Ministry Of Urban Development Government Of India Handbook Of Service .

10SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES1.0INTRODUCTION TO SERVICELEVEL BENCHMARKING1.1 NEED FOR SERVICELEVEL BENCHMARKINGEvery sector has a few key performance indicatorsthat are understood by most stakeholders in thatsector. Similarly, in the urban sector too, there havebeen a number of performance indicators relatedto urban management and service delivery thathave been defined, measured and reported.However, most initiatives in performancemanagement so far have been observed to havesome key limitations:a Different sets of performance indicators havebeen defined under different initiatives;a The definition or the assessment method mayvary for the same performance indicator, thusinhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons;a Most measurement exercises have beenexternally driven (by agencies external to theagency responsible for delivery against thoseperformance parameters), leading to the key issueof ownership of performance reports;a Most performance measurement initiatives havenot been institutionalised, limiting the benefits ofmonitoring trends in performance over time; anda The process of performance measurementhas not been taken forward into performancemanagement (Figure 1).These limitations mean that systems for measuringperformance and taking further action on themhave not been institutionalised in urban agencies.It is therefore important that the basic minimumstandard set of performance parameters arecommonly understood and used by allstakeholders. Depending on the specific need,additional performance parameters can bedefined and used.

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKINGFIGURE 1: PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT SYSTEMMeasuring service levels of civic agencies impliesmeasuring outcomes, and indirectly also reflects oninstitutional capacity, financial performance andother parameters. Service level parameters can bemeasured either from a utility manager’s/planner’sperspective or from a citizen’s or consumer’sperspective. In addition, to facilitate comparisonbetween cities/service delivery jurisdictions, andchanges in performance over time, it is importantthat the performance levels are benchmarked, andmonitored against those benchmarks.It is in this context, that the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment (MoUD) has initiated an exercise todefine Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs). The MoUDconstituted a ‘Core Group for Service LevelBenchmarking,’ comprising experts from variousinstitutions to arrive at the SLBs. Drawing on theexperiences of various initiatives in measuringservice level performance, the Core Groupnarrowed down the exercise to four basic urbanservices to begin with, and arrived at sets ofindicators in each. After much deliberation,the indicators, their definitions, means ofmeasurement, frequency and jurisdiction ofmeasurement and reporting, etc., were finalised.The Handbook of Service Level Benchmarking isa ready reckoner to enable Urban Local Bodies(ULBs) and other city level parastatal agenciesimplement systems for measuring, reporting andmonitoring the SLBs.11

12SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES1.2 PERFORMANCE PARAMETERSFOR BASIC URBAN SERVICESService level performance parameters have beenidentified for four basic urban services:a Water Supply;be reported. Frequency should be determined atsuch an interval at which the variables driving theperformance parameter will undergo visible change,and thereby reflect change in performance overdifferent time periods.a Sewage;a Solid Waste Management (SWM); anda Storm Water DrainageThese parameters have been defined primarilyfrom a utility manager’s/planner’s perspective.In other words, the parameters highlight theperformance as would be monitored by theleadership/management of ULBs or other civicagencies. These performance measurements willneed to be carried out by the service deliveryagencies themselves, reported to higher levels ofmanagement and also disseminated widely.Clear definitions and methodologies are expectedto eliminate bias in measurement and reporting.Performance from a citizen’s or consumer’s point ofview is better measured by capturing theirperception, rather than data from the deliveryagency. Measuring citizens’ perception can besupplemented by reporting by the agenciesthemselves, and can offer interesting insights whencompared with one another.Performance parameters should be applied acrossall cities and regularly used by all stakeholders.Practical considerations will drive frequency ofmeasurement and reporting; and the jurisdiction ofmeasurement and reporting, both critical aspects inperformance measurement. Performance will needto be measured at a frequency higher than or atleast equal to the frequency at which it will need toAlso, to the extent practical, performance should bemeasured at the smallest geographic jurisdiction aspossible. Typically, performance measurements atthe electoral ward level will be of significant value todecision-makers, especially elected representatives.Administrative jurisdictions for service deliverydepartments should ideally be co-terminus with wardboundaries. Service delivery performance at wardlevels, when laid out spatially on the city map, mayalso offer interesting insights. Also from a citizen’sperspective, ‘ward boundaries’ are the sub-ULB leveljurisdictions that they can possibly relate to. However,on the other hand, in case of network utilities such aswater supply and sewage, all network managementdata are ideally reported by the Zone/DistrictMetering Area (DMA), which typically representsmajor branches in the network.It will therefore be relevant to examine ‘networkmanagement’-related performance indicators byZone/sub-jurisdictions of the network (for example,continuity of water supply), while service delivery asexperienced by the citizen is measured by civic wardsas the smallest jurisdiction (for example, coverage ofwater supply connections).For purposes of internal management of theULB/utility, performance should be reported at thelowest level of jurisdiction and at maximumfrequency possible. However, frequency mayreduce and city-wide level performance may bereported to the higher levels of government andother external stakeholders.

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING1.3 ROLES OFDIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERSFor the service level performance parameters to beaccepted as a standard, all stakeholders willneed to play their parts. The roles of differentstakeholders and the next steps they will need topursue are:a Central Government: MoUD, Government ofIndia, will take the lead in disseminating theseservice level performance parameters andbuilding wider acceptance. SLBs will also beinstitutionalised through the Jawaharlal NehruNational Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)and other programmes initiated by MoUD: SLBs will be an integral part of CityDevelopment Planning processes, both forassessment of the current situation, and forsetting targets under their plans; Wherever appropriate, SLBs will bedovetailed with the commitment on reforms,and the subsequent process of appraisalof reforms; The relevant SLBs should be part of DetailedProject Reports for concerned sectors,indicating both the current situation andchanges the project will bring about.Subsequent processes of implementationmonitoring of the project will also evaluatethese SLBs; and Under the JNNURM, support may beextended to enable ULBs and other civicagencies to establish systems in theirrespective institutions for periodicmeasurement, reporting and analysisof SLBs.a State Governments and their Agencies:State governments and their nodal agencies inthe urban sector have a critical role indriving the performance of ULBs and city levelcivic agencies. State governments will need toperiodically evaluate the SLBs as an inputfor its decisions related to policy, resourceallocations, providing incentives andpenalties, channelising technical andmanpower support, and regulatoryconsiderations, among others. TheDirectorate of Local Bodies/Department ofMunicipal Administration will need to play akey role in this process through constantinter-city comparisons. These departmentsshould leverage the power of informationtechnology to build and operate systems thatperiodically capture and report on SLBs.Web-based technologies should be leveragedto manage information flow. For other nodalState level agencies, the SLBs will providespecific inputs for their programmes andinterface with the ULBs and other civicagencies. SLBs will also be an important inputto the State Finance Commissions in thecourse of their work.a Urban Local Bodies: ULBs are the mostimportant stakeholders for the institutionalisation of Service Level Benchmarking. As service delivery institutions, ULBs willfind it useful to institutionalise systems forperformance management using SLBs.Performance data at the sub-ULB level(Zone or ward level) are particularlyuseful for the ULB for making appropriatedecisions and monitoring performance ofthe various field units. Benchmarkingwith other cities within the State, orwith similar cities, facilitates a healthycompetitive environment for continuousimprovement; and As the principal elected institution forself-governance in the city, ULBs will needto examine performance of other13

14SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICESparastatal civic agencies, even if the ULBs arenot directly responsible for service delivery inthose areas.Performance management data using SLBs shouldbe included in the set of information disseminatedunder mandatory public disclosure, as required bythe reforms mandate under JNNURM.The key next steps for ULBs are to generateperformance reports on SLBs periodically beginningfinancial year (FY) 2008-09. Data can be capturedeither regularly through systems on the ground (forexample, weighbridges at the composting plant orlandfill site, water meters capturing flow atdesignated points, demand collection registers forwater charges, etc.), or through specific surveyscarried out at defined intervals. In parallel, the ULBswill also need to institutionalise systems for the entirecycle of performance management, as depicted inFigure 1. This would imply: Systems for capturing data: Design andimplement data collection systems for data tobe captured at the most disaggregated level.Such data will typically be from field level staffsuch as sanitary supervisors, water pumpoperators, accounts clerks, etc. Simple dataformats should be designed and providedto them to capture the data and report itupwards within the organisation forcollation and determination of the servicelevel performance; Systems for collation and analysis ofperformance indicators: Specific personsshould be designated with the mandate tocollate the data received from the field andgenerate the performance reports.Working directly under supervision andguidance from officers at the head ofdepartment level, young professionals withgood analytical skills and moderate levelsof technical skills should be able to executethese tasks; Systems for assessment and evaluationof performance: In most cases, multipleindicators need to be examined to obtain aholistic picture of service levels in aparticular sector. Performance indicatorsreported by the department level should beclosely examined at the management levelof the ULB. Such reviews by the Mayor/Municipal Commissioner should take placeat a defined frequency, say monthly;

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING Systems for decision-making: All ULBs dohave systems for decision-making; however,many decisions end up being considered inthe absence of quality data. To address suchgaps, systems such as periodically tablingthe performance reports in the Council/tothe Standing Committees should beinstituted. Typically, reporting ward levelperformance parameters, whereverapplicable, will be useful; Systems for operational decisions andplans: Decisions and plans will need to beperiodically reviewed in light of theperformance achieved and follow-ondecisions taken up. Additional capital orrevenue expenditure may be needed,contracting decisions made, and remedialaction taken with respect to deployment ofstaff, etc. A process of monthly review andfollow-up decisions will need to beinstituted; and Systems to take corrective action forperformance improvement: To enable theoperational staff implement corrective actionon the ground, they will need to beadequately empowered to implement thedecisions taken without lengthy approvalprocesses. For networked infrastructureservices, as in most urban services,significant efficiency improvements can bebrought about through operationalimprovements without significantcapital investment.A system of incentives and penalties must beinstituted to attain targeted performancelevels. This is critical for the field functionaries to respond in making quick operationalimprovements. Similarly, the system ofpenalties for errant staff that has lead topoor performance should be institutionalised.a Other Parastatal Agencies: The significanceof Service Level Benchmarking and the nextsteps parastatal agencies need to undertake arevery similar to that for ULBs. Parastatal agenciestoo need to put systems in place for performancemanagement as mentioned above. The need forperiodic reporting of SLBs to ULBs concerned andits public disclosure is further highlighted in thiscase, thereby bringing in higher intensity ofaccountability of parastatal agencies to electedbodies and the public at large.a Bi-lateral/Multi-lateral Aid Agencies andOther Stakeholders: Various urban governanceand infrastructure improvement programmesinitiated by bi-lateral and multi-lateral aidagencies can dovetail with and further strengthenthis initiative, mainly in two ways: Enabling State governments and cities indesign and implementation of performancemanagement systems, with a focus on theSLBs defined; and Extensively using the SLBs defined in thedesign, implementation and monitoring of theurban programmes supported by them.Benchmarking service levels and achievingtargets for each of these SLBs can be built intothe design of these programmes.Organisations such as City Managers’ Associations,public administration training institutions, the Officeof the Comptroller and Auditor General, otherexternal and internal audit agencies, financialinstitutions and a whole range of externalstakeholders should examine these SLBs in thecourse of their interactions with the ULBs.a Citizens and Civil Society: While the SLBs havenot been defined from the citizen’s perspective assuch, the parameters considered providereasonable indication of performance ofthe ULB/civic agency. Citizens should engagewith ULBs through Area Sabhas, ResidentWelfare Associations (RWAs) and other such civilsociety organisations, in examining theSLBs and suggesting remedial actions.15

16SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES1.4 LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES INIMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USINGSERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKSIt is recognised that this initiative to implementperformance management systems using SLBs hasa number of limitations. Performance managementin ULBs is being catalysed by the CentralGovernment; however, it is acceptance andcapacity at the State and city levels that will sustainthis initiative. While this Handbook has attemptedto address issues of definition and methodology forService Level Benchmarking, it is anticipated that anumber of complexities will arise in the course ofactual implementation. Field level experience inimplementing service delivery performancemanagement systems may also throw up the needfor monitoring additional parameters. Thisexperience should then provide feedback forimproving the SLBs and preparing the secondversion of this Handbook.Challenges involved in implementing performancemanagement systems using SLBs will be many. Theywill include:a Systems for capturing key data elementsidentified for Service Level Benchmarking are notpresent in many cases at the field level. Ideallydata are always captured at the lowest level.Interpreting and understanding performance isalways easier at an aggregate level; this is notpossible at the disaggregated level, if data havenot been captured at that level. Also the data atcity/ULB level can be credible and reasonablyaccurate, only if they have been captured atthe lower levels, such as the ward level. Forexample, if ward level data are captured onhours of water supply, they can be aggregated ata ULB level. However, if the number of hours isonly assessed and reported at the city level,ward-wise variances cannot be examined;a To measure input parameters for a performanceindicator, there may be a tendency to measurethrough ad hoc systems, which can be a one-offexercise. However, to generate data from thefield level on a regular basis to sustain periodicperformance measurement, sustainable systemsneed to be put in place;a In some cases, there may be resistance of fieldstaff or other stakeholders to collect and reportcorrect information, as vested interests may beinvolved. Such vested interests may also wantto prevent transparent disclosure of theperformance measured. Such hurdles will needto be overcome;a As mentioned earlier, definition andmeasurement methodology issues will continueto exist, though they will be refined withexperience. Also, some other indicators mayseem important or more SLBs may seem to benecessary for interpreting performance; anda Performance management will be sustainableonly if disclosure, reporting, monitoring andperformance management feedback, incentivesand disincentives are also brought into the cycle.Else the system of measurement and disclosureof SLBs may not sustain itself.

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING1.5 STANDARDISATION OFSERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKSEach indicator has been detailed out in astandardised template in the following pages topresent the definition and computationmethodology of the selected SLBs (performanceindicators). For each selected indicator, thefollowing details have been provided:a Title, units and definition: The specific name,the unit of measurement in which theperformance is to be measured, and definitionfor the indicator is provided;a Data requirements: The specific elements ofdata that need to be captured are identified,along with the corresponding unit ofmeasurement. Each data element is described,and point and frequency of data capture arementioned. The specific formulae that should beused to arrive at the performance indicatorare mentioned;a Rationale for the indicator: For eachperformance indicator, the overall significanceand rationale for assessing and monitoring theperformance indicator have been provided.The benchmark value has been specified inmost cases;a Reliability of measurement: The performancemeasurement is only as reliable for meaningfulmanagement decisions as the systems thatgenerate the data to compute the performance.Typically, four levels of reliability of data systemshave been specified: ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D,’ with ‘A’being of highest reliability and ‘D’ being lowest.Reliability of measurement highlights a hithertoignored aspect in performance management ofurban services—the need to design, implementand institutionalise robust systems and processesthat will pr

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110 011 Phone: 011-23062309, 23061295 . Government of India has launched a series of initiatives aimed at enabling urban local bodies to meet the unprecedented challenges that they face today. These include schemes such as the Jawaharlal Nehru