MANILA, Philippines – The Civil Service Commission (CSC) as a service organization does not consider “finance” as its top-line result; rather, it is the service it delivers for other government agencies that it considers of paramount importance. Indeed, CSC considers as its bottom-line achievement the raising to world-class standards actual HR and OD practices in other government agencies, presumably starting with CSC itself.

Under the all-important “stakeholders” perspective, CSC has listed two strategic priorities.

The first of these is to be “recognized as a center of excellence.” In pursuit of this priority, the CSC chairman has been given the responsibility as “priority owner.” As such, the CSC chairman along with everyone else in the CSC has to reckon with the following performance scorecards:

a) The first measure is the “number of ISO-certified processes” in the CSC. In 2010, the base year, CSC had no ISO-certified process. For 2011, the target is to obtain ISO certification for one process; and for 2015, ISO certification shall be obtained for at least three processes. The road after 2015 calls for several milestones, reaching which would require that several more CSC internal processes shall be ISO-certified.

b) The second measure is the “CSC net trust rating.” At least two independent polling organizations undertake a regular survey of public perception and trust of several government agencies. CSC needs to be included in that survey, and based on that base-line trust rating figure, targets for subsequent years, particularly for 2015, should then be set.

The second strategic priority under the “stakeholders” perspective is to produce and maintain “selfless, competent, and credible civil servants” across the entire Philippine bureaucracy. Again, the CSC chairman is the “priority owner.” The performance scorecards for this priority are three:

a) The first measure is the “average (SPMS) rating (of those government agencies with SPMS).” In 2010, there were only seven such agencies; the number has to increase to make the calculation of an average SPMS rating reasonable. Nonetheless, CSC has set the target of “satisfactory” average rating in 2011; and using a much bigger base, the target for 2015 is “very satisfactory.”

b) The second measure is “percent of government agencies and units with at least “good” ARTA rating.” The base figure for 2010 is very low – 0.64 percent (or only 26 agencies or units out of a total number of close to 4,090). The target for 2011 is an aggressive 10 percent; and for 2015, 50 percent.

c) The third measure is “government effectiveness ranking,” which the World Bank puts out regularly. The latest ranking puts the Philippines at 50 out of a total of 100. The CSC is in the process of looking more closely into the elements considered for constructing such an index so it can put up a realistic, achievable, yet ambitious target for 2011 and 2015.

It is performance measured against these scorecards that will determine whether CSC is in fact delivering, using its strategy map. Since it considers the strategic priorities under the “stakeholders” perspective as its defining priorities, CSC is right to be focusing upon the outcomes it delivers, using the measures and targets it has specified in these performance scorecards. Any breakthrough results on the basis of these scorecards would signal great success for the CSC strategy map. Fortunately, in the CSC vocabulary there is no entry other than “breakthrough results” under this all-important perspective.