NTPC LIMITED

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

by: Mohd Danish EEE 4th year

Objectives of NTPCs PMS P A C E Performance And Competence for Excellence

To accomplish overall organisational vision and mission by linking individual performance to company objectives To facilitate fulfilment of individual aspirations To build a culture of performance To encourage two-way communication between appraiser and appraisee To evaluate the potential of the appraisee to assume higher responsibilities in the organisational hierarchy To translate future skill requirements of the organisation into individual development plans To identify high performers and recognise them through rewards and incentives

Strategy Plans & Memorandum of Understanding

Linking Strategy With Performance Management

Development of Strategic Goals At the Top Leadership Level

Cascading Down of Goals at the Executive Director and General Manager/BUHs Level

Cascading Down of Goals at the Head of Department Level and other levels below

PACE is a five step process

Identify KPAs, constituents, weightages, measures and targets Identify functional and managerial competencies for the appraisee
Step 1 Step 2

Performance Planning

Mid-year Review

Joint review of performance Document changes in KPAs if any Document mid-year review discussions

PMS Process

Communicatio n of score Developmenta l feedback

Feedback
Step 5

Annual Assessment

Step 3

Normalisation Process
Step 4

Assessment of KPAs, Competencies, Values and Potential by appraiser Training and Development Plans Review by reviewing officer

PACE Cycle (Important Dates)

Stages of PACE Performance Planning Mid Year Review Annual Assessment Normalization Communication of scores E1 to E5 1st to 25th January 1st to 15th July 15th Dec to 7th Jan 15th to 31st January 7th February E6 & above 1st to 25th April 1st to 15th October 1st to 25th April 1st to 25th May 31st May

Step #1: Performance Planning

KPA Setting Process
Corporate Plan MOUs

Process Steps
Set KPAs KPA setting for all appraisees in consultation with the reporting officer (appraiser) KPAs to be set by referring to the KPA Directory and taking inputs from the MoU targets, functional plans, individual responsibilities and cascading of KPAs from the top The KPAs, once finalised, to be signed off by the appraiser and the appraisee Identify Competencies Functional competencies for the appraisee to be identified and written in the PMS form by referring to the Competency Directory Managerial competencies to be identified from the prescribed set on the PMS form

Company Goals
Initiatives

Unit Goals

Special Tasks

Functional / Departmental Goals Individual Goals

Why is it critical?
Parameters for performance measurement are predefined Objectives are prioritized Individual performance is enhanced by clear definition of deliverables Role of individuals is clarified within overall organizational context

Step #2: Mid-year Review

Why is it critical? Performance management is not an event but an ongoing process Helps in objective annual evaluation Provides early warnings of nonperformance; avoids year end surprises Opportunity to revisit KPAs, change weightages or measures Reinforces good performance in time Provides an opportunity for appraisee to express his thoughts on progress made and roadblocks encountered Process Steps Appraiser and appraisee to discuss changes in KPAs, if necessary All KPAs to be re-filled in the form if any changes are made in either the KPAs, weightages or targets Justification for change to be documented Self appraisal to be completed Appraiser to document mid year discussion

Guidelines for changing KPAs in the mid year Change in roles and responsibilities of appraisee (transfer, additional role etc.) Changes in organisational goals Unanticipated projects Abandonment of project as per corporate directive Situations beyond control of the appraisee such as accident or emergency situations

Step #3: Annual Assessment

Why is it critical? Formal process to ensure performance is assessed annually Opportunity for reviewing officer to offset rating biases Provides inputs for other HR systems: Rewards and Incentives Career Development Training and Development Process Steps for Appraiser and Appraisee Evaluate performance against KPAs by comparing actual performance to targets set Evaluate Functional/technical competencies (chosen at the beginning of the year) Managerial competencies (3 mandatory and 3 optional) Values & Potential Complete section on Special Achievements Transfer scores from all sections to the section on Total Marks for consolidation Complete Individual Training and Development Plan Process Steps for Revng Officer

Review the marks given for each section by the appraiser check for overrating or underrating Hold discussion with appraiser in case changes in scores are required Rationale for changes in scores must be documented on PMS form Reviewing officer and appraiser sign-off on the PMS form

PMS calendar for E1 to E5

Process
Performance Planning

Activity
Issue of PMS Forms Performance Planning Submission to HR

Target Dates
Ist Dec. 15th Dec. 1st Jan. - 25th Jan 30th Jan. 20th June- 30th June 1st 15th July 21st July Ist Dec. 15th Dec. 15th Dec. 7th Jan. 12th Jan. 15th Jan- 31st Jan. 15th Feb.

Responsibility
HR Department Executive Reporting officer Reporting officer HR Department Executive Reporting officer Reporting officer HR Department Executive Reporting officer Reviewing Officer Reviewing officer Performance Management Committee Reporting officer (admin support from HR)

Mid Year Review

Issue of PMS Form for Midyear Review Mid Year Performance Review Submission to HR

Annual Assessment

Issue of PMS Form for Annual Assessment Annual Assessment

Submission to HR Normalisation Feedback Normalisation Performance Communication and Feedback

System of Appeal
Incase of grievance on the individual performance scores finalized by the performance management committee (PMC), the grievance can be directly put up to an appellate authority (ies) which is one level above the PMC with a copy to concerned HR.
Only such cases where change of marks is equal to or more than 5% of that awarded by the Reporting Officer shall be eligible for appeal