Transcript Slide 1

CSC 2030 AGENCY VISION
Recognized as a Center for Excellence
High performing, competent and credible civil servants
PEOPLE
Enhance the competency of our workforce
FINANCE
Provide excellent HR
processes
Ensure effective and
efficient
performance of QuasiJudicial functions
Ensure efficient management of financial resources
PARTNERS
PROCESSES
CORE PURPOSE
STAKEHOLDERS
CSC shall be Asia’s leading center of
excellence for strategic HR and OD
Cultivate partnerships with local and international institutions
CORE VALUES
• Love of God and
Country
• Excellence
• Integrity
B
Recognized as a Center
for Excellence
High performing,
competent , and
credible civil servants
Owner
Commission
A
Objectives
Commission
STAKEHOLDERS
Perspective
Measures
Enhance the competency of
our workforce
Commission
Commission
Commission
E
F
G
Ensure efficient
management of financial
resources
Cultivate partnerships with
local and international
institutions
Commission
D
Ensure fairness and
efficiency in
performing Quasi-Judicial
functions
Commission
PARTNERS
FINANCE
PEOPLE
PROCESS
C
L
A
G
Base
2011
2013
2015
0
.70%
(14)
40%
(843)
80%
(1686)
1
Percentage of agencies* with functional Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)
2
Percentage of CSC Accredited Agencies
N/A
N/A
20% (422)
40% (843)
3
CSC Client Satisfaction Rating
N/A
S
VS
E
4
Number of agencies with “Excellent” rating under the Anti Red Tape Act Report Card Survey
(ARTA-RCS)
9
18
36
72
5
Average rating of agencies under the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)
(of those agencies with SPMS)
N/A
S
VS
O
Exam System
Appointments
Processing Legal
Processes
6
9
6
Provide excellent HR
processes
L
E
A
D
7
8
9
Number of ISO certified processes
Percentage of agencies/units under Anti Red Tape Act Report Card
Percentage of decisions implemented
Percentage of cases decided within 40 days from the time the case is ripe for resolution
O
3
0.01%
10%
30%
50%
(50/4200)
(420/4200)
(1260/4200)
(2100/4200)
70%
85%
90%
95%
N/A
30%
50%
70%
10
Percentage of CSC employees meeting their job competency standards
N/A
80%
90%
100%
11
Percentage increase of net income from 2010 figures
N/A
10%
50%
100%
12
Percentage increase in MOOE from 2010 figures
N/A
0%
25%
50%
13
Amount of funds from partners
5M
10M
15M
25M
14
Number of priority programs implemented through partners
4
6
9
12
1
5
Number of technical cooperation with local and international partners
4
5
6
7
Recognized as a
Center for
Excellence
High
Performing,
B competent,
and credible
civil servants
Owner
Commission
STAKEHOLDERS
A
Objectives
Commission
Perspective
Measures
L
E
A
D
L
A
G
Base
2011
2013
2015
1
Percentage of agencies with functional Strategic
Performance Management System (SPMS)
0
.70%
(14)
40%
(843)
80%
(1686)
2
Percentage of CSC Accredited Agencies
N/A
N/A
20%
(422)
40%
(843)
3
CSC Client Satisfaction Rating
N/A
S
VS
E
9
18
36
72
N/A
S
VS
O
Number of agencies with “Excellent” rating
4 under the Anti Red Tape Act Report Card Survey
(ARTA-RCS)
5
Average rating of agencies under the Strategic
Performance Management System (SPMS) (of
those agencies with SPMS)
Provide
excellent HR
processes
Ensure
fairness and
efficiency in
D
performing
Quasi-Judicial
Functions
Owner
Measures
L
A
G
Base
2011
3
Exam
System
Appoint
ments
Processi
ng Legal
Process
es
2013
6
2015
9
6
Number of ISO certified processes
7
Percentage of agencies/units under
Anti Red tape Act Report Card
8
Percentage of decisions implemented
70%
85%
90%
95%
9
Percentage of cases decided within 40 days
from the time the case is ripe for resolution
N/A
30%
50%
70%
0
0.01%
10%
30%
50%
(50/4 (420/42 (1260/4 (2100/4
200)
00)
200) 200)
Commission
PROCESS
C
Objectives
Commission
Perspective
L
E
A
D
Owner
E
Objectives
Enhance the
competency
of our
workforce
Commission
PEOPLE
Perspective
Measures
10
Percentage of CSC employees
meeting their job competency
standards
L
E
A
D
L
A
G
Base
2011
2013
2015
N/A
80%
90%
100%
Ensure
efficient
management
F
of financial
resources
Owner
Objectives
Commission
FINANCE
Perspective
Measures
L
E
A
D
L
A
G
Base
2011
2013
2015
11
Percentage increase of net income from
2010 figures
N/A
10%
50%
100
%
12
Percentage increase in MOOE from 2010
figures
N/A
0%
25%
50%
13
Amount of funds from partners
5M
10M
15M
25M
Objectives
Owner
Perspective
Measures
Cultivate
partnerships
G with local and
international
institutions
Commission
PARTNERS
14
15
Number of priority programs implemented
through partners
Number of technical cooperation with local
and international partners
L
E
A
D
L
A
G
Base
2011
2013
2015
4
6
9
12
4
5
6
7