By DR. JESUS P. ESTANISLAO
Manila Bulletin, Tuesday, September 20, 2010
Using the performance governance system (PGS), which calls for a balance of perspectives, one would ordinarily gloss over the issue about which of those perspectives are more important than the others. After all, under the PGS, what is important is that all key perspectives need to be duly taken into account.
In the case of the Philippine Navy (PN), however, one gets the distinct impression that the perspectives of personnel, organization, and resources have to be taken into account because of their bearing on capability. This is the perspective that matters deeply: After all, what the Navy can accomplish would depend critically upon its capability.
The PN has listed four priorities under the capability perspective. The first of these is “responsive naval support.” This has elicited the proposed initiative of pursuing a modernized PN logistics system. The timely arrival of resources is the proposed measure of success for this initiative. The targets for 2011, 2012, and 2013 are 80 percent, 85 percent, and 90 percent, respectively. For 2020, the target is 99 percent. The proposed measure shows how dependent this initiative is upon the availability of resources and upon when those resources are made available to the Navy. Delay can be damaging.
The second priority is “reliable naval facilities.” The Navy proposes two initiatives to pursue this priority. A high customer satisfaction on the use of naval facilities, as the first initiative, would have as its measure of success the increase in the average “customer satisfaction rating,” presumably on the part of PN personnel. The targets are: 75 percent for 2011, 80 percent for 2012, 85 percent for 2013, and finally 95 percent for 2020. The second initiative calls for a comprehensive PN real estate utilization program. The measure of success of this initiative is the average MDP completion rate of PN bases and stations. Starting from a low base in 2010, the Navy has set the following targets: 50 percent for 2011, 60 percent for 2012, 70 percent for 2013, and 100 percent for 2020.
Under the third priority of securing “up-to-date naval capability,” two initiatives have been put forward. The first is to establish a responsive self-reliance defense posture program, with the measure of success being the rating of equipment of OPREVAL. The targets start at 75 percent for 2011, 80 percent for 2012, and 85 percent for 2013. They end at 100 percent for 2020. The second initiative is full utilization of PN Defense Capability Assessment and Planning System. The measure of success is the percentage of capability proposal complied with (i.e. actual versus programmed), and this is targeted at 25 percent in 2011 (from the base of 20 percent in 2010). The target moves up to 40 percent in 2012, 60 percent in 2013, and finally 90 percent in 2020.
The fourth and final priority under the capability perspective is “optimal level of operational readiness.” Only one initiative is proposed, and it is to improve operational readiness program management. The critical measure of success of this initiative is the OPREVAL rating with the following targets: 60 percent in 2011, 65 percent in 2012, 70 percent in 2013, and 85 percent in 2020. The Navy is starting at a low base with respect to this measure, and the targets it has set for this measure indicate how difficult it is for the PN to push it up; even by 2020, it can put forward a target of only 85 percent.
One quick look at the performance scorecards the Navy has proposed under the capability perspective would impress upon anyone how critically important the indicated initiatives, measures, and targets are for success of the Navy Sail Plan. It is true that all performance scorecards have to be given due attention along with the necessary commitment, dogged perseverance, and resources. But it is the attention to the performance scorecards under the capability perspective which would ultimately determine whether the PN has succeeded with its Navy Sail Plan.
