PUBLIC MANAGEMENT WATCH
1.
SUMMARY
The Public Management Watch (see Annexure A
for a detailed description) is a system that comprises of five (5) steps that
attempts to pre-empt the failure in the management of national and provincial
departments. The system will attempt to
identify the departments or areas that require intervention to avoid public
management failure.
The first step in the system automatically
compares the existing information obtained from PERSAL, BAS and the other
IT-systems with a set of benchmarks in order to rate departments on a scale
from “weak” to “strong”. The working
group then selects the worst 10-15 departments for a more in depth desk top
assessment. The working group will
confirm or deny the findings of the first round of statistical analysis.
The second step in the system will be a
communication to the departments identified as “weak” to give them the
opportunity to respond to the findings of the working group. The departments would also be required to
perform a self-assessment for which tools will be made available.
The third step in the system is assessment
of the department’s response and the updated information, by the working
group. The working group will then
determine whether an on site analysis is required into the management of the
particular department.
The fourth step is to conducting an on site
analysis into the management of the selected department.
The fifth step will be to determine whether
it is necessary to intervene in the management of the selected department.
2. DISCUSSION
The Public Service must create the
capacity to proactively identify potential collapse in the management of departments
that could ultimately impact negatively on service delivery.
The DPSA in collaboration
with the National Treasury has developed the PMW. The PMW is based on
interpretation of already available and easy to access information to enable
the identification of departments facing governance challenges. For a detail, description of the steps in
the PMW please sees Annexure A.
The starting point was
the decision that existing systems and information should be used in order to
reduce costs and the challenges involved in implementing another new
system. Therefore, the PMW will combine
already existing Human Resource and Financial Management indicators as proxies
for service delivery. Various other
areas like service delivery were considered but in the absence of readily
available information it was decided not to focus on areas where information is
not readily available.
The quality and depth of
human resource and financial information is at this stage not such that an
accurate assessment can be done based on this information only. It is therefore proposed that between 10 and
15 departments be selected on a quarterly basis for more in-depth
analysis. The in-depth analysis will be
done by a working group consisting of representatives of the Presidency,
National Treasury, DPSA, DPLG with the relevant national departments if, one of
their provincial counterparts are identified.
The number of departments selected will be guided by the capacity of the
working group. The in-depth analysis
would use a broader spectrum of information and crosscheck the validity of the
results of the first step. It should be
noted that the benchmarks that will be used in the beginning are likely to be
adjusted in the process of implementation.
It is assumed that one of the positive side effects of the
implementation of the PMW will be that the accuracy of data within PERSAL, BAS
and other IT systems will improve dramatically over the first two years.
It will also be necessary
to afford the departments the opportunity to address the findings internally
and therefore step 2 in the system will be a communication to the identified
departments that will allow them the opportunity to respond to the findings of
the working group. It is also proposed
that the departments would be required to perform a self -assessment for which
tools will be made available.
Steps 3 to 5 were
developed to ensure that the necessary actions are taken to avoid the collapse
of management in departments. The
system will also aim to provide a systematic basis for the allocation of
limited resources with regard to interventions. The nature and scope of the
intervention will depend on the problems identified and must be tailor made.
The appropriate bodies will take the decision on possible intervention.
Departments is assessed
on a quarterly basis taking into account the capacity within the Central
Departments.
It is obvious that any
system to monitor the performance of the public service to deliver services
will be anything but ideal from the start. However, it can be anticipated that
it will improve over the years if management take the results seriously.
No obvious alternatives
to the proposed system are apparent. A decentralized departmental service
delivery watch system would be better, at least in respect of “ownership” and
buy-in.” However, experience shows that departments are struggling with setting
up internal systems. Making them compulsory would not change the picture since
capacity constraints, especially on the provincial level would hinder the
establishment in those departments where they are most urgently needed. Besides
that, the proposed system has the advantage of being generic and neutral.
Therefore it can be assumed, that if properly implemented the proposed system
has the chance to develop into a general accepted internal benchmark. The system was designed in such a manner
that it could be decentralised and it envisaged that the system would, once it
is successfully implemented at a national level, be decentralised to Premiers
Offices and ultimately the departments.
The following steps will be followed within the Public Management Watch
Step 1: Application of the statistical model
During this step information extracted from the
central payroll system and the various financial systems is used to score and
rate the various departments. The
following indicators will be used to assess the management within departments:
·
Recruitment
Ø
Turnover rate
Ø
Replacement rate
Ø
Vacancy rate
Average length of vacancies
·
Organisational matters
Ø
% of additional posts filled
Ø
% of post which the salary level of the post and employee
differ
·
Leave utilisation
Ø
Average days of previous leave cycle (first 6 months of
year)
Ø
Average leave credits current cycle (last 6 months of year)
Average days sick leave credits
·
Administration
Ø
% Terminations backdated
Ø
Length of backdated terminations
·
Expenditure
Ø
% of budget spend on compensation of employees
Ø
% of budget spend on goods and services
The
different indicators are allocated with a weight and levels of
acceptability. Based on the weighting
and the different levels a score is generated for each department, which will
then be rated, based on their scores.
For a detail explanation of the indicators used see the document
attached as tag A.
A
working group consisting of the Presidency, DPSA, National Treasury, DPLG and
other national oversight departments, will do an in-depth analysis in the worst
10 to 15 departments. The in-depth
analysis will compare the following information:
·
Public Management Watch indicators drilled down into the different
occupations and programmes.
·
Employment profiles w.r.t salary distribution, staff vs. line function,
etc.
·
More detailed expenditure trends for example overtime, professional
services, administration etc.
The
working group will also analyse the identified departments in relation to their
sector.
The
working group will identify those departments, which they perceive to be in
danger of a collapse in management, based on the above analysis.
Step 2: Communication to the identified potential problematic
departments
Those
departments identified in the previous step will be communicated to and
provided with a methodology and some tools to assist them to perform a
self-assessment. The self-assessment
would aim to identify the possible causes of the problem and the impact thereof
on the effectiveness of the department.
The departments will be required to provide feedback to the work group
on their findings, proposed solutions and progress.
The
following would be areas that the HOD’s would have to asses in analysing his/her
department:
·
Information System
Ø
Capabilities
It will have to be determined whether or not the
necessary systems (infrastructure) exists to collect and analyse the
information required for effective management of the department
Ø
HR Capacity
It will have to be determined whether or not the
correct number of adequately skilled personnel is provided to successfully
maintain and run the information system within the department.
Ø
Data quality
It will have to be assessed whether
or not the data on the system reflect the actual situation within the
department
·
Administration
Ø
Capabilities
It will have to be assessed whether or not the
necessary processes and procedures are in place to ensure that the
administrative functions within a department could be performed adequately
Ø
HR
Capacity
It will have to be determined whether or not the
correct number of adequately skilled personnel is provided to successfully implement
the process and procedures related to the administrative functions within the
department.
·
Management
Ø
Capabilities
It will have to be assessed whether or not the
necessary processes, procedures and delegations are in place to ensure that the
management functions within a department could be performed successfully.
Ø
HR Capacity
It will have to be determined
whether or not the correct number of adequately skilled personnel is provided
to successfully implement the process and procedures related to the management
functions within the department.
The departments will also be
supplied with a self-assessment toolkit that would enable them to assess the
following areas:
·
Staff Development Programme Implemented to
address skills gap
·
Funded vacant posts
·
Job descriptions
·
Disciplinary cases resolved
·
Grievance cases resolved
·
Staff to client ratio
·
Sick leave
·
Overtime expenditure
·
Departmental infrastructure
·
Workflows and Litigation
·
Assessment of senior managers
·
Fraudulent activities
·
Risk management
·
Fraud and corruption in the financial year
·
Variance between projected and actual
expenditure
·
Fruitless, unauthorized expenditure and lost due
to theft
·
Delegations
·
Departmental outputs and access to services
·
Information systems
·
Trend analysis (three year)
Step 3: Assessment of the responses from departments and updated
information
Based
on the departments feedback and the analysis of updated information it will be
determined whether or not it is necessary to perform an on site investigation
into the performance of the department.
Step 4: Conducting of an on site analysis into identified departments
Officials
from the work group will conduct an analysis into the department’s performance
and submit a report to the work group.
A common methodology will be used in conducting the investigation.
Step 5: Recommendation on the possible intervention into identified
departments
Based
on the report of the analysis a recommendation will be made on the need for
intervention and areas of interventions to the relevant national department/s.
|
Indicator |
Description |
Formula |
Conclusions |
|
|
Turnover rate |
This display the
% of service terminations for the previous 12 months in relation to the total
number employees |
No of
terminations/No of employees at start of 12 months |
A high turn over
rate could indicate: ·
An unhappy
workforce. ·
Lack of
performance management ·
Lack of
career management These statements
would need to be tested via an analysis of the types of terminations (resign,
transfer or retire). An analysis of
the exit interviews as well as an analysis of the turnover per level could
also identify the causes. |
|
|
Replacement rate |
This display the
% of appointments in relation to terminations for the previous 12 months |
Appointments/terminations |
A low rate could
indicate: ·
The lack of
available skills to recruit from. ·
Inability of
the department to recruit due to various reasons eg. Remuneration, location,
administration etc. It might also be that the department is in
the process of restructuring/downsizing. |
|
|
% Vacancies |
This display the
% of vacant posts in relation to the total number of posts |
No of
vacancies/No of total posts |
A high % could
indicate: ·
Bad
administration of the organisational structure on PERSAL ·
Lack of a
realistic organisational (unfunded)
structure which considering the budget. ·
Lack of
available skills to recruit from or the department’s inability to recruit
staff. |
|
|
Length of
vacancies |
This display the
average period for which the posts have been vacant of the current vacancies
in months |
Sum of months
posts vacant/No of vacant posts |
A long period
could indicate: ·
Unrealistic/Unfunded
structure ·
Bad
administration of the structure. ·
Department’s
inability to effectively recruit staff. ·
Department
is intentionally not filling the positions due to restructuring. |
|
|
Additional posts |
This display the
% of posts additional to the establishment in relation to the total number of
posts |
No of additional
posts/No of total posts |
A high % could
indicate: ·
Bad
management of the structure on the systems ·
That during
the planning phase functions was not planned for. |
|
|
Out of adjustment |
This display the
% of employees whose salary level differs from the salary level of the post
they occupy in relation to the total number of posts |
No of posts out
of adjustments/No of total posts |
A high % could
indicate: ·
The effect
of the old rank and leg promotions that will imply that the average cost of
employment will be higher than required and this could have implications on
their expenditure. ·
The lack of
proper organisational design and utilisation of Job Evaluation |
|
|
Vacation leave |
This indicates
the average days vacation leave credits available in the department |
No of total days
leave credit/No of employees |
An above average
number could indicate: ·
The
understaffing of the department, this will have to be read in conjunction
with the overtime expenditure ·
Lack of
management by line managers and supervisors that do not complete forms ·
Bad flow of
the forms to the PERSAL users ·
Not
capturing of leave forms |
|
|
Capped leave |
This indicates
the average days capped leave credits available in the department |
No of total days
leave credit/No of employees |
If the number is
above average it would indicate: ·
Previous bad
administration of leave forms. ·
Bad
management of leave to ensure that everybody is given the opportunity to take
his or her capped leave. |
|
|
Sick leave |
This indicates
the average days sick leave credits available in the department |
No of total days
leave credit/No of employees |
A high number
could indicate: ·
The
understaffing of the department, this will have to be read with the overtime
expenditure ·
Lack of
management by line managers and supervisors that do not complete forms ·
Bad flow of
the forms to the PERSAL users ·
Not capturing of leave forms A low number
could indicate: ·
An unhappy
workforce ·
Bad
management of leave by supervisors and management which forces staff to use
sick leave ·
Unhealthy
work environment |
|
|
Backdated service
terminations |
This display the
% of terminations that are backdated in relation to the total number of
terminations |
No of
terminations backdated/No of total terminations |
A high % could
indicate: ·
Bad
management by line supervisors and management in processing the forms ·
Bad
communication (flow) between line and HR ·
Bad
processing of forms on PERSAL |
|
|
Length of
backdated terminations |
This indicates
the average period that terminations are backdated in months |
Sum of months of
backdated termination/No of backdated terminations |
A high period
could confirm the conclusions for backdated service termination |
|
|
% Compensation of
employees |
This indicates
the % expenditure for the year to date on compensation of employees in
relation to the total expenditure of the department |
Total
expenditure/Total budget |
A substantial
deviation from the average would indicate the possibility of over or under
expenditure that would indicate bad financial management. |
|
|
% Goods and
services |
This indicates
the % expenditure for the year to date on goods and services in relation to
the total expenditure of the department |
Total
expenditure/Total budget |
A substantial
deviation from the average would indicate the possibility of over or under
expenditure that would indicate bad financial management. |
|