The Performance Management Program (PMP) Monitoring and Evaluation of Effectiveness Framework was developed in consultation with the human resources community, executives and deputy ministers, to support monitoring of the effectiveness and health of the Performance Management Program for Executives. Over the past year, a scorecard has been developed to facilitate use of the Framework.

Using the PMP Scorecard involves self-assessment and reporting annually on some of its elements by all departments and agencies and, on a rotational basis, triennially, by one-third of departments and agencies on the remaining elements. Over a three–year period, all departments and agencies will have self-assessed and reported at least once on the triennial elements. Additional information about the application of the PMP may also be submitted voluntarily by departments along with the scorecards. Departments and agencies should also submit their priorities for continuous improvement.

The Public Service Human Resources Agency of Canada (the Agency) reviews the reports and departmental priorities for improvement in order to assess how well the PMP is working and to identify best practices and areas for improvement. The Agency may conduct further inquiries where appropriate.

The Agency may make modifications to the Framework and the Scorecards based on its experience over time.

The first Scorecards from departments and agencies are due in September 2006.

2. Snapshot - Two Self-Assessment Scorecards

The Annual Scorecard is submitted by all departments and agencies each year, and covers the following elements:

ANNUAL SCORECARD
1. ALIGNMENT AND INTEGRATION
A. Degree of alignment between individual commitments and: i. Department / Agency business plans ii. Priorities of the Clerk of the Privy Council	Enter rating here
B. Degree to which commitments are operationalized	Enter rating here
C. Degree of integration of PMP with: i. Corporate planning ii. Corporate reporting	Brief description or attach documentation
D. Degree to which ongoing commitments reflect executive level accountabilities: i. HR accountabilities ii. Financial accountabilities iii. Accountability for the Program, Policy and Service responsibilities of the position	Enter rating here
2. CONSISTENT APPROACH IN DETERMINING RATINGS
A. Operation of review mechanisms to ensure internal consistency in determining ratings	Brief description or attach documentation
B. Distribution of ratings	Included in PMP Report
C. Use of Leadership Competencies and Values and Ethics to assess how results were obtained	Brief description or attach documentation
3. CLEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND PERFORMANCE PAY
A. Correlation between ratings and performance pay	Included in PMP Report
B. Communication plan and program	Brief description or attach documentation
C. Gender neutral evaluation i. Ongoing Commitments Ratings ii. Key Commitments Ratings iii. Lump Sums by Gender	Enter rationale or attach documentation

The Triennial Scorecard is a self-assessment submitted by about one third of departments and agencies annually on a rotational basis, when notified by the Agency. It covers the following:

TRIENNIAL SCORECARD
4. EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION PROCESSES
A. Timeliness of completion of performance agreements and periodic / year-end reviews, timing of payments, signature of agreements, signature of evaluation, mid-year review	Brief description or attach documentation
B. Quality of commitments expressed in performance agreements (SMART)	Enter rating here
C. Participant and stakeholder satisfaction with the process	Brief description or attach documentation
D. Degree to which EX positions have current job descriptions / profiles / accountabilities	Enter rating here
5. STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS OF THE PMP
A. Provision of communication, education and processes to resolve issues related to the PMP	Brief description or attach documentation
B. Level of participant awareness of program components and strategic intent of the program	Brief description or attach documentation
6. CALIBRATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCE RATINGS
Under construction
7. TOP TALENT IDENTIFICATION AND RECOGNITION
A. Use of PMP to identify and reward people for further development	Brief description or attach documentation
8. LINKS TO HR APPLICATIONS
A. Specific linkage of PMP with learning and leadership development activities, HR Planning, succession planning, coaching and career management	Brief description or attach documentation
B. Inclusion and use of HR indicators (e.g., Corporate health, diversity, sustainability, employee surveys, etc.) in performance agreements	Brief description or attach documentation
9. SUMMARY: PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT	Description

3. Why is the PMP Monitored?

A healthy and effective performance management program is an essential tool for managing the performance of executives and getting the work of the government done effectively.

The Framework and the Scorecards are intended to help PSHRMAC and departments and agencies identify best practices as well as risks to effectiveness.

The expected benefits of assessing the effectiveness of the PMP include:

Goals of individuals are aligned with those of the organization;
Improved clarity of roles and responsibilities for executives, linking accountabilities at all levels to resources, strategies and business priorities;
Increased understanding of corporate objectives and resources and how individuals are expected to contribute to the achievement of these objectives;
Improve our understanding of the health and effectiveness of the PMP;
Identify best practices that could benefit the public service;
Improved understanding of the effectiveness of management practices and controls;
Timely assessments and preventive or remedial actions in areas where control deficiencies or failures are identified;
Identification of tools and resources needed by departments and agencies.

4. What is Monitored?

Scorecard reports submitted by departments and agencies should be able to meet the test of an audit based on a generally accepted audit standard.

The Agency may require further assurance where the information provided is judged insufficient, and may conduct departmental interviews, reviews or audits to obtain additional relevant information. Upon completion of any such reviews, the Agency will provide a summary and recommendations to deputy heads.

Executive accountability for results, and consequently, the government’s performance, will improve when we have:

Quality Performance Agreements
Consistency with Program Objectives
Consistency with Guiding Principles
Compliance with Required Elements
Support from Enabling Systems

Further detail on each of these is below along with information about and how each is monitored.

4.1 Quality of Performance Agreements

Performance agreements:

Document the mutual understanding between the executive and the manager of the what (commitments, competencies and resources) and the how (leadership competencies and performance measures) that will be used to assess the performance of the executive for the performance period.
Demonstrate alignment between an organization's strategic outcomes, business plans and priorities and an individual's commitments. The process to develop performance agreements must therefore be integrated with the annual departmental business planning cycle.

The quality of Performance Agreements is monitored as follows:

Alignment and integration - Annual monitoring
Operationalization - Annual monitoring
SMART commitments - Triennial monitoring

4.2 Consistency with Program Objectives

The objectives of the Performance Management Program (PMP) for the Executive Group are to:

Support a management regime that is based on leadership, values and well-defined standards;
Encourage excellence in performance by recognizing and rewarding the achievement of results that are linked to business plans and / or corporate priorities and the demonstration of public service leadership competencies, values and ethics;
Provide a framework within which a consistent and equitable approach to performance management can be applied.

Consistency with the Program Objectives is monitored as follows:

Alignment and Integration of Performance Agreements (Annual)
Consistent Approach in Determining Ratings (Annual)
Top Talent Identification and Recognition (Triennial)
Links to HR Applications (Triennial)

4.3 Consistency with Guiding Principles

The principles of respect and fairness will govern the exercise of authority in managing the performance of executives. These principles mean that it is recognized and respected that employees are entitled to:

A clear idea of what is expected of them
Regular feedback concerning their performance
Learning and development opportunities to help them improve their performance
Timely administration, including rewards.

The PMP for Executives is a tool for a consistent approach to performance management and measurement. It is designed to:

Support the federal government in its commitment to results-based planning, performance measurement, reporting and accountability;
Integrate and respect public service values and ethics and well-defined standards of leadership competencies. These values and ethics mean that public servants treat others fairly, contributing to a climate of trust, acceptance and respect for others' principles, values and beliefs, and they honour their work commitments and strive to act in the public interest;
Recognize that individual commitments must reflect departmental and government priorities;
Support horizontal initiatives within departments, with other departments, jurisdictions, and levels of government or external stakeholders through recognition of such teamwork in the performance agreements of individual executives;
Support the objective differentiation of levels of performance across the EX Group;
Recognize that compensation given to members of the Executive Group should reflect their performance.

Consistency with the Guiding Principles is monitored as follows:

Alignment and Integration (Annual)
Consistent Approach in Determining Ratings (Annual)
Effective Administration Processes (Triennial)
Stakeholder Awareness of the PMP (Triennial)
Links to HR Applications (Triennial)

4.4 Compliance with Required Elements of the PMP

(a) Signed Performance Agreements

The Performance Management Program requires that every person in the organization who is being paid as an EX have a written Performance Agreement (Salary Administration Policy for the Executive Group, Appendix A and B). The Performance Agreement between the executive and the manager must include the following mandatory components, in order for the executive to have access to compensation performance awards (in-range salary movement and variable pay):

Ongoing Commitments
Key Commitments
Leadership competencies, usually reflected in description of how commitments were achieved
Performance indicators and measures of successful achievement of the commitments and competencies
A written assessment of actual results achieved during the performance cycle
The signatures of the executive and the manager when the commitments are approved.

Note: Since a Performance Agreement is an agreement between two individuals, it will be subject to revision throughout the performance cycle, dictated by such factors as changed priorities, feedback, budget changes, etc. An executive may also have several Performance Agreements throughout a performance cycle, for example, if the executive changes jobs or takes on a new assignment or if the manager changes. Each revision or new agreement must be signed.

Required elements are monitored as follows:

Alignment and Integration (Annual)
Clear Relationship between Performance and Performance Pay (Annual)
Effective Administration Processes (Triennial)
Links to HR Applications (Triennial)

(b) Review Mechanisms

The Performance Management Program also requires that the Deputy Head have in place in the organization a mechanism or mechanisms, such as review committees, to ensure equity and consistency in performance assessment ratings of all executives across the organization for the performance cycle.

The quality of review mechanisms is monitored as follows:

Consistent Approach in Determining Ratings (Annual)
Stakeholder Awareness of the PMP (Triennial)
Operation of Review Mechanisms

4.5 Support from Enabling Systems

Effective operation of the PMP is supported by:

A well-developed human resources strategy
A human resources plan that derives information from the PMP
An integrated corporate business planning and human resources planning system that is directly involved in the performance management process
A corporate performance reporting function that derives information from the performance management system
Support for effective performance management, quality performance assessments and timely feedback
An appropriate communications and training program
Timely payment of lump sums and other salary-related action
Career development
Processes to resolve issues related to PMP
Evaluation of organization performance and continuous improvement plans.

The health and effectiveness of enabling systems are monitored as follows:

Effective Administration Processes (Triennial)
Stakeholder Awareness of the PMP (Triennial)
Top Talent Identification and Recognition (Triennial)
Links to HR Applications (Triennial)

5. Who Does What? Roles and Responsibilities

Head of Human Resources

Manage data collection and content for evaluation and deliver report to PSHRMAC
Use the evaluation experience and findings to bring about continuous improvement in the quality management of the program
Review and approve (sign off) Department / Agency evaluation scorecard
Identify priority areas for improvement

PSHRMAC

Manage the evaluation process public service-wide
Identify the performance agreements to be used for reporting
Manage data collection from departments
Compile government-wide summary
Review scorecards and priorities for improvement
Challenge findings or follow up on specific questions
Communicate findings and recommendations
Inform / consult the Advisory Committee on Senior Level Retention and Compensation
Analyze results and provide feedback or direction for improvement. When an evaluation element indicates a need for improvement, PSHRMAC may schedule the organization for annual reporting of the evaluation elements until the condition is resolved or may make further reviews
Provide supporting tools, templates, training materials, etc. to Departments / Agencies

Advisory Committee on Senior Level Retention and Compensation

Review results of monitoring and provide feedback and recommendations for improvements

6. Summary of PMP Reporting Requirements

This chart summarizes all current reporting requirements for the PMP. Requirements that are part of the Framework are shaded.

What	Who	Due When	Effective When
Attestation of the deputy head that all requirements of the PMP have been met	All departments and agencies	Annually June 30	2003 / 04
Annual PMP Report: Departmental report of statistical information on ratings and payouts for each executive in the organization	All departments and agencies	Annually June 30	1999 / 00
Annual PMP Report on Non-EX employees who are subject to the PMP	Organizations that have the groups and levels covered by the Salary Administration Policy for the EX Group	Annually June 30	2002 / 03
PMP Annual Scorecard	All	Annually September	2005 / 06
PMP Triennial Scorecard	One-third of departments and agencies selected by PSHRMAC	Every 3 years September	2005 / 06
Quality Reviews of performance agreements of executives (CAC reviewed a sample of performance agreements in 2003 and 2004)	Departments and agencies selected by PSHRMAC according to sampling procedure	Upon request	2002 / 03

7. How is the PMP Monitored?

The Scorecard is one of the ways PSHRMAC actively monitors the administration of the Performance Management Program for Executives. Monitoring includes:

Quality Reviews of Performance Agreements

The Agency has twice collected and reviewed performance agreements in 2003 and 2004 in order to assess the quality of performance agreements across the federal public service. The performance agreements were subjected to tests for quality of commitments and measures, and a report was provided to participating departments to indicate areas for improvement as well as areas of excellence.

Annual PMP Reports

Since the inception of the PMP, this report has been submitted annually by all departments in the federal public service. Where possible, the PMP Annual Report should be submitted in electronic format, and may be submitted as an Excel worksheet or a Word or WordPerfect file.

Reporting Requirements are in the PMP Directives, Annex C.

PSHRMAC makes a summary of these reports available to the public on its web site.

PMP Scorecards

Beginning with the 2005 - 2006 performance cycle, departments and agencies are expected to self-assess and report on the state of their PMP management practices and controls.

Reporting requirements have been divided into annual and triennial elements. Annual elements are reported by all departments and agencies each year. Triennial elements are reported by one-third of these organizations in each year, so that over a three year period each will have reported on the triennial elements. PSHRMAC may ask certain organizations to report annually on triennial elements.

Other Special Reviews:

The Agency may conduct special reviews at any time in order to assess the effectiveness and health of the PMP.

8. Conclusion

Monitoring is a cyclical process intended to continually improve the effectiveness and health of the PMP across the public service to the benefit of executives, deputy heads, and ultimately the citizens of Canada.

Departments are encouraged to provide the Agency with feedback that helps us evaluate the health and effectiveness of PMP in the Public Service. We want to hear about successful initiatives so that we can make it available to others across the core public administration. In addition, it is important that we be informed of problems and issues, as well as of efforts made or steps taken in continuous improvement.

PMP Scorecards

Table of Contents