1 / 19

FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF HODS

FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF HODS. 19 MARCH 2003. OBJECTIVE. To report on the first implementation of the framework for the evaluation of HoDs - Background - Statistical overview - Findings - Recommendations - Amendments to the framework.

Download Presentation

FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF HODS

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. FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF HODS 19 MARCH 2003

  2. OBJECTIVE • To report on the first implementation of the framework for the evaluation of HoDs - Background - Statistical overview - Findings - Recommendations - Amendments to the framework

  3. Background • Components of the framework • Evaluation panels • Support by Secretariat • Participation of Executing Authorities • Evaluation process • Review in cases of dissatisfaction

  4. Statistical Overview • National Departments - 12 HoDs out of 36 evaluated - 10 deferred evaluation to include 2001/2002 - 3 terminated contract - 5 no evaluation – reasons unknown

  5. Statistical Overview (cont.) • Provincial - 23 out of 76 HoDs evaluated - 3 pending - 53 could not be evaluated

  6. Reasons for Non-Evaluation • Contract terminated • HoD appointed in acting capacity • Suspension • On sick leave

  7. Reasons for Non-Evaluation (cont.) • Performance agreement not signed • Newly appointed • Framework Piloted • Documents not submitted

  8. Summary of ratings awarded to HoDS

  9. Findings on the first implementation • Evaluation periods more than one financial year problematic • Composition of the evaluation panels did not represent wide range of stakeholders • Far-stretched schedules of Ministers delayed the process • Use of the OPSC as the secretariat beneficial

  10. Findings on the first implementation (cont) • Executing authorities – participation commended • Documentation - Quality and contents of performance agreements - Verifications statement did not conform to the requirements of the framework - Annual reports did not report on achievement of departmental objectives - Lack of synergy between documents

  11. Findings on the first implementation (cont) • Use of 360-degree instrument - Nationally – only 1 HoD - Provincially – 12 HoDs • Advice by the panel - Provided level of performance and areas of development - Rating scale – parameters of cash bonus

  12. Findings on the PA Report • A majority of senior managers had not signed performance agreements • No clear performance criteria – limited to targets • No quarterly reviews

  13. Recommendations • PSC to engage SAMDI on the nature of training to be provided to HoDs • Executing Authorities to note: • Importance of performance management • Evaluation according to the framework is obligatory • No performance agreement, no evaluation

  14. Recommendations (cont) • Evaluation periods one financial year • Evaluation at provincial level must be obligatory • Composition of panels • Maximum 4 plus Chair • Include external stakeholders • Make use of cluster system

  15. Recommendations • Performance Agreements of HoDs to be filed with PSC • PSC to provide guidance on the development of quality documentation • Clear linkages between processes/documents

  16. Recommendations (cont) • Use of 360-degree compulsory in the interim • Parameters of cash bonus clearly spelt out – consider NPMDS e.g. Level 5 : 6 - 8 % Level 4 : 3 - 5 %

  17. Amendments • Framework – Cabinet memo - Finalisation of evaluations not later than February 2003 - Performance agreements of all HoDs be filed with PSC - 360-degree compulsory in the interim

  18. Amendments (cont.) - Rating scale in the NPMDS be used for 2001/2002 evaluations - Use of the 360-degree in the interim - OPSC serves as secretariat in all HoD evaluations - Implementation at provincial level be mandatory

  19. THANK YOU

More Related