COMMITMENTS to deliver on targets are best when put on record. They are on record for everyone to see. In the case of targets that can have bearing on the pursuit of the strategy map for the nation, the general public has the right to know what those targets are, who made those commitments, and when results can be expected.

Since commitments come from many different constituencies – from those on equal footing with the executive branch such as the Congress as an independent body, and from a multi-sectoral coalition of citizens’ groups – it is necessary to put in place a system for tracking progress on the delivery of targets, from these many constituencies, based on the commitments they had previously made. This is where governance scorecards come into the limelight.

Governance scorecards need to be systematic. They are turned in periodically: Quarterly for many targets involving commitments that that can be tracked more closely; and at least twice a year, for a few other items that take time to put together reports on. In their most complete form, they are presented annually.

These periodic reports are very important for everyone to know where actual performance is, relative to targets. They also highlight who have been over-performing; and not incidentally, also those whose performance is below par. But governance scorecards that are performance-oriented do not stop with an analysis of performance variance. They also point to strengths on which even more positive achievements can be based in succeeding periods. More helpfully, they pinpoint the weaknesses that need to be addressed, so that rapid response mechanisms can be made to work to help those whose performance standards need to be brought to a higher level. In other words, governance scorecards are not limited to finger-pointing: Those that merit awards as well as those that may need to be given demerits. They mainly point to the future also, addressing this question: What can be done in the immediate future to ensure that performance the next time around would be much higher and more aligned with the demands of the strategy map?

Who among those who will be running for President in 2010 are most likely to commit to installing a governance scorecard system? Who would push for their institutionalization? Who is deeply conscious of the time it takes to institutionalize a governance scorecard system? Much more than time, it also takes tenacity, perseverance, and a very deep commitment to high levels of performance.

In particular, who among those seeking the Presidency in 2010 is open to setting up an Office for Strategy Management at least in the Office of the President? Perhaps, no new office needs to be set up; but the functions of the Office for Strategy Management can be assigned to existing offices. These may need a re-orientation and additional training so they would have a deep understanding of governance scorecards. Moreover, they should know how best to use governance scorecards positively.

Indeed, two critical steps need to be taken for the nation to be Public Governance System (PGS)-proficient. The first is to assign the functions of an Office for Strategy Management to a well-trained, properly re-oriented office staff, preferably in the Office of the President. The second is to get that office to install and manage the governance scorecard system. This system tracks performance and the delivery of outcomes in line with targets that had been set. It also facilitates the activation of a rapid response mechanism to assist those whose performance may be falling short to shape up and deliver according to targets in subsequent reporting period.

Can we find among those running for President in 2010 at least one who would take these 2 steps to make the Philippines PGS-proficient?