And mpat results

Trend Analysis of Average Scores across KPAs

• For the Strategic Management KPA, the department’s average scores improved significantly from non-compliance score of 2 in MPAT 1.4 results to slightly above compliant score of 3,5 in MPAT 1.6 results. This is commendable.

MPAT 1.6 Average scores for Strategic Management KPA

• Although the department’s total average scores improved from 1,6 (in 2014) to 2,8 (in 2015), the average scores regressed to 2,1 in 2016
• There is sharp regression on Fraud prevention, Corporate Governance of ICT, PAIA and PAJA. Main attributes includes irreverent provision of evidence and to little or no evidence submitted to substantiate departmental view.

MPAT 1.6 Average scores for Governance and Accountability KPA

• Although the department KPA average scores regressed in 2015, there was slight improvement in 2016 even though the scores were below compliance level.
• The department is compliant with policies in Human Resource Planning, Organisational Design, Human Resource Development, Recruitment, and PSA Delegations. However, the department is consistently non-compliant in the following areas:
• Management structures, Employees Health and Wellness, Level 1-12 PMDS, SMS PMDS, PMDS HOD, and disciplinary cases.
• The department needs to put improvement plans in place and monitor it regularly to enable progression in the next cycle.

MPAT 1.6 Average scores for Human Resource Management KPA

• The 2016 average score for the Financial Management KPA for DAFF was 3.8.
• With the exception of Payment of Suppliers, DAFF has been scoring within the compliance levels for financial management.

MPAT 1.6 Average scores for Financial Management KPA

SCORECARD

General MPAT 1,6 Observations

• The department is commended for its incremental progress in Financial and Strategic Management KPAs.
• Although Governance and Accountability has shown improvement from 2015 to 2016, the KPA average scores regressed in 2016. Measures need to be put in place to ensure compliance to prescripts and policies and that systems and processes are in place to guard against regression.
• Although Human Resource Management KPA still performs below the compliance level, there are positive signs for improvement in future. The department need to put measures in place to ensure improvements in this area.
• The department should identify the key areas of weakness and capture these in an improvement plan and ensure monitoring in-year. This will assist the department to improve on the areas of weakness.