Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CSC SPMS Guidebook
CSC SPMS Guidebook
The CSC continues the journey with yet another tool specifically for human
resource management officers 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.
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).
• The CSC Public Assistance and Information Office (PAIO) for its technical
inputs in the layout of the Guidebook.
ii iii
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 Office 29
Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions under Your Office 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
iv
Table 7. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators 34
Glossary
Table 8. Office Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD)
Success Indicators 35 Abbreviations Meaning
APCCD Audit and Position Classification and Compensation Division
Table 9. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) and Division Level (PSED)
ARTA Anti-Red Tape Act
Success Indicators 37 ARTA-RCS Anti-Red Tape Act-Report Card Survey
Table 10. Office Level (HRPSO), Division Level (APCCD), and Individual CARE-HRM Continuing Assistance and Review for Excellent
Human Resource Management
Level (Staff) Success Indicators 40
CB Certifying Board
Table 11. Regional Office Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and CHARM Comprehensive Human Resource Management Assistance,
Individual Level (Staff) Success Indicators 43 Review, and Monitoring
CNA Collective Negotiation Agreement
Table 12. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to
CS Civil Service
Rate Performance 47 CSC Civil Service Commission
Table 13. Operationalization of the Rating Scale 48 CSCAAP Civil Service Commission Agency Accreditation Program
Table 14. HRPSO Rating Matrix 49 CSCFO Civil Service Commission Field Office
CSCRO Civil Service Commission Regional Office
Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix 51
CSE-PPT Career Service Examination - Paper and Pencil Test
Table 16. APCCD Rating Matrix 52 CSI Civil Service Institute
Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix 54 CSLO Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office
Table 18. Employee A Rating Matrix 55 DBM Department of Budget and Management
DOLE Department of Labor and Employment
Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix 56
DPCR Division Performance Commitment and Review
Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix 57 E Efficiency
Table 21. Employee D Rating Matrix 58 EO Executive Order
Table 22. Sample Ratings of Accomplishments 78 ERPO Examination Recruitment and Placement Office
ESD Examination Services Division
Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staff under HRPSO 79
GAS General Administration and Support
Table 24. HRPSO’S Summary of Ratings (OPCR) 80 GOCC Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations
HR Human Resource
Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle 11 HRD Human Resource Division
vi vii
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 Office for Financial and Assets Management
OHRMD Office for Human Resource Management and Development
OLA Office for Legal Affairs
OPCR Office Performance Commitment and Review
OPES Office Performance Evaluation System
OPIF Organizational Performance Indicator Framework
OSM Office for Strategy Management
PAIO Public Assistance and Information Office
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-Office Performance
Evaluation System
PMT Performance Management Team
PMU Project Management Unit
PRAISE Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence
PRO Personnel Relations Office
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 Qualification Standards
QSSD Qualification and Selection Standards Division
RA Republic Act
RBPMS Results-Based Performance Management System
RO Regional Office
SMART Specific, 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
1999: Revised PES and
Measuring Performance through the Years 360-Degree Evaluation
Memorandum Circular No. 13, s. 1999 revised the PES
As the central human resource manage- and introduced the 360 degree evaluation, a cross rating
system in which assessment of performance and behavior
ment agency of the Philippine bureau-
comes from the employees’ self-evaluation as well as
cracy, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) 1993: Performance feedback from their subordinates, peers, supervisors,
is constitutionally mandated to adopt Evaluation System and clients. The Revised PES required each government
measures to promote morale, efficiency, 1989: Autonomy Through Memorandum Circular agency to create a Performance Evaluation Review
integrity, responsiveness, courtesy and No. 12, s. 1993, the Performance Committee (PERC) tasked to establish performance
of Agencies in Developing
Evaluation System (PES) standards. An evaluation of the cross-rating system
public accountability among government their Performance
sought to establish an objective revealed that employees perceived the system to be
employees. Evaluation System
performance system. The CSC too complex.
The CSC provided simple guidelines
Through the years, the CSC has imple- provided specific guidelines In 2001, through CSC MC No. 13, s. 2001, Agency Heads
to empower government agencies
mented several performance evaluation on setting the mechanics of were given the discretion to utilize the approved PES
to develop their own Performance
the rating system. Similar to or devise a Performance Evaluation System based on a
and appraisal systems. Evaluation System (PES). This guide-
the NPAS and MORE, the PES combination of the old PES and the revised performance
line was made through Memorandum
Below is a brief review of past initiatives: also measured the employee’s evaluation system.
Circular No. 12, s. 1989. Internally,
performance and behavior in the
the CSC adopted a system called
work environment.
1978: MORE (Management by Objectives 2005: Performance Management
New Performance and Results Evaluation) in which System-Office Performance
Appraisal System the employee’s accomplishments in Evaluation System
performance and behavior are moni-
The New Performance Appraisal The Performance Management System-Office
tored weekly.
System (NPAS) was based on Performance Evaluation System (PMS-OPES)
Peter Drucker’s Management sought to align individual performance with
by Objectives (MBOs) system. organizational goals. It emphasized the importance
Implemented through Memo- 2005 of linking the performance management system
randum Circular No. 2, s. 1978, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT with national goals as stated in the following:
the NPAS focused on key result SYSTEM-OFFICE PERFORMANCE • Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
areas (KRAs) along the dimen- EVALUATION SYSTEM • Organizational Performance Indicator/
sions of quality, quantity, and Framework (OPIF)
timeliness. It measured the em- • Major Final Output (MFO)
ployee’s performance and be- 1999 1993
havior in the work environment. REVISED PES AND 360-DEGREE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION EVALUATION SYSTEM
1963:
Performance Rating
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 1963 1978 1989
6, s. 1963 provided the guide- PERFORMANCE NEW PERFORMANCE AUTONOMY OF AGENCIES
lines in developing a system of RATING APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN DEVELOPING THEIR PES
performance rating that would
measure performance of gov-
ernment employees.
Drawing from the rationale
TO ILLUSTRATE HOW TO
that “what gets measured gets
done,” every hour of work COMPUTE OPES POINTS:
The Strategic Performance Management System:
is given 1 OPES point in the 243 working days in a year x 8 hours in a Building on Past Initiatives
rating system. day = 1,944 working hours in a year.
The government issuances related to the SPMS are the following: 3. Team approach to performance management. Accountabilities and
individual roles in the achievement of organizational goals are clearly
• Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4 authorized
defined to facilitate collective goal setting and performance rating. The
the President of the Philippines to modify the compensation and position
individual’s work plan or commitment and rating form is linked to the
classification system of civilian personnel and the base pay schedule of
division, unit, and office work plan or commitment and rating form to
military and uniformed personnel in the government.
clearly establish the connection between organizational and employee
• Administrative Order No. 25, s. 2011 created an inter-agency task performance.
force on the harmonization of national government performance
4. User-friendly. The suggested forms for organizational and individual
monitoring, information, and reporting systems. This inter-agency task
commitments and performance are similar and easy to complete. The
force developed the Results-Based Performance Management System
office, division, and individual major final outputs and success indicators
(RBPMS) that established a common set of performance scorecard and
are aligned to cascade organizational goals to individual employees and
harmonized national government performance monitoring, information,
harmonize organizational and staff performance ratings.
and reporting systems.
5. Information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. The
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012 provided guidelines in the
SPMS promotes the establishment of monitoring and evaluation
establishment and implementation of agency Strategic Performance
(M&E) and information systems that facilitate the linkage between
Management System.
organizational and employee performance and generate timely,
• Joint CSC-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Joint Circular accurate, and reliable information that can be used to track performance,
No. 1, s. 2012 provided the rules and regulations on the grant of step report accomplishments, improve programs, and be the basis for policy
increments due to meritorious performance and length of service. decision-making.
• Executive Order No. 80, s. 2012 directed the adoption of a performance- 6. Communication Plan. Establishing the SPMS in the organization
based incentive system for government employees. must be accompanied by an orientation program for agency officials and
employees to promote awareness and interest on the system and generate
appreciation for the SPMS as a management tool to engage officials and
Basic Elements of the SPMS:
employees as partners in the achievement of organizational goals.
1. Goal aligned to agency mandate and organizational priorities.
Performance goals and measurements are aligned to national
development plans, agency mandate, vision, mission, and strategic
priorities, and/or organizational performance indicator framework.
Predetermined standards are integrated into the success indicators as
organizational objectives are cascaded down to the operational level.
Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team
5
5. Highest Finance Officer
6. President of the accredited employee association
10
11
12
Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team
SPMS Champion •Together with the PMT, the SPMS Champion is responsible and accountable for Head of Office •Assumes primary responsibility for performance management in his/her office.
the establishment and implementation of the SPMS.
11
•Conducts strategic planning session with supervisors and staff.
1
•Sets agency performance goals/objectives and performance measures.
•Reviews and approves individual performance commitment and rating form.
•Determines agency target setting period.
•Submits quarterly accomplishment report.
•Approves office performance commitment and rating.
•Does initial assessment of office’s performance.
3 3
employees.
•Ensures that office performance management targets, measures, and budget are
•Provides written notice to subordinates who obtain Unsatisfactory or Poor rating.
aligned with those of goals of the agency.
Division Chief •Assumes joint responsibility with the Head of Office in attaining performance targets.
4 4
•Recommends approval of the office performance and rating system and tools.
•Rationalizes distribution of targets and tasks.
•Acts as appeals body and final arbiter.
•Monitors closely the status of performance of subordinates.
•Identifies potential top performers for awards.
5 •Adopts its own internal rules, procedures, and strategies to carry out its responsibilities.
•Assesses individual employees’ performance. 5
Planning Office •Functions as the PMT Secretariat. •Recommends developmental interventions.
6 •Monitors submission of Office Performance Commitment and Rating Form Individual •Act as partners of management and co-employees in meeting organizational 6
(OPCR) and schedule the review and evaluation by the PMT. Employees performance goals.
7 7
•Consolidates, reviews, validates, and evaluates the initial performance
assessment based on accomplishments reported against success indicators and
budget against actual expenses.
11 11
development plan.
12 12
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
Once formed, the first thing that the PMT does is to review the 1
agency’s existing performance management system (PMS) and make
2
necessary modifications so that it is aligned with the SPMS guidelines
issued through Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012.
4
Stage 4.
Performance 5
Rewarding &
Development
Planning 6
Stage 1.
7
PMS
Performance
Planning &
Commitment
8
CYCLE
Stage 3.
Performance
Review &
Evaluation
9
Stage 2.
Performance
10
Monitoring
& Coaching
11
12
10 11
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
The SPMS follows the same four-stage PMS cycle that underscores the Performance Review and Evaluation
importance of performance management: is done at regular intervals to
Performance Monitoring and assess both the performance of
Coaching is done regularly during the individual and his/her office.
Performance Planning and Commitment is done prior
the performance period by the Heads The suggested time periods for
to the start of the performance period where heads of
Performance Rewarding and Development Planning
1 1
of Agency, Planning Office, Division Performance Review and Evaluation
Stage 1 offices meet with the supervisors and staff and agree on
and Office Heads, and the individual. are the first week of July and the first is based on the results of the performance review and
the outputs that should be accomplished based on the
The focus is creating an enabling week of January the following year. evaluation when appropriate developmental interven-
goals and objectives of the organization. The suggested
2 2
environment to improve team tions shall be made available to specific employees. The
time for Performance Planning and Commitment is the Stage 3
performance and develop individual suggested time periods for Performance Rewarding and
last quarter of the preceding year.
potentials. The suggested time Development Planning are the first week of July and the
periods for Performance Monitoring first week of January the following year.
3 When reviewing Stage 1, ask yourself the and Coaching are January to June and
Stage4
3
following questions: July to December. When reviewing Stage 3,
• Does your SPMS calendar show that officials and
4 4
ask yourself the following When reviewing Stage 4, ask yourself the
employees are required to submit their commitments Stage 2
questions: following questions:
prior to the start of the rating period?
• Are office accomplishments • Is there a mechanism for the Head of Office and
5 5
• Does your SPMS calendar allot time for the PMT
assessed against the success supervisors to discuss assessment results with the
to review and make recommendations on the
indicators and the allotted individual employee at the end of the rating period?
performance commitments?
When reviewing Stage 2, budget against the actual • Is there a provision to draw up a Professional
6 • Does your SPMS calendar indicate the period for
Heads of Agency and Offices to approve the office
ask yourself the following expenses as indicated in the Development Plan to improve or correct performance 6
questions: Performance Commitment and of employees with Unsatisfactory or Poor
and individual performance commitments?
Rating Forms and provided in performance rating?
7 7
• Are feedback sessions to discuss
performance of offices, officials, your Agency Guidelines? • Are recommendations for developmental
and employees provided in your • Does your SPMS calendar interventions indicated in the Performance
8 8
Agency Guidelines and scheduled schedule and conduct the Commitment and Rating Form?
in your SPMS calendar? Annual Agency Performance • Is there a provision on your Agency Guidelines to
• Are interventions given to those Review Conference? link the SPMS with your Agency Human Resource
PMS
Feedback Form for recommended the commitments made at the tie up the performance management system with
10 interventions? start of the rating period? agency rewards and incentives for top performing 10
CYCLE • Is there a form or logbook to • Does your agency rating scale individuals, units, and offices?
record critical incidents, schedule fall within the range prescribed • Are the results of the performance evaluation
11 3 of coaching, and the action plan? in Memorandum Circular No. 13, used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and rewards 11
2 s. 1999 - Revised Policies on and incentives?
12 12
the PES?
12 13
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
2
3
6 Steps 3 to 8
are all subsumed
under the first stage
7 of the PMS cycle−
Performance Planning
8 and Commitment.
Performance
9 If you follow Step 2, you shoiuld be able
10
l to identify the gaps and PMS areas for
modification and enhancement.
11
Planning &
12 Commitment
14
Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs
2
strategic priorities. During the period of performance planning and
commitment, the first thing to do is to understand your agency’s Major
Final Outputs.
3
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).
4
8
If your agency does not have a written Logical Framework/OPIF
Book of Outputs, the other possible sources of information are the
following documents:
17
Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs
SOCIETAL GOAL Human Resource Table 3. Major Final Outputs of the CSC
1 Development Toward
Poverty Alleviation
MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS 1
MFO 1: Legal Services
2 SECTORAL GOAL
MFO 2: Examinations and Appointments 2
Improved Public Good MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services
Service Delivery Governance
6 6
DISCIPLINE & STOs refer to activities that provide technical and substantive support
LEGAL EXAMINATION POLICIES & RESOURCE
ACCOUNTABILITY
SERVICE & APPOINTMENTS STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT to the operations and projects of the agency. By themselves, these
ENHANCEMENT
SERVICES SERVICES
SERVICES activities do not produce the MFOs but they contribute or enhance the
8 8
information systems development.
• Adjudicate • Develop & for- • Formulate • Conduct
Develop policies, GAS refer to activities that deal with the provision of overall administrative
administrative mulate guidelines, policies on training programs
standards, rules
disciplinary & standards & government
• Formulate/ & regulations on management support to the entire agency operation. Examples
non-disciplinary procedures on the employment
9 9
evaluate/ personnel
cases various processes
• Review/ administer program evalua- are legislative liaison services, human resource development, and
involved in recruit-
• Formulate enhance/ HRD programs tion, including
ment, examination
opinions & monitor agency & service-wide personnel financial services.
& placement
rulings career systems scholarships inspection &
10 10
• Certify eligible &standards audit actions
• Render legal for placement
counseling
• Conduct
• Develop
policies,
If you follow Step 3, you should be able to
examination standards & answer the following questions:
11
l 11
regulations on
• Issue certificate
of eligibility
employee-
management
• What is my agency’s mandate---vision,
• Process/ review relations in the mission, and goals?
appointments for public sector
• What are my agency’s products
12 12
non-accredited
agencies
and services or major final outputs?
18 19
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
After identifying the MFOs of your agency, list down the success 1
indicators or performance measures and targets of each MFO.
3
performance indicators and targets per MFO.
• Agency Strategic Plan/Road Map /Scorecard
4
Using these documents as basis, the agencies must agree on the
performance standards on which they want to be measured.
• Citizen’s Charter
5
• RA 6713 (Code of Ethics and Ethical Standards)
• OPES Reference Table 6
• Accomplishment Reports (for historical data)
7
• Benchmarking Reports
• Stakeholders’ Feedback Reports
There may be other documents aside from those listed above that an
agency can derive its success indicators. 8
9
√ SPECIFIC
Success indicators
must be SMART: √ MEASURABLE 10
√ ATTAINABLE
√ REALISTIC
11
√ TIME-BOUND
12
20 21
22
The Civil Service Commission derives its success indicators from its Logical Framework/
Examples
EXAMPLESofOFSuccess INDICATORS
SUCCESSIndicators OPIF Book of Outputs as well as its Scorecard. Other agencies may determine their success
FOUND IN THE AGENCY SCORECARD indicators from other documents listed above (e.g., Citizen’s Charter, OPES Reference
found in the Agency Scorecard
Table, Benchmarking Reports).
Table 4. CSC Scorecard
The Civil Service Commission derives its success indicators from its Logical Framework/
Examples of Success Indicators OPIF Book of Outputs as well as its Scorecard. Other agencies may determine their success
OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
indicators from other documents listed above (e.g., Citizen’s Charter, OPES Reference
PERSPECTIVE
found in the Agency Scorecard
A Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction Table,
N/A Benchmarking
T:1 Reports).
Acceptable Good Good Excellent Excellent
as a Center Rating (CSC frontline (70-79%) (80-89%) (80-89%) (90-100%) (90-100%)
for Excellence services)
PERSPECTIVE
(87% in CSC (89.14%) (87.3% in CSC
A Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction N/A T:1 ARTA-RCS and
Acceptable Good ARTA-RCS &
Good Excellent Excellent
as a Center Rating (CSC frontline 98%
(70-79%) (80-89%) 99% satisfac-
(80-89%) (90-100%) (90-100%)
for Excellence services) satisfaction rat- tion rating of
ing of selected selected govt
A: govt agencies)
Good Good agencies)
Good
(87% in CSC (89.14%) (87.3% in CSC
2 Percentage of T: N/A
ARTA-RCS and 10% 25%
ARTA-RCS & 40% 50%
agencies accredited 98% (159 agencies re- (398 agencies
99% satisfac- (636 agencies (795 agencies
STAKEHOLDERS
under the satisfaction rat- validated out of tion II accredit-
Levelrating of Level II accred- Level II ac-
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
STAKEHOLDERS
under the validated out of Level II accredit- Level II accred- Level II ac-
revalidated)
PRIME-HRM 1,590 accredited ed out of 1,590 ited out of 1,590 credited out of
agencies)
Level II accredited – an agency which meets the basic requirements after having been subjected accredited
to CHARM and/or determined 1,590 accredited
accreditedto have complied with the
recommendations of the CSCRO/FO concerned after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission agencies)
agencies)authority to agencies)
take final action on appointments.
OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE A: N/A 2011 165% 2012 2013 2014 2015
(262 agencies
B High 3 WIG: Percentage 78% T: 20% 40%
revalidated) 85% 95% 98%
performing, of high density (39 (469 service of- (560 service of- (830 pass out (345 pass out of (1,022 pass
competent, II accredited
Levelagencies an agency which meets
and –their passed the basic requirements after having
fices surveyed) ficesbeen subjected to
surveyed) of CHARM and/or determined
975 service 363 service have complied
to of- with the
out of 1,042
and credible recommendations
service offices the CSCRO/FO concerned
of pass- out after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission
offices orauthority tofices
takesurveyed) appointments.
final action onservice offices
civil servants ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed)
OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
service
A: 73% 75%
B High 3 WIG: Percentage offices
78% T: 20% 40% 85% 95% 98%
(361 passed (449 passed
performing, of high density sur-
(39 (469 service of- (560 service of- (830 pass out (345 pass out of (1,022 pass
out of 497 out of 599
competent, agencies and their veyed)
passed fices surveyed) fices surveyed) of 975 service 363 service of- out of 1,042
service offices service offices
and credible service offices pass- out offices or fices surveyed) service offices
surveyed) surveyed)
civil servants ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed)
4 WIG: service
14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80%
A: 73% 75%
Number of agencies offices
and (498 out of (747 out of (1,743 out of (1,992 out of
(361 passed (449 passed
with approved SPMS sur-
DOLE 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies)
out of 497 out of 599
veyed)
and its
A: service
N/A offices service
73% offices
12 at-
STAKEHOLDERS
surveyed) surveyed)
(364 agencies
tached
with approved
4 WIG: agen-
14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80%
SPMS)
Number of agencies cies
and (498 out of (747 out of (1,743 out of (1,992 out of
with approved SPMS DOLE 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies)
WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20%
and its
Number of NGAs, A: N/A 73% (315 agencies (79 agencies out
12 at-
STAKEHOLDERS
excellent HR certified
SPMScore and all sectors: NGAs, GOCCs, SUCs, LWDs, and LGUs;(Cases (Maintain thefor initial
(Maintain the (Maintained)
processes Functional SPMS
support – SPMS is approved and implemented
processes Adjudication, 3 Processes 4 Processes
Examination, + Training +Project
Appointments Process) Management
23
100%
80%
98%
work—where the MFOs and performance targets are found, and Score-
5
Approved SPMS – includes all sectors: NGAs, GOCCs, SUCs, LWDs, and LGUs; SPMS is conditionally approved for initial implementation
card—where the strategic objectives and measures are indicated: MFO 1: A. Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction Rating
(Maintain the
Management
100%
2 Percentage of agencies accred-
80%
70%
5
Poverty Alleviation
3 Processes
2013
MFO 2:
+ Training
performing,
Process)
100%
70%*
60%
competent, and fices passing the ARTA-RCS
Employees collectively refer to the rank and file, supervisory, and executive/managerial groups
APPOINTMENTS
4
SECTORAL GOAL
Improved Public Good credible civil
4 WIG: Number of agencies with
RBPMS rating:
Appointments
Appointments
Adjudication,
Adjudication,
Examination,
Examination,
(4,791 out of
approved SPMS
6,582 cases
Processing)
Processing)
2012
resolved)
Passed
(Cases
(Cases
80%
53%
73%
ORGANIZATIONAL MFO 3:
OUTCOMES Merit & Rewards
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A PERSONNEL
D. Ensure fairness 7 WIG: Percentage of cases re-
Functional SPMS – SPMS is approved and implemented
PERSONNEL HUMAN
DISCIPLINE & MFO 4: and efficiency in solved within 40 days from the
A:
A:
A:
T:
T:
T:
T:
SERVICES SERVICES
SERVICES DEVELOPMENT Judicial functions
N/A
N/A
N/A
SERVICES
E. Enhance the 8 Percentage of CSC employees
PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS) competency of meeting their job competency
• Adjudicate • Develop & for- • Formulate • Conduct MFO 5: our workforce standards
their job competency
Develop policies,
within 40 days from
Percentage of CSC
standards, rules
Zero un-liquidated
ripe for resolution
certified core and
& regulations on
MEASURE
evaluate/ personnel
cash advance
8
5
management
OBJECTIVE
• Issue certificate
excellent HR
fairness and
efficiency in
Enhance the
competency
employee-
of our work-
of financial
performing
of eligibility
processes
resources
management
functions
efficient
Provide
Ensure
public sector You will note that MFO 2 (Examinations and Appointments) is not included in the
force
appointments for
non-accredited Scorecard but it is one of the core functions of the CSC.
agencies
In the Scorecard, you will find that general administrative and support functions are
C
PROCESS PROCESS PEOPLE FINANCE part of the strategic objectives: C. Provide excellent HR processes and F. Ensure
efficient management of financial resources.
*Target percentage may change depending on the results of the validation being conducted by OLA, CSLO and OCH.”
24 25
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
4 4
MFO 1: Ensure fairness Percentage of • Percentage of cases resolved (issued with CSC Resolution) in
Legal Services and efficiency cases resolved within 40 days from the time they accordance with guidelines and set
in performing within 40 days are ripe for resolution standards
quasi-judicial from the time • No. of cases adjudicated and • No. of agencies recommended for
5 5
functions they are ripe for resolved within thirty (30) working Deregulated Status in accordance
resolution days (disciplinary cases) with guidelines
• No. of cases adjudicated and • No. of agencies conferred with
6 6
resolved within ten (10) working Seal of Excellence Award under
days (non-disciplinary cases) PRIME-HRM in accordance with
• No. of appointments processed/ Commission-approved standards
7 7
reviewed versus received in ac- • No. of Seal of Excellence awarded
cordance with technical standards under PRIME-HRM in accordance
(for regulated agencies) with Commission-approved
8 8
standards
MFO 2: Exami- NOTE: MFO 2 is • No. of CSC test applications • No. of unions registered accord-
nations and not included in processed and administered in ing to standards
Appoinments the Scorecard accordance with standards
9 9
• No. of unions accredited accord-
but it is one • No. of eligibles granted under ing to standards
of the core special laws • No. of union’s CNAs registered
functions of the • No. of eligibilities certified/placed
10 10
according to standards
CSC. • No. of appointments processed/ • No. of education/information
reviewed versus received in ac- campaign conducted as per annual
cordance with technical standards
11 11
work plan
(for regulated agencies) • No. of conciliation/mediation
services rendered according to
12 12
standards
26 27
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
3 3
MFO 5: High perform- • Percentage • Good CSC Client Satisfaction Rat- also possible that one office will be contributing to two MFOs.
Personnel ing, competent, of high density ing (CSC frontline services) for 2013
Discipline and credible agencies & their • Percentage of high density
EXAMPLES OF OFFICES CONTRIBUTING TO MFOs
4 4
and civil servants service offices agencies and their service offices
Accountability passing the passing the ARTA-Report Card In the Civil Service Commission, the following offices contribute to
Enhancement ARTA-RCS Survey per annual work plan specific MFOs:
5
Services • Number of • No. of complaints/feedbacks/
5 agencies with
functional SPMS
requests processed/acted upon
versus received
Office for Legal Affairs (OLA),
MFO 1: Legal Services
Commission Secretariat and Liaison
• Number of agencies with func-
Office (CSLO); CSC Regional Offices
6 tional SPMS
(CSCROs) 6
l
Standards Office (HRPSO); Personnel
If you follow Step 4, you should be able to MFO 3: Personnel Policies and
9 9
Relations Office (PRO); CSCROs
formulate indicators that are SMART. Standards Services
11 11
HRPSO; Office for Strategy Manage- MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and
12 ment (OSM); Public Assistance and Accountability 12
Information Office (PAIO); CSCROs Enhancement Services
28 29
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
The chart below shows how each CSC office, division, and individual staff 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
Based on the organizational priorities of the Civil Service Commission
for Strategic Human Resource and Organization Development by 2030.
each year, each office determines its specific performance targets or
success indicators in its annual work plan. The chart, however, does not show all the units in the CSC but only those that are directly contributing to the MFOs.
8
resolved within acted upon within satisfaction rating accredited under
index within 2 days meeting their job their service & functional
40 days 1.5 hours (frontline services) PRIME-HRM
before security competency offices passing SPMS
printing ARTA-RCS
9
OLA CSCRO CSCROs ERPO OSM HRPSO CSCRO OHRMD CSI CSCRO OSM CSCRO HRPSO CSCRO
10
OLA
11 Divisions
LSD CSCFOs ESD PMU APCCD PSED TARD IST HRD PMU PALD PSSD PSED
12 Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual
Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff
30 31
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
To illustrate how the performance goals of an office cascade down to the division and individual staff levels on the central and regional
levels, this Guidebook will zero in on MFO 3 and one specific office in the Civil Service Commission that contributes to it: the Human
EXAMPLE OF THE PERFORMANCE GOALS
Resource Policies and Standards Office (HRPSO), and one division under it, the Audit Position Classification and Compensation Division
OF AN OFFICE AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
(APCCD) and its counterpart office and division on the regional level, the CSC Regional Office (CSCRO) and the Policies and Systems The HRPSO contributes to MFO 3. Below are the performance goals or
Evaluation Division (PSED). You will note that two offices in the central office actually contribute to MFO 3: HRPSO and OSM. However, the success indicators of the HRPSO that cascade down to the APPCD. Note
focus will only be on the HRPSO (central office) and the PSED (regional office). These units are highlighted in yellow below: that the success indicators are SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attain- 1
able, Realistic, and Time-bound. HRPSO’s other success indicators that
VISION:
2
cascade down to the other two divisions2 under it are not included.
Chart 6. Illustration of One CSC Office and
Division at Central and Regional Levels
Asia’s Leading Center of Excellence
Table 6. Office Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators
Contributing to MFO 3 for Strategic HR and OD by 2030
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO)
SUCCESS INDICATORS
3
MFO 3: Recognized Percentage of 100% of recommendations for
MFO 1:
MFO 2:
MFO 3: PERSONNEL
POLICIES AND
MFO 4: HUMAN
RESOURCE
MFO 5: PERSONNEL Personnel as agencies accreditation from the CSC 4
EXAMINATIONS & DISCIPLINE & Policies and a Center for accredited under Regional Offices acted upon
LEGAL SERVICES STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
5
APPOINTMENTS ACCOUNTABILITY Standards Excellence PRIME-HRM within 15 days from receipt of the
SERVICES SERVICES
Services3 recommendation
9
ARTA-RCS
printing
MOA between the CSC and award
giving bodies on the integration
of CB standards to their criteria
OLA CSCRO CSCROs ERPO OSM HRPSO CSCRO OHRMD CSI CSCRO OSM CSCRO HRPSO CSCRO signed by end of September 2013 10
Replies to queries sent within 15
OLA
LSD CSCFOs ESD PMU APCCD PSED TARD IST HRD PMU PALD PSSD PSED
days upon receipt by the HRPSO
11
Divisions
The other two divisions under the HRPSO are: Personnel Systems and Standards Division (PSSD)
12
2
32 33
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office
1 Table 7. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators Units under an office must contribute towards achieving a specific MFO 1
REGIONAL OFFICE through a set of performance goals or success indicators. As such, the
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC (CSCRO) LEVEL
2 2
performance goals of the different units such as a branch, attached
MEASURES
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE SUCCESS bureaus, or a division must be aligned with the performance goals
INDICATORS
of the office.
3 MFO 4:
Personnel Policies
Recognized as
a Center
Percentage of
agencies
Cumulative 25% of
agencies accredited
3
EXAMPLE OF DIVISION LEVEL
and Standards for Excellence accredited under under CSC Agency
PERFORMANCE GOALS AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
4 Services PRIME-HRM Accreditation Program
(CSCAAP) granted Lev- CSC’s Human Resource Policies and Standards Office has 3 divisions
4
el II-Accredited Status under it: Personnel Systems and Standards Division (PSSD), Audit
5 under PRIME-HRM
and Position Classification and Compensation Division (APCCD), and
Qualification and Selection Standards Division (QSSD).
5
6
Highlighted on the table below are the success indicators of the Audit
and Position Classification and Compensation Division:
6
Table 8. Office Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD) Success Indicators
7 If you follow Step 5, you should be able to 7
l
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) DIVISION LEVEL(APCCD)
MEASURES
OBJECTIVE SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
identify the performance goals of your office OUTPUTS
8 that contribute to specific MFOs. MFO 3: Recog- Percent- 100% of recommenda- 100% of recommenda- 8
Personnel nized as age of tions for accreditation tions for accreditation
Policies a Center agencies from the CSC Regional from the CSC Regional
9 and for accredit- Offices acted upon Offices acted upon within 9
Standards Excellence ed under within 15 days from 10 days from receipt of
Services PRIME- receipt of the recom- the recommendation
10 HRM mendation 10
Resolutions for Resolutions for accredita-
accreditation of agen- tion of agencies prepared
11 cies approved by the within 10 days from 11
Commission within 15 receipt of the recommen-
days from receipt of dation from the CSCRO
12 recommendation from 12
the CSCRO
34 35
Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office
7 Like the office level success indicators, division level success indicators 7
should also be SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and
8 8
Time-bound.
11 11
12 12
36 37
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division
2
align with the performance goals of the division. The success indicators
should be SMART.
5
Division. The table also shows the alignment of individual success
indicators with the division level (APCCD) and office level (HRPSO)
success indicators.
Like the office level and division level success indicators, individual 6
level success indicators should also be SMART—Speci c, Measurable,
Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.
7
10
11
12
38 39
6
5
3
4
2
1
12
11
10
9
8
7
40
Table 10. Office Level (HRPSO), Division Level (APCCD), and Individual Level (Staff 1) Success Indicators
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF)
MEASURES
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
Replies to queries sent within 15 Draft replies to queries ap- Draft replies to queries approved
days upon receipt by the HRPSO proved by the Director within by the Division Chief within 7
10 days upon receipt by the days upon receipt by the HRPSO
HRPSO
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division
7
2
6
5
41
8
11
12
10
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division
Table 11. Regional Office Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and
EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS Individual Level (Staff 2) Success Indicators
AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL
REGIONAL
Highlighted on the table below are the individual level success indicators DIVISION
MAJOR OFFICE LEVEL INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
STRATEGIC LEVEL (PSED)
FINAL MEASURES (CSCRO) (STAFF) SUCCESS
of employees under the Policies and Systems Evaluation Division OBJECTIVE SUCCESS
OUTPUTS SUCCESS INDICATORS
1 (PSED) at the regional office level. The table also shows the alignment INDICATORS
INDICATORS
1
of individual success indicators with the division level (PSED) and the MFO 3: Recog- Percent- Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
Personnel nized as age of 25% of agen- 25% of agen- 25%
2 2
Regional Office success indicators.
Policies a Center agencies cies accred- cies accred- of agencies
Like the regional office level and division level success indicators, and for accred- ited under ited under accredited
individual level success indicators should also be SMART Speci c, Standards Excellence ited under CSC Agency CSC Agency under
3 Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound. Services PRIME- Accreditation Accreditation CSC Agency 3
HRM Program Program Accreditation
(CSCAAP) (CSCAAP) Program
4 granted Level-
II Accredited
granted Level-
II Accredited
(CSCAAP)
granted Level-
4
Status under Status under II Accredited
5 5
PRIME-HRM PRIME-HRM Status under
PRIME-HRM
Cumulative
6 25% of agen-
cies accredited
6
under CSC Agen-
7 7
cy Accredita-
tion Program
(CSCAAP)
recommended
for Level-II
8 Accredited 8
Status under
PRIME-HRM
9 9
10 10
If you follow Step 7, you should be able to
11 11
12
l identify the activities and outputs of individual
staff that contribute to the achievement of the
performance goals of your division and office. 12
42 43
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
DEVELOP
THE RATING SCALE
2
ments are to be rated.
• Operationalizing the numerical and adjectival ratings.
5
to the degree to which objectives are achieved as intended and the extent
to which issues are addressed with a certain degree of excellence.
9
Efficient performance applies to continuing tasks or frontline services
(e.g., issuance of licenses, permits, clearances, and certificates).
It involves the following elements:
• Standard response time 10
• Number of requests/applications acted upon over number of
11
requests/applications received
• Optimum use of resources (e.g., money, logistics, office supplies)
12
44 45
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
6 6
above as guidelines. The rating needs to be discussed within the unit and between 1st Quarter dards need to be approved by the
the supervisors and staff (i.e., raters and ratees) to clarify the expected outputs at Commission.•Meeting a deadline set at the
end of the 1st Quarter.
the beginning of the performance monitoring period.
7 Because performance is measured within a scheduled monitoring period, all Resolution on QS for newly-created unique This performance target is rated 7
accomplishments always involve the dimension of time. As such, performance is
positions approved by the Commission on quality and efficiency because
within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO it involves:•Acceptability. The
8 8
always rated on either efficiency and/or timeliness.
of complete requirements resolutions need to be approved by the
Commission.•Standard response time of
15 days.
11 11
12 12
46 47
6
5
3
4
2
1
12
11
10
9
8
7
48
4
1
2
3
5
4
NU-
RATING
MERICAL
Very
Poor
RATING
satisfactory
Satisfactory
Outstanding
ADJECTIVAL
Unsatisfactory
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
below.
planned targets.
the planned targets.
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
performance should be 51% to 99% of the planned targets.
However, if it involves deadlines required by law, the range of
Performance only met 51% to 89% of the planned targets and
However, if it involves deadlines required by law, it should be
The 130% and above range for Outstanding rating and the 50% and below range for Poor rating
The following tables show examples of rating matrices on three levels—office, division, and individual staff at the central and
regional levels.
• The second column on the table below shows all the performance targets or success indicators of the CSC’s Human Resource
Policies and Standards Office. Columns 3 to 5 describe the meaning of each numerical rating along the dimensions of quality,
efficiency, and timeliness.
You will note that some performance targets are only rated on quality and efficiency, some on quality and timeliness, and
others only on efficiency.
MAJOR
HRPSO SUCCESS DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL
IINDICATORS RATINGS FOR QUALITY EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
OUTPUTS
Resolutions for ac- 5 – Approved upon 1st presentation of resolu- 5– Approved within 10 working
creditation of agencies tion to the Commission days
approved by the
4 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolu- 4 – Approved within 11 to 14 days
Commission within 15
tion to the Commission with minimal changes
days from receipt of
recommendation from 3 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolu- 3 – Approved within 15 working
the CSCRO tion to the Commission with major changes days
MAJOR
HRPSO SUCCESS DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL
IINDICATORS RATINGS FOR QUALITY EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
OUTPUTS
49
50
6
5
3
4
2
1
12
11
10
9
8
7
50
1 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolu- 1 – Delayed by more than
tion to the Commission with major changes 45 days
MAJOR
HRPSO SUCCESS DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL
IINDICATORS RATINGS FOR QUALITY EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
OUTPUTS
MOA between the CSC 5 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 5 – MOA signed in less than
and award giving bod- 1st presentation 84 days
ies on the integration 4 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 4 – MOA signed within 85
of CB standards to 2nd presentation with minimal changes to 107 days
their criteria signed 3 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 3 – MOA signed within 108
by end of September 2nd presentation with major changes to 137 days
2013 2 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 2 – MOA signed within 138
3rd presentation with minimal changes to 180 days
NOTE: Time frame 1 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 1 – MOA signed beyond 180
for this activity is 6 3rd presentation with major changes days
months or 120 working
days
Policies
Services
FINAL
MAJOR
Personnel
Standards
OUTPUTS
each
on efficiency.
Program
(CSCAAP)
of agencies
CSC Agency
PRIME-HRM
II-Accredited
Status under
OFFICE
Accreditation
granted Level
SUCCESS
REGIONAL
INDICATORS
Cumulative 25%
accredited under
numerical
Regional Office Level
rating
Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
along
the
PRIME-HRM
under PRIME-HRM
under PRIME-HRM
under PRIME-HRM
under PRIME-HRM
RATINGS
of accredited agencies
CSCAAP granted Level
4 – Cumulative 29% to
3 – Cumulative 22% to
5 – Cumulative 33% or
FOR EFFICIENCY
dimensions
of
RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
DESCRIPTION OF
will note that some performance targets are only rated on quality
quality,
or success indicators of the CSC’s Audit and Position Classification
51
proved by the Director more
than 15 days from receipt
by the HRPSO
1 1
MFO 3: 100% of recom- 5 – Acted upon in less than March 1 3 – Approved by the Director 3 – Proposed standards ap-
Personnel mendations for 8 days from receipt of the NOTE: Timeframe upon 2nd presentation with proved by the Director from
Policies accreditation recommendation for this activ- major changes March 5 to March 22
and from the CSC ity is January to
Standards Regional Offices 4 - Acted upon in 8 days March 1 2 – Approved by the Director 2 – Proposed standards ap-
2 2
Services acted upon within from receipt of the recom- upon 3rd presentation with proved by the Director from
10 days from mendation minimal changes March 23 to April 22
receipt of the
recommendation 3 - Acted upon within 9 to
11 days from receipt of the 1 – Approved by the Director 1 – Proposed standards
4 4
recommendation
Orientation 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Approved by the Director
1 - Acted upon more than approved by the upon 2nd presentation with from February 9 to 13
15 days from receipt of the Director by the minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director
recommendation end of February 3 – Approved by the Director from February 14 to March 5
5 5
NOTE: Timeframe upon 2nd presentation with 2 – Approved by the Director
Resolutions for 5 – Draft resolution ap- is 30 days major changes from March 6 to 17
accreditation proved by the Director from 2 – Approved by the Director 1 – Approved by the Director
of agencies 1 to 7 days from receipt by upon 3rd presentation with beyond March 17
prepared within the HRPSO minimal changes
6 6
10 days from 1 – Approved by the Director
receipt by the 4 – Draft resolution upon 3rd presentation with
HRPSO approved by the Director in major changes
8 days from receipt by the
HRPSO
7 7
Draft MOA 5 - Draft MOA approved by the 5 – Approved by the Director
3 – Draft resolution ap- between the CSC Director upon 1st submission before July 26
proved by the Director from and award-giving 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Approved by the Director
9 to 11 days from receipt by bodies on the upon 2nd presentation with from July 26 to August 10
8
integration of CB minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director
8
the HRPSO
standards to their 3 – Approved by the Director from August 11 to August 18
2 – Draft resolution ap- criteria approved upon 2nd presentation with 2 – Approved by the Director
proved by the Director from by the Director by major changes from August 19 to 31
12 to 15 days from receipt August 15 2 – Approved by the Director 1 – Approved by the Director
by the HRPSO upon 3rd presentation with beyond August 31
NOTE: Timeframe minimal changes
10 APCCD
SUCCESS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
Draft replies to
queries approved
5 - Approved by the Director
upon 1st submission
5 – Replies sent within an
average of less than 8 days 10
INDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS by the Director 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Replies sent within an
within 10 working upon 2nd submission with average of 8.5 to 9 days
11 11
Proposed 5 - Approved by the Director 5 – Proposed standards ap- days upon receipt minimal changes 3 – Replies sent within an
PRIME-HRM upon 1st submission proved by the Director before by the HRPSO 3 – Approved by the Director average of 10 days
Certifying Board February 23 upon 2nd submission with 2 – Replies sent delayed by
(CB) Standards major changes an average of 1 to 5 days
for Center/Seal 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Proposed standards ap- 2 – Approved by the Director 1 – Replies sent delayed
12 12
of Excellence upon 2nd presentation with proved by the Director from upon 3rd submission with by an average of 6 or
submitted to minimal changes February 23 to March 4 minimal changes more days
the Director by 1 – Approved by the Director
March 1 3 – Approved by the Director 3 – Proposed standards ap- upon 3rd submission with
NOTE: Timeframe upon 2nd presentation with proved by the Director from major changes
for this activ- major changes March 5 to March 22
ity is January to
March 1 2 – Approved by the Director 2 – Proposed standards ap-
52 upon 3rd presentation with proved by the Director from 53
minimal changes March 23 to April 22
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
Regional Office Level Individual Level Rating Matrices The APCCD is staffed by three MAJOR STAFF A DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
employees. The three succeeding tables for Employees A, B, and C below FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
show the performance targets and rating scales of these employees.
MAJOR DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION MFO3: Draft replies to 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Replies sent within an
PSED SUCCESS DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS Personnel queries approved Chief upon 1st submission average of 1 day
FINAL OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
INDICATORS FOR QUALITY Like the office level and division level rating matrices, you will note that Policies by the Division
OUTPUTS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
and Chief within 7 4 - Approved by the Division 4 – Replies sent within an
some performance targets are only rated on quality and efficiency, some
1 1
MFO3: Cumulative 25% 5 – Cumulative 33% Standards days upon receipt Chief upon 2nd submission average of 2 to 5 days
Personnel of agencies or more of accredited Services by the HRPSO with minimal changes
on quality and timeliness, and others only on efficiency.
Policies accredited under agencies under CSCAAP
and CSC Agency recommended for Level 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Replies sent within an
Standards Accreditation Pro- ll-Accredited Status under Chief upon 2nd submission average of 6 to 8 days
2 2
Services gram (CSCAAP) PRIME-HRM Central Office Level: Employee A with major changes
granted Level II
Accredited Status 4 – Cumulative 29% to Table 18. Employee A Rating Matrix 2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Replies sent delayed by
under 32% of accredited agencies Chief upon 3rd submission an average of 2 to 3.5 days
PRIME-HRM under CSCAAP recom- MAJOR STAFF A DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION with minimal changes
3 3
mended for accreditation DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
under PRIME-HRM FOR QUALITY 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Replies sent delayed
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
Chief upon 3rd submission by an average of 4 or more
3 – Cumulative 22% to MFO3: 100% of recom- 5 - Acted upon in less than with major changes days
28% of accredited agencies
4 4
Personnel mendations for 5 days from receipt of the
under CSCAAP recom- Policies accreditation recommendation
mended for accreditation and from the CSC
under PRIME-HRM Standards Regional Offices 4 - Acted upon in 5 days
Services acted upon within from receipt of the recom-
5 5
2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of 7 days from mendation
accredited agencies under receipt of the
CSCAAP recommended recommendation 3 - Acted upon within 6 to
for accreditation under
8 days from receipt of the
PRIME-HRM
recommendation
7 7
under PRIME-HRM
1 - Acted upon more than
11 days from receipt of the
recommendation
8 8
Resolutions for 5 – Draft resolution ap-
accreditation proved by the Director from
of agencies 1 to 4 days from receipt by
prepared within 7 the HRPSO
days from receipt
by the HRPSO 4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
9 5 days from receipt by the
HRPSO 9
3 – Draft resolution ap-
10 10
proved by the Director from
6 to 8 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
11 11
proved by the Director from
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
12 12
proved by the Director more
than 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Proposed standards ap- Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
Chief upon 3rd presentation proved by the Division Chief
with major changes beyond March 9
Central Office Level: Employee B MAJOR STAFF B DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION Central Office Level: Employee C
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix FOR QUALITY Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
MAJOR STAFF B DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION MFO3: Draft MOA 5 – Draft MOA approved by 5 – Approved by the Division MAJOR STAFF C DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS Personnel between the CSC the Division Chief upon first Chief before July 22 FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY FOR QUALITY
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS Policies and award giving submission OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
and bodies on the
1 1
MFO3: Resolutions for 5 – Draft resolution ap- Standards integration of CB 4 – Draft MOA approved by the 4 – Approved by the Division MFO3: Proposal on the 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Proposal approved by
Personnel accreditation proved by the Director from Services standards to their Division Chief upon second Chief from July 22 to 26 Personnel PRIME-HRM Ori- Chief upon 1st submission the Division Chief before
Policies of agencies 1 to 4 days from receipt by criteria approved submission with minimal Policies entation approved January 31
and prepared within 7 the HRPSO by the Division changes and by the Division
Standards days from receipt Chief by 31 July Standards Chief by the end 4 - Approved by the Division 4 – Proposal approved by the
2 2
Services by the HRPSO 4 – Draft resolution 2013 3 – Draft MOA approved 3 – Approved by the Division Services of January Chief upon 2nd submission Division Chief from January
approved by the Director in by the Division Chief upon Chief from July 27 to NOTE: Timeframe with minimal changes 31 to February 7
5 days from receipt by the second submission with major August 3 is Jan. 1 to Feb. 15
HRPSO changes 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Proposal approved by the
Chief upon 2nd submission Division Chief from February
3 3 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
6 to 8 days from receipt by
2 – Draft MOA approved by
the Division Chief upon third
submission with minimal
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief from August 4 to 16
with major changes 8 to February 18
3
2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Proposal approved by the
the HRPSO changes Chief upon 3rd submission Division Chief from February
4 4
with minimal changes 19 to March 9
2 – Draft resolution ap- 1 – Draft MOA approved by the 1 – Approved by the Division
proved by the Director from Division Chief upon third sub- Chief beyond April 16 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Proposal approved by
9 to 11 days from receipt by mission with major changes Chief upon 3rd submission the Division Chief beyond
the HRPSO with major changes March 9
Draft replies to 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Replies sent within an
5 1 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director more
queries approved
by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission average of 1 day Meeting with
award giving
5 – Meets all the content
requirements with additional
5 – Report submitted within
the day of the meeting
5
than 11 days from receipt by Chief within 7 4 - Approved by the Division 4 – Replies sent within an bodies convened analyses and policy recom-
the HRPSO days upon receipt Chief upon 2nd submission average of 2 to 5 days by end of May mendations
6 6
by the HRPSO with minimal changes
Proposed 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Proposed standards ap- NOTE: The 4 – Meets all the content 4 – Report submitted within
PRIME-HRM Chief upon 1st submission proved by the Division Chief 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Replies sent within an required output requirements with suggestions 1-2 days after the meeting
Certifying Board before January 31 Chief upon 2nd submission average of 6 to 8 days is a meeting
(CB) Standards with major changes report and the 3 – Meets all the content 3 – Report submitted within
7 for Center/Seal
of Excellence
approved by the
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd presentation
with minimal changes
4 – Proposed standards
approved by the Division
Chief from January 31 to
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
timeframe is 30
days
requirements of the report
2 – Incomplete report
3 days after the meeting
8 8
February 15
NOTE: Timeframe 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Proposed standards 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Replies sent delayed 1 – No meeting conducted / 1 – Report submitted beyond
for this activity is Chief upon 2nd presentation approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission by an average of 4 or more Meeting conducted but no 6 days after the meeting
January to Febru- with major changes Chief from February 8 to with major changes days report
ary 15 February 18
Draft replies to 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Replies sent within an
2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Proposed standards ap- queries approved Chief upon 1st submission average of 1 day
12 12
and bodies on the Chief upon 3rd submission by an average of 4 or more
Standards integration of CB 4 – Draft MOA approved by the 4 – Approved by the Division with major changes days
Services standards to their Division Chief upon second Chief from July 22 to 26
criteria approved submission with minimal
by the Division changes
Chief by 31 July
2013 3 – Draft MOA approved 3 – Approved by the Division
by the Division Chief upon Chief from July 27 to
56 second submission with major August 3
57
changes
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
1
MFO 3: Agencies 5 – Assessment report 5 – Report submitted to the
Personnel accredited under indicates all the content Division Chief within 6 days
Policies CSC Agency requirements with additional after the conduct of the
and Accreditation analyses assessment
Standards Program
2
Services (CSCAAP) 4 – Assessment report 4 – Report submitted to the
assisted and indicates all the content Division Chief within 7 to 8
assessed for requirements with suggestions days after the conduct of the
Level II- assessment
Accredited Status
3 Under PRIME-
HRM
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
6 Recommenda-
tions for Level II-
5 – Recommendations
consolidated within 6 or
Accredited Status less days Steps 9 and 10 are
under PRIME-
subsumed under the
7
HRM of agencies 4 – Recommendations
accredited consolidated within 7 to
under CSCAAP 8 days second stage of PMS
cycle-Performance
consolidated
within 10 days 3 - Recommendations
8 Monitoring and
from receipt of consolidated within 9
all recommenda- -11 days
tions
2 – Recommendations Coaching
consolidated within 12-15
Performance
days
9 1 – Recommendations
consolidated beyond
15 days
Monitoring
10
11
12
& Coaching
58
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools
2
You must put monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and tools in place
so that timely and appropriate steps can be taken towards meeting
performance targets and organizational goals. This requires an
information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. 3
Below are suggested monitoring and coaching tools:
9
HRM 15
Certifying
Board (CB)
Standards
for Cen-
ter/Seal of
Excellence 10
Draft Staff A, B 7 days
replies to
queries
&C upon
receipt the 11
HRPSO
Organize
meeting
Staff C EO May
12
with
award-giv-
ing bodies
61
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools
1 1
2nd
a
Task No. or the Signa- the drafter by the r
3rd
if Taken tory of the supervisor t
from WFP Document 4th e
3 Activity Meeting
Mechanism/s
Others Remarks
3
Memo
One-in-One Group (Pls. Specify)
Doc. No. Signatory Subject Action Date As- Date Status Remarks
4 4
Monitoring
Of- signed Signed
ficer
7 Supervisors and coaches play a critical role at this stage. They can provide
7
an enabling environment, introduce interventions to improve team
8 performance, and develop individual potentials. 8
To reiterate, it is important that you establish an information system as Please indicate the date in the appropriate box when the monitoring was conducted.
10 10
Immediate Superior Head of Office
11 3 11
12 12
62 63
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools
64 65
Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools
2
accomplishments at the end of a given period.
4
• Date when evaluation was completed
• Name, signature, and position of supervisors that approve the
completed evaluation form and the date when they made the approval
• Major Final Outputs that your office and division are contributing to
(Step 5)
5
• SMART performance targets or success indicators (Steps 4 , 5, 6, and 7)
• Actual accomplishments vis-à-vis performance targets
6
• Ratings on quality, efficiency and/or timeliness on a scale of 1 to 5 (Step 8)
• Remarks of supervisor
• Name, position and signature of Head of the Performance Management 7
Team
• Name, signature, and position of rater and date when evaluation was
completed 8
To reflect the cascading approach of the SPMS towards achieving
organizational goals, three kinds of forms are suggested: 9
• Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) Form is
10
accomplished by Agency Directors
• Division Performance Commitment and Review (DPCR) Form is
accomplished by Division Chiefs
• Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) Form is
accomplished by individual staff in all the units of the organization
11
Make sure that the performance targets listed in the OPCR, DPCR, and
12
IPCR are linked and aligned towards achieving your organization’s Major
Final Outputs.
66 67
Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools
Chart 7. Alignment of OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR Below are the 7 columns in the OPCR and DPCR form:
OFFICE PERFORMANCE
COMMITMENT AND REVIEW DIVISION PERFORMANCE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(OPCR) FORM COMMITMENT AND REVIEW
(DPCR) FORM Major Final Success Allotted Divisions Actual Ac- Rating for Quality Remarks
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
Outputs Indicators Budget or Persons complish- (Q), Efficiency
1 COMMITMENT AND REVIEW
(IPCR) FORM
(MFOs) (Targets + Account- ments (E), Timeliness 1
Measures) able (T), and Average
Score (Ave)
2 2
Q E T Ave
3 3
The upper part of the OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR identifies:
4 • The name of person making the performance commitment, his/her 4
position in the organization, and signature
For offices/units that perform STO or GAS activities, indicate your
5 5
• The rating period
core or support functions on the first column in lieu of MFOs.
• The date when the performance commitment was made at the beginning
of the rating period
6 6
Below are the 5 columns in the IPCR form:
• The name and position of the supervisors approving the performance
commitment and the date when they made the approval at the beginning (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
7 7
of the rating period.
Major Final Success Indica- Actual Accomplish- Rating for Quality Remarks
The main portion of OPCR, DPCR and IPCR is a table with several columns: Outputs tors (Targets + ments (Q), Efficiency (E),
(MFOs) Measures) Timeliness (T),
8 8
The OPCR and DPCR have 7 columns The IPCR has 5 columns
and Average
• Column 1: Major Final Outputs • Column 1: Major Final Outputs Score (Ave)
12 Average (Ave)
12
• Column 7: Remarks
68 69
The OPCR Form The DPCR Form
Rating Period:
months and year Rating Period:
months and year
A Representative of
the PMT Secretariat
assesses the
completed evaluation The Head of the PMT The Agency Head
form at the signs here at the gives the final rating The Office Director
beginning and end of beginning and end of at the end of the gives the final rating
the rating period the rating period rating period
70 71
The IPCR Form
Name and Position
of Individual Staff
Rating Period:
months and year
Date when
The Office performance
Head who commitment
approves the is made at the
performance beginning of
commitment rating period
signs at the
beginning of
rating period
Performance
his/her comments on
the ratee and his/her
The Ratee signs recommendations
here after discussion
Review &
of evaluation with
Division Chief
Evaluation
The Divsion Chief
(Rater) signs here
72
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
2
and division levels down to the individual staff level.
For the OPCR and DPCR forms, you should have completed the
first four columns of the table at the beginning of the performance
monitoring period: 3
• Column 1 – Major Final Outputs that your office or division is contrib-
uting to. Add more rows if your office or division is contributing to more 4
than two MFOs (Steps 5 and 6).
7
• Column 4 – Divisions accountable for each performance target for the OPCR.
– Persons Accountable for each performance target for the DPCR.
10
11
12
75
10
11
12
5
6
3
76
2
9
For the IPCR form, you should have completed the first two columns at the beginning of the performance monitoring period:
• Column 1 – Major Final Outputs that your division is contributing to (Steps 5, 6, and 7).
• Column 2 – Success indicators or performance targets of each individual staff per MFO for the monitoring period (Steps 5, 6,
and 7).
During the actual evaluation, the rater describes the actual accomplishments of the ratee vis-à-vis the performance targets on
the 5th column for the OPCR and DPCR forms or the 3rd column for the IPCR.
11
1
8
7
12
10
9
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
In the table above, there are five rows of accomplishments. The first two
COMPUTING THE NUMERICAL RATINGS accomplishments are rated on quality and timeliness. The third accomplishment is
As explained in Step 8 (Develop the Rating Scale), you do not need to rate rated on quality, efficiency, and timeliness. The fourth accomplishment is rated on
every performance accomplishment along all three dimensions of quality, quality and efficiency. The last accomplishment is rated on efficiency.
1 the rating period should have helped clarify the expected outputs of each
and dividing it by the number of dimensions used. In the table above, the first 1
performance target (e.g., activity report, draft resolution, draft policy)and
accomplishment got a rating of 4 on quality and 4 on timeliness totaling 8.
determine under what dimension it will be rated. The table below shows an
2 2
Divide this by the 2 dimensions and you get an average rating of 4. The third
example of actual accomplishments and the ratings.
accomplishment got a rating of 5 on quality, 5 on timeliness, and 4 on efficiency
totaling 14. Divide this by the 3 dimensions and you get an average rating of 4.67.
7 7
total by the table below shows a sample summary list of individual performance ratings and
Director by the end of number of
the overall rating of the HRPSO:
February dimensions:
5 + 5 + 4 = 14 ÷ 3 Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staff under HRPSO
Draft replies to queries Draft replies to 75 queries submit- 5 5 4 4.67
8 8
= 4.67
submitted to the Direc- ted to the Director within 9 working Individual Staff under HRPSO
tor within 10 working days upon receipt by the HRPSO
HRPSO Secretary 3.99 Satisfactory
days upon receipt by Final Average
9 9
HRPSO Administrative Asst. 4.1 Very Satisfactory
the HRPSO Rating is
obtained by APCCD Chief 4 Very Satisfactory
Position paper/ com- Draft Position paper on HRMO 4 3 3.5 adding all the Average individual
APCCD Employee A 3.6 Satisfactory
ments on legislative Item in the LGUs submitted on the
10 10
average ratings rating is obtained by
bills submitted within deadline set by the CSLO vertically and APCCD Employee B 5 Outstanding dividing the total of
the time frame pre- dividing the
APCCD Employee C 4.03 Very Satisfactory individual ratings
scribed by the CSLO sum (Total
11 11
(44.32) by the number
Rating) by the PSSD Chief 2.3 Unsatisfactory
of individuals in the
APCCD staff 3 APCCD staff recommended for 5 5 number of PSSD Employee A 4 Very Satisfactory
office (11):
recommended for train- training/HR programs accomplish-
PSSD Employee B 3.3 Satisfactory 3.99+ 4.1 + 4 + 3.6 + 5 +
ments:
ing/HR programs
4 + 3.5 + 4.67 + QSSD Chief 5 Outstanding + 4.03 + 2.3 + 4 + 3.3 + 5
78 79
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
2 2
approved by the Commission within 15 days
from receipt of recommendation from the
CSCRO
3 3
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Stan- 5 5 5
dards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved
by the Commission by end of the 1st
Quarter
5 5
MOA between the CSC and award giving 3 3 3
bodies on the integration of CB standards
to their criteria signed by end of September
2013
10 10
If you follow Step 11, you should
11 l be able to use your OPCR, DPCR, 11
and IPCR forms.
12 12
80 81
At the end of the rating period, the Heads
of Office 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
Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation
2
dress these gaps, career paths, and alternatives.
In coordination with the HRM Office, the Heads of Office and supervi-
sors must introduce appropriate developmental interventions based on
the results of the performance evaluation especially for employees with 3
Unsatisfactory and Poor performance ratings.
4
SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Below is a suggested format of the professional development plan for 5
the continuing career development of staff.
You can use this plan to enhance the skills or develop potentials of
6
employees who perform well and to improve or correct performance of
employees who fail to meet targets.
7
10
11
12
85
86 87
Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation
Awards nominees for various awards categories. Key Players and • Key players include the following:
4 ¤ HRM Office
¤ Head of Office
¤ Supervisor
5 ¤ Individual Employees
• Functions are clearly spelled out
• There is an Office Order/Executive Order issued
you should be able to link the SPMS Goal Aligned to • Table of MFOs enumerating all products and
with other HR systems. Agency Mandate and services of the organization
7 Organizational Priorities •MFOs are aligned to address
and Outputs/Outcomes ¤ Agency strategic priorities
Based ¤ Agency mandates, vision, mission
8 ¤ OPIF Logframe
(Step 3) ¤ Philippine Development Plan
¤ Organizational/ Sectoral/ Societal Goals
9 • Success indicators are identified for each MFO
• Success indicators are SMART
12
• Agency Guidelines provide that the average rating
of individual staff member should not go higher
* Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence than the collective performance assessment of
the office
88 89
User-friendly • One Form for Commitments (target setting) 1. Performance Planning and Commitment
Agency SPMS Forms and Rating (evaluation) for both organization • SPMS calendar shows that officials and
and individuals employees are required to submit their
(Step 10) • Commitment and Rating Forms for both the commitments prior to the start of the
organization and individual performance are rating period
similar and easy to accomplish • SPMS calendar allots time for PMT review
• SPMS Forms that operationalize the four-stage and recommendations of the performance
PMS commitments
¤ Performance Commitment and Rating Forms • SPMS calendar indicates period for Head
include columns for MFOs, success indicators of Agency/Heads of Offices’ approval of the
(targets + measures), actual accomplishments, office performance commitment and individual
and rating performance commitments
¤ Commitments are agreed upon by the
2. Performance Monitoring and Coaching
Management and officials/employees as
• Feedback sessions on the performance of the
indicated in the OPCR and IPCR Forms
offices as well as the officials/employees are
¤ Space is provided for comments and
provided in the guidelines and indicated in the
recommendations for individual employee
SPMS calendar
development
• Interventions are given to those behind work
¤ Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form/
targets. In the Employee Feedback From, a space
Journal
is provided for recommended interventions
¤ Professional Development Plan
• There is a form or logbook to record
Information System • M&E mechanisms and information system are critical incidents, schedule of coaching, and
that Supports M&E established action plan
• There is a database/summary of targets and
3. Performance Review and Evaluation
accomplishment which shall be the basis for
• Office accomplishments are assessed against
verification of accomplishments
the success indicators and the allotted budget
Communication Plan • There is a program that orients agency officials against the actual expenses as indicated in the
and employees on the new and revised policies Performance Commitment and Rating Forms
on the SPMS and provided in the guidelines
• The orientation schedules are indicated in the • Annual Agency Performance Review Conference
SPMS calendar is conducted as found in the SPMS calendar
Four-stage PMS cycle are described in the Agency • Individual employee performance is assessed
SPMS Cycle
Guidelines/Manual: based on the commitments made at the start of
• Performance Planning and Commitment the rating period
(Step 2)
• Performance Monitoring and Coaching • Agency SPMS rating scale should fall within
• Performance Review and Evaluation the range prescribed in MC 13, s. 1999 (Revised
• Performance Rewarding and Development Policies on the PES)
Planning
90 91
Although the SPMS is not totally new, it still requires a transition
4. Performance Rewarding and Development
Planning period and a significant shift in orientation regarding performance
measurement. The SPMS necessitates a change in the organizational
• There is a mechanism for discussion of
assessment results by the Head of Office and culture from the leadership down to the rank and file. As such, the
supervisors with the individual employee at the change process needs to be managed carefully and communicated clearly
end of the rating period to everyone in the organization.
• There is a provision for the drawing up of a
You will need a comprehensive change management and communication
Professional Development Plan to improve
or correct performance of employees with plan to orient employees on the essential features of the SPMS so
Unsatisfactory or Poor performance rating that in the process, you will be able to obtain their buy-in, support,
• Recommendations for developmental and engagement.
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
If you follow all the items in the checklist
l
of performance management system with
the agency rewards and incentives for top
above, you should be able to craft your
performing individuals, units, and offices
• The results of the performance evaluation
Agency SPMS Guidelines.
are used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and
rewards and incentives
92 93
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Tel. No. 931-8092 / 931-7939
http://www.csc.gov.ph/