The text drafted by ANCI, in connection with Article 16, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No 150 of 2009 provides information regarding the adjustment of regional and local authorities "within the principles contained in Articles 3, 4, 5, paragraph 2, 7, 9 and 15, paragraph 1" of that decree. These provisions, dealing respectively with the general principles of discipline, performance management cycle, the characters of the objectives, the measurement system and performance appraisal, the areas of performance measurement and evaluation individuale, alle funzioni dell’organo di indirizzo politico-amministrativo.
Rispetto al testo, la Commissione, su richiesta dell’ANCI, formula, di seguito, alcune osservazioni, tenuto conto sia della delimitazione normativa dell’ambito di adeguamento, sia della possibilità di invitare gli enti territoriali a considerare, nel rispetto della propria autonomia e in una valutazione complessiva del sistema, la possibilità di un adeguamento anche ad altre previsioni del decreto de quo, non espressamente indicate dall’articolo 16, comma 2, a fini di completezza e coerenza del sistema.
Si evidenziano i sotto elencati profili critici e si forniscono i relativi suggerimenti.
Profilo 1
Rate ANCI if, within the relationship, it is appropriate to display an overview of the most detailed and convincing, explaining the reasons and implications of the cycle of performance management in local government.
Profile 2
Proposed Plan of PEG as performance, earnings but with a number of possible problems. For example, the PEG is often oriented to the operational management, has a short-term horizon, not all municipalities are required to do so, and there is diversity of use by local authorities.
Although the application of Article. 16 of the decree does not require the application of art. 8 of the Decree, the document ANCI has many ideas about the performance management cycle. It is therefore considered appropriate to point out some useful application of the logic of the cycle and systems that support the operation.
The introduction of performance management cycle has important implications for local governments, the implications must be fully evidenced also by the adaptation of PEG in Piano Performance (for more details, see the resolution CIVITATE n.112/2010 ). In particular it will:
1. explicit links between policy direction, strategy and operations, obtained through a sufficient consistency between processes and tools strategic planning, operational planning and control;
2. explain the outcome of management, understood as the identification of impacts (by stakeholder category) of policies and actions from the strategic planning, to the communication to the public;
3. explicit actions to continuously improve our public services, achieved through the use of information derived from the process of measurement and evaluation of performance, both organization and individual, through feedback loops (feedback) formalized (for more details, see Resolution CIVITATE No 89/2010), as well as appropriate activities of stakeholder analysis dell’ente;
4. essere predisposto in maniera tale da poter essere facilmente comunicato e compreso. La trasparenza, intesa come accessibilità totale delle informazioni di interesse per il cittadino, richiede la pubblicazione in formato accessibile e di contenuto comprensibile dei documenti chiave di pianificazione, programmazione e controllo (per approfondimenti, si veda la delibera CiVIT n. 105/2010).
Il PEG, in quest’ottica, diventa lo strumento che dà avvio al ciclo di gestione della performance.
Il processo di adattamento a Piano della performance dovrà trasformare il PEG in un documento programmatico triennale in cui, in coerenza con le risorse assegnate, vengono esplicitati obiettivi, indicatori e relativi target. Attraverso questo strumento devono essere definiti gli elementi fondamentali su cui si baserà la misurazione, la valutazione e la rendicontazione della performance. Il PEG, inoltre, deve assicurare la qualità della rappresentazione della performance, dal momento che in esso devono essere esplicitati il processo e le modalità di formulazione degli obiettivi dell’ente, nonché l’articolazione complessiva degli stessi. Questo consente la verifica interna ed esterna della qualità del sistema di obiettivi o, più precisamente, del livello di coerenza con i requisiti metodologici che, secondo il decreto legislativo n. 150/2009, devono caratterizzare gli obiettivi. Inoltre, il PEG deve assicurare la comprensibilità representation of the performance. To do this, must be explained the bond that exists between the needs of users / citizens, the institutional mission, priorities, policies, strategies, objectives and indicators of the institution. Finally, the PEG has to ensure the reliability of the representation of the performance by the ex post verification of the correct approach in the planning process (principles, stages, times, people) and its findings (targets, indicators, target); for further information, including on the order and content of specific sections of the document as modified, see Resolution No. CIVITATE 112/2010.
With reference to the rate of approval of the Plan's performance, the Commission stresses the need to have a close connection between the approval of the budget and the preparation of the Plan's performance.
Profile 3
Ability to define more clearly the systems of measurement and evaluation.
measuring systems must be consistent with the Plan's performance (or similar tools as above) and reporting, such systems also work in line with historical objects of measurement and information systems to support. About these issues, please refer to the contents of the resolutions CIVITATE No 89, 104 and 114/2010.
a) Measurement of organizational performance
If properly developed, a system of measurement at the organizational level can make a body able to: • improve
, once fully operational, the system of identification and communication of their objectives;
• ensure that targets are were obtained;
• inform and guide decision making;
• more effectively manage both the resources and organizational processes;
• influence and evaluate the behavior of groups and individuals;
• strengthen the accountability and responsibilities at different hierarchical levels;
• encourage continuous improvement in organizational learning.
A key factor for the effective use of a performance measurement system is the bond that must exist between the system and goals. This fact has important implications with regard to:
• the type and variety of decisions taken at the strategic level;
• completeness of the information available at the top political and administrative;
• understanding by managers of organizational goals and targets, processes essential to the achievement of these objectives and the role that managers play within themselves organization.
regard to the components of a system for measuring organizational performance appropriately developed, reference is made to Resolution No. CIVITATE 89/2010.
b) Measurement of individual performance
The main aims of the measurement and evaluation of individual performance are, as noted, the following:
1. highlight the importance of individual contributions of staff assessed against the objectives of the administration as a whole and the organizational structure of belonging;
2. clarify and communicate what is expected - in terms of performance and behavior - from single person;
3. support le singole persone nel miglioramento della loro performance (generare allineamento con gli obiettivi complessivi dell’amministrazione);
4. valutare la performance e comunicare i risultati e le aspettative future alla singola persona (supportare l’allineamento);
5. contribuire a creare e mantenere un clima organizzativo favorevole;
6. premiare la performance attraverso opportuni sistemi incentivanti;
7. promuovere una corretta gestione delle risorse umane.
Un buon sistema di misurazione della performance individuale risulta caratterizzato, a titolo esemplificativo, dagli elementi riportati nella seguente tabella.
Individuazione dei valutati in coerenza con gli artt. 9 D. Lgs. n. 150/09 e 16-17 D. Lgs. n. 165/01
Distinzione dei criteri di valutazione tra personale dirigente e non dirigente
Distinzione dei criteri per i dirigenti di vertice (Segretario Generale/Direttore Generale)
Dizionario delle competenze formulato come lista di comportamenti (o come insieme di conoscenze, capacità ed attitudini)
Adozione di scale di valutazione
Adozione di pesi associati agli obiettivi e/o indicatori
Definizione di procedure per il calcolo di punteggi sintetici individuali
Utilizzo di schede di valutazione
Definizione di ulteriori approcci aggiuntivi rispetto al gerarchico (ad esempio: self-assessment, from bottom to top, by the stakeholders, 360 degrees)
description of how to communicate the results
Description of plans to improve individual
Presence of conciliation proceedings
presence of a third party assessment / assessor in procedures Conciliation (Resolution No 104/2010 CIVITATE)
Definition of quantitative indicators to assess the ability of differentiation reviews
Presence of shared descriptors for qualitative indicators
differentiation between individual goals, group and organizational
connection with incentive systems (specify: bands of remuneration, career advancement, etc.).
Profile 4
can achieve greater adherence to guidelines CIVITATE about organizational performance measurement systems, especially in defining the minimum requirements and the maturity model proposed in the resolutions n .89 and n.114/2010.
Article 8, in which the measurement system of organizational performance, is not among the provisions which local authorities are obliged to comply. However, in relation to the contents of this issue in this document, the following is observed.
Through a frame of reference, you can represent the "evolution" process development and implementation of performance measurement tools in municipalities. While stage 0 refers to cases in the path of evolution, the stage 1 (which represents the minimum on which to bet as soon as possible) you can highlight the features of performance appraisal systems increasingly sophisticated and integrated. The table also shows the development activities that indicate the actions through which you can make the gradual change of state "from one stage to the next.
situation of the Qualifying elements
Stage 0 detection of targets represented by initiatives and / or annual projects / year and in the contemporary development of a system for monitoring progress of various stages of completion;
the degree to which the objective is typically represented by the achievement of planned phase, possibly expressed in a measure, even simple
the result is noted as a priority with a view internal
use of few indicators, mainly aimed at measuring in some way, even simple (numeric value, percentage, time, etc..), the result of planned / expected.
development activities to proceed with stage 1 progressive mapping of processes and activities entity, in order to guide planning more outward-looking;
greater distinction between political and administrative objectives;
gradual reduction in use of indicators such as "attainment status" of a phase of the project;
progressive increase in the use of input indicators, process and output, characterized under appropriate tabs.
Stage 1 differentiation between priorities (identified in the strategies) and institutional activities of ordinary, qualified according to the expected result of improvements and / or development of activities and services;
progressive development of a system of performance indicators and service level incorporating aspects of effectiveness, efficiency, affordability and quality;
start of the evaluation of the results from the perspective of different stakeholders.
development activities to move to Stage 2 progressive introduction of indicators of impact (outcome) as an indicator for targets that have an impact on external stakeholders;
specification of links between goals, indicators and targets;
characterization of the indicators according to the cards and test proposed by the Commission;
actual records of performance, depending on frequency and conditions set out in the key characterization of the indicators.
Stage 2 expansion of the system of indicators (and related information tools for the collection of information) through the adoption of appropriate indicators of impact (outcome);
identification, a procedure, the standard levels of service expected on the basis of available resources and analysis about the external environment;
use of a properly structured information system that allows the identification of objectives consistent with the strategies (strategic control) for the year next;
communication of the results of the top management of both political and administrative (to implement the strategic control) that the reference to stakeholders.
development activities to move to stage 3 greater balance in the use of input indicators, process, output and impact (outcome);
start of the evaluation of the results from the perspective of the different carriers interest;
development of information infrastructures to support activities related to the cycle of performance;
creation of an appropriate reporting, custom according to the needs of management.
Step 3 - political-administrative body more involved in the process of performance appraisal, review and periodic adjustment of the measurement system;
- reports, published every six months or yearly, easy to use for non-specialists including through the use of different systems of representation;
- reporting for internal use that, through proper analysis of variances, allowing the comparison of results (also based on time series) and the identification of clear objectives and challenging for 'year;
- development projects quality aimed at continuous improvement of services provided is that of systems to support the cycle of performance;
- possible development of strategy maps to improve processes within the entire cycle of performance;
- development of a culture performance.
For institutions characterized by low complexity and small size, the stages of evolution may be characterized by different modes of evolution (especially with regard to development activities). Evidence from which the system should not matter is, starting from stage 1 described in the above table, by differences in objectives and priorities (identified the strategies) and institutional activities of ordinary, qualified according to the expected result of improvements and / or development of activities and services. Moreover, still in stage 1, should begin the phase of evaluation of results, from the perspective of different stakeholders. Later, at a later stage of evolution, you will need to expand the system of indicators (and related information tools for the collection of information) through the adoption of appropriate indicators of impact (outcome) and to identify standard levels of service expected on the basis of available resources and analysis about the external environment. To do this, you can follow the pattern of development actions in the above table to go from stage 1 to 2.
Profile 5
Indicators proposed without proper context.
With reference to the indicators presented in the document, we suggest methodological framework, simplified in the case of institutions with low complexity and small size, highlighting the consistency between strategic and operational management, aimed at ensuring the necessary contextualization of the same. Without these characteristics, an indicator can not be defined as such.
For a more detailed and complete version of these tables and diagrams, even to test the feasibility and quality of indicators and targets them, please refer to Resolution No. CIVITATE 89/2010. These are references you can use to increase the level of maturity of performance measurement systems to make more solid components of the system.
card indicator simplified
Name Title indicator indicator indicator
Description To avoid ambiguity in interpretation, as can be described in more detail the indicator?
rational because we want to measure this?
Objective (reference) What objective relates this indicator?
Type Calculation / Formula / In a quantitative format, as it is calculated? What is the formula (scale, if qualitative)? What is the unit of measure?
Source / From the data where you can obtain the necessary data?
frequency detection How often encountered this indicator? How much is your collection?
Responsible for performance related indicator Who is responsible for the performance measured by this indicator?
Reports Where are communicated / published the information?
Notes:
Profile 6
independent body to assess
Given that Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 150 of 2009, does not apply to municipalities (because of the failure to return required by Article 16, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No 150 of 2009), the Commission considers that falls within the discretion of the City of choice to establish whether or not the 'independent body to assess (OIV).
It should however be noted that, in the event that the City Council opts for the establishment of the OIV, is directly applicable to Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 150 of 2009, it follows that: •
can not be appointed as members of the OIV, the organ of political parties linked administrative (such as secretaries municipal and general managers), as provided in Resolution No. CIVITATE 4 / 2010 and replies to questions posted on the corporate website www.civit.it;
• the appointment of the members must be conferred taking into account the provisions of paragraph 8 of the said article 14 in terms of incompatibility.
smaller entities and may work towards the adjacent OIV as associates.
addition, the exclusive rights granted by Resolution No. CIVITATE 4 / 2010 does not work, in the appointment of part of the OIV, if there is more than positions in small agencies that deal with related issues.
not fall within the competence of this Commission issues for the identification and weighting of the royalty, or more general costs, the OIV and the overall problem of invariance of the expenditure.
With reference to the appointment of the OIV and their composition, it highlights the opportunities that the collection of data submitted by the municipalities is made by the ANCI and then forwarded to the Commission to evaluate the following, it is not, in fact, the Commission expressed the opinion expressly provided for in Article 13, paragraph 6, letter g) of Legislative Decree No 150/2009.
Conversely, in the event the City elects to establish a body that does not meet the requirements of the said Article 14, this body can not be defined as "independent body to assess".
Finally, whether the Commission should not issue opinions with regard to any proposed appointment of the members of the OIV, stressing the opportunities that the ANCI calls for municipalities to provide the same any questions regarding the applicability of the Legislative Decree No 150/2009, because you take care coordination for the purposes of its submission to the Commission.
0 comments:
Post a Comment