Performance Management in Korea

1. Performance Management in Korea June 2005 Heesuk Yun Korea Development Institute

2. Contents Performance Management Framework Current Performance Management Practices in Korea Developing an Integrated System of Performance Management

3. Performance Management Framework

4. Steps of performance management Setting performance targets - Delineating the mission and strategic objectives of the organization - Defining quantitative and/or non-quantitative performance indicators - Choosing targets for indicators Designing the program - Designating who is in charge of the program - Designing the service delivery system - Planning human and financial resources - Drawing up evaluation plans Implementing the program - Delivering service with inputs of human and financial resources - Measuring performance indicators Assessing the performance - Performance monitoring - Program evaluation

5. Tools for performance assessment • Performance monitoring • Measures the program performance with a predetermined set of indicators. • Can produce information on outputs and outcomes in a frequent and timely manner at relatively low costs. • By itself, can rarely explain the causality between inputs and outputs or outcomes. • Program evaluation • Addresses the question of why and how the program produced certain outputs and outcomes. • Employs analytical tools with varying degrees of sophistication. • Usually requires large amounts of money and time, and cannot be performed on all programs.

6. Uses of performance information • Use 1: Improving decision-making • Performance information provides an opportunity to learn and improve. • Performance management can only be effectiveif people working within the system actually believe in the value of a results-orientation. • Use 2: Assisting in resource allocation • Performance information serves as a reference in resource allocation. • The budget authorities take other social, economic, and political factors into account when deciding on budgeting. • Poorly performing programs are not necessarily cut back or discontinued. • Use 3: Enhancing accountability • Performance information can be used to assure accountability. • But we should avoid fostering a “silo-view” in the public service. • Performance contracts can also generate rancor and lower the morale if the employees find the performance assessment as unfair.

7. Current Performance Management Practices in Korea

8. Overview Performance Management System (PMS) : MPB Government Operations Assessment System (GOAS) : OGPC Management by Objectives (MBO) : Ministry of Government Affairs and Local Administration Performance Audit : Board of Audit and Inspection Self-Assessment of Spending Programs : MPB

9. Performance Management System • Led by the Ministry of Planning and Budget (MPB). • Adopting the framework in the Government Performance and Results Act of the U.S. federal government. • Based on the pilot project on performance budgeting carried out in 1999-2002. • Requires line ministries to • - set up performance goals and indicators, • - prepare annual performance plans and reports, and • - submit them to MPB at the start of the annual budget cycle. Strategic goal Programs Performance goal Performance indicator Strategic goal Programs Performance goal Performance indicator Mission Strategic goal Programs Performance goal Performance indicator Performance goal Performance indicator Strategic goal Programs

10. Performance Management System • Covers onlypart of ministerial activities. • Those activities not involving large sums of expenditure (such as pure policy-making) are excluded from performance monitoring. • Also, activities for which the benefits of performance monitoring are expected to be small (such as wages and salaries, “basic program” expenditures, and general administrative expenses) are excluded as well. • Has not been very successful. • Lukewarm support from the top management in the MPB. • Little enthusiasm from line ministries. • Performance indicators not derived from ministerial missions in a systematic fashion. • Performance reports not open to the public.

11. Government Operations Assessment System • Led by the Office for Government Policy Coordination (OGPC). • Assesses the performance and organizational capacity of ministries and citizen satisfaction with them. • Composed of the assessments of (i) the central government ministries, (ii) local governments, (iii) specific programs, etc. • Assessment results are reported to the President in biannual cabinet meetings. • Has not been very successful. • Did not require line ministries to set out a clear framework of mission and strategy. • No systematic assessment of performance utilizing indicators, relying instead on subjective assessment by outside experts and in-house staff. • No serious cooperation and coordination with the MPB.

12. Government Operations Assessment System • Changes in 2005 • OGPC now requires line ministries to establishperformance indicators and announce target levels in annual business plans. • Each ministry reports its annual business plan to the President in an open meeting held at the beginning of each year. • Performance assessment by OGPC will be based on these indicators. • After the introduction of new requirements, • We observe a drastic change in the attitude of line ministries. • They are making serious efforts to think through their missions and set out strategies and performance indicators. • But the coordination with the MPB is still weak. • Ministerial business plans are generally poor in content, lacking, for example, a systematic linkage between planning and budgeting.

13. Self-Assessment of Spending Programs • Under preparation by the MPB. • Designed after PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) of the U.S. federal government. • Requires line ministries toassess their own programs with spending levels above a certain threshold every 3 years. • The assessment is based on 16 questions common for all types of programs and a few additional questions specific to different types of programs. • Types of programs: infrastructure investment, procurement of large-scale facilities and equipment, provision of direct services, capital injection, subsidies to private entities, grants to local governments, and R&D • The MPB reviews the assessment results and takes them into account when preparing annual draft budgets and the National Fiscal Management Plan.

14. Self-Assessment of Spending Programs • Common questions • Program design • Does the program have clear purposes and legal or other bases? • Can the government intervention be justified? • Is government spending necessary to achieve the objectives? • Is the program duplicative of other program? • Has the program been subjected to an objective feasibility study? • Is the proposed program design most cost-effective? • Are performance goals and indicators in place? • Do performance goals and indicators fully reflect program objectives? • Are the targets set at reasonable levels? • Program management • Is the implementation regularly being monitored? • Is the program being implemented as planned? • Are efforts being made to reduce costs or increase efficiency? • Performance assessment and feedback • Has an objective and comprehensive program evaluation been conducted? • Did the program achieve the intended objectives? • Are customers and stakeholders satisfied with the program performance? • Is the agency utilizing the assessment results for program improvement and budget planning?

15. Self-Assessment of Spending Programs • Answers to the questions take the form of “yes (1)” or “no (0).” • In case of the questions regarding the achievement of program objectives and the customer satisfaction, 4-scale answers (1.00, 0.67, 0.33, 0.00) will be given. • A weight is assigned to each question and the overall assessment will be based on the weighted sum of the answers. • Programs are classified as “effective (85-100),” “moderately effective (70-84),” “adequate (50-69),” “not effective (0-50),” and “results not demonstrated.”

16. Establishing an Integrated System of Performance Management

17. Our goal • For now, focus on accumulating experience in performance measurement. • Later, develop various systems into an integrated full-fledged performance management framework. • Covering all major aspects of government activities, including the financial and human resource management. • Ultimately, instill a results-orientation in the public sector. • Managers and staff constantly asking themselves what the benefits of their activities are supposed to be, how they know, and what they can do to be more effective.

18. Strategies • Consolidating the diverse systems of performance management • PMS and other systems should eventually be merged into a new framework for performance management. • A close cooperation between OGPC and MPB looks essential, with OGPC taking the lead and MPB providing logistics. • Establishing a sound system of planning and reporting • A system of planning and reporting is a precondition for good performance management. • Emphasis on program evaluation • An effective performance management system requires both monitoring and evaluation. • In a country like Korea which has little experience in evaluation, a formal strategy to introduce the evaluation practice seems desirable.

19. Strategies • Introducing a program structure in budget accounts • A program structure will facilitate performance management by aligning the budget accounts with the mission and strategies of agencies and by helping them to identify the full cost of programs. • Greater use of performance contracts • At a later day, a greater use of performance contracts can be encouraged.