Monday, October 27, 2014

PNP-PGS: THAT Highfaluting PNP Program-Part 2

Second of a Series

PGS Flaw:  Planning for 2030 is Ideal But Unrealistic

According to the CPSM website (http://www.cpsm.ph/transformation-begins.xml), the PNP Integrated Transformation Program, or ITP, “is our roadmap for long-term and lasting reforms in the Philippine National Police.”  From 2006 to 2010, the ITP was implemented and managed by the Program Management Office, an office organized under the Chief PNP himself with the DCA as the Executive Director (http://www.cpsm.ph/pmo.xml).  There was a time that the PMO was so powerful in terms of implementation and funding of projects and promotion of its personnel that it was once joked that there were three main lobby groups in the PNP:  the PMAyers, the PNPAyers, and the PMOyers.  That joke came about because during that time (around 2007), there were questions raised as to why there is a need for a PMO when there is already the DPL whose functions are basically similar.  In several lectures of key PMO personnel that I attended, they always stressed that a separate office implementing the ITP is necessary to ensure continuity of the program.  It was always likewise stressed that the PNP-ITP shall remain the same no matter who the Chief, PNP is.


Well, not even five years passed and lo and behold!  The ITP is no more and in its place is the so called Performance Governance System (PGS) with the PATROL PLAN 2030 in its heart called a “road map”.  Teka, akala ko ba ay “The ITP is our road map…”  E ano naman itong “PNP PATROL Plan 2030 Road Map?”  Baka naman magkawala wala na tayo nyan sa dami ng mapa natin!  Even the PMO died a natural death and in its place is now the Center for Police Strategy Management (CPSM).  Time of death?  2010.  How did I guess it?  Because it was the time that we had a new President and we had new President’s men!  No matter how the CPSM sugarcoats the changes by repeatedly stating that the PGS adapted the ITP, it cannot be denied that the PGS is an entirely different program with different thrusts and methodologies!

This is the heart of the problem:  Long range planning is good and ideal but unrealistic in the PNP setting because the organization, just like the whole Philippine Government bureaucracy in general, is personality centered.  This is one aspect that we cannot escape because the underlying causes are deeply rooted in our culture.  A simple Google using the keywords “Asian versus Western styles of leadership” will return hundreds of treatises regarding this and the common theme is that “there are similarities in the eastern and western styles such as valuing basic values like integrity but there is a great difference in other equally important aspects like love of God and value for family.”  This is where I believe that this program of the PNP had terribly gotten it wrong.  It cannot be realistically expected that an incumbent Chief PNP will continue ALL the programs of his/her predecessor because he can always say that it is already his neck on the chopping board and he has to ensure success his own way.  Canalizing him with a ready-made program would even be directly opposite to one of the core principles of the PGS that advocates “ownership” from various stakeholders of their respective programs!  It has to be pointed out that unlike private businesses whose ownership change little over a period of time, public governance style in the Philippines changes every six years upon the assumption of a new President.  As to the PGS itself, the “Balanced Scorecard” concept by Kaplan and Norton at the center of this program is not even free of changes in itself.  The concept had already undergone three iterations since its original publication in the 1990s!

“Long range” planning in the PNP should only be limited to the tenure of the President of the Philippines and the operational imperatives be limited to the tenure of the Chief PNP.  This is the more realistic approach and will result in the conservation of those resources currently WASTED in CPSM planning for 2030.  What are they thinking?  That Binay will continue the direction of PNoy?  What if it is Mar Roxas?  Will he continue with the “Daang Matuwid” including all its detours?  What if it is Grace Poe?  Will she use the same slogan and not something that will pay tribute to her father?

History shows that in the post-Marcos era, each and every President, and all other politicians as well, marketed a unique identity of themselves when they come to power.  We can see this around us:  in posts, walls, ambulances, and virtually all government and even private infrastructure.  The incumbent politician goes to the extent of erasing the name of his predecessor and superimposing his name on it.

This is very much the same in the PNP.  Even at the organizational level itself, extra efforts were made to detach itself with its predecessor to the extent that the PC/INP logos integrated in the design of the perimeter fence of Camp Crame were DESECRATED.  Here is a picture of the fence in 2009:


Here is the close up of the desecrated logo (behind the head of the vendor):


I do not know who ordered this, but I would like to make him write over and over again the quote from Jose Rizal, “Ang hindi marunong lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi makararating sa paroroonan.”  Good thing that somebody restored the PC seal but what the heck, where is the INP seal?
 


The INP logo was very prominent in the EDSA gate during EDSA I revolution!


Is this something of a statement by the former PC people?  I thought that one of the hallmarks of the PGS is inclusiveness?  If this is not the perfect textbook example of “fractured history,” then I do not know what it is!  (I will write about this matter in a separate article in the future!)

This is the same with the Chiefs of the PNP as well.  Without fail, except for a few, I clearly remember the evolution of their “sloganeering” programs.  Here is a recap from memory and available resources in the internet.  (For corrections, additions, and omissions, please email me.)
Nr
Name
Year
Program/s Thrusts
1
Cesar P Nazareno
1991

2
Raul S Imperial
1992
PNP NSAP
3
Umberto A Rodriguez
1993

4
Recaredo Arevalo Sarmiento II
1994
POLICE 2000
5
Santiago Laus Alino
1997

6
Roberto T Lastimoso
1998
DREAMS
7
Edmundo L Larroza
1999

8
Panfilo Morena Lacson
1999
ICU
9
Leandro Mendoza
2001

10
Hemogenes E Ebdane Jr
2002
ONE PNP
11
Edgar B Aglipay
2004
CARE
12
Arturo Lomibao
2005
DARE
13
Oscar Castelo Calderon
2006
PNP ITP
14
Avelino Ignacio Razon
2007
Mamang Pulis at Aleng Pulis
15
Jesus Ame Verzosa
2008
LEAD PNP
16
Raul Bacalzo
2010
PGS
17
Nicanor Bartolome
2011
Serbisyong May Pagkukusa
10 Million trees
18
Alan LM Purisima
2012
Serbisyong Makatotohanan
CODE-P

Here are some advocacy pictures of the later Chiefs:

 

Back to the PGS.  Did anyone notice that even the basic “road map” illustration, first published in 2010 during the tenure of PDG Raul Bacalzo, had already undergone revision just after a year of its first publication?  Here is the proof taken from the officially published PNP Annual reports itself:

When it first appeared in 2010, this is how it is illustrated:


The next year, when PDG Nicanor Bartolome published the annual report 2011, this is the illustration:

 

So which version will survive until 2030 when Manny Pacquiao is already President?  Hahahaha!

Heck, did you notice that even the vision statement of the PNP had undergone changes?

The original text in 1992 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"

Then at around 1997, the starting statement was changed to, “The PNP is committed to…” but all the other texts were left unchanged.  In early 2000, there was a major overhaul of the statement and until 2006 under PDG Oscar Calderon, it has the word invest in it:


But in 2007 to 2009 under PDG Avelino Razon and PDG Jesus Versoza, this “INVEST” disappeared altogether!


And in 2010, another major overhaul was made and the current vision statement is nowhere near its original 1992 version.  The current statement is again in danger of revision once an atheist Chief PNP or somebody whose concept of the “Almighty” may be drastically different from the creators of this current version, comes into power.  It can be argued that it is not an all-inclusive statement because it limits the vision to only those who believe in the “Almighty!”  It can also be argued that religiosity is never an assurance that somebody will not rob the people blind and use these pictures for effect:


Long range planning is good but keeping it within the bounds of reality is the “Makatotohanan.”


Next:  NAGPTD:  Reinventing the Wheel

4 comments:

  1. Your article is all good. However, may I put forward some of the issues raised in your article which I personally believe are not appropriate.

    1. Leadership is far different from management since you were relating Asian Leadership to the issues at hand.

    2. ITP is very good, however, it was more geared on project and program management and therefore strategic management of the PNP is not that of focus.

    3. PNP-PGS (PATROL Plan 2030) differs from ITP since it "USES" a tool (the balance scorecard system) to monitor the progress at tactical level up to strategic level.

    4. At this point in time, we cannot say that the PGS system is not working or will not work well. We do not have FACTS on that. If you have astudy/assessment with good "counter-factuals" that clearly describes the failure of the system, then I encourage you to publish it for our reference.

    5.It is true that from PDG Bacalso to the present leadership has their respective Program Thrusts(e.g. Serbisyong makakatohanan, Serbisyong pagkukusa). But these are all prioritization of PPAs. The PATROL Plan is still the guiding strategy and system since all of these programs and projects are embedded in it.

    5. PNP PATROL Plan has a yearly strategic refresh that necessitates changes of PPAs (Plans, Programs, Activities) and/or strategy/ies in response to its operating environment. Further, it also necessitates the strategy review (PROs/Directorates/NSU level) and operational reviews (PPO level down). However, the changes SHOULD NOT VEER AWAY with the VISION that we wanted by 2030.

    6. Directorate of Plans, due to the bulk of its works/tasks, ceased to plan more comprehensively and that it focused more on its routine works and "compliances" (e.g. UN Deployment, Budget preparations/planning, etc). As a result, some statistical figures were left out (e.g. number of Investigators/intel officers/patrol officers vis a vis geographical spread/area/population, etc.) that could have been very important in forward planning. Therefore, there is a need for an office to focus more on the management of the Strategic Plan that includes its implementation.

    7. I love the way you point out that PGS is not workable in our society since you believe that "Long range planning is good and ideal but unrealistic in the PNP setting because the organization, just like the whole Philippine Government bureaucracy in general, is personality centered. This is one aspect that we cannot escape because the underlying causes are deeply rooted in our culture".
    But since you put forward this presumption (Although I do not agree with your proposition especially on Phil. Bureacracy) may we ask you of what program you suggest to change our PNP organization to make it more credible and efficient? Do you have an alternative? What will that be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. here you go po.

      http://pulisnapogi.blogspot.com/2014/10/at-last-substantive-comments-from-pgs.html

      Delete
  2. I agree with Pedro Dispalinghado. When one criticizes and cites the flaws of a certain plan, he/she should be able to present an alternative or alternatives that are expected to be better and more effective. Anonymity is beautiful indeed, especially to those who fear the repercussions and reprisals of their acts and words but sometimes it is a necessary "EVIL" or "GOOD"(depending on who's perspective it is). Ika nga ni BRAVEHEART: "FREEDOM"!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. here you go po.

      http://pulisnapogi.blogspot.com/2014/10/at-last-substantive-comments-from-pgs.html

      In you noticed, most of the references that I cited were written long before I started the PGS series. I had been writing about my advocacy, most of which will not cost the PNP a penny.

      Dapat tayo basa ng basa bago gumawa ng conclusion. Wag tayong gumaya sa style ng mga "brilliant thinkers" natin ngayon na nakakita lang ng libro ng Amerikano, banat na agad as if nakita na nila ang Holy Grail.

      Salamat po sa visit!

      Delete

tell me what you think!