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

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

3. 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?

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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)”

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

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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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”

16. 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%

17. 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.

18. Performance –Related Incentive Scheme

19. 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

20. 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