Skip to content
SmartPMS
Framework alignment

The frameworks are the spec.

Every screen in SmartPMS answers a requirement in a published framework. These are the documents we build to, and how the system holds you to them.

National Treasury · 2007

Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information (FMPPI)

What it requires

  • Performance information structured along the results chain: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts
  • Indicators that are well defined, verifiable, cost effective, appropriate and relevant
  • Clear accountability for managing and reporting performance information

How SmartPMS aligns

  • The data model is the results chain: every record sits at a defined level of it
  • Indicator quality fields are captured up front on every indicator
  • Named responsibility per indicator, per programme and per report
DPME · 2019

Revised Framework for Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans

What it requires

  • Strategic plans built on impact and outcome statements with five year targets
  • APPs specifying outputs, output indicators, annual and quarterly targets
  • A technical indicator description for every indicator in the plan

How SmartPMS aligns

  • Plan capture follows the Revised Framework structure natively
  • Quarterly target profiles drive the reporting calendar automatically
  • TIDs live on the indicator record and print with the plan
National Treasury · MFMA Circular No. 88

Rationalised municipal planning and reporting

What it requires

  • Standardised indicator sets across the municipal accountability cycle
  • Alignment between the IDP, budget, SDBIP and in year reporting
  • Consistent definitions so results can be compared across municipalities

How SmartPMS aligns

  • Indicator libraries hold standardised definitions for reuse
  • The SDBIP and its quarterly cycle are first class objects in the system
  • One definition per indicator, used by planning and reporting alike
Act 1 of 1999

Public Finance Management Act (PFMA)

What it requires

  • Accounting officers and authorities answer for performance against predetermined objectives
  • Annual reports present performance information alongside financials
  • Effective, efficient and transparent systems of internal control

How SmartPMS aligns

  • The annual performance record is assembled from approved quarterly data
  • Report outputs are formatted for the annual report's performance chapter
  • Approval workflow and audit trail evidence the control environment
Act 56 of 2003 · Act 32 of 2000

Municipal Finance Management Act and Municipal Systems Act

What it requires

  • An SDBIP with service delivery targets and performance indicators
  • The section 72 mid year budget and performance assessment
  • Annual performance reporting in terms of MSA section 46

How SmartPMS aligns

  • SDBIP targets are captured with quarterly profiles and owners
  • The mid year assessment is generated from the first two quarters' record
  • Section 46 report data comes from the same approved source
AGSA · Annual audit of reported performance information

The audit of performance against predetermined objectives

What the AGSA tests

  • Usefulness: is reported performance presented consistently with the plan, and are indicators relevant and measurable?
  • Reliability: is reported achievement valid, accurate and complete?
  • Can every reported figure be traced to supporting evidence?

How SmartPMS aligns

  • Reports mirror the approved plan structure, so consistency is automatic
  • Validation at capture keeps actuals inside defined measurement rules
  • Evidence sits behind every figure, one click from the reported number

Usefulness criteria, covered

Presentation Consistency Relevance Measurability

Reliability criteria, covered

Validity Accuracy Completeness

Walk into the audit with the file already built.

Ask us anything about framework alignment in the demo, with the system on screen.

Request a demo