Government Has Political Will To Implement NKRA - Koh

December 18, 2009 22:12 PM

from BERNAMA.COM

PETALING JAYA, Dec 18 (Bernama) -- The government has the political will to ensure every programme under the six National Key Result Areas (NKRA) are implemented to provide the best service to the people said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon.

"If there is no political will, we will not have exhibited the NKRA documents. We would have just kept it a secret," he told reporters when asked whether the government had the capability to implement the NKRA.

Koh, who is also the chairman of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) Board said programmes aimed at reducing crime and increasing People's Volunteer Corps (RELA) had already been implemented.

"Some of the objectives may be short term and some will take longer to do, and some may be trajectory such as for crime. As the reporting system becomes more efficient, we will actually see an increase in crime reports, but if measures are implemented correctly, we will see the impact in crime reduction," he said.

Meanwhile, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala who is also the Chief Executive Officer of the Pemandu Board said the 1Malaysia GTP roadmap to be announced next month, was a strong evidence of the government's political will for transformation.

Idris said they had received about 1,000 written comments and 70 per cent of them agreed with the six NKRA.

He said although some were still not convinced that the plans would be implemented, the government is committed to see it succeed.

"Some came with the pre-conceived idea that civil servants were pathetic. But now they are seeing something different and also the cabinet ministers are totally committed to implement the NKRAs," he said.

Earlier, DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang who was among those at the open day commended the NKRA but was skeptical of the government's political will to implement them.

"They are at least making some progress and the deep problem of corruption is being admitted. But is there the political will to break the back of these problems like those of crime, poverty, deteriorating education standards, and making for higher quality of life.

"While what has been presented today is commendable, does it permeate the entire political and cabinet level? asked Kit Siang.

Citing zero tolerance for corruption as one of the target of the transformation, Kit Siang said cabinet ministers were not talking about it.

He said ministers must come forward and the entire cabinet must be committed to the transformation of the government.

"Unless these KPI programmes are reflected by policies and statements by ministers in their daily activities, there is going to be a deficient in public confidence," he said.

Lim said when the government declares a transformation plan, immediate action must be followed.

-- BERNAMA

Transforming – the Idris Jala way

from The STAR Online; Saturday December 19, 2009

By P. GUNASEGARAM,

DATUK SERI Idris Jala, the man from Bario in the highlands of Sarawak and a career Shell person until he moved to Malaysia Airlines to take a challenging role to turn the ailing national airline around, is of course no stranger to transformation.

To him, transformation is a big change, or as he puts it, it’s about big, fast results or BFR. Along with it comes a large appetite for risk because when changes are very major there are serious risks of things going wrong.

“The bigger the risk, the bigger the resistance to change. I have never gone through a transformation where there is no resistance to change,” he says.

What he brings to the Performance Delivery and Management Unit or Pemandu, of which he is CEO and which will drive the Government Transformation Plan (GTP), is his trademark style of engagement, transparency and accountability which stood him in such good stead with his earlier change plans.

When Jala became managing director of Malaysia Airlines in December 2005 after 23 years at Shell, his mandate was to turn around the airline. It had made a loss of an unprecedented RM1.7bil that year.

Barely three months later, Jala publicly unveiled his first turnaround plan – Malaysia Airlines would cut losses from RM1.7bil to RM620mil in 2006, achieve a profit of RM50mil in 2007 and a record profit of RM500mil in 2008.

It was a move never before or since seen in the corporate world – a listed company publicly stated its profit targets, mentioned broadly how it proposed to achieve them and kept details of how exactly it was going to achieve them out of the public eye. And the targets were simply stupendous.

Most people considered that plan way too ambitious and some even treated it with derision. But in the second year itself, Malaysia Airlines made a record profit of over RM900mil, its highest ever.

That led to Malaysia Airlines’ second turnaround plan, this time for five years. The profit target – RM1.5bil by 2012 and as much as RM2bil–RM3bil if conditions are more favourable.

Over the last 10 or so years, in addition to Malaysia Airlines, he turned around Shell’s LPG operations in Sri Lanka, and led the business turnaround of Shell MDS, the first gas-to-liquids commercial plant in the world and the sole supplier of clean diesel fuel for the 2004 Olympics in Athens. He also headed a business consultancy unit within Shell.

Perhaps his biggest asset is his ability to engage people at all levels and infect them with his eternal optimism, and buttressed by all the effort and detail, turn that to real work done and make the impossible possible.

But there are critics who are sceptical: “This is not Malaysia Airlines, this is the Government. Those politicians and bumbling, bungling government officials will swallow him up.” Perhaps. But that’s not what Jala thinks. He believes success is assured - it’s a question of how much.

“I accept that I can fail. That makes me unafraid of failure,” he has said repeatedly in the past.

That kind of mental mood, and a stoic resolve to let whatever happen after you have done all you can, may be the very ingredient needed for success – it stops you from dwelling on the possibility of failure and doing instead all it takes to gain success.

Below are excerpts of the answers Jala gave us from questions StarBizWeek posed to him on the sidelines of this week’s GTP open day at the Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre.

SBW: What you did at MAS, you’re expanding it into a nationwide approach here?

Jala: Yes, it’s the same. Before you do anything, you better know the details (of the problems and the solutions). When we say we want to improve urban transport, the issues are brainstormed in the lab. We have to come out in detail exactly how we’re going to make that happen.

The lab examined KTM Komuter trains, right down to how many passengers are on the trains every day. We then knew that the answer was to increase the number of trains as they were running at over-capacity.

Then we examined buses and their routes and looked at the integration of the different transportation modes. We brought reams of data into the labs to be analysed.

For crime, we have made a pronouncement that we want to reduce street crime by 20%. But pronouncing a KPI is not good enough. Being clear about how you’re going to achieve that is most important. We got all the data from the police to find out where these crimes are taking place in urban areas and realised that there were only around 50 hotspots.

Once you know that, it becomes obvious where the police need to be deployed. With this intelligence, we are moving away from the old method of deploying police based on geographical spread. Immediately, 1,100 police personnel have been redeployed to these hotspots. We will also install more CCTVs in these areas.

There is going to be a big cost to these projects, such as purchasing new trains. Where is this funding going to come from?

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that the NKRA (national key results areas) is priority and he said so because these are things that the rakyat want. To get the money for these things will involve reallocating funds, using money from other areas which are deemed less urgent.

In the book (a planned road map detailing the KPIs to achieve the six broad goals of the GTP will be published early next year), we will talk about how much we need. These numbers won’t be firm until we get the input from the rakyat.

If the rakyat suggest that there are other things that are more important than what we thought of in the lab, then we may need to rejig it.

What’s the progress so far?

Some activities have started, some not yet. For example, on the KTM Komuter trains, we asked them how many carriages they had, and they said 58 carriages. How many are operational? 25. How many are broken? 33. No wonder we have a problem. How come the 33 are not operational?

It’s because there is not enough money for maintenance. And there is not enough money for maintenance because KTM is losing money. And KTM is not getting subsidy from the Government because it is losing money.

So it is a chicken and egg situation. Two things will happen. We intend to replace some carriages and acquire new ones. The carriages come only in 2012.

Yes, unfortunately it takes time. Just like aeroplanes, it takes time.

But by buying the new carriages, does it fix the bigger problem KTM is facing, which is that it cannot seem to run an operationally profitable business?

To be fair to them, there is a revenue shortfall. They cannot generate sufficient revenue with the kind of fares they are charging. If you never increase fares, you’ll never make money.

There’s also an operational problem of under-capacity. KTM does not have the right capacity to handle the passengers. Today, KTM (Komuter) has carriages that can fill 400 passengers. But there are 600 people going on these trains, so they are really packed. The laboratory was very clear in identifying the problems. Once identified, we then figured out which ones to start with first. You cannot start fixing the problem by raising fares as the service levels are not there yet. So we’re starting by spending money to get the new carriages in and improving the service.

The next step will be to introduce differentiated fares, like Malaysia Airlines, lah. You pay for what you can afford and the service you expect. In the interim, while waiting for the carriages to come, the plan is to increase the frequency of the trains in order to use the carriages more efficiently. That has already begun.

Getting basic infrastructure right

Let me shift into other areas – like basic rural infrastructure. A big part of the GTP is to aim to provide the basics in rural areas. We will give them roads, clean and treated water, and electricity. Based on our findings, many of the rural areas do not have access to those things. I think from 2010 to 2012 there will be the highest amount of investment being poured into roads and infrastructure since the start of our independence.

Is it economically viable to do that?

Yes. It will stimulate the economy because there will be more construction. The reality today, as we move towards a high-income economy, when we talk about 1Malaysia, is that it must comprise and include everybody. We must include the poor. We cannot bring a country to become a highly progressive society if there are Malaysians left behind. That is why we are focusing on the low-income households. But we are also looking at urban development.

What is the concern of urbanites? The public transportation system. And if you don’t fix that, the people will say that the Government does not truly recognise their problems. We give the most income tax to the country, and yet how come our public transport system is not as good as in other countries?

What are you doing about corruption?

We’re putting in place a check and balance. We’re cutting the approval time (for all sorts of Government services) so that we don’t empower anyone. Now you don’t have to wait one month for your passport. You get it within two hours. The power is no longer there with that person to facilitate the processing of the passport.

You don’t face problems of resistance?

Sure we do. Every change has resistance. This transformation is not incremental. It is big, fast results. Because it is big, it also carries a big risk. So we must have the appetite for making the big changes and handling the associated risks.

Here’s an example. We have identified that a key problem is a low quality of pre-school education. With a not-so-good foundation, the problems will creep into the secondary and university levels. Currently, only 60% of all the students who go to primary one have access to pre-school. There are 40% of students who have never been to kindergarten. So by the time they go to primary one, that 40% will be lagging behind.

What we have to do now is to improve primary and pre-school education. So we are going to convert something like 20,000 teachers from secondary schools and put them into primary schools. Naturally, there is resistance, but these are fundamental issues we will have to grapple with. If we don’t do this, 23 years from now, this group of people (the students) will be lagging even further.

I have never gone through a transformation programme where there is no resistance to change. So I have said, guys if we want to make incremental changes, that’s okay. Small risk, small resistance. But big transformation is big risk and big resistance. But the price (of not doing it) is big lah. So is the reward.

We all agree that Vision 2020 is a good thing. But at the current cost and speed, we will not get there. But we can get there if we transform and do those things we said we are going to do.

In your laboratory on education, was it addressed that part of the reason why we don’t have good universities is because of the politicking there. We have had a huge brain drain of our university faculty.

That’s partly true and partly false. But we only know the instant calculus. We fix the problem that is there now. And we know that the problem is in pre-school and primary. So we better fix this. So that when these people move into secondary school and university, we have time to fix it.

But you cannot eat a whole elephant. You have to chop it into bits and eat it. We cannot solve the whole problem in one sitting. It doesn’t mean nothing is being done in those areas. The Ministry of Higher Education under Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin, is doing things to improve the universities.

Going back to corruption. Malaysia seems to keep falling in the corruption index, so what kind of resistance are you facing?

They are three buckets of corruption. One is called enforcement and regulatory corruption. The other is called procurement corruption. Then there is political corruption.

Some of the recommendations we made include open tenders, and making sure no minister gives out support letters for any projects. The fact is our corruption index is falling. If that keeps happening, foreign investors won’t have confidence to invest here as they feel policies are so opaque.

We have no choice. We have to make changes to the things that we are doing to reduce corruption. Stiffer punishment is another one. We cannot deal with corruption without stiffer punishment. We are also trying to reduce the time for cases to be tried, particularly those that generate a lot of public interest, to under one year. Some drag on for five years.

So are we correct to say that the message now, to those ‘on the take’ is that the Government is going to catch you and punish you?

Yes.

Can Jala and the GTP succeed?

But you really think you can succeed? That this programme is different from all the other attempts the Government has made in the past to change and transform?

I have no doubt about success because success is a matter of degree. We may not get to the highest peak, but definitely we will succeed to higher levels from current levels. I always believe certain things we can control and certain things we cannot. Sixty per cent of the things in our lives is not in our control. The 40% that we can control, we try our best.

We’re sure you spend a lot of time thinking how you are going to get the buy-in from the 1.2 million civil servants.

The first thing we did was not get a roomful of consultants. Instead, we got a roomful of civil servants. I asked the Cabinet for 240 civil servants. “Please give them to me for six weeks. We will sit there and find solutions,” I told them.

The labs are like a nursery. The lab is a safe place for them to grow. Once it is agreed, we then put them for implementation.

We created something called Delivery Task Force which is chaired by the Prime Minister. He has attended every single one of the meetings. Every month.

The political will is there. The commitment is absolutely there. I sit in those meetings. We report what is on track, what is not on track, who is not delivering. Just like in the private sector lah. There is no difference between how I ran MAS and how I am running this.

Again, why is it different this time, from what has been attempted in the past with limited or no success?

Nobody has done it like this. There is no generality. We don’t talk about pronouncement of policies. I don’t want to hear that. We are talking about things to do.

Yes, we have heard of these things before. But nobody pins it down like we are doing. The difference is in the details – the gory details. Every country can say it wants to improve rural development. But how are you going to do that? We bring it down from 30,000 feet to three feet. That is why we came out with the labs.

The solutions are coming from the civil servants, that is why these solutions will be implemented, because it is invented by them.

To be really honest, they knew the answer all this while. It was just that there was never an opportunity for everyone to talk and brainstorm together.

The 6 KRAs

Targets set for the six Key Result Areas

The Government’s promise of an improved delivery system takes flesh with the Prime Minister’s unveiling of the short-term targets for the six National Key Result Areas.

1. Reduction of crime rate

• Reduce street crime, including snatch thefts and unarmed robbery, by 20% by the end of 2010.
• Re-train Rela members to help improve public perception on safety.
• Upgrade equipment for enforcement agencies and increase the usage of CCTV.
• Set up special courts for street crime to speed up the legal process.

2. Combating corruption

• Updating relevant policies, procedures and enforcement to improve global perception.
• Use open or restricted tender process for all government projects with the exception of those sensitive in nature.

3. Widening access to affordable and quality education

• Make pre-school education part of the national education system.
• Ensure all normal pupils are able to read, write and count when they enter Year Four before 2012.
• Reward school principals and headmasters based on the achievements of each school.
• Turn 100 daily smart, cluster, trust and boarding schools into high performing learning centres by 2012.

4. Raising the living standard of the Poor

• Pay out all welfare cash aid on the first of each month from January.
• Create 4,000 women entrepreneurs under the Sahabat Amanah Ikhtiar programme by 2012.

5. Improving Infrastructure in rural areas

• Build 1,500km of roads in Sabah and Sarawak by 2012.
• Ensure that no one lives more than 5km from a tarred road in the peninsula by 2012.
• Increase electricity coverage in Sabah and Sarawak to 95% by end of 2012.
• Provide 24-hour electricity supply to 7,000 orang asli families in the peninsula by the end of 2012.

6. Improving public transport in the Medium term

• Increase the number of public transport users to 25% by end of 2012 from the present 16%.
• Add 35 sets of four-car-trains to operate on the Kelana Jaya LRT track by the end of 2012.

Source : The Star online.

Mind Boggling KPI measurement !

KPI theory sounds good but the devil is in the execution

Friday July 17, 2009 (fr the STARONLINE)

Psychology at Work - By Dr Goh Chee Leong

“KPIs” (key performance indicators) and “KRAs” (key result areas) are fast becoming a buzzword among Malaysian organisations, both private and public. It’s part of a trend that began 10-12 years ago, in line with the global push towards performance management systems as a means for accelerating growth and attaining organisational focus and discipline.

On the whole, I think this is a positive development – it’s a necessity, especially for larger organisations which may have outgrown more informal means of managing goals and resource allocation. The theory is good. Everyone in the organisation must be clear about what they are to achieve, every day, every week, every month, every quarter, every year. All strategic business units are clear on what their targets and goals are. Everything is aligned to the organisational key result areas. Neat, nice, clear and meaningful. The challenge though, is in the implementation. As most of us with management experience will know, the devil is in the execution. It’s easy (relatively) to map out the institutional KRAs and KPIs, but whether this leads to real organisational change (for the better) will depend on the following two things:

Do we have the guts to tie performance with reward and punishment ?

No performance management system will work unless it is directly tied to remuneration. When the system carries no bite, it holds no power. The causal relationship must be clear; if I achieve my goals (as captured in my KPIs) then I will be rewarded accordingly. If I fail to meet my goals, then I will not be rewarded. In fact I may even be punished by being dismissed or demoted.

Human beings more often than not are creatures of necessity. We do things when we have to. If performance doesn’t matter come bonus review or promotion time, then don’t expect anything to change. It takes guts to enforce such a system, especially in organisations that have not been accustomed to performance based rewards. Staff in these organisations may have become comfortable with a more subjective system of evaluation. Some are used to systems that emphasise patronage or systems that emphasise longevity over performance. There will be resistance. Some will leave. This is the cost of change management. No matter how well the process is managed and how well the message is communicated, there will always be those who are determined to resist a genuine, bona fide performance management system because they have all this while been getting away with contributing very little. To be fair, the goals and KPIs themselves need to be achievable and reasonable. It is bad practice when organisations purposely set targets that are out of reach, as they perpetuate the attitude that “it doesn’t matter anyway, because these targets are impossible.” Never set unreachable goals. Some organisations have two levels of targets: basic targets and stretch targets which are a little higher. Staff are rewarded when they meet their basic targets and are rewarded even more when they meet their stretch targets. I think this is a fair system; by providing two tiers it is reasonable and at the same time provides incentives for staff to over-perform.

Have we trained the line managers to run performance management systems?

Some performance management systems fail because no one below the middle management level has any clue as to what is really going on. In some organisations, the KPIs may be displayed all over the office (as part of ISO compliance) but when you talk to the individual staff, they have no idea how the goals will be measured or how their individual jobs are linked to the departmental KPIs. Similarly, there are many staff in many organisations who have no idea how they will be evaluated and appraised because their direct superiors do not manage the evaluation and appraisal process with any clarity.

I remember some executives telling me “I don’t think my boss even knows how to evaluate me; in fact, he gets me to fill up my own evaluation forms because he does not have the time.” This is symptomatic of a lack of buy in from the line managers who may see staff evaluations as an unimportant nuisance. Others comment that “my boss doesn’t provide any feedback; positive or negative during my evaluation meetings; so I have no idea whether he is happy with my performance or not.” This may be due to some managers fearing confrontation with staff and therefore, they avoid providing any critical feedback. A recent survey by a local consulting firm among 50 organisations in Kuala Lumpur indicated that less than 45% briefed their staff regularly on whether their department had met their KPIs. This should be of great concern. If staff don’t know whether they are hitting their targets or not, how can they calibrate their performance?

We must brief all our line managers and make it clear in no uncertain terms that the evaluation and appraisal process should be taken seriously and that all staff must be well aware of their KPIs and should be given regular feedback on whether they are achieving them. It helps when we have clear, hard targets, KPIs that are easy to quantify. Many supervisors struggle with evaluating soft targets. This of course, can be a work in progress.

When organisations introduce performance management systems, it is my recommendation that for the first few cycles, they start with the hard targets. It makes it easier for the organisation to get “comfortable” with a new system when it is neat, clean and clear. Over time, soft targets can be introduced and training and mentoring must accompany these to support the line managers in implementing them.

● Dr Goh Chee Leong is vice-president of HELP University College and a psychologist. We welcome feedback on this article. Please email to starbiz@thestar.com.my

PM Najib's 6 key areas for KPI

2009/07/11 derived from NST Online;

KUALA LUMPUR, Sat: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak today announced six national key result areas (KRA) for more effective attainment of the targets of the key performance indicators (KPI).

He said these are :

1. crime prevention,

2. fighting of corruption,

3. widening access to quality and affordable education,

4. raising the living standard of the low-income people,

5. upgrading infrastructure in the rural and interior regions, and

6. improving public transportation in a moderate period of time.

Najib said these six areas will be given priority focus by himself, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Cabinet ministers and Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan.

Tricky task of fine-tuning KPI's

Finally, after six weeks, the preliminary key performance indicators (KPIs) for the ministers are ready. What are they and will they actually help our ministers perform their duties better? ANIZA DAMIS speaks to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, who is in charge of driving the ministers and their KPIs, and finds out that this is only the beginning

Q: Why is it that ministers are only having KPIs now? Does this mean the government had no focus?

A: That's not true. The government does have focus but it was done through the civil service. Every ministry has a mission statement, vision statement, objectives and, for each and every programme, they have a listing of what is to be achieved. Budgeting and implementing the budget is in itself a performance-management exercise. It's just that we have not used the methodology, KPIs and the balance-score card system in such a rigorous way. And we have not applied it to ministers and deputy ministers. For example, it used to take three weeks to get a new passport. And then, a year ago, you could get your passport within a day, and now you can get your passport within three hours. So, this is a very clear and obvious success of a KPI exercise.

Q: The ministers have submitted the preliminary KPIs to the prime minister. Have they done a good job of it?

A: This is only the first round. For many ministers, and even for me, there is a learning curve.
In the corporate world, the exercise of driving performance through KPIs usually takes a few cycles, around two to four years, to fine tune, to make sure the targets are correct. The KPIs make the targets very focused, very clear. But I think there's a sense of commitment. I was really impressed that every minister was dedicated to getting their preliminary KPIs done. It wasn't easy. There was concern over how to measure something that doesn't seem quantifiable. For example, take my own portfolio: How do you measure national unity? I'm still in the process of figuring it out. As a rough measure, we used to take what is called the index of inter-ethnic quarrels. Any quarrel between at least two individuals of different ethnic backgrounds may become a police case. So, we take that and track it. We look at how many quarrels there were, how serious they were and how they were resolved.

Q: So, what's your KPIs?

A: I just submitted what was being used as preliminary KPIs, the number of incidents that have been reported to and recorded by the police. I said this was all that we had (as a yardstick). But I have asked the Institute for Inter-Ethnic Relations of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, headed by Professor Shamsul Bahrin, and his researchers to help me find out whether there are already existing ones in other countries and new indices we can create to more effectively measure "national unity" and "social harmony". If we can come up with certain measures as an indicator, then we can come up with an implementation plan to enhance social harmony, national unity, inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony.

Q: Last year, the National Unity and Integration Department registered 364 demonstrations and street protests. Would you take a demonstration as a positive or negative indicator of unity?

A: That is debatable. In fact, I'm in the process of discussing this with my officers. If it's a peaceful gathering of 2,000 people at a town hall, they are very unhappy and demonstrating their anger, but if they sit down and discuss things, then that's positive, because there would be a fruitful exchange of ideas. But with street demonstrations, although some would say that's an avenue to vent their feelings, I would say that it would be less fruitful than a serious discussion, where there is real communication and dialogue. Whatever it is, we need to resolve the problem.

Q: If it takes a few cycles to fine-tune KPIs, how solid are these KPIs which were prepared in just six weeks?

A: Whatever that was submitted by the ministers are what we call preliminary KPIs. They are very preliminary, based on the KPIs for their own secretary-generals, but not solely based on them. The most important thing the minister has to look at is the impact and outcome for the people and public perception. That makes it challenging. We are trying to do something, that normally takes a very long time, in a very short span of time . Since my official appointment, I've been sleeping and eating KPIs. We have lunch meetings and dinner meetings. I have to do lots of reading and have discussions with people who have a lot of experience with KPIs.

Q: At what point will these preliminary KPIs translate to actual KPIs?

A: After the preliminaries, there will be a dialogue between my colleagues and I to fine-tune the KPIs with the help of experts. Then, the second round will be a discussion with the prime minister, to see whether the KPIs are realistic. Then, we will implement it. The prime minister has set another deadline in November, which is when they have the first assessment. After Nov-ember, we will be going into KPI Version 2.0.

Q: That means the first assessment in November is not going to be an assessment on the ministers, but rather it is an assessment on the effectiveness of the KPIs?

A: Yes. There is a wide range of quantitative and qualitative aspects of performance, and of a different nature, too, from ministry to ministry. The International Trade and Industry Ministry and the Domestic Trade Ministry, for instance, have more quantitative measures. But even then, you have to see what the relevant measures are. For example, if you take foreign direct investments as the absolute amount, how would you measure it? We must also have a relative measure, because in the context of a global economic crisis, you cannot expect Malaysia to have an increase in FDI when the whole global FDI is collapsing. So then, it has to be relative. This is what I mean by fine-tuning. The danger is, if you set your KPIs too high, you're going to be in trouble, because people will say, "You're boasting". You can be 100 per cent sure that there will be a shortfall and you'll end up punishing yourself. But if you set your KPIs too low, people will think it's ridiculous, because it doesn't make any difference. So, the setting of targets itself is extremely challenging.

Q: Besides setting a target for what is deemed to be a success, are ministries setting a target for what is deemed to be a failure?

A: I think there would a grading scale. For instance, if we set a target for getting a passport ready in three hours, would it be realistic to say that, if for some reason you deliver it within six hours instead, that it is a failure? No, I would still say that it is a success.

Q: How many hours would constitute failure?

A: That would depend on public perception. People want speed, but most are also reasonable. They ask for reasonable speed. If you tell people their documents will be ready the next day before 5pm, and you keep to that promise, they would be happy. But, for those who need their passports urgently, special efforts will be made to get the passports ready in time. If we set our target too unrealistically and invest in too many personnel, we can get the passport done in one hour, but then the law of diminishing returns would come in. For instance, if in the past it took three weeks and now it takes three days, that's a tremendous improvement. But, if it takes five times the resources to drive it to one day, then it may not be worth it. Because those resources are actually public resources, and could be used to drive other things. So, you have to have a very holistic view of the allocation of resources, and this is where some of us come in. Because, even if you have billions, it is still limited resources. So, part of it is setting expectations. People want speed, certainty and courtesy; that's the three most important factors in their perception of government service. We should drive our organisation so that it works to its maximum. But we should also not over-drive it so that it's humanly not possible.

Q: How are you going to measure public perception?

A: We would like our political leaders and civil servants to be sensitised, so that they can immediately detect public sentiments. They must be sensitive, yet positive to complaints. Secondly, we can conduct public opinion polls. Or we can even have certain devices for people to vote whether they are happy with the service of that particular officer. In some countries, there are certain buttons to push: green is for "very happy", amber is for "so-so", and red is for "very bad". We might adopt that for certain counter services. But this would only come in later, after we have assessed the situation.

Q: What are the KPIs for the home minister?

A: Each minister will probably have a few KPIs. But we would like the minister to identify what he thinks are the most important and relevant KPIs to the people. That can only be arrived at through the experience and acumen of the minister as a political leader and the head of the ministry; but more importantly, through some kind of feedback from our clients.

Q: At what are the KPIs targeted? Is it the satisfaction of the people or the well-running of the government and nation?

A: They are inter-related. There are KPIs that can be objectively measured -- in the delivery of certain services. But then there's also the qualitative aspect, which is perception and sentiment, which may not be completely related and determined by the objective and quantitative measure. For instance, I can give you your passport within a day. But if I give it to you with a sour face and with certain negative remarks, you're going to be very angry. Today, through technology, we will get much more feedback than 10 years ago. That in itself is a monitoring process and wake-up call. It's already there. And the final analysis is how people will vote.

Q: Keeping voters happy does not necessarily mean that the government is being run properly.

A: Yes. That's why we need objective measures.

You can be a populist and make people very happy over a period of time, and yet, misuse and abuse your resources. Or doing things that are not right, and yet keep people happy. For example, a very easy thing to do it is to give people money. Or to give a waiver on fines and summons; people can do what they like. But is it fair for other members of the public, if people park indiscriminately and they are not given a traffic summons? That's why we need objective measures.

Q: What is the role of Khazanah in all this?

A: Khazanah plays a very supportive role. But it's not Khazanah alone. We have within the civil service today the PSD (Public Service Department), Mampu (Malay-sian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit) and ICU (Implementation Coordination Unit). We are talking to everybody, because we would like to have a cross-fertilisation between the public and private sectors and what better group to turn to for experience?
Khazanah and Malaysia Airlines used KPIs to turn the airline around.
But I have not exhausted all the possibilities. I have yet to have a very deep conversation with Pemudah (task force to address bureaucracy issues in business-government dealings), for instance, which is a fine example of how you can get the public and private sector to work together to drive delivery.

Q: How much of the KPIs are the public going to be privy to?

A: We would like to have KPIs that are relevant, that have a direct impact and outcome on the people. There are many KPIs that are related to procedural, technical aspects, which even if you explained to the public, they won't be interested.

Q: Is a minister's performance going to be made public?

A: The public is going to be making their assessment anyway, with or without disclosure. But there are bound to be some headline KPIs. For example, if the Immigration Department had announced three years ago, before they embarked on this exercise of reducing the time it takes to make a passport, that would have been a very publicly-known, trackable KPI.

Q: KPIs are supposed to make ministers more answerable than in the past. But, like the report card system previously, no one knows what the report card reads. Surely we shouldn't have to wait five years for the elections?

A: We will make the KPIs public in less than a year. In fact, many of the KPIs will be determined by the public. For instance, the public will say it wants the crime rate to be reduced. So, what's the measure? What category of crimes are we talking about?

Q: How will you assure the people that their opinion matters outside of election time?

A: We can assure them, because the prime minister has repeatedly talked about it, we are driving it and within 30 days, we were even able to come up with the preliminary KPIs, when it would normally have taken half a year.

Q: If the public doesn't know what the preliminary KPIs are, how are they going to know whether six weeks' work is any good at all?

A: It will be judged by our final delivery. People will not want to wait for too long. So, we are putting a lot of pressure on ourselves.

Q: Everything I've heard so far are just promises. You are promising that you want to improve something. But you haven't told me what you want to improve, how it's going to be improved, and how I am supposed to know whether it's improved.

A: We would like you to tell us the five most important things that you would like us to improve.

Q: If the people want to give their feedback, how can they do that?

A: They can do that through the media.

Q: Is there a more formal channel?

A: We can do that through every ministry, if the matter is ministry-specific. They can write to the prime minister's 1Malaysia blog; they can write to me. And many of us are going to the ground, going on walkabouts.

Q: Is the feedback going to be collated properly?

A: We are setting up a system. Every ministry also has its own public clients' charter, and service information unit. We also have the Public Complaints Bureau. I can only start gauging things when we are in the thick of it. With the kind of commitment I see from the prime minister and my colleagues, the awareness, the consciousness and commitment, there will be a marked improvement in the next one to two years.

Q: Do your brother and sister ministers know what their goals are?

A: They know what the broader objectives are for their ministry. They know the programmes and the projects. But now what we are trying to do is to actually give a methodology for them to set a target within a timeframe. A target that, preferably, would be measurable and trackable and a methodology of implementation and a way of measuring it daily or weekly so that we stay focused. Every one of them is trying his best. But trying our best is not good enough. We must try our best within a certain framework, guidelines and methodology that have proven to be effective in corporate companies and even in governments. We want goals that the public can benefit from so that they can feel there is a difference. Part of driving KPIs is to look at the whole mechanism. It's not just tinkling with changes and procedure. It may involve changing the procedure itself! We are asking every minister to drive his own KPI exercise. I am only serving as a promoter and facilitator.

Q: Does every ministry have a specific section in its ministry or website that allows the public to send feedback?

A: Hopefully, within six months or so, every ministry will have a website that is interactive, that will be able to take more comments.

Q: When the exercise actually starts, what do you see your role as being?

A: The exercise has already started. I have to try to deliver this framework and guidelines, as well as supporting staff in order to drive other ministries. We will set up a new unit called Pemandu (Performance Management and Delivery Unit) which will draw upon existing units from Mampu, ICU, PSD, EPU, as well as Khazanah, to have a more focused group to support each minister and ministry in their drive. The whole KPI exercise is actually to get everybody focused and to get them to do a lot of things in their own area of responsibility, to contribute towards that goal.

NewsFocus on KPI: Setting meaningful targets key to making it work

The men and women of the civil service will ultimately determine whether a ruling party’s policies succeed or fail.

Key performance indicators are metrics designed to evaluate how well an organisation performs in meeting its stated goals. Launching his '1Malaysia, People First, Performance Now' agenda, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced that KPIs would be instituted for Cabinet-level positions as well as the civil service they command. YONG HUEY JIUN and SHERIDAN MAHAVERA examine the promise and potential pitfalls of KPIs in that context.

PRIME Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's ambitious agenda to measure the performance of cabinet ministers with key performance indicators (KPIs) will require adaptability, resoluteness, a focused strategy and a steely determination to see it through. The idea was greeted with "cautious optimism" at best, and cynicism at worst.  The Prime Minister's Department, appointed to oversee the formulation of these KPIs, is expected to face a series of challenges from the start.

Omar Mustapha, managing partner of consulting firm Ethos & Co, notes that "in business, it is pretty straightforward: as your stakeholders are the shareholders of the company, we can assume that shareholders are interested in the long-term financial success of the company". But it's different with governments: "We need to start by understanding what is important for the country as well as the rakyat.  "Overall, this should be about making Malaysia a competitive and prosperous country that provides the rakyat with a high quality living environment, i.e. safe from crime, good healthcare access, etc.

"Various documents -- Vision 2020, the National Mission statement -- should be the guide for understanding national aspirations." The government's KPIs, he says, "need to measure those metrics that have the most leverage in terms of impacting the identified national aspirations". If, for example, the objective is to provide the rakyat with a quality living environment, what constitutes "quality" to the rakyat?  "It may be about improving public safety, better transport infrastructure, more affordable housing, better healthcare or cleaner environment." The outcome KPI, therefore, must apply to the minister and government agencies concerned with this particular objective. Omar cautions that there must not be too many KPIs, with a balance between near- and long-term goals, and between what is important for national competitiveness and what the rakyat wants. Getting the KPIs right, he warns, depends on setting meaningful targets. "The worst thing that can happen is that the government publishes data that show that they have met their targets, but the rakyat knows this is incongruent with what is actually being experienced on the ground." Critical to success, he says, is ensuring substance over form. 

Omar itemises six criteria in this regard:

- Selecting KPIs that really matter;

- Setting targets for each KPI that is tied to national aspirations, as opposed to what is comfortable for the ministry to achieve;

- Supporting the KPIs with clear action plans;

- Ensuring integrity in performance reporting;

- Having clear consequences for non-performance; and,

- Developing clear communication and buy-in.

"Generally, you start from the top and then cascade down. 

"This is the only way to have KPIs that are truly strategic and focused on key priorities."

He recommends that top management itself, i.e. ministers, deputies and secretaries-general, be involved in KPI development. "The prime minister must be personally engaged in this process to ensure focus and attention is given to the priorities that truly matter, to how the government as a whole, will be measured and evaluated by the rakyat at the next general election."

At the mercy of civil servants 

BELOW are true stories in dealing with the civil service.

* An Immigration Department officer openly contradicts official policy by refusing re-entry to a foreign maid because she had gone home during a 2004 amnesty for foreign workers. When her employer tells the officer that the home minister had publicly guaranteed that workers like her could come back to work in Malaysia, the officer replies: "What the minister said is one thing but I have not received any new directives, so we will continue with the old policy." * An illiterate man from Taiping tries to apply for a birth certificate and is shoved to Ipoh and Putrajaya, only to be told that he has to go back to get a sworn statement from his village head. The man seeks help from his member of parliament, who tried in vain to get the document in time for the general election. The MP is then blamed for being inept.

* A man turns up at the Housing and Local Government Ministry's headquarters with a bag of garbage, dumps it in the foyer and stomps off. He tells the shocked security guards that he is disgusted with not being able to get garbage collection services despite numerous complaints to the ministry. In all these cases, asks former deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department  Datuk M. Kayveas, who do you think gets blamed at the end of the day?  "The Barisan Nasional, even though we as ministers and deputies tried our best to make dealing with the government as people-friendly as possible." The relationship between the civil service and political appointees such as ministers is complex. So, when it comes to instituting KPIs on ministers and deputy ministers, Kayveas bluntly says it misses the point.

"A minister and his deputies' performance are very much dependent on the senior government officers and the civil servants below them. "A minister can come up with brilliant ideas but if the implementers under him refuse to cooperate, those ideas will only remain as ideas. "So how do you fairly rate a minister's performance? What kind of measures do you use that takes all this into consideration?" And implementers can throw up a thousand and one barriers if they want to hamstring a minister. Relating his experience, Kayveas tells of how a plan could not get off the ground quickly because the officer in charge was away on course.  When the officer returned, months were spent on getting a proper working paper drawn up.  More months passed before the necessary approvals were received. "By the time we could really move ahead with it, the general election was already called." The number one reason why great ideas do not get translated into working policies is because there is a yawning chasm in motivation and incentive between political appointees and civil servants. Political appointees have to do their best because they can get dropped from the cabinet, they go through the mother of all assessments -- the general election.

In contrast, civil servants jobs are for the most part secure and effectively free of public scrutiny and appraisal. This, Kayveas says, has turned the civil service's senior managers -- directors and secretaries-general -- into an exclusive cabal. "There is a common saying among them: 'A minister comes and goes every five years but we stay forever.' "There are brilliant officers but they are not given a chance to shine.  "They are often sidelined by either their superiors whose positions are threatened, or by their colleagues who fear that their performance would reflect badly on them." In his opinion, the only way to ensure that the machinery performs is to replace directors and secretaries-general with elected politicians.  "At present, the elected party does not run the government. We allow civil servants to run it but it is the politician who has to face the people when there is a fire, a flood or when someone cannot get documents."

A KPI for political appointees may help the prime minister choose his cabinet, but it has little impact on the common folk who have to deal with the government every day. Another set of KPI for the civil service's senior managers would also be pointless. Kayveas cites an example of how even the most derelict and scandalous officers are shielded from action by the "cabal".

"If you want improvement in how the government functions, put the politicians in charge."

NewsFocus on KPI: Cuepacs wants 'two-way' evaluation system

from the NSTOnline 26/4/2009

CUEPACS, the umbrella body of low-ranking workers in public-sector unions, wants the KPI for senior government officers such as directors, secretaries-general and their deputies to be based on how well they get along with their subordinates.

It is these officers, who rank from "Grade 41 to the Chief Secretary", that can motivate the clerks, drivers, technicians and assistants, who made up the bulk of the government's machinery, to work well. Ultimately, it will also determine whether ministers or deputy ministers can achieve their own KPI. "If clerks in a department do not give a 100 per cent in their jobs, the department does not perform at 100 per cent and the minister's KPI will not be attained," said Cuepacs president Omar Osman. To get the most out of the 950,000 staffers in the civil service, it is crucial that senior officers get along well with their subordinates, and the KPIs for these officers must recognise this. Relations are easily soured when senior officers refuse to give their staff salary increments.  Omar claims that there are about 50,000 union members who have never been promoted despite working in the same office for 30 years.

In the public mind, it is these people who represent the listless civil servant showing up late for work because he runs a burger stall at night, and allows the stacks of application forms to pile up on his desk. But what is seldom recognised is that these are also the people who were passed over and over again for pay rise and promotion by senior officers, who are intent on rewarding those whom they liked.

"It is a welfare issue between the worker and the employer. If a worker does not get enough from his primary job, he may have to go out and find a supplementary income. 

"The worker's welfare is determined by the senior officer because the person who decides whether an employee gets an increment is this officer," said Omar. It is discouraging when senior officers neglect to hold the intra-departmental council meetings (majlis bersama jabatan) with their staff.  Everything, from overtime schedules to training courses and disciplinary problems is meant to be discussed at the meetings, which were supposed to be held four times a year.

The MBJ is compulsory, yet there are senior officers getting away with not holding them at all. The problem, Omar said, is the absence of supervision on the performance of senior officers, unlike for union members who are assessed by their superiors. It can even be argued that ministers and deputy ministers are also assessed by an independent entity -- the voters -- who judge them every five years in a general election.

 "So when it comes to KPIs for these senior officers, the congress is urging the prime minister to include officer-subordinate relations as a component to ensure that they foster good working relationships with their staff, and that they hold the MBJs and act on their recommendations," said Omar.

"Most importantly, action must be taken against senior officers who fail in these areas."

KPI is S.I.M.P.L.E

No organization can prosper without having the right people in place doing the right things at the right time. However, in today's fast-paced business world, more and more employees are expected to perform a variety of tasks, wear many different hats, and think outside the box. As a result, the lines of responsibility and accountability have become blurred.

Managers and business leaders often assume employees know what is expected of them. They are then surprised when the work doesn't get done as planned; fingers are pointed and blame is placed (often misplaced).

As a manager or business leader, it's your responsibility to set your employees up for success. You need to define your expectations and then hold your employees accountable for those results. But how do you do this?

Actually, it's simple. Follow these six SIMPLE steps with your employees and start to realize the results you've always wanted.

S=Set Expectations

The success of any organization comes down to one thing: how well it organizes its members to focus on and work toward the same purpose. Your employees need to know what is expected of them before you can hold them accountable for anything. You can't assume they know what is supposed to be done, when, and to what quality level. The more clearly you set expectations and goals up front, the less time you will waste later clarifying - or worse, arguing about - what was really expected.

I=Invite Commitment

Just because your employees know what to do doesn't mean they will do it. After goals and expectations are set, employees need to commit to achieving them. Employees are more likely to do this when they understand two things: how the goals will benefit them personally, and how the goals will help move the organization forward. Once this connection is made they are more likely to buy into the goals, and actually welcome you holding them accountable for the results.

M=Measure Progress

You need information to hold your employees accountable. You must measure their ongoing performance and gauge whether or not they meet the goals and expectations to which they had previously committed.

Goals are only measurable when they are quantified. Measure the results and compare them to your employees' goals to discover the gaps that require further attention. 

P=Provide Feedback

Share the information you gather with your employees. Feedback won't solve problems by itself, but it will open the door for problem-solving discussions and follow-up actions. Your employees need feedback to do a good job and improve in areas where performance is falling short of expectations. Most of the time, giving objective, behavioral feedback is all it takes. Setting expectations followed by quality feedback is the backbone of holding someone accountable for results. 

A note about the way in which you provide feedback: 

True feedback is a gift. To be effective, the feedback you offer must come from a sincere desire on your part to help or support your employee, not to merely fixhim or her. If you can't come at it from this perspective, you may fail, no matter what words you choose or methods you use. Intent is more important than technique.

L=Link to Consequences

Sometimes employees need a little external motivation to live up to their commitments. When they struggle to reach their goals, you can help them by administering appropriate consequences. Do not confuse consequences with punishments. Punishments are those things inflicted on employees that make them pay for their shortcomings. They do not contribute to a solution. Consequences, however, will guide and focus employees' behavior and encourage them to take their commitments more seriously.

E=Evaluate Effectiveness

Once your employees have committed to the expectations you set and you have provided constructive feedback and support along the way, it is time to evaluate your results. Look at the quantifiable goals you set forth and determine if you were successful at holding your employees accountable for reaching those goals. Also, review how you handled the process. Find ways to be more effective at applying the principles of accountability and hold yourself accountable for holding others accountable.

Employee accountability is a big factor in business success. Sure you're busy, but don't make the mistake of hoping your employees will figure out what they should do on their own. Help them achieve success for themselves and for your business by setting expectations, inviting commitment, measuring progress, providing feedback, linking to consequences, and evaluating effectiveness.

Put a systematic and consistent method in place and you'll find that when people are held accountable for the work that must get done, it gets done – and then some! 

---

Grading by KPI - A measure of Serving the people ?

KEY performance indicators — does the civil service use them and have they helped? More importantly, will they ensure that we get a good and civil service? ANIZA DAMIS speaks to the civil service’s top man, Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Sidek Hassan.

Tan Sri Sidek Hassan at his office in Putrajaya.

Q: Is the civil service cooperative of the leadership's directives? 

A: Yes. How else do you think we are where we are? How did we manage to develop in terms of infrastructure which is "first world" and in terms of where we are now as a nation?  Look at our neighbours: How do we fare, in relation to some of them? Even with the current economic situation, I think we are faring very well, relative to the world.  How did we do it? Because the public service has responded to what the government wants us to do.  We're not perfect, and we'll keep on harping on this issue of integrity, efficiency, customer-centric issues.  But, I am unequivocal in saying that the civil service has been very responsive to the wishes of the government and the wishes of the people. 

Q: So, the outcome of the 2008 general election is not a reflection on the civil service? Is it just a reflection of the government's political failures? 

A: I don't know whether that was a "failure", but that's up to the electorate. 

Q: And the decision of the electorate is not based on the performance of the civil service? 

A: It is, in some ways. You cannot divorce the civil service from the government, as if we are entirely oblivious to what the government is doing. 

Q: So, if the electorate says, "This government is lousy; it doesn't collect my rubbish", is that a reflection of the political party or the civil service? 

A: That is the problem of each and every one of us. It is a very close symbiotic relationship. 

Who collects the rubbish? It's the local authorities. Who runs the local authorities? Not all of this is the prime minister's job; some of them will be part of my job. So, if the prime minister were to ask me to do something and I don't, would you blame the PM for that?  When I became the KSN (Ketua Setiausaha Negara or Chief Secretary), I tried to address major areas where we could carry out improvements in terms of public service delivery.  It's okay now, but we can improve further.  The role of the local authorities is quite simple in my mind. It is the SLR (sampah, longkang dan rumput -- rubbish, drains and grass).  I'm a rakyat, too. Imagine if they don't collect my sampah, and they don't clean my longkang, and they don't cut my rumput. And then, the lampu (streetlight) near my road is missing, and the jalan (road) is a mess.  But is that the problem of the prime minister or menteri besar? It's not.If it's in Kuala Lumpur , that's the problem of the mayor. But you cannot expect the mayor to make sure all the SLR is done. He expects his Number Two and Number Three to work.  But, beyond the SLR, there are other things that the local authorities have got to do.  For instance, if I want to build a house, I want to make sure that my plan is approved fast -- not like 20 years from now.  Therefore, it's about addressing the core business.  You blame the prime minister because he's the leader. But if you start blaming the prime minister, people should also start blaming themselves.  Because, in some ways, you allow that to happen. If, for example, I see my longkang not being cleaned, why didn't I complain? I have allowed it to continue. 

Q: So, people should complain if they are unhappy with the services provided? 

A: Yes, of course. But they cannot at the same time always say: "This is the PM's and minister's fault." You can't.  Secondly, when you have generated rubbish (when in public), do you put it in your pocket until you can throw it away in a proper place? Or do you throw it away carelessly? 

I always see people throwing it around.  It's not about the government; it's about us. 

Q: Does the civil service have KPIs and what are they? 

A: It depends on how you define "KPIs".  In January, every one of us is evaluated on how we performed the previous year, through the LMPT (Laporan Penilaian Prestasi Tahunan -- annual performance assessment report). They are evaluated based on their SKT (Sasaran Kerja Tahunan -- annual work target).  But if you talk about KPIs in the formal sense, then only the 38 people at the top of the civil service will be involved. That includes me, all the secretary-generals, the director-general of the Public Service Department, the Attorney-General, the Inspector-General of Police and the chief of the Armed Forces. 

Q: Does what is expected of each individual vary between ministries? 

A: Of course. It has to be unique to the person because each person's portfolio and responsibility is different. 

Q: How do you assess them? Is it through exams? 

A: The assessment for the purpose of evaluation (LMPT) is done at two levels: one is by your immediate supervising officer and his immediate supervising officer.  They will judge whether you have fulfilled what you promised to do in your SKT. There will also be a judgment on your integrity, how well you relate to others, communication skills, etc.  The other form of evaluation is for the purpose of promotion. Most people would go to Intan (Institut Tadbiran Awam Negara or National Institute of Public Administration), where they are evaluated on the course they took, the papers they wrote and class participation. There is also the facilitator's assessment and a peer assessment. 

Q: How effective or realistic are these assessments? 

A: I've been trying to convert many people to this "religion" of being objective and honest. 

The grading is done in numerics, with "1" being the worst, and "10" the best.  Out of 100 points, if you get 90 and above, that is melintang . If you get 80 to 89.9, that is menegak, and that's still very good. If you get below 79.9, that's not very good.  Supervisors should be marking their people along those lines. But if you were to grade everyone at 95 per cent throughout, then either he or she is lucky to have so many good officials or there's something wrong with the marking.  Therefore, how realistic it is depends on how these supervisors do it. 

Q: Are there any ministries or departments that do this? 

A: I think there are some, but more and more now, we are telling them the value of being honest. 

Q: How effective is an assessment by your boss? For instance, if you're someone who always stands your ground for good reason, which may inconvenience your boss, how will that person be assessed? 

A: I'd give very good marks. He or she would be promoted. The civil service is all about merit.  In the civil service, that is the "religion" the prime minister is talking about, and it is also the "religion" the former prime minister espoused. 

Q: What is the public service's role in promoting 1Malaysia? 

A: Everything. The role of the civil service is about everything that the government wants to do. 

It's very critical for all of us to appreciate the importance, the pivotal role that we, the 1.2 million civil servants, have.  Imagine if the civil service didn't deliver? The two huge stimulus packages, or the budget, or any programme that the government has come up with would be affected. Therefore, it's a question of implementation; of carrying out the policies, projects and programmes of the government.  The prime minister came up with the 1Malaysia concept but do you think the whole thing can move if the civil service doesn't move? Impossible. 

Q: The prime minister has asked the cabinet to come up with KPIs for themselves. What are your KPIs? 

A: Very simple - to improve public service delivery.  What do you think of the public delivery service?  Is it that when you complain about your drain, that I look into it? Is it when you complain your light is faulty, I come straight away? 

A good public delivery service goes far beyond that -- it means that you don't have to complain.  Why should you complain that your drain has not been cleaned, or your rubbish has not been collected, or your streetlight bulb has not been changed when it is expected that all this is supposed to work properly? 

Even so, if, occasionally, you do have reason to complain, then the problem should be rectified immediately.  We want to have such a good public delivery service that people have no reason to complain.  And if they do have complaints, then it's going to be attended to very quickly.  So, I suppose my KPIs are that the public service delivery should be what people want. 

Q: And how were your KPI performance for 2008? 

A: I didn't check the number. 

Q: You're not bothered? 

A: The KPIs now are a 360-degree model.  They are moving around now and asking what my bosses think of me. They are asking my colleagues and secretaries-general what they think of me and how I perform.  I'm not going to ask how I fared, but if you're talking about integrity, then, deep in my heart, I have been honestly trying to deliver on my promise. And that is the biggest KPIs anyone should have. 

Q: You said there's this group of 38 very senior management people. How are they assessed? 

A: The KPIs are assessed by their boss, their peers and by their subordinates -- it's 360 degrees. 

Q: Should senior management have external assessors instead? 

A: You can. But for the ministers, they also have a lot of external assessors.  Every four or five years, they have the external assessors (meaning the electorate). 

Q: Yes, that is the ultimate assessment for politicians. But should the top management in the civil service have external assessment? 

A: But what would be the outcome? 

Q: Perhaps it would be more neutral? 

A: For what? 

Q: For instance, if you have to work with a secretary-general, and you have to work together whether you like it or not. So, you're not going to give a bad assessment of this person, are you? Have you ever given a bad assessment of a brother senior manager? 

A: How do you define "bad assessment"? 

Q: Let's say if that person's not performing... 

A: Do you think I've given everyone 100 per cent? 

Q: What's the worst? 

A: 46 per cent. 

Q: What happened to that person? 

A: I don't know where that person is now.  Sometimes, people who are not performing are just taken out of their positions and put in the pool. And they stay there.  What is the reason for having external assessors? 

Q: To have a neutral force. 

A: Who defines neutrality? 

If a secretary-general is being assessed, he is assessed by the director-general of the Public Service Department and I am the counter-signee. Then, there'll also be assessments by his peers -- the other secretaries-general.  Are you questioning the integrity of Sidek Hassan, the Chief Secretary of the Government?  Do you doubt my integrity? You think it's better to trust someone out there instead? 

Q: How much input do subordinates have on their bosses? 

A: Now, not so much. Except for the 38 top people. 

Q: What is the weightage of the assessment by the managed on the manager? 

A: At the moment, not much. 

Q: Would you say that that input is important? 

A: That's why we are going for 360 degrees. We have done that for the 38. For the rest, hopefully, it will be applied within this one year or so.  Right now, we are also working on the level below the 38 -- the deputy secretary-generals and deputy director-generals.  This is where people have to take very seriously the evaluation. I am truthful to myself and take this very seriously. I've always made sure the assessments I made were photocopied. Then, the person being assessed puts down the marks he feels he deserves.  When he comes to me with it, I look at the original assessment and we negotiate.  But what is actually important is the mentoring. It's not about a once-a-year affair. It's about continuously improving.  Many people think they should wait only once a year. Some use it to take their revenge on a subordinate. But this is not the right attitude. Human resource is the most important thing.  I go to Intan and talk to new recruits, or soon-to-be promoted senior managers, telling them what my expectations are. I also speak to the bosses and tell them what to do -- the mentoring part.  People always take the LMPT as the main indicator of improvement. But it shouldn't be. That is purely after you mentor them the whole year and try to improve them.  Talk about public service delivery. Speak about efficiency, doing it now, so that your customer is happy. If you have done that, the LMPT is only to put the mark. But it should be a continuous process. And all of us must behave like that. It's very important. 

Q: The PM, when he was talking about KPIs for his cabinet, mentioned loyalty. What is your idea of what loyalty is in the civil service? 

A: Loyalty means 1Malaysia, "People First, Performance Now". It's about being loyal to what I'm supposed to do. Call it loyalty, integrity or whatever. Loyalty is doing what you're expected to do. 

Q: And what are you expected to do? Service to nation? 

A: Yes. 

Q: If people are really unhappy with the civil service, they shouldn't give the prime minister the chop. They should just give civil servants the chop. 

A: They should tell the prime minister and the prime minister will give the civil servant the chop. 

I would give them the chop. 

Q: So, if people do give the prime minister or any minister the chop, it's actually because of the lack of leadership? 

A: Of course. Like the Americans say: "The buck stops here." So, of course the buck stops there! But you cannot be blaming the president of the United States for everything that goes wrong. 

Q: What is the penalty if a civil servant doesn't perform? 

A: Depends on what was agreed upon. We cannot sack a person at the drop of a pin. But there has to be some sort of penalty. 

Q: Are civil servants too secure in the idea that they can't get sacked? 

A: Even secretary-generals cannot be so sure.  If everybody takes care of his own area of responsibility, then we'll live happily ever after. It might be conceptual, but it works.  I believe in punishing people. The punishing part is something that not many of us like to do.  But, if you know that you are responsible for meting out punishment and you have not done it, then action should be taken against you.  And that is something that we are doing. For instance, why is it that sometimes people are "hanged"? And why do they hang them in public or chop off their heads in public?  One reason is to get rid of the offending person. The other is to make sure there are no other intended offenders.  And that, sometimes, is more important than getting rid of the offender.

from the NSTOnline 26/4/2009