Staff Performance Management

Further to my previous FOI request, I am disappointed that you feel unable to provide the information.  When you say you do not have this information, does this mean that Ordnance Survey does not have a performance management system, or is unable to form a judgement on the performance of its staff? Surely it is not to much to ask for a breakdown by salary numbers of those judged: good, acceptable and underperforming within the table supplied?

Thank you for your letter received 6^th June 2011, detailing your FOI request. I regret to inform you that Ordnance Survey does not hold the information you have requested, and I further explain under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000 ‘The duty to provide advice and assistance’ as to why this information is not held.

The performance management system used by Ordnance Survey in 2009-10 and previous years requires individuals to demonstrate that they are working towards a predefined set of behavioural levels, as well as skills and knowledge requirements for the role they are in.

Roles are aligned to a ‘job ladder’ and the progression allows 5, 6 or 7 movements over the course of an individuals career in that specific role based upon the achievement of the various predefined behavioural & skills and knowledge requirements to the maximum rung - which is considered to show that an individual is now fully competent in their role.
Whether someone progresses or not (as many of the individuals are at the top rung placement), is not a measure of objective performance.

Therefore, it would be possible to have one individual who did not progress but who performed better than one who did, simply by the fact they had reached there fully competent level previously or by the fact they did not feel they had yet achieved the requirements at the next predefine level.

In terms of objective measurement, we only captured centrally that an employee has “met” their objectives if they are being put forward for progression. The only other measurement definition is those who are on a formal Poor Performance or Disciplinary procedure which would only provide a very small number of individuals and not a representative spread of performance across the three categories as requested.

In addition, even if we did capture all objectives centrally from managers for those who did not progress, we would still have no way of providing a split between those that met (for example those who were OK according to your request) and those that were better than met (for example good or better according to your request).

For 2010-11 this has changed and there will be three performance categories set against objective delivery (as well as behaviours) of exceeded, achieved and partially met, so this time next year we will be in a position to provide a more representative employee performance spread aligned to your FOI request.

Your enquiry has been processed according to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000. If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our Appeals Officer at:

FOI Appeals Officer
Customer Service Centre
Ordnance Survey
Adanac Drive
SOUTHAMPTON
SO16 0AS

Please include the reference number below. The Appeals Officer will ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of additional information if appropriate.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Reference number: FOI11175/June 2011