1 / 18

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGNING AND FILING OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENT

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGNING AND FILING OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENT. BRIEFING TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION 31 AUGUST 2011. OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION. INTRODUCTION Setting the context The PMDS for the Senior Management Service (SMS)

jhackett
Download Presentation

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGNING AND FILING OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGNING AND FILING OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENT BRIEFING TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION 31 AUGUST 2011

  2. OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION • INTRODUCTION • Setting the context • The PMDS for the Senior Management Service (SMS) • THE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT (PA) PROCESS • Roles • Previous trends • Progress for the 2011/2012 Financial Year • Analysis of reasons for non-compliance • RECOMMENDATIONS • CONCLUSION

  3. INTRODUCTION Setting the context • Heads of Department (HoDs) are effectively the administrative drivers of government’s programmes. • They are responsible for ensuring the achievement of the service delivery objectives of their departments. • It is therefore important to hold them accountable for the achievement of the objectives within their scope of responsibility.

  4. THE PMDS FOR SMS The Performance Management and Development System (PMDS): • Provides a mechanism for promoting accountability. • Helps to clarify responsibilities, priorities and performance expectations between the HoD and the supervising Executive Authority (EA) through the signing of the Performance Agreement (PA). • Creates a sound basis for administrative decisions (i.e. in managing performance, the awarding of bonuses, ensuring accountability and delivery) when done properly.

  5. THE PMDS FOR SMS (CONT…) • The PMDS was used as basis for the Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs which was developed by the PSC and adopted by Cabinet in November 2000. • The PMDS policy consolidates the provisions regarding performance management and development for Senior Managers in the Public Service. • It was issued as a directive by the Minister for Public Service and Administration (MPSA) in terms of Part III.B3 of Chapter 4 of the Public Service Regulations, 2001.

  6. THE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT PROCESS • The PMDS requires all senior managers (including HoDs) to enter into Performance Agreements (PAs) by the end of May of each year. • Newly appointed SMS members have to complete their PAs within the first three months of appointment. • These PAs should focus on one specific financial year and should be reviewed annually. • The content of the PAs should clearly and directly devolve from the department’s strategic plan. • Two half yearly performance reviews should take place during the financial year prior to the annual performance assessment.

  7. ThePA Process (cont’d) The role of the Public Service Commission (PSC) • The PSC maintains a database of the PAs of HoDs and advises both the EAs and HoDs on compliance and quality aspects of the PAs. • The PSC further facilitates the performance evaluation process and issues annual guidelines to compliment the Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs. • The PSC also chairs all the evaluation panels and manages the process by, among others, providing secretarial support to the Evaluation Panels.

  8. ThePA Process (cont’d) The role of the Executive Authority (EA): • EAs should conclude PAs with their HoDs at the beginning of each financial year. • In terms of the Framework, the responsibility to manage and evaluate performance based on the PA resides with the relevant EA. • At least two formal half-yearly reviews of the performance of the HoD should be conducted. The first review should be in the middle of the financial year and the other at the end. • The EA must also arrange for the evaluation of the HoD’s performance in line with the Guidelines for the Evaluation of HoDs.

  9. Compliance Trends A comparison of overall submission of PAs of national and provincial HoDs with the previous three financial years.

  10. Progress: 2011/2012 Financial Year • There were 47 HoD posts in National Departments for this cycle of which 07 were vacant. 40 PAs were expected. By the due date, only 14 had been filed with the PSC. • A further 8 PAs have since been received.

  11. Progress: 2011/2012 Financial Year PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENTS • There were 111 HoD posts in Provincial Departments for this cycle and 23 were vacant. 88 PAs were expected and by the due date, yet only 55 had been filed with the PSC. • A further 15 PAs have since been filed with the PSC.

  12. ASSESSMENT OF PAs RECEIVED • All PAs received by the PSC are assessed for compliance with the mandatory provisions of the PMDS and for quality. • The PSC has developed a standard checklist for assessing PAs which is made available through the HoD Evaluation Guidelines every year. • Formal advice is sent to the relevant EA and HoD if gaps are identified regarding compliance and quality. • The assessment of PAs in this financial year has reflected uneven levels of compliance.

  13. ASSESSMENT OF PAs RECEIVED (cont) • Areas of non-compliance picked up during the assessment of PAs are, in the main, the following: - the due dates for signing and filing are not adhered to. For the 2011/2012 financial year, only 54% of PAs were filed with the PSC by the due date. - almost half the PAs did not properly identify mediators as required by the PMDS. This can lead to delays in dealing with disputes when they arise. - the requirement for a five day deployment at the coalface is also not complied with in most cases. Departments sometimes even argue that HoDs do not have time for this.

  14. ASSESSMENT OF PAs RECEIVED (cont) • Concerns around quality aspects are the following: - There are many cases where KRAs are still conflated with CMCs. This results in PAs not capturing the key strategic trust of the department in the Strategic Plan. - Indicators are at times not in line with the SMART principle. - Timeframes can be vague which makes monitoring and evaluation difficult.

  15. ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE • There are no clear reasons for such non-compliance and the PSC is of the view that the Performance Management Process is simply not treated as high priority. • There may also be poor administrative support in the offices of the political and administrative principals. Such support is particularly important for EAs and HoDs who may not be familiar with the details of the process . • The PSC arranged a workshop for officials at national level who assist EAs and HoDs with this process. These workshops are to be rolled out in provinces.

  16. RECOMMENDATIONS • EAs need to play their role as provided for in chapter 4 of the SMS Handbook and ensure that the performance management process is adhered to. • Performance Agreements should be entered into and filed with the PSC timeously. • There should be strong working relations between the Presidency and the PSC to ensure full compliance.

  17. CONCLUSION • The PSC will continue to monitor the performance management process of HoDs and report on progress. • Parliament should exercise its authority to ensure that all PAs are filed with the PSC.

  18. THANK YOU!

More Related