performance verification and public service pay - cpmr verification and public... · developments...

Performance Verification and PublicService Pay

Richard Boyle

CPMR Discussion Paper32

Performance Verification and PublicService Pay

First published in 2006by the Institute of Public Administration57-61 Lansdowne RoadDublin 4Irelandin association withThe Committee for Public Management Research

www.ipa.ie

© 2006 with the Institute of Public Administration

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recordingor any information storage and retrieval system, withoutpermission in writing from the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the BritishLibrary.

ISBN 1-904541-37-2ISSN 1393-9424

Cover design by Creative Inputs, DublinTypeset by the Institute of Public AdministrationPrinted by ColourBooks Ltd, Dublin

CONTENTS

Foreword viiAcknowledgements ixExecutive Summary x

Chapter 1: Introduction 11.1 Focus of the paper 11.2 Background and terms of reference for the study 11.3 Study approach and focus 21.4 Report Structure 3

Chapter 2: Brief description of the performanceverification process 52.1 Introduction 52.2 The historical context 52.3 Key elements of and players in the performance

verification process 7

Chapter 3: The impact of performance verification 103.1 Introduction 103.2 Performance verification and public service pay 103.3 Performance verification and industrial relations

stability, co-operation with flexibility and change, andpublic service modernisation 13

3.4 Performance verification and the public demonstrationof change 18

3.5 Conclusions 20

Chapter 4: Templates, action plans and progressreports 224.1 Introduction 224.2 Templates 224.3 Action plans 244.4 Progress reports 26

Chapter 5: Performance verification structures andprocesses 325.1 Introduction 32

v

5.2 Performance Verfication Groups 325.3 The Performance Verification Group secretariat 385.4 The sectoral secretary general 405.5 Partnership committees 415.6 Variations across PVGs 42

Chapter 6: Performance verification for state bodies notcovered by Performance Verification Groups 446.1 Introduction 446.2 The performance verification process 44

Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations 467.1 Introduction 467.2 Setting the context − performance verification in the

national agreement 467.3 Performance verification structures and processes 477.4 Performance verification outputs 49

Notes 51

References 53

Annex 1 Sectoral Performance Verification Groupmembership and numbers interviewed 55

Annex 2 Organisations/sectors reporting to thePerformance Verification Groups and numbers responding to questionnaire 56

Annex 3 Public service pay increases under SustainingProgress 57

Annex 4 2004 work programme of the LocalGovernment PVG 58

vi

This paper is the thirty-second in a series undertaken bythe Committee for Public Management Research. TheCommittee is developing a comprehensive programme ofresearch designed to serve the needs of the futuredevelopments of the Irish public service. Committeemembers come from the following eight departments:Finance; Environment, Heritage and Local Government;Health and Children; Taoiseach; Transport;Communications, Marine and Natural Resources; Socialand Family Affairs; Office of the Revenue Commissionersand also from Trinity College Dublin, University CollegeDublin and the Institute of Public Administration.

This series aims to prompt discussion and debate ontopical issues of particular interest or concern. The papersmay outline experience, both national and international, indealing with a particular issue. Or they may be moreconceptual in nature, prompting the development of newideas on public management issues. They are not intendedto set out any official position on the topic under scrutiny.Rather, the intention is to identify current thinking andbest practice.

We would very much welcome comments on this paperand on public management research more generally. Toensure that the discussion papers and wider researchprogramme of the Committee for Public ManagementResearch are relevant to managers and staff, we need tohear from you. What do you think of the issues beingraised? Are there other topics you would like to seeresearched?

Research into the problems, solutions and successes ofpublic management processes and the way organisationscan best adapt in a changing environment has much tocontribute to good management, and is a vital element inthe public service renewal process. The Committee forPublic Management Research intends to provide a service to

vii

FOREWORD

people working in public organisations by enhancing theknowledge base on public management issues.

Jim Duffy, ChairCommittee for Public Management ResearchDepartment of Finance

For further information or to pass on any comments pleasecontact:

Pat HicksonSecretaryCommittee for Public Management ResearchDepartment of FinanceLansdowne HouseLansdowne RoadDublin 4

Phone: (+353) 1 676 7571; Fax: (+353) 1 668 2182E-mail: [email protected]

General information on the activities of the Committee forPublic Management Research, including this paper andothers in the series, can be found on its website:www.cpmr.gov.ie; information on Institute of PublicAdministration research in progress can be found atwww.ipa.ie.

viii

I am grateful for the participation of the large number ofindividuals who gave of their time to be interviewed for thestudy or to take the time to fill in the questionnaire. Thesecretariats of the five sectoral performance verificationgroups (PVGs) provided much useful support, in particularin terms of providing the database of contacts for theinterviews and questionnaire survey.

Within the Institute, my colleagues Anne-MarieMcGauran and Orla O'Donnell carried out the interviewswithin the Justice, Equality and Law Reform and LocalGovernment sector PVGs respectively. Colm Dunne ofEpsilon Consulting conducted interviews with members ofthe Education and Health sector PVGs. I am grateful tothem for their assistance and general support during thestudy.

Responsibility for the content of the report rests withthe author.

Richard BoyleNovember 2005

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Background to the studySustaining Progress (2003), the sixth national agreementbetween the government and the social partners, states thatpublic service pay increases are ‘…dependent, in the case ofeach sector, organisation and grade, on verification ofsatisfactory achievement of the provisions on cooperationwith flexibility and ongoing change; satisfactoryimplementation of the agenda for modernisation…and themaintenance of stable industrial relations and the absenceof industrial action…’ (para. 26.1).

To provide the verification required above, PerformanceVerification Groups (PVGs) were established for the mainsectors of the public service, namely the civil service, localgovernment, health, education, and justice and equalitysectors. PVGs have independent chairs and equal numbersof management, union and independent members. PVGsmake recommendations on whether or not pay increasesare merited based primarily on an assessment of progressreports submitted by participating organisations.

This review of performance verification assesses theusefulness of the PVG mechanism as a means of achievingflexibility and change within individual organisations. Thereview also suggests improvements that can be made to theperformance verification process.

In carrying out the study, interviews were held with thesectoral PVG chairs and most of the individual members ofthe PVGs. Interviews also took place with the sectoral PVGsecretariats and the departmental secretaries general withresponsibility for the sectoral PVG reports. A shortquestionnaire was sent to public service organisations andbodies involved in the performance verification process ineach sector (approximately 120 organisations and bodies).A response rate of 64 per cent was achieved overall.

What impact has performance verification had?A full assessment of the impact of performance verificationis not possible within the scope of this study, as at the time

x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

of writing, the final two pay increases under SustainingProgress have not been verified. However, it is possible togive a broad picture of the effect to date of performanceverification on pay determination and on industrialstability, flexibility, change, and public servicemodernisation.

Performance verification and public service payIn the vast majority of cases, the judgement of the PVGs todate has been that progress has been satisfactory enoughto merit payment of the increases. However, there havebeen a number of instances across all the sectors where therecommendation has been that payment should not beawarded at the time of the assessment or where the PVGhas held off making a recommendation pending furtherindustrial relations discussions. In several instances, theciting of an organisation or grade by the secretary generalin his/her sectoral overview report has led to the issuebeing resolved before a recommendation of the PVG is made

Performance verification and industrial relationsstabilityAccording to PVG members and a significant majority ofquestionnaire responses, one of the most significantbenefits of performance verification has been thecontribution it has made to industrial peace. Linkingpayment of all of the Sustaining Progress agreed paymentsand 75 per cent of benchmarking payments to the absenceof industrial action and the absence of a threat of industrialaction is seen as instrumental in achieving a high level ofindustrial peace.

A particular industrial relations benefit of theperformance verification process is that it is seen as actingas an incentive to sort out problems ‘below the radar’.Where the potential for disputes arise, the strict timetablefor payment in the agreement acts as an incentive formanagement and unions to get together, either informallyor formally through the established industrial relationsprocedures underpinning Sustaining Progress, to sort outthe situation before the sectoral PVG has to make ajudgement on the issue.

xi

Performance verification and public servicemodernisationClearly, it is not possible to directly attribute all change thathas taken place in the public service in recent times toperformance verification. The extent to which the changesand modernisation initiatives that have occurred wouldhave happened anyway is open to question in the absenceof evidence to the contrary. But the majority view ofrespondents is that performance verification has had animpact in terms of making things happen to a deadline,driven by the dates for the pay increases. If change wouldhave happened anyway, the view is that it would havetended to be slower and less comprehensive. Also, theprocess is seen as keeping items on the agenda oforganisations that might have slipped off in the face of newand emerging priorities.

While the vast majority of responses are positive withregard to the impact of performance verification, not all are.The limited ambition of the modernisation agenda was citedby a number of respondents, including many who arepositively disposed towards performance verification. Thereis a view here that the overall agenda of change is notchallenging or radical in nature, but rather representsincremental, small-scale change. The scope and range ofthe public service modernisation agenda is a wider issuethan performance verification, as it is established in thecontext of the social partnership negotiations withverification following on. But it is an important issue forconsideration in the context of future developments. Manyrespondents and interviewees are in favour of amodernisation agenda that allows priority to be given atorganisational level to a few key issues being addressed.

Linked to the issue of the modernisation agenda,several respondents, particularly on the management side,note that the change agenda outlined in Sustaining Progressis fixed at a point in time and that significant change maysubsequently arise that cannot be addressed in theverification process as it is not covered in SustainingProgress. There is a view that the performance verificationprocess should be flexible enough to respond to majorchange initiatives not envisaged at the time of theagreement.

xii

Performance verification and the public demonstrationof changeThere is some concern among public servants that criticalmedia comments of the public service, and in particular ofthe pay increases awarded under the benchmarkingprocess, are seen as receiving attention while positivedevelopments are passed over. There are also issuesaround public accountability and transparency of theperformance verification process. In this context, there area number of aspects to the public demonstration ofperformance verification. Many of the respondents andinterviewees comment positively on the opportunityperformance verification gives to present information in astructured way to the political process. Similarly, membersof the general public directly affected by service deliverychanges such as extended opening hours or reduced timein processing claims can see a difference as a result ofactions taken. But in terms of the media and general publicforming a view on the impact of performance verification,this is where there is little engagement with the process.

A number of reasons are put forward for this limitedpublic engagement with performance verification. One isthat much of the public service modernisation agendafocuses on internal efficiency-oriented changes to publicservice organisations, and while these may ultimatelyimpact on citizens, their direct impact is difficult to discern.Also, the sheer volume of paper produced is seen asdaunting and off-putting to anyone from outside the systemwanting to see what is happening. In this context, the mainpublic source of information on performance verification isthe websites of the sectoral PVGs. These websites can bedifficult to find, and once there, making sense of the volumeof material can be challenging.

Improving the performance verification processThe evidence from the interviews, questionnaires anddocumentation studied is that the performance verificationprocess has had a positive impact on industrial relationsstability, co-operation with flexibility and change, andimplementation of the public service modernisation agenda.When compared with arrangements outlined in previous

xiii

national agreements, performance verification has led tomore rigorous implementation and scrutiny of publicservice change programmes.

But the performance verification process is not withoutits limitations. Criticism has been made of the limitedscope of the modernisation agenda. The actualperformance verification process itself has generated a vastamount of paper work, the value of much of which has beenquestioned by many participants. Virtually all intervieweesand questionnaire respondents highlight the large amountof paper that the process generates. The amount ofinformation produced in action plans and progress reportsis voluminous. Comments on these plans and reports seea need to reduce the paper burden as a key concern. Whilethere is widespread support for the continuation ofperformance verification in any future national agreementcovering pay increases in the public service, there is also aneed to change and simplify the process.

A number of recommendations are made in the reportaimed at improving the performance verification process inthe future. Details about the reasoning behind the recom-mendations are contained in the main body of the report.The recommendations are grouped under three mainheadings: (a) contextual issues that need to be addressedwithin the framework of any future national agreements, (b) issues around the structures and processes ofperformance verification, and (c) issues concerning theoutputs of performance verification.

Changing the context for performance verification innational agreementsA number of recommendations outlined in the variouschapters of this report are aimed at changing the context forperformance verification in that they concern theparameters for performance verification as set out in thenational agreement. The main recommendations in thisregard are:• More focus on a limited number of priority

modernisation agenda items is needed. Thespecification of these items in the modernisation agendais important in that the degree to which expectations

xiv

are set out determines the extent to which they cansubsequently be assessed.

• The extent to which the performance verificationprocess can deal with significant change initiativesarising during the course of the agreement but notcovered by the agreement needs to be determined.

• The backdating of pay awards in all cases of deferredpay increases has caused some discontent with theprocess in some cases. The extent to which backdatingshould apply automatically should be an issue fordiscussion.

• If possible in the context of the agreement on payincreases, the frequency of progress reporting should berestricted to every six months.

• The role of sectoral partnership committees should beclarified with regard to their part in signing off on actionplans and assessing organisational progress reports.

• The additional burden imposed on reporting by theparallel benchmarking process should be addressed.

Performance verification structures and processesThere is wide support for the broad structures andprocesses that have been put in place to manageperformance verification. Recommendations outlined inthis report are aimed at enhancing the efficiency andeffectiveness of these structures and processes. The mainrecommendations in this regard are:

Performance verification groups• The current structure and composition of the PVGs be

broadly maintained, with an independent chair and asmall number of management, union and independentrepresentatives.

• With regard to independent members, to the extentpossible there should be some continuity ofmembership between one agreement and the next, andsome turnover to ensure ‘new blood’ is brought to theprocess.

• Independent members should be selected on the basis

xv

that they can take a broad perspective on the sector andthe process, rather than chosen for a detailedknowledge of any particular issue.

• Existing decision-making procedures and practicesshould be maintained.

• Site visits/presentations should continue to receive ahigh priority by the PVGs as an aid to informing theprocess beyond the formal exchange of reports. To getthe most from site visits/presentations, clear agendasfor the meetings are required, along with theopportunity for informal feedback from the PVGs.

• With regard to feedback from PVGs to organisationsgenerally, to the extent possible feedback shouldcombine sector-wide comments with individualisedcomments targeted at individual organisations.

• PVGs should consider the identification andhighlighting of good practice exemplars in their decisionletters, to promote the spread of good practice acrossthe sector.

• The Health Service PVG approach of clearly specifyingdecisions available to them has merit and should beconsidered by all PVGs. The ‘payment warranted butwith qualification’ option allows a further level ofsanction to be applied in the process.

PVG secretariat• The PVG secretariats should continue to develop their

research and communications roles (acting as a conduitbetween the PVG and organisations), alongside theiradministrative role.

• Secretariats should ensure that websites containinginformation on the performance verification process areup-to-date and comprehensive in the scope ofinformation contained on the site.

Sectoral secretary general• The overview report of the secretary general to the PVG

should continue to be developed to highlight key issuesof industrial relations and modernisation changes.

xvi

Education PVG• The operation of the performance verification process in

the education sector should be assessed to determine ifalternative procedures might lead to improvements inreporting procedures. Alternatives to consider mayinclude the provision of separate PVGs for differenteducation levels and/or sectors.

Performance verification outputsThere is general support for the principle of action plansand progress reports continuing to form the basis fordecisions on performance verification and to be the mainoutputs of the process. The recommendations in this reportare aimed at simplifying the planning and reporting processso as to meet the needs of a modernisation and changeagenda without imposing undue burdens on allparticipants. The main recommendations in this regardare:

Templates• A template should be retained as a means of ensuring

consistency and encouraging comparison across actionplans and progress reports. The recommendation thatthe modernisation agenda allow organisations toprioritise a limited number of key modernisation agendaitems will facilitate less onerous reporting requirements.

• The template should place an emphasis on reportingprogress since the last report was received rather thanwhether or not a commitment has been achieved.

Action plans• Action plans should focus on a limited number of

priority modernisation agenda items.• The action plan should contain both a small number of

sectoral modernisation initiatives and a small numberof organisation specific initiatives.

• The PVG should devote particular attention to thescrutiny of action plans, as the basis for subsequentreporting. In particular, the specificity and clarity of

xvii

objectives and targets set out in the action plans shouldbe assessed, as the clearer and more specific theobjectives and targets, the easier progress in theirachievement can be determined.

• The primary focus of action plans should remain on theoutputs produced as a result of the modernisationagenda (though subsequent reporting should reflectprogress on reporting on outcomes).

• Action plans should clearly reflect the relevantobjectives of the organisation as set out in the businessplan. The modernisation agenda should not be seen asa separate exercise from the day-to-day running of theorganisation.

Progress reports• Context statements should continue to be produced by

all organisations, highlighting priority issues andenabling flexibility of response of organisations.Consideration should be given to the possibility of usingcontext statements as the reporting mechanism in allphases, with annual reporting against the template.

• More focus should be given to reporting on a smallernumber of well-specified modernisation items in anyindividual progress report.

• Progress reports should contain information on bothoutputs achieved against expectations, and progress inrelation to reporting on outcomes. The main focusshould be on progress made since the last period.

xviii

1.1 Focus of the paperPerformance verification is a means of formally linkingpublic service pay with industrial relations stability, co-operation with flexibility and ongoing change, and theimplementation of an agenda of public servicemodernisation. This study provides an assessment of theperformance verification process, and how the efficiencyand effectiveness of the existing process can be improved.

1.2 Background and terms of reference for the studySustaining Progress (2003), the sixth national agreementbetween the government and the social partners, states thatpublic service pay increases are ‘…dependent, in the case ofeach sector, organisation and grade, on verification ofsatisfactory achievement of the provisions on cooperationwith flexibility and ongoing change; satisfactoryimplementation of the agenda for modernisation…and themaintenance of stable industrial relations and the absenceof industrial action…’ (para. 26.1).

To provide the verification required above, PerformanceVerification Groups (PVGs) were established for the mainsectors of the public service, namely the civil service, localgovernment, health, education, and justice and equalitysectors. PVGs have independent chairs and equal numbersof management, union and independent members. In thecase of the civil service, heads of departments and officesreport to the PVG on behalf of their organisations, and theSecretary General Public Service Management andDevelopment, Department of Finance reports in relation tothe civil service as a whole. In the case of the other sectors,heads of individual organisations report to the appropriatePVG, and the secretary general responsible for that sectorverifies progress for that sector as a whole. More details of

1

1

Introduction

PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND PUBLIC SERVICE PAY

the process are given in Chapter 2.In carrying out the study, the Department of the

Taoiseach and the Department of Finance requested thatthe following issues should receive particular attention andform the terms of reference for the project:• The usefulness of the PVG mechanism as a means of

achieving flexibility and change within individualorganisations, including and beyond the specificmodernisation commitments in the nationalagreements.

• The usefulness of the PVG mechanism as a means ofdemonstrating the modernisation of the public service.

• Whether the process needs to be more flexible atsectoral and organisational level in order to reflectdifferent stages of progress achieved.

• Improvements to the existing reporting arrangements,taking into account in particular factors such as thetiming and format of reporting.

• Appropriate performance indicators that would allow allorganisations to report in a manner that woulddemonstrate clearly at all relevant stages of eachcommitment the specific progress achieved and, whererelevant, any resulting improvements in efficiency andin the quality of services delivered.

• Opportunities to enhance feedback to individualorganisations.In addition, some indication of how departments fulfil

their role of quality assuring outcomes for organisationsunder their aegis where a PVG does not exist was deemedan issue to be included in the study.

1.3 Study approach and focusInterviews were held with the sectoral PVG chairs and mostof the individual members of the PVGs (details are given inAnnex 1). Interviews also took place with the sectoral PVGsecretariats and the secretaries general with responsibilityfor the sectoral PVG reports: Education and Science;Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Health and

2

INTRODUCTION 3

Children; Justice, Equality and Law Reform; and PublicService Management and Development, Department ofFinance. The interviews focused on the issues raised in theterms of reference for the study and took place during July,August and September 2005.

A short covering letter and questionnaire (focused onthe issues raised in the terms of reference) was sent topublic service organisations and bodies involved in theperformance verification process in each sector(approximately 120 organisations and bodies)1. This letterwas issued at the end of June, with a deadline for replies ofend of July 2005. A response rate of 64 per cent wasachieved overall. Details are given in Annex 2.

Interviews also took place with the secretaries general ofthree departments who have responsibility for qualityassuring outcomes of agencies where there is no PVG:Communications, Marine and Natural Resources; Arts,Sport and Tourism; and Transport. These interviews tookplace in September 2005.

In line with the terms of reference, the focus of the studyis on how the efficiency and effectiveness of theperformance verification process can be improved. Thestudy is not a fundamental review of the efficacy andjustification of the performance verification process. Also,given the study focus and the tight timescale for completionof the study, it was only possible to interview those mostdirectly involved in the process, such as the members of thePVGs, the PVG secretariat, and the secretaries generalresponsible for the sectors covered. Other staff withinparticipating organisations, and independentcommentators, who may have a different perspective on theprocess, have not been directly included in the study.

1.4 Report structureChapter 2 sets out a brief description of the performanceverification process. In Chapter 3, the impact ofperformance on industrial stability, flexibility and ongoingchange, and implementation of the public servicemodernisation agenda is assessed. Chapter 4 reviews keyoutputs of the performance verification process: templates,


action plans and progress reports. Chapter 5 examines thestructures and processes that make up performanceverification, namely, the PVGs, the PVG secretariats, therole of the secretaries general with sectoral responsibilities,and the role of partnership committees. In Chapter 6, theprocess of performance verification for state bodies notcovered by PVGs is explored. Finally, Chapter 7 presentsthe conclusions and recommendations.

4

2.1 IntroductionIn this chapter, a brief description is given of the mainelements of the performance verification process. Thehistorical development of performance verification is noted.The assessment procedures and mechanisms put in placeto provide verification are described.

2.2 The historical contextSustaining Progress (2003), under which the performanceverification process was established, is the sixth nationalsocial partnership agreement, dating back to 1987. Theseare:

Programme for National Recovery, 1987 (PNR)Programme for Economic and Social Progress,1991 (PESP)Programme for Competitiveness and Work, 1994 (PCW)Partnership 2000, 1996 (P2000)Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, 2000 (PPF)Sustaining Progress, 2003 (SP)

Each of these agreements includes arrangements formanaging public service pay and conditions during thecourse of the agreement. In the earlier agreements,particularly PESP, PCW and P2000, the emphasis in thiscontext is on managing local bargaining beyond thenationally agreed norms, whereby improvements in pay andconditions are linked to changes in efficiency andeffectiveness and industrial peace. P2000 linked local levelpay and conditions negotiations to implementation of thepublic service modernisation programme.

These developments linking pay and conditions withmodernisation and change were extended beyond localbargaining to encompass pay and conditions generally inthe Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (2000). In the

5

2

Brief description of the performanceverification process


PPF, certain pay increases under the programme werelinked to the achievement of sectoral targets with regard topublic service modernisation, with progress with regard toachievement of the targets being assessed at organisationallevel. A quality assurance group (QAG) was established foreach sector (at this time four sectors: civil service,education, health and local government) to oversee andindependently assess progress. Each organisation had tosubmit a report to the QAG outlining progress against theagreed targets. The QAG, if not satisfied with the progressreports, could refer them back to the partnership structuresin the organisation to be reviewed. Each QAG includedexternal business/customer representation as well asmanagement and union representatives.

Under the terms of Sustaining Progress, the payment ofthe general pay increases, and the payment of the final twophases of the benchmarking increases2 are dependent onverification of co-operation with flexibility and ongoingchange, satisfactory implementation of the public servicemodernisation agenda, and the maintenance of stableindustrial relations and absence of industrial action.Performance Verification Groups (PVGs) were establishedfor each sector under the agreement. Each PVG must havean equal number of management, trade union andindependent members. The independent members shouldhave relevant experience, and include representatives of thecustomers of the sector. Each group must have anindependent chair. Each sectoral PVG must make anassessment of progress in relation to performance atsectoral, organisational and grade level, at the latest onemonth in advance of each of the payment dates specified inthe agreement. The assessment procedures agreed to verifythat conditions for payment of the increases have been metare set out in Table 2.1.

Under the terms of the agreement, each sectoral PVGmust maintain close contact with all of the organisationsunder its remit throughout the reporting period. For publicservice bodies operating in sectors where a PVG does notexist, government departments with responsibility for thosebodies fulfil the role of quality assuring outcomes. The

6

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION PROCESS 7

Public Service Monitoring Group and the Public ServiceSub-Committee of the National Implementation Bodyoversee implementation of the performance verificationarrangements.3

2.3 Key elements of and players in the performanceverification process

The main elements in the performance verification processare outlined in Figure 2.1. The PVG for each sector hasinitial responsibility for designing the template, proceduresand criteria to be used by organisations reporting to thegroup. On the basis of this initial guidance, action plans fororganisations/sectors are developed. These action plans,when approved by the PVG, are adopted by the head of theorganisation, and form the basis for subsequent reportingon progress with regard to modernisation of services.

Figure 2.1 Outline of the performance verification process

Performance Verification GroupPrepares

• Template

Action Plans

• Approved by PVG

• Responsibility of head of organisation

Progress Reports

• Prepared by head of organisation

• To partnership committee for sign -off

Sectoral secretary general

• Approval of progress reports for sending to PVG

• Preparation of sectoral progress report

Performance Verification Group

• Report to sectoral secretary general on decision with regard topayment


Table 2.1: Assessment procedures followed byPerformance Verification Groups

8

Action plansi. Each PVG will inform the secretary general responsible for the

relevant sector and the appropriate sectoral partnershipcommittee of the reporting format to be used for action plans.

ii. The appropriate partnership committee will agree the action planfor the relevant area and submit it to the PVG for approval.

iii. The PVG will assess the action plans to confirm whether theymeet the requirements of the Agreement, and conform with thereporting format, timetable and procedures.

iv. If the PVG considers that an action plan is unsatisfactory it willbe referred back for review through the partnership process.

v. When approved by the PVG, an action plan will, whereappropriate, be communicated by the partnership committee toeach head of organisation within the relevant sector forimplementation.

Progress reports

vi. Heads of organisations will prepare progress reports and submitthem to the appropriate partnership committee.

vii. The partnership committee, having considered the reports fromheads of organisations, submits them together with a report onthe sector to the secretary general responsible for the sector.*

Assessment of verified progressviii. The secretary general responsible for the sector submits the

reports to the PVG together with his/her assessment of progressachieved.

ix. Before reporting to the PVG the secretary general informs theappropriate National Council of the assessment of progresswhich he or she intends to convey to the PVG. Where thesecretary general considers it likely that his or her report on theassessment of verified progress achieved would not warrantimplementation of a pay increase, the matter is discussed by therelevant National Council before the report is finalised and if heor she still intends so to report will convey any union sidecomment to the PVG.

x. The PVG decides on the basis of the reports submitted to it if thelevel of progress achieved during the period warrants thepayment of the relevant pay increase(s). It is open to the PVG, ifit considers it desirable, to request the secretary general toreconsider the report, or aspects of it before a final decision istaken by the PVG. In this event, the secretary general will informthe relevant National Council of the response he or she intendsto make and will include any union side comments in theresponse to the PVG.

xi. If the PVG decides in any case that the making of a payment is

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION PROCESS 9

Source: Sustaining Progress (2003), pp. 120-121

The head of each organisation prepares a progressreport concerning the implementation of action plantargets. These progress reports are produced to an agreedtimetable scheduled to fit in with the approved dates forpayment of the pay increases outlined in SustainingProgress (see Annex 3). The relevant sectoral partnershipcommittee approves the progress reports before the reportsare sent to the secretary general with responsibility for thesector. The secretary general, in turn, assesses eachprogress report and prepares a sector-wide progress report,which he or she sends off with the individual progressreports to the PVG. The arrangements are somewhatdifferent for the civil service, where partnership structuresare at departmental rather than at sectoral level. Thedepartmental secretary general submits the progress reportto the Secretary General, Public Service Management andDevelopment, Department of Finance, who in turn preparesthe sector-wide progress report for the PVG.

Finally, the PVG assesses each individual progressreport and the sectoral progress report, and reaches adecision on whether or not to recommend payment of thepay award. The PVG prepares a report with its decision andother comments for the secretary general withresponsibility for the sector. The secretary general has finalresponsibility with regard to approving payment.

The role of these key elements of the performanceverification process and key players are examined in moredetail in subsequent chapters of this report.

not warranted, the relevant secretary general refers the matter tothe National Council for discussion before he or she takes a finaldecision.

xii. In the event that a trade union considers that the decision madeby a secretary general is not in conformity with the terms of theAgreement, it may have recourse to the provisions of paragraph19.9 of the Public Service Pay Agreement which deals withbreaches of the Agreement.

*In the civil service the existing partnership structures are at departmental ratherthan at sectoral level. Accordingly, in the case of the civil service, the verificationprocess operates at departmental level. Sectoral reports required in accordance withthe above procedure are made by the Secretary General, Public Service Managementand Development, Department of Finance and the references to National Councilsmean the General Council in the case of the civil service.

3.1 IntroductionBefore getting into an assessment of the workings ofperformance verification, which is the main focus of thisstudy, it is important to set the context by examining thebroad impacts of performance verification to date. A fullassessment is not possible, as at the time of writing thefinal two pay increases under Sustaining Progress have notbeen verified. However, it is possible to give a broad pictureof the effect to date of performance verification on paydetermination and on industrial stability, flexibility andchange, and public service modernisation.

3.2 Performance verification and public service payAs noted in Chapter 2, the secretary general withresponsibility for the sector prepares a sector-wide overviewreport for the PVG providing an assessment of the mainissues emerging from the progress reports. As part of thisoverview report, the secretary general may identify specificgrades and/or organisations where payment is not deemedwarranted because of an infringement of the terms ofSustaining Progress. Each PVG then makes arecommendation to the appropriate secretary general as towhether or not the pay increases agreed under SustainingProgress are merited for each sector, organisation and gradelevel.

To date, in the vast majority of cases, the judgement ofthe PVGs is that progress has been satisfactory enough tomerit payment of the increases. However, there are anumber of instances across all the sectors where therecommendation has been that payment should not beawarded at the time of the assessment, usually pendingfurther industrial relations discussions (see Table 3.1). Inthe case of grades represented by the Prison Officers’

10

3

The impact of performance verification

THE IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION 11

Association, payment of both the January and July 2004pay increases was withheld. The dispute was resolved atthe Labour Relations Commission and on the basis of thisresolution, the Justice and Equality Sector PVGrecommended backdated payment of the relevant awardson 20 July 2004. In all cases where withheld awards havesubsequently been granted, they have been backdated tothe time of the original award. Some respondents to thequestionnaire and interviewees question this practice ofautomatic backdating of awards. It is seen as acting as adisincentive for those organisations and grades who co-operate without delay when they see others receiving thesame rewards later on in the process.

Table 3.1: Examples of recommendations by PVGs towithhold the payment of pay increases

• Decision to withhold a recommendation for payment ofincreases due on 1 July 2004 to staff in the health sector involvedin industrial relations disputes, namely: refusal of nursing staffto transfer to a new development in St Davnet's Hospital,Monaghan; refusal of nursing staff to relocate from St. Mary’sHospital Castlebar; unofficial work stoppages by support staff atfour hospitals.

• Decision to withhold a recommendation for payment ofincreases due from 1 January 2004 to grades represented by thePrison Officers’ Association due to unresolved difficultiesregarding the introduction of an annualised hours system andelimination of overtime working.

• Decision to withhold a recommendation for payment ofincreases due on 1 July 2005 in respect of the Finglas Child andAdolescent Centre and the General Operative grade in LimerickInstitute of Technology.

• Decision to withhold a recommendation for payment ofincreases due from 1 January 2003 to General Operatives in theWaste Management section of Dublin City Council due to a workstoppage and pending a decision of the Labour Court.


In several instances, the citing of an organisation orgrade by the secretary general in his/her sectoral overviewreport has led to the issue being resolved before arecommendation of the PVG is made. For example, in thesectoral report of the Secretary General of the Departmentof Health and Children in the course of progressingdecisions for the 1 July 2005 pay increase, the secretarygeneral notes that he was not yet in a position to decide ifpayment was warranted with regard to staff represented bythe Irish Nurses Organisation as a result of non co-operation by the Irish Nurses Organisation with thedevelopment and implementation of a Health CareAssistants programme. This issue was resolved followingthe intervention of the National Implementation Body priorto a recommendation being made by the Health ServicePVG.

The decision open to PVGs is to recommend or notrecommend pay increases. The Health Service PVG hasevolved its approach to decision making in this regard asevidenced in its decision letters to the secretary general(see, for example, Health Service PVG, 2003). They identifyfour options available to them:

a) payment warranted

b) payment not warranted

c) payment deferred

d) payment warranted but qualified.

The first option − payment warranted − the HealthService PVG has sub-divided to create a category entitled‘payment warranted with comments’. Here comments aremade on an organisation’s progress report that the PVGwould expect to see addressed subsequently. For exampleSt. John’s Hospital in the context of the 1 July 2005 payincrease received a comment concerning the need for futurereports to have more detail and to conform more closely tothe reporting template. The fourth option − payment

12


warranted but qualified − is intended to act as something ofa ‘yellow card’ to organisations, where the aspect cited as aqualification will have to be satisfactorily addressed andreported on for future payment to be recommended. Forexample, in relation to the 1 December 2004 pay round, arecommendation was made of payment warranted but withqualification with regard to St. Vincent’s Hospital. Thisdecision related to the apparent significant distraction fromthe modernisation programme due to the ongoing capitalprogramme at the hospital. The PVG made it clear that theyfelt that more focus could be brought to bear on themodernisation programme in the next phase of the process(Health Service PVG, 2004).

3.3 Performance verification and industrial relations stability, co-operation with flexibility and change,and public service modernisation

Under the terms of Sustaining Progress (2003), three mainperformance criteria must be met if payment of publicservice pay increases is to be recommended by the PVGs:

a) The maintenance of stable industrial relations andabsence of industrial action in respect of anymatters covered by the agreement.

b) Co-operation with flexibility and ongoing change.

c) Satisfactory implementation of the agenda for publicservice modernisation set out in sections 20-26 ofSustaining Progress.

The extent to which performance verification hascontributed to the achievement of these criteria, from theperspective of interviewees and questionnaire respondents,is examined below.

3.3.1 Performance verification and industrial relations stability

According to PVG members and a significant majority ofquestionnaire responses, one of the most significantbenefits of performance verification has been the


contribution it has made to industrial peace. Linkingpayment of all of the Sustaining Progress (2003) agreedpayments and 75 per cent of benchmarking payments tothe absence of industrial action and the absence of a threatof industrial action is seen as instrumental in achieving ahigh level of industrial peace. This is evidenced bycomparing the level of industrial disputes in 2002, prior tothe agreement, with the level of industrial disputes in 2004.In 2002, in the public administration and defence,education, and health and social work industrial groupings,there were eleven disputes affecting twenty-sixorganisations, with a total of 6,786 days lost due toindustrial disputes. In 2004, the equivalent figures wereone dispute affecting one organisation, resulting in 1,030days lost (Labour Relations Commission, 2002 and 2004).4

A particular industrial relations benefit of theperformance verification process is that it is seen as actingas an incentive to sort out problems ‘below the radar’. Thestrict timetable for payment in the agreement acts as anincentive, where the potential for disputes arise, formanagement and unions to get together, either informallyor formally through the established industrial relationsprocedures underpinning Sustaining Progress, to sort outthe situation before the sectoral PVG has to make ajudgement on the issue.

3.3.2 Performance verification and flexibility, changeand public service modernisation

The reaction of the vast majority of interviewees andquestionnaire respondents is that performance verificationis making a useful contribution to flexibility, change andmodernisation in the public service. Table 3.2 gives someselected quotes from the questionnaire returns that give aflavour of the responses received. It can be seen that thepositive responses indicate that having targets and specificdeadlines, tying in with the pay increases, providesmomentum for flexibility, change and modernisation. Theprocess is seen as one of the few real potential levers forchange in the public service. The interviews and scrutinyof the progress reports indicate that customer service

14


initiatives, in particular, are being progressed. Initiativessuch as the online payment of motor taxation, andreductions in processing times in areas such as asylumapplications and disability benefit, are among manyexamples highlighted in progress reports.

As an illustrative example of positive achievements, theLocal Government Sector PVG in its first report to theSecretary General of the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government identified developmentssuch as:

• The adaptation of new technology to achieve enhancedclient/customer relationships and the facilitation of theoperation of local democracy.

• The satisfactory operation of the new managementstructures involving the elimination of the traditionaldual structure.

• The appointment of customer service and/or customercare managers in many authorities in tandem with theintroduction of straightforward complaint procedures.

• The establishment of the customer service group atnational level.

• The strong commitment to the implementation ofequality and diversity policies.

• The introduction of new financial management systemsmoving from traditional cash-based accounting systemsto accrual-based.

• The operation of Intranet systems in all authorities.• The gradual introduction of flexible atypical working

patterns which are enhancing support in areas such asgeneral information and library services (LocalGovernment Sector PVG, 2003).


Table 3.2: The contribution of performance verification toflexibility, change and modernisation

16

Positive comments‘The PVG mechanism, by linking pay increases to progress onmodernisation, has been a useful tool in progressingflexibility and change within the organisation. It has provedparticularly useful in ensuring that the local priorities areembraced by staff at all levels.’

‘The PVG has been useful in setting specific targets andparameters for change and in providing a backdrop fordiscussion in the forum of departmental partnership.’

‘(The process) helps to prevent potential slippage as a resultof other business priorities.’

‘The PVG mechanism positively contributed to theachievement of specific actions that might not otherwise havebeen achieved or that might have been achieved but over alonger timescale. The PVG mechanism has a positive leveragevalue in relation to progressing change.’

‘It has been an excellent change management driver in thecontext of developing the partnership model. Issues whichmight have been progressed via the traditional industrialrelations arena have been very successfully completed via the“partnership arena”.’

‘The process has established with employees a clearunderstanding that pay awards are dependent on verifiablechange programmes, based on local flexibility and change.’

‘In particular, the system of regular reporting has provideddeadlines that have tended to focus minds of bothmanagement and union sides and has lessened the tendencyfor matters to drift unresolved for long periods.’


Clearly, it is not possible to directly attribute all thechanges that have taken place to performance verification.The extent to which the changes and modernisationinitiatives that have occurred would have happened anywayis open to question in the absence of evidence to thecontrary. But the majority view of respondents is thatperformance verification has had an impact in terms ofmaking things happen to a deadline, driven by the dates forthe pay increases. If change would have happened anyway,the view is that it would have tended to be slower and lesscomprehensive. Also, the process is seen as keeping itemson the agenda of organisations that might have slipped offin the face of new and emerging priorities.

Another benefit of performance verification mentionedby several respondents in the context of flexibility andchange is that it has helped give meaning to partnership atthe local level. The involvement of partnership committeesin the process of preparing action plans and progressreports is seen as engaging partnership in a meaningfulexercise. This has helped create a more positive context forpartnership in these situations.

‘The necessity to prepare and agree, at partnershipcommittee, plans which subsequently have to beindependently accepted by the PVG, creates a dynamic thatsupports the ultimate achievement of the agreed actionitems.'

Negative comments

‘It has not been very helpful … strong trade unions andoccupational interest groups hold the balance of power andhave limited the advancement of the modernisation agenda.’

‘While the PVG process helped us to formalise or record someof this flexibility and some of these changes, it is difficult toidentify any specific thing which would not have happenedbut for the PVG process.’


While the vast majority of responses are positive withregard to the impact of performance verification, not all are,as the negative comments in Table 3.2 illustrate. Thelimited ambition of the modernisation agenda was cited bya number of respondents, including many who arepositively disposed towards performance verification. Thereis a view here that the overall agenda of change is notchallenging or radical in nature, but rather representsincremental, small-scale change. The scope and range ofthe public service modernisation agenda is a wider issuethan performance verification, as it is established in thecontext of the social partnership negotiations withverification following on. But it is an important issue forconsideration in the context of future developments. Manyrespondents and interviewees are in favour of amodernisation agenda that allows priority to be given atorganisational level to a few key issues being addressed.

Linked to the issue of the modernisation agenda, severalrespondents, particularly on the management side, notethat the change agenda outlined in Sustaining Progress isfixed at a point in time and that significant change maysubsequently arise that cannot be addressed in theverification process as it is not covered in SustainingProgress. The most frequently cited example here is thecreation of the Health Service Executive and consequentrestructuring in the health sector, which is outside thescope of the Health Service PVG. There is a view that theperformance verification process should be flexible enoughto respond to major change initiatives not envisaged at thetime of the agreement.

3.4 Performance verification and the publicdemonstration of change

There is some concern among public servants that criticalmedia comments of the public service, and in particular ofthe pay increases awarded under the Benchmarkingprocess, are seen as receiving attention while positivedevelopments are passed over. There are also issuesaround public accountability and transparency of theperformance verification process. In this context, there are

18


a number of aspects to the public demonstration ofperformance verification. Many of the respondents andinterviewees comment positively on the opportunityperformance verification gives to present information in astructured way to the political process. Similarly, membersof the general public directly affected by service deliverychanges such as extended opening hours or reduced timein processing claims can see a difference as a result ofactions taken. But in terms of the media and the generalpublic forming a view on the impact of performanceverification, this is where there is little engagement with theprocess.

A number of reasons are put forward for this limitedpublic engagement with performance verification. One isthat much of the public service modernisation agendafocuses on internal efficiency-oriented changes to publicservice organisations, and while these may ultimatelyimpact on citizens, their direct impact is difficult to discern.Also, the sheer volume of paper produced is seen asdaunting and off putting to anyone from outside the systemwanting to see what is happening. In this context, the mainpublic source of information on performance verification isthe websites of the sectoral PVGs. These websites can bedifficult to find, and once there, making sense of the volumeof material can be challenging (for further discussion on thewebsites, see section 5.3).

In terms of the volume, specificity and accessibility ofthe information produced by the performance verificationprocess, the recommendations outlined elsewhere in thisreport would lead to a focus on a smaller number of moretightly specified actions. These in turn may impactpositively on the public demonstration of change arisingfrom performance verification. Some interviewees andquestionnaire respondents also suggest that initiativessuch as periodic summary reports on key developments foreach PVG sector might facilitate public demonstration ofchange. Such developments would require the developmentof media and communications strategies. Such strategieswould need to be resourced, both at departmental and PVGsecretariat level, if they were to be pursued.


3.5 ConclusionsOverall, the view emerging is that the performanceverification process has had a positive impact on industrialrelations stability, co-operation with flexibility and change,and implementation of the public service modernisationagenda. When compared with arrangements outlined inprevious national agreements, performance verification hasled to more rigorous implementation and scrutiny of therelevant elements of Sustaining Progress.

Pay awards have been deemed warranted by PVGs inthe vast majority of cases. In a small number of cases payawards have been deferred pending the resolution of theindustrial relations issues concerned in the fora establishedunder Sustaining Progress. In other instances, organisationor grade awards have been deemed warranted but withqualification and an expectation that improvements will bemade in the next phase of the agreement.

Regarding issues to be considered in the context of thefuture development of performance verification, a numberof points emerge from this analysis:

• The Health Service PVG approach of clearly specifyingthe four decisions available to them has merit andshould be considered by all PVGs. The ‘paymentwarranted but with qualification’ option allows a furtherlevel of sanction to be applied in the process.

• The backdating of pay awards in all cases of deferredpay increases has caused some discontent with theprocess in some cases. The extent to which backdatingshould apply automatically should be an issue fordiscussion in the context of the next nationalagreement.

• A further issue for discussion in the context of the nextnational agreement is the extent of ‘challenge’ of thechange modernisation agenda. More focus on theprioritisation of key modernisation agenda items isneeded. This issue is discussed further in Chapter 4.

• The ability of the performance verification process todeal with significant change initiatives arising during

20


the course of the agreement but not covered by theagreement has been questioned by some respondents.The extent to which such changes can be addressed byperformance verification needs to be decided, again inthe context of the determination of the next nationalagreement.

• The public demonstration of change arising fromperformance verification is important for publicaccountability and transparency. Consideration shouldbe given to the development of media andcommunications strategies.

4.1 IntroductionAction plans and progress reports on the implementation ofaction plans are the main outputs of the performanceverification process and the basis on which organisationalprogress in implementing the public service modernisationagenda is judged by the PVGs. Action plans and progressreports are produced in accordance with a template forreporting designed by each PVG.

Before examining these outputs, it should be noted thatvirtually all interviewees and questionnaire respondentshighlight the large amount of paper that the processgenerates. The amount of information produced in actionplans and progress reports is voluminous. It is noteworthythat both PVG members and participating organisations feelthat too much paper is being produced. No one wants toproduce so much, yet it is being produced, as if the ‘system’demands it, despite the views of those participating in theprocess. In commenting on these plans and reports, a needto reduce the paper burden is a key concern.

4.2 TemplatesThe reporting template produced by each PVG (with theassistance of the PVG secretariat) is designed to encouragea common reporting framework for each sector, based onthe modernisation agenda for the sector as outlined inSustaining Progress. The main aim of the template is toensure some consistency of style and content of reporting,so that the PVG can make comparative judgements acrossorganisations and grades.

In terms of ensuring some consistency and a commonapproach to the production of action plans and progressreports, the template has worked well. However, as theprocess has evolved, a number of criticisms have been

22

4

Templates, action plans andprogress reports

TEMPLATES, ACTION PLANS AND PROGRESS REPORTS 23

made about the template, reflected in comments receivedfrom interviewees and questionnaire respondents acrossthe different sectors. Common criticisms are that thetemplate is too rigid, encourages a tick box mentality, is insome cases repetitive in the issues raised, and does notallow priority issues to be highlighted as all issues are giventhe same weight. The template is seen as encouraging thepaper burden referred to in the introduction to this chapterand as too constraining in nature.

In response to these criticisms of the template, the PVGshave adapted their practices over time. In particular, toencourage and enable organisations to report on priorityissues and to bring more flexibility to the process, PVGshave asked organisations to produce context statementsthat allow organisations to identify and highlight priorityissues being addressed during a particular reporting period.As noted by the Civil Service PVG (2005):

The Group is aware of the limitations of the templateprogress reports as a means of expressing the full extentof progress achieved by Departments and Offices inrelation to their Action Plans. The Group found thatcontext statements were very helpful and informativeand that they greatly facilitated it in assessing theprogress which had been made. The Group also notedthat such statements gave Departments and Offices afurther opportunity to highlight progress which had notbeen covered adequately in the template report.

According to interviews with PVG members, thesecontext statements are viewed as valuable and informative,and an important addition to the verification process.Increasingly, the context statements are being given moreweight when reaching judgements about recommendationsregarding pay increases. The context statements also allowmore flexibility to be brought to the process, as several ofthe questionnaire respondents recognise. The complaintsabout the rigidity of the process at sectoral andorganisational level largely relate to the strict application of


the template. But the context statement allows newpriorities to be highlighted and particular issues to bebrought to the attention of the PVG. Similarly, the PVGscan ask that particular attention be given to issues in thecontext statements.

With regard to the future development of performanceverification, it is recommended that:

• The template is retained as a means of ensuringconsistency and encouraging comparison across actionplans and progress reports. But, if the suggestion inChapter 3 is taken up that the agreed modernisationagenda allow organisations to prioritise a limitednumber of key modernisation agenda items, this willfacilitate less onerous reporting requirements.


• A context statement should continue to be produced byall organisations, highlighting priority issues andenabling flexibility of response by organisations. Thisitem is discussed further in section 4.4.

4.3 Action plansThe partnership committee for each sector agrees the actionplan (departmental partnership committees in the case ofthe civil service). After it is approved by the PVG, the actionplan is communicated by the partnership committee toeach head of organisation within the relevant sector forimplementation.

PVG members interviewed expressed the view thataction plans vary considerably in quality acrossorganisations. Several plans were returned to partnershipcommittees and organisations for revision. However, somePVG members also feel that the action plans did not receivethe detailed scrutiny by them that subsequent progressreports had. In part this is because of the tight timescalebetween the template being drawn up and the deadline forboth the production and scrutiny of action plans. In part

24


this is also due to PVGs finding their feet shortly after theywere established.

A tension surfaced in some of the interviews andquestionnaire responses over the extent to which actionplans (and subsequent progress reports) should focus onoutputs or outcomes. Some of the independent members ofPVGs, in particular, are keen for organisations to be settingtargets in action plans and reporting more on the outcomesachieved by modernisation, particularly in terms ofimprovements for citizens. However, the view of themajority of interviewees questioned about this is that whileoutcomes are clearly crucial, in the context of performanceverification for pay increases, the primary focus shouldremain on outputs. So for example, with regard tocustomer service, one of the requirements of themodernisation agenda is the introduction of customercharters by organisations. Payment of increases is in partcontingent on whether or nor charters are introduced (anoutput). But some ask the question whether service haschanged as a result of the charter being introduced (what isthe outcome?). But to link recommendations on paymentto such outcomes would be both technically difficult andstretching the process beyond its purpose.5 This issue isdiscussed further in the context of progress reporting insection 4.4.

A further issue raised by some respondents andinterviewees is the balance between service-widemodernisation items and individual organisation priorities.The action plans should be able to reflect both elements,with the action plan being clearly linked in withorganisational objectives as outlined in the business planfor the organisation.

The role of the partnership committee in the productionof action plans was also raised by a small number ofinterviewees and questionnaire respondents. No one feltthat partnership committees should be excluded from theproduction of action plans, but when during the processthey should be involved is the issue for some, particularlymanagement.6 The view expressed here is that action plansshould be prepared in the first instance by management of


each organisation, as it has primary responsibility forchange, with this plan being submitted to the partnershipcommittee for consideration. The role of partnershipcommittees more generally is considered in section 5.5.


• Action plans should give priority to a limited number ofkey modernisation agenda items (as outlined inChapter 3).

• The PVG should devote particular attention to thescrutiny of action plans, as the basis for subsequentreporting. In particular, the specificity and clarity ofobjectives and targets set out in the action plans shouldbe assessed, as the clearer and more specific theobjectives and targets, the easier progress in theirachievement can be determined.

• The primary focus of action plans should remain on theoutputs produced as a result of the modernisationagenda (though subsequent reporting may reflectprogress on reporting on outcomes, as outlined insection 4.4)

• The action plan should contain both a small number ofsectoral modernisation initiatives and a small numberof organisation specific initiatives.


4.4 Progress reportsProgress reports are the main documents used by PVGs toassess progress in relation to the implementation of actionplans. Progress reports must be submitted for each phaseof the pay increases agreed under Sustaining Progress.There is a strong view from PVG members that, overall,there has been a significant improvement in the quality of

26


progress reports provided by organisations with each phaseof reporting. The first progress reports tended to besomewhat variable in character and quality. The HealthService PVG (2003) note, in relation to the first set ofprogress reports:

…there was a significant disparity in the quality of thedocumentation we received. Some of the documentswere excellent, but only one required no follow-upclarification. Some of the documents were quite poor,with little specificity, and required substantialclarification…These are significant areas of concern;however it was the strong view of the group that it isdifficult to assess and more difficult to penalise staff,when the problem appears to rest at seniormanagement level with regard to submission ofreports…Within some agencies there is a lack ofownership of this process, at corporate level, and this isreflected in the absence of a corporate overview in theirfinal report.

These sorts of issues have been significantly overcomeas progress reports have developed over the course ofSustaining Progress7. The consistency of quality of progressreports from organisations is now by and large of areasonable standard. Issues that arise in relation toprogress reporting are more frequently now ones aroundthe frequency and type of reporting, and the informationcontained in reports. Table 4.1 gives illustrative examplesof questionnaire respondents’ views on progress reporting.

The issue of the high frequency of reporting, and theview that progress reports have to be produced coveringshort time periods, is probably the single most cited issueevoking a negative response from questionnairerespondents and interviewees. While it is recognised thatthe frequency of reporting is tied in with the phasing of thepay increases, which is beyond the scope of PVGs and actsas a ‘given’ in the process, the frequency has causeddifficulties at times for most people involved in the process.


Table 4.1: Comments on progress reporting

28

‘The frequency of reporting presently required and thenumber of meetings related to each reporting date addsconsiderably to the administrative burden associated withthe PVG mechanism.’

‘The format should allow for reporting of change that may notbe comprehended by the Action Plans.’

‘The requirement to report on a regular basis, whilst rigid,has provided the University with clear deadlines andmilestones for achieving the Sustaining Progress action plan.’

‘There is not sufficient time in the interim period betweenreports to enable each organisation to ascertain a realisticidea of the level of change actually being achieved…Theformat of the report is quite cumbersome, there is a lot ofrepetition in respect of questions.’

‘The template for reporting is to some extent a bit of astraitjacket in that it looks for “Yes” or “No” answers which incertain projects which are ongoing can be difficult to explain.’

'A simplification of the reporting arrangements would be verywelcome…The task of completing the long template at regularintervals is time consuming, and one would question thevalue of submitting all of this information so frequently.’

‘Reports relating to the various rounds of payment under anyfuture agreement might take the format of the overviewrather than a detailed update of the template each time. Thiscould be done at longer intervals.’

‘The matrix type format and general language used on theAction Plan/Progress Report is not user friendly…thedocument is very hard to read.’


These difficulties are well illustrated by one of thequestionnaire responses received:

For example the template for the next pay increase duefrom 1st December 2005 has arrived today 22nd July2005. (We are) asked to report on the six-month period1st June 2005 to 30th November 2005, the deadline forthe return of the completed report has been set for the30th of September 2005. This deadline means that onlyfour of the six months will have elapsed on completionof the report. However, it is recognised that therelationship between the pay increase and performanceis the key driver of the PVG process.

Accepting that the frequency of reporting is tied to thephasing of pay increases, and that this is a function of thenational agreement, many interviewees and questionnairerespondents nevertheless put forward suggestions for whatmight be an ideal reporting frequency. Six-monthlyreporting is the frequency most often proposed. Six-monthly reporting is viewed as providing a balance betweenmore frequent reports where little progress can be reportedand less frequent reports where momentum would be lost.A small number propose a move to annual reporting, butthis is strongly opposed by many interviewees, in particularthose who see annual reporting as failing to imposesufficient discipline on the process. A few questionnairerespondents suggest that the context statement should beused for all reporting phases, with the full template beingused less frequently, perhaps annually, as a means ofmaintaining a strong focus on tying reporting to the payincreases but at the same time reducing the reportingburden.

The parallel benchmarking exercise has compoundedproblems associated with the high frequency of reporting.Under the benchmarking exercise, a parallel benchmarkingprocess sets the rates of pay for the craft grades and therelated non-nursing and general operative grades outside ofDublin. Action plans and progress reports must beprepared and verified for these grades. This has notablyincreased the workload for organisations and for the PVGs.

With regard to the type and nature of reporting


contained in progress reports, this issue is linked with thetemplates as discussed in section 4.2. The large number ofitems to be reported on and the current nature of thetemplate itself lend themselves to producing reports thatcan be voluminous and repetitive, and where it can be hardto determine progress made between one period andanother. Focusing each progress report on a limitednumber of priority, more precisely specified modernisationitems and a greater use of context statements tocomplement the template reports, as outlined in section4.2, would address these issues.

One questionnaire return refers to the danger as theysee it of progress reports becoming yet another forum forreporting on macro-level policy developments. This issue isrelated to the discussion on the degree of focus onoutcomes in action plans in section 4.3. In the context ofpublic service modernisation, the main focus from averification perspective should be on the extent to whichorganisations are achieving their outputs and reporting onprogress on achieving outcomes. To stay with the exampleof customer charters used earlier, performance verificationhas a valid role to play in assessing if charters areintroduced, and subsequently in assessing if organisationsare taking steps to assess their progress in relation to thetargets set out in the customer charters. But performanceverification as currently constituted should not basedecisions on pay increases on the final outcomes withregard to changes in customer service levels, not leastbecause of the technical and interpretive difficultiesinvolved.

A particular issue raised by many of the PVG membersin the interviews with regard to progress reports is therelative absence of ‘hard’ information contained in thereports. Comments in reports that progress in an area is‘ongoing’ are seen as unhelpful. This concern is frequentlyexpressed as a desire to see more use of performanceindicators by organisations in the reporting process. Ingeneral more evidence, both quantitative and qualitative,and specificity with regard to progress that is being made isdemanded. In part, clearer more specific objectives in theaction plans would help address this concern. Setting out

30


clear and concrete expectations is needed to demonstratewhen expectations have been accomplished, or to whatextent expectations have been accomplished. As practiceevolves, much can also be made of good practice withregard to the use of performance information in progressreports and the dissemination of that good practice acrossorganisations (this issue of the identification anddissemination of good practice is discussed further insection 5.2).

Finally with regard to progress reports, it is important tonote the role of the sectoral reports produced by the sectoralpartnership committees and the overview report providedby the secretary general with responsibility for the sector tothe PVG. The sectoral reports produced by the partnershipcommittees highlight and summarise the maindevelopments within the sector. The sectoral overviewreport of the secretary general highlights particular issuesor concerns to be brought to the attention of the PVG. Theevidence from the PVG interviews is that these sectoraloverview reports play a very important role in theverification process. Many PVG members note that it wouldbe unusual for them to disagree with the comments of thesecretary general.

With regard to the future development of performanceverification, it is recommended that:• If possible in the context of the agreement on pay

increases, the frequency of progress reporting berestricted to every six months.

• Consideration be given to the possibility of usingcontext statements as the reporting mechanism in allphases, with annual reporting against the template.

• More focus be given to reporting on a limited number ofwell-specified modernisation items in any individualprogress report.



5.1 IntroductionA number of key structures and processes govern theoperation of the performance verification process.Discussed here are: the Performance Verification Groups(PVGs) themselves; the PVG secretariat; the role of thesecretaries general with responsibility for the sectorscovered by performance verification; partnershipcommittees; and some sectoral variations in operatingperformance verification.

5.2 Performance Verification GroupsThe PVGs themselves are at the centre of the performanceverification process. They are not permanent bodies, butoperate on a part-time basis, with peaks of activity asdeadlines for pay increases approach. On the part of theindependent representatives involved, the time input islargely voluntary in nature.8 The time commitmentrequired of PVG members is substantial (Annex 4 sets outthe 2004 work schedule for the Local Government PVG asan illustrative example).

5.2.1 PVG compositionAs stated in the introduction, PVGs have independentchairs and equal numbers of management, union andindependent members. The Civil Service, Education andHealth PVGs all have three management, union andindependent representatives. The Justice and Equality andLocal Government PVGs each have two representatives fromeach grouping.

The strong view emerging from the interviews is that thesize and composition of the PVGs is about right. The size issmall enough that each group can function as a workinggroup, encouraging a good dynamic in the process. The mix

32

5

Performance verification structuresand processes

PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES 33

of management, union and independents, with anindependent chair, is seen as working well. As oneinterviewee put it, the structure provides enough insideknowledge, but no one gets a free ride. The managementand union representatives bring their detailed knowledge ofthe sector and their ability to represent the views and liasewith their constituencies to the table. Most independentmembers of the PVGs interviewed are impressed with thedegree of real dialogue that goes on in the group, with littleevidence of management or union representatives takingentrenched or pre-determined positions on issues.

The independent members of the PVGs are seen asbringing significant added value to the process overall.Having an independent chair of each PVG is seen as crucialfor the credibility of the process. The quality and highdegree of competence of each of the sectoral chairs waswidely commented on by other PVG members. The otherindependent members of the groups are seen as bringing animportant ‘outside’ perspective to bear on the process. Theystop the performance verification process from being too‘in-house’ in nature, and by asking critical questionsensure that the process is subject to an external voice.Also, from an accountability and public credibilityperspective, it is important to have some external,independent view brought to bear. Several intervieweesstress the need for independent members of the PVGs to bepeople who can take a broad sectoral perspective on issues,and not necessarily focus too much on a single agenda itemof particular concern to them.

Several issues were raised in the course of discussionsabout the composition of PVGs. One issue is the degree ofcontinuity or change of membership (and in particular theindependent members) over the course of a nationalagreement and across agreements. On the one hand,several participants see the need for continuity, so that theexperience built up by members is not lost. On the otherhand, an argument is made for changing the independentmembers after each agreement, so as to avoid ‘capture’ bythe system and ensure fresh thinking is brought to bear onthe process. A mix of some degree of continuity, with some


members staying on, combined with some turnover toprovide ‘new blood’ may be the best way forward in suchcircumstances. A further issue concerns the balancebetween independent members and management andunion members. Some interviewees feel that it could beuseful to increase the proportion of independents (say to 50per cent) to strengthen the external perspective. But by andlarge participants are happy with the structure.


• The current structure and composition of the PVGs bebroadly maintained, with an independent chair and asmall number of management, union and independentrepresentatives.


• Independent members should be selected on the basisthat they can take a broad perspective on the sector andthe process, rather than chosen for a detailedknowledge of any particular issue.

5.2.2 PVG operation and decision makingTo date, all PVGs operate on the basis of consensusdecision making, following debate, and there has not beena need for a vote. In general terms, when assessing reports,the PVGs have priority issues in mind (which have beenflagged to the organisations previously) that they use toinform their judgement. For example, the Health ServicePVG identified six priority areas when judging the progressreports for the fourth phase of the process: customerservice; industrial relations; performance management;modernisation/equality; value for money; and staff trainingand development. The Justice and Equality Sector PVG hasput a particular emphasis on customer service, training

34


and development, and the employment quota for peoplewith disabilities.

Operating styleThe operating style of the PVGs varies, with some getting allmembers to examine all reports, and others dividing reportsbetween sub-groups who give the primary scrutiny to thesereports and a more general assessment of the other reports.The operating style of the Health Service PVG is describedin their decision letter to the secretary general (HealthService PVG, 2003):

We received copies of the reports from the fourteenagencies, plus the sectoral report from the HSNPF, onthe 4th of November. Some of the reports were quitevoluminous and it was agreed that the HSPVG wouldsplit into three, with each group having an independent,management and trade union representative. Eachsubgroup was tasked with studying in detail the agencyreports assigned to their subgroup, plus the sectoralreport, while also being asked to read all the remainingreports.

At our next meeting, we broke into our subgroups andcommenced an initial evaluation of the information.This was a provisional assessment…

At our final meeting on the 24th November, the HSPVGconcluded our business. Each of the subgroupsreported back in plenary session their assessmentunder the evaluation criteria. The other group memberswere then afforded an opportunity to discuss, questionand comment on each progress report and assessment,following which a recommendation for each agency wasmade by the subgroup and endorsed or otherwise by theHSPVG.


Site visits/presentationsIn informing their final decisions, as well as reviewing thedocumentation, all PVGs during the course of theagreement engage in site visits or receive presentationsfrom individual organisations on their progress reports.These site visits/presentations received universal praisefrom interviewees and questionnaire respondents. PVGmembers welcome the opportunity to get behind theinformation given in reports and get more of a feel for howthings are operating on the ground. Several PVG membersinterviewed note that in some cases the meetings show thatmore progress is being achieved than comes across in thewritten report. Alternatively, they may show limited realcommitment to change. From the point of view of individualorganisations, it is an opportunity to profile the work theyare doing, and most engaged whole-heartedly. Manypresentations to the PVGs are done on a partnership basis− both senior management and selected staff are involved inthe presentation. This trend is encouraged by the PVGs.

Feedback from PVGs to organisationsPVG feedback on their decisions to organisations is bothformal and informal. Formally, decision letters are issuedto the secretary general for the sector as a whole, and inmost cases to individual organisations via an individualisedletter or a letter covering a group of organisations9.Informally, the site visits/presentations offer anopportunity to give feedback, and the secretariat issometimes used to feed back comments and views (seesection 5.3)

As expressed in questionnaire returns, the degree ofsatisfaction of individual organisations with feedback fromthe PVG varies within and between sectors. In general, thehighest degree of satisfaction with feedback occurs in thecivil service and justice and equality sectors. Here, thefeedback is to individual organisations as well as an overallsectoral report, and most organisations find the feedbackgiven satisfactory and useful. In the education, health andlocal government sectors the views on feedback varysubstantially. In the local government sector, most

36


authorities welcome the sector-wide feedback, but wish tosee feedback to individual authorities dealing with specificauthority progress in the context of sectoral progress. Inthe education and health sectors, roughly half thequestionnaire respondents are satisfied with feedback atpresent, but the other half feel it is limited and over general.Particularly where the feedback is to sub-sectors, thedemand from individual organisations is for specificinformation to them on progress. Across the sectors, thereis a widespread demand from organisations forunderstanding how they are doing in a comparative context,and also what they can learn from good practice elsewhere.

Several suggestions were made by questionnairerespondents to enhance feedback. This was generally donewhile recognising that additional feedback imposesadditional time burdens on the PVGs. One suggestion is forthe PVG to meet annually with organisations in the contextof a seminar/conference that would allow both formalpresentations and exchanges and informal networking.Another suggestion is for meetings/conversations betweenorganisations and the secretariat after each round, wherethe secretariat could pass on the views of the PVG. Moregenerally, organisations would welcome more from thePVGs in terms of highlighting good practice. On this latterpoint, the Health Service PVG in its letter to the secretarygeneral in June 2005 (Health Service PVG, 2005)commended the presentation of activity statistics in theTallaght Hospital report and recommended the format to allreporting agencies.

Meetings of chairs of PVGsIn the interviews, the chairs of the PVGs expressed strongsupport for the practice that has built up of occasionalinformal meetings of the group of chairs of PVGs. Thesemeetings allow an exchange of experience and crosslearning across sectors to take place. The meetings areseen as a valuable part of the process. In this context, somePVG members feel that periodic (perhaps annual) meetingsof all PVG members might serve a similar purpose.


In all, with regard to the future development of PVGoperation and decision making, it is recommended that:• Existing decision-making procedures and practices be

maintained.• Site visits/presentations continue to receive a high

priority by the PVGs as an aid to informing the processbeyond the formal exchange of reports. To get the mostfrom site visits/presentations, clear agendas for themeetings are required, along with the opportunity forinformal feedback from the PVG.



5.3 The Performance Verification Group secretariatThe PVG secretariats are provided by staff from governmentdepartments in all cases except the Local Government PVG,where personnel from the Local Government ManagementServices Board staff the secretariat. The secretariats workpart-time as a secretariat, and combine the task with otherduties. There are peaks and troughs with the work and,around the time when reports are being compiled andconsidered by the PVG, the role is a full-time one. Theprocess places significant time demands on the staffparticipating, particularly given their other duties.

The PVG secretariats play an important role in theprocess. Their main task is to keep things runningsmoothly administratively, such as getting informationtogether in time, organising meetings and sitevisits/presentations, and record and minute keeping. Butas mentioned in section 5.2, they are also an importantconduit for the exchange of information between the PVGand participating organisations. To varying degrees, thesecretariats are also involved in highlighting particular

38


information from action plans and progress reports, andbringing these items to the attention of PVG members,particularly in noting progress from one phase of theprocess to another.

Another key task of the secretariats is ensuring publicreporting of the PVG process, for transparency andaccountability purposes. The need to consider thedevelopment of media and communications strategies hasbeen raised in section 3.4. At present, the main means bywhich public reporting is done is through web sites.10 Theamount of information and timeliness of updating ofinformation on the websites varies considerably betweenthe PVG sectors. As illustrated in Table 5.1, the mostcomprehensive range of information is found on the civilservice and local government performance verification sites.All sites contain the PVG decision letter to the secretarygeneral for the sector as a whole11, but after that, theamount of information varies significantly. The updating ofinformation can also be variable. As at October 2005, thelocal government site only had information up to the secondphase pay increases, whereas the other sites hadinformation relating to the fourth phase. The health andlocal government sites helpfully also include supplementarycorrespondence, such as correspondence between thesecretary general and the Health Service Joint NationalCouncil on industrial relations issues around theperformance verification process. Such informationenables tracking of the role of performance verification in anindustrial relations context.

With regard to the future development of performanceverification, it is recommended that:• The PVG secretariats continue to develop their research

and communications roles (acting as a conduit betweenthe PVG and organisations), alongside theiradministrative role.



Table 5.1: Information available on performance verificationon performance verification websites

5.4 The sectoral secretary generalThe secretary general with responsibility for the sector, asnoted in section 4.4, has responsibility for receiving theprogress reports from organisations together with the sectorreport from the partnership committee. When the progressreports come in to the department, relevant sections withinthe department who advise the secretary general on issuesthat may need to be highlighted or addressed assess them.The secretary general then prepares an overview report forthe PVG containing an assessment of progress achieved.Ultimately, the secretary general has responsibility, on footof the recommendations of the PVG, for authorising the pay

40

CivilService

Education HealthService

LocalGovernment

JusticeandEquality

Organisationaction plans

Sectoralprogressreports

Organisationprogressreports

Secretarygeneral’soverview report

PVG decisionletter to thesecretarygeneral

PVG report toorganisations

Supplementarycorrespondence

√

√

√

√

√

√

√√ √ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√

√


increases for the sector, with the sanction of theDepartment of Finance.

The overview report of the secretary general is animportant document in the performance verificationprocess. It is an opportunity to draw the attention of thePVGs to particular issues, both of a positive and/ornegative nature. The PVGs themselves, as mentioned in theinterviews, give particular attention to the views of thesecretary general.

With regard to the future development of performanceverification, it is recommended that:• The overview report of the secretary general to the PVG

continue to be developed to highlight key issues ofindustrial relations and modernisation changes.

5.5 Partnership committeesPartnership committees are involved in performanceverification at both organisational and sectoral levels. Atthe level of the organisation, as noted in section 3.3.2, theperformance verification process is reported to have helpeddevelop partnership and given more meaning to thepartnership process in many organisations. Dealing withthe preparation of action plans and progress reports hasengaged partnership committees in meaningful dialogue onsubstantive issues.

At the sectoral level, partnership committees are meantto agree the action plan, consider progress reports fromindividual organisations and prepare a sectoral progressreport. The extent to which the sectoral progress report ismeant to provide an analytical overview as opposed tosimply highlighting interesting points from individualreports is unclear. As one national partnership forum inthe education sector put it ‘there is a lack of clarity on theexact role of “the partnership committee” in relation to whatthey are supposed to do with the reports − simply pass themon? Or pass comment on them? Or agree/disagree withthem? Or challenge aspects of them?’ There is a need forthe expectations of the role of sectoral partnershipcommittees to be more clearly specified in future


agreements. In developing the role of sectoral partnershipcommittees, it should be remembered that such committeesdo not exist for the civil service and justice and equalitysectors.

With regard to the future development of performanceverification, it is recommended that:• The role of sectoral partnership committees be clarified

with regard to their part in signing off on action plansand assessing organisational progress reports.

5.6 Variations across PVGsAs the main focus of this study is on the performanceverification process as a whole, there has been littleopportunity to reflect on differences across sectors in howthe performance verification process operates. While allfollow a basic process that is the same in all cases, there arevariations in practice, as have been noted from time to time.This is not necessarily a bad thing, as differences betweenthe sectors mean that a ‘one size fits all’ approach isundesirable. But it may raise issues about variability in thelevel and depth of scrutiny each sector is subject to. Thisis why mechanisms such as the informal meetings of chairsof PVGs are important in encouraging a commonunderstanding of the approach to issues.

While the operation of performance verification inindividual sectors is not, as mentioned, the focus of thisstudy, it is important to note the particularities of theeducation sector. The operational context of the EducationSector PVG is significantly different to the other sectors.The first main difference is in the volume of material to beprocessed. As an illustrative example, the chair of theEducation Sector PVG in the decision letter to the secretarygeneral on the fourth phase of pay increases notes(Education Sector PVG, 2005):

In the period December 2004 to June 2005 inclusive theESPVG processed a total of twenty-five Action Plans andone hundred and fifty eight Progress reports in respectof Craft Parallel Benchmarking grades, twenty-five

42


Action Plans revised by institutions in accordance withthe requirements of the Mid-Term Review of Part Two ofSustaining Progress and seventy Progress reportssubmitted by institutions on the fourth stage of theimplementation of their agreed revised Action Plans.This was an exceptionally heavy workload to which allmembers of the Group gave generously of their time andservices in a very professional manner in order tocomplete the assessments on time.

The number of organisations falling under theEducation Sector PVG, and hence the number of plans andreports to be processed, is significantly more than any otherPVG. This must impact on the relative degree of scrutinyindividual organisations receive. In addition, the educationsector treats all teachers at first and second level as oneunit of analysis, given the sheer number of schoolsinvolved. Also, for the purposes of the performanceverification process, teachers are treated separately fromtheir institutions, a process that was commented onadversely by a number of questionnaire respondents. Andfinally, the academic school year raises particular issues formany education institutions in terms of planning andreporting cycles.

With regard to the future development of performanceverification, it is recommended that:• The operation of the performance verification process in

the education sector be assessed to determine ifalternative procedures may lead to improvements inreporting procedures. Alternatives to consider mayinclude the provision of separate PVGs for differenteducation levels and/or sectors.

6.1 IntroductionA large number of non-commercial state-sponsored bodies(NCSSBs) covered by the terms of Sustaining Progress donot report to PVGs. In these cases, the secretary general ofthe ‘parent’ department of the body acts as the decisionmaker with regard to whether or not pay increases aremerited. This chapter draws on the views of secretariesgeneral from three government departments − Arts, Sportand Tourism, Communications, Marine and NaturalResources, and Transport − that each has a number ofNCSSBs reporting to it.

6.2 The performance verification processIn essence, the process used for performance verification ofNCSSBs is the same as that used where there are PVGs.The template designed for the civil service is used as thetemplate for the design of action plans and progressreports. NCSSBs are required to draw up action plans andprogress reports, and send these in to the secretary generalof their parent departments. The plans and reports areassessed within the relevant divisions of the department,and comments compiled for the secretary general. Thesecretary general then makes a determination of whether ornot the pay award is merited, using the same performancecriteria as outlined at the beginning of section 3.3:industrial stability, co-operation with flexibility and ongoingchange, and implementation of the modernisation agenda.

Given that the same process is used, much the samelimitations as identified elsewhere with the performanceverification process apply in the case of NCSSBs. Thetemplate in particular poses particular challenges, beingdesigned for government departments and offices morethan for state bodies, particularly the smaller NCSSBs that

44

6

Performance verification for statebodies not covered by

Performance Verification Groups

PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION FOR STATE BODIES NOT COVERED BY

PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION GROUPS

45

may only have small staff complements. In these cases, thecontext report provided by the head of the organisationhighlighting the main changes and priorities becomes evenmore important in the process, and could be given moreweight in the future. Similarly the pressures of a largemodernisation agenda with tight reporting deadlines aresimilar with respect to NCSSBs as they are to otherorganisations. The main difference is that there is no PVG,and hence no separate independent scrutiny of the process.But to create PVGs to cover the range of NCSSBs wouldrequire a large number of PVGs and the consequent dangerof over-bureaucracy, to say nothing of the challenge offinding people to sit on the PVGs.12

In broad terms the secretaries general feel that theprinciple of performance verification as applied is a usefuldiscipline for the NCSSBs. Having to sign off on a decisionis seen as a positive, as it ensures that there is scrutiny ofthe items under consideration, and it provides a context forconstructive dialogue on performance issues between thedepartment and the NCSSB. The process could beimproved by adopting the relevant recommendations fortemplates, action plans and progress reports as outlined inChapter 4. Such changes would allow the process to beflexible enough to embrace the change needed at NCSSBlevel, with less emphasis on the template as it currentlyexists and more emphasis on key priorities, both nationaland organisational.

7.1 IntroductionThe evidence from the interviews, questionnaires anddocumentation studied is that the performance verificationprocess has had a positive impact on industrial relationsstability, co-operation with flexibility and change, andimplementation of the public service modernisation agenda.When compared with arrangements outlined in previousnational agreements, performance verification has led tomore rigorous implementation and scrutiny of publicservice change programmes.

Pay awards have been deemed warranted by PVGs inthe vast majority of cases. In a small number of cases payawards have been withheld pending the resolution of theindustrial relations issues concerned. In other instances,organisation or grade awards have been deemed warrantedbut with qualification and an expectation thatimprovements will be made before the next pay increase isdue.

But the performance verification process is not withoutits limitations. Criticism has been made of the limitedscope of the modernisation agenda. The actualperformance verification process itself has generated a vastamount of paper work, the value of much of which has beenquestioned by many participants. While there iswidespread support for the continuation of performanceverification in any future national agreement covering payincreases in the public service, there is also a need tochange and simplify the process.

7.2 Setting the context − performance verification inthe national agreement

A number of recommendations outlined in the variouschapters of this report are aimed at changing the context for

46

7

Conclusions and recommendations

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 47

performance verification in that they concern theparameters for performance verification as set out in thenational agreement. The main recommendations in thisregard are:• More focus on a limited number of priority

modernisation agenda items is needed. Thespecification of these items in the modernisation agendais important in that the degree to which expectationsare set out determines the extent to which they cansubsequently be assessed.

• The extent to which the performance verificationprocess can deal with significant change initiativesarising during the course of the agreement but notcovered by the agreement needs to be determined.

• The backdating of pay awards in all cases of deferredpay increases has caused some discontent with theprocess in some cases. The extent to which backdatingshould apply automatically should be an issue fordiscussion.

• If possible in the context of the agreement on payincreases, the frequency of progress reporting should berestricted to every six months.

• The role of sectoral partnership committees should beclarified with regard to their part in signing off on actionplans and assessing organisational progress reports.


7.3 Performance verification structures and processesThere is wide support for the broad structures andprocesses that have been put in place to manageperformance verification. Recommendations outlined inthis report are aimed at enhancing the efficiency andeffectiveness of these structures and processes. The mainrecommendations in this regard are:

Performance verification groups• The current structure and composition of the PVGs be


broadly maintained, with an independent chair and asmall number of management, union and independentrepresentatives.


• Independent members should be selected on the basisthat they can take a broad perspective on the sector andthe process, rather than chosen for a detailedknowledge of any particular issue.

• Existing decision-making procedures and practicesshould be maintained.

• Site visits/presentations should continue to receive ahigh priority by the PVGs as an aid to informing theprocess beyond the formal exchange of reports. To getthe most from site visits/presentations, a clear agendafor the meetings is required, along with the opportunityfor informal feedback from the PVG.



• The Health Service PVG approach of clearly specifyingthe four decisions available to them has merit andshould be considered by all PVGs. The ‘paymentwarranted but with qualification’ option allows a furtherlevel of sanction to be applied in the process.

PVG secretariat• The PVG secretariats should continue to develop their

research and communications roles (acting as a conduitbetween the PVG and organisations), alongside theiradministrative role.

48

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 49


Sectoral secretary general• The overview report of the secretary general to the PVG

should continue to be developed to highlight key issuesof industrial relations and modernisation changes.

Education PVG• The operation of the performance verification process in

the education sector should be assessed to determine ifalternative procedures might lead to improvements inreporting procedures. Alternatives to consider mayinclude the provision of separate PVGs for differenteducation levels and/or sectors.

7.4 Performance verification outputsThere is general support for the principle of action plansand progress reports continuing to form the basis fordecisions on performance verification and to be the mainoutputs of the process. The recommendations in this reportare aimed at simplifying the planning and reporting processso as to meet the needs of a modernisation and changeagenda without imposing undue burden on all participants.The main recommendations in this regard are:

Templates• A template should be retained as a means of ensuring

consistency and encouraging comparison across actionplans and progress reports. The recommendation thatthe modernisation agenda allow organisations toprioritise a limited number of key modernisation agendaitems will facilitate less onerous reporting requirements.



Action plans• Action plans should focus on a limited number of

priority modernisation agenda items.• The action plan should contain both a small number of

sectoral modernisation initiatives and a small numberof organisation specific initiatives.

• The PVG should devote particular attention to thescrutiny of action plans, as the basis for subsequentreporting. In particular, the specificity and clarity ofobjectives and targets set out in the action plans shouldbe assessed, as the clearer and more specific theobjectives and targets, the easier progress in theirachievement can be determined.

• The primary focus of action plans should remain on theoutputs produced as a result of the modernisationagenda (though subsequent reporting should reflectprogress on reporting on outcomes).


Progress reports• Context statements should continue to be produced by

all organisations, highlighting priority issues andenabling flexibility of response of organisations.Consideration should be given to the possibility of usingcontext statements as the reporting mechanism in allphases, with annual reporting against the template.

• More focus should be given to reporting on a smallernumber of well-specified modernisation items in anyindividual progress report.


50

1 The figure of 120 organisations and bodies is smaller than thenumber of individual organisations that are engaged in thePVG process. The reason for this is that in some cases anumbrella organisation is the initial contact point. Forexample, in the education sector, the Vocational EducationCommittee National Partnership Forum acts as the initialcontact point for the thirty-three VECs.

2 A Public Service Benchmarking Body was established under theProgramme for Prosperity and Fairness (2000), covering bothpay and jobs, including an examination of public service andprivate sector pay levels. The Public Service BenchmarkingBody’s report recommended various increases in publicservice pay and that the payment of a portion of the awardsshould be dependent on real and verifiable outputs frommodernisation and flexibility changes.

3 The Public Service Monitoring Group (PSMG) and the NationalImplementation Body (NIB) were set up under the Programmefor Prosperity and Fairness (2000). The PSMG overseesimplementation of the public service pay agreement. The NIBwas established to ensure delivery of industrial relationsstability and peace.

4 Comparison of one particular year with another can bemisleading as particular circumstances can affect changes.But differences in the recording and availability of data makefull time series comparison difficult, and the figures used hereare widely regarded as expressing a reality of significantlygreater industrial peace during Sustaining Progress thanoccurred during previous social partnership agreements.

5 Staying with the customer charter example, it is possible that anorganisation may receive more complaints after introducingthe charter, as it is now actively seeking customer feedbackthat was previously ignored. Here the outcome in terms oflevel of complaints received may disimprove, but as a result ofan improvement in customer care. However, there can besome cases where outcomes can and should be assessed. Forexample with regard to gender equality, progress with regardto the number and percentage of females in managementpositions is part of the modernisation agenda. Theachievement of this outcome in this case is clearly within thecontrol of the organisations involved. It is outcomes focusedon citizen needs and broad policy outcomes that areproblematic with regard to performance verification for payincreases.

51

NOTES

NOTES

6 The situation differs here somewhat between the civil service andjustice and equality sectors, where departmental partnershipcommittees are involved, and the other sectors where sector-wide partnership committees are involved. The sector-widepartnership committees add a further layer to the process.

7 PVGs still have difficulties with some reports, but they are lessfrequent in nature. The Health Service PVG in its letter to thesecretary general of 11 November 2004 cites one agency for itsconsistently relatively poor progress reports. In this case, theagency provided a significantly improved report for the nextphase of the process.

8 A small payment is given to independent members of PVGs, butthis does not cover the significant time input required ofmembers, and acts more as a token of recognition for the workdone.

9 In the health and education sectors, given that the reportingformat covers groups of organisations in several instances(such as health agencies in the HSE Eastern Region and theInstitutes of Technology), the feedback covers the group ratherthan individual organisations in most cases. In the localgovernment sector, the formal feedback letter is for the sectoras a whole rather than to individual authorities.

10 The addresses of the performance verification websites (as atOctober 2005) are:a)http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=3400&CatID=31&StartDate=1+January+2005&m=

b)http://www.education.ie/robots/view.jsp?pcategory=10815&language=EN&ecategory=21603

c)http://www.dohc.ie/issues/sustaining_progress/

d)http://sustainingprogress.lgmsb.ie/

e)http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039C5AF/vWeb/pcJUSQ5YVERX-en

11 In the case of the justice and equality sector website, the PVGdecision letter to the secretary general is only available for thefirst phase pay increase, and not for subsequent phases.

12 A review undertaken by McGauran, Verhoest and Humphreys(2005), identifies 211 non-commercial state agenciesoperating at national level as at Autumn 2003.

52

Civil Service PVG (2005), Fourth report of Civil Service PerformanceVerification Group, letter from the Chair of the Civil ServicePVG to the Secretary General, Public Service Management andDevelopment, Department of Finance, 31st May 2005,accessed from http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=3400&CatID=31&StartDate=1+January+2005&m= (last accessed 4 October 2005)

Department of the Taoiseach (2004), Mid-Term Review of Part Twoof Sustaining Progress − Pay and the Workplace, Dublin:Department of the Taoiseach

Education Sector PVG (2005), Letter from the Chair of theEducation Sector PVG to the Secretary General, Departmentof Education and Science, 20th July 2005, accessed fromhttp://www.education.ie/robots/view.jsp?pcategory=10815&language=EN&ecategory=21603 (last accessed 10th October2005).

Health Service PVG (2003), Health Service PerformanceVerification Process − letter from the Chair of the HealthService PVG to the Secretary General, Department of Healthand Children, 1st December 2003, accessed fromhttp://www.dohc.ie/issues/sustaining_progress/ (lastaccessed 30 September 2005)

Health Service PVG (2004), Health Service PerformanceVerification Process − letter from the Chair of the HealthService PVG to the Secretary General, Department of Healthand Children, 11th November 2004, accessed fromhttp://www.dohc.ie/issues/sustaining_progress/ (lastaccessed 30 September 2005)

Health Service PVG (2005), Health Service PerformanceVerification Process - letter from the Chair of the HealthService PVG to the Secretary General, Department of

Health and Children, 1st June 2005, accessed fromhttp://www.dohc.ie/issues/sustaining_progress/ (lastaccessed 30 September 2005)

Labour Relations Commission (2002), Annual Report 2002,Dublin: Labour Relations Commission

Labour Relations Commission (2004), Annual Report 2004,Dublin: Labour Relations Commission

Local Government Sector PVG (2003), Interim Report andRecommendations, report to the Secretary General,Department of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment, December 2003, accessed from http://sustain-ingprogress.lgmsb.ie/ (last accessed 30 September 2005).

53

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Local Government Sector PVG (2005), Actions, Reflections andRecommendations 2004/2005, Summary Report, paperprepared by the Local Government Sector PVG, May.

McGauran, A.M., K. Verhoest and P.C. Humphreys (2005), TheCorporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-commercialnational agencies, Committee for Public ManagementResearch Report No. 6, Dublin: Institute of PublicAdministration

Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness(1996), Dublin: Stationery Office

Programme for Competitiveness and Work (1994), Dublin:Stationery Office

Programme for Economic and Social Progress (1991), Dublin:Stationery Office

Programme for National Recovery (1987), Dublin: Stationery OfficeProgramme for Prosperity and Fairness (2000), Dublin: Stationery

OfficeSustaining Progress (2003), Social Partnership Agreement 2003-

2005, Dublin: Stationery Office

54

Sectoral Performance Verification Group membershipand numbers interviewed

Civil Service PVGIndependent chair (interviewed)Three independent members (all interviewed)Three management representatives (all interviewed)Three trade union representatives (all interviewed)

Education PVGIndependent chair (interviewed)Three independent members (two interviewed)Three management representatives (two interviewed)Three trade union representatives (two interviewed)

Health PVGIndependent chair (interviewed)Three independent members (all interviewed)Three management representatives (two interviewed)Three trade union representatives (all interviewed)

Justice PVGIndependent chair (interviewed)Two independent members (both interviewed)Two management representatives (both interviewed)Two trade union representatives (one interviewed)

Local Government PVGIndependent chair (interviewed)Two independent members (both interviewed)Two management representatives (both interviewed)Two trade union representatives (one interviewed)

55

ANNEX 1

Organisations/sectors reporting to the PerformanceVerification Groups and numbers responding to

questionnaire

Civil Service27 government departments and offices (19 replied toquestionnaire − 70 per cent response rate).

Education26 sectors/institutions. Includes first and second levelschools; Vocational Education Committees (counts as onesector, with 33 VECs); Institutes of Technology (counts asone sector, with 14 IOTs); Higher Education Authority thirdlevel institutions (12 institutions, all reporting separately);third-level non-Higher Education Authority (6 institutions,all reporting separately); and child detention centres (5institutions, all reporting separately). (12 replied to thequestionnaire − 46 per cent response rate).

Health20 agencies. Includes 11 regions of the Health ServiceExecutive (corresponding to the old health boards and areahealth boards); 8 hospitals; and the National Federation ofVoluntary Bodies. (13 replied to the questionnaire − a 65per cent response rate).

Justice14 agencies (11 replied to the questionnaire − a 79 per centresponse rate).

Local Government34 county and city authorities (22 replied to thequestionnaire − a 65 per cent response rate).

56

ANNEX 2

Public service pay increases underSustaining Progress

• Pay pause of six months from July 2003 to December2003

• Three per cent from 1 January 2004, plus 50 per centof the increases recommended by the Public ServiceBenchmarking Body *

• 2 per cent from 1 July 2004• 2 per cent from 1 December 2004• 1.5 per cent from 1 June 2005 (except those earning up

to and including €351 per week where a 2 per centincrease applies). Plus 25 per cent of the increasesrecommended by the Public Service BenchmarkingBody

• 1.5 per cent from 1 December 2005 • 2.5 per cent from 1 June 2006

Source: Sustaining Progress (2003) and Department of theTaoiseach (2004)

* 25 per cent of the increases recommended by the Public ServiceBenchmarking Body were paid on ratification of SustainingProgress.

57

ANNEX 3

2004 work programme of the Local Government PVG

• An examination of returns during the period in agreedtemplates from all thirty-four local authorities in respectof progress on performance relating to awards duewithin the sector under the national Sustaining Progressagreement and the related benchmarking and parallelbenchmarking processes; in many cases the ‘returns’were expanded on request to include additionalcommentaries and observations.

• A consideration of a range of reports and observationssubmitted to the PVG from the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government; reportsfrom the Local Authority National Partnership AdvisoryGroup (LANPAG) and information from parallel PVGprocesses covering other sectors; these latterdevelopments were further explored in the context ofmeetings held between the chairs of the various PVGs.

• Visits were undertaken to local authorities by twoseparate teams set up by the PVG; the two teamscomprised either three or four members of the PVG,each team constituted so as to represent themanagement, trade union and independent character ofthe PVG itself. By the end of 2004 all thirty-four localauthorities had been visited and an intensive exchangeof views held with each, which process complementedthe range of returns and related documentationsubmitted by each authority.

• A number of presentations were made to the PVG whichincluded a summary of developments under theproposed ‘Performance Management’ system piloted inthe sector and a progress report on the ‘Delivering Valuefor People’ document covering proposals relating to thedevelopment of service indicators in the sector.

• The PVG, usually through its chair, accepted a selectednumber of invitations to address groups on the natureof the PVG process. Such groups included the City andCounty Managers Association (CCMA), personnelmanagers/trainers within the sector, partnershipfacilitators and trade union activists.

58

ANNEX 4

ANNEX 4 59

All of the above activities were in turn reflected upon andthe outcomes progressed in a series of formal meetings heldby the PVG itself; five such formal meetings took place in2004.

Source: Local Government Sector PVG, 2005

Discussion Paper 1, Evaluating Public Expenditure Programmes:Determining A Role For Programme Review, Richard Boyle, 1997

Discussion Paper 2, The Fifth Irish Presidency of the EuropeanUnion: Some Management Lessons, Peter C. Humphreys, 1997

Discussion Paper 3, Developing An Integrated PerformanceMeasurement Framework For the Irish Civil Service, Richard Boyle,1997

Discussion Paper 4, Team-Based Working, Richard Boyle, 1997

Discussion Paper 5, The Use of Rewards in Civil ServiceManagement, Richard Boyle, 1997

Discussion Paper 6, Governance and Accountability in the CivilService, Richard Boyle, 1998

Discussion Paper 7, Improving Public Service Delivery, Peter C.Humphreys, 1998

Discussion Paper 8, The Management of Cross-Cutting Issues inthe Public Service, Richard Boyle, 1999

Discussion Paper 9, Multi-Stream Structures in the Public Service,Richard Boyle and Michelle Worth-Butler, 1999

Discussion Paper 10, Key Human Resource Management Issues inthe Irish Public Service, Peter C. Humphreys and Michelle Worth-Butler, 1999

Discussion Paper 11, Improving Public Services in Ireland: A Case-Study Approach, Peter C. Humphreys, Síle Fleming and OrlaO’Donnell, 1999

Discussion Paper 12, Regulatory Reform: Lessons fromInternational Experience, Richard Boyle, 1999

Discussion Paper 13, Service Planning in the Health Sector,Michelle Butler and Richard Boyle, 2000

Discussion Paper 14, Performance Measurement in the HealthSector, Michelle Butler, 2000

Discussion Paper 15, Performance Measurement in LocalGovernment, Richard Boyle, 2000

Discussion Paper 16, From Personnel Management to HRM: KeyIssues and Challenges, Síle Fleming, 2000

Discussion Paper 17, A New Change Agenda for the Irish PublicService, Richard Boyle and Peter C. Humphreys, 2001

Discussion Paper 18, A Review of Annual Progress Reports,Richard Boyle 2001

60

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES 61

Discussion Paper 19, The Use of Competencies in the Irish CivilService, Michelle Butler and Síle Fleming, 2002

Discussion Paper 20, Career Progression in the Irish Civil Service,Joanna O’Riordan and Peter C. Humphreys, 2002

Discussion Paper 21, Evaluation in the Irish Health Service,Michelle Butler, 2002

Discussion Paper 22, Promoting Longer-Term Policy Thinking,Richard Boyle, Joanna O’Riordan and Orla O’Donnell, 2002

Discussion Paper 23, Effective Consultation with the ExternalCustomer, Peter C. Humphreys, 2002

Discussion Paper 24, Developing an Effective Internal CustomerService Ethos, Joanna O’Riordan and Peter C. Humphreys, 2003

Discussion Paper 25, E-Government and the Decentralisation ofService Delivery, Virpi Timonen, Orla O’Donnell and Peter C.Humphreys, 2003

Discussion Paper 26, Developing a Strategic Approach to HR in theIrish Civil Service, Joanna O’Riordan, 2004

Discussion Paper 27, The Role of the Centre in Civil ServiceModernisation, Richard Boyle, 2004

Discussion Paper 28, E-Government and OrganisationDevelopment, Orla O’Donnell and Richard Boyle, 2004

Discusssion Paper 29, Civil Service Performance Indicators,Richard Boyle, 2005

Discussion Paper 30, A Review of Knowledge Management in theIrish Civil Service, Joanna O’Riordan, 2005

Discussion Paper 31, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Lessons from thePilot Exercise, Richard Boyle, 2005

Copies of the above discussion papers are available from:

Publications DivisionInstitute of Public AdministrationVergemount HallClonskeaghDublin 6.

Phone: 01 240 3600 Fax: 01 269 8644email: [email protected]

performance verification and public service pay - cpmr verification and public... · developments...

Documents