Guidelines for Appraisal System Ver 3.0 March 07

 

 

 

Government of Zimbabwe

Results Based Management Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guidelines to the Completion of the Appraisal Form(s)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zimbabwe Public Service

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Section A

 

Procedures for completing the Appraisal Form(s)

 

 

Section 1:            Personal Details

 

To be completed by the appraisee.

 

Section 2:            Performance Targets

 

2.1 Refer to Departmental Work and Performance Monitoring Plan to extract

relevant activities, outputs, outcomes and budget information.

 

2.2 Allocate weightage accordingly and total weightage should add up to 100%.

 

2.3 The appraiser and appraisee should establish relevant standards for the results

on each of the agreed performance dimensions and this should be endorsed by

the reviewer.

 

2.4 The appraiser and appraisee must agree to the work plan and sign on the same

date and this must be endorsed by the reviewer.

 

Section 3: Training and Development Needs

 

3.1 The appraiser and appraisee should utilize the Review Sessions to identify the

appraisee’s training needs which are directly relevant to the job requirements

and this should be recorded in the relevant section of the form.

 

3.2 The appraiser and appraisee should agree on strategies to address the identified

training needs and the Human Resources Department should come up with

training programmes for the identified training needs. Training should be

provided as soon as possible in cases where in-house training is required.

 

3.3 If there are any skills that cannot be provided through in-house training, then

these should be submitted to the Ministry’s Human Resources Department for

consolidation and submission to the Public Service Commission’s Manpower,

Planning &  Development Agency in the form of the Ministry’s Human Resources

Development Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 4:  Performance Progress Reviews

 

4.1 Appraisee and appraiser must review progress against set targets for each

quarter following the schedule below:-

 

Deadline Action Expected Results
Mid January Agreement of performance targets Work plan outlining targets and standards
First week of April First interim progress review Comments on actual performance versus set targets
First week of July Second interim progress review Comments on actual performance versus set targets
First week of October Third interim progress review Comments on actual performance versus set targets
Mid December Final appraisal Final rating and comments on performance achievements versus set targets

 

4.2 Modifications to the performance work plan can only be done when there are

      major changes during the performance cycle which could be due to special

assignments, critical incidences or changes to the mandate of the organization.

 

  • Any modifications to the work plan and justifications thereof should be

indicated in Section 4B or 4C of the appraisal form. However, for the purpose

of performance assessment, the adjusted performance targets should be

captured in the correct format in Section 2 of the appraisal form.

 

  • On promotion, transfer and regrading, which entails change of job description, a member is expected to draw new work plans in line with the new responsibilities.

 

4.3 During the Performance Cycle, the appraiser must continuously monitor the

appraisee’s performance progress.

 

4.4 The review discussions should relate to the progress being made towards the

achievement of the appraisee’s performance targets and any other necessary

adjustments. Comments at review stages should be on the agreed performance

targets to ensure that maximum productivity and standards are met.

 

4.5 The appraisee must be given an opportunity to comment during performance

      reviews and both the appraisee and the appraiser should sign. During progress

      reviews the reviewer should only intervene and comment in cases where the

      appraisee and the appraiser disagree.

 

 

Section 5:    Final Performance Assessment and Rating

 

5.1 The appraiser must formally assess and rate the performance of the appraisee by

Mid December of each year.  The assessment should be based on the agreed

Performance targets for the year.

 

5.2 During the final review, the appraisee should be given an opportunity to comment

again. The appraisee and the appraiser should sign and this should be endorsed

by the reviewer.

 

 

5.3 Rating Scale

 

A rating scale of 1 to 6 will be used to rate individual member’s performance at

the end of the cycle.

 

Rating of ‘1’ represents the lowest level of performance with the rating of ‘6’ being

The highest score which clearly surpasses set targets.

 

It is important to refer to the rating of ‘4’ to measure how far the appraisee`s

performance falls above or below the set targets. The rating scale is interpreted as

follows:

 

RATING DESCRIPTION
6 Clearly Exceeds Set Targets – beyond variance
5 Performance Above Set Targets – but within variance
4 Met All Agreed Set Targets
3 Performance Below Set Targets – but within variance
2 Performance Below Set Targets – below variance
1 Nothing was accomplished

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section B

 

Guidelines for the Computation of Ratings for Members in Band A & B

 

  1. Introduction

 

Apportionment of weights to activities is indicated below: –

 

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION WEIGHT MAXIMUM SCORE
Activities 100% 6.0
Total 100% 6.0

 

  1. Activities Performance Targets Rating

 

The activities performance target achievements constitute 100 % of the final rating. For Band A & B, the performance target assessment shall be based on performance in terms of activity completion.  Each Activity identified shall be assigned a weight according to the importance of that Activity relative to the other Activities. For each Activity identified, the weight assigned will be distributed according to four dimensions, i.e. quantity, quality, timeliness and cost. The dimension of cost will be applied only where it is applicable.

 

OUTPUT

(1)

WEIGHT BY DIMENSION

(2)

ALLOWABLE VARIANCE (3)

 

ACTUAL

VARIANCE (4)

 

RATING AWARDED (5) WEIGHTED SCORE (6)

(2 x 5)

Activity “A”

 

(50%)

 

Quantity        15% +/- 10% +12% 6 0.90
Quality          10% +/- 10% – 8% 3 0.30
Timeliness*     10% +/- 10% +20% 2 0.20
Cost*               15% +/- 10% 0% 4 0.60
Activity “B”

 

(50%)

Quantity        15% +/- 10% 0% 4 0.60
Quality            10% +/- 10% 0% 4 0.40
Timeliness*     15% +/- 10% – 8% 3 0.45
Cost*              10%                  +/- 5% +6% 2            0.20
TOTAL 100%       3.65

An example of the tabulation of the Activities and weights assigned is as follows:

 

 

 

SECTION C

 

Guidelines for the Computation of Ratings for Members in Band C, D, E & F

 

  1. Introduction

 

Apportionment of weights to outputs is indicated below: –

                                       

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION WEIGHT MAXIMUM SCORE
Output Targets 100% 6.0
Total 100% 6.0

 

  1. Performance Targets Rating

 

The performance target achievements constitute 100 % of the final rating. For Band C, D, E, and F the performance target assessment shall be based on performance in terms of agreed outputs.  Each output identified shall be assigned a weight according to the importance of that output relative to the other outputs. For each output identified the weight assigned will be distributed according to four dimensions, i.e, quantity, quality, timeliness and cost. The dimension of cost will be applied only where it is applicable.

 

An example of the tabulation of the outputs and weights assigned is as follows:

OUTPUT

(1)

WEIGHT BY DIMENSION

(2)

ALLOWABLE VARIANCE (3)

 

ACTUAL

VARIANCE (4)

 

RATING AWARDED (5) WEIGHTED SCORE (6)

(2 x 5)

Output “A”

 

(50%)

 

Quantity        15% +/- 10% +12% 6 0.90
Quality          10% +/- 10%                 – 8% 3 0.30
Timeliness*     10% +/- 10% +20% 2 0.20
Cost*               15% +/- 10% 0% 4 0.60
Output “B”

 

(50%)

Quantity        10% +/- 10% 0% 4 0.40
Quality            15% +/- 10% 0% 4 0.60
Timeliness*     15% +/- 10% – 8% 3 0.45
Cost*              10%     +/- 05% 6% 2          0.20
TOTAL 100%       3.65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION D

 

Guidelines for the Computation of Ratings for Heads of Departments

 

  1. Introduction

 

Apportionment of weights to output, outcome, and budget utilization has been standardized as indicated below: –

 

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION WEIGHT MAXIMUM SCORE
Output Targets 60% 3.60
Outcome Targets 30% 1.80
Budget Expenditure Performance 10% 0.60
Total 100%            6.0

 

It should be noted that ‘Output’ has a higher weight compared to outcomes because outputs constitute a major controllable aspect of the member’s performance while outcomes are sometimes subject to external influences.

 

  1. Output Performance Targets Rating

 

The output performance constitutes 60% of the final rating.  For Heads of Departments, the performance target assessment shall be based on performance in terms of agreed outputs.  Each output identified shall be assigned a weight according to the importance of that output relative to the other outputs. The 60% is further apportioned to the applicable attributes of outputs, that is, quality, quantity and timeliness and cost as indicated below:

 

Example of the tabulation of the outputs and weights:

 

OUTPUT

(1)

WEIGHT BY DIMENSION

(2)

ALLOWABLE VARIANCE (3)

 

ACTUAL

VARIANCE (4)

 

RATING AWARDED (5) WEIGHTED SCORE (6)

(2 x 5)

Output “A”

 

(30%)

 

Quantity        10% +/- 10% +12% 6 0.60
Quality          10% +/- 10% 0% 4 0.40
Timeliness*     5% +/- 10% +20% 2 0.10
Cost*               5% +/- 10% 0% 4 0.20
Output “B”

 

(30%)

Quantity        10% +/- 10% +50% 5 0.50
Quality            5% +/- 10% – 15% 2 0.10
Timeliness*     10% +/- 10% +8% 3 0.30
Cost*               5% +/- 5% 10% 2         0.10
TOTAL 60%       2.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Outcome Performance Rating

 

Since the Head of Department is responsible for ensuring the outcomes of the Department, outcome achievement will constitute 30% of final rating.

 

OUTCOME (1)

 

WEIGHTAGE

(2)

ALLOWABLE VARIANCE (3)

 

ACTUAL

VARIANCE

(4)

 

RATING ON OUTCOME

(5)

WEIGHTED

SCORE (6)

(2 x 5)

Outcome 1 15% +/- 10% +15% 6 0.90
Outcome 2 10% +/- 5% +4% 3 0.30
Outcome 3 5% +/- 5% 0% 4 0.20
Total 30%         1.40

Note:  Variances can be either Plus or Minus.

 

  1. Budget Utilization Rating

Budget utilization rating is based on budget Expenditure.

 

Expenditure Performance is assessed on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 representing expenditure above agreed target and 5 representing efficient utilization of financial resources where actual expenditure is below the targeted expenditure.

 

The rating scale and possible scores as well as adjusted weighted rates are shown in the table below:

 

Rating

 

(1)

Description

 

(2)

Weight

 

(3)

Weighted Score

(4)

(1) x (3)

Adjusted Score

(5)

(4 ÷ 5) x 6

5 Expenditure below the targeted expenditure 10% 0.5 0.60
4 Expenditure below targeted expenditure but within variance 7% 0.28 0.34
3 Targeted expenditure 6% 0.18 0.22
2 Above the targeted expenditure but within variance 4% 0.08 0.096
1 Above targeted expenditure & above variance 2% 0.02 0.024

         

Assuming that this person scores a rating of “5” for Expenditure Performance, he/she will get an adjusted score of 0.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Computation of the Final Rating

 

Final Performance Rating = Score on achievement of output targets + Score on the outcome targets + Score on Budget Utilization.

 

 

Example of Computation of Final Rating:

 

  Performance Rating Focus Score Maximum Score Possible
1 Output Performance Rating 2.25 3.60
2 Outcome Performance Rating 1.40 1.80
3 Budget Utilization Rating 0.60 0.60
 Final score 4.25 6.0