Guide IPCR craftingv2

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.


REVIEW (<strong>IPCR</strong>)<br />



In 2012, the Civil Service Commission issued Memorandum Circular No. 06 or the<br />

Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) which focused on the strategic<br />

alignment between the organization’s goals, operations of the units and cascading<br />

these to all individuals. Following these, the Department had separated office<br />

targets/performance from the Official or Head of Office, Bureau, Service (HOBS)<br />

leading the office targets/accomplishments.<br />

The Performance Evaluation System for Third Level Officials or the adoption of<br />

Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES) mandated by<br />

the Career Executive Service Board (CESB), prescribed rating forms must be duly<br />

accomplished and submitted to the CESB by first quarter of the succeeding year of<br />

the rating period. Failing which, officials will not have a performance rating on record.<br />

Thus, the Individual Performance Contract and Review (PCR) form was designed to<br />

measure performance of Officials based on the targets and indicators approved<br />

during the Performance Planning/Contracting as indicated in their Individual<br />

Performance Contract (IPC).<br />

II.<br />


1. Assess the performance/ value added contribution of the Officials in moving their<br />

respective Office targets.<br />

2. Determine the actual accomplishments of the Officials vis­a vis their committed<br />

targets for the rating period.<br />


This guide covers all personnel who are incumbents of the following positions including<br />

those designated to act in that capacity (e.g. Officer­in­Charge):<br />

­ Director III (e.g. Assistant Bureau Director, Assistant Regional Director, Deputy<br />

Project Manager)<br />

­ Director IV (e.g. Bureau/Service Director, Regional Director, National Project<br />

Manager)<br />

­ Assistant Secretary or Undersecretary<br />

The <strong>IPCR</strong> of Official also referred to as Ratee shall be approved by the following<br />

approving authority respectively:<br />

Official /Ratee<br />

Recommending Approving / Rater<br />

(including OICs)<br />

Undersecretaries Secretary<br />

Assistant Secretaries Cluster Head/<br />

Secretary<br />

Undersecretary<br />

Regional Directors Secretary<br />

Page 1 of 5

Heads of Office/ Bureau/<br />

Service/ Attached Agency<br />

(OBSA)<br />

Director III or Assistant<br />

Directors<br />

Cluster Head/<br />

Undersecretary<br />

<br />

Secretary<br />

HOBS (Director IV)<br />


The <strong>IPCR</strong> Form (Annex 1) is tools used rate/assess the targets committed by the<br />

Official during the performance planning stage for the rating period.<br />

1. Following IPC weight allocation, the <strong>IPCR</strong> has the following weight allocation per<br />

section depending on the type of office (as per memorandum from the Secretary<br />

dated 28 January 2014):<br />

Areas/ Sections FOs Strategic<br />

Offices<br />

Support<br />

Offices<br />

EXECOM<br />

Offices<br />

Strategic Priorities 50% 50% 35% 35%<br />

Core functions of Official 35% 35% 50% 35%<br />

Leadership and Managerial 15% 15% 15% 30%<br />

Total 100%<br />

2. Weight assignments for each section vary according to where the office of the official<br />

is categorized:<br />

a. Field Offices ­ are Offices in regions directly implementing DSWD<br />

programs/operations.<br />

b. Strategic Offices ­ are Offices identified as strategic because they have direct<br />

impact to the achievement of Strategic Goals (SG) and Major Final Outputs<br />

(MFO). They are NHTO, PANTAWID, NCDDP, PSB, Convergence Management<br />

Office, DRRROO, SLP, STB, PDPB, RMEO, SB, CBB, and OSM.<br />

c. Support Offices ­ are Offices that have no immediate impact to the SGs and<br />

MFOs but are critical to the achievement of the SGs and MFOs. They do<br />

administrative/logistics such as TAU, HRDB, SMS, IAS, ICTMS, DLLO, FMS, AS,<br />

PS, LS, and attached agencies.<br />

d. Executive Offices ­ are primarily the Offices of the ExeCom that provide overall<br />

cluster/group direction and oversight. They are OSec, OUSGASSG,<br />


Protective, OASOPG Support, OASOPG Promotive, and OASOSG.<br />

V. STEPS IN ACCOMPLISHNG THE <strong>IPCR</strong><br />

Step 1. Filling­up the Columns of the<br />

Indicators<br />

KRA and the Performance<br />

1.A On Strategic Priorities<br />

A. For Cluster Heads & Heads of Office/Bureaus/Service:<br />

Page 2 of 5

Please leave blank. The rating for this section will be derived from the<br />

score/rating in the OPCR.<br />

B. For Asst. Secretaries , Asst. Directors, or Officials not heading an OBS 1 :<br />

From the approved IPC, copy the approved targets and indicators of<br />

this section into the <strong>IPCR</strong> form.<br />

1.B. On Core Functions of HOBS<br />

From the approved IPC, copy the targets and indicators of this section into<br />

the <strong>IPCR</strong> form.<br />

1C.. Leadership and Managerial Competencies.<br />

Please leave blank. The score/rating for this section will be based on the<br />

Competency Assessment Tool (CAT). The tool will be used to gauge how officials<br />

practice DSWD’s Core, Leadership and Managerial Competencies.<br />

Step 2. Filling­up the “Actual Accomplishments” Column<br />

Specify your actual accomplishments for each of the targets in<br />

consideration of the performance indicators (Qn, Ql and T) set.<br />

The accomplishments should be stated as specific as possible since<br />

this shall primarily serve as the basis for your performance rating for<br />

that certain target: the actual quantity, how well your output has been<br />

accomplished and the date of submission/accomplishment should be<br />

indicated in this column. The quantity, quality and timeliness of<br />

accomplishments should be reflected.<br />

Moreover, if the accomplishment did not meet/fell short of expected<br />

deliverable (i.e., only 4 out 5 reports were made), justifications may be<br />

placed in this section to guide the Superior Rater in giving the final<br />

rating.<br />

Step 3. Rating the Performance<br />

In giving rating for the Quantity, Quality and Time (Qn,Ql,T), kindly<br />

refer to the 1 ­5 Rating guide (Annex 2).<br />

1<br />

Per Memorandum dated August 28, 2014 signed by the Undersecretary for Institutional<br />

Development Group (IDG), Angelita Gregorio­Medel, the above­mentioned Officials shall specify<br />

their specific contribution/leadership role in moving the targets on SP as indicated in the approved<br />

OPC of their OBS.<br />

Page 3 of 5

For some IPC targets which were not acted upon/no actions were<br />

needed for the year due to some uncontrollable factors, the key result<br />

shall not be rated and will not form part of the total average rating.<br />

Additionally, to uphold the approved IPC, only the approved indicators<br />

shall be rated based on the actual accomplishments indicated. To<br />

illustrate, if in the approved IPC, only the Qn and Ql performance<br />

indicators were specified, only the Qn and the Ql shall be given rating.<br />

However, the Superior Rater may give rating on the lacking indicator/s<br />

based on the Means of Verification (MOVs) provided by the Ratee.<br />

Means of verification (MOV) is a documentary evidence that will<br />

support claims that an output or service was accomplished. It is a proof<br />

that objectives were met and verifies success of performance indicator.<br />

MOVs are sources of data such as reports, statistics, observation,<br />

monitoring, etc.<br />

Step 4. Computing the Final Rating.<br />

Step 1: Determine the average rating of each key result/target.<br />

Average Rating = Quantity + Quality + Time 2<br />

3<br />

Step 2: Compute the weighted average of each Section. This could done<br />

by getting the total average rating of the all the averages of the targets<br />

under each section. When the total average rating for that certain <strong>IPCR</strong><br />

section has been obtained, multiply it according to its weight allocation.<br />

Weighted Rating = Total Average rating x Weight % of Section<br />

Step 3: For the final <strong>IPCR</strong> rating, add all the weighted average ratings.<br />

Step 4: In determining the corresponding adjectival rating of the obtained<br />

score, please refer to the Section III of the 1­ 5 Rating <strong>Guide</strong>.<br />

2<br />

For targets that has only 2 performance indicators (Qn & Ql), the divisor shall by 2<br />

Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5


(Name of Office/Bureau/Service)<br />

CY ____<br />

I, ________________________, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets and indicators for my duties.<br />


Program, Activity, Project/<br />

Deliverable<br />

I. Strategic Priorities ( __ %)<br />

Success/ Performance<br />

Indicators/Measures<br />

(Quantity, Quality,<br />

Time)<br />

Weight<br />

Actual Accomplishment<br />

Rating<br />

Qn Ql T Ave.<br />

Remarks/Coaching<br />

II. KRAs/CORE FUNCTIONS of the HOBS ( ___ %)<br />

III. Leadership and Managerial Competencies (15%)<br />

Please leave blank. Performance rating will be based on the Competency Assessment Tool [CAT])<br />

Final Average Rating<br />

Adjectival Rating<br />

Prepared by:<br />

Concurred by:<br />

(Name of Ratee) (Name of Coach) (Name of Director/HOBS)<br />

(Position) (Position) (Position)<br />

Date:_________ Date:_________ Date:___<br />

Page 6 of 5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!