Motivating Success Toolkit
Motivating Success
A Toolkit for Performance Measurement
Business ServicesServices Business Partner Team Version 1.0
Part A – Guidance
Introduction
We measure supply chain performance in all Highways Agency contracts using the Motivating Success Toolkit (MST). This supports delivery through a collaborative working process and gives a consistent method of performance measurement across the Agency. The MST is designed to provide the flexibility to tailor the performance measures in line with the contract size and scope.
Criteria for Using the MST
Procurement Officers should ensure that the MST is used in their contracts, although as a general rule the MST is not used for non-Highways Agency contracts.
Whilst there should be a presumption towards using the MST, there may be occasions where its use is not viable or beneficial to the Agency (e.g. value of contract *). In these circumstances the Procurement Officer should document the reasons on the proforma in Annex A and send to the Services Business Partner Group Manager for sign off.
* Whilst there is no minimum monetary figure at which our MST should start to be used, as a guide any contract/task order for £10k or under needs to be carefully considered to see if an MST is deemed necessary. Anything over this figure, it is assumed that an MST will be used unless a robust justification can be given by the Procurement Officer using the Proforma in Annex A.
Roles and Responsibilities
The roles in the performance measurement process are as follows:
Procurement Strategy and Supplier Development (SSD) Team
The SSD team own the overall performance measurement policy. SSD also maintain a database of MST scores for corporate-level reporting and to support the supplier selection process.
Procurement Operational Teams
Procurement Officers should monitor that MSTs are being used on the tasks and contracts they let, support project sponsors, and report on MST use where needed.
Business Delivery
Delivery teams manage their projects using the MST with their supplier(s), including reviewing and validating the performance scores at agreed intervals.
Areas of Performance Measurement
The MST consists of six main areas of measure:
No. / Area of Measure / Headline Description1 / Product / The level of satisfaction with delivery of the product
2 / Service / The level of satisfaction with the service provided
3 / Right First Time / The impact on the Agency of any reworking
4 / Cost / The reliability of cost estimates and control
5 / Time / The reliability of time estimates and control
6 / Safety / Health and Safety considerations on the project
n/a / Client Performance / 360° feedback on Agency client performance
The measures are then broken down into “performance indicators” which can be tailored to fit the requirements of the contract. There is also the opportunity for the supplier to give 360° feedback on the Agency’s performance as a client.
Scoring Mechanism
Generic scoring guidelines for the performance indicators are given in the toolkit below. Scoring is judged according to a “satisfaction scale”, ranging from 0 (Totally Dissatisfied) to 10 (Exceptionally Satisfied). A score of 6 is seen as a benchmark score which shows that expectations are being met. Scores of 1, 3, 7 and 9 are not permitted.
The criteria for achieving each score is decided at the contract/task start-up meeting, by agreeing standards for the expected quality of work and supporting evidence requirements. This reduces the likelihood of scoring disputes between the Agency and the supplier.
The score for each headline area of measure is calculated by averaging the score for each performance indicator. There is no weighting of the performance indicators or the areas of measure.
How to Use the MST – Step by Step Guide
1) Start-Up
Representatives of the Agency delivery team and supplier should meet following commencement of the contract/task order. With respect to the MST process, the meeting must cover the following:
· Introduction to the MST (as required)
· Agree the performance measurement period and frequency; this can be tailored but is expected to be completed at least quarterly
· Whether any performance indicators should be excluded (if not relevant) and whether any other contract-specific indicators should be included.
· Evidence requirements and corresponding client satisfaction levels for each performance indicator, setting out the standards required to achieve each score.
2) Completing the Report
The supplier self-assesses their performance over the measurement period by completing the reporting proforma in line with the agreed satisfaction levels, before sending the report to the HA Project Sponsor along with any relevant supporting evidence.
3) Review meeting
The Project Sponsor arranges a review meeting with the supplier to discuss the MST report and agree the performance scores. Prior to the meeting the Project Sponsor should carefully check the supplier-assessed scores in light of the supporting evidence and pre-agreed satisfaction levels, and decide whether any scores should be challenged.
At the meeting both parties discuss and agree the final performance scores. Examples of good performance should be logged for future lessons and sharing. Where poor performance or an area for improvement is identified, a development plan should be created by the supplier with input from the Project Sponsor, detailing proposed actions to prevent reoccurrence in the next reporting period. If a supplier’s performance is consistently falling below an acceptable standard then this should be escalated for action to be taken as laid down in the Agency’s poor supplier performance procedure.
Scoring disputes are uncommon because expectations are clearly defined at the outset. However if circumstances arise where consensus cannot be reached, you must inform the Strategic Supplier Development Team.
Once scoring is completed the integrated project team should review the performance indicators for the next reporting period to confirm their ongoing relevance and whether any changes are required.
4) Submission of Scores
Performance scores should be fed back to the Procurement Officer, with evidence that both parties have seen and agreed the scores. This can be done either by email trail or by scanning and manually signing the proforma.
The Procurement Officer should then send the scores to the performance measurement team for logging in their central database: .
Further Information
The full performance measurement process is detailed in the Procurement Way we Work Process 3.2.
All of our Motivating Success Toolkits are available on the Agency website:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/15098.aspx.
If you have any query or comment regarding the use or development of this Toolkit please contact the Highways Agency Performance Measurement policy team:
.
Michelle Appleyard – 0113 283 4780
Margaret Johnson – 0113 283 6857
Part B – Business ServicesServices Business Partner Team Toolkit
Performance indicators to be scored as follows, in line with supporting evidence requirements and quality standards agreed at the start of the measurement process.
Measure 1: Product / The level of satisfaction with overall delivery of the productPerformance Indicator / 1.1 / Meeting task objectives
1.2 / Selection/provision of resources
Score / Satisfaction / Quality Criteria
10 / Exceptionally satisfied / All aspects exceed Agency expectations considerably.
8 / Highly satisfied / All aspects are satisfactory and some aspects are exceeding expectation.
6 / Satisfied / On balance all aspects are satisfactory.
5 / Neither satisfied/dissatisfied / Where neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, for exceptional circumstances.
4 / Slightly dissatisfied / Some minor aspects are unsatisfactory, the sponsor seeks improvement.
2 / Very dissatisfied / A key aspect is unacceptable, significant intervention is required.
0 / Totally dissatisfied / Key aspects unacceptable; supplier capability must be urgently reviewed.
Measure 2: Service / The level of satisfaction with the service provided
Performance Indicator / 2.1 / Management of internal and external stakeholder relationships
2.2 / Health, welfare and development of staff
Score / Satisfaction / Quality Criteria
10 / Exceptionally satisfied / All aspects exceed Agency expectations considerably.
8 / Highly satisfied / All aspects are satisfactory and some aspects are exceeding expectation.
6 / Satisfied / On balance all aspects are satisfactory.
5 / Neither satisfied/dissatisfied / Where neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, for exceptional circumstances.
4 / Slightly dissatisfied / Some minor aspects are unsatisfactory, the sponsor seeks improvement.
2 / Very dissatisfied / A key aspect is unacceptable, significant intervention is required.
0 / Totally dissatisfied / Key aspects unacceptable; supplier capability must be urgently reviewed.
Measure 3: Right First Time / The impact on the Agency of any reworking
Performance Indicator / 3.1 / Minimising the need for avoidable rework
3.2 / Managing quality processes and continuous improvement
Score / Satisfaction / Quality Criteria
10 / Exceptionally satisfied / All aspects exceed Agency expectations considerably.
8 / Highly satisfied / All aspects are satisfactory and some aspects are exceeding expectation.
6 / Satisfied / On balance all aspects are satisfactory.
5 / Neither satisfied/dissatisfied / Where neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, for exceptional circumstances.
4 / Slightly dissatisfied / Some minor aspects are unsatisfactory, the sponsor seeks improvement.
2 / Very dissatisfied / A key aspect is unacceptable, significant intervention is required.
0 / Totally dissatisfied / Key aspects unacceptable; supplier capability must be urgently reviewed.
Measure 4: Cost / The reliability of cost estimates and control
Performance Indicator / 4.1 / Delivering the overall project within financial budget
4.2 / Reliability of monthly financial forecasting
Score / Satisfaction / Quality Criteria
10 / Exceptionally satisfied / Within ±3% of estimate/budget
8 / Highly satisfied / Within ±5% of estimate/budget
6 / Satisfied / Within ±8% of estimate/budget
5 / Neither satisfied/dissatisfied / Within ±10% of estimate/budget
4 / Slightly dissatisfied / Within ±15% of estimate/budget
2 / Very dissatisfied / Within ±20% of estimate/budget
0 / Totally dissatisfied / Greater than ±20% of estimate/budget
Measure 5: Time / The reliability of time estimates and control
Performance Indicator / 5.1 / Delivering the overall project within time
5.2 / Reliability of time estimates for project milestones
Score / Satisfaction / Quality Criteria
10 / Extremely satisfied / All aspects delivered on time or earlier
8 / Highly satisfied / All key aspects delivered on time or sooner
6 / Satisfied / Most aspects delivered on time or sooner
5 / Neither satisfied/dissatisfied / Where neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, for exceptional circumstances.
4 / Slightly dissatisfied / Some minor aspects delivered later than agreed.
2 / Very dissatisfied / Some major aspects delivered later than agreed.
0 / Totally dissatisfied / All major aspects delivered later than agreed or not at all.
Measure 6: Safety / Health and Safety considerations on the project
Performance Indicator / 6.1 / Deploying effective Health and Safety processes
Score / Satisfaction / Quality Criteria
10 / Extremely satisfied / All aspects exceed Agency expectations considerably.
8 / Highly satisfied / All aspects are satisfactory and some aspects are exceeding expectation.
6 / Satisfied / On balance all aspects are satisfactory.
5 / Neither satisfied/dissatisfied / Where neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, for exceptional circumstances.
4 / Slightly dissatisfied / Some minor aspects are unsatisfactory, the sponsor seeks improvement.
2 / Very dissatisfied / A key aspect is unacceptable, significant intervention is required.
0 / Totally dissatisfied / Key aspects unacceptable; supplier capability must be urgently reviewed.
Annex A
Services MST: Unsuitable Contract Justification
Procurement Officers should ensure that the MST is used in Highways Agency contracts unless there are sufficient reasons as to why this would not be viable or beneficial. When deciding whether relevant to the contract please consider the following:
· Value of contract
· Length of contract
· Scope of work
· Cost/benefit of providing/reviewing the performance scores
· Likely frequency of future work with the supplier
· Performance measurement tool already in place (e.g. DfT etc)
There are no fixed criteria for these considerations and this is not an exhaustive list - some discretion and judgement is required. For example, there may be some very low value contracts where the MST is better suited than certain higher value contracts.
However it must be remembered that performance measurement is a key tool for managing commercial relationships and should not be neglected without a robust justification.
If performance measurement would not be beneficial please complete the form below and send to the Services Business Partner Group Manager for sign off.
Proc. Officer ……………………………………………………………………………..
Contract/Task Order ………………..…………………………………………………………....
Value of Contract (please tick one box)
Less than £10,000 £10,000 or over
Performance Measurement for the above contract/task order would not be beneficial to the Agency for the following reason(s):
Signed (Proc. Officer) ...... …………………………………………………………......
Date ………………………………………………………………………......
Approved ……………………………………………………………………......
Date ………………………………………………………………………......
Page 1 of 6