2009-2011

[INDIAN OIL][PROJECT ON PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT]

SUBMITTED BY:-

DEEPAK AGGARWAL.

MBA 4TH SEM

ASIAN BUSINESS SCHOOL, MARWAH STUDIO

SEC-16A, FILM CITY, NOIDA.

28

Indian Oil Corporation.

Indian Oil Corporation, or IndianOil, is an Indian state-owned oil and gas company. It

is India’s largest commercial enterprise, ranking 125th on the Fortune Global 500 list in

2010. IndianOil and its subsidiaries account for a 47% share in the petroleum products

market, 40% share in refining capacity and 67% downstream sector pipelines capacity

in India. The Indian Oil Group of Companies owns and operates 10 of India's 19

refineries with a combined refining capacity of 60.2 million metric tons per year.

IndianOil operates the largest and the widest network of fuel stations in the country,

numbering about 17606 (15557 regular ROs & 2049 Kissan Sewa Kendra). It has also

started Auto LPG Dispensing Stations (ALDS). It supplies Indane cooking gas to over

47.5 million households through a network of 4,990 Indian distributors. In addition,

IndianOil's Research and Development Center (R&D) at Faridabadsupports, develops

and provides the necessary technology solutions to the operating divisions of the

corporation and its customers within the country and abroad. Subsequently, IndianOil

Technologies Limited - a wholly owned subsidiary, was set up in 2003, with a vision to

market the technologies developed at IndianOil's Research and Development Center. It

28

has been modeled on the R&D marketing arms of Royal Dutch Shell and British

Petroleum.

Type State owned enterprise

Industry OIL and GAS.

Founded 1964

Headquarters New Delhi, India

Key people S V Narasimhan, [

[Chairman]

Products Oil

Petroleum

Natural gas

Petrochemical

Fuel

Lubricant

Revenue  

272,689.95 crore (US$59.17

billion)(2009-10)[1]

Net income   10,220.55 crore (US$2.22

billion)(2009-10) [1]

Total assets  $29.672 billion (2009-10)[2]

Total equity  $11.686 billion (2009-10) [2]

Employees 36,307 (2009)

28

History

IndianOil began operation in 1959 as Indian Oil Company Ltd. The Indian Oil

Corporation was formed in 1964, with the merger of Indian Refineries Ltd.

Products

IndianOil's product range covers petrol, diesel, LPG, auto LPG, aviation turbine fuel,

lubricants, naphtha, bitumen, paraffin, keroseneetc. Xtra Premium petrol, Xtra Mile

diesel, Servo lubricants, Indane LPG, Autogas LPG, Indian Oil Aviation are some of its

prominent brands.

Recently Indian Oil has also introduced a new business line of supplying LNG (liquefied

natural gas) by cryogenic transportation. This is called "LNG at Doorstep". LNG

headquarters are located at the Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi.

Refineries

Digboi Refinery , in Upper Assam, is India's oldest refinery and was

commissioned in 1901. Originally a part of Assam Oil Company, it became part of

IndianOil in 1981. Its original refining capacity had been 0.5 MMTPA since 1901.

Modernisation project of this refinery has been completed and the refinery now has

an increased capacity of 0.65 MMTPA.

Guwahati Refinery , the first public sector refinery of the country, was built with

Romanian collaboration and was inaugurated by Late Pt.Jawaharlal Nehru, the first

Prime Minister of India, on 1 January 1962.

Barauni Refinery , in Bihar, was built in collaboration with Russia and Romania. It

was commissioned in 1964 with a capacity of 1 MMTPA. Its capacity today is 6

MMTPA.

Gujarat Refinery , at Koyali in Gujarat in Western India, is IndianOil’s largest

refinery. The refinery was commissioned in 1965. It also houses the first

hydrocracking unit of the country. Its present capacity is 13.70 MMTPA.

28

Haldia Refinery  is the only coastal refinery of the Corporation, situated 136 km

downstream of Kolkata in the Purba Medinipur (East Midnapore) district. It was

commissioned in 1975 with a capacity of 2.5 MMTPA, which has since been

increased to 5.8 MMTPA

Mathura Refinery  was commissioned in 1982 as the sixth refinery in the fold of

IndianOil and with an original capacity of 6.0 MMTPA. Located strategically between

the historic cities of Delhi and Agra, the capacity of Mathura refinery was increased

to 7.5 MMTPA.

Panipat Refinery  is the seventh refinery of IndianOil. The original refinery with 6

MMTPA capacity was built and commissioned in 1998. Panipat Refinery has

doubled its refining capacity from 6 MMT/yr to 12 MMTPA with the commissioning of

its Expansion Project.

Subsidiary refineries — Bongaigaon Refinery (2.95 MMTPA), Chennai Petroleum (9.5

MMTPA)

Group companies and joint ventures

IndianOil Technologies Ltd : IndianOil Technologies Ltd. is the marketing arm of

IOCL which markets the entire range of technologies developed at the IndianOil

R&D Centre,Faridabad. IndianOil Technologies Ltd. headquarters is located at the

IndianOil R&D Centre.

IndianOil (Mauritius) Ltd.

Lanka IOC PLC - Group company for retail and storage operations in Sri Lanka.

It is listed in the Colombo Stock Exchange. It was locked into a bitter subsidy

payment dispute with Sri Lanka's Government which has since been resolved.[citation

needed]

IOC Middle East FZE

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited

Bongaigoan Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.

28

Green Gas Ltd. - a joint venture with Gas Authority of India Ltd. for city-wide gas

distribution networks.

Indo Cat Pvt. Ltd., with Intercat, USA, for manufacturing 15,000 tonnes per

annum of FCC (fluidised catalytic cracking) catalysts & additives in India.

Numerous exploration and production ventures with Oil India Ltd., Oil and Natural

Gas Corporation

International rankings

Indian Oil is the highest ranked Indian company in the Fortune Global 500 listing, the

116th position(in 2008) based on fiscal 2007 performance. It is also the 18th largest

petroleum company in the world and the number one petroleum trading company

among the National Oil Companies in the Asia-Pacific region. IOCL was featured on the

2008 Forbes Global 2000at position 303. It is fifth most valued brand in India according

to an annual survey conducted by Brand Finance and The Economic Times in 2010. 

Loyalty programs

XTRAPOWER Fleet Card Program is aimed at Large Fleet Operators. Currently it has 1

million customer base. XTRAREWARDS is a recently launched loyalty program for retail

customers where customers can earn reward points on their purchases.in the org

Competitors

Indian Oil Corporation has two major domestic competitors, Bharat

Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum. Both are state-controlled, like Indian Oil

Corporation. There are two private competitors, Reliance Petroleum and Essar

Oil.Other competetors are coming faster.

Concerns

The volatility in the crude market & subsidy burden on the IOCL has dented the

company performance like other PSU oil companies. This is also reflected in its

28

FORTUNE rating this year. Moreover, bureaucratic hurdles in projects are hurting

company advancement. IOCL has one of the best technical manpower for execution of

jobs.

Oil Industry Development Board

India has begun the development of a strategic crude oil reserve sized at 37.4 million

barrels, enough for two weeks of consumption. Petroleum stocks have been transferred

from the Indian Oil Corporation(IndianOil) to the Oil Industry Development Board

(OIDB).[5] The OIDB then created the Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd (ISPRL)

to serve as the controlling government agency for the strategic reserve.

28

Vision with Values

28

Updated on July 23, 2009

Values

28

Indianoil nurtures the core values of Care, Initiative, Passion & Trust across the organization in order to deliver value to its stakeholders.

Care Stands for Concern Empathy Understanding Co-operation Empowerment

Innovation Stands for Creativity Ability to learn Flexibility Change

Passion Stands for Commitment Dedication Pride Inspiration Ownership Zeal & Zest

Trust Stands for Delivered promises Reliability Dependability Integrity Truthfulness Transparency

Performance management

28

Performance management (PM) includes activities to ensure that goals are consistently being met in an effective and efficient manner. Performance management can focus on the performance of an organization, a department, employee, or even the processes to build a product or service, as well as many other areas.

Performance management as referenced on this page is a broad term coined by Dr. Aubrey Daniels in the late 1970s to describe a technology (i.e. science imbedded in applications methods) for managing both behavior and results, two critical elements of what is known as performance.

Application

This is used most often in the workplace, can apply wherever people interact — schools, churches, community meetings, sports teams, health setting, governmental agencies, and even political settings - anywhere in the world people interact with their environments to produce desired effects. Armstrong and Baron (1998) defined it as a “strategic and integrated approach to increasing the effectiveness of organizations by improving the performance of the people who work in them and by developing the capabilities of teams and individual contributors.”

It may be possible to get all employees to reconcile personal goals with organizational goals and increase productivity and profitability of an organization using this process. It can be applied by organisations or a single department or section inside an organisation, as well as an individual person. The performance process is appropriately named the self-propelled performance process (SPPP).

First, a commitment analysis must be done where a job mission statement is drawn up for each job. The job mission statement is a job definition in terms of purpose, customers, product and scope. The aim with this analysis is to determine the continuous key objectives and performance standards for each job position.

Following the commitment analysis is the work analysis of a particular job in terms of the reporting structure and job description. If a job description is not available, then a systems analysis can be done to draw up a job description. The aim with this analysis is to determine the continuous critical objectives and performance standards for each job.

Benefits

28

Managing employee or system performance facilitates the effective delivery of strategic and operational goals. There is a clear and immediate correlation between using performance management programs or software and improved business and organizational results.

For employee performance management, using integrated software, rather than a spreadsheet based recording system, may deliver a significant return on investment through a range of direct and indirect sales benefits, operational efficiency benefits and by unlocking the latent potential in every employees work day (i.e. the time they spend not actually doing their job). Benefits may include:

Direct financial gain Grow sales Reduce costs

Stop project overruns

Aligns the organization directly behind the CEO's goals

Decreases the time it takes to create strategic or operational changes by communicating the changes through a new set of goals

Motivated workforce Optimizes incentive plans to specific goals for over achievement, not just

business as usual Improves employee engagement because everyone understands how they are

directly contributing to the organisations high level goals

Create transparency in achievement of goals

High confidence in bonus payment process

Professional development programs are better aligned directly to achieving business level goals

Improved management control Flexible, responsive to management needs Displays data relationships

Helps audit / comply with legislative requirements

Simplifies communication of strategic goals scenario planning

Provides well documented and communicated process documentation

28

Organizational Development

In organizational development (OD), performance can be thought of as Actual Results vs Desired Results. Any discrepancy, where Actual is less than Desired, could constitute the performance improvement zone. Performance management and improvement can be thought of as a cycle:

1. Performance planning where goals and objectives are established 2. Performance coaching where a manager intervenes to give feedback and adjust

performance

3. Performance appraisal where individual performance is formally documented and feedback delivered

A performance problem is any gap between Desired Results and Actual Results. Performance improvement is any effort targeted at closing the gap between Actual Results and Desired Results.

Other organizational development definitions are slightly different. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) indicates that Performance Management consists of a system or process whereby:

1. Work is planned and expectations are set 2. Performance of work is monitored

3. Staff ability to perform is developed and enhanced

4. Performance is rated or measured and the ratings summarized

5. Top performance is rewarded.

28

Performance measurement

Performance measurement is the process whereby an organization establishes the parameters within which programs, investments, and acquisitions are reaching the desired results.

This process of measuring performance often requires the use of statistical evidence to determine progress toward specific defined organizational objectives.

28

The reason for measuring performance

Fundamental purpose behind measures is to improve performance. Measures that are not directly connected to improving performance (like measures that are directed at communicating better with the public to build trust) are measures that are means to achieving that ultimate purpose (Behn 2003).

Behn 2003 gives 8 reasons for adapting performance measurements:

1. To Evaluate how well is public agency performing. To evaluate performance, managers need to determine what agency supposed to accomplish. (Kravchuk & Schack 1996). To formulate a clear, coherent mission, strategy, and objectives. Then based on this information choose how you will measure those activities. (You first need to find out what are you looking for).

Evaluation process consists of two variables: organizational performance data and a benchmark that creates framework for analyzing that data. For organizational information focus on outcome of agency’s performance, but also including input/ environment/ process/ output- to have a comparative framework for analysis. Its helpful to ask 4 essential question in determining organizational data:

Outcome should be directly related to public purpose of the organization. Effectiveness Q: did they produce required results (determined by outcomes).

Cost-effective: efficiency Q (outcome divided by input).

Impact Q: what value organisation provides.

Best-practice Q: evaluating internal operations (compare core process performance to most effective and efficient process in the industry).

As in order for organization to evaluate performance its requires standards (benchmark) to compare its actual performance against past performance/ from performance of similar agencies/ industry standard/political expectations.

2. To Control How can managers ensure their subordinates are doing the right thing.

Today managers do not control their workforce mechanically (measurement of time-and-motion for control as during Taylor) However managers still use measures to control, while allowing some space for freedom in the workforce. (Robert Kaplan &

28

David Norton) Business has control bias. Because traditional measurement system sprung from finance function, the system has a control bias.

Organisation create measurement systems that specify particular actions they want execute- for branch employess to take a particular ways to execute what they want- branch to spend money. Then they want to measure to see whether the employees have in fact taken those actions. Need to measure input by individual into organisation and process. Officials need to measure behavior of individuals then compare this performance with requirements to check who has and has not complied.

Often such requirements are described only as guidelines. Do not be fooled. These guidelines are really requirements and those requirement are designed to control. The measurement of compliance with these requirements is the mechanism of control.

3. To Budget Budgets are crude tools in improving performance. Poor performance not always may change after applying budgets cuts as a disciplinary actions. Sometimes budgets increase could be the answer to improving performance. Like purchasing better technology because the current ones are outdated and harm operational processes. So decision highly influenced by circomstance, you need measures to better understand the situation.

At the macro level, elected officials deciding which purpose of government actions are primary or secondary. Political priorities drive macro budgetory choices. Once elected officials have established macro political priorities, those responsible for micro decisions may seek to invest their limited allocation of resources in the most cost-effective units and activities.

In allocating budgets, managers, in response to macro budget allocations (driven by political objectives), determin alloactions at the micro level by using measures of efficiency of various activities, which programs or organisations are more efficient at achieving the political objectives. Why spend limited funds on programs that do not guarantee exceptional performance?

Efficiency is determined by observing performance- output and outcome achieved considering number of people involved in the process (productivity per person) and cost-data (capturing direct cost as well as indirect)

4. To Motivate Giving people significant goals to achieve and then use performance measures- including interim targets- to focus people’s thinking and work, and to provide periodic sense of accomplishment.

Performance targets may also encourage creativity in developing better ways to achieve the goal (Behn) Thus measure to motivate improvements may also motivate learning.

Almost-real-time output (faster, the better) compared with production targets. Quick response required to provide fast feed-back so workforce could improve and adapt.

28

Also it is able to provide how workforce currently performing.

Primary aim behind the measures should be output, managers can not motivate people to affect something over which they have little or no influence.

Once an agency’s leaders have motivated significant improvements using output targets, they can create some outcomes targets.

“output”- focuses on improving internal process. “outcome”- motivate people to look outside the agency (to seek way to

collaborate with individuals & organisations may affect the outcome produced by the agency)

5. To Celebrate Organisations need to commemorate their accomplishments- such ritual tie their people together, give them a sense of their individual and collective relevance. More over, by achieving specific goals, people gain sense of personal accomplishment and selfworth (Locke & Latham 1984).

Links from measurement to celebration to improvement is indirect, because it has to work through one of the likes- motivation, learning...

Celebration helps to improve performance because it brings attention to the agency, and thus promotes its competence- it attracts resources.

Dedicated people who want to work for successful agency. Potential collaborators.

Learning-sharing between people about their accomplishments and how they achieved it.

Significant performance targets that provide sense of personal and collective accomplishement. Targets could ones used to motivate. In order for celebration to be a success and benefits to be a reality managers need to ensure that celebration creates motivation and thus improvements.

By leading the celebration.

6. To Promote How can public managers convince political superiors, legislators, stakeholders, journalists, and citizens that their agency is doing a good job.

(National Academy of Public Administration’s center for improving government performance- NAPA 1999) performance measures can be used to: validate success; justifing additional ressources; earn customers, stakeholder, and staff loyalty by showing results; and win recognition inside and outside the organisation.

Indirectly promote, competence and value of goverement in general.

28

To convince citizens their agency is doing good, managers need easily understood measures of those aspects of performance about which many citizens personally care.

(“National Academy of Public Administration-NAPA” in its study of early performance- measurement plans under the government performance and results Act) most plans recognized the need to communicate performance evaluation results to higher level officials, but did not show clear recognition that the form and level of data for these needs would be different than that for operating managers. Different needs: Department head/ Executive Office of President/ Congress. NAPA suggested for those needs to be more explicitly defined- (Kaplan & Nortan 1994) stress that different customers have different concerns(1992).

7. To Learn Learning is involved with some process, of analysis information provided from evaluating corporate performance (identifying what works and what does not). By analysing that information, corporation able to learn resons behind its poor or good performance.

However if there is too many performance measures, managers might not be able to learn anything. (Neves of National Academy of Public Administration 1986)

Because of rapid increase of performance measures there is more confusion or “noise” than useful data.

Managers lack time or simply find it too difficult to try to identify good signals from mass of numbers.

Also there is an issue of “black box” enigma (data can reveal that organisation is performing well or poorly, but they don’t necessarily reveal why). Performance measures can describe what is coming out of “black box” as well as what is going in, but they do not reveal what is happening inside. How are various inputs interacting to produce the output. What more complex is outcome with “black box” being all value chain.

Benchmarking is a traditional form of performance measurement which facilitates learning by providing assessment of organisational performance and identifying possible solutions for improvements.

Benchmarking can facilitate transfer of knowhow from benchmarked organisations. (Kouzmin et al. 1999)

Identifying core process in organisation and measuring their performance is basic to benchmarking. Those actions probably provide answer to issue presented in purpose section of the learning.

Measurements that are used for learning act as indicators for managers to consider analysis of performance in measurement’s related areas by revealing irregularities and deviations from expected data results.

28

What to measure aiming at learning (the unexpected- what to aim for?)

Learning occurs when organisation meets problems in operations or failures. Then corporations improve by analysing those faults and looking for solutions. In public sector especially, failure usually punished severely- therefore corporations and individuals hide it.

8. To Improve What exactly should who- do differently to improve performance? In order for corporation to measure what it wants to improve it first need to identify what it will improve and develop processes to accomplish that.

Also you need to have a feedback loop to assess compliance with plans to achieve improvements and to determine if those processes created forecasted results (improvements).

Improvement process also related to learning process in identifying places that are need improvements.

Develop understanding of relationships inside the “black box” that connect changes in operations to changes in output and outcome.

Understanding “black box” processes and their interactions.

How to influence/ control workforce that creates output. How to influence citizens/ customers that turn that output to outcome (and all

related suppliers)

They need to observe how actions they can take will influence operations, environment, workforce and which eventually has an impact on outcome.

After that they need to identify actions they can take that will give them improvements they looking for and how organisation will react to those actions ex. How might various leadership activities ripple through the “black box”.

Principles of performance measurement

All significant work activity must be measured.

Work that is not measured or assessed cannot be managed because there is no objective information to determine its value. Therefore it is assumed that this work is inherently valuable regardless of its outcomes. The best that can be accomplished with this type of activity is to supervise a level of effort.

Unmeasured work should be minimized or eliminated.

28

Desired performance outcomes must be established for all measured work.

Outcomes provide the basis for establishing accountability for results rather than just requiring a level of effort.

Desired outcomes are necessary for work evaluation and meaningful performance appraisal.

Defining performance in terms of desired results is how managers and supervisors make their work assignments operational.

Performance reporting and variance analyses must be accomplished frequently.

Frequent reporting enables timely corrective action.

Timely corrective action is needed for effective management control.

If we don’t measure ……

How do you know where to improve? How do you know where to allocate or re-allocate money and people?

How do you know how you compare with others?

How do you know whether you are improving or declining?

How do you know whether or which programs, methods, or employees are producing results that are cost effective and efficient?

Common problems with measurement systems that limit their usefulness:

Heavy reliance on summary data that emphasizes averages and discounts outliers.

Heavy reliance on historical patterns and reluctance to accept new structural changes (or re-design of processes) that are capable of generating different outcomes, like measuring the time it takes them to do a task.

Heavy reliance on gross aggregates that tend to understate or ignore distributional contributions and consequences.

Heavy reliance on static, e.g., equilibrium, analysis and slight attention to time-based and growth ones, such as value-added measures.

Performance Measurement topics

28

Most of us have heard some version of the standard performance measurement cliches: “what gets measured gets done,” “ if you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from failure and thus you can’t claim or reward success or avoid unintentionally rewarding failure,” “ if you can’t recognize success, you can’t learn from it; if you can’t recognize failure, you can’t correct it,” “if you can’t measure it, you can neither manage it nor improve it," but what eludes many of us is the easy path to identifying truly strategic measurements without falling back on things that are easier to measure such as input, project or operational process measurements.

Performance Measurement is addressed in detail in Step Five of the Nine Steps to Success® methodology. In this step, Performance Measures are developed for each of the Strategic Objectives. Leading and lagging measures are identified, expected targets and thresholds are established, and baseline and benchmarking data is developed. The focus on Strategic Objectives, which should articulate exactly what the organization is trying to accomplish, is the key to identifying truly strategic measurements.

Strategic performance measures monitor the implementation and effectiveness of an organization's strategies, determine the gap between actual and targeted performance and determine organization effectiveness and operational efficiency.

Good Performance Measures:

Provide a way to see if our strategy is working Focus employees' attention on what matters most to success

Allow measurement of accomplishments, not just of the work that is performed

Provide a common language for communication

Are explicitly defined in terms of owner, unit of measure, collection frequency, data quality, expected value(targets), and thresholds

Are valid, to ensure measurement of the right things

Are verifiable, to ensure data collection accuracy

Practice

Several performance measurement systems are in use today, and each has its own group of supporters. For example, the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1993, 1996, 2001), Performance Prism (Neely, 2002), and the Cambridge Performance Measurement Process (Neely, 1996) are designed for business-wide implementation; and the approaches of the TPM Process (Jones and Schilling, 2000), 7-step TPM Process (Zigon, 1999), and Total Measurement Development Method (TMDM) (Tarkenton Productivity Group, 2000) are specific for team-based structures. With

28

continued research efforts and the test of time, the best-of-breed theories that help organizations structure and implement its performance measurement system should emerge.

Although the Balanced Scorecard has become very popular, there is no single version of the model that has been universally accepted. The diversity and unique requirements of different enterprises suggest that no one-size-fits-all approach will ever do the job. Gamble, Strickland and Thompson (2007, p. 31) list ten financial objectives and nine strategic objectives involved with a balanced scorecard.

Problems in Performance Appraisals:

discourages teamwork

evaluators are inconsistent or use different criteria and standards

only valuable for very good or poor employees

encourages employees to achieve short term goals

managers has complete power over the employees

too subjective

produces emotional anguish

Solutions

Make collaboration a criterion on which employees will be evaluated Provide training for managers; have the HR department look for patterns on

appraisals that suggest bias or over or under evaluation

Rate selectively(introduce different or various criteria and disclose better performance and coach for worst performer without disclosing the weakness of the candidate) or increase in frequency of performance evaluation.

Include long term and short term goals in appraisal process

Introduce M.B.O.(Management By Objectives)

Make criteria specific and test selectively{Evaluate specific behaviors or results}

Focus on behaviors; do not criticize employees; conduct appraisal on time.

28

EVOLUTION ON PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

The term performance management gained its importance from the times when the competitive pressures in the market place started rising and the organizations felt the need of introducing a comprehensive performance management process into their system for improving the overall productivity and performance effectiveness.

The performance management process evolved in several phases.

First Phase: The origin of performance management can be traced in the early 1960’s when the performance appraisal systems were in practice. During this period, Annual Confidential Reports (ACR’s) which was also known as Employee service Records were maintained for controlling the behaviors of the employees and these reports provided substantial information on the performance of the employees. Any negative comment or a remark in the ESR or ACR used to adversely affect the prospects of career growth of an employee. The assessments were usually done for ten traits on a five or a ten point rating scale basis. These traits were job knowledge, sincerity, dynamism, punctuality, leadership, loyalty, etc. The remarks of these reports were never communicated to the employees and strict confidentiality was maintained in the entire process. The employees used to remain in absolute darkness due to the absence of a transparent mechanism of feedback and communication. This system had suffered from many drawbacks.

Second Phase: This phase continued from late 1960’s till early 1970’s, and the key hallmark of this phase was that whatever adverse remarks were incorporated in the performance reports were communicated to the employees so that they

28

could take corrective actions for overcoming such deficiencies. In this process of appraising the performance, the reviewing officer used to enjoy a discretionary power of overruling the ratings given by the reporting officer. The employees usually used to get a formal written communication on their identified areas of improvements if the rating for any specific trait used to be below 33%.

Third Phase: In this phase the term ACR was replaced by performance appraisal. One of the key changes that were introduced in this stage was that the employees were permitted to describe their accomplishments in the confidential performance reports. The employees were allowed to describe their accomplishments in the self appraisal forms in the end of a year. Besides inclusion of the traits in the rating scale, several new components were considered by many organizations which could measure the productivity and performance of an employee in quantifiable terms such as targets achieved, etc. Certain organizations also introduced a new section on training needs in the appraisal form. However, the confidentiality element was still being maintained and the entire process continued to be control oriented instead of being development oriented.

Fourth Phase: This phase started in mid 1970’s and its origin was in India as great business tycoons like Larsen & Toubro, followed by State Bank of India and many others introduced appreciable reforms in this field. In this phase, the appraisal process was more development driven, target based (performance based), participative and open instead of being treated as a confidential process. The system focused on performance planning, review and development of an employee by following a methodical approach. In the entire process, the appraisee (employee) and the reporting officer mutually decided upon the key result areas in the beginning of a year and reviewed it after every six months. In the review period various issues such as factors affecting the performance, training needs of an employee, newer targets and also the ratings were discussed with the appraisee in a collaborative environment.

This phase was a welcoming change in the area of performance management and many organizations introduced a new HR department for taking care of the developmental issues of the organization.

Fifth Phase: This phase was characterized by maturity in approach of handling people’s issues. It was more performance driven and emphasis was on development, planning and improvement. Utmost importance was given to culture building, team appraisals and quality circles were established for assessing the improvement in the overall employee productivity.

28

Rating Scales Method

The rating scale method offers a high degree of structure for appraisals. Each employee trait or characteristic is rated on a bipolar scale that usually has several points ranging from "poor" to "excellent" (or some similar arrangement).

The traits assessed on these scales include employee attributes such as cooperation, communications ability, initiative, punctuality and technical (work skills) competence. The nature and scope of the traits selected for inclusion is limited only by the imagination of the scale's designer, or by the organization's need to know.

The one major provision in selecting traits is that they should be in some way relevant to the appraisee's job. The traits selected by some organizations have been unwise and have resulted in legal action on the grounds of discrimination.

 Advantages The greatest advantage of rating scales is that they are structured and standardised. This allows ratings to be easily compared and contrasted - even for entire workforces.

Each employee is subjected to the same basic appraisal process and rating criteria, with the same range of responses. This encourages equality in treatment for all appraisees and imposes standard measures of performance across all parts of the organization.

Rating scale methods are easy to use and understand. The concept of the rating scale makes obvious sense; both appraisers and appraisees have an intuitive appreciation for the simple and efficient logic of the bipolar scale. The result is widespread acceptance and popularity for this approach.

 Disadvantages

Trait Relevance Are the selected rating-scale traits clearly relevant to the jobs of all the appraisees? It is

28

inevitable that with a standardised and fixed system of appraisal that certain traits will have a greater relevance in some jobs than in others.

For example, the trait "initiative" might not be very important in a job that is tightly defined and rigidly structured. In such cases, a low appraisal rating for initiative may not mean that an employee lacks initiative. Rather, it may reflect that fact that an employee has few opportunities to use and display that particular trait. The relevance of rating scales is therefore said to be context-sensitive. Job and workplace circumstances must be taken into account.

Systemic DisadvantageRating scales, and the traits they purport to measure, generally attempt to encapsulate all the relevant indicators of employee performance. There is an assumption that all the true and best indicators of performance are included, and all false and irrelevant indicators are excluded.

This is an assumption very difficult to prove in practice. It is possible that an employee's performance may depend on factors that have not been included in the selected traits. Such employees may end up with ratings that do not truly or fairly reflect their effort or value to the organization. Employees in this class are systemically disadvantaged by the rating scale method.

Perceptual Errors This includes various well-known problems of selective perception (such as the horns and halos effect) as well as problems of perceived meaning.

Selective perception is the human tendency to make private and highly subjective assessments of what a person is "really like", and then seek evidence to support that view (while ignoring or downplaying evidence that might contradict it).

This is a common and normal psychological phenomenon. All human beings are affected by it. In other words, we see in others what we want to see in them.

An example is the supervisor who believes that an employee is inherently good (halo effect) and so ignores evidence that might suggest otherwise. Instead of correcting the slackening employee, the supervisor covers for them and may even offer excuses for their declining performance.

On the other hand, a supervisor may have formed the impression that an employee is bad (horns effect). The supervisor becomes unreasonably harsh in their assessment of the employee, and always ready to criticize and undermine them.

The horns and halo effect is rarely seen in its extreme and obvious forms. But in its more subtle manifestations, it can be a significant threat to the effectiveness and credibility of performance appraisal.

28

Perceived Meaning Problems of perceived meaning occur when appraisers do not share the same opinion about the meaning of the selected traits and the language used on the rating scales.

For example, to one appraiser, an employee may demonstrate the trait of initiative by reporting work problems to a supervisor. To another appraiser, this might suggest an excessive dependence on supervisory assistance - and thus a lack of initiative.

As well, the language and terms used to construct a scale - such as "Performance exceeds expectations" or "Below average skill" - may mean different things to different appraisers.

Rating Errors The problem here is not so much errors in perception as errors in appraiser judgement and motive. Unlike perceptual errors, these errors may be (at times) deliberate.

The most common rating error is central tendency. Busy appraisers, or those wary of confrontations and repercussions, may be tempted to dole out too many passive, middle-of-the-road ratings (e.g., "satisfactory" or "adequate"), regardless of the actual performance of a subordinate. Thus the spread of ratings tends to clump excessively around the middle of the scale.

This problem is worsened in organizations where the appraisal process does not enjoy strong management support, or where the appraisers do not feel confident with the task of appraisal.

28

Graphic rating scales

1. Definition of the rating scales

• The Rating Scale is a form on which the manager simply checks off the employee’s level of performance.• This is the oldest and most widely method used for performance appraisal.• The scales may specify five points, so a factor such as job knowledge might be rated 1 (poorly informed about work duties) to 5 (has complete mastery of all phases of the job).

2. Content of appraisal

• Quantity of work. Volume of work under normal working conditions• Quality of work. Neatness, thoroughness and accuracy of work Knowledge of job.• Dependability. Conscientious, thorough, reliable, accurate, with respect to attendance, relief, lunch breaks, etc.• Judgment• attitude. Exhibits enthusiasm and cooperativeness on the job• Cooperation . Willingness and ability to work with others to produce desired goals.• Initiative.

3. Rating scales

Rating scales can include 5 elements as follows:• Unsatisfactory• Fair• Satisfactory• Good• Outstanding

28

4. Advantages of the rating scales

• Graphic rating scales are less time consuming to develop.• They also allow for quantitative comparison.

5. Disadvantages of the rating scales

• Different supervisors will use the same graphic scales in slightly different ways.• One way to get around the ambiguity inherent in graphic rating scales is to use behavior based scales, in which specific work related behaviors are assessed.• More validity comparing workers ratings from a single supervisor than comparing two workers who were rated by different supervisors.

Critical Incident Technique

The Critical Incident Technique (or CIT) is a set of procedures used for collecting direct observations of human behavior that have critical significance and meet methodically defined criteria. These observations are then kept track of as incidents, which are then used to solve practical problems and develop broad psychological principles. A critical incident can be described as one that makes a significant contribution—either positively or negatively—to an activity or phenomenon. Critical incidents can be gathered in various ways, but typically respondents are asked to tell a story about an experience they have had.

CIT is a flexible method that usually relies on five major areas. The first is determining and reviewing the incident, then fact-finding, which involves collecting the details of the incident from the participants. When all of the facts are collected, the next step is to identify the issues. Afterwards a decision can be made on how to resolve the issues based on various possible solutions. The final and most important aspect is the evaluation, which will determine if the solution that was selected will solve the root cause of the situation and will cause no further problems.

Advantages and disadvantages

By identifying possible problems associated with major user–system or product complications, CIT recommendations try to ensure that the same type of situations do not result in a similar loss. There are both advantages and disadvantages to using this method, as shown below. In all, however, CIT has been demonstrated to be a sound method since first presented in 1954. Relatively few modifications have been suggested

28

to the method in the more than 50 years since it was introduced, and only minor changes have been made to Flanagan's original approach. This indicates a certain robustness.

Advantages

Flexible method that can be used to improve multi-user systems. Data is collected from the respondent's perspective and in his or her own words.

Does not force the respondents into any given framework.

Identifies even rare events that might be missed by other methods which only focus on common and everyday events.

Useful when problems occur but the cause and severity are not known.

Inexpensive and provides rich information.

Emphasizes the features that will make a system particularly vulnerable and can bring major benefits (e.g. safety).

Can be applied using questionnaires or interviews.

Disadvantages

A first problem comes from the type of the reported incidents. The Critical Incident Technique will rely on events being remembered by users and will also require the accurate and truthful reporting of them. Since critical incidents often rely on memory, incidents may be imprecise or may even go unreported.

The method has a built-in bias towards incidents that happened recently, since these are easier to recall.

Respondents may not be accustomed to or willing to take the time to tell (or write) a complete story when describing a critical incident.

28

BALANCED SCORECARD

The balanced scorecard (BSC) is a strategic performance management tool - a semi-standard structured report supported by proven design methods and automation tools that can be used by managers to keep track of the execution of activities by staff within their control and monitor the consequences arising from these actions.[1] It is perhaps the best known of several such frameworks (for example, it is the most widely adopted performance management framework reported in the annual survey of management tools undertaken by Bain & Company, and has been widely adopted in English speaking western countries and Scandinavia in the early 1990s). Since 2000, use of Balanced Scorecard, its derivatives (e.g. performance prism), and other similar tools (e.g. Results Based Management) have become common in the Middle East, Asia and Spanish-speaking countries also

28

Characteristics

The core characteristic of the Balanced Scorecard and its derivatives is the presentation of a mixture of financial and non-financial measures each compared to a 'target' value within a single concise report. The report is not meant to be a replacement for traditional financial or operational reports but a succinct summary that captures the information most relevant to those reading it. It is the method by which this 'most relevant' information is determined (i.e. the design processes used to select the content) that most differentiates the various versions of the tool in circulation.

The first versions of Balanced Scorecard asserted that relevance should derive from the corporate strategy, and proposed design methods that focused on choosing measures and targets associated with the main activities required to implement the strategy. As the initial audience for this were the readers of the Harvard Business Review, the proposal was translated into a form that made sense to a typical reader of that journal - one relevant to a mid-sized US business.

28

Accordingly, initial designs were encouraged to measure three categories of non-financial measure in addition to financial outputs - those of "Customer," "Internal Business Processes" and "Learning and Growth." Clearly these categories were not so relevant to non-profits or units within complex organisations (which might have high degrees of internal specialisation), and much of the early literature on Balanced Scorecard focused on suggestions of alternative 'perspectives' that might have more relevance to these groups.

Modern Balanced Scorecard thinking has evolved considerably since the initial ideas proposed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the modern performance management tools including Balanced Scorecard are significantly improved - being more flexible (to suit a wider range of organisational types) and more effective (as design methods have evolved to make them easier to design, and use).

History

The first balanced scorecard was created by Art Schneiderman (an independent consultant on the management of processes) in 1987 at Analog Devices, a mid-sized semi-conductor company.[2] Art Schniederman participated in an unrelated research study in 1990 led by Dr. Robert S. Kaplan in conjunction with US management consultancy Nolan-Norton, and during this study described his work on Balanced Scorecard. Subsequently, Kaplan and David P. Norton included anonymous details of this use of balanced scorecard in their 1992 article on Balanced Scorecard.[3] Kaplan and Norton's article wasn't the only paper on the topic published in early 1992 But the 1992 Kaplan and Norton paper was a popular success, and was quickly followed by a second in 1993.[5] In 1996, they published the book The Balanced Scorecard.[6] These articles and the first book spread knowledge of the concept of Balanced Scorecard widely, but perhaps wrongly have led to Kaplan and Norton being seen as the creators of the Balanced Scorecard concept.

While the "balanced scorecard" concept and terminology was coined by Art Schneiderman, the roots of performance management as an activity run deep in management literature and practice. Management historians such as Alfred Chandler suggest the origins of performance management can be seen in the emergence of the complex organisation - most notably during the 19th Century in the USA.[7] More recent influences may include the pioneering work of General Electric on performance measurement reporting in the 1950s and the work of French process engineers (who created the tableau de bord – literally, a "dashboard" of performance measures) in the early part of the 20th century. The tool also draws strongly on the ideas of the 'resource based view of the firm'[8] proposed by Edith Penrose. However it should be noted that none of these influences is explicitly linked to original descriptions of Balanced Scorecard by Schneiderman, Maisel, or Kaplan & Norton.

28

Kaplan and Norton's first book, The Balanced Scorecard, remains their most popular. The book reflects the earliest incarnations of Balanced Scorecard - effectively restating the concept as described in the second Harvard Business Review article. Their second book, The Strategy Focused Organization, echoed work by others (particularly in Scandinavia) on the value of visually documenting the links between measures by proposing the "Strategic Linkage Model" or strategy map. Since then Balanced Scorecard books have become more common - in early 2010 Amazon was listing several hundred titles in English which had Balanced Scorecard in the title.

Popularity

In 1997, Kurtzman found that 64 percent of the companies questioned were measuring performance from a number of perspectives in a similar way to the Balanced Scorecard.

Balanced Scorecards have been implemented by government agencies, military units, business units and corporations as a whole, non-profit organisations, and schools.

Many examples of Balanced Scorecards can be found via Web searches. However, adapting one organisation's Balanced Scorecard to another is generally not advised by theorists, who believe that much of the benefit of the Balanced Scorecard comes from the design process itself. Indeed, it could be argued that many failures in the early days of Balanced Scorecard could be attributed to this problem, in that early Balanced Scorecards were often designed remotely by consultants. Managers did not trust, and so failed to engage with and use these measure suites created by people lacking knowledge of the organisation and management responsibility.

Variants, alternatives and criticisms

Since the Balanced Scorecard was popularized in the early 1990s, a large number of alternatives to the original 'four box' Balanced Scorecard promoted by Kaplan and Norton in their various articles and books have emerged. Most have very limited application, and are typically proposed either by academics as vehicles for promoting other agendas (such as green issues), or consultants as an attempt at differentiation to promote sales of books and / or consultancy.

28

Many of the variations proposed are broadly similar, and a research paper published in 2002[12] attempted to identify a pattern in these variations - noting three distinct types of variation. The variations appeared to be part of an evolution of the Balanced Scorecard concept, and so the paper refers to these distinct types as "Generations". Broadly, the original 'measures in boxes' type design (as proposed by Kaplan & Norton) constitutes the 1st Generation Balanced Scorecard design; Balanced Scorecard designs that include a 'strategy map' or 'strategic linkage model' (e.g. the Performance Prism, later Kaplan & Norton designs, the Performance Driver model of Olve & Wette) constitute the 2nd Generation of Balanced Scorecard design; and designs that augment the strategy map / strategic linkage model with a separate document describing the long-term outcomes sought from the strategy (the "Destination Statement" idea) comprise the 3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard design. Examples of the 3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard design include the Third Generation Balanced Scorecard itself, and the performance management elements of the UN's Results Based Management model.

Criticism

The Balanced Scorecard has always attracted criticism from a variety of sources. Most has come from the academic community, who dislike the empirical nature of the framework: Kaplan and Norton notoriously failed to include any citation of prior art in their initial papers on the topic. Some of this criticism focuses on technical flaws in the methods and design of the original Balanced Scorecard proposed by Kaplan and Norton, and has over time driven the evolution of the device through its various Generations. Other academics have simply focused on the lack of citation support. But a general weakness of this type of criticism is that it typically uses the 1st Generation Balanced Scorecard as its object: many of the flaws identified are addressed in other works published since the original Kaplan & Norton works in the early 1990s.

Another criticism, usually from pundits and consultants, is that the balanced scorecard does not provide a bottom line score or a unified view with clear recommendations: it is simply a list of metrics. These critics usually include in their criticism suggestions about how the 'unanswered' question postulated could be answered. Typically however, the unanswered question relates to things outside the scope of Balanced Scorecard itself (such as developing strategies).

There are a few empirical studies linking the use of Balanced Scorecards to better decision making or improved financial performance of companies, but some work has been done in these areas. However broadcast surveys of usage have difficulties in this respect, due to the wide variations in definition of 'what a

28

Balanced Scorecard is' noted above (making it hard to work out in a survey if you are comparing like with like). Single organization case studies suffer from the 'lack of a control' issue common to any study of organizational change - you don't know what the organization would have achieved if the change had not been made, so it is difficult to attribute changes observed over time to a single intervention (such as introducing a Balanced Scorecard). However, such studies as have been done have typically found Balanced Scorecard to be useful.

The four perspectives

The 1st Generation design method proposed by Kaplan and Norton was based on the use of three non-financial topic areas as prompts to aid the identification of non-financial measures in addition to one looking at Financial. Four "perspectives" were proposed:[20]

Financial: encourages the identification of a few relevant high-level financial measures. In particular, designers were encouraged to choose measures that helped inform the answer to the question "How do we look to shareholders?"

Customer: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "How do customers see us?"

Internal Business Processes: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "What must we excel at?"

Learning and Growth: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "Can we continue to improve and create value?".

These 'prompt questions' illustrate that Kaplan and Norton were thinking about the needs of small to medium sized commercial organizations in the USA (the target demographic for the Harvard Business Review) when choosing these topic areas. They are not very helpful to other kinds of organizations, and much of what has been written on Balanced Scorecard since has, in one way or another, focused on the identification of alternative headings more suited to a broader range of organizations.

Measures

The Balanced Scorecard is ultimately about choosing measures and targets. The various design methods proposed are intended to help in the identification of these measures and targets, usually by a process of abstraction that narrows the search space for a measure (e.g. find a measure to inform about a particular 'objective' within the Customer perspective, rather than simply finding a measure for 'Customer'). Although lists of general and industry-specific measure definitions can be found in the case studies and methodological articles and books presented in

28

the references section. In general measure catalogues and suggestions from books are only helpful 'after the event' - in the same way that a Dictionary can help you confirm the spelling (and usage) of a word, but only once you have decided to use it proficiently.

360° Performance Evaluation

We have all seen cartoons depicting the owl that can turn his head 180 degrees to the left and 180 degrees to the right. But in reality, an owl can only turn his head 270 degrees — not in a full circle. Full circle or not, it's still a good range of vision.

I'm sure you're wondering what this has to do with your business. But consider this.

28

An owl lives in a very competitive environment. If he is to be successful in his world, he must constantly be looking for opportunities and threats. He must gather information from all directions to get a complete read on his environment and what he must to do to survive. In business terms, this translates to gathering input on our performance from all points to ensure we are doing the job we want to do.

The 360-degree evaluation is a common tool in human resource management. Simply put, it is a mechanism for evaluating someone's performance based on feedback from everyone with whom the individual comes in contact — supervisors, coworkers, partners, subordinates, the general public. It is a method of collecting input from many sources in an employee's environment.

This can be a powerful tool. Each of wants to know how we're doing in our work. This method of collecting evaluative input is an excellent source of motivation for employees because it provides a truly honest assessment of how the employee and her performance are viewed by a variety of constituents.

In the more traditional method of performance appraisal, supervisors meet with employees one-to-one to discuss performance. By contrast, the 360-degree method uses confidential input from many people who can truly respond to how an employee performs on the job. The supervisor and employee meet to discuss the feedback received.

This type of feedback helps employees see themselves as others see them and allows them to seriously examine their behavior. It can reveal areas in which employees are performing particularly well and those areas in which there is room for improvement. It provides information of which neither the employee nor the supervisor may be aware. Specific input allows employees to adjust their performance.

The most challenging aspect of the 360-degree evaluation is the evaluators' concern about confidentiality. When implementing this type of evaluation, it's best to assure other employees that what they share will remain strictly confidential. Likewise, explain to each employee that he will be evaluated by many people, including those who know his work best.

Typically, employees will find this methodology to be more fair. When they consider this process as opposed to being evaluated by an individual supervisor who has limited knowledge of what they do, they will begin to see the value in this type of

28

evaluation. They will conclude that the 360-degree feedback is more accurate and equitable than other traditional approaches and puts all employees on a level playing field.

This review process is also helpful for the supervisor. It can provide a more accurate assessment of an employee's performance and help eliminate accusations of favoritism. The 360-degree process provides greater objectivity. And because the feedback is submitted anonymously, it provides a supervisor with the most unbiased and accurate information from which to draw performance conclusions.

Most people are not able to see clearly how their performance is either enhancing the work situation for others or detracting from it. This performance evaluation method can help reveal these areas and allow us to improve the way we do our job, thereby creating greater harmony and better productivity in the workplace. The 360-degree evaluation will help employees identify their strengths so they can build on them at the same time it addresses their skill gaps. It is a process that leads to continuous learning, team building, growing self-confidence and improved productivity.

Sounds like a winning system, right? It can be, but your organization must be ready to accept the change from the traditional method of employee evaluation. Your formal and informal leaders must buy in to this idea and see the value of its adoption. Some questions you should ask yourself include the following:

Is your organization committed to continuous learning? Does your organization see the value of developing leaders in-house?

Are you willing to make the changes necessary to do this?

What is the level of trust in your organization? Will your culture support honest feedback?

Is upper level management willing to lead the way and volunteer for 360-degree evaluation?

If you cannot answer "yes" to these and similar questions, then your organization may not be ready for 360-degree evaluations. While this can be a powerful and positive tool when tied to strategic goals and individual development, you might

28

consider doing more research on the subject before implementation.

Further support is available from your local Small Business & Technology Development Center to help you with human resource and other business management issues.

MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES,

The concept of ‘Management by Objectives’ (MBO) was first given by Peter Drucker in 1954. It can be defined as a process whereby the employees and the superiors come together to identify common goals, the employees set their

28

goals to be achieved, the standards to be taken as the criteria for measurement of their performance and contribution and deciding the course of action to be followed.

The essence of MBO is participative goal setting, choosing course of actions and decision making. An important part of the MBO is the measurement and the comparison of the employee’s actual performance with the standards set. Ideally

when employees themselves have been involved with the goal setting and the choosing the course of action to

be followed by them, they are more likely to fulfill their responsibilities.

28

THE MBO PROCESS

UNIQUE FEATURES AND ADVANTAGES OF MBO

The principle behind Management by Objectives (MBO) is to create empowered employees who have clarity of the roles and responsibilities expected from them, understand their objectives to be achieved and thus help in the achievement of organizational as well as personal goals.

Some of the important features and advantages of MBO are:

Clarity of goals – With MBO, came the concept of SMART goals i.e. goals that are:

28

SpecificMeasurableAchievableRealistic, andTime bound.

The goals thus set are clear, motivating and there is a linkage between organizational goals and performance targets of the employees.

The focus is on future rather than on past. Goals and standards are set for the performance for the future with periodic reviews and feedback.

Motivation – Involving employees in the whole process of goal setting and increasing employee empowerment increases employee job satisfaction and commitment.

Better communication and Coordination – Frequent reviews and interactions between superiors and subordinates helps to maintain harmonious relationships within the enterprise and also solve many problems faced during the period.

Once a Year Overview

Self Appraisal

Performance Review - Preparation

Performance Review - The Meeting

How to Complete a Performance Appraisal Form

Analysis for Improving Performance

Active performance appraisal conversation

Performance appraisal feedback

Performance Consulting: Moving Beyond Training

Writing performance appraisal

Performance Appraisal Training

How to Measure Employee Performance

FAQ about Performance Appraisal

28

INDIAN OIL PERFORMANCE PERIOD

Performance period

PMS follows an April-March annual cycle aligned to the financial year. The cycle

consists of three phases, namely, Performance Planning, Mid-Year Review, and

Final Performance Review. The critical calendar months and the sequence of

events for these phases are represented in the following figure:

28

Cascading process

Performance planning is undertaken from April to June. Once the MOU between

the Organization and MOP&NG is finalised, these targets are cascaded to the

divisions. The division heads then cascade them down to their subordinates. This

process is followed at all levels at which this is possible. At each stage of cascade,

some other targets which may not necessarily be cascaded down, may also be

added- these would be specific to specific roles, and may be in respect of ongoing

projects and carried forward from the previous year. This stage involves discussion

between Appraisers and Appraisee’s to set and agree on the contents of the

28

Appraisee’s performance plan parameters for the coming year. Once approval is

obtained from the Reviewer, the performance plan is considered final.

Unique Roles

In order to standardize the performance planning process and measurement of

performance across divisions/ functions/ units, each officer in the organization has

been mapped to a Unique Role (UR). This also ensures strong alignment between

performance plans and organizational business requirements. These unique role

profiles were created by role holders across divisions and locations, and then

validated by respective functional experts.

Definition of Performance

Definition of Performance in PMS is based upon Key Result Areas (KRAs),

Competencies, Values and Potential. The achievement against each of these will

together constitute the Appraisee’s performance.

KRAs are identified areas of performance that support the organization's

goal that are to be accomplished during the year. Each KRA is accompanied

by one or more KPIs. Some of the KRAs from each unique role are marked

mandatory based on organizational alignment to ensure consistency in

assessment of Appraisee’s performance

Competencies are knowledge, skills and abilities described in behavioural

terms that are coachable, observable, measurable, and critical to successful

performance.

Values are statements that express Indian Oil’s ethical commitments and

guiding principles which are timeless and will stand the test of time, market

28

forces and management practices, an on upholding of which individual’s are

assessed.

Potential includes the critical attributes which do not get covered in

competencies and reflect an individual’s capacity to shoulder higher

responsibility.

PMS allows the Appraisee to define his/her performance measures using the three

categories of KRAs defined in the following section.

Additionally, to be able to focus and prioritize on the basis of importance, each KPI

also has a weightage. This would be assigned by Appraisee and Approved by the

Appraiser

using the e-PMS.

KRA:

Definition - Key Result Areas (KRAs) are “Critical outcomes towards which effort is

directed to support achievement of desired business results”. Each KRA in a role

profile would fall in one of the following buckets

(a) Operational/ Direct or Critical Outputs: KRAs pertaining to functional /

28

operational activities (in terms of efficiency) as performed in the organization.

(b) Financial: KRAs pertaining to direct impact on top line (revenue) or bottom

line(cost) at a decision making level.

(c) Strategy and Growth/ Forward Planning: KRAs pertaining to strategic

direction setting or establishing differentiation with respect to manufacturing, selling

&marketing, product & process development and delivery.

(d) People/Team Management: KRAs pertaining to people development, training,

performance management and employee satisfaction activities for all Appraisers

with direct reports.

(e) Boundary Management/ Coordination and Liaison: KRAs pertaining to

liaising/ coordinating with Governmental (local, state, central), Administrative,

Regulatory, Statutory bodies and vendors / customers (external & internal).

Select KRAs

Broadly, three categories of KRAs can be selected/ created. Mandatory KRAs

would be pre-selected and the Appraisee has to assign targets on them.

28

Defining KPIs for KRAs

Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are specific indicators of performance to

measure extent of achievement on set KRAs within a given time frame. Each KRA

corresponds to specific KPIs defined to quantify or verify the extent of performance

achievement in a given performance time frame. For each KRA selected the

Appraisee should select at least one KPI. In case of SpecialKRAs, s/he would

define a KPI.

Once the Appraisee has finalized the list of KRAs and corresponding KPIs, s/he will

propose weightages and 5 levels of targets for each KPI.The Appraiser will use the

stretch tool to determine the stretch involved in the targets at level 3. Performance

plan submission will be possible for Appraiser and reviewer only after 90% of the

plans are submitted. The appraiser would be provided with dynamic display of

28

Weighted Average Stretch for the Plan and Grade-wise Weighted Average

Stretch for Reporting Group; Plan Weighted Average would be Sum of Product of

Individual KPI Weight and stretch Assigned to the KPI. Weighted Average Stretch

for plans under an Appraiser / Reviewer group will be limited at 0.90 through

system intervention.

If the Appraiser is not in agreement with the choice of KRA/KPI or the weights and

assigned by Appraisee, the Appraiser can send the plan back and it is suggested

that the Appraiser and the Appraisee should attempt to achieve a consensus

through a

process of discussion. In most cases, the Appraiser is expected to arrive at an

outcome that satisfies both the Appraisee and the Appraiser.

Note: The Appraiser will finally view and accept/ discuss/ ‘refer to Reviewer’ the

performance plan. In case the Appraiser feels the need, he/she can approach the

Reviewer for appropriate

inputs. The Reviewer and Appraiser would arrive at a solution through a process of

discussion that would align the points of view of the Appraiser and Appraisee. The

Appraiser would discuss the same with the Appraisee to close the issue.

In the unlikely event of the need for further escalation, the issue can be taken to the

Reviewer on a case to case basis. The Reviewer would have a joint discussion with

the Appraisee and the Appraiser where the decision taken by the Reviewer

would be final. It is mandatory for the Reviewer to view and approve all plans,

28

before the performance planning

phase is closed.

Competencies

Definition – Behavioral Competencies are defined as “Skills and abilities described

in behavioral terms that are coachable, observable, measurable, and critical to

organizational performance. Competencies form the foundation of “what”

capabilities are required for the successful execution of roles and responsibilities,

thereby driving functional, unit and organization performance”

The list of generic/ behavioural and leadership competencies are appended to this

document. Functional competencies include technical skills and know-how required

to

discharge duties. The list and detailed models for functional as well as generic

competencies are available on the IndianOil Intranet.

Based on the varying demands of each role, competencies and their manifestation

degrees vary. Therefore, for each role, applicable competencies from this list & the

desired proficiency level for these have been identified and included in each UR.

Although the Appraisee does not have the option to select competencies defined

for his role, s/he may view the competencies and proficiency levels which are

applicable to his role and he is expected to demonstrate on the job.

Values

Following are the core values which have been defined by the organization as

28

essential

to display for all the grades.

• Care

• Innovation

• Passion

• Trust

The detailed set of values is available on the IndianOil Intranet

Feedback and Counselling

The process of continuous Feedback and Counseling is an inherent and critical

part of PMS. The mid-year and final reviews are specifically focused on Feedback

and Counseling and hence require the Appraisee and the Appraiser to have a

formal feedback

For Feedback and Counselling to be truly effective, it should be provided and

received on an on-going basis. When used effectively, Feedback & Counselling are

powerful means of positively impacting performance. Feedback and Counselling

helps an Appraiser in both obtaining information and providing inputs on how an

Appraise is performing and whether or not he / she is headed in the right direction.

It is also an opportunity for the Appraisee to solicit resources and help that may be

required for enhancing his/ her own performance.Most people are comfortable in

providing positive feedback.

However, they are hesitant to initiate a conversation that involves sharing of

28

negative or unpleasant performance relatedinformation. Such hesitation can be

overcome by considering the importance of

their feedback in correcting the performance level of the Appraisee, and the

consequent benefit to the Appraisee’s career.

Feedback is of various types:

• Positive feedback

• Corrective feedback

• Feedback focused on identifying obstacles to performance

REFRENCES

28

1. INDIAN OIL EPMS MANUAL.2. WWW.IOL.COM

3. WIKIPEDIA.COM

4. GOOGLE BOOKS.COM

5. ARCHER NORTH.COM

6. PAPER 4 YOU.COM

7. MISSOURI BUSINESS.NET

8. APPRAISALS.NAUKRIHUB.COM