Guidebook on the

Strategic Performance Management System

Human Resource Policies and Standards Office

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 efficient
workforce in government.

The CSC continues the journey with yet another tool specifically for human
resource management officers 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 definitive 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 Office (PAIO) for its technical
inputs in the layout of the Guidebook.

ii iii
 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 Office 29
   Step 6. Identify the Performance Goals of the Divisions under Your Office 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. Office Level (HRPSO) Success Indicators 33

iv 
 Table 7. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators 34
Glossary
Table 8. Office Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD)
Success Indicators 35 Abbreviations Meaning
APCCD Audit and Position Classification and Compensation Division
Table 9. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) and Division Level (PSED)
ARTA Anti-Red Tape Act
Success Indicators 37 ARTA-RCS Anti-Red Tape Act-Report Card Survey
Table 10. Office Level (HRPSO), Division Level (APCCD), and Individual CARE-HRM Continuing Assistance and Review for Excellent
Human Resource Management
Level (Staff) Success Indicators 40
CB Certifying Board
Table 11. Regional Office Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and CHARM Comprehensive Human Resource Management Assistance,
Individual Level (Staff) Success Indicators 43 Review, and Monitoring
CNA Collective Negotiation Agreement
Table 12. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to
CS Civil Service
Rate Performance 47 CSC Civil Service Commission
Table 13. Operationalization of the Rating Scale 48 CSCAAP Civil Service Commission Agency Accreditation Program
Table 14. HRPSO Rating Matrix 49 CSCFO Civil Service Commission Field Office
CSCRO Civil Service Commission Regional Office
Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix 51
CSE-PPT Career Service Examination - Paper and Pencil Test
Table 16. APCCD Rating Matrix 52 CSI Civil Service Institute
Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix 54 CSLO Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office
Table 18. Employee A Rating Matrix 55 DBM Department of Budget and Management
DOLE Department of Labor and Employment
Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix 56
DPCR Division Performance Commitment and Review
Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix 57 E Efficiency
Table 21. Employee D Rating Matrix 58 EO Executive Order
Table 22. Sample Ratings of Accomplishments 78 ERPO Examination Recruitment and Placement Office
ESD Examination Services Division
Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staff under HRPSO 79
GAS 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 Human Resource Management Office

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

Contributing to the MFOs 31 ISO International Standards Organization

KRA Key Result Area
Chart 6. Illustration of One CSC Office and Division at Central
LGU 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

vi vii
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 Office for Financial and Assets Management
OHRMD Office for Human Resource Management and Development
OLA Office for Legal Affairs
OPCR Office Performance Commitment and Review
OPES Office Performance Evaluation System
OPIF Organizational Performance Indicator Framework
OSM Office for Strategy Management
PAIO Public Assistance and Information Office
PALD 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-Office Performance
Evaluation System
PMT Performance Management Team
PMU Project Management Unit
PRAISE Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence
PRO Personnel Relations Office
PSED 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 Qualification Standards
QSSD Qualification and Selection Standards Division
RA Republic Act
RBPMS Results-Based Performance Management System
RO Regional Office
SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound
SPEAR 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

Measuring Performance through the Years
As the central human resource manage-
ment agency of the Philippine bureau-
cracy, the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
is constitutionally mandated to adopt
measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness, courtesy and
public accountability among government
employees.
Through the years, the CSC has imple-
mented several performance evaluation
and appraisal systems.
Below is a brief review of past initiatives:
1978:
New Performance
Appraisal System
The New Performance Appraisal
System (NPAS) was based on
Peter Drucker’s Management
by Objectives (MBOs) system.
Implemented through Memo-
randum Circular No. 2, s. 1978,
the NPAS focused on key result
areas (KRAs) along the dimen-
sions of quality, quantity, and
timeliness. It measured the em-
ployee’s performance and be-
havior in the work environment.
1963:
Performance Rating
CSC Memorandum Circular No.
6, s. 1963 provided the guide-
lines in developing a system of
performance rating that would
measure performance of gov-
ernment employees.
1999: Revised PES and
360-Degree Evaluation
Memorandum Circular No. 13, s. 1999 revised the PES
and introduced the 360 degree evaluation, a cross rating
system in which assessment of performance and behavior
comes from the employees’ self-evaluation as well as
1993: Performance feedback from their subordinates, peers, supervisors,
Evaluation System and clients. The Revised PES required each government
1989: Autonomy Through Memorandum Circular agency to create a Performance Evaluation Review
No. 12, s. 1993, the Performance Committee (PERC) tasked to establish performance
of Agencies in Developing
Evaluation System (PES) standards. An evaluation of the cross-rating system
their Performance
sought to establish an objective revealed that employees perceived the system to be
Evaluation System
performance system. The CSC too complex.
The CSC provided simple guidelines
provided specific 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
the rating system. Similar to or devise a Performance Evaluation System based on a
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
also measured the employee’s evaluation system.
Circular No. 12, s. 1989. Internally,
performance and behavior in the
the CSC adopted a system called
work environment.
MORE (Management by Objectives 2005: Performance Management
and Results Evaluation) in which System-Office Performance
the employee’s accomplishments in Evaluation System
performance and behavior are moni-
The Performance Management System-Office
tored weekly.
Performance Evaluation System (PMS-OPES)
sought to align individual performance with
organizational goals. It emphasized the importance
2005 of linking the performance management system
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT with national goals as stated in the following:
SYSTEM-OFFICE PERFORMANCE • Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
EVALUATION SYSTEM • Organizational Performance Indicator/
Framework (OPIF)
• Major Final Output (MFO)
1999 1993   
REVISED PES AND 360-DEGREE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION EVALUATION SYSTEM
1963 1978 1989
PERFORMANCE NEW PERFORMANCE AUTONOMY OF AGENCIES
RATING APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN DEVELOPING THEIR PES

 Drawing from the rationale
TO ILLUSTRATE HOW TO
that “what gets measured gets
done,” every hour of work COMPUTE OPES POINTS:
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-quantifiable

The past performance evaluation and appraisal systems that CSC imple-
of measure, the PMS-OPES outputs and activities for Regional/Field
required each government Office staff is 30%; while the percentage mented over the years have largely focused only on individual appraisals,
agency to create a Measurement of quantifiable outputs is 70%. 70% of which were used for personnel actions such as incentives, promotion,
Development and Calibration 1,944 is 1,360 divided by 2 semesters (to and separation. However, they have not shown how employee perfor-
Team that would determine reflect the two monitoring periods every mance has contributed to or hindered organizational effectiveness.
the equivalent points of each
year) = 680 points.
major final output or the To address the gaps and weaknesses found in previous evaluation systems,
   To get the target points of the office,
amount of time it will take an
680 points are multiplied by the number the CSC recently introduced the Strategic Performance Management
average competent employee
of staff in the office. System (SPMS) after its pilot test in 2011. The SPMS incorporates the
to produce a specific output.
   For a Field Office with 5 staff, the
Under the OPES, targets are positive features of past initiatives.
estimated on the basis of the minimum OPES points should therefore be
number of OPES points required 3,400 pts. Like its predecessor, PMS-OPES, the SPMS seeks to link individual
per individual per rating period    This Field Office can get a rating of performance with the agency’s organizational vision, mission, and
multiplied by the number of Outstanding simply by processing a big strategic goals. With some adjustments, it also makes use of existing
individual members of the number of appointments and examination
performance evaluation and management systems and links performance
organizational unit. applications. This Field Office, however,
management with 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 paradigm shift in the following areas:
a unit. The smallest unit is work of the Field Office 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 office/
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 issuances related to the SPMS are the following: 3. Team approach to performance management. Accountabilities and
individual roles in the achievement of organizational goals are clearly
• Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4 authorized
defined to facilitate collective goal setting and performance rating. The
the President of the Philippines to modify the compensation and position
individual’s work plan or commitment and rating form is linked to the
classification system of civilian personnel and the base pay schedule of
division, unit, and office work plan or commitment and rating form to
military and uniformed personnel in the government.
clearly establish the connection between organizational and employee
• Administrative Order No. 25, s. 2011 created an inter-agency task performance.
force on the harmonization of national government performance
4. User-friendly. The suggested forms for organizational and individual
monitoring, information, and reporting systems. This inter-agency task
commitments and performance are similar and easy to complete. The
force developed the Results-Based Performance Management System
office, division, and individual major final outputs and success indicators
(RBPMS) that established a common set of performance scorecard and
are aligned to cascade organizational goals to individual employees and
harmonized national government performance monitoring, information,
harmonize organizational and staff performance ratings.
and reporting systems.
5. Information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. The
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012 provided guidelines in the
SPMS promotes the establishment of monitoring and evaluation
establishment and implementation of agency Strategic Performance
(M&E) and information systems that facilitate the linkage between
Management System.
organizational and employee performance and generate timely,
• Joint CSC-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Joint Circular accurate, and reliable information that can be used to track performance,
No. 1, s. 2012 provided the rules and regulations on the grant of step report accomplishments, improve programs, and be the basis for policy
increments due to meritorious performance and length of service. decision-making.
• Executive Order No. 80, s. 2012 directed the adoption of a performance- 6. Communication Plan. Establishing the SPMS in the organization
based incentive system for government employees. must be accompanied by an orientation program for agency officials and
employees to promote awareness and interest on the system and generate
appreciation for the SPMS as a management tool to engage officials and
Basic Elements of the SPMS:
employees as partners in the achievement of organizational goals.
1. Goal aligned to agency mandate and organizational priorities.
Performance goals and measurements are aligned to national
development plans, agency mandate, vision, mission, and strategic
priorities, and/or organizational performance indicator framework.
Predetermined standards are integrated into the success indicators as
organizational objectives are cascaded down to the operational level.

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

(MFOs) that contribute to the realization of the organization’s mandate,
vision, mission, strategic priorities, 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) will spearhead the 2

establishment of the SPMS in your organization. The PMT shall be
composed of the following:
1. Executive Official designated as Chairperson
3
2. Highest Human Resource Management Officer
3. Highest Human Resource Development Officer 4
4. Highest Planning Officer

5
5. Highest Finance Officer
6. President of the accredited employee association

The Planning Office will function as the Secretariat.

When establishing the SPMS, it is important to have the following key

6
players who will assume the responsibilities listed in Table 2:
7

10

11

12

 
 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 Office •Assumes primary responsibility for performance management in his/her office.
the establishment and implementation of the SPMS.

11
•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.
•Determines agency target setting period.
•Submits quarterly accomplishment report.
•Approves office performance commitment and rating.
•Does initial assessment of office’s performance.

2 •Assesses performance of offices.

•Determines final assessment of individual employees’ performance level. 2
PMT •Sets consultation meetings with all Heads of Offices to discuss the office
•Informs employees of the final rating and identifies necessary interventions to
performance commitment and rating system and tools.

3 3
employees.
•Ensures that office performance management targets, measures, and budget are
•Provides written notice to subordinates who obtain Unsatisfactory or Poor rating.
aligned with those of goals of the agency.
Division Chief •Assumes joint responsibility with the Head of Office in attaining performance targets.
4 4
•Recommends approval of the office performance and rating system and tools.
•Rationalizes distribution of targets and tasks.
•Acts as appeals body and final arbiter.
•Monitors closely the status of performance of subordinates.
•Identifies 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 Office •Functions as the PMT Secretariat. •Recommends developmental interventions.

6 •Monitors submission of Office 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 office with the final office assessment as basis in the assessment
of individual employees. If you follow Step 1, you should be
9 Human Resource
Management
Office (HRMO)
•Monitors submission of Individual Performance Commitment and Rating (IPCR)
Form.
l able to identify the members of your PMT
and draft an office 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

11 11
development plan.

•Coordinates developmental interventions that will form part of the HR Plan.

12 12

 
 Step 2. Review the Existing Performance Management System

REVIEW THE EXISTING

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Once formed, the first thing that the PMT does is to review the 1
agency’s existing performance management system (PMS) and make

2
necessary modifications so that it is aligned with the SPMS guidelines
issued through Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012.

Chart 1. An Overview of the Performance Management System Cycle

3

4
Stage 4.
Performance 5
Rewarding &
Development
Planning 6
Stage 1.
7
PMS
Performance
Planning &
Commitment
8
CYCLE
Stage 3.
Performance
Review &
Evaluation
9
Stage 2.
Performance
10
Monitoring
& Coaching
11

12

10 11
 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
importance of performance management: is done at regular intervals to
Performance Monitoring and assess both the performance of
Coaching is done regularly during the individual and his/her office.
Performance Planning and Commitment is done prior
the performance period by the Heads The suggested time periods for
to the start of the performance period where heads of
Performance Rewarding and Development Planning
1 1
of Agency, Planning Office, Division Performance Review and Evaluation
Stage 1 offices meet with the supervisors and staff and agree on
and Office Heads, and the individual. are the first week of July and the first is based on the results of the performance review and
the outputs that should be accomplished based on the
The focus is creating an enabling week of January the following year. evaluation when appropriate developmental interven-
goals and objectives of the organization. The suggested

2 2
environment to improve team tions shall be made available to specific employees. The
time for Performance Planning and Commitment is the Stage 3
performance and develop individual suggested time periods for Performance Rewarding and
last quarter of the preceding year.
potentials. The suggested time Development Planning are the first week of July and the

periods for Performance Monitoring first week of January the following year.
3 When reviewing Stage 1, ask yourself the and Coaching are January to June and
Stage4
3
following questions: July to December. When reviewing Stage 3,
• Does your SPMS calendar show that officials and
4 4
ask yourself the following When reviewing Stage 4, ask yourself the
employees are required to submit their commitments Stage 2
questions: following questions:
prior to the start of the rating period?
• Are office accomplishments • Is there a mechanism for the Head of Office and

5 5
• Does your SPMS calendar allot time for the PMT
assessed against the success supervisors to discuss assessment results with the
to review and make recommendations on the
indicators and the allotted individual employee at the end of the rating period?
performance commitments?
When reviewing Stage 2, budget against the actual • Is there a provision to draw up a Professional
6 • Does your SPMS calendar indicate the period for
Heads of Agency and Offices to approve the office
ask yourself the following expenses as indicated in the Development Plan to improve or correct performance 6
questions: Performance Commitment and of employees with Unsatisfactory or Poor
and individual performance commitments?
Rating Forms and provided in performance rating?
7 7
• Are feedback sessions to discuss
performance of offices, officials, your Agency Guidelines? • Are recommendations for developmental
and employees provided in your • Does your SPMS calendar interventions indicated in the Performance

8 8
Agency Guidelines and scheduled schedule and conduct the Commitment and Rating Form?
in your SPMS calendar? Annual Agency Performance • Is there a provision on your Agency Guidelines to
• Are interventions given to those Review Conference? link the SPMS with your Agency Human Resource

9 4 who are behind work targets? Is • Is individual employee Development Plan?

9
1 space provided in the Employee performance assessed based on • Is there a provision in your Agency Guidelines to

PMS
Feedback Form for recommended the commitments made at the tie up the performance management system with

10 interventions? start of the rating period? agency rewards and incentives for top performing 10
CYCLE • Is there a form or logbook to • Does your agency rating scale individuals, units, and offices?
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?

12 12
the PES?

12 13
 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.

Performance
9 If you follow Step 2, you shoiuld be able

10
l to identify the gaps and PMS areas for
modification and enhancement.

11
Planning &
12 Commitment
14
 Step 3. Know and Understand Your Agency’s Major Final Outputs

KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR AGENCY’S

MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS

The SPMS links staff performance with organizational performance. As 1

such, it is important to understand your organization’s mandate and

2
strategic priorities. During the period of performance planning and
commitment, the first thing to do is to understand your agency’s Major
Final 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 find the MFOs or strategic

5
priorities of your agency:

• The Agency Logical Framework/Organizational Performance 6

Indicator Framework (OPIF) Book of Outputs is the main source
document for your organization’s MFOs. This is published by the
7
Department of Budget and Management.

8
If your agency does not have a written Logical Framework/OPIF
Book of Outputs, the other possible sources of information are the
following 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

17
 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

Encircled in the logical framework matrix shown in Chart 2 are the
Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework CSC’s five 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 offices/units.
4 System in the Civil Service
Strengthened and
of Civil Servants Promoted
However, offices/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

6 6
DISCIPLINE & STOs refer to activities that provide technical and substantive support
LEGAL EXAMINATION POLICIES & RESOURCE
ACCOUNTABILITY
SERVICE & APPOINTMENTS STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT to the operations and projects of the agency. By themselves, these
ENHANCEMENT
SERVICES SERVICES
SERVICES activities do not produce the MFOs but they contribute or enhance the

7 delivery of goods and services. Examples include program monitoring 7

and evaluation, public information programs, statistical services, and
PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES (PAPS)

8 8
information systems development.
• Adjudicate • Develop & for- • Formulate • Conduct
Develop policies, GAS refer to activities that deal with the provision of overall administrative
administrative mulate guidelines, policies on training programs
standards, rules
disciplinary & standards & government
• Formulate/ & regulations on management support to the entire agency operation. Examples
non-disciplinary procedures on the employment

9 9
evaluate/ personnel
cases various processes
• Review/ administer program evalua- are legislative liaison services, human resource development, and
involved in recruit-
• Formulate enhance/ HRD programs tion, including
ment, examination
opinions & monitor agency & service-wide personnel financial services.
& placement
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:
11
l 11
regulations on
• Issue certificate
of eligibility
employee-
management
• What is my agency’s mandate---vision,
• 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 final outputs?

18 19
 Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output

IDENTIFY THE SUCCESS INDICATORS

OF EACH MAJOR FINAL OUTPUT

After identifying the MFOs of your agency, list down the success 1
indicators or performance measures and targets of each MFO.

Where you can find the performance indicators of your agency:

2
• Agency logical framework/OPIF is the main document that details the

3
performance indicators and targets per MFO.
• Agency Strategic Plan/Road Map /Scorecard

4
Using these documents as basis, the agencies must agree on the
performance standards on which they want to be measured.

You can determine the success indicators by referring to the

following documents:

• Citizen’s Charter
5
• RA 6713 (Code of Ethics and Ethical Standards)
• OPES Reference Table 6
• Accomplishment Reports (for historical data)

7
• Benchmarking Reports
• Stakeholders’ Feedback Reports

There may be other documents aside from those listed above that an
agency can derive its success indicators. 8

9
√ SPECIFIC
Success indicators
must be SMART: √ MEASURABLE 10
√ ATTAINABLE
√ REALISTIC
11
√ TIME-BOUND
12

20 21
22
The Civil Service Commission derives its success indicators from its Logical Framework/

Examples
EXAMPLESofOFSuccess INDICATORS
SUCCESSIndicators OPIF Book of Outputs as well as its Scorecard. Other agencies may determine their success

FOUND IN THE AGENCY SCORECARD indicators from other documents listed above (e.g., Citizen’s Charter, OPES Reference
found in the Agency Scorecard
Table, Benchmarking Reports).
Table 4. CSC Scorecard
The Civil Service Commission derives its success indicators from its Logical Framework/

Examples of Success Indicators OPIF Book of Outputs as well as its Scorecard. Other agencies may determine their success
OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
indicators from other documents listed above (e.g., Citizen’s Charter, OPES Reference

PERSPECTIVE
found in the Agency Scorecard
A Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction Table,
N/A Benchmarking
T:1 Reports).
Acceptable Good Good Excellent Excellent
as a Center Rating (CSC frontline (70-79%) (80-89%) (80-89%) (90-100%) (90-100%)
for Excellence services)

OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE A: Good2011 Good 2012 Good2013 2014 2015

PERSPECTIVE
(87% in CSC (89.14%) (87.3% in CSC
A Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction N/A T:1 ARTA-RCS and
Acceptable Good ARTA-RCS &
Good Excellent Excellent
as a Center Rating (CSC frontline 98%
(70-79%) (80-89%) 99% satisfac-
(80-89%) (90-100%) (90-100%)
for Excellence services) satisfaction rat- tion rating of
ing of selected selected govt
A: govt agencies)
Good Good agencies)
Good
(87% in CSC (89.14%) (87.3% in CSC
2 Percentage of T: N/A
ARTA-RCS and 10% 25%
ARTA-RCS & 40% 50%
agencies accredited 98% (159 agencies re- (398 agencies
99% satisfac- (636 agencies (795 agencies

STAKEHOLDERS
under the satisfaction rat- validated out of tion II accredit-
Levelrating of Level II accred- Level II ac-
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output

PRIME-HRM ing of selected 1,590 accredited selected 1,590

ed out ofgovt ited out of 1,590 credited out of
govt agencies) agencies) accredited
agencies) accredited 1,590 accredited
agencies) agencies) agencies)
2 Percentage of T: N/A 10% 25% 40% 50%
A: N/A 165%
agencies accredited (159 agencies re- (398 agencies (636 agencies (795 agencies
(262 agencies

STAKEHOLDERS
under the validated out of Level II accredit- Level II accred- Level II ac-
revalidated)
PRIME-HRM 1,590 accredited ed out of 1,590 ited out of 1,590 credited out of
agencies)
Level II accredited – an agency which meets the basic requirements after having been subjected accredited
to CHARM and/or determined 1,590 accredited
accreditedto have complied with the
recommendations of the CSCRO/FO concerned after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission agencies)
agencies)authority to agencies)
take final action on appointments.

OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE A: N/A 2011 165% 2012 2013 2014 2015
(262 agencies
B High 3 WIG: Percentage 78% T: 20% 40%
revalidated) 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, II accredited
Levelagencies an agency which meets
and –their passed the basic requirements after having
fices surveyed) ficesbeen subjected to
surveyed) of CHARM and/or determined
975 service 363 service have complied
to of- with the
out of 1,042
and credible recommendations
service offices the CSCRO/FO concerned
of pass- out after CARE-HRM and has been granted by the Commission
offices orauthority tofices
takesurveyed) appointments.
final action onservice offices
civil servants ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed)
OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
service
A: 73% 75%
B High 3 WIG: Percentage offices
78% T: 20% 40% 85% 95% 98%
(361 passed (449 passed
performing, of high density sur-
(39 (469 service of- (560 service of- (830 pass out (345 pass out of (1,022 pass
out of 497 out of 599
competent, agencies and their veyed)
passed fices surveyed) fices surveyed) of 975 service 363 service of- out of 1,042
service offices service offices
and credible service offices pass- out offices or fices surveyed) service offices
surveyed) surveyed)
civil servants ing the ARTA-RCS of 50 higher) surveyed)
4 WIG: service
14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80%
A: 73% 75%
Number of agencies offices
and (498 out of (747 out of (1,743 out of (1,992 out of
(361 passed (449 passed
with approved SPMS sur-
DOLE 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies)
out of 497 out of 599
veyed)
and its
A: service
N/A offices service
73% offices
12 at-
STAKEHOLDERS
surveyed) surveyed)
(364 agencies
tached
with approved
4 WIG: agen-
14 – CSC T: N/A 20% 30% 70% 80%
SPMS)
Number of agencies cies
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)
WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20%
and its
Number of NGAs, A: N/A 73% (315 agencies (79 agencies out
12 at-
STAKEHOLDERS

GOCCs, and SUCs (364 agencies out of 393 of 393 NGAs,

tached
with functional with approved NGAs, GOCCs, GOCCs, and
agen-
SPMS SPMS) and SUCs) SUCs)
cies
A: 1
WIG: 0 T: N/A 80% 20%
Number of NGAs,
Approved SPMS – includes all sectors: NGAs, GOCCs, SUCs, LWDs, and LGUs; SPMS is conditionally approved for initial agencies
(315 implementation(79 agencies out
Functional and SUCs
GOCCs,SPMS – SPMS is approved and implemented out of 393 of 393 NGAs,
with functional NGAs, GOCCs, GOCCs, and
SPMS and SUCs) SUCs)
OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
A: 1
C Provide 5 Number of ISO- T: N/A 3 4 5 5
Approved – includes SPMS is conditionally approved implementation
Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output

excellent HR certified
SPMScore and all sectors: NGAs, GOCCs, SUCs, LWDs, and LGUs;(Cases (Maintain thefor initial
(Maintain the (Maintained)
processes Functional SPMS
support – SPMS is approved and implemented
processes Adjudication, 3 Processes 4 Processes
Examination, + Training +Project
Appointments Process) Management
23

OBJECTIVE MEASURE BASE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Processing) Process)
C Provide 5 Number of ISO- T: N/A 3 4 5 5
PROCESS
 Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output

(Maintained) LINK BETWEEN LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND SCORECARD

2015

MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC MEASURES

The illustration below shows the link between CSC’s Logical Frame-
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVES

100%
80%
98%
work—where the MFOs and performance targets are found, and Score-
5
Approved SPMS – includes all sectors: NGAs, GOCCs, SUCs, LWDs, and LGUs; SPMS is conditionally approved for initial implementation

card—where the strategic objectives and measures are indicated: MFO 1: A. Recognized 1 Client Satisfaction Rating
(Maintain the

Management

LEGAL SERVICES as a Center of (CSC frontline services)

4 Processes
2014

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

Process)
+Project

Chart 2. CSC Logical Framework Excellence

100%
2 Percentage of agencies accred-

80%

70%
5

SOCIETAL GOAL Human Resource ited under the PRIME-HRM

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

Poverty Alleviation
3 Processes
2013

MFO 2:
+ Training

performing,
Process)

agencies and their service of-

EXAMINATIONS AND

100%
70%*

60%
competent, and fices passing the ARTA-RCS

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

SECTORAL GOAL
Improved Public Good credible civil
4 WIG: Number of agencies with

(592 out of 1,115)

Service Delivery Governance
servants

RBPMS rating:
Appointments

Appointments
Adjudication,

Adjudication,
Examination,

Examination,

(4,791 out of

approved SPMS
6,582 cases
Processing)

Processing)
2012

resolved)

Passed
(Cases

(Cases

5 WIG: Numbers of NGAs, GOCCs,

60%

80%

53%
73%

ORGANIZATIONAL MFO 3:
OUTCOMES Merit & Rewards
3

Public Accountability PERSONNEL and SUCs with functional SPMS

System in the Civil Service
of Civil Servants Promoted
Strengthened and POLICIES AND
C. Provide excel- 6 Number of ISO-certified core
STANDARDS
2011

lent HR processes and support processes

SERVICES
30%

MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A PERSONNEL
D. Ensure fairness 7 WIG: Percentage of cases re-
Functional SPMS – SPMS is approved and implemented

PERSONNEL HUMAN
DISCIPLINE & MFO 4: and efficiency in solved within 40 days from the
A:

A:

A:

T:
T:

T:

T:

LEGAL EXAMINATION POLICIES & RESOURCE

ACCOUNTABILITY
SERVICE & APPOINTMENTS STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT HUMAN RESOURCE performing Quasi-
ENHANCEMENT 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

Develop policies,
within 40 days from

administrative mulate guidelines, policies on training programs

employees meeting
support processes

Percentage of CSC

standards, rules
Zero un-liquidated
ripe for resolution
certified core and

disciplinary & standards & government PERSONNEL

of cases resolved

the time they are

WIG: Percentage

& regulations on
MEASURE

non-disciplinary procedures on the employment • Formulate/

Number of ISO-

evaluate/ personnel
cash advance

cases various processes DISCIPLINE AND

involved in recruit- • Review/ administer program evalua- F. Ensure efficient 9 Zero un-liquidated cash advance
standards

• 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 financial
counseling • Develop SERVICES
• Conduct policies, resources
6

8
5

examination standards &

regulations on
Quasi-Judicial

management
OBJECTIVE

• Issue certificate
excellent HR

fairness and
efficiency in

Enhance the
competency

employee-
of our work-

of financial
performing

of eligibility
processes

resources

management
functions

efficient
Provide

• Process/ review relations in the

Ensure

Ensure

public sector You will note that MFO 2 (Examinations and Appointments) is not included in the
force

appointments for
non-accredited Scorecard but it is one of the core functions of the CSC.
agencies
In the Scorecard, you will find that general administrative and support functions are
C

PROCESS PROCESS PEOPLE FINANCE part of the strategic objectives: C. Provide excellent HR processes and F. Ensure
efficient management of financial resources.

*Target percentage may change depending on the results of the validation being conducted by OLA, CSLO and OCH.”

24 25
 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 highlighted column in the table below shows CSC’s success indicators
that were derived from the MFOs (found in the Logical Framework) and MFO 3: Recognized as • Percentage • No. of HR Climate Surveys con-
strategic objectives and measures (found in 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 continuously reviewed and Standards PRIME-HRM annual work plan 1
refined. As such, determine specific targets and success indicators for Services • No. of agencies subjected to
CHARM/CARE-HRM/ SPEAR as per
2 2
each year in your annual work plan.
annual work plan
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

4 4
MFO 1: Ensure fairness Percentage of • Percentage of cases resolved (issued with CSC Resolution) in
Legal Services and efficiency 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

5 5
functions they are ripe for resolved within thirty (30) working Deregulated Status in accordance
resolution days (disciplinary cases) with guidelines
• No. of cases adjudicated and • No. of agencies conferred with

6 6
resolved within ten (10) working Seal of Excellence Award under
days (non-disciplinary cases) PRIME-HRM in accordance with
• No. of appointments processed/ Commission-approved standards

7 7
reviewed versus received in ac- • No. of Seal of Excellence awarded
cordance with technical standards under PRIME-HRM in accordance
(for regulated agencies) with Commission-approved

8 8
standards
MFO 2: Exami- NOTE: MFO 2 is • No. of CSC test applications • No. of unions registered accord-
nations and not included in processed and administered in ing to standards
Appoinments the Scorecard accordance with standards
9 9
• No. of unions accredited accord-
but it is one • No. of eligibles granted under ing to standards
of the core special laws • No. of union’s CNAs registered
functions of the • No. of eligibilities certified/placed
10 10
according to standards
CSC. • No. of appointments processed/ • No. of education/information
reviewed versus received in ac- campaign conducted as per annual
cordance with technical standards
11 11
work plan
(for regulated agencies) • No. of conciliation/mediation
services rendered according to

12 12
standards

26 27
 Step 4. Identify the Success Indicators of Each Major Final Output Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office

MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC

OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE
MEASURES SUCCESS INDICATORS
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 identifying all the MFOs of your agency, focus on the performance 1
standards • No. of Distance Learning Program goals of your office. Ask yourself:
graduates according to standards
2 • No. of scholars enrolled according Which MFO is my office contributing to?
2
to standards
In most cases, one or several offices will be contributing to one MFO. It is

3 3
MFO 5: High perform- • Percentage • Good CSC Client Satisfaction Rat- also possible that one office will be contributing to two MFOs.
Personnel ing, competent, of high density ing (CSC frontline services) for 2013
Discipline and credible agencies & their • Percentage of high density
EXAMPLES OF OFFICES CONTRIBUTING TO MFOs
4 4
and civil servants service offices agencies and their service offices
Accountability passing the passing the ARTA-Report Card In the Civil Service Commission, the following offices contribute to
Enhancement ARTA-RCS Survey per annual work plan specific MFOs:

5
Services • Number of • No. of complaints/feedbacks/

5 agencies with
functional SPMS
requests processed/acted upon
versus received
Office for Legal Affairs (OLA),
MFO 1: Legal Services
Commission Secretariat and Liaison
• Number of agencies with func-
Office (CSLO); CSC Regional Offices

6 tional SPMS
(CSCROs) 6

7 Examination, Recruitment and

Placement Office (ERPO); CSCROs
MFO 2: Examinations and
Appointments
7

8 Human Resource Policies & 8

l
Standards Office (HRPSO); Personnel
If you follow Step 4, you should be able to MFO 3: Personnel Policies and

9 9
Relations Office (PRO); CSCROs
formulate indicators that are SMART. Standards Services

HRPSO; Office for Human Resource

10 Management and Development 10
(OHRMD); Civil Service Institute MFO 4: Human Resource

(CSI); CSCROs Development Services

11 11
HRPSO; Office for Strategy Manage- MFO 5: Personnel Discipline and
12 ment (OSM); Public Assistance and Accountability 12
Information Office (PAIO); CSCROs Enhancement Services

28 29
 Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office Step 5. Identify the Performance Goals of your Office

Based on the organizational priorities of the Civil Service Commission
each year, each office determines its specific performance targets or
success indicators in its annual work plan.
The chart below shows how each CSC office, division, and individual staff 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
for Strategic Human Resource and Organization Development by 2030.
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 office/unit is not directly delivering goods and services to

Chart 5. Illustration of CSC Offices at the
external clients, your office/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 office/unit level

3 down to the individual staff 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,
efficiency 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

8
resolved within acted upon within satisfaction rating accredited under
index within 2 days meeting their job their service & functional
40 days 1.5 hours (frontline services) PRIME-HRM
before security competency offices passing 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

30 31
 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 office cascade down to the division and individual staff levels on the central and regional
levels, this Guidebook will zero in on MFO 3 and one specific office in the Civil Service Commission that contributes to it: the Human
EXAMPLE OF THE PERFORMANCE GOALS
Resource Policies and Standards Office (HRPSO), and one division under it, the Audit Position Classification and Compensation Division
OF AN OFFICE AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL
(APCCD) and its counterpart office and division on the regional level, the CSC Regional Office (CSCRO) and the Policies and Systems The HRPSO contributes to MFO 3. Below are the performance goals or
Evaluation Division (PSED). You will note that two offices in the central office actually contribute to MFO 3: HRPSO and OSM. However, the success indicators of the HRPSO that cascade down to the APPCD. Note
focus will only be on the HRPSO (central office) and the PSED (regional office). These units are highlighted in yellow below: that the success indicators are SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attain- 1
able, Realistic, and Time-bound. HRPSO’s other success indicators that
VISION:
2
cascade down to the other two divisions2 under it are not included.
Chart 6. Illustration of One CSC Office and
Division at Central and Regional Levels
Asia’s Leading Center of Excellence
Table 6. Office 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 Offices acted upon
LEGAL SERVICES STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT

5
APPOINTMENTS ACCOUNTABILITY Standards Excellence PRIME-HRM within 15 days from receipt of the
SERVICES SERVICES
Services3 recommendation

Resolutions for accreditation of

Ensure fairness and agencies approved by the Commis-
High performing,
6
efficiency 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
by end of the 1st Quarter
8
% of CSC density No. of agencies
% of cases % appointments above average CSC client % of agencies
employees agencies & with approved
resolved within acted upon within reliability index satisfaction rating accredited under
40 days 1.5 hours within 2 days (frontline services) PRIME-HRM
meeting their job their service & functional Orientation on PRIME-HRM con-
competency offices passing SPMS
before security ducted by EO March 2013

9
ARTA-RCS
printing
MOA between the CSC and award
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
The other two divisions under the HRPSO are: Personnel Systems and Standards Division (PSSD)

12
2

and Qualification and Selection Standards Division (QSSD).

3
The other offices of the Civil Service Commission contributing to MFO 3 are the Personnel Rela-
Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual tions Office and the Regional Offices.
Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff

32 33
 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 Offices 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 Office Level (CSCRO) Success Indicators Units under an office must contribute towards achieving a specific MFO 1
REGIONAL OFFICE through a set of performance goals or success indicators. As such, the
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC (CSCRO) LEVEL
2 2
performance goals of the different units such as a branch, attached
MEASURES
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE SUCCESS bureaus, or a division must be aligned with the performance goals
INDICATORS
of the office.

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 Office has 3 divisions
4
el II-Accredited Status under it: Personnel Systems and Standards Division (PSSD), Audit

5 under PRIME-HRM
and Position Classification and Compensation Division (APCCD), and
Qualification and Selection Standards Division (QSSD).
5

6
Highlighted on the table below are the success indicators of the Audit
and Position Classification and Compensation Division:
6
Table 8. Office Level (HRPSO) and Division Level (APCCD) Success Indicators
7 If you follow Step 5, you should be able to 7
l
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) DIVISION LEVEL(APCCD)
MEASURES
OBJECTIVE SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
identify the performance goals of your office OUTPUTS

8 that contribute to specific 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- Offices acted upon Offices 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

34 35
 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) Highlighted on the table below are the success indicators of the Policies
for Center/Seal of Standards for Center/
and Systems Evaluation Division (PSED):
1 1
Excellence approved Seal of Excellence ap-
by the Commission by proved by the Director
Table 9. Regional Office Level (CSCRO) and
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

3 by the end of February

3
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE DIVISION (PSED)
INDICATORS
SUCCESS INDICATORS
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 office level success indicators, division level success indicators 7
should also be SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and

8 8
Time-bound.

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
10 performance goals of your office. 10

11 11

12 12

36 37
 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 staffed by at least one individual employee. The 1

performance goals of each individual employee must contribute and

2
align with the performance goals of the division. The success indicators
should be SMART.

EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS 3

AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE LEVEL

Highlighted in Table 10 are the individual level success indicators of 4

employees under the Audit and Position Classification and Compensation

5
Division. The table also shows the alignment of individual success
indicators with the division level (APCCD) and office level (HRPSO)
success indicators.

Like the office level and division level success indicators, individual 6
level success indicators should also be SMART—Speci c, Measurable,
Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.
7

10

11

12

38 39
 6
5
3

4
2
1

12
11
10
9
8
7

40
Table 10. Office Level (HRPSO), Division Level (APCCD), and Individual Level (Staff 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 Offices acted upon Regional Offices acted upon Regional Offices 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
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF)
MEASURES Commission within 15 days from days from receipt by the HRPSO from receipt by the HRPSO
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
receipt of recommendation from
MFO 3: Recognized as Percentage of 100% of recommendations
the CSCRO 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
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Proposed PRIME-HRM Certify-
Policies and Excellence credited under Regional Offices acted upon Regional Offices acted upon Regional Offices Nos. 1, 2 and 3
(CB) Standards for Center/Seal Board (CB) Standards for Cen- ing Board (CB) Standards
Standards PRIME-HRM 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
Services the recommendation the recommendation receipt of the recommendation
Commission by end of the 1st by the Director by March 1 submitted to the Division Chief
Resolutions
Quarter for accreditation Resolutions for accreditation Resolutions for accreditation of
by February 15
of agencies approved by the of agencies prepared within 10 agencies prepared within 7 days
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division

Orientation on PRIME-HRM Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Proposal on the PRIME-HRM

Commission within 15 days from 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
the CSCRO
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF)
MEASURES PRIME-HRM Certifying Board Proposed PRIME-HRM Certifying Proposed PRIME-HRM Certify-
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
(CB) Standards for Center/Seal Board (CB) Standards for Cen- ing Board (CB) Standards
MOA
of Excellence the CSC and
betweenapproved by the Draft MOA
ter/Seal ofbetween
Excellence CSC
theapproved Draft
for MOA between
Center/Seal the CSC
of Excellence
award giving by
Commission bodies
end of
onthe
the1st award
andthe
by giving
Director bybodies
March on
1 the and award to
submitted giving bodies on
the Division the
Chief
integration of CB standards to
Quarter integration of CB standards to integration
by Februaryof15CB standards to
their criteria signed by end of their criteria approved by the their criteria submitted to the
Orientation on PRIME-HRM 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 by the queries
to end 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
MAJOR FINAL STRATEGIC OFFICE LEVEL (HRPSO) SUCCESS DIVISION LEVEL (APCCD) INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (STAFF)
MEASURES 10 days upon receipt by the days upon receipt by the HRPSO
OUTPUTS OBJECTIVE INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS SUCCESS INDICATORS
HRPSO
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
days upon receipt by the HRPSO
Draft replies to queries ap-
proved by the Director within
10 days upon receipt by the
HRPSO
Draft replies to queries approved
by the Division Chief within 7
days upon receipt by the HRPSO
Step 7. Identify the Performance Goals of Individuals Under Each Division

7
2

6
5

41
8

11

12
10
 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 Office Level (CSCRO), Division Level (PSED), and
EXAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PERFORMANCE GOALS Individual Level (Staff 2) Success Indicators
AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE LEVEL
REGIONAL
Highlighted on the table below are the individual level success indicators DIVISION
MAJOR OFFICE LEVEL INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
STRATEGIC LEVEL (PSED)
FINAL MEASURES (CSCRO) (STAFF) SUCCESS
of employees under the Policies and Systems Evaluation Division OBJECTIVE SUCCESS
OUTPUTS SUCCESS INDICATORS
1 (PSED) at the regional office level. The table also shows the alignment INDICATORS
INDICATORS
1
of individual success indicators with the division level (PSED) and the MFO 3: Recog- Percent- Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
Personnel nized as age of 25% of agen- 25% of agen- 25%
2 2
Regional Office success indicators.
Policies a Center agencies cies accred- cies accred- of agencies
Like the regional office level and division level success indicators, and for accred- ited under ited under accredited
individual level success indicators 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

5 5
PRIME-HRM PRIME-HRM Status under
PRIME-HRM

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 office. 12

42 43
 Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale

DEVELOP
THE RATING SCALE

Developing the Rating Scale involves two sub-steps: 1

• Determining the dimensions on which performance or accomplish-

2
ments are to be rated.
• Operationalizing the numerical and adjectival ratings.

THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE 3

The three dimensions of performance or accomplishments are quality,
e ciency , and timeliness.
4
Quality or Effectiveness means getting the right things done. It refers

5
to the degree to which objectives are achieved as intended and the extent
to which issues are addressed with a certain degree of excellence.

Quality or effective performance involves the following elements:

Acceptability
• Meeting standards
• Client satisfaction
with services rendered
• Accuracy
• Completeness or 6
comprehensiveness of reports
• Creativity or innovation
• Personal initiative
7

Efficiency is the extent to which targets are accomplished using the 8

minimum amount of time or resources.

9
Efficient performance applies to continuing tasks or frontline services
(e.g., issuance of licenses, permits, clearances, and certificates).
It involves the following elements:
• Standard response time 10
• Number of requests/applications acted upon over number of

11
requests/applications received
• Optimum use of resources (e.g., money, logistics, office supplies)

12

44 45
 Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale

Timeliness measures if the targeted deliverable was done within the

Table 12. Examples of How to Determine the Dimensions to Rate Performance
scheduled or expected timeframe. Timely performance involves:
• 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

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
on quality and efficiency because
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 first 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
5 5
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) This performance target is rated on
Depending on how success indicators are stated, you can rate a performance along Standards for Center/Seal of Excellence quality and timeliness because it
the dimensions of quality, efficiency, and/or timeliness using the listed elements approved by the Commission by end of the involves:•Acceptability. The stan-

6 6
above as guidelines. The rating needs to be discussed within the unit and between 1st Quarter dards need to be approved by the
the supervisors and staff (i.e., raters and ratees) to clarify the expected outputs at Commission.•Meeting a deadline set at the
end of the 1st Quarter.
the beginning of the performance monitoring period.

7 Because performance is measured within a scheduled monitoring period, all Resolution on QS for newly-created unique This performance target is rated 7
accomplishments always involve the dimension of time. As such, performance is
positions approved by the Commission on quality and efficiency because
within 15 days upon receipt by the HRPSO it involves:•Acceptability. The

8 8
always rated on either efficiency 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
receipt by the HRPSO
This performance target is rated on
quality and efficiency because it
9
involves:•Acceptability. The letters need

10 to be approved by the Director.•Standard

response time of 10 working days.
10

11 11

12 12

46 47
 6
5
3

4
2
1

12
11
10
9
8
7

48
4
1
2
3
5

4
NU-

RATING
MERICAL

Very

Poor
RATING

satisfactory

Satisfactory
Outstanding
ADJECTIVAL

Unsatisfactory
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale

below.
planned targets.
the planned targets.

per performance target or success indicator.

100% of the planned targets.
Table 13. Operationalization of the Rating Scale
ESTABLISHING THE RATING SCALE

Adoption of a Performance-Based Incentive System for Government Employees).

than expected but related aspects of the target.
DESCRIPTION OR MEANING OF RATING
the highest. The table below explains the meaning of each rating:

failed to deliver one or more critical aspects of the target.

are based on the ranges prescribed under CSC Memorandum Circular No 13, s. 1999. The 90%
to 114% range for Satisfactory rating is based on Executive Order No. 80, s. 2012 (Directing the
performance should be 51% to 99% of the planned targets.
However, if it involves deadlines required by law, the range of
Performance only met 51% to 89% of the planned targets and
However, if it involves deadlines required by law, it should be

Performance failed to deliver most of the targets by 50% and

Performance met 90% to 114% of the planned targets.
Performance exceeded expectations by 15% to 29% of the
quality, technical skills, creativity, and initiative, showing
Performance demonstrated was exceptional in terms of

mastery of the task. Accomplishments were made in more

Performance exceeded expectations by 30% and above of

The 130% and above range for Outstanding rating and the 50% and below range for Poor rating

under each relevant dimension (i.e., quality, efficiency, or timeliness)

indicate the operational definition or meaning of each numerical rating
For the rating to be objective, impartial, and verifiable, you need to
using a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 5—with 1 as the lowest and 5 as
On each dimension of quality, efficiency, and timeliness, rate performance

The following tables show examples of rating matrices on three levels—office, division, and individual staff at the central and
regional levels.

EXAMPLES OF RATING MATRICES

Office Level Rating Matrix

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

Central Office 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
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale

MAJOR
HRPSO SUCCESS DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL
IINDICATORS RATINGS FOR QUALITY EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
OUTPUTS
49

Orientation on PRIME- 5 – Average outstanding rating of participants 5 – Conducted within 75

 tion to the Commission with minimal changes days

50
6
5
3

4
2
1

12
11
10
9
8
7

50
1 – Approved upon 3rd presentation of resolu- 1 – Delayed by more than
tion to the Commission with major changes 45 days

MAJOR
HRPSO SUCCESS DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS FOR DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
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
Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale

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
of
and
MFO 3:

Policies

Services
FINAL
MAJOR

Personnel

Standards
OUTPUTS

each

on efficiency.
Program
(CSCAAP)
of agencies

CSC Agency

PRIME-HRM
II-Accredited
Status under
OFFICE

Accreditation

granted Level
SUCCESS
REGIONAL

INDICATORS

Cumulative 25%

accredited under

numerical
Regional Office Level

Division Level Rating Matrix

rating
Table 15. CSCRO Rating Matrix

FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS

along
the
PRIME-HRM

under PRIME-HRM
under PRIME-HRM
under PRIME-HRM
under PRIME-HRM
RATINGS

of accredited agencies
CSCAAP granted Level
4 – Cumulative 29% to

3 – Cumulative 22% to
5 – Cumulative 33% or
FOR EFFICIENCY

under CSCAAP granted

under CSCAAP granted
under CSCAAP granted
DESCRIPTION OF

more of accredited agen-

Level 2-Accredited Status

Level 2-Accredited Status
Level 2-Accredited Status
Level 2-Accredited Status

1 – Cumulative 12% or less

2-Accredited Status under
accredited agencies under
2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of
32% of accredited agencies

28% of accredited agencies

cies under CSCAAP granted

dimensions
of
RATINGS
FOR TIMELINESS
DESCRIPTION OF

will note that some performance targets are only rated on quality
quality,
or success indicators of the CSC’s Audit and Position Classification

and efficiency, some on quality and timeliness, and others only

efficiency, and timeliness. Like the office level rating scales, you
and Compensation Division. Columns 3 to 5 describe the meaning
• The second column on Table 16 shows all the performance targets

51
 proved by the Director more
than 15 days from receipt
by the HRPSO

Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale APCCD DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
INDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
Central Office 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

1 1
MFO 3: 100% of recom- 5 – Acted upon in less than March 1 3 – Approved by the Director 3 – Proposed standards ap-
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 Offices 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
PRIME-HRM upon 1st submission before February 8

4 4
recommendation
Orientation 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Approved by the Director
1 - Acted upon more than approved by the upon 2nd presentation with from February 9 to 13
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

5 5
NOTE: Timeframe upon 2nd presentation with 2 – Approved by the Director
Resolutions for 5 – Draft resolution ap- is 30 days major changes from March 6 to 17
accreditation proved by the Director from 2 – Approved by the Director 1 – Approved by the Director
of agencies 1 to 7 days from receipt by upon 3rd presentation with beyond March 17
prepared within the HRPSO minimal changes

6 6
10 days from 1 – Approved by the Director
receipt by the 4 – Draft resolution upon 3rd presentation with
HRPSO approved by the Director in major changes
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

8
integration of CB minimal changes 3 – Approved by the Director

8
the HRPSO
standards to their 3 – Approved by the Director from August 11 to August 18
2 – Draft resolution ap- criteria approved upon 2nd presentation with 2 – Approved by the Director
proved by the Director from by the Director by major changes from August 19 to 31
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

9 1 – Draft resolution ap-

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
SUCCESS
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
DESCRIPTION
OF RATINGS
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
INDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS 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

11 11
Proposed 5 - Approved by the Director 5 – Proposed standards ap- days upon receipt minimal changes 3 – Replies sent within an
PRIME-HRM upon 1st submission proved by the Director before by the HRPSO 3 – Approved by the Director average of 10 days
Certifying Board February 23 upon 2nd submission with 2 – Replies sent delayed by
(CB) Standards major changes an average of 1 to 5 days
for Center/Seal 4 - Approved by the Director 4 – Proposed standards ap- 2 – Approved by the Director 1 – Replies sent delayed

12 12
of Excellence upon 2nd presentation with proved by the Director from upon 3rd submission with by an average of 6 or
submitted to minimal changes February 23 to March 4 minimal changes more days
the Director by 1 – Approved by the Director
March 1 3 – Approved by the Director 3 – Proposed standards ap- upon 3rd submission with
NOTE: Timeframe upon 2nd presentation with proved by the Director from major changes
for this activ- major changes March 5 to March 22
ity is January to
March 1 2 – Approved by the Director 2 – Proposed standards ap-
52 upon 3rd presentation with proved by the Director from 53
minimal changes March 23 to April 22
 9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO

1 – Draft resolution ap-

Step
proved by 8. Develop
the Director more the Rating Scale
than 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO

Regional Office Level Individual Level Rating Matrices The APCCD is staffed by three MAJOR STAFF A DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
employees. The three succeeding tables for Employees A, B, and C below FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
Table 17. PSED Rating Matrix OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
show the performance targets and rating 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
INDICATORS FOR QUALITY Like the office level and division level rating matrices, you will note that Policies by the Division
OUTPUTS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS
and Chief within 7 4 - Approved by the Division 4 – Replies sent within an
some performance targets are only rated on quality and efficiency, some
1 1
MFO3: Cumulative 25% 5 – Cumulative 33% Standards days upon receipt Chief upon 2nd submission average of 2 to 5 days
Personnel of agencies or more of accredited Services by the HRPSO with minimal changes
on quality and timeliness, and others only on efficiency.
Policies accredited under agencies under CSCAAP
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

2 2
Services gram (CSCAAP) PRIME-HRM Central Office Level: Employee A 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

4 4
Personnel mendations for 5 days from receipt of the
under CSCAAP recom- Policies accreditation recommendation
mended for accreditation and from the CSC
under PRIME-HRM Standards Regional Offices 4 - Acted upon in 5 days
Services acted upon within from receipt of the recom-

5 5
2 – Cumulative 13%-21% of 7 days from mendation
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
11 days from receipt of the
under CSCAAP recom-
recommendation
mended for accreditation

7 7
under PRIME-HRM
1 - Acted upon more than
11 days from receipt of the
recommendation

8 8
Resolutions for 5 – Draft resolution ap-
accreditation proved by the Director from
of agencies 1 to 4 days from receipt by
prepared within 7 the HRPSO
days from receipt
by the HRPSO 4 – Draft resolution
approved by the Director in
9 5 days from receipt by the
HRPSO 9
3 – Draft resolution ap-

10 10
proved by the Director from
6 to 8 days from receipt by
the HRPSO

2 – Draft resolution ap-

11 11
proved by the Director from
9 to 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO

1 – Draft resolution ap-

12 12
proved by the Director more
than 11 days from receipt by
the HRPSO

MAJOR STAFF A DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
OF RATINGS FOR QUALITY
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS

54 MFO3: Draft replies to 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Replies sent within an 55

Personnel queries approved Chief upon 1st submission average of 1 day
Policies by the Division
 2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Proposed standards ap-
Chief upon 3rd presentation proved by the Division Chief
with minimal changes from February 19 to March 9

Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Proposed standards ap- Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale
Chief upon 3rd presentation proved by the Division Chief
with major changes beyond March 9

Central Office Level: Employee B MAJOR STAFF B DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION Central Office Level: Employee C
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
Table 19. Employee B Rating Matrix FOR QUALITY Table 20. Employee C Rating Matrix
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS

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 first 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

1 1
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
Personnel accreditation proved by the Director from Services standards to their Division Chief upon second Chief from July 22 to 26 Personnel PRIME-HRM Ori- Chief upon 1st submission the Division Chief before
Policies of agencies 1 to 4 days from receipt by criteria approved submission with minimal Policies entation approved January 31
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
3 3 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director from
6 to 8 days from receipt by
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

4 4
with minimal changes 19 to March 9
2 – Draft resolution ap- 1 – Draft MOA approved by the 1 – Approved by the Division
proved by the Director from Division Chief upon third sub- Chief beyond April 16 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Proposal approved by
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
5 1 – Draft resolution ap-
proved by the Director more
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

6 6
by the HRPSO with minimal changes
Proposed 5 - Approved by the Division 5 – Proposed standards ap- NOTE: The 4 – Meets all the content 4 – Report submitted within
PRIME-HRM Chief upon 1st submission proved by the Division Chief 3 – Approved by the Division 3 – Replies sent within an required output requirements with suggestions 1-2 days after the meeting
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
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd presentation
with minimal changes
4 – Proposed standards
approved by the Division
Chief from January 31 to
2 – Approved by the Division
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

2 – Report submitted within

7
Division Chief by February 7 with minimal changes 4-5 days after the meeting

8 8
February 15
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

with minimal changes
proved by the Division Chief
from February 19 to March 9
by the Division
Chief within 7
days upon receipt
4 - Approved by the Division
Chief upon 2nd submission
4 – Replies sent within an
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
3 – Replies sent within an
average of 6 to 8 days 10
MAJOR STAFF B DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION with major changes
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL SUCCESS OF RATINGS OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS 2 – Approved by the Division 2 – Replies sent delayed by
11 MFO3: Draft MOA 5 – Draft MOA approved by 5 – Approved by the Division
Chief upon 3rd submission
with minimal changes
an average of 2 to 3.5 days
11
Personnel between the CSC the Division Chief upon first Chief before July 22
Policies and award giving submission 1 – Approved by the Division 1 – Replies sent delayed

12 12
and bodies on the Chief upon 3rd submission by an average of 4 or more
Standards integration of CB 4 – Draft MOA approved by the 4 – Approved by the Division with major changes days
Services standards to their Division Chief upon second Chief from July 22 to 26
criteria approved submission with minimal
by the Division changes
Chief by 31 July
2013 3 – Draft MOA approved 3 – Approved by the Division
by the Division Chief upon Chief from July 27 to
56 second submission with major August 3
57
changes
 Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale Step 8. Develop the Rating Scale

Regional Office Level: Employee D

Table 21. Employee D Rating Matrix

MAJOR STAFF D DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
FINAL SUCCESS RATINGS OF RATINGS
FOR QUALITY
OUTPUTS IINDICATORS FOR EFFICIENCY FOR TIMELINESS

1
MFO 3: Agencies 5 – Assessment report 5 – Report submitted to the
Personnel accredited under indicates all the content Division Chief within 6 days
Policies CSC Agency requirements with additional 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
days after the conduct of the
assessment

5 1 – Assessment conducted but

no report
1 – Report submitted to the
Division Chief more than 15
days after the conduct of the
assessment

6 Recommenda-
tions for Level II-
5 – Recommendations
consolidated within 6 or
Accredited Status less days Steps 9 and 10 are
under PRIME-
subsumed under the
7
HRM of agencies 4 – Recommendations
accredited consolidated within 7 to
under CSCAAP 8 days second stage of PMS
cycle-Performance
consolidated
within 10 days 3 - Recommendations

8 Monitoring and
from receipt of consolidated within 9
all recommenda- -11 days
tions
2 – Recommendations Coaching
consolidated within 12-15

Performance
days

9 1 – Recommendations
consolidated beyond
15 days

Monitoring
10

11

12
& Coaching
58
 Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools

IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE GOALS

OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER EACH DIVISION

During the monitoring and coaching period, it is important that you 1

regularly monitor the performance of offices, divisions, and employees.

2
You must put monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and tools in place
so that timely and appropriate steps can be taken towards meeting
performance targets and organizational goals. This requires an
information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. 3
Below are suggested monitoring and coaching 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

9
HRM 15
Certifying
Board (CB)
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

61
 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

1 1
2nd
a
Task No. or the Signa- the drafter by the r
3rd
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
ficer

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
Officials

7 Supervisors and coaches play a critical role at this stage. They can provide
7
an enabling environment, introduce interventions to improve team
8 performance, and develop individual potentials. 8
To reiterate, it is important that you establish an information system as Please indicate the date in the appropriate box when the monitoring was conducted.

9 a vital management tool that will support data management to produce

timely, accurate, and reliable information for program tracking and Conducted by: Date: Noted by: Date: 9
performance monitoring and reporting.

10 10
Immediate Superior Head of Office

11 3 11

12 12

62 63
 Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools Step 8. Develop the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools

If you follow Step 9, you should be able

l
to develop appropriate performance
monitoring and coaching tools.

64 65
 Step 10. Develop the Performance Evaluation Tools

DEVELOP THE PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION TOOLS

At the beginning of the performance monitoring period, develop 1

the tools that will be used to establish commitment and evaluate

2
accomplishments at the end of a given period.

Incorporate the following essential elements in your evaluation tool:

• Name, position, and signature of the Unit Head or individual staff being
evaluated (ratee) 3
• Rating period

4
• Date when evaluation was completed
• Name, signature, and position of supervisors that approve the
completed evaluation form and the date when they made the approval
• Major Final Outputs that your office and division are contributing to
(Step 5)
5
• SMART performance targets or success indicators (Steps 4 , 5, 6, and 7)
• Actual accomplishments vis-à-vis performance targets
6
• Ratings on quality, efficiency and/or timeliness on a scale of 1 to 5 (Step 8)
• Remarks of supervisor
• Name, position and signature of Head of the Performance Management 7
Team
• Name, signature, and position of rater and date when evaluation was
completed 8
To reflect the cascading approach of the SPMS towards achieving
organizational goals, three kinds of forms are suggested: 9
• Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) Form is

10
accomplished by Agency Directors
• Division Performance Commitment and Review (DPCR) Form is
accomplished by Division Chiefs
• Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) Form is
accomplished by individual staff in all the units of the organization
11
Make sure that the performance targets listed in the OPCR, DPCR, and

12
IPCR are linked and aligned towards achieving your organization’s Major
Final Outputs.

66 67
 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 7 columns in 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), Efficiency
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 identifies:
4 • The name of person making the performance commitment, his/her 4
position in the organization, and signature
For offices/units that perform STO or GAS activities, indicate your
5 5
• The rating period
core or support functions on the first column in lieu of MFOs.
• The date when the performance commitment was made at the beginning
of the rating period

6 6
Below are the 5 columns in the IPCR form:
• The name and position of the supervisors approving the performance
commitment and the date when they made the approval at the beginning (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

7 7
of the rating period.
Major Final Success Indica- Actual Accomplish- Rating for Quality Remarks
The main portion of OPCR, DPCR and IPCR is a table with several columns: Outputs tors (Targets + ments (Q), Efficiency (E),
(MFOs) Measures) Timeliness (T),

8 8
The OPCR and DPCR have 7 columns The IPCR has 5 columns
and Average
• Column 1: Major Final Outputs • Column 1: Major Final Outputs 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), Efficiency (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 portion of the form is signed by the Supervisor and/or Rater 11
at the beginning and end of the rating period.
Efficiency (E) and Timeliness (T) and the

12 Average (Ave)
12
• Column 7: Remarks

68 69
 The OPCR Form The DPCR Form

Name and Position

of Office Director (Ratee) Name and Position
Signature of Office 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 (Office 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 final rating The Office Director
beginning and end of beginning and end of at the end of the gives the final rating
the rating period the rating period rating period

70 71
 The IPCR Form
Name and Position
of Individual Staff

Signature of Individual Staff (Ratee)

Rating Period:
months and year

Date when
The Office 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

Performance
his/her comments on
the ratee and his/her
The Ratee signs recommendations
here after discussion

Review &
of evaluation with
Division Chief

The Office Director

gives the final rating

Evaluation
The Divsion Chief
(Rater) signs here

If you follow Step 10, you should

l be able to develop your OPCR, DPCR,
and IPCR forms

72
 Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools

USE THE PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION TOOLS

At the end of the performance monitoring period, use the suggested 1

forms—OPCR, DPCR, and IPCR—to review performance from the office

2
and division levels down to the individual staff level.

For the OPCR and DPCR forms, you should have completed the
first four columns of the table at the beginning of the performance
monitoring period: 3
• Column 1 – Major Final Outputs that your office or division is contrib-
uting to. Add more rows if your office or division is contributing to more 4
than two MFOs (Steps 5 and 6).

• Column 2 – Success indicators or performance targets of your office or

5
division per MFO for the monitoring period (Steps 5 and 6).

• Column 3 – Allocated budget per performance target. For performance

targets that have no budget allocation, write “none”.
6

7
• Column 4 – Divisions accountable for each performance target for the OPCR.
– Persons Accountable for each performance target for the DPCR.

10

11

12

75
 6
5
3

4
2
1

8
7

12
11
10
9

76
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
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools

For the IPCR form, you should have completed the first two columns at the beginning of the performance monitoring period:
• Column 1 – Major Final Outputs that your division is contributing to (Steps 5, 6, and 7).
• Column 2 – Success indicators or performance targets of each individual staff per MFO for the monitoring period (Steps 5, 6,
and 7).
During the actual evaluation, the rater describes the actual accomplishments of the ratee vis-à-vis the performance targets on
the 5th column for the OPCR and DPCR forms or the 3rd column for the IPCR.
Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools

77
2

6
5

11

12
10
 Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools Step 11. Use the Performance Evaluation Tools

In the table above, there are five rows of accomplishments. The first two
COMPUTING THE NUMERICAL RATINGS accomplishments are rated on quality and timeliness. The third accomplishment is

As explained in Step 8 (Develop the Rating Scale), you do not need to rate rated on quality, efficiency, and timeliness. The fourth accomplishment is rated on

every performance accomplishment along all three dimensions of quality, quality and efficiency. The last accomplishment is rated on efficiency.

efficiency, and timeliness. Developing the rating matrix at the beginning of

You get the average rating for a particular accomplishment by adding the ratings

1 the rating period should have helped clarify the expected outputs of each
and dividing it by the number of dimensions used. In the table above, the first 1
performance target (e.g., activity report, draft resolution, draft policy)and
accomplishment got a rating of 4 on quality and 4 on timeliness totaling 8.
determine under what dimension it will be rated. The table below shows an
2 2
Divide this by the 2 dimensions and you get an average rating of 4. The third
example of actual accomplishments and the ratings.
accomplishment got a rating of 5 on quality, 5 on timeliness, and 4 on efficiency

totaling 14. Divide this by the 3 dimensions and you get an average rating of 4.67.

3 Table 22.Sample Ratings of Accomplishments

The fifth accomplishment got a single rating of 5 on efficiency. So the average 3
SUCCESS Average is rating is also a 5.
ACTUAL
INDICATORS Q E T Ave obtained by
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
4 (Targets + Measures) dividing the
total by the
To get the final 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 five
number of
fying Board Standards Standards for Center/Seal of dimensions: accomplishments. Thus, you divide the total rating of 20.67 by 5 and get the final
5 for Center/Seal of
Excellence approved by
Excellence approved by the Director
upon second presentation and with
4+4 = 8 ÷ 2 = 4
average rating of 4.13. 5
the Director by March 1 minimal changes on March 3 The teamwork orientation of the SPMS is reflected in the overall rating of an

6 Proposal on the Proposal on the PRIME-HRM Ori- 5 2 3.5

Average is
obtained by
office. Thus, the average of all individual performance assessments does not go 6
PRIME-HRM Orientation entation approved by the Director dividing the higher than the collective performance assessment of the office. To illustrate, the
approved by the upon first submission on March 10

7 7
total by the table below shows a sample summary list of individual performance ratings and
Director by the end of number of
the overall rating of the HRPSO:
February dimensions:
5 + 5 + 4 = 14 ÷ 3 Table 23. Ratings of Individual Staff 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 Staff under HRPSO
tor within 10 working days upon receipt by the HRPSO
HRPSO Secretary 3.99 Satisfactory
days upon receipt by Final Average

9 9
HRPSO Administrative Asst. 4.1 Very Satisfactory
the HRPSO Rating is
obtained by APCCD Chief 4 Very Satisfactory
Position paper/ com- Draft Position paper on HRMO 4 3 3.5 adding all the Average individual
APCCD Employee A 3.6 Satisfactory
ments on legislative Item in the LGUs submitted on the
10 10
average ratings rating is obtained by
bills submitted within deadline set by the CSLO vertically and APCCD Employee B 5 Outstanding dividing the total of
the time frame pre- dividing the
APCCD Employee C 4.03 Very Satisfactory individual ratings
scribed by the CSLO sum (Total

11 11
(44.32) by the number
Rating) by the PSSD Chief 2.3 Unsatisfactory
of individuals in the
APCCD staff 3 APCCD staff recommended for 5 5 number of PSSD Employee A 4 Very Satisfactory
office (11):
recommended for train- training/HR programs accomplish-
PSSD Employee B 3.3 Satisfactory 3.99+ 4.1 + 4 + 3.6 + 5 +
ments:
ing/HR programs
4 + 3.5 + 4.67 + QSSD Chief 5 Outstanding + 4.03 + 2.3 + 4 + 3.3 + 5

12 TOTAL RATING 20.67 3.5 + 5 =

20.67 ÷ 5 = 4.13
FINAL AVERAGE RATING 4.13
QSSD Employee A 5 Outstanding
+ 5 = 44.32
44.32 ÷ 11 = 4.03
12
Ave. Individual Rating 4.03 Very Satisfactory

78 79
 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 is for remarks on
Q E T Ave
specific accomplishments. Filling this column is optional.
MFO 3 100% of recommendations for accreditation 4 4
from the CSC Regional Offices acted upon For the IPCR form, however, there is an allotted space below the table

1 within 15 days from receipt of the recom-

mendation
for the rater to write his/her recommendations on the staff s/he is 1
evaluating for development purposes or for rewards and promotion.
Resolutions for accreditation of agencies 4 4 4

2 2
approved by the Commission within 15 days
from receipt of recommendation from the
CSCRO

3 3
PRIME-HRM Certifying Board (CB) Stan- 5 5 5
dards for Center/Seal of Excellence approved
by the Commission by end of the 1st
Quarter

4 Orientation on PRIME-HRM conducted by 5 4 4.5 4

EO March 2013

5 5
MOA between the CSC and award giving 3 3 3
bodies on the integration of CB standards
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 final average rating

8
of 4.08 that the HRPSO The rater writes his/her
9 obtained is likewise comments on the ratee and
his/her recommendations
9
Very Satisfactory

10 10
If you follow Step 11, you should
11 l be able to use your OPCR, DPCR, 11
and IPCR forms.

12 12

80 81
At the end of the rating period, the Heads
of Office 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 discussion of evaluation results must be on strengths, 1

competency-related performance gaps, and the opportunities to ad-

2
dress these gaps, career paths, and alternatives.

In coordination with the HRM Office, the Heads of Office and supervi-
sors must introduce appropriate developmental interventions based on
the results of the performance evaluation especially for employees with 3
Unsatisfactory and Poor performance ratings.

4
SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Below is a suggested format of the professional development plan for 5
the continuing career development of staff.

You can use this plan to enhance the skills or develop potentials of
6
employees who perform well and to improve or correct performance of
employees who fail to meet targets.
7

10

11

12

85
86 87
 Step 12. Use the Results of the Performance Evaluation

The results of the performance evaluation/assessment shall serve as

inputs to the following: Crafting Your Agency SPMS Guidelines
1. Heads of Offices in identifying and providing the kinds of interventions
needed based on identified professional development needs. As you go through the process of setting up the SPMS in your organization,
you may start crafting your Agency SPMS Guidelines using the checklist
1
2. Agency HRM Office in consolidating and coordinating development
below. The checklist provides a summary of the contents of the
interventions that will form part of the HR Plan and the basis for rewards
SPMS Guidelines.
and incentives.

2 3. Performance Management Team in identifying potential PRAISE FEATURES CONTENTS

Awards nominees for various awards categories. Key Players and • Key players include the following:

3 4. PRAISE Committee in determining top performers of the agency who

Responsibilities ¤ SPMS Champion
¤ PMT
qualify* for awards and incentives. ¤ Planning Office
(Step 1)

4 ¤ HRM Office
¤ Head of Office
¤ Supervisor

5 ¤ Individual Employees
• Functions are clearly spelled out
• There is an Office Order/Executive Order issued

6 If you follow Step 12,

l
by the Agency Head

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 identified 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 staff members such that Individual
Work Plans or Commitment and Rating Forms
11 (Step 1) are linked to Office/ Division/ Unit Work Plan or
Commitment and Rating Form

12
• Agency Guidelines provide that the average rating
of individual staff member should not go higher
* Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence than the collective performance assessment of
the office

88 89
 User-friendly • One Form for Commitments (target setting)
Agency SPMS Forms and Rating (evaluation) for both organization
and individuals
(Step 10) • Commitment and Rating Forms for both the
organization and individual performance are
similar and easy to accomplish
• SPMS Forms that operationalize the four-stage
PMS
¤ Performance Commitment and Rating Forms
include columns for MFOs, success indicators
(targets + measures), actual accomplishments,
and rating
¤ Commitments are agreed upon by the
2. Performance Monitoring and Coaching
Management and officials/employees as
indicated in the OPCR and IPCR Forms
¤ Space is provided for comments and
recommendations for individual employee
development
¤ Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form/
Journal
¤ Professional Development Plan
Information System • M&E mechanisms and information system are
that Supports M&E established
• There is a database/summary of targets and
3. Performance Review and Evaluation
accomplishment which shall be the basis for
verification of accomplishments
Communication Plan • There is a program that orients agency officials
and employees on the new and revised policies
on the SPMS
• The orientation schedules are indicated in the
SPMS calendar
Four-stage PMS cycle are described in the Agency
SPMS Cycle
Guidelines/Manual:
• Performance Planning and Commitment
(Step 2)
• Performance Monitoring and Coaching
• Performance Review and Evaluation
• Performance Rewarding and Development
Planning
90
1. Performance Planning and Commitment
• SPMS calendar shows that officials and
employees are required to submit their
commitments prior to the start of the
rating period
• SPMS calendar allots time for PMT review
and recommendations of the performance
commitments
• SPMS calendar indicates period for Head
of Agency/Heads of Offices’ approval of the
office performance commitment and individual
performance commitments
• Feedback sessions on the performance of the
offices as well as the officials/employees are
provided in the guidelines and indicated in the
SPMS calendar
• Interventions are given to those behind work
targets. In the Employee Feedback From, a space
is provided for recommended interventions
• There is a form or logbook to record
critical incidents, schedule of coaching, and
action plan
• Office accomplishments are assessed against
the success indicators and the allotted budget
against the actual expenses as indicated in the
Performance Commitment and Rating Forms
and provided in the guidelines
• Annual Agency Performance Review Conference
is conducted as found in the SPMS calendar
• Individual employee performance is assessed
based on the commitments made at the start of
the rating period
• Agency SPMS rating scale should fall within
the range prescribed in MC 13, s. 1999 (Revised
Policies on the PES)
91
 Although the SPMS is not totally new, it still requires a transition
4. Performance Rewarding and Development
Planning period and a significant shift in orientation regarding performance
measurement. The SPMS necessitates a change in the organizational
• There is a mechanism for discussion of
assessment results by the Head of Office and culture from the leadership down to the rank and file. As such, the
supervisors with the individual employee at the change process needs to be managed carefully and communicated clearly
end of the rating period to everyone in the organization.
• There is a provision for the drawing up of a
You will need a comprehensive change management and communication
Professional Development Plan to improve
or correct performance of employees with plan to orient employees on the essential features of the SPMS so
Unsatisfactory or Poor performance rating that in the process, you will be able to obtain their buy-in, 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
If you follow all the items in the checklist
l
of performance management system with
the agency rewards and incentives for top
above, you should be able to craft your
performing individuals, units, and offices
• 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 specifies 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

92 93
 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Tel. No. 931-8092 / 931-7939
http://www.csc.gov.ph/