pms piloting exercise -draft performance management … · iwp format- refer appraisal form...
TRANSCRIPT
“Excellence in Service”
PMS PILOTING EXERCISE -Draft Performance Management
System (PMS) Guideline 2015
ROYAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Outline
1. Guideline for developing Individual Work Plan (IWP)
2. Performance Evaluation Guideline
3. Forced Ranking Framework
4. Protocol for Forced Ranking
5. Performance Linked HR actions
6. Appeal System
“Excellence in Service”
1. Developing Individual Work Plan (IWP)
National Level Long Term and Medium Term Perspective Plans
Organization level Plans and Performance Agreements
Individual level Work Plans
RATIONALE/CONTEXT
5
Breaking Organization objective into division level outputs and indicators
6
Breaking Organization objective into division level outputs and indicators
Breaking division level outputs into Individual Activities
“Excellence in Service”
IWP format- Refer appraisal form
Division Output
Activities
Targets Target Achieved
OT-3 G=2 NI=1
1.Long term perspective Plan Updated
1.1 Baseline study and implementation study
July August September
1.2 Develop broad result areas
September
October
November
2.Reliable, robust in house macroeconomic framework for policy/decision makers developed
2.1 Generic macroeconomic framework adapted
July August September
2.2 Macro economic model validated
November
December
January
“Excellence in Service”
2. Performance Evaluation Guideline
Evaluation
• Individual Work Plan
• Core Competencies
Evaluating IWP Employee Name
Employee ID
Position title
Position level
Division
Department
Division Output Activities Target Values Target
achieved
specified by
individual
Employee
Remark
Final
Rating
by
supervis
or
(Outstanding=3) (Good=2) (Need
Improvement=1)
Annual HR plans
formulate
Conduct HR
requirements
Assessment
July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 Budget 1
Develop human
resource
development
strategy
July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 August 2015 2
Develop human
resource
deployment
strategy
July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 June 2015 3
IWP Rating (Total / no. of activities) 6/3= 2
Evaluating Core Competency Core
Competency
Definition
Supervisor to
explain the
behavior
displayed by
individual
Final Rating
by
Supervisor Outstanding Good Need
Improvement
Teamwork: Puts agency’s
success ahead of
department or
division’s success.
Help and support
others to solve
customer
problems and
accomplishes
agency’s goals.
Help direct team
members but do
not cooperate
with other teams
or departments.
Mr. X helped
other customers
but needs to
improve in PR
2.5
Service
Delivery/orientat
ion
Maintain helpful
and courteous
manner, even
when faced with
hostility from
customers
and/or other
stressful
conditions.
Treat all
customers with
dignity, respect
and a welcoming
attitude.
Respond to
customers
defensively or in
an unfriendly or
uncaring way.
Respond to
customers
defensively or in
an unfriendly or
uncaring way
2
CC rating (total/ no. of activities) 4.5/2=2.25
Final Evaluation
Particular Rating received % allocated Final Rating
IWP Rating 2 70% 1.4
CC Rating 2.5 30% 0.75
Total 2.15
The final ratings from IWP and CC will be used as an input during the force ranking of the employees. Therefore, the PE rating of IWP and CC does not reflect individual’s actual/final evaluation.
3.Forced Ranking
Framework
1. Agency Categorization Framework
Category Definition
% of different Performer category
Outstanding (%) Good (%) Need
Improvement (%)
Category 1 90-100
4 94 2
Category 2 80-89 3 93 4
Category 4
Less than and equal to 69
91 8
Category 3 2 92 70-79 6
1
Guiding principle for ranking civil servant at various position level
1. Executive (EX3-EX1): a. If the executive head agencies, the agency’s score will be proxy
for his/her performance
b. If the executive head departments, the ratio between agency and department (70:30) will be the performance rating of the executive.
2. Specialist (ES3-ES1) a. If the specialist head agencies, the agency’s score will be proxy
for his/her performance
b. If the specialist head departments, the ratio between agency and department (70:30) will be the performance rating of the executive.
c. All other specialist who do not head agencies/departments, the ratio between agency and department (50:50) will be the performance rating of the specialist
3. P1 Level a. If the P1 head divisions, their performance rating will
be department’s score
b. All other P1 who do not head divisions will fall in the general pool considered for forced ranking purposes.
4. P2-P5, S1-S5:
a. Forced ranked as per agency’s score or department’s score as per the framework
5. O- level a. Status Quo: Evaluated by the immediate supervisor based on the standard
performance evaluation forms
Forced Ranking of the Employees
In line with Agencification Framework agencies are categorized into eight categories
1. Ministries
2. Commission
3. Authority
4. National Centers
5. National Institutes
6. Thromdes
7. Dzongkhags
8. Others
Forced Ranking of the employee of the Ministry
“Excellence in Service”
4. Protocol for Forced Ranking
“Excellence in Service”
Pre-requisite for Forced Ranking
1. GPMS/AWP report Completed
2. Performance Appraisal Completed
“Excellence in Service”
General Protocol for forced ranking
Phase 1: Distribution Phase 2: Ranking Phase 3: Endorsement
“Excellence in Service”
Phase 1: Distribution The Ranking Committee shall distribute % of different performer categories (OT, G, & NI) to Divisions/Sector/Services depending on the achievement of their performance targets.
OT G NI
4 94 2
3.52 82.72 1.76
4 83 1
From Agency Categorization Framework the Department has secured more than 90%
No. of Staff in different performer categories as per staff strength (88) of the Department
This shall be done based on the GPMS report/score of the Division/Sector/Services in case of agencies with APA.
Pre-determined framework for agencies with AWP (without APA)
“Excellence in Service”
Divisions in Dept. No of Staff (S5-P1) Divisions % Distribution
OT G NI
Division I 20
Division II 30
Division III 23
Division IV 15
Total 88 4 83 1
Distribution of which Division will get how many OT,G & NI
To be done by the Ranking Committee in the initial phase of the Meeting based on the achievement of their performance targets.
“Excellence in Service”
Phase 2: Ranking
Division Chiefs shall rank employees in their respective Division into three Performer category (OT,G & NI) based on the achievements/PE rating of IWPs and core competencies The identification of performer category may start with “outstanding” performer, followed by “need improvement category” and rest will fall under “Good”.
“Excellence in Service”
Phase 3: Endorsement
The ranking result shall be endorsed by the Ranking Committee upon compilation by the HRD based on the distribution made by the RC This ranking result shall be considered as the final PE rating of the individual and updated in the CSIS by HR Division.
“Excellence in Service”
Phase 3: Endorsement
The endorsed results will be communicated to concerned individual by their respective supervisors. Based on the results of Force Ranking exercise, HR Division shall prepare targeted HR intervention as per Section 12. All HR action should be endorsed by the HRC.
“Excellence in Service”
5.Performance Linked HR Actions
“Excellence in Service”
“Excellence in Service”
“Excellence in Service”
6. Appeal System
Appellate authority to review appeal cases on Force Ranking:
1. The HRC of the respective agency 2. .RCSC against the decision of HRC.
Appeal period: Five working days from the declaration of result Appeal process
1. HRC of the working agency 2. Royal Civil Service Commission
