The Hindu Business Line : Using scorecards

ONE does not know the spirit in which the Cabinet colleagues of the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, took his use of scorecards to assay their effectiveness in carrying out the responsibilities assigned to them, with special reference to the contents of the Common Minimum Programme of the UPA.

It would seem that the scorecards were designed not only to measure the progress, pace and current status of implementation but also to rate the Ministers on a zero to 10 scale.

There were sporadic reports that some of them were chagrined, especially at the part concerning the ratings of individual Ministers which somehow found their way to the media.

One is not surprised because the idea of calling Ministers to account on the basis of scorecards is new and politicians in positions of high authority have not so far been used to being compared with another in this manner and seeing their stock go high or low in public eye.

To be fair to Dr Singh, he did not hesitate to place the result of his own self-assessment before the people, giving himself a modest five out of ten.

Periodical appraisals of this nature using scorecards is old hat in the corporate world abroad where it has been in vogue for more than a decade and from where Dr Singh has perhaps borrowed the technique.

However, to be a reliable as well as a credible measure of the result-orientation of those who bear responsibility for the discharge of given tasks on expected lines, and for the assessments to be truly comparable, the methodology adopted should conform to three important criteria.

First, the different components of the tasks themselves should be capable of being measured applying objective yardsticks.

For instance, a general policy pronouncement, say, about poverty eradication, population control or disinvestment will not lend itself to a precise appraisal unless accompanied by specific targets both in regard to quantum and time.

Second, the periodicity of scorecards should be such as to facilitate monitoring and review of the ongoing action at close enough intervals and taking timely remedial measures against backsliding and deviations.

Third, they should invariably provide for surveys of stakeholders' estimation of customer satisfaction, financial prudence and quality of governance.

B. S. Raghavan

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
What is the right cell number?

Dollar on a cyclical upswing?

Using scorecards

A repeat of Madrid in London

`Prising' out good corporate governance

Saving fuel

EPF concerns