Performance Management at IRD Corporation (A)

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 of 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: Organisational Structure of IRD

Figure

Notes:

Chairman, IRD: The IRD Chairman has the powers for administering, directing and controlling the affairs & funds of the organization subject to the limitation on expenditure as the Government of India may impose from time to time. Chairman is appointed by the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Advisory Board: This board helps the Chairman in developing strategic vision and direction for IRD. It administers the affairs of the organisation and helps in its funding. The board has only an advisory role.

Performance Appraisal Board: This board reviews and appraises the performance of the IRD laboratories from time to time and suggests remedial measures to improve the performance of the laboratories. In addition, it performs any other function as may be assigned by the Advisory Board. The board has only an advisory role.

Directors, IRD Laboratories: The directors are appointed by the Ministry of Science and Technology based on the recommendations of Chairman, IRD. The directors are responsible for the administration of the laboratories and for coordinating its activities. In general, each laboratory has a collection of scientific departments, a director's secretariat and administrative departments (e.g., HR, Finance & Control, Stores & Purchase, Workshop, Canteen, Rajbhasha Cell, etc.)

Research Council: Each laboratory also has a research council comprising of eminent scientists/technologists in India. The council is selected by the Director in consultation with the Chairman, IRD. The council advises the Director in research related activities (e.g., setting vision and mission, deciding research agenda) and also in recruitment, performance appraisals and promotion-related decisions of the scientists of the laboratory.

Management Council: Each laboratory has a management council comprising of its scientists working in the laboratory. The council is selected by the Director in consultation with the Chairman, IRD. The council helps the Director in management and administration of the laboratory.

Source: IRD Corp 2010 Annual Report

Exhibit 2: Vision and Mission of IRD

Vision:

To:

  • Pursue science that strives for the production of technology for the Indian industry, society and economy;
  • Be a model organisation for scientific and industrial research;
  • Provide competitive R&D and high quality science based technical services for the Indian industry; and
  • Be a source of the country's technological transformation.
Mission:

To enhance the economic, environmental, and societal development through cutting-edge industrial R&D and technology development.

Source: IRD Corp 2010 Annual Report

Exhibit 3: Business Express Article Data and IRD Publication Data

IRD Corp Patents Registered at USPTO

Source: Business Express, January 24, 2011

Figure

IRD Corp Journal Publications

Source: IRD Annual Reports

Figure

Exhibit 4: Excerpts from Interviews with Scientists

Young people do not prefer IRD. They feel there are better systems in IIT. I feel in IRD the promotion policies are very liberal. If you ask a young boy, he would prefer IIT any day over IRD. At IRD people get promoted without doing anything. And now there is also a clause in IRD's promotion policy that at the end of 8 years a person will automatically get promoted to the next level. I feel the senior leadership at IRD needs to think of this matter in greater detail.

Job tenure: 25 years; Area of research: Material science

There are paper publications and technology development. However, technology development is not given much/enough encouragement. There are no clear cut reviews. Scientists feel that they are not recognized if they do not have publications. They are happier in writing papers. This is essential for basic science labs but not so much for technology oriented labs. Therefore, it is seen that labs working in basic science research are doing well and better performing while the labs in technology development are not doing that well. I know I cannot develop a technology myself. I have a PhD in Chemistry. But I will be more than happy to contribute to technology development

Job tenure: 14 years; Area of research: Chemical science

We have three ways in which we can show our contribution. It can be technology development, patents and publications. Unfortunately, I don't think that technology development is given the required importance. Publication in high impact factor journals is given major emphasis. Technology used to be the focus of evaluations 5–10 years ago but not now. The latest guidelines have also sort of brought to focus the papers and publications. Technology development is a difficult process. It takes a lot of effort. It takes at least 10 years to come out with a useful product. The problem at IRD is that the technologies developed here don't really work at large scale. When it goes for large scale manufacturing, the technology often fails.

Job tenure: 7 years; Area of research: Material science

If there is teamwork then there can be notable successes. 99% of the projects start with the word “development”. But there is no track as to what happens to them. They show how they have come out with some papers, patents etc. and then they move on to other projects again starting with the word “development”. Nothing happens after development. There seem to be many problems in taking it further and so they stop. Sometimes, it so happens, that the scientist is in a hurry to show something for his work and so he sells the license to a small company. The company does some production, gets back the money back that had been invested and forgets about the technology. So, there is a loss of technology. There is also a loss of product for IRD. You cannot control the company as you have sold the license to the company.

Job tenure: 7 years; Area of research: Biological science

Research publications are the key aspect of evaluations. But more than papers, I think the technology developed for the betterment of society is more important. E.g. developing a filter to ensure safe and clean drinking water to villagers is important. Technology development requires time. The technology developed has to be patented. Then it is to be commercialized. Feasibility and financial aspects need to be considered. It needs team effort.

Job tenure: 2 years; Area of research: Chemical science

Then there is also problem about giving credit in publications. Usually, the implicit understanding is that a person's name is there only when there is a contribution made to the project. Everyone expects their names to be there in the paper. Even the technical staffs expect that. We keep it as we need to get work from them in future as well. But right credit must be given. I had a M. Tech. student who worked with me on a project. He did good work. I asked him to write a paper. He wrote and brought it to me. I put his name first and mine second. He was very happy and became more interested in work.

Job tenure: 4 years; Area of research: Engineering science

I think there is a problem in understanding what we really want to do. There was a proposal that was submitted to create a product that is cheaper. The seniors shot it down saying that “this is already done. You have to do a new thing.” They scold us saying that ‘why did you commit for a product’. Some groups are there where there are some problems. There are issues amongst people. But people hesitate in telling about it openly. They think that if they say anything then it will be against the system. Also, no one will take him in his/her group. Eventually, it leads to reduction of motivation.

Job tenure: 1 year; Area of research: Engineering science

Creativity is not appreciated at IRD. The mandate of IRD is technology development. Scientists are known only by paper publication. So the perception is both are important: papers and technology development. Making a technology is very difficult. It is essential to understand the techno-economic conditions and the efforts. Developing a technology that changes our lives is important. Labs are not capable of developing technology. We do not understand market.

Job tenure: 6 years; Area of research: Material Science

IRD has never had a very clear policy on technology development. There is no planning body that thinks holistically about technology development. Every lab has a director. You have 28 directors from around 15 disciplines. There is no unified mission and aim. There is no clear monitoring of progress of projects and there is a lack of professionalism here. Some people are even secretive about what they are doing. IRD's focus shifts with each Chairman.

In ISRO you have one project coordinator and 3 project coordinators who work under him. Then you have around 40 division heads who report to the 3 project coordinators. All these 40 heads meet once in a month to take stock of their activities. And they present to the project coordinator. Now, in these meetings all of these 40 people are speaking in 1 tune. But here in IRD, they don't meet very frequently and speak in different tunes. Everyone is driving their own agenda.

At these meetings in ISRO each and every person is asked why a particular thing has not happened. But in IRD once you get a project no one enquires about its progress. I feel the metric of our performance and output should measure ‘how far the product is useful for grassroots level?’

Job tenure: 15 years; Area of research: Chemical science

The technologies developed are very few and these are usable only at a very small level. At IRD a scientist's responsibility ends with publishing a paper. They don't even have data on those papers. Patents have become wastage of government money. We file them, maintain them but there is no one to buy them. How many US companies have taken our patents?

Job Tenure: 14 years; Area of research: Engineering science

For IRD, the ultimate aim is the development of technology. Papers are good for individual recognition and demonstrating the potential. By writing papers the ultimate objective of IRD is not fulfilled. We need to develop technology. Facility here is limited. For large scale productions, industry must come in. You can get a project from DST but the criterion is that you should have an established link with the company that is interested in your technology. I think it is therefore important to focus more on technology development.

Job Tenure: 14 years; Area of research: Material science

As far as I think, there is no conflict in paper and product. It doesn't conflict. You always have to publish to authenticate the data of experiments. Papers are not the final thing. They come out as a part of the project. Writing papers is important.

Job tenure: 6 years; Area of research: Biological science

Publication is one way. However, the contribution our research makes to the betterment of society should also be measured.

Job tenure: 7 years; Area of research: Biological science

Exhibit 5: Policy for Recruitment of Scientist at IRD Corporation

The grades/scales of pay for scientists may be determined by IRD from time to time. The grades and the qualification needed for recruitment are specified below:

S.No.

Group, Grade and Designation

Qualifications

Experience in Required Areas

Age Limit not Exceeding

1

Scientist Group I

1st class M.Sc./

B.E/B.Tech./MCA/MBBS or equivalent qualifications/M.Tech./ME/MVet.Sc/M.D./Ph.D

Nil

35 years

2

Scientist Group II

1st class M.Sc./B.E/B.Tech./CA/MBBS/

OR

M.Tech./ME/MVet.Sc/M.D.

OR

Ph.D.

OR

Ph.D. (Engg.)

3 years

2 years

1 year

Nil

35 years

3

Scientist Group III

1st class M.Sc./B.E/B.Tech./MCA/MBBS

OR

M.Tech./ME/MVet.Sc/M.D.

OR

Ph.D.

OR

Ph.D. (Engg.)

7 years

5 years

4 years

3 years

40 years

4

Scientist Group IV

1st class M.Sc./B.E/B.Tech./MBA*/M.Lib.Sci./MCA/MBBS or equivalent qualifications.

OR

M.Tech./ME/M.Vet.Sc/M.D. or recognised equivalent qualification

OR

Ph.D.

OR

Ph.D. (Engg.)

10 years

8 years

7 years

6 years

45 years

5

Scientist Group V

1st class M.Sc./B.E/B.Tech./ MCA/MBBS

OR

M.Tech./ME/MVet.Sc/M.D.

OR

Ph.D.

OR

Ph.D. (Engg.)

13 years

11 years

10 years

9 years

50 years

6

Scientist Group VI

1st class M.Sc./B.E/B.Tech./MCA/MBBS

OR

M.Tech./ME/MVet.Sc/M.D.

OR

Ph.D.

OR

Ph.D. (Engg.)

16 years

14 years

13 years

12 years

50 years

Source: IRD Corp internal documents

Exhibit 6: Performance Appraisal for Scientists

The performance appraisal system has three stages of evaluation which are as follows:

  • Stage I – Self-Appraisal by Scientist
  • Stage II –Appraisal by Reporting Officer
  • Stage III –Appraisal by Reviewing Officer
Self-Appraisal

The scientist appraises his or her own performance, in many cases comparing the self-appraisal to reporting officer's review. Often, self-appraisals can highlight discrepancies between what the employee and management think are important performance factors and provide mutual feedback for meaningful adjustment of expectations.

The employee gives both qualitative and quantitative description of the tasks assigned to him during the assessment year and the actual outcomes against each task. This report is then reviewed by the reporting officer who evaluates the employee based on the tangible and intangible deliverables of the employee.

Performance indicators must be assessed by some means in order to measure performance itself. Here are some of the ways in which performance is assessed from the aforementioned indicators.

Appraisal by Reporting Officer

A reporting officer appraises the employee's performance and delivers the appraisal to the employee through the Reviewing Officer/Head of the Institution. Appraisal by Reporting Officer is through critical examination and study of the work report submitted along with the self-appraisal form. The reporting officer will review the work report of the scientist and will assign marks on a scale of 1 to 100. The rough interpretation of the marks is as follows:

Sr. No.

Marks (%)

Grade

1

91–100

Excellent

2

85–90

Very good

3

80–84

Good

4

75–79

Fair

5

Below 75

Satisfactory

Appraisal by Reviewing Officer/Normalization Committee

The reviewing Officer and or the Normalization Committee objectively looks at the self-appraisal of the candidate, report provided by the corresponding Reporting Officer and the overall laboratory performance/average. Based on the inputs, a critical appraisal is made to agree or to upgrade or downgrade the marks awarded with recording of justification for such an action. Members of the Normalization Committee should be at least of the rank of Scientist Group VI.

Confidentiality of the Appraisal

The appraisal reports will be confidential and the appraisal by reporting officer and the reviewing officer/committee will not be disclosed to the scientists.

Exhibit 7: Work Report Format

The scientists are expected to provide detailed/additional relevant information at appropriate places which in their opinion truly reflects the measure of performance (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: Publications and Patents

1. Publications

1.1 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

1.2 Papers published in Conference Proceedings:

S. No.

Authors

Title of the Article

Date/Year

Name of Conference

Venue

Vol No, Pages

Publisher

1.3 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

1.4 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.)

2. 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

Section II: Contribution to S&T in India

Kindly provide details on the following, whatever applicable, totalling formation being within 300 words

  • Field work undertaken
    • Field data collection (including oceanic data) indicating the number of days involved per year
    • Field implementation / Technology diffusion
    • Technical guidance / Counselling
  • Participation and contributions made for strategic sector
  • National / International training programs organized
  • Your contribution towards upliftment of science & technology in the country
Section III: Awards and Achievements

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 level selections 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

Date (Signature of the Scientist)

Source: IRD Corp internal documents

Exhibit 8: Scientist Promotion Policy of IRD Corporation

Promotion up to the level of Scientist Group VI, i.e. of Scientist Group I, II, III, IV, and V shall be made on the basis of:

  • preliminary screening by an Internal Screening Committee formed as per the norms given below, which takes into account the Annual Confidential Reports recorded for the years covered under the residency period; and
  • interview by the Assessment Committee as specified hereafter.

The minimum residency period to be completed in a grade for consideration for assessment shall be as under:

Designation

Minimum of Residency Period Linked to Performance (years)

Scientist Group I

3

Scientist Group II

4

Scientist Group III

4

Scientist Group IV

5

Scientist Group V

5

All Scientists will be first screened for eligibility on the basis of grading in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and only those Scientists who satisfy the minimum residency period linked to their performance threshold scores as indicated in the Table below shall be considered for further assessment.

Number of Years in the Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Minimum ACR scores for eligibility

Group I to II

85

80

70

65

60

Group II to III

85

80

75

70

60

Group III to IV

85

80

75

70

60

Group IV to V

85

80

75

70

Group V to VI

..

..

85

80

75

70

Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, a relaxation of one year in the minimum residency period can be granted to a Scientist in Group II, III and IV provided that (s)he consistently secures 90 and above marks in the Annual Confidential Reports in three successive years in the grade. This provision shall be applicable maximum twice in the career of a Scientist.

Constitution of Screening and Assessment Committees
Screening Committees

In the case of scientists in Group I up to Scientist Group IV, the Director in the Laboratories shall constitute an Internal Screening Committee to review the Confidential Performance Appraisal Reports and other relevant records of all Scientists completing the prescribed residency period for shortlisting and recommending the candidates for Assessment interview by the Assessment Committee.

The Internal Screening Committee shall comprise of the following:

Director of the Lab or a Scientist/Technologist nominated by the Director

Chairperson

One Scientist from another IRD Labs

Member

Two Scientists from the Lab.

Member

The recommendations of the Screening Committee shall be approved by the Director of the Lab.

In case of Scientists belonging to Group V and above, Chairman (IRD) shall constitute discipline-wise Internal Screening Committees to review the Confidential Performance Appraisal Reports and other relevant records of all the scientists completing the prescribed residency period for shortlisting and recommending the candidates for Assessment interview by the Assessment Committee, as under:

An external Scientist/Technologist to be nominated by Chairman (IRD)

Chairperson

Two Scientists including Directors from IRD Labs Nominated by Chairman (IRD)

Member

The Director of the Lab

Member

The Director/Chairman (IRD) as the case may be shall forward the names of the candidates recommended by the Internal Screening Committee to the Assessment Committee. The description of assessment committees are given below:

Assessment Committees

Assessment Committee will assess the work of the candidates whose names have been forwarded by the Director/Chairman (IRD) for their promotion to the next higher grade.

Assessment Committee up to the level of Scientist Group IV shall be as under:

  • The Assessment Committee shall be chaired by the Chairperson of the Recruitment and Assessment Board. However, the Chairperson of the Board can nominate one of the persons from the panel of Co-Chairpersons prepared by the Chairperson of the Board and approved by the Chairman, IRD to act as Chairperson of the Assessment Committees in his place.

Recruitment and Assessment Board (RAB)

Recruitment and Assessment Board is headed by a Chairperson who is appointed by the Chairman, IRD. The chairperson shall prepare a panel of co-chairpersons which shall be approved by the Chairman, IRD. The validity of the panel shall be 5 years. However, any name can be deleted or added during the currency of the panel with the approval of Chairman, IRD. The Board shall be free to devise its own procedures in respect of recruitment and assessments to be conducted by it. The Board shall be provided adequate and appropriate office space, staff and fund by the IRD to carry out its functions effectively and efficiently.

  • Two Departmental Core Members – At an appropriate level to be nominated by the Chairman, IRD
  • Two External Experts – To be nominated by the Chairperson of the RAB from the panel approved by the Research Council of the Lab.
  • Director of the concerned IRD Lab or his nominee

The Assessment Committee for Scientist Group V and above shall be constituted discipline-wise as under:

  • The Assessment Committee shall be chaired by the Chairperson of the Recruitment and Assessment Board. Only in exceptional cases when he is not able to attend, he can nominate one of the persons from the panel of Co-Chairpersons prepared by the Chairperson and approved by the Chairman, IRD to act as Chairperson of the Assessment Committees in his place.
  • Chairman, IRD or his nominee – Member
  • Two eminent External Experts to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Board from the panel of the specialists approved by the RC of the Labs – Member
  • A representative from the Govt./industry/NGO/consultancy/financial organization nominated by the Chairperson of the Recruitment and Assessment Board – Member
  • Director of the concerned IRD lab – Member

The Assessment Committee shall submit its recommendations as ‘Fit for Promotion’ or ‘Not yet Fit for Promotion’.

Scientists recommended by the Committee as ‘Fit for Promotion’ shall be so promoted from the due date of eligibility for assessment. Scientists who are found ‘Not fit for Promotion’ will be considered after a gap of one year if they are again recommended by the Internal Screening Committee.

The pay fixation on promotion shall be as per normal pay fixation rules issued by the Government of India from time to time.

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