Mr. Rogelio Estrada Division Chief, HRPRD of HRDO DEVELOPING THE RATING SCALE “Kawani ng Bayan:...

Mr. Rogelio EstradaDivision Chief, HRPRD of HRDO

DEVELOPING THE RATING SCALE

“Kawani ng Bayan: Tatak-UP – Magalang, Mahusay, Mapagmalasakit” Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)

Orientation and Workshop

University of the Philippines DilimanOffice of the Vice Chancellor for Administration

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

Measuring Performance through the Years

1963 Performance

Rating

1978New Performance Appraisal System

1989Autonomy of Agencies in

Developing their PES

1999Revised PES and

360-Degree Evaluation

1993Performance

Evaluation System

2005Performance Management System-Office Performance

Evaluation System





SPMS Paradigm Shift

Source: Guide Book on the STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, page 3

AREAPARADIGM SHIFT

From To

Perspective Performance evaluation Performance management

Focus Activities and inputs Outputs and outcomes

Indicators Performance indicators (e.g. number of appointments processed)

Success Indicators (e.g. response time)

Performance alignment Focus on individual (competition)

Align individual to office/ organization (teamwork and collaboration

Role of Supervisor Evaluator Coach and Mentor





DEVELOPING THE RATING SCALETwo sub-steps: •Determining the dimensions on which performance or accomplishments are to be rated. •Operationalizing the numerical and adjectival ratings.





DIMENSIONS TO RATE PERFORMANCE How to determine? •Depending on how success indicators are stated

– Performance can be rate along the dimensions of quality, efficiency, and/or timeliness using the listed elements above as guidelines.

– rating needs to be discussed within the unit and between the supervisors and staff (i.e., raters and ratees) to clarify the expected outputs at the beginning of the performance monitoring period.

•Because performance is measured within a scheduled monitoring period, all accomplishments always involve the dimension of time. As such, performance is always rated on either efficiency and/or timeliness.





5

4

3

2

1 Ratee

Date: ________________

Date Date

Q1

E2

T3

A4

Final Average Rating

Date Date

Legend: 1 – Quantity 2 – Efficiency 3 – Timeliness 4- Average

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (IPCR)

I,_______________________________________ of the ____________________________________________________ Division of________________________________________________ commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets in accordancewith the indicated measures for the period ____________________________ to ___________________, 20 ______.

Outstanding 130% and above

Very Satisfactory 115%-129%

Satisfactory 90%-114%

Unsatisfactory 51%-89%

Poor 50% and below

Reviewed by: Approved by:

Immediate Supervisor Head of Office

Output Actual AccomplishmentsRating

Remarks

Support Functions:

I certify that I discussed my assessment of the performance w ith the employee

Final Rating by:

Comments and Recommendations for Development Purposes

Employee Supervisor Head of Office

Date

Success Indicator(Targets+Measures)

Discussed with Assessed by:





THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE

• Quality or Effectiveness

• Efficiency

• Timeliness





THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE

1. Quality or Effectiveness - getting the right things done. It refers to the degree to which objectives are achieved as intended and the extent to which issues are addressed with a certain degree of excellence.

Quality or Effectiveness involves the following elements:–Acceptability–Meeting standards–Client satisfaction with services rendered–Accuracy–Completeness or comprehensiveness of reports–Creativity or innovations–Personal initiatives





DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE2. Efficiency - is the extent to which targets are

accomplished using the minimum amount of time or resources.

Efficient performance applies to continuing tasks or frontline services (e.g., issuance of licenses, permits, clearances, and certificates). It involves the following elements:2.Standard response time

3.Number of requests/applications acted upon over number of requests/applications received

4.Optimum use of resources (e.g. money, logistics, office supplies)

5.Meeting deadlines as set in the work plan





DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE3. Timeliness – measures if the targeted deliverable was

done within the scheduled or expected timeframe. Timely performance involves:

– Meeting deadlines as set in the work plan

Note: Not all performance accomplishments need to be rated along all three dimensions of quality, efficiency and timeliness. Some accomplishments may only be rated on any combination of two or three dimensions. In other cases, only one dimension may be sufficient. Consider all the elements involved listed above in each dimension and use them as guides to determine how performance will be rated.





DIMENSIONS TO RATE PERFORMANCE





ESTABLISHING THE RATING SCALE“On each dimension of quality, efficiency, and timeliness, rate performance using a numerical scale ranging from 1to 5—with 1as the lowest and 5as the highest. The table below explains the meaning of each rating:





RATING SCALE OPERATIONALIZATION

Adjectival Rating % Numerical Rating

Outstanding 130% and above 5Very Satisfactory 115% - 129% 4Satisfactory 90% - 114% 3Unsatisfactory 51% - 89% 2Poor 50% and below 1

The 130% and above range for Outstanding rating and the 50% and below range for Poor rating 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 Adoption of a Performance-Based Incentive System for Government Employees).





CSC SAMPLE RATING SCALE





DEVELOPING A RATING SCALEFORM 4 – HRDO SAMPLE





MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS

SUCCESS INDICATORS

5 With no revision on draft of evaluation

5 Processed request within 5 days or less

5 Processed a request in 1 day

4 Returned once with minor revision on draft

4 Processed request within 6 days

4 Processed a request in 2-3 days

3 Returned once with major revision on draft

3 Processed request within 7 days


2 Returned twice with minor/major revision on draft

2 Processed request within 8-13 days


1 Returned thrice or more for revision on draft

1 Processed request for 14 days or more

1 Processed a request beyond 7 days

Planning and Research SectionMFO - Manpower needs analysis and management of items based on government and university policies

100% of requests for filling up vacant positions evaluated with completet required documents on a first in first out basis. Processing per request is seven (7) days including evaluation and draft preparation until forwarded to the Division Chief.

Q1 E2T3






MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS

SUCCESS INDICATORS

5 Work is approved and accepted as final; Accuracy 100%.

5 5 Within 58 Days or Earlier

4 Work is highly acceptable; Work revised on first submission with minimal changes.

4 4 Within 59-65 Days

3 Work is fairly good and normally acceptable; Work revised 2-3 times; with few errors

3 3 Within 66 - 83 Days

Note: Time frame for this activity is 2 1/2 months or 75 days

2 Draft frequently revised with major corrections and mistakes

2 2 Within 84 - 149 Days

1 Work is consistently not acceptable

1 1 Within 150 Days or more

Monitoring and Evaluation Section100% Percent of Submitted PRs Encoded and Recorded by second week of October 2013.

MFO - Employee (REPS and Administrative) Performance Target/Rating Monitoring and Evaluation

Q1 E2T3






MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS

SUCCESS INDICATORS

5 Average outstanding rating of participants

5 Monthly implementation of training course, but not more than 45 days

5

4 Average very satisfactory rating of participants

4 Quarterly implementation of training course

4

3 Average satisfactory rating of participants

3 Semi-Annual implementation of training course

3

2 Average unsatisfactory rating of participants

2 Annual implementation of training course

2

1 Average poor rating of participants

1 No training implemented

1

Training Section Section

Q1 E2T3

Training course implemented within 45 days upon receipt of approved design proposal

MFO- Develop and Implement Training Programs

THANK YOU!

Mr. Rogelio Estrada Division Chief, HRPRD of HRDO DEVELOPING THE RATING SCALE “Kawani ng Bayan:...

Documents

Transcript of Mr. Rogelio Estrada Division Chief, HRPRD of HRDO DEVELOPING THE RATING SCALE “Kawani ng Bayan:...