Performance Management & Evaluation System India: Performance Management & Evaluation System (PMES) Dr. Prajapati Trivedi Secretary, Performance Management Cabinet Secretariat

Results-Framework Document An Instrument for Improving Government Performance Dr. Prajapati Trivedi Secretary, Performance Management Cabinet Secretariat

What is RFD? (Content of RFD) seeks to address three basic questions: What are department’s main objectives for the year? What actions are proposed to achieve these objectives? How to determine progress made in implementing these actions?

2. Format of Results-Framework Document (RFD) Section 1 Ministry’s Vision, Mission, Objectives and Functions. Section 2 Inter se priorities among key objectives, success indicators and targets. Section 3 Trend values of the success indicators. Section 4 Description and definition of success indicators and proposed measurement methodology. Section 5 Specific performance requirements from other departments that are critical for delivering agreed results. Section 6 Outcome / Impact of activities of department/ ministry

Target / Criteria Values Section 2 of Results-Framework Document Criteria / Success Indicators Weight Target / Criteria Values Excellent Very Good Fair Poor 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 1 % Increase in number of primary health care centers .50 30 25 20 10 5 2 % Increase in number of people with access to a primary health center within 20 KMs .30 18 16 14 12 3 Number of hospitals with ISO 9000 certification by December 31, 2009 .20 500 450 400 300 250

Section 3:Trend Value of Success Indicators 5-year Trend Objective Actions Success Indicator Unit Actual Value for FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Target FY 09/10 Projected FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Objective 1 Action 1 No. of Schools No. 500 650 800 1000 1400 Action 2 Action 3 Objective 2 Objective 3

3. How does RFD work? (The Process) 1 2 3 Beginning of Year During the Year End of Year Prepare RFD Monitor Progress Evaluate Performance April 1 October 1 June 1

How does RFD work? (The Process) Departments incorporate PMD / ATF suggestions RFDs reviewed by PMD and ATF Departments send RFD to Cabinet Secretariat RFDs approved by HPC on Government Performance Departments place RFDs on Departmental Websites Minister approves RFD

4. Origins of RFD Policy June 2009 September 2009 President announced Government will within 100 days: Establish mechanisms for performance monitoring and performance evaluation in government on a regular basis September 2009 Prime Minister issued an order to implement “Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES)”

5. What has been the progress in implementation? Phase I 2009-2010 59 Departments RFDs Prepared Results Conveyed Phase II 2010-2011 62 Departments RFDs Prepared Strategy Development 760 Subordinate Offices Sevottam

What has been the progress in implementation? Phase III 2011-2012 80 Departments 74 RFDs for Departments 6 Departments RFDS for RCs Mandatory Indicators Anti-corruption measures E-Office ISO 9001 Standards

Implementation at State-Level Already begun implementation Maharashtra Punjab Delhi Karnataka Kerala Himachal Pradesh Wanting to move forward Orissa Bihar Assam Jammu and Kashmir Gujarat

A Taxonomy of Performance Evaluation Approaches Managerial Performance Agency Performance Cell # 1 Performance Ex-ante Cell # 2 Results-Based Management Framework Performance Ex-post Cell # 4 Cell # 3 Impact Studies

A SOLUTION! PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM Performance Information System Performance Evaluation System Performance Incentive System Institutional Arrangements (“Who” Should Evaluate) Criteria (“How” to Evaluate)

Results-Based Management Framework BEGINNING OF YEAR END OF YEAR Step 1 Criteria Selection Step 2 Criteria Weight Selection Step 3 Criteria Value Selection Step 4 Performance Evaluation (Composite Score) “FAIR” to Officials “FAIR” to country Negotiated “FREELY”

Target / Criteria Values Example of Evaluation of RFD Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Criteria / Success Indicators Weight Target / Criteria Values Achievement Raw Score Weighted Raw Score Excellent Very Good Fair Poor 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 1 % Increase in number of primary health care centers .50 30 25 20 10 5 15 75% 37.5% 2 % Increase in number of people with access to a primary health center within 20 KMs .30 18 16 14 12 27% 3 Number of hospitals with ISO 9000 certification by December 31, 2009 .20 500 450 400 300 250 600 20% Composite Score 84.5%

Use of Evaluation for Public Policies and Programmes Arrive at a uniform conclusion across government about the departmental performance Reduce fuzziness resulting from multiple principals with multiple and conflicting goals. Make if difficult to “pass the buck” at the end of the year and blaming others Increase level of accountability. Provide a framework for delivery of plan targets. Allow a more rigorous evaluation of the policies Make it possible to undertake other reforms to increase autonomy of government departments.

Performance –Related Incentive Scheme

Lessons Learned Audacity of size – Pilots remain pilots Must have a composite index for performance There must be rankings for it to work Accountability must be assigned to a person Accountability trickles down Vertical and Horizontal alignment necessary It must be wholly indigenous effort

Lessons Learned Large-scale intensive training important You need a champion Location of Champion Matters Collaborate with academic institutions & other government departments Effective Communications is important