ABOUT THE SPMS

Starting 2015, NEDA will adopt the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) as a tool for human resource and agency performance management.

The SPMS is meant to ensure that the agency’s goals and objectives are well defined in its strategic plan and to guide and encourage officials and employees to work as a team in achieving these objectives.

The SPMS improves upon the Performance Evaluation System (PES), which uses the “PERF” tool in rating employee performance. Table compares the PES and SPMS in terms of perspective, focus, indicators, performance alignment and the role of the supervisor.

Table 1. Comparison between the PES and SPMS

PES

SPMS

Perspective Performance evaluation Performance management

  • Evaluation is still part of the more holistic management perspective.
Focus Activities and inputs

  • What the individual/Division/Staff was doing
Outputs and outcomes

  • What the individual/Division/Staff has done for NEDA and the public
Indicators Performance indicators

  • Example: Quantity, quality and timeliness (QQT) of processing of documents according to agreed self-rating standards
Success indicators

  • Example: Quality, efficiency and/or timeliness (QET) of documents processed according to NEDA/public standards
Performance alignment Focus on individual

  • Fosters competition
Align individual to Staff/NEDA

  • Fosters teamwork and collaboration
Role of supervisor Evaluator Coach and mentor

 

SPMS MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT

The NEDA-Performance Management Team (PMT) monitors and manages the overall implementation of the SPMS.  It is headed by the DDG for Central Support Office and consists of Directors representing the four NEDA Offices.

The NEDA-PMT, together with the NEDA Management Committee (ManCom), ensures that performance targets and measures, as well as the budget, are aligned together and that work distribution of Offices and Staffs is rationalized. 

The NEDA-PMT core secretariat is composed of the Human Resource Development Division (HRDD) of the Administrative Staff and the Corporate Planning and Monitoring Division (CPMD) of the Financial, Planning and Management Staff.  The Development Information Staff (DIS) assists the NEDA-PMT in implementing the SPMS communication plan, while the Information and Communications Technology Staff (ICTS) provides technical support in developing an ICT-based monitoring system for the SPMS.

The Staff and NRO Directors are primarily responsible for performance management of their respective units, while the Division Chiefs under them assume joint responsibility in ensuring attainment of their unit’s performance objectives and targets.  Individual employees act as partners of management and their co-employees in meeting organizational performance goals.

SPMS CYCLE AND TIMELINE

The SPMS cycle has four stages, shown in Figure 1 , implemented every semester:

 

spms-cycle

The SPMS cycle has four stages, shown in Figure 1 , implemented every semester:

 

review-evaluation

Stage 1—Planning and Commitment:

  • Identify  and align performance goals
  • Develop success indicators and rating scale
  • Accomplish and review commitment forms
reward-development

Stage 2—Monitoring and Coaching:

  • Monitor performance
  • Coach subordinates, Division and Office
  • Revise commitments as needed
monitoring-coaching

Stage 3—Review and Evaluation:

  • Review and evaluate individual employee performance
  • Review and evaluate Division, Staff/Office and Agency performance
  • Appeal evaluation results, if needed
planning-commitment

Stage 4—Rewarding and Development Planning:

  • Provide performance-based rewards and incentives
  • Develop and implement interventions
  • Implement sanctions, if applicable

The prescribed timeline of SPMS Cycle implementation for 2015 is shown below.

spms-timeline

STAGE 1: PLANNING AND COMMITMENT

planning-commitment

What needs to be done at this stage?

  • Identify and align performance goals
  • Develop success indicators and rating scale
  • Accomplish and review commitment forms
A. Identify and align performance goals
Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
1.1 List of medium-/ short-term strategic directions, goals, priorities for the year The list should be aligned with Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and Regional Development Plans (RDPs). NEDA Management Committee (MANCOM)
1.2 NEDA Physical and Financial Plan (NPFP) and NEDA Planning Tool

The NPFP and NEDA Planning Tool are outputs of the NEDA Internal Planning Conference (NIPC), where NEDA’s performance in the previous year is assessed and priorities are identified for the incoming year.

The NIPC is usually conducted only once a year, at the beginning of the planning period.  The NPFP and NEDA Planning Tool cover both semesters.

NEDA MANCOM, FPMS

1.3 Work and Financial Plan (WFP)

The WFP per Office, Staff and division consists of goals and outputs aligned with the NPFP and NEDA Planning Tool, target month of output delivery, and needed budget to deliver said outputs.

Outputs are categorized as either Major Final Outputs (MFOs), Support to Operations (STO) or General Administration and Support (GAS).

While the WFP may be revised in the 2nd semester based on the previous semester’s performance, the goals and outputs should still be aligned with the NPFP and NEDA Planning Tool. 

Currently, NEDA has four MFOs: (1) Socioeconomic and physical planning and policy services; (2) Technical support and advisory services; (3) Investment programming services; and (4) Monitoring and evaluation services.

Office level: DDGs, ADGs

Staff/NRO level: Directors, Assistant Directors

Division level: Division Chiefs, Supervising Officers

B. Develop success indicators and rating scale
Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
1.4 Success indicators per output

A success indicator should incorporate at least two of the three dimensions:

  • Quality—acceptability, meeting standards, client satisfaction, accuracy, completeness, comprehensiveness, creativity, innovation
  • Efficiency—quantity of outputs, requests acted upon over total number of requests, standard response time, optimum use of resources, personal initiative
  • Timeliness—meeting the deadline

Indicators for each dimension should be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, time-bound.

Example of success indicator:


“33Memos for the President

Efficiency

signed by the DG with 0-1 minor corrections at most and

Quality

submitted to OP before 6:30am during date set”

Timeliness

 
1.5 Rating scale per dimension per output

A. Quality of Work

In terms of:
a. Revision/Error (written work)
Point Score Description
5 No mistakes or Deficiency; every aspect of work assignment well covered; clearly presented; well organized; no lapse in grammar or error in content.
4 One or two minor errors or deficiencies; work in accordance with instructions; clearly presented; well organized; one (1) or two (2) errors in grammar or errors in content.
3

More than two minor errors or deficiencies; partial minor revision needed; three (3) lapses in grammar or errors in content

2

One or two major errors or deficiencies major revision needed; four (4) or five (5) lapses in grammar or errors in content.

1 Work not acceptable; needs total revision; six (6) or more lapses in grammar or errors in content.
b. Accuracy (non-written work)
Point Score Description
5 Excellent results; all aspects of work assignment thoroughly covered; no mistake in performing the duty or 96%-100% accuracy
4 One or two minor errors in the execution of work assignment; results still very good; one (1) or two (2) mistakes in performing the duty or 91%-95% accuracy.
3 More than two minor errors or deficiencies in the execution of work assignments; results are acceptable. Three (3) mistakes in performing the duty or 80%-90% accuracy.
2

One major error or deficiency that can be overcome with help from supervisor; four (4) or five (5) mistakes in performing the duty; or 75%-79% accuracy.

1 Haphazard or careless execution of work assignment; unacceptable result.
c. Feedback
Point Score Description
5 Excellent Feedback
4 Very Satisfactory Feedback
3 Satisfactory Feedback (No feedback/no valid complaint)
2 Unsatisfactory feedback (with minor complaint)
1 Poor Feedback (with major complaint)
d. 100% Accuracy rule
Point Score Description
5 5 Accomplishment requiring 100% accuracy such as those pertaining to money accountability (cashiering, disbursing, among others); 100% is the standard; no error is allowed.
2 If standard is not met (below 100% Accuracy); there is error.
B. Efficiency of Work (quantity)=(Accomplishments÷Targets)x100
Point Score Description
5
(Outstanding)
Performance exceeding targets by 30% of the planned targets or 130% and above.

Those who met targets for accomplishment requiring 100% of the targets such those pertaining to money and accuracy.

Those who met targets for accomplishments which may no longer exceeded (fixed targets)

4
(Very Satisfactory)
Performance exceeding targets by 15% to 29% of the planned targets or 115 to 129%
3
(Satisfactory)
Performance of 100% to 114% of the planned targets
2
(Unsatisfactory)
Performance of 51% to 99% of the planned targets.

Those who fell short of the targets for accomplishments requiring 100% of the targets such those pertaining to money and accuracy

Those who fell short of the targets for accomplishments which may no longer exceeded (fixed target

1
(Poor)
Failing to meet the planned targets by 50% or below

B. Efficiency of Work (quantity)=(Accomplishments÷Targets)x100
Point Score Description
5 Task completed within ½ of the time required to finish it.
4 Task completed within 2/3 of the time required to finish it
3 Task completed just before or on the deadline.
2 Task partially completed at the deadline.
1 Task not yet begun at the expected date of completion

C. Accomplish and review commitment forms

Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
1.6 SPMS Form 1: Agency Performance Commitment and Review (APCR) The APCR integrates the NEDA Physical and Financial Plan (NPFP) and NEDA Planning Tool, as well as the success indicators of the outputs (i.e., MFOs, budget, Office/Staff/NRO accountable). It is validated and evaluated by the MANCOM in terms of commitments and success indicators; and approved by the DG.

Columns under “Actual Accomplishments” and “Rating” will be left blank.

NEDA MANCOM
1.7 SPMS Form 2: Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR)

The OPCR form integrates the success indicators and Staff/NRO’s WFP (i.e., MFOs, budget and division accountable).  It is committed by the Staff/NRO Director; reviewed by the FPMS and concerned Office representative; validated and evaluated by the supervising DDGs and ADGs in terms of commitments and success indicators; and approved by the DG.

Columns under “Actual Accomplishments” and “Rating” will be left blank.

The OPCR form will likewise integrate additional individual performance commitments of the Staff/NRO Directors and Assistant Directors.

DG, DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors

FPMS

1.8 SPMS Form 3: Division Performance Commitment and Review (DPCR))

The DPCR form cascades the specific division’s commitment of the identified outputs in the OPCR.  It is committed by the Division Chief and reviewed and approved by the Staff/NRO Director.

Columns under “Actual Accomplishments” and “Rating” will be left blank.

The DPCR form will likewise integrate additional individual performance commitments of the Division Chief.

Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

1.9 SPMS Form 4: Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR)

The IPCR form identifies whether the employee partly/entirely accountable for success indicators in the OPCR and DPCR. It is committed by the employee and approved by the Division Chief and Staff/NRO Director.

Columns under “Actual Accomplishments” and “Rating” will be left blank.

Officials/ employees on official travel and with approved leave of absence or training/scholarship programs shall submit performance commitment and rating report before leaving the office. This is given the official/employee meets the requirement minimum rating period of 90 days.

Columns under “Actual Accomplishments” and “Rating” will be left blank.

The DPCR form will likewise integrate additional individual performance commitments of the Division Chief.

Employees and immediate

Supervisors

STAGE 2: MONITORING AND COACHING

What needs to be done at this stage?

  • Monitor performance
  • Coach subordinates, Division and Office
  • Revise commitments as needed
A. Identify and align performance goals
Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
2.1 Performance monitoring system

The system aims to support data management for timely, accurate, and reliable program tracking, measurement of dimensions, performance monitoring and reporting.

It may establish weekly/monthly report formats, document tracking system and other monitoring tools.

AdS, ICTS, DDGs, ADGs, Staff/ Regional Directors

2.2

SPMS Form 5 : Performance Monitoring Form;

SPMS Form 6: Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools

SPMS Forms 5 and 6 are the tools to be used in monitoring tasks towards attaining the output in the APCR, OPCR, DPCR and IPCR forms. 

Other documents to be produced may include those prescribed in the performance monitoring system (see Step 2.1) that verify how targets are being met or in the process of being delivered.

Employee to measure and document individual progress; Supervisor to monitor progress

B. Coach subordinates, Division and Office

Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
2.3 Coaching sessions

Formal or informal sessions aim to address deficiencies, enhance performance and manage/develop potentials of employees. Information shared during coaching sessions is kept private and confidential. Coaching is part of the supervisor’s commitment as reflected in the OPCR and DPCR forms.

DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

2.4

SPMS Form 5 : Performance Monitoring Form;

SPMS Form 6: Performance Monitoring and Coaching Tools

SPMS Forms 7 and 8 are the tools to be used in documenting coaching sessions and tracking the progress of agreements during these sessions. These forms are categorized as confidential and could only be accessed by concerned supervisors and Staffs’

DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

 

C. Revise commitments as needed

Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
2.5 Revised SPMS Forms 1 to 4, as needed

Revisions should not be more than once every three months. Revised forms may change, delete or add commitments as discussed between employees and supervisors. These are submitted to AdS and FPMS for CO, and FAD for NRO.

Employees and Supervisors

STAGE 3: REVIEW AND EVALUATION

What needs to be done at this stage?

  • Review and evaluate individual employee performance
  • Review and evaluate Division Staff/Office and Agency performance
  • Appeal evaluation results, if needed
A. Review and evaluate individual employee performance
Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
3.1 Accomplishment column under SPMS Form 4

Accomplishments will be based on SPMS Forms 5-8, as well as other supporting documents and proof related to the committed output.

(Refer to Steps 2.1-2.4 of the Monitoring and Coaching Stage.)

Employees and Supervisors

3.2

Ratings per dimension under SPMS Form 4

Ratings will be based on the standards developed in Steps 1.4-1.5 of the Planning and Commitment Stage.  As such, there is no more need for self-rating.

Supervisors will indicate qualitative comments, observations and recommendations, as well as competency assessment and critical incidents in the “Remarks” column.

Employees and Supervisors

3.3 Average ratings under SPMS Form 4

Compute the following:

  1. Average rating per output: horizontally add the performance dimension rating/s, then divide it by the number of dimension/s used
  2. Total rating: vertically add all the average rating
  3. Overall average rating: divide total rating by the number of outputs

The form will be approved by the Director, as assessed by the division chief.

4.50-5.00 – Outstanding
3.50-4.49

– Very Satisfactory

2.50-3.49 – Satisfactory
1.50-2.49 – Unsatisfactory
1.00-1.49

– Poor

Supervisors should ensure that employees are notified of their performance.

Employees and Supervisors

Administrative Staff

3.4

SPMS Form 9: Summary List of Individual Rating

This form summarizes the list of individual ratings. It will also group together individual ratings of employees under the same division, to determine the division’s average numerical and adjectival rating.

The Administrative Staff will validate whether the average rating of all individual performance assessments is not higher than the collective performance assessment of the Office.

Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

Administrative Staff

 

B. Review and evaluate Division, Staff/Office and Agency performance

Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
3.5 Accomplishment column under SPMS Forms 2 and 3

Overall accomplishment of the Division and Staff/Office will be based on the accomplishments as reflected in SPMS Forms 4-9, as well as other supporting documents and proof related to the committed output.

This will be done on an annual basis for SPMS Form 2 (OPCR), and on a semestral basis for SPMS Form 3 (DPCR).

DG, DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

3.6 Ratings per dimension under SPMS Forms 2 and 3

Ratings will be based on the standards developed in Steps 1.4-1.5 of the Planning and Commitment Stage.  As such, there is no more need for self-rating.

Supervisors of Division Chiefs (i.e., Directors) and Staff and Regional Directors (i.e., ADGs and DDGs) will indicate qualitative comments, observations and recommendations, as well as competency assessment and critical incidents in the “Remarks” column.

This will be done on an annual basis for SPMS Form 2 (OPCR), and on a semestral basis for SPMS Form 3 (DPCR). This will be done on an annual basis for SPMS Form 2 (OPCR), and on a semestral basis for SPMS Form 3 (DPCR).

DG, DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

3.6 Ratings per dimension under SPMS Forms 2 and 3

Ratings will be based on the standards developed in Steps 1.4-1.5 of the Planning and Commitment Stage.  As such, there is no more need for self-rating.

Supervisors of Division Chiefs (i.e., Directors) and Staff and Regional Directors (i.e., ADGs and DDGs) will indicate qualitative comments, observations and recommendations, as well as competency assessment and critical incidents in the “Remarks” column.

This will be done on an annual basis for SPMS Form 2 (OPCR), and on a semestral basis for SPMS Form 3 (DPCR). This will be done on an annual basis for SPMS Form 2 (OPCR), and on a semestral basis for SPMS Form 3 (DPCR).

DG, DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

3.7 Ratings per dimension under SPMS Forms 2 and 3

The Division and Staff/Office will then compute the average ratings per output, total rating, and overall average rating similar with Step 3.3. The overall average rating will also be translated into an adjectival rating.

SPMS Form 3 (DPCR) is reviewed and approved by the Director on a semestral basis.

On the other hand, SPMS Form 2 (OPCR) is approved by DG on an annual basis as assessed by the supervising DDG.  The FPMS will review the form in terms of its adherence to format and rating computation, while the supervising DDG validates and evaluates the Staff/NRO’s performance, based on:

  • Reported accomplishments;
  • Success indicators;
  • Allotted budget versus actual expenses; and

Other significant reports and observations.

DG, DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

3.8 Fully accomplished SPMS Form 1

SPMS Form 1 will integrate the accomplished SPMS Forms 2 (OPCR) of different Staffs and NROs.  This will be presented in an Agency Performance Review Conference, where the agency’s overall performance for the year will be reviewed and evaluated.  This may be part of the NIPC or a separate activity.

NEDA MANCOM

C. Appeal evaluation results, if needed

Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
3.9 Formal appeal

Employees not satisfied with their final ratings may file a formal appeal following existing NEDA policy guidelines and procedures on complaints and grievances.

NEDA Grievance Committee

3.10 Ratings per dimension under SPMS Forms 2 and 3

The DDG/ADG recommends the final decision of appeals of Offices/Staffs under her/his supervision. The DG renders the final decision of appeals.

DG, DDG, ADG

3.6 Ratings per dimension under SPMS Forms 2 and 3

Ratings will be based on the standards developed in Steps 1.4-1.5 of the Planning and Commitment Stage.  As such, there is no more need for self-rating.

Supervisors of Division Chiefs (i.e., Directors) and Staff and Regional Directors (i.e., ADGs and DDGs) will indicate qualitative comments, observations and recommendations, as well as competency assessment and critical incidents in the “Remarks” column.

This will be done on an annual basis for SPMS Form 2 (OPCR), and on a semestral basis for SPMS Form 3 (DPCR). This will be done on an annual basis for SPMS Form 2 (OPCR), and on a semestral basis for SPMS Form 3 (DPCR).

DG, DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

3.7 Ratings per dimension under SPMS Forms 2 and 3

The Division and Staff/Office will then compute the average ratings per output, total rating, and overall average rating similar with Step 3.3. The overall average rating will also be translated into an adjectival rating.

SPMS Form 3 (DPCR) is reviewed and approved by the Director on a semestral basis.

On the other hand, SPMS Form 2 (OPCR) is approved by DG on an annual basis as assessed by the supervising DDG.  The FPMS will review the form in terms of its adherence to format and rating computation, while the supervising DDG validates and evaluates the Staff/NRO’s performance, based on:

  • Reported accomplishments;
  • Success indicators;
  • Allotted budget versus actual expenses; and

Other significant reports and observations.

DG, DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs

3.8 Fully accomplished SPMS Form 1

SPMS Form 1 will integrate the accomplished SPMS Forms 2 (OPCR) of different Staffs and NROs.  This will be presented in an Agency Performance Review Conference, where the agency’s overall performance for the year will be reviewed and evaluated.  This may be part of the NIPC or a separate activity.

NEDA MANCOM

STAGE 4: REWARD AND DEVELOPMENT

What needs to be done at this stage?

  • Provide performance-based rewards and incentives
  • Develop and implement interventions
  • Implement sanctions, if applicable

A. Provide performance-based rewards and incentives

Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
4.1 Incentives and rewards for deserving employees, Divisions, Staffs and Offices

The grant of incentive and rewards, including promotion, is performance-based as determined by the results of the SPMS, upon the recommendation of the Administrative Staff and the supervising Staff/Regional Director, and according to relevant Civil Service rules. Employees, Divisions, Staffs and Offices with incentives and rewards will be recognized through formal and informal announcements in different NEDA communication platforms.

AdS, Staff/Regional Director

B. Develop and implement interventions

Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
4.2 SPMS Form 10: Individual Development Plan

The plan aims to improve or correct the employee’s performance, most especially those with poor or unsatisfactory ratings. 

This is developed through a discussion by the concerned supervisor and employee, in coordination with the Administrative Staff-Human Resource Development Division.

Employee, Supervisor, AdS-HRDD

4.3 Interventions for Divisions, Staffs, Offices

The results of the performance evaluation/assessment shall serve as inputs to HR interventions based on identified professional development needs for Divisions, Staffs and Offices..

DDGs, ADGs, Directors, Assistant Directors, Division Chiefs, HRDD

C. Implement sanctions, if applicable

Step What to produce? What to consider? Who’s responsible?
4.4 Notice of non-submission of SPMS Forms 2 to 4

Failure of employees to submit the IPCR, DPCR and OPCR forms within the specified dates shall be grounds for:

  • Employees’ disqualification for personnel actions such as promotion, training or scholarship grants and performance enhancement bonus; or
  • An administrative sanction for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations against the individual employee.

Employees are given ample period to explain after the notice is served.  If reasons are deemed unacceptable, then the sanctions will be implemented following existing NEDA guidelines and procedures.

AdS, LS, Directors

4.5 Three-month notice of separation

If after advice and provision of HR development intervention (see Step 4.2 of this stage), the employee still obtains an UNSATISFACTORY or POOR rating immediately succeeding that rating period, the employee may be dropped from the rolls.

A three-month notice of separation will be sent to the employee concerned before the end of the current semester.

Separated official or employee may file an appeal to the CSC or its regional office within 15 days from receipt of separation notice.

AdS, LS, Directors