Over 1100 delegates attend one day workshop
Cabinet Secretary Shri K. M. Chandrasekhar has said that Results-Framework Document (RFD) policy is a positive policy to help achieve greater heights. He informed that the RFD policy covers not only the 62 departments and ministries of the Central Government, but also 760 responsibility centres attached to these departments. He added that many State Governments have also shown interest in adopting this policy. In fact, Governments of Maharashtra and Punjab have already taken steps to implement RFD policy at the state level.
Cabinet Secretary spoke while inaugurating a workshop on Results Framework Document (an instrument for improving performance of government) here today. The workshop organised by Cabinet Secretariat, was attended by over 1100 delegates from different responsibility centres from different parts of the country under various Ministries/Departments of the Government.
Following is the text of Cabinet Secretary’s address on the occasion:
“This workshop on Results-Framework Document, or RFD, is an important milestone in our journey towards achieving our vision of a government that works better and costs less. It is indeed remarkable how far we have travelled on this path in pursuit of this vision. Today the RFD policy covers not only the 62 departments and ministries of the Central Government, but also 760 responsibility centres attached to these departments.
You will hear about the details of the RFD policy from various experts throughout the day. However, I want to speak about a few general points that we need to keep in mind while striving for a change in the way we conduct our business in the Government. In particular, today I want to share my thoughts with you on the following three broad issues:
1. Why has the RFD policy spread so widely and so fast among Central Government organizations?
2. What is at stake and why is the RFD policy important for the nation?
3. Is this policy enough? If not what other complementary steps are required?
Let me start with the issue of rapid and effective implementation of the RFD policy. As many of you may be aware, the origins of this policy can be traced to the speech of the Hon’ble President of India to the Parliament in June 2009. In this speech Hon’ble President said that the Government of India will initiate steps within the next hundred days towards “Establishing mechanisms for performance monitoring and performance evaluation in government on a regular basis.”
As promised, within the stipulated hundred day deadline, the Hon’ble Prime Minister announced the details of the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System on September 11, 2009. In the first phase of implementation 59 departments and ministries were covered for the year 2009-2010. The second phase of the policy included 62 departments for the year 2010-2010. In 2011-2012, some 760 responsibility centres attached to various Central Government departments will be covered by the policy. The main reason for organizing this workshop is, in fact, to assist these responsibility centres with the development of their organizational RFDs.
I am also happy to note that many State Governments have also shown interest in adopting this policy. In fact, Governments of Maharashtra and Punjab have already taken steps to implement RFD policy at the state level.
There are many reasons that explain the rapid adoption of this policy. These would include Prime Minister’s leadership and clear directions in this regard; leadership of Secretaries of the 62 departments and ministries; and a cadre of dedicated and enthusiastic civil servants that are ready to go beyond the call of duty to do the right thing. However, the pristine simplicity of the concept has to be also one the main reasons for this widespread adoption of the RFD policy.
The essence of the RFD policy is captured succinctly in the phrase: “What gets measured gets done.” Development of RFD is based on answers to three simple questions: First, RFD seeks to know what are the organizations key objectives? Second, what actions the department proposes to achieve these objectives? Finally, how do we measure progress in implementing these actions? The answers to these questions constitute the core of the RFD.
RFD is a positive and not negative instrument for intention is not to find fault but to help all of us to achieve greater heights and thus enjoy whatever we are doing a great deal more. The objectives are fixed by you and the results are evaluated by you. So far as Ministries are concerned, Ministries approve the objectives and RFD helps them to evaluate how well the Departments under their control have worked. We start with the basic premise that we are committed to service delivery of the highest standards.
In launching the Results-Framework Document policy we are not alone. Rather, we are part of a distinct global trend in public management of a clear movement away from the so called “Administrator Model” to the “Management Model.” The Management Model represents an internal culture of making managers manage, as opposed to the Administrative Model which values compliance to pre-determined rules and regulations. It requires the managers to assume greater responsibility while at the same time, giving them greater operational freedom and holding them accountable for results. Many countries, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom, the United States and Finland, have made significant progress using such techniques with New Zealand being clearly the leader of this pack.
Finally, we have to also acknowledge the fact that we have learnt a great deal from implementing a similar policy in the public enterprise sector. The policy of Memorandum of Understanding or MOU in our public sector was the precursor of this RFD policy. The experience of designing and implementing MOUs in public sector has made the task of designing and implementing RFDs in Government much easier.
Now I turn to the importance of the RFD policy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that no civilized society can function effectively without an effective government. This statement was as true for Chanakya in the 3rd Century BC and for Sher Shah Suri in the 16th century AD as it is for us today.
All countries use government as a mechanism to provide services that benefit all citizens: police, judicial services, national defense, and municipal services. Government also serves as a means of making some of the most important collective decisions such as the nature of the health system, education system, water and sewage system, roads and highways system. Given this pervasive nature of government, its performance has a direct bearing on the welfare of citizens.
Our work on performance management is inspired by our belief that returns from improving effectiveness of the government are immense. Further, we believe that the majority of these benefits will accrue to the socially and economically weaker sections of our society. Hence, we do not believe that there is a trade-off between efficiency and equity in this area. Extra effort spent on improving government efficiency is likely to do more good on the margin than spending more money on a program that does not work effectively.
We seek to create a government that not only does the right things but does them right, that is, more efficiently and effectively. Enhanced government effectiveness not only affects the welfare of citizens in the short run but also in the long-run. In the increasingly globalized world, government effectiveness is the key determinant of a country’s competitive advantage. Experts agree that in the long run, the race among nations will be won or lost not on the basis of comparative advantage arising from resource endowment, but by the competitive advantage created by effective governments.
Finally, I turn to the third broad question I raised at the beginning: Is this policy enough? If not what other complementary steps are required to achieve our goal?
Let me suggest that our ability to deliver promised results is a necessary condition for improving the perception of a Government, but it cannot be considered a sufficient one. Citizens also expect that results should be delivered with courtesy and in a timely fashion. Further, if citizens have a grievance, they expect a satisfactory response. Above all, they expect us to conduct ourselves in manner that is consistent with the highest standards of public service code of conduct.
Recognizing this reality, the Results-Framework Documents (RFDs) for 2010-2011, include a set of mandatory success indicators to measure effective design and implementation of Citizen’s Charters and Grievance Redress Mechanisms. I see from the agenda that both of these instruments will be discussed in detail and hence I shall not dwell on them at length. Suffice is to say that Citizen’s Charter outlines the service standards to which all citizens are entitled. Similarly, Grievance Redress Mechanism outlines a transparent and effective system of grievance redress for citizens.
Also, a complete system for performance management in government should consist of three interrelated systems: (a) Performance Information System; (b) Performance Evaluation System and (c) Performance Incentive System. Let me describe each of these three subsystems briefly.
Without proper information regarding the activities of the government departments and agencies, it is impossible to even begin to evaluate performance, much less improve performance. However, an adequate performance information system does not imply collection of huge amounts of data. A thoughtfully designed information system allows evaluators timely access to necessary information in an appropriate format. Often, a properly designed system reduces the data overload on agencies. When evaluators are not sure about what matters most, they tend to collect as much information as they can to insure against the risk of not having the necessary data when required.
Once we have the necessary information, it is possible to design an effective evaluation system. Availability of data, however, does not automatically guarantee a sound evaluation system. As we will see later, many of the existing evaluation systems in India are conceptually flawed. Hence, no amount of success in gathering information can allow us to manage performance effectively. Civil servants, like most other people, respond to incentives. No matter how sophisticated an information and evaluation system you may design, if you do not link the evaluation of government departments to the welfare of the government managers, you cannot expect to improve the performance of government departments. I hasten to add that it is not necessary for the incentives to be monetary, but it is necessary to have incentives. Good performance or lack thereof must have some consequences.
While all three subsystems are necessary for designing an effective performance management system, an evaluation system provides the necessary platform to design an appropriate incentive system and an adequate information system. The other two systems can be designed once the government is clear about what it is that it wants to achieve. The answer to this is provided by the evaluation system embodied in the RFD.
Above all, we must remember that a performance management system is useful if we have chosen the right direction. That is why having a sound strategy is as important as an effective RFD system. Indeed, that is why this workshop will appropriately begin with a session by Mr. Arun Maira, Member Planning Commission and arguably the foremost expert in the art and science of strategy making.
In short, performance improvement is a multidimensional concept and requires a multidimensional approach. There is no one simple answer to improve performance. Effort has to be made on many fronts to achieve our vision in this area.
In closing, let me say that today the question is not whether to improve performance of government departments, the real question is how? To be sure, this is not the first time in history that this question has been raised. It has been the preoccupation of policy makers in all civilized societies. However, just as all other technologies evolve, so does management technology. While the question still remains the same—that is how to improve government performance, the answer to this question has evolved
Cabinet Secretary spoke while inaugurating a workshop on Results Framework Document (an instrument for improving performance of government) here today. The workshop organised by Cabinet Secretariat, was attended by over 1100 delegates from different responsibility centres from different parts of the country under various Ministries/Departments of the Government.
Following is the text of Cabinet Secretary’s address on the occasion:
“This workshop on Results-Framework Document, or RFD, is an important milestone in our journey towards achieving our vision of a government that works better and costs less. It is indeed remarkable how far we have travelled on this path in pursuit of this vision. Today the RFD policy covers not only the 62 departments and ministries of the Central Government, but also 760 responsibility centres attached to these departments.
You will hear about the details of the RFD policy from various experts throughout the day. However, I want to speak about a few general points that we need to keep in mind while striving for a change in the way we conduct our business in the Government. In particular, today I want to share my thoughts with you on the following three broad issues:
1. Why has the RFD policy spread so widely and so fast among Central Government organizations?
2. What is at stake and why is the RFD policy important for the nation?
3. Is this policy enough? If not what other complementary steps are required?
Let me start with the issue of rapid and effective implementation of the RFD policy. As many of you may be aware, the origins of this policy can be traced to the speech of the Hon’ble President of India to the Parliament in June 2009. In this speech Hon’ble President said that the Government of India will initiate steps within the next hundred days towards “Establishing mechanisms for performance monitoring and performance evaluation in government on a regular basis.”
As promised, within the stipulated hundred day deadline, the Hon’ble Prime Minister announced the details of the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System on September 11, 2009. In the first phase of implementation 59 departments and ministries were covered for the year 2009-2010. The second phase of the policy included 62 departments for the year 2010-2010. In 2011-2012, some 760 responsibility centres attached to various Central Government departments will be covered by the policy. The main reason for organizing this workshop is, in fact, to assist these responsibility centres with the development of their organizational RFDs.
I am also happy to note that many State Governments have also shown interest in adopting this policy. In fact, Governments of Maharashtra and Punjab have already taken steps to implement RFD policy at the state level.
There are many reasons that explain the rapid adoption of this policy. These would include Prime Minister’s leadership and clear directions in this regard; leadership of Secretaries of the 62 departments and ministries; and a cadre of dedicated and enthusiastic civil servants that are ready to go beyond the call of duty to do the right thing. However, the pristine simplicity of the concept has to be also one the main reasons for this widespread adoption of the RFD policy.
The essence of the RFD policy is captured succinctly in the phrase: “What gets measured gets done.” Development of RFD is based on answers to three simple questions: First, RFD seeks to know what are the organizations key objectives? Second, what actions the department proposes to achieve these objectives? Finally, how do we measure progress in implementing these actions? The answers to these questions constitute the core of the RFD.
RFD is a positive and not negative instrument for intention is not to find fault but to help all of us to achieve greater heights and thus enjoy whatever we are doing a great deal more. The objectives are fixed by you and the results are evaluated by you. So far as Ministries are concerned, Ministries approve the objectives and RFD helps them to evaluate how well the Departments under their control have worked. We start with the basic premise that we are committed to service delivery of the highest standards.
In launching the Results-Framework Document policy we are not alone. Rather, we are part of a distinct global trend in public management of a clear movement away from the so called “Administrator Model” to the “Management Model.” The Management Model represents an internal culture of making managers manage, as opposed to the Administrative Model which values compliance to pre-determined rules and regulations. It requires the managers to assume greater responsibility while at the same time, giving them greater operational freedom and holding them accountable for results. Many countries, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom, the United States and Finland, have made significant progress using such techniques with New Zealand being clearly the leader of this pack.
Finally, we have to also acknowledge the fact that we have learnt a great deal from implementing a similar policy in the public enterprise sector. The policy of Memorandum of Understanding or MOU in our public sector was the precursor of this RFD policy. The experience of designing and implementing MOUs in public sector has made the task of designing and implementing RFDs in Government much easier.
Now I turn to the importance of the RFD policy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that no civilized society can function effectively without an effective government. This statement was as true for Chanakya in the 3rd Century BC and for Sher Shah Suri in the 16th century AD as it is for us today.
All countries use government as a mechanism to provide services that benefit all citizens: police, judicial services, national defense, and municipal services. Government also serves as a means of making some of the most important collective decisions such as the nature of the health system, education system, water and sewage system, roads and highways system. Given this pervasive nature of government, its performance has a direct bearing on the welfare of citizens.
Our work on performance management is inspired by our belief that returns from improving effectiveness of the government are immense. Further, we believe that the majority of these benefits will accrue to the socially and economically weaker sections of our society. Hence, we do not believe that there is a trade-off between efficiency and equity in this area. Extra effort spent on improving government efficiency is likely to do more good on the margin than spending more money on a program that does not work effectively.
We seek to create a government that not only does the right things but does them right, that is, more efficiently and effectively. Enhanced government effectiveness not only affects the welfare of citizens in the short run but also in the long-run. In the increasingly globalized world, government effectiveness is the key determinant of a country’s competitive advantage. Experts agree that in the long run, the race among nations will be won or lost not on the basis of comparative advantage arising from resource endowment, but by the competitive advantage created by effective governments.
Finally, I turn to the third broad question I raised at the beginning: Is this policy enough? If not what other complementary steps are required to achieve our goal?
Let me suggest that our ability to deliver promised results is a necessary condition for improving the perception of a Government, but it cannot be considered a sufficient one. Citizens also expect that results should be delivered with courtesy and in a timely fashion. Further, if citizens have a grievance, they expect a satisfactory response. Above all, they expect us to conduct ourselves in manner that is consistent with the highest standards of public service code of conduct.
Recognizing this reality, the Results-Framework Documents (RFDs) for 2010-2011, include a set of mandatory success indicators to measure effective design and implementation of Citizen’s Charters and Grievance Redress Mechanisms. I see from the agenda that both of these instruments will be discussed in detail and hence I shall not dwell on them at length. Suffice is to say that Citizen’s Charter outlines the service standards to which all citizens are entitled. Similarly, Grievance Redress Mechanism outlines a transparent and effective system of grievance redress for citizens.
Also, a complete system for performance management in government should consist of three interrelated systems: (a) Performance Information System; (b) Performance Evaluation System and (c) Performance Incentive System. Let me describe each of these three subsystems briefly.
Without proper information regarding the activities of the government departments and agencies, it is impossible to even begin to evaluate performance, much less improve performance. However, an adequate performance information system does not imply collection of huge amounts of data. A thoughtfully designed information system allows evaluators timely access to necessary information in an appropriate format. Often, a properly designed system reduces the data overload on agencies. When evaluators are not sure about what matters most, they tend to collect as much information as they can to insure against the risk of not having the necessary data when required.
Once we have the necessary information, it is possible to design an effective evaluation system. Availability of data, however, does not automatically guarantee a sound evaluation system. As we will see later, many of the existing evaluation systems in India are conceptually flawed. Hence, no amount of success in gathering information can allow us to manage performance effectively. Civil servants, like most other people, respond to incentives. No matter how sophisticated an information and evaluation system you may design, if you do not link the evaluation of government departments to the welfare of the government managers, you cannot expect to improve the performance of government departments. I hasten to add that it is not necessary for the incentives to be monetary, but it is necessary to have incentives. Good performance or lack thereof must have some consequences.
While all three subsystems are necessary for designing an effective performance management system, an evaluation system provides the necessary platform to design an appropriate incentive system and an adequate information system. The other two systems can be designed once the government is clear about what it is that it wants to achieve. The answer to this is provided by the evaluation system embodied in the RFD.
Above all, we must remember that a performance management system is useful if we have chosen the right direction. That is why having a sound strategy is as important as an effective RFD system. Indeed, that is why this workshop will appropriately begin with a session by Mr. Arun Maira, Member Planning Commission and arguably the foremost expert in the art and science of strategy making.
In short, performance improvement is a multidimensional concept and requires a multidimensional approach. There is no one simple answer to improve performance. Effort has to be made on many fronts to achieve our vision in this area.
In closing, let me say that today the question is not whether to improve performance of government departments, the real question is how? To be sure, this is not the first time in history that this question has been raised. It has been the preoccupation of policy makers in all civilized societies. However, just as all other technologies evolve, so does management technology. While the question still remains the same—that is how to improve government performance, the answer to this question has evolved
PIB Press Release, February 22, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment