SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CHINA

SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT

CG 205: Government Performance Measurement in China

GPM of Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA):

Improvement for Public Service Delivery in Lahore
BY

SYED SHABBIR AKBAR ZAIDI

(PAKISTAN)
11th June, 2014

SUBMITTED TO: PROF DR. CHEN NABO

A paper is submitted to Prof. Dr. Chen Nabo and it is certified that the paper is the end product
of my own efforts, research and writing, which reflects my own views and its contents are not
plagiarized. The paper reflects my own views and is not necessarily endorsed by the faculty or
the SYSU.

i
ii
 PREFACE

All praise is due to Allah the Exalted and may Allah exalt the mention of His Prophet
(PBUH) and render him and his household, his Companions, and all those who follow their way
safe from every evil, and grant them security on the Day of Resurrection.
There has always been a need to improve the efficiency and management techniques of
the government. In case if large cities have to accelerate economic growth and improve service
delivery, it is imperative to equip urban managers with requisite technical and managerial
capacities to cope with the challenges of modern urban management. Lahore is the hub of
commercial and industrial activities with an expanding economy, leading educational
institutions, valuable cultural assets, and energetic business community. Out of 180 million
population of Pakistan, 22% of urban population is living in Lahore. Due to the capital of
Punjab, it is one of the largest metropolitan city of the province which comprises of 150 union
councils divided in 9 towns. The large number of housing and cooperative societies along with
mushroom growth of private legal and illegal societies in the surroundings of city requires a
proper and coordinated structure for municipal services to be adopted by the executing agencies.
In this back drop it is essential in first step to measure the performance of the existing
departments and agencies then improvement program may be proposed. This project is based on
the performance measurement of Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) and simple procedures
have been proposed to improve the performance at operational level without changing of any
larger strategic changes in the agency.
In closing, I am very much grateful to the School of Government, who has produced such
a valuable conducive learning atmosphere. Especially, I would like to acknowledge the role,
guidance and help rendered by Prof. Dr. Chen Nabo in preparation of my research project. I
don’t hesitate to accept that without the help and guidance of Prof. Dr. Chen Nabo, I might not
complete my project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The past thirty years have witnessed that the government performance of departments of

Pakistan is declining drastically because of number of reasons but one of the important factor is

inconsistent and vague performance measurement model.

Today Performance measurement is an integral part of modern government. It stands behind

the creation of targets, contracts and agreements that control service delivery. Good performance

information can help Departments to develop policy, to manage their resources cost effectively,

to improve Departmental and programme effectiveness and to report their performance to legislature

and the general public, so promoting accountability for public resources.

Public Service Agreements for Government Departments and cross-cutting areas set out what

the Government aim to achieve. Each Public Service Agreement includes the aim of the

Department or policy area, supporting objectives and related performance targets which

underlie the resources allocated to them in public expenditure reviews. Service Delivery

Agreements have now been introduced which specify how these targets can be achieved, while

Technical Notes define key terms and outline the performance measurement methods, which are

used to monitor progress. There is a close relationship between GPM and outcome in terms of

public service delivery because the integrity of any department is revolved on the satisfaction of

the citizens.

iv
 Contents
PREFACE...................................................................................................................................................ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................iii
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................v
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM..........................................................................................................vi
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY...........................................................................................................vii
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................vii
RESOURCE PERSONS...........................................................................................................................viii
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE STUDY...........................................................................................viii
SECTION -1..............................................................................................................................................10
ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE OF WASA........................................................................................10
1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL /POPULATION COVERAGE OF WASA.....................................................11
1.2 HUMAN RESOURCE WASA........................................................................................................12
1.3 BUDGET/REVENUE COMPARISON...........................................................................................12
1.4 REVENUE RECEIPTS /CAPITAL RECEIPTS.............................................................................13
1.5 NON DEVELOPMENTAL EXPENDITURE................................................................................14
----------------------------.................................................................................................................................14
SECTION -2..............................................................................................................................................15
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.................................................................................................................15
2.1 PROCESS OF WATER CONNECTION........................................................................................17
2.2 Existing Water Complaint Process..................................................................................................17
2.3 ISSUES OF WASA.........................................................................................................................18
SECTION 3...............................................................................................................................................22
SEWERAGE SYSTEM.........................................................................................................................22
3.1 PROCESS OF SEWERAGE CONNECTION.................................................................................23
3.2 EXISTING SEVERAGE COMPLAINT PROCESS.......................................................................24
3.3 ISSUES OF SEVERAGE SUPPLY................................................................................................27
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................27
SECTION -4..............................................................................................................................................28
Proposed GPM model................................................................................................................................28

v
 4.1 Why the Proposed GPM Program is needed..............................................................................28
4.2 Main Stakeholder.......................................................................................................................29
4.3 Institutional Arrangements responsible for WASA....................................................................29
4.4 Vision and Mission of WASA...................................................................................................30
4.5 Major Issues of WASA: Balanced Score Card Approach..............................................................31
4.6 Performance Benchmarking Indicators of WASA.....................................................................34
4.7 Proposed Logic Model for performance measurement of WASA.............................................35
SECTION -5..............................................................................................................................................38
5.1 REENGINEERED PROCESS FOR IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY..............................38
5.1.1 Water/Sewerage Connection Process............................................................................................38
5.1.2 RE-ENGINEERED COMPLAINT PROCESS.............................................................................39
RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................................41
ACTION PLAN........................................................................................................................................43
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................44

vi
 INTRODUCTION

In the early years, public organizations existed to fulfill objectives focusing on delivery

services to their citizens. Therefore the “critical success factor” for the public sector organization

was the degree to which it fulfills its mission (Bolton, 2003)1. However, in the trend of “new

public management”, public service agencies have been forced to improve their operations, to

achieve the increased demand of tax payers (Brignall and Modell, 2000)2. To enhance

capabilities of public sector, the governments have adopted a wide range of modern management

instruments into public organizations, especially strategic planning and performance

measurement. Public organizations have their mission extended to achieve not only social goals,

but also financial goals (Bozec and Breton, 2003)3.

Previous studies generally discussed economy, efficiency, and effectiveness (Fowler and

Boland, 2000)4. Many measures are based on derivatives of this “economy” or input oriented

perspective, usually expressed in terms of cost, budget, and staffing totals. “Efficiency” is

concerned with the calculation of a ratio of input to output, demonstrating how efficient an

organization is converting inputs into outputs. Measuring economy and efficiency is consistent

with the balanced scorecard of Kaplan and Norton's (1992)5 in financial perspective. Finally,

1
Bolton, M. (2003), "Public sector performance measurement: delivering greater accountability", Work Study, Vol.
52 No.11, pp.20-4.
2
Brignall, S., Modell, S. (2000), "An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the
new public sector", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No.13, pp.281-306.
3
Bozec, R., Breton, G. (2003), "The impact of the corporatization process on the financial performance of Canadian
stated-owned enterprises", The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 16 No.1, pp.27-47.
4
Fowler, A., Boland, T. (2000), "A system perspective of performance management in public sector organizations",
The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 13 No.5, pp.417-46.
5
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (1992), "The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance", Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 70 No.1, pp.71-9.

vii
effectiveness is the extent to which outputs meet organizational needs and requirements.

Measuring effectiveness is consistent with non-financial accountability (Kloot, 1999)6.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The population of Lahore has roughly doubled over the past twenty years, and an increase of two

million is expected by the year 2020 [UN (2005)]7. This has important implications for city

planning as demand for housing, electricity, water, sanitation, public health, education, and

infrastructure grows accordingly. Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA), the city’s official

water supplier, has often responded to the growing demand by offering the supply-side solution

view of the public good nature of water. It is established fact that WASA is facing severe

financial constraints and which has led to poor service but another problem is related with

managerial functions and politicization alongwith poor system of GPM. This study will propose

GPM model and will give some operational solutions to improve public service delivery.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Lahore is one of the oldest cities of South Asia and is the provincial capital of the

Punjab. The Lahore district spreads over an area of 1,772 square kilometres with a population

density of over 3,566 persons per thousand square kilometers. Population-wise, Lahore is the

second-largest city in Pakistan, fifth-largest in South Asia, and 23rd in the world .The current

urban population is over 6.6 million and is expected to exceed eight million by the year. WASA

6
Kloot, L. (1999), "Performance measurement and accountability in Victorian local government", The International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 12 No.7, pp.565-83.

7
United Nations Secretariat, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population
Prospects: The 2004 Revision and World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2005 Revision: esa.un.org/unup.

viii
is responsible for water supplier and sanitation control in urban Lahore. Therefore, this study was

thought to be significant in the following sense:

 This study would highlight the strategies to overcome the needs and difficulties of the

organization.

 It would help the management of WASA to formulate an effective program in the

light of issues highlighted in this study and raise the effectiveness of the system.

 The study would indicate the shortcomings and weaknesses of the WASA.

METHODOLOGY
The research process of the project was started with the collection of data and fact finding

details from the executing agencies like LDA, WASA and Urban Unit of P&D Deptt, Punjab. All

the recommended acts, ordinances, reference material for study were either collected from the

above concerned agencies or by browsing internet. After studying and examining the data and

preparation of requisite questionnaire Skype meetings with the concerned officers/officials of the

executing agencies were conducted.

RESOURCE PERSONS
The researcher had interviewed the following Lahore-based officers through Skype and

telephonically because the researcher is a cadre civil servant and all under mentioned officers are

senior or my batch mates, so, it was easier for me to conduct interview with them. The names

and designations of the officers from the researcher had got assistance are as under:-

a. Dr. Javed Iqbal, MD WASA

b. Mr. Ahad Cheema DG, LDA

c. Dr. Nasir Javed Program Director, Urban Unit Punjab

ix
 d. Mr. Naveed Pervaiz, DMD O& M, WASA

e. Mr. Abdul Qadeer, Director P&E, WASA

f. Dr. Kiran Farhan, SWM / WATSAN Specialist , Urban Unit Punjab

TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE STUDY

 To map the existing processes for service delivery of Water Supply and Liquid Waste

Management by WASA

 To study existing legal and administrative framework; human and financial resources,

technological and infrastructural capabilities

 To measure the performance of WASA through Balanced Score Card (BSC) at

Operational level .

 To develop an operational plan to ensure provision of:

i. Adequate and safe drinking water supply to all citizens

ii. Effective disposal of liquid waste.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

x
 SECTION -1
ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE OF WASA

WASA Lahore was established in 1976 as a semi-autonomous public sector organization

for the planning, design and construction of new water supply, sewerage and drainage facilities.

It is also responsible for the billing, rates, fees for the services provided for the consumers of the

Lahore. Lahore is the second largest city of Pakistan the population of more than 8 million

people with an annual growth rate of 3%.Although nearly 89% population has access to safe

drinking water, increase in water supply with efficient water conservation and reduction in water

loss is required to meet the demand of rapidly growing population.

Lahore Municipal Corporation was responsible for the water and sanitation functions

before 1967.Water wing Lahore improvement served under a trust from 1967 to1976.Lahore

Development Authority was created in 1976 through an LDA Act 1975.chairmn LDA was the

chief executive of the province. Under the new act its role was defined to develop, operate and

maintain water supply, sewerage and drainage systems within the service area of the Water and Sanitation

Agency to be established under section 10(2) of this Act. (Section 6 (2-iii)) The Agency established

under sub section (2) shall perform all functions and exercise all powers of the Authority with

regard to water supply, sewerage and drainage with power to collect rates, fees and charges for

water supply, sewerage and drainage. (Section-10 (3))

WASA is working with mission of Portable water in adequate quantities and at adequate

pressures to satisfy domestic, commercial and industrial requirements, collection of liquid waste from

individual customers for its safe and proper disposal, treatment of wastewater without hazard to

1
the health of the community in a manner that will protect the environment and planning and

management of all storm water related functions within the city.

Organizational frame work of WASA is that Managing Director reports to Director

General LDA who reports to chairman LDA. Under MD WASA there are three Deputy

Managing Directors are working in the areas of operation and maintenance, engineering and

finance and administration.

MANAGING
DIRECTOR

DIR. (P&E)

DMD (ENGG) DMD (F,A&R) DMD (O&M)

DIR. ( P&D ) DIR. ( ADMN ) DIR. DRAINAGE

DIR. ( P&S ) DIR. (FINANCE) DIR. O & M

Shalimar /ABT

DIR. CONST. I DIR. (REVENUE) DIR. O & M

Gunj Bukhsh Town

DIR. CONST. II DIR. (TRAINING) DIR. O & M

Nishtar Town

Dir. (HYD) DIR. O & M

Allama Iqbal Town

Dir. (WWT) DIR. O & M

Ravi Town

1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL /POPULATION COVERAGE OF WASA

 Total District area 1772 Km²

 City area (including cantt.) 600 Km²

 Cant served area 100 Km²

 WASA served area 350 Km²

 Un-served city area 150 Km² (25%)

 Un-reached area of district 1172 Km² (66%)

2
 According to the data provided by the WASA 66% area is uncovered in the district and
25% area uncovered even under the defined jurisdiction of the WASA 6.5 million
populations has an access to water out of total population of 8milion of Lahore. Highly dense
population in the walled city and other areas are catered through the WASA

1.2 HUMAN RESOURCE WASA

If we analyze the data, more than 65 management positions are vacant, however the

workforce at operational level that is of the sewer man are 4068 with the vacant post of 603

only. Professional capacities/capabilities of management tiers need to revisit for the better

outcome for the quality maintenance of water.

1.3 BUDGET/REVENUE COMPARISON

3
 LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - WASA
BUDGET AT A GLANCE
(OVERALL) in millions
2010-11 2010-11 2011-12
Opening Balance (1,114.656) (874.470) (970.045)

Non-Developm ent Receipts 2,529.360 2,599.200 3,031.000

Paym ent of Power Bills by FD - 2,000.000 -

RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR 2,529.360 4,599.200 3,031.000

Developm ent Receipts 1,256.404 1,368.938 2,153.933

TOTAL RESOURCES 2,671.108 5,093.668 4,214.888

Non-Developm ent Expenditure 4,580.900 4,403.923 5,227.000
Developm ent Expenditure 1,474.538 1,659.790 2,297.188

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 6,055.438 6,063.713 7,524.188

SURPLUS / (SHORTFALL) (3,384.330) (970.045) (3,309.300)
18
Source: WASA

1.4 REVENUE RECEIPTS /CAPITAL RECEIPTS

WASA is currently dealing in the revenue heads and collection in the following
areas.

1. WATER AND SEWERAGE CHARGES.

2. PROPERTY TAX SHARE (UIP).

3. Capital Works Are Funded By Provincial Government Grants

Revenue Generation Rs. million 2010-11

Water sales 1400.00 46%

Sewer charges 1000.000 33%
UIP Tax share 520.000 17%
Miscellaneous 111.000 4%

Total 3031.000 100%

1.5 NON DEVELOPMENTAL EXPENDITURE

4
 Power and energy is the major expenditure consumption sector of the WASA, followed

by payroll burden of the employees and the repair and maintenance issues.

2%
17%
48%

33%

Power & Energy Payroll & Burden Repair Maint.

Other Expenses.

----------------------------

5
 SECTION -2
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Currently over 65% of Pakistan’s population is considered to have access to safe drinking

water. Huge disparities, however, exist with regard to drinking water coverage between the urban

and rural areas and provinces and regions. The quality of drinking water is also poor with

bacterial contamination, arsenic, fluoride and nitrate being the major pollutants. Sustainability of

the existing water supply systems is also a major issue in the sector. Inadequate water supply,

sanitation and hygiene result in high incidence of water and sanitation related diseases in

Pakistan, which in turn increases morbidity and mortality rates and poses a major threat to the

survival and development of Pakistani children. It is estimated that water, sanitation and hygiene

related diseases cost Pakistan economy over Rs. 112 billion a year, about Rs. 300 million per day

in terms of health costs and lost earnings. Lack of adequate drinking water facilities is one of the

contributing factors for low enrolments and high drop-out rates in primary schools.

Provision of potable water and sewerage service is the responsibility of CDGL as per

provision of PLGO 2001. The City District Government of Lahore has given this responsibility

to WASA. The main functions of WASA are as under:-

 Develop, operate and maintain water supply, sewerage and drainage systems within the
service area of the Water and Sanitation Agency to be established under section 10(2)
 Under sub section (2) shall perform all functions and exercise all powers of the
Authority with regard to water supply, sewerage and drainage with power to collect rates,
fees and charges for water supply, sewerage and drainage. (Section-10 (3))
 Collection of sanitation fee on behalf of CDGL

6
 It is the prime concern of WASA to ensure supply of clean drinking water and provide

sewerage services to the citizens. On the other hand WASA has to keep the price of water

affordable for the reason that there are growing numbers of consumers on low or fixed incomes

who have difficulty in paying their bills, whereas, cost of establishment of these infrastructure

facilities is very high.

WASA has to ensure increase in water supply with efficient water conservation and

reduction in water loss is required to meet the demand of the rapidly growing population of the

city. The existing sewerage and drainage facilities are undersized and inadequate causing

aggravated sanitary environment for the people in Lahore.

Geographical Coverage: The geographical coverage of WASA is as under:

Total District area 1772 sqkm
City area (including cantt.) 600 Square Km
WASA served area 350 Square Km
Cantt served area 100 Square Km
Un-served city area 150 Square Km
Un-reached area 1172 Square km

In the un-served area, besides 100 sqkm of cantt area, there are 604 approved and un-

approved housing schemes/cooperative societies which have their own water supply and

sewerage services. However, these services are internal and need to be connected with the

external sewerage of WASA for which present infrastructure capacity is very limited and cannot

afford their load. In consideration of the same, WASA has recently prepared PC-II for laying

trunk sewerage line mainly crossing through South Lahore connecting all the existing housing

schemes.

7
2.1 PROCESS OF WATER CONNECTION

These are total 08 steps and have 24 days to complete the installment of new connection.

Process of availing the facility from WASA to get connection is as under:

 Firstly, the consumer applies in the office of WASA on an application form alongwith
his copy of ID, Card and property documents.
 Secondly, this application is submitted to the office of Local SDO, in whose
jurisdiction the property lies. This process takes maximum 02 days.
 Thirdly, the documents are sent to Revenue Department for verification, so that the
title documents for ownership may be verified. This process takes maximum 07 days.
 Fourthly, when the ownership is verified, the SDO office issues challan form within
03 days.
 Fifthly, the consumer has to deposit of Rs 6100in specified branch of Bank.
 Sixthly, the consumer has to submit the paid copy of challan in the office of SDO
concerned. SDO within 03 days takes further necessary action.
 Seventhly, SDO forward the case to the Sub-Engineer for designing within 03 days.
 Eighthly, the connection will install within 05 days.

2.2 Existing Water Complaint Process

As discussed above the procedure which is adopted to install the new connection, there is
also a process to deal with the complaints made by the consumer. The process which is adopted
now is as under:

 Firstly, the consumer has to approach the local sub-division office of WASA.
 Secondly, Parchi is issued to the consumer and in Lahore 60 complaints offices are
serving the public.
 Thirdly, the complaint is forwarded to the concerned sub-Engineer.
 Fourthly, the sub-Engineer forms a team and send to the address of the consumer.
This process takes 1-2 days.

8
  Fifthly, Team after redressal the complaint informs the sub-Engineer.

This is a manual process which is adopted the most, whereas there is a helpline of

WASA which is 1334, through which the consumer may launch a compliant and the complaint

will be forwarded to Sub-Division office. The complaint will be redressed and feed back to the

head office within 24 hours.

2.3 ISSUES OF WASA

1. Rapidly depleting groundwater resources;

2. Water wastage due to leakage, theft & misuse;
3. Arsenic contamination;
4. Insufficient & aging network and Replacement of outlived Infrastructure;
5. Absence of Trunk Sewer Infrastructure & Storm Water Drainage System in South
Lahore;
6. Use of Storm Water Channels as Sullage Carriers;
7. Frequent flooding during heavy monsoon;
8. Absence of Waste Water Treatment Plant
9. Extending services to the un-served areas of the District;
10. Insufficient water tariff to cover costs;
11. Increasing Working Ratio, increasing Production Cost and Frozen Selling Cost of Water;

According to official data published by the Government of Punjab, the province has a

total population of about 90 million of which 30 million live in urban areas and 20 million are

located in its nine largest centers. Lahore is the largest city of the province with an estimated

population of over 7 million. In terms of drinking water coverage, about 89% of the city

population has access to safe drinking water. There are some 580,000 water connections in the

WASA Lahore serviced area alone. About 90% of households have internal plumbing and a

flushed toilet. The aquifer of Lahore is un-confined. With the abstraction of water, the water

9
table is dropping very rapidly and same is case of shallow aquifer. Moreover, the shallow aquifer

has become unfit for drinking at number of places. Typically, households use the piped or

ground waters without any treatment, unless it is visibly suspicious, in which case they may boil

or filter it

WATER SUPPLY & DEMAND SINCE 1967 AS UNDER:

DESCRIPTION 1967 1975 1998 2012

POPULATION WASA AREA (M) 0.90 1.47 4.38 6.15

POPULATION SERVED (M) 0.60 1.17 3.86 5.47

POPULATION COVERAGE (%) 67 79 88 89

WATER PRODUCTION (MGD) 27 75 275 400

WATER PRODUCTION (GPCD) 45 64 71 72

The number of tube wells and liter per capita per day details are as under:

FY FY FY
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Number of Tubewells 417 424 460

Water Production (Lpcd) 334 335 348
Accounted for Water (Lpcd) 211 211 219
Unaccounted for Water (Lpcd) 123 124 129
Number of Metered Connections 273,600 291,502 314,564

Number of Unmetered Connections 274,359 269,560 265,116

10
 The billing system is bi-monthly computerized and bills are distributed on manual basis,

these bills are collected through Banks, Post office and NADRA and are managed through a

Central Collection Management system. The billing parameter is as under:

• Un-metered
• Rental value assessed by E&T deptt.
• Ferrule size
• Metered
• Working meter - actual consumption
• Designated - Billing on plot size basis where meter not available

 Some of the points surfaced during the analysis are reproduced as follows:

 Lahore with the population of 8 million

 Water, Sanitation and hygiene related diseases cost Pakistan economy over Rs. 112
billion per year

 300 million per day in terms of health cost & lost earnings

 Drinking water coverage to 89% of the city population

 90% of households have internal plumbing

 615,000 water connections in the WASA Lahore serviced area

 Households dependency on piped or ground water without any treatment

 Inadequate human resource, 5 persons per thousand water connections

 The working ratio for the last 7 years has shown that WASA Lahore is financially not
viable

 20% water assumed to be lost to physical leaks and illegal connections

 Only about 80% of water bills issued is collected

11
 WASA Lahore generated revenue of about Rs. 1,893 millions

 The 80% collection covered only 40% of operating cost .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12
 SECTION 3
SEWERAGE SYSTEM

The CDGL is unable to cope with the need of increasing housing demand for new

habitants. Therefore this need has not been addressed in a fair and equitable manner. In lieu of

this, private housing schemes and societies in the last two decades have contributed significantly

in the housing sector. At present the residents of these schemes are continuously suffering from

frequent breakdowns due to technical and poor quality services. Procedural lapses, rigid behavior

of regulatory bodies and an overriding tendency to indulge in corrupt practices by the

Management Committees of Cooperative Housing Societies and owners of Private of Housing

Schemes (Private Builders) have made their life miserable. Both sides are alleging against each

other without addressing the real cause of problem.

For launching private society, the private developer has to adhere to the Punjab Private

Site Development Rules 2005, which have been revised in 2010. There are 604 Private Housing

Scheme in the area of LDA/TMA Lahore, out of which 230 are approved by LDA, 67 by TMA

and 241 are unapproved from any regulatory body. In addition to this 66 schemes are non-

functional/ under litigation/duplicate and others. However, there are instances where an

influential person has also lunched private housing societies on their private land without seeking

approval of the Town Planners with regard to engineering design and specifications of water

supply system, sewerage and drainage services causing civic problems manifold. The societies

which are being launched through legal way required NOC from WASA as per their requirement

13
and this is being met by LDA accordingly. However, sewerage system of these societies is also

putting extra pressure on the existing sewerage and drainage system of WASA.

Out of 604 housing societies, only 52 are availing the Trunk Sewerage infrastructure of

WASA. In order to meet the requirement of other housing societies, WASA has prepared a PC-II

for the desired purpose. The cost of PC-II is estimated to be Rs. 85.00 million and presently it is

in the process of approval from the concerned quarters. If implemented, all the existing private

housing societies will be benefitted from the sewerage facilities.

The Sewerage System of Lahore is also controlled by Water and Sanitation Authority

(WASA), a public department to facilitate the urbanization of the city Lahore. There are two

types to get connection from WASA, one is to use its on boring connection and sanitation from it

and the second is to get connection from the department for the both purposes.

3.1 PROCESS OF SEWERAGE CONNECTION

These are total 08 steps and have 24 days to complete the installment of new connection.

Process of availing the facility from WASA to get sewerage connection is as under:

 Firstly, the consumer applies in the office of WASA on an application form alongwith
his copy of ID, Card and property documents.
 Secondly, this application is submitted to the office of Local SDO, in whose
jurisdiction the property lies. This process takes maximum 02 days.
 Thirdly, the documents are sent to Revenue Department for verification, so that the
title documents for ownership may be verified. This process takes maximum 07 days.
 Fourthly, when the ownership is verified, the SDO office issues challan form within
03 days.
 Fifthly, the consumer has to deposit of Rs. 400+300 in specified branch of Bank.

14
  Sixthly, the consumer has to submit the paid copy of challan in the office of SDO
concerned. SDO within 03 days takes further necessary action.
 Seventhly, SDO forward the case to the Sub-Engineer for designing within 03 days.
 Eighthly, the connection will install within 05 days.

3.2 EXISTING SEVERAGE COMPLAINT PROCESS

As discussed above the procedure which is adopted to install the new connection, there is

also a process to deal with the complaints made by the consumer. The process which is adopted

now is as under:

 Firstly, the consumer has to approach the local sub-division office of WASA.
 Secondly, Parchi is issued to the consumer and in Lahore 60 complaints offices are
serving the public.
 Thirdly, the complaint is forwarded to the concerned sub-Engineer.
 Fourthly, the sub-Engineer forms a team and send to the address of the consumer.
This process takes 1-2 days.
 Fifthly, Team after redressal the complaint informs the sub-Engineer.

This is a manual process which is adopted the most, whereas there is a helpline of

WASA which is 1334, through which the consumer may launch a compliant and the complaint

will be forwarded to Sub-Division office. The complaint will be redressed and feed back to the

head office within 24 hours.

The Pumping Capacity in 1967 was 60 Cusec and sewerage length was 160 km,

in 1975 it was 320 Cusec 650 km was its sewerage length and now in 2012 pumping capacity is

3150 cusec, whereas the sewerage length is 4944 km.

15
 The WASA has total 3788 Cfs capacity of its pump station. There are three types

of pump stations which the WASA has drawn out. The detail of its capacity of pumps tations is

as under:

i. There are 12 Major Disposal Stations which have the capacity of 2299
Cfs.
ii. There are 80 Life Stations which have the capacity of 826 Cfs.
iii. There are 4 Gated Drainage Stations which have the capacity of 663 Cfs.

The total pumping capacity of WASA’s Pump stations is 3788 Cfs. The River

Ravi is floating in the city Lahore. Raw sewerage full of toxins is being thrown directly into the

canal and Ravi River and that is ultimately used for irrigation purpose. This effluent is also

seriously damaging rather destroying the aquatic life of these water bodies. The river water

contaminated by untreated municipal and industrial discharges is also used for drinking and

recreational purpose.

The Ravi is considered as the most polluted river in Pakistan and one of the most

polluted in the world as well. It is receiving waste water through fourteen drains of Lahore. The

untreated waste water being released into the river is 1650 cusec per day. The sewerage

discharged in 2002 was 12.72 cubic meter per second with a wastewater load of 22 cubic meter

per second. By 2017, the sewage level could be as high as 35 cubic meters per second.

The drainage system in Lahore in 2012 is as under:

i. The drainage length in Lahore where the WASA has its jurisdiction is 215 km.
ii. The major drains are total 08 in number.
iii. The tributary drains are 66 in number.
iv. The carrying capacity is 6140 cusec.
v. The drainage pumping stations are total 04 in numbers.

16
 vi. The pumping capacity of drainage stations is 663 cusec.

The WASA has a proper set-up of machinery to facilitate the consumers which

are Muck Sucker, Jetting Unit, Water Bouzers, Tractor Trolly, Crane, Dump Trucks, Backhoe

Tractors, Excavator (Case Pocian), Trncher, Front-End Loader, Wheel Loader, Mazda Truck,

Isuzu Truck (New) and Tractor. These machinery units are 315 in number.

In Lahore, there are many societies which are availing the facilities from WASA.

Total 604 societies are in Lahore and from which only 52 are availing trunk sewerage

infrastructure. 46 Housing schemes are disposing their waste water into WASA sewerage

system. 24 schemes are disposing their waste water into drains of WASA. Out of 604, 241 are

unapproved housing societies with no clear sewerage & drainage infrastructure.

There is insufficient and old infrastructure especially in central Lahore region of

WASA is being used. There is also insufficient sewerage tarrif and there is no separation of

sewerage system from storm water drainage. The wastewater and drainage systems are

collectively putting extraneous pressure on the existing lines. There is no separation of domestic

and industrial wastewaters. Raw sewerage full of toxins is being thrown directly into canal.

The contamination of groundwater with life damaging pollutants from the

sewerage lines is a big issue. Ground water is not only tapped by WASA and TMAs but also by

private and cooperative housing societies, industrial estates and Cantonments areas. It is

estimated that extraction by users other than the WASA represent about 30 % of the water

consumed. It has led to the lowering of water table by about half a meter per year during the last

30 years.

17
 As the wastewater is increasing it decreases capacity of disposal & Lift Stations. When

storm or rains affected the drainage system then have to face many infrastructure problems as

there is no separate system of storm or flood water and ordinary drain water. There should be

separate sewerage system of drains and Flood water during heavy rains and storms.

3.3 ISSUES OF SEVERAGE SUPPLY

Some of the issues from the water supply and sewerage systems are as under;
 Depleting aquifer level
 Insufficient water tariff
 Aging and insufficient infrastructure
 Water wastage due to leakage, theft and misuse
 Arsenic contamination
 Lack of professionals
 WASA to regulate private housing societies water supply system
 Insufficient and old infrastructure
 Decreasing capacity of Disposal & Lift stations
 Flooding during heavy rains and storms
 Separation of sewage from drains

CONCLUSION
WASA Lahore is primarily responsible for planning, design and construction of water

supply, sewerage and drainage facilities and not conceived to be a service delivery entity. It is

basically an engineering entity trying to provide the Service under the supervision of LDA which

is a developing authority .WASA Lahore with its present infrastructure is financially not viable.

Lack of political will to increase the tariff; autonomy compromised due to informal controls.

Dearth of professionals exists due to no financial autonomy.

18
 SECTION -4

Proposed GPM model

4.1 Why the Proposed GPM Program is needed

Performance measurement is not a new exercise but now today with the introduction of new IT

technology and more focus on objectivity it has changed its dynamics from subjectivity to objectivity. It

is being used for SWOT analysis and it also provides the remedial mechanism for encouragement

purposes. This particular exercise is purposely for the correction, betterment of the existing system of

WASA. It is also prudent to add that, performance measures normally addresses the level of activities

conducted (process) in a program; the direct products and services delivered by a program (outputs),

and/or the results of those products and services (outcomes).

In the late 1990s, the balanced scorecard (BSC) was popular technique which was used in private

sector and was introduced into public sector. In advanced economies such as the UK, USA, Canada, and

Australia, the BSC appears to offer considerable potential to public organizations in terms of contributing

both to improved performance and to improved performance measurement (Kloot, 1999; Chan, 2004;

Wisniewski and Olafsson, 2004)8.

As a public and not-for-profit, the organization requires some modification for the BSC and

deliver performance measures that aligned with specific vision and mission (Olsen and Olsen, 2005;

Steiss and Steiss, 2003)9. These organizations elevate the role of mission and customer, and reduce the

8
Kloot, L. (1999), "Performance measurement and accountability in Victorian local government", The
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 12 No.7, pp.565-83.
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, A.P.L. (2004), "Key performance indicators for measuring construction success",
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No.2, pp.203-21
Wisniewski, M., Olafsson, S. (2004), "Developing balanced scorecards in local authorities: a comparison of
experience", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 52 No.7, pp.602-10.

9
Olsen, H.W., Olsen, N.D. (2005), Strategic Planning Made Easy for Nonprofit Organizations: A Practical
Guide, M3 Planning, Reno, NV.
Steiss, A.W., Steiss, S.W. (2003), Strategic Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Marcel
Dekker, New York, NY.

19
influence of financial perspectives (Niven, 2002; Kaplan and Norton, 1996)10. This project is an effort to

adopt BSC for analyzing WASA up to some extent because of time constraint it will only provide some

guidelines.

4.2 Main Stakeholder

The main stakeholders involved in the WASA are as under :

1 Citizens-Principle
2 Management of Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA)
3 Lahore Development Authority (LDA)
4 Urban Planning Unit
5 City District Government
6 Punjab Finance Department
7 Donor Agencies

4.3 Institutional Arrangements responsible for WASA

Institutional Arrangements responsible for WASA

Lahore Development
Authority Punjab Finance Development

Nominal Water and

Sewerage Charges
Water and
Sanitation
Agency (WASA)
PROPERTY TAX SHARE
Capital Works Are Funded By
Provincial Government Grants

Donors Group/JICA, World Bank and Asian Development Bank

10
Niven, P.R. (2002), Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA

20
4.4 Vision and Mission of WASA

Vision and Mission of WASA

Agency's aim providing an overarching summary of

objectives
Agency's objectives - bold aspirations of what it hopes
to achieve
Performance targets for each objective.
These should be SMART - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant
and Timed

As per logical structure WASA has confusing visions, mission and objectives as per law and

these are very much blurred because provision of potable water and sewerage service is the

responsibility of City District Government (CDGL) as per provision of Pakistan Local

Government Ordinance (PLGO) 2001. The City District Government of Lahore has given this

responsibility to WASA. The main functions of WASA are as under:-

 Develop, operate and maintain water supply, sewerage and drainage systems within the
service area of the Water and Sanitation Agency to be established under section 10(2)
 Under sub section (2) shall perform all functions and exercise all powers of the
Authority with regard to water supply, sewerage and drainage with power to collect rates,
fees and charges for water supply, sewerage and drainage. (Section-10 (3))
 Collection of sanitation fee on behalf of CDGL

It is the prime concern of WASA to ensure supply of clean drinking water and provide

sewerage services to the citizens. On the other hand WASA has to keep the price of water

affordable for the reason that there are growing numbers of consumers on low or fixed incomes

21
who have difficulty in paying their bills, whereas, cost of establishment of these infrastructure

facilities is very high.

WASA has to ensure increase in water supply with efficient water conservation and

reduction in water loss is required to meet the demand of the rapidly growing population of the

city. The existing sewerage and drainage facilities are undersized and inadequate causing

aggravated sanitary environment for the people in Lahore. In this back ground WASA has

following major issues:

4.5 Major Issues of WASA: Balanced Score Card Approach

BSC model for WASA

Perspectives

Objective TARGETS KPI Input Output Outcome

Safe and
Drinking pure
Water Water and Billing
Customer Develop, operate and supply Sewerage Fee/water
drinking
Water
maintain water and Connection and
with
Effective Sewerage
supply, sewerage and Sewerage per year efficient
connection
drainage systems System Sewerage Safe Drinking
system Water free
from any
Well pathogens
Growth and innovations and conducive
•Coordination and Synergy Equipment
Strengthening institutional Extension Gov, and for health
promoted within Gov. & and Well
capacity of Donors along with
Donors. Machinery equipped
Coverage staff at all efficient
•Institutional capacity to with level
infrastructure
Area and O&M Disposal of
manage WASA strengthen professional
HR Sewages
through
Financial Sewerage
Collection of Water and Managem Efficient Revenue Expenditure System along
Financial sanitation fee on behalf of City ent Billing and on with
Facilitating financial mgt system District Government (CDGL) Machinery,
system System Capital maintenance
O&M and
of Aquifer
HR

Internal Business Processes

22
1 Poor Service Quality: Poor sanitation leading to health hazards. There is a total lack of

customer focus. Customers are not satisfied with the present services and concerned about the

health impacts caused by poor drinking water and sanitation.

2 Poor state of the Assets: Poorly maintained and inadequate to meet the requirements of

expanding populations. Lack of planning and lack of investment in renewal and rehabilitation is

responsible for decline of the system. Operational efficiency is poor due to old and worn-out

equipment such as pumping plant and overhead reservoirs. Lack of equipment for maintenance

and monitoring of the network are also essential components.

3 Water Resources and Environmental Management: Lack of regulation and

enforcement of water abstractions and effluent/wastewater return flows to the environment, lack

of hydrological and hydro-geological studies to determine reliable yields of water sources and

lack of charging for abstractions through private wells etc are also main issues of WASA.

4 Institutional: Service standards and performance of service providers are not set and

regulated. Drinking water and sanitation policies have not been formally adopted. Lack of

autonomy of service providers. Direct government and political involvement is common place in

the day-to-day running of the service providers. Responsibility for WASA services within

district government is split between several departments and they do not maintain separate

accounts for WASA services.

5 Lack of Accountability: WASA are both operated and regulated by the government in a

conglomeration of functions, which are in need of being extricated. In district Government, there

is no separate accounting for WSS, which is the necessary basis for accountability. WASA is

“Autonomous Agency” but essential functions are not in the hands of the WASA management.

There is frequent and detailed interference by political officials in the day-to-day operation of the

23
 services. Managing officials are not accountable for their performance and indeed due to the

multitude of restrictions on their decision-making cannot justly be made responsible for

outcomes. Financing of investment needs to be put on a sufficient, predictable and reliable basis.

6 Human Resources: There is a complete lack of commercial orientation in the WSS

providers. Service providers do not avail of the necessary professional expertise required for

provision of the services in an efficient manner and cannot decide on their own staffing and

training. This is basically due to rigid public sector rules that can’t be changed and which have

been aggravated by government interventions such as the recruitment stop.

7 Financial: Tariff revenues of WASA and TMA do not even cover current operating costs due

to poor collection rates and low tariff levels. Service providers respond to financial shocks by

reducing service quality (e.g. reducing hours of service to reduce electricity costs). Poor

maintenance and poor operating efficiency leads to existing resources being poorly employed,

thus contributing to the vicious circle of poor performance, poor service, poor collection rates,

insufficient funding. The general reluctance of local governments to raise tariffs and to enforce

collection also contributes to the deteriorating situation.

8 Legal: The existing inconsistency of the status of WASA with the PLGO needs to be alleviated.

It is recommended to do so in a manner, which enhances the independence and the accountability

of the WASA. The ownership of WASA assets, while nominally in the hands of the local

government bodies, needs to be firmed up by accounting for and registering all assets with the

district government or service providers. This would alleviate the current unclear condition,

whereby LG&RD Department profess to be caretaker or owner of the assets (as lead department

over all local governments) and per Pakistan Local Government Ordinance (PLGO) WASA is

vested in the local governments. Ultimately, all WASA providers need to be corporatized as

24
 legal entities fully independent from government except with regard toownership and

government regulation.

9 Regulatory: The current system of self-provision of WASA puts supervision of performance

and performance of the services in the same hands. Decentralization under the PLGO has placed

a heavy responsibility on weak organizations. This system needs to be substituted by a system of

economic regulation in line with the PLGO, but with clearly separated and delineated functions

assigned to empowered government bodies and professional service providers. Some

responsibilities, for example, service standards setting and tariff setting, might be better provided

at the state level and progressively devolved as local capacity develops. Environmental and water

resource protection regulations need to be enacted and enforced.

4.6 Performance Benchmarking Indicators of WASA

These are the bench marking indicators of WASA:

25
 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING INDICATORS (01)
Utility Name :LAHORE WATER AND SANITATION AGENCY (WASA)

Sr. Data Item FINANCIAL YEARS

No. 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

1 Population of City District

a) Population of Lahore District (000) 7250 7452 7659 7873 8092
b) Population of C.D.G.L area (000)
(Excluding Cantt) 6468 6620 6776 6936 7099

c) Population in W ASAserved area (000) 4991 5119 5251 5387 5548

2 Population served water ( 000 ) 4342 4451 4562 4676 4827
3 Population served Sewerage ( 000 ) 4192 4297 4405 4525 4660
4 Sewerage connections year end ( 000 ) 456 462 476 495 507
5 W ater Connection year end ( 000 ) 481 488 504 516 534
6 W ater Production (Lpcd) 314 326 323 330 339
7 Unaccounted for W ater (%) 38% 39% 38% 40% 36%
8 Non-Revenue W ater (%)
Proportion of Connections that are Metered (%)
9 39% 40% 43% 45% 48%
26

PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING INDICATORS (02)

Utility Name : LAHORE WATER AND SANITATION AGENCY
Sr Data Item FINANCIAL YEARS
No 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

10 Proportion of Functional Meter (%)

- Proportion with Total Connections 11% 11% 11% 11% 12%

- Proportion with Metered Connections 29% 28% 26% 25% 25%

11 Unit Operational Cost

i. Rs. M3 Sold 3.00 3.05 3.61 3.81 3.66
ii. Rs. M3 Produced 3.55 3.60 3.99 4.40 4.65
12 Staff (000) Water Connection 12.5 12.5 12.1 12.2 11.8
13 Salary Costs as a proportion of Operation 22% 24% 25% 27% 29%
Costs.
14 Continuity of services (hours) 14-18 14-18 14-18 14-18 14-18
15 Wastewater treatment Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
16 Billing Ratio
Domestic to Total 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Commercial to Total 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
17 Collection ratio 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78
27
18 Working Ratio (Without Debt) 1.0 1.00 0.95 1.0 1.05

26
 Bench Marks Indicators
Proportion of Functional Meter (%)
Population of City District
- Proportion with Total Connections
a) Population of Lahore District

b) Population of C.D.G.L area - Proportion with Metered Connections

(Excluding Cantt)

c) Population in WASA served area

Unit Operational Cost
i. Rs. M3 Sold
Population served water
ii. Rs. M3 Produced
Population served Sewerage Staff (000) Water Connection

Sewerage connections year end Salary Costs as a proportion of Operation Costs.

Water Connection year end

Continuity of services (hours)
Water Production (Lpcd) Wastewater treatment
Unaccounted for Water Billing Ratio
Domestic to Total
Non-Revenue Water (%)
Commercial to Total
Proportion of Connections that are Metered (%) Collection ratio
Working Ratio (Without Debt) 28

4.7 Proposed Logic Model for performance measurement of

WASA
Part-1: Strategic Level

Performance measurement can best be explained as is the process of developing and

using indicators and other tools to assess progress in achieving predetermined goals.

Performance measurement is just one element of strategic management that involves an iterative

cycle of activity and budget planning, implementation and evaluation. By generating and

analyzing indicators, performance measurement supports the decision making process (Mazur

2010)11. Accountability implies responsibility for ones’ actions and their consequences (Roberts,

2002)12. This, of course, suggests a direct causal relationship between actions and results (Behn,

11
Eugene Mazur (2010). Outcome Performance Measures of Environmental Compliance Assurance.
Current practices, constraints and ways forward.

12
Roberts, N. C. (2002). ‘Keeping Public Officials Accountable Thought Dialogue: Resolving the Accountability
Paradox’, 3XEOLF $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 5HYLHZ 62(6):658-669

27
2003a), a point of contention for program evaluators. Logic models are usually a graphical

depiction of the logical relationships between the resources, activities, outputs and outcomes of a

program .A logic model presents a picture of an effort or initiative is supposed to work if applied

to a problem. The model explains why the strategy is a good solution to the problem at hand.

Effective logic models are best explicit and often visual. This is a simple logic model presented

below, through which the performance of WASA can be measured in the most appropriate

manner.

Self to Monitoring
Clustered Indicators Defused Indicators Methodology
Teams Evaluates

Population covered Area

(25)
Survey and government
Water Supply System (18) records. The most appropriate Both
Quality of Pure Water statistical method
(20)

Population covered Area

(15) Survey and government
Sewerage System (18) records. The most appropriate Both
Quality of disposal of statistical method
sewage
Survey and government
Financial
Management records. The most appropriate Both
Administrative
statistical method

Grading Rates

     

28
 Grading in Percentages Interpretations Ratings

90%-100%
Excellent 5
80%-89%
Very Good 4
60%-79%
Good 3
40%-59%
Average 2
20%-39%
Poor 1
0%-19%
Very Poor 0

The time framework for the exercise will be discussed here as well.

TIME SCHEDULE
Week Week Week Week Week Week
Person/ Parties  
Task # # # # # #
Responsible
1 2 3 4 5 6 Status
Data collection from
Citizens for their
satisfaction.                
Visit of Government
agencies /stake holders
and Data Collection.                
Compilation of Data                
Analysis of data                

Part-2: Operational level

1. Following system/instrument of performance evaluation can be used in government

organizations like WASA:

Key Quantitative analysis Qualitative Analysis

Resu How often the WASA met the targets set How well the WASA did on this particular
lt against this particular KRA? KRA?
Area

29
 s Neve Seldo Occasional Ofte Very Very Poorl Adequate Wel Very
r m ly n Ofte Poorl y ly l Well
1 2 3 4 n y 2 3 4 5
5 1

In the first column of the above instrument mention the Key result areas (KRAs) while in

the second column rate how often the work is done on a particular KRA (Quantitative analysis).

In the third column rate how well the WASA did on that particular KRA (Qualitative analysis).

The rating of performance can be done by circling a number.

Key Result Areas Quantitative analysis Qualitative Analysis

How often the WASA met the targets set How well the WASA did on this
against this particular KRA? particular KRA?

Never Seldo Occasion Often Very Very Poorly Adequat- Well Very
5 m -ally 30 Often Poorly 10 ely 30 Well
10 20 35 5 20 35

Timely
processing of
application of
Water
Connection.

Timely
Processing of
application of
Sewerage
Connection.

Total 45

30
 Quantitative analysis Qualitative Analysis
Key Result How often the WASA met the targets set How well the WASA did on this particular
against this particular KRA? KRA?
Areas
Never Seldom Occasion- Often Very Very Poorly Adequat- Well Very
5 10 ally 30 Often Poorly 10 ely 30 Well
20 35 5 20 35

Wastewater
treatment

Billing Receipt

46
Total

Quantitative analysis Qualitative Analysis

Key Result How often the WASA met the How well the WASA did on this
Areas targets set against this particular particular KRA?
KRA?
Very
Nev Seldo Occasio Ofte Very Very Poor Adequa We Well
er m n-ally n Ofte Poor ly t-ely ll 35

5 10 20 30 n ly 10 20 30
35 5

Complaint
Redressed
System

Total 47

2. After completion of the assessment form add up the numbers in each column and place

the subtotal in the appropriate position in the box at the bottom of each page. Subtotals of all the

columns at each page may be added and insert the grand total in the boxes below.

31
3. Then Scores can be plotted in this way:

Quantitative analysis Qualitative Analysis

How often the WASA met the targets How well the WASA did on each
set against each KRA? KRA?

Never Seldom Occas- Often Very Very Poorly Adequa- Well Very
1 2 ionally 4 Often Poorly 2 tely 4 Well
3 5 1 3 5

Total

The score can be plotted on the pie chart for graphical

analysis as illustrated below
Well
Often

8 0% Seldom
Very
8 0% Poorly
Never
Poorly
2 0% 4 0% 2 0% 4 0%

6 0% 6 0%
Occasionally 1 00 % 1 00 %
Adequately
Very Often 49
Very Well

4. Then read the instructions about how to interpret the scores and set priorities for

revamping and overcoming the shortcomings.

5. Compare the overall scores with the benchmarks given in the table shown below:

How often Interpretation How well the Interpretation

the WASA WASA did on
met the the KRAs?
targets
against the
KRAs?
Grade-A Perfect score – WASA is Grade-A Perfect score – WASA is
frequently meeting the 100% Scores performing well and
100% performance targets. effectively doing on the
Scores assigned KRAs.

Grade-B Good score. WASA is Grade-B Good score. WASA is

meeting targets on most of 80% scores performing well on most of
80% the KRAs but needs to the KRAs but needs to
scores improve working against improve working against
certain KRAs. certain KRAs.

Grade-C WASA’s performance is Grade-C WASA’s performance is

just average. Needs major 60% just average. Needs major
60% improvement in its most of improvement in its most of
the KRAs. the KRAs.

Grade-D WASA’s performance is Grade-D WASA’s performance is

not satisfactory. Needs 50% not satisfactory. Needs
50% drastic steps in drastic steps in
improvement of almost all improvement of almost all51
the KRAs. the KRAs.

32
6. After interpretation of the scores, the assessment panel may discuss the items they rated

as lowest in frequency (quantitative aspects) and/or effectiveness (qualitative aspects) and

should focus their attention on those items.

7. Make a list of these KRAs in the order of priority in the following format and discuss

with the other officers such as Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors, etc., so that they understand

what it could mean to the organization if the poor performance is reported on certain KRAs and

suggestions for improvement.

Sl # Priority (1 = Most Important) of actions to be taken Expected Output

for improvement (s)

8. Finally, the Evaluation Committee may prepare an action plan on the following format to

indicate the action, the personnel responsible to take necessary action and when to achieve this

(or these) goals:-

Sl Description of Action to be taken Time table for the

# Action by (Who) action (When)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33
5.1

D
C
,w
ti
V
S
m
fi
iIfv
g
y
u
lh
t
s
p
k
a
b
ffi
d
r
e
n
o
c
&
1 SECTION -5

Improved Service Delivery Model: GPM Perspective

REENGINEERED PROCESS FOR IMPROVED SERVICE
DELIVERY
5.1.1 Water/Sewerage Connection Process

34
 C
4
3
1
w
W
v
b
q
iu
T
y
h
D
ti
P
f
lR
p
ffi
o
r
t
n
c
d
e
m
a
s
)
0
(
-
g
5.1.2 RE-ENGINEERED COMPLAINT PROCESS

RECOMMENDATIONS

35
In view of the above analysis, the following recommendations are made:

 Financial Autonomy should be granted to WASA.

 Tariff should be increased to rationalize and as a first step minimum increase @20% for
next five years should be initiated.
 Funds need to be provided immediately for purchase of meters (metered-unmetered
connections).
 Sufficient numbers of water and sanitation Professionals must be hired from market.
 Storm water must be separated from drainage systems in order to maintain water level in
the ground.
 WASA to be given effective Regulatory control over tube wells of private housing
societies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION PLAN

36
 In view of the above analysis the following action plan is proposed in order to
achieve improved service delivery by incorporating the institutional changes at the
tactical and strategic level.

Issues Action Proposed Action By Outcome

Depleting • Sewerage system to be WASA& Public Water level going
aquifer level separated from the Relation down by 01 meter will
drainage system. Department reduce
• Massive and sustained
awareness is
needed on water
conservation at all levels.
• Regulation of private tube
wells
Water wastage Meters to be installed at priority in WASA Rampant use of water
order to check the unnecessary will be checked
water use
Water Tariff Water tariff will be increase @ WASA, Organization will
20% annually Provincial govt. become Financially
viable
Old water Water supply infrastructure & WASA Sustainable water
supply & Sewerage lines to be redesigned & supply & sewerage
sewerage rebuilt to provide adequate system infrastructure
infrastructure

Delay in water Customer care centre to be WASA Transaction time

connections established and all processes to be reduced with limited
completed under one roof human interventions
Poor To hire WATSAN specialist for WASA Improved service
professional management tiers & to supervise delivery
performance skill workers
and efficiency
Redressal of To revamp and restructure existing WASA Improved services
complaints WASA complaint mechanism delivery

REFERENCES

37
Behn, R. ( 2003a). ‘Rethinking Accountability in Education; How Should Who Hold Whom
Accountable For What?’ 6 (1):43-73.

Bolton, M. (2003), "Public sector performance measurement: delivering greater accountability",

Work Study, Vol. 52 No.11, pp.20-4.

Bozec, R. Breton, G. (2003), "The impact of the corporatization process on the financial
performance of Canadian stated-owned enterprises", The International Journal of Public
Sector Management, Vol. 16 No.1, pp.27-47.

Brignall, S., Modell, S. (2000), "An institutional perspective on performance measurement and
management in the new public sector", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No.13,
pp.281-306.

Chan, A.P.C., Chan, A.P.L. (2004), "Key performance indicators for measuring construction
success", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No.2, pp.203-21

Eugene Mazur (2010). Outcome Performance Measures of Environmental Compliance

Assurance. Current practices, constraints and ways forward.

Fowler, A., Boland, T. (2000), "A system perspective of performance management in public
sector organizations", The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 13
No.5, pp.417-46.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (1992), "The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance",
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No.1, pp.71-9.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

Kloot, L. (1999), "Performance measurement and accountability in Victorian local government",

The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 12 No.7, pp.565-83.

Olsen, H.W., Olsen, N.D. (2005), Strategic Planning Made Easy for Nonprofit Organizations: A
Practical Guide, M3 Planning, Reno, NV.

Niven, P.R. (2002), Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step: Maximizing Performance and

Maintaining Results, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY

Roberts, N. C. (2002). ‘Keeping Public Officials Accountable Thought Dialogue: Resolving the
Accountability Paradox’.

Steiss, A.W., Steiss, S.W. (2003), Strategic Management for Public and Nonprofit
Organizations, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY

38
United Nations Secretariat, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision and World Urbanisation Prospects: The
2005 Revision: esa.un.org/unup.

Wisniewski, M., Olafsson, S. (2004), "Developing balanced scorecards in local authorities: a

comparison of experience", International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 52 No.7, pp.602-10.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39