United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

There is a widespread perception in India that the Government departments have not delivered what was expected from them. The gap between rhetoric and realty is considered enormous. Most informed observers believe that India’s biggest development challenge consists of closing the so called “implementation gap.”

At one point in India’s history, availability of resources may have been an issue, today, fortunately, that is not the case. The recent strong growth rates have made India the fourth largest economy in the World. If these trends hold, India may soon become the second largest economy behind China.

Yet, as the latest Human Development Report (HDR) suggests, the benefits of strong growth are not trickling down fast enough to the billion plus people of India.

As the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy, clearly it is not because policy makers are ignoring the poor citizens of India—in a democracy that is not possible. Event international agencies and development experts would acknowledge that India has set an example in terms of devising policies for promoting “inclusive growth.” However, there is a big difference between making such policies and implementing them.

Government departments remain the main engines (or instruments) for designing and implementing these policies. Hence, the problem of poor implementation can be traced back to the door steps of these Government departments.

Next logical question is: why these departments have not succeeded in implementing these policies? The short answer has to be lack of accountability for implementation. As most of the world knows, Indian Civil Service consist of one of the most capable and competent group of individuals. They are selected through a very rigorous exam and are trained in some of the best institutions in India and abroad. It is now widely believed that the problem lies primarily with the system in which these individuals operate.

The systems for accountability for results in the Indian Government suffered from several limitations. Examples of these limitations follow:

a) There is fragmentation of institutional responsibility for performance management. Departments are required to report to multiple principals who often have multiple objectives that are not always consistent with each other. A department could be reporting to the Department of Programme Implementation on important programmes and projects, Department of Public Enterprises on the performance of public enterprises under it, Department of Expenditure on performance in relation to Outcome Budgets, Planning Commission on plan targets; CAG regarding the procedures, processes, and even performance; Cabinet Secretariat on cross cutting issues and issues of national importance; Minister in-charge on his priorities; Standing Committee of the Parliament on its annual report and other political issues; etc.

b) Similarly, several important initiatives have fractured responsibilities for implementation and hence accountability for results is diluted.

c) Some of the systems are selective in their coverage and report on performance with a significant time-lag.

d) Most performance management systems are conceptually flawed. As mentioned earlier, an effective performance evaluation system is at the heart of an effective performance management system.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Before, describing the benefits from this initiative, it is imperative to describe the RFD initiative itself. The Government of India has implemented one of the most conceptually sophisticated and far reaching systems for holding Government officials accountable for results including delivery of services. It is called “Results-Framework Document (RFD).” The essence of the system can be summarized as follows: At the beginning of each financial year, with the approval of the Minister concerned, each Department will prepare a Results-Framework Document (RFD) consisting of the priorities set out by the Ministry concerned, President’s Address, and announcements/agenda as spelt out by the Government from time to time. At the end of the year, the performance of all Ministries/Departments is reviewed and a league table of performance is submitted to the Prime Minister. So far two rounds of RFDs have been prepared for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. While these are early days and it takes a while for change of this magnitude to become fully visible, the main benefits can be summarized as follows: a. For the first time in the history of independent India, the Cabinet Secretary wrote personal letter to each individual Permanent Secretary informing them about their performance score and its comparison to the average for the group of 59 departments. This has created an electrifying atmosphere. Suddenly, Permanent Secretaries are totally focussed on their departmental performance and holding regular review meetings. The key innovation of the Indian system is that the system creates a league table of performance of all departments on a scale of 0 % to 100% b. The RFD has allowed the political masters (ministers) to also have a much more systematic interface with Permanent Secretaries. They are able to monitor and review the progress by reviewing achievements against the commitments in the RFD. c. Permanent Secretaries, in turn, have entered into RFDs with their subordinates (called joint secretaries in GOI) and are reviewing their performance on a regular basis. Thus accountability for results has trickled down to lower levels and a cultural shift is taking place. d. RFDs include certain mandatory indicators for all departments. These indicators include (a) design and implementation of Citizen’s Charter, (b) Grievance Redress Mechanism, (c) Development of a departmental strategy. While there was a policy of Citizen’s charter for a long time, it was never properly implemented. The RFD initiative has put teeth in the policy. e. Section 5 of RFD includes information on potential constraints on departmental performance. The Indian Cabinet Secretariat is now proactively able to facilitate inter-departmental collaboration ex-ante rather than wait till it becomes a problem at the end of the year. Then it is too late to do anything for the past year. f. Since RFds are negotiated by an independent, non-government group of experts, the quality of debate on departmental performance has improved and the focus is shifting to outputs and outcomes and not merely inputs and activities. g. This policy of RFd has reinforced the notion that “What gets measured gets done.” The results of achievements against the 2009-2010 targets show that this system has had distinct impact on departmental performance. GOI believes that f they can demonstrate results they can win public support and turn around the negative perception about Governments.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
To find a solution to the widespread problem of poor implementation and ineffective delivery of services, Government of India set up the Second Administrative Reform Commission (ARC II). In the words of ARC II: – “Performance agreement is the most common accountability mechanism in most countries that have reformed their public administration systems.” – “At the core of such agreements are the objectives to be achieved, the resources provided to achieve them, the accountability and control measures, and the autonomy and flexibilities that the civil servants will be given.” Government of India examined the experience of other countries and has implemented the most advanced version for of Performance Agreement system. Performance Agreements are called Results-Framework Documents (RFDs). Its conceptual, design and operational innovations surpass that of any other country that has implemented such a system. Specifically, this RFD policy is far more sophisticated and advanced compared to the system implemented by New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA. In the USA, the US Congress passed a law in 1994 called the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA). Under this law the US President is obliged to sign a Performance Agreement with his Cabinet members. In the UK, this policy is called Public Service Agreement. However, India’s policy of Results-Framework Document (RFD) is not only conceptually more sophisticated and represents one of the finest examples of speedy implementation of such massive reform of the administrative systems. While the inspiration for the RFD policy came from the Second Administrative Reform Commission, it was Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, who took the bold decision to implement a far reaching reform of accountability structure. He was supported by the most able Cabinet Secretary Mr. K. M. Chandrasekhar. The importance attached to this by the Prime Minister can be seen from the fact that Government of India created a new position of a Permanent Secretary devoted exclusively to performance management in government. This newly created position of Secretary (Performance Management) is based the Cabinet Secretariat reporting to Prime Minister. The Performance Management Division (PMD) under Secretary (Performance Management) has been the main engine of implementation. The other key players have been the knowledge partners such as the Indian Institute of Mangement Ahmedabad (IIMA), Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI), Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA), and Indira Gandhi national Open University (IGNOU). They have worked closely with Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, in operationalizing RFD policy. Indians believe that training a large number of senior civil servant sin a very short span of time was the most important determinant of the success of RFD policy. The Performance Management Division, in partnership with its knowledge partners conducted about 24 workshops and training programmes and trained around 900 senior civil servants. Thus, instead of giving the fish, PMD taught them to fish on their own. That made all the difference. One of the unique features of the Indian RFD experience is their 100% indigenous effort. No foreign consultants or international agencies were involved in this effort. This is one of the key lessons of this implementation story and is likely to inspire many other countries.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The main objective of the RFD initiative is to improve departmental performance and close the implementation gap. It is predicate don the assumption that accountability for results trickles down and does not trickle up. Hence the Government of India’s strategy is to start by holding the very top of the civil service accountable for results. The implementation of the RFD initiative was based on following strategies: I. Networking: Instead of employing a lot of Government resources all at once and waiting for resources to be in place, initially PMD worked by networking with a large number of professional organizations. PMD networked with other departments and leveraged their resources to achieve the overall objectives of the RFD policy. For example, RFD policy requires all departments to include design and implementation of Citizen’s / Client Charter. This policy was initiated and piloted by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG). PMD made clever use of this resource by having a partnership to further promote this policy. II. Public-Private Partnership: PMD also believes in collaborating with private sector to undertake training and provide analytical services. PMD has collaborated with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to conduct workshop on Citizen’s Charter and Grievance Redress mechanism. FICCI professionals have also assisted PMD in analyzing mid-term achievement of departments against the commitments made in the RFDs. III. Transparency: Doing all business in a totally transparent manner is the hall mark of RFD implementation. This has not only bolstered public confidence in RFD policy but also provided a great disciplinary force for the PMD staff. IV. Knowledge Sharing / Management: As mentioned elsewhere, PMD used training and knowledge sharing as key implementation strategies. Instead of giving the department the proverbial fish, PMD taught them to catch their own fish. Thus an intensive training strategy was a key determinant of the success of this policy. PMD conducted some 24 workshops in 18 months and trained about 900 senior officers. V. E-Transactions: PMD used tools and techniques of E-Government to ensure expeditious and effective processing and analysis of RFDs. PMD collaborated with the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to develop the first “G to G” program in which Government department can enter data 24X7 and PMD and prime Minister’s office can process them instantly.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
Pursuant to the announcement made in the Indian President’s address to both Houses of the Indian Parliament on June 4, 2009, the Indian Prime Minister approved the outline of the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES) for Government Departments on September 11, 2009. The Results-Framework Document is at the heart of the PMES. It was decided that in Phase I of implementation 59 ministries / departments out of a total of 84 will be covered under PMES for the year 2009-2010. In the next phase (2010-2011), 62 departments were covered under the RFD / PMES policy Actions taken to implement RFD / PMES policy can be categorized into three broad categories: (a) System Design: Government of India (GOI) reviewed international best practices and designed Guidelines and Checklists for preparing Results Framework Document (RFD); Created a Task Force of non-Government experts for reviewing the quality of RFDs. (b) Capacity Building Performance Management Division (PMD), Cabinet Secretariat, conducted 24 intensive, hands-on training programs on RFD for around 900 senior officers in collaboration with IIM Ahmedabad and the IAS Academy at Mussoorie; Prepared training materials and manuals. PMD created a training video film in collaboration with Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). (c) Implementation PMD received RFDs approved by concerned ministers; Organized meetings of the independent Task Force experts with 62 ministries / departments to review their respective RFDs; Ensured that the revised RFDs are consistent with the suggestions of independent experts; Prepared results against achievements for 2009-2010 RFDs; Developed software to automate monitoring and evaluation of performance based on RFDs. Progress Achieved All 59 ministries and departments covered under Phase I finalized their Results-Framework Document (RFD) for the last quarter of 2009-2010. Similarly all 62 departments and ministries covered under Phase II also finalized their RFDs. This 100 % compliance in implementing the PMES was achieved as a result of the intensive capacity building exercise and enthusiastic cooperation from all ministries and departments. The Results with respect to achievement against the commitments in 2009-2010 RFDs were approved by the High Power Committee on Government Performance on May 28, 2010, and submitted to the Prime Minister. The Results-Framework Documents for 2010-2011 have also been finalized by departments and approved by the High Power Committee on Government Performance

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
One of the main obstacles to the policy involved finding skilled people to review and RFD documents and support the work of the experts from Ad-Hoc Task Force (ATF). This obstacle was overcome by using people from different organization on a network basis. We involved the leaders of the various academic and professional organizations in this important task. They were in turn able to lend their highly skilled staff on short-term basis to overcome the immediate needs. This allowed the Performance management Division sufficient time to recruit experts on long term basis. Similarly, this office (PMD) was newly created and had no office space to conduct meetings and hold training programs. PMD entered into a strategic partnership with the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT). The latter have excellent infrastructure and PMD was able to make use of it. Now they have a sufficiently large facility for conducting their business. Effective communications is an essential ingredient of any change management strategy. However, given the size of the task and the relatively understaffed PMD, new ways had to be found for getting the message across. One of the ways in which in which this was overcome was by extensive training of government officials. PMD conducted 24 workshops and trained some 900 senior officials. They in turn trained many other. Thus, one would expects more than 5000 thousand people may have received the benefits of the core training programs. In addition, PMD has made a training video in collaboration with Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU).

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The unique feature of the Indian effort is the use of only indigenously available expertise and resources. It was an internal idea implemented by Indian experts. This is why it has the potential for inspiring many more developing countries. Initially, the entire work of Performance Management Division was done by other divisions within the Cabinet Secretariat. Given the lofty and inspiring goals of this reform effort, it was easy to network and benefit from many talent-intensive organizations. Thus, the expenditure on this policy has been miniscule. This is indeed one of the key lessons of this experience. Bringing accountability in government is more about decision making than it is about resources.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The RFD initiative is both sustainable and transferable. It is sustainable by design. Following measures are being taken to make it sustainable: a. First and foremost, the quality of Results-Framework Documents in India depends on the scrutiny done by an independent group of non-government experts called Ad-hoc Task Force (ATF). This group consists of domain experts, private sector management experts, distinguished academicians from India’s leading academic institutions like the Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University, etc. In addition, this group includes former permanent Secretaries to the Government of India with intimate knowledge of the Government departments. This group of about 70 provides the continuity to the policy. Even if the current leadership were to leave, these people have now become the protectors of the system. International experience shows that such an independent group is the best guarantee of not only the quality of the system but also the continuity of the system. b. Second, the Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, has conducted one of the most extensive training exercises in the annals of public policy in India. In a short san of 18 months it conducted close to 24 training workshops and created around 900 certified RFD experts. These trained and motivated people provide another guarantee of continuity. These people will be in positions of power for the next 10 years and will ensure that the RFD policy is not only sustained but that it prospers. c. Third, The Government of India is in the process of linking performance of civil servants to an incentive. This follows the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission set up by the Government of India. The current proposal is to link the score on composite score with the performance bonus. Once this performance related incentive scheme is in place it will be even harder to reverse the RFD policy. d. Fourth, the Government of India is bringing out a civil services bill that will enshrine this policy in law and require future Governments to present the results of departmental performance evaluation to the parliament. e. Finally, the RFD / PMES policy requires all departments to publish their RFDs on their respective departmental websites. This has created a huge interest among civil society and it will be hard to reverse this enhancement of transparency. As mentioned earlier, not only is the RFD policy sustainable, it is also eminently transferable. Already, two of the largest states in the Indian Union—Maharashtra and Punjab—have fully adopted this policy. Many other states of the Indian Union have asked the Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, for technical assistance to implement a similar policy. The two states were able to implement the RFD policy without major assistance from PMD. PMD only organized initial orientation workshops and briefings for the cabinet members of the two states. The GDP of these states is larger than the GDP of most countries. Last year there was meeting of the Cabinet Secretaries of all SAARC countries. SAARC stands for South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and includes eight countries of South Asia. In this meeting the Indian Cabinet Secretariat made a presentation on the RFD policy and all other SAARC countries were very impressed and requested India to organize a workshop on RFD / Government Performance Management for senior officials of the SAARC countries. Following this workshop, the Prime Minister of Bhutan requested PMD to organize a workshop and assist them in implementing RFD in Bhutan. Similarly, The President of Sri Lanka has also requested the Indian Government for organizing a workshop on RFD in Colombo in December 2010. This clearly establishes that the RFD policy has a mass appeal and is based on principles of management that are easily transferable.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
RFDs have had the following impact: (a) RFDs are promoting transparency Results-Framework Documents (RFDs) list the obligations of all departments and other responsibility centres under departments. These documents are all put on the internet for all to see and hold the departments accountable. (b) RFDs are promoting accountability At the end of the year, the performance of all government departments is assessed against the commitment made by them in their respective RFDs. The state-of-the-art performance evaluation methodology used by the Indian RFDs allows the Cabinet Secretariat to rank all departments on a scale of 0% to 100%. Thus, the evaluation is not descriptive but precise and quantitative. It is in this regard that India RFDs are ahead of similar systems used by New Zealand, US, UK and Malaysia. (c) RFDs are promoting responsiveness of government departments Many countries talk of improving their delivery of services. But they do not put any accountability mechanism behind their good intentions ensure that their rhetoric is converted into reality. India RFDs require each public agency to design its Citizen’s / Client Charters and then hold them accountable for implementing their charters. This is a major innovation and is likely to a trend setter. (d) RFDs are transforming public administration PCs are revolutionizing the administration of public agencies in the following ways:  Each department is now required to have a strategic plan to specify the correct direction (doing the right thing).  In addition, each department is expected to move towards becoming Sevottam Compliant. Sevottam literally means “Excellent Service.” Sevottam is an Indian concept and requires departments to become compliant with standards similar to ISO 9000. This is a revolutionary concept in government and this alone qualifies for a public service award. How many governments do we know that insist that every public agency will have to ensure that its processes are consistent with international best practice? (e) RFDs have introduced a new evaluation technique (concept) The basic concept of a RFD is not new either in India or the region. However, the uniqueness of RFD concept lies in introducing a methodology that allows all departments to be given a score between 0 % and 100 %. Absence of such a measurable scale explains the failure of previous attempts. The key lessons learnt can be summarized as follows: • For success in implementing accountability mechanism at the very top echelons of government existence of strong political will is a necessary though not a sufficient condition. • The institutional arrangement has to be appropriate for implementing such rigorous policies. For example, it must be seen to be driven by the very top. Further, we believe this ATF is also key institutional innovation that is a necessary condition for the success of RFD like policies. • The need for extensive training by champions of the policy is also a key ingredient for success. However, this training has to be imparted by people in the government initially otherwise the policy loses its credibility. • Such systems are more sustainable and have better acceptance if they are a product of indigenous effort and are not seen as donor driven. • The RFD targets have to consistent with those of other agencies to align the entire government in a consistent direction. • The agency in-charge of managing the system should not be seen as only evaluating performance but facilitating better performance — i.e. adding value to the work of departments.


Institution Name:		Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat
Institution Type:		Government Agency
Contact Person:		Dr. Prajapati Trivedi
Title:		Secretary (Performance Management)
Telephone/ Fax:		+91-11-24675762
Institution's / Project's Website:		+91-11-24102290
E-mail:		prajapati.trivedi@nic.in
Address:		Chanakya Bhawan
Postal Code:		110021
City:		New Delhi
State/Province:		Delhi
Country:		India

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information