SSC Annual Report 2017
Contents
- Title page
- Commissioner's Overview
- Our Strategic Direction
- The Role of the State Services Commission
- Delivering Better Public Services
- Organising for the Future
- Responding to Changing Needs
- Our Success in 2016/17
- Strategy and Policy
- Integrity, Ethics and Standards
- System and Agency Performance
- Workforce and Talent Management
- Corporate Services
- Report on Strategic Intentions
- End-of-Year Reporting
- Statement of Responsibility
- Independent Auditors Report
- Statement of Performance
- Statement of Budgeted and Actual Departmental and Non-departmental Expenses and Capital Expenditure Incurred Against Appropriations
- Financial Statements and Schedules
- Departmental Financial Statements
- Notes to the Departmental Financial Statements and Non-departmental Schedules
- Non-departmental Schedules
- List of Acronyms
Report on Strategic Intentions
Last updated: 18 October 2017
As part of our transformation we will be realigning our performance measures to our refreshed strategy. We have made a first step in updating the measures we use in both our Strategic Intentions and our Estimates. The table below maps the old measures from our Strategic Intentions 2016–20 against those we have used in 2016/17.
| Strategic Intentions 2016-20 measure | Target 2016/17 | Result 2016/17 |
|---|---|---|
| Public Service chief executives who have been in the role for one year or more meet or exceed the State Services Commissioner's performance expectations | 95% | These three results can be found in the Management of the Public Management System section of this report. |
| Deployment of senior leaders through Career Boards | 12 deployments | |
| Career Board cohort have been assessed using a standard framework and have agreed development objectives | 90% | |
| Stakeholders agree that NZ Public Service chief executives are effective leaders of the Public Service | Average score of 4 out of 5, or better | These five measures were assessed using a single annual survey of our chief executives. This survey has beenreplaced by a regular survey that focuses on qualitative feedback as well as obtaining quantitative ratings.The results of the survey can be found in the Management of the Public Management System section of thisreport. |
| Stakeholders agree that agencies are working together more effectively than two years ago to deliver results | Average score of 4 out of 5, orbetter | |
| Stakeholders agree that tier 2 and tier 3 capability in the NZ Public Service is fit-for-purpose | Average score of 3.3 out of 5, or better | |
| Stakeholders are satisfied that SSC's oversight role of State sector employment relations achieves solutions within government expectations and provides for effective management of risk within and across agencies | Average score of 3.6 out of 5, or better | |
| Chief executives agree that PIF reviews have led to changes that improve agency performance | Average score of 4 out of 5, orbetter | |
| Chief executives surveyed within three months of the PIF review respond that they gained valuable insights | 100% | The survey we use to measure the value of the PIF and CI tools has been improved. Results for the value obtained from these tools can be found in the Management of the Public Management System section of this report. |
| SSC's ‘Better Every Day' CI engagements result in agencies reporting customer or performance benefits | 100% | |
| Administrative and support service costs reduce | Less than 15% of total running costs | This result is reported in the annual BASS (Benchmarking Administration and Support Services) report. The most recent results can be found on our website: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/bass |
| SSC employee engagement improves | Above Public sector benchmark | As part of our transformation we are developing a new method for managing organisational health that includes monitoring and improving employee engagement. This will include new benchmarking. As such, we have not reported results this year. |