Chapter 15
Performance Management
in Hong Kong
Anthony B.L. Cheung |
|
|
Contents |
|
|
15.1 |
Introduction................................................................................................................... |
295 |
15.2 |
Brief Overview of Performance Management in Hong Kong ......................................... |
296 |
15.3 |
Significant Performance Management Reforms since the 1990s..................................... |
298 |
|
15.3.1 Measuring and Assessing Performance................................................................ |
298 |
|
15.3.2 Adoption of Performance Pledges ....................................................................... |
299 |
|
15.3.3 Linking Budget to Performance.......................................................................... |
300 |
|
15.3.4 Relating Rewards to Performance........................................................................ |
301 |
15.4 |
Assessment of Outcomes of Performance Management Reforms.................................... |
303 |
|
15.4.1 Are Departments Properly Measuring their Performance? .................................. |
303 |
|
15.4.2 Are Budget Decisions Based on Performance Results? ........................................ |
305 |
|
15.4.3 Are Pay Rewards Reflecting Performance? .......................................................... |
307 |
|
15.4.4 Are Customers Involved in Target-Setting and Performance Monitoring? .......... |
308 |
|
15.4.5 Overall Evaluation.............................................................................................. |
309 |
15.5 |
Measurability of Performance ........................................................................................ |
309 |
15.6 |
Ownership of, and Responsibility for, Performance......................................................... |
310 |
15.7 |
The Politics of Performance............................................................................................. |
311 |
15.8 |
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... |
311 |
References ................................................................................................................................ |
312 |
|
15.1 Introduction
The current wave of performance management and measurement has come along with the new performance culture of new public management (NPM) (Lane, 2000), which seeks to make government and public administration more responsive to users of public services, and to place greater emphasis on performance monitoring and evaluation, so that “no public sector employee
295
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
296 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
has escaped the ever-extending reach of performance evaluation schemes” (Carter, 1998: 177). Performance indicators (PIs), targets, and customer feedback are now very much the “rules of the game” in the course of public sector management. As PIs have become increasingly linked to resource allocation and individual financial rewards, so organizational cultures and individual behaviors have been transformed along the way (Carter, 1998: 177). As Pollitt and Bouckaert (2000: 87) put it, performance measurement is as old as public administration itself. Over the last quarter century, performance measurement has blossomed along both extensively and intensively, and to satisfy internal as well as external needs:
Measurement is becoming more extensive. More levels… and more fields… are included. Performance measurement is becoming more intensive because more management functions are included (not just monitoring but also decision-making, controlling and even providing accountability).
performance measurement becomes more external. Its use is not just internal, but also for the members of legislative bodies, and even for the public. (Bouckaert, 1996: 234, emphasis original)
New performance management strategies are also generally tied to linking performance to resource allocation and budgetary management, to human resource management, and to the building of an outcome-based, customer-oriented public sector culture, through performance information and targets (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000: 86–90). Hong Kong is not immune from such a global performance management trend under NPM. This chapter gives an account of the current system of performance management in Hong Kong and the major reform initiatives launched since the 1990s. It argues that, in practice, performance management has remained somewhat disjointed from the processes of resource allocation, pay rewards, service accountability, and customer participation. The paradoxes in the practical use of “performance” in political, bureaucratic, and managerial transactions are discussed to help illuminate the limitations of performance measurement and management in the real world of the public sector.
15.2 Brief Overview of Performance Management in Hong Kong
Performance management is a recent initiative in Hong Kong, which began to receive attention within the context of the Public Sector Reform Program launched in 1989 (Finance Branch, 1989; Cheung, 1992). In 1992, performance pledges were introduced in government departments. An Efficiency Unit was set up in the same year, accountable to the chief secretary, to help promote all aspects of improving public services to the community. Within a new management framework, the focus has been to devolve more authority to those who carry responsibility for policy formulation and service delivery, and to place greater emphasis on serving customers and raising service standards (Efficiency Unit, 1995: 3). “Managing for Performance” has since become a key objective of the government, to be achieved by departments through (Efficiency Unit, 1995: 41):
Refining performance measures
Managing by program
Improving efficiency
Managing public finances
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Performance Management in Hong Kong 297
Managing human resources
Managing support services
Preparing departmental plans
Reviewing progress
A program management system was instituted in 1993 to help policy branches (now renamed “bureaus”)1 and government departments manage performance better (Efficiency Unit, 1995: 45).
It comprises two key elements:
Program structures: Each department develops its own program structure, setting out the key programs that will deliver its aims and objectives. Larger programs may be further broken down into activities. Specific officers are held responsible for each program. This approach would help departments focus on results in clearly defined areas of work, with clearly defined objectives and responsibilities.
Annual program plans: Using their program structure, departments prepare annual program plans to focus management attention on key objectives and on the performance measures to be used to ensure that such objectives are achieved. These plans are based on the allocation of resources for the planning period. They provide the basis for the annual estimates of expenditure and for day-to- day performance management. Information is developed and presented along the following lines:
Program aims
Objectives
Performance measures
Matters requiring attention
Financial data
An illustration of the program plan is given in Figure 15.1.
By now, an elaborate performance management system has been put in place throughout government according to program structures and program plans. Resource allocation is also supposed to be linked to program needs and objectives, as well as performance results, which form part of performance review—to check if key performance targets have been delivered and if spending is in accordance with plans. The standard process of performance management includes setting strategic objectives based on customer needs, identifying key result areas, formulating measurement criteria, gathering performance information, and trying to bridge the performance gap (Efficiency Unit, 2005). The latest directions set by the Efficiency Unit for the further development of performance highlight the importance of continuous improvement:
Focusing on the changing needs of the community
Shifting from a process-oriented approach to a customer-oriented approach
Developing the management system to cater for continuous changes
Recognizing the effort and flexibility of government departments in supporting changing policy objectives
Measuring performance for government units involved in delivering integrated services
Linking up budget with performance result
Adopting a life-cycle perspective for continuous improvement (Ibid.)
1 “Branches” of the Government Secretariat, equivalent to ministries in other jurisdictions, were re-titled as “Bureaus” after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on July 1, 1997.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
298 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
Programme Plan : Rehabilitation
Programme Plan : Disease Prevention
Programme Plan : Health Promotion
Programme Plan : Statutory Functions
Programme Plan : Curative Care
Programme Aim
To provide out-patient treatment for common illnesses and continued curative care for patients su ering from certain diseases.
Objectives
To provide quality care at general out-patient (GOP) clinics
To prevent, control and treat tuberculosis (TB)
To manage skin and HIV patients
To provide economic medical treatment to school children
To provide dental treatment to hospital, emergency cases and special needs groups
Performance Measures (Examples)
Targets
Waiting time within 60 minutes
Cure rate of over 85% for TB patients
Appointment for new dermatology cases within 8 weeks Provide clinical services to 2/3 of HIV cases
Indicators |
|
||
|
|
New dermatology cases handled |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Cumulative number of HIV cases reported |
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
Matters Requiring Attention in Current Year |
|||
|
|
Review supporting sta for GOP clinics |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Review organisation and delivery of TB and chest service |
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
Financial Data |
|
||
|
|
|
General out-patient |
|
|
TB and chest |
|
|
|
|
HIV patients management |
|
|
Dermatology |
School medical service |
|
|
Herbalist clinics |
|
|
|
and special skin |
Dental Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(From E ciency Unit, Serving the Community, p.44, 1995) |
|||
Figure 15.1 An illustration of program plan (From Efficiency Unit, Serving the Community, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1995.)
The Efficiency Unit also supports government bureaus and departments in reviewing their business operations and implementing major changes to improve their organizational performance. It operates a Citizenship Centric Services Program geared toward promoting cross-functional service during and delivery around customer segments, together with a customer management assessment framework to enhance customer relationships and customer satisfaction levels (Efficiency Unit, 2008).
15.3Significant Performance Management Reforms since the 1990s
15.3.1 Measuring and Assessing Performance
Since the 1990s, for the purpose of managing for results, all government departments have been required to come up with performance targets and indicators, which can demonstrate
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC