To speak about evaluation of performance in the Public Service means much more than giving a numerical value between 0 and 5 to the performance demonstrated and measured over a calendar year.
The introduction of the Integrated System of Public Service Performance Evaluation – SIADAP – in 2004, represented a break with the usual technical-administrative practices, based on legal rules or those introduced into the services as perfect models in bureaucratic terms, in the manner of usucaption.

With it emerge management concepts that until that time had been restricted to the private sector, such as:
- Mission, or what we are as an institution
- Vision, which means “how we want to be known”
- Weak and strong points, threats and opportunities
- Strategic aims, with a top-down overall nature, brought about through initiatives, activities, measured, assessed and corrected by the introduction of trustworthy and objective indicators.

The organisms now take on a more global concept in which everyone participates towards the institutional aims, reflected in the Evaluation and Responsibility Framework – QUAR – (which arises from the SIADAP 1), which define coordination and planning aims – SIADAP 2 , and operational practices – SIADAP 3.

The concept of institutional culture takes on a new, or rather one more, synonym: identification with the unit to which we belong and its respective strategy demands active participation as a collaborator.

As could be foreseen, the transition has not been an easy process because it involves people, acquired behaviour patterns and change (which is difficult to implement). The stigma of evaluation in which some people stand out, being restricted to a quota of 25% of the population, is the most negative aspect of the process.

Establishing aims is not technically easy to do, and the application of measuring indicators presupposes the existence of performance records.

The FMUL is by no means an exception to this difficulty, which runs through all the organisms of the public service. Added to this is the fact that we are physically separated, with collaborators with perfectly unique functional contents, which makes technical assessment even more complex.

I consider that we are at the stage of maturing the process, which has had some less than successful moments during its implementation – with some momentary acts of disheartening – during the introduction of creative and innovative methodologies that seemed to us to be the most suitable ones for the progressive application of the SIADAP methodology.

But the analysis is positive after all. In 2009 we are more aware that we are an organization that needs to create, innovate and research in order to be the best among the best. One should not be shocked by our stating that we are working for our internal and external clients, trying to act with economy, efficacy and efficiency. It is not only an monetarist idea of seeing public service, but one of taking advantage of the scant resources we have, with the final aim of “serving better”.

As a result of the performance evaluation new practices have been introduced that are undergoing a phase of systematization, but which are a reflection of our young (but adult) and dynamic critical mass:
- Defining of overall aims, on the level of the services of the central structure, coming together towards a policy of quality in the services offered;
- Creating procedure manuals, which are the beginning of good practice, having the quality of what we do as implicit;
- Producing systematic, trustworthy and objective data that will allow us to construct prospective scenarios – whether strategic or exploratory – and to act upon threats and take advantage of opportunities;
- Awakening to the integration of activities, developing new channels of vertical and horizontal communication;
- Valorisation of human resources existing in the institution, allowing us to undergo sustained development in quality and innovation. The School functions with greater administrative technique;
- Introducing of the philosophy of accountability, revealing who we are and what we do;
- Introducing of the concept of bench learning, meaning learning from those who perform well, sharing knowledge as a lever for our own development.

The stage we are currently at – maturing – demands very direct accompaniment of people, practices and instruments, with communication and institutional dialogue being essential elements.

Added to this is the need for the managing bodies to have direct involvement, taking the attitude of a main “sponsor” of the technicians who are heading the change in performance philosophy in technical and administrative terms at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Lisbon.

 

Isabel Aguiar, Administrative Division
imca@fm.ul.pt