
Table 14. HRPSO Rating Matrix 49
Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix 51
Table 16. APCCD Rating Matrix 52
Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix 54
Table 18. Employee A Rating Matrix 55
Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix 56
Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix 57
Table 21. Employee D Rating Matrix 58
Table 22. Sample Ratings of Accomplishments 78
Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staf under HRPSO 79
Table 24. HRPSO’S Summary of Ratings (OPCR) 80
Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle 11
Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework 18
Chart 3. Link between CSC’s Logical Framework and Scorecard 25
Chart 4. CSC Ofces Contributing to Specifc MFOs 29
Chart 5. Illustration of CSC Ofces at the Central and Regional Levels
Contributing to the MFOs 31
Chart 6. Illustration of One CSC Ofce and Division at Central
and Regional Levels Contributing to MFO 32
Chart 7. Alignment of OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR 68

Glossary
Abbreviations Meaning
APCCD Audit and Position Classifcation and Compensation Division
ARTA Anti-Red Tape Act
ARTA-RCS Anti-Red Tape Act-Report Card Survey
CARE-HRM Continuing Assistance and Review for Excellent
Human Resource Management
CB Certifying Board
CHARM Comprehensive Human Resource Management Assistance,
Review, and Monitoring
CNA Collective Negotiation Agreement
CS Civil Service
CSC Civil Service Commission
CSCAAP Civil Service Commission Agency Accreditation Program
CSCFO Civil Service Commission Field Ofce
CSCRO Civil Service Commission Regional Ofce
CSE-PPT Career Service Examination - Paper and Pencil Test
CSI Civil Service Institute
CSLO Commission Secretariat and Liaison Ofce
DBM Department of Budget and Management
DOLE Department of Labor and Employment
DPCR Division Performance Commitment and Review
E Efciency
EO Executive Order
ERPO Examination Recruitment and Placement Ofce
ESD Examination Services Division
GAS General Administration and Support
GOCC Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations
HR Human Resource
HRD Human Resource Division
HRMO Human Resource Management Ofce
HR/OD Human Resource and Organization Development
HRPSO Human Resource Policies and Standards Ofce
IPCR Individual Performance Commitment and Review
IRMO Integrated Records Management Ofce
ISO International Standards Organization
KRA Key Result Area
LGU Local Government Unit
LSD Legal Services Division
LSP Local Scholarship Program
LWD Local Water District
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MBO Management by Objective
MC Memorandum Circular
Table 7. Regional Ofce Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators 34
Table 8. Ofce Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD)
Success Indicators 35
MFO Major Final Output
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MORE Management by Objectives and Results Evaluation
MSD Management Services Division
N/A Not Applicable
NGA National Government Agencies
NPAS New Performance Appraisal System
OFAM Ofce for Financial and Assets Management
OHRMD Ofce for Human Resource Management and Development
OLA Ofce for Legal Afairs
OPCR Ofce Performance Commitment and Review
OPES Ofce Performance Evaluation System
OPIF Organizational Performance Indicator Framework
OSM Ofce for Strategy Management
PAIO Public Assistance and Information Ofce
PALD Public Assistance and Liaison Division
PAP Programs, Projects, and Activities
PERC Performance Evaluation Review Committee
PES Performance Evaluation System
PMS Performance Management System
PMS-OPES Performance Management System-Ofce Performance
Evaluation System
PMT Performance Management Team
PMU Project Management Unit
PRAISE Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence
PRO Personnel Relations Ofce
PSED Policies and Systems Evaluation Division
PSSD Personnel Systems and Standards Division
PRIME-HRM Program to Institutionalize Meritocracy and Excellence
in Human Resource Management
Q Quality
QS Qualifcation Standards
QSSD Qualifcation and Selection Standards Division
RA Republic Act
RBPMS Results-Based Performance Management System
RO Regional Ofce
SMART Specifc, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound
SPEAR Special Program for Evaluation and Assessment as
Required/Requested
SPMS Strategic Performance Management System
STO Support to Operations
SUC State Universities and Colleges
T Timeliness
TARD Talent Acquisition and Retention Division
WIG Wildly Important Goal
1
Measuring Performance through the Years
Às ¡Lc ccn¡raI Luman rcsourcc managc¬
mcn¡ agcncy o¡ ¡Lc IL¡I¡¡¡¡nc burcau¬
cracy¸ ¡Lc C¡v¡I 5crv¡cc Comm¡ss¡on (C5C)
¡s cons¡¡¡u¡¡onaIIy manda¡cd ¡o ado¡¡
measures to promote morale, efciency,
¡n¡cgr¡¡y¸ rcs¡ons¡vcncss¸ cour¡csy and
¡ubI¡c accoun¡ab¡I¡¡y among govcrnmcn¡
cm¡Ioyccs.
TLrougL ¡Lc ycars¸ ¡Lc C5C Las ¡m¡Ic¬
mcn¡cd scvcraI ¡cr¡ormancc cvaIua¡¡on
and a¡¡ra¡saI sys¡cms.
BcIow ¡s a br¡c¡ rcv¡cw o¡ ¡as¡ ¡n¡¡¡a¡¡vcs:
1963:
Performance Rating
CSC Memorandum Circular No.
6, s. 1963 provided the guide-
lines in developing a system of
performance rating that would
measure performance of gov-
ernment employees.
1978:
New Performance
Appraisal System
The New Performance Appraisal
System (NPAS) was based on
Peter Drucker’s Management
by Objectives (MBOs) system.
Implemented through Memo-
randum Circular No. 2, s. 1978,
the NPAS focused on key result
areas (KRAs) along the dimen-
sions of quality, quantity, and
timeliness. It measured the em-
ployee’s performance and be-
havior in the work environment.
1993: Performance
Evaluation System
Through Memorandum Circular
No. 12, s. 1993, the Performance
Evaluation System (PES)
sought to establish an objective
performance system. The CSC
provided specifc guidelines
on setting the mechanics of
the rating system. Similar to
the NPAS and MORE, the PES
also measured the employee’s
performance and behavior in the
work environment.
1999: Revised PES and
360-Degree Evaluation
Memorandum Circular No. 13, s. 1999 revised the PES
and introduced the 360 degree evaluation, a cross rating
system in which assessment of performance and behavior
comes from the employees’ self-evaluation as well as
feedback from their subordinates, peers, supervisors,
and clients. The Revised PES required each government
agency to create a Performance Evaluation Review
Committee (PERC) tasked to establish performance
standards. An evaluation of the cross-rating system
revealed that employees perceived the system to be
too complex.
In 2001, through CSC MC No. 13, s. 2001, Agency Heads
were given the discretion to utilize the approved PES
or devise a Performance Evaluation System based on a
combination of the old PES and the revised performance
evaluation system.
2005: Performance Management
System-Ofce Performance
Evaluation System
The Performance Management System-Ofce
Performance Evaluation System (PMS-OPES)
sought to align individual performance with
organizational goals. It emphasized the importance
of linking the performance management system
with national goals as stated in the following:
• Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
• Organizational Performance Indicator/
Framework (OPIF)
• Major Final Output (MFO)

1989: Autonomy
of Agencies in Developing
their Performance
Evaluation System
The CSC provided simple guidelines
to empower government agencies
to develop their own Performance
Evaluation System (PES). This guide-
line was made through Memorandum
Circular No. 12, s. 1989. Internally,
the CSC adopted a system called
MORE (Management by Objectives
and Results Evaluation) in which
the employee’s accomplishments in
performance and behavior are moni-
tored weekly.
1963
PERFORMANCE
RATING
1978
NEW PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM
1989
AUTONOMY OF AGENCIES
IN DEVELOPING THEIR PES
1999
REVISED PES AND 360-DEGREE
EVALUATION
1993
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SYSTEM
2005
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM-OFFICE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SYSTEM
l ¸
The Strategic Performance Management System:
Building on Past Initiatives
TLc ¡as¡ ¡cr¡ormancc cvaIua¡¡on and a¡¡ra¡saI sys¡cms ¡La¡ C5C ¡m¡Ic¬
mcn¡cd ovcr ¡Lc ycars Lavc IargcIy ¡ocuscd onIy on ¡nd¡v¡duaI a¡¡ra¡saIs¸
wL¡cL wcrc uscd ¡or ¡crsonncI ac¡¡ons sucL as ¡nccn¡¡vcs¸ ¡romo¡¡on¸
and sc¡ara¡¡on. Howcvcr¸ ¡Lcy Lavc no¡ sLown Low cm¡Ioycc ¡cr¡or¬
mance has contributed to or hindered organizational efectiveness.
To addrcss ¡Lc ga¡s and wcaRncsscs ¡ound ¡n ¡rcv¡ous cvaIua¡¡on sys¡cms¸
¡Lc C5C rcccn¡Iy ¡n¡roduccd ¡Lc 5¡ra¡cg¡c Icr¡ormancc Managcmcn¡
5ys¡cm (5IM5) a¡¡cr ¡¡s ¡¡Io¡ ¡cs¡ ¡n lu11. TLc 5IM5 ¡ncor¡ora¡cs ¡Lc
¡os¡¡¡vc ¡ca¡urcs o¡ ¡as¡ ¡n¡¡¡a¡¡vcs.
L¡Rc ¡¡s ¡rcdcccssor¸ IM5¬OIL5¸ ¡Lc 5IM5 sccRs ¡o I¡nR ¡nd¡v¡duaI
¡cr¡ormancc w¡¡L ¡Lc agcncy’s organ¡za¡¡onaI v¡s¡on¸ m¡ss¡on¸ and
s¡ra¡cg¡c goaIs. W¡¡L somc ad¡us¡mcn¡s¸ ¡¡ aIso maRcs usc o¡ cx¡s¡¡ng
¡cr¡ormancc cvaIua¡¡on and managcmcn¡ sys¡cms and I¡nRs ¡cr¡ormancc
managcmcn¡ w¡¡L o¡Lcr Luman rcsourcc (HR) sys¡cms.
Howcvcr¸ ¡Lc 5IM5 maRcs a ma¡or ¡arad¡gm sL¡¡¡ ¡n ¡Lc ¡oIIow¡ng arcas:
Table 1. SPMS Paradigm Shift
AREA
PARADIGM SHIFT
From To
Perspective Performance evaluation Performance management
Focus Activities and inputs Outputs and outcomes
Indicators Performance indicators (e.g.
number of appointments
processed)
Success indicators (e.g.
response time)
Performance
alignment
Focus on individual
(competition)
Align individual to offce/
organization (teamwork
and collaboration)
Role of supervisor Evaluator Coach and mentor
TO ILLUSTRATE HOW TO
COMPUTE OPES POINTS:
243 working days in a year x 8 hours in a
day = 1,944 working hours in a year.
    The percentage of non-quantifable
outputs and activities for Regional/Field
Ofce staf is 30%; while the percentage
of quantifable outputs is 70%. 70% of
1,944 is 1,360 divided by 2 semesters (to
refect the two monitoring periods every
year) = 680 points.
To get the target points of the ofce,
680 points are multiplied by the number
of staf in the ofce.
For a Field Ofce with 5 staf, the
minimum OPES points should therefore be
3,400 pts.
This Field Ofce can get a rating of
Outstanding simply by processing a big
number of appointments and examination
applications. This Field Ofce, however,
may still have pending appointments that
need to be acted upon. The backlog in the
work of the Field Ofce is not considered
in the rating.
Drawing from the rationale
that “what gets measured gets
done,” every hour of work
is given 1 OPES point in the
rating system.
Using this as the standard unit
of measure, the PMS-OPES
required each government
agency to create a Measurement
Development and Calibration
Team that would determine
the equivalent points of each
major fnal output or the
amount of time it will take an
average competent employee
to produce a specifc output.
Under the OPES, targets are
estimated on the basis of the
number of OPES points required
per individual per rating period
multiplied by the number of
individual members of the
organizational unit.
The OPES measures the
collective performance of
a unit. The smallest unit is
the division.
Under this system, an OPES
Reference Table was created.
Below are the government
issuances related to the PMS-OPES:
• Memorandum Circular No. 7, s. 2007 called for the installation of Performance
Management System in the Civil Service.
• Republic Act 9485 or Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) required government agencies
to reengineer their systems and procedures and develop their Citizen’s Charter.
• Administrative Order 241, Section 5 mandated agencies to institute a performance
evaluation system based on objectively-measured performance outputs.
Although the PMS-OPES sought to create a system with objectively-measured
performance outputs, the process proved too tedious and overly activity-oriented.
µ
¸
TLc govcrnmcn¡ ¡ssuanccs rcIa¡cd ¡o ¡Lc 5IM5 arc ¡Lc ¡oIIow¡ng:
• 5cna¡c and Housc o¡ Rc¡rcscn¡a¡¡vcs ]o¡n¡ RcsoIu¡¡on No. µ au¡Lor¡zcd
¡Lc Ircs¡dcn¡ o¡ ¡Lc IL¡I¡¡¡¡ncs ¡o mod¡¡y ¡Lc com¡cnsa¡¡on and ¡os¡¡¡on
classifcation system of civilian personnel and the base pay schedule of
m¡I¡¡ary and un¡¡ormcd ¡crsonncI ¡n ¡Lc govcrnmcn¡.
• Àdm¡n¡s¡ra¡¡vc Ordcr No. l¸¸ s. lu11 crca¡cd an ¡n¡cr¬agcncy ¡asR
¡orcc on ¡Lc Larmon¡za¡¡on o¡ na¡¡onaI govcrnmcn¡ ¡cr¡ormancc
mon¡¡or¡ng¸ ¡n¡orma¡¡on¸ and rc¡or¡¡ng sys¡cms. TL¡s ¡n¡cr¬agcncy ¡asR
¡orcc dcvcIo¡cd ¡Lc RcsuI¡s¬Bascd Icr¡ormancc Managcmcn¡ 5ys¡cm
(RBIM5) ¡La¡ cs¡abI¡sLcd a common sc¡ o¡ ¡cr¡ormancc scorccard and
Larmon¡zcd na¡¡onaI govcrnmcn¡ ¡cr¡ormancc mon¡¡or¡ng¸ ¡n¡orma¡¡on¸
and rc¡or¡¡ng sys¡cms.
• C5C Mcmorandum C¡rcuIar No. 6¸ s. lu1l ¡rov¡dcd gu¡dcI¡ncs ¡n ¡Lc
cs¡abI¡sLmcn¡ and ¡m¡Icmcn¡a¡¡on o¡ agcncy 5¡ra¡cg¡c Icr¡ormancc
Managcmcn¡ 5ys¡cm.
• ]o¡n¡ C5C¬Ðc¡ar¡mcn¡ o¡ Budgc¡ and Managcmcn¡ (ÐBM) ]o¡n¡ C¡rcuIar
No. 1¸ s. lu1l ¡rov¡dcd ¡Lc ruIcs and rcguIa¡¡ons on ¡Lc gran¡ o¡ s¡c¡
¡ncrcmcn¡s duc ¡o mcr¡¡or¡ous ¡cr¡ormancc and Icng¡L o¡ scrv¡cc.
• Lxccu¡¡vc Ordcr No. 8u¸ s. lu1l d¡rcc¡cd ¡Lc ado¡¡¡on o¡ a ¡cr¡ormancc¬
bascd ¡nccn¡¡vc sys¡cm ¡or govcrnmcn¡ cm¡Ioyccs.
Basic Elements of the SPMS:
1. CoaI aI¡gncd ¡o agcncy manda¡c and organ¡za¡¡onaI ¡r¡or¡¡¡cs.
Icr¡ormancc goaIs and mcasurcmcn¡s arc aI¡gncd ¡o na¡¡onaI
dcvcIo¡mcn¡ ¡Ians¸ agcncy manda¡c¸ v¡s¡on¸ m¡ss¡on¸ and s¡ra¡cg¡c
¡r¡or¡¡¡cs¸ and[or organ¡za¡¡onaI ¡cr¡ormancc ¡nd¡ca¡or ¡ramcworR.
Ircdc¡crm¡ncd s¡andards arc ¡n¡cgra¡cd ¡n¡o ¡Lc succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors as
organ¡za¡¡onaI ob¡cc¡¡vcs arc cascadcd down ¡o ¡Lc o¡cra¡¡onaI IcvcI.
l. Ou¡¡u¡s[ou¡comcs¬bascd. The SPMS focuses on the major fnal outputs
(M£Os) ¡La¡ con¡r¡bu¡c ¡o ¡Lc rcaI¡za¡¡on o¡ ¡Lc organ¡za¡¡on’s manda¡c¸
v¡s¡on¸ m¡ss¡on¸ s¡ra¡cg¡c ¡r¡or¡¡¡cs¸ ou¡¡u¡s¸ and ou¡comcs.
¸. Tcam a¡¡roacL ¡o ¡cr¡ormancc managcmcn¡. Àccoun¡ab¡I¡¡¡cs and
¡nd¡v¡duaI roIcs ¡n ¡Lc acL¡cvcmcn¡ o¡ organ¡za¡¡onaI goaIs arc cIcarIy
defned to facilitate collective goal setting and performance rating. The
¡nd¡v¡duaI’s worR ¡Ian or comm¡¡mcn¡ and ra¡¡ng ¡orm ¡s I¡nRcd ¡o ¡Lc
division, unit, and ofce work plan or commitment and rating form to
cIcarIy cs¡abI¡sL ¡Lc conncc¡¡on bc¡wccn organ¡za¡¡onaI and cm¡Ioycc
¡cr¡ormancc.
µ. Uscr¬¡r¡cndIy. TLc suggcs¡cd ¡orms ¡or organ¡za¡¡onaI and ¡nd¡v¡duaI
comm¡¡mcn¡s and ¡cr¡ormancc arc s¡m¡Iar and casy ¡o com¡Ic¡c. TLc
ofce, division, and individual major fnal outputs and success indicators
arc aI¡gncd ¡o cascadc organ¡za¡¡onaI goaIs ¡o ¡nd¡v¡duaI cm¡Ioyccs and
harmonize organizational and staf performance ratings.
¸. In¡orma¡¡on sys¡cm ¡La¡ su¡¡or¡s mon¡¡or¡ng and cvaIua¡¡on. TLc
5IM5 ¡romo¡cs ¡Lc cs¡abI¡sLmcn¡ o¡ mon¡¡or¡ng and cvaIua¡¡on
(M&L) and ¡n¡orma¡¡on sys¡cms ¡La¡ ¡ac¡I¡¡a¡c ¡Lc I¡nRagc bc¡wccn
organ¡za¡¡onaI and cm¡Ioycc ¡cr¡ormancc and gcncra¡c ¡¡mcIy¸
accura¡c¸ and rcI¡abIc ¡n¡orma¡¡on ¡La¡ can bc uscd ¡o ¡racR ¡cr¡ormancc¸
rc¡or¡ accom¡I¡sLmcn¡s¸ ¡m¡rovc ¡rograms¸ and bc ¡Lc bas¡s ¡or ¡oI¡cy
dcc¡s¡on¬maR¡ng.
6. Commun¡ca¡¡on IIan. Ls¡abI¡sL¡ng ¡Lc 5IM5 ¡n ¡Lc organ¡za¡¡on
must be accompanied by an orientation program for agency ofcials and
cm¡Ioyccs ¡o ¡romo¡c awarcncss and ¡n¡crcs¡ on ¡Lc sys¡cm and gcncra¡c
appreciation for the SPMS as a management tool to engage ofcials and
cm¡Ioyccs as ¡ar¡ncrs ¡n ¡Lc acL¡cvcmcn¡ o¡ organ¡za¡¡onaI goaIs.
6
,
TLc Icr¡ormancc Managcmcn¡ Tcam (IMT) w¡II s¡carLcad ¡Lc
cs¡abI¡sLmcn¡ o¡ ¡Lc 5IM5 ¡n your organ¡za¡¡on. TLc IMT sLaII bc
com¡oscd o¡ ¡Lc ¡oIIow¡ng:
1. Executive Ofcial designated as Chairperson
2. Highest Human Resource Management Ofcer
3. Highest Human Resource Development Ofcer
4. Highest Planning Ofcer
5. Highest Finance Ofcer
6. Ircs¡dcn¡ o¡ ¡Lc accrcd¡¡cd cm¡Ioycc assoc¡a¡¡on
The Planning Ofce will function as the Secretariat.
WLcn cs¡abI¡sL¡ng ¡Lc 5IM5¸ ¡¡ ¡s ¡m¡or¡an¡ ¡o Lavc ¡Lc ¡oIIow¡ng Rcy
¡Iaycrs wLo w¡II assumc ¡Lc rcs¡ons¡b¡I¡¡¡cs I¡s¡cd ¡n TabIc l:
Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team
How to Establish the SPMS in Your Organization
FORM THE PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT TEAM
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
,
8
Q
KEY PLAYERS RESPONSIBILITIES
Head of Offce •Assumes primary responsibility for performance management in his/her offce.
•Conducts strategic planning session with supervisors and staff.
•Reviews and approves individual performance commitment and rating form.
•Submits quarterly accomplishment report.
•Does initial assessment of offce’s performance.
•Determines fnal assessment of individual employees’ performance level.
•Informs employees of the fnal rating and identifes necessary interventions to
employees.
•Provides written notice to subordinates who obtain Unsatisfactory or Poor rating.
Division Chief •Assumes joint responsibility with the Headof Offce in attaining performance targets.
•Rationalizes distribution of targets and tasks.
•Monitors closely the status of performance of subordinates.
•Assesses individual employees’ performance.
•Recommends developmental interventions.
Individual
Employees
•Act as partners of management and co-employees in meeting organizational
performance goals.
If you follow Step 1, you should be
able to identify the members of your PMT
and draft an offce order mandating
the composition of the PMT.
l
Table 2. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities
KEY PLAYERS RESPONSIBILITIES
SPMS Champion •Together with the PMT, the SPMS Champion is responsible and accountable for
the establishment and implementation of the SPMS.
•Sets agency performance goals/objectives and performance measures.
•Determines agency target setting period.
•Approves offce performance commitment and rating.
•Assesses performance of offces.
PMT •Sets consultation meetings with all Heads of Offces to discuss the offce
performance commitment and rating system and tools.
•Ensures that offce performance management targets, measures, and budget are
aligned with those of goals of the agency.
•Recommends approval of the offce performance and rating system and tools.
•Acts as appeals body and fnal arbiter.
•Identifes potential top performers for awards.
•Adoptsitsowninternal rules, procedures, andstrategiestocarryout itsresponsibilities.
Planning Offce •Functions as the PMT Secretariat.
•Monitors submission of Offce Performance Commitment and Rating Form
(OPCR) and schedule the review and evaluation by the PMT.
•Consolidates, reviews, validates, and evaluates the initial performance
assessment based on accomplishments reported against success indicators and
budget against actual expenses.
•Conducts an agency performance planning and review conference annually.
•Provides each offce with the fnal offce assessment as basis in the assessment
of individual employees.
Human Resource
Management
Offce (HRMO)
•Monitors submission of Individual Performance Commitment and Rating (IPCR)
Form.
•Reviews the summary list of individual performance rating.
•Provides analytical data on retention, skill/competency gaps, and talent
development plan.
•Coordinates developmental interventions that will form part of the HR Plan.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
Q
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2
1
8
Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team
1u
11
Once formed, the frst thing that the PMT does is to review the
agcncy’s cx¡s¡¡ng ¡cr¡ormancc managcmcn¡ sys¡cm (IM5) and maRc
necessary modifcations so that it is aligned with the SPMS guidelines
¡ssucd ¡LrougL Mcmorandum C¡rcuIar No. 6¸ s. lu1l.
Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle
Stage 1.
Performance
Planning &
Commitment
Stage 2.
Performance
Monitoring
& Coaching
Stage 3.
Performance
Review &
Evaluation
Stage 4.
Performance
Rewarding &
Development
Planning
PMS
CYCLE
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
REVIEW THE EXISTING
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2
11
1
1l 1¸

TLc 5IM5 ¡oIIows ¡Lc samc ¡our¬s¡agc IM5 cycIc ¡La¡ undcrscorcs ¡Lc
¡m¡or¡ancc o¡ ¡cr¡ormancc managcmcn¡:
Performance Planning and Commitment ¡s donc ¡r¡or
¡o ¡Lc s¡ar¡ o¡ ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc ¡cr¡od wLcrc Lcads o¡
ofces meet with the supervisors and staf and agree on
¡Lc ou¡¡u¡s ¡La¡ sLouId bc accom¡I¡sLcd bascd on ¡Lc
goaIs and ob¡cc¡¡vcs o¡ ¡Lc organ¡za¡¡on. TLc suggcs¡cd
¡¡mc ¡or Icr¡ormancc IIann¡ng and Comm¡¡mcn¡ ¡s ¡Lc
Ias¡ guar¡cr o¡ ¡Lc ¡rcccd¡ng ycar.
Performance Monitoring and
Coaching ¡s donc rcguIarIy dur¡ng
¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc ¡cr¡od by ¡Lc Hcads
of Agency, Planning Ofce, Division
and Ofce Heads, and the individual.
TLc ¡ocus ¡s crca¡¡ng an cnabI¡ng
cnv¡ronmcn¡ ¡o ¡m¡rovc ¡cam
¡cr¡ormancc and dcvcIo¡ ¡nd¡v¡duaI
¡o¡cn¡¡aIs. TLc suggcs¡cd ¡¡mc
¡cr¡ods ¡or Icr¡ormancc Mon¡¡or¡ng
and CoacL¡ng arc ]anuary ¡o ]unc and
]uIy ¡o Ðcccmbcr.
Performance Review and Evaluation
¡s donc a¡ rcguIar ¡n¡crvaIs ¡o
asscss bo¡L ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc o¡
the individual and his/her ofce.
TLc suggcs¡cd ¡¡mc ¡cr¡ods ¡or
Icr¡ormancc Rcv¡cw and LvaIua¡¡on
are the frst week of July and the frst
wccR o¡ ]anuary ¡Lc ¡oIIow¡ng ycar.
When reviewing Stage 3,
ask yourself the following
questions:
• Are ofce accomplishments
assessed against the success
indicators and the allotted
budget against the actual
expenses as indicated in the
Performance Commitment and
Rating Forms and provided in
your Agency Guidelines?
• Does your SPMS calendar
schedule and conduct the
Annual Agency Performance
Review Conference?
• Is individual employee
performance assessed based on
the commitments made at the
start of the rating period?
• Does your agency rating scale
fall within the range prescribed
in Memorandum Circular No. 13,
s. 1999 - Revised Policies on
the PES?
Performance Rewarding and Development Planning
¡s bascd on ¡Lc rcsuI¡s o¡ ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc rcv¡cw and
cvaIua¡¡on wLcn a¡¡ro¡r¡a¡c dcvcIo¡mcn¡aI ¡n¡crvcn¬
tions shall be made available to specifc employees. The
suggcs¡cd ¡¡mc ¡cr¡ods ¡or Icr¡ormancc Rcward¡ng and
Development Planning are the frst week of July and the
frst week of January the following year.
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
Stage 1
When reviewing Stage 1, ask yourself the
following questions:
• Does your SPMS calendar show that ofcials and
employees are required to submit their commitments
prior to the start of the rating period?
• Does your SPMS calendar allot time for the PMT
to review and make recommendations on the
performance commitments?
• Does your SPMS calendar indicate the period for
Heads of Agency and Ofces to approve the ofce
and individual performance commitments?
When reviewing Stage 2,
ask yourself the following
questions:
• Are feedback sessions to discuss
performance of ofces, ofcials,
and employees provided in your
Agency Guidelines and scheduled
in your SPMS calendar?
• Are interventions given to those
who are behind work targets? Is
space provided in the Employee
Feedback Form for recommended
interventions?
• Is there a form or logbook to
record critical incidents, schedule
of coaching, and the action plan?
Stage 2
Stage 3
When reviewing Stage 4, ask yourself the
following questions:
• Is there a mechanism for the Head of Ofce and
supervisors to discuss assessment results with the
individual employee at the end of the rating period?
• Is there a provision to draw up a Professional
Development Plan to improve or correct performance
of employees with Unsatisfactory or Poor
performance rating?
• Are recommendations for developmental
interventions indicated in the Performance
Commitment and Rating Form?
• Is there a provision on your Agency Guidelines to
link the SPMS with your Agency Human Resource
Development Plan?
• Is there a provision in your Agency Guidelines to
tie up the performance management system with
agency rewards and incentives for top performing
individuals, units, and ofces?
• Are the results of the performance evaluation
used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and rewards
and incentives?
Stage4
PMS
CYCLE
2
3
4
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
1l 1¸

If you follow Step 2, you shoiuld be able
to identify the gaps and PMS areas for
modifcation and enhancement. l
Steps 3 to 8
are all subsumed
under the first stage
of the PMS cycle−
Performance Planning
and Commitment.
Performance
Planning &
Commitment
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1

2
1,
The SPMS links staf performance with organizational performance. As
sucL¸ ¡¡ ¡s ¡m¡or¡an¡ ¡o undcrs¡and your organ¡za¡¡on’s manda¡c and
s¡ra¡cg¡c ¡r¡or¡¡¡cs. Ður¡ng ¡Lc ¡cr¡od o¡ ¡cr¡ormancc ¡Iann¡ng and
commitment, the frst thing to do is to understand your agency’s Major
£¡naI Ou¡¡u¡s.
Where you can fnd the MFOs or strategic
priorities of your agency:
• TLc Agency Logical Framework/Organizational Performance
Indicator Framework (OPIF) Book of Outputs ¡s ¡Lc ma¡n sourcc
documcn¡ ¡or your organ¡za¡¡on’s M£Os. TL¡s ¡s ¡ubI¡sLcd by ¡Lc
Ðc¡ar¡mcn¡ o¡ Budgc¡ and Managcmcn¡.
I¡ your agcncy docs no¡ Lavc a wr¡¡¡cn Log¡caI £ramcworR[OII£
BooR o¡ Ou¡¡u¡s¸ ¡Lc o¡Lcr ¡oss¡bIc sourccs o¡ ¡n¡orma¡¡on arc ¡Lc
¡oIIow¡ng documcn¡s:
For National Government Agencies (NGAs), State Universities and Colleges
(SUCs) and Government-owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs):
For Local Government Units (LGUs):
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
3
2
Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs
• Agency Strategic Plan/Road Map
• Scorecard
• Road Map
• Strategic Plan
• Scorecard
• Philippine Development Plan
• Agency Charter
• Philippine Development Plan
• Local Government Code
• Local Development Plan
Major Final Outputs refer to the goods and services
that your agency is mandated to deliver to external
clients through the implementation of programs,
projects, and activities (PAPs).
KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR AGENCY’S
MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS
1,
18
1Q
MFOs are delivered by core business processes of operating ofces/units.
Howcvcr¸ ofces/units that do not directly deliver goods and services
to external clients contribute to the delivery of the agency’s MFOs
through Support to Operations (STO) or General Administration and
Support (GAS) activities.
STOs rc¡cr ¡o ac¡¡v¡¡¡cs ¡La¡ ¡rov¡dc ¡ccLn¡caI and subs¡an¡¡vc su¡¡or¡
¡o ¡Lc o¡cra¡¡ons and ¡ro¡cc¡s o¡ ¡Lc agcncy. By ¡LcmscIvcs¸ ¡Lcsc
ac¡¡v¡¡¡cs do no¡ ¡roducc ¡Lc M£Os bu¡ ¡Lcy con¡r¡bu¡c or cnLancc ¡Lc
dcI¡vcry o¡ goods and scrv¡ccs. Lxam¡Ics ¡ncIudc ¡rogram mon¡¡or¡ng
and cvaIua¡¡on¸ ¡ubI¡c ¡n¡orma¡¡on ¡rograms¸ s¡a¡¡s¡¡caI scrv¡ccs¸ and
¡n¡orma¡¡on sys¡cms dcvcIo¡mcn¡.
GAS rc¡cr ¡o ac¡¡v¡¡¡cs ¡La¡ dcaI w¡¡L ¡Lc ¡rov¡s¡on o¡ ovcraII adm¡n¡s¡ra¡¡vc
managcmcn¡ su¡¡or¡ ¡o ¡Lc cn¡¡rc agcncy o¡cra¡¡on. Lxam¡Ics
arc Icg¡sIa¡¡vc I¡a¡son scrv¡ccs¸ Luman rcsourcc dcvcIo¡mcn¡¸ and
fnancial services.
MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS
MFO 1: Legal Services
MFO 2: Examinations and Appointments
MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services
MFO 4: Human Resource Development Services
MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and Accountability Enhancement Services
Table 3. Major Final Outputs of the CSC
Lnc¡rcIcd ¡n ¡Lc Iog¡caI ¡ramcworR ma¡r¡x sLown ¡n CLar¡ l arc ¡Lc
CSC’s fve Major Final Outputs:
SOCIETAL GOAL
SECTORAL GOAL
ORGANIZATIONAL
OUTCOMES
MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS
PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS)
• Adjudicate
administrative
disciplinary &
non-disciplinary
cases
• Formulate
opinions &
rulings
• Render legal
counseling
• Develop &for-
mulate guidelines,
standards &
procedures on the
various processes
involvedin recruit-
ment, examination
&placement
• Certify eligible
for placement
• Conduct
examination
• Issue certifcate
of eligibility
• Process/ review
appointments for
non-accredited
agencies
Develop policies,
standards, rules
& regulations on
personnel
program evalua-
tion, including
personnel
inspection &
audit actions
• Conduct
training programs
• Formulate/
evaluate/
administer
HRD programs
& service-wide
scholarships
• Formulate
policies on
government
employment
• Review/
enhance/
monitor agency
career systems
&standards
• Develop
policies,
standards &
regulations on
employee-
management
relations in the
public sector
PERSONNEL
DISCIPLINE &
ACCOUNTABILITY
ENHANCEMENT
SERVICES
Public Accountability
of Civil Servants Promoted
Merit & Rewards
System in the Civil Service
Strengthened and
Good
Governance
Improved Public
Service Delivery
Human Resource
Development Toward
Poverty Alleviation
HUMAN
RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
LEGAL
SERVICE
EXAMINATION
& APPOINTMENTS
PERSONNEL
POLICIES &
STANDARDS
SERVICES
Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework
EXAMPLES OF MFOs FOUND IN THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
If you follow Step 3, you should be able to
answer the following questions:
• What is my agency’s mandate---vision,
mission, and goals?
• What are my agency’s products
and services or major fnal outputs?
l
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
3
2
1Q
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
3
2
18
Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs
lu
l1
À¡¡cr ¡dcn¡¡¡y¡ng ¡Lc M£Os o¡ your agcncy¸ I¡s¡ down ¡Lc succcss
¡nd¡ca¡ors or ¡cr¡ormancc mcasurcs and ¡argc¡s o¡ cacL M£O.
Where you can fnd the performance indicators of your agency:
• Agency logical framework/OPIF ¡s ¡Lc ma¡n documcn¡ ¡La¡ dc¡a¡Is ¡Lc
¡cr¡ormancc ¡nd¡ca¡ors and ¡argc¡s ¡cr M£O.
• Àgcncy 5¡ra¡cg¡c IIan[Road Ma¡ [5corccard
Using these documents as basis, the agencies must agree on the
performance standards on which they want to be measured.
You can dc¡crm¡nc ¡Lc succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors by rc¡crr¡ng ¡o ¡Lc
¡oIIow¡ng documcn¡s:
• C¡¡¡zcn’s CLar¡cr
• RÀ 6,1¸ (Codc o¡ L¡L¡cs and L¡L¡caI 5¡andards)
• OIL5 Rc¡crcncc TabIc
• Àccom¡I¡sLmcn¡ Rc¡or¡s (¡or L¡s¡or¡caI da¡a)
• BcncLmarR¡ng Rc¡or¡s
• 5¡aRcLoIdcrs’ £ccdbacR Rc¡or¡s
TLcrc may bc o¡Lcr documcn¡s as¡dc ¡rom ¡Losc I¡s¡cd abovc ¡La¡ an
agcncy can dcr¡vc ¡¡s succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors.
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
√ SPECIFIC
√ MEASURABLE
√ ATTAINABLE
√ REALISTIC
√ TIME-BOUND
Success indicators
must be SMART:
IDENTIFY THE SUCCESS INDICATORS
OF EACH MAJOR FINAL OUTPUT
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
4
3
l1



E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
f

S
u
c
c
e
s
s

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

f
o
u
n
d

i
n

t
h
e

A
g
e
n
c
y

S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
T
h
e

C
i
v
i
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

d
e
r
i
v
e
s

i
t
s

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

i
t
s

L
o
g
i
c
a
l

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
/
O
P
I
F

B
o
o
k

o
f

O
u
t
p
u
t
s

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

i
t
s

S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
.

O
t
h
e
r

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

m
a
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e
i
r

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

o
t
h
e
r

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

l
i
s
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

(
e
.
g
.
,

C
i
t
i
z
e
n

s

C
h
a
r
t
e
r
,

O
P
E
S

R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

T
a
b
l
e
,

B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
.
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
A
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

a
s

a

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
1
C
l
i
e
n
t

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
i
n
g

(
C
S
C

f
r
o
n
t
l
i
n
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
N
/
A
T
:
1
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
(
7
0
-
7
9
%
)
G
o
o
d
(
8
0
-
8
9
%
)
G
o
o
d
(
8
0
-
8
9
%
)
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
(
9
0
-
1
0
0
%
)
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
(
9
0
-
1
0
0
%
)
A
:
G
o
o
d

(
8
7
%

i
n

C
S
C

A
R
T
A
-
R
C
S

a
n
d

9
8
%

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
-
i
n
g

o
f

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

g
o
v
t

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)

G
o
o
d
(
8
9
.
1
4
%
)
G
o
o
d

(
8
7
.
3
%

i
n

C
S
C

A
R
T
A
-
R
C
S

&

9
9
%

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
-
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
n
g

o
f

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

g
o
v
t

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M
T
:
N
/
A
1
0
%

(
1
5
9

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

r
e
-
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
2
5
%

(
3
9
8

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

L
e
v
e
l

I
I

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
-
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
4
0
%

(
6
3
6

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

L
e
v
e
l

I
I

a
c
c
r
e
d
-
i
t
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
5
0
%

(
7
9
5

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

L
e
v
e
l

I
I

a
c
-
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
A
:
N
/
A
1
6
5
%
(
2
6
2

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

r
e
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
)
L
e
v
e
l

I
I

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d



a
n

a
g
e
n
c
y

w
h
i
c
h

m
e
e
t
s

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
c

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

a
f
t
e
r

h
a
v
i
n
g

b
e
e
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

C
H
A
R
M

a
n
d
/
o
r

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

t
o

h
a
v
e

c
o
m
p
l
i
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

C
S
C
R
O
/
F
O

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

a
f
t
e
r

C
A
R
E
-
H
R
M

a
n
d

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

g
r
a
n
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

t
o

t
a
k
e

f
i
n
a
l

a
c
t
i
o
n

o
n

a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
B
H
i
g
h

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
,

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
t
,

a
n
d

c
r
e
d
i
b
l
e

c
i
v
i
l

s
e
r
v
a
n
t
s
3
W
I
G
:

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

h
i
g
h

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

p
a
s
s
-
i
n
g

t
h
e

A
R
T
A
-
R
C
S
7
8
%
(
3
9

p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

5
0

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
-
v
e
y
e
d
)
T
:
2
0
%

(
4
6
9

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
-
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
4
0
%

(
5
6
0

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
-
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)

8
5
%

(
8
3
0

p
a
s
s

o
u
t

o
f

9
7
5

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

o
r

h
i
g
h
e
r
)
9
5
%
(
3
4
5

p
a
s
s

o
u
t

o
f

3
6
3

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
-
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
9
8
%

(
1
,
0
2
2

p
a
s
s

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
0
4
2

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
A
:
7
3
%

(
3
6
1

p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

4
9
7

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
7
5
%

(
4
4
9

p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

5
9
9

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)

4
W
I
G
:
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
P
M
S
1
4



C
S
C

a
n
d

D
O
L
E

a
n
d

i
t
s

1
2

a
t
-
t
a
c
h
e
d

a
g
e
n
-
c
i
e
s
T
:
N
/
A
2
0
%

(
4
9
8

o
u
t

o
f

2
,
4
9
0

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
3
0
%

(
7
4
7

o
u
t

o
f

2
,
4
9
0

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
7
0
%

(
1
,
7
4
3

o
u
t

o
f

2
,
4
9
0

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
8
0
%

(
1
,
9
9
2

o
u
t

o
f

2
,
4
9
0

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
A
:
N
/
A
7
3
%
(
3
6
4

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
P
M
S
)
W
I
G
:
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

N
G
A
s
,

G
O
C
C
s
,

a
n
d

S
U
C
s

w
i
t
h

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
P
M
S
0
T
:
N
/
A
8
0
%

(
3
1
5

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

o
u
t

o
f

3
9
3

N
G
A
s
,

G
O
C
C
s
,

a
n
d

S
U
C
s
)
2
0
%

(
7
9

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

o
u
t

o
f

3
9
3

N
G
A
s
,

G
O
C
C
s
,

a
n
d

S
U
C
s
)
A
:
1
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
P
M
S



i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

a
l
l

s
e
c
t
o
r
s
:

N
G
A
s
,

G
O
C
C
s
,

S
U
C
s
,

L
W
D
s
,

a
n
d

L
G
U
s
;

S
P
M
S

i
s

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

f
o
r

i
n
i
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
P
M
S



S
P
M
S

i
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

a
n
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
C
P
r
o
v
i
d
e

e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t

H
R

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
5
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

I
S
O
-
c
e
r
t
i
f
e
d

c
o
r
e

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
T
:
N
/
A
3(
C
a
s
e
s

A
d
j
u
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

E
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,

A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
)
4(
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

3

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

+

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
5(
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

4

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
5(
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
)
A
:
N
/
A
3(
C
a
s
e
s

A
d
j
u
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

E
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,

A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
)
D
E
n
s
u
r
e

f
a
i
r
n
e
s
s

a
n
d

e
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g

Q
u
a
s
i
-
J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
6
W
I
G
:

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

c
a
s
e
s

r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

4
0

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
i
m
e

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

r
i
p
e

f
o
r

r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
/
A
T
:
3
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
*
8
0
%
9
8
%
A
:
7
3
%
(
4
,
7
9
1

o
u
t

o
f

6
,
5
8
2

c
a
s
e
s

r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d
)
E
E
n
h
a
n
c
e

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
u
r

w
o
r
k
-
f
o
r
c
e
7
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

C
S
C

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e
i
r

j
o
b

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
y

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
N
/
A
T
:
N
/
A
8
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
8
0
%
A
:
N
/
A
5
3
%
(
5
9
2

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
1
1
5
)

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

r
e
f
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

r
a
n
k

a
n
d

f
i
l
e
,

s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
y
,

a
n
d

e
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
/
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
i
a
l

g
r
o
u
p
s
F
E
n
s
u
r
e

e
f
f
c
i
e
n
t

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
8
Z
e
r
o

u
n
-
l
i
q
u
i
d
a
t
e
d

c
a
s
h

a
d
v
a
n
c
e
N
/
A
T
:
N
/
A
R
B
P
M
S

r
a
t
i
n
g
:

P
a
s
s
e
d
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
P E R S P E C T I V E
S T A K E H O L D E R SP R O C E S S S T A K E H O L D E R SP R O C E S SP E O P L EF I N A N C E



E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
f

S
u
c
c
e
s
s

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

f
o
u
n
d

i
n

t
h
e

A
g
e
n
c
y

S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
T
h
e

C
i
v
i
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

d
e
r
i
v
e
s

i
t
s

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

i
t
s

L
o
g
i
c
a
l

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
/
O
P
I
F

B
o
o
k

o
f

O
u
t
p
u
t
s

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

i
t
s

S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
.

O
t
h
e
r

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

m
a
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e
i
r

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

o
t
h
e
r

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

l
i
s
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

(
e
.
g
.
,

C
i
t
i
z
e
n

s

C
h
a
r
t
e
r
,

O
P
E
S

R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

T
a
b
l
e
,

B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
.
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
A
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

a
s

a

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
1
C
l
i
e
n
t

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
i
n
g

(
C
S
C

f
r
o
n
t
l
i
n
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
N
/
A
T
:
1
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
(
7
0
-
7
9
%
)
G
o
o
d
(
8
0
-
8
9
%
)
G
o
o
d
(
8
0
-
8
9
%
)
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
(
9
0
-
1
0
0
%
)
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
(
9
0
-
1
0
0
%
)
A
:
G
o
o
d

(
8
7
%

i
n

C
S
C

A
R
T
A
-
R
C
S

a
n
d

9
8
%

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
-
i
n
g

o
f

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

g
o
v
t

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)

G
o
o
d
(
8
9
.
1
4
%
)
G
o
o
d

(
8
7
.
3
%

i
n

C
S
C

A
R
T
A
-
R
C
S

&

9
9
%

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
-
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
n
g

o
f

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

g
o
v
t

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M
T
:
N
/
A
1
0
%

(
1
5
9

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

r
e
-
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
2
5
%

(
3
9
8

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

L
e
v
e
l

I
I

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
-
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
4
0
%

(
6
3
6

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

L
e
v
e
l

I
I

a
c
c
r
e
d
-
i
t
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
5
0
%

(
7
9
5

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

L
e
v
e
l

I
I

a
c
-
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
A
:
N
/
A
1
6
5
%
(
2
6
2

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

r
e
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
)
L
e
v
e
l

I
I

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d



a
n

a
g
e
n
c
y

w
h
i
c
h

m
e
e
t
s

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
c

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

a
f
t
e
r

h
a
v
i
n
g

b
e
e
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

C
H
A
R
M

a
n
d
/
o
r

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

t
o

h
a
v
e

c
o
m
p
l
i
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

C
S
C
R
O
/
F
O

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

a
f
t
e
r

C
A
R
E
-
H
R
M

a
n
d

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

g
r
a
n
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

t
o

t
a
k
e

f
i
n
a
l

a
c
t
i
o
n

o
n

a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
B
H
i
g
h

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
,

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
t
,

a
n
d

c
r
e
d
i
b
l
e

c
i
v
i
l

s
e
r
v
a
n
t
s
3
W
I
G
:

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

h
i
g
h

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

p
a
s
s
-
i
n
g

t
h
e

A
R
T
A
-
R
C
S
7
8
%
(
3
9

p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

5
0

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
-
v
e
y
e
d
)
T
:
2
0
%

(
4
6
9

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
-
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
4
0
%

(
5
6
0

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
-
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)

8
5
%

(
8
3
0

p
a
s
s

o
u
t

o
f

9
7
5

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

o
r

h
i
g
h
e
r
)
9
5
%
(
3
4
5

p
a
s
s

o
u
t

o
f

3
6
3

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
-
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
9
8
%

(
1
,
0
2
2

p
a
s
s

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
0
4
2

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
A
:
7
3
%

(
3
6
1

p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

4
9
7

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
7
5
%

(
4
4
9

p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

5
9
9

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)

4
W
I
G
:
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
P
M
S
1
4



C
S
C

a
n
d

D
O
L
E

a
n
d

i
t
s

1
2

a
t
-
t
a
c
h
e
d

a
g
e
n
-
c
i
e
s
T
:
N
/
A
2
0
%

(
4
9
8

o
u
t

o
f

2
,
4
9
0

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
3
0
%

(
7
4
7

o
u
t

o
f

2
,
4
9
0

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
7
0
%

(
1
,
7
4
3

o
u
t

o
f

2
,
4
9
0

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
8
0
%

(
1
,
9
9
2

o
u
t

o
f

2
,
4
9
0

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
)
A
:
N
/
A
7
3
%
(
3
6
4

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
P
M
S
)
W
I
G
:
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

N
G
A
s
,

G
O
C
C
s
,

a
n
d

S
U
C
s

w
i
t
h

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
P
M
S
0
T
:
N
/
A
8
0
%

(
3
1
5

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

o
u
t

o
f

3
9
3

N
G
A
s
,

G
O
C
C
s
,

a
n
d

S
U
C
s
)
2
0
%

(
7
9

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

o
u
t

o
f

3
9
3

N
G
A
s
,

G
O
C
C
s
,

a
n
d

S
U
C
s
)
A
:
1
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
P
M
S



i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

a
l
l

s
e
c
t
o
r
s
:

N
G
A
s
,

G
O
C
C
s
,

S
U
C
s
,

L
W
D
s
,

a
n
d

L
G
U
s
;

S
P
M
S

i
s

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

f
o
r

i
n
i
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
P
M
S



S
P
M
S

i
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

a
n
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
C
P
r
o
v
i
d
e

e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t

H
R

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
5
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

I
S
O
-
c
e
r
t
i
f
e
d

c
o
r
e

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
T
:
N
/
A
3(
C
a
s
e
s

A
d
j
u
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

E
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,

A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
)
4(
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

3

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

+

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
5(
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

4

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
5(
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
)
A
:
N
/
A
3(
C
a
s
e
s

A
d
j
u
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

E
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,

A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
)
D
E
n
s
u
r
e

f
a
i
r
n
e
s
s

a
n
d

e
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g

Q
u
a
s
i
-
J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
6
W
I
G
:

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

c
a
s
e
s

r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

4
0

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
i
m
e

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

r
i
p
e

f
o
r

r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
/
A
T
:
3
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
*
8
0
%
9
8
%
A
:
7
3
%
(
4
,
7
9
1

o
u
t

o
f

6
,
5
8
2

c
a
s
e
s

r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d
)
E
E
n
h
a
n
c
e

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
u
r

w
o
r
k
-
f
o
r
c
e
7
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

C
S
C

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e
i
r

j
o
b

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
y

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
N
/
A
T
:
N
/
A
8
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
8
0
%
A
:
N
/
A
5
3
%
(
5
9
2

o
u
t

o
f

1
,
1
1
5
)

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

r
e
f
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

r
a
n
k

a
n
d

f
i
l
e
,

s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
y
,

a
n
d

e
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
/
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
i
a
l

g
r
o
u
p
s
F
E
n
s
u
r
e

e
f
f
c
i
e
n
t

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
8
Z
e
r
o

u
n
-
l
i
q
u
i
d
a
t
e
d

c
a
s
h

a
d
v
a
n
c
e
N
/
A
T
:
N
/
A
R
B
P
M
S

r
a
t
i
n
g
:

P
a
s
s
e
d
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
P E R S P E C T I V E
S T A K E H O L D E R SP R O C E S S S T A K E H O L D E R SP R O C E S SP E O P L EF I N A N C E

ll
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
S

O
F

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S

F
O
U
N
D

I
N

T
H
E

A
G
E
N
C
Y

S
C
O
R
E
C
A
R
D
T
a
b
l
e

4
.

C
S
C

S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
lµ l¸
SOCIETAL GOAL
SECTORAL GOAL
ORGANIZATIONAL
OUTCOMES
MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS
PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS)
• Adjudicate
administrative
disciplinary &
non-disciplinary
cases
• Formulate
opinions &
rulings
• Render legal
counseling
• Develop &for-
mulate guidelines,
standards &
procedures on the
various processes
involvedin recruit-
ment, examination
&placement
• Certify eligible
for placement
• Conduct
examination
• Issue certifcate
of eligibility
• Process/ review
appointments for
non-accredited
agencies
Develop policies,
standards, rules
& regulations on
personnel
program evalua-
tion, including
personnel
inspection &
audit actions
• Conduct
training programs
• Formulate/
evaluate/
administer
HRD programs
& service-wide
scholarships
• Formulate
policies on
government
employment
• Review/
enhance/
monitor agency
career systems
&standards
• Develop
policies,
standards &
regulations on
employee-
management
relations in the
public sector
PERSONNEL
DISCIPLINE &
ACCOUNTABILITY
ENHANCEMENT
SERVICES
Public Accountability
of Civil Servants Promoted
Merit & Rewards
System in the Civil Service
Strengthened and
Good
Governance
Improved Public
Service Delivery
Human Resource
Development Toward
Poverty Alleviation
HUMAN
RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
LEGAL
SERVICE
EXAMINATION
& APPOINTMENTS
PERSONNEL
POLICIES &
STANDARDS
SERVICES
Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework



E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
f

S
u
c
c
e
s
s

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

f
o
u
n
d

i
n

t
h
e

A
g
e
n
c
y

S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
T
h
e
C
i
v
i
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
d
e
r
i
v
e
s
i
t
s
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
f
r
o
m
i
t
s
L
o
g
i
c
a
l
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
/
O
P
I
F
B
o
o
k
o
f
O
u
t
p
u
t
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
i
t
s
S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
.
O
t
h
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
m
a
y
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
i
r
s
u
c
c
e
s
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
f
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
(
e
.
g
.
,
C
i
t
i
z
e
n

s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
,
O
P
E
S
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

T
a
b
l
e
,
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
.
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
A
R
e
c
o
g
n
iz
e
d

a
s
a
C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r
E
x
c
e
lle
n
c
e
1
C
lie
n
t
S
a
t
is
f
a
c
t
io
n
R
a
t
in
g
(
C
S
C
f
r
o
n
t
lin
e

s
e
r
v
ic
e
s
)
N
/
A
T
: 1
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
le
(
7
0
-7
9
%
)
G
o
o
d
(
8
0
-8
9
%
)
G
o
o
d
(
8
0
-8
9
%
)
E
x
c
e
lle
n
t
(
9
0
-1
0
0
%
)
E
x
c
e
lle
n
t
(
9
0
-1
0
0
%
)
A
:
G
o
o
d

(
8
7
%
in
C
S
C

A
R
T
A
-R
C
S
a
n
d

9
8
%

s
a
t
is
f
a
c
t
io
n
r
a
t
-
in
g
o
f
s
e
le
c
t
e
d

g
o
v
t
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)

G
o
o
d
(
8
9
.1
4
%
)
G
o
o
d

(
8
7
.3
%
in
C
S
C

A
R
T
A
-R
C
S
&

9
9
%
s
a
t
is
f
a
c
-
t
io
n
r
a
t
in
g
o
f

s
e
le
c
t
e
d
g
o
v
t

a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f

a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
a
c
c
r
e
d
it
e
d

u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e

P
R
IM
E
-H
R
M
T
:
N
/
A
1
0
%

(
1
5
9
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
r
e
-
v
a
lid
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
o
f

1
,5
9
0
a
c
c
r
e
d
it
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
2
5
%

(
3
9
8
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s

L
e
v
e
l II a
c
c
r
e
d
it
-
e
d
o
u
t
o
f
1
,5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
it
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
4
0
%

(
6
3
6
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s

L
e
v
e
l II a
c
c
r
e
d
-
it
e
d
o
u
t
o
f
1
,5
9
0

a
c
c
r
e
d
it
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
5
0
%

(
7
9
5
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s

L
e
v
e
l II a
c
-
c
r
e
d
it
e
d
o
u
t
o
f

1
,5
9
0
a
c
c
r
e
d
it
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
A
:
N
/
A
1
6
5
%
(
2
6
2
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s

r
e
v
a
lid
a
t
e
d
)
L
e
v
e
l II a
c
c
r
e
d
it
e
d

a
n
a
g
e
n
c
y
w
h
ic
h
m
e
e
t
s
t
h
e
b
a
s
ic
r
e
q
u
ir
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
f
t
e
r
h
a
v
in
g
b
e
e
n
s
u
b
je
c
t
e
d
t
o
C
H
A
R
M
a
n
d
/
o
r
d
e
t
e
r
m
in
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
c
o
m
p
lie
d
w
it
h
t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
io
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
S
C
R
O
/
F
O
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
C
A
R
E
-
H
R
M
a
n
d
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
g
r
a
n
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
is
s
io
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
it
y
t
o
t
a
k
e
f
in
a
l a
c
t
io
n
o
n
a
p
p
o
in
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
B
H
ig
h

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
in
g
,
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
c
r
e
d
ib
le

c
iv
il s
e
r
v
a
n
t
s
3
W
IG
: P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
h
ig
h
d
e
n
s
it
y

a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
ir

s
e
r
v
ic
e
o
f
f
c
e
s
p
a
s
s
-
in
g
t
h
e
A
R
T
A
-R
C
S
7
8
%
(
3
9

p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t

o
f
5
0

s
e
r
v
ic
e

o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
-
v
e
y
e
d
)
T
:
2
0
%

(
4
6
9
s
e
r
v
ic
e
o
f
-
f
c
e
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
4
0
%

(
5
6
0
s
e
r
v
ic
e
o
f
-
f
c
e
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)

8
5
%

(
8
3
0
p
a
s
s
o
u
t

o
f
9
7
5
s
e
r
v
ic
e

o
f
f
c
e
s
o
r

h
ig
h
e
r
)
9
5
%
(
3
4
5
p
a
s
s
o
u
t
o
f

3
6
3
s
e
r
v
ic
e
o
f
-
f
c
e
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
9
8
%

(
1
,0
2
2
p
a
s
s

o
u
t
o
f
1
,0
4
2

s
e
r
v
ic
e
o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
A
:
7
3
%

(
3
6
1
p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t
o
f
4
9
7

s
e
r
v
ic
e
o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)
7
5
%

(
4
4
9
p
a
s
s
e
d

o
u
t
o
f
5
9
9

s
e
r
v
ic
e
o
f
f
c
e
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)

4
W
IG
:
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s

w
it
h
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
S
P
M
S
1
4
– C
S
C

a
n
d

D
O
L
E

a
n
d
it
s

1
2
a
t
-
t
a
c
h
e
d

a
g
e
n
-
c
ie
s
T
:
N
/
A
2
0
%

(
4
9
8
o
u
t
o
f

2
,4
9
0
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
3
0
%

(
7
4
7
o
u
t
o
f

2
,4
9
0
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
7
0
%

(
1
,7
4
3
o
u
t
o
f

2
,4
9
0
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
8
0
%

(
1
,9
9
2
o
u
t
o
f

2
,4
9
0
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
)
A
:
N
/
A
7
3
%
(
3
6
4
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s

w
it
h
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
P
M
S
)
W
IG
:
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
N
G
A
s
,
G
O
C
C
s
, a
n
d
S
U
C
s

w
it
h
f
u
n
c
t
io
n
a
l
S
P
M
S
0
T
:
N
/
A
8
0
%

(
3
1
5
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s

o
u
t
o
f
3
9
3

N
G
A
s
, G
O
C
C
s
,
a
n
d
S
U
C
s
)
2
0
%

(
7
9
a
g
e
n
c
ie
s
o
u
t

o
f
3
9
3
N
G
A
s
,
G
O
C
C
s
, a
n
d

S
U
C
s
)
A
:
1
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
S
P
M
S

in
c
lu
d
e
s
a
ll s
e
c
t
o
r
s
: N
G
A
s
, G
O
C
C
s
, S
U
C
s
, L
W
D
s
, a
n
d
L
G
U
s
; S
P
M
S
is
c
o
n
d
it
io
n
a
lly
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
f
o
r
in
it
ia
l im
p
le
m
e
n
t
a
t
io
n
F
u
n
c
t
io
n
a
l S
P
M
S

S
P
M
S
is
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
im
p
le
m
e
n
t
e
d
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
B
A
S
E
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
C
P
r
o
v
id
e

e
x
c
e
lle
n
t
H
R

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
5
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
IS
O
-
c
e
r
t
if
e
d
c
o
r
e
a
n
d

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
T
:
N
/
A
3(
C
a
s
e
s

A
d
ju
d
ic
a
t
io
n
,
E
x
a
m
in
a
t
io
n
,
A
p
p
o
in
t
m
e
n
t
s

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
in
g
)
4(
M
a
in
t
a
in
t
h
e

3
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

+
T
r
a
in
in
g

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
5(
M
a
in
t
a
in
t
h
e

4
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

+
P
r
o
je
c
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
5(
M
a
in
t
a
in
e
d
)
A
:
N
/
A
3(
C
a
s
e
s

A
d
ju
d
ic
a
t
io
n
,
E
x
a
m
in
a
t
io
n
,
A
p
p
o
in
t
m
e
n
t
s

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
in
g
)
D
E
n
s
u
r
e

f
a
ir
n
e
s
s
a
n
d

e
f
f
c
ie
n
c
y
in

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
in
g

Q
u
a
s
i-J
u
d
ic
ia
l
f
u
n
c
t
io
n
s
6
W
IG
: P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
c
a
s
e
s
r
e
s
o
lv
e
d

w
it
h
in
4
0
d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m

t
h
e
t
im
e
t
h
e
y
a
r
e

r
ip
e
f
o
r
r
e
s
o
lu
t
io
n
N
/
A
T
:
3
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
*
8
0
%
9
8
%
A
:
7
3
%
(
4
,7
9
1
o
u
t
o
f

6
,5
8
2
c
a
s
e
s

r
e
s
o
lv
e
d
)
E
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
y

o
f
o
u
r
w
o
r
k
-
f
o
r
c
e
7
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
C
S
C

e
m
p
lo
y
e
e
s
m
e
e
t
in
g

t
h
e
ir
jo
b
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
y

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
N
/
A
T
:
N
/
A
8
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
8
0
%
A
:
N
/
A
5
3
%
(
5
9
2
o
u
t
o
f
1
,1
1
5
)

E
m
p
lo
y
e
e
s
c
o
lle
c
t
iv
e
ly
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
r
a
n
k
a
n
d
f
ile
, s
u
p
e
r
v
is
o
r
y
, a
n
d
e
x
e
c
u
t
iv
e
/
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
ia
l g
r
o
u
p
s
F
E
n
s
u
r
e

e
f
f
c
ie
n
t

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f
f
n
a
n
c
ia
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
8
Z
e
r
o
u
n
-liq
u
id
a
t
e
d

c
a
s
h
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
N
/
A
T
:
N
/
A
R
B
P
M
S
r
a
t
in
g
:
P
a
s
s
e
d
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
P E R S P E C T I V E
S T A K E H O L D E R SP R O C E S S S T A K E H O L D E R SP R O C E S SP E O P L EF I N A N C E
LINK BETWEEN LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND SCORECARD
TLc ¡IIus¡ra¡¡on bcIow sLows ¡Lc I¡nR bc¡wccn C5C’s Log¡caI £ramc¬
worR—wLcrc ¡Lc M£Os and ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s arc ¡ound¸ and 5corc¬
card—wLcrc ¡Lc s¡ra¡cg¡c ob¡cc¡¡vcs and mcasurcs arc ¡nd¡ca¡cd:
Chart 3. Link between CSC’s Logical Framework and Scorecard
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
MFO 1:
LEGAL SERVICES
MFO 2:
EXAMINATIONS AND
APPOINTMENTS
MFO 3:
PERSONNEL
POLICIES AND
STANDARDS
SERVICES
MFO 4:
HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
MFO 5:
PERSONNEL
DISCIPLINE AND
ACCOUNTABIL-
ITY ENHANCEMENT
SERVICES
You will note that MFO 2 (Examinations and Appointments) is not included in the
Scorecard but it is one of the core functions of the CSC.
In the Scorecard, you will fnd that general administrative and support functions are
part of the strategic objectives: C. Provide excellent HR processes and F. Ensure
efcient management of fnancial resources.
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES
MEASURES
A. Recognized
as a Center of
Excellence
1 Client Satisfaction Rating
(CSC frontline services)
2 Percentage of agencies accred-
ited under the PRIME-HRM
B. High
performing,
competent, and
credible civil
servants
3 WIG: Percentage of high density
agencies and their service of-
fces passing the ARTA-RCS
4 WIG: Number of agencies with
approved SPMS
5 WIG: Numbers of NGAs, GOCCs,
and SUCs with functional SPMS
C. Provide excel-
lent HR processes
6 Number of ISO-certifed core
and support processes
D. Ensure fairness
and effciency in
performing Quasi-
Judicial functions
7 WIG: Percentage of cases re-
solved within 40 days fromthe
time they are ripe for resolution
E. Enhance the
competency of
our workforce
8 Percentage of CSC employees
meeting their job competency
standards
F. Ensure effcient
management
of fnancial
resources
9 Zero un-liquidated cash advance
* T a r g e t p e r c e n t a g e m a y c h a n g e d e p e n d i n g o n t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e v a l i d a t i o n b e i n g c o n d u c t e d b y O L A , C S L O a n d O C H . ”
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
l6 l,
EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS INDICATORS
TLc L¡gLI¡gL¡cd coIumn ¡n ¡Lc ¡abIc bcIow sLows C5C’s succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors
¡La¡ wcrc dcr¡vcd ¡rom ¡Lc M£Os (¡ound ¡n ¡Lc Log¡caI £ramcworR) and
s¡ra¡cg¡c ob¡cc¡¡vcs and mcasurcs (¡ound ¡n ¡Lc 5corccard).
Icr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s and s¡andards arc con¡¡nuousIy rcv¡cwcd and
refned. As such, determine specifc targets and success indicators for
cacL ycar ¡n your annuaI worR ¡Ian.
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES SUCCESS INDICATORS
MFO 1:
Legal Services




Ensure fairness
and effciency
in performing
quasi-judicial
functions




Percentage of
cases resolved
within 40 days
fromthe time
they are ripe for
resolution




• Percentage of cases resolved
within 40 days fromthe time they
are ripe for resolution
• No. of cases adjudicated and
resolved within thirty (30) working
days (disciplinary cases)
• No. of cases adjudicated and
resolved within ten (10) working
days (non-disciplinary cases)
• No. of appointments processed/
reviewed versus received in ac-
cordance with technical standards
(for regulated agencies)
MFO 2: Exami-
nations and
Appoinments




NOTE: MFO 2 is
not included in
the Scorecard
but it is one
of the core
functions of the
CSC.









• No. of CSC test applications
processed and administered in
accordance with standards
• No. of eligibles granted under
special laws
• No. of eligibilities certifed/placed
• No. of appointments processed/
reviewed versus received in ac-
cordance with technical standards
(for regulated agencies)
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES SUCCESS INDICATORS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies and
Standards
Services














Recognized as
a Center for
Excellence














• Percentage
of agencies ac-
credited under
PRIME-HRM














• No. of HR Climate Surveys con-
ducted as per annual work plan
• No. of HRMOs assessed as per
annual work plan
• No. of agencies subjected to
CHARM/CARE-HRM/ SPEAR as per
annual work plan
• No. of agencies revalidated in
accordance with guidelines
• No. of agencies accredited under
PRIME-HRM Level II Accreditation
(issued with CSC Resolution) in
accordance with guidelines and set
standards
• No. of agencies recommended for
Deregulated Status in accordance
with guidelines
• No. of agencies conferred with
Seal of Excellence Award under
PRIME-HRM in accordance with
Commission-approved standards
• No. of Seal of Excellence awarded
under PRIME-HRM in accordance
with Commission-approved
standards
• No. of unions registered accord-
ing to standards
• No. of unions accredited accord-
ing to standards
• No. of union’s CNAs registered
according to standards
• No. of education/information
campaign conducted as per annual
work plan
• No. of conciliation/mediation
services rendered according to
standards
Table 5. CSC MFOs, Strategic Objectives, Measures, and Success Indicators
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
4
3
l,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
4
3
l6
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
l8
lQ
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES SUCCESS INDICATORS
MFO 4: Hu-
man Resource
Development
Services



Enhance the
competency of
our workforce



Percentage of
CSC employees
meeting their
job competency
standards



• Percentage of CSC employees
meeting their job competency
standards per annual work plan
• No. of personnel trained
• No. of Distance Learning Program
graduates according to standards
• No. of scholars enrolled according
to standards
MFO 5:
Personnel
Discipline
and
Accountability
Enhancement
Services
High perform-
ing, competent,
and credible
civil servants
• Percentage
of high density
agencies & their
service offces
passing the
ARTA-RCS
• Number of
agencies with
functional SPMS
• Good CSC Client Satisfaction Rat-
ing (CSC frontline services) for 2013
• Percentage of high density
agencies and their service offces
passing the ARTA-Report Card
Survey per annual work plan
• No. of complaints/feedbacks/
requests processed/acted upon
versus received
• Number of agencies with func-
tional SPMS
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
5
2
3
À¡¡cr ¡dcn¡¡¡y¡ng aII ¡Lc M£Os o¡ your agcncy¸ ¡ocus on ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc
goals of your ofce. Ask yourself:
Which MFO is my ofce contributing to?
In most cases, one or several ofces will be contributing to one MFO. It is
also possible that one ofce will be contributing to two MFOs.
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
EXAMPLES OF OFFICES CONTRIBUTING TO MFOs
In the Civil Service Commission, the following ofces contribute to
specifc MFOs:
HRPSO; Offce for Strategy Manage-
ment (OSM); Public Assistance and
Information Offce (PAIO); CSCROs
MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and
Accountability
Enhancement Services
HRPSO; Offce for Human Resource
Management and Development
(OHRMD); Civil Service Institute
(CSI); CSCROs
MFO 4: Human Resource
Development Services
Human Resource Policies &
Standards Offce (HRPSO); Personnel
Relations Offce (PRO); CSCROs
MFO 3: Personnel Policies and
Standards Services
Examination, Recruitment and
Placement Offce (ERPO); CSCROs
MFO 2: Examinations and
Appointments
Offce for Legal Affairs (OLA),
Commission Secretariat and Liaison
Offce (CSLO); CSC Regional Offces
(CSCROs)
MFO 1: Legal Services
lQ
IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE
GOALS OF YOUR OFFICE
If you follow Step 4, you should be able to
formulate indicators that are SMART.
l
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
4
3
l8
¸u ¸1
Bascd on ¡Lc organ¡za¡¡onaI ¡r¡or¡¡¡cs o¡ ¡Lc C¡v¡I 5crv¡cc Comm¡ss¡on
each year, each ofce determines its specifc performance targets or
succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors ¡n ¡¡s annuaI worR ¡Ian.
If your ofce/unit is not directly delivering goods and services to
external clients, your ofce/unit is either implementing Support
to Operations (STO) activities or General Administration and
Support (GAS) activities. As such, you should have your own SMART
performance targets or success indicators from the ofce/unit level
down to the individual staf level.
Individual
Staff
MFO 1:
LEGAL SERVICES
Ensure fairness and
effciency
in performance of
quasi-judicial functions
OLA
Divisions
LSD
OLA CSCRO
%of cases
resolved within
40 days
CSCFOs ESD
CSCROs ERPO
Test form
developed with
good reliability
index within 2 days
before security
printing
%appointments
acted upon within
1.5 hours
MFO 2:
EXAMINATIONS &
APPOINTMENTS
PMU APCCD
OSM HRPSO
%of agencies
accredited under
PRIME-HRM
CSC client
satisfaction rating
(frontline services)
MFO 3: PERSONNEL
POLICIES AND
STANDARDS
SERVICES
Recognized as
a Center for Excellence
PSED
CSCRO
MFO 4: HUMAN
RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
Enhance the competency
of our workforce
CSCRO
%of CSC
employees
meeting their job
competency
PMU
OSM
%of high
density
agencies &
their service
offces passing
ARTA-RCS
PALD
CSCRO
PSSD
HRPSO
No. of agencies
with approved
& functional
SPMS
PSED
CSCRO
MFO 5: PERSONNEL
DISCIPLINE &
ACCOUNTABILITY
High performing,
competent & credible
civil servants
VISION:
Asia’s Leading Center of Excellence
for Strategic HR and OD by 2030
The chart below shows how each CSC ofce, division, and individual staf in the central and regional levels work towards meeting the
performance targets, strategic objectives, and MFOs and contribute to realize CSC’s vision of becoming Asia’s leading Center of Excellence
for Strategic Human Resource and Organization Development by 2030.
The chart, however, does not show all the units in the CSC but only those that are directly contributing to the MFOs.
Chart 5. Illustration of CSC Ofces at the
Central and Regional Levels Contributing to
the MFOs
TARD
OHRMD
IST
CSI
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
HRD
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
5
2
3
¸u
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
¸l ¸¸
Chart 6. Illustration of One CSC Ofce and
Division at Central and Regional Levels
Contributing to MFO 3
To illustrate how the performance goals of an ofce cascade down to the division and individual staf levels on the central and regional
levels, this Guidebook will zero in on MFO 3 and one specifc ofce in the Civil Service Commission that contributes to it: the Human
Resource Policies and Standards Ofce (HRPSO), and one division under it, the Audit Position Classifcation and Compensation Division
(APCCD) and its counterpart ofce and division on the regional level, the CSC Regional Ofce (CSCRO) and the Policies and Systems
Evaluation Division (PSED). You will note that two ofces in the central ofce actually contribute to MFO 3: HRPSO and OSM. However, the
focus will only be on the HRPSO (central ofce) and the PSED (regional ofce). These units are highlighted in yellow below:
Individual
Staff
MFO 1:
LEGAL SERVICES
Ensure fairness and
effciency
in performance of
quasi-judicial functions
OLA
Divisions
LSD
OLA CSCRO
%of cases
resolved within
40 days
CSCFOs ESD
CSCROs ERPO
Test form
developed with
above average
reliability index
within 2 days
before security
printing
%appointments
acted upon within
1.5 hours
MFO 2:
EXAMINATIONS &
APPOINTMENTS
PMU APCCD
OSM HRPSO
%of agencies
accredited under
PRIME-HRM
CSC client
satisfaction rating
(frontline services)
MFO 3: PERSONNEL
POLICIES AND
STANDARDS
SERVICES
Recognized as
a Center for Excellence
PSED
CSCRO
HRD
MFO 4: HUMAN
RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
Enhance the competency
of our workforce
CSCRO
%of CSC
employees
meeting their job
competency
PMU
OSM
%of high
density
agencies &
their service
offces passing
ARTA-RCS
PALD
CSCRO
PSSD
HRPSO
No. of agencies
with approved
& functional
SPMS
PSED
CSCRO
MFO 5: PERSONNEL
DISCIPLINE &
ACCOUNTABILITY
High performing,
competent & credible
civil servants
TARD
OHRMD
IST
CSI
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
Individual
Staff
VISION:
Asia’s Leading Center of Excellence
for Strategic HR and OD by 2030
EXAMPLE OF THE PERFORMANCE GOALS
OF AN OFFICE AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
TLc HRI5O con¡r¡bu¡cs ¡o M£O ¸. BcIow arc ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc goaIs or
succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors o¡ ¡Lc HRI5O ¡La¡ cascadc down ¡o ¡Lc ÀIICÐ. No¡c
¡La¡ ¡Lc succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors arc SMART—Specifc, Measurable, Attain¬
abIc¸ RcaI¡s¡¡c¸ and T¡mc¬bound. HRI5O’s o¡Lcr succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors ¡La¡
cascadc down ¡o ¡Lc o¡Lcr ¡wo d¡v¡s¡ons
l
undcr ¡¡ arc no¡ ¡ncIudcd.
Table 6. Ofce Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO)
SUCCESS INDICATORS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies and
Standards
Services
3
Recognized
as
a Center for
Excellence
Percentage of
agencies
accredited under
PRIME-HRM
100% of recommendations for
accreditation from the CSC
Regional Offces acted upon
within 15 days from receipt of the
recommendation
Resolutions for accreditation of
agencies approved by the Commis-
sion within 15 days from receipt of
recommendation fromthe CSCRO
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB)
Standards for Center/Seal of Excel-
lence approved by the Commission
by end of the 1st Quarter
Orientation on PRIME-HRM con-
ducted by EO March 2013
MOA between the CSC and award
giving bodies on the integration
of CB standards to their criteria
signed by end of September 2013
Replies to queries sent within 15
days upon receipt by the HRPSO
2
The other two divisions under the HRPSO are: Personnel Systems and Standards Division (PSSD)
and Qualifcation and Selection Standards Division (QSSD).
3
The other ofces of the Civil Service Commission contributing to MFO 3 are the Personnel Rela-
tions Ofce and the Regional Ofces.
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
5
2
3
¸¸
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
¸µ
¸¸
EXAMPLE OF THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF A REGIONAL OFFICE
The Regional Ofces likewise contribute to MFO 3. The highlighted
coIumn sLows ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s on ¡La¡ IcvcI.
Table 7. Regional Ofce Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
REGIONAL OFFICE
(CSCRO) LEVEL
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
MFO 4:
Personnel Policies
and Standards
Services
Recognized as
a Center
for Excellence
Percentage of
agencies
accredited under
PRIME-HRM
Cumulative 25% of
agencies accredited
under CSC Agency
AccreditationProgram
(CSCAAP) grantedLev-
el II-Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM
¸¸
If you follow Step 5, you should be able to
identify the performance goals of your offce
that contribute to specifc MFOs.
l
Units under an ofce must contribute towards achieving a specifc MFO
¡LrougL a sc¡ o¡ ¡cr¡ormancc goaIs or succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors. Às sucL¸ ¡Lc
performance goals of the diferent units such as a branch, attached
burcaus¸ or a d¡v¡s¡on mus¡ bc aI¡gncd w¡¡L ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc goaIs
of the ofce.
CSC’s Human Resource Policies and Standards Ofce has 3 divisions
undcr ¡¡: IcrsonncI 5ys¡cms and 5¡andards Сv¡s¡on (I55Ð)¸ Àud¡¡
and Position Classifcation and Compensation Division (APCCD), and
Qualifcation and Selection Standards Division (QSSD).
H¡gLI¡gL¡cd on ¡Lc ¡abIc bcIow arc ¡Lc succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors o¡ ¡Lc Àud¡¡
and Position Classifcation and Compensation Division:
EXAMPLE OF DIVISION LEVEL
PERFORMANCE GOALS AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
Table 8. Ofce Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD) Success Indicators
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO)
SUCCESS INDICATORS
DIVISION LEVEL(APCCD)
SUCCESS INDICATORS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Recog-
nized as
a Center
for
Excellence
Percent-
age of
agencies
accredit-
ed under
PRIME-
HRM
100% of recommenda-
tions for accreditation
from the CSC Regional
Offces acted upon
within 15 days from
receipt of the recom-
mendation
100% of recommenda-
tions for accreditation
from the CSC Regional
Offces acted upon within
10 days from receipt of
the recommendation
Resolutions for
accreditation of agen-
cies approved by the
Commission within 15
days from receipt of
recommendation from
the CSCRO
Resolutions for accredita-
tion of agencies prepared
within 10 days from
receipt of the recommen-
dation from the CSCRO
Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
6
2
3
¸¸
IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS
OF THE DIVISIONS UNDER YOUR OFFICE
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
5
2
3
¸µ
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
¸6
¸,
If you follow Step 6, you should be able
to identify the performance goals of
your division that are aligned with the
performance goals of your offce.
l
EXAMPLE OF DIVISION LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS
AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL
H¡gLI¡gL¡cd on ¡Lc ¡abIc bcIow arc ¡Lc succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors o¡ ¡Lc IoI¡c¡cs
and 5ys¡cms LvaIua¡¡on Сv¡s¡on (I5LÐ):
Table 9. Regional Ofce Level (CSCRO) and
Division Level (PSED) Success Indicators
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
REGIONAL OFFICE
(CSCRO) SUCCESS
INDICATORS
POLICIES AND
SYSTEMS EVALUATION
DIVISION (PSED)
SUCCESS INDICATORS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Recog-
nized as
a Center
for
Excellence
Cumulative 25%
of agencies
accredited
under CSC Agency
Accreditation
Program (CS-
CAAP)
granted Level II
Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM
Cumulative 25% of
agencies accredited
under CSC Agency
Accreditation
Program (CSCAAP)
granted Level II
Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM
Cumulative 25% of
agencies accredited
under CSC Agency
Accreditation
Program (CSCAAP)
granted Level II
Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEA-
SURES
OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO)
SUCCESS INDICATORS
DIVISION LEVEL(APCCD)
SUCCESS INDICATORS
PRIME-HRM Certifying
Board (CB) Standards
for Center/Seal of
Excellence approved
by the Commission by
end of the 1st Quarter
Proposed PRIME-HRM
Certifying Board (CB)
Standards for Center/
Seal of Excellence ap-
proved by the Director
by March 15
Orientation on PRIME-
HRM conducted by EO
March 2013
Proposal on the PRIME-
HRM Orientation ap-
proved by the Director
by the end of February
MOA between the CSC
and award giving bod-
ies on the integration
of CB standards to
their criteria signed
by end of September
2013
Draft MOA between the
CSC and award giving
bodies on the integra-
tion of CB standards to
their criteria approved
by the Director by
August 15
Replies to queries
sent within 15 days
upon receipt by the
HRPSO
Draft replies to queries
submitted to the Direc-
tor within 10 days upon
receipt by the HRPSO
Like the ofce level success indicators, division level success indicators
sLouId aIso bc SMART—Specifc, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and
T¡mc¬bound.
¸,
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
6
2
3
¸,
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
6
2
3
¸6
Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office
¸8
¸Q
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
1
7
2
3
6
Each division will be stafed by at least one individual employee. The
¡cr¡ormancc goaIs o¡ cacL ¡nd¡v¡duaI cm¡Ioycc mus¡ con¡r¡bu¡c and
aI¡gn w¡¡L ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc goaIs o¡ ¡Lc d¡v¡s¡on. TLc succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors
sLouId bc 5MÀRT.
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division
EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS
AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
H¡gLI¡gL¡cd ¡n TabIc 1u arc ¡Lc ¡nd¡v¡duaI IcvcI succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors o¡
employees under the Audit and Position Classifcation and Compensation
Сv¡s¡on. TLc ¡abIc aIso sLows ¡Lc aI¡gnmcn¡ o¡ ¡nd¡v¡duaI succcss
indicators with the division level (APCCD) and ofce level (HRPSO)
succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors.
Like the ofce level and division level success indicators, individual
IcvcI succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors sLouId aIso bc SMART—Specic, Measurable,
Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.
¸Q
IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF
THE INDIVIDUALS UNDER EACH DIVISION
µu
µ1
T
a
b
l
e

1
0
.

O
f
c
e

L
e
v
e
l

(
H
R
P
S
O
)
,

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

L
e
v
e
l

(
A
P
C
C
D
)
,

a
n
d

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

L
e
v
e
l

(
S
t
a
f

1
)

S
u
c
c
e
s
s

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
M
A
J
O
R

F
I
N
A
L

O
U
T
P
U
T
S
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
I
C

O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
O
F
F
I
C
E

L
E
V
E
L

(
H
R
P
S
O
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N

L
E
V
E
L

(
A
P
C
C
D
)
S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L

L
E
V
E
L

(
S
T
A
F
F
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
M
F
O

3
:

P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l

P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

a
s

a

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
c
-
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M
1
0
0
%

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
S
C

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

O
f
f
c
e
s

a
c
t
e
d

u
p
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
5

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
0
%

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
S
C

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

O
f
f
c
e
s

a
c
t
e
d

u
p
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
0

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
0
%

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
S
C

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

O
f
f
c
e
s

N
o
s
.

1
,

2

a
n
d

3

a
c
t
e
d

u
p
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

7

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
5

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
S
C
R
O
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
0

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

7

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

C
e
r
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

B
o
a
r
d

(
C
B
)

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

f
o
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
/
S
e
a
l

o
f

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

b
y

e
n
d

o
f

t
h
e

1
s
t

Q
u
a
r
t
e
r

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

C
e
r
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

B
o
a
r
d

(
C
B
)

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

f
o
r

C
e
n
-
t
e
r
/
S
e
a
l

o
f

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r

b
y

M
a
r
c
h

1
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

C
e
r
t
i
f
y
-
i
n
g

B
o
a
r
d

(
C
B
)

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

f
o
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
/
S
e
a
l

o
f

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

C
h
i
e
f

b
y

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

1
5
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M


c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

b
y

E
O

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

o
n

t
h
e

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r

b
y

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

o
n

t
h
e

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

C
h
i
e
f

b
y

e
n
d

o
f

J
a
n
u
a
r
y
M
A
J
O
R

F
I
N
A
L

O
U
T
P
U
T
S
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
I
C

O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
O
F
F
I
C
E

L
E
V
E
L

(
H
R
P
S
O
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N

L
E
V
E
L

(
A
P
C
C
D
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L

L
E
V
E
L

(
S
T
A
F
F
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
M
O
A

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

C
S
C

a
n
d

a
w
a
r
d

g
i
v
i
n
g

b
o
d
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
B

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

e
n
d

o
f

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3
D
r
a
f
t

M
O
A

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

C
S
C

a
n
d

a
w
a
r
d

g
i
v
i
n
g

b
o
d
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
B

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r

b
y

A
u
g
u
s
t

1
5
D
r
a
f
t

M
O
A

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

C
S
C

a
n
d

a
w
a
r
d

g
i
v
i
n
g

b
o
d
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
B

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

C
h
i
e
f

b
y

3
1

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
3
R
e
p
l
i
e
s

t
o

q
u
e
r
i
e
s

s
e
n
t

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
5

d
a
y
s

u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
D
r
a
f
t

r
e
p
l
i
e
s

t
o

q
u
e
r
i
e
s

a
p
-
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
0

d
a
y
s

u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
D
r
a
f
t

r
e
p
l
i
e
s

t
o

q
u
e
r
i
e
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

C
h
i
e
f

w
i
t
h
i
n

7

d
a
y
s

u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
M
A
J
O
R

F
I
N
A
L

O
U
T
P
U
T
S
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
I
C

O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
O
F
F
I
C
E

L
E
V
E
L

(
H
R
P
S
O
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N

L
E
V
E
L

(
A
P
C
C
D
)
S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L

L
E
V
E
L

(
S
T
A
F
F
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
M
F
O

3
:

P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l

P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

a
s

a

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
c
-
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M
1
0
0
%

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
S
C

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

O
f
f
c
e
s

a
c
t
e
d

u
p
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
5

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
0
%

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
S
C

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

O
f
f
c
e
s

a
c
t
e
d

u
p
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
0

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
0
%

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
S
C

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

O
f
f
c
e
s

N
o
s
.

1
,

2

a
n
d

3

a
c
t
e
d

u
p
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

7

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
5

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
S
C
R
O
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
0

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

7

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

C
e
r
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

B
o
a
r
d

(
C
B
)

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

f
o
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
/
S
e
a
l

o
f

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

b
y

e
n
d

o
f

t
h
e

1
s
t

Q
u
a
r
t
e
r

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

C
e
r
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

B
o
a
r
d

(
C
B
)

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

f
o
r

C
e
n
-
t
e
r
/
S
e
a
l

o
f

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r

b
y

M
a
r
c
h

1
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

C
e
r
t
i
f
y
-
i
n
g

B
o
a
r
d

(
C
B
)

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

f
o
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
/
S
e
a
l

o
f

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

C
h
i
e
f

b
y

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

1
5
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M


c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

b
y

E
O

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

o
n

t
h
e

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r

b
y

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

o
n

t
h
e

P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

C
h
i
e
f

b
y

e
n
d

o
f

J
a
n
u
a
r
y
M
A
J
O
R

F
I
N
A
L

O
U
T
P
U
T
S
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
I
C

O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
O
F
F
I
C
E

L
E
V
E
L

(
H
R
P
S
O
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N

L
E
V
E
L

(
A
P
C
C
D
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L

L
E
V
E
L

(
S
T
A
F
F
)

S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
M
O
A

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

C
S
C

a
n
d

a
w
a
r
d

g
i
v
i
n
g

b
o
d
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
B

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

e
n
d

o
f

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3
D
r
a
f
t

M
O
A

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

C
S
C

a
n
d

a
w
a
r
d

g
i
v
i
n
g

b
o
d
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
B

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r

b
y

A
u
g
u
s
t

1
5
D
r
a
f
t

M
O
A

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

C
S
C

a
n
d

a
w
a
r
d

g
i
v
i
n
g

b
o
d
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
B

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

C
h
i
e
f

b
y

3
1

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
3
R
e
p
l
i
e
s

t
o

q
u
e
r
i
e
s

s
e
n
t

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
5

d
a
y
s

u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
D
r
a
f
t

r
e
p
l
i
e
s

t
o

q
u
e
r
i
e
s

a
p
-
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r

w
i
t
h
i
n

1
0

d
a
y
s

u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
D
r
a
f
t

r
e
p
l
i
e
s

t
o

q
u
e
r
i
e
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

C
h
i
e
f

w
i
t
h
i
n

7

d
a
y
s

u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

b
y

t
h
e

H
R
P
S
O
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
1
7
2
3
6
µ1
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
1
7
2
3
6
µu
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division
µl
µ¸
EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS
AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL
H¡gLI¡gL¡cd on ¡Lc ¡abIc bcIow arc ¡Lc ¡nd¡v¡duaI IcvcI succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors
o¡ cm¡Ioyccs undcr ¡Lc IoI¡c¡cs and 5ys¡cms LvaIua¡¡on Сv¡s¡on
(PSED) at the regional ofce level. The table also shows the alignment
o¡ ¡nd¡v¡duaI succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors w¡¡L ¡Lc d¡v¡s¡on IcvcI (I5LÐ) and ¡Lc
Regional Ofce success indicators.
Like the regional ofce level and division level success indicators,
¡nd¡v¡duaI IcvcI succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors sLouId aIso bc SMARTSpecic,
Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
REGIONAL
OFFICE LEVEL
(CSCRO)
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
DIVISION
LEVEL (PSED)
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
(STAFF) SUCCESS
INDICATORS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Recog-
nized as
a Center
for
Excellence
Percent-
age of
agencies
accred-
ited under
PRIME-
HRM
Cumulative
25% of agen-
cies accred-
ited under
CSC Agency
Accreditation
Program
(CSCAAP)
granted Level-
II Accredited
Status under
PRIME-HRM
Cumulative
25% of agen-
cies accred-
ited under
CSC Agency
Accreditation
Program
(CSCAAP)
granted Level-
II Accredited
Status under
PRIME-HRM
Cumulative
25%
of agencies
accredited
under
CSC Agency
Accreditation
Program
(CSCAAP)
granted Level-
II Accredited
Status under
PRIME-HRM
Cumulative
25% of agen-
cies accredited
under CSC Agen-
cy Accredita-
tion Program
(CSCAAP)
recommended
for Level-II
Accredited
Status under
PRIME-HRM
If you follow Step 7, you should be able to
identify the activities and outputs of individual
staff that contribute to the achievement of the
performance goals of your division and offce.
l
Table 11. Regional Ofce Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and
Individual Level (Staf 2) Success Indicators
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
6
µ¸
7
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
1
7
2
3
6
µl
µµ
µ¸
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
ÐcvcIo¡¡ng ¡Lc Ra¡¡ng 5caIc ¡nvoIvcs ¡wo sub¬s¡c¡s:
• Ðc¡crm¡n¡ng ¡Lc dimensions on wL¡cL ¡cr¡ormancc or accom¡I¡sL¬
mcn¡s arc ¡o bc ra¡cd.
• O¡cra¡¡onaI¡z¡ng ¡Lc numerical and adjectival ratings.
THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE
TLc ¡Lrcc d¡mcns¡ons o¡ ¡cr¡ormancc or accom¡I¡sLmcn¡s arc quality¸
eciency ¸ and timeliness.
Quality or Efectiveness mcans gc¡¡¡ng ¡Lc r¡gL¡ ¡L¡ngs donc. I¡ rc¡crs
¡o ¡Lc dcgrcc ¡o wL¡cL ob¡cc¡¡vcs arc acL¡cvcd as ¡n¡cndcd and ¡Lc cx¡cn¡
¡o wL¡cL ¡ssucs arc addrcsscd w¡¡L a ccr¡a¡n dcgrcc o¡ cxccIIcncc.
Quality or efective performance involves the following elements:
Acceptability
• Meeting standards
• Client satisfaction
with services rendered
• Accuracy
Efciency ¡s ¡Lc cx¡cn¡ ¡o wL¡cL ¡argc¡s arc accom¡I¡sLcd us¡ng ¡Lc
m¡n¡mum amoun¡ o¡ ¡¡mc or rcsourccs.
Efcient performance applies to continuing tasks or frontline services
(e.g., issuance of licenses, permits, clearances, and certifcates).
I¡ ¡nvoIvcs ¡Lc ¡oIIow¡ng cIcmcn¡s:
• Standard response time
• Number of requests/applications acted upon over number of
requests/applications received
• Optimum use of resources (e.g., money, logistics, ofce supplies)
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
µ¸
DEVELOP
THE RATING SCALE
• Completeness or
comprehensiveness of reports
• Creativity or innovation
• Personal initiative
µ6
µ,
DETERMINING THE DIMENSIONS TO RATE PERFORMANCE
Ðc¡cnd¡ng on Low succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors arc s¡a¡cd¸ you can ra¡c a ¡cr¡ormancc aIong
the dimensions of quality, efciency, and/or timeliness using the listed elements
abovc as gu¡dcI¡ncs. TLc ra¡¡ng nccds ¡o bc d¡scusscd w¡¡L¡n ¡Lc un¡¡ and bc¡wccn
the supervisors and staf (i.e., raters and ratees) to clarify the expected outputs at
¡Lc bcg¡nn¡ng o¡ ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc mon¡¡or¡ng ¡cr¡od.
Bccausc ¡cr¡ormancc ¡s mcasurcd w¡¡L¡n a scLcduIcd mon¡¡or¡ng ¡cr¡od¸ aII
accom¡I¡sLmcn¡s aIways ¡nvoIvc ¡Lc d¡mcns¡on o¡ ¡¡mc. Às sucL¸ ¡cr¡ormancc ¡s
always rated on either efciency and/or timeliness.
Table 12. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to Rate Performance
EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE TARGETS
AND SUCCESS INDICATORS
RATING DIMENSIONS
Resolutions for accreditation of agencies
approved by the Commission within 15 days
from receipt of recommendation from the
CSCRO
This performance target is rated
on quality and effciency because
it involves:•Acceptability. The
resolutions need to be approved by the
Commission.•Standard response time of
15 days
Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments
approved by the Commission upon frst
presentation by April 30, 2013
This performance target is rated on
quality and timeliness because it
involves:•Acceptability. The omnibus
rules need to be approved by the
Commission.•Meeting a deadline on April
30, 2013.
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB)
Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence
approved by the Commission by end of the
1st Quarter
This performance target is rated on
quality and timeliness because it
involves:•Acceptability. The stan-
dards need to be approved by the
Commission.•Meeting a deadline set at the
end of the 1st Quarter.
Resolution on QS for newly-created unique
positions approved by the Commission
within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO
of complete requirements
This performance target is rated
on quality and effciency because
it involves:•Acceptability. The
resolutions need to be approved by the
Commission.•Standard response time of
15 days.
Draft replies to queries approved by the
Director within 10 working days upon
receipt by the HRPSO
This performance target is rated on
quality and effciency because it
involves:•Acceptability. The letters need
to be approved by the Director.•Standard
response time of 10 working days.
Not all performance accomplishments need to
be rated along all three dimensions of quality,
eciency, and timeliness. Some accomplishments
may only be rated on any combination of two
or three dimensions. In other cases, only one
dimension may be sucient. Consider all the
elements involved listed above in each dimension
and use them as guides to determine how
performance will be rated.
Timeliness mcasurcs ¡¡ ¡Lc ¡argc¡cd dcI¡vcrabIc was donc w¡¡L¡n ¡Lc
scLcduIcd or cx¡cc¡cd ¡¡mc¡ramc. T¡mcIy ¡cr¡ormancc ¡nvoIvcs:
• Meeting deadlines as set in the work plan
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
µ,
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
µ6
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
µ8 µQ
NU-
MERICAL
RATING
ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DESCRIPTION OR MEANING OF RATING
5 Outstanding Performance exceeded expectations by 30% and above of
the planned targets.
Performance demonstrated was exceptional in terms of
quality, technical skills, creativity, and initiative, showing
mastery of the task. Accomplishments were made in more
than expected but related aspects of the target.
4 Very
satisfactory
Performance exceeded expectations by 15% to 29% of the
planned targets.
3 Satisfactory Performance met 90% to 114% of the planned targets.
However, if it involves deadlines required by law, it should be
100%of the planned targets.
2 Unsatisfactory Performance only met 51%to 89%of the planned targets and
failed to deliver one or more critical aspects of the target.
However, if it involves deadlines required by law, the range of
performance should be 51%to 99%of the planned targets.
1 Poor Performance failed to deliver most of the targets by 50%and
below.
4
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).
For the rating to be objective, impartial, and verifable, you need to
indicate the operational defnition or meaning of each numerical rating
under each relevant dimension (i.e., quality, efciency, or timeliness)
¡cr ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡ or succcss ¡nd¡ca¡or.
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
S

O
F

R
A
T
I
N
G

M
A
T
R
I
C
E
S
T
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
a
b
l
e
s

s
h
o
w

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
f

r
a
t
i
n
g

m
a
t
r
i
c
e
s

o
n

t
h
r
e
e

l
e
v
e
l
s

o
f
c
e
,

d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
a
f

a
t

t
h
e

c
e
n
t
r
a
l

a
n
d

r
c
g
¡
o
n
a
I

I
c
v
c
I
s
.
O
f
c
e

L
e
v
e
l

R
a
t
i
n
g

M
a
t
r
i
x



T
L
c

s
c
c
o
n
d

c
o
I
u
m
n

o
n

¡
L
c

¡
a
b
I
c

b
c
I
o
w

s
L
o
w
s

a
I
I

¡
L
c

¡
c
r
¡
o
r
m
a
n
c
c

¡
a
r
g
c
¡
s

o
r

s
u
c
c
c
s
s

¡
n
d
¡
c
a
¡
o
r
s

o
¡

¡
L
c

C
5
C

s

H
u
m
a
n

R
c
s
o
u
r
c
c

P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

O
f
c
e
.


C
o
l
u
m
n
s

3

t
o

5

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e

t
h
e

m
e
a
n
i
n
g

o
f

e
a
c
h

n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

r
a
t
i
n
g

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,

e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

a
n
d

t
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
.


Y
o
u

w
i
l
l

n
o
t
e

t
h
a
t

s
o
m
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

t
a
r
g
e
t
s

a
r
e

o
n
l
y

r
a
t
e
d

o
n

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

s
o
m
e

o
n

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

t
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
,

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r
s

o
n
l
y

o
n

e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

O
f
c
e

L
e
v
e
l

T
a
b
l
e

1
4
.

H
R
P
S
O

R
a
t
i
n
g

M
a
t
r
i
x
ESTABLISHING THE RATING SCALE
On each dimension of quality, efciency, and timeliness, rate performance
us¡ng a numcr¡caI scaIc rang¡ng ¡rom 1 ¡o ¸—w¡¡L 1 as ¡Lc Iowcs¡ and ¸ as
¡Lc L¡gLcs¡. TLc ¡abIc bcIow cx¡Ia¡ns ¡Lc mcan¡ng o¡ cacL ra¡¡ng:
Table 13. Operationalization of the Rating Scale
M
A
J
O
R

F
I
N
A
L

O
U
T
P
U
T
S
H
R
P
S
O
S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F

R
A
T
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
R
A
T
I
N
G
S
F
O
R

E
F
F
I
C
I
E
N
C
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
R
A
T
I
N
G
S

F
O
R
T
I
M
E
L
I
N
E
S
S
M
F
O
3
:
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1
0
0
%
o
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
-
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
S
C
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
s
a
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n
1
5
d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
-
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
5
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
4
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
1
t
o
1
2
d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
-
t
i
o
n
3
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
3
t
o
1
6
d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
-
t
i
o
n
2
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
7
t
o
2
2
d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
b
e
y
o
n
d
2
2
d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
c
-
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
5

d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m

t
h
e
C
S
C
R
O
5
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
1
s
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

5
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
w
o
r
k
i
n
g

d
a
y
s
4
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
4
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
1
t
o
1
4
d
a
y
s
3
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
3
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
5
w
o
r
k
i
n
g

d
a
y
s
2
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
2
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
1
t
o
7
.5
d
a
y
s
1
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
2
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
8
o
r
m
o
r
e
d
a
y
s
P
R
I
M
E
-H
R
M
C
e
r
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

B
o
a
r
d
(
C
B
)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

f
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
/
S
e
a
l
o
f

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
b
y

e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
1
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
N
O
T
E
: T
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e

f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
s
3

m
o
n
t
h
s
o
r
9
0
d
a
y
s
5
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
1
s
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

5
– S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
5

d
a
y
s
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
4
– S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
6
t
o

8
0
d
a
y
s
3
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
3
– S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
b
y
e
n
d
o
f

1
s
t
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
o
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
8
1
t
o

1
0
3
d
a
y
s
.
2
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
2
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
1
4
t
o
4
5

d
a
y
s
1
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
1
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n

4
5
d
a
y
s
M
A
J
O
R

F
I
N
A
L

O
U
T
P
U
T
S
H
R
P
S
O
S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F

R
A
T
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
R
A
T
I
N
G
S
F
O
R

E
F
F
I
C
I
E
N
C
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
R
A
T
I
N
G
S

F
O
R
T
I
M
E
L
I
N
E
S
S
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
E
O

M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
3

N
O
T
E
: T
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e

f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
s
3

m
o
n
t
h
s
o
r
9
0
d
a
y
s
5
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

4
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
v
e
r
y
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
3
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
2
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
u
n
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
-
p
a
n
t
s
1
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
p
o
o
r
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
5
– C
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
5

d
a
y
s
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
– C
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
6
t
o

8
0
d
a
y
s
3
– C
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
e
n
d
o
f

1
s
t
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
o
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
8
1
t
o

1
0
3
d
a
y
s
.
2
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
1
4
t
o
4
5

d
a
y
s
1
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n

4
5
d
a
y
s
M
O
A
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
S
C

a
n
d
a
w
a
r
d
g
i
v
i
n
g
b
o
d
-
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f
C
B
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
t
o

t
h
e
i
r
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y
e
n
d
o
f
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

N
O
T
E
: T
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e

f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
s
6

m
o
n
t
h
s
o
r
1
2
0
w
o
r
k
i
n
g

d
a
y
s
5
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

1
s
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

4
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
3
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
2
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
1
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
5
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
i
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n

8
4
d
a
y
s
4
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
8
5

t
o
1
0
7
d
a
y
s
3
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
8


t
o
1
3
7
d
a
y
s
2
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
3
8

t
o
1
8
0
d
a
y
s
1
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
1
8
0

d
a
y
s
R
e
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
q
u
e
r
i
e
s
s
e
n
t

w
i
t
h
i
n
1
5
d
a
y
s
u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
b
y
t
h
e
H
R
P
S
O
5
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f
1
0
d
a
y
s

4
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f
1
1
t
o
1
4
d
a
y
s
3
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f
1
5
d
a
y
s
2
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
a
n

a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
1
t
o
7
.5
d
a
y
s
1
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
a
n
a
v
e
r
-
a
g
e
o
f
8
o
r
m
o
r
e
d
a
y
s
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
µ8
¸u ¸1
M
A
J
O
R

F
I
N
A
L

O
U
T
P
U
T
S
H
R
P
S
O
S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F

R
A
T
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
R
A
T
I
N
G
S
F
O
R

E
F
F
I
C
I
E
N
C
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
R
A
T
I
N
G
S

F
O
R
T
I
M
E
L
I
N
E
S
S
M
F
O
3
:
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1
0
0
%
o
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
-
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
S
C
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
s
a
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n
1
5
d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
-
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
5
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
4
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
1
t
o
1
2
d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
-
t
i
o
n
3
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
3
t
o
1
6
d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
-
t
i
o
n
2
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
7
t
o
2
2
d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1
– A
c
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
b
e
y
o
n
d
2
2
d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
c
-
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
5

d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m

t
h
e
C
S
C
R
O
5
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
1
s
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

5
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
w
o
r
k
i
n
g

d
a
y
s
4
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
4
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
1
t
o
1
4
d
a
y
s
3
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
3
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
5
w
o
r
k
i
n
g

d
a
y
s
2
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
2
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
1
t
o
7
.5
d
a
y
s
1
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
2
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
8
o
r
m
o
r
e
d
a
y
s
P
R
I
M
E
-H
R
M
C
e
r
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

B
o
a
r
d
(
C
B
)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

f
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
/
S
e
a
l
o
f

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
b
y

e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
1
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
N
O
T
E
: T
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e

f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
s
3

m
o
n
t
h
s
o
r
9
0
d
a
y
s
5
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
1
s
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

5
– S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
5

d
a
y
s
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
4
– S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
6
t
o

8
0
d
a
y
s
3
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
3
– S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
b
y
e
n
d
o
f

1
s
t
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
o
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
8
1
t
o

1
0
3
d
a
y
s
.
2
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
2
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
1
4
t
o
4
5

d
a
y
s
1
– A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
l
u
-
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
1
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n

4
5
d
a
y
s
M
A
J
O
R

F
I
N
A
L

O
U
T
P
U
T
S
H
R
P
S
O
S
U
C
C
E
S
S

I
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F

R
A
T
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
R
A
T
I
N
G
S
F
O
R

E
F
F
I
C
I
E
N
C
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
R
A
T
I
N
G
S

F
O
R
T
I
M
E
L
I
N
E
S
S
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
R
I
M
E
-
H
R
M
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
E
O

M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
3

N
O
T
E
: T
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e

f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
s
3

m
o
n
t
h
s
o
r
9
0
d
a
y
s
5
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

4
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
v
e
r
y
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
3
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
2
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
u
n
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
-
p
a
n
t
s
1
– A
v
e
r
a
g
e
p
o
o
r
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
5
– C
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
5

d
a
y
s
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
– C
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
6
t
o

8
0
d
a
y
s
3
– C
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
e
n
d
o
f

1
s
t
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
o
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
8
1
t
o

1
0
3
d
a
y
s
.
2
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
1
4
t
o
4
5

d
a
y
s
1
– D
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n

4
5
d
a
y
s
M
O
A
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
S
C

a
n
d
a
w
a
r
d
g
i
v
i
n
g
b
o
d
-
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f
C
B
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
t
o

t
h
e
i
r
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y
e
n
d
o
f
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

N
O
T
E
: T
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e

f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
s
6

m
o
n
t
h
s
o
r
1
2
0
w
o
r
k
i
n
g

d
a
y
s
5
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

1
s
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

4
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
3
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

2
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
2
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
1
– M
O
A
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
u
p
o
n

3
r
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
5
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
i
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n

8
4
d
a
y
s
4
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
8
5

t
o
1
0
7
d
a
y
s
3
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
8


t
o
1
3
7
d
a
y
s
2
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
3
8

t
o
1
8
0
d
a
y
s
1
– M
O
A
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
1
8
0

d
a
y
s
R
e
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
q
u
e
r
i
e
s
s
e
n
t

w
i
t
h
i
n
1
5
d
a
y
s
u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
b
y
t
h
e
H
R
P
S
O
5
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f
1
0
d
a
y
s

4
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f
1
1
t
o
1
4
d
a
y
s
3
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f
1
5
d
a
y
s
2
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
a
n

a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
1
t
o
7
.5
d
a
y
s
1
– R
e
p
l
i
e
s
s
e
n
t
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
a
n
a
v
e
r
-
a
g
e
o
f
8
o
r
m
o
r
e
d
a
y
s
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
¸u
Regional Ofce Level
Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
REGIONAL
OFFICE
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION OF
RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION OF
RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Cumulative 25%
of agencies
accredited under
CSC Agency
Accreditation
Program
(CSCAAP)
granted Level
II-Accredited
Status under
PRIME-HRM
5 – Cumulative 33% or
more of accredited agen-
cies under CSCAAP granted
Level 2-Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM
4 – Cumulative 29% to
32% of accredited agencies
under CSCAAP granted
Level 2-Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM
3 – Cumulative 22% to
28% of accredited agencies
under CSCAAP granted
Level 2-Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM
2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of
accredited agencies under
CSCAAP granted Level
2-Accredited Status under
PRIME-HRM
1 – Cumulative 12% or less
of accredited agencies
under CSCAAP granted
Level 2-Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM
Сv¡s¡on LcvcI Ra¡¡ng Ma¡r¡x
• TLc sccond coIumn on TabIc 16 sLows aII ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s
or success indicators of the CSC’s Audit and Position Classifcation
and Com¡cnsa¡¡on Сv¡s¡on. CoIumns ¸ ¡o ¸ dcscr¡bc ¡Lc mcan¡ng
o¡ cacL numcr¡caI ra¡¡ng aIong ¡Lc d¡mcns¡ons o¡ guaI¡¡y¸
efciency, and timeliness. Like the ofce level rating scales, you
w¡II no¡c ¡La¡ somc ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s arc onIy ra¡cd on guaI¡¡y
and efciency, some on quality and timeliness, and others only
on efciency.
¸l
¸¸
Central Ofce Level
Table 16. APCCD Rating Matrix
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
APCCD
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
100% of recom-
mendations for
accreditation
from the CSC
Regional Ofces
acted upon within
10 days from
receipt of the
recommendation
5 – Acted upon in less than
8 days from receipt of the
recommendation
4 - Acted upon in 8 days
from receipt of the recom-
mendation
3 - Acted upon within 9 to
11 days from receipt of the
recommendation
2 - Acted upon within 12 to
15 days from receipt of the
recommendation
1 - Acted upon more than
15 days from receipt of the
recommendation
Resolutions for
accreditation
of agencies
prepared within
10 days from
receipt by the
HRPSO
5 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
1 to 7 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
8 days from receipt by the
HRPSO
3 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
2 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
12 to 15 days from receipt
by the HRPSO
1 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director more
than 15 days from receipt
by the HRPSO
APCCD
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
Proposed
PRIME-HRM
Certifying Board
(CB) Standards
for Center/Seal
of Excellence
submitted to
the Director by
March 1
NOTE: Timeframe
for this activ-
ity is January to
March 1
5 - Approved by the Director
upon 1st submission
5 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Director before
February 23
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
minimal changes
4 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Director from
February 23 to March 4
3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
major changes
3 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Director from
March 5 to March 22
2 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
minimal changes
2 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Director from
March 23 to April 22
1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
major changes
1 – Proposed standards
approved by the Director
beyond April 22
Proposal on the
PRIME-HRM
Orientation
approved by the
Director by the
end of February
NOTE: Timeframe
is 30 days
5 - Approved by the Director
upon 1st submission
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
minimal changes
3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
major changes
2 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
minimal changes
1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
major changes
5 – Approved by the Director
before February 8
4 – Approved by the Director
from February 9 to 13
3 – Approved by the Director
from February 14 to March 5
2 – Approved by the Director
from March 6 to 17
1 – Approved by the Director
beyond March 17
Draft MOA
between the CSC
and award-giving
bodies on the
integration of CB
standards to their
criteria approved
by the Director by
August 15
NOTE: Timeframe
is 30 days
5 - Draft MOA approved by the
Director upon 1st submission
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
minimal changes
3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
major changes
2 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
minimal changes
1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
major changes
5 – Approved by the Director
before July 26
4 – Approved by the Director
from July 26 to August 10
3 – Approved by the Director
from August 11 to August 18
2 – Approved by the Director
from August 19 to 31
1 – Approved by the Director
beyond August 31
Draft replies to
queries approved
by the Director
within 10 working
days upon receipt
by the HRPSO
5 - Approved by the Director
upon 1st submission
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd submission with
minimal changes
3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd submission with
major changes
2 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd submission with
minimal changes
1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd submission with
major changes
5 – Replies sent within an
average of less than 8 days
4 – Replies sent within an
average of 8.5 to 9 days
3 – Replies sent within an
average of 10 days
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 1 to 5 days
1 – Replies sent delayed
by an average of 6 or
more days
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
¸¸
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
¸l
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
APCCD
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
100% of recom-
mendations for
accreditation
from the CSC
Regional Ofces
acted upon within
10 days from
receipt of the
recommendation
5 – Acted upon in less than
8 days from receipt of the
recommendation
4 - Acted upon in 8 days
from receipt of the recom-
mendation
3 - Acted upon within 9 to
11 days from receipt of the
recommendation
2 - Acted upon within 12 to
15 days from receipt of the
recommendation
1 - Acted upon more than
15 days from receipt of the
recommendation
Resolutions for
accreditation
of agencies
prepared within
10 days from
receipt by the
HRPSO
5 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
1 to 7 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
8 days from receipt by the
HRPSO
3 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
2 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
12 to 15 days from receipt
by the HRPSO
1 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director more
than 15 days from receipt
by the HRPSO
APCCD
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
Proposed
PRIME-HRM
Certifying Board
(CB) Standards
for Center/Seal
of Excellence
submitted to
the Director by
March 1
NOTE: Timeframe
for this activ-
ity is January to
March 1
5 - Approved by the Director
upon 1st submission
5 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Director before
February 23
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
minimal changes
4 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Director from
February 23 to March 4
3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
major changes
3 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Director from
March 5 to March 22
2 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
minimal changes
2 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Director from
March 23 to April 22
1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
major changes
1 – Proposed standards
approved by the Director
beyond April 22
Proposal on the
PRIME-HRM
Orientation
approved by the
Director by the
end of February
NOTE: Timeframe
is 30 days
5 - Approved by the Director
upon 1st submission
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
minimal changes
3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
major changes
2 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
minimal changes
1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
major changes
5 – Approved by the Director
before February 8
4 – Approved by the Director
from February 9 to 13
3 – Approved by the Director
from February 14 to March 5
2 – Approved by the Director
from March 6 to 17
1 – Approved by the Director
beyond March 17
Draft MOA
between the CSC
and award-giving
bodies on the
integration of CB
standards to their
criteria approved
by the Director by
August 15
NOTE: Timeframe
is 30 days
5 - Draft MOA approved by the
Director upon 1st submission
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
minimal changes
3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
major changes
2 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
minimal changes
1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with
major changes
5 – Approved by the Director
before July 26
4 – Approved by the Director
from July 26 to August 10
3 – Approved by the Director
from August 11 to August 18
2 – Approved by the Director
from August 19 to 31
1 – Approved by the Director
beyond August 31
Draft replies to
queries approved
by the Director
within 10 working
days upon receipt
by the HRPSO
5 - Approved by the Director
upon 1st submission
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd submission with
minimal changes
3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd submission with
major changes
2 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd submission with
minimal changes
1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd submission with
major changes
5 – Replies sent within an
average of less than 8 days
4 – Replies sent within an
average of 8.5 to 9 days
3 – Replies sent within an
average of 10 days
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 1 to 5 days
1 – Replies sent delayed
by an average of 6 or
more days
¸µ ¸¸
Regional Ofce Level
Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
PSED SUCCESS
INDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Cumulative 25%
of agencies
accredited under
CSC Agency
Accreditation Pro-
gram (CSCAAP)
granted Level II
Accredited Status
under
PRIME-HRM
5 – Cumulative 33%
or more of accredited
agencies under CSCAAP
recommended for Level
ll-Accredited Status under
PRIME-HRM
4 – Cumulative 29% to
32% of accredited agencies
under CSCAAP recom-
mended for accreditation
under PRIME-HRM
3 – Cumulative 22% to
28% of accredited agencies
under CSCAAP recom-
mended for accreditation
under PRIME-HRM
2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of
accredited agencies under
CSCAAP recommended
for accreditation under
PRIME-HRM
1 – Cumulative 12% or less
of accredited agencies
under CSCAAP recom-
mended for accreditation
under PRIME-HRM
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
¸¸
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
¸µ
Individual Level Rating Matrices The APCCD is stafed by three
cm¡Ioyccs. TLc ¡Lrcc succccd¡ng ¡abIcs ¡or Lm¡Ioyccs À¸ B¸ and C bcIow
sLow ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s and ra¡¡ng scaIcs o¡ ¡Lcsc cm¡Ioyccs.
Like the ofce level and division level rating matrices, you will note that
some performance targets are only rated on quality and efciency, some
on quality and timeliness, and others only on efciency.
Central Ofce Level: Employee A
Table 18. Employee A Rating Matrix
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF A
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
100% of recom-
mendations for
accreditation
from the CSC
Regional Ofces
acted upon within
7 days from
receipt of the
recommendation
5 - Acted upon in less than
5 days from receipt of the
recommendation
4 - Acted upon in 5 days
from receipt of the recom-
mendation
3 - Acted upon within 6 to
8 days from receipt of the
recommendation
2 - Acted upon within 9 to
11 days from receipt of the
recommendation
1 - Acted upon more than
11 days from receipt of the
recommendation
Resolutions for
accreditation
of agencies
prepared within 7
days from receipt
by the HRPSO
5 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
1 to 4 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
5 days from receipt by the
HRPSO
3 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
6 to 8 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
2 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
1 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director more
than 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF A
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Draft replies to
queries approved
by the Division
Chief within 7
days upon receipt
by the HRPSO
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Replies sent within an
average of 1 day
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with minimal changes
4 – Replies sent within an
average of 2 to 5 days
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with major changes
3 – Replies sent within an
average of 6 to 8 days
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with minimal changes
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with major changes
1 – Replies sent delayed
by an average of 4 or more
days
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF A
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
100% of recom-
mendations for
accreditation
from the CSC
Regional Ofces
acted upon within
7 days from
receipt of the
recommendation
5 - Acted upon in less than
5 days from receipt of the
recommendation
4 - Acted upon in 5 days
from receipt of the recom-
mendation
3 - Acted upon within 6 to
8 days from receipt of the
recommendation
2 - Acted upon within 9 to
11 days from receipt of the
recommendation
1 - Acted upon more than
11 days from receipt of the
recommendation
Resolutions for
accreditation
of agencies
prepared within 7
days from receipt
by the HRPSO
5 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
1 to 4 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
5 days from receipt by the
HRPSO
3 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
6 to 8 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
2 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
1 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director more
than 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF A
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Draft replies to
queries approved
by the Division
Chief within 7
days upon receipt
by the HRPSO
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Replies sent within an
average of 1 day
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with minimal changes
4 – Replies sent within an
average of 2 to 5 days
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with major changes
3 – Replies sent within an
average of 6 to 8 days
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with minimal changes
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with major changes
1 – Replies sent delayed
by an average of 4 or more
days
¸6 ¸, ¸6
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
¸6
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
¸,
Central Ofce Level: Employee B
Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF B
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Resolutions for
accreditation
of agencies
prepared within 7
days from receipt
by the HRPSO
5 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
1 to 4 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
5 days from receipt by the
HRPSO
3 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
6 to 8 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
2 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
1 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director more
than 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
Proposed
PRIME-HRM
Certifying Board
(CB) Standards
for Center/Seal
of Excellence
approved by the
Division Chief by
February 15
NOTE: Timeframe
for this activity is
January to Febru-
ary 15
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Division Chief
before January 31
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd presentation
with minimal changes
4 – Proposed standards
approved by the Division
Chief from January 31 to
February 7
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd presentation
with major changes
3 – Proposed standards
approved by the Division
Chief from February 8 to
February 18
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd presentation
with minimal changes
2 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Division Chief
from February 19 to March 9
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd presentation
with major changes
1 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Division Chief
beyond March 9
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF B
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Draft MOA
between the CSC
and award giving
bodies on the
integration of CB
standards to their
criteria approved
by the Division
Chief by 31 July
2013
5 – Draft MOA approved by
the Division Chief upon frst
submission
5 – Approved by the Division
Chief before July 22
4 – Draft MOA approved by the
Division Chief upon second
submission with minimal
changes
4 – Approved by the Division
Chief from July 22 to 26
3 – Draft MOA approved
by the Division Chief upon
second submission with major
changes
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief from July 27 to
August 3
2 – Draft MOA approved by
the Division Chief upon third
submission with minimal
changes
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief from August 4 to 16
1 – Draft MOA approved by the
Division Chief upon third sub-
mission with major changes
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief beyond April 16
Draft replies to
queries approved
by the Division
Chief within 7
days upon receipt
by the HRPSO
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Replies sent within an
average of 1 day
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with minimal changes
4 – Replies sent within an
average of 2 to 5 days
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with major changes
3 – Replies sent within an
average of 6 to 8 days
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with minimal changes
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with major changes
1 – Replies sent delayed
by an average of 4 or more
days
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF B
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Resolutions for
accreditation
of agencies
prepared within 7
days from receipt
by the HRPSO
5 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
1 to 4 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
5 days from receipt by the
HRPSO
3 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
6 to 8 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
2 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
1 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director more
than 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
Proposed
PRIME-HRM
Certifying Board
(CB) Standards
for Center/Seal
of Excellence
approved by the
Division Chief by
February 15
NOTE: Timeframe
for this activity is
January to Febru-
ary 15
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Division Chief
before January 31
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd presentation
with minimal changes
4 – Proposed standards
approved by the Division
Chief from January 31 to
February 7
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd presentation
with major changes
3 – Proposed standards
approved by the Division
Chief from February 8 to
February 18
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd presentation
with minimal changes
2 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Division Chief
from February 19 to March 9
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd presentation
with major changes
1 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Division Chief
beyond March 9
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF B
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Draft MOA
between the CSC
and award giving
bodies on the
integration of CB
standards to their
criteria approved
by the Division
Chief by 31 July
2013
5 – Draft MOA approved by
the Division Chief upon frst
submission
5 – Approved by the Division
Chief before July 22
4 – Draft MOA approved by the
Division Chief upon second
submission with minimal
changes
4 – Approved by the Division
Chief from July 22 to 26
3 – Draft MOA approved
by the Division Chief upon
second submission with major
changes
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief from July 27 to
August 3
2 – Draft MOA approved by
the Division Chief upon third
submission with minimal
changes
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief from August 4 to 16
1 – Draft MOA approved by the
Division Chief upon third sub-
mission with major changes
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief beyond April 16
Draft replies to
queries approved
by the Division
Chief within 7
days upon receipt
by the HRPSO
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Replies sent within an
average of 1 day
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with minimal changes
4 – Replies sent within an
average of 2 to 5 days
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with major changes
3 – Replies sent within an
average of 6 to 8 days
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with minimal changes
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with major changes
1 – Replies sent delayed
by an average of 4 or more
days
Central Ofce Level: Employee C
Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF C
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Proposal on the
PRIME-HRM Ori-
entation approved
by the Division
Chief by the end
of January
NOTE: Timeframe
is Jan. 1 to Feb. 15
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Proposal approved by
the Division Chief before
January 31
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with minimal changes
4 – Proposal approved by the
Division Chief from January
31 to February 7
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with major changes
3 – Proposal approved by the
Division Chief from February
8 to February 18
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with minimal changes
2 – Proposal approved by the
Division Chief from February
19 to March 9
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with major changes
1 – Proposal approved by
the Division Chief beyond
March 9
Meeting with
award giving
bodies convened
by end of May
NOTE: The
required output
is a meeting
report and the
timeframe is 30
days
5 – Meets all the content
requirements with additional
analyses and policy recom-
mendations
5 – Report submitted within
the day of the meeting
4 – Meets all the content
requirements with suggestions
4 – Report submitted within
1-2 days after the meeting
3 – Meets all the content
requirements of the report
3 – Report submitted within
3 days after the meeting
2 – Incomplete report 2 – Report submitted within
4-5 days after the meeting
1 – No meeting conducted /
Meeting conducted but no
report
1 – Report submitted beyond
6 days after the meeting
Draft replies to
queries approved
by the Division
Chief within 7
days upon receipt
by the HRPSO
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Replies sent within an
average of 1 day
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with minimal changes
4 – Replies sent within an
average of 2 to 5 days
3 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
with major changes
3 – Replies sent within an
average of 6 to 8 days
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with minimal changes
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
1 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with major changes
1 – Replies sent delayed
by an average of 4 or more
days
¸8
Regional Ofce Level: Employee D
Table 21. Employee D Rating Matrix
MAJOR
FINAL
OUTPUTS
STAFF D
SUCCESS
IINDICATORS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION OF
RATINGS
FOR EFFICIENCY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
MFO 3:
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Agencies
accredited under
CSC Agency
Accreditation
Program
(CSCAAP)
assisted and
assessed for
Level II-
Accredited Status
Under PRIME-
HRM
5 – Assessment report
indicates all the content
requirements with additional
analyses
5 – Report submitted to the
Division Chief within 6 days
after the conduct of the
assessment
4 – Assessment report
indicates all the content
requirements with suggestions
4 – Report submitted to the
Division Chief within 7 to 8
days after the conduct of the
assessment
3 – Assessment report
indicates all the content
requirements of the report
3 – Report submitted to the
Division Chief within 9 to 11
days after the conduct of the
assessment
2 – Incomplete report 2 – Report submitted to the
Division Chief within 12 to 15
days after the conduct of the
assessment
1 – Assessment conducted but
no report
1 – Report submitted to the
Division Chief more than 15
days after the conduct of the
assessment
Recommenda-
tions for Level II-
Accredited Status
under PRIME-
HRM of agencies
accredited
under CSCAAP
consolidated
within 10 days
from receipt of
all recommenda-
tions
5 – Recommendations
consolidated within 6 or
less days
4 – Recommendations
consolidated within 7 to
8 days
3 - Recommendations
consolidated within 9
-11 days
2 – Recommendations
consolidated within 12-15
days
1 – Recommendations
consolidated beyond
15 days
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1
8
2
3
6
¸8
Performance
Monitoring
& Coaching
Steps 9 and 10 are
subsumed under the
second stage of PMS
cycle-Performance
Monitoring and
Coaching
61
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
1
9
2
3
6
Ður¡ng ¡Lc mon¡¡or¡ng and coacL¡ng ¡cr¡od¸ ¡¡ ¡s ¡m¡or¡an¡ ¡La¡ you
regularly monitor the performance of ofces, divisions, and employees.
You mus¡ ¡u¡ mon¡¡or¡ng and cvaIua¡¡on mccLan¡sms and ¡ooIs ¡n ¡Iacc
so ¡La¡ ¡¡mcIy and a¡¡ro¡r¡a¡c s¡c¡s can bc ¡aRcn ¡owards mcc¡¡ng
¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s and organ¡za¡¡onaI goaIs. This requires an
information system that supports monitoring and evaluation.
BcIow arc suggcs¡cd mon¡¡or¡ng and coacL¡ng ¡ooIs:
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools
SAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING TOOLS
Major Final
Output
Tasks Assigned
to
Duration Task Status Re-
marks
Week
1
Week
2
Week
3
Week
4
Personnel
Policies
and
Standards
Services
Prepare
Resolu-
tions for
accredita-
tion of
agencies
Staff A & B 7 days
from
receipt
by the
HRPSO
Draft
PRIME-
HRM
Certifying
Board (CB)
Standards
for Cen-
ter/Seal of
Excellence
Staff B January to
February
15
Draft
replies to
queries
Staff A, B
& C
7 days
upon
receipt the
HRPSO
Organize
meeting
with
award-giv-
ing bodies
Staff C EO May
61
IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS
OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER EACH DIVISION
6l

4
5
7
8
10
11
12
1
9
2
3
6
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
1
9
2
3
6
PERFORMANCE MONITORING FORM
TASK
ID NO.
SUBJECT
ACTION
OFFICER
OUTPUT DATE ASSIGNED
DATE
ACCOMPLISHED
REMARKS
Document
No. or
Task No.
if Taken
from WFP
Subject Area
of the Task
or the Signa-
tory of the
Document
and Subject
Area
Date the task
was assigned to
the drafter
Date the Output
was approved
by the
supervisor
Doc. No. Signatory Subject Action
Of-
fcer
Date As-
signed
Date
Signed
Status Remarks
2013-001 Dir. Juan
dela Cruz,
DOLE
Step
Increment
ABA Jan. 2,
2013
Jan. 4,
2013
Mailed on
Jan. 4, 2013
2013-005 Ms. Anna
Santos
Leave of
Barangay
Offcials
ZMO Jan. 7,
2013
Jan. 9,
2013
Emailed on
Jan. 9, 2013
Emailed on
Jan. 9, 2013
5u¡crv¡sors and coacLcs ¡Iay a cr¡¡¡caI roIc a¡ ¡L¡s s¡agc. TLcy can ¡rov¡dc
an cnabI¡ng cnv¡ronmcn¡¸ ¡n¡roducc ¡n¡crvcn¡¡ons ¡o ¡m¡rovc ¡cam
¡cr¡ormancc¸ and dcvcIo¡ ¡nd¡v¡duaI ¡o¡cn¡¡aIs.
To rc¡¡cra¡c¸ ¡¡ ¡s ¡m¡or¡an¡ ¡La¡ you cs¡abI¡sL an ¡n¡orma¡¡on sys¡cm as
a v¡¡aI managcmcn¡ ¡ooI ¡La¡ w¡II su¡¡or¡ da¡a managcmcn¡ ¡o ¡roducc
¡¡mcIy¸ accura¡c¸ and rcI¡abIc ¡n¡orma¡¡on ¡or ¡rogram ¡racR¡ng and
¡cr¡ormancc mon¡¡or¡ng and rc¡or¡¡ng.
SAMPLE PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING JOURNAL
3
H. Sample Performance Monitoring and Coaching Journal
1
st
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
Name of Division/Field Office _____________________________
Division Chief / Director II ________________________________
Number of Personnel in the Division / FO ____________________
Mechanism/s
Meeting Activity
One-in-One Group
Memo
Others
(Pls. Specify)
Remarks
Monitoring
Coaching
Please indicate the date in the appropriate box when the monitoring was conducted.
Conducted by:
Immediate Superior
Date: Noted by:
Head of Office
Date:

6l
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools


If you follow Step 9, you should be able
to develop appropriate performance
monitoring and coaching tools.
l
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools
66
6,
4
5
7
8
9
11
12
1
10
2
3
6
Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools
À¡ ¡Lc bcg¡nn¡ng o¡ ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc mon¡¡or¡ng ¡cr¡od¸ dcvcIo¡
¡Lc ¡ooIs ¡La¡ w¡II bc uscd ¡o cs¡abI¡sL comm¡¡mcn¡ and cvaIua¡c
accom¡I¡sLmcn¡s a¡ ¡Lc cnd o¡ a g¡vcn ¡cr¡od.
Incor¡ora¡c ¡Lc ¡oIIow¡ng csscn¡¡aI cIcmcn¡s ¡n your cvaIua¡¡on ¡ooI:
• Name, position, and signature of the Unit Head or individual staf being
cvaIua¡cd (ra¡cc)
• Ra¡¡ng ¡cr¡od
• Ða¡c wLcn cvaIua¡¡on was com¡Ic¡cd
• Namc¸ s¡gna¡urc¸ and ¡os¡¡¡on o¡ su¡crv¡sors ¡La¡ a¡¡rovc ¡Lc
com¡Ic¡cd cvaIua¡¡on ¡orm and ¡Lc da¡c wLcn ¡Lcy madc ¡Lc a¡¡rovaI
• Major Final Outputs that your ofce and division are contributing to
(Step 5)
• 5MÀRT ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s or succcss ¡nd¡ca¡ors (Steps 4 , 5, 6, and 7)
• Àc¡uaI accom¡I¡sLmcn¡s v¡s¬a¬v¡s ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s
• Ratings on quality, efciency and/or timeliness on a scale of 1 to 5 (Step 8)
• RcmarRs o¡ su¡crv¡sor
• Namc¸ ¡os¡¡¡on and s¡gna¡urc o¡ Hcad o¡ ¡Lc Icr¡ormancc Managcmcn¡
Tcam
• Namc¸ s¡gna¡urc¸ and ¡os¡¡¡on o¡ ra¡cr and da¡c wLcn cvaIua¡¡on was
com¡Ic¡cd
To refect the cascading approach of the SPMS towards achieving
organ¡za¡¡onaI goaIs¸ three kinds of forms are suggested:
• Ofce Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) Form ¡s
accom¡I¡sLcd by Àgcncy Сrcc¡ors
• Division Performance Commitment and Review (DPCR) Form ¡s
accom¡I¡sLcd by Сv¡s¡on CL¡c¡s
• Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) Form ¡s
accomplished by individual staf in all the units of the organization
MaRc surc ¡La¡ ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡s I¡s¡cd ¡n ¡Lc OICR¸ ÐICR¸ and
IICR arc I¡nRcd and aI¡gncd ¡owards acL¡cv¡ng your organ¡za¡¡on’s Ma¡or
£¡naI Ou¡¡u¡s.
6,
DEVELOP THE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION TOOLS
68 6Q
The upper part of the OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR identifes:
• TLc namc o¡ ¡crson maR¡ng ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc comm¡¡mcn¡¸ L¡s[Lcr
¡os¡¡¡on ¡n ¡Lc organ¡za¡¡on¸ and s¡gna¡urc
• TLc ra¡¡ng ¡cr¡od
• TLc da¡c wLcn ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc comm¡¡mcn¡ was madc a¡ ¡Lc bcg¡nn¡ng
o¡ ¡Lc ra¡¡ng ¡cr¡od
• TLc namc and ¡os¡¡¡on o¡ ¡Lc su¡crv¡sors a¡¡rov¡ng ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc
comm¡¡mcn¡ and ¡Lc da¡c wLcn ¡Lcy madc ¡Lc a¡¡rovaI a¡ ¡Lc bcg¡nn¡ng
o¡ ¡Lc ra¡¡ng ¡cr¡od.
TLc ma¡n ¡or¡¡on o¡ OICR¸ ÐICRand IICR¡s a ¡abIc w¡¡LscvcraI coIumns:
The OPCR and DPCR have 7 columns The IPCR has 5 columns
• Column 1: Major Final Outputs • Column 1: Major Final Outputs
• Column 2: Success Indicators • Column 2: Success Indicators
• Column 3: Allotted Budget • Column 3: Actual Accomplishments
• Column 4: Divisions Accountable (for
OPCR) / Individuals Accountable (for
DPCR)
• Column 4 (which is further divided into 4 sub-columns):
Rating for Quality (Q), Effciency (E) and Timeliness (T)
and the Average (Ave)
• Column 5: Actual Accomplishments • Column 5: Remarks
• Column 6 (which is further divided into
4 sub-columns): Rating for Quality (Q),
Effciency (E) and Timeliness (T) and the
Average (Ave)
• Column 7: Remarks
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Major Final
Outputs
(MFOs)
Success
Indicators
(Targets +
Measures)
Allotted
Budget
Divisions
or Persons
Account-
able
Actual Ac-
complish-
ments
Rating for Quality
(Q), Effciency
(E), Timeliness
(T), and Average
Score (Ave)
Q E T Ave
Remarks
For ofces/units that perform STO or GAS activities, indicate your
core or support functions on the frst column in lieu of MFOs.
BcIow arc ¡Lc ¸ coIumns ¡n ¡Lc IICR ¡orm:
TLc Iowcr ¡or¡¡on o¡ ¡Lc ¡orm ¡s s¡gncd by ¡Lc 5u¡crv¡sor and[or Ra¡cr
a¡ ¡Lc bcg¡nn¡ng and cnd o¡ ¡Lc ra¡¡ng ¡cr¡od.
Chart 7. Alignment of OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR BcIow arc ¡Lc , coIumns ¡n ¡Lc OICR and ÐICR ¡orm:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Major Final
Outputs
(MFOs)
Success Indica-
tors (Targets +
Measures)
Actual Accomplish-
ments
Rating for Quality
(Q), Effciency (E),
Timeliness (T),
and Average
Score (Ave)
Q E T Ave
Remarks
Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
COMMITMENT AND REVIEW
(IPCR) FORM
DIVISION PERFORMANCE
COMMITMENT AND REVIEW
(DPCR) FORM
OFFICE PERFORMANCE
COMMITMENT AND REVIEW
(OPCR) FORM
4
5
7
8
9
11
12
1
10
2
3
6
6Q
4
5
7
8
9
11
12
1
10
2
3
6
68
,u ,1
The OPCR Form
Rating Period:
months and year
The supervisor
(Agency Head)
who approves
the performance
commitment
signs at the
beginning of
rating period
Name and Position
of Ofce Director (Ratee)
Signature of Ofce Director (Ratee)
Date when
performance
commitment
is made at the
beginning of
rating period
Signature of Division Chief
Date when
performance
commitment
is made at the
beginning of
rating period
The DPCR Form
The Head of the PMT
signs here at the
beginning and end of
the rating period
The Agency Head
gives the fnal rating
at the end of the
rating period
A Representative of
the PMT Secretariat
assesses the
completed evaluation
form at the
beginning and end of
the rating period
Rating Period:
months and year
The supervisor
(Ofce
Director) who
approves the
performance
commitment
signs at the
beginning of
rating period
Name and Position
of Division Chief
The Ofce Director
gives the fnal rating
,l
Rating Period:
months and year
The Ofce
Head who
approves the
performance
commitment
signs at the
beginning of
rating period
Name and Position
of Individual Staf
Signature of Individual Staf (Ratee)
Date when
performance
commitment
is made at the
beginning of
rating period
The Ofce Director
gives the fnal rating
The rater writes
his/her comments on
the ratee and his/her
recommendations
The Ratee signs
here after discussion
of evaluation with
Division Chief
The Divsion Chief
(Rater) signs here
The IPCR Form
If you follow Step 10, you should
be able to develop your OPCR, DPCR,
and IPCR forms
l
The SPMS suggests two evaluation
periods: once every six months. However,
an agency may follow a quarterly rating
period (every three months), which is the
minimum; or a yearly rating period (every
12 months), which is the maximum.
Performance
Review &
Evaluation
Step 11 falls under
the third stage of
the PMS cycle--
Performance Review
and Evaluation

À¡ ¡Lc cnd o¡ ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc mon¡¡or¡ng ¡cr¡od¸ usc ¡Lc suggcs¡cd
forms—OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR—to review performance from the ofce
and division levels down to the individual staf level.
£or ¡Lc OICR and ÐICR ¡orms¸ you sLouId Lavc com¡Ic¡cd ¡Lc
frst four columns of the table at the beginning of the performance
mon¡¡or¡ng ¡cr¡od:
• Column 1 – Major Final Outputs that your ofce or division is contrib¬
uting to. Add more rows if your ofce or division is contributing to more
¡Lan ¡wo M£Os (Steps 5 and 6).
• Column 2 – Success indicators or performance targets of your ofce or
d¡v¡s¡on ¡cr M£O ¡or ¡Lc mon¡¡or¡ng ¡cr¡od (Steps 5 and 6).
• CoIumn ¸ – ÀIIoca¡cd budgc¡ ¡cr ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡. £or ¡cr¡ormancc
¡argc¡s ¡La¡ Lavc no budgc¡ aIIoca¡¡on¸ wr¡¡c “nonc”.
• CoIumn µ – Сv¡s¡ons accoun¡abIc ¡or cacL ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡ ¡or ¡Lc OICR.
– Icrsons Àccoun¡abIc ¡or cacL ¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡ ¡or ¡Lc ÐICR.
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
1
11
2
3
6
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
USE THE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION TOOLS

,6
,,
F
o
r

t
h
e

I
P
C
R

f
o
r
m
,

y
o
u

s
h
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

t
h
e

f
r
s
t

t
w
o

c
o
l
u
m
n
s

a
t

t
h
e

b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d
:


C
o
I
u
m
n

1



M
a
¡
o
r

£
¡
n
a
I

O
u
¡
¡
u
¡
s

¡
L
a
¡

y
o
u
r

d
¡
v
¡
s
¡
o
n

¡
s

c
o
n
¡
r
¡
b
u
¡
¡
n
g

¡
o

(
5
¡
c
¡
s

¸
¸

6
¸

a
n
d

,
)
.


C
o
l
u
m
n

2



S
u
c
c
e
s
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

o
r

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

t
a
r
g
e
t
s

o
f

e
a
c
h

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
a
f

p
e
r

M
F
O

f
o
r

t
h
e

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

(
S
t
e
p
s

5
,

6
,

a
n
d

,
)
.
Ð
u
r
¡
n
g

¡
L
c

a
c
¡
u
a
I

c
v
a
I
u
a
¡
¡
o
n
¸

¡
L
c

r
a
¡
c
r

d
c
s
c
r
¡
b
c
s

¡
L
c

a
c
¡
u
a
I

a
c
c
o
m
¡
I
¡
s
L
m
c
n
¡
s

o
¡

¡
L
c

r
a
¡
c
c

v
¡
s
¬
a
¬
v
¡
s

¡
L
c

¡
c
r
¡
o
r
m
a
n
c
c

¡
a
r
g
c
¡
s

o
n

¡
L
c

¸
¡
L

c
o
I
u
m
n

¡
o
r

¡
L
c

O
I
C
R

a
n
d

Ð
I
C
R

¡
o
r
m
s

o
r

¡
L
c

¸
r
d

c
o
I
u
m
n

¡
o
r

¡
L
c

I
I
C
R
.


Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
S
U
C
C
E
S
S
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
(
T
A
R
G
E
T
S
+
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
)
A
l
l
o
t
t
e
d

B
u
d
g
e
t
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s

A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
l
e
A
c
t
u
a
l
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
R
a
t
i
n
g
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
Q
E
T
A
v
e
M
A
J
O
R
F
I
N
A
L
O
U
T
P
U
T
(
N
o
t
e
: P
l
e
a
s
e
a
d
d
r
o
w
s
t
o
M
F
O
s

i
f
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
)
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
1
11
2
3
6
,,
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
1
11
2
3
6
,6
,8
COMPUTING THE NUMERICAL RATINGS
Às cx¡Ia¡ncd ¡n 5¡c¡ 8 (ÐcvcIo¡ ¡Lc Ra¡¡ng 5caIc)¸ you do no¡ nccd ¡o ra¡c
cvcry ¡cr¡ormancc accom¡I¡sLmcn¡ aIong aII ¡Lrcc d¡mcns¡ons o¡ guaI¡¡y¸
efciency, and timeliness. Developing the rating matrix at the beginning of
¡Lc ra¡¡ng ¡cr¡od sLouId Lavc LcI¡cd cIar¡¡y ¡Lc cx¡cc¡cd ou¡¡u¡s o¡ cacL
¡cr¡ormancc ¡argc¡ (c.g.¸ ac¡¡v¡¡y rc¡or¡¸ dra¡¡ rcsoIu¡¡on¸ dra¡¡ ¡oI¡cy)and
dc¡crm¡nc undcr wLa¡ d¡mcns¡on ¡¡ w¡II bc ra¡cd. TLc ¡abIc bcIow sLows an
cxam¡Ic o¡ ac¡uaI accom¡I¡sLmcn¡s and ¡Lc ra¡¡ngs.
Table 22.Sample Ratings of Accomplishments
SUCCESS
INDICATORS
(Targets + Measures)
ACTUAL
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Q E T Ave
Draft PRIME-HRM Certi-
fying Board Standards
for Center/Seal of
Excellence approved by
the Director by March 1
Draft PRIME-HRM Certifying Board
Standards for Center/Seal of
Excellence approved by the Director
upon second presentation and with
minimal changes on March 3
4 4 4
Proposal on the
PRIME-HRM Orientation
approved by the
Director by the end of
February
Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Ori-
entation approved by the Director
upon frst submission on March 10
5 2 3.5
Draft replies to queries
submitted to the Direc-
tor within 10 working
days upon receipt by
the HRPSO
Draft replies to 75 queries submit-
ted to the Director within 9 working
days upon receipt by the HRPSO
5 5 4 4.67
Position paper/ com-
ments on legislative
bills submitted within
the time frame pre-
scribed by the CSLO
Draft Position paper on HRMO
Item in the LGUs submitted on the
deadline set by the CSLO
4 3 3.5
APCCD staff
recommended for train-
ing/HR programs
3 APCCD staff recommended for
training/HR programs
5 5
TOTAL RATING 20.67
FINAL AVERAGE RATING 4.13
Àvcragc ¡s
ob¡a¡ncd by
d¡v¡d¡ng ¡Lc
¡o¡aI by ¡Lc
numbcr o¡
d¡mcns¡ons:
¸ + ¸ + µ - 1µ ÷ ¸
- 4.67
Àvcragc ¡s
ob¡a¡ncd by
d¡v¡d¡ng ¡Lc
¡o¡aI by ¡Lc
numbcr o¡
d¡mcns¡ons:
µ+µ - 8 ÷ l - 4
£¡naI Àvcragc
Ra¡¡ng ¡s
ob¡a¡ncd by
add¡ng aII ¡Lc
avcragc ra¡¡ngs
vcr¡¡caIIy and
d¡v¡d¡ng ¡Lc
sum (To¡aI
Ra¡¡ng) by ¡Lc
numbcr o¡
accom¡I¡sL¬
mcn¡s:
µ + ¸.¸ + µ.6, +
¸.¸ + ¸ -
lu.6, ÷ ¸ - 4.13
In the table above, there are fve rows of accomplishments. The frst two
accom¡I¡sLmcn¡s arc ra¡cd on guaI¡¡y and ¡¡mcI¡ncss. TLc ¡L¡rd accom¡I¡sLmcn¡ ¡s
rated on quality, efciency, and timeliness. The fourth accomplishment is rated on
quality and efciency. The last accomplishment is rated on efciency.
You gc¡ ¡Lc avcragc ra¡¡ng ¡or a ¡ar¡¡cuIar accom¡I¡sLmcn¡ by add¡ng ¡Lc ra¡¡ngs
and dividing it by the number of dimensions used. In the table above, the frst
accom¡I¡sLmcn¡ go¡ a ra¡¡ng o¡ µ on guaI¡¡y and µ on ¡¡mcI¡ncss ¡o¡aI¡ng 8.
Сv¡dc ¡L¡s by ¡Lc l d¡mcns¡ons and you gc¡ an avcragc ra¡¡ng o¡ µ. TLc ¡L¡rd
accomplishment got a rating of 5 on quality, 5 on timeliness, and 4 on efciency
¡o¡aI¡ng 1µ. Сv¡dc ¡L¡s by ¡Lc ¸ d¡mcns¡ons and you gc¡ an avcragc ra¡¡ng o¡ µ.6,.
The ffth accomplishment got a single rating of 5 on efciency. So the average
ra¡¡ng ¡s aIso a ¸.
To get the fnal average rating, add all the average ratings vertically and divide
the sum by the number of accomplishments. In the example above, there are fve
accomplishments. Thus, you divide the total rating of 20.67 by 5 and get the fnal
avcragc ra¡¡ng o¡ µ.1¸.
The teamwork orientation of the SPMS is refected in the overall rating of an
ofce. Thus, the average of all individual performance assessments does not go
higher than the collective performance assessment of the ofce. To illustrate, the
¡abIc bcIow sLows a sam¡Ic summary I¡s¡ o¡ ¡nd¡v¡duaI ¡cr¡ormancc ra¡¡ngs and
¡Lc ovcraII ra¡¡ng o¡ ¡Lc HRI5O:
Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staf under HRPSO
Individual Staf under HRPSO
HRPSO Secretary 3.99 Satisfactory
HRPSO Administrative Asst. 4.1 Very Satisfactory
APCCD Chief 4 Very Satisfactory
APCCD Employee A 3.6 Satisfactory
APCCD Employee B 5 Outstanding
APCCD Employee C 4.03 Very Satisfactory
PSSD Chief 2.3 Unsatisfactory
PSSD Employee A 4 Very Satisfactory
PSSD Employee B 3.3 Satisfactory
QSSD Chief 5 Outstanding
QSSD Employee A 5 Outstanding
Ave. Individual Rating 4.03 Very Satisfactory
Àvcragc ¡nd¡v¡duaI
ra¡¡ng ¡s ob¡a¡ncd by
d¡v¡d¡ng ¡Lc ¡o¡aI o¡
¡nd¡v¡duaI ra¡¡ngs
(µµ.¸l) by ¡Lc numbcr
o¡ ¡nd¡v¡duaIs ¡n ¡Lc
ofce (11):
¸.QQ+ µ.1 + µ + ¸.6 + ¸ +
+ µ.u¸ + l.¸ + µ + ¸.¸ + ¸
+ ¸ - µµ.¸l
µµ.¸l + 11 - 4.03
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
1
11
2
3
6
,Q
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
1
11
2
3
6
,8
8u
81
MFO Success Indicator Rating
Q E T Ave
MFO 3 100% of recommendations for accreditation
from the CSC Regional Ofces acted upon
within 15 days from receipt of the recom-
mendation
4 4
Resolutions for accreditation of agencies
approved by the Commission within 15 days
from receipt of recommendation from the
CSCRO
4 4 4
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Stan-
dards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved
by the Commission by end of the 1st
Quarter
5 5 5
Orientation on PRIME-HRM conducted by
EO March 2013
5 4 4.5
MOA between the CSC and award giving
bodies on the integration of CB standards
to their criteria signed by end of September
2013
3 3 3
Replies to queries sent within 15 days upon
receipt by the HRPSO
4 4
TOTAL RATING 24.5
FINAL AVERAGE RATING 4.08
The fnal average rating
o¡ 4.08 ¡La¡ ¡Lc HRI5O
ob¡a¡ncd ¡s I¡Rcw¡sc
Very Satisfactory
Table 24. HRPSO’S Summary of Ratings (OPCR)
REMARKS: QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
TLc Ias¡ coIumn on ¡Lc OICR¸ ÐICR¸ and IICR ¡orms ¡s ¡or rcmarRs on
specifc accomplishments. Filling this column is optional.
£or ¡Lc IICR ¡orm¸ Lowcvcr¸ ¡Lcrc ¡s an aIIo¡¡cd s¡acc bcIow ¡Lc ¡abIc
for the rater to write his/her recommendations on the staf s/he is
cvaIua¡¡ng ¡or dcvcIo¡mcn¡ ¡ur¡oscs or ¡or rcwards and ¡romo¡¡on.
The rater writes his/her
comments on the ratee and
his/her recommendations
If you follow Step 11, you should
be able to use your OPCR, DPCR,
and IPCR forms.
l
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
1
11
2
3
6
81
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
1
11
2
3
6
8u
At the end of the rating period, the Heads
of Ofce and supervisors must discuss
the results of the assessment with the
individual employees concerned. Step 12
below falls under the fourth stage of the
PMS cycle—Performance Rewarding and
Development Planning.
Performance
Rewarding &
Development
Planning

4
5
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
2
3
6
TLc ¡ocus o¡ d¡scuss¡on o¡ cvaIua¡¡on rcsuI¡s mus¡ bc on s¡rcng¡Ls¸
com¡c¡cncy¬rcIa¡cd ¡cr¡ormancc ga¡s¸ and ¡Lc o¡¡or¡un¡¡¡cs ¡o ad¬
drcss ¡Lcsc ga¡s¸ carccr ¡a¡Ls¸ and aI¡crna¡¡vcs.
In coordination with the HRM Ofce, the Heads of Ofce and supervi¬
sors mus¡ ¡n¡roducc a¡¡ro¡r¡a¡c dcvcIo¡mcn¡aI ¡n¡crvcn¡¡ons bascd on
¡Lc rcsuI¡s o¡ ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc cvaIua¡¡on cs¡cc¡aIIy ¡or cm¡Ioyccs w¡¡L
Unsa¡¡s¡ac¡ory and Ioor ¡cr¡ormancc ra¡¡ngs.
SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BcIow ¡s a suggcs¡cd ¡orma¡ o¡ ¡Lc ¡ro¡css¡onaI dcvcIo¡mcn¡ ¡Ian ¡or
the continuing career development of staf.
You can usc ¡L¡s ¡Ian ¡o cnLancc ¡Lc sR¡IIs or dcvcIo¡ ¡o¡cn¡¡aIs o¡
cm¡Ioyccs wLo ¡cr¡orm wcII and ¡o ¡m¡rovc or corrcc¡ ¡cr¡ormancc o¡
cm¡Ioyccs wLo ¡a¡I ¡o mcc¡ ¡argc¡s.

Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation
USE THE RESULTS OF
THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
86 8,
88 8Q
TLc rcsuI¡s o¡ ¡Lc ¡cr¡ormancc cvaIua¡¡on[asscssmcn¡ sLaII scrvc as
inputs ¡o ¡Lc ¡oIIow¡ng:
1. Heads of Ofces ¡n ¡dcn¡¡¡y¡ng and ¡rov¡d¡ng ¡Lc R¡nds o¡ ¡n¡crvcn¡¡ons
needed based on identifed professional development needs.
l. Agency HRM Ofce ¡n consoI¡da¡¡ng and coord¡na¡¡ng dcvcIo¡mcn¡
¡n¡crvcn¡¡ons ¡La¡ w¡II ¡orm ¡ar¡ o¡ ¡Lc HR IIan and ¡Lc bas¡s ¡or rcwards
and ¡nccn¡¡vcs.
¸. Performance Management Team ¡n ¡dcn¡¡¡y¡ng ¡o¡cn¡¡aI IRÀI5L
Àwards nom¡nccs ¡or var¡ous awards ca¡cgor¡cs.
µ. PRAISE Committee ¡n dc¡crm¡n¡ng ¡o¡ ¡cr¡ormcrs o¡ ¡Lc agcncy wLo
guaI¡¡y" ¡or awards and ¡nccn¡¡vcs.
* Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence
Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation
If you follow Step 12,
you should be able to link the SPMS
with other HR systems.
l
Às you go ¡LrougL ¡Lc ¡roccss o¡ sc¡¡¡ng u¡ ¡Lc 5IM5 ¡n your organ¡za¡¡on¸
you may s¡ar¡ cra¡¡¡ng your Àgcncy 5IM5 Cu¡dcI¡ncs us¡ng ¡Lc cLccRI¡s¡
bcIow. TLc cLccRI¡s¡ ¡rov¡dcs a summary o¡ ¡Lc con¡cn¡s o¡ ¡Lc
5IM5 Cu¡dcI¡ncs.
FEATURES CONTENTS
Key Players and
Responsibilities
(Step 1)
• Key players include the following:
¤ SPMS Champion
¤ PMT
¤ Planning Ofce
¤ HRM Ofce
¤ Head of Ofce
¤ Supervisor
¤ Individual Employees
• Functions are clearly spelled out
• There is an Ofce Order/Executive Order issued
by the Agency Head
Goal Aligned to
Agency Mandate and
Organizational Priorities
and Outputs/Outcomes
Based
(Step 3)
• Table of MFOs enumerating all products and
services of the organization
•MFOs are aligned to address
¤ Agency strategic priorities
¤ Agency mandates, vision, mission
¤ OPIF Logframe
¤ Philippine Development Plan
¤ Organizational/ Sectoral/ Societal Goals
• Success indicators are identifed for each MFO
• Success indicators are SMART
Teamapproach to
performance
management
(Step 1)
• SPMS guidelines provide for cascading of
organizational unit’s commitments/goals to
individual staf members such that Individual
Work Plans or Commitment and Rating Forms
are linked to Ofce/ Division/ Unit Work Plan or
Commitment and Rating Form
• Agency Guidelines provide that the average rating
of individual staf member should not go higher
than the collective performance assessment of
the ofce
Crafting Your Agency SPMS Guidelines
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
2
3
6
88
User-friendly
Agency SPMS Forms
(Step 10)
• One Form for Commitments (target setting)
and Rating (evaluation) for both organization
and individuals
• Commitment and Rating Forms for both the
organization and individual performance are
similar and easy to accomplish
• SPMS Forms that operationalize the four-stage
PMS
¤ Performance Commitment and Rating Forms
include columns for MFOs, success indicators
(targets + measures), actual accomplishments,
and rating
¤ Commitments are agreed upon by the
Management and ofcials/employees as
indicated in the OPCR and IPCR Forms
¤ Space is provided for comments and
recommendations for individual employee
development
¤ Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form/
Journal
¤ Professional Development Plan
Information System
that Supports M&E
• M&E mechanisms and information system are
established
• There is a database/summary of targets and
accomplishment which shall be the basis for
verifcation of accomplishments
Communication Plan
• There is a program that orients agency ofcials
and employees on the new and revised policies
on the SPMS
• The orientation schedules are indicated in the
SPMS calendar
SPMS Cycle
(Step 2)
Four-stage PMS cycle are described in the Agency
Guidelines/Manual:
• Performance Planning and Commitment
• Performance Monitoring and Coaching
• Performance Review and Evaluation
• Performance Rewarding and Development
Planning
Q1
Qu













1. Performance Planning and Commitment
• SPMS calendar shows that ofcials and
employees are required to submit their
commitments prior to the start of the
rating period
• SPMS calendar allots time for PMT review
and recommendations of the performance
commitments
• SPMS calendar indicates period for Head
of Agency/Heads of Ofces’ approval of the
ofce performance commitment and individual
performance commitments
2. Performance Monitoring and Coaching
• Feedback sessions on the performance of the
ofces as well as the ofcials/employees are
provided in the guidelines and indicated in the
SPMS calendar
• Interventions are given to those behind work
targets. In the Employee Feedback From, a space
is provided for recommended interventions
• There is a form or logbook to record
critical incidents, schedule of coaching, and
action plan
3. Performance Review and Evaluation
• Ofce accomplishments are assessed against
the success indicators and the allotted budget
against the actual expenses as indicated in the
Performance Commitment and Rating Forms
and provided in the guidelines
• Annual Agency Performance Review Conference
is conducted as found in the SPMS calendar
• Individual employee performance is assessed
based on the commitments made at the start of
the rating period
• Agency SPMS rating scale should fall within
the range prescribed in MC 13, s. 1999 (Revised
Policies on the PES)

Ql







4. Performance Rewarding and Development
Planning
• There is a mechanism for discussion of
assessment results by the Head of Ofce and
supervisors with the individual employee at the
end of the rating period
• There is a provision for the drawing up of a
Professional Development Plan to improve
or correct performance of employees with
Unsatisfactory or Poor performance rating
• Recommendations for developmental
interventions are indicated in the Performance
Commitment and Rating Form
• Provision in the guidelines on the linkage of
SPMS with the Agency HR Development Plan
• Provision in the guidelines on the tie-up
of performance management system with
the agency rewards and incentives for top
performing individuals, units, and ofces
• The results of the performance evaluation
are used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and
rewards and incentives
Rating Period



The Agency SPMS guidelines specify the
performance rating period
• 3-month rating period?
• 6-month rating period?
• 1-year rating period?
Rating Scale
(Step 8)
• The Agency SPMS Guidelines specifes the
5-point numerical rating scale with adjectival
descriptions and ranges
•Agency SPMS rating scale falls within the range
prescribed in MC 13, s. 1999 (Revised Policies on
the PES)
SPMS Calendar
• There is an annual calendar with activities, unit/
person responsible and timeframe for each phase
• There is a schedule for the SPMS orientation and
SPMS pilot test
ÀI¡LougL ¡Lc 5IM5 ¡s no¡ ¡o¡aIIy ncw¸ ¡¡ s¡¡II rcgu¡rcs a ¡rans¡¡¡on
period and a signifcant shift in orientation regarding performance
mcasurcmcn¡. TLc 5IM5 ncccss¡¡a¡cs a cLangc ¡n ¡Lc organ¡za¡¡onaI
culture from the leadership down to the rank and fle. As such, the
cLangc ¡roccss nccds ¡o bc managcd carc¡uIIy and commun¡ca¡cd cIcarIy
¡o cvcryonc ¡n ¡Lc organ¡za¡¡on.
You w¡II nccd a com¡rcLcns¡vc cLangc managcmcn¡ and commun¡ca¡¡on
¡Ian ¡o or¡cn¡ cm¡Ioyccs on ¡Lc csscn¡¡aI ¡ca¡urcs o¡ ¡Lc 5IM5 so
¡La¡ ¡n ¡Lc ¡roccss¸ you w¡II bc abIc ¡o ob¡a¡n ¡Lc¡r buy¬¡n¸ su¡¡or¡¸
and cngagcmcn¡.
If you follow all the items in the checklist
above, you should be able to craft your
Agency SPMS Guidelines.
l
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Tel. No. 931-8092 / 931-7939
http://www.csc.gov.ph/

What gets measured gets done. But how does one
measure outputs? Who should determine which measure
to adopt? What would be a less tedious way of objectively
measuring performance?
Previous eforts in performance management in the public
sector were anchored on a one-size, fts all model which failed
¡o ¡aRc ¡n¡o accoun¡ ¡Lc manda¡c¸ ¡r¡or¡¡¡cs cvcn ¡ccuI¡ar¡¡¡cs
of a particular government ofce. These systems also did not
sLow Low cm¡Ioycc ¡cr¡ormancc Las con¡r¡bu¡cd ¡o or L¡ndcrcd
organizational efectiveness. To address the gaps and weaknesses
¡ound ¡n ¡rcv¡ous cvaIua¡¡on sys¡cms¸ ¡Lc C5C rcccn¡Iy ¡n¡roduccd
¡Lc 5¡ra¡cg¡c Icr¡ormancc Managcmcn¡ 5ys¡cm (5IM5). Onc
ma¡n ¡ca¡urc o¡ ¡Lc 5IM5 ¡s ¡La¡ ¡¡ I¡nRs ¡nd¡v¡duaI ¡cr¡ormancc
w¡¡L ¡Lc agcncy’s organ¡za¡¡onaI v¡s¡on¸ m¡ss¡on¸ and s¡ra¡cg¡c
goaIs. I¡ aIso maRcs usc o¡ cx¡s¡¡ng ¡cr¡ormancc cvaIua¡¡on and
managcmcn¡ sys¡cms and I¡nRs ¡cr¡ormancc managcmcn¡ w¡¡L
o¡Lcr Luman rcsourcc (HR) sys¡cms.
TLc 5IM5 Cu¡dcbooR ¡rcscn¡s casy s¡c¡s ¡o cnabIc ¡Lc var¡ous
govcrnmcn¡ agcnc¡cs ¡o draw u¡ a morc ob¡cc¡¡vc ¡cr¡ormancc
managcmcn¡ mccLan¡sm. TLcsc s¡c¡s ¡ncIudc:
• Forming the performance management team,
• Identifying performance goals,
• Developing the rating scale,
• Developing performance monitoring and coaching tools, and
• Using the results of performance evaluation for rewarding
and development planning.
Now, be among the frst to start.
Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.