Guidebook On The Strategic Performance M

STRATEGIC
Guidebook on the
PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
Guidebook on the
Strategic Performance Management System
Human Resource Policies and Standards Oice

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Foreword
It has been said that a journey begins with a
single step. And as the journey progresses,
one has to keep track of one’s gears, one’s
destination, how fast one can get to the
journey’s end.
Over the years, the Civil Service Commission

has been at the forefront of the journey
of reform and transformation of the
bureaucracy. While it has logged milestones
and went past crossroads, it has never
lost sight of its goal—that of creating a
truly responsive, motivated, and eicient
workforce in government.
The CSC continues the journey with yet another tool speciically for human
resource management oicers in the public sector. In your hands is the
Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS),
a step-by-step guide in establishing the agency SPMS. The Guidebook
provides basic information and competencies needed to set-up the SPMS,
including discussions on the system’s cycle: performance planning and
commitment building; monitoring and coaching; performance review and
evaluation; and rewarding and development planning. It aims to guide
HRMOs in using the system to better identify, assess, and streamline
performance measurement processes.
The Commission has prioritized SPMS among its human resource

initiatives. CSC hopes that government agencies nationwide would be
able to appreciate how the system would help create a work environment
where civil servants—from executives to the administrative aides—are
able to link individual performance with organizational goals and perform
to the best of their abilities. And through this Guidebook, the Commission
hopes to stay on course in initiating deinitive measures geared towards
upgrading the standards of public sector governance
Francisco T. Duque III, MD, MSc

CHAIRMAN

Acknowledgement
The production of this Guidebook would not have been possible without
the invaluable support of the Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAid) through the Philippine Australia Human Resource
and Organisational Development Facility (PAHRODF).
We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the following:
• Representatives of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM),

Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and Technological
University of the Philippines (TUP) for participating in the pre-test of
the Guidebook.
• The CSC Public Assistance and Information Oice (PAIO) for its technical
inputs in the layout of the Guidebook.

Table of Contents
Foreword i
Acknowledgement iii
Glossary vii
Measuring Performance through the Years 1
The Strategic Performance Management System:
Building on Past Initiatives 3
HOW TO ESTABLISH THE SPMS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION 7
Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team 7
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System 11
PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND COMMITMENT 15
Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs 17
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output 21
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of Your Oice 29
Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions under Your Oice 35
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division 39
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale 45
PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING 59
Step 9. Develop the Performance Monitoring & Coaching Tools 61
Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools 67
PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION 73
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools 75
PERFORMANCE REWARDING & DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 83
Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation 85
CRAFTING YOUR AGENCY SPMS GUIDELINES 89
Tables and Charts

Table 1. SPMS Paradigm Shift 3
Table 2. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities 8
Table 3. Major Final Outputs of the CSC 19
Table 4. CSC Scorecard 22
Table 5. CSC MFOs, Strategic Objectives, Measures,
and Success Indicators 26
Table 6. Oice Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators 33
v v
Table 7. Regional Oice Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators 34
Glossary
Table 8. Oice Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD)
Success Indicators 35 Abbreviations Meaning
APCCD
ARTA
Audit and Position Classiication and Compensation Division
Table 9. Regional Oice Level (CSCRO) and Division Level (PSED)
Anti-Red Tape Act
ARTA-RCS
Success Indicators 37 Anti-Red Tape Act-Report Card Survey
Table 10. Oice Level (HRPSO), Division Level (APCCD), and Individual CARE-HRM Continuing Assistance and Review for Excellent
Human Resource Management
CB
Level (Staf) Success Indicators 40
Certifying Board
CHARM
Table 11. Regional Oice Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and Comprehensive Human Resource Management Assistance,
Review, and Monitoring
CNA
Individual Level (Staf) Success Indicators 43
Collective Negotiation Agreement
CS
Table 12. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to
Civil Service
Rate Performance 47 CSC Civil Service Commission
Table 13. Operationalization of the Rating Scale 48 CSCAAP Civil Service Commission Agency Accreditation Program
CSCFO
CSCRO
Table 14. HRPSO Rating Matrix 49 Civil Service Commission Field Oice
CSE-PPT
Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix 51
Civil Service Commission Regional Oice
Career Service Examination - Paper and Pencil Test
Table 16. APCCD Rating Matrix 52 CSI Civil Service Institute
Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix 54 CSLO
DBM
Commission Secretariat and Liaison Oice
Table 18. Employee A Rating Matrix 55 Department of Budget and Management
DOLE Department of Labor and Employment
DPCR
Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix 56
Division Performance Commitment and Review
Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix 57 E
EO
Eiciency
Table 21. Employee D Rating Matrix 58 Executive Order
Table 22. Sample Ratings of Accomplishments 78 ERPO
ESD
Examination Recruitment and Placement Oice
Examination Services Division
GAS
Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staf under HRPSO 79
General Administration and Support
Table 24. HRPSO’S Summary of Ratings (OPCR) 80 GOCC Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations
HR Human Resource
Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle 11 HRD Human Resource Division
Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework 18 HRMO

HR/OD
Human Resource Management Oice
Human Resource and Organization Development
HRPSO
Chart 3. Link between CSC’s Logical Framework and Scorecard 25
IPCR
Human Resource Policies and Standards Oice
Chart 4. CSC Oices Contributing to Speciic MFOs 29 Individual Performance Commitment and Review
Chart 5. Illustration of CSC Oices at the Central and Regional Levels IRMO
ISO
Integrated Records Management Oice
Contributing to the MFOs 31 International Standards Organization

KRA Key Result Area
LGU
Chart 6. Illustration of One CSC Oice and Division at Central
Local Government Unit
and Regional Levels Contributing to MFO 32 LSD Legal Services Division
Chart 7. Alignment of OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR 68 LSP Local Scholarship Program
LWD Local Water District
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MBO Management by Objective
MC Memorandum Circular
v v
MFO Major Final Output
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MORE Management by Objectives and Results Evaluation
MSD Management Services Division
N/A Not Applicable
NGA National Government Agencies
NPAS New Performance Appraisal System
OFAM
OHRMD
Oice for Financial and Assets Management
OLA
Oice for Human Resource Management and Development
OPCR
Oice for Legal Afairs
OPES
Oice Performance Commitment and Review
OPIF
Oice Performance Evaluation System
Organizational Performance Indicator Framework
OSM
PAIO
Oice for Strategy Management
PALD
Public Assistance and Information Oice
Public Assistance and Liaison Division
PAP Programs, Projects, and Activities
PERC Performance Evaluation Review Committee
PES Performance Evaluation System
PMS Performance Management System
PMS-OPES Performance Management System-Oice Performance
Evaluation System
PMT Performance Management Team
PMU Project Management Unit
PRAISE Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence
PRO
PSED
Personnel Relations Oice
Policies and Systems Evaluation Division
PSSD Personnel Systems and Standards Division
PRIME-HRM Program to Institutionalize Meritocracy and Excellence
in Human Resource Management
Q Quality
QS
QSSD
Qualiication Standards
RA
Qualiication and Selection Standards Division
Republic Act
RBPMS Results-Based Performance Management System
RO
SMART
Regional Oice
SPEAR
Speciic, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound
Special Program for Evaluation and Assessment as
Required/Requested
SPMS Strategic Performance Management System
STO Support to Operations
SUC State Universities and Colleges
T Timeliness
TARD Talent Acquisition and Retention Division
WIG Wildly Important Goal
1999: Revised PES and
Measuring Performance through the Years 360-Degree Evaluation
Memorandum Circular No. 13, s. 1999 revised the PES
As the central human resource manage- and introduced the 360 degree evaluation, a cross rating
1993:
system in which assessment of performance and behavior
Performance
ment agency of the Phlppne bureau-
comes from the employees’ self-evaluation as well as
Evaluation System
feedback from their subordinates, peers, supervisors,
cracy, the Cvl Servce Commsson (CSC)
1989:
s consttutonally mandated to adopt and clients. The Revised PES required each government
measures to promote morale, eiciency, Autonomy Through Memorandum Circular agency to create a Performance Evaluation Review
of Agencies in Developing Committee (PERC) tasked to establish performance
their Performance
ntegrty, responsveness, courtesy and No. 12, s. 1993, the Performance
Evaluation System (PES) standards. An evaluation of the cross-rating system
Evaluation System
publc accountablty among government
sought to establish an objective revealed that employees perceived the system to be
employees.
performance system. The CSC too complex.
The CSC provided simple guidelines
Through the years, the CSC has mple- provided speciic guidelines In 2001, through CSC MC No. 13, s. 2001, Agency Heads
to empower government agencies
on setting the mechanics of were given the discretion to utilize the approved PES
to develop their own Performance
mented several performance evaluaton
the rating system. Similar to or devise a Performance Evaluation System based on a
and apprasal systems. Evaluation System (PES). This guide-
the NPAS and MORE, the PES combination of the old PES and the revised performance
line was made through Memorandum
Below s a bref revew of past ntatves: also measured the employee’s evaluation system.
1978: 2005:
Circular No. 12, s. 1989. Internally,
performance and behavior in the
the CSC adopted a system called
Performance Management
work environment.
MORE (Management by Objectives
New Performance and Results Evaluation) in which
Appraisal System Evaluation System
System-Oice Performance
the employee’s accomplishments in
performance and behavior are moni-
The New Performance Appraisal The Performance Management System-Oice
tored weekly.
System (NPAS) was based on Performance Evaluation System (PMS-OPES)
Peter Drucker’s Management sought to align individual performance with
by Objectives (MBOs) system. organizational goals. It emphasized the importance
Implemented through Memo- 2005 of linking the performance management system
randum Circular No. 2, s. 1978, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT with national goals as stated in the following:
the NPAS focused on key result SYSTEM-OFFICE PERFORMANCE • Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
areas (KRAs) along the dimen- EVALUATION SYSTEM • Organizational Performance Indicator/
sions of quality, quantity, and Framework (OPIF)
timeliness. It measured the em- • Major Final Output (MFO)
ployee’s performance and be- 1999 1993
havior in the work environment.
1963:
REVISED PES AND 360-DEGREE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION EVALUATION SYSTEM
Performance Rating
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 1963 1978 1989
6, s. 1963 provided the guide- PERFORMANCE NEW PERFORMANCE AUTONOMY OF AGENCIES
lines in developing a system of RATING APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN DEVELOPING THEIR PES
performance rating that would
measure performance of gov-
ernment employees.

Drawing from the rationale
that “what gets measured gets TO ILLUSTRATE HOW TO
COMPUTE OPES POINTS:
done,” every hour of work
The Strategic Performance Management System:
is given 1 OPES point in the 243 working days in a year x 8 hours in a Building on Past Initiatives
rating system. day = 1,944 working hours in a year.
Using this as the standard unit The percentage of non-quantiiable

The past performance evaluaton and apprasal systems that CSC mple-
of measure, the PMS-OPES outputs and activities for Regional/Field
required each government Oice staf is 30%; while the percentage mented over the years have largely focused only on ndvdual apprasals,
agency to create a Measurement of quantiiable outputs is 70%. 70% of whch were used for personnel actons such as ncentves, promoton,
Development and Calibration 1,944 is 1,360 divided by 2 semesters (to and separaton. However, they have not shown how employee perfor-
Team that would determine relect the two monitoring periods every mance has contributed to or hindered organizational efectiveness.
the equivalent points of each
year) = 680 points.
major inal output or the To address the gaps and weaknesses found n prevous evaluaton systems,
To get the target points of the oice,
amount of time it will take an
680 points are multiplied by the number the CSC recently ntroduced the Strategc Performance Management
average competent employee
of staf in the oice. System (SPMS) after ts plot test n 0. The SPMS ncorporates the
to produce a speciic output.
Under the OPES, targets are For a Field Oice with 5 staf, the
postve features of past ntatves.
estimated on the basis of the minimum OPES points should therefore be
number of OPES points required 3,400 pts. Lke ts predecessor, PMS-OPES, the SPMS seeks to lnk ndvdual
per individual per rating period This Field Oice can get a rating of performance wth the agency’s organzatonal vson, msson, and
multiplied by the number of Outstanding simply by processing a big strategc goals. Wth some adjustments, t also makes use of exstng
individual members of the number of appointments and examination
performance evaluaton and management systems and lnks performance
organizational unit. applications. This Field Oice, however,
management wth other human resource (HR) systems.
The OPES measures the may still have pending appointments that
collective performance of need to be acted upon. The backlog in the However, the SPMS makes a major paradgm shft n the followng areas:
a unit. The smallest unit is work of the Field Oice is not considered
the division. in the rating. Table 1. SPMS Paradigm Shift
Under this system, an OPES
Reference Table was created. PARADIGM SHIFT
AREA
Below are the government From To
issuances related to the PMS-OPES:
Perspective Performance evaluation Performance management
• Memorandum Circular No. 7, s. 2007 called for the installation of Performance
Management System in the Civil Service. Focus Activities and inputs Outputs and outcomes
• Republic Act 9485 or Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) required government agencies
to reengineer their systems and procedures and develop their Citizen’s Charter. Indicators Performance indicators (e.g. Success indicators (e.g.
• Administrative Order 241, Section 5 mandated agencies to institute a performance number of appointments response time)
evaluation system based on objectively-measured performance outputs. processed)
Although the PMS-OPES sought to create a system with objectively-measured Performance Focus on individual Align individual to ofice/
performance outputs, the process proved too tedious and overly activity-oriented. alignment (competition) organization (teamwork
and collaboration)
Role of supervisor Evaluator Coach and mentor

The government ssuances related to the SPMS are the followng: . Team approach to performance management. Accountabltes and
ndvdual roles n the achevement of organzatonal goals are clearly
• Senate and House of Representatves Jont Resoluton No. authorzed
deined to facilitate collective goal setting and performance rating. The
the Presdent of the Phlppnes to modfy the compensaton and poston
ndvdual’s work plan or commtment and ratng form s lnked to the
classiication system of civilian personnel and the base pay schedule of
division, unit, and oice work plan or commitment and rating form to
mltary and unformed personnel n the government.
clearly establsh the connecton between organzatonal and employee
• Admnstratve Order No. , s. 0 created an nter-agency task performance.
force on the harmonzaton of natonal government performance
. User-frendly. The suggested forms for organzatonal and ndvdual
montorng, nformaton, and reportng systems. Ths nter-agency task
commtments and performance are smlar and easy to complete. The
force developed the Results-Based Performance Management System
oice, division, and individual major inal outputs and success indicators
(RBPMS) that establshed a common set of performance scorecard and
are algned to cascade organzatonal goals to ndvdual employees and
harmonzed natonal government performance montorng, nformaton,
harmonize organizational and staf performance ratings.
and reportng systems.
. Informaton system that supports montorng and evaluaton. The
• CSC Memorandum Crcular No. 6, s. 0 provded gudelnes n the
SPMS promotes the establshment of montorng and evaluaton
establshment and mplementaton of agency Strategc Performance
(M&E) and nformaton systems that facltate the lnkage between
Management System.
organzatonal and employee performance and generate tmely,
• Jont CSC-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Jont Crcular accurate, and relable nformaton that can be used to track performance,
No. , s. 0 provded the rules and regulatons on the grant of step report accomplshments, mprove programs, and be the bass for polcy
ncrements due to mertorous performance and length of servce. decson-makng.
• Executve Order No. 80, s. 0 drected the adopton of a performance- 6. Communcaton Plan. Establshng the SPMS n the organzaton
based ncentve system for government employees. must be accompanied by an orientation program for agency oicials and
employees to promote awareness and nterest on the system and generate
appreciation for the SPMS as a management tool to engage oicials and
Basic Elements of the SPMS:
employees as partners n the achevement of organzatonal goals.
. Goal algned to agency mandate and organzatonal prortes.
Performance goals and measurements are algned to natonal
development plans, agency mandate, vson, msson, and strategc
prortes, and/or organzatonal performance ndcator framework.
Predetermned standards are ntegrated nto the success ndcators as
organzatonal objectves are cascaded down to the operatonal level.
. Outputs/outcomes-based. The SPMS focuses on the major inal outputs

(MFOs) that contrbute to the realzaton of the organzaton’s mandate,
vson, msson, strategc prortes, outputs, and outcomes.

Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team
FORM THE PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT TEAM
11
How to Establish the SPMS in Your Organization
The Performance Management Team (PMT) wll spearhead the 2

establshment of the SPMS n your organzaton. The PMT shall be
composed of the followng:
1. Executive Oicial designated as Chairperson
3
2. Highest Human Resource Management Oicer
3. Highest Human Resource Development Oicer 4
4. Highest Planning Oicer
5. Highest Finance Oicer
6. Presdent of the accredted employee assocaton
5
The Planning Oice will function as the Secretariat.
When establshng the SPMS, t s mportant to have the followng key

6
players who wll assume the responsbltes lsted n Table :
7
10
11
12
6
Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team Step 1. Form the Performance Management Team
Table 2. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities
KEY PLAYERS RESPONSIBILITIES KEY PLAYERS RESPONSIBILITIES
SPMS Champion •Together with the PMT, the SPMS Champion is responsible and accountable for Head of Ofice •Assumes primary responsibility for performance management in his/her ofice.
the establishment and implementation of the SPMS.
•Conducts strategic planning session with supervisors and staff.
1
•Sets agency performance goals/objectives and performance measures.
•Reviews and approves individual performance commitment and rating form. 11
•Determines agency target setting period.
•Submits quarterly accomplishment report.
•Approves ofice performance commitment and rating.
•Does initial assessment of ofice’s performance.
2 •Assesses performance of ofices.

•Determines inal assessment of individual employees’ performance level. 2
PMT •Sets consultation meetings with all Heads of Ofices to discuss the ofice
•Informs employees of the inal rating and identiies necessary interventions to
performance commitment and rating system and tools.
employees.
3 •Ensures that ofice performance management targets, measures, and budget are
•Provides written notice to subordinates who obtain Unsatisfactory or Poor rating.
3
aligned with those of goals of the agency.
Division Chief •Assumes joint responsibility with the Head of Ofice in attaining performance targets.
•Recommends approval of the ofice performance and rating system and tools.
4 •Rationalizes distribution of targets and tasks.
4
•Acts as appeals body and inal arbiter.
•Monitors closely the status of performance of subordinates.
•Identiies potential top performers for awards.
5 •Adopts its own internal rules, procedures, and strategies to carry out its responsibilities.
•Assesses individual employees’ performance. 5
Planning Ofice •Functions as the PMT Secretariat. •Recommends developmental interventions.
6 •Monitors submission of Ofice Performance Commitment and Rating Form Individual •Act as partners of management and co-employees in meeting organizational 6
(OPCR) and schedule the review and evaluation by the PMT. Employees performance goals.
7 7
•Consolidates, reviews, validates, and evaluates the initial performance
assessment based on accomplishments reported against success indicators and
budget against actual expenses.
8 •Conducts an agency performance planning and review conference annually.

8
•Provides each ofice with the inal ofice assessment as basis in the assessment
of individual employees. If you follow Step 1, you should be
9 Human Resource
Management
Ofice (HRMO)
•Monitors submission of Individual Performance Commitment and Rating (IPCR)
Form.
l able to identify the members of your PMT
and draft an ofice order mandating
the composition of the PMT.
9
10 •Reviews the summary list of individual performance rating. 10

•Provides analytical data on retention, skill/competency gaps, and talent
development plan.
11 •Coordinates developmental interventions that will form part of the HR Plan.
11
12 12
8
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
REVIEW THE EXISTING

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Once formed, the irst thing that the PMT does is to review the 1
agency’s exstng performance management system (PMS) and make
necessary modiications so that it is aligned with the SPMS guidelines
ssued through Memorandum Crcular No. 6, s. 0. 2
Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle

3
4
Stage 4.
Performance 5
Rewarding &
Development
Planning 6
Stage 1.
Performance 7
PMS
Planning &
Commitment
Stage 3.
8
Performance
CYCLE
Review &
Evaluation
9
Stage 2.
Performance
10
Monitoring
& Coaching
11
12
0
Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
The SPMS follows the same four-stage PMS cycle that underscores the Performance Review and Evaluation
mportance of performance management: s done at regular ntervals to
Performance Monitoring and assess both the performance of
Coaching s done regularly durng the individual and his/her oice.
Performance Planning and Commitment s done pror
the performance perod by the Heads The suggested tme perods for
to the start of the performance perod where heads of
of Agency, Planning Oice, Division Performance Revew and Evaluaton Performance Rewarding and Development Planning
1 Stage 1 oices meet with the supervisors and staf and agree on
and Oice Heads, and the individual. are the irst week of July and the irst s based on the results of the performance revew and 1
the outputs that should be accomplshed based on the
The focus s creatng an enablng week of January the followng year. evaluaton when approprate developmental nterven-
goals and objectves of the organzaton. The suggested
tions shall be made available to speciic employees. The
2 2
envronment to mprove team
tme for Performance Plannng and Commtment s the Stage 3
performance and develop ndvdual suggested tme perods for Performance Rewardng and
last quarter of the precedng year.
potentals. The suggested tme Development Planning are the irst week of July and the
When reviewing Stage 1, ask yourself the

perods for Performance Montorng irst week of January the following year.
3 3
following questions:
and Coachng are January to June and
When reviewing Stage 3,
Stage4
July to December.
ask yourself the following
• Does your SPMS calendar show that oicials and
questions:
When reviewing Stage 4, ask yourself the
4 employees are required to submit their commitments Stage 2
following questions:
4
prior to the start of the rating period?
• Are oice accomplishments • Is there a mechanism for the Head of Oice and
• Does your SPMS calendar allot time for the PMT
assessed against the success supervisors to discuss assessment results with the
5 to review and make recommendations on the individual employee at the end of the rating period?
5
indicators and the allotted
performance commitments?
When reviewing Stage 2, budget against the actual • Is there a provision to draw up a Professional
• Does your SPMS calendar indicate the period for
6 ask yourself the following expenses as indicated in the Development Plan to improve or correct performance 6
of employees with Unsatisfactory or Poor
Heads of Agency and Oices to approve the oice
questions: Performance Commitment and
and individual performance commitments?
• Are feedback sessions to discuss Rating Forms and provided in performance rating?
7 performance of oices, oicials, your Agency Guidelines? • Are recommendations for developmental 7
and employees provided in your • Does your SPMS calendar interventions indicated in the Performance
Agency Guidelines and scheduled schedule and conduct the Commitment and Rating Form?
8 in your SPMS calendar? Annual Agency Performance • Is there a provision on your Agency Guidelines to 8
• Are interventions given to those Review Conference? link the SPMS with your Agency Human Resource
4 who are behind work targets? Is • Is individual employee Development Plan?
9 1 performance assessed based on • Is there a provision in your Agency Guidelines to
9
space provided in the Employee
Feedback Form for recommended the commitments made at the tie up the performance management system with
10 PMS interventions? start of the rating period?

• Does your agency rating scale
agency rewards and incentives for top performing 10
• Is there a form or logbook to individuals, units, and oices?
CYCLE record critical incidents, schedule fall within the range prescribed • Are the results of the performance evaluation
11 3 of coaching, and the action plan? in Memorandum Circular No. 13, used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and rewards 11
2 s. 1999 - Revised Policies on and incentives?
the PES?
12 12

Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System
2
3
6 Steps 3 to 8
are all subsumed
under the first stage
7 of the PMS cycle−
Performance Planning
8 and Commitment.
9
Performance
If you follow Step 2, you shoiuld be able
10
l to identify the gaps and PMS areas for
modiication and enhancement.
11
Planning &
12 Commitment

Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs
KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR AGENCY’S

MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS
The SPMS links staf performance with organizational performance. As 1

such, t s mportant to understand your organzaton’s mandate and
strategc prortes. Durng the perod of performance plannng and
commitment, the irst thing to do is to understand your agency’s Major
2
Fnal Outputs.
3
Major Final Outputs refer to the goods and services
that your agency is mandated to deliver to external
clients through the implementation of programs,
projects, and activities (PAPs).
4
Where you can ind the MFOs or strategic

5
priorities of your agency:
• The Agency Logical Framework/Organizational Performance 6

Indicator Framework (OPIF) Book of Outputs s the man source
document for your organzaton’s MFOs. Ths s publshed by the
7
Department of Budget and Management.
If your agency does not have a wrtten Logcal Framework/OPIF

Book of Outputs, the other possble sources of nformaton are the
8
followng documents:
For National Government Agencies (NGAs), State Universities and Colleges

9
(SUCs) and Government-owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs):
• Philippine Development Plan • Agency Strategic Plan/Road Map 10
• Agency Charter • Scorecard
For Local Government Units (LGUs): 11

• Philippine Development Plan • Road Map
• Local Government Code • Strategic Plan
• Local Development Plan • Scorecard 12

Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs
EXAMPLES OF MFOs FOUND IN THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Encrcled n the logcal framework matrx shown n Chart are the
Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework CSC’s ive Major Final Outputs:
SOCIETAL GOAL Human Resource Table 3. Major Final Outputs of the CSC
1 Development Toward
Poverty Alleviation
MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS 1
MFO 1: Legal Services
2 SECTORAL GOAL
MFO 2: Examinations and Appointments 2
Improved Public Good MFO 3: Personnel Policies and Standards Services
Service Delivery Governance
3 MFO 4: Human Resource Development Services
MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and Accountability Enhancement Services

3
ORGANIZATIONAL
OUTCOMES Merit & Rewards
Public Accountability MFOs are delivered by core business processes of operating oices/units.
4 System in the Civil Service
Strengthened and
of Civil Servants Promoted
However, oices/units that do not directly deliver goods and services 4
to external clients contribute to the delivery of the agency’s MFOs
5 MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS

through Support to Operations (STO) or General Administration and
Support (GAS) activities.
5
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL HUMAN
STOs refer to actvtes that provde techncal and substantve support
6 6
DISCIPLINE &
LEGAL EXAMINATION POLICIES & RESOURCE
ACCOUNTABILITY
SERVICE & APPOINTMENTS STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT to the operatons and projects of the agency. By themselves, these
ENHANCEMENT
SERVICES SERVICES
SERVICES actvtes do not produce the MFOs but they contrbute or enhance the
7 delvery of goods and servces. Examples nclude program montorng 7

and evaluaton, publc nformaton programs, statstcal servces, and
PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS)
nformaton systems development.
8 • Adjudicate • Develop & for- • Formulate • Conduct
Develop policies, GAS refer to actvtes that deal wth the provson of overall admnstratve
8
administrative mulate guidelines, policies on training programs
standards, rules
disciplinary & standards & government
non-disciplinary procedures on the employment • Formulate/ & regulations on management support to the entre agency operaton. Examples
evaluate/
9 9
personnel
cases various processes
involved in recruit- • Review/ administer program evalua- are legslatve lason servces, human resource development, and
• Formulate ment, examination enhance/ HRD programs tion, including
opinions & & placement monitor agency & service-wide personnel inancial services.
rulings career systems scholarships inspection &
10 10
• Certify eligible &standards audit actions
• Render legal for placement
counseling
• Conduct
• Develop
policies,
If you follow Step 3, you should be able to
examination standards & answer the following questions:
l
regulations on
11 • Issue certiicate
of eligibility
employee-
management
• What is my agency’s mandate---vision, 11
• Process/ review relations in the mission, and goals?
appointments for public sector
• What are my agency’s products
12 12
non-accredited
agencies
and services or major inal outputs?
8
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
IDENTIFY THE SUCCESS INDICATORS

OF EACH MAJOR FINAL OUTPUT
After dentfyng the MFOs of your agency, lst down the success 1
ndcators or performance measures and targets of each MFO.
Where you can ind the performance indicators of your agency:

2
• Agency logical framework/OPIF s the man document that detals the
performance ndcators and targets per MFO.
• Agency Strategc Plan/Road Map /Scorecard
3
Using these documents as basis, the agencies must agree on the
performance standards on which they want to be measured. 4
You can determne the success ndcators by referrng to the
followng documents:
• Ctzen’s Charter
5
• RA 6 (Code of Ethcs and Ethcal Standards)
• OPES Reference Table 6
• Accomplshment Reports (for hstorcal data)
• Benchmarkng Reports
• Stakeholders’ Feedback Reports
7
There may be other documents asde from those lsted above that an
agency can derve ts success ndcators. 8
9
√ SPECIFIC
Success indicators
must be SMART: √ MEASURABLE 10
√ ATTAINABLE
√ REALISTIC
11
√ TIME-BOUND
12
0

The Cvl Servce Commsson derves ts success ndcators from ts Logcal Framework/
Examples
EXAMPLESofOFSuccess
SUCCESSIndicators
INDICATORS OPIF Book of Outputs as well as ts Scorecard. Other agences may determne ther success

found in the Agency Scorecard
FOUND IN THE AGENCY SCORECARD ndcators from other documents lsted above (e.g., Ctzen’s Charter, OPES Reference
Table, Benchmarkng Reports).
Table 4. CSC Scorecard
PERSPECTIVE
OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
A Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction N/A T:1 Acceptable Good Good Excellent Excellent
as a Center Rating (CSC frontline (70-79%) (80-89%) (80-89%) (90-100%) (90-100%)
for Excellence services)
A: Good Good Good

(87% in CSC (89.14%) (87.3% in CSC
ARTA-RCS and ARTA-RCS &
98% 99% satisfac-
STAKEHOLDER S
satisfaction rat- tion rating of

ing of selected selected govt
govt agencies) agencies)
2 Percentage of T: N/A 10% 25% 40% 50%

agencies accredited (159 agencies re- (398 agencies (636 agencies (795 agencies
under the validated out of Level II accredit- Level II accred- Level II ac-
PRIME-HRM 1,590 accredited ed out of 1,590 ited out of 1,590 credited out of
agencies) accredited accredited 1,590 accredited
agencies) agencies) agencies)
A: N/A 165%
(262 agencies
revalidated)
Level II accredited – an agency which meets the basic requirements after having been subjected to CHARM and/or determined to have complied with the
recommendations of the CSCRO/FO concerned after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission authority to take final action on appointments.
ices surveyed) ices surveyed)

recommendations of pass
service ofices the CSCRO/FO concerned after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission
ofices orauthority toices
takesurveyed)
final action onservice
appointments.
ofices
B High 3 WIG: Percentage ofices

78% T: 20% 40% 85% 95% 98%
performing, of high density (39 (469 service of- (560 service of- (830 pass out (345 pass out of (1,022 pass
competent, agencies and their passed ices surveyed) ices surveyed) of 975 service 363 service of- out of 1,042
service ofices service ofices
and credible service ofices pass- out ofices or ices surveyed) service ofices
civil servants ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed)
service

A: 73% 75%
ofices
(361 passed (449 passed
sur-
out of 497 out of 599
veyed)
service ofices service ofices
STAKEHOLDER S
surveyed) surveyed)
4 WIG: 14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80%

Number of agencies and (498 out of (747 out of (1,743 out of (1,992 out of
with approved SPMS DOLE 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies)
and its
A: N/A 73%
12 at-
(364 agencies
tached
with approved
agen-
SPMS)
cies
WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20%

Number of NGAs, (315 agencies (79 agencies out
GOCCs, and SUCs out of 393 of 393 NGAs,
with functional NGAs, GOCCs, GOCCs, and
SPMS and SUCs) SUCs)
A: 1
Approved SPMScore
certiied – includes
and all sectors: NGAs, GOCCs, SUCs, LWDs, and LGUs; SPMS is conditionally approved for initial implementation
Functional SPMS – SPMS is approved and implemented

Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
LINK BETWEEN LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND SCORECARD
(Maintained)
2015
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC MEASURES

The llustraton below shows the lnk between CSC’s Logcal Frame-
OUTPUTS
100%
OBJECTIVES
80%
98%
work—where the MFOs and performance targets are found, and Score-
5
card—where the strategc objectves and measures are ndcated: MFO 1: A. Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction Rating
(Maintain the
Management
LEGAL SERVICES
4 Processes
as a Center of (CSC frontline services)

2014
Process)
Chart 3. Link between CSC’s Logical Framework and Scorecard

+Project
Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework Excellence

100%
80%
2 Percentage of agencies accred-

70%
5
SOCIETAL GOAL Human Resource ited under the PRIME-HRM

Development Toward
(Maintain the
B. High 3 WIG: Percentage of high density

3 Processes
Poverty Alleviation
2013
MFO 2:
+ Training
Process)
performing, agencies and their service of-

100%
70%*
EXAMINATIONS AND
60%
competent, and ices passing the ARTA-RCS

Employees collectively refer to the rank and file, supervisory, and executive/managerial groups
4
SECTORAL GOAL APPOINTMENTS

Improved Public Good credible civil
(592 out of 1,115)
Service Delivery Governance 4 WIG: Number of agencies with

RBPMS rating:
Appointments
Appointments
servants
Adjudication,
Adjudication,
Examination,
Examination,
(4,791 out of
6,582 cases
Processing)
Processing)
approved SPMS
2012
resolved)
Passed
(Cases
(Cases
60%
80%
53%
5 WIG: Numbers of NGAs, GOCCs,

73%
ORGANIZATIONAL MFO 3:
Merit & Rewards
3
OUTCOMES Public Accountability

System in the Civil Service PERSONNEL and SUCs with functional SPMS
of Civil Servants Promoted
Strengthened and POLICIES AND
C. Provide excel- 6 Number of ISO-certiied core
2011
STANDARDS
lent HR processes and support processes
SERVICES
30%
MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D. Ensure fairness 7 WIG: Percentage of cases re-
PERSONNEL
and eficiency in
PERSONNEL HUMAN
DISCIPLINE & MFO 4: solved within 40 days from the
A:
A:
A:
T:
T:
T:
T:
LEGAL EXAMINATION POLICIES & RESOURCE
ACCOUNTABILITY
SERVICE & APPOINTMENTS HUMAN RESOURCE
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
ENHANCEMENT performing Quasi- time they are ripe for resolution
BASE
SERVICES SERVICES
SERVICES DEVELOPMENT Judicial functions
N/A
N/A
N/A
SERVICES
E. Enhance the 8 Percentage of CSC employees
PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS) competency of meeting their job competency
• Adjudicate • Develop & for- • Formulate • Conduct MFO 5: our workforce standards
their job competency

within 40 days from
Develop policies,
employees meeting
administrative mulate guidelines, policies on training programs
support processes
Percentage of CSC
Zero un-liquidated
ripe for resolution
standards, rules
certiied core and
of cases resolved
the time they are

WIG: Percentage disciplinary & standards & government PERSONNEL
MEASURE
• Formulate/ & regulations on

Number of ISO-
non-disciplinary procedures on the employment
cash advance
evaluate/ personnel
cases various processes DISCIPLINE AND
• Review/ administer program evalua- F. Ensure eficient 9 Zero un-liquidated cash advance
standards
involved in recruit-
• Formulate enhance/ HRD programs tion, including
ment, examination ACCOUNTABIL-
opinions & & placement monitor agency & service-wide personnel
inspection &
management
rulings career systems scholarships
ITY ENHANCEMENT
• Render legal
• Certify eligible
for placement
&standards audit actions
of inancial
counseling • Develop SERVICES
resources
8
5
• Conduct policies,
7
examination standards &
Quasi-Judicial
regulations on
management
OBJECTIVE
• Issue certiicate
excellent HR
fairness and
eficiency in
competency
Enhance the
of our work-
employee-
of inancial
performing
processes
of eligibility
resources
functions
management
eficient
Provide
You will note that MFO 2 (Examinations and Appointments) is not included in the
relations in the
Ensure
Ensure
• Process/ review
force
appointments for public sector
non-accredited Scorecard but it is one of the core functions of the CSC.
agencies
In the Scorecard, you will ind that general administrative and support functions are
C
F
PR OCESS PR OCESS PEOPLE FIN AN CE part of the strategic objectives: C. Provide excellent HR processes and F. Ensure
eicient management of inancial resources.
*Target percentage may change depending on the results of the validation being conducted by OLA, CSLO and OCH.”

Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output
EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS INDICATORS MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC

MEASURES SUCCESS INDICATORS
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE
The hghlghted column n the table below shows CSC’s success ndcators
that were derved from the MFOs (found n the Logcal Framework) and MFO 3: Recognized as • Percentage • No. of HR Climate Surveys con-
strategc objectves and measures (found n the Scorecard). Personnel a Center for of agencies ac- ducted as per annual work plan
Policies and Excellence credited under • No. of HRMOs assessed as per
1 Performance targets and standards are contnuously revewed and Standards PRIME-HRM annual work plan 1
reined. As such, determine speciic targets and success indicators for Services • No. of agencies subjected to
each year n your annual work plan. CHARM/CARE-HRM/ SPEAR as per
2 annual work plan 2
Table 5. CSC MFOs, Strategic Objectives, Measures, and Success Indicators • No. of agencies revalidated in
accordance with guidelines
3 MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC
MEASURES SUCCESS INDICATORS • No. of agencies accredited under 3
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE PRIME-HRM Level II Accreditation
(issued with CSC Resolution) in
4 4
MFO 1: Ensure fairness Percentage of • Percentage of cases resolved
Legal Services and eficiency cases resolved within 40 days from the time they accordance with guidelines and set
in performing within 40 days are ripe for resolution standards
quasi-judicial from the time • No. of cases adjudicated and • No. of agencies recommended for
Deregulated Status in accordance
5 functions they are ripe for
resolution
resolved within thirty (30) working
days (disciplinary cases) with guidelines 5
• No. of cases adjudicated and • No. of agencies conferred with
Seal of Excellence Award under
6 resolved within ten (10) working
days (non-disciplinary cases) PRIME-HRM in accordance with 6
• No. of appointments processed/ Commission-approved standards
• No. of Seal of Excellence awarded
7 reviewed versus received in ac-
cordance with technical standards under PRIME-HRM in accordance 7
(for regulated agencies) with Commission-approved
standards
8 MFO 2: Exami- NOTE: MFO 2 is • No. of CSC test applications • No. of unions registered accord- 8
nations and not included in processed and administered in ing to standards
Appoinments the Scorecard accordance with standards • No. of unions accredited accord-
9 but it is one • No. of eligibles granted under ing to standards 9
of the core special laws • No. of union’s CNAs registered
functions of the • No. of eligibilities certiied/placed according to standards
10 CSC. • No. of appointments processed/ • No. of education/information 10
reviewed versus received in ac- campaign conducted as per annual
cordance with technical standards work plan
11 (for regulated agencies) • No. of conciliation/mediation 11
services rendered according to
standards
12 12
6
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC

MEASURES SUCCESS INDICATORS
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE
MFO 4: Hu-
man Resource
Enhance the
competency of
Percentage of
CSC employees
• Percentage of CSC employees
meeting their job competency
GOALS OF YOUR OFFICE
Development our workforce meeting their standards per annual work plan
1 Services job competency • No. of personnel trained After dentfyng all the MFOs of your agency, focus on the performance 1
standards • No. of Distance Learning Program goals of your oice. Ask yourself:
graduates according to standards
2 • No. of scholars enrolled according Which MFO is my oice contributing to?
2
to standards
In most cases, one or several oices will be contributing to one MFO. It is
MFO 5: High perform- • Percentage • Good CSC Client Satisfaction Rat- also possible that one oice will be contributing to two MFOs.
3 Personnel ing, competent, of high density ing (CSC frontline services) for 2013 3
Discipline and credible agencies & their • Percentage of high density
service ofices agencies and their service ofices
EXAMPLES OF OFFICES CONTRIBUTING TO MFOs
4
and civil servants
Accountability passing the passing the ARTA-Report Card In the Civil Service Commission, the following oices contribute to 4
Enhancement ARTA-RCS Survey per annual work plan speciic MFOs:
• No. of complaints/feedbacks/
5
Services • Number of
requests processed/acted upon
5 agencies with
functional SPMS versus received
Ofice for Legal Affairs (OLA),
MFO 1: Legal Services
Commission Secretariat and Liaison
• Number of agencies with func-
Ofice (CSLO); CSC Regional Ofices
6 tional SPMS
(CSCROs) 6
7 Examination, Recruitment and

Placement Ofice (ERPO); CSCROs
MFO 2: Examinations and
Appointments
7
8 Human Resource Policies & 8
l
Standards Ofice (HRPSO); Personnel
If you follow Step 4, you should be able to MFO 3: Personnel Policies and
Relations Ofice (PRO); CSCROs
9 formulate indicators that are SMART. Standards Services
9
HRPSO; Ofice for Human Resource
10 Management and Development 10
(OHRMD); Civil Service Institute MFO 4: Human Resource
(CSI); CSCROs Development Services
11 11
HRPSO; Ofice for Strategy Manage- MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and
12 ment (OSM); Public Assistance and Accountability 12
Information Ofice (PAIO); CSCROs Enhancement Services
8
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
The chart below shows how each CSC oice, division, and individual staf in the central and regional levels work towards meeting the
performance targets, strategic objectives, and MFOs and contribute to realize CSC’s vision of becoming Asia’s leading Center of Excellence
Based on the organzatonal prortes of the Cvl Servce Commsson
for Strategic Human Resource and Organization Development by 2030.
each year, each oice determines its speciic performance targets or
success ndcators n ts annual work plan. The chart, however, does not show all the units in the CSC but only those that are directly contributing to the MFOs.
1 If your oice/unit is not directly delivering goods and services to

Chart 5. Illustration of CSC Oices at the
external clients, your oice/unit is either implementing Support VISION:
Central and Regional Levels Contributing to
to Operations (STO) activities or General Administration and Asia’s Leading Center of Excellence
2 Support (GAS) activities. As such, you should have your own SMART
the MFOs
for Strategic HR and OD by 2030
performance targets or success indicators from the oice/unit level
3 down to the individual staf level.
MFO 3: PERSONNEL MFO 4: HUMAN

MFO 2: MFO 5: PERSONNEL
4 MFO 1:
LEGAL SERVICES
EXAMINATIONS &
POLICIES AND
STANDARDS
RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
DISCIPLINE &
APPOINTMENTS ACCOUNTABILITY
SERVICES SERVICES
5 Ensure fairness and

High performing,
eficiency Recognized as Enhance the competency
competent & credible
in performance of a Center for Excellence of our workforce
6 quasi-judicial functions
civil servants
7 Test form % of high

developed with % of CSC density No. of agencies
% of cases % appointments CSC client % of agencies
good reliability employees agencies & with approved
resolved within acted upon within satisfaction rating accredited under
8 40 days 1.5 hours
index within 2 days
before security
(frontline services) PRIME-HRM
meeting their job
competency
their service
ofices passing
& functional
SPMS
printing ARTA-RCS
9
OLA CSCRO CSCROs ERPO OSM HRPSO CSCRO OHRMD CSI CSCRO OSM CSCRO HRPSO CSCRO
10
OLA
11 Divisions
LSD CSCFOs ESD PMU APCCD PSED TARD IST HRD PMU PALD PSSD PSED
12 Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual
Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff
0
Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office
To illustrate how the performance goals of an oice cascade down to the division and individual staf levels on the central and regional
levels, this Guidebook will zero in on MFO 3 and one speciic oice in the Civil Service Commission that contributes to it: the Human
EXAMPLE OF THE PERFORMANCE GOALS
Resource Policies and Standards Oice (HRPSO), and one division under it, the Audit Position Classiication and Compensation Division
OF AN OFFICE AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
(APCCD) and its counterpart oice and division on the regional level, the CSC Regional Oice (CSCRO) and the Policies and Systems The HRPSO contrbutes to MFO . Below are the performance goals or
Evaluation Division (PSED). You will note that two oices in the central oice actually contribute to MFO 3: HRPSO and OSM. However, the success ndcators of the HRPSO that cascade down to the APPCD. Note
focus will only be on the HRPSO (central oice) and the PSED (regional oice). These units are highlighted in yellow below: that the success ndcators are SMART—Speciic, Measurable, Attain- 1
able, Realstc, and Tme-bound. HRPSO’s other success ndcators that
VISION: cascade down to the other two dvsons under t are not ncluded.
Chart 6. Illustration of One CSC Oice and
Asia’s Leading Center of Excellence
2
Division at Central and Regional Levels Table 6. Oice Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators
Contributing to MFO 3 for Strategic HR and OD by 2030
MAJOR FINAL
OUTPUTS
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO)
SUCCESS INDICATORS
3
MFO 3: Recognized Percentage of 100% of recommendations for
MFO 1:
MFO 2:
MFO 3: PERSONNEL
POLICIES AND
MFO 4: HUMAN
RESOURCE
MFO 5: PERSONNEL Personnel as agencies accreditation from the CSC 4
EXAMINATIONS & DISCIPLINE & Policies and a Center for accredited under Regional Ofices acted upon
LEGAL SERVICES STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
APPOINTMENTS ACCOUNTABILITY Standards Excellence PRIME-HRM within 15 days from receipt of the
SERVICES SERVICES
Services3 recommendation 5
Resolutions for accreditation of
Ensure fairness and agencies approved by the Commis-
High performing,
eficiency
6
Recognized as Enhance the competency
competent & credible sion within 15 days from receipt of
in performance of a Center for Excellence of our workforce
civil servants recommendation from the CSCRO
quasi-judicial functions
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB)

Standards for Center/Seal of Excel- 7
Test form
% of high lence approved by the Commission
developed with
% of CSC density No. of agencies by end of the 1st Quarter
% of cases
resolved within
% appointments
acted upon within
above average
reliability index
CSC client
satisfaction rating
% of agencies
accredited under
employees
meeting their job
agencies &
their service
with approved
& functional Orientation on PRIME-HRM con-
8
40 days 1.5 hours within 2 days (frontline services) PRIME-HRM
competency ofices passing SPMS
before security ducted by EO March 2013
ARTA-RCS
printing
MOA between the CSC and award 9
giving bodies on the integration
of CB standards to their criteria
OLA CSCRO CSCROs ERPO OSM HRPSO CSCRO OHRMD CSI CSCRO OSM CSCRO HRPSO CSCRO signed by end of September 2013 10
Replies to queries sent within 15
OLA
LSD CSCFOs ESD PMU APCCD PSED TARD IST HRD PMU PALD PSSD PSED
days upon receipt by the HRPSO
11
Divisions
2
The other two divisions under the HRPSO are: Personnel Systems and Standards Division (PSSD)
and Qualiication and Selection Standards Division (QSSD).
3
The other oices of the Civil Service Commission contributing to MFO 3 are the Personnel Rela-
12
Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual tions Oice and the Regional Oices.
Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff

Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office
EXAMPLE OF THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF A REGIONAL OFFICE

IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS
The Regional Oices likewise contribute to MFO 3. The highlighted
column shows the performance targets on that level. OF THE DIVISIONS UNDER YOUR OFFICE
1 Table 7. Regional Oice Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators Units under an oice must contribute towards achieving a speciic MFO 1
REGIONAL OFFICE through a set of performance goals or success ndcators. As such, the
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC (CSCRO) LEVEL performance goals of the diferent units such as a branch, attached
2 OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
SUCCESS bureaus, or a dvson must be algned wth the performance goals 2
INDICATORS
of the oice.
3 MFO 4:
Personnel Policies
Recognized as
a Center
Percentage of
agencies
Cumulative 25% of
agencies accredited
3
EXAMPLE OF DIVISION LEVEL
and Standards for Excellence accredited under under CSC Agency
PERFORMANCE GOALS AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
4 Services PRIME-HRM Accreditation Program
(CSCAAP) granted Lev- CSC’s Human Resource Policies and Standards Oice has 3 divisions
4
el II-Accredited Status under t: Personnel Systems and Standards Dvson (PSSD), Audt
5 under PRIME-HRM
and Position Classiication and Compensation Division (APCCD), and
Qualiication and Selection Standards Division (QSSD).
5
6
Hghlghted on the table below are the success ndcators of the Audt
and Position Classiication and Compensation Division:
6
Table 8. Oice Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD) Success Indicators
7 7
l
If you follow Step 5, you should be able to MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) DIVISION LEVEL(APCCD)
MEASURES
identify the performance goals of your ofice OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
8 that contribute to speciic MFOs. MFO 3: Recog- Percent- 100% of recommenda- 100% of recommenda- 8
Personnel nized as age of tions for accreditation tions for accreditation
Policies a Center agencies from the CSC Regional from the CSC Regional
9 and for accredit- Ofices acted upon Ofices acted upon within 9
Standards Excellence ed under within 15 days from 10 days from receipt of
Services PRIME- receipt of the recom- the recommendation
10 HRM mendation 10
Resolutions for Resolutions for accredita-
accreditation of agen- tion of agencies prepared
11 cies approved by the within 10 days from 11
Commission within 15 receipt of the recommen-
days from receipt of dation from the CSCRO
12 recommendation from 12
the CSCRO

Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions Under Your Office
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC MEA- OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) DIVISION LEVEL(APCCD)

EXAMPLE OF DIVISION LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE SURES SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL
PRIME-HRM Certifying Proposed PRIME-HRM
Board (CB) Standards Certifying Board (CB) Hghlghted on the table below are the success ndcators of the Polces
for Center/Seal of Standards for Center/
and Systems Evaluaton Dvson (PSED):
Excellence approved Seal of Excellence ap-
1 by the Commission by proved by the Director
Table 9. Regional Oice Level (CSCRO) and
1
end of the 1st Quarter by March 15
Division Level (PSED) Success Indicators
2 Orientation on PRIME-
HRM conducted by EO
Proposal on the PRIME-
HRM Orientation ap- POLICIES AND 2
REGIONAL OFFICE
March 2013 proved by the Director MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC SYSTEMS EVALUATION
MEASURES (CSCRO) SUCCESS
by the end of February OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE DIVISION (PSED)
3 INDICATORS
SUCCESS INDICATORS 3
MOA between the CSC Draft MOA between the
and award giving bod- CSC and award giving MFO 3: Recog- Cumulative 25% Cumulative 25% of Cumulative 25% of
4 ies on the integration
of CB standards to
bodies on the integra-
tion of CB standards to
Personnel nized as of agencies agencies accredited agencies accredited 4
Policies a Center accredited under CSC Agency under CSC Agency
their criteria signed their criteria approved and for under CSC Agency Accreditation Accreditation
5 by end of September
2013
by the Director by
August 15
Standards Excellence Accreditation Program (CSCAAP) Program (CSCAAP) 5
Services Program (CS- granted Level II granted Level II
Replies to queries Draft replies to queries CAAP) Accredited Status Accredited Status
6 sent within 15 days

upon receipt by the
submitted to the Direc-
tor within 10 days upon
granted Level II
Accredited Status
under PRIME-HRM under PRIME-HRM
6
HRPSO receipt by the HRPSO under PRIME-HRM
7 Like the oice level success indicators, division level success indicators 7
should also be SMART—Speciic, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and
Tme-bound.
8 8
If you follow Step 6, you should be able
9 9
l to identify the performance goals of
your division that are aligned with the
performance goals of your ofice.
10 10
11 11
12 12
6
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division
IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS OF

THE INDIVIDUALS UNDER EACH DIVISION
Each division will be stafed by at least one individual employee. The 1

performance goals of each ndvdual employee must contrbute and
algn wth the performance goals of the dvson. The success ndcators
should be SMART.
2
EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS 3

AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
Hghlghted n Table 0 are the ndvdual level success ndcators of 4

employees under the Audit and Position Classiication and Compensation
Dvson. The table also shows the algnment of ndvdual success
indicators with the division level (APCCD) and oice level (HRPSO)
5
success ndcators.
Like the oice level and division level success indicators, individual 6
level success ndcators should also be SMART—Speci c, Measurable,
Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.
7
10
11
12
8
10
12
11
5
6
3
0
2
9
1
Table 10. Oice Level (HRPSO), Division Level (APCCD), and Individual Level (Staf 1) Success Indicators

MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF)
MEASURES
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
MFO 3: Recognized as Percentage of 100% of recommendations 100% of recommendations 100% of recommendations

Personnel a Center for agencies ac- for accreditation from the CSC for accreditation from the CSC for accreditation from the CSC
Policies and Excellence credited under Regional Ofices acted upon Regional Ofices acted upon Regional Ofices Nos. 1, 2 and 3
Standards PRIME-HRM within 15 days from receipt of within 10 days from receipt of acted upon within 7 days from
Services the recommendation the recommendation receipt of the recommendation
Resolutions for accreditation Resolutions for accreditation Resolutions for accreditation of

of agencies approved by the of agencies prepared within 10 agencies prepared within 7 days
Commission within 15 days from days from receipt by the HRPSO from receipt by the HRPSO
receipt of recommendation from
the CSCRO
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Proposed PRIME-HRM Certify-

Regional Ofices acted upon Regional Ofices acted upon Regional Ofices Nos. 1, 2 and 3
(CB) Standards for Center/Seal Board (CB) Standards for Cen- ing Board (CB) Standards
within 15 days from receipt of within 10 days from receipt of acted upon within 7 days from
of Excellence approved by the ter/Seal of Excellence approved for Center/Seal of Excellence
receipt of the recommendation
Commission by end of the 1st by the Director by March 1 submitted to the Division Chief
Quarter by February 15
of agencies approved by the of agencies prepared within 10 agencies prepared within 7 days
Orientation on PRIME-HRM Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Proposal on the PRIME-HRM
days from receipt by the HRPSO from receipt by the HRPSO
conducted by EO March 2013 Orientation approved by the Orientation submitted to the
receipt of recommendation from
Director by the end of February Division Chief by end of January
MEASURES Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Proposed PRIME-HRM Certify
MOA betweenapproved
of Excellence the CSC and
by the Draft MOA
ter/Seal ofbetween theapproved
Excellence CSC Draft MOA between the CSC
award giving by
Commission bodies onthe
end of the1st and award
by the giving
Director bybodies
March on
1 the and award to
submitted giving bodies on
the Division the
Chief
by February 15
their criteria signed by end of their criteria approved by the their criteria submitted to the
Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Proposal on the PRIME-HRM
September 2013 Director by August 15 Division Chief by 31 July 2013
conducted by EO March 2013 Orientation approved by the Orientation submitted to the
Replies to queries sent within 15 Draft replies
Director to end
by the queries ap
of February Draft replies
Division Chieftobyqueries
end of approved
January
days upon receipt by the HRPSO proved by the Director within by the Division Chief within 7
MEASURES 10 days upon receipt by the days upon receipt by the HRPSO
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS

MOA between the CSC and Draft MOA between the CSC Draft MOA between the CSC
award giving bodies on the and award giving bodies on the and award giving bodies on the
integration of CB standards to integration of CB standards to integration of CB standards to
their criteria signed by end of their criteria approved by the their criteria submitted to the
September 2013 Director by August 15 Division Chief by 31 July 2013
Replies to queries sent within 15 Draft replies to queries ap- Draft replies to queries approved
days upon receipt by the HRPSO proved by the Director within by the Division Chief within 7
10 days upon receipt by the days upon receipt by the HRPSO
HRPSO
7
6
1

12
11
10
8
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division
Table 11. Regional Oice Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and
EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS Individual Level (Staf 2) Success Indicators
AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL
REGIONAL
Hghlghted on the table below are the ndvdual level success ndcators DIVISION
MAJOR OFFICE LEVEL INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
STRATEGIC LEVEL (PSED)
FINAL MEASURES (CSCRO) (STAFF) SUCCESS
of employees under the Polces and Systems Evaluaton Dvson OBJECTIVE SUCCESS
OUTPUTS SUCCESS INDICATORS
1 (PSED) at the regional oice level. The table also shows the alignment INDICATORS
INDICATORS
1
of ndvdual success ndcators wth the dvson level (PSED) and the MFO 3: Recog- Percent- Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
Regional Oice success indicators. Personnel nized as age of 25% of agen- 25% of agen- 25%
2 Like the regional oice level and division level success indicators,
Policies a Center agencies cies accred- cies accred- of agencies 2
and for accredited under ited under accredited
ndvdual level success ndcators should also be SMART Speci c, Standards Excellence ited under CSC Agency CSC Agency under
3 Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound. Services PRIME- Accreditation Accreditation CSC Agency 3
HRM Program Program Accreditation
(CSCAAP) (CSCAAP) Program
4 granted Level-
II Accredited
granted Level-
II Accredited
(CSCAAP)
granted Level-
4
Status under Status under II Accredited
PRIME-HRM PRIME-HRM Status under
5 PRIME-HRM 5
Cumulative
6 25% of agen-
cies accredited
6
under CSC Agen-
7 7
cy Accredita-
tion Program
(CSCAAP)
recommended
for Level-II
8 Accredited 8
Status under
PRIME-HRM
9 9
10 10
If you follow Step 7, you should be able to
11 11
12
l identify the activities and outputs of individual
staff that contribute to the achievement of the
performance goals of your division and ofice. 12

Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
DEVELOP
THE RATING SCALE
Developng the Ratng Scale nvolves two sub-steps: 1

• Determnng the dimensions on whch performance or accomplsh-
ments are to be rated.
• Operatonalzng the numerical and adjectival ratings. 2
THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE 3

The three dmensons of performance or accomplshments are quality,
e ciency , and timeliness.
4
Quality or Efectiveness means gettng the rght thngs done. It refers
to the degree to whch objectves are acheved as ntended and the extent
to whch ssues are addressed wth a certan degree of excellence.
5
Quality or efective performance involves the following elements:
Acceptability • Completeness or 6
• Meeting standards comprehensiveness of reports
• Client satisfaction
with services rendered
• Creativity or innovation
• Personal initiative
7
• Accuracy
Eiciency s the extent to whch targets are accomplshed usng the 8

mnmum amount of tme or resources.
Eicient performance applies to continuing tasks or frontline services

(e.g., issuance of licenses, permits, clearances, and certiicates).
9
It nvolves the followng elements:
• Standard response time 10
• Number of requests/applications acted upon over number of
requests/applications received
• Optimum use of resources (e.g., money, logistics, oice supplies) 11
12

Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
Timeliness measures f the targeted delverable was done wthn the

Table 12. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to Rate Performance
scheduled or expected tmeframe. Tmely performance nvolves:
• Meeting deadlines as set in the work plan EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE TARGETS
RATING DIMENSIONS
AND SUCCESS INDICATORS
Resolutions for accreditation of agencies This performance target is rated

on quality and eficiency because
1 Not all performance accomplishments need to
be rated along all three dimensions of quality,
approved by the Commission within 15 days
from receipt of recommendation from the it involves:•Acceptability. The
1
e ciency, and timeliness. Some accomplishments CSCRO resolutions need to be approved by the
2 may only be rated on any combination of two

or three dimensions. In other cases, only one
Commission.•Standard response time of
15 days
2
dimension may be su cient. Consider all the
Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments This performance target is rated on
3 elements involved listed above in each dimension
and use them as guides to determine how
approved by the Commission upon irst quality and timeliness because it 3
presentation by April 30, 2013 involves:•Acceptability. The omnibus
performance will be rated.
rules need to be approved by the
4 Commission.•Meeting a deadline on April 4
30, 2013.
DETERMINING THE DIMENSIONS TO RATE PERFORMANCE PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) This performance target is rated on
5 Dependng on how success ndcators are stated, you can rate a performance along Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence quality and timeliness because it 5
the dimensions of quality, eiciency, and/or timeliness using the listed elements approved by the Commission by end of the involves:•Acceptability. The stan-
1st Quarter dards need to be approved by the
6 above as gudelnes. The ratng needs to be dscussed wthn the unt and between
the supervisors and staf (i.e., raters and ratees) to clarify the expected outputs at Commission.•Meeting a deadline set at the 6
end of the 1st Quarter.
the begnnng of the performance montorng perod.
7 Because performance s measured wthn a scheduled montorng perod, all Resolution on QS for newly-created unique This performance target is rated 7
accomplshments always nvolve the dmenson of tme. As such, performance s
positions approved by the Commission on quality and eficiency because
within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO it involves:•Acceptability. The
8 8
always rated on either eiciency and/or timeliness.
of complete requirements resolutions need to be approved by the
Commission.•Standard response time of
15 days.
9 Draft replies to queries approved by the

Director within 10 working days upon
This performance target is rated on
quality and eficiency because it
9
receipt by the HRPSO involves:•Acceptability. The letters need
10 to be approved by the Director.•Standard

response time of 10 working days.
10
11 11
12 12
6
10
12
8
11
5
6
3
8
2
9

per performance target or success ndcator.
under each relevant dimension (i.e., quality, eiciency, or timeliness)
indicate the operational deinition or meaning of each numerical rating
For the rating to be objective, impartial, and veriiable, you need to
Adoption of a Performance-Based Incentive System for Government Employees).

to 114% range for Satisfactory rating is based on Executive Order No. 80, s. 2012 (Directing the
are based on the ranges prescribed under CSC Memorandum Circular No 13, s. 1999. The 90%
4
Table 13. Operationalization of the Rating Scale
the hghest. The table below explans the meanng of each ratng:
usng a numercal scale rangng from to —wth as the lowest and as
On each dimension of quality, eiciency, and timeliness, rate performance
The 130% and above range for Outstanding rating and the 50% and below range for Poor rating
MERICAL
RATING
NU-
4
5
3
2
1
Poor
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
satisfactory
Very
Outstanding
ADJECTIVAL
RATING
ESTABLISHING THE RATING SCALE

below.
Performance failed to deliver most of the targets by 50% and
performance should be 51% to 99% of the planned targets.

However, if it involves deadlines required by law, the range of
failed to deliver one or more critical aspects of the target.
Performance only met 51% to 89% of the planned targets and
100% of the planned targets.

However, if it involves deadlines required by law, it should be
Performance met 90% to 114% of the planned targets.
planned targets.
Performance exceeded expectations by 15% to 29% of the
than expected but related aspects of the target.

mastery of the task. Accomplishments were made in more
quality, technical skills, creativity, and initiative, showing
Performance demonstrated was exceptional in terms of
the planned targets.
Performance exceeded expectations by 30% and above of
DESCRIPTION OR MEANING OF RATING
The following tables show examples of rating matrices on three levels—oice, division, and individual staf at the central and
regonal levels.
EXAMPLES OF RATING MATRICES

Oice Level Rating Matrix
• The second column on the table below shows all the performance targets or success ndcators of the CSC’s Human Resource
Policies and Standards Oice. Columns 3 to 5 describe the meaning of each numerical rating along the dimensions of quality,
eiciency, and timeliness.
You will note that some performance targets are only rated on quality and eiciency, some on quality and timeliness, and
others only on eiciency.
Central Oice Level

Table 14. HRPSO Rating Matrix
MAJOR
HRPSO SUCCESS DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL
IINDICATORS RATINGS FOR QUALITY EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
OUTPUTS
MFO3: 100% of recommenda- 5 – Acted upon within 10 days from

Personnel tions for accreditation receipt of the recommendation
Policies from the CSC Regional
and 4 – Acted upon within 11 to 12 days
Offices acted upon
Standards from receipt of the recommenda-
within 15 days from
Services tion
receipt of the recom-
mendation 3 – Acted upon within 13 to 16 days
from receipt of the recommenda-
tion
2 – Acted upon within 17 to 22 days

from receipt of recommendation
1 – Acted upon beyond 22 days

from receipt of recommendation
Resolutions for ac- 5 – Approved upon 1st presentation of resolu- 5– Approved within 10 working
creditation of agencies tion to the Commission days
approved by the
4 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolu- 4 – Approved within 11 to 14 days
Commission within 15
tion to the Commission with minimal changes
days from receipt of
recommendation from 3 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolu- 3 – Approved within 15 working
the CSCRO tion to the Commission with major changes days
2 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolu- 2 – Delayed by 1 to 7.5 days

tion to the Commission with minimal changes
1 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolu- 2 – Delayed by 8 or more days

tion to the Commission with major changes
PRIME-HRM Certifying 5 – Approved upon 1st presentation of resolu- 5 – Submitted within 75

Board (CB) Standards tion to the Commission days or less
for Center/Seal of
4 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolu- 4 – Submitted within 76 to
Excellence approved
tion to the Commission with minimal changes 80 days
by the Commission by
end of the 1st Quarter 3 – Approved upon 2nd presentation of resolu- 3 – Submitted by end of
tion to the Commission with major changes 1st quarter or within 81 to
NOTE: Time frame 103 days.
for this activity is 3
months or 90 days 2 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolu- 2 – Delayed by 14 to 45
tion to the Commission with minimal changes days
1 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolu- 1 – Delayed by more than

tion to the Commission with major changes 45 days
MAJOR

10
12
8
11
0
5
6
3
0
2
9
1
tion to the Commission with major changes 45 days

MAJOR
FINAL
IINDICATORS RATINGS FOR QUALITY EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
OUTPUTS
Orientation on PRIME- 5 – Average outstanding rating of participants 5 – Conducted within 75

HRM conducted by EO 4 – Average very satisfactory rating of days or less
March 2013 participants 4 – Conducted within 76 to
3 – Average satisfactory rating of participants 80 days
NOTE: Time frame 2 – Average unsatisfactory rating of partici- 3 – Conducted by end of
for this activity is 3 pants 1st quarter or within 81 to
months or 90 days 1 – Average poor rating of participants 103 days.
2 – Delayed by 14 to 45
days
1 – Delayed by more than
45 days
MOA between the CSC 5 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 5 – MOA signed in less than
and award giving bod- 1st presentation 84 days
ies on the integration 4 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 4 – MOA signed within 85
of CB standards to 2nd presentation with minimal changes to 107 days
their criteria signed 3 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 3 – MOA signed within 108
by end of September 2nd presentation with major changes to 137 days
2013 2 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 2 – MOA signed within 138
3rd presentation with minimal changes to 180 days
NOTE: Time frame 1 – MOA approved by the Commission upon 1 – MOA signed beyond 180
for this activity is 6 3rd presentation with major changes days
months or 120 working
days
Replies to queries sent 5 – Replies sent within an average

within 15 days upon of 10 days
receipt by the HRPSO 4 – Replies sent within an average
of 11 to 14 days
3 – Replies sent within an average
of 15 days
2 – Replies sent delayed by an
average of 1 to 7.5 days
1 – Replies sent delayed by an aver-
age of 8 or more days
on eiciency.
and eiciency, some on quality and timeliness, and others only
wll note that some performance targets are only rated on qualty
eiciency, and timeliness. Like the oice level rating scales, you
of
and Compensaton Dvson. Columns to descrbe the meanng
or success indicators of the CSC’s Audit and Position Classiication
• The second column on Table 6 shows all the performance targets
Dvson Level Ratng Matrx
Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix

Regional Oice Level
Services
Standards
and
Policies
Personnel
MFO 3:
OUTPUTS
MAJOR
FINAL
each
PRIME-HRM
Status under
II-Accredited
granted Level
(CSCAAP)
Program
Accreditation
CSC Agency
accredited under
of agencies
Cumulative 25%
INDICATORS
REGIONAL
SUCCESS
numercal
OFFICE
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
ratng
FOR QUALITY
along
under PRIME-HRM
Level 2-Accredited Status
under CSCAAP granted
of accredited agencies
1 – Cumulative 12% or less
PRIME-HRM
2-Accredited Status under
CSCAAP granted Level
accredited agencies under
2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of
under PRIME-HRM
28% of accredited agencies
3 – Cumulative 22% to
under PRIME-HRM
32% of accredited agencies
4 – Cumulative 29% to
under PRIME-HRM
cies under CSCAAP granted
more of accredited agen-
5 – Cumulative 33% or
the
DESCRIPTION OF
FOR EFFICIENCY
RATINGS
dmensons
DESCRIPTION OF
FOR TIMELINESS
of
RATINGS
qualty,

by the HRPSO
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale APCCD DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION

SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
INDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
Central Oice Level Proposed 5 - Approved by the Director 5 – Proposed standards ap-
PRIME-HRM upon 1st submission proved by the Director before
Table 16. APCCD Rating Matrix
Certifying Board February 23
(CB) Standards
MAJOR APCCD DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION for Center/Seal 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Proposed standards ap-
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS upon 2nd presentation with proved by the Director from
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS of Excellence
FOR QUALITY minimal changes February 23 to March 4
OUTPUTS INDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS submitted to
the Director by
3 – Approved by the Director 3 – Proposed standards ap-
1 1
MFO 3: 100% of recom- 5 – Acted upon in less than March 1
Personnel mendations for 8 days from receipt of the NOTE: Timeframe upon 2nd presentation with proved by the Director from
Policies accreditation recommendation for this activ- major changes March 5 to March 22
and from the CSC ity is January to
Standards Regional Oices 4 - Acted upon in 8 days March 1 2 – Approved by the Director 2 – Proposed standards ap-
2 2
Services acted upon within from receipt of the recom- upon 3rd presentation with proved by the Director from
10 days from mendation minimal changes March 23 to April 22
receipt of the
recommendation 3 - Acted upon within 9 to
11 days from receipt of the 1 – Approved by the Director 1 – Proposed standards
3 recommendation upon 3rd presentation with

major changes
approved by the Director
beyond April 22 3
2 - Acted upon within 12 to
15 days from receipt of the Proposal on the 5 - Approved by the Director 5 – Approved by the Director
recommendation PRIME-HRM upon 1st submission before February 8
4 1 - Acted upon more than

Orientation
approved by the
4 - Approved by the Director
upon 2nd presentation with
4 – Approved by the Director
from February 9 to 13 4
15 days from receipt of the Director by the minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director
recommendation end of February 3 – Approved by the Director from February 14 to March 5
NOTE: Timeframe upon 2nd presentation with 2 – Approved by the Director
5 Resolutions for
accreditation
5 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
is 30 days major changes
from March 6 to 17
5
of agencies 1 to 7 days from receipt by upon 3rd presentation with beyond March 17
prepared within the HRPSO minimal changes
6 10 days from
receipt by the
HRPSO
4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
upon 3rd presentation with
major changes
6
8 days from receipt by the
HRPSO
7 7
Draft MOA 5 - Draft MOA approved by the 5 – Approved by the Director
3 – Draft resolution ap- between the CSC Director upon 1st submission before July 26
proved by the Director from and award-giving 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Approved by the Director
9 to 11 days from receipt by bodies on the upon 2nd presentation with from July 26 to August 10
the HRPSO integration of CB minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director
8 2 – Draft resolution ap-

standards to their
criteria approved
by the Director by
upon 2nd presentation with
major changes
from August 11 to August 18
from August 19 to 31
8
12 to 15 days from receipt August 15 2 – Approved by the Director 1 – Approved by the Director
by the HRPSO upon 3rd presentation with beyond August 31
NOTE: Timeframe minimal changes

proved by the Director more
is 30 days 1 – Approved by the Director
upon 3rd presentation with 9
than 15 days from receipt major changes
by the HRPSO
10 APCCD
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION Draft replies to
queries approved
5 - Approved by the Director
upon 1st submission
5 – Replies sent within an
average of less than 8 days 10
by the Director 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Replies sent within an
within 10 working upon 2nd submission with average of 8.5 to 9 days
days upon receipt minimal changes 3 – Replies sent within an
11 by the HRPSO 3 – Approved by the Director
upon 2nd submission with
average of 10 days
2 – Replies sent delayed by
11
major changes an average of 1 to 5 days
2 – Approved by the Director 1 – Replies sent delayed
upon 3rd submission with by an average of 6 or
12 minimal changes
more days 12
upon 3rd submission with
major changes

the HRPSO
Regional Oice Level Individual Level Rating Matrices The APCCD is stafed by three MAJOR STAFF A DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
employees. The three succeedng tables for Employees A, B, and C below FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix OUTPUTS IINDICATORS
OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY
FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
show the performance targets and ratng scales of these employees.
MAJOR DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION MFO3: Draft replies to 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Replies sent within an
PSED SUCCESS DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS Personnel queries approved Chief upon 1st submission average of 1 day
FINAL OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
OUTPUTS
INDICATORS FOR QUALITY
FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS Like the oice level and division level rating matrices, you will note that Policies by the Division
and Chief within 7 4 - Approved by the Division 4 – Replies sent within an
MFO3: Cumulative 25% 5 – Cumulative 33%
some performance targets are only rated on quality and eiciency, some Standards days upon receipt Chief upon 2nd submission average of 2 to 5 days
1 Personnel
Policies
of agencies
accredited under
or more of accredited
agencies under CSCAAP
on quality and timeliness, and others only on eiciency. Services by the HRPSO with minimal changes
1
and CSC Agency recommended for Level 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Replies sent within an
Standards Accreditation Pro- ll-Accredited Status under Chief upon 2nd submission average of 6 to 8 days
Central Oice Level: Employee A
2 2
Services gram (CSCAAP) PRIME-HRM with major changes
granted Level II
Accredited Status 4 – Cumulative 29% to Table 18. Employee A Rating Matrix 2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Replies sent delayed by
under 32% of accredited agencies Chief upon 3rd submission an average of 2 to 3.5 days
PRIME-HRM under CSCAAP recom- MAJOR STAFF A DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION with minimal changes
3 3
mended for accreditation DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
under PRIME-HRM FOR QUALITY 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Replies sent delayed
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
Chief upon 3rd submission by an average of 4 or more
3 – Cumulative 22% to MFO3: 100% of recom- 5 - Acted upon in less than with major changes days
28% of accredited agencies Personnel mendations for 5 days from receipt of the
4 under CSCAAP recom-
mended for accreditation
Policies
and
accreditation
from the CSC
recommendation
4
under PRIME-HRM Standards Regional Oices 4 - Acted upon in 5 days
Services acted upon within from receipt of the recom-
2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of mendation
5 5
7 days from
accredited agencies under receipt of the
CSCAAP recommended recommendation 3 - Acted upon within 6 to
for accreditation under
8 days from receipt of the
PRIME-HRM
recommendation
6 1 – Cumulative 12% or less

of accredited agencies
2 - Acted upon within 9 to 6
under CSCAAP recom-
recommendation
mended for accreditation
7 7
under PRIME-HRM 1 - Acted upon more than
recommendation
Resolutions for 5 – Draft resolution ap-
8 accreditation
of agencies
prepared within 7
1 to 4 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
8
days from receipt
by the HRPSO 4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
9 5 days from receipt by the
HRPSO 9
10 6 to 8 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
10
11
the HRPSO
11
12 12
than 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO
MAJOR STAFF A DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION

with major changes beyond March 9
Central Oice Level: Employee B MAJOR STAFF B DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION Central Oice Level: Employee C
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix FOR QUALITY Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix
MAJOR STAFF B DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION MFO3: Draft MOA 5 – Draft MOA approved by 5 – Approved by the Division MAJOR STAFF C DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS Personnel between the CSC the Division Chief upon irst Chief before July 22 FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY FOR QUALITY
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS Policies and award giving submission OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
and bodies on the
MFO3: Resolutions for 5 – Draft resolution ap- Standards integration of CB 4 – Draft MOA approved by the 4 – Approved by the Division MFO3: Proposal on the 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Proposal approved by
1 Personnel
Policies
accreditation
of agencies
Services standards to their
criteria approved
Division Chief upon second
submission with minimal
Chief from July 22 to 26 Personnel
Policies
PRIME-HRM Ori-
entation approved
Chief upon 1st submission the Division Chief before
January 31
1
and prepared within 7 the HRPSO by the Division changes and by the Division
Standards days from receipt Chief by 31 July Standards Chief by the end 4 - Approved by the Division 4 – Proposal approved by the
2 2
Services by the HRPSO 4 – Draft resolution 2013 3 – Draft MOA approved 3 – Approved by the Division Services of January Chief upon 2nd submission Division Chief from January
approved by the Director in by the Division Chief upon Chief from July 27 to NOTE: Timeframe with minimal changes 31 to February 7
5 days from receipt by the second submission with major August 3 is Jan. 1 to Feb. 15
HRPSO changes 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Proposal approved by the
Chief upon 2nd submission Division Chief from February
2 – Draft MOA approved by
the Division Chief upon third
submission with minimal
2 – Approved by the Division
Chief from August 4 to 16
with major changes 8 to February 18
3
2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Proposal approved by the
the HRPSO changes Chief upon 3rd submission Division Chief from February
with minimal changes 19 to March 9
1 – Draft MOA approved by the
Division Chief upon third sub-
Chief beyond April 16 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Proposal approved by
4
9 to 11 days from receipt by mission with major changes Chief upon 3rd submission the Division Chief beyond
the HRPSO with major changes March 9
Draft replies to 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Replies sent within an
queries approved
by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission average of 1 day Meeting with
award giving
5 – Meets all the content
requirements with additional
5 – Report submitted within
the day of the meeting
5
than 11 days from receipt by Chief within 7 4 - Approved by the Division 4 – Replies sent within an bodies convened analyses and policy recom-
the HRPSO days upon receipt Chief upon 2nd submission average of 2 to 5 days by end of May mendations
by the HRPSO with minimal changes
6 Proposed
PRIME-HRM
5 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 1st submission
5 – Proposed standards ap-
proved by the Division Chief 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Replies sent within an
NOTE: The
required output
4 – Meets all the content
requirements with suggestions
1-2 days after the meeting
6
Certifying Board before January 31 Chief upon 2nd submission average of 6 to 8 days is a meeting
(CB) Standards with major changes report and the 3 – Meets all the content 3 – Report submitted within
7 for Center/Seal
of Excellence
approved by the
Chief upon 2nd presentation
with minimal changes
4 – Proposed standards
approved by the Division
Chief from January 31 to
Chief upon 3rd submission
2 – Replies sent delayed by
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
timeframe is 30
days
requirements of the report
2 – Incomplete report
3 days after the meeting

7
Division Chief by February 7 with minimal changes 4-5 days after the meeting
February 15
8 8
NOTE: Timeframe 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Proposed standards 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Replies sent delayed 1 – No meeting conducted / 1 – Report submitted beyond
for this activity is Chief upon 2nd presentation approved by the Division Chief upon 3rd submission by an average of 4 or more Meeting conducted but no 6 days after the meeting
January to Febru- with major changes Chief from February 8 to with major changes days report
ary 15 February 18
Draft replies to 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Replies sent within an
2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Proposed standards ap- queries approved Chief upon 1st submission average of 1 day
9 Chief upon 3rd presentation

proved by the Division Chief
from February 19 to March 9
by the Division
Chief within 7
days upon receipt
Chief upon 2nd submission
average of 2 to 5 days
9
1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Proposed standards ap- by the HRPSO with minimal changes
Chief upon 3rd presentation proved by the Division Chief
10 with major changes beyond March 9 3 – Approved by the Division

Chief upon 2nd submission
average of 6 to 8 days 10
MAJOR STAFF B DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION with major changes
2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Replies sent delayed by
11 Chief upon 3rd submission
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
11
the Division Chief upon irst
1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Replies sent delayed
Chief upon 3rd submission by an average of 4 or more
12 with major changes days
12
6
Regional Oice Level: Employee D

Table 21. Employee D Rating Matrix
MAJOR STAFF D DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION

FINAL SUCCESS RATINGS OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
MFO 3: Agencies 5 – Assessment report 5 – Report submitted to the

1 Personnel
Policies
accredited under
CSC Agency
indicates all the content
requirements with additional
Division Chief within 6 days
after the conduct of the
and Accreditation analyses assessment
Standards Program
2
Services (CSCAAP) 4 – Assessment report 4 – Report submitted to the
assisted and indicates all the content Division Chief within 7 to 8
assessed for requirements with suggestions days after the conduct of the
Level II- assessment
Accredited Status
3 Under PRIME-
HRM
3 – Assessment report
indicates all the content
requirements of the report
3 – Report submitted to the
Division Chief within 9 to 11
days after the conduct of the
assessment
4 2 – Incomplete report 2 – Report submitted to the

Division Chief within 12 to 15
assessment
5 1 – Assessment conducted but

no report
1 – Report submitted to the
Division Chief more than 15
assessment
6 Recommenda-
tions for Level II-
5 – Recommendations
consolidated within 6 or
Accredited Status less days Steps 9 and 10 are
under PRIME-
4 – Recommendations subsumed under the
7
HRM of agencies
accredited consolidated within 7 to
under CSCAAP 8 days second stage of PMS
consolidated
within 10 days 3 - Recommendations cycle-Performance
8
from receipt of consolidated within 9
all recommenda- -11 days Monitoring and
tions
2 – Recommendations Coaching
consolidated within 12-15
days
9 1 – Recommendations
consolidated beyond
15 days Performance
10
11
Monitoring
12
& Coaching
8
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools
IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS

OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER EACH DIVISION
Durng the montorng and coachng perod, t s mportant that you 1

regularly monitor the performance of oices, divisions, and employees.
You must put montorng and evaluaton mechansms and tools n place
so that tmely and approprate steps can be taken towards meetng
2
performance targets and organzatonal goals. This requires an
information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. 3
Below are suggested montorng and coachng tools:
SAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING TOOLS

4
Major Final
Output
Tasks Assigned
to
Duration Task Status Re-
marks
5
Week Week Week Week
1 2 3 4
6
Personnel Prepare Staff A & B 7 days
Policies Resolu- from
and
Standards
tions for
accredita-
receipt
by the
7
Services tion of HRPSO
agencies
Draft Staff B January to

8
PRIME- February
HRM 15
Certifying
Board (CB)
9
Standards
for Cen-
ter/Seal of
Excellence 10
Draft Staff A, B 7 days
replies to
queries
&C upon
receipt the 11
HRPSO
Organize
meeting
Staff C EO May
12
with
award-giv-
ing bodies
6
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools
PERFORMANCE MONITORING FORM SAMPLE PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING JOURNAL

TASK ACTION DATE
SUBJECT OUTPUT DATE ASSIGNED REMARKS
ID NO. OFFICER ACCOMPLISHED H. Sample Performance Monitoring and Coaching Journal
Document Subject Area Date the task Date the Output 1st Q
No. or of the Task was assigned to was approved u
2nd
1 Task No. or the Signa- the drafter by the
3rd
a
r
1
if Taken tory of the supervisor t
from WFP Document 4th e
2 and Subject Name of Division/Field Office _____________________________

r
2
Area Division Chief / Director II ________________________________
Number of Personnel in the Division / FO ____________________
3 Activity Meeting
Mechanism/s
Others Remarks
3
Memo
One-in-One Group (Pls. Specify)
Doc. No. Signatory Subject Action Date As- Date Status Remarks
4 4
Monitoring
Of- signed Signed
icer
2013-001 Dir. Juan Step ABA Jan. 2, Jan. 4, Mailed on

5 dela Cruz, Increment 2013 2013 Jan. 4, 2013 5
DOLE
6 2013-005 Ms. Anna

Santos
Leave of
Barangay
ZMO Jan. 7,
2013
Jan. 9,
2013
Emailed on
Jan. 9, 2013
Emailed on
Jan. 9, 2013
6
Coaching
Oficials
7 Supervsors and coaches play a crtcal role at ths stage. They can provde
7
an enablng envronment, ntroduce nterventons to mprove team
8 performance, and develop ndvdual potentals. 8
To reterate, t s mportant that you establsh an nformaton system as Please indicate the date in the appropriate box when the monitoring was conducted.
9 a vtal management tool that wll support data management to produce

tmely, accurate, and relable nformaton for program trackng and Conducted by: Date: Noted by: Date: 9
performance montorng and reportng.
Immediate Superior Head of Office
10 10
11 3 11
12 12
6 6
Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools
l
If you follow Step 9, you should be able
to develop appropriate performance
monitoring and coaching tools.
6 6
Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools
DEVELOP THE PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION TOOLS
At the begnnng of the performance montorng perod, develop 1

the tools that wll be used to establsh commtment and evaluate
accomplshments at the end of a gven perod.
2
Incorporate the followng essental elements n your evaluaton tool:
• Name, position, and signature of the Unit Head or individual staf being
evaluated (ratee) 3
• Ratng perod
• Date when evaluaton was completed
• Name, sgnature, and poston of supervsors that approve the 4
completed evaluaton form and the date when they made the approval
• Major Final Outputs that your oice and division are contributing to
(Step 5)
5
• SMART performance targets or success ndcators (Steps 4 , 5, 6, and 7)
• Actual accomplshments vs-à-vs performance targets
6
• Ratings on quality, eiciency and/or timeliness on a scale of 1 to 5 (Step 8)
• Remarks of supervsor
• Name, poston and sgnature of Head of the Performance Management 7
Team
• Name, sgnature, and poston of rater and date when evaluaton was
completed 8
To relect the cascading approach of the SPMS towards achieving
organzatonal goals, three kinds of forms are suggested: 9
• Oice Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) Form s
accomplshed by Agency Drectors
• Division Performance Commitment and Review (DPCR) Form s 10
accomplshed by Dvson Chefs
• Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) Form s
accomplished by individual staf in all the units of the organization
11
Make sure that the performance targets lsted n the OPCR, DPCR, and
IPCR are lnked and algned towards achevng your organzaton’s Major
Fnal Outputs.
12
66 6
Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools
Chart 7. Alignment of OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR Below are the columns n the OPCR and DPCR form:
OFFICE PERFORMANCE
COMMITMENT AND REVIEW DIVISION PERFORMANCE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(OPCR) FORM COMMITMENT AND REVIEW
(DPCR) FORM Major Final Success Allotted Divisions Actual Ac- Rating for Quality Remarks
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
Outputs Indicators Budget or Persons complish- (Q), Eficiency
1 COMMITMENT AND REVIEW
(IPCR) FORM
(MFOs) (Targets + Account- ments (E), Timeliness 1
Measures) able (T), and Average
Score (Ave)
2 2
Q E T Ave
3 3
The upper part of the OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR identiies:
4 • The name of person makng the performance commtment, hs/her 4
poston n the organzaton, and sgnature
For oices/units that perform STO or GAS activities, indicate your
• The ratng perod
5 • The date when the performance commtment was made at the begnnng
core or support functions on the irst column in lieu of MFOs. 5
of the ratng perod
Below are the columns n the IPCR form:
6 • The name and poston of the supervsors approvng the performance 6
commtment and the date when they made the approval at the begnnng (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
of the ratng perod.

7 Major Final Success Indica- Actual Accomplish- Rating for Quality Remarks
7
The man porton of OPCR, DPCR and IPCR s a table wth several columns: Outputs tors (Targets + ments (Q), Eficiency (E),
(MFOs) Measures) Timeliness (T),
The OPCR and DPCR have 7 columns The IPCR has 5 columns
8 • Column 1: Major Final Outputs • Column 1: Major Final Outputs
and Average
8
Score (Ave)
• Column 2: Success Indicators • Column 2: Success Indicators

9 • Column 3: Allotted Budget • Column 3: Actual Accomplishments
Q E T Ave
9
• Column 4: Divisions Accountable (for • Column 4 (which is further divided into 4 sub-columns):
10 OPCR) / Individuals Accountable (for

DPCR)
Rating for Quality (Q), Eficiency (E) and Timeliness (T)
and the Average (Ave)
10
• Column 5: Actual Accomplishments • Column 5: Remarks
11 • Column 6 (which is further divided into

4 sub-columns): Rating for Quality (Q),
The lower porton of the form s sgned by the Supervsor and/or Rater 11
at the begnnng and end of the ratng perod.
Eficiency (E) and Timeliness (T) and the
12 Average (Ave)
12
• Column 7: Remarks
68 6
The OPCR Form The DPCR Form
Name and Position

of Oice Director (Ratee) Name and Position
Signature of Oice Director (Ratee) of Division Chief
Signature of Division Chief
Rating Period:
months and year Rating Period:
months and year
Date when Date when

performance performance
commitment The supervisor commitment
The supervisor is made at the (Oice is made at the
(Agency Head) beginning of Director) who beginning of
who approves rating period approves the rating period
the performance performance
commitment commitment
signs at the signs at the
beginning of beginning of
rating period rating period
A Representative of
the PMT Secretariat
assesses the
completed evaluation The Head of the PMT The Agency Head
form at the signs here at the gives the inal rating The Oice Director
beginning and end of beginning and end of at the end of the gives the inal rating
the rating period the rating period rating period
0
The IPCR Form
Name and Position
of Individual Staf
Signature of Individual Staf (Ratee)
Rating Period:
months and year
Date when
The Oice performance
Head who commitment
approves the is made at the
performance beginning of
commitment rating period
signs at the
beginning of
rating period
The SPMS suggests two evaluation

periods: once every six months. However,
an agency may follow a quarterly rating
period (every three months), which is the
minimum; or a yearly rating period (every
12 months), which is the maximum.
Step 11 falls under

the third stage of
the PMS cycle--
Performance Review
The rater writes and Evaluation
his/her comments on
the ratee and his/her
The Ratee signs
here after discussion
of evaluation with
recommendations
Performance
Division Chief
The Oice Director

gives the inal rating
The Divsion Chief
Review &
(Rater) signs here
Evaluation
l
If you follow Step 10, you should
be able to develop your OPCR, DPCR,
and IPCR forms

Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
USE THE PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION TOOLS
At the end of the performance montorng perod, use the suggested 1

forms—OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR—to review performance from the oice
and division levels down to the individual staf level.
2
For the OPCR and DPCR forms, you should have completed the
irst four columns of the table at the beginning of the performance
montorng perod: 3
• Column 1 – Major Final Outputs that your oice or division is contrib-
uting to. Add more rows if your oice or division is contributing to more 4
than two MFOs (Steps 5 and 6).
• Column 2 – Success indicators or performance targets of your oice or

5
dvson per MFO for the montorng perod (Steps 5 and 6).
• Column – Allocated budget per performance target. For performance

targets that have no budget allocaton, wrte “none”.
6
• Column – Dvsons accountable for each performance target for the OPCR.
– Persons Accountable for each performance target for the DPCR. 7
10
11
12

10
11
12
5
6
3
6
2
9

MAJOR FINAL OUTPUT
Allotted Divisions Rating
(Note: Please add rows to MFOs SUCCESS INDICATORS Actual Accomplishments Remarks
if necessary ) (TARGETS + MEASURES) Budget Accountable
Q E T Ave
For the IPCR form, you should have completed the irst two columns at the beginning of the performance monitoring period:
• Column – Major Fnal Outputs that your dvson s contrbutng to (Steps , 6, and ).
• Column 2 – Success indicators or performance targets of each individual staf per MFO for the monitoring period (Steps 5, 6,
and ).
Durng the actual evaluaton, the rater descrbes the actual accomplshments of the ratee vs-à-vs the performance targets on
the th column for the OPCR and DPCR forms or the rd column for the IPCR.

11
1
8
7
12
10
9
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
In the table above, there are ive rows of accomplishments. The irst two
COMPUTING THE NUMERICAL RATINGS accomplshments are rated on qualty and tmelness. The thrd accomplshment s
As explaned n Step 8 (Develop the Ratng Scale), you do not need to rate rated on quality, eiciency, and timeliness. The fourth accomplishment is rated on
every performance accomplshment along all three dmensons of qualty, quality and eiciency. The last accomplishment is rated on eiciency.
eiciency, and timeliness. Developing the rating matrix at the beginning of

You get the average ratng for a partcular accomplshment by addng the ratngs
1 the ratng perod should have helped clarfy the expected outputs of each
and dividing it by the number of dimensions used. In the table above, the irst 1
performance target (e.g., actvty report, draft resoluton, draft polcy)and
accomplshment got a ratng of on qualty and on tmelness totalng 8.
determne under what dmenson t wll be rated. The table below shows an
2 2
Dvde ths by the dmensons and you get an average ratng of . The thrd
example of actual accomplshments and the ratngs.
accomplishment got a rating of 5 on quality, 5 on timeliness, and 4 on eiciency
totalng . Dvde ths by the dmensons and you get an average ratng of .6.
3 Table 22.Sample Ratings of Accomplishments

The ifth accomplishment got a single rating of 5 on eiciency. So the average 3
SUCCESS Average s ratng s also a .
ACTUAL
INDICATORS Q E T Ave obtaned by
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
4 (Targets + Measures) dvdng the
total by the
To get the inal average rating, add all the average ratings vertically and divide
4
Draft PRIME-HRM Certi- Draft PRIME-HRM Certifying Board 4 4 4 the sum by the number of accomplishments. In the example above, there are ive
number of
fying Board Standards Standards for Center/Seal of dmensons: accomplishments. Thus, you divide the total rating of 20.67 by 5 and get the inal
5 for Center/Seal of
Excellence approved by
Excellence approved by the Director
upon second presentation and with
+ = 8 ÷ = 4
average ratng of .. 5
the Director by March 1 minimal changes on March 3 The teamwork orientation of the SPMS is relected in the overall rating of an
6 Proposal on the Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Ori- 5 2 3.5

Average s
obtaned by
oice. Thus, the average of all individual performance assessments does not go 6
PRIME-HRM Orientation entation approved by the Director dvdng the higher than the collective performance assessment of the oice. To illustrate, the
approved by the upon irst submission on March 10 total by the table below shows a sample summary lst of ndvdual performance ratngs and
7 Director by the end of
February
number of
dmensons:
the overall ratng of the HRPSO: 7
+ + = ÷ Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staf under HRPSO
Draft replies to queries Draft replies to 75 queries submit- 5 5 4 4.67
8 8
= 4.67
submitted to the Direc- ted to the Director within 9 working Individual Staf under HRPSO
tor within 10 working days upon receipt by the HRPSO
HRPSO Secretary 3.99 Satisfactory
days upon receipt by Fnal Average
HRPSO Administrative Asst. 4.1 Very Satisfactory
9 the HRPSO Ratng s
obtaned by APCCD Chief 4 Very Satisfactory
9
Position paper/ com- Draft Position paper on HRMO 4 3 3.5 addng all the Average ndvdual
APCCD Employee A 3.6 Satisfactory
ments on legislative Item in the LGUs submitted on the average ratngs ratng s obtaned by
10 bills submitted within deadline set by the CSLO vertcally and APCCD Employee B 5 Outstanding dvdng the total of 10
the time frame pre- APCCD Employee C 4.03 Very Satisfactory
dvdng the ndvdual ratngs
scribed by the CSLO sum (Total
PSSD Chief 2.3 Unsatisfactory
(.) by the number
11 11
Ratng) by the
of ndvduals n the
APCCD staff 3 APCCD staff recommended for 5 5 number of PSSD Employee A 4 Very Satisfactory
oice (11):
recommended for train- training/HR programs accomplsh-
PSSD Employee B 3.3 Satisfactory .+ . + + .6 + +
ments:
ing/HR programs
+ . + .6 + QSSD Chief 5 Outstanding + .0 + . + + . +
12 TOTAL RATING 20.67 . + =

0.6 ÷ = 4.13
QSSD Employee A 5 Outstanding
+ = .
. ÷ = 4.03
12
FINAL AVERAGE RATING 4.13 Ave. Individual Rating 4.03 Very Satisfactory
8
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools
Table 24. HRPSO’S Summary of Ratings (OPCR)

REMARKS: QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
MFO Success Indicator Rating
The last column on the OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR forms s for remarks on
Q E T Ave
speciic accomplishments. Filling this column is optional.
MFO 3 100% of recommendations for accreditation 4 4
from the CSC Regional Oices acted upon For the IPCR form, however, there s an allotted space below the table
within 15 days from receipt of the recom-
1 mendation
for the rater to write his/her recommendations on the staf s/he is 1
evaluatng for development purposes or for rewards and promoton.
Resolutions for accreditation of agencies 4 4 4
approved by the Commission within 15 days
2 from receipt of recommendation from the 2
CSCRO
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Stan- 5 5 5

3 dards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved 3
by the Commission by end of the 1st
Quarter
4 Orientation on PRIME-HRM conducted by 5 4 4.5 4

EO March 2013
MOA between the CSC and award giving 3 3 3

5 bodies on the integration of CB standards 5
to their criteria signed by end of September
2013
6 Replies to queries sent within 15 days upon

receipt by the HRPSO
4 4 6
TOTAL RATING 24.5
7 FINAL AVERAGE RATING 4.08 7
8 The inal average rating

8
of 4.08 that the HRPSO The rater writes his/her
9 obtaned s lkewse comments on the ratee and
his/her recommendations
9
Very Satisfactory
10 10
l
If you follow Step 11, you should
11 be able to use your OPCR, DPCR, 11
and IPCR forms.
12 12
80 8
At the end of the rating period, the Heads
of Oice and supervisors must discuss
the results of the assessment with the
individual employees concerned. Step 12
below falls under the fourth stage of the
PMS cycle—Performance Rewarding and
Development Planning.
Performance
Rewarding &
Development
Planning
Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation
USE THE RESULTS OF

THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The focus of dscusson of evaluaton results must be on strengths, 1

competency-related performance gaps, and the opportuntes to ad-
dress these gaps, career paths, and alternatves.
2
In coordination with the HRM Oice, the Heads of Oice and supervi-
sors must ntroduce approprate developmental nterventons based on
the results of the performance evaluaton especally for employees wth 3
Unsatsfactory and Poor performance ratngs.
4
SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Below s a suggested format of the professonal development plan for 5
the continuing career development of staf.
You can use ths plan to enhance the sklls or develop potentals of
6
employees who perform well and to mprove or correct performance of
employees who fal to meet targets.
7
10
11
12
8
86 8
Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation
The results of the performance evaluaton/assessment shall serve as

inputs to the followng: Crafting Your Agency SPMS Guidelines
. Heads of Oices n dentfyng and provdng the knds of nterventons
needed based on identiied professional development needs. As you go through the process of settng up the SPMS n your organzaton,
you may start craftng your Agency SPMS Gudelnes usng the checklst
. Agency HRM Oice n consoldatng and coordnatng development
1 nterventons that wll form part of the HR Plan and the bass for rewards
below. The checklst provdes a summary of the contents of the
SPMS Gudelnes.
and ncentves.
2 FEATURES CONTENTS
• Key players include the following:
. Performance Management Team n dentfyng potental PRAISE
Awards nomnees for varous awards categores. Key Players and
¤ SPMS Champion
3 . PRAISE Committee n determnng top performers of the agency who
Responsibilities
¤ PMT
qualfy* for awards and ncentves. ¤ Planning Oice
(Step 1)
¤ HRM Oice
4 ¤ Head of Oice
¤ Supervisor
• Functions are clearly spelled out

¤ Individual Employees
5
• There is an Oice Order/Executive Order issued
by the Agency Head
l
6 If you follow Step 12,
you should be able to link the SPMS Goal Aligned to • Table of MFOs enumerating all products and
with other HR systems. Agency Mandate and services of the organization
7 Organizational Priorities •MFOs are aligned to address
and Outputs/Outcomes ¤ Agency strategic priorities
Based ¤ Agency mandates, vision, mission
8 ¤ OPIF Logframe
(Step 3) ¤ Philippine Development Plan
¤ Organizational/ Sectoral/ Societal Goals
9 • Success indicators are identiied for each MFO
• Success indicators are SMART
Team approach to • SPMS guidelines provide for cascading of

10 performance organizational unit’s commitments/goals to
management individual staf members such that Individual
Work Plans or Commitment and Rating Forms
11 (Step 1) are linked to Oice/ Division/ Unit Work Plan or
Commitment and Rating Form
• Agency Guidelines provide that the average rating
12 * Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence
of individual staf member should not go higher
than the collective performance assessment of
the oice
88 8
User-friendly • One Form for Commitments (target setting) 1. Performance Planning and Commitment
Agency SPMS Forms and Rating (evaluation) for both organization • SPMS calendar shows that oicials and
and individuals employees are required to submit their
(Step 10) • Commitment and Rating Forms for both the commitments prior to the start of the
organization and individual performance are rating period
similar and easy to accomplish • SPMS calendar allots time for PMT review
• SPMS Forms that operationalize the four-stage and recommendations of the performance
PMS commitments
¤ Performance Commitment and Rating Forms • SPMS calendar indicates period for Head
include columns for MFOs, success indicators of Agency/Heads of Oices’ approval of the
(targets + measures), actual accomplishments, oice performance commitment and individual
and rating performance commitments
2. Performance Monitoring and Coaching
¤ Commitments are agreed upon by the
• Feedback sessions on the performance of the

Management and oicials/employees as
indicated in the OPCR and IPCR Forms
oices as well as the oicials/employees are
provided in the guidelines and indicated in the
¤ Space is provided for comments and
recommendations for individual employee
SPMS calendar
development
• Interventions are given to those behind work
targets. In the Employee Feedback From, a space
¤ Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form/
Journal
is provided for recommended interventions
• There is a form or logbook to record
¤ Professional Development Plan
Information System • M&E mechanisms and information system are critical incidents, schedule of coaching, and
established action plan
• There is a database/summary of targets and
that Supports M&E
3. Performance Review and Evaluation
accomplishment which shall be the basis for
• Oice accomplishments are assessed against
the success indicators and the allotted budget
veriication of accomplishments
Communication Plan • There is a program that orients agency oicials against the actual expenses as indicated in the
and employees on the new and revised policies Performance Commitment and Rating Forms
on the SPMS and provided in the guidelines
• The orientation schedules are indicated in the • Annual Agency Performance Review Conference
SPMS calendar is conducted as found in the SPMS calendar
Four-stage PMS cycle are described in the Agency • Individual employee performance is assessed
SPMS Cycle
Guidelines/Manual: based on the commitments made at the start of
• Performance Planning and Commitment the rating period
• Performance Monitoring and Coaching
(Step 2)
• Agency SPMS rating scale should fall within
• Performance Review and Evaluation the range prescribed in MC 13, s. 1999 (Revised
• Performance Rewarding and Development Policies on the PES)
Planning
0
4. Performance Rewarding and Development
Although the SPMS s not totally new, t stll requres a transton
Planning period and a signiicant shift in orientation regarding performance

measurement. The SPMS necesstates a change n the organzatonal
• There is a mechanism for discussion of
assessment results by the Head of Oice and culture from the leadership down to the rank and ile. As such, the
supervisors with the individual employee at the change process needs to be managed carefully and communcated clearly
end of the rating period to everyone n the organzaton.
• There is a provision for the drawing up of a
Professional Development Plan to improve
You wll need a comprehensve change management and communcaton
or correct performance of employees with plan to orent employees on the essental features of the SPMS so
Unsatisfactory or Poor performance rating that n the process, you wll be able to obtan ther buy-n, support,
• Recommendations for developmental and engagement.
interventions are indicated in the Performance
Commitment and Rating Form
• Provision in the guidelines on the linkage of
SPMS with the Agency HR Development Plan
• Provision in the guidelines on the tie-up
of performance management system with
l
If you follow all the items in the checklist
the agency rewards and incentives for top
above, you should be able to craft your
performing individuals, units, and oices
• The results of the performance evaluation
Agency SPMS Guidelines.
are used as inputs to the Agency HR Plan and
rewards and incentives
Rating Period The Agency SPMS guidelines specify the

performance rating period
• 3-month rating period?
• 6-month rating period?
• 1-year rating period?
Rating Scale • The Agency SPMS Guidelines speciies the

5-point numerical rating scale with adjectival
(Step 8) descriptions and ranges
•Agency SPMS rating scale falls within the range
prescribed in MC 13, s. 1999 (Revised Policies on
the PES)
SPMS Calendar • There is an annual calendar with activities, unit/

person responsible and timeframe for each phase
• There is a schedule for the SPMS orientation and
SPMS pilot test

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Tel. No. 931-8092 / 931-7939
http://www.csc.gov.ph/
Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System
What gets measured gets done. But how does one
measure outputs? Who should determine which measure
to adopt? What would be a less tedious way of objectively
measuring performance?
Previous eforts in performance management in the public

sector were anchored on a one-size, its all model which failed
to take nto account the mandate, prortes even peculartes
of a particular government oice. These systems also did not
show how employee performance has contrbuted to or hndered
organizational efectiveness. To address the gaps and weaknesses
found n prevous evaluaton systems, the CSC recently ntroduced
the Strategc Performance Management System (SPMS). One
man feature of the SPMS s that t lnks ndvdual performance
wth the agency’s organzatonal vson, msson, and strategc
goals. It also makes use of exstng performance evaluaton and
management systems and lnks performance management wth
other human resource (HR) systems.
The SPMS Gudebook presents easy steps to enable the varous

government agences to draw up a more objectve performance
management mechansm. These steps nclude:
• Forming the performance management team,

• Identifying performance goals,
• Developing the rating scale,
• Developing performance monitoring and coaching tools, and
• Using the results of performance evaluation for rewarding
and development planning.
Now, be among the irst to start.

Guidebook On The Strategic Performance M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidebook On The Strategic Performance M

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidebook On The Strategic Performance M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRATEGIC

Human Resource Policies and Standards Oice

Over the years, the Civil Service Commission

The Commission has prioritized SPMS among its human resource

Francisco T. Duque III, MD, MSc

We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the following:

• Representatives of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM),

Tables and Charts

Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework 18 HRMO

Contributing to the MFOs 31 International Standards Organization

of Agencies in Developing Committee (PERC) tasked to establish performance

Using this as the standard unit The percentage of non-quantiiable

Role of supervisor Evaluator Coach and mentor

. Outputs/outcomes-based. The SPMS focuses on the major inal outputs

FORM THE PERFORMANCE

The Performance Management Team (PMT) wll spearhead the 2

When establshng the SPMS, t s mportant to have the followng key

Table 2. SPMS Key Players and their Responsibilities

KEY PLAYERS RESPONSIBILITIES KEY PLAYERS RESPONSIBILITIES

2 •Assesses performance of ofices.

8 •Conducts an agency performance planning and review conference annually.

10 •Reviews the summary list of individual performance rating. 10

REVIEW THE EXISTING

Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle

When reviewing Stage 1, ask yourself the

10 PMS interventions? start of the rating period?

KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR AGENCY’S

The SPMS links staf performance with organizational performance. As 1

Where you can ind the MFOs or strategic

• The Agency Logical Framework/Organizational Performance 6

If your agency does not have a wrtten Logcal Framework/OPIF

For National Government Agencies (NGAs), State Universities and Colleges

For Local Government Units (LGUs): 11

EXAMPLES OF MFOs FOUND IN THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

3 MFO 4: Human Resource Development Services

MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and Accountability Enhancement Services

5 MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS

7 delvery of goods and servces. Examples nclude program montorng 7

IDENTIFY THE SUCCESS INDICATORS

Where you can ind the performance indicators of your agency:

Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output

OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

A: Good Good Good

satisfaction rat- tion rating of

2 Percentage of T: N/A 10% 25% 40% 50%

OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ices surveyed) ices surveyed)

OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

B High 3 WIG: Percentage ofices

Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output

4 WIG: 14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80%

WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20%

OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC MEASURES

as a Center of (CSC frontline services)

Chart 3. Link between CSC’s Logical Framework and Scorecard

Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework Excellence

2 Percentage of agencies accred-

SOCIETAL GOAL Human Resource ited under the PRIME-HRM

. Outputs/outcomes-based. The SPMS focuses on the major inal outputs

The Performance Management Team (PMT) wll spearhead the 2

When establshng the SPMS, t s mportant to have the followng key

If your agency does not have a wrtten Logcal Framework/OPIF

7 delvery of goods and servces. Examples nclude program montorng 7

Hghlghted n Table 0 are the ndvdual level success ndcators of 4

Developng the Ratng Scale nvolves two sub-steps: 1

Eiciency s the extent to whch targets are accomplshed usng the 8

Timeliness measures f the targeted delverable was done wthn the