|
|
|
|
COVER STORY | Accountable PerformanceCOVER STORY | Accountable Performance
D-DAY IS FINALLY HERE
HOLDING ministries and bureaucrats accountable for result-oriented implementation of governance is no longer a dream in an opium den—it is happening here, now, and with an urgency, planning and purpose never before undertaken in the history of modern India.This exclusive report by Anil Tyagishows how this exercise, directly under the Prime Minister’s control, is shaking up the whole system of governance from top to bottom and could benchmark the most serious implementation of administrative reforms ever attempted in independent India.
DRIVEN by the belief that nations and governments that do not perform are doomed, ultimately, to perish under the weight of their own inefficiency and bureaucratic sloth, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has finally taken the bull of maladministration by the horns. In a no-nonsense directive innocuously labelled “Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES) for Government Departments”, dated 11/9/2009, he has ordered his Cabinet Secretary to undertake what could be the most ambitious and challenging task ever assigned to any head of bureaucracy: Every department and ministry will, in a time-bound manner, prepare a Results-Framework Document (RFD). The helmsman for this project is former Harvard Professor and World Bank economist Prajapati Trivedi, who has the new title, Secretary, Performance Management, and works in close cooperation with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia, and Cabinet Secretary KM Chandrasekhar. This could arguably be the most happening mission ever undertaken by the Indian government during the last 63 years.
Shorn of bureaucratese, RFD means: Are you implementing the administrative agenda? Are you keeping deadlines? Are you showing results? If not, why not? And if you’re not performing, then get ready to face the music. No more excuses.
| Column 1 | Column 2 | Column 3 | Column 4 | Column 5 | Column 6 | | Objective | Weight | Actions | Success Indicator | Unit | Weight | Target / Criteria Value | | Excellant | Very Good | Good | Fair | Poor | | 100% | 90% | 80% | 70% | 60% | | Objective 1 | | Action 1 | | | | | | | | | | | Action 2 | | | | | | | | | | | Action 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Objective 2 | | Action 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | Action 2 | | | | | | | | | | | Action 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Objective 3 | | Action 1 | | | | | | | | | | | Action 2 | | | | | | | | | | | Action 3 | | | | | | | | |
The guidelines are succinct. They are imbued with a unique perspective that recognizes the difficulty of administering a nation in which there may be differences between political and administrative goals and cultures. For this reason, the format of the RFD is a unique memorandum of understanding between the administrator and his political boss: It is a record of appreciation between a Minister representing the people’s mandate, and the Secretary of a department responsible for implementing this mandate. This document contains not only the agreed objectives, policies, programmes and projects but also success indicators and targets to measure progress in implementing them. To ensure the successful implementation of agreed actions, RFD may also include necessary operational autonomy that is considered necessary to achieve the desired results.
 As Trivedi puts it: “This will be akin to a Bill of Rights for government functionaries. It will liberate the bureaucracy from vagaries of ad-hocism, subjectivity and uncertainty.” In the first phase, four ministries — Home, Finance, Defence and External Affairs — are excluded from the performance management purview. All the rest will be rated on scales ranging from “excellent” to “poor”. All ministries have been instructed to implement strategic planning for the next five years to ensure they are moving in the right direction. That is, they should not only do “things right” but also do the “right things”. Performance results will be made public and the markings will determine senior promotions as well as post-retirement appointments.
Says Trivedi: “For the first time in the history of modern India, the performance of departments and Ministries of the Government of India will be measured. When you don’t have measurements, how do you give incentives?” That is perhaps why recommendations of the 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions relating to performance-related incentives could not be implemented. The government is seriously examining proposals under which Secretaries who perform well are likely to receive as high as a 40 per cent bonus on their base salaries. In fact, under these proposals, departmental bonuses could be linked to the RFD. Under the reformed performance appraisal system, no official within a department will receive more than six out of 10 marks in his promotion or confidential report if that department is rated at six out of 10 in the RFD. In other words, no Secretary will now have the freedom to mark everybody as “excellent” in the face of the new, tangible benchmarking of the department as a whole.
Table 2 - Mandatory Success Indicators
Each RFD must contain the following mandatory indicators for 2010-11 to promote systemic efficiency and responsiveness of depts
| Objective | Actions | Success Indicator | Unit | Weight | Target / Criteria Value | | | | | | Excellent | Very Good | Good | Fair | Poor | | | | | | | 100% | 90% | 80% | 70% | 60% | | (1) Efficient Functiontioning of the RED System | Timely submission of Draft for Approval | On-time submssion | Date | 2% | Mar.5 2010 | Mar.8 2010 | Mar. 9 2010 | Mar.10 2010 | Mar.11 2010 | | Timely submission of Results | On-time Submission | Date | 1% | May2 2011 | May3 2011 | May4 2011 | May5 2011 | May6 2011 | | Finalize a Strategic Plan | Finalize the Strategic Plan for next 5 years | Date | 2% | Dec.10 2010 | Dec.15 2010 | Dec.20 2010 | Dec.24 2010 | Dec31 2010 | | (2) Improving Internal Efficiency / responsiveness / service delivery of Ministry / Department | Develop RFDs for all Responsibility Centers | % of RCs Covered | % | 2% | 100 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 80 | | Implementation of Sevottam | Create a Sevottam complaint system to implement, monitor and review citizen's Charter | Date | 1% | Oct. 1 2010 | Oct. 5 2010 | Oct. 11 2010 | Oct.15 2010 | Oct.20 2010 | | Create a Sevottam complaint system to redress and monitor public Grievances | Date | 1% | Oct 1 2010 | Oct 5 2010 | Oct.11 2010 | Oct 15 2010 | Oct.20 2010 | | Independent Audit of Implementation of Citizen's Charter | % | 1% | 100 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 80 | | Independent Audit of implementation of public grievance redressal system | % | 1% | 100 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 80 | | Total Weight 11% |
The formula may be novel, even revolutionary to India, but OECD countries as well as nations like Korea have long accepted this as workable. A committee of former Secretaries to the GOI, assisted by a battery of IIM professors and domain experts, are already on the job. In the long run, the political climate within which the bureaucracy functions is bound to change as the new parameters for result-oriented governance come into force.
RFD Process and Timelines
Beginning of the Year
• At the beginning of each financial year, with the approval of the Minister concerned, each Department will prepare a Results-Framework Document (RFD) consistent with these guidelines.
• To achieve results commensurate with the priorities listed in the RFD, the Minister in charge will approve the proposed activities and schemes for the Ministry/Department. The Ministers in charge will also approve the corresponding success indicators (Key Result Areas – KRAs or Key Performance Indicators – KPIs) and time-bound targets to measure progress in achieving these objectives.
• Based on the proposed budgetary allocations for the year in question, the drafts of RFs will be completed by 5th of March every year. To ensure uniformity, consistency and coordinated action across various Departments, the Cabinet Secretariat will review these drafts and provide feedback to the Ministries/Departments concerned. This process will be completed by March 31 of each year.
• The final versions of all RFs will be put up on the websites of the respective Ministries by the 15th of April each year.
• The Results Framework of each Department/Ministry will be submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat, by the 15th of April each year. It will take into account budget provisions and in particular the Outcome Budget. The Results Framework will be drawn up in such manner that quarterly monitoring becomes possible. Quarterly reports will be submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat.
During the Year
• After six months, the Results Framework as well as the achievements of each Ministry/Department against the performance goals laid down at the beginning of the year, will be reviewed by a Committee on Government Performance consisting of the Cabinet Secretary, Finance Secretary, Expenditure Secretary, Secretary (Planning Commission), Secretary (Performance Management) and the Secretary of the Department concerned. At this stage, the Results Framework may have to be reviewed and the goals reset, taking into account the priorities at that point of time. This will enable factoring in unforeseen circumstances such as drought conditions, natural calamities or epidemics. The report of the Committee on Government Performance will be submitted to the Prime Minister, through the concerned Minister, for further action as deemed necessary.
End of the Year
• At the end of the year, all Ministries/Departments will review and prepare a report listing the achievements of their Ministry/Department against the agreed results in the prescribed format. This report will be expected to be finalized by the 1st of May each year.
• After scrutiny by the Cabinet Secretariat, these results will be placed before the Cabinet for information by 1st of June each year.
Trivedi observes, “It will not happen overnight. There will be a paper change, habit change, followed by cultural change, until the entire system goes on automated.”
A complete understanding of the RFD revolution requires knowledge of three broad areas: (I) Format of RFD; (II) Methodology for Evaluation; and (III) RFD Process and Timelines.
The RFD Format It addresses (a) what are the department’s main objectives for the year? (b) What actions are proposed to achieve these objectives? (c) How would someone know at the end of the year the degree of progress made in implementing these actions? That is, what are the relevant success indicators and their targets? It contains five sections: The Ministry’s vision, mission, objectives and functions; priorities among key objectives and functions; trend values of success indicators; description and definition of success indicators and proposed measurement methodology; specific performance requirements from other departments that are critical for delivering agreed results.
Results-Framework Document (RFD)
Ad-hoc Task Force (ATF) Members for 2009-2010 |
Agriculture and Rural Development
JNL Srivastava (Convenor), IAS, 1966, PB, Ex-Secy, GOI,
Agriculture
P Abraham, IAS, 1962, Ex-Secy, Power, former Chairman, MSEB
DP Tripathi, IRTS (Retd), Ex-Secy, M/o Railways,
Food Processing Ind, GOI
Arun Kumar (II), IAS, 1965, MP
Srinibas Rath, IAS, 1968, Orissa, Ex-Addl. Chief Secy, Orissa
Vineeta Rai, IAS 68 UT, Former Secretary Expenditure, Member Secretary
, Second Administrative Reform Commission
V. N. Asopa, IIMA, Professor
E. M. Koshy, AOFG India, Director
Ritwick Dutta, Supreme Court Lawyer
Yoginder Alagh, Chairman IRMA, Anand, Former Union Minister of
State for Planning
CORE TEAM MEMBERS
Prem Pangotra, IIM Ahmedabad, Professor
Vijay Paul Sharma, IIM Ahmedabad, Professor
Human Development
Arvind Varma (Convenor), IAS, 1963, UP, Ex-Secy, DoPT, GOI
BK Mishra, IAS, 1967, Assam, former Secy to GOI, former chairman(SSC)
SB Mishra, IAS, 1965, Orissa, Ex-Chief Secy, Orissa, Ex-Secy, D/o
Disinvestment, GOI
Arun Kumar Mago, IAS, 1967, MS, Ex-Chief Secy, Maharashtra
Sanjeev Mishra, IAS, 1972, Gujarat, Ex-Secy. Expenditure,
Member 13th Finance Commission
Gopa Bharadwaj, Delhi University, Professor
Dileep Mavalankar, IIMA, Professor
Shivkumar, Indian School of Business / UNICEF, Professor
CORE TEAM MEMBER
T V Rao, IIM Ahmedabad, Adjunct Professor
Resource Management
Ashok Chandra (Chairman, ATF & Convenor), IAS, 1959, UP, Ex-Secy, I&B
K Padmanabhaiah, IAS, 1961, MS, Ex-Secy, M/o Home, GOI
Arun Kumar (i), IAS, 1965, Kerala, Ex-Secy, Water Resources, GOI; Adviser, IRCSA
Brijesh Kumar, IAS, 1968, UP, Former Addl.Chief Secy, UP
BB Tandon, IAS, 1965, HP, Dir, IIM, Shillong, Chief Election Commission
Ajay Pandey, IIMA, Professor
Chakraborthy S, Jaipuria Institute, Lucknow, Director
Rajen Malhotra, ACC Cements, Chief Knowledge Officer
Vasant Gandhi, IIMA, Professor
CORE TEAM MEMBERS
Abishek Mishra, IIM Ahmedabad, Adjunct Professor
Rajanish Dass, IIM Ahmedabad, Professor |
Trade, Industry and Services
S Sathyam (Convenor), IAS, 1961, MP, Ex-Secy, M/o Textiles, GOI
Prabir Sengupta, IAS, 1965, Assam-Meghalaya, Ex-Secy, Commerce & Industry
DP Bagchi, IAS, 1965, Orissa, Ex-Secy, Small Scale Industries
C Ramachandran, IAS, 1960, TN, Pr. Secy, Industries, Govt of TN
Anil Kumar, IAS, 1965, Rajasthan, Secy, GOI, M/o Textiles
Shiela Bhide, IAS, 1973, AP, Ex-Secretary, GOI, Chairman, Indian
Trade Fair Authority
Sebastian Morris, IIMA, Professor
Sandeep Parikh, IIMA, Professor
Jerry Issac, National Aeronautical Laborataries, Senior Scientist
Kalra S K, IMI, Delhi, Dean
Bakul H Dholakia, Director, Adani Instititute of Infrastructure Management
CORE TEAM MEMBERS
Rekha Jain, IIM Ahmedabad, Professor
Manjari Singh, IIM Ahmedabad, Professor
Infrastructure Development
Vinod Vaish(Convenor), IAS, 1966, Chhattisgarh, Member,
Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal
Moosa Raza, IAS, 1960, Gujarat, Secy of D/o Information Tech
Pawan Chopra, IAS, 1967, Rajasthan, Secy, M/o Information & Broadcasting
AH Jung, A&AS, 1965, Secy, M/o Civil Aviation, Chairman, AI
NP Gupta, IAS, 1972, TN, Director (TN Road Sector)
AS Bansal, Former C&MD TCIL, Telecom & IT-related Investment Decision
I M Pandey, Delhi University, Professor Emeritus
Kuriakose Mankootam, FMS, University of Delhi, Dean
Pradeep Khandwala, Ex-director, IIM Ahmedabad
CORE TEAM MEMBERS
G Raghuram, IIM Ahmedabad, Professor
Narayan Rangaraj, IIT Mumbai, Professor
Social Welfare
SP Jakhanwal (Convenor), IAS, 1963, Bihar, Ex-Secy to GOI
K Shankar Narayanan, IAS, 1970, MP, Secy (Coord & Public Grievances)
Dev Swarup, IAS, 1969, HP, National Commission for Minorities
R Poornalingam, IAS, 1970, Tamil Nadu, Ex-Secy, Disinvestment
KT Chacko, IAS, 1973, MP, Director, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade
Punam Saigal, IIM Lucknow, Dean, Noida Campus
Sharat Babu, Founder CEO, Foodking, Chennai
Indira Parikh, FLAME, Pune, President
Anil Gupta, IIM Ahmedabad, Professor
CORE TEAM MEMBER
Biju Varkkey, IIM Ahmedabad, Professor |
Ministry’s Vision, Mission, Objectives and Functions: “Vision should never carry the ‘how’ part of vision. For example, ‘To be the most admired brand in the aviation industry’ is a fine vision statement, which can be spoiled by extending it to ‘To be the most admired brand in the aviation industry by providing world-class in-flight services’. The reason for not including ‘how’ is that ‘how’ may keep on changing with time,” the document says.
Leaders may not be able to make a connection between the vision/mission and people’s everyday work. Too often, employees see a gap between the vision, mission, and their goals and priorities. Even if there is a valid/tactical reason for this mismatch, it is not explained. The leadership of the Ministry (Minister and the Secretary) should therefore consult a wide cross-section and come up with a vision that can be owned by the employees of the Ministry/department.
Table 3
| Objective | Actions | Success Indicator | Unit | Actual Value for FY 07/08 | Actual Value for FY 08/09 | Actual Value for FY 09/10 | Actual Value for FY 10/11 | Actual Value for FY 11/12 | | Objective 1 | Action 1 | | | | | | | | | Action 2 | | | | | | | | | Action 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Objective 2 | Action 1 | | | | | | | | | Action 2 | | | | | | | | | Action 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Objective 3 | Action 1 | | | | | | | | | Action 2 | | | | | | | | | Action 3 | | | | | | | |
Mission should follow the vision. This is because the purpose of the organization could change to achieve the vision. The Ministry/Department’s mission is the nuts and bolts of the vision. Mission is the who, what and why of the department’s existence. The vision represents the big picture and the mission represents the necessary work.
Objectives represent the developmental requirements to be achieved by the department in a particular sector by a selected set of policies and programmes over a specific period of time (short-medium-long). For example, objectives of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare could include: (a) reducing the rate of infant mortality for children below five years; and (b) reducing the rate of maternity death by 30% by the end of the development plan.
Table 4
| Column 1 | Column 2 | Column 3 | | Column 4 | Column 5 | Column 6 | | Objective | Action | Criteria / Success Indicators | Unit | Weight | Target / Criteria Value | | Excellent | Very Good | Fair | Good | Poor | Achievement | Raw Score | Weighted Raw Score | | 100% | 90% | 80% | 70% | 60% | | Better Rural Health | Improve Access to Primary Health Care | 1 | %Increase in number of primary health care centres | % | .50 | 30 | 25 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 15 | 75% | 37.5% | | | 2 | | % | .30 | 20 | 18 | 16 | 14 | 12 | 18 | 90% | 27% | | | 3 | | % | .20 | 500 | 450 | 400 | 300 | 250 | 600 | 100% | 20% | | Composite Score = | 84.5% |
Priorities among key objectives, success indicators and targets:The heart of this section of the RFD document consists of Table 1. Underneath are the guidelines for each column of this table. Column 1: From the list of all objectives, select those key objectives that would be the focus for the current RFD. Column 2: Objectives in the RFD should be ranked in a descending order of priority according to the degree of significance and specific weights should be attached to these objectives. The Minister in charge will decide the inter se priorities among departmental objectives and all weights must add to 100. Column 3: For each objective, the department must specify the required policies, programmes, schemes and projects. Column 4:For each “action” specified in Column 3, the department must specify one or more “success indicators”. This provides a means to evaluate progress in achieving the policy, programme, scheme and project. Success indicators are important management tools for driving improvements in departmental performance. They should represent the main business of the organization and should also aid accountability. If there are multiple actions associated with an objective, the weight assigned to a particular objective should be spread across the relevant success indicators. Column 5:If there is more than one action associated with an objective, each action should have one or more success indicators to measure progress in implementing these actions. Column 6: The next step is to choose a target for each success indicator. Targets are tools for driving performance improvements. Target levels should, therefore, contain an element of stretch and ambition.
Status of Omplementation of Action Plan for
Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES)
(as of December 24, 2009) | | Module | Actions | SEP | OCTOBER | NOVEMBER | DECEMBER | STATUS | | WK 4 | WK 1 | WK 2 | WK 3 | WK4 | WK1 | WK2 | WK3 | WK4 | WK1 | WK2 | WK3 | WK4 | | | System Design | 1 | Convey PMO Approval to all departments | Done | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 2 | Approval of Action Plan | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 3 | Constitute High Power Committee (HPC) on Government Performance | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | | 3.1 Approval of HPC's TORs | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | | 3.2 NOtification to All Secretaries | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 4 | Finalize Guidelines and checklist | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | | 4.1 Approval of Finalized Guidelines & checklist | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | | 4.2 Send Guidelines & checklist to secretaries | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 5 | Decide coverage of departments in phase 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | | 5.1 Decide on criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | | 5.2 Cabinet secretary approves | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | | 5.3 Inform concerned secretaries | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 6 | Constitute Ad-Hoc Task Force (ATF) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 7 | Constitute group of resource persons | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | Capacity | 8 | Organize Six workshops for phase-1 departments | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 9 | Organize international workshop | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 10 | Orientation for ATF members | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | Implementation | 11 | Send instructions to departments for preparing results-framework document (RFD) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 12 | Departments submit draft of RED | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 13 | ATF Meetings with departments / ministries | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 14 | Submit final drafts to HPC for approval | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed | | 15 | Place result-framework documents on departmental websites | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Completed |
The target should be presented as the following five-point scale:
It is expected that budgetary targets would be placed at 90% (Very Good). For any performance below 60%, the department would get a score of 0%.
Trend values of the success indicators: For every success indicator and the corresponding target, RFD must provide actual values for the past two years and also projected values for two years in the future as indicated in Table 3. RFD must contain a section giving detailed definitions of various success indicators and the proposed measurement methodology. Wherever possible, the rationale for using the proposed success indicators may be provided.
Specific performance requirements from other departments that are critical for delivering agreed results. This section should contain expectations from other departments that impact the department’s performance. These expectations should be mentioned in quantifiable, specific, and measurable terms.
Evaluation Methodology
At the end of the year the PMES will evaluate the achievements of government departments, compare them with the targets, and determine the composite score (Table 4). The table provides an example from the health sector. For simplicity, it focuses on one objective to illustrate the evaluation methodology.
The raw score for Achievement in Column 6 is obtained by comparing the achievement to the agreed target values. For example, the achievement for first success indicator (% increase in primary health care centres) is 15%. This achievement is between 80% (Good) and 70% (Fair) and hence the Raw Score is 75%.
The weighted raw score for Achievement in Column 6 is obtained by multiplying the raw score with the relative weights. Thus, for the first success indicator, the Weighted Raw Score is obtained by multiplying 75% by .50. This gives us a weighted score of 37.5%.
Departmental Rating Value of Composite Score:
Excellent = 100% - 96% Very Good = 95% - 86% Good = 85 – 76% Fair = 75% - 66% Poor = 65% and below
Abbreviated Time Lines for 2009-2010
Normally, the Results-Framework Document (RFD) is supposed to coincide with the financial year (April 1 – March 31). However, in 2009, the Union Budget was approved in July as opposed to February 28. Similarly, the Prime Minister approved the policy on the Results-Framework Document on September 11, 2009. Therefore only an abbreviated schedule was implemented for the current financial year. The Results-Framework Documents for the year 2009-10 only cover the period from January 1 – March 31, 2009. Timetable for the 2009-10 exercise is as follows:
| WHEN | WHAT | WHO | | 2009 | November 30 | Submit final draft of results-Framwork(RF) document to performance management division(PMD), Cabinet Secretariat. | Department / Ministries | | December 9-18 | Review Meetings with the Ad-hoc Task Force (ATF) on Results Framework | Depatment / Ministries /ATF | | December 28 | Finalise Results-Framework document after incorporating suggestions of High PowerCommittee (HPC) on Government Performance | Department / Ministries | | December 31 | Place Results-Framework document on departmental Websites | Department / Ministries | | 2010 | May 1 | Submit year-end evaluation report on progress during the year | Department / Ministries | | May 10-18 | Review meetings with the Ad-hoc Task force (ATF) on year-end evaluation results | Department / Ministries / ATF | | May 27 | Finalise year-end evaluation results after incorporating suggestions of High PowerCommittee (HPC) on government Performance. | Department / Ministries | | June 1 | Place the Evaluation Results before the Cabinet. | Department / Ministries | | June 1 | Place the Evaluation Results on the website of the Ministry / Department | Department / Ministries |
Finally, the composite score is calculated by adding up all the weighted achievements. In Table 4the composite score is calculated to be 84.5.
The composite score shows the degree to which the government department in question was able to meet its objective. The fact that it got a score of 84.5% in our hypothetical example implies that the department’s performance vis-à-vis this objective was rated as “very good”.
The methodology outlined above is transcendental in its application. Various government departments will have a diverse set of objectives and corresponding success indicators. Yet, at the end of the year every department will be able to compute its composite score for the past year. This composite score will reflect the degree to which the department was able to achieve the promised results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|