DPM Najib said any salary increase in the civil service will hinge on increased productivity and improvement in the delivery system.This is a fantastic idea but how do the govt implement such a system? Using KPI and Balance Scorecard? But how was the KPI developed?
I remembered the EPF used the balance scordecard and KPI system and at the end of the year, almost all the staff achieved more than 0.8KPI (1.0 is the maximum). The subject issue becomes, how do EPF grant promotion to every staff who had achieved more than 0.8 as stipulated? The answer was: the management decided to use the 80:20 rule; throw out 80% of those who achieved and finally, only 20% was given promotion and adjustments. But that defeat the very purpose of the KPI system which has an integral sub-system called Reward System.
The KPI was needed to guage and measure performance and it states that those who achieve the required score will get rewarded accordingly. Ultimately, it was still discretionary and arbitrary decisions of top management wins the day.
The fact remains that the KPI was in itself arbitrary and the measurement terms were so subjective and discretionary. Millions was paid to the consultants to develop these KPI only to find that it will not work in our cultural environment. In the civil services and quasi-govt organizations, the superior who append those KPIs would usually give high scores to their subordinates. This can be due to the fact that the superiors themselves are also lazy, or the fact that almost all their staffs are lazy and if they scored them low, their department would collapse as a whole. KPI? ya, it can work provided that the working culture is in itself based on merits.
I remembered the EPF used the balance scordecard and KPI system and at the end of the year, almost all the staff achieved more than 0.8KPI (1.0 is the maximum). The subject issue becomes, how do EPF grant promotion to every staff who had achieved more than 0.8 as stipulated? The answer was: the management decided to use the 80:20 rule; throw out 80% of those who achieved and finally, only 20% was given promotion and adjustments. But that defeat the very purpose of the KPI system which has an integral sub-system called Reward System.
The KPI was needed to guage and measure performance and it states that those who achieve the required score will get rewarded accordingly. Ultimately, it was still discretionary and arbitrary decisions of top management wins the day.
The fact remains that the KPI was in itself arbitrary and the measurement terms were so subjective and discretionary. Millions was paid to the consultants to develop these KPI only to find that it will not work in our cultural environment. In the civil services and quasi-govt organizations, the superior who append those KPIs would usually give high scores to their subordinates. This can be due to the fact that the superiors themselves are also lazy, or the fact that almost all their staffs are lazy and if they scored them low, their department would collapse as a whole. KPI? ya, it can work provided that the working culture is in itself based on merits.
3 comments:
keyword : cultural environment.
The KPI actually is type of reformation. The gahmen just afraid to use the word. The changes will reshape the government department culture, which mean drastic changes.
:)
Let me recall some China history.
Around 361BC (Woot, 2368 years ago), Shang Yang arrive in Qin states and help the Qin king reforms the barbarian country. But noble and ministries reject the idea because the reformation will make a drastic change to their interest; even it is good for the country.
To help king show the Qin people about their willingness of reform, San Yang has set up a rewards. He put a piece of timber on the street, reward of 1000 pieces gold nugget to anyone willing to move it to the city gate. No Qin people believe the reward, until a man pick up the timber and move it to gate. Shang Yang rewards the man and start the reformation. It is later known as "A timber of trust"
-----
So where is Bolehland gahmen timber of trust?
KPIs, Management by Objectives etc. have been used by corporations for a long time to tie promotions and pay increments to performance. Results have been Mixed. Key requirements are 1) The objectives have to tie in specific organisational improvement directions 2) Objectives should be measurable 3) Assessment should be mutually reviewed. 4) For the organisation to move forward, objectives should be challenging but fair.
Given the civil service mentality in most government departments and statutory bodies, I really wonder how they are going to achieve an effective outcome from an Objectives-based system. From talking to many civil servants, I get the impression promotions in the civil service have a lot more to do with networking with the "right" crowd, and apple polishing.
Isteri Rumie harap kes suami dibuka semula(UM 16 Februari 2007)
KUCHING 15 Feb. – “Saya berdoa agar kes suami saya dibuka semula untuk mengetahui apa yang sebenarnya berlaku dan mengapa arwah diperlakukan sampai sedemikian rupa.’’
Begitulah luahan dan harapan isteri Pegawai Kawalan Jabatan Alam Sekitar (JAS) Sarawak, Allayarham Rumie Azzan Malie apabila kes kematian suaminya akan didengar untuk semakan semula keputusan inkues di Mahkamah Tinggi di sini, esok.
Suraida Abdul Lazid, 32, berkata, dia mengharapkan satu keputusan yang baik dapat diputuskan oleh mahkamah esok bagi membolehkan kes suaminya dibuka semula selepas Oktober lalu inkues kes Rumie di Mahkamah Koroner di sini, ditutup tanpa sebarang keputusan mengenai bagaimana mangsa ditemui mati.
“Hati saya tidak tenteram selagi tidak mengetahui apa yang sebenarnya berlaku ke atas arwah suami saya.
“Saya sentiasa berdoa agar suatu hari kelak kematian suami saya mendapat pembelaan sewajarnya,’’ katanya ketika ditemui di kediamannya di Kampung Tanjung, Petra Jaya di sini hari ini.
Suraida ditemani dua anaknya hasil perkahwinan dengan Rumie, Mohd. Syafiq Syakireen, 9, dan Muhd. Hafeez Syakireen, 5.
Rumie ditemui mati berhampiran Bangunan Persatuan Pembalakan Sarawak (STA) di Jalan Datuk Abang Abdul Rahim, di sini pada September 2004.
Semakan semula keputusan inkues diperoleh selepas Mahkamah Koroner di sini Oktober lalu selesai tanpa sebarang keputusan mengenai bagaimana mangsa ditemui mati.
Koroner Tengku Sharizan Tuan Lah membuat keputusan itu selepas mendengar keterangan 31 saksi dan tidak menemui fakta yang sah bagi menentukan bagaimana kematian mangsa berlaku sama ada bunuh diri atau berunsur jenayah.
Sementara itu, peguam keluarga Rumie, Domique Ng yakin keputusan mahkamah pada semakan keputusan inkues esok akan memihak kepada mereka.
Beliau berkata, pihaknya mempunyai cukup bukti untuk membuka semula kes berkenaan.
‘‘Saya harap mahkamah memberikan keputusan lebih baik untuk membuktikan bahawa Rumie tidak membunuh diri tetapi dibunuh,’’ katanya ketika dihubungi.
A well dedicated enforcement officer got murdered.What is there to talk about KPI?
Post a Comment