How to Improve Government Performance

(Challenges, Possible Solutions and Lessons of International Experience)

Dr. Prajapati Trivedi

Secretary, Performance Management
Cabinet Secretariat
 Dr. Prajapati Trivedi
Secretary, Performance Management
 Presentation Outline

• Perceptions about Government Performance

• Explanations about Government Performance

• Meaning of Government Performance

• How to Improve Government Performance

• International Best Practice and Options

• Lessons of Experience – Summing Up

 Select Key Points

• The one picture I want to etch in your minds

 Select Key Points
• Accountability for results trickles down

• Countries in the world can be classified according to

their ability to implement policies and programs

• Implementation depends on effective follow-up

(M&E) (another name for accountability and
Results-Based Management)

• Effectiveness of follow-up and monitoring depends

on quality and not quantity of M&E (Effective
evaluation requires explicit rankings).
 Select Key Points
• Degree of Accountability for results is synonymous
with Evaluation.

• Evaluation techniques for management control in

government are different from evaluation techniques
for strategic control.

• Evaluation is one of the three systems required for

performance improvement – Information and
incentive systems being other two.

• Performance Evaluation is different from

Performance Explanation and Performance
Monitoring.
 Presentation Outline

• Perceptions about Government Performance

• Explanations about Government Performance

• Meaning of Government Performance

• How to Improve Government Performance

• International Best Practice and Options

• Lessons of Experience – Summing Up

 Perceptions about
Performance of Government Agencies

Government
Government Agencies
Agencies have
have not
not delivered
delivered
what
what was
was expected
expected from
from them
them
 Presentation Outline

Perceptions about Government Performance

• Explanations about Government Performance

• Meaning of Government Performance

• How to Improve Government Performance

• International Best Practice and Options

• Lessons of Experience – Summing Up

 Problems of Government Agencies - I
PARLIAMENT
FINANCE MINISTRY
POLITICAL NON-POLITICAL
PLANNING MINISTRY
ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTRY EQUITY EFFICIENCY

MULTIPLE MULTIPLE
PRINCIPALS GOALS

FUZZY GOALS &

OBJECTIVES
Problem of Government Agencies -II

“NOT ME” Syndrome

People

Public Enterprise Parliament

Government
 Symptom:
Performance Deficit Vs. Financial Deficit

Performance Deficit

Poor Performance Low Credibility

Financial Deficit
Lower Funding
 Presentation Outline

Perceptions about Government Performance

Explanations about Government
Performance

• How to Improve Government Performance

Determinants of Performance

20 %

80 %
 People

80 % 20 %
R
E
Leader S
T

Determinants of Performance
Determinants of Performance

People
20%

System
People
System
80%
Determinants of Performance
People

80 % 20 %
Leader Rest
16% 4%
System
Leader
Rest
System
80%
What can be done to solve the problem?

Government
Government Agencies
Agencies have
have not
not delivered
delivered
what
what was
was expected
expected from
from them
them

Reduce
Reduce Quantity
Quantity of
of Increase
Increase Quality
Quality of
of
Government
Government Government
Government

Privatization Traditional Trickle-down Direct

Approach Approach
Civil Service Reforms
 Increasing Quality of Government

Trickle Down Direct

Approach Approach

Performance Agreement Client Charter

Quality Mark
E-Government
Enabling E-Procurement
Environment
ISO 9000
Peer Reviews
Knowledge Management
 Concept of
Performance Agreement
1. In the words of Second Administrative Reform
Commission:
– “Performance agreement is the most common
accountability mechanism in most countries that have
reformed their public administration systems.”

– “At the core of such agreements are the objectives to be

achieved, the resources provided to achieve them, the
accountability and control measures, and the autonomy
and flexibilities that the civil servants will be given.”
 Concept of
Performance Agreement

2. Performance Agreements in India are proposed

to:
– be signed between a Minister representing people’s
mandate and Secretary of the corresponding
department responsible for implementing the mandate
– contain agreed objectives, policies, programmes and
projects / schemes
– include success indicators and targets
– outline resources required and operational autonomy
provided to departments
 Sample
Performance
Agreement
From
USA
Performance
Agreement

between
The President of USA
William Jefferson Clinton
and

The Secretary of Energy

Hazel O’Leary
 Sample
Performance
Agreement
From
New Zealand
 Sample
Performance
Agreement
From
Malaysia
 Sample
Performance
Agreement
 Sample
Performance
Agreement
 Problems of Government Agencies - I
PARLIAMENT
FINANCE MINISTRY
POLITICAL NON-POLITICAL
PLANNING MINISTRY
ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTRY EQUITY EFFICIENCY

MULTIPLE MULTIPLE
PRINCIPALS GOALS

FUZZY GOALS &

OBJECTIVES

A SOLUTION

Performance Agreement
Problems of Government Agencies - II

“NOT ME” Syndrome

People

Public Enterprise Parliament

Government

A SOLUTION

Performance Agreement
Why the Focus on Performance ?
• First general point
– The power of performance management is now
widely recognized.
The Power of Performance Measurement

• What Gets Measured Gets Done

• If you Don’t Measure Results,You Can’t Tell
Success from Failure
• If You Can’t See Success, You Can’t Reward It
• If You Can’t Reward Success, You are Probably
Rewarding Failure
• If You Can’t See Success, You Can’t Learn From
It
• If You Can’t Recognize Failure, You Can’t
Correct It
• If You Can Demonstrate Results, You Can Win
Public Support
 Presentation Outline

Perceptions about Government Performance

Explanations about Government
Performance

How to Improve Government Performance

• Meaning of Government Performance
 What is meant by the term:
PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?

• Ex-post versus Ex-ante Performance

• Managerial versus Agency Performance

• Partial versus Comprehensive Performance

Meaning of Performance
 Ex-post versus Ex-ante
Performance Evaluation

Ex-ante Performance Evaluation is:

• based on comparison of achievements against agreed
targets
• typically involves a formal agreement
• most common in professionally run organizations
 Ex-post versus Ex-ante
Performance Evaluation
Ex-post Performance Evaluation is:

• based on selection of criteria by the evaluator at

the end of the year

• typically undertaken by researchers

• useful for future projects

• more comprehensive
 Ex-post versus Ex-ante
Performance Evaluation
Ex-ante Performance Evaluation is: Ex-post Performance Evaluation is:
• based on comparison • based on selection of
of achievements criteria
criteria by
by the
the
evaluator
evaluator at
at the
the end
end of
of
against agreed targets
the
the year
year
• typically involves a • typically undertaken
formal agreement • typically undertaken
by researchers
• most common in by researchers
• useful for future
professionally run • useful
projectsfor future
organizations projects
• more comprehensive
• more comprehensive
 What is meant by the term:
PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?

• Ex-post versus Ex-ante Performance

• Managerial versus Agency Performance

• Partial versus Comprehensive Performance

 Managerial versus Agency
Performance Evaluation

Agency Performance Evaluation is:

• based on observed performance of the agency
 Managerial versus Agency
Performance Evaluation
Managerial Performance Evaluation is:
• calculated by adjusting agency performance for
factors beyond the control of the management
(government officials):
 Managerial versus Agency
Performance Evaluation
Managerial Performance Evaluation is:
• calculated by adjusting agency performance for
factors beyond the control of the management
(government officials):

Agency Managerial Exogenous

+
Performance = Performance - Factors
 Managerial versus Agency
Performance Evaluation
An Heuristic Illustration

Change in Change in Exogenous

+
Agency
Performance
= Managerial
Performance - Factors

- 100,000 +75,000 -175,000

+
Hospital
Beds
= Hospital
Beds - Hospital
Beds

Impact of Budgetary Cuts

 What is meant by the term:
PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?

• Ex-post versus Ex-ante Performance

• Managerial versus Agency Performance

• Partial versus Comprehensive Performance

 Partial versus Comprehensive
Performance Evaluation

• Partial Performance Evaluation is:

– based on selected aspects (or activities) of the agency

• Comprehensive Performance Evaluation is:

– based on all activities of agency
 A Taxonomy of
Performance Evaluation Approaches
Managerial Agency
Performance Performance
Performance

Cell # 1
Ex-ante

Results-Based Cell # 2
Management
Framework
Performance

Cell # 4
Ex-post

Cell # 3
Impact Studies
Best Practice Methodology
 A SOLUTION!
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM

Performance Performance Performance

Information Evaluation Incentive
System System System

Criteria Institutional
(“How” to Arrangements
Evaluate) (“Who” Should
Evaluate)
 A SOLUTION!
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM

Performance Results-Based Performance

Information Management Incentive
System Framework System

Criteria Institutional
(“How” to Arrangements
Evaluate) (“Who” Should
Evaluate)
 Results-Based Management Framework

BEGINNING OF END OF
YEAR YEAR

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Criteria Criteria Criteria Performance
Selection Weight Value Evaluation
Selection Selection (Composite
Score)

“FAIR” to “FAIR” to Negotiated

Officials country “FREELY”
 Example of Results Framework
Step 1
Target / Criteria Values
Criteria / Very
Weight Excellent
Good
Good Fair Poor
Success Indicators
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

% Increase in number of
1
primary health care centers .50 30 25 20 10 5

% Increase in number of people

2 with access to a primary health .30 20 18 16 14 12
center within 20 KMs

Number of hospitals with ISO

3 9000 certification by December .20 500 450 400 300 250
31, 2009
 Results-Based Management Framework

BEGINNING OF END OF
YEAR YEAR

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Criteria Criteria Criteria Performance
Selection Weight Value Evaluation
Selection Selection (Composite
Score)

“FAIR” to “FAIR” to Negotiated

Officials country “FREELY”
 Example of Results Framework
Step 1 Step 2

Target / Criteria Values

Criteria / Very
Weight Excellent
Good
Good Fair Poor
Success Indicators
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

% Increase in number of
1
primary health care centers .50 30 25 20 10 5

% Increase in number of people

2 with access to a primary health .30 20 18 16 14 12
center within 20 KMs

Number of hospitals with ISO

3 9000 certification by December .20 500 450 400 300 250
31, 2009
 Results-Based Management Framework

BEGINNING OF END OF
YEAR YEAR

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Criteria Criteria Criteria Performance
Selection Weight Value Evaluation
Selection Selection (Composite
Score)

“FAIR” to “FAIR” to Negotiated

Officials country “FREELY”
 Example of Results Framework
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Target / Criteria Values

Criteria / Very
Weight Excellent
Good
Good Fair Poor
Success Indicators
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

% Increase in number of
1
primary health care centers .50 30 25 20 10 5

% Increase in number of people

2 with access to a primary health .30 20 18 16 14 12
center within 20 KMs

Number of hospitals with ISO

3 9000 certification by December .20 500 450 400 300 250
31, 2009
 Results-Based Management Framework

BEGINNING OF END OF
YEAR YEAR

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Criteria Criteria Criteria Performance
Selection Weight Value Evaluation
Selection Selection (Composite
Score)

“FAIR” to “FAIR” to Negotiated

Officials country “FREELY”
 Example of Results Framework
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Target / Criteria Values

Criteria / Very Raw Weighted

Weight Excellent
Good
Good Fair Poor Achievement
Success Indicators Score Raw Score

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

% Increase in number of
1
primary health care centers .50 30 25 20 10 5 15 75% 37.5%

% Increase in number of
people with access to a
2
primary health center .30 20 18 16 14 12 18 90% 27%
within 20 KMs

Number of hospitals with

3 ISO 9000 certification by .20 500 450 400 300 250 600 100% 20%
December 31, 2009

Composite Score 84.5%

 Performance Obligations for National Authority 2009-2010
Target
Success Indicator Very
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Objective Weight Good

Relative
Description
Weight 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

Objective 1 Effective a. On-time Completion 15 % By April 28, By May By May By June By June
Management of the 2009 15, 2009 31, 2009 15, 2009 30, 2009
Chemical Weapons
Destruction Program 30%
b. Safety of the program 15 % No incidents One One major Two Three
minor incident incidents incidents
incident
Objective 2 Effective 25% Percentage reduction in the 25% 20 % 15% 10% 5% 0%
Management of the discrepancies between
Declarations declarations submitted and
inspection results

Objective 3 Effective 25% Number of errors committed 25% 5 8 11 14 17

Management of by NACWC Escort Officers
OPCW Inspections

Objective 4 Effective 20% Aggregate score for the 3- 20% 100 90 80 70 60

Implementation of Point Performance Agenda
Performance Agenda
for 2009-2010

Total Weight = 100%

For comments and further dialogue please contact:

Dr. Prajapati Trivedi

Secretary, Performance Management
Cabinet Secretariat

prajapati.trivedi@nic.in