table of contents - dpme · 2019. 7. 24. · annexure 2: status report ... (refer to section 10 of...
TRANSCRIPT
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 1
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Purpose of the Guideline ................................................................................................................ 4
3. MPSA Directive Reference ............................................................................................................. 4
4. Implementation of the HoD PMDS .............................................................................................. 5
5. Process Map of HoD PMDS .......................................................................................................... 6
6. Entering into a Performance Agreement and Compliance .................................................... 7
6.1 Submission of Performance Agreements..................................................................................... 7
6.2 Developing a Performance Agreement: Employee Performance Dimension ...................... 7
6.3 Core Management Competencies ................................................................................................ 8
6.4 Work plan ........................................................................................................................................10
6.5 Personal Development Plan (Annexure C2 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs) ........13
6.6 Key Government Focus Areas (KGFA) .....................................................................................13
7. Quality Assurance Process for Performance Agreements ....................................................19
8. Reporting timeframes for the OTPs ..........................................................................................19
9. Half-Yearly Review .........................................................................................................................20
10. Annual Performance Assessment ................................................................................................20
11. Annual Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................20
12. Evaluation Panels ............................................................................................................................21
12.1 Composition of HoD Evaluation Panels, Approach and Rationale ......................................21
12.2 Role of Evaluation Panel Members .............................................................................................23
12.2.1 The Role of the Chairperson ......................................................................................................23
12.2.2 The Role of Evaluation Panellists ................................................................................................23
12.2.3 The Role of the EA ........................................................................................................................24
12.2.4 The role of the DG/HoD .............................................................................................................24
12.2.5 The Role of the Secretariat – DPME and OTPs ......................................................................24
12.3 Final Recommendation on Outcomes of Evaluation ..............................................................24
13. National HoD Evaluations Cluster Grouping ..........................................................................25
14. Dealing with Performance Disputes ..........................................................................................25
15. Structuring of evaluation sessions ..............................................................................................26
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline2
15.1 Preparation Phase ...........................................................................................................................26
15.2 Planning Phase ................................................................................................................................26
15.3 Evaluation Phase ............................................................................................................................26
15.4 Post-Evaluation Phase ....................................................................................................................27
16. Review of the Guideline on Evaluation of HoDs ....................................................................27
Tables
Table 1: Core Management Competencies ............................................................................................. 9
Table 2: Example of a KRA ........................................................................................................................10
Table 3: Work plan ......................................................................................................................................12
Table 4: Key Government Focus Areas: Supply Chain Management ...............................................14
Table 5: Key Government Focus Areas: Diversity Management and Transformation ....................15
Table 6: Key Government Focus Areas: Integrated Governance .......................................................16
Table 7: Key Government Focus Areas: International and Regional integration ............................17
Table 8: Key Government Focus Areas: Minimum Information Security standards (i.e. MISS) ....18
Table 9: Composition of National Evaluation Panel .............................................................................22
Annexure 1: Quality Assurance template ...............................................................................................28
Annexure 2: Status Report ........................................................................................................................33
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 3
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AGSA Auditor-General South Africa
CMCs Core Management Competencies
DG Director-General
DPME Department of Planning Monitoring and Evaluation
DPSA Department of Public Service and Administration
EA Executive Authority
FOSAD Forum For South African Directors General
HoD Head of Department
HoD PMDS Performance Management Development System for HoDs
KRAs Key Result Areas
MPAT Management Performance Assessment Tool
MPSA Minister for the Public Service and Administration
MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework
NT National Treasury
OTP’s Office of the Premiers
OPSC Office of the Public Service Commission
PA Performance Agreement
PMDS Performance Management and Development System
PSC Public Service Commission
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline4
1. Introduction
The Directive on the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) for Heads of Department (HoDs) issued by Ministry of Public Service and Administration necessitated the development of the new Guideline for HoD Performance Management. As the Secretariat supporting the Presidency for HoD evaluations, the DPME in consultation with DPSA, PSC and Offices of the Premiers developed the new Guideline for HoD Performance Management in support of the PMDS for HoDs. The guideline will only apply to HoDs as indicated in the schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Public Service Act.
Please note that the guideline must be read in conjunction with the Directive on PMDS for HoDs issued by the MPSA.
The Guideline is available on the DPME website at: http://www.dpme.gov.za. Any enquiries regarding the guideline should be directed to DPME to the following e-mail address: [email protected].
Enquiries from provincial departments should be directed to the relevant Offices of the Premiers.
2. Purpose of the Guideline
To ensure the implementation of the MPSA Directive on PMDS for HoDs, EAs and the Evaluation Panels.
3. MPSA Directive Reference
Please refer to the Directive on the Performance Management and Development System for Heads of Department issued by the Ministry of Public Service and Administration with regard to:
Item Policy Section
Scope Section 3
Date of commencement Section 4
HoD PMDS Framework Section 8
Timelines Section 9
HoD Performance contracting and assessments Section 10
Performance Assessments Section 12
The HoD Performance Evaluation Process Section 15
Disputes on Matters Relating to the PMDS Section 19
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 5
4. Implementation of the HoD PMDS
The DPME will be responsible for the implementation of the HoD PMDS for National Directors-General and the Directors-General from the Office of the Premier in each Province. The Provincial DGs with the support of the respective OTP will be responsible for the implementation of the HoD PMDS in their specific Province. The following section provides guidance on the completion of the different steps of the HoD PMDS.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline6
5. Process Map of HoD PMDS
The following map illustrates the entire process of the HoD PMDS. HOD P
MDS
PROCES
SPr
eper
atio
n fo
r PA
Anal
ysis o
f Pr
ogra
ms
and
inte
rven
tion
re
quired
PA C
oncl
uded
30
Apr
il
Agre
emen
t co
nclu
ded
No
agre
emen
t su
bmit d
raft
Med
iation
Late
DPM
E QA
Feed
back
30
day
s
PA A
djus
ted
Subm
it t
o DPM
E
Requ
est
MPS
A Co
ndon
atio
n w
ithi
n 30
day
s
Mid
Yea
r re
view
by
30
Nov
Late
LateAn
nual
Ass
essm
ent
by 3
1 Dec
Annu
al R
epor
t, AG
Re
port
and
oth
erChai
r DG
Pres
/DG P
rov
Eval
uation
Pa
nel:
Revi
ew
Perf
orm
ance
Ca
tego
ry
No
Resp
onse
fr
om E
A w
ithi
n 30
day
sRe
com
men
d Pe
rf C
ateg
ory
Not
agr
ee G
ive
reas
ons
EA
Agre
eBy
Mar
ch
Key
Gov
ernm
ent
Focu
s Ar
eas
20%
Audi
tor
Gen
eral
20
%
Annu
al
Perf
orm
ance
Pl
an 2
0%
Empl
oyee
pe
rfor
man
ce
40%
Rem
edie
s
Requ
est
MPS
A Co
ndon
atio
n w
ithi
n 30
day
s
DG P
res/
DG P
rov
ORG
ANIS
ATIO
NAL
PER
FORM
ANCE
Subm
it t
o DPM
E 30
Apr
ilPA
EA
DG/H
OD
No
Yes
DG/H
OD
EA
A6
6
All
DG
s/H
oDs
perf
orm
ance
agr
eem
ents
will
be
sign
ed b
y th
e M
inis
ter/
MEC
as
the
supe
rvis
or a
nd t
he P
resi
dent
/Pre
mie
r as
the
Exe
cutiv
e A
utho
rity
un
til s
uch
time
that
del
egat
ions
hav
e be
en is
sued
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 7
6. Entering into a Performance Agreement and Compliance (refer to section 10 of HoD PDMS Directive)
All DGs/HoDs are encouraged to compile their own performance agreements. The HoD PMDS process requires interaction between the EA and the HoD. The discussion should focus on the identification of the priority areas and expectations of the HoD’s leadership role. The DG in the Presidency/Province can be consulted if no agreement can be reached between the EA and the HoD. The HoD performance agreement template attached as Annexure C to the Directive on PMDS for HoDs must be completed.
6.1 Submission of Performance Agreements
All performance agreements must be submitted to the DPME on or before 30 April each year. Each OTP must submit all received performance agreements to the DPME within seven days of receipt.
6.2 Developing a Performance Agreement: Employee Performance Dimension
Employee performance dimension explain the areas in which the DG/HoD would be responsible for creating an environment to enable and ensure that these objectives are achieved.
• The EA and the DG/HoD must select key result areas (KRA) which should not be less than 4 and not exceed 10. The KRAs should indicate the DG’s/HoD’s role in achieving the mandate and strategic objectives of the department.
• The next step will be for the EA and the DG/HoD to identify the leadership interventions required for the delivery of the selected key result areas.
• In assessing the leadership interventions, consider which of the 5 Core Competencies listed in Table 1: Core Management Competencies can be applied to deliver the selected key departmental strategic objectives.
• Determine the relevant Batho Pele Principle(s) applicable to the identified customers, clients and or service delivery beneficiaries per strategic objective.
üWho is the customer, client and beneficiary of each strategic objective?
üWhat are the relevant Batho Pele Principle(s) applicable to the strategic objectives?
üWhich Batho Pele Principle(s) need(s) to be strengthened?
• There must be meaningful and relevant integration of the core competencies and the Batho Pele Principles into the Key Result Areas (KRAs).
• Outcome, impact indicators and targets should, as far as possible be included to assess progress of the KRA and to determine whether the leadership interventions are implemented.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline8
6.3 Core Management Competencies
In the application of the CMC the HoD must be able to exhibit the required competency of setting the strategic focus of the department and at this level provide the requisite leadership to senior managers in setting and achieving departmental goals.
Table 1 provides an explanation on the Core Management Competencies. For more detail please refer to Annexure B of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 9
Table 1: Core Management CompetenciesC
ore
Man
agem
ent
Com
pete
ncie
sStrategic capability
and leadership
DG: Organisational visioning and
direction setting
Programme and Project
Management
DG: Plans and organises
strategically at an organisational level
Financial Management
Change Manage
DG: Champions Change
People Management and Empowerment
DG: Lead Organisation
• Leads and take forward the development of the vision for the organisation. Aligns and cohesively articulate the vision and strategy in the context of the wider government priorities
• Understand and amalgamates environment trends on a macro level and priorities trend towards organisation
• Manage the acceptance of accountability with the organisation
• Shape the organisation culture to reflect required values, give effect to the vision and delivers results
• Consider the social contract of the Public Service and has the pursuit thereof in mind
• Translate the vision into smaller building blocks which in turn leads to the development of strategic and organisation plans which considers
• Long/medium/short terms
• Strategic plans for the proper allocation of resources which contributes to the organisation goals
• Provide the guidelines within which the finances of the organisation as a whole should be managed
• Strategically develops long term monitoring and evaluation tools in terms of financial management at an organisational level
• Sets budget guidelines for the department/organisation based on the strategic direction and objectives
• Identifies and approves partnerships and explores other avenues to achieve financial savings and improved service delivery
• Create an environment that encourages change innovation and improvement
• Identifies broad change strategies to achieve desired results. Sponsors “change agents” (responsible for the change) and creates a network of leaders who support and own the change
• Personally communicates a clear vision of the broad impact of changes. Adopts current infrastructure to change initiatives
• Alerts organisation to broad future learning needs that may affect organisational capacity
• Creates an environment where employees consistently push for improved performance and productivity
• Sets clear expectations about investments in developing employees
• Ensure that policies systems and processes are in place to support continuous learning and that they achieve the intended results
Source: DPSA SMS Competency Framework
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline10
Table 2 illustrates an example of a possible KRA with an associated work plan.
Table 2: Example of a KRA
Key Result Area/s Batho Pele Principles Weighting
To provide strategic leadership to implement the mandate of the department through change management interventions
Access to information,
Value for money,
Openness and transparency
25%
* The number of KRAs must not be less than 4 and not exceed 10 and must have a weight of between 10% to 30% (refer to 8.2.3 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs). The total weight for the Key Result Areas must add up to 100%.
6.4 Work Plan
In crafting the work plan, the following points should be considered:
Key Result Areas:
• The identified KRAs must determine how the leadership interventions will be implemented. Consider the process competencies in the implementation of the leadership interventions. Key result areas must be on a strategic level.
• The strategic areas must be identified and the leadership intervention must come through in the KRA.
• It is important that each of the KRAs, activities and indicators are crafted to ensure that it has a strategic intent and direction (DG/HoD’s role is to oversee, guide, facilitate and provide support etc.)
• The KRAs, activities and indicators should not be operational e.g. the DG/HoD will not develop reports/plans/policies but will provide strategic direction in ensuring that the operational work is undertaken.
• The KRAs must be specifically linked to the activities/outputs, indicators, resource requirements and enabling conditions.
• The KRAs in the employee performance dimension must be worded and weighted exactly the same as the work plan.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 11
Key Activities
• Determine the key activities that would result in the achievement of the KRA.
• The key activities must be clearly stated and not be broadly crafted.
• The key activities must clearly indicate the DG/HoD’s role in achieving the strategic objectives of the department.
• All the identified key activities must be weighted.
• The weighting of all the key activities for each KRA must add up to 100%. The 10% and 30% rule for KRAs do not apply to key activities (refer to 8.2.3 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs).
Indicators
• The indicators in the DG/HoD’s work plan must not include the APP targets as this is viewed as duplication between APP and the individual performance dimensions. The DG/HoD’s individual contribution towards the achievement of the departmental strategic goals/objectives must be reflected in the work plan.
• The indicators must be measurable and follow the SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound) principles.
Target Dates
• The work plan and the Key Government Focus Areas [KGFA (except the 2 pre-populated KGFAs which are Supply Chain Management (SCM) System and Diversity Management and Transformation)] must have specific target dates in order for it to be time-bound.
• The target dates for the work plan and the Key Government Focus Areas must be linked to the indicators and should not all be aligned to the end of the financial year as this does not assist in half-yearly reporting.
Resource Requirements
• It is important that this area is populated in the work plan and the KGFA’s (e.g. Human capital and financial resources, equipment, etc.).
• The resource requirements must be linked to each KRA and/or key activities.
Enabling Conditions
• These are the internal and external factors that will allow the DG/HoD to perform his/her duties (e.g. support provided by the EA, cooperation from the officials and stakeholders, etc.).
• Each identified factor must be linked to each KRA and/or key activities.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline12
Tabl
e 3:
Wor
k P
lan
Key
Res
ult A
rea
Key
Act
ivit
ies
Wei
ght(
%)1
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Res
ourc
es
Req
uire
dE
nabl
ing
Con
diti
ons
Targ
et D
ate
Indi
cato
r/Ta
rget
To p
rovi
de s
trat
egic
le
ader
ship
to
impl
emen
t th
e m
anda
te o
f the
de
part
men
t thr
ough
ch
ange
man
agem
ent
inte
rven
tions
Wei
ght
for
KR
A1
(25%
)
Ensu
re e
ffect
ive
and
effic
ient
im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he N
DP
visi
on
2030
and
the
MT
SF
2014
-19
indi
cato
rs
for
the
depa
rtm
ent
50%
31 M
arch
20…
.En
sure
tha
t 80
%
achi
evem
ent
of
MT
SF 2
014-
19
indi
cato
rs
Hum
an c
apita
l
Fina
ncia
l res
ourc
es
Buy-
in a
nd s
uppo
rt
from
the
EA
and
st
akeh
olde
rs
Cha
mpi
on t
he
chan
ge m
anag
emen
t pr
oces
s in
the
de
part
men
t to
ens
ure
the
achi
evem
ent
of t
he
MT
SF in
dica
tors
30%
31 M
ay 2
0….
Ensu
re t
hat
100%
Pe
rfor
man
ce
Agr
eem
ents
of
SMS
and
rel
evan
t em
ploy
ees
are
alig
ned
to t
he
depa
rtm
ent’s
MT
SF
indi
cato
rs
Hum
an c
apita
lPM
DS
Polic
y
30 Ju
ne 2
0….
App
rove
d ch
ange
m
anag
emen
t pl
anH
uman
cap
ital
Coo
pera
tion
of
rele
vant
offi
cial
s in
th
e de
part
men
t
Lead
the
st
akeh
olde
r en
gage
men
ts
to p
rom
ote
the
depa
rtm
ent’s
m
anda
te a
nd
cons
ult
on s
trat
egic
pr
iori
ties
20%
31 M
arch
20…
.A
ppro
ved
stak
ehol
der
enga
gem
ent
plan
co
nsul
ted
with
80%
of
rec
ipie
nts
Hum
an c
apita
l
Fina
ncia
l res
ourc
es
Buy-
in a
nd
part
icip
atio
n fr
om
stak
ehol
ders
Tota
l = 1
00%
1 W
eigh
t: th
e w
eigh
t fo
r al
l the
key
act
iviti
es in
eac
h K
RA
s m
ust
add
up t
o 10
0%
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 13
6.5 Personal Development Plan (Annexure C2 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs)
The core and process competencies as well as other developmental areas required must be identified on Annexure C (page 33 Directive on PMDS for HoDs) and the details of the interventions must be captured on Annexure C2.
6.6 Key Government Focus Areas (KGFA)
Supply Chain Management System [(Annexure C3.1 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs) (refer to Table 4)]
• This KGFA is pre-populated, the activities/outputs and indicators/targets are fixed and must not be changed. The department must capture their own baseline data (e.g. all transactions below R500K and the value of these transactions), resource requirements and enabling conditions.
Diversity Management and Transformation [(Annexure C3.2 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs) (refer to Table 5)]
• This KGFA is also pre-determined and should not be altered. The department’s baseline data must be captured (e.g. % of persons with disabilities, women in SMS positions and the youth in the department). It must be noted that targets are set dependent on the department’s baseline data.
Integrated Governance [(Annexure C3.3 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs) (refer to Table 6)]
• This KGFA must be populated based on the departmental objectives, table 6 can be used to guide departments. This area requires involvement and support of the DG/HoD in integrated work e.g FOSAD, Clusters, Programme of Action, Provincial Growth and Development Strategies, Inter-Ministerial Committees (IMC) etc. The target dates for this KGFA must be aligned to the indicators and should not only be reported at the end of the financial year. This must be avoided for all the KGFAs that need to be populated by the department. The indicators must be specific and measurable across the KGFAs.
International and Regional Integration [(Annexure C3.4 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs) (refer to Table 7)]
• This KGFA requires the DG/HoDs to populate the template. In the case of provincial departments which do not integrate internationally or regionally (NEPAD, AU, SADC or any other international bilateral agreements) the DG/HoD can omit this KFGA from their Performance Agreement. The weighting for the remaining KGFAs will therefore be 25% each.
Minimum Information Security Standards [(Annexure C3.5 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs) (refer to Table 8)]
• In this KGFA, the relevant key focus area activities/outputs, target dates, indicators/targets and baseline data must be populated. Table 8 provides some examples on how to complete this KGFA.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline14
Tabl
e 4:
Key
Gov
ernm
ent
Focu
s Are
a: S
uppl
y C
hain
Man
agem
ent
Ann
exur
e C
3.1
of th
e D
irect
ive
on P
MD
S fo
r H
oDs
mus
t be
used
as
it is
, the
HoD
onl
y ne
ed to
pop
ulat
e th
e de
part
men
t’s o
wn
base
line
data
, res
ourc
ere
quire
d an
d en
ablin
g co
nditi
ons.
Key
G
over
nmen
t Fo
cus A
reas
Key
Foc
us A
rea
Act
ivit
ies
/ Out
puts
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
sB
asel
ine
Dat
aR
esou
rce
Req
uire
dE
nabl
ing
Con
diti
onTa
rget
D
ate
Indi
cato
r / T
arge
t
Dev
elop
and
im
plem
ent
an
effe
ctiv
e an
d ef
ficie
nt s
uppl
y ch
ain
man
agem
ent
syst
em
Ensu
re t
hat
the
num
ber
of
proc
urem
ent
tran
sact
ions
are
m
anag
ed
Ann
ual
10%
red
uctio
n in
the
tot
al
num
ber
of p
rocu
rem
ent
tran
sact
ions
bel
ow R
500K
by
the
end
of t
he fi
nanc
ial y
ear
(3
1 M
arch
)
Tota
l num
ber
of
proc
urem
ent
tran
sact
ions
be
low
R50
0K
Hum
an a
nd
finan
cial
re
sour
ces
• Fi
nanc
ial m
an-
agem
ent
skill
s•
Und
erst
andi
ng
of t
he P
FMA
an
d re
leva
nt
regu
latio
nsEn
sure
tha
t th
e na
ture
of
pro
cure
men
t sp
end
is m
anag
ed
Ann
ual
10%
red
uctio
n in
the
val
ue
of p
rocu
rem
ent
spen
d un
der
R50
0K
Tota
l val
ue o
f pr
ocur
emen
t tr
ansa
ctio
ns
belo
w R
500K
Ensu
re t
hat
ther
e is
sav
ings
on
proc
urem
ent
spen
d
Ann
ual
5% s
avin
g on
ann
ual
proc
urem
ent
spen
dC
urre
nt c
ost
of s
peci
fic
good
s an
d/or
ser
vice
s
Ensu
re t
hat
proc
urem
ent
plan
ning
is
man
aged
Ann
ual
The
fina
lisat
ion
of t
ende
r aw
ards
with
in a
n av
erag
e of
60
days
from
the
dat
e bi
ds c
lose
Ave
rage
num
ber
of d
ays
to a
war
d te
nder
s
Ensu
re t
hat
SCM
ri
sk m
anag
emen
t is
pe
rfor
med
Ann
ual
Ris
k re
spon
se p
lans
for
the
top
5 SC
M r
isks
dev
elop
edR
isk
resp
onse
(m
itiga
tion)
pl
ans
Ensu
re t
hat
the
depa
rtm
ent
pays
all
com
plia
nt s
uppl
ier
invo
ices
with
in 3
0 da
ys o
f rec
eipt
of
invo
ice
Ann
ual
100%
of c
ompl
iant
sup
plie
r in
voic
es p
aid
with
in 3
0 da
ys o
f re
ceip
t of
invo
ice
Ave
rage
sup
plie
r pa
ymen
t da
ys
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 15
Tabl
e 5:
Key
Gov
ernm
ent
Focu
s Are
a: D
iver
sity
Man
agem
ent
and
Tran
sfor
mat
ion
Ann
exur
e C
3.2
of th
e D
irect
ive
on P
MD
S fo
r H
oDs
mus
t be
used
as
it is
, the
HoD
onl
y ne
ed to
pop
ulat
e th
e de
part
men
t’s o
wn
base
line
data
, res
ourc
ere
quire
d an
d en
ablin
g co
nditi
ons.
Key
G
over
nmen
t Fo
cus A
reas
Key
Foc
us A
rea
Act
ivit
ies
/ Out
puts
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
sB
asel
ine
Dat
aR
esou
rce
Req
uire
dE
nabl
ing
Con
diti
onTa
rget
D
ate
Indi
cato
r / T
arge
t
Dev
elop
and
im
plem
ent
an
effic
ient
and
ef
fect
ive
dive
rsity
m
anag
emen
t an
d tr
ansf
orm
atio
n sy
stem
Ensu
re t
hat
equi
ty t
arge
ts
are
met
50%
rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
wom
en a
t SM
S
2% r
epre
sent
atio
n of
pe
rson
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s ac
ross
all
leve
ls
Att
ract
ion
of y
outh
into
the
Pu
blic
Ser
vice
Ann
ual
At
leas
t a
1% in
crea
se in
the
re
pres
enta
tion
of p
erso
ns w
ith
disa
bilit
ies
for
depa
rtm
ents
with
re
pres
enta
tion
belo
w 1
%
At
leas
t 20
% in
crea
se in
the
re
pres
enta
tion
of w
omen
at
SMS
for
depa
rtm
ents
bel
ow 3
0%; 5
%
for
depa
rtm
ents
bet
wee
n 30
%
and
40%
and
3%
for
depa
rtm
ents
be
twee
n 41
% a
nd 4
9%
At
leas
t 30
% o
f the
sta
ff in
the
de
part
men
t is
com
pris
ed o
f you
th
Cur
rent
per
cent
age
of r
epre
sent
atio
n of
yo
uth,
per
sons
with
di
sabi
litie
s an
d fo
r w
omen
at
SMS
Hum
an a
nd
finan
cial
re
sour
ces
• K
now
ledg
e of
rel
evan
t H
uman
R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
pres
crip
ts
and
legi
sla-
tion
• Su
ppor
t fr
om E
A
Ensu
re t
hat
reas
onab
le
acco
mm
odat
ion
is p
rovi
ded
to e
mpl
oyee
s w
ith
disa
bilit
ies
and
empl
oyee
s w
ith s
mal
l chi
ldre
n
Ann
ual
Rep
ort
on t
he n
umbe
r of
wor
k re
late
d as
sist
ive
devi
ces
prov
ided
in
the
dep
artm
ent
Rep
ort
on r
easo
nabl
e ac
com
mod
atio
n m
easu
res
prov
ided
in t
he d
epar
tmen
t.
Cur
rent
sta
tus
of
prov
isio
n of
ass
istiv
e de
vice
s
Cur
rent
sta
tus
of r
easo
nabl
e ac
com
mod
atio
n m
easu
res
prov
ided
in
the
dep
artm
ent
Ensu
re t
hat
repo
rts
have
di
sagg
rega
ted
data
to
show
be
nefic
iari
es in
ter
ms
of a
ge,
race
, dis
abili
ty a
nd g
ende
r
Ann
ual
Rep
orts
with
dis
aggr
egat
ed d
ata
Cur
rent
sta
tus
of r
epor
ts in
the
de
part
men
t
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline16
Tabl
e 6:
Key
Gov
ernm
ent
Focu
s Are
as: I
nteg
rate
d G
over
nanc
e
Ann
exur
e C
3.3
of t
he D
irect
ive
on P
MD
S fo
r H
oDs
mus
t be
use
d to
cap
ture
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l and
Reg
iona
l Int
egra
tion
activ
ities
/out
puts
. T
he t
able
be
low
pro
vide
s ex
ampl
es.
Key
G
over
nmen
t Fo
cus A
reas
Key
Foc
us A
rea
Act
ivit
ies
/ Out
puts
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
sB
asel
ine
Dat
aR
esou
rce
Req
uire
dE
nabl
ing
Con
diti
onTa
rget
Dat
eIn
dica
tor
/ Tar
get
Inte
grat
ed
gove
rnan
cePa
rtic
ipat
e in
G
over
nanc
e an
d A
dmin
istr
atio
n C
lust
er
to e
nsur
e th
at it
s pr
iori
ties
are
achi
eved
31 M
arch
20
…..
Att
end
at le
ast
75%
of
the
Clu
ster
mee
tings
an
nual
ly
50%
of C
lust
er
mee
tings
att
ende
d an
nual
ly
Skill
ed h
uman
re
sour
ces
Coo
pera
tion
and
supp
ort
from
st
akeh
olde
rs
Pa
rtic
ipat
e in
FO
SAD
m
eetin
gsJu
ne a
nd N
ovem
ber
20…
Att
end
both
FO
SAD
m
eetin
gs a
nnua
lly1
FOSA
D m
eetin
g at
tend
ed
Ensu
re im
plem
enta
tion
of c
lust
er P
rogr
amm
e of
A
ctio
n (P
oA)
31 M
arch
20
…..
90 p
er c
ent
of c
lust
er
wor
k im
plem
ente
d 70
% c
lust
er w
ork
com
plet
ed
Supp
ort
the
Min
iste
r to
par
ticip
ate
in In
ter-
Min
iste
rial
Com
mitt
ee
(IMC
)
31 D
ecem
ber
20 …
.5
qual
ity b
riefi
ng
note
s de
velo
ped
on
time
3 qu
ality
bri
efing
no
tes
deve
lope
d on
tim
e28
Feb
ruar
y 20
….
Part
icip
ate
in 7
5% o
f Te
chni
cal T
ask
Team
s A
ctiv
ely
part
icip
ated
in
45%
of T
echn
ical
Ta
sk T
eam
s
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 17
Tabl
e 7:
Key
Gov
ernm
ent
Focu
s Are
as: I
nter
nati
onal
and
Reg
iona
l Int
egra
tion
Ann
exur
e C
3.4
of t
he D
irect
ive
on P
MD
S fo
r H
oDs
mus
t be
use
d to
cap
ture
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l and
Reg
iona
l Int
egra
tion
activ
ities
/out
puts
. T
he t
able
be
low
pro
vide
s ex
ampl
es.
Key
G
over
nmen
t Fo
cus A
reas
Key
Foc
us A
rea
Act
ivit
ies
/ Out
puts
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
sB
asel
ine
Dat
aR
esou
rce
Req
uire
dE
nabl
ing
Con
diti
onTa
rget
Dat
eIn
dica
tor
/ Tar
get
Inte
rnat
iona
l an
d R
egio
nal
inte
grat
ion
Faci
litat
e th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent
of
inte
rnat
iona
l and
reg
iona
l ag
reem
ents
30 A
pril
20 …
.3
sign
ed a
gree
men
ts
1 si
gned
agr
eem
ent
Fina
ncia
l an
d hu
man
re
sour
ces
Coo
pera
tion
and
supp
ort
from
re
gion
al a
nd
inte
rnat
iona
l st
akeh
olde
rsC
oncl
ude
and
impl
emen
t bi
late
ral a
gree
men
ts t
o su
ppor
t th
e A
U in
the
20
63 a
gend
a
30 S
epte
mbe
r 20
….
15 Ja
nuar
y 20
….
Act
ivel
y pa
rtic
ipat
e in
3
AU
For
a to
ado
pt
com
mon
app
roac
hes
Part
icip
ated
in 2
AU
Fo
ra
Coo
rdin
ate
the
deve
lopm
ent
of t
he N
ew
Part
ners
hip
for A
fric
a D
evel
opm
ent
(NEP
AD
) fr
amew
ork
31 Ju
ly 2
0 …
.A
dra
ft N
EPA
D
fram
ewor
k co
nclu
ded
by r
elev
ant
depa
rtm
ents
and
co
untr
ies
Non
e
Faci
litat
e th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent
and
func
tioni
ng o
f the
Join
t C
omm
issi
on b
etw
een
the
Rep
ublic
of S
outh
A
fric
a an
d th
e R
epub
lic
of Z
imba
bwe
30 Ju
ne 2
0 …
.O
ne M
oU s
igne
d N
one
30 N
ovem
ber
20 …
.Pa
rtic
ipat
e in
4
tech
nica
l Com
mitt
ee
Fora
bet
wee
n tw
o co
untr
ies
Non
e
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline18
Tab
le 8
: Key
Gov
ernm
ent
Focu
s Are
a: M
inim
um In
form
atio
n Se
curi
ty S
tand
ards
(i.e
. MIS
S)
Ann
exur
e C
3.5
of t
he D
irect
ive
on P
MD
S fo
r H
oDs
mus
t be
use
d to
cap
ture
the
MIS
S ac
tiviti
es/o
utpu
ts. T
he t
able
bel
ow p
rovi
des
exam
ples
.
Key
G
over
nmen
t Fo
cus A
reas
Key
Foc
us A
rea
Act
ivit
ies
/ Out
puts
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
sB
asel
ine
Dat
aR
esou
rce
Req
uire
dE
nabl
ing
Con
diti
onTa
rget
Dat
eIn
dica
tor
/ Tar
get
MIS
SPr
ovid
e gu
idan
ce t
o m
anag
e
info
rmat
ion
and
secu
rity
of
the
dep
artm
ent
at a
ll tim
es t
o st
reng
then
sec
urity
sy
stem
s in
the
dep
artm
ent
31 A
ugus
t 20
…En
sure
tha
t th
ere
is
a fu
lly o
pera
tiona
l bi
omet
ric
secu
rity
sy
stem
rea
dy fo
r us
e
Man
ual s
ecur
ity
syst
em in
pla
ceH
uman
and
fin
anci
al
reso
urce
s
Con
duci
ve
envi
ronm
ent
Ensu
re t
hat
a se
curi
ty
thre
at a
nd r
isk
asse
ssm
ent
is c
ondu
cted
for
the
depa
rtm
ent
30 S
epte
mbe
r 20
…
Ove
rsee
tha
t 3
secu
rity
thr
eats
and
ri
sk a
sses
smen
ts a
re
cond
ucte
d
2 se
curi
ty t
hrea
ts
and
risk
con
duct
ed
Ensu
re t
he a
ppro
val a
nd
impl
emen
tatio
n of
an
inte
rnal
se
curi
ty p
olic
y
30 Ju
ne 2
0 …
Inte
rnal
sec
urity
po
licy
appr
oved
and
im
plem
ente
d
Dra
ft po
licy
Ove
rsee
tha
t st
aff m
embe
rs
wor
king
with
con
fiden
tial
info
rmat
ion
are
vett
ed
End
of 4
th q
uart
erO
vers
ee t
hat
100%
of
sta
ff w
orki
ng w
ith
confi
dent
ial i
nfor
mat
ion
are
vett
ed a
nd n
ewly
ap
poin
ted
offic
ials
are
ve
tted
with
in 6
mon
ths
41%
of o
ffici
als
in
the
depa
rtm
ent
wor
king
with
co
nfide
ntia
l in
form
atio
n ar
e ve
tted
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 19
7. Quality Assurance Process for Performance Agreements
In the compliance and quality assurance phase the following will be assessed:
• Annexure C (cover page and PA) must be completed together with the work plan (C1) the Personal Development Plan (C2) and the KGFAs (C3.1 – 3.5).
• The perfomance agreement must be signed, dated and all pages (including the work plan) must be initialled by both the Executive Authority (EA) and the Head of Department (HoD).
• Signatories must adhere to the signing and submission compliance requirements.
• After a copy of the HoD’s performance agreement is submitted to the DPME and the OTP, a quality assurance process will be undertaken by the DPME and relevant OTPs.
• The performance agreements of the DGs/HoDs in Provinces must be submitted to the DPME and the relevant OTPs on or before 30 April of each year. The DPME and OTPs will conduct quality assurance of the DGs/HoDs’ performance agreements and provide feedback by 31 May each year.
• If amendments are required, the performance agreement must be revised, initialled, signed and re-submitted to DPME and the OTPs within 30 days of receipt.
• If amendments were not considered by the DG/HoD reasons for non-consideration must be provided using the quality assurance template (see Annexure 1) and must be submitted to the DPME within 30 days from receipt of the feedback.
8. Reporting timeframes for the OTPs
All OTPs are required to submit the following reports to the DPME:
• OTPs must submit the completed checklist for each performance agreement received and a report on the status of compliance as well as the quality assurance findings to DPME by 7 June of each year.
• Half-yearly reviews received from HoDs in the Province as well as a status report due on or before 7 December annually. (Refer to Annexure 2)
• Annual assessments received from HoDs in the Province as well as a status report due on or before 15 January annually. (Refer to Annexure 2)
• Report on the final outcome of evaluations conducted, due on or before 30 April annually.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline20
9. Half-Yearly Review
According to the Directive on PMDS for HoDs issued by MPSA, the half-yearly review must be finalised between 1 September and 30 November each year and the result must be captured on Annexure F of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs. Once completed, the half-yearly review must be filed with the DPME on or before the 30 November each year. A specific date for the half-yearly review must be indicated on the cover page of the DG/HoD’s performance agreement. The DG/HoD will be assessed by the EA on the employee performance dimension and the KGFAs at the half-yearly review. Highly effective performance requires evidence which must be provided together with the half-yearly review.
10. Annual Performance Assessment
The Directive on PMDS for HoDs issued by MPSA indicates that the annual performance assessment must be conducted and the performance outcomes be captured on Annexure G (Directive on PMDS for HoDs) and submitted to DPME/OTP on or before the 31 December each year. The specific date for the DG/HoD’s annual performance assessment must be captured on the cover page of the Performance Agreement. The EA will conduct the annual performance assessment with the DG/HoD and assess the employee performance dimension as well as the KGFAs for the period under review. Discussion between the EA and the DG/HoD on the Auditor-General dimension and the organisational performance (APP) must be provided together with a motivation to the DPME/OTP.
11. Annual Evaluation
It is the responsibility of the department to provide the DPME/OTP with the required documents (as indicated below) in preparation for the annual evaluation sessions. All the documents below must be submitted to the DPME and the relevant OTPs by 31 October of each year if it was not previously provided. These documents will assist the evaluation panel to engage and contextualise in preparation for the HoD’s performance evaluation. The principles of consistency, openness and fairness must be adhered to in the utilisation of additional information. If the DG/HoD has less than 12 months in the post he/she would still be assessed and the evaluation panel would take into account, the period of service when evaluating their performance category. The Secretariat will analyse and summarise these documents in preparation for the evaluation sessions. If the relevant documentation is not received within the stipulated timeframe the DG/HoD cannot be evaluated.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 21
• Performance Agreement.
• Half-yearly Performance Review with the completed HoD PMDS calculator.
• Annual Performance Assessment with the completed HoD PMDS calculator.
• Annual Performance Plan.
• Annual Report including the Auditor-General’s opinion.
• Data on the actual performance must be provided for all the KGFAs.
• Any other pertinent or relevant documentation/evidence.
12. Evaluation Panels
12.1 Composition of HoD Evaluation Panels, Approach and Rationale
For national Heads of Department, the Cluster Grouping approach has been adopted in order for the HoD Evaluation process to be conducted by relevant members within a Cluster. For example, the evaluation of DGs falling within the Infrastructure Development Cluster will be grouped together and consist of the relevant panel members. In order to expedite performance evaluations, block meetings per cluster will be arranged.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline22
Table 9: Composition of National Evaluation Panel
National DGs Evaluation Panel (Excluding the DG in the Presidency) and CEOs of Schedule 3 departments
The Chairperson (DG in the Presidency/Minister in the Presidency)
Option 1 (Peers) Option 2 (Hybrid) Option 3 (Executive)
• 3 DGs from other national departments including the Cluster Chairperson
• DGs and EAs • 3 EAs
Provincial HoD Evaluation PanelThe Chairperson (DG in the Province/Premier)
Option 1 (Peers) Option 2 (Hybrid) Option 3 (Executive)
• 3 other HoDs from the same Province
• HoDs and EAs from the same Province
• EAs from the same Province
Evaluation panel for the DG in the Presidency and Provincial DGsthe Chairperson (PSC)
Option 1 (PSC) Option 2 (Hybrid) Option 3 (Executive)
• PSC Chairperson and/or Commissioners
• DGs from other Provinces
• Peer DGs from other Provinces
• EAs
• 3 EAs (National or Provincial)
• The DG who will be evaluated is given the opportunity to address the panel on his/her performance.
• The EA, if he/she so desires may also address the panel.
• Additional members may be invited and could comprise of experts in the different fields e.g. Infrastructure, Social Development and Economic Sectors.
• Additional members can be: National and other Provincial HoDs, Provincial Commissioners (Planning Commission, PSC and other Commissions), leaders from Business, Civil Society or NGOs, Portfolio Committee members, etc.
• Number of panellists should not exceed five.
• The panellists should be familiar with the work of the department.
• When members of the evaluation panel are to be evaluated, they will be replaced by another HoD/DG.
• All HoDs in the Province will be evaluated on the same day whilst the cluster approach will be used for national DGs. The evaluation for national DGs will take place over a number of sessions.
• The panellists should avoid canceling the evaluation sessions as this would lead to delays in finalising the evaluation process.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 23
12.2 Role of Evaluation Panel Members
12.2.1 The Role of the Chairperson
• Appoint the evaluation panel members who will evaluate the relevant HoD’s performance (with support from the relevant secretariat).
• Preside over and Chair all the HoD evaluation panel meetings.
• Address principles of rigor, objectivity, confidentiality and conflict of interest.
• Direct the discussions and maintain formal meeting protocol during the meetings.
• Present the recommendations of the evaluation panel to the relevant EAs once the deliberations have been finalised.
• Ensure consistency in the application of performance evaluation panel procedures.
• Strengthen oversight and monitor, together with the rest of the panel, whether HoDs are performing effectively and are adhering to relevant norms and standards.
• Facilitate better co-ordination, identify service delivery challenges and find solutions to these.
• Intervene where there are blockages or challenges during the performance evaluation process.
12.2.2 The Role of Evaluation Panellists
• They must be familiar with the content of the evaluation panel documents prior to the evaluation sessions.
• Acquaint themselves with the content of individual and organisational evaluation for the applicable department.
• Must be objective and strive to formulate advice based on evidence and facts.
• Strive to reach consensus at the meeting on the level of performance of the HoD regarding each performance aspect and where necessary, recommend improvement.
• The members of the evaluation panel must consider all aspects including the individual employee performance dimension, among others, when making recommendations on the outcome of the HoD’s performance.
• Advise the Chairperson of the evaluation panel on the outcome of the performance of the HoDs.
• All evaluation panel members must, once the performance outcome recommendation has been produced and approved by all panel members, sign the relevant evaluation documentation before the meeting is adjourned.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline24
12.2.3 The Role of the EA
• To facilitate performance discussion with the DG/HoD in their department and sign the relevant documentation.
• Once panel feedback is provided, the EA has 30 days to respond to the Chairperson of the evaluation panel regarding the final decision on the DG/HoD’s performance.
• To ensure that feedback is provided to the DG/HoD seven days after the final decision has been made and submitted to the chairperson of the evaluation panel.
12.2.4 The Role of the DG/HoD
• To facilitate the submission of all evaluation documentation to the DPME timeously.
• To ensure that all relevant documentation submitted to the DPME are completed and signed by both parties.
• If there are pre-identified questions relating to his/her performance the DG/HoD must respond prior to the evaluation session.
• To avail himself/herself on the day of the evaluation session.
12.2.5 The Role of the Secretariat – DPME and OTPs
Refer to section 20.4 and 20.5 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs issued by the MPSA.
• Analyse and summarise the performance assessment documents for ease of reference for the panellists.
• All documentation relevant for the evaluation session must reach the panellists five days prior to the evaluation session.
• Act as secretariat during the evaluation sessions.
• Ensure that the documentation from the panel sessions reach the relevant EA for final decision.
12.3 Final Recommendation on Outcomes of Evaluation
The panel will consider whether the finalised annual assessment between the EA and the DG/HoD accurately reflect the performance of the DG/HoD using the supporting documents. Mitigating factors will be considered, for example, DG’s who improved the audit outcomes from a low baseline, where the employee performance rating is high and the departmental performance is low due to historical reasons. In consideration of the mitigation factors, the panel can recommend a different performance category for the HoD.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 25
13. National HoD Evaluations Cluster Grouping
No Cluster Group
1 Infrastructure Development Communications, Public Enterprises, Environmental Affairs, Energy, Human Settlements, Public Works, Transport, Telecommunications and Postal Services, Government Printing Works
2 Economic Sector & Employment
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries, Economic Development, Mineral Resources, Rural Development & Land Reform, Tourism, National Treasury, Labour, Science & Technology, Trade & Industry, International Relations & Cooperation, Small Business Development, Public Enterprises, Government Pensions Administration Agency, Government Technical Advisory Centre
3 Governance & Administration
Justice & Constitutional Development, Public Service & Administration, The Presidency, Planning Monitoring and Evaluation, Public Service Commission, The National School of Government, Statistics South Africa, Centre for Public Service Innovation, Office of the Chief Justice.
4 Human Development Arts & Culture, Health, Sport & Recreation, Basic Education, Higher Education & Training
5 Social Protection Community Development
Cooperative Governance, Traditional Affairs, Social Development, Women, Water & Sanitation, Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency
6 Justice, Crime & Security Correctional Services, Defence, Military Veterans, Home Affairs, Police, State Security, Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Civilian Secretariat for Police, South African Police Services
14. Dealing with Performance Disputes
Please refer to Section 19 of the Directive on PMDS for HoDs issued by the MPSA.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline26
15. Structuring of Evaluation Sessions
15.1 Preparation Phase
Each Secretariat has an important role in ensuring that the relevant evidence has been collated timeously, checked/verified, analysed and summarised for each DG/HoD. It is imperative that departments submit all relevant documents by end of October each year. The Secretariat must provide the requisite support to the Chairperson of the relevant evaluation panel who plays a significant role during the evaluation of the HoDs. It is, therefore, essential that the Chairperson be well-prepared for evaluation panel meetings and ensure the same for their fellow panel members. The evaluation of a HoD will be based on performance documents received and desktop analysis by the Secretariat. The relevant HoD being evaluated could be requested to present information to clarify his/her performance.
15.2 Planning Phase
The relevant Chairperson formally communicates with the evaluation panel members and forwards the necessary documentation via the Secretariat to the panellists.
Chairpersons should request panel members to go through the documentation and prepare questions for clarification to be directed to the relevant EA and HoD. Where possible, these questions should be forwarded to the Secretariat at least two weeks before the panel meeting. Questions may also be raised during the evaluation panel meeting and should be directed to the DG/HoD being assessed.
In the event that consensus cannot be reached on the recommendation of performance outcomes, a majority rule applies, however minority position must be indicated. The Chairperson should, at all times endeavor to achieve consensus.
The Chairperson is responsible for summarising the findings of the evaluation panel to ensure that all relevant facts are included in the minutes taken by the Secretariat.
15.3 Evaluation Phase
The Chairperson will be responsible for structuring the evaluation sessions. Evaluation panel members should set aside a maximum of two hours for the evaluation of each HoD. The EA is welcome to address the panel. If the HoD being evaluated cannot attend any evaluation session, the HoD will be given at most two opportunities to be evaluated, failing which the assessment will be finalised in their absence.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 27
The agenda for an evaluation meeting could be structured as follows:
1. Welcome and introductions.
2. Discussion of process/purpose.
3. Written or recorded overview by the EA outlining key achievements by their Department and the relevant DG/HoD. This must include employee performance dimension, APP achievements, all the KGFAs and the AG results.
4. Overview by the DG/HoD and response to pre-identified questions (At this point the DG/HoD being evaluated will be released).
5. Evaluation deliberations commence until a final decision on the performance ratings are agreed upon by the panel members as well as feedback on the areas for improvement for the DG/HoD.
6. Closure.
15.4 Post-Evaluation Phase
1. The recommendation of the panel will be conveyed in writing by the Chairperson to the EA. Should the EA have any queries regarding the recommendation of the panel this must be directed to the Chairperson.
2. The relevant EA will be required to respond to the panel within 30 days. If no response is received, it will be regarded that the relevant EA concurs with the recommendation of the panel. This will then become the final result and must be communicated by the EA to the DG/HoD within seven days.
16. Review of the Guideline on Evaluation of HoDs
This Guideline will be reviewed on a periodic basis and changes will be effected where necessary.
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline28
Ann
exur
e 1:
Qua
lity
Ass
uran
ce t
empl
ate
QU
ALI
TY
ASS
UR
AN
CE
FE
ED
BA
CK
ON
DG
/HoD
PE
RFO
RM
AN
CE
AG
RE
EM
EN
T
Nam
e of
DG
/HoD
Nam
e of
Dep
artm
ent
Nat
iona
l/Pro
vinc
e
Perf
orm
ance
cyc
le
Ent
erin
g in
to a
Per
form
ance
Agr
eem
ent
Com
plia
nce
area
Yes/
No
If n
o - p
leas
e pr
ovid
e re
ason
s an
d ac
tion
pla
n
Dat
e of
co
mm
unic
atio
n of
rea
sons
th
ereo
f wit
h D
PM
E/O
TP
Feed
back
by
DP
ME
/OT
P t
o de
part
men
ts
Res
pons
e by
dep
artm
ents
on
set
ti
me-
fram
es
Agr
ee w
ith
reco
mm
enda
tion
s D
isag
ree
wit
h re
com
men
dati
ons
– P
rovi
de R
easo
nsa)
T
he E
A a
nd th
e H
oD e
nter
ed in
to
a Pe
rfor
man
ce A
gree
men
t (P
A)
on o
r be
fore
30
Apr
il an
nual
lyb)
T
he P
A w
as fi
led
with
the
DPM
E/re
leva
nt O
ffice
of
the
Prem
ier
by
the
30 A
pril
annu
ally
c)
PA t
empl
ates
(C
1 –
C3.
5) w
ere
popu
late
d fo
r en
teri
ng
into
a
perf
orm
ance
con
trac
td)
PA
was
sig
ned,
dat
ed a
nd a
ll pa
ges
wer
e in
itial
ed b
y bo
th p
artie
se)
H
alf-y
ear
and
annu
al a
sses
smen
t da
tes
wer
e pr
ovid
ed
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 29
Com
plia
nce
area
Yes/
No
If n
o - p
leas
e pr
ovid
e re
ason
s an
d ac
tion
pla
n
Dat
e of
co
mm
unic
atio
n of
rea
sons
th
ereo
f wit
h D
PM
E/O
TP
Feed
back
by
DP
ME
/OT
P t
o de
part
men
ts
Res
pons
e by
dep
artm
ents
on
set
ti
me-
fram
es
Agr
ee w
ith
reco
mm
enda
tion
s D
isag
ree
wit
h re
com
men
dati
ons
– P
rovi
de R
easo
nsE
mpl
oyee
dim
ensi
on
f) T
here
are
bet
wee
n 4
and
10 K
RA
sg)
Ea
ch
KR
A
was
al
loca
ted
a w
eigh
ting
of n
ot le
ss th
an 1
0% a
nd
not
mor
e th
an 3
0%h)
T
he w
eigh
ting
of t
he K
RA
s ad
ds
up t
o 10
0%i)
The
K
RA
s re
flect
st
rate
gic
dire
ctio
n/ro
le t
o be
pro
vide
d by
th
e D
G/H
oDj)
The
K
RA
s w
ere
linke
d to
th
e re
leva
nt B
atho
Pel
e Pr
inci
ples
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline30
Com
plia
nce
area
Yes/
No
If n
o - p
leas
e pr
ovid
e re
ason
s an
d ac
tion
pla
n
Dat
e of
co
mm
unic
atio
n of
rea
sons
th
ereo
f wit
h D
PM
E/O
TP
Feed
back
by
DP
ME
/OT
P t
o de
part
men
ts
Res
pons
e by
dep
artm
ents
on
set
ti
me-
fram
es
Agr
ee w
ith
reco
mm
enda
tion
s D
isag
ree
wit
h re
com
men
dati
ons
– P
rovi
de R
easo
ns(K
GFA
s:Su
pply
Cha
in M
anag
emen
t Sy
stem
(C
3.1)
- 20
%
k)
Pre-
popu
late
d in
form
atio
n fr
om
HoD
D
irect
ive
mus
t be
us
ed
for
the
KG
FA. H
ave
the
base
line
data
, re
sour
ce
requ
irem
ents
an
d en
ablin
g co
nditi
ons
been
po
pula
ted
for
the
depa
rtm
ent
Div
ersi
ty M
anag
emen
t an
d Tr
ansf
orm
atio
n (
C3.
2) -
20%
l)
Pre-
popu
late
d in
form
atio
n fr
om
HoD
D
irect
ive
mus
t be
us
ed
for
the
KG
FA. H
ave
the
base
line
data
, re
sour
ce
requ
irem
ents
an
d en
ablin
g co
nditi
ons
been
po
pula
ted
for
the
depa
rtm
ent
Inte
grat
ed g
over
nanc
e (
C3.
3) –
20%
m
) H
as t
he K
GFA
sho
wn
how
the
H
oD w
ill c
ontr
ibut
e an
d in
tegr
ate
the
wor
k of
the
dep
artm
ent
with
th
at o
f the
rel
evan
t cl
uste
rs
Inte
rnat
iona
l and
reg
iona
l int
egra
tion
(C
3.4)
- 20
%n)
H
as t
he K
GFA
sho
wn
how
the
H
oD w
ill c
ontr
ibut
e an
d in
tegr
ate
the
wor
k of
the
dep
artm
ent
with
re
leva
nt in
tern
atio
nal a
nd r
egio
nal
inst
itutio
ns?
If
the
depa
rtm
ent
is
not
invo
lved
in
Inte
rnat
iona
l an
d re
gion
al w
ork,
this
KG
FA c
an b
e om
itted
and
the
wei
ghtin
gs w
ill
chan
ge t
o 25
% fo
r ea
ch K
GFA
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 31
Com
plia
nce
area
Yes/
No
If n
o - p
leas
e pr
ovid
e re
ason
s an
d ac
tion
pla
n
Dat
e of
co
mm
unic
atio
n of
rea
sons
th
ereo
f wit
h D
PM
E/O
TP
Feed
back
by
DP
ME
/OT
P t
o de
part
men
ts
Res
pons
e by
dep
artm
ents
on
set
ti
me-
fram
es
Agr
ee w
ith
reco
mm
enda
tion
s D
isag
ree
wit
h re
com
men
dati
ons
– P
rovi
de R
easo
nsM
inim
um In
form
atio
n Se
curi
ty S
tand
ards
(M
ISS)
(C
3.5)
– 2
0%o)
H
as t
he K
GFA
sho
wn
how
the
H
oD
will
m
anag
e in
form
atio
n an
d se
curi
ty o
f the
dep
artm
ent
as
defin
ed i
n th
e M
ISS
func
tions
in
the
depa
rtm
ent?
Wor
kpla
n p)
T
he w
ordi
ng a
nd se
quen
cing
of t
he
KR
As
are
copi
ed e
xact
ly th
e sa
me
as
the
empl
oyee
pe
rfor
man
ce
dim
ensi
on
q)
Each
K
RA
is
cl
earl
y lin
ked
to
key
activ
ities
, pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
men
t, re
sour
ce r
equi
red
and
enab
ling
cond
ition
sr)
Ea
ch k
ey a
ctiv
ity f
or a
KR
A m
ust
be w
eigh
ted
s)
T
he
tota
l w
eigh
ting
of
the
key
activ
ities
for
eac
h K
RA
mus
t ad
d up
to
100%
. The
10%
to
30%
do
not
appl
y w
ith t
he w
eigh
ting
of
the
key
activ
ities
t)
Each
key
act
ivity
is
mea
sura
ble,
sp
ecifi
c, ac
tion
orie
nted
, re
alis
tic
and
time-
boun
d
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline32
Com
plia
nce
area
Yes/
No
If n
o - p
leas
e pr
ovid
e re
ason
s an
d ac
tion
pla
n
Dat
e of
co
mm
unic
atio
n of
rea
sons
th
ereo
f wit
h D
PM
E/O
TP
Feed
back
by
DP
ME
/OT
P t
o de
part
men
ts
Res
pons
e by
dep
artm
ents
on
set
ti
me-
fram
es
Agr
ee w
ith
reco
mm
enda
tion
s D
isag
ree
wit
h re
com
men
dati
ons
– P
rovi
de R
easo
nsPe
rson
al D
evel
opm
ent
Pla
nu)
T
he c
ore,
pro
cess
com
pete
ncie
s an
d ot
her
deve
lopm
enta
l ar
eas
have
bee
n id
entifi
ed a
nd c
aptu
red
in t
he P
A
Com
men
ts
____
____
____
____
____
____
__
____
____
____
____
____
____
__
Sign
atur
e of
DG
/HoD
Sign
atur
e of
Exe
cutiv
e A
utho
rity
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 33
Ann
exur
e 2:
Sta
tus
Rep
ort
RE
PO
RT O
N T
HE
SU
BM
ISSI
ON
OF
HA
LF-Y
EA
RLY
RE
VIE
WS
AN
D A
NN
UA
L A
SSE
SSM
EN
TS
NA
ME
OF
HO
DD
EPA
RTM
EN
T
RA
TIN
GS
%
OB
TAIN
ED
DA
TE
R
EC
EIV
ED
RE
ASO
NS
FOR
N
ON
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
WIT
H H
ALF
-YE
AR
LY
RE
VIE
WS
HO
DE
AA
GR
EE
D
RA
TIN
G
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline34
Notes
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline 35
Notes
Heads of Department Performance Management Guideline36
Notes