SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

Dr. Kusum Lata

19th Feb.2022
RATIONALE - BENCHMARKING
Shifts emphasis from outputs to outcomes, brings focus on improving

service delivery rather than asset creation

Provides framework for performance management of assets, enables

performance monitoring and evaluation against agreed targets

Links financial allocations to service outcomes as it rationalizes dm at

various levels through better planning & allocation of resources

Strengthens accountability through transparency and citizen centric

approach
2
RATIONALE - BENCHMARKING
Facilitates inter-city & intra-city as well as time-series comparison

Provides methodology for measuring impact of reforms

Helps in identification and transfer of best practices

Provides a framework that can underline contracts/agreements with

service providers

Building block for regulation in the sector

3
METHODOLOGY
Defining the Performance Indicator

Indentification of Data Requirements

Establishing the methodology for the Indicator to be measured

Arriving at a Reliable Measurement of Indicators

Setting the frequency of Measurement of indicators

Fixing the Jurisdiction (Geographical entity) of Measurement

Agreeing on Benchmarks

4
STANDARISATION OF SERVICE LEVELS
In 2006 MoUD initiated an exercise to develop standardised service
level benchmarks with respect to basic municipal services
a core group was constituted, it comprised of :
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI),
the Public Record of Operations and Finance (PROOF),
the Water and Sanitation Program–South Asia (WSP–SA) and
Municipal Commissioners of Pune, Bangalore, Jaipur, Hyderabad and Kolkata

National Level Workshop was held in July 2008 for the adoption of
benchmarks with respect to basic municipal services
Handbook on SLB has been designed to enable the systematic &
sustained monitoring of services using standardised indicators
against agreed targets & benchmarks 5
BENCHMARKING
Benchmarking is a continuous process for creating and adopting
practices which lead to superior performance and results
It provides a snapshot of the performance of services & help to
understand where the services are in relation to a particular standard
Benefits of Service Level Benchmarking
Provide uniform platform for defining, data collection, measuring and reporting
the service level Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Implementation can be linked with outcome to be achieved
Help the service provider to define “where they are” as against the benchmarks
defined and to perform a comparative analysis
Provide a common vision and framework for “what needs to be achieved”
“Performance Report Cards” will help to collect data in a uniform manner across
ULBs
6
BENCHMARKING (contd.)
Benefits of Service Level Benchmarking (contd.)
Analysis can be performed at the State & National Level to determine the relative

position of ULB against one another & against the benchmark level

Based on above analysis

accurate & realistic plans for achieving the next level of targets can be determined in
advance
any strategic /policy level interventions can be made as & when required
fund allocation can be linked with performance and tracked

Citizen can avail same level of services across the Nation

Achievements and failures of ULBs for SLB can be made available online for

transparency & accountability

It will make States/ULBs more competitive & ambitious in nature 7

LIMITATIONS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Different sets of performance indicators have been defined under
different initiatives
Definition or assessment method may vary for the same performance
indicator, thus inhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons
Most measurement exercises have been externally driven (by agencies
external to the agency responsible for delivery against those performance parameters),
leading to the key issue of ownership of performance reports
Most performance measurement initiatives have not been
institutionalised, limiting the benefits of monitoring trends in
performance over time
The process of performance measurement has not been taken forward
into performance management
SYSTEMS FOR MEASURING PERFORMANCE & TAKING FURTHER
ACTION ON THEM HAVE NOT BEEN INSTITUTIONALISED IN URBAN
AGENCIES TILL 2008 8
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

9
HANDBOOK ON SLB
HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING is a ready reckoner
to enable Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and other city level parastatal
agencies to implement systems for measuring, reporting and
implement systems for measuring, reporting and monitoring the
Service Level Benchmarks
CONTENTS OF HANDBOOK OF SLB:
SLB in context of Performance Management of Urban Services
SLB for Water Supply Services, Sewage Management (Sewerage &
Sanitation), SWM, SW Drainage
Making SLB Operational
10
ROLE – CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
Disseminate service level performance parameters and build wider
acceptance
Institutionalise SLB through the JNNURM and other programmes initiated
SLBs to be an integral part of City Development Planning processes
SLBs to be dovetailed with commitment on reforms, & the subsequent
process of appraisal of reforms
relevant SLBs to be part of DPRs for concerned sectors, indicating both the
current situation & changes the project will bring about.
Subsequent processes of implementation monitoring of the project will also
evaluate these SLBs
Support extended to enable ULBs and other civic agencies to establish
systems in their respective institutions for periodic measurement, reporting
and analysis of SLBs 11
ROLE – STATE GOVT. & AGENCIES
Critical role in driving performance of ULBs & city level civic agencies
Periodically evaluate SLBs as an input for its decisions related to policy,
resource allocations, providing incentives & penalties, channelising technical
& manpower support, & regulatory considerations
Directorate of Local Bodies / Deptt. of Municipal Administration to play key
role in this process through constant inter-city comparisons
Deptts should leverage the power of IT to build & operate systems that
periodically capture & report on SLBs
Web-based technologies to used to manage information flow
SLBs to provide specific inputs for their programmes & interface with ULBs
& other civic agencies
SLBs will also be an important input to State Finance Commissions 12
ROLE – ULBs
ULBs & Service Delivery institutions will find SLBs useful to
institutionalise systems for performance management
Performance data at Zone/ward level are necessary for decision-making &
monitoring performance of the various field units
Benchmarking with other cities within State/ with similar cities, facilitates a
healthy competitive environment for continuous improvement

Performance management data using SLBs should be included in the

set of information disseminated under mandatory public disclosure, as
required by the reforms mandate under JNNURM
ULBs to periodically generate performance reports on SLBs (2008-09)
ULBs to institutionalise systems for Performance Management
13
ROLE – PARASTATAL AGENCIES
Agencies too need to put systems in place for Performance
Management
Periodic reporting of SLBs to ULBs concerned & its public disclosure
ROLE – BI/MULTI-
BI/MULTI-LATERAL AID
AGENCIES & OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
Dovetailing of various urban governance & infrastructure
improvement programmes initiated by them :
Enabling State Govts. & cities in design & implementation of Performance
Management Systems, with a focus on the SLBs defined
Extensively using SLBs defined in design, implementation & monitoring of the
urban programmes supported by them.
City Managers’ Associations, Public Administration Training institutions, the Office of the CAG, other
external & internal audit agencies, FIs & external stakeholders
14
ROLE – CITIZENS & CIVIL SOCIETY
Citizens should engage with ULBs in examining the SLBs & suggesting
remedial actions through Area Sabhas, Resident Welfare Associations
(RWAs) & other such civil society organisations,

CHALLENGES - PMS USING SLB

Absence of system for capturing key data elements in many cases
Overcome the tendency of ad-hoc systems for measuring input parameters,
instead the data is to be generated from field level on regular basis
Vested interests may prevent transparent disclosure of performance
measured
Definition & measurement methodology issues will be refined & resolved with
experience
Performance management will be sustainable only if disclosure, reporting,
monitoring & performance management feedback, incentives & disincentives
are also brought into the cycle 15
BENCHMARKING – WHAT IS PROPOSED
MoUD, under JNNURM shall extend support for ULBs and Utilities to
establish systems for periodic measurement, reporting and analysis
MoUD will be facilitating Benchmarking Comparisons across different
utilities/ services in the identified SSLBs
MoUD will capture and record experiences and lessons learnt and
disseminate the Best Practices in performance monitoring
MoUD will provide support in fostering local leadership and networks
and train their staff in Benchmarking and Performance Monitoring
MoUD will initiate programmes for incentivising the cities showing
better results in the Benchmarking exercise
16
DATA REQUIREMENTS – WS SERVICES
Indicator Data required Unit Remarks Reliability Scale : Lowest to highest / preferred
D C B A
Hh No. of hhs in No. Hhs & not properties to Est. – Est. – road Est. – total Act – hhs with
coverage of service area be counted geo.ar. length connections connections &
direct WS covered covered as %age of total hhs from
No. of Hhs with No. Hhs receiving WS at 1
connections with pipeline with pipeline estimated survey
direct WS common pt. (Aptt.
total hhs
connection Complexes)
Per capita Water supplied l/m Treated water i/p into Est.-
Water to distribution distribution sys to be assumed
Supplied sys. in 1 month measured pump
capacity,
Popn. Served No. tourist city -consider
efficiencies,
floating popn. FP
no. of hours
Days in month No. specific month of
operation;
Additional popn Lpcd Measure through bulk extrapolated
getting water at metres/using flow popn; FP
<70lpcd velocity & head not reliable

Frequency of measurement of Performance Indicator - Quarterly

Smallest area of jurisdiction for measurement of PI – Zone/DMA level 17
RELIABILITY OF MEASUREMENTS
Reliability Scale Description of Method
Geographical Area Households
100 Sq.KM 100,000
Lowest level of reliability - D
60 Sq.KM 60,000
Households covered 60%
Road Length in KM Households
1000 100,000
Intermediate Level- C
600 60,000
Households covered 60%
Total Population 450,000
Household size 4.5
Intermediate Level - B Total Connections as per H/H Size 100,000
Household Connections 60,000
Households covered 60%
Actual Number of Households 100,000
Highest and preferred level
Household Connections 600,000
of Reliability - A
Households covered 60%
Institutionalisation of Systems for Performance
Management

 Systems for capturing data

 Systems for collation and analysis of performance

indicators

 Systems for assessment and evaluation of performance

 Systems for decision making

 Systems for Performance Improvement