Thursday, October 23, 2014

PNP-PGS: THAT Highfaluting PNP Program-Part 1

First of a Series

In a previous article (http://pulisnapogi.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-basic-flaw-exploited-for-corruption.html) I mentioned the Performance Governance System (PGS), PNP program currently shocking the daylights out of many police commanders and its obvious disconnect with the realities on the ground as far as funding releases are concerned.  Here are my comments on the other facets of this program.  This will be a series of articles and frankly, I do not know how many because I have so much to say about this program.  So just stay tuned.  However, you will see the topic of the next article at the end of the post.

The PNP-PGS is a PNP program currently spearheaded and managed by the Center for Police Strategy Management (CPSM).  In its website, (http://www.cpsm.ph/pgs-overview.xml), CPSM explains that the
PGS was undertaken by the PNP in compliance to a memorandum issued on July 9, 2009 by then Executive Secretary Eduardo ERMITA which mandated the PNP together with other five (5) national government agencies to participate in the MCC program requiring the institutionalization of PGS.
As CPSM explains, the premise of the program is anchored on the fact that as part of its birth pains, the PNP, in various national perception surveys, was shown to be among the most corrupt government agencies in the country.  Thus, various studies were conducted and CPSM cited the PNP Reform Commission Study under Former Justice Secretary Sedfrey ORDONEZ; the Joint United Nations Development Program and Government of the Philippines (UNDP-GRP) Study on Transforming the PNP into a More Capable, Effective and Credible Force; and the Transformation Plan crafted by the PNP known as the Integrated Transformation Program.

While this explanation of the CPSM is nice, for gray-haired people like me, I cannot help but notice that it is incomplete considering that there was a predecessor program to the ITP that utilized the same methodologies.  This was the POLICE 2000 program crafted in 1992 during the time when Raul Imperial was CPNP, Rafael Alunan III was the SILG, and Fidel Ramos was the President.  This program was actually in support to the PHILIPPINES 2000 program Ramos.  In has to be emphasized that it was in the POLICE 2000 program that the PNP Vision and Mission statements were formulated thus I believe that it will be a major faux pas to fail to mention it in the history of the PGS.  The original text of the PNP Vision Statement in the POLICE 2000 was:

"We are committed to the vision of a professional, dynamic, and highly motivated PNP, supported by a responsive community, regarded as one of the most credible national institutions, and ranked among the best in Asia"

The PNP-ITP revised this vision statement to its current text.  I came to know of the reasons of the change in my various discussions with key personnel involved and I do not agree with many of their reasons.  I believe that this original text is far more responsive to the needs of the PNP than the current one.  I will discuss this is a separate article in this series.

The POLICE 2000 program was the FIRST attempt of the PNP in adopting strategic planning methods proven to be effective in the business environment.  At that time, it was a very brave and trailblazing methodology as far as the PNP is concerned because this was a major deviation in its “military midset” taken from its Philippine Constabulary (PC) origins.  In the PC before, being part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the most common planning method was basically outlined in the OPLAN:  Situation, Mission, Execution, Admin, and Coordinating Instructions.  Planning then was mission-oriented and basically short term.  While there were also strategic plans made at the national level, the mindset was the same from top to bottom of the hierarchy:  MISSION FIRST.  This mindset is still the same today, but the way the mission is viewed had drastically changed.  Whereas before if it was “SEARCH AND DESTROY,” the Police 2000 program incorporated other components and had been adopted by the current PGS, albeit with modifications.

It was in POLICE 2000 that I first heard the term “Key Result Area” or KRA for short and it appeared in this table:
The first plan was simply called the “PNP National Strategic Action Plan” or NSAP for short.  When the first draft of the plan was collated in early 1994, the PNP NHQ convened a “deepening session” in Cebu City which was very much like the “boot camp” now of the PNP-PGS.  The “deepening session” was attended by close to a hundred delegates from various Regional Commands of the PNP all over the country.

When this program was first implemented, we cracked our heads thinking of the Programs/Projects/Activities that need to be done to satisfy the objectives and eventually the KRAs.  This is very much the same with the PGS now but then the terminologies before were far easier to understand.  The strategic planning process is already complicated and confusing in itself and the revision of the terms and addition of new ones like dashboard, primary and secondary drivers, and so many others in the current PGS further added to the confusion instead of simplifying things.  Back then though, terms were also changed depending on the preferences of whoever was doing the writing.  The changes were so often yet minor but resulted in reprinting of reports that I once angrily commented in a forum that the current terminology appeared to depend on the university from where the writers graduate.  For how can one explain the change of term from “area” to “target universe?”  I almost got relieved for that comment!  Hahahaha!

By my personal experience, the planning concepts and objectives are all very good and revolutionary.  However, then, as it is now, there are two major flaws that I believe contribute in the production of plans that become obsolete upon the assumption of another Chief, PNP.  These are:

1.    Planning for the long term is ideal but unrealistic, thus plans should focus only on the “realistic doables” during the tenure of the planners or their principal.

2.    Planners fail to appreciate the fact that planning needs vary at various levels of the organization;

Aside from these two flaws, there are also things pertaining to the mindset and interests of the planners that I am going to discuss in future articles.

Next:  PGS Flaw:  Planning for 2030 is Ideal But Unrealistic

5 comments:

  1. Magandang araw po sa inu, nkkrelate po aq sa iung sinulat dahil aq po ay isang member nang PSMU d2 sa aming unit. Unang-una po, hindi po pinaliwanag nang maayos s amin, mga lower unit, kung ano b tlaga ang PNP- ITP. Sana nman i.cascade nla hanggang dito s lower units, meron kasing ibang interpretasxon ang direct higher office nmin at ang CPSM kung anu ang ippresent nang lower during s PGS Certification nang Initiation Stage.
    Ang isa pong problema din nang lower units ay ang dashboard. May mga aspeto ang dashboard n hindi nman effective ang pg.measure at hindi po appropriate sa amin..dpat po sana pinag.aralan nang ma.igi at sana hindi puro nasa itaas ang taong ngpaplano.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hahaha salamat sa visit! balik po kayo para sa mga karagdagang articles tungkol dito.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi. Is there a published book/ studies regarding P.A.T.R.O.L. Plan 2030. We're currently assessing the effectiveness of the plan for our thesis. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really find ur article very informative. I consider this program as a good tool for measuring the effectiveness of our service to the community, as much as this program appeals to the community, however it does not have the same response to the PNP organization. It only gave us more problems that we could actually handle. Let me first site the my reasons for saying it. During initiation stage, the higher office had not given overview on the PGS, I believe that the info dissemination of this program must not be limited to specific office or personnel and it must be available also to the PNP community since this program had a long term visions and requires a lot of support to the personnel of this organization. We fortunately passed the Initiation Stage with shallow understanding on the PGS. Second, as we are on the Compliance Stage, we are once again in the roller coaster ride. We have to comply more compliances and more activities to validate that we are aligned with the PNP PATROL PLAN 2030. With little info gathered on this matter, it was really a toll in our part to do or comply a report that we barely undertstood. I don't know why are the organization was so keen to pass all units (regional office/provincial office/stations) in compliance stage when in fact, the units are not yet ready and are still adjusting and adapting to the PGS. Why such haste? I know there are good intentions for this program however, it was not delivered properly by the CPSM. and THIRD, It pained me to read on their site that they were conducting competency training and boot camps in the national level. How about the lower units? We also need the competency training and boot camps for us to fully appreciate and grasp the objectives of PGS. It is us, who supplied valuable reports, data and even accomplishments for them to come up with new activities and other innovations. And yet we are the one's who were left behind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you hit the nail in the head! salamat po sa visit!

      Delete

tell me what you think!