Performance Management at IRD Corporation (B)

Abstract

The Performance Management at IRD Corporation case series is designed to be an in-depth study of performance appraisal in the R&D context. The case series can be used as a platform for discussing the rationale for the performance appraisal system, system design and implementation, the differences between R&D and other work contexts (manufacturing, services, etc.), and the challenges involved in R&D management.

This case was prepared for inclusion in Sage Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom discussion or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles. Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educational, or personal use only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or used for other commercial purposes.

2024 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

You are not authorized to view Teaching Notes. Please contact your librarian for instructor access or sign in to your existing instructor profile.

Resources

Exhibit 1: Stages in Performance Mapping of Scientists

Figure

Goals of the appraisal process:

  • Facilitate communication of all aspects of performance between the scientist and the collegium/empowered committee
  • Identify areas of improvement and learning that will help the scientist become more successful in the future, allowing him/her to make further contributions to IRD Corp
  • Identify individual development needs, desires and plans
  • Establish a permanent record of the employee's work history, which is as straightforward and objective as possible
  • Serve as basis for assessment for promotion and
  • Incorporate goals for meeting the scientists' career development plan.

Performance measurement will use the following indicators/parameters of performance, as well as assessments of those indicators.

  • Quantity: The number of units earned is a good objective indicator of performance. One needs to be careful of placing too much emphasis on quantity, lest quality suffer.
  • Quality: Several means can be used to measure the quality of work. The percentage of work output that must be redone or is rejected is one such indicator. In a research or support environment, the percentage of studies/services converted to effective output and outcomes is an indicator of a scientist's quality, capacity, competence, and ability.
  • Timeliness: How fast work is performed is another performance indicator that should be used with caution. In the field of research, this has to be weighed against the laboratory's average and overall performance.
  • Cost-Effectiveness: The cost of work performed should be used as a measure of performance only if the employee has some degree of control over costs.
  • Absenteeism/Tardiness: An employee is obviously not performing when he or she is not at work. Other employees' performance may be adversely impacted by absences too, as most of the measures of success of projects in IRD Corp are a team effort.
  • Creativity: It is difficult to quantify creativity as a performance indicator, but in R&D tasks, it is vitally important. Scientists and team leaders/project leaders/Division Heads should keep track of examples of creative work and attempt to quantify them.
  • Adherence to Policy/Vision/Mission: This may seem to be the opposite of creativity, but it is merely a boundary on creativity. Deviations from policy/vision/missions indicate an employee whose performance goals are not well aligned with that of the laboratory.
  • Personal Habits: They may not seem performance-related to the employee, but some personal habits, like gossip, can detract from task/work performance and interfere with the performance of other team members. The specific behaviors should be defined, and goals should be set for reducing their frequency.
  • Work Ethics: Most people know how to conduct themselves at work by adhering to the company's work ethics. However, there is a possibility that this needs to be told. Examples of inappropriate appearance and conduct should be spelled out, their effects upon the employee's performance and that of others explained, and corrective actions defined.

Source: IRD Corp internal documents

The revised appraisal system had three stages of evaluation which are as follows:

1.1 Stage I: Self-Appraisal

The purpose of the self-appraisal was to seek relevant information in a manner that would clearly bring out the contributions/achievements, etc. of the scientist for objective evaluation by the collegium.

A questionnaire had been designed for this purpose. The scientists were required to provide detailed information wherever required along with other basic details based on the Work Report format (Exhibit 2). It was not necessary that all sections of the questionnaire should be filled in but those relevant to the concerned scientist were to be filled in. After completion, the entire set was to be forwarded to the Chairman of the collegium.

1.2 Stage II: Collegium

After submission of the self-appraisal report by the scientist, the Committee recommended a two-level evaluation process to be followed. The first level of evaluation was by a collegium to be duly constituted by the Chairman of IRD Corp for different grades/levels of scientists and the second level of evaluation was through an empowered committee that also included the Head (Director) of the laboratory.

The following was the proposed composition of the collegiums for evaluation of scientists in their respective grades to be constituted by the Director of the laboratory.

Constitution of Collegium:

Collegium No

Scientist Grade

Composition of Collegium

Group/grade

Nos.

I

Scientist Groups I and II

Scientist III

1

Scientist IV/V

1

Scientist from the empowered committee

1

II

Scientist Group III

Scientist IV/V

1

Scientist VI

1

Scientist from the empowered committee

1

III

Scientist Group IV

Scientist V/VI

2

Scientist from the empowered committee

1

IV

Scientist Group V

Scientist VI

2

Scientist from the empowered committee

1

The collegium will segregate the self-appraisal forms received as per the major knowledge portfolio defined by the scientist. The evaluation of the scientist will be based on the knowledge portfolio defined therein. The composition of the collegium was only indicative and the actual number of members under each collegium and the number of collegiums can be decided based on the size and composition of scientists in the laboratory/division. For a large size lab, the Director may have collegiums for every division. However, a lab can have up to a maximum of SIX divisions only. A scientist nominated from the empowered committee will act as the Chairman. However, the total number of members in the collegium including the Chairman should be odd.

1.2.1 Computation of the Resultant Score of the Scientist:

The collegium will evaluate the response of the concerned scientist to the Questionnaire (Part I or Parts I & II as the case may be) and assign a score after careful study. Depending on the performance of the individual, the score assigned to the candidate by the collegium will be in the band of 0.7 to 1.0 (both included and exceptions in cases as applicable/explained later).

A+: 1.0, A: 0.9, A-: 0.8 and B: 0.7

Also, it was recommended that the score assigned should relate to the overall performance of the laboratory. A laboratory may choose through the empowered committee a robust and reasonable method to determine a performance average lab score that is normalized to a score of 1.0. The proposed grading from A to B can correspond to this.

Sr. No.

Possible Resultant Individual Scores

Equivalent %

Grade

1

1.1

Exceptional

Exceptional

2

1.0

91–100

Outstanding

3

0.9

85–90

Excellent

4

0.8

70–84

Very good

5

0.7

60–69

Good

6

Below 0.7

Below 60

Satisfactory

Individuals within the laboratory with exceptional performance or “outlier” could be given an individual score of 1.1. It may be noted that “outlier” or “exceptional” forms part of the “outstanding” but is known as the “exceptional among outstanding”. At the same time if the performance of the candidate was far below the par and far away from the lab average, he may be graded below 0.7 stating clearly the reason that would be communicated to the candidate.

A general explanation of the grades but not necessarily exact is given below:

Exceptional:

Exceptional means the performance is exemplary and falls into the top 1% of the scientists. Besides his performance in all round sectors/goods (public, private, societal, strategic, etc.), the scientist should have also received recognition in the form of prestigious awards such as the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar, fellowship of the Academy, etc. As recognition of the splendid performance, the scientist can be considered for immediate assessment to the next higher scientific grade.

Outstanding (91 and above):

Outstanding means significantly exceeds IRD's expectations. As a motivating factor and a strong support to pursue the outstanding work, the candidate receiving the “Outstanding” grade will be a potential candidate for assessment ahead of the normal residency period* in his present scientist grade if the same consistency is maintained.

Excellent (85–90):

Excellent means significantly exceeds expectations of the laboratory. This is for those whose performance during the review period is found to be above the average performance of the laboratory.

Very good (70–84):

Very good means that the candidate just meets expectations of the laboratory; however there is scope for making significant contributions that would exceed the expectations.

Good (60–69):

Means the candidate just falls short of expectations of the Laboratory and in achieving IRD's superior standards.

Satisfactory (50–59):

Needs to demonstrate additional effort and or undertake further skill development. Identify an area that would benefit from additional attention and resources and requires specific recommendations for areas of development.

* The normal residency period and all related qualifying criteria including earlier/delayed assessment for a scientist in his corresponding grade is governed by the policy adopted by RAB. Therefore, no effort is made to detail the concerned criteria and other related matter as it is outside the scope of this committee.

The collegium will also evaluate the following behavioural aspects to assess the employee. Please note that this is only a qualitative evaluation and therefore no marks are to be awarded.

A. PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES

1. Personality

2. Maturity and logical thinking

3. Level of self-confidence

4. Initiative and drive

5. Mental alertness

B. PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

1. Perception of organizational role

2. Competence to handle the job

3. Ability to communicate (both in speech and writing)

4. Dedication and commitment to the job

5. Comprehension and appreciation of new developments related to his job

C. MANAGERIAL CAPABILITIES

1. Ability to get along with colleagues

2. Willingness to accept responsibility

3. Decision-making ability

4. Crisis handling

5. Qualities of leadership

The collegium will state its comments on the overall qualities of the scientist including areas of strengths and if necessary areas needing improvement. Along with the evaluation of the scientist, the collegium will also submit its opinion on the integrity of the scientist. The evaluation report of the collegium is then submitted to the empowered committee which does the final evaluation.

1.3 Stage III: Empowered Committee

A duly constituted empowered committee will review the assessment of the collegium.

1.3.1 Constitution of the Empowered Committee

The Director of the laboratory or Chairman in the case of IRD Corp HQ will constitute the empowered committee. This committee will consist of 2/4/6 scientist V/VI (depending on the strength of the laboratory) and the Director of the laboratory or Chairman in case of HQ. However, it was to be seen that total number of members including Chairman in the committee should be odd.

The inputs of the collegium were carried forward to the empowered committee which will give a final evaluation and assign a suitable grade. This grade will then be communicated to the scientist. The empowered committee could revise the marks awarded by the collegium citing clear and unambiguous justification. It was recommended that any upgrade or downgrade of marks at this stage can be considered based on the following:

  • Basic character/nature of the laboratory
  • Average performance of the laboratory

Forms generated as a result of the evaluation by the concerned collegium and the empowered committee are communicated to the employee.

Confidentiality of the Appraisal:

The appraisal reports will not be confidential and the appraisal by collegium and the empowered committee will be disclosed to the scientists.

Source: IRD Corp internal documents

Exhibit 2: Work Report Format

(It is not expected that all sections/sub-sections of this document will be relevant to the concerned scientist and will be filled in. ONLY those sections/sub-sections that are closely relevant to the concerned scientist need to be responded to or filled in.)

Section I

Kindly ensure that there is no repetition while providing information.

  • Participation in the “R&D /R&D Managerial Activities” of the laboratory/institute:

S. No.

Title of Project

Project Category

Participating Agencies

Your Role as Defined

  • Participation in “major programmes” and/or “facility creation” identified at the National level:

S. No.

Title of the Project

Coordinating Agency

Contribution being made by you as representative of your organization

  • Acquisition, operation and maintenance of “major facilities” of the Laboratory/Institute:

S. No.

Title of the Facility

Your Role in Brief

Beneficiaries

  • Enlist notable contributions (up to ten, indicating status like individual achievement, output of a team work/collaborative work, etc.) (Not exceeding 150 words)
  • Highlight the significance/impact of your work on industry/ society/environment/nation as a whole

(Not more than 100 words)

Section II
  • Publications
  • Papers published in journals (during the year)
  • In peer-reviewed/SCI journal (Indicate the total impact factor and citations of your publications)
  • In non-peer-reviewed journal
  • Review papers (non SCI journal)

S. No.

Authors

Title of the Article

Year of Pubn.

Name of Journal

Country

Vol No, Issue, Pages

DOI

Note: Scientist is fully responsible for the accuracy of their references. All references must include

  • Author/editor last name plus initials (for six or fewer authors; if there are more than six authors, use “et al.” after the sixth) or authoring agency
  • Year of publication
  • Full title of article or chapter (lower case)
  • Title of journal (abbreviated according to standard engineering journal) or book/proceedings in title case
  • City/state/country of publication and name of publisher
  • Volume and inclusive page numbers
  • DOI number, if available
  • Papers published in Conference Proceedings

S. No.

Authors

Title of the Article

Date/Year

Name of Conference

Venue

Vol No, Pages

Publisher

  • Contribution to Books

(Indicate total number of chapters and pages)

S. No.

Editors

Title of the Chapter

Year of Pubn

Title of Book

Country

Edition No.

Publisher

  • Enlist institutional publications brought out (specify the nature like Technical brochures, Feasibility reports, Training manuals, Publicity brochures, Organizational plans, Annual reports, Performance reports, Protocols, Brochures, IPR documents, etc.)
  • Patents filed and granted during the assessment period (indicate separately total number of national and international patents filed and granted, also provide details as per format given below):

S. No.

Title

Country

Filed on (Date)

Granted on (Date)

Names of other inventors

  • Financial Contribution
  • ECF (External Cash Flow) during assessment period:

S. No.

Title of the Project

Project Type/Category

Amount Received with Your Initiative

Govt./Industry

Lab Reserve Generation

  • Technology/Process/Know-how transferred:

S. No.

Title

Period during which Developed

Date of Transfer

Organization/Industry

Total Fees Realized

Your Role

  • Testing, evaluation and calibration jobs undertaken and amount charged
  • No. of EIA jobs undertaken and amount charged
  • Software developed & delivered and amount charged
  • Others (specify, if any)
  • Technology/Process/Product development:

S. No.

Title

Year of Development

Your Contribution in the Development

In case your work such as ‘spin-offs’, etc., cannot be depicted in terms of the above parameters, you may like to quantify your contributions in your own way and while doing so you may refer to Section/Para No(s), in case such points are already reflected elsewhere in this report.

Section III

Kindly provide details on the following, whatever applicable, total information being within 300 words

  • Fieldwork undertaken
    • Field data collection (including oceanic data) indicating the number of days involved per year
    • Field implementation/technology diffusion
    • Technical guidance/counselling
  • ECF catalysed and budget handled (IRD& other agencies)
  • Participation and contributions made for strategic sector
  • Have you been able to create/add new clients to the organization?
  • Contribution to indigenous technology/component/product/device/engineering systems design & development
  • Activities leading to foreign exchange saving
  • S&T cooperation established with other countries including regional collaboration
  • Assistance provided for national/international institution building
  • National/international training programs organized
  • Your contribution towards upliftment of science & technology in the country
  • Any other point, not covered so far, to complete the spectrum of your achievements
Section IV

Kindly provide information on following lines, whatever applicable, within 300 words

  • Participation in policy formulation and/or decision-making
  • Formulating/amending existing rules/procedures for better effective functioning of the organization
  • Interacting within IRD, with other R&D organizations, govt. departments, industry and/or international agencies for project formulation or meeting effectively the objectives of identified programmes
  • Obtaining/processing for financial approval and associated management for implementing mega projects
  • Providing major service to your organization in its efficient functioning & image building
  • Membership in organizational/national/international committees
  • Important administrative responsibilities taken and success achieved
  • Major events organized as leader/coordinator
  • Major initiatives taken towards better positioning of your organization
  • Any other dimension of your contribution essentially depicting your leadership quality
Section V
Participation/Contribution to Teaching and Training
  • No. of Lectures delivered and details

S. No.

Subject/Course

Credits

No. of Students

No. of Lecture Hours

No. of Practical Sessions

  • Did you have a role in the design of curriculum of any subject? (Under 100 words)
  • What other contributions have you made to the teaching and training this year? (Under 150 words)
  • Did you prepare any lecture notes, tutorials, test/assignments, etc.? (Under 100 words)
  • Please explain any other responsibility you have been assigned/undertaken including teaching PG/PhD students in 150 words.
  • No. of MS (research), PhD students guided (indicate whether in-progress or completed/awarded)
  • Students guided for their project work/assignments for PG courses like MSc/ME/MTech/MBA/MCA, etc.
Section VI

Provide salient details including the name of the organization and the year of award, on the following

  • Fellowships of professional societies (restricted to all India levels elections only, besides international selections, if any)
  • Prestigious award/recognition received (restricted to national & international level recognitions only, kindly also indicate in monetary terms, wherever applicable)
  • Editorship in reputed journals
  • What do you consider to be your most important achievements for the past year?
Section VII

Provide details about support/training that you need for your work:

  • In light of your current capabilities, your performance against past objectives, and your future personal growth and/or job aspirations, what activities and tasks would you like to focus on during the next year? Again, also think of development and experience outside of job skills, related to personal aims, fulfillment, passions, etc.
  • What sort of training/experiences (both job-related and people-related skills) would you need to perform better in the next year?
  • Any other support that you may need.

Date (Signature of the Scientist)

NB: Correctness of the information provided as above, is crucial as the assessment is based fully on the Work Report forwarded to the collegium for the purpose.

Source: IRD Corp internal documents

Exhibit 3: Performance Related Incentive Scheme for IRD Corp Employees

IRD Corp, through a process of consultation with some of the Directors has evolved an incentive scheme for its employees who are in tune with the roles and goals of the organization. Rather than offer variable increment, IRD has evolved a set of objective norms and transparent methods for rewarding performance at both individual and team levels by recognising the performance through a set of objective criteria. Accordingly, the implementation of the scheme is proposed as follows:

  • Incentive for peak in science: (incentivising generation of high quality public goods*)

    For a research paper authored/co-authored by IRD scientist(s) and published by “Nature” or “Science”, the corresponding IRD author would be considered for immediate assessment for promotion.

  • Incentive for generation of high quality private goods:
    • Incentive for technology transfer: if in a financial year one or more technologies developed by a team are transferred to industry for a combined license fee equal to and or exceeding us $1 million (or equivalent rupees), then all the team members will receive the benefit of one year early promotion at the time of their next assessment whenever it is due.
    • If a company makes an investment of more than US $10 million (or equivalent in rupees) based on IRD technology, all the members of the technology development team belonging to Groups IV, III and II will receive the benefit of one year early promotion at the time of their next assessment whenever it is due.
  • Incentive for generating high quality strategic goods:

    If a technology contribution to the strategic sector is adjudged valuable by the RC of the laboratory and is also acknowledged by the strategic sector user/partner, then all the members of the technology development team will receive the benefit of one year early promotion at the time of their next assessment whenever it becomes due.

  • Incentive for generation of high quality social goods:

    If a technology development for the social sector touches upon and improves the life/well-being/livelihood of an estimated ten thousand families, then all the members of the technology development team will receive the benefit of one year early promotion at the time of their next assessment whenever it is due.

  • Incentivizing for recognition at the national and international levels:

    If a scientist receives a major national/international award, then he would be promoted to the next position with effect from the date of receipt of the award. The qualified award will be decided/approved by the Chairman of IRD Corporation.

*Broad definitions of public, private, social and strategic goods

i) Public

Basic research as reflected by publications, development of standards, databases, etc., and the policy support to government could be classified under public goods as they meet the criteria of non-rivalry and non-excludability.

ii) Private

Industrial training programmes, consultancy services, certification and testing services, and sponsored research are considered as private goods as beneficiary preferences are reflected in their willingness to pay for these services. Intellectual property, particularly patents, technologies, products, processes and copyrights are in the private domain, but public funds have been used both at their generation (project) stage and at the patenting stage.

iii) Social/Societal

The social/societal goods element is evident in activities, which generate livelihood opportunities to people located in far-off regions or to poor as in development of technologies, which use traditional knowledge, and use of local resources endowments. Examples include natural hazard/disaster mitigation, environmental benefits from development use of technologies such as for coal washing, mine safety, eco-friendly products and processes, pollution prevention and abatement.

iv) Strategic

Strategic goods are those that are visible in the activities directly related to achieving self-reliance and services that meet the national/indigenous needs including national security for which no solution is available and enables creating technological options and ‘resource centres’, ‘spin-offs’, etc.

Source: IRD Corp internal documents

This case was prepared for inclusion in Sage Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom discussion or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles. Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educational, or personal use only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or used for other commercial purposes.

2024 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles