190 likes | 321 Views
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.
E N D
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
Background • Components of the framework • Evaluation panels • Support by Secretariat • Participation of Executing Authorities • Evaluation process • Review in cases of dissatisfaction
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
Statistical Overview (cont.) • Provincial - 23 out of 76 HoDs evaluated - 3 pending - 53 could not be evaluated
Reasons for Non-Evaluation • Contract terminated • HoD appointed in acting capacity • Suspension • On sick leave
Reasons for Non-Evaluation (cont.) • Performance agreement not signed • Newly appointed • Framework Piloted • Documents not submitted
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 %
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
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