FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF HODS

1. FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF HODS 19 MARCH 2003

2. OBJECTIVE • To report on the first implementation of the framework for the evaluation of HoDs - Background - Statistical overview - Findings - Recommendations - Amendments to the framework

3. Background • Components of the framework • Evaluation panels • Support by Secretariat • Participation of Executing Authorities • Evaluation process • Review in cases of dissatisfaction

4. Statistical Overview • National Departments - 12 HoDs out of 36 evaluated - 10 deferred evaluation to include 2001/2002 - 3 terminated contract - 5 no evaluation – reasons unknown

5. Statistical Overview (cont.) • Provincial - 23 out of 76 HoDs evaluated - 3 pending - 53 could not be evaluated

6. Reasons for Non-Evaluation • Contract terminated • HoD appointed in acting capacity • Suspension • On sick leave

7. Reasons for Non-Evaluation (cont.) • Performance agreement not signed • Newly appointed • Framework Piloted • Documents not submitted

8. Summary of ratings awarded to HoDS

9. Findings on the first implementation • Evaluation periods more than one financial year problematic • Composition of the evaluation panels did not represent wide range of stakeholders • Far-stretched schedules of Ministers delayed the process • Use of the OPSC as the secretariat beneficial

10. Findings on the first implementation (cont) • Executing authorities – participation commended • Documentation - Quality and contents of performance agreements - Verifications statement did not conform to the requirements of the framework - Annual reports did not report on achievement of departmental objectives - Lack of synergy between documents

11. Findings on the first implementation (cont) • Use of 360-degree instrument - Nationally – only 1 HoD - Provincially – 12 HoDs • Advice by the panel - Provided level of performance and areas of development - Rating scale – parameters of cash bonus

12. Findings on the PA Report • A majority of senior managers had not signed performance agreements • No clear performance criteria – limited to targets • No quarterly reviews

13. Recommendations • PSC to engage SAMDI on the nature of training to be provided to HoDs • Executing Authorities to note: • Importance of performance management • Evaluation according to the framework is obligatory • No performance agreement, no evaluation

14. Recommendations (cont) • Evaluation periods one financial year • Evaluation at provincial level must be obligatory • Composition of panels • Maximum 4 plus Chair • Include external stakeholders • Make use of cluster system

15. Recommendations • Performance Agreements of HoDs to be filed with PSC • PSC to provide guidance on the development of quality documentation • Clear linkages between processes/documents

16. Recommendations (cont) • Use of 360-degree compulsory in the interim • Parameters of cash bonus clearly spelt out – consider NPMDS e.g. Level 5 : 6 - 8 % Level 4 : 3 - 5 %

17. Amendments • Framework – Cabinet memo - Finalisation of evaluations not later than February 2003 - Performance agreements of all HoDs be filed with PSC - 360-degree compulsory in the interim

18. Amendments (cont.) - Rating scale in the NPMDS be used for 2001/2002 evaluations - Use of the 360-degree in the interim - OPSC serves as secretariat in all HoD evaluations - Implementation at provincial level be mandatory

19. THANK YOU