Contents

Preface………………………………………………………………………………………………Executive Summary………………………………………………………………….Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………….Chapter 1: Background…………………………………………………………….A. Concepts and Procedures……………………………………………………………………………a. Concepts……………………………………………………………………………………………..b. Approach ………………………………………………………………………………………..c. Procedures ………………………………………………………………………………………..B. Future Scope and Strategy …………………………………………………………………….Chapter 2: Review of Literature……………………………………………………A. Backdrop for Performance Assessment……………………………………………………………….B. Purpose /Goal…………………………………………………………………………… ………………C. Methodological Issues………………………………………………………………………………….Chapter 3: Evolution of the Framework…………………………………………….Step: 1 Questionnaire Survey and Development of Basic Framework…………………. ……………..Step: 2 Refinement of the Framework in the National Workshop……………………………………….Step: 3 Field Testing of the Refined Methodology………………………………………………………Step: 4 Discussion Meeting and Finalization of the Methodology……………………………………….Chapter 4 Step-by-Step Approach to Performance Assessment……………………………………..A. Output Assessment ………………………………………………………………………………..a) Output Indicators Identification…………………………………………………………………... .b) Output Measurement (Productivity Ratio)……………………………………………… ………..c) Output Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………..B. Outcome Assessment…………………………………………………………………………………a) Simple Indicators………………………………………………………………………. …………….b) Complex Indicators ………………………………………………………………………………..C. Organization Management Assessment…………………………………………………………....a) Identification of Key Management Domains………………………………………………………….b) Measurement of Management Performance and Constraints………………………….. …………………c) Analysis of Management Assessment Results………………………………………..…………………..Chapter 5: Field Application…………………………………………………………….5.1 Performance Assessment of Directorate of Oilseeds Research (DOR) of ICAR ………5.2 Performance Assessment of Project Directorate on Poultry (PDP) of ICAR…………5.3 Performance Assessment of Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Lam of ANGRAU…………………………………………………………………………………. ………………5.4 Performance Assessment of Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Palem of ANGRAU

……………………………………………………………………………..Chapter: 6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..Publications……………………………………………………………………………….References………………………………………………………………………….……Annexure I……………………………………………………………………………….

Preface

Indian agriculture has undergone a major transformation in the last four decades.

Through extensive application of science and technology, the country has made great

strides in agricultural production and productivity. The massive network of agricultural

research organizations, particularly in the public sector, has made it possible for the

NARS to enable the country move forward from food deficit to surplus status. In the light

of rapidly changing national and global agricultural scenario, coupled with increasingly

scarce research resources, the research organizations are now frequently being asked to

show results that are acceptable to the end users, improve their performance (in terms of

output and impact) and enhance their accountability to varied groups of stakeholders and

beneficiaries.

It is in this context, the ICAR has initiated in recent years a number of innovative

reforms under the O & M component of World Bank supported NATP. As an integral

part of this initiative, NAARM has been charged with onerous task to develop a

methodological framework for a more realistic assessment of the performance of

agricultural research organizations in the NARS. Under the NATP sub-project on

'Institutionalization of PME and Networking of Social Scientists' jointly implemented by

NCAP, NAARM and IASRI, a research study has been undertaken by NAARM to

develop a comprehensive performance assessment methodology as well as to provide the

required technical backstopping for the management development programme (MDP)

being contemplated by the Academy in this specialized area.

Through extensive literature search and multi-level interaction (Questionnaire

Survey, National Workshop and Discussion Meeting) with senior level functionaries

form NARS and CGIAR institutions, a basic methodological framework was first

developed and further refined by filed testing in a few selected institutions in the NARS.

Unlike the commonly employed performance assessment methodology, this

performance-oriented evaluation system attempts to integrate the assessment of

management process with the research output and outcome assessment. The

methodological framework including the basic concepts, step-wise

1

assessment procedure and field application details are presented in this

publication.

Development of an effective methodology of this nature requires the generous

contribution of time and efforts of numerous professionals from several institutions. We

express our grateful thanks to the World Bank, ICAR and NATP for their unstinted

support extended to the research study. We are indebted to the former Directors General

of ICAR, viz. Dr R. S. Paroda and Dr Punjab Singh, as well as to the present Director

General, Dr Mangala Rai, for their wholehearted support to the project. We place on

record our sincere thanks to all the former National Directors of NATP, viz. Dr G.L.

Kaul, Dr Mangala Rai (incharge), Dr P.L. Gautam and S.L. Mehta for all their support

and guidance. We are extremely thankful to Dr J.C. Katyal, DDG (education) and

National Director In-charge and to Dr A.K.Bandyopadhyay, National Coordinator

(O&M) from NATP for providing the necessary logistic support.

We are extremely thankful to the Research Officers at ISNAR, viz. Dr Govert

Gijsbers and Dr Warren Peterson for all their technical help and support. We are thankful

to the Directors of other two partnering institutions, viz. Dr Mruthyunjaya from NCAP

and Dr S.D. Sharma from IASRI for their kind cooperation. The invaluable contributions

made by all the senior level functionaries, both in-service and retired, from the NARS(as

listed in annexure II) in responding to our questionnaire and very effectively participating

in the National Workshop and Discussion Meeting organized at NAARM are gratefully

acknowledged.

We express our profound thanks to the ICAR Institute Directors Dr D.M. Hegde

of the Directorate of Oilseeds Research (DOR) and Dr R.P. Sharma of the Project

Directorate on Poultry (PDP), and the Associate Directors of Research from the Acharya

N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU) Dr B. Rosaiah of the Lam Research

Station and Dr N. Venkat Reddy of the Palem Research Station, including their staff, for

their unstinted support in developing the Case Studies.

2

We profusely thank our former Directors Dr J.C. Katyal and Dr P.N. Mathur, the

former Acting Director Dr S.N. Saha and the present Acting Director Dr R.K. Samanta

for all their guidance and support in accomplishing the objectives of the study. We

extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to all the Research Associates who worked in

the project at different times for all their help and assistance. Our special thanks are due

to the NAARM staff Mr P. Namdev, Mr L. Venkateswarlu, Mrs N.Vijayalakshmi, Mrs

S.Shanthi and others for their production assistance.

It is our earnest hope that it would now be possible for the research managers

from ICAR and SAU Systems to utilize this methodology for self-assessment of the

performance of their research organizations and initiate appropriate action for further

improvement. We appeal to all of them to apply this methodology, with suitable

modification as per the situation demands, and evolve relevant strategies for realizing

improved efficiency and effectiveness of their research organizations. Constructive

feedback on the framework and applicability of the methodology is most welcome.

Hyderabad – 30 T. BalaguruDecember 2004 R. Kalpana Sastry

R.V.S.Rao

3

Executive Summary

Under the aegis of National Agricultural Technology Project, a research study

was undertaken by NAARM to develop a comprehensive methodology with practical

application for objective assessment of the performance of agricultural research

organizations in the country. The potential methodology developed through extensive

literature search, intensive interaction with senior level functionaries from the Indian

NARS and CGIAR Institutes, and subsequent field testing on a pilot scale in selected

research institutions in the ICAR and Agricultural University Systems in summarized

below.

I. Primary Focus

Considering agricultural research organizations as a production system, a number

of research resources are used as inputs in research operations (processes) that generate

various types of outputs. These outputs are transformed into positive outcomes (impact)

by the end users. Built on this premise, the performance assessment methodology

encompasses three basic components, as under:

Research outputs (productivity)

Research outcomes (impact)

Management process (domains/functions)

The methodology attempts to integrate research output and outcome evaluation

(productivity) with the assessment of key management processes that effect the

performance.

II. Performance Assessment

The performance - oriented evaluation system contemplates to essentially focus

on the following critical areas of assessment.

Identification of suitable indicators pertaining to research output, outcome and management process.

4

Measurement of the selected indicators by assigning appropriate weights as per their relative importance, and expressing them in quantitative terms.

Critical analysis of the level of performance, and integrating the results into internal decision-making to evolve relevant strategies for improved performance.

A. Identification and Measurement of Performance Indicators

To begin with, the most significant indicators of performance need to be

identified. In order to ensure simplicity and cost effectiveness, the methodology restricts

itself first to a limited number of primary indicators.

a) Identification

i) Output Indicators :

In any agricultural research organization, one of the most important and

commonly used performance assessment parameters relate to various categories of

research outputs. They include the following:

Improved technology (crop varieties/animal breeds/tree species)-both number

and adoption rate.

Improved management practices - both number and adoption rate.

Publications and reports- variety and number.

Dissemination (technology transfer) events - variety and number.

Public services - variety and number.

Professional recognition (individual/institute) variety and number.

Product development - variety and number.

Under each category, different types of output reflecting on the performance can be

identified.

ii) Outcome Indicators:

Assessment of research impact can be accomplished only by tracking specific

outputs to establish a causal relationship between the output and benefits to the end users

(outcome). As per the level of difficulty associated with outcome assessment, some

indicators can be considered as simple and some others as very complex.

* Simple:

Area expansion (crops) / increase in number (animals).

Increase in production.

5

Reduction in production cost.

Profitability to the producer.

Achievement of objectives-adoption rate (reach).

Sustainability of adoption.

*Complex:

Internal rate of return (IRR).

Benefit-cost analysis (BCA).

Total factor productivity (TFP).

Environmental impact assessment (EIA).

iii) Management Process Indicators:

Since affective management has a greater influence on the organizational

performance, process indicators having a direct bearing on the performance are included

in the methodology. Critical management processes or elements or functions or domains

that drive the performance and highlighted below.

Assessment of context and organizational responsiveness.

Planning strategy and goals for the organization.

Selecting research objectives and outputs.

Research project management.

Maintaining the quality of operational research.

Human resource management.

Coordination and integration of internal functions, units and activities.

Transfer of technology.

Protecting organizational assets.

Ensuring the flow and use of information for monitoring, evaluation and

reporting.

Governance.

b) Measurement

i) Output Measurement:

Once suitable indicators (output categories and types ) are identified,

measurement matrices for each year during the assessment period (say five years) are to

be constructed. This can include simple quality elements (number vs adoption rate) and

6

weighting factors, i.e. assigning relative weights to different types of output to correct

imbalances. Each output type is scored by multiplying the number and / or adoption rate

with the weights assigned. The scores of all the output types in that particular category

are to be summed up to arrive at the total index score of that category. Dividing the total

index score by the input (researcher time/man-months considered as a proxy to achieve

scale neutral measurement) would result in a 'Productivity Ratio' for that particular

category. All the outputs can be finally assessed with productivity (output/input) that

result in productivity ratios.

ii) Outcome Measurement:

Since periodic tracking of specific research outputs to their targets is an absolute

necessity, outcome measurement (impact) is very difficult requiring more resources

(sound database, time, etc.) and expertise. Moreover, multiple agencies are involved in

realizing the real impact of research output. While it is relatively easy to measure the

simple indicators, reliable database and expertise are very much essential to measure the

more complex indicators. Careful planning is, therefore, required to combine simplicity

in design, reasonable levels of resource requirement and appropriate assessment targets.

iii) Management Process Measurement:

As per the specific characteristics of the organization concerned, a set of

analytical questions needs to be first raised for each of the critical management

functions/domains. The degree to which these questions are answered is then scored, on a

point scale, for individual domains. By summing up all the scores under each domain, the

total score can be obtained. Dividing the total score by the possible/potential score would

result in a 'Performance Ratio' for that particular management domain. Measurement

matrix with performance ratios for all the domains can then be constructed for that

particular year.

Due to varying nature of decision-making as well as the prevalence of

bureaucratic norms and procedures, constraints to effective management often exist in the

research organizations of NARS. For each management domain, specific management

constraints (both internal and external) need to be identified and scored, on a point scale,

7

as per their relative importance. The total score can then be arrived at by summing up all

the scores in that particular management domain. Dividing the total score by the

possible/potential score would yield a 'Constraint Ratio' for that particular management

domain. Similar to the performance ratios, measurement matrix for the constraint ratios

can also be constructed for that particular year.

B. Analysis of Performance Assessment Results

a) Trend Analysis:

Year-wise comparison of productivity/performance/constraint ratios can be made

during a selected period, the length of which will vary with the availability of quality

information and the nature of commodity (annual / perennial) handled by the research

organization, to examine the changes in performance over time. It is also possible to work

out a bench-mark threshold value (average ratios over a selected period) which can serve

as useful indicator for identifying the years of over, normal and under-performance of the

research organization.

b) Relative Contribution:

In accordance with the mandate of the research organization, contribution of the

individual category to the cumulative performance can be assessed (separately for output,

outcome and management process) for each year by assigning weights as per their

relative importance. The trend in overall performance, in terms of productivity /

performance / constraint ratios, can then be arrive at during the period of assessment.

c) Development of Strategy:

By critically examining the reasons for under-performance, as reflected in lower

productivity/performance ratios coupled with higher constraint ratios in comparison with

the bench-mark/threshold values, appropriate action plans need to be developed to

overcome the problems towards improving the performance level.

As a strategy, the performance assessment results need to be integrated into the

internal decision-making process, so that the potential of the methodology as an effective

tool for improved performance can be fully realized.

8

Acronyms

AEO Assistant Extension Officer

AH Animal Husbandary

AICRP All India Coordinated Research Project

AICRPO All India Coordinated Research Project on Oilseeds

ANGRAU Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University

AP CESS Agricultural Produce Cess

AP-NL Andhra Pradesh-Netherlands

ARIS Agricultural Research Information System

ATIC Agricultural Technical Information Centre

B.V.Sc. Bachelor of Veterinary Science

CARI Central Avian Research Institute

CDRI Crop Diseases Research Institute

CRI Coconut Research Institute

CSAUA&T Chandra Shekar Azad University of Agriculture &

Technology

DAATTC District Agriculture Advisory Technology Transfer Centre

DBT Department of Biotechnology

DOR Directorate of Oilseeds Research

ECF Experiments on Cultivators’ Fields

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FA Field Assistant

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FLD Front-line Demonstration

FTC Farmer’s Training Centre

GPRA Government's Performance and Results Act (USA)

HQ Headquarters

HRD Human Resource Development

IASRI Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute

9

ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid

Tropics

IMC Institute Management Committee

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

IRDC International Development Research Centre (Canada)

IRR Internal Rate of Return

ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research

ITK Indigenous Technical Knowledge

IVRI Indian Veterinary Research Institute

JNKV Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswavidyalaya

KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra

LAN Local Area Network

M & E Monitoring and Evaluation

MIS Management Information System

MPAU Mahatma Gandhi Phule Agricultural University

NAARM National Academy of Agricultural Research Management

NARP National Agricultural Research Project

NARS National Agricultural Research System

NATP National Agricultural Technology Project

NCAP National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy

Research

NCTCO National Communication Training Centre on Oilseeds

NECC National Egg Coordination Committee

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NPV Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus

NRC National Research Centre

NSF National Science Foundation

OPAS Organizational Performance Assessment

O & M Organization and Management

10

PC Unit Project Coordinating Unit

PDP Project Directorate on Poultry

PME Prioritization, Monitoring and Evaluation

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

QRT Quinquennial Review Team

RAC Research Advisory Committee

RARS Regional Agricultural Research Station

RAWEP Rural Agricultural Work Experience Programme

RE Revised Estimate

RMP Research Management Position

RPF Research Project File

S&T Science and Technology

SAUs State Agricultural Universities

SND Sunflower Necrosis Disease

STZ Southern Telangana Zone

TFP Total Factor Productivity

TMC Technology Mission on Cotton

TV Television

UAS University of Agricultural Sciences

WTA World Trade Agreement

WTO World Trade Organization

ZARS Zonal Agricultural Research Station

ZREAC Zonal Research and Extension Advisory Committee

11

Performance Assessment of Agricultural Research Organizations

Chapter 1: Background

Since independence, Indian agriculture has undergone a major transformation.

The country has witnessed a rainbow of Agricultural Revolutions, and has made marked

progress in agriculture through massive application of science and technology.

Notwithstanding the impressive accomplishments in the past, that have received universal

recognition, Indian agriculture is now faced with serious challenges due to increasing

population and rapidly changing national and global agricultural scenario.

One of the essential components that ensure the required capability to meet the

present needs as well as the future challenges in agriculture is an effective National

Agricultural Research System (NARS). The Indian NARS essentially comprises ICAR

Institutes at the national level and Agricultural Universities at the State level, ably

supported by research organizations under various scientific departments, private sector

and NGOs. The Indian NARS is probably the largest system in the world. The massive

network of ICAR which includes National Institutes, National Bureaux, National

Research Centres and Project Directorates, has a manpower of about 30,000 personnel

out of which nearly 6000 are scientists engaged in active research and its management.

Thirty-seven Agricultural Universities (SAUs) employ about 26,000 scientists for

teaching, research and extension education; of these, over 6000 scientists are employed in

the ICAR supported coordinated projects1. The present system has evolved over years of

experience and experimentation, which has undergone some major changes in concept,

organization and activities. It has made rapid strides and remarkably withstood the test of

time. It helped the nation to optimize the inputs and exploit the genetic and other

resource potential.

The NARS has made huge investments in research towards improving agricultural

production and productivity. Basic capacity for the research organizations to perform the

technology generation and dissemination activities is mostly in place. Due to the

economic liberalization and globalization and the consequent structural reforms initiated

1 Information obtained from the website: http://www.vigyanprasar.com/comcom/develop59.htm

12

in the recent years, the government is forced to reduce the public spending on agriculture

including research and development.

The shrinking financial resources of agricultural research institutes exposed these

institutes to the pressure to generate their own resources from other sources through

selective commercialization of their technologies and other activities, such as claiming

IPR, provision of research and other services to the private sector, charging commission

for the use of materials they owned whenever they are used for commercial purposes, and

seeking ways to collaborate with the private sector. Besides, other factors such as trend

towards the privatization of research, and the re-examination of the role of public sector

research has necessitated the policy-makers and research managers to focus on the

impact of research as well as on the accountability of research organizations. Like in the

private sector, the public sector research organizations are now frequently being asked to

show results, improve their performance (in terms of output and impact) and enhance

their accountability to increasingly varied groups of stakeholders and beneficiaries. They

are called upon to generate research outputs that are more acceptable, bring about greater

impact in terms of increased production, productivity, profitability and sustainability, and

be accountable to their clients.

The agricultural research organizations are now confronted with the urgent need

to demonstrate performance and accountability to ensure the support and funding from

planners and policy-makers on a sustainable basis. This calls for more realistic

performance-oriented evaluation systems, particularly at the organizational level. Such

systems, if internalized, can assist the research managers to assess the level of

performance of their organizations, in terms of output and outcome; identify the

management constraints, both internal and external; and evolve appropriate strategies to

improve their performance. The existing performance assessment system (mostly

external, as in the case of QRT) can be complemented by these procedures.

Towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of NARS, the Indian Council

of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has initiated a number of innovative reforms under the

Organization and Management (O&M) component of World Bank supported National

Agricultural Technology Project (NATP). As an integral part of this initiative, the

National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM) has been charged

13

with the responsibility of developing a methodological framework for a more realistic

assessment of the performance of agricultural research organizations in the NARS, under

the sub-project on ‘Institutionalization of Research Priority Setting, Project Monitoring

and Evaluation (PME)’ jointly being implemented by NCAP, NAARM and IASRI. The

basic framework and conceptual understanding, that form the background on which the

project was mapped, are presented in the following sections.

A. Concepts and Procedures

There has been growing internal as well as external demands for improved

performance and accountability of publicly funded agricultural research organizations in

the country. They need to be productive by showing research results that are relevant to

the needs of their clients and various stakeholders. In essence, productivity and relevance

are the two major dimensions of performance. Performance is closely linked to

accountability. While the measurement of performance is a precondition for

accountability, the accountability mechanisms are instrumental to improve performance.

The concepts and procedures described here are essentially based on the review of work

done in this specialized area as well as on the interaction with experts working at the

International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) in the Netherlands.

a. Concepts

Performance assessment and accountability enhancement of research

organizations are vital issues to be considered in the good governance of NARS. Though

simple in intent, they are complex in nature and have different aspects.

Accountability: It refers to the research organization’s ability to justify to its varied

stakeholders (farmers, government, policy-planners, funding agencies, etc.) and

beneficiaries (consumers, NGOs, etc.) the relevance and quality of its research

programmes, and the use of resources to achieve its goals and objectives.

Accountability has both internal and external aspects. Internally, all aspects of research

management process (planning, priority setting, monitoring, and evaluation) can be

improved when the goals and objectives of the research organization are clear and well

14

integrated with the national goals set for the agricultural sector. Externally, funding

support can be maintained when it provides timely, accurate and objective reporting on

its output and outcome.

Performance: It is the ability of a research organization to use its resources efficiently

and consistent with its objectives, for the production of outputs that are relevant for its

users.

The ability to define, measure and assess (evaluate) performance is an essential

condition for its improvement. Accountable management implies that research

organizations are responsible for specified levels of performance. Besides the final output

/ outcome, it should cover all stages of the research management process. An essential

and much talked about aspect of performance is its measurement. Performance

assessment systems are seen as the core of the drive to improve performance and

accountability.

b. Approach

Monitoring and evaluation functions are generally weak in many research

organizations in the NARS. They are mostly carried out to meet the external

requirements and not targeted at the crucial internal management issues. They often

remain as isolated activities (mid-term review, quinquennial review, etc.) to satisfy

external demands, instead of integrating them as a part of the internal management

process in the organization. Inadequacy of systematic information flow supporting the

management decisions makes it difficult to identify structural, organizational and

management problems, or to bring about improvements in outputs and outcomes.

Besides, a thorough understanding of the problems associated with effective functioning

of the existing monitoring and evaluation system, it also becomes necessary to critically

look at the characteristics of agricultural research organizations in order to build a

performance orientation into the NARS.

15

Characteristics of Agricultural Research Organizations

Resources& Research Outputs Users Outcomes

Planning Operations Knowledge Farmers IncreasedPersonnel Research Technology Extension productionFunds Testing/ Procedures NGOs Cost reductionInfrastructure adaptation Publications Academia ProfitResearch Reporting Services Consumers Achievement Strategy, goals Dissemination of objectives

Operations Monitoring & Feedback

Output Assessment & Feedback

Outcome Assessment & Feedback

Source: Warran Peterson, Discussion Paper, ISNAR, July 1998.

If viewed as a production system, agricultural research organizations have certain

basic features. With differing structures and organizational processes, they use resources

as inputs (personnel, funds and infrastructure) in research operations (research, testing,

reporting, and disseminating results) that generate various type of outputs (knowledge,

technology, procedures, and publications). Users attempt to transform the outputs into

positive outcomes (increased production, cost reduction and profits). In this sequence of

events, performance assessment and feedback mechanisms are required at different levels

to ensure that research organizations use their resources efficiently and produce relevant

and useful outputs.

Performance of public sector research organizations are influenced by certain

special characteristics, as under:

as partner in the overall development efforts, reflect the national goals and

objectives;

have multiple social and economic objectives;

operate in a dynamic policy and funding environment;

16

due to the existence of civil service rules, have very little flexibility either to

suitably reward better performance or to punish non-performance;

difficulty in attributing positive outcomes to organizational efforts due to the

activities of multiple institutional actors; and

have more diverse accountability requirements.

Because of these complexities, it becomes imperative for them to consider

organizational (efficiency) processes along with output / outcome (effectiveness) factors

when they attempt to improve their performance. In other words, information on output /

outcome need to be evaluated in conjunction with the management factors that produce

them. Both types of assessment are an integral part of performance-oriented management.

c. Procedures

Building a performance–oriented evaluation system in research organizations

requires:

indicators and procedures for evaluating the research outputs and

outcomes;

indicators and procedures for the assessment of management factors that

affect performance; and

feedback flows for internal decision-making and external reporting.

B. Future Scope and Strategy

Agricultural research organizations in the NARS are currently facing the onerous

task of meeting the greater demands of varied stakeholders and beneficiaries with the

limited resources at their disposal. Not only the quantity and quality of various forms of

outputs / outcomes, but also the efficiency with which they are generated reflects the

performance of research organizations. The performance-oriented evaluation system

described here attempts to integrate output and outcome evaluation (productivity) with

the assessment of key management processes that affect the performance.

The methodology primarily aims at management and performance improvement

within the research organization. It basically assumes that internal assessment is more

17

useful than external evaluation for the effective management of research organizations

and the improvement of their performance. Internal research managers have far more

knowledge of their own organizations than do outsiders; and the information from

internal assessment are more likely to be used if they are directly involved in the design

and management of the performance assessment system.

At the present juncture, nobody can venture to doubt the utility and value of

performance-oriented evaluation system. However, certain conditions are to be satisfied

in order for the research organizations to fully realize its potentials. They include:

performance-oriented culture to be inculcated among the agricultural research

organizations;

an internal organization management perspective, rather than an external donor

perspective, to be developed;

awareness on performance assessment approaches suitable for public sector

research organizations to be created through sensitization programmes;

interest of management (or external pressure!) to initiate performance assessment

system, and effective participation, commitment and guidance of managers to its

development and use to be ensured;

ready availability of information and provision of adequate resources (staff, funds

and time) to be assured; and

integration of the assessment system into management processes and decision-

making to be considered as the hallmark for improved performance.

18

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

A. Backdrop for Performance Assessment

Performance oriented evaluation procedures are used by many profit-oriented

organizations and by some public sector organizations, particularly in the area of health

and education. Though it is a well-known fact that the institutional and managerial

problems are the major hurdles for the progress in agriculture research and development,

only a few agriculture research organizations have performance-oriented evaluation

procedure in their system. The background in which performance-oriented evaluation

system has been taken by various research organizations are presented in this section.

Creation of effectively performing institutions is central to a country’s

development, and institutional capacity building helps to measure the cost effectiveness

of investment choices through examining a broad range of performance criteria. Though

the methodology for assessing research organizations remains in the early stages of

development, clearly source configuration of the key variables of organizational capacity

does make a difference in institutional functioning and performance. Institutional

performance is of central importance to its capacity. Generally it is the need or desire to

change performance that drives people to engage in institutional evaluations (Charles

Lusthaus et. al., 1995).

The USA Governments’ Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, calls

for a consultative, iterative process of strategic planning and assessment of progress of

the National Science Foundation (NSF) of USA. In their response to the act, explained

that the results oriented management aims to improve the performance of organizations

or programmes by articulating their mission and goals, determining how goals will be

met through the activities of staff and comparing actual performance to predetermined

objectives for a given period, This management approach shifts attention away form

inputs, such as personnel levels, following prescribed processes and places the focus on

results (Susan E Cozzens, 1995).

19

It is now becoming clear that though national government and the development

community have made large investments in agricultural research, the evidence of

progress in improving the farmer welfare and the agricultural sector production at the

global level also has been minimal. So, governments are reassessing and even reducing

their investments in agricultural research. Future support for agricultural research

organizations would be closely linked to the ability to demonstrate good management,

research performance, accountability and results. Since monitoring and evaluation are

weak in many National Agricultural Research Systems, they are seldom used to guide

and inform the manager decisions related to research organization performance. So, in

order to build a performance orientation into agricultural research organizations, these

general problems with M&E, plus a consideration of the characteristics of the research

organizations are affected by the changing policy, funding environment, and multiple

social and economic objectives are needed. Hence, the management and evaluation of

public research organizations becomes more difficult and the outcomes may be more

uncertain and complex. Against such a background, performance assessment becomes

important for the effective functioning of research organizations (Warren Peterson,

1998).

The need for strong evaluation/assessment system is now recognized as vital in

Indian system too. There are very few attempts made so far. However, a strong feeling

that research should have a general concern of investors on returns, and perceptions of

various stakeholders in terms of relevance and application of S&T results is now

apparent. More than ever, the Indian agricultural scientists need to be more responsive,

participatory and transparent in internal decision-making. Simultaneously, their findings

ought to have prepared for external scrutiny from the point of measurable contribution

and high degree of social responsibility. Public research systems must, therefore, find

ways to continually improve performance and accountability by becoming more sensitive

to farmers’ livelihood security, consumers’ changing needs and country’s international

obligation. In the pursuit, research organizations will be required to manage their

business efficiently and effectively. Also it will become mandatory to reorient their

20

research objectives, which are demand driven and are integrated with cotemporary and

futuristic relevance and quantifiable applicability. It will be necessary to change the ways

research organizations are governed and structured currently (Katyal and Rao, 2002)

B. Purpose /Goal

The strategies for evaluation in agriculture research organizations are specific,

and often need to be on a continuous evolving mode due to the dynamic nature of the

system. Unlike other business areas, the number of players are too many and often

performances are subject to circumstances beyond the control of institutions. A few of the

attempts made by various agencies are highlighted here.

International Development Research Centre (IRDC) in 1995, attempted to identify

issues and collect information that will be helpful in devising strategies to enhance

institutional capacity. The data emerging from this process was expected to be used to

enlighten funding decisions and to document any growth in institutional capacity that can

be ascribed to IRDC’s investments. Because of the uniqueness of each institution

receiving IRDC support, the evaluation framework was not meant to be prescriptive,

instead to provide a basis for evaluation. Using the recommended strategy as a guide,

each institution must engage in its own analysis and formulate its own conclusions

(Charles Lusthaus et. al., 1995).

In yet another study by the National Science foundation USA, the formulation of

performance goals that meet the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

requirements was found to be the most challenging aspect of results oriented management

within the framework of the Act (Susan E. Cozens, 1995). The study identified the

following facts.

1. In result-oriented management, NSF’s performance focused not only on the

performance of its employees but also on the performance of its grantees; NSF

need to focus on the outputs and outcomes of research activities.

2. Intellectual outcomes of fundamental research programs can sometimes be

predicted, but do not solve the problem of setting performance goals.

21

3. NSF can count the outputs of research projects, but they do not add up to the

performance. Since setting performance goals in terms of project output, rather

than the synergistic products, what NSF is really striving for is likely to result in

goal displacement. The NSF has rejected this approach.

4. The true outcomes of the research process are too far out of NSF’s control to

allow them to set GPRA type performance goals in relation to them. (It is

impossible for the NSF to set itself performance goals for levels of influence on

the economy or society).

5. The NSF is in the intermediate outcome business.

6. There are no simple measures of intermediate outcomes.

The purpose of the organizational performance assessment of the Crop Diseases

Research Institute (CDRI) in Pakistan was to determine its overall performance. In

addition, the assessment identified CDRI’s outputs, and measured them for productivity,

diagnosed and assessed the performance in key areas of management, as well as

identified and analyzed the major constraints to performance. The identification of

constraints and weaknesses also allowed the CDRI management to plan actions for the

improvement of management and performance. This approach used self-assessment

methods intended for research organization performance improvement within the CDRI

and for a more effective communication of its research and service outputs to investors

and clients (ISNAR, 2000).

It is also necessary to identify on why and for whom the assessment is being done.

Assessments typically are initiated by some sponsor, investor or members of an

organization, or by the organization itself. The rationale and focus of the assessment by

different stakeholders, as given by Charles Lusthaus et. al.(2002), are presented in the

following table:

22

Table 2.1: Why Different Stakeholders Initiate an Organizational Assessment- Typical Reasons:

Initiator Major Rationale Organizational Assessment Focus

Leaders within the organization

To celebrate exemplary performance.

To improve decision making and provide a basis for future strategy development.

To generate data on four dimensions of performance and determine strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as part of a strategic planning exercise.

Board of Directors To exercise their accountability.

To make key investment decisions.

To feed a strategic planning process designed to improve organizational performance.

To assess performance in its four dimensions.

To understand how performance could be enhanced.

To inform the members and guide their role as an investor.

To guide organizational change by providing a deeper understanding of all aspects of the environment, capability, motivation and performance.

External investor To plan the organizational investment strategy so that the purpose is achieved.

To monitor or evaluate an organizational investment to see if it is achieving its intended results.

To understand the capability deficiencies impeding performance.

To understand the investment assumptions and risks related to the organization’s environment.

To understand whether there is sufficient motivation within the organization to justify investment.

To judge whether performance improved as a result of the investment.

To judge whether the investments in capabilities were implemented as planned.

To review the design assumptions, including changes in the environment.

Source: Charles Lusthaus et. al., 2002

Warren Peterson et.al. (2003), explained that the Organizational Performance

Assessment System (OPAS) represents a shift in perspective from externally driven

evaluations of programmes or projects, often done for the benefit of external agencies,

towards internally driven assessments, aimed at learning, improving performance, and

increasing accountability. The OPAS was designed to be a relatively rapid and cost-

effective method that can be implemented at most research institutes in a period of two to

three weeks. The most important advantages of OPAS are that it identifies and measures

23

all outputs produced by the organization and emphasizes productivity in terms of outputs.

It also addresses crucial internal management issues and constraints, creates ownership

consensus and improves internal and external transparency. It promotes staff

participation, teamwork and communication, and builds on staff knowledge regarding the

strengths, weaknesses, and constraints of their organization.

C. Methodological Issues

Performance assessment of agricultural research organization presents important

methodological challenges. It is difficult to measure accurately the research outputs,

management and outcome, as the indicators are more complex and qualitative in nature.

Different methodological issues from the past studies are presented in this section.

Charles Lusthaus et.al. (1995) explained that institutions are normative structures,

grounded in societies, and thus can hardly be understood outside of their contexts. For

this reason, there can be no specific blueprint for conducting institutional evaluations.

Institutional assessment methodology includes specificity vs generalization choosing

institutional issues to explore, creating a credible design, data collection, sources of data

and types of instrumentation, interpretation of data, institutional scope and stage of

development, and costs. Framework for assessing research institutions includes

understanding the organization’s environment, determining organizational motivation,

examining key areas of organizational capacity, and measuring organizational

performance. Typical questions with respect to various components are prepared and it

paves the way for assessing the performance. Basic steps in the organizational assessment

includes:

determine purpose of the assessment;

develop constructive working relationship between and among the research;

institution and the assessment team during the assessment;

identify main issues for the assessment;

identify main questions and sub questions for the assessment;

determine roles and responsibilities for evaluators, members, IDRC personal

and other stakeholders;

24

develop and write terms of reference;

prepare costing for the assessment;

identify and select evaluators;

develop work plans;

implement work plan;

monitor quality control measures to ensure collection of reliable and valid

data;

provide ongoing feed back;

draft the report;

identify the general lessons learned; and

communicate conclusions.

From the experience with a wide range of institutions worldwide, the study

suggests that understanding environmental context is fundamental to a sympathetic

analysis of how an organization operated. The environment may present difficult

constraints, yet the organization may still be doing important and relevant work.

Environmental analysis leads to the determination of capacity and performance relative to

the context. The organization’s motivation relates in many ways to the environment, but

supersedes it in the sense that many successful organizations rise above the constraints of

their content. Since performance is relative to an organization’s basic capacity, the

analysis of capacity sets the stage for understanding organizational performance is both

absolute and relative terms. Performance needs to be assessed in qualitative terms,

quantitative terms and in terms that relate performance to basic organizational capacity.

Given sufficient time and resources, external experts can do a good job of assessing

organizations (Charles Lusthaus et.al., 1995).

Performance can also be measured by asking independent panels with appropriate

expertise to judge the performance using the best available data and information, as with

NSF of USA. Along with a basic plan comes a commitment by NSF to improve the base

of performance information available to these panels by collecting more output data and

25

by developing intermediate outcome indicators that combine NSF output data with other

source of information. Fundamental research is a special activity and its special character

has led to conclude that GPRA’s alternative path to performance goals will serve the

nation best. Eschewing quantitative performance goals at the Foundation level, however,

by no means implies avoiding the use of either performance indicators or results oriented

management. Indeed, development of performance metrices is likely to be facilitated by

the improvements in data collection stimulated by Foundation-wide assessment activities.

Most importantly, no matter what performance indicators are adopted, NSF expects

GPRA activities of the kind outlined have to set the tone for results oriented management

throughout the organization (Susan E. Cozens, 1995).

The existing Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system requires modified

performance evaluation system which, in turn, would have output/outcome evaluation

and organization management assessment in its fold (Warren Peterson, 1998). The

process of output evaluation to determine the type, quantity and quality of research

outputs, require four steps. They are: i) identify the research and development objectives;

ii) develop indicators and procedure for evaluating the research outputs in relation to the

objectives; iii) develop indicators and procedures for assessing the outcomes in relation to

objectives and beneficiary results; and iv) develop information flows for management use

in planning and for external accountability.

The next process of organization management assessment entails an internal

assessment that periodically examines the existing structure, organization and

management process and the context within which they function. The following steps are

important to establish a management assessment subsystem:

identify the critical management processes and domains;

design questions and indicators for each component;

assign responsibilities for implementation and reporting;

implement the evaluation on a regular basis and analyze results;

summarize results and establish information flows to management; and

ensure follow-up and action.

The evaluation of critical management process allows managers to track and score their

organizations management performance.

26

Warren Peterson (1998) assumes that in performance-oriented evaluation, internal

evaluation mechanisms are more useful than external evaluations for the management of

organizations than do outsiders, and the information from internal evaluations is more

likely to be used if managers are directly involved in the design and control the

performance measurement and evaluation process. Performance evaluation is a process

aimed primarily at management and performance improvement within an organization.

The CDRI organization assessment in Pakistan (ISNAR, 2000) has emphasized

self-evaluation techniques coupled with facilitation by external management specialists to

provide objectivity. It is intended as an initial step in establishing a performance

assessment system for future use by CDRI management in research productivity

improvement. Self-evaluation technique has the following advantages:

draws on the knowledge of staff members regarding internal management

procedures, research achievements, and strength and weaknesses of the

organization;

allows a high degree of staff participation in the evaluation process;

provides improved ownership and understanding of the results;

focuses on organization improvements and is more transparent open and fair;

builds teamwork and helps reorient staff toward research organization outputs and

performance improvement; and

It allows management to identify and select essential management areas and need

action.

The assessment system establishes two interrelated internal evaluation process for

CDRI; output/outcome evaluation and organization management assessment. Under

output evaluation, seven output categories were identified. Each output assessment was

based on a productivity measure, which assumed a relationship between the amount of

scientist time and the amount of output. Each output category consisted of component

outputs identified as central and relevant to CDRI research. Each component output was

measured on yearly bases; the unit of measurement and a scale were defined for each

output. The output categories were weighted to reflect relative importance, resulting in a

weighted total score for each category. The total index score was divided by the scientist

time in months to yield the index ratio for each year. To allow performance compositions

27

in the future, bench-mark for the individual output categories were defined. The bench-

mark for each output category represented the average index ratio for the five-year

period.

In case of management assessment, the purpose was to assess CDRI performance

in ten key areas of management considered to be essential for research organization

productivity. The method identified the extent to which management techniques or

process were used, realized or implemented in each of the key areas. For each of the text

key areas, analytical questions that cover important management practices in each area

were adopted to the characteristic of CDRI using questions sets provided in the OPAS

methodology. Scores were decided by a discussion and consensus process as were the

constraints operating for CDRI management. The results provided information on

strength and weakness and identified elements of management that deserve attention. A

total point score was arrived and the summed score was then divided by the total

potential score to yield a ratio. The same method was followed in the constraints as well.

In the case of Coconut Research Institute (CRI) in Sri Lanka, (ISNAR, 2001) the

performance was assessed on two counts: i) Output assessment; and ii) organization

management assessment.

Output Assessment: In total, six output categories were identified and defined through

discussion and consensus, and quantitative information was collected and entered by the

division heads for each output type. The assessment was based on a productivity

measure, which assumed a relationship between the amount of scientist time and the

amount of output. Each component output was measured on a yearly basis over the ten-

year period, 1990-1999. A unit of measurement and a scale were defined for each output

type. Weight factors were applied to each output type. Weight factors were applied to

each output category to correct imbalances between different types of outputs or to

emphasis the score of those more relevant for the clients. This resulted in a weighted total

score for each category. This score was then divided by the scientist time to yield an

index ratio for each year. To allow performance comparisons in the future, bench-marks

were defined. The benchmark for each output category represents the average index ratio

for the 10 years period that was assessed.

28

Organization Management Assessment: The CRI management was assessed in ten areas

widely considered to be essential for good performance. This was done on the premise

that internal management practices and the institute’s ability to produce quality outputs

are clearly linked. Analyzed question sets provided in the OPAS methodology that cover

important management practices in each area were adapted to suit the characteristics of

CRI using questions. Scores for the questions were decided by a discussion and

consensus process. The results provided information on strengths and weaknesses and

identified elements of management that deserve attention. Each question was scored on a

0-3 scale and a total point score was established for each total potential score to yield a

ratio.

According to Warren Peterson et. al. (2003), OPAS sees agricultural research

organizations as production systems, the main elements of which and the relationship

between these elements are summarized as follows:

Agricultural research organizations use resources and inputs (funds, personnel,

equipment, and facilities) to undertake their research operations in order to produce

outputs (agricultural technologies and services) for the benefit of farmers, agro-industries,

and other users. The outcomes (or consequences) of adopting or applying these outputs

are measured by their effects, positive or negative, on such factors as production costs,

yields, and use of natural resources. In this sequence of events, performance assessment

and feedback mechanisms are required at different levels to ensure that research

organizations plan their resources efficiently and produce relevant and useful outputs.

Planning, management, and decision-making processes directly affect research

operations, output productivity, and relevance—and therefore also need to be examined

from time to time. An underlying assumption in organizational performance is driven by

a number of critical management factors. Through a periodic assessment of these factors,

managers can determine if appropriate mechanisms and procedures are in place and

functioning, and can take steps to correct management deficiencies that contribute to poor

(or lower) organizational performance. The assessment also provides information on

constraints to performance, including external constraints (such as inadequate funding for

research, non-competitive salaries, or bureaucratic civil-service procedures), which

managers can relay to higher-level decision makers and investors.

29

A model suggested for good governance (NASS 2000) indicates integration of the following:

Internal mechanism: relates to how decision making roles and responsibilities are

defined, accepted and applied to establish overall work culture, legitimacy of the

organization, extent of decentralization of its governance structures and how the linkages

with its external environment are established describe broadly the canvas of internal

mechanisms.

Performance dimension: a key external variable of good governance relates to the use of

resources impacts with product outputs. Performance defines a system’s viability and

visibility.

Accountability: an external dimension of good governance is defined as responsibility for

performing those tasks or achieving those results for which the individual or the

organization has been delegated the necessary authority.

Thus good governance requires that external and internal rules be supplemented

by organizational and individual value systems and ethical codes.

30

Chapter 3: Evolution of the Framework

In view of the scanty information available in the literature on the performance

oriented evaluation system suiting to the needs of agricultural research organizations, it

becomes imperative for the NARS to develop such a system. A methodological

framework for the realistic assessment of the performance of agriculture research

organizations in the NARS has been developed by the project team through a well

thought out process, which involves four major steps in realizing a comprehensive

framework for assessment, as under:

Step: 1 Questionnaire Survey and Development of Basic Framework

On the basis of interaction with international agencies like ISNAR with

experience in developing a realistic performance assessment system for the Asian NARS,

a questionnaire survey (Annexure II) was carried out by the Academy to elicit

information on the identification and measurement of various categories of research

outputs as well as on the key management functions having a bearing on the performance

of research organizations. The requisite information was collected from senior level

functionaries (both working and retired) from ICAR Institutes and SAUs. Significant

response (30%) from a cross-section of senior officers from both the systems was

received. Background of the respondents from whom the information was received is

presented below:

Background of the Respondents

Senior level functionaries who responded to the questionnaire by giving very

valuable information are indicated in the following tables (3.1 to 3.4), as per their

specialization, type of institute hailing from and cadre.

31

Table 3.1: Respondents Based on Specialization

S.No. SpecializationNumber of Respondents

TotalICAR SAUs Retired Scientists

1. Crop Sciences 18 28 12 582. Animal Sciences 8 3 0 113. Social Sciences 1 0 1 2

Total 27 31 13 71

Table 3.2: Respondents Based on Type of Institute in ICAR

S.No. Type of Institute Number of Respondents

1. National Institutes / Deemed Universities 22. National Bureau 13. Central Institutes 104. ICAR Research Complex 15. Project Directorates 36. National Research Centres (NRCs) 77. Headquarters 28. National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP) 1

Total 27

Table 3.3: Respondents Based on Cadre from SAUs

S.No. Cadre Number of Respondents

1. Vice Chancellors 42. Directors of Research 93. Deans / Directors 134. Heads of Department 35. Coordinators / Nodal Officers 2

Total 31

Table 3.4: Retired Functionaries from NARS

S.No. Type of Institute(in which worked last)

Number of Respondents

1. ICAR 102. SAUs 2

Total 12

32

On the basis of extensive secondary information collected from relevant literature

as well as the intensive interaction the project team had with the experts, and from the

information elicited through the questionnaire survey, a basic framework was first

developed.

Step: 2 Refinement of the Framework in the National Workshop Once the basic framework was developed, the concepts and procedures

constituting the methodology were deliberated upon for further refinement by the senior

functionaries from NARS in the National Workshop held at NAARM, Hyderabad, for

two days on 3 rd and 4th of March 2003.

The workshop had the following specific objectives:

1. To identify suitable indicators for measuring the performance of agricultural

research organizations.

2. To finalize an appropriate methodological framework after critical examination of

information elicited, through questionnaire survey, on output assessment and

organization management assessment.

The workshop was organized under the following three technical sessions:

1. Performance assessment: Methodological framework-An overview.

2. Output assessment: Identification of indicators and measurement.

3. Organization management assessment: Identification of management domains

and constraint analysis.

Theme papers providing the background materials and highlighting the issues that

need to be considered for developing a more meaningful methodology were presented in

each of these technical sessions. The presentation was supplemented by the information

elicited from the senior level functionaries (both in service and retired) in the NARS

through the questionnaire. Individual weights assigned by the ICAR institute directors,

33

Vice-Chancellors/Deans, Directors from the State Agricultural Universities(SAUs) and

the senior level retired functionaries to various types of outputs under each of the

following categories as well as the key management domains were highlighted for

facilitating the delegates in their deliberations.

a) Output Categories:

Improved crop varieties and hybrids/animal breeds/tree species

Management practices

Publications and reports

Training events

Dissemination events

Public services

b) Key Management Domains:

Ensuring the flow and use of information for monitoring, evaluation and reporting

Protecting organizational assets

Transfer of technology

Coordination and integration of internal functions, units and activities

Human resource management

Maintaining the quality of operational research

Research project management

Selecting research objectives and outputs

Planning strategy and goals for the organization

Assessment of context and organizational responsiveness

The proposed performance assessment methodology in conjunction with the

response received through the questionnaire survey was critically examined by the

delegates during the discussion. The major observations made, including the suggestions

given by them to improve the effectiveness of the methodology, during the deliberations

in the workshop were documented. This was followed by a panel discussion on the scope

and strategy for implementing the methodology in NARS, which was arranged by

drawing panelists, both in service and recently retired, from the ICAR and Agricultural

University Systems. Excellent recommendations emerged from the deliberations in the

34

workshop. The major recommendations that emerged at the end of the workshop are

presented in text box 3.1.The discussions in the workshop as well as the final outcome are

summarized and presented in the published workshop proceedings2.

Text Box: 3.1 Major Recommendations of the National Workshop

1. Assessment of performance is a precursor to plan for its improvement in research organizations. The methodology advocated for performance assessment is essentially meant for self-introspection and not to be used as a control mechanism. Nonetheless, it can certainly complement the external evaluation by bodies like QRT.

2. In view of the specialized nature of agricultural research and cost consideration, the methodology mainly focuses on yearly assessment of performance. By comparison with the threshold value (as a bench-mark) worked out as an average of the preceding 1-3 years, the current year’s performance can be evaluated in terms of under, normal or over-performance including the contributing factors thereof.

3. As far as the target group for application of the methodology is concerned, it can be practiced at the institute level in ICAR and at the research station level in Agricultural Universities. In case of larger ICAR institutes, the methodology is adaptable at the division / programme level.

4. Output and organization management assessment are the two main components of the methodology. In addition to them, some of the major tools of outcome (impact) assessment can also be integrated into the methodology to make it more comprehensive.

5. Besides the six categories considered for output assessment, expressed as productivity index / ratio, some additional output categories depicting awards / professional recognition received, membership in societies / committees, and patents / copyright / software developed can also be included. Similarly, various aspects of governance may be included as an additional key management domain for organization management assessment, expressed in terms of performance index/ ratio.

6. Depending upon the mandated activities and the situation in which it operates the assignment of weights and scoring need to be done by the organization concerned. It may not be desirable and realistic if they are imposed from outside.

7. While constructing the measurement matrix, weights may be assigned in accordance with relative importance to individual output categories (besides the output types within each category) in case of output assessment, and to individual management domains in case of organization management assessment, so that the organization can arrive at a more realistic rating of their performance.

8. Depending upon the nature of output and the key management domain they need to be grouped, and the composite index worked out subsequently will enable the organization to identify constraints and evolve appropriate strategies to overcome them.

9. Owing to the fact that ensuring ownership of the entire process is vital for the effective implementation of the methodology, the whole exercise has to be made more open and transparent by involving every individual in the organization.

10. Since performance-linked support will be the major focus in future, performance assessment is the 2 For details refer “Balaguru, T. Kalpana Shastry, R. and Rao R.V.S.(2003) Proceedings of the National Workshop on Performance Assessment of Agriculture Research Organisations, 3 rd&4th March, 2003, NAARM, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030, India”.

35

key for achieving rapid progress of agricultural research organizations. Above all, the full potential of the methodology can be realized only when it is integrated with internal decision-making in the organization.

11. The methodology needs to be firmed up by field-testing on a pilot-scale in a few selected research institutes / stations. By incorporating the feedback from such studies, the methodology can be enriched so that it can be finalized and circulated for wider adoption in the NARS. The resultant material can also serve as useful background information for sensitizing all those who matter for effective implementation of the methodology in research organizations.

12. By suitably modifying the methodology, which is basically developed for assessing the performance of research organizations, it can be extended to education, extension and service-oriented organizations after gaining some experience.

Step: 3 Field Testing of the Refined Methodology

After deliberation in the National Workshop, it was felt necessary to field test the

methodology on a pilot-scale in a few selected agricultural research organizations before

being advocated for wider adoption in the NARS. On a voluntary basis, the methodology

was utilized by two ICAR institutes viz., Directorate of Oilseeds Research (DOR), and

Project Directorate on Poultry (PDP), Hyderabad, and two Regional Agricultural

Research Stations (RARS) viz., Palem and Lam of Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural

University (ANGRAU) for self-assessment of their performance over a five-year period

during 1995-2000 for all the cases except Palem for which the assessment has been

carried out for the period 1997-2002. The project team from NAARM facilitated the

entire assessment process. The application of performance assessment methodology at

the field level has resulted in very significant learning, useful for further refinement of

the methodology (the details of the performance assessments of these institutes are

presented in Chapter-5). By incorporating the feedback from these studies, the

methodology was further enriched so that it can be finalized and circulated for wider

adoption in the NARS. The outcome of the entire exercise is published in the form of

individual Case Studies3.

3 For details refer the case studies i) Performance assessment of Project Directorate on Poultry(1995-2000), ii) Performance assessment of Regional Agriculture Research Station, Palem, (1997-2002),iii) Performance assessment of Regional Agriculture Research Station, Lam, Guntur (1995-2000),iv) Performance assessment of Directorate of Oilseeds Research, (1995-2000)”

published by Balaguru, T. Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S on December 2003 from NAARM, Rajedranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030

36

Step: 4 Discussion Meeting and Finalization of the Methodology

With a view to finalizing the performance assessment methodology before it is

advocated for wider adoption in the NARS, a high level ‘Discussion Meeting’ was

organized at NAARM on 20th March 2004 to deliberate on the operational feasibility and

practical utility of the methodology by critically examining the experience from the case

studies undertaken by the Academy. The major recommendations that emerged at the end

of the meeting are given in text box 3.2.

37

Text Box: 3.2 Recommendations Emerged from the Discussion Meeting

1) The methodology is essentially meant for self-assessment of the performance of research organizations. It may serve as an input to external evaluation by bodies like QRT and RAC. However, it is not definitely meant for comparison between two research organizations.

2) The methodology needs to be considered as a template provided by NAARM. The organization concerned should suitably adapt it to suit its specific mandated activities and functioning. Imposing criteria for measurement from outside may be avoided.

3) In order to get started, the methodology in the present form can be used by the research organizations in the NARS. After gaining some experience, further improvement is possible by bringing about necessary modifications in the output, outcome and management process assessment. Some of the possible areas for improvement include:

i) Output assessment: Inclusion of additional categories to accommodate output from basic and strategic research; consideration of quality besides the quantity of output; assignment of weights based on relative importance in a more participative mode; use of economic criteria in place of man-months as input for research to work out the productivity index; consideration of only man-months of those groups directly associated with the particular output, in place of total man-months, as input for research; and use of bench-mark for comparison in the ensuing years.

ii) Outcome assessment: Identification and measurement of relevant and quantifiable indicators, like internal rate of return, based on reliable database and expertise developed through training.

iii) Management process assessment : Keeping the number of management functions to the minimum, may be by grouping them; raising unambiguous questions under each management domain; and scoring and assignment of weights based on relative importance in a more participative mode.

4) Through structured training programmes, NAARM may undertake skill development of scientists, particularly those working in the PME Cells.

5) The utility of the methodology can be fully realized only when the outcome from the assessment process is integrated into the internal decision-making.

6) The methodology has great potential for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of research organizations. Like the IIHR, other institutes may also try out this methodology by suitably

Finally, the methodology thus developed through a well defined process has been

molded into a complete set of training material4. Through a Management Development

Programme, the training has been imparted successfully to the scientists and faculties at

senior level from ICAR Institutes and State Agricultural Universities during May 18-22,

2004 by the Project Team at NAARM.

Chapter 4: Step-by-Step Approach to Performance Assessment

The comprehensive framework developed to assess the performance of

agricultural research organizations in the NARS comprises the output assessment,

outcome/impact assessment and organization management assessment. The step-wise

procedures meant for assessing these three categories of research results are detailed

below.

A. Output Assessment

Through a step-wise procedure (fig 4.1), research output (productivity) can be

assessed by measuring the attainment of organizational goals using a productivity index

or ratio composed of a weighted sum of the key goals.

4 Balaguru T, Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao R. V. S. 2004 “ Resource material: Management Development Programme on Performance assessment of Agricultural Research Organizations”, May 18-22, 2004, NAARM, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, 500 030, India.

38

Fig: 4.1 Output Assessment Steps

a) Output Indicators Identification

To begin with, the most significant outputs at the organizational level need to be

identified. In order to ensure simplicity and cost effectiveness, it is advisable to restrict

first to a limited number of primary outputs related to organizational goals and mandate,

as indicated below (table 4.1).

Table 4.1:Comprehensive List of Output Categories and Types under each Category

39

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Step 8

Step 9

Output Indicators

Identification

Output Measurement

Output Analysis

Define OutputCategories

Identify Output Types under each Category

Define Output Scales

Collect Basic Data

Compute Productivity Ratios

Assign Weights to Output

Analyze Output Trends and Patterns

Prepare Action Plan for Improvement

Examine the Results

Output Category Output Type

I. Improved Technology In any agricultural research organization, one of the most important outputs is the number of crop varieties and hybrids/animal breeds/tree species released.

(It also includes their success rate, in terms of actual adoption by the clients)

Improved crop varieties Improved animal breeds Improved tree species

II.Improved Management Practices

Sustainable crop production is also based on timely adoption of appropriate plant/animal manage-ment practices..

(It also includes their success rate, in terms of actual adoption by the clients)

Plant Sciences: Agronomic practices (tillage, seed rate,

spacing, etc.) Soil and water management, Integrated management of pests, weeds,

water and nutrients Integrated farming systems, including

eco-sustainable practices Horticultural practices (tissue culture,

propagation, etc.) Farm management Farm mechanization Post-harvest technology Biotechnology Green house technology Others

Animal Sciences: Animal nutrition Vaccination Shed maintenance Rapid diagnosis and treatment of

injuries and diseases Biotechnology Others

40

III. Publications and Reports One of the most commonly used performance measurement indicators of research organizations is the number of publications and reports published in a year.

Papers in referred national / international journals

Papers presented in conference / symposia / workshop

Conference / symposium / workshop proceedings

Policy papers Concept / occasional papers Discussion papers Books / reviews / chapters Abstracts Research highlights / bulletins /

brochures Bibliography / monographs Technical reports Training manuals Training materials for students /

trainees Posters / newsletters / leaflets Farmers / extension material Audio-visual materials (radio / TV /

videotapes) Electronic database GIS Mapping Case studies Others

IV. Training EventsVarious types of training

programmes organized for different client groups are also valuable indicator to measure the performance of research organization.s

Training of national and international researchers

Training of farmers and farmers’ organizations

Training of women farmers Training of extension officers Training of students Training of private / public input

agencies Training of NGOs Others

V. Dissemination EventsDissemination of research

results through a variety of programmes for different categories

On-farm research trials Field visits / field days Demonstrations

41

of stakeholders and beneficiaries. Farmer programmes in mass media (radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, etc.)

Farmer fairs Exhibitions Campaigns Gram Sabhas Press release Through contact farmers / NGOs Agriculture Technical Information

Centre (ATIC) DAAT (District Agriculture Advisory

Technology Transfer) Centres / ZARS (Zonal Agricultural Research Station)

Collaborative links with other institutions

Others

VI. Public ServicesPublic services provide to a

variety of end users is also an additional indicator for performance assessment of research organization

Seed production activities Advisory services (field visits and

office calls) Pest and disease surveillance / crop

protection management / eradication Biological control labs Soil and water testing Pesticide testing Fertilizer testing Seed testing Gene / germplasm banks Germplasm enhancement Screening technique Testing for quarantine Land use mapping and planning Biotech services Taxonomic services Farm / veterinary clinics Others

VII. Professional Recognition Awards received in recognition

of the research work undertaken by the faculties, resources generated, scientists invited to be the members

Awards Resource generation Membership in Professional Societies /

Committees

42

of the professional societies/Committees and the financial resources generated from the consultancy service are considered as indicators to assess the professional recognition of the organization.

Consultancy service

VIII. Product DevelopmentIncludes patents/copy right for

the innovations made by the scientists, software developed, agricultural machinery developed for improving the work efficiency of the end users and processed food items, both plant or animal origin.

Patents Implements Software Processed food items (plants / animals)

b) Output Measurement (Productivity Ratio)

Once appropriate output types under each category are identified, the next step

would be to construct measurement matrices for each year during the assessment period

under consideration that can include simple quality elements (number released vs

accepted) and weighting factors (assigning relative weights to different types of output to

correct imbalances). To quantify the individual output category, first the score (total

number of respective type of output) is multiplied with the assigned weights of respective

type of output to arrive at total score and then the total score of all the outputs be summed

up to arrive at total index score of that output category. Dividing the total output index

score by the input would result in a productivity ratio for that particular category. This

procedure can be adopted to measure all the output categories identified except for the

category 1&2 (varieties/breeds and management practices) where the slight change in the

procedure is required, as explained in the respective category. All the outputs can be

finally assessed with productivity (output / input) measures that result in a productivity

43

index / ratio. Researcher time5 (person-months) can be considered as a proxy for input to

achieve scale neutral measurements of productivity, as illustrated below:

Output Measure 1: Improved Technology

In any agricultural research organization, one of the most important visible

outputs is the number of varieties of crops and hybrids / animal breeds / tree species

released; and the success rate, in terms of actual adoption by the clients, is a more reliable

indicator than the total number per se. To measure this output category, in addition to the

total number of varieties/animal breeds/tree species released, the simple quality elements

in terms of their successful adoption (number) needs to be considered. Both the values

are to be added to arrive at the combined score. This score has to be multiplied with the

weights assigned to each type by the organization concerned, as per the mandate.

Dividing the total index score by the researcher time would yield a productivity ratio for

this output category. Example of the measurement matrix for this output category is

presented in the illustration 4.1.

5Following is the recommendation on the apprehension for using the researcher time (man-months of a

research organization) as an input proxy in the performance assessment of research organization, which

emerged during the discussing meeting held at the time of evolution of methodology.

Recommendation: To get over the starting problem being faced by majority of the research organizations

in the NARS as well as to keep the assessment system simple enough to be readily acceptable by them, it

may be sufficient to consider the total man-months as a proxy for research input at the beginning. Once the

research organizations gain some experience and the performance assessment system is in place,

improvement can be brought about by: i) considering the actual man-months of only those involved in

producing a particular output; and ii) translating the input into monetary terms.

44

Illustration: 4.1 Improved Variety Release (Year-2000)

Output : New variety (number of varieties released per year)Input : Researcher time (person months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score** Weight RatingScale 0 1 2 3 4

Variety typeCastor * 4 2 6 5 30Sorghum * 4 3 7 5 35Redgram * 2 1 3 4 12

Total index score 77Researcher months 108Productivity Index / Ratio 0.71

**Score (number of varieties released plus number of varieties accepted)

Output Measure 2: Improved Management Practices

Sustainable crop production is also based on timely adoption of appropriate plant /

animal management practices. Development of management practices is inevitable for

the research organization, as it requires to address the problems faced by the farmers

from time-to-time and to gain maximum benefits out of any technology developed. To

measure this outputs category, in addition to the total number of management practices

developed, the simple quality elements in terms of their successful adoption (number)

needs to be considered. Both the values are to be added to arrive at the combined score.

This score has to be multiplied with the weights assigned to each type by the organization

concerned, as per the mandate. Example of the measurement matrix for this output

category is presented in the illustration 4.2.

45

Illustration: 4.2 Improved Management Practices (Year-2000)

Output : Management practice recommendationsInput : Researcher time (person months)

Recommendations per Year Number Accepted Score** Weight Rating

Scale 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9

TypeMicro-propagation * 8 5 13 3 39Zero tillage * 2 2 4 1 4Drip irrigation * 5 4 9 2 18Fertigation * 7 5 12 2 24

Total index score 85 Researcher months

108 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.78

** Score (number of management practices developed plus number of practices accepted)

Output Measure 3: Publications and Reports

The performance of any research organization can also be judged based on the

number of publications and reports published in a year. Scientific publications of national

and international repute would serve as a good reference point to gauge the performance

of research organization, as it normally occurs at different stages of the implementation of

any research project. Example of the measurement matrix for this output category is

presented in the illustration 4.3.

46

Illustration: 4.3 Publications and Reports (Year-2000)

Output : Publications and reportsInput : Researcher time (person months)

Number per Year Score Weight RatingScale 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeJournal articles * 4 3 12Extension material * 2 1 2 Manuals * 1 2 2Annual reports * 1 1 1

Total index score 17Researcher months 108

Productivity Index / Ratio 0.16

Output Measure 4: Training Events

Research institutions organize a variety of training programmes for different

categories of people like farmers, researchers, extension personnel, NGOs, development

agencies, etc. to create awareness about new knowledge and to impart skills for adoption

of improved technologies and management practices developed by them. The number of

such training events organized could be a valuable indicator to measure the performance

of the research organization. Example of the measurement matrix for this output category

is presented in the illustration 4.4:

Illustration: 4.4 Training Events (Year-2000)

Output : Training eventsInput : Researcher time (person months)

Events per Year Score Weight RatingScale 0 1-5 6-10 11-15 >15Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeResearchers * 1 1 1Extension staff * 2 3 6Farmers * 3 5 15

Total index score 22Researcher months 108

Productivity/Index Ratio 0.20

47

Output Measure 5: Dissemination Events

The research organization not only deals with the research in the lab, but is also

responsible for demonstration of the research findings at the farm level. The major events

that are generally undertaken are listed below, as indicators for dissemination of research

results. Example of the measurement matrix for this output category is presented in the

illustration 4.5.

Illustration: 4.5 Dissemination Events (Year-2000)

Output : Dissemination eventsInput : Researcher time (person months)

Events per Year Score Weight RatingScale <5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20Points 1 2 3 4 5

TypeOn-farm trials * 3 2 6Field days * 4 2 8Scientific Conferences * 2 3 6Press release * 1 1 1

Total index score 21Researcher months 108

Productivity Index/Ratio 0.19

Output Measure 6: Public Services

Provision of public services to a variety of end users is one of the additional

indicators in performance measurement. Some of the commonly provided public services

and the measurement matrix for this output category is presented in the illustration 4.6.

48

Illustration: 4.6 Public Services (Year-2000)

Output : Public servicesInput : Researcher time (person months)

Number per Year Score Weight RatingScale 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypePest survey * 1 5 5Germplasm collection * 1 4 4Seed testing * 3 2 6Farm advisory * 4 3 12 service

Total index score 27Researcher months 108

Productivity Index/ Ratio 0.25

Output Measure 7: Professional Recognition

Awards received in recognition of the research work undertaken by the scientists,

resources generated from donors for research, scientists invited to be the members of the

professional societies/committees and the financial resources generated from the

consultancy service may be considered as indicators to assess the professional

recognition of the organization. Example of the measurement matrix for this output

category is presented in the illustration 4.7.

49

Illustration: 4.7 Professional Recognition (Year-2000)

Output : Professional recognitionInput : Researcher time (person months) Number per Year* Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1-2 2-4 4-6 >6 Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeAwards * 3 5 15Resource generation * 4 4 16Consultancy services * 1 2 2

Total index score 33

Researcher months 108 Productivity Index / Ratio 0.30 *For resource generation, each unit represents Rs.5 lakhs

Output Measure 8: Product Development

As consequence of the various improved technologies developed by the research

organization, a variety of products may be released every year. They include patents/copy

right for the inventions made by the scientists, software developed, machinery developed

for improving the work efficiency of the end users, and processed food items, both plant

and animal origin. All these need to be considered as an essential component of research

output while assessing the performance of research organizations. Example of the

measurement matrix for this output category is presented in the illustration 4.8.

50

Illustration: 4.8 Product Development (Year-2000)

Output : Product DevelopmentInput : Researcher time (person months) Number per Year Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1-2 2-4 4-6 >6 Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypePatents * 2 5 10Software * 2 3 6Implements * 1 1 1Processed food items * 3 2 6

Total index score 23

Researcher months 108 Productivity Index / Ratio 0.21

c) Output Analysis

i) Trend Analysis:

The productivity ratio for each category can then be compared year-wise during a

selected period, the length of which varies depending on the availability of information

and the nature of commodity (annual / perennial) handled by the research organization, to

examine the changes in performance over time. It is possible to work out a bench-mark /

threshold value (average of productivity ratios over the selected period) which can serve

as useful indicator for identifying the years of over-performance and under-performance

of the research organization. The illustration for the same is presented in table 4.2.

Through critical analysis, specific reasons can be attributed for the fluctuations in

performance level.

51

Table 4.2: Trend in Productivity Measure for Outputs between 1996 and 2000(illustration)

Output Category

Total Index Score Productivity /Index Ratio Bench-mark

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Total

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Improved variety release

69 71 73 75 77 365 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.67

Improved management practices

73 75 79 81 85 393 0.67 0.69 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.72

Publications and reports 16 20 22 21 17 96 0.15 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.18

Training events 15 17 19 23 22 96 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.18

Dissemination events 14 16 20 21 21 92 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.17

Public services 18 20 23 25 27 113 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.21

Professional recognition 22 23 21 25 33 124 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.30 0.23

Product development 19 20 20 21 23 103 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.19

The output assessment not only provides information on past performance of the

research organization, but also allows the management to adjust research plans and

targets, and make realistic resource allocation in relation to client needs and research

objectives.

ii) Contribution of Individual Output Categories to Overall Performance

In accordance with the mandate of the research organization, contribution of the

individual category of research output to the overall performance can be assessed by

weighting them as per their relative importance. The weights assigned to the eight output

categories pertaining to the organization are illustrated in table 4.3:

52

Table 4.3: Relative Importance of Output Categories to Overall Performance

S.No. Output Category / Measure Weights Assigned

1 Improved variety release 25

2 Improved management practices 20

3 Publication and reports 05

4 Training events 15

5 Dissemination events 10

6 Public services 15

7 Professional recognition 05

8 Product development 05

As per the mandate of the research organization, weights can be assigned to

individual categories of research Output , in an fictitious organization, the contribution of

improved varieties / hybrids to the overall performance is maximum, followed by that of

improved management practices, public services, training events, dissemination events,

product development, publication and reports, and professional recognition, in that order.

The overall productivity index / ratio for the five-year period can then be worked out on

the basis of the weights assigned, as shown in table 4.4 and in fig. 4.2.

Table: 4.4: Trend in Overall Productivity from 1996 to 2000

S.No. Years Productivity Index/Ratio

1 1996 0.3782 1997 0.3983 1998 0.4204 1999 0.4385 2000 0.454

Bench-mark 0.418

53

B. Outcome Assessment

It is necessary to properly evaluate the impact of research. It can only be

accomplished by tracking specific outputs to establish a causal relationship between the

research output and benefits to producers. Since periodic tracking of specific research

outputs to their targets is necessary, outcome assessment is more difficult requiring more

resources and expertise. Moreover, multiple agencies are involved in realizing the impact

of technologies developed by the research organizations. Careful planning is, therefore,

needed to combine simplicity in design, reasonable levels of resource requirement and

appropriate assessment targets. Because of the inherent difficulties associated with the

outcome / impact assessment, most organizations tend to keep this type of assessment

outside the purview of performance assessment exercise.

Notwithstanding the difficulties associated with impact assessment, which

constitutes a vital component of performance assessment, it is worthwhile to consider a

few of the simplified criteria as an approximation so that the methodology is complete in

all aspects. Some of the suggested criteria for impact assessment include:

a) Simple Indicators

Area expansion (crops) / increase in number (animals)

Increase in production

54

Reduction in production cost

Profitability to the producer

Achievement of objectives- Adoption rate (reach)

Sustainability of adoption

b) Complex Indicators

Internal rate of return (IRR)

Benefit- cost analysis (BCA)

Total factor productivity (TFP)

Environmental impact assessment (EIA)

While it is relatively easy to measure the simple indicators, reliable database and

expertise are essential to measure the complex indicators. As per the availability of

database and expertise, relevant indicators may be considered for impact assessment. In

this context, it is desirable to develop the required database as well as the expertise to

ensure more realistic assessment of the impact of technologies developed by the research

organization.

C. Organization Management Assessment

Effective management has a greater influence on the performance of research

organizations. Assuming a direct relationship between management and performance, it

is considered as yet another major component of performance assessment methodology.

Various steps involved under this component are presented schematically in the fig. 4.3.

a) Identification of Key Management Domains

Critical management processes or elements that drive the performance of research

organizations need to be identified first. They include:

55

1. Assessment of context and organizational responsiveness: It is vital for the

research organization to properly understand the opportunities and threats

prevailing in its environment (in terms of farmer’s conditions and aspirations,

national policies and goals, markets, prices, funding levels, partners, and

competitors) in order to plan relevant research and produce outputs that are

useful for its varied groups of stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Fig: 4.3 Management Assessment Steps

56

Step1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Identification of Key

Management Domains

Measurement of Performance and

Management Constraints

Analysis and Follow-up

Select key management domain/areas/functions

Design analytical questions under each management

domain

Identify management constraints under each domain

Compute performance and constraint ratios

Score the management domain questions and constraint

statements

Analyse management performance

Prepare action plan for improvement

2. Planning strategy and goals for the organization: In order to effectively

respond to the rapidly changing environment, it becomes pertinent for the

organization to periodically review and adjust its directions and goals. Strategic

planning can be a better option available for repositioning itself in its

environment.

3. Selecting research objectives and outputs: At the operational level, the

development goals and client needs are to be reflected in the organization’s

research objectives and priorities for making them more relevant.

4. Research project management: The organizational objectives and strategies are

to be translated into relevant projects that need to be well planned and managed

in terms of inputs, activities and expected outputs.

5. Maintaining the quality of operational research: To ensure effective research

operations and quality of output, improved research management practices need

to be followed by creating conducive working environment in the organization.

6. Human resource management: It is important that adequate numbers of

qualified staff, in different category, are in position to ensure expected level of

organizational performance. Proper human resource management practices, in

terms of planning, recruitment, development, and evaluation, are to be

implemented for realizing improved performance.

7. Coordination and integration of internal functions, units and activities: For

the smooth and efficient running of research operations, activities of various

functional units within the organization are to be well integrated through a

proper coordination mechanism. Suitable organizational structure that is

57

facilitative for good governance, effective co-operation and internal

communication need to be ensured.

8. Transfer of technology: For effective dissemination of research results, in the

form of new knowledge and technology, to the end users, it becomes necessary to

establish strong linkages and working relationships with various agencies such as

farmer organizations, extension, development agencies including NGOs,

universities, private sector, and other agencies (both national and international).

This will not only help to put into practice the developed technologies but will

also provide the necessary feedback to the organization for developing relevant

research agenda.

9. Protecting organizational assets: In the best interest of the organization, due

attention needs to be paid to protect its assets such as staff, funds, infrastructure

facilities, and intellectual property.

10. Ensuring the flow and use of information for monitoring, evaluation and

reporting: Proper monitoring, evaluation and reporting of research through

systematically designed and managed information system will immensely benefit

the organization by providing useful information for sound decision-making as

well as for ensuring accountability.

11. Governance: Provision of inspirational leadership through participatory

decision-making as a team, empowering people with operational freedom and

rights due for them, existence of personnel policies conducive for improved

performance, proper motivation to get the best out of the individual, and

devolution of power resulting in decentralized decision-making will lead to good

governance of the research organization.

58

b) Measurement of Management Performance and Constraints

i) Raising Key Questions and Scoring of Management Performance:

In accordance with specific characteristics of the research organization being

assessed, a set of analytical questions needs to be raised for each of the critical

management domains identified. The degree to which the identified questions are

answered individually is then scored on a point scale, as given in the illustration 4.9:

Based on the level of implementation of a practice:

0: Not used or realized

1: Used or realized partially / occasionally

2: Used or realized routinely

3: Continuous improvements underway

Based on the effectiveness of a procedure:

0: Ineffective

1: Moderately effective

2: Efforts made towards improvement

3: Very effective

59

Illustration 4.9: Assessment of Context and Organizational Responsiveness

Key Questions Score

1. Are the user needs, resources and constraints taken into account? 1

2. Are the context factors, opportunities and threats regularly examined 2 by the organization?

3. Are the information on policy and price effects on users analyzed and used? 2

4. Are the marketing and other context factors that affect client adoption of research outputs considered ? 3

5. Are the overall Government funding and disbursement levels for research analyzed? 3

6. Are the roles and activities of other actors in agriculture analyzed? 1

7. Whether internal (domestic) and external (international) requirements of research have been considered in the light of changing national and global 2 agricultural scenario due to WTA?

8. Does mutually beneficial interaction with industry and allied sectors exist? 1

9. Whether environmental security is considered to realize sustainability? 1

10. Whether a complete database on context related factors is established? 2

Total score (of possible 30) 18 Performance Ratio (18/30):

0.60

Note: See Annexure I for the key question sets of all other management domains

ii) Identification and Scoring of Management Constraints:

Due to the hierarchical nature of decision-making as well as the prevalence of

bureaucratic civil service rules, constraints to effective management often exist in the

public sector research organizations. For each management domain, specific management

60

constraints (both internal and external) need to be identified and assigned weights based

on their relative importance, as under:

1: Very low2: Low3: Medium4: High5: Very high

Illustration 4.10: Assessments of Context and Organizational Responsiveness

Constraints Score

1. There is excessive dependence on government funding for research. 4 2. Government civil service requirements and bureaucratic procedures affect financial resource management and are not efficient. 4

3. Budget allocation procedure affects the performance of the organization with regard to its responsiveness. 4

4. There is lack of awareness among scientists about WTA. 4

5. The organization has nothing to do with policy, marketing and price of agricultural commodities as it rests with the government. 1

6. Limited or lack of interaction with input agencies. 2

7. Participatory rural appraisal is not mandatory. 1

8. Lack of training/exposure about agro-industry/trade/export. 1

9. There is lack of manpower for user survey. 2

10. Lack of awareness about database on external environment. 2

11. Lack of quality control infrastructure (physical and manpower) to meet 3 the market - driven internal demands for trade.

Total score (of possible 55) 28 Constraint Ratio (28/55): 0.51

Note: See Annexure I for the constraint sets of all other management domains

61

iii) Estimation of Management Performance and Constraint Ratios:

Performance score for each management domain can be obtained by summing up

the score for each question. Performance ratio can be finally worked out by dividing the

summed-up score by the potential score. The procedure allows the identification of key

management domains that require due attention for improving the performance: a low

ratio indicates problems within the particular management domain that are caused by

external constraints or internal management weaknesses. Likewise, constraint ratio for

each management domain can then be worked out by dividing the actual score by the

potential score. The constraint ratio is helpful to ascertain the elements of management

that can be improved at the organizational level, as well as to overcome some externally

imposed constraints by recommending to higher-level decision-makers. These ratios can

be arrived at for all the key management areas in a particular year, as given in table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Performance and Constraint Ratios for 2000 (Illustration)

S.No.

Key Management Domain

Performance ConstraintsTotalScor

e

Potential Score

Ratio

TotalScor

e

Potential Score

Ratio

1. Context and organization’s responsiveness

18 30 0.60 28 55 0.51

2. Planning strategy and goals

26 39 0.67 9 20 0.45

3. Selecting research objectives and outputs

14 30 0.47 14 20 0.70

4. Research project management

29 48 0.60 13 25 0.52

5. Maintaining operational research quality

20 30 0.67 21 45 0.47

6. Human resource management

23 39 0.59 21 40 0.53

7. Coordination of internal functions, units and activities

15 24 0.63 10 20 0.50

8. Transfer of technology 25 39 0.64 14 30 0.47 9. Protecting organization’s

assets18 36 0.50 13 20 0.65

10. Information flow for monitoring, evaluation and

17 27 0.63 11 24 0.46

62

reporting11. Governance 23 27 0.85 13 40 0.33

Whenever the management processes are running smooth and effective in the

organization, it will have higher performance (as reflected in the ratio) and encounter

minimal management constraints having a bearing on performance. Conscious efforts on

the part of the research management are warranted to overcome the specific constraints

whenever the ratio is higher in any of the key management domains.

c) Analysis of Management Assessment Results

i) Contribution of Key Management Domains:

Depending on the mandate and working environment prevalent in the research

organization, individual contribution of various key management domains to the overall

performance can be considered. Based on their relative importance, the weights can be

assigned to the key management domains, as under:

Table 4.6: Contribution of Key Management Domains to Overall Performance,

2000(Illustration)

S.No. Key Management Domains Weights Assigned(Adding to 100)

1. Context and organization’s responsiveness 052. Planning strategy and goals 053. Selecting research objectives and outputs 154. Research project management 105. Maintaining operational research quality 106. Human resource management 157. Coordination and integration of internal functions, units

and activities05

8. Transfer of technology 109. Protecting organization’s assets 0510. Information for monitoring, evaluation and reporting 0511. Governance 15

It is evident from the table that the scientists in this fictitious organization

consider areas like selecting research objectives and outputs, human resource

management, and good governance as the three most important management functions

63

influencing the overall performance of their organization. Other management areas

considered as important are research project management, maintaining operational

research quality and transfer of technology.

ii) Cumulative Performance:

The cumulative performance coupled with corresponding constraint ratios that are

worked out on the basis of their individual contribution to the overall performance, are

presented in table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Cumulative Performance and Constraint Ratios for 2000

S.No. Particulars Cumulative Ratio

1. Performance 0.62

2. Constraints 0.51

Higher the overall performance, lower will be the constraint ratio and vice-versa.

These two ratios for a particular year (say 2000) can be taken as a base (bench-mark or

threshold value), against which their values in the subsequent years can be compared for

assessing the direction in which the organization is moving as far as its performance is

concerned.

64

Chapter 5: Field Application

As per the recommendations by the senior level functionaries in the National

Workshop, the refined methodology thus developed was field tested on a pilot scale in

four research institutions, who volunteered to apply the developed methodology to assess

their research performance. Facilitated by the project team from NAARM, the four

institutions belonging to ICAR and SAU, viz.Directorate of Oilseeds Research (DOR)

and Project Directorate on Poultry (PDP) of ICAR, Regional Agricultural Research

stations (RARS) at Palem and Lam of ANGRAU undertook self-assessment of their

performance, over a five-year period, i.e. from 1995-’96 to 1999-2000 for all the centres,

except the RARS at Lam from 1997 to 2002, by utilizing the methodological framework

developed by the Academy. The methodology essentially focused on the identification

and measurement of various categories of research output (expressed as productivity

ratios), as well as that of key management domains having a bearing on its performance

(expressed as performance ratios) along with associated constraints (expressed as

constraint ratios).

Purpose

The overall purpose of assessment is to determine the organization’s performance

which identifies the research outputs, measured in terms of productivity index/ratio;

identifies and assess the key areas of management and their performance, in terms of

performance index/ratio; and the subsequent analysis of constraints, in terms of

constraint ratio; for better management and performance improvement. This is of great

use for the research managers to design and implement appropriate plan of action for

improving the performance of their research organizations.

Methodology

The approach and the process involved in the performance assessment are almost

similar for all the four case studies and are furnished here in the following section:

65

Assessment Approach:

Self-evaluation techniques, coupled with the intervention of external facilitators to

provide objectivity to the assessment procedures, were employed. The approach mainly

focused on:

Identification of research outputs;

Estimation of research output ratios using appropriate productivity measures;

Measurement of outcome, in terms of the impact of technologies generated;

Analysis and establishment of bench-marks for the key areas of management

that ;affect the research output;

Identification of key management practices that can be improved;

Identification and weighting of external constraints to performance;

Developing action plan to improve future performance;

Assessment Process:

The following step-by-step process was followed in the assessment of research

performance of the agriculture research organizations selected for the case study.

Measurable indicators for various categories of research output, as well as key

management areas affecting the organizational performance were identified.

A questionnaire was prepared and sent to the Director to collect a wide variety of

indicators under selected seven output categories for calculating output /

productivity ratios and to collect more number of possible questions for eleven

key functions in organization management.

The output categories, including various output types under each category, key

management areas and management question sets were identified and prepared

based on the response received for the questionnaire.

Key questions and constraints under each management areas were identified and

scored.

Output indicators and key management functions were prioritized based on the

assigned weights by the centre scientists.

Secondary data sources from the Institute’s annual reports were utilized for the

assessment of output and productivity index for a period of five years.

66

Through personal interaction with station scientists, the collected data were

counterchecked for completeness, accuracy and consistency.

Impact of the technologies developed under different crops/animals was worked

out for five years.

The calculated output scores and productivity indices/ratios were compared over

the period of five years, with the bench-mark (average) productivity ratios.

The performance indices as well as the constraint ratios for various key

management areas for 1999-2000 in the case of Directorate of Oilseeds Research,

Project Directorate on Poultry and the Regional Agricultural Research Station at

Lam, whereas for the Regional Agricultural Research Station at Palem for 1997-

2002 were worked out.

Thus, using the above methodology, four case studies were developed and the results are

furnished in the following sections.

67

5.1 Performance Assessment of Directorate of Oilseeds Research (DOR)6 of ICAR

Background

The All India Coordinated Research Project on Oilseeds (AICRPO) was set up in

India in 1967, which was headed by a full-time Project Coordinator and had 32 Research

Centres covering five major crops, viz. Groundnut, Rapeseed-Mustard, Sesame, Linseed

and Castor. In 1972, three more crops, viz. Sunflower, Safflower and Niger were added

to the AICRPO. The Project was elevated to the status of Directorate of Oilseeds

Research (DOR) in 1977 to strengthen the basic, strategic and applied research, and

coordination activities of the AICRPO on Sunflower, Sesame, Safflower, Castor, Linseed

and Niger. At present, the DOR is located on an area of 14.52 ha land in the campus of

Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University at Hyderabad.

Mandate

Based on the inputs from various supporting bodies like Research Advisory

Committee (RAC) and Institute Management Committee (IMC), and also by keeping in

view the needs of various stakeholders, the mandate of the Directorate is set as follows:

Management of genetic resources of mandated crops, viz. Sunflower, Safflower,

Castor, Linseed and Niger.

Basic, strategic and applied research to increase productivity and oil content.

Research on quality of oil and oilseed cake.

Socio-economic research for assessing sustainability of technologies.

Transfer of technology.

Coordination of multiplication trials through AICRP Network to develop

varieties/hybrids and technologies.

Organizational set-up

The Organization is headed by a Project Director, and is guided and supported in

its endeavors by the Institute Management Committee (IMC) and Research Advisory

Committee (RAC).

6 For complete information, refer the Case Study “Performance assessment of Directorate of Oilseeds Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030(1995-2000)” published as a part of the PME Sub-project by Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S in December 2003 from NAARM, Rajedranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030.

68

Under Research Advisory Committee (RAC), various Research sections viz. Crop

Improvement, Crop Production, Crop Protection and Social Sciences carry out research

activities, whereas under Institute Management Committee (IMC) various service

sections viz. Administration, Finance and Accounts, Technical Information, Library and

Farm carry out coordinating activities (Fig.5.1.1).

Fig 5.1.1 Organogram of DOR

69

Director General

Deputy Director General(Crop Sciences)

Project Director

Institute Management Committee (IMC)

Research AdvisoryCommittee (RAC)

Research Sections

Crop Improvement(Breeding, Genetics &

Cytogenetics, Biotechnology, Economic Botany)

Crop Production(Agronomy, Physiology, Soil Science, Agric. Chemistry,

Biochemistry)

Crop Protection(Entomology, Pathology,

Nematology)

Social Sciences(Agric. Economics, Extension,

Statistics, Computer Applications)

A

I

C

O

R

P

O

Service Section

Administration

Finance & Accounts

Technical Information

Library

Farm

PC Unit PC Unit PC Unit PC Unit PC Unit(Sunflower) (Sesame & Niger) (Linseed) (Safflower) (Castor) UAS JNKV CSAUA & T MPAU DOR Bangalore Jabalpur Kanpur Solapur Hyderabad

Infrastructure, Human and Financial Resources:

The Directorate is well equipped with the infrastructure and laboratories to carry

out basic and strategic research of the mandated crops in addition to the coordination

activities, and in 1999-2000 it had a staff strength of 33 scientists, including the Director,

and ably supported by a manpower of about 109 (table 5.1.1). The institute also has a

well-equipped farm with an area of 44.55 ha at the Narkhoda village located about 17 km

from the Directorate.

Table 5.1.1: Manpower Position over Five Years (1995-'96 to 1999-2000)

Year

Scientists Technical StaffAdministration &

Accounts Staff

Auxiliary &

Supporting Staff

Sanct-

ioned

In

positionVacant

Sanct-

ioned

In

positionVacant

Sanct-

ioned

In

positionVacant

Sanct-

ioned

In

positionVacant

1995-

199641 40 1 54 54 - 29 29 - 30 30 -

1996-

199741 36 5 54 52 2 29 29 - 30 30 -

1997-

199840 37 3 54 53 1 29 29 - 30 30 -

1998-

199940 34 6 54 53 1 28 27 1 30 29 1

1999-

200039 33 6 54 53 1 28 27 1 30 29 1

Source: Annual Reports of DOR (1995-’96 to 1999-2000)

The Project Directorate receives funds from different sources to undertake its

various activities. Table 5.1.2 shows the funds received and expenditure made for the

period from 1995-96 to 1999-2000 under study. Seed production activities and oil

analysis are the main areas of technical services rendered by DOR to the public, which

enables resource generation.

70

Table 5.1.2: Institutional Budget over Five Years (1995-’96 to 1999-2000) (Rs. in lakhs)

Year Allocation/grant Expenditure

1995-1996 386.07 385.07

1996-1997 435.00 435.00

1997-1998 756.03 748.31

1998-1999 914.25 880.24

1999-2000 843.00 829.00

Source: Annual Reports of DOR (1995-’96 to 1999-2000)

Research Projects

Various externally funded research projects are being carried out by the

Directorate under AP Cess, APNL and NATP in addition to the projects carried out with

the funds of the institute itself. The research projects funded by external agencies also

carry out various research activities within the mandate of the institute. Research projects

carried out by the Directorate during 1995-2000 are indicated in table 5.1.3.

Table 5.1.3: Projects undertaken by DOR during 1995-’96 to 1999-2000

Projects 1995-’96 1996-’97 1997-’98 1998-’99 1999-2000

AP CESS 3 3 3 3 2

APNL - - 4 4 4

NATP - - 2 2 3

Institute

Projects- - 35 34 -

Source: Annual Reports (1995-’96 to1999-2000)

71

Organizational Performance Assessment

A. Output Assessment

Based on the response received through the questionnaire, which was sent to the

Director and discussed at the Directorate in a participatory manner, seven output

categories were identified.

i) Output:

The output categories and types of outputs pertaining to the Directorate are listed

in table (5.1.4).

72

Table 5.1.4: Output Categories and Types

Output Categories Output Types

Improved Varieties / Hybrids Castor hybrid – DCH-32 and DCH-177

Safflower hybrid – DSH-129

Improved Management Practices Foundation seed production of VP-1

(Female parent of GCH 4 hybrid). Identification of salinity tolerant

genotypes of Sunflower and Safflower.

Identification of Noumrella rileyi, for management of lepidopteran pests in oilseed crops.

Development of soil solarization technique to reduce wilt in Sesame.

Identification of Sunflower-Groundnut sequence as a most profitable, productive and sustainable cropping system.

Substitution of plant nutrients using organic or biofertilizers or crop residues of Sunflower with Trichoderma viride to reduce inorganic fertilizer input to Groundnut in Groundnut-Sunflower cropping system.

Identification of deltamethrin as effective against leaf minor in Castor.

Seed treatment with bavistin to reduce wilt in Castor.

Seed treatment to reduce leafhopper, whitefly and SND.

Identification of NPV isolates to control Heliothis armigera.

Identification of isolates of Trichoderma to control Castor wilt.

73

Output Categories Output Types

Publications and Reports Research papers Reports Papers in symposia Books Book chapters Technical bulletins Popular articles Newsletters OSDOC Meetings Current literature search Extension leaflets / pamphlets

Training Events National training International training Staff seminar Farmers training Off-campus training

Dissemination Events Exhibition participation Radio talks Video film TV Presentation Farmers day Kisan mela Seed day Annual research workers group

meetings: * Sunflower * Safflower * Castor * Linseed

Public Services Oil analysis Germplasm exchange Seed production

Professional Recognition Awards Resource generation Consultancy services

74

ii) Output Measurement:

As described in the methodology, the productivity ratios have been calculated for

DOR for all the seven output categories for the five-year period. The output matrix of the

first and second output categories for the year 1996-’97 are presented below, as the

measurement of these two categories of output is different from rest of the categories. To

measure the first output category (i.e. improved crop varieties and hybrids), in addition to

the total number of varieties released, the simple quality elements in terms of their

successful adoption (number) were considered. Both the values were added to arrive at

the combined score. This score was in-turn multiplied with the weights assigned to each

type by the institute concerned as per the mandate. Productivity ratio was worked out by

dividing the total index score by the researcher time in terms of man months for this

output category. Illustration of the output measurement of the first category for DOR for

the year 1996-97 is presented in the matrix (5.1.1)

Output Measurement Matrix 5.1.1: Improved Crop Varieties and Hybrids

(1996-’97)

Output: New Variety (Number of varieties released per year)Input: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1 2 3 4

TypeCastor-DCH 32 * 1 1 2 4 8

Total index score 8 Researcher months (36*12) 432

Productivity Index/Ratio 0.018

The released Castor hybrid DCH- 32 forms the output type under the output

category: Improved varieties and Hybrids, during the year 1996-97. This was successful

75

and hence, scored as two. Weight was assigned by the scientists of the Directorate based

on the relative importance in accordance with the mandate of the institute. Total index

score was calculated by multiplying the weight (4) with the obtained score (2). Finally,

the productivity index/ratio was calculated by dividing the total index score by the total

researcher man months.

The same methodology was followed in the measurement of output category-2

(Improved management practices) and the illustration is presented in the output

measurement matrix 5.1.2.

Output Measurement Matrix 5.1.2: Improved Management Practices (1996-’97)

Output: Management practice recommendationsInput: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9 Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeCropping Sequence * 1 1 2 5 10Using organic methods to reduce inorganic fertilizers * 1 1 2 4 8

Total index score 18 Researcher months (36*12) 432

Productivity Index/Ratio 0.0416

All other output categories were measured, as per the common methodology

described in the earlier section. An illustration for the same is presented in the output

measurement matrix 5.1.3.

76

Output Measurement Matrix 5.1.3: Publications and Reports (1996-’97)

Output: Publications and ReportsInput: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9 Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeResearch Papers * 3 5 15Reports * 1 5 5

Papers in symposia * 2 4 8Book Chapters * 1 4 4Popular Articles * 1 4 4

Total index score 36 Researcher months (36*12) 432

Productivity Index/Ratio 0.083

iii)Output Trend Analysis:

The trend in the productivity index / ratio for each category of output over the

five-year period can be summarized in the form of a table, which will enable the

Directorate to identify at a glance the years of under, normal and over-performance in

comparison with the bench-mark value. The productivity index / ratio calculated for the

seven categories of output are presented in table 5.1.4.

77

Table 5.1.4: Trend in Productivity Measures for Output Categories between 1995-1996 and 1999-2000

Output Category/Measure

Productivity Index / Ratio

1995-’96 1996-’97 1997-’98 1998-’99 1999-2000 Bench-mark

Improved varieties / hybrids - 0.018 0.022 0.024 - 0.021

Improved management practices

0.062 0.042 0.054 0.098 0.080 0.067

Publications and reports 0.031 0.083 0.108 0.108 0.124 0.091

Training events 0.029 0.058 0.029 0.012 0.013 0.028Dissemination events 0.004 0.039 0.054 0.047 0.048 0.038

Public services 0.010 0.023 0.023 0.025 0.025 0.021

Professional recognition 0.010 0.012 0.074 0.054 0.090 0.048

As it can be seen from the table, there is fluctuation in the productivity index /

ratio over the five-year period in general. By comparing with the bench-mark / threshold

values, the year of under, normal and over-performance of the Directorate in terms of the

seven output categories can be identified and the reasons attributed for the same.

iv) Contribution of Individual Output Categories to Overall Performance:

In accordance with the mandate of the Directorate and based on the inputs provided by

the scientists in the participatory mode of discussion, the contribution of the individual

category of research output to the overall performance was assessed by weighting them

78

as per their relative importance. The weights assigned to the seven output categories

pertaining to the Directorate of Oilseeds Research are presented in table 5.1.5.

Table 5.1.5: Relative Importance of Output Categories to Overall Performance

S.No. Output Category / MeasureWeights Assigned

(Adding to 100)

1. Improved varieties / hybrids 27

2. Improved management practices 22

3. Publication and reports 17

4. Training events 11

5. Dissemination events 06

6. Public services 06

7. Professional recognition 11

It is evident that the contribution of improved varieties / hybrids to the overall

performance is maximum, followed by that of improved management practices,

publication and reports, training events, professional recognition, dissemination events,

and public services, in that order. The overall productivity index / ratio for the five-year

period are shown in table 5.1.6 and figure 5.1.2.

Table 5.1.6: Trend in Overall Productivity from 1995-’96 to 1999-2000

S.No. Years Productivity Index/Ratio

1. 1995-1996 0.02402. 1996-1997 0.03963. 1997-1998 0.0521

79

4. 1998-1999 0.0579 5. 1999-2000 0.0543

Bench-mark 0.0477

Fig 5.1.2: Trend in Overall Productivity

0.024

0.0396

0.05210.0579 0.0543

00.010.020.030.040.050.060.07

1995-'96 1996-'97 1997-'98 1998-'99 1999-'00

Year

Prod

uctiv

ity ra

tio

It is evident from the table 5.1.6 and figure 5.1.2 that the Project Directorate

experienced under-performance in the years 1995-’96 and 1996-’97, and consistently

performed better in the consecutive three years.

B. Organization Management Assessment

i) Management Performance and Constraint Assessment:

Keeping in view the Directorate’s mandate, 11 critical management domains

having a direct bearing on its performance were identified. Under each of these domains,

certain key questions were raised and scored, on a point scale, as per the degree to which

these questions were answered. Performance score for each management domain was

then obtained by summing up the score for the questions raised in that domain. By

dividing the summed-up score by the potential score, performance index / ratio for each

domain was finally worked out.

Like in any public funded research organization, certain internal and external

constraints to effective management were encountered by the Directorate. For each

management domain, specific management constraints were identified, scored as per their

80

relative importance and measured, interms of constraint ratio by dividing the actual score

by the potential score. They are presented in tables 5.1.6 to 5.1.17.

81

Table 5.1.7: Management Domain-Assessment of Context and Project Directorate’s Responsiveness

a) Key Questions:

S. No. Key QuestionsScor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Are the user needs, resources and constraints taken into account?

Whether the information on policy, marketing and price effects on

client adoption of research outputs are analyzed and used?

Whether the overall government funding and disbursement levels

of research are analyzed?

Whether the WTO regime effects are taken into consideration?

Whether the possible sources of funds other than the government

taken into account?

Total Score 8 Possible Score 15

Performance Ratio 0.533

3

1

2

0

2

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

There is excessive dependence on Government funding for research.

Government civil service requirements and bureaucratic procedures

affect financial resource management and are not efficient.

Budget allocation procedure affects the performance of the Directorate

with regards to its responsiveness.

Total Score (of possible15) 12 Constraint Ratio (12/15) 0.800

4

5

3

82

Table: 5.1.8 Management Domain-Planning Strategy and Goals for the Project Directorate

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Whether a strategic planning process is practically done, reflecting upon

the context, user need and policy implications?

Whether the stakeholders, end users and expert groups are identified and

actively involved in the strategic planning process?

Whether research strategy or policy documents are used to establish

goals?

Whether the long-term research plans are suitable to periodical review

(internal/external) and corrective action (contingent plan) taken,

whenever needed?

Whether expert groups are consulted in the planning process?

Total Score 10 Possible Score 15

Performance Ratio 0.667

3

2

2

1

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Policies and decision-making are too centralized that affect planning and

operations at institute level.

Fund disbursement procedures at higher level cause inordinate delays.

Core budget is predictable, but is not sufficient to address the high

priority objectives.

Total Score (of possible 15) 10Constraint Ratio (10/15) 0.667

2

4

4

83

84

Table 5.1.9: Management Domain-Selecting Research Objectives and Outputs

a) Key Questions:

S.No. Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Do the Directorate’s research priorities reflect the current and future

regional / national development goals?

Whether past work has been revised to identify researchable constraints?

Are there participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools used to identify

opportunities and constraints for arriving at the research objectives?

Whether on-farm activities are carried out, with user participation, which

influence the research agenda through effective feedback?

Whether adequate brainstorming discussion has been held on research

objectives?

Total Score 11 Possible Score 15

Performance Ratio 0.733

3

2

1

2

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

There is no policy encouragement to involve farmers in setting research

objectives.

There is little feedback from farmers through the extension.

Budget limits the possibility of undertaking user surveys.

Total Score ( of possible15) 8Constraint Ratio (8/15) 0.533

2

2

4

85

Table 5.1.10: Management Domain-Research Project Management

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Is there any effective formal procedure / mechanism for planning

and managing research projects?

Is there any formal research priority setting procedure being

followed?

Is there any effective mechanism (internal / external) for periodic

monitoring of on-going research projects and for evaluation of

completed projects?

Are certain milestones set up, as indicators, for implementing and

monitoring of research projects?

Is there any provision for mid-course correction based on the mid-

term review?

Total Score 9Possible Score 15Performance Ratio 0.600

2

0

3

2

2

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Funding is not sufficiently stable to maintain priority research

directions.

There is very few staff with skills for effective management of research

projects.

There is lack of encouragement for project based budgeting.

Total Score ( of possible15) 10Constraint Ratio (10/15) 0.667

2

4

4

86

87

Table 5.1.11: Management Domain-Maintaining Quality of Operational Research

a) Key Questions:

S.

No.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Is there any institutional mechanism to provide details on resource

costs, indicators of success and time frame for research activities?

Do scientists have adequate freedom to operate their research

projects within the framework originally approved?

Whether an effective mechanism exists for providing adequate

logistic support to field operations that are carried out with active

participation of end users?

Total Score 8Possible Score 9

Performance Ratio 0.889

2

3

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Access to transport facilities is limited.

There is lack of well laid -out procedure for provision of logistic

support.

Mechanism for direct communication of research results to users does

not exist.

Total Score (of possible15) 8Constraint Ratio (8/15) 0.533

4

2

2

88

Table 5.1.12: Management Domain-Human Resource Management

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

Whether the Directorate carries out periodic manpower planning

exercise more scientifically?

Is there a systematic human resource development (HRD) plan, as

per the needs of various categories of staff, in practice?

Whether staff upgradation programme is effectively practised, on a

regular basis, for capacity building?

Are there effective performance-oriented incentive and reward

systems to motivate the staff?

Total Score 7Possible Score 12Performance Ratio 0.583

2

1

2

2

b) Key Questions:

S.No. Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

There is ad-hocism in manpower planning and recruitment.

Inadequacy of funds for effective HRD planning.

Limitation of civil service rules and procedures to realize better performance of staff.

Total Score ( of possible15) 10Constraint Ratio (10/15) 0.667

4

2

4

89

Table: 5.1.13: Management Domain-Coordination and Integration of Internal Functions, Units and Activities

a) Key Questions

S.No. Key QuestionsScor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

Whether the organizational structure is periodically evaluated and

adjustments made as per need?

Is there an effective mechanism for information flow between

structural / functional units?

Is there a specific unit / cell which periodically meets and ensures

coherent direction and coordination of research, including allocation

of resources?

Is the organizational structure helpful to the scientists to carry out

their project successfully?

Total Score 11Possible Score 12Performance Ratio 0.917

2

3

3

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

Instead of programme orientation, discipline - oriented divisional Set-up

results in inefficient resource use.

Because of the Government civil service rules, structural adjustment is

seldom attempted.

Total Score (of possible10) 5Constraint Ratio (5/10) 0.500

3

2

90

Table 5.1.14: Management Domain-Transfer of Technology

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

Are there adequate technology generation-transfer linkage strategies

formulated?

Do the end users and extension personnel actively participate in

dissemination events?

Is there any provision of training the extension staff for performing

the technology transfer tasks in an efficient and effective manner?

Whether there is effective mechanism for feedback from the end

users to have a bearing on the research agenda?

Total Score 9Possible Score 12Performance Ratio 0.750

2

3

2

2

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Explicit budgeting for attending linkage tasks does not exist.

Co-operation with extension is weak.

Incentives for the researchers to engage in technology transfer activities do not exist.

Total Score (of possible15) 10Constraint Ratio (10/15) 0.667

4

2

4

91

92

Table 5.1.15: Management Domain-Protecting Organizational Assets

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Whether adequate budgetary provisions are made to create new

infrastructure for coping with changing needs as well as to maintain

them in working condition?

Whether suitable revenue generation activities are identified and

implemented?

Does the Directorate pursue the protection of its intellectual property

rights (IPR) through appropriate mechanisms like awareness creation,

capacity building, database management, legal action, etc.?

Are there service and maintenance contracts, in adequate measure, for

costly infrastructure?

Does the Directorate effectively pursue replacement of outdated

equipment?

Total Score 13Possible Score 15Performance Ratio 0.867

3

2

2

3

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

There is inadequate provision for effective maintenance and repair.

There are no effective policies for revenue generation as well as for

ploughing back of generated revenue.

Total Score (of possible10) 4Constraint Ratio (4/10) 0.400

2

2

93

94

Table 5.1.16 Management Domain-Information for Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

Has an effective management information system (MIS) been

planned and implemented for monitoring and evaluation of

research?

Is there a process of periodic external review of management and

operations through an effective information system?

Does the corrective action recommended by the external review

team implemented, either fully or partially?

Whether adequate financial and staff resources are available for

undertaking monitoring and evaluation functions through MIS more

effectively?

Total Score 4 Possible Score 12

Performance Ratio 0.333

1

1

1

1

b) Constraints:

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Monitoring and evaluation functions are taken for granted without

adequate attention being given.

Qualified staff is not available to carry out effective monitoring and

evaluation functions.

In spite of realizing its importance and use of MIS, it is not in operation

at present.

Total Score (of possible15) 10

2

4

4

95

Constraint Ratio (10/15) 0.667

96

Table: 5.1.17 Management Domain-Governance

a) Key Questions:

S.No. Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Does the leadership inspire people to give their best to the Directorate by

serving as a role model?

Whether team work is considered as the hall-mark by the leadership for

greater performance?

Is there any effort for achieving devolution of power up to the working

scientist level?

Does the incentive and reward systems promote excellence among the

staff?

Does the existing personal policies tend to encourage mediocrity in the

Directorate?

Whether the existing working climate is conducive to motivate employees

towards greater achievement?

Whether decentralized decision-making is in practice in the Directorate?

Is their delegation of authority comensurating with specific responsibility?

Are there efforts made to ensure involvement and commitment of staff

through participatory mode of decision-making?

Total Score 26 Possible Score 27

Performance Ratio 0.963

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

Interference from the Council headquarters.

Defective promotion policy of scientists.

Total Score (of possible10) 6

2

4

97

Constraint Ratio (6/10) 0.600

Performance and constraint ratios worked out for all the eleven key management

domains pertaining to the Project Directorate on Oilseeds in 2002 are presented in table

5.1.18.

Table 5.1.18: Performance and Constraint Ratios for DOR, Hyderabad (2000)

S.No.

Key Management Domain

Performance ConstraintsTotalScor

e

Potential Score

Ratio

TotalScor

e

Potential Score

Ratio

1. Context and Directorate’s responsiveness

08 15 0.533 12 15 0.800

2. Planning strategy and goals

10 15 0.667 10 15 0.667

3. Selecting research objectives

11 15 0.733 08 15 0.533

4. Research project management

09 15 0.600 10 15 0.667

5. Maintaining operational research quality

08 09 0.889 08 15 0.533

6. Human resource management

07 12 0.583 10 15 0.667

7. Coordination of internal functions

11 12 0.917 05 10 0.500

8. Transfer of technology 09 12 0.750 10 15 0.667 9. Protecting Directorate’s

assets13 15 0.867 04 10 0.400

10. Information flow for M & E

04 12 0.333 10 15 0.667

11. Governance 26 27 0.963 06 10 0.600

As can be seen from the table, the overall performance of all the management

functions (with the exception of information flow for monitoring & evaluation and

assessment of context and Directorate’s responsiveness) is found to be satisfactory. An

inverse relationship between the performance and constraint ratios is also observed for

the Directorate of Oilseeds Research.

ii) Contribution of Key Management Domains:

98

Depending on the mandate and working environment prevalent in the Directorate,

individual contribution of various key management domains to the overall performance

was considered differently by the Directorate’s scientists. Based on their relative

importance, the weights assigned by them to the key management domains are indicated

in table 5.1.19.

Table 5.1.19: Contribution of Key Management Domains to the Overall Performance (2000)

S.No. Key Management Domains Weights Assigned(Adding to 100)

1. Context and Directorate’s responsiveness 10

2. Planning strategy and goals 10

3. Selecting research objectives and outputs 10

4. Research project management 10

5. Maintaining operational research quality 08

6. Human resource management 08

7. Coordination and integration of internal functions, units and activities

10

8. Transfer of technology 08

9. Protecting Directorate’s assets 08

10. Information for monitoring, evaluation and reporting 08

11. Governance 10

It is evident from the table that the Directorate scientists consider areas like

Context and Directorate’s responsiveness, Planning strategy and goals, Selecting research

objectives and outputs, Research project management, Coordination and integration of

internal functions, units and activities and good Governance as the most important

management functions influencing the overall performance of their Research Station.

Other management areas such as Maintaining operational research quality, Human

99

resource management, Transfer of technology, Protecting Directorate’s assets and

Information for monitoring, evaluation and reporting are considered as of secondary

nature.

iii) Cumulative Performance:

The cumulative performance coupled with the corresponding constraint ratio that

are worked out on the basis of their individual contribution to the overall performance,

are presented in table 5.1.20.

Table 5.1.20: Cumulative Performance and Constraint Ratio for 2000

S No Particulars Cumulative Ratio

1. Performance 0.741

2. Constraints 0.583

With respect to management process, it appears that the Directorate has

performed well in 2000 (as reflected in the cumulative performance ratio higher than that

of the constraint ratio). However, necessary corrective actions through strategic decision-

making to minimize the constraints with regard to aspects such as suitably responding to

the environment, planning effective strategy and goals, evolving appropriate human

resource management practices and information flow for effective monitoring and

evaluation will facilitate the Project Directorate to realize achieve improved performance.

C. Summary of the Assessment Results

Among the output categories, the Directorate attached greater values for the

release of improved varieties / hybrids and management practices, as compared to

publications, training and dissemination events. Very significantly, it brought

about a steady increase in its performance over the years, as reflected in the

productivity ratio.

Almost equal importance was attached to all the 11 key management domains

reflecting on its performance by the Directorate. In terms of performance ratio,

better performance was observed in 2000 pertaining to management functions

100

such as good governance, effective coordination of internal units, maintenance of

operational research quality, and protecting its assets.

The Directorate faced severe constraints in: properly responding to its

environment due to bureaucratic procedures hampering effective financial

resource management; planning appropriate strategy and goals because of highly

centralized decision-making; effective management of projects for want of

required skills in scientists; better management of human resource due to

inadequacy of funds for effective HRD planning; productive transfer of

technology for want of explicit budget and incentives for the researchers; and

suitable information flow for monitoring and evaluation because of non-

availability of qualified staff.

Due to inherent difficulties associated with impact assessment, mainly for want of

reliable database developed by qualified staff, the assessment of research outcome

was not attempted by the Directorate.

101

5.2 Performance Assessment of Project Directorate on Poultry (PDP) of ICAR7

Background

During the Fourth Plan period, like in any other agricultural commodities, the All

India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Poultry Breeding was initiated in 1970

by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) to produce superior genetic

stocks of layers and broilers to achieve self-reliance in poultry production. The Project

was initially operated with a Coordinating Unit located at the Poultry Research Division

of IVRI till the year 1979, and later at CARI in Izatnagar till the year 1988. The

Coordinating Unit, comprising a small group of scientists from different disciplines with

a full - time Project Coordinator, coordinated the work of different Centres and carried

out research programmes.

The Coordinating Unit of AICRP on Poultry Breeding was subsequently upgraded

to the status of a Project Directorate during the last part of Seventh Plan period, and was

renamed as the Project Directorate on Poultry (PDP). The Directorate was established at

its present location in the Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University campus at

Hyderabad on 1st March 1988. Since then, the Directorate has been the focal point for

research on poultry, particularly in the area of genetics and breeding. The Directorate

essentially remains the Coordinating Unit of AICRP on Poultry Breeding. Further, it

carries out applied and technology generating research on chicken. It also acts as

repository for two random - bred control population (one each for layer and broiler type

of chicken). Besides these responsibilities, the Directorate also maintains a Germplasm

Centre to make available the improved strains and stocks to the various user agencies.

Mandate

Based on the inputs from various supporting bodies and also keeping in view the

needs of the stakeholders of the locality, the mandate of the Research Station is fixed as

follows:

To coordinate and monitor ICAR sponsored research programmes.

7 For complete information, refer the Case Study “Performance assessment of Porject directorate on Poultry (1995-2000), Rjendranagar, Hyderabad” published as a part of the PME Sub-project by Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R., and Rao, R.V.S. in December 2003 by NAARM, Rajedranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030

102

To undertake applied research on: genetics and breeding of poultry and conservation

of improved poultry germplasm with supportive research on poultry nutrition; disease

control and management pertaining to the gene pool maintained and monitored by the

Project Directorate; and pay special attention to meet the needs of rural / tribal areas

and other underprivileged sections.

Organizational Set-up

The Directorate is headed by the Project Director, and is guided and supported in

its endeavours by the Management Committee and the Research Advisory Committee.

103

Project Director

Research Advisory

Committee

Management Committee

AICRP on Poultry

Breeding*

EstablishmentGenetics and Breeding

Research Administration Central Facilities

Nutrition

Health

Bills and Cash

Purchases and Stores

Audit and Accounts

Farm

Hatchery

Library

ARIS Cell

Estate and Security

Records and Dispatch

Feed Unit

Fig. 5.2.1 Organizational Structure of Project Directorate on Poultry

There are seven funded and two non-funded Centres under the AICRP on Poultry

Breeding, located in the SAUs and ICAR Institutes. The close functional relationship and

the co-operative efforts are shown in the organizational structure (fig 5.2.1).

Infrastructure, Human and Financial Resources

The Project Directorate on Poultry is equipped with reasonably good research

resources. Infrastructure development was considered as one of the priority areas in the

growth of the Project Directorate. Several improvements have been made in the

infrastructure facilities to meet the needs of research and development activities. They

include establishment of semen biology and biotechnology lab, construction of new

poultry sheds and conference hall and procurement of modern laboratory equipment. The

Project Directorate has a staff strength of 12 scientists, including the Director, in 2000

(table 5.2.1).

Table 5.2.1: Manpower Position over Five Years Period (1995-’96 to 1999-2000)

YearScientists Technical Staff Administration &

Accounts StaffAuxiliary &

Supporting Staff*Sanct-ioned

In Position

Vac-ant

Sanct-ioned

In Position

Vac-ant

Sanct-ioned

In Position

Vac-ant

Sanct-ioned

In Position

Vac-ant

1995-1996 16 10 06 11 09 02 15 12 03 25 22 031996-1997 16 10 06 15 13 02 15 12 03 21 18 031997-1998 16 10 06 15 13 02 15 12 03 21 18 031998-1999 16 11 05 15 13 02 15 12 03 21 20 011999-2000 16 12 04 15 12 03 15 11 04 21 19 02

Source: Annual Reports of PDP (1995-2000) * It includes four auxiliary staff for the year 1995-’96, who were shifted to technical

cadre in the later periods.

It can be seen that the research activities were carried out with 75 per cent of the

sanctioned strength in 2000, and it was only 62.5 per cent and 68.75 per cent in the years

1995 -’98 and 1998 -’99, respectively. As in the case of scientists, vacancies also existed

under other categories of staff as well.

The Directorate received funds from different sources to undertake its various

activities. Table 5.2.2 shows the funds received and expenditure made for the five-year

period from 1995-‘96 to 1999-2000 under study.

104

Table 5.2.2: Institutional Budget over Five Years Period (1995-’96 to 1999-2000) (Rs.in lakhs)

Year Allocation / Grant Expenditure Receipts

1995-1996 115.00 114.00 13.001996-1997 150.00 147.00 24.001997-1998 150.00 148.00 29.001998-1999 140.00 140.00 38.001999-2000 200.00 178.00 38.00

Source: Annual Reports of PDP (1995-2000) Round to the nearest Rs

It clearly shows that the annual expenditure has always been very close to the

allocation, except in 1999-2000. Change in the research management position (RMP)

from the regular Project Director to Acting Project Director, coupled with other

administrative issues like late receipt of Council's approval, have led to less budget

utilization in the year 1999-2000. The receipts to the Directorate increased steadily from

Rs.13.36 lakhs in 1995 -’96 to Rs.38.22 lakhs in 1999-2000.

Research Projects

The research programmes carried out at the Project Directorate have made

significant progress in developing high yielding layer and broiler strains, since its

inception. The initial target of 220 eggs set for layers up to 72 weeks of age has been

subsequently revised to 235, 250, 260 and 270, and all the targets have been successfully

achieved. In the case of broilers, the initial target of 1500g at 10 weeks was subsequently

revised to 1200g at 8 weeks and 1500g at 6 weeks, which have also been achieved.

Besides, the Directorate has evolved two synthetic strains, viz. Vanaraja and Gramapriya

for backyard farming in tribal and rural areas. Various research projects carried out by the

Directorate are indicated in table 5.2.3.

Table 5.2.3: Total number of Research Projects Conducted from 1995-’96 to 1999-2000

Year No .of Projects1995-1996 111996-1997 141997-1998 121998-1999 171999-2000 25

Source: Annual Reports of PDP (1995-2000)

105

The table shows an increasing trend in the number of research projects carried out

from 1995-’96 to 1999–2000, with the exception of 1997-’98.

Public Services

Among the various activities carried out under public services, maximum

contribution came from the selling of table eggs and the eggs sold to NECC. The

commercial supply of poultry products was started only from 1996 -’97. The activities

like selling of table eggs, eggs to NECC, hatching eggs, birds for table purpose, birds for

commercial purpose, and the supply of embryonated eggs recorded an increasing trend,

which contributed much for the increased income generated by the Directorate.

Organizational Performance Assessment

A. Output Assessment

i) Output Indicators

Based on the response received from the scientists in the Directorate, seven output

categories were identified and the performance was measured using the productivity

indices / ratios. The output categories and types of outputs pertaining to the Directorate

are listed in table 5.2.4.

Table 5.2.4: Output Categories and Types

Output Categories Output Types

Improved Poultry Breeds / Species Vanaraja Gramapriya Krishibro Krishi layer

106

Improved Management Practices Nutritional management (package of practices for the germplasm developed by PDP)

Standardization of disease management and vaccination schedule for Vanaraja

Lowering the feed cost by including alternate feed sources

Publications and Reports Research papers Invited papers / lead papers Research abstracts presented in conferences /

symposia Leaflets Technical reports Farmers / Extension material ( popular articles)

Training Events Training of Vanaraja farmers Training of students (Internship programme for

B.V.Sc. students of ANGRAU)

Dissemination Events Farmers programmes in mass media (Magazines, radio talks) Collaborative links with other institutions

NGOs FTC, KVKs, and A.H. Dept., Govt. of A.P.)

Exhibitions

Public ServicesSupply of Poultry germplasm to user agencies Vanaraja Krishibro Krishi layer Gramapriya

Professional Recognition Awards received Membership in professional societies Resources generated (outside the ICAR funded projects)

ii) Output Measurement:

As described in the methodology, the productivity ratios were calculated for the

Project Directorate for all the seven output categories for the five-year period. The output

matrix of the first and second output categories for the year 1996-’97 are illustrated

below, as the measurement of these two categories of output is different from the rest of

the categories. To measure the first output category (i.e. improved Poultry Breeds), in

addition to the breeds released, the simple quality elements in terms of their successful

107

adoption (number) were considered. Both the values were added to arrive at the

combined score. This score was in-turn multiplied with the weight assigned to each type

by the scientist in the Directorate as per the mandate. Productivity ratio was worked out

by dividing the total index score by the researcher time, in terms of man months for this

output category. Example of the output measurement of the first category for the

Directorate for the year 1996-97 is presented in the following matrix 5.2.1.

Output Measurement Matrix 5.2.1: Improved Poultry Breeds (1996-’97)

Output: New Breed (Number of breeds released per year)Input : Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1 2 3 4

Poultry Breed TypeKrishi layer * 1 1 2 2 4

Total index score 4 Researcher months (10*12) 120 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.0333

The released poultry breed form the output type under the output category

improved poultry breeds, during the year 1996-‘97 and it was successful and hence

scored as two. Weight was assigned by the scientists of the Directorate based on the

relative importance in accordance with the mandate of the institute. Total index score was

calculated by multiplying the weight with the obtained score. Finally, the productivity

index/ratio was calculated by dividing the total index score by researcher man months.

The same methodology was followed in the measurement of output category-2

(improved management practices) and the illustration is presented in the output

measurement matrix 5.2.2.

108

Output Measurement Matrix 5.2.2: Improved Management Practices (1996-’97)

Output: Management Practice RecommendationsInput: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9 Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeLowering the Feed cost * 1 1 2 3 6

Total index score 6 Researcher months (10*12) 120 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.05

All other output categories were measured as per the common methodology

described in the earlier section and an illustration for the same is presented in the output

measurement matrix 5.2.3.

Output Measurement Matrix 5.2.3: Publications and Reports (1996-’97)

Output: Publications and ReportsInput: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per year Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9 Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeResearch papers * 4 5 20Research abstracts * 3 3 9Technical reports * 1 4 4Farmers/extension materials * 1 4 4

Total index score 37 Researcher months (10*12) 120 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.308

109

Output Trend Analysis:

The trend in the productivity index / ratio for each category of output over the

five- year period can be summarized in the form of a matrix, which will enable to identify

at a glance the years of under, normal and over - performance in comparison with the

bench - mark / threshold value. The productivity indices / ratios calculated for the seven

categories of output are presented in table 5.2.5.

Table 5.2.5: Trend in Productivity Measures for Output Categories Between1995 -1996 and 1999 – 2000

Output Category/Measures

Productivity Index / Ratio1995-’96 1996-’97 1997-’98 1998-’99 1999-2000 Bench-mark

Improved poultry breeds 0.117 0.033 0.066 - - 0.072

Improved management practices

- - 0.05 0.076 0.07 0.066

Publications and reports 0.367 0.308 0.208 0.447 0.438 0.354

Training events - 0.017 0.058 0.053 0.014 0.036

Dissemination events 0.208 0.108 0.150 0.295 0.285 0.209

Public services 0.092 0.067 0.217 0.318 0.264 0.192

Professional recognition 0.100 0.167 0.192 0.152 0.181 0.158

As can be seen from the table, there is fluctuation in the productivity index / ratio

over the five-year period in general. By comparing with bench-mark / threshold values,

the year of under, normal and over-performance of the Project Directorate in terms of the

seven output categories can be identified and the reasons attributed for the same.

iv) Contribution of Individual Output Categories to Overall Performance

In accordance with the mandate of the Project Directorate, contribution of the

individual category of research output to the overall performance can be assessed by

110

weighting them as per their relative importance. The weights assigned by the scientists of

the Directorate to the seven output categories are presented in table 5.2.6.

Table 5.2.6: Relative Importance of Output Categories to Overall Performance

S.No. Output Category /Measure Weights Assigned(Adding to 100)

1. Improved poultry breeds 30

2. Improved management practices 15

3. Publications and reports 30

4. Training events 04

5. Dissemination events 10

6. Public services 07

7. Professional recognition 04

As per the mandate of the Project Directorate, the contribution of improved

poultry species as well as the publications and reports to the overall performance was

considered maximum, followed by improved management practices, dissemination

events, public services, training events, and professional recognition, in that order.

The overall productivity indices / ratios for the five-year period are shown in table

5.2.7 and fig 5.2.2.

111

Table 5.2.7: Trend in Overall Productivity (1995-’96 to 1999-2000)

S.No. Years Productivity Index / ratio1. 1995-1996 0.177

2. 1996-1997 0.117

3. 1997-1998 0.134

4. 1998-1999 0.223

5. 1999-2000 0.209

Bench- mark 0.155

Fig 5.2.2: Trend in Overall Productivity

0.177

0.1170.134

0.223 0.209

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

1995-'96 1996-'97 1997-'98 1998-'99 1999-'00Year

Prod

uctiv

ity ra

tio

It is evident from the table and figure that the Project Directorate experienced an

overall increase in productivity in the years 1998-’99 and 1999-2000, as compared to the

previous years where there were marginal differences with a lower ratio in 1996-’97.

B. Outcome Assessment

The assessment of impact of various technologies developed under different

poultry breeds and management practices, which reflect the performance of the Project

Directorate, was carried out in terms of area expansion, production increase, cost

reduction, profitability, achievement of objectives, and sustainability considerations.

112

The assessment of research outcomes is a long-term and more complex process

that can be accomplished by establishing a causal relationship between the research

output and their impact for farmers and other end users. It essentially assists the Project

Directorate to determine the relevance of its research programmes as well as their impact

on various target groups. Since periodic tracking of specific research output to their

targets is very much necessary, outcome assessment is very difficult requiring more

resources and expertise. Careful planning is needed to combine simplicity in design,

reasonable levels of resource requirement and identification of appropriate target groups.

Notwithstanding these inherent difficulties associated with the outcome / impact

assessment, an initial attempt was made to assess the impact of various technologies

(breed-wise) developed by the Project Directorate, in terms of a set of valid criteria

including their relative importance, as indicated in table 5.2.8.

Table 5.2.8: Impact Assessment Criteria and their Relative Importance (Poultry Breeds)

S.No. Criteria Weights Assigned (Adding to 100)

Vanaraja Gramapriya Krishibro Overall1. Increase in poultry number 30 30 55 38

2. Increase in production of eggs

15 20 00 12

3. Profitability to the producers 20 20 25 22

4. Achievement of objectives 15 10 10 12

5. Sustainability of adoption 20 20 10 17

It is evident from the table that varying levels of importance was assigned by the

Project Directorate scientists to a set of criteria, which were considered to be important

for the impact assessment, under different breeds. Nevertheless, criteria like increase in

poultry number, profitability to the producer and the sustainability of adoption were

considered to be the three most important criteria for assessing the impact of research

output from the Directorate.

113

The impact of technologies developed by the Project Directorate is summarized in

table 5.2.9.

Table 5.2.9: Impact Assessment of Poultry Breeds Released from 1995-’96 to 1999-2000S.No. Poultry

Species ImpactYears

1995-’96 1996-’97 1997-’98 1998-’99 1999-’00

1. Vanaraja(A dual purpose bird for rural / tribal free range farming)

Increase in poultry numbers ('000).

9 10 39 49 51

Increase in production of eggs ('000)

528 578 236 295 305

Profitability to the producers (Rs, in '000)

572 627 256 320 331

Achievement of objectives (%)

60 70 80 80 85

Sustainability of adoption(%)

100 100 100 100 100

2. Grama-priya(A layer type of a bird for rural backyard farming)

Increase in poultry numbers ('000)

-- -- 7 152 46

Increase in production of eggs ('000)

-- -- 627 13710 4126

Profitability to the producer (Rs, in '000)

-- -- 579 12643 3805

Achievement of objectives (%)

-- -- 65 80 85

Sustainability of adoption(%)

-- -- 100 100 100

3. Krishibro(A multi- colored broiler for intensive / commercial farming)

Increase in poultry numbers ('000)

66 49 53 46 42

Increase in production of eggs ('000)

-- -- -- -- --

Profitability to the producer (Rs, in '000)

376 277 299 263 238

Achievement of objectives (%)

55 55 60 60 70

Sustainability of adoption (%)

60 60 60 60 60

(Figures rounded to the nearest number)

All the figures given in the table were calculated based on the eggs and chickens supplied by the Directorate and the production potential of the breed under field conditions.

114

It is evident from the table that the improved breeds of poultry released by the

Project Directorate produced greater impact in the poultry industry.

Besides the release of poultry breeds, the following management practices were

developed and passed on to the poultry farmers on the basis of trials conducted by the

Directorate.

Table 5.2.10: Impact Assessment of Management Practices Released from 1995-’96 to 1999-2000*

S.No. Management Practices Impact1. Nutritional management

for the germplasm developed by the Directorate

On - station trials indicated that a reduction in feed cost up to 20 per cent could be achieved by adopting the recommended practices under field conditions.

2. Standardization of disease management for Vanaraja

From the research trials conducted at the Directorate, it was observed that mortality can be reduced up to 20 per cent by following the prescribed vaccination schedule / disease management.

3. Lowering the feed cost Several low - cost alternate raw materials have been included successfully in the poultry feed. By adopting this technology, cost of feed could be reduced by at least 10 per cent.

* Since the Project Directorate did not test these three technologies in the field conditions through organized field experiments, detailed impact analysis could not be made.

C. Organizational Management Assessment

i) Key Management Function and Constraints

Keeping in view the Project Directorates’ mandate, 11 critical management

domains having a direct bearing on its performance were identified. Under each of these

domains, certain key questions were raised and scored, on a point scale, as per the degree

to which these questions were answered. Performance score for each management

domain was then obtained by summing up the score for the questions raised in that

domain. By dividing the summed-up score by the potential score, performance index /

ratio for each domain was finally worked out.

115

Table 5.2.11: Management Domain-Assessment of Context and Project Directorate’s Responsiveness

a) Key Questions:

S. No. Key QuestionsScor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

Whether the user needs, resources and constraints are taken into

account?

Whether the information on policy and price effects on users analyzed

and used?

Whether the overall Government funding and disbursement levels for

research are analyzed?

Whether the projects are formulated based on the needs of the users?

Total Score 7Possible Score 12Performance Ratio 0.583

2

1

2

2

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Score

1. There is excessive dependence on Government funding for research. 4

2. Government civil service requirements and bureaucratic procedures

affect financial resource management and are not efficient.

4

3. Budget allocation procedure affects the performance of the Directorate

with regards to its responsiveness.

Total Score (of possible 15) 12Constraint Ratio (12/ 15) 0.800

4

116

Table 5.2.12: Management Domain-Planning Strategy and Goals for the Directorate

a) Key Questions:

S.No. Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

Whether a strategic planning process is periodically done?

Whether agricultural research strategy or policy documents are used to

establish goals?

Whether stakeholders and users are adequately represented in the

strategic planning process?

Weather the availability of manpower and infrastructure facilities are

taken into account while deciding the goals for the Directorate?

Total Score 10Possible Score 12Performance Ratio 0.833

3

3

3

1

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Score

1. Policies and decision-making are too centralized that affect planning

and operations at the Directorate level.

2

2. Fund disbursement procedures at the higher level cause inordinate

delays.

2

3.

4.

Core budget is predictable, but is not sufficient to address high priority

objectives.

The availability of sufficient infrastructure facilities and manpower is

not considered while formulating the research strategy.

Total Score (of possible 20) 10Constraint Ratio (10/ 20) 0.500

2

4

117

Table 5.2.13: Management Domain-Selecting Research Objectives and Outputs

a) Key Questions:

S.No. Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

Do the Directorate’s research priorities reflect national development

goals?

Whether the field research activities are carried out with user participation

and the received feedback analyzed?

Whether the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools were used to

identify researchable constraints?

Total Score 6 Possible Score 9 Performance Ratio 0.666

3

2

1

b) Constraints:

S.No. ConstraintsScor

e

1. There is no policy encouragement to involve farmers in setting

research objectives.

2

2. There is little feedback from the farmers through the extension, as

there are no specialist extension personnel available in the Directorate.

4

3. Lack of trained extension personnel limits the possibility of

undertaking user surveys.

Total Score (of possible 15) 10 Constraint Ratio (10/ 15) 0.666

4

118

Table 5.2.14: Management Domain-Research Project Management

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Is there any effective procedure for planning and allocation of

resources to research projects / activities?

Is there a formal research priority setting procedure being followed?

Is there any mechanism for periodical monitoring of the on-going

projects and evaluation of the completed projects?

What is the frequency of evaluation-Mid-term appraisal?

Whether the formulation and progress of the research projects are

documented in prescribed format like RPF?

Total Score 15Possible Score 15Performance Ratio 1.000

3

3

3

3

3

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Scor

e

1. Funding is not sufficiently stable to maintain priority research

directions.

1

2. There is lack of encouragement for project based budgeting.

Total Score (of possible 10) 3 Constraint Ratio (3/ 10) 0.300

2

119

Table 5.2.15 Management Domain-Maintaining Quality of Operational Research

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Is there an institutional mechanism to provide of resource costs indicators of

success and time frame for research activities?

Do scientists have managerial control of research projects?

Whether there is a proper assignment of responsibilities by the Directorate for

logistic support to field operations?

Whether sufficient inputs are provided?

Whether required collaboration with sister institutions exists for effective

implementation of projects?

Total Score 11Possible Score 18Performance Ratio 0.611

2

2

2

2

3

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Score

1. Access to transport facilities is limited. 2

2. There is lack of well laidout procedure for provision of logistic support. 3

3.

4.

5.

6

7.

Mechanism for direct communication of research results to users does not

exist.

Limited manpower availability, coupled with administrative restrictions

for filling several vacant posts,hampers the research progress.

Limited land availability restricts the expansion of the infrastrure

facilities like poultry houses, laboratories, etc.

Cumbersome procedures for importing germplasm for use in breeding

programmes.

Lack of sufficient technical support to the scientists is slows down the

research output.

Total Score (of possible 35) 25

4

4

4

4

4

120

Constraint Ratio (25 / 35) 0.714

Table 5.2.16: Management Domain-Human Resource Management

a) Key Questions:

S.No. Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Whether the Directorate carries out periodic manpower planning

exercise?

Is there a systematic HRD plan in practice?

Are there effective incentive and reward systems to motivate the

staff? (in the form of informal appreciation / work recognition)

Whether all the posts are filled?

Whether enough opportunities to the scientific staff are available to

have exposure to the latest / front - line research developments /

techniques?

Total Score 9Possible Score 15Performance Ratio 0.600

3

2

2

0

2

b) Constraints;

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1. There is ad hocism in manpower planning. 1

2. Inadequacy of funds for effective HRD planning. 2

3.

4.

5.

Limitation of civil service rules and procedures to realize better

performance of staff.

Policy decisions severely restrict the manpower recruitment.

Limited manpower availability leads to administrative constraints in

deputing personnel for HRD at the desire frequency.

Total Score (of possible 25) 15Constraint Ratio (15 / 25) 0.600

4

4

4

121

Table 5.2.17: Management Domain-Coordination and Integration of Internal Functions, Units and Activities

a) Key Questions:

S.No. Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Is there a periodic evaluation and adjustments of the organization

structure?

Is there any effective mechanism for information flow between the

structural/functional units that been planned and monitored?

Is there any planning unit that ensures a coherent direction and

coordination of research, including allocation of resources?

Whether interdisciplinary coordination within the Directorate is

encouraged in the implementation of projects?

Is there effective cooperation, movement of material and sharing of

resources / equipment among the functional units?

Total Score 11 Possible Score 12 Performance Ratio 0.917

3

2

2

2

2

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Scor

e

1. Instead of programme orientation, discipline - oriented divisional set-

up results in inefficient resource use.

2

2. Because of the Government civil service rules, structural adjustment is

seldom attempted.

2

Total Score (of possible 10) 4Constraint Ratio (4/ 10) 0.400

122

Table 5.2.18 Management Domain-Transfer of Technology

a) Key Questions:

S.No.

Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4

5.

Is there an organized unit with trained personnel for effective transfer

of technology?

Whether there is effective mechanism for feedback from clients to the

researchers?

Do the users actively participate in dissemination events?

Whether special budgetary provision is kept for technology transfer?

Whether specialist / trained personnel are available?

Total Score 2Possible Score 15

Performance Ratio 0.133

0

1

1

0

0

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Scor

e

1. There is no organized extension wing with specialist extension

personnel.

5

2. The existing make - shift arrangement for transfer of technology is not

fully effective.

Total Score (of possible 10) 9 Constraint Ratio (9/ 10) 0.900

4

123

Table 5.2.19 Management Domain-Protecting Project Directorate’s Assets

a) Key Questions:

S. No. Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Does the Directorate pursue the protection of its intellectual property

rights?

How adequate is the budgetary provision made to maintain the

infrastructure in working condition?

Whether the revenue generating activities has been identified and

implemented?

How effective and efficient is the budgetary utilization?

What is the focus on the percentage utilization of plan budget revised

estimate (RE)?

Whether the germplasm developed has been protected from being

illegally multiplied for commercial exploitation?

Total Score 15Possible Score 18Performance Ratio 0.833

2

2

3

2

3

3

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Score

1. There is inadequate provision for effective maintenance and

repair.

2

2. There are no effective policies for revenue generation as well as 2

124

3.

for ploughing back of generated revenue.

There is no mechanism to check illegal use of germplasm for

commercial exploitation by unauthorized agencies.

1

Total Score (of possible 15) 5Constraint Ratio (5/ 15) 0.333

Table 5.2.20: Management Domain-Information for Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

a) Key Questions

S.No Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

Has an effective monitoring and evaluation system been planned and

implemented?

Is there a process of periodic external review of management and

operations?

How frequently the project performance is discussed?

Though the available staff resources are limited, whether the

monitoring and evaluation unit is functioning effectively?

Total Score 12Possible Score 12Performance Ratio 1.000

3

3

3

3

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Scor

e

1. Monitoring and evaluation functions are taken for granted without

adequate attention being given.

2

2. Qualified staff is not available to carry out effective monitoring and

evaluation functions.

2

125

3. In spite of realizing its importance and use of management

information system (MIS), it is not in operation at present.

Total Score (of possible 15) 6Constraint Ratio (6 / 15) 0.400

2

Table 5.2.21 Management Domain-Governance

a) Key Questions:

S.No. Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Does the leadership exhibits positive outlook with visionary approach in

running the research at the Directorate?

Whether team work is considered as the hallmark by the leadership for greater

performance?

Do the employees enjoy adequate opportunities for their professional

development?

Whether the existing working climate is conducive to motivate employees

towards greater achievement?

Do the incentive and reward systems promote excellence among the staff?

Whether decentralized decision-making is in practice in the Directorate?

Is their delegation of authority comensurating with specific responsibility?

Total Score 19Possible Score 21Performance Ratio 0.905

3

3

2

3

2

3

3

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Score

1. Lack of participative mode of decision-making. 2

2. Proper direction and guidance for the subordinates are missing. 2

126

3. Lack of freedom to decide and execute the responsibilities assigned. 2

4. Existing personnel policies tend to encourage mediocrity in the Directorate. 4

5. De-motivation of employees due to improper organizational climate. 2

6. There is abdication rather than delegation of authority. 2

7. Highly centralized decision-making in the organization (ICAR).

Total Score (of possible 35) 16Constraint Ratio (16 / 35) 0.451

2

Performance and constraint ratios worked out for all the 11 key management

domains pertaining to the Project Directorate in 2000 are presented in table 5.4.12.

Table 5.2.22: Management Performance and Constraint Ratios for PDP (2000)

S.No. Key Management DomainPerformance Constraints

TotalScore

Potential Score Ratio Total

ScorePotential Score Ratio

1. Context and Directorate's responsiveness

07 12 0.583 12 15 0.800

2. Planning strategy and goals 10 12 0.833 10 20 0.500

3. Selecting research objectives 06 09 0.666 10 15 0.6664. Research project

management15 15 1.000 03 10 0.300

5. Maintaining operational research quality

11 18 0.611 25 35 0.743

6. Human resource management

09 15 0.600 15 25 0.600

7. Coordination of internal functions, units and avtivities

11 12 0.917 04 10 0.400

8. Transfer of technology 02 15 0.133 09 10 0.900

9. Protecting Directorate's assets

15 18 0.833 05 15 0.333

10. Information flow for monitoring, evaluation and reporting

12 12 1.000 06 15 0.400

11. Governance 19 21 0.905 16 35 0.451

Based on the analysis of performance and constraint ratios, it can be observed

that the Project Directorate had varied levels of performance and constraints in 2000

127

under different key management domains influencing its performance. A close perusal of

the performance ratios indicates that the performance in terms of research project

management, information flow for monitoring and evaluation, coordination of internal

functions, governance, protecting Directorate's assets, and planning strategy and goals are

found to be highly satisfactory. The Directorate faced the maximum constraints under

technology transfer, contextual responsiveness, and maintaining operational research

quality domains. Consequently, the performance of the Directorate was adversely

affected due to the paucity of staff to effectively transfer the technologies to the end users

as well as to identify the opportunities and threats faced by it due to changes in the

environment.

ii) Contribution of Key Management Domains:

Depending on the mandate and working environment prevalent in the Project

Directorate, individual contribution of various key management domains to the overall

performance was considered differently by the scientists. Based on their relative

importance, the weights assigned by the scientists to the key management domains are

indicated in table 5.4.13.

Table 5.2.23: Contribution of Key Management Domains to Overall Performance(2000)

S.No. Key Management Domain Weights Assigned(Adding to 100)

1. Context and Directorate’s Responsiveness 06

2. Planning strategy and goals 153. Selecting research objectives and outputs 12

4. Research project management 125. Maintaining operational research quality 10

6. Human research management 107. Coordination and integration of internal functions, units and

activities10

8. Transfer of technology 059. Protecting Directorate’s assets 05

10. Information for monitoring, evaluation and reporting 05

128

11. Governance 10

It is evident from the table that the Project Directorate scientists considered areas

like planning strategy and goals, selecting research objectives and outputs, and research

project management as the three most important management functions influencing the

overall performance of the Directorate. Other management areas considered as of

secondary importance are maintaining operational research quality, human research

management, coordination and integration of internal functions, units and activities, and

governance.

iii) Cumulative Performance:

The cumulative performance coupled with corresponding constraint ratios that

are worked out on the basis of their individual contribution to the overall performance,

are presented in table (5.4.14).

Table 5.2.24: Cumulative Performance and Constraint Ratios for 2000

S.No. Particulars Cumulative Ratio

1. Performance 0.762

2. Constraints 0.537

The overall performance of the Project Directorate in 2000 is found to be

satisfactory, in spite of certain constraints in some management areas. However, the

performance would have been much better if appropriate action is taken to remove the

constraints, particularly relating to the augmentation of staff with expertise for

technology transfer as well as for providing useful feedback for setting appropriate

research agenda on the critical analysis of impact of the developed technologies and the

rapidly changing environment.

D. Summary of the Assessment Results

Salient outcomes emanating from the assessment process are summarized below.

129

Among the output categories, the Project Directorate attached greater importance for

the release of improved poultry breeds, publication and reports, as compared to

management practices, training and dissemination events, and professional

recognition. As reflected in the productivity ratio, there was a gradual decline in its

performance in the first three years, which again increased in the later period.

The Project Directorate identified criteria such as increase in poultry number and

production, profitability, achievement of objectives, and sustainability of adoption for

assessing the impact of three poultry breeds released by it. Among them, increase in

poultry production was considered as the most important criterion for assessing the

research outcome from the Directorate. Based on personal judgement, in the absence

of reliable database, the impact of the three poultry breeds, viz. Vanaraja,

Gramapriya and Krishbro was undertaken in terms of the above mentioned criteria

identified for the purpose.

Key management domains such as planning appropriate strategy and goals, selecting

suitable research objectives and outputs, research project management, maintaining

operational research quality, appropriate human resource management, effective

coordination among different functional units, and good governance through effective

leadership were considered to be the important management functions contributing to

the overall performance of the Project Directorate. Among the functional areas, the

performance in 2000 was higher in respect of research project management,

coordination of internal functions, good governance, effective planning strategy and

goals, and protecting Directorate’s assets.

The Project Directorate faced maximum constraints with respect to management

functions such as transfer of technology due to lack of relevant scientific staff / unit,

assessment and its responsiveness to environmental demands due to lack of awareness

and the prevailing bureaucratic procedures, and maintenance of operational research

quality for want of adequate manpower and land.

130

5.3 Performance Assessment of Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS),

Lam of ANGRAU8

BackgroundThe Agricultural Research Station at Lam is one of the largest Research Stations

affiliated to the Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU). This Research

Station had a modest beginning, way back in 1922, as a State - run Departmental Station.

It was established near Lam village located in the Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh.

Historically, this village was named after LAMAS, the Buddhist Monks who lived there

2000 years back. The State Government gave 300 acres of land from the Lam reserve

forest to establish the Research Station along with the Buffalo Station. Both functioned as

a single unit till 1928, after which they were bifurcated as independent units. Thus, the

Agricultural Research Station started functioning under a senior farm manager, and with

a modest staff, which included a junior farm manager and research assistants. Research

on crops like Chillies, Coriander, Cotton, Millets, and Tobacco was first initiated. The

Research Station was later upgraded as the Regional Agricultural Research Station

(RARS) during 1980, and got affiliated to the Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural

University (ANGRAU) as the Zonal Headquarters for the Krishna-Godavari Zone with

the inception of National Agricultural Research Project (NARP) in the country. Twenty-

two Research Stations, covering three Districts in full, viz. Guntur, Krishna and West

Godavari, and four Districts in part, viz. Prakasam, East Godavari, Khammam , and

Nalgonda were put under the RARS at Lam to carry out need - based, problem - oriented

and location -specific research in this Zone. Geographically, this Station is located 8 km

away in the North of Guntur on Guntur-Amaravathi road, at 16º 10' North Latitude, 80º

29' East Longitude, and 31.5 m above the msl.

Mandate

Based on the inputs from various supporting bodies and also keeping in view the

needs of the stakeholders of the locality, the mandate of the Research Station has been

fixed as follows:

8 For complete information refer the Case Study “Performance assessment of Regional Agriculturre Research Station,Lam,Guntur(1995-2000), ANGRAU, Hyderabad-500 030” published as a part of the PME Sub-project by Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S in December 2003 from NAARM, Rajedranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030.

131

To improve various crops, viz. Cotton, Tobacco, Chillies, Rice, Cashew, Sugarcane, Betelvine, Mango, Banana, and Millets, apart from crop improvement programmes and integration of organic aspects into the technology.

To serve as a Lead Centre in agricultural research for the Krishna-Godavari Zone encompassing seven Districts of Andhra Pradesh.

To secure as a Lead Centre for research in Cotton, Chillies, Pulses, and Spices for the entire state of Andhra Pradesh.

To develop user-friendly IPM packages for the production of crops grown in this area.

To facilitate the academic programme for the Undergraduate (RAWEP) and the Postgraduate programmes of ANGRAU.

To function as a technology transfer centre.

Organizational Set-up

The Regional Agricultural Research Station at Lam is headed by the Associate

Director of Research, and is guided and supported in its endeavours by the Management

Committee and the Research Advisory Committee. The close functional relationship and

co-operative effort that exist in the Research Station is depicted in the organizational

structure (fig.5.3.1). Various research activities at the Research Station is carried out by

various Crop Sections dealing with Pulses, Cotton, Chillies, and Spices; different

Regional Research Units in Physiology, Soil Science, Pathology, and Entomology; All

India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Cropping Systems of Indian Council of

Agricultural Research (ICAR) devoting to experiments on cultivators’ fields (ECF); and

other discipline-based small units in Weed Control , Agricultural Economics,

Agricultural Engineering, and Agronomy under the National Agricultural Research

Project (NARP) . Under each of these Sections / Units, scientists at various levels are

working as teams. The research activities at the Research Station are ably supported by

the Farm Management and Administrative Wings.

Fig: 5.3.1: Organizational Structure of RARS, Lam

132

Vice -Chancellor

Infrastructure, Human and Financial Resources

133

Associate Director of Research

Research Farm Management Administration

Pulses Cotton Chillies

Directorate of Research(Agricultural Research)

Principal Scientists

Senior Scientists

Scientists

Senior Scientists

Scientists

Scientists

Farm Superintendent

Research and Extension Advisory Council

Crop Sections Regional Research Units

Spices Physiology Soil Science Pathology Entomology

Principal Scientists

Senior Scientists

Scientists

Principal Scientists

Senior Scientists

Scientists

Principal Scientists

Senior Scientists

Scientists

Senior Scientists

Scientists

Senior Scientists

Scientists

ECF* (ICAR) Others (ICAR)

AICRP on Cropping Systems

Weed Control Unit Agricultural Economics

AgriculturalEngineering

NARP(Agronomy)

Senior Scientists

ScientistsSenior

ScientistsScientists

Scientists Scientists

Principal Scientists

Senior Scientists

Scientists

Farm Manager AEOs Record Assts

Administrative Staff

Admn. Officer Superintendent Sr.Assts/Jr.Assts Other Supporting Staff

ECF* Experiments on Cultivators Fields

The Research Station is equipped with reasonably good research resources. The

infrastructure facilities available at the RARS, Lam, to meet the requirement of various

research and development activities at the time of assessment were103 acres of land,

Buildings, Laboratory, Computer centre, Farmers hostel and Library

The Regional Station had a sanctioned staff strength of 59 scientists in 1999-2000,

including the Associate Director of Research. Table 5.2.1 shows the manpower position

for the five - year period from 1995-’96 to 1999-2000.

Table 5.3.1: Manpower Position over Five - Year Period (1995-’96 to 1999-2000)

Year

Scientists Technical Staff Administration & Accounts Staff

Auxiliary & Supporting Staff

Sanc-

tioned

Inpositio

n

Vac-

ant

Sanc-

tioned

In positio

n

Vac-

ant

Sanc-

tioned

In positio

n

Vac

ant

Sanc-

tioned

In positio

n

Vac-

ant

1995-1996

56 51 5 31 26 5 20 17 3 51 51 0

1996-1997

56 49 7 31 27 4 20 15 5 53 53 0

1997-1998

56 50 6 31 28 3 20 16 4 51 46 5

1998-1999

57 45 12 31 28 3 18 18 0 52 52 0

1999-2000

59 46 13 37 31 6 20 15 5 54 54 0

Source: Annual Reports of RARS, Lam (1995-2000)

It is clear from the table that in all the years the scientific positions have not been

filled completely and there was a gradual increase in the number of vacant posts during

the five - year period.

134

The Research Station receives funds from different sources to undertake its various

activities. Table 5.2.2 shows the funds received and expenditure made for the periods

1995-96 to 1999-2000 under study.

Table 5.3.2: Institutional Budget over Five Years (1995-’96 to 1999-2000) (Rs. in lakhs)*

YearCore Budget

Other Sources(Private Companies ICAR,

DBT , AP-NL, TMC)Total

Allocation Expenditure Allocation Expenditure Allocation Expenditure

1995-1996 88. 97 114 .74 8.57 8 .47 97. 54 123.22

1996-1997 93. 68 117 .64 3 .64 7 .70 97. 32 125. 33

1997-1998 98 .49 127. 50 2 .45 6.00 100 .94 133 .49

1998-1999 124.20 176. 21 0.20 0.20 124. 45 176. 41

1999-2000 153. 62 194. 87 2 .86 2 .00 156. 48 196. 89

Source: Annual Reports of RARS, Lam (1995-2000) * Rounded to the nearest Rs.

The table clearly shows that the annual expenditure incurred by the Research

Station surpassed the allocation in all the years. Besides the University funding, the

Station received financial support from other agencies like ICAR, DBT, and TMC. There

was also continuous increase in both allocation and expenditure over the years,

particulary in the last two years.

Research Projects

The scientists at the RARS undertook research with the funding support provided

by various sources including University (ANGRAU), ICAR (AICRP & NATP), DBT,

135

AP-NL, and TMC. Table 5.2.3 shows the number of research projects undertaken during

the period 1995-’96 to 1999-2000.

Table 5.3.3: Projects Undertaken by RARS, Lam, Guntur (1995-’96 to 1999-2000)

Year Type Numbers

1995-1996Institutional 60

ICAR 94

Private companies 01

1996-1997Institutional 65

ICAR 94

Private companies 01

1997-1998Institutional 67

ICAR 97

Private companies 02

1998-1999Institutional 75

ICAR 99

Private companies 02

1999-2000Institutional 80

ICAR 101

Private companies 07

Source: Annual Reports of RARS Lam (1995-2000)

Public Services:

As one of the important activities, the Research Station is involved in breeder /

foundation seed production of Cotton, Chillies, Blackgram, Greengram, and Spices.

Organizational Performance Assessment

136

A. Output Assessment

i) Output Identification:

Based on the response received in the RARS at Lam, seven output categories

were identified and the performance was measured using the productivity indices / ratios.

The output categories and types of outputs pertaining to the Directorate are listed in table

5.2.4.

Table 5.3.4: Output Categories and Types

Output Categories Output TypesImproved Varieties / Hybrids

Cotton - L 603, L 604, LAHH -4 Blackgram - LBG 648, 623, 685 Greengram - LGG 460 Pigeon pea - ICPL 85063

Improved Management Practices Agronomic practices (tillage, seed rate,

method of sowing, spacing, etc.) Water management Disease management Intercropping Integrated management of weeds Integrated nutrient management Integrated pest management

Publications and Reports Abstracts and reprints Conference / symposium / workshop

proceedings Papers in national / international journals Technical reports Audio-visual materials (radio/TV/video tapes) Farmers / extension material Posters / newsletters / leaflets Training materials for students / trainees Training manuals

Training Events Training of extension officers Training of farmers Training of women farmers Training of students

137

Dissemination Events Rythu Sadassu Campaigns Kisan melas Demonstrations Agricultural exhibitions Group discussions Field level demonstrations Minikit trials

Public Services Seed production Farm clinics Advisory services Pest and disease management and surveillance Soil and water testing Pesticide testing Seed testing Biological control measures

Professional Recognition Membership in committees Resource generation

ii) Output Measurement:

As described in the methodology, the productivity ratios have been calculated for

RARS-Lam for all the seven output categories for the five-year period. The output matrix

of the first and second output categories for the year 1996-’97 are presented below as the

measurement of this two categories of output is different from the rest of the categories.

To measure the first output category (i.e. improved crop varieties and hybrids), in

addition to the total number of varieties released, the simple quality elements in terms of

their successful adoption (number) were considered. Both the values were added to arrive

at the combined score. This score was in-turn multiplied with the weights assigned to

each type by the scientists at the Research Station as per the mandate. Productivity ratio

was worked out by dividing the total index score by the researcher time in terms of man

months for this output category. Illustration of the output measurement of the first

category for RARS, Lam for the year 1996-97 is presented in the matrix 5.3.1&5.3.2.

138

Output Measurement Matrix 5.3.1: Improved Crop Varieties and Hybrids (1996-97)

Output: New Variety (Number of varieties released per year)Input: Researcher Time (Researcher months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1 2 3 4Points 0 1 2 3 4

Variety TypeCotton L 603 * 1 1 2 2 4 L 604 * 1 1 2 4 8 LAHH-4 * 1 1 2 3 6 Blackgram LBG 648 * 1 1 2 5 10

Total index score 28 Researcher months (49*12) 588 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.0476

The released Cotton and Blackgram varieties form the output type under the

output category: improved varieties and hybrids, during the year 1996-97. They were

found successful and hence, scored as two. Weight was assigned to each variety by the

scientists of the Research Station, based on the relative importance in accordance with the

mandate of the station. The total index score was calculated by multiplying the weight

with the obtained score. Finally, the productivity index/ratio was calculated by dividing

the total index score by researcher man months.

The same methodology was followed in the measurement of output category-2

(improved management practices). The illustration is presented in the output

measurement matrix 5.3.2.

139

Output Measurement Matrix 5.3.2: Improved Management Practices (1996-’97)

Output: Management practice recommendationsInput: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score Weight Rating

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

TypeIntegrated pest management * 2 2 4 5 20Agronomic practices * 7 7 14 5 70Weed management * 1 1 2 3 6 Biotechnology * 8 8 16 4 64

Total index score 160 Researcher months (49*12) 588 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.272

All other output categories were measured as per the common methodology

described in the earlier section, and an illustration for the same is presented in the output

measurement matrix 5.3.3.

140

Output Measurement Matrix 5.3.3: Publications and Reports (1996-’97)

Output: Publications and ReportsInput: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 <10 11-20 21-30 >30 Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeTechnical reports * 1 5 5 Farmers’ extensionmaterials * 3 5 15 Training manuals * 2 5 10 AV Materials * 4 5 20 Leaflets * 2 3 6 Research highlights * 1 2 2 Papers in journal * 3 2 6 Proceedings * 1 2 2

Total index core 66 Researcher months (36*12) 588 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.122

iii) Output trend analysis:

Productivity indices / ratios worked out for each category of the research output

every year from 1995-’96 to 1999-2000, and the overall productivity ratio calculated for

each year along with bench-marks / threshold values are presented below.

The trend in the productivity index / ratio for each category of output over the five -

year period can be summarized in the form of a matrix, which will enable to identify at a

glance the years of under, normal and over - performance in comparison with the bench -

mark / threshold value. The productivity indices / ratios calculated for the seven

categories of output are presented in table 5.3.5.

141

Table 5.3.5: Trend in Productivity Measures for Output Categories between1995-’96 and 1999-2000

Output Category/Measures

Productivity Index/Ratio1995 -’96 1996 -’97 1997 -’98 1998 -’99 1999-2000 Bench-

markImproved varieties / hybrids - 0.048 0.040 0.019 - 0.036

Improved management practices 0.15 0.273 0.3 0.1 0.40 0.245

Publications and reports

0.111 0.112 0.085 0.119 0.116 0.109

Training events 0.060 0.054 0.038 0.070 0.069 0.058

Dissemination events 0.157 0.116 0.160 0.177 0.174 0.157

Public services 0.149 0.155 0.158 0.176 0.172 0.162

Professional recognition

0.038 0.022 0.022 0.031 0.060 0.035

As can be seen from the table, there is fluctuation in the productivity index / ratio

over the five-year period in general. By comparing with bench-mark / threshold values,

the year of under, normal and over-performance of the Research Station in terms of the

seven output categories can be identified and the reasons attributed for the same.

iv) Contribution of Individual Output Categories to Overall Performance:

In accordance with the mandate of the Research Station, contribution of the

individual category of research output to the overall performance can be assessed by

weighting them as per their relative importance. The weights assigned to the seven output

categories by the scientists of the Research Station are presented in table 5.3.6

142

Table 5.3.6: Relative Importance of Output Categories to Overall Performance

S.No Output Category / MeasureWeights Assigned

(Adding to 100)

1. Improved varieties / hybrids 30

2. Improved management practices 25

3. Publications and reports 08

4. Training events 08

5. Dissemination events 08

6. Public services 13

7. Professional recognition 08

As per the mandate of the Lam Research Station, the contribution of improved

varieties / hybrids to the overall performance is maximum, followed by improved

management practices, public services, publications and reports, training events,

dissemination events, and professional recognition, in that order. The overall productivity

index / ratio for the five-year period is shown in table 5.3.7 and fig 5.3.2.

Table 5.3.7: Trend in Overall Productivity (1995 -’96 to 1999-2000)

S.No. Years Productivity Index / Ratio

1. 1995-1996 0.110

2. 1996-1997 0.111

3. 1997-1998 0.114

4. 1998-1999 0.100

5. 1999- 2000 0.166

Bench- mark 0.115

143

Fig 5.3.2 Trend in Overall Productivity

0.110 0.111 0.1140.100

0.166

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

1995-'96 1996-'97 1997-'98 1998-'99 1999-'00Year

Prod

uctiv

ity ra

tio

It is evident from the table and figure that the Research Station experienced an

overall increase in productivity in the year 1999-2000, as compared to the previous years.

Increased linkages with outside funding agencies and higher dissemination of its

technologies to its clients in 1999-2000 may be the contributing factors for higher

performance in that year.

B. Outcome/Impact Assessment The assessment of research outcome is a long-term and more complex process

that can be accomplished by establishing a causal relationship between the research

output and their impacts for farmers and other end users. It essentially assists the

Research Station to determine the relevance of its research programmes as well as their

impact on various target groups. Since periodic tracking of specific research output to

their targets is very much necessary, outcome assessment is very difficult requiring more

resources and expertise. Careful planning is needed to combine simplicity in design,

reasonable levels of resource requirement and identification of appropriate target groups.

Notwithstanding these inherent difficulties associated with the outcome / impact

assessment, an initial attempt was made by the scientists to assess the impact of various

144

technologies (crop-wise) developed by the Research Station in terms of a set of valid

criteria including their relative importance, as indicated in table 5.3.8.

Table 5.3.8: Impact Assessment Criteria and their Relative Importance (Crop-wise)

S.No. CriteriaWeights Assigned (Adding to 100)

Cotton Chillies Pulses Overall

1 Increase in area 25 20 20 20

2 Increase in production 20 20 20 20

3 Cost reduction 10 10 10 10

4 Profitability to the producer 15 20 20 20

5 Achievement of objectives 10 10 10 10

6 Sustainability of adoption 20 20 20 20

It is evident from the above table that varying level of importance was assigned

by the Station scientists to a set of criteria which they considered to be important for the

assessment of impact of their technologies under different crops. In the case of Lam

Research Station, criteria like Increase in area, Increase in production, Profitability to the

producer, and Sustainability of adoption have been considered to be important for

assessing the impact of research output for cotton, chillies, and pulses as the mandate

crops.

Detailed information on the impact of research outputs pertaining to the crops

Cotton, Chillies and Pulses are presented in table 5.3.9.

Table 5.3.9: Impact Assessment of RARS, Lam, from 1995-’96 to 1999-2000

S.No. Crop Impact (%)

Years1995-’

961996-’

971997-’

981998-’

991999-2000

1 Cotton Increase in area 20 25 25 30 30Increase in production 30 30 30 30 30Cost reduction 10 10 10 10 10Profitability to the producer 10 15 15 10 10Achievement of objectives- adoption rate (Reach) 10 10 10 10 10

Sustainability of adoption 10 10 10 10 102 Chillie

sIncrease in area 20 25 20 25 25Increase in production 20 25 30 20 25Cost reduction 10 10 10 10 10Profitability to the producer 25 20 20 25 20

145

Achievement of objectives- adoption rate (Reach) 15 10 10 10 10

Sustainability of adoption 10 10 10 10 103 Pulses Increase in area 20 20 20 30 30

Increase in production 20 20 20 20 20Cost reduction 10 10 10 10 10Profitability to the producer 20 20 20 10 10Achievement of objectives- adoption rate (Reach) 10 10 10 10 10

Sustainability of adoption 20 20 20 20 20

Satisfactory impact of the research outputs from the Research Station can be

visualized from the information furnished in the table.

C. Organization Management Assessment

i) Management Performance and Constraint Assessment:

Keeping in view the Research Station mandate, 11 critical management domains

having a direct bearing on its performance were identified. Under each of these domains,

certain key questions were raised and scored, on a point scale, as per the degree to which

these questions were answered. Performance score for each management domain was

then obtained by summing up the score for the questions raised in that domain. By

dividing the summed-up score by the potential score, performance index / ratio for each

domain was finally worked out.

Like in any public funded research organization, the Lam Research Station

encountered certain internal and external constraints to effective management. For each

management domain, specific management constraints were identified and weighted as

per their relative importance. Constraint ratio for each management domain was then

worked out by dividing the actual score by the potential score. Details on the

measurement of performance ratio and the corresponding constraint ratio for each of the

11 key management domains are presented in the following section tables 5.3.10 to

5.3.20.

146

Table 5.3.10: Management Domain -Assessment of Context and Station’s

Responsivenessa) Key Questions

S.No Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Are the context factors, opportunities and threats in the external environment regularly

examined by the Research Station?

Whether internal (domestic) and external (international) requirements of research have

been considered in the light of changing national and global agricultural scenario due to

WTA?

Are the user needs, resources and constraints taken into account?

Whether the information on policy, marketing and price effects on client adoption of

research outputs are analyzed and used?

Whether the overall government funding and disbursement levels of research are analyzed?

Are the roles and activities of other actors in agriculture analyzed?

Does mutually beneficial interaction with industry and allied sectors exist?

Whether environmental security is guaranteed to realize sustainability?

Whether a complete database on context related factors is established?

Total Score 24Possible Score 27Performance Ratio 0 .888

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

3

3

b) Constraints

S.No. Constraints Score

1.

2.

There is excessive dependence on government funding for research.

Government civil service requirements and bureaucratic procedures affect financial

resource management and are not efficient.

3

3

3.

4.

Budget allocation procedure affects the performance of the Research Station with

regards to its responsiveness.

Lack of quality control infrastructure (physical and manpower) to meet the market -

driven internal demands for trade.

Total Score (of possible 20 ) 12Constraint Ratio (12/ 20) 0.600

2

4

147

Table 5.3.11: Management Domain-Planning Strategy and Goals

a) Key Questions

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Whether a strategic planning process is practically done, reflecting

upon the context, user need and policy implications?

Whether the stakeholders, end users and expert groups are identified

and actively involved in the strategic planning process?

Are the structure, organization and infrastructure adjusted, as per the

strategy evolved?

Whether the research strategy or policy documents are used to

establish goals?

Are the context changes examined when research goals are set?

Has an operational plan with suitable alternatives, derived from

strategic objectives, been developed?

Whether the long-term research plans are suitable to periodical review

(internal / external) and corrective action (contingent plan) taken,

whenever needed?

Whether the strategies are in line with the Government policy?

Is there any long-term vision / perspective plan developed?

Are there effective linkages and cooperation between the Research

Station and the Government in planning the research strategy?

Whether the strategic planning is in accordance with local, regional,

state and regional problems?

Total Score 32Possible Score 33Performance Ratio 0.97

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

148

b) Constraints

S.No

.Constraints Score

1. Policies and decision-making are too centralized that affect planning and operations at

the Station level.

3

2. Fund disbursement procedures at higher level cause inordinate delays. 3

3. Core budget is predictable, but is not sufficient to address the high priority objectives.

Total Score ( of possible 15 ) 7 Constraint Ratio (7 / 15) 0.466

1

Table 5.3.12: Management Domain-Selecting Research Objectives and Outputsa) Key Questions

S.No. Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Do the Station’s research priorities reflect the current and future local/state/regional

development goals?

Whether user surveys are employed to identify researchable constraints?

Are there participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools used to identify opportunities and

constraints for arriving at research objectives?

Whether on-farm activities are carried out, with user participation, which influence the

research agenda through effective feedback?

Do the research objectives reflect the basic felt needs of farmers, agro-industry, trade and

export?

Have the measurable output indicators been identified?

Whether the Station’s research priorities reflect the sustainability of natural resources?

Total Score 21 Possible Score 21

Performance Ratio 1.0

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

b) Constraints

S.No. Constraints Score

1. Budget limits the possibility of undertaking user surveys.

Total Score (of possible 5) 22

149

Constraint Ratio (2 / 5) 0.400

Table 5.3.13: Management Domain- Research Project Management

a) Key Questions

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Is there any effective formal procedure / mechanism for planning and managing

research projects?

Whether production constraints are analyzed and prioritized during research planning?

Has extension and user feedback been considered in project design?

Is there any formal research priority setting procedure being followed?

Is there any effective mechanism (internal / external) for periodic monitoring of on-

going research projects and for evaluation of completed projects?

Are certain milestones set up, as indicators, for implementing and monitoring of

research projects?

Is there any project management cell, with suitable manpower, centrally located?

Is there any involvement of stakeholders and beneficiaries, other than subject matter

specialists, in planning and managing projects?

Whether research activities are made compatible with traditional practices and

knowledge (ITK) of farmers?

Whether inter-disciplinary / inter-institutional collaboration is promoted?

Whether project management tools are used for effective implementation of research

projects?

Is the efficacy of results obtained from the completed projects evaluated in farmers’

field in terms of increased productivity, profitability, feasibility and sustainability?

Is there any provision for mid-course correction based on the mid-term review?

Whether impact assessment of research results carried out systematically by using

suitable indicators that can be measured?

Is there any mechanism to ensure accountability in practice?

Total Score 42 Possible Score 45

Performance Ratio 0.933

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

150

b) Constraints

S.No. Constraints Score

1. Funding is not sufficiently stable to maintain prioroty

research directions.

4

2. There is no proper focus on project management,

particularly at the implementation phase due to lack of

trained manpower in project monitoring.

Total Score ( of possible 10 ) 6 Constraint Ratio (6 / 10) 0.600

2

Table 5.3.14: Management Domain-Maintaining Quality of Operational Research

a) Key Questions

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Do scientists have adequate freedom to operate their research projects

within the framework originally approved?

Whether an effective mechanism exists for providing adequate logistic

support to field operations that are carried out with active participation

of end users?

Are research activities periodically reviewed, modified, or terminated

whenever become necessary?

Is there any mechanism to ensure adequacy of funds, timeliness of

disbursement and hassle-free utilization?

Whether resources and responsive administrative support provided to

the research teams are adequate and timely?

Whether any incentive for quality research is considered?

Total Score 16Possible Score 18

3

1

3

3

3

3

151

Performance Ratio 0.888

b) Constraints

S.No. Constraints Score

1. Access to transport facilities is limited. 4

2. There is lack of well laid-out procedure for provision of logistic support. 2

3. Mechanism for direct communication of research results to end users does not exist.

Total Score ( of possible 15 ) 7 Constraint Ratio (7 / 15) 0.466

1

Table 5.3.15: Management Domain-Human Resource Management

a) Key QuestionsS.No

.Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Whether the Research Station carries out periodic manpower planning exercise more

scientifically?

Is there a systematic human resource development (HRD) plan, as per the needs of

various categories of staff, in practice?

Whether staff upgradation programme is effectively practised, on a regular basis, for

capacity building?

Are there effective performance-oriented incentive and reward systems to motivate the

staff?

Is there any means to effectively deal with recalcitrant staff / poor performers?

Does the existing work environment promote better performance of staff?

Are staff records regularly maintained and continuously updated?

Are there provisions to sensitize the senior level functionaries to scientific management

principles and practices in a formal way?

Is there a functional review committee to assess the performance of all categories of

staff?

Is there any system to prefer merit over simple seniority in promotions?

Whether accountability is built into the system?

Whether the operational problems of staff are addressed regularly?

Does the salary structure attractive enough to ensure inflow and retention of talented

staff?

Is there a system to check inbreeding?

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

152

16 Whether the right person is assigned with the right type of job?

Whether welfare activities for the staff are given adequate attention?

Total Score 45Possible Score 48Performance Ratio 0.937

3

b) Constraints

S.No. Constraints Scor

e1. There is ad-hocism in manpower planning and recruitment. 2

2. Inadequacy of funds for effective HRD planning. 3

Total Score ( of possible 10 ) 5 Constraint Ratio (5 / 10) 0.500

Table 5.3.16: Management Domain-Coordination and Integration of Internal

Functions, Units and Activities

a) Key Questions

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Whether the organizational structure is periodically evaluated and adjustments

made as per need?

Is there a felt need to shift from the hierarchical structure to a more flat or

matrix structure that is more conducive for creative research activities?

Is there an effective mechanism for information flow between structural /

functional units?

Is there a specific unit / cell which periodically meets and ensures coherent

direction and coordination of research, including allocation of resources?

Whether distinct reporting processes exist for the various management levels?

Is the communication system effective in the Research Station?

Is there any mechanism for integration of research teams with each other?

Are there inter-divisional and inter-institutional collaborations to avoid

duplication of research activities and help in sharing of resources?

Is there proper coordination between the Research Station and the extension

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

153

9. network?

Total Score 26Possible Score 27Performance Ratio 0.962

3

b) Constraints

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1. Because of the Government civil service rules, structural adjustment is

seldom attempted. Only the state bureaucratic rules are followed, which

do not suit the research organizations.

3

Total Score ( of possible 5 ) 3 Constraint Ratio ( 3 / 5 ) 0.600

Table 5.3.17: Management Domain-Transfer of Technologya) Key Questions

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Are there adequate technology generation-transfer linkage strategies formulated?

Are there effective mechanisms to formally communicate research results to the end

users directly?

Whether the technology dissemination events are effective?

Do the end users and extension personnel actively participate in dissemination events?

Is there any follow-up action on the technologies resulting from past researches to track

development in adoption by the end users?

Have adequate resources, including staff, been provided for performing the technology

transfer tasks in an efficient and effective manner?

Is there any mechanism of adoption of villages for effective dissemination of

technologies developed?

Do the clientele get all the information they need through a single window system?

Is there a mechanism to monitor and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of

technology transfer?

Whether there is effective mechanism for feedback from the end users to have a bearing

on the research agenda?

Is there proper accountability of technology transfer staff with regard to their

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

154

11.

12.

performance?

Have the useful extension literature been generated?

Total Score 35Possible Score 36Performance Ratio 0.972

3

3

2

b) Constraints

S.No. Constraints Score

1. Explicit budget for attending linkage tasks does not exist. 3

2. Co-operation with extension is weak. 1

3. Incentives for the researchers to engage in technology transfer activities do not

exist.

Total Score ( of possible 15) 8 Constraint Ratio (8 / 15) 0.533

4

Table 5.3.18: Management Domain-Protecting Station’s Assetsa) Key Questions

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Has the inventory of infrastructure and other assets been prepared and periodically

updated?

Does the Research Station enjoy adequate power and legal provisions to ensure

effective use of its resources to fulfil its mandated activities?

Whether adequate budgetary provisions are made to create new infrastructure for

coping with changing needs as well as to maintain them in working condition?

Whether suitable revenue generation activities are identified and implemented?

Are there appropriate procedures and mechanisms to attract and retain qualified staff in

the Research Station?

Does the Station pursue the protection of its intellectual property rights (IPR) through

appropriate mechanisms like awareness creation, capacity building, database

management, legal action, etc.?

3

3

2

3

3

3

155

7.

8.

9.

10.

Have scientists been rewarded for institution building?

Are there service and maintenance contracts, in adequate measure, for the costly

infrastructure?

Does the Station effectively pursue replacement of outdated equipment?

Is there any mechanism to safeguard and put into optimal use the Station’s assets?

Total Score 26Possible Score 30

Performance Ratio 0.866

3

1

2

3

b) Constraints

S.No. Constraints Score

1. There is inadequate provision for effective maintenance and repair. 4

2. There are no effective policies for revenue generation as well as for ploughing back of

generated revenue.

2

Total Score ( of possible 10) 6 Constraint Ratio (6 / 10) 0.600

Table 5.3.19: Management Domain-Information for Monitoring, Evaluation and

Reporting

a) Key QuestionsS.No

.Key Questions Score

156

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Has an effective management information system (MIS) been planned and implemented

for monitoring and evaluation of research?

Is there a process of periodic external review of management and operations through an

effective information system?

Does the corrective action recommended by the external review team implemented,

either fully or partially?

Are the Research Station’s outputs periodically reported (internal and external)

catalogued and retrievable?

Whether the monitoring and evaluation system is based on adequate MIS?

Whether adequate financial and staff resources are available for undertaking monitoring

and evaluation functions through MIS more effectively?

Whether office automation is attempted to improve performance?

Whether important management decisions are made based on the analysis of

information emanating from an organized MIS, or the reports are just filed?

Total Score 23 Possible Score 24 Performance Ratio 0.958

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

b) Constraints

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1. Monitoring and evaluation functions are taken for granted without adequate

attention being given.

2

2. Qualified staff is not available to carry out effective monitoring and evaluation

functions.

1

3. In spite of realizing its importance and use of MIS, it is not in operation at

present.

Total Score (of possible 15) 7

4

157

Constraint Ratio (7 / 15) 0.466

Table 5.3.20: Management Domain-Governance

a) Key Questions

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Does the leadership exhibit positive outlook with visionary approach in

running the research at the Station?

Whether team work is considered as the hall-mark by the leadership for

greater performance?

Do the employees enjoy adequate opportunities for their professional

development?

Whether the existing working climate is conducive to motivate

employees towards greater achievement?

Do the incentive and reward systems promote excellence among the

staff?

Whether decentralized decision-making is in practice in the Research

Station?

Is there delegation of authority commensurating with specific

responsibility?

Total Score 17Possible Score 21

Performance Ratio 0.809

3

3

2

3

2

2

2

b) Constraints

S.No. Constraints Score

1. Lack of freedom to decide and execute the responsibilities assigned. In spite of

realizing its importance and of MIS, it is not in operation at present.

2

2. Existing personal policies tend to encourage mediocrity in the organization. 4

3. Demotivation of employees due to improper organizational climate. 2

4. There is abdication rather than delegation of authority. 2

5. Highly centralized decision -making in the organization.

Total Score ( of possible 25 ) 14

4

158

Constraint Ratio (14 / 25) 0.560

Performance and constraint ratios worked out for all the 11 key management

domains pertaining to the Research Station in 2000 are presented in table 5.3.21.

Table 5.3.21: Management Performance and Constraint Ratios for RARS, Lam (2000)S.No.

Key Management DomainPerformance Constraints

TotalScore

Potential Score

Ratio TotalScore

Potential Score

Ratio

1. Context and Station’s responsiveness

24 27 0.888 12 20 0.600

2. Planning strategy and goals 32 33 0.969 07 15 0.466

3. Selecting research objectives 21 21 1.000 02 05 0.400

4. Research project management 42 45 0.933 06 10 0.600

5. Maintaining operational research quality

16 18 0.888 07 15 0.466

6. Human resource management 45 48 0.937 05 10 0.500

7. Coordination of internal functions, units and activities

26 27 0.962 03 05 0.600

8. Transfer of technology 35 36 0.972 08 15 0.533

9. Protecting Station’s assets 26 30 0.866 06 10 0.600

10. Information flow for monitoring, evaluation and reporting

23 24 0.958 07 15 0.466

11. Governance 17 21 0.809 14 25 0.560

Based on the analysis of performance and constraint ratios for the RARS, it is heartening to note that the Station’s performance was better with respect to all the management domains, notably Selecting research objectives, Planning strategy and goals, Transfer of technology, Co-ordination of internal functions, Information flow for monitoring and evaluation, Human resource management, and Research project management. Notwithstanding its higher performance, the Station also faced certain management constraints with respect to Station’s responsiveness to the environment, Protecting Station’s assets, Research project management, Co-ordination of internal functions, and Good governance. In spite of these constraints, the Lam Research Station has performed appreciably well in the five-year period under consideration. However,

159

initiation of suitable action to overcome these constraints will assist the Research Station to improve its performance to newer heights.

ii) Contribution of Key Management Domains

Depending on the mandate and working environment prevalent in the Research Station, individual contribution of various key management domains to the overall performance was considered differently by the Station’s scientists. Based on their relative importance, the weights assigned by the scientists of the Research Stations to the key management domains are indicated in table 5.3.22.

Table 5.3.22: Contribution of Key Management Domains to Overall Performance(2000)

S.No. Key Management Domain Weights Assigned(Adding to 100)

1. Context and Station’s responsiveness 05

2. Planning strategy and goals 05

3. Selecting research objectives and outputs 05

4. Research project management 15

5. Maintaining operational research quality 15

6. Human research management 10

7. Coordination and integration of internal functions, units and activities

10

8. Transfer of technology 10

9. Protecting Station’s assets 05

10. Information for monitoring, evaluation and reporting 05

11. Governance 15

It is evident from the table that the Station scientists considered areas like Research project management, Maintaining operational research quality, and good

160

Governance as the three most important management functions influencing the overall performance of the Research Station. Other management areas considered as important are Human research management, Coordination and integration of internal functions, units and activities and Transfer of technology.

iii) Cumulative Performance The cumulative performance coupled with corresponding constraint ratios that

were worked out on the basis of their individual contribution to the overall performance, are presented in table 5.3.23.

Table: 5.3.23 Cumulative Performance and Constraint Ratios for 2000

S.No. Particulars Cumulative Ratio

1. Performance 0.914

2. Constraints 0.533

It is observed that the overall performance of the Research Station is found to be highly satisfactory. Timely action to overcome some of the major constraints faced by the Station will go a long way in improving its performance further.

D. Summary of the Assessment Results

Salient outcomes emanating from the assessment process are summarized below.

Among the output categories, the Research Station attached greater values for the

release of improved varieties / hybrids and management practices, as compared to

publications, training and dissemination events, and public services. Very

significantly, it recorded higher performance during 1996-‘97 and 1999 -2000, as

reflected in the higher productivity ratio.

The Research Station identified criteria such as increase in area and production,

cost reduction and profitability, achievement of objectives, and sustainability

161

issues for assessing the impact of crop varieties released. Among them, increase

in area and production, profitability and sustainability of adoption were

considered as important criteria for assessing the research outcome of the Station.

Based on personal judgment, in the absence of reliable database, the impact

assessment of technologies released in Cotton, Chillies and Pulses was undertaken

in terms of the above mentioned criteria identified for the purpose.

Key management domains such as effective research project management,

maintaining operational research quality, and good governance through effective

leadership were considered as the important management functions contributing

to the overall performance of the Research Station.The performance in 2000 was

higher in respect of almost all functional areas.

The Research Station faced maximum constraints with respect to management

functions such as research project management, particularly at the implementation

phase, due to lack of trained manpower in project monitoring, coordination of

internal functions because of the prevailing bureaucratic rules that act as

hinderance for structural adjustment, and protecting the Station's assets for want

of adequate provision for maintenance as well as effective policies for revenue

generation and its ploughing back to meet the Station's needs.

162

5.4 Performance Assessment of Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS),

Palem of ANGRAU9

BackgroundConsequent upon the national policy to reorganize agricultural research in the

country in 1979, through agro-climatic zonation under the National Agricultural Research

Project (NARP), seven Zones were identified in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The

research needs of the Southern Telangana Zone (STZ) are entrusted to Regional

Agricultural Research Station (RARS) of the Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University

(ANGRAU) at Palem.

The STZ is situated between 16 and 18 North latitudes, and between 77 and 79

East longitudes. It comprises the Districts of Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Mahaboobnagar,

and parts of Medak, Warangal and Nalgonda. The mean annual precipitation is 700 mm,

received mostly during the South-West Monsoon. The rainfall distribution is irregular,

both in time and space, which is the main reason for periodic drought of this Zone. Sandy

loams (43%) and red chalcas (39%) are the predominant soil types. Only 16 per cent of

the total cultivated area is irrigated. The principal crops in the Zone are Sorghum, Castor,

Groundnut, Red gram, Green gram, Rice, Maize, and Sesamum. Keeping in view the

farming situations and constraints of this Zone, a total of five Sub-stations and 12

Research Schemes are now functioning under the umbrella of RARS at Palem.

MandateBased on the inputs from various supporting bodies and also keeping in view the

needs of the stakeholders of the locality, the mandate of the Research Station is fixed as

follows:

Crop improvement - The main crops are Sorghum, Pearl millet, Castor, Horse

gram, and Fodder crops.

Verification Center for crops like Finger millet, Groundnut, Greengram, Red-

gram, Blackgram, rainfed Cotton, Rice-based cropping systems, research for

tank-fed and well irrigated areas, and watershed management.

Transfer of technology.

9 For complete information, refer the Case Study “Performance assessment of Regional Agriculturre Research Station,Palem,1997-2002), ANGRAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030” published as a part of the PME Sub-project by Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R., and Rao, R.V.S. in December 2003 by NAARM, Rajedranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030.

163

Coordinated trials through AICRP Network in Castor and Sorghum.

Organizational Set-upThe Regional Agricultural Research Station at Palem is headed by the Associate

Director of Research, and is guided and supported in its endeavours by the Management

Committee and the Research Advisory Committee. The close functional relationship and

co-operative effort that exist in the Research Station are depicted in the organizational

structure (fig.5.4.1).

Figure 5.4.1: Organizational Structure of RARS, Palem

164

Vice-Chancellor

Director of Research(Agricultural Research)

Associate Director of Research(Southern Telangana Zone)

Headquarters Branches

(Research& Extension Advisory Council)

Scientific Staff

Administrative Staff

Technical Staff

Heads Millets

Oilseeds

Pulses

NARP

Agric. Polytechnic

1. Administrative

officer

2. Superintendent

3. Sr.Assistant

4. Jr.Assistant

5. Class IV

employees

1. Assistant

Extension

Officer (AEO)

2. Field Assistant

(FA)

1. Sub-Stations (5)

2. Research Schemes (12)

3. DAATT Centres (4)

Infrastructure, Human and Financial Resources

The infrastructure facilities available at the Research Station to meet various

research and development activities are Bio-pesticide production unit , Bio-fertilizer

production unit, Mushroom production lab / Pathology lab, Soil chemistry lab,

Agronomy lab, Meteorological observatory, Automatic weather station, Computer lab,

and Library .

The Research Station had a sanctioned staff strength of 37 scientists in 2001-‘02,

including the Associate Director of Research. Table 5.4.1 shows the manpower position

in the RARS for the five-year period from 1997-’98 to 2001-’02.

Table 5.4.1: Manpower Position over Five Years (1997-’98 to 2001-’02)

Year

Scientists Technical Staff Administration & Accounts Staff

Auxiliary & Supporting Staff

Sanc-tione

d

In positio

n

Vacant

Sanc-tione

d

In positio

n

Vacant

Sanc-tione

d

In positio

n

Vacant

Sanc-tione

d

In positio

n

Vacant

1997-’98 37 22 15 22 18 4 12 7 5 14 12 2

1998-’99 37 25 12 22 19 3 12 7 5 14 13 1

1999-2000

37 21 16 22 19 3 12 7 5 14 12 2

2000-’01 37 23 14 22 20 2 12 8 4 14 12 2

2001-’02 37 26 11 22 20 2 13 9 4 14 14 -

Source: Annual Reports of RARS, Palem (1997-2002)

As can be seen from the table, the scientific position has never been completely

filled during the five–year period. In all the years, the Research Station was highly

understaffed in case of the scientific personnel. This had a direct bearing on the research

output from the Research Station.

165

The Palem Research Station received funds from the University and other sources,

and the expenditure was consistently higher than the allocation during the five-year

period (1997-’98 to 2001-’02). The funding pattern is indicated in table 5.4.2.

Table 5.4.2: Institutional Budget over Five years (1997-’98 to 2001-’02) (Rs. in lakhs)

Year Allocation/Grant Expenditure

1997-’98

80.34 104.84

1998-’99 90.45 104.23

1999-2000

82.48 99.02

2000-’01 120.53 158.18

2001-’02 158.91 174.81Source: Annual Budget Estimates of ANGRAU (1997-2002)

It can be seen from the above table that the expenditure was found to be

consistently higher than the allocation during the five-year period under consideration

(1997-’98 to 2001-’02).

Research Projects

The scientists at the RARS, Palem, undertook research with the support provided

through various sources. Table 5.4.3 shows the number of research projects carried out

during the five-year period from 1997-’98 to 2001-’02

Table 5.4.3: Projects Undertaken by RARS, Palem (1997-’98 to 2001-’02)

Scheme/Crop 1997-’98 1998-’99 1999-2000 2000-’01 2001-’02ANGRAU/FAO/ICRISAT

- - 1 1 1

AP-NL - - - 4 4NARP 16 9 10 7 5NATP - - - 3 3Castor 37 34 28 26 21Millets 26 33 32 33 31

166

Pulses 5 5 6 3 2 Source: Annual Reports of RARS, Palem (1997-2002)

Public services:

As one of the important activities, the Research Station is involved in the breeder

seed production of Castor and Sorghum.

Organizational Performance Assessment

A. Output Assessment

i) Output Indicators:

Based on the response received from the scientists in the RARS at Palem, seven

output categories were identified and the performance was measured using the

productivity indices / ratios. Different output categories and types of outputs under each

category pertaining to the Research Station are listed in table 5.4.4.

Table 5.4.4: Output Categories and Types

Output Categories Output Types

Improved Varieties / HybridsSorghum- PSV-1, PSH-1, ASH-1, and Palem-2Finger millet- MaruthiCastor- PCH-1, Haritha, and Kranti

Improved Management Practices

Agronomic practices (tillage, seed rate, method of sowing, spacing, etc.)

Seed production Integrated farming systems, including eco- sustainable practices Integrated nutrient management Integrated pest managementSoil managementWater management

Publications and Reports Papers in national / international journalsResearch highlights / bulletins / brochuresBooks / reviews / chaptersAbstracts and reprintsConference / symposium and workshop proceedings

167

Audio-visual materials (radio / TV / video tapes)

Farmers / extension materialPosters / newsletters / leaflets

Output Categories Output Types

Training EventsTraining of extension officersTraining of farmers and farmers’ organizationsTraining of women farmersTraining of NGOsTraining of private / public input agenciesTraining of students

Dissemination EventsFarmer programmes in mass media (radio, TV, etc.) Field-visits / Field daysOn-farm research trials through contact

farmers

Public Services Seed production activities Farm / veterinary clinics Advisory services Pest and disease surveillance Gene / Germplasm banks

Professional Recognition

Membership in professional committees Resource generation

ii) Output Measurement:

As described in the methodology, the productivity ratios were calculated for the

RARS at Lam, for all the seven output categories for the five-year period. The output

matrix of the first and second output categories for the year 1997-’98 are illustrated

below, as the measurement of these two categories of output is different from the rest of

the categories. To measure the first output category (i.e. improved crop varieties and

hybrids), in addition to the total number of varieties released, the simple quality elements

in terms of their successful adoption (number) were considered. Both the values were

added to arrive at the combined score. This score was in-turn multiplied with the weights

assigned to each type by the scientists in the research Station as per the mandate.

Productivity ratio was worked out by dividing the total index score by the researcher

time, in terms of man months for this output category. Illustration of the output

measurement of this category for RARS, Palem, for the year 1997-‘98 is presented in the

matrix 5.4.1.

168

Output Measurement Matrix 5.4.1:Improved Crop Varieties and Hybrids(1997-’98)

Output: New Variety (Number of varieties released per year)Input : Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1 2 3 4

Variety TypeSorghum PSV-1, PSH-1 * 2 1 3 4 12Finger milletMaruthi * 1 1 2 2 4

Total index score 16 Researcher months (22*12) 264 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.060

The released Sorghum and Finger millet varieties form the output type under the

output category: Improved varieties and hybrids, during the year 1996-‘97. Out of two

released sorghum varieties, one was successful and hence, scored as three. One variety

released in Finger millet was successful and hence, scored as two. Weight to different

varieties was assigned by the scientists of the Research Station based on their relative

importance in accordance with the mandate of the Station. Total index score was

calculated by multiplying the weight with the obtained score. Finally, the productivity

index/ratio was calculated by dividing the total index score by researcher man months.

The same methodology was followed in the measurement of output category-2

(improved management practices), and the relevant example is illustrated in the output

measurement matrix 5.4.2.

169

Output Measurement Matrix 5.4.2: Improved Management Practices (1997-’98)

Output: Management practice recommendationsInput: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per Year Released Accepted Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9

TypeAgronomic practices * 4 4 8 4 32Seed Production technique * 3 3 6 4 24

Total Index Score 56 Researcher months(22*12) 264 Productivity Index/Ratio 0.212

All other output categories were measured as per the common methodology

described in the earlier section, and an illustration for the same is presented in the output

measurement matrix 5.4.3.

Output Measurement Matrix 5.4.3: Publications and Reports (1997-’98)

Output: Publications and ReportsInput: Researcher Time (Man months)

Number per year Score Weight Rating

Scale 0 <10 11-20 21-30 >30 Points 0 1 2 3 4

TypeT V Programme * 1 4 4Journal article * 1 3 3Extension material * 1 2 2Popular Article * 1 3 3Annual report * 1 5 5Radio talk * 4 4 16Symposium paper * 3 3 9

170

Total index score 42 Researcher months (22*12) 264

Productivity Index/Ratio 0.159

ii) Output Trend Analysis:

Productivity indices / ratios worked out for each category of research output and

the overall productivity ratios calculated for all the five years from 1997-’98 to 2001-’02,

along with bench-mark / threshold values, are presented below.

The trend in the productivity index / ratio for each category of output over the

five-year period can be summarized in the form of a matrix, which will enable the

Research Station to identify at a glance the years of under, normal and over-performance

in comparison with the bench-mark value. The productivity index / ratio calculated for

the seven categories of output are presented in table 5.4.5.

Table 5.4.5: Trend in Productivity Measures for Output Categories between

1997-’98 and 2001-’02

Output Category/Measure

Productivity Index / Ratio1997-’98 1998-’99 1999-2000 2000-’01 2001-’02 Bench-

markImproved varieties / hybrids

0.060 - 0.027 - 0.0.096 0.061

Improved management practices

0.212 0.240 0.357 0.347 0.532 0.338

Publications and reports

0.159 0.123 0.151 0.109 0.176 0.144

Training events 0.186 0.127 0.187 0.170 0.147 0.163

Dissemination events

0.269 0.203 0.163 0.348 0.237 0.244

Public services 0.220 0.193 0.230 0.181 0.160 0.197

Professional recognition

0.053 0.033 0.067 0.091 0.064 0.062

As can be seen from the table, there is fluctuation in the productivity index / ratio

over the five-year period in general. By comparing with bench-mark / threshold values,

171

the year of under, normal and over- performance of the Research Station in terms of the

seven output categories can be identified and the reasons attributed for the same.

iv) Contribution of Individual Output Categories to Overall Performance:

In accordance with the mandate of the Research Station, contribution of the

individual category of research output to the overall performance was assessed by

weighting them as per their relative importance. The weights assigned by the scientists to

the seven output categories pertaining to RARS, Palem, are presented in table 5.4.6.

Table 5.4.6: Relative Importance of Output Categories to Overall Performance

S.No. Output Category / MeasureWeights Assigned

(Adding to 100)

1. Improved varieties / hybrids 40

2. Improved management practices 25

3. Publication and reports 05

4. Training events 05

5. Dissemination events 05

6. Public services 15

7. Professional recognition 05

As per the mandate of Palem Research Station, the contribution of improved

varieties / hybrids to the overall performance was found to be maximum, followed by that

of improved management practices, public services, publications and reports, training

events, dissemination events, and professional recognition, in that order. The overall

172

productivity index / ratio for the five-year period is shown in table 5.4.7 and in figure

5.4.2.

Table 5.4.7: Trend in Overall Productivity from 1997-’98 to 2001-’02

S.No. Years Productivity Index/Ratio

1. 1997-1998 0.165

2. 1998-1999 0.153

3. 1999-2000 0.169

4. 2000-2001 0.208

5. 2001-2002 0.201

Bench-mark 0.172

Fig 5.4.2: Trend in Overall Productivity

0.165 0.1530.169

0.208 0.201

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

1997-'98 1998-'99 1999-'00 2000-'01 2001-'02

Year

Prod

uctiv

ity ra

tio

It is evident from the table and figure that the Research Station experienced

under-performance in the first three years and has shown the sign of rapid improvement

in the subsequent two years, i.e. year 2000-’01 and 2001-’02..

173

B. Outcome/Impact Assessment

The assessment of impact of various technologies developed under different

crops, which reflects the performance of the Research Station, was carried out in terms of

area expansion, production increase, cost reduction, profitability, achievement of

objectives, and sustainability considerations.

The assessment of research outcome is a long-term and more complex process

that can be accomplished by establishing a causal relationship between the research

outputs and their impact for farmers and other end users. It essentially assists the

Research Station to determine the relevance of its research programmes as well as their

impact on various target groups. Since periodic tracking of specific research outputs to

their targets is very much necessary, outcome assessment is a very difficult process

requiring more resources and expertise. Careful planning is needed to combine simplicity

in design, reasonable levels of resource requirement and identification of appropriate

target groups.

Notwithstanding these inherent difficulties associated with the outcome / impact

assessment, an initial attempt was made to assess the impact of various technologies

(crop-wise) developed by the Research Station, in terms of a set of valid criteria

including their relative importance, as indicated in table 5.4.8.

Table 5.4.8: Impact Assessment Criteria and their Relative Importance (Crop-wise)

S.No. Criteria

Weights Assigned (Adding to 100)Castor Sorghum Finger

millet Overall

1. Increase in area 10 10 10 10

2. Increase in production 30 50 50 43

3. Cost reduction 10 05 05 07

4. Profitability to the producer 30 10 10 17

5. Achievement of objectives 10 20 15 15

6. Sustainability of adoption 10 05 10 08

174

It is evident from the table that varying levels of importance were assigned by the

Station scientists to a set of criteria, which were considered to be important by them for

impact assessment, under different crops. Nevertheless, criteria like increase in

production, profitability to the producer and the achievement of objectives were

considered to be the three most important criteria for assessing the impact of research

output from the Station.

Detailed information on the impact of research outputs pertaining to crops like

Castor, Sorghum and Finger millet are presented in table 5.4.9.

Table 5.4.9: Impact Assessment of RARS, Palem, from 1997-’98 to 2001-’02

Crop CriteriaYears

1997-’98

1998-’99

1999-2000

2000-’01

2001-’02

Castor Increase in area (’000 ha) 100 100 100 150 100Increase in production (’000 tonnes) 25 25 25 35 25Cost reduction (Rs/ha) 375 375 375 375 375Profitability to the producer (million Rs.)

450 450 450 600 500

Achievement of objectives (%) 100 100 100 100 100Sustainability of adoption (%) 75 75 75 75 75

Sorghum

Increase in area (’000 ha) 1.5 2.0 5.0 7.0 12Increase in production (’000 tonnes) 21 22 22 22 23Cost reduction (Rs/ha) 750 750 750 750 750Profitability to the producer (million Rs.)

8 11 27 37 65

Achievement of objectives (%) 100 100 100 100 100Sustainability of adoption(%) 75 75 75 75 75

Finger millet

Increase in area (’000 ha) - 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.7Increase in production (’000 tonnes) - 21 21 21 21Cost reduction (Rs/ha) - 700 720 700 750Profitability to the producer (million Rs.)

- 3 5 8 10

Achievement of objectives (%) - 100 100 100 100Sustainability of adoption (%) - 100 100 100 100

Significant impact of the research outputs resulted from the Station can be

visualized from the information furnished in the table.

C. Organization Management Assessment

175

Keeping in view the Research Station mandate, 11 critical management domains

having a direct bearing on its performance were identified. Under each of these domains,

certain key questions were raised and scored, on a point scale, as per the degree to which

these questions were answered. Performance score for each management domain was

then obtained by summing up the score for the questions raised in that domain. By

dividing the summed-up score by the potential score, performance index / ratio for each

domain was finally worked out.

Like in any public funded research organization, the Palem Research Station

encountered certain internal and external constraints to effective management. For each

management domain, specific management constraints were identified and scored as per

their relative importance. Constraint ratio for each management domain was then worked

out by dividing the actual score by the potential score. Details on the measurement of

performance ratio and the corresponding constraint ratio for each of the 11 key

management domains are presented in the tables 5.4.10 to 5.4.20.

176

Table 5.4.10: Management Domain- Assessment of Context and Research Station’s Responsiveness

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Are the context factors, opportunities and threats in the external

environment regularly examined by the Research Station?

Whether internal (domestic) and external (international) requirements

of research have been considered in the light of changing national and

global agricultural scenario due to WTA?

Are the user needs, resources and constraints taken into account?

Whether the information on policy, marketing and price effects on

client adoption of research outputs are analyzed and used?

Whether the overall Government funding and disbursement levels of

research are analyzed?

Are the roles and activities of other actors in agriculture analyzed?

Does mutually beneficial interaction with industry and allied sectors

exist?

Whether environmental security is guaranteed to realize sustainability?

Whether a complete database on context related factors is established?

Total Score 16Possible Score 27Performance Ratio 0.592

2

1

3

0

3

2

2

2

1

177

b) Constraints:

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

There is excessive dependence on Government funding for research.

Government civil service requirements and bureaucratic procedures

affect financial resource management and are not efficient.

Budget allocation procedure affects the performance of the Research

Station with regard to its responsiveness.

There is lack of awareness among scientists about WTA.

Institute has nothing to do with policy, marketing and price as it rests

with the Government.

Limited or lack of interaction with input agencies.

Lack of awareness about database.

Total Score (of possible 35) 28Constraint Ratio (28/35) 0.800

5

1

5

5

4

4

4

178

Table 5.4.11: Management Domain-Planning Strategy and Goals for the Research Station

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Whether a strategic planning process is practically done, reflecting

upon the context, user need and policy implications?

Whether the stakeholders, end users and expert groups are identified

and actively involved in the strategic planning process?

Are the structure, organization and infrastructure adjusted, as per the

strategy evolved?

Whether research strategy or policy documents are used to establish

goals?

Are context changes examined when research goals are set?

Has an operational plan with suitable alternatives, derived from

strategic objectives, been developed?

Whether the long-term research plans are suitable to periodical review

(internal / external) and corrective action (contingent plan) taken,

whenever needed?

Whether the strategies are in line with the Government policy?

Is there any long-term vision / perspective plan developed?

Are there effective linkages and co-operation between the Research

Station and the government in planning the research strategy?

Whether the strategic planning is in accordance with local, regional and

state and regional problems?

Total Score 28Possible Score 33Performance Ratio 0.848

2

2

2

3

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

179

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Policies and decision-making are too centralized that affect planning

and operations at the Research Station level.

Fund disbursement procedures at higher level cause inordinate delays.

Core budget is predictable, but is not sufficient to address high priority

objectives.

Lack of infrastructure due to poor financial resources.

Organizational policy does not allow linkage.

Total Score (of possible 25) 09Constraint Ratio (9/25) 0.360

2

2

2

2

1

180

Table 5.4.12: Management Domain-Selecting Research Objectives and Outputs

a) Key Questions:

S.No. Key Questions Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Do the Station’s research priorities reflect the current and future

local/regional development goals?

Whether user surveys are employed to identify researchable

constraints?

Are there participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools used to

identify opportunities and constraints for arriving at research

objectives?

Whether on-farm activities are carried out, with user

participation, which influences the research agenda through

effective feedback?

Do the research objectives reflect the basic felt needs of farmers,

agro-industry, trade and export?

Have the measurable output indicators been identified?

Whether the Station’s research priorities reflect the sustainability

of natural resources?

Total Score 14Possible Score 21Performance Ratio 0.667

3

2

1

3

1

2

3

181

b) Constraints:

S.No

.Constraints

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

There is no policy encouragement to involve farmers in setting research

objectives.

There is little feedback from farmers through the extension.

Budget limits the possibility of undertaking user surveys.

Participatory rural appraisal is not mandatory.

Lack of training/exposure about agro-industry/trade/export.

Limited participation of farmers in the user survey.

There is lack of manpower for survey.

There exists inevitable pressure towards more production.

Total Score (of possible 40) 28Constraint Ratio (28/40) 0.700

1

1

5

4

4

5

4

4

182

Table 5.4.13: Management Domain-Research Project Management

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Is there any formal effective procedure / mechanism for planning and

managing research projects?

Whether production constraints are analyzed and prioritized during

research planning?

Has extension and user feedback been considered in project design?

Is there any formal research priority setting procedure being followed?

Is there any effective mechanism (internal / external) for periodic

monitoring of on-going research projects and for evaluation of

completed projects?

Are certain milestones set up, as indicators, for implementing and

monitoring of research projects?

Is there any Project Management Cell, with suitable manpower,

centrally located?

Is there any involvement of stakeholders and beneficiaries, other than

the subject matter specialists, in planning and managing projects?

Whether research activities are made compatible with traditional

practices and knowledge (ITK) of farmers?

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

3

1

183

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Whether inter-disciplinary / inter-institutional collaboration is

promoted?

Whether project management tools are used for effective

implementation of research projects?

Is the efficacy of results obtained from the completed projects

evaluated in farmers’ field, in terms of increased productivity,

profitability, feasibility and sustainability?

Is there any provision for mid-course correction based on the mid-term

review?

Whether impact assessment of research results carried out

systematically by using suitable indicators that can be measured?

Is there any mechanism to ensure accountability in practice?

Total Score 35Possible Score 45Performance Ratio 0.778

3

2

3

1

1

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Funding is not sufficiently stable to maintain priority research

directions.

There are very few staff with skills for effective management of

research projects.

There is no proper focus on project management.

Lack of documentation about ITK.

Most of the projects are short-term projects.

Lack of manpower to carry out impact assessment.

3

2

2

3

3

3

184

Total Score (of possible 30 ) 16Constraint Ratio (16/30) 0.533

Table 5.4.14: Management Domain-Maintaining Quality of Operational Research

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Is there any institutional mechanism to provide details on resource

costs, indicators of success and time frame for research activities?

Do scientists have adequate freedom to operate their research projects

within the framework originally approved?

Whether an effective mechanism exists for providing adequate logistic

support to field operations that are carried out with active participation

of end users?

Are the research activities periodically reviewed, modified, or

terminated whenever become necessary?

Is there any mechanism to ensure adequacy of funds, timeliness of

disbursement and hassle-free utilization?

Whether the resources and responsive administrative support provided

to the research teams are adequate and timely?

Whether any incentive for quality research is considered?

1

3

2

3

1

1

0

185

Total Score 11Possible Score 21Performance Ratio 0.524

b) Constraints:S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Access to transport facilities is limited.

There is lack of well laid-out procedure for provision of logistic

support. Mechanism for direct communication of research results to

users does not exist.

There is no mechanism for maintaining the quality of operational

research.

Lack of funds.

Financial and administrative problem.

No incentive for quality research.

Total Score (of possible 35) 20Constraint Ratio (20/35) 0.571

1

1

1

4

4

4

5

Table 5.4.15: Management Domain-Human Resource Management

a) Key Questions:

186

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Whether the Research Station carries out periodic manpower planning

exercise more scientifically?

Is there a systematic human resource development (HRD) plan, as per

the needs of various categories of staff, in practice?

Whether staff upgradation programme is effectively practised, on a

regular basis, for capacity building?

Are there effective performance-oriented incentive and reward systems

to motivate the staff?

Is there any means to effectively deal with recalcitrant staff / poor

performers?

Does the existing environment promote better performance of staff?

Are staff records regularly maintained and continuously updated?

Are there provisions to sensitize the senior level functionaries to

scientific management principles and practices in a formal way?

Is there a functional review committee to assess the performance of all

categories of staff?

Is there any system to prefer merit over simple seniority in promotions?

Whether accountability is built into the system?

Whether the operational problems of staff are addressed regularly?

Does the salary structure attractive enough to ensure inflow and

retention of talented staff?

Is there a system to check inbreeding?

Whether the right person is assigned with the right type of job?

Whether welfare activities for the staff are given adequate attention?

Total Score 32Possible Score 48Performance Ratio 0.667

2

1

2

1

3

3

3

2

2

1

3

3

2

0

2

2

187

b) Constraints:

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

There is ad-hocism in manpower planning and recruitment.

Inadequacy of funds for effective HRD planning.

No mechanism in place for capacity building of staff.

Lack of incentives.

No merit system is followed in giving promotion.

Case of inbreeding- No mechanism for checking inbreeding.

Total Score (of possible 30) 24Constraint Ratio (24/30) 0.800

2

5

4

4

4

5

Table 5.4.16: Management Domain-Coordination and Integration of Internal Functions, Units and Activities

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Whether the organizational structure is periodically evaluated and

adjustments made as per need?

Is there a felt need to shift from the hierarchical structure to a more flat

or matrix structure that is more conducive for creative research

activities?

Is there an effective mechanism for information flow between

structural / functional units?

Is there a specific unit / cell which periodically meets and ensures

coherent direction and coordination of research, including allocation of

resources?

Whether distinct reporting processes exist for the various management

2

2

2

2

2

188

6.

7.

8.

9.

levels?

Is the communication system effective in the Research Station?

Is there any mechanism for integration of research teams with each

other?

Are there inter-divisional and inter-institutional collaborations to avoid

duplication of research activities and help in sharing of resources?

Is there proper coordination between the Research Station and the

extension network?

Total Score 20Possible Score 27Performance Ratio 0.740

3

3

2

2

b) Constraints:

S.No. Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Instead of programme orientation, discipline-oriented divisional set-up

results in inefficient resource use.

Centralized in ANGRAU - Matrix structure for creative research is not

available.

Special unit not available for direction and coordination of research.

Total Score (of possible 15) 07Constraint Ratio (7/15) 0.466

3

2

2

189

Table 5.4.17: Management Domain -Transfer of Technology

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

Are there adequate technology generation-transfer linkage strategies

formulated?

Are there effective mechanisms to formally communicate research

results to the end users directly?

Whether the technology dissemination events are effective?

Do the end users and extension personnel actively participate in

dissemination events?

Is there any follow-up action on the technologies resulting from past

2

3

2

2

190

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

researches to track development in adoption by the end users?

Have adequate resources, including staff, been provided for performing

the technology transfer tasks in an efficient and effective manner?

Is there any mechanism of adoption of villages for effective

dissemination of technologies developed?

Do the clientele get all the information they need through a single

window system?

Is there a mechanism to monitor and evaluate the efficiency and

effectiveness of technology transfer?

Whether there is effective mechanism for feedback from the end users

to have a bearing on the research agenda?

Is there proper accountability of technology transfer staff with regard to

their performance?

Have the useful extension literature been generated?

Total Score 28Possible Score 36Performance Ratio 0.778

2

2

3

3

1

3

2

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

Explicit budget for attending linkage tasks does not exist.

Co-operation with extension is weak.

Incentives for the researchers to engage in technology transfer

activities do not exist.

Line department (extension) is separated from researchers.

Total Score (of possible 20 ) 10Constraint Ratio (10/20) 0.500

3

1

3

3

191

Table: 5.4.18 Management Domain-Protecting Organizational Assets

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.Key Questions

Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Has the inventory of infrastructure and other assets been prepared and

periodically updated?

Does the Research Station enjoy adequate power and legal provisions

to ensure effective use of its resources to fulfil its mandated activities?

Whether adequate budgetary provisions are made to create new

infrastructure for coping with changing needs as well as to maintain

3

2

1

192

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

them in working condition?

Whether suitable revenue generation activities are identified and

implemented?

Are there appropriate procedures and mechanisms to attract and retain

qualified staff in the Research Station?

Does the Research Station pursue the protection of its intellectual

property rights (IPR) through appropriate mechanisms like awareness

creation, capacity building, database management, legal action, etc.?

Have scientists been rewarded for institution building?

Are there service and maintenance contracts, in adequate measure, for

costly infrastructure?

Does the Research Station effectively pursue replacement of outdated

equipment?

Is there any mechanism to safeguard and put into optimal use the

Research Station’s assets?

Total Score 20Possible Score 30Performance Ratio 0.667

3

0

2

2

2

2

3

b) Constraints:

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

There is inadequate provision for effective maintenance and repair.

There are no effective policies for revenue generation as well as for

ploughing back of generated revenue.

Lack of resources to attract and retain qualified staff and also to replace

the outdated equipment.

Total Score (of possible 15) 10Constraint Ratio (10/15) 0.667

4

2

4

193

Table 5.4.19: Management Domain-Information for Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

a) Key Questions:

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

Has an effective management information system (MIS) been planned

and implemented for monitoring and evaluation of research?

Is there a process of periodic external review of management and

operations through an effective information system?

2

3

194

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Does the corrective action recommended by the external review team

implemented, either fully or partially?

Are the Research Station’s outputs periodically reported (internally and

externally) catalogued and retrievable?

Whether the monitoring and evaluation system is based on adequate

MIS?

Whether adequate financial and staff resources are available for

undertaking monitoring and evaluation functions through MIS more

effectively?

Whether office automation is attempted to improve performance?

Whether important management decisions are made based on analysis of

information emanating from an organized MIS, or the reports are just

filed?

Total Score 16Possible Score 24Performance Ratio 0.667

2

2

2

1

3

1

b) Constraints:

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

Monitoring and evaluation functions are taken for granted without

adequate attention being given.

Qualified staff are not available to carry out effective monitoring and

evaluation functions.

In spite of realizing its importance and usefulness of MIS, it is not in

2

1

2

195

4.

5.

6.

operation at present.

No MIS is practised separately.

Adequate staff are not available for MIS.

Lack of formal MIS system.

Total Score (of the possible 30) 14Constraints Ratio (14/30) 0.467

2

4

3

Table 5.4.20: Management Domain-Governancea) Key Questions:

S.No

.

Key Questions Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Whether the leadership is able to ensure involvement and commitment

of employees to the Research Station activities through participatory

mode of decision making?

Does the leadership inspire people to give their best to the Research

Station by serving as a role model?

Do the employers enjoy adequate opportunities for professional

development and the right due for them in effectively discharging their

responsibilities?

Whether the existing personal policies promote excellence in the

Research Station?

Whether the organizational climate is conducive to motivate employees

towards greater achievement?

Is there any effort made for achieving devolution of power up to the

working scientist level?

Whether decentralized decision-making is in practice in the Research

Station?

Is there delegation of authority commensurating with responsibility?

Total Score 21Possible Score 24

3

3

3

2

2

3

3

2

196

Performance Ratio 0.875

b) Constraints:

S.No

.

Constraints Scor

e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Lack of participative mode of decision-making.

Proper direction and guidance for the subordinates are missing.

Lack of freedom to decide and execute the responsibilities assigned.

Existing personal policies tend to encourage mediocrity in the

Research Station.

De-motivation of employees due to improper organizational climate.

There is abdication rather than delegation of authority.

Highly centralized decision-making in the Research Station.

Total Score (of the possible 35) 10Constraints Ratio (10/35) 0.285

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

Performance and constraint ratios worked out for all the 11 key management domains

pertaining to the Palem Research Station in 2002 are presented in table 5.4.21.

Table: 5.4.21 Management Performance and Constraint Ratios for RARS, Palem (2002)

Key Management DomainPerformance Constraints

Total Potentia Rati Total Potentia Rati

197

Score

l Score o Score l Score o

Context and Station’s responsiveness

16 27 0.593 28 35 0.800

Planning strategy and goals 28 33 0.848 09 25 0.360Selecting research objectives 14 21 0.667 28 40 0.700Research project management 35 45 0.778 16 30 0.533Maintaining operational research quality

11 21 0.524 20 35 0.571

Human resource management 32 48 0.667 24 30 0.800Coordination of internal functions, units and activities

20 27 0.741 07 15 0.467

Transfer of technology 28 36 0.778 10 20 0.500Protecting Station’s assets 20 30 0.667 10 15 0.667Information flow for monitoring, evaluation and reporting

16 24 0.667 14 30 0.467

Governance 21 24 0.875 10 35 0.286

As can be seen from the table, the overall performance of all the management

functions (with the exception of assessment of context and Station’s responsiveness and

maintaining operational research quality) was found to be satisfactory. An inverse

relationship between the performance and constraint ratios was also observed for the

Palem Research Station.

ii) Contribution of Key Management Domains

Depending on the mandate and working environment prevalent in the Research

Station, individual contribution of various key management domains to the overall

performance was considered differently by the Station scientists. Based on their relative

importance, the weights assigned by the scientists of the research organization to the key

management domains are indicated in table 5.4.22.

Table 5.4.22: Contribution of Key Management Domains to Overall Performance(2002)

S.No. Key Management Domains Weights Assigned(Adding to 100)

1. Context and Station’s responsiveness 05

198

2. Planning strategy and goals 05

3. Selecting research objectives and outputs 15

4. Research project management 10

5. Maintaining operational research quality 10

6. Human resource management 15

7. Coordination and integration of internal functions, units and activities

05

8. Transfer of technology 10

9. Protecting Station’s assets 05

10. Information for monitoring, evaluation and reporting 05

11. Governance 15

It is evident from the table that the Station scientists consider areas like Selecting

research objectives and outputs, Human resource management, and good Governance as

the three most important management functions influencing the overall performance of

their Research Station. Other management areas considered as important are Research

project management, Maintaining operational research quality and Transfer of

technology.

iii) Cumulative Performance

The cumulative performance coupled with corresponding constraint ratios, that

are worked out on the basis of their individual contribution to the overall performance,

are presented in table 5.4.23.

Table 5.4.23: Cumulative Performance and Constraint Ratios for 2002

S.No. Particulars Cumulative Ratio

199

1. Performance 0.715

2. Constraints 0.567

With respect to management process, it appears that the Research Station has

performed well in 2002 (as reflected in the cumulative performance ratio higher than that

of the constraint ratio). However, necessary corrective actions through strategic decision-

making to minimize the constraints with regard to suitably responding to the

environment, evolving appropriate human resource management practices and selecting

relevant research objectives will facilitate the Research Station to achieve improved

performance.

D. Summary of the Assessment Results

Salient outcomes emanating from the assessment process are summarized below.

Among the output categories, the Research Station attached greater importance

for the release of improved varieties / hybrids and management practices, as

compared to publications, training and dissemination events, and professional

recognition. Very significantly, it brought about a steady increase in its

performance over the years, particularly in the year 2001-’02, as reflected in the

productivity ratio.

The Research Station identified criteria such as increase in area and production,

cost reduction and profitability, achievement of objectives, and sustainability

issues for assessing the impact of crop varieties released. Among them, increase

in production was considered as the most important criterion for assessing the

research outcome from the Station. Based on personal judgement, in the absence

of reliable database, the impact of technologies released in Castor, Sorghum and

Finger millet was undertaken in terms of the above mentioned criteria identified

for the purpose.

200

Key management domains such as selecting suitable research objectives and

outputs, appropriate human resource management, and good governance through

effective leadership were considered as the important management functions

contributing to the overall performance of the Research Station. Among the

functional areas, the performance in 2002 was higher in respect of good

governance, effective planning strategy and goals, research project management,

transfer of technology, and coordination of internal functions.

The Research Station faced maximum constraints with respect to management

functions such as assessment and its responsiveness to environmental demands

due to lack of awareness and the prevailing bureaucratic procedures, human

resource management for want of systematic planning and adequate funds to

focus on capacity building of staff, and selecting suitable research objectives and

outputs due to inadequate farmer participation.

201

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Any effort to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural research

organizations in the NARS necessitates the institutionalization of a performance -

oriented evaluation system in order to make them accountable to increasingly varied

groups of stakeholders and beneficiaries. Such a system should encompass the

assessment of i) research output, ii) research outcome/impact, and iii) management

process having a direct bearing on the overall performance of the research organization.

Based on extensive literature search as well as intensive interaction with senior level

functionaries, both in-service and retired, from the Indian NARS and the international

institutions like ISNAR, a basic methodological framework was first developed and

subsequently refined through field testing in a few selected research institutions. The

methodology essentially consists of three components, as under:

Identification and measurement of output indicators, in terms of productivity ratio; Identification and measurement of relevant outcome/impact indicators; and

Identification and measurement of key management functions, in terms of performance ratio, as well as the constraints associated with each function, in terms of constraints ratio.

As per the relative importance, each category of research output, outcome and

management process can be weighted (specific to the organization concerned) and the

overall performance worked out for a particular year. By comparing this value with the

bench-mark / threshold value (average of a selected period), the years of under, normal

and over-performance can be identified. Through critical analysis of the reasons for

varying levels of performance during the selected period, appropriate action can be

initiated to realize a steady increase in performance over the years. Within a given set of

framework as guidelines, the methodology is flexible enough to accommodate situation-

specific needs of various kinds of research organizations.

202

Although the methodology is essentially meant for self-assessment of research

organizations, it can serve as a critical input (in quantitative terms) to external evaluation

bodies like QRT in the NARS. Most importantly, the full potential of this comprehensive

methodology can be realized only when a performance-oriented culture is in inculcated

and the results emanating from the assessment are integrated into the decision-making

process in the research organization.

203

Publications

1. Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S. 2003. Performance Assessment of Research Organizations. Report on the Questionnaire Survey, NAARM, Hyderabad.

2. Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S. 2003. Performance Assessment of Agricultural Research Organizations. Proceedings of the National Workshop held on 3rd & 4th March 2003 at NAARM, Hyderabad.

3. Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S. 2003. Case Study on Performance Assessment of the Directorate of Oilseeds Research, Hyderabad. Published by NAARM, Hyderabad, December 2003.

4. Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S. 2003. Case Study on Performance Assessment of the Project Directorate on Poultry, Hyderabad. Published by NAARM, Hyderabad, December 2003.

5. Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S. 2003. Case Study on Performance Assessment of the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Lam. Published by NAARM, Hyderabad, December 2003.

6. Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S. 2003. Case Study on Performance Assessment of the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Palem. Published by NAARM, Hyderabad, December 2003.

7. Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S. 2003. Performance Assessment of Agricultural Research Organizations. Proceedings of the Discussion Meeting held on 20 th March 2004 at NAARM, Hyderabad.

8. Balaguru, T., Kalpana Sastry, R. and Rao, R.V.S. 2003. Performance Assessment of Agricultural Research Organizations. Paper presented in the National Conference on Scientific Awareness held on 27th & 28th December 2003 at New Delhi.

204

References

Charles Lusthaus, Gary Anderson and Elaine Murphy, 1995. Institutional Assessment : A Framework for Strengthening Organizational Capacity for IDRC’s Research Partners. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Charles Lusthaus, Marie-Hélène Adrien, Gary Anderson, and Fred Carden, 1999. Enhancing Organizational Performance - A Toolbox for Self-assessment. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Charles Lusthaus, Marie-Hélène Adrien, Gary Anderson,Fred Carden and George Plinio Montalván, 2002. Organizational Assessment - A Framework for Improving Performance, Inter-American, Development Bank, Washington, D.C. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Dan Charlish, Ros David, Marta Foresti, Lesley-Anne Knight, and Margaret Newens,2003. Towards Organisational Performance Assessment: Experiences of Strengthening Learning, Accountability and Understanding Social Change. British Overseas Aid Group: Christian Aid, Action Aid, Save the Children UK, CAFOD and Oxfam GB, DAC Conference March 2003 – BOAG.

Fred Carden, November 1997. Who Pays the Piper: Challenges in a Learning Based Approach to Institutional Assessment. IDRC, Presented at the Quebec Evaluation Society.

ISNAR-ADB-PBMS Project, April 2001. Organization Performance Assessment of the National Institute of Animal Husbandry (NIAH), Vietnam.

ISNAR-ADB-PBMS Project, January 2001.Organization Performance Assessment of the Research Institute for Rice (RIR), Sukamandi, Indonesia.

ISNAR-ADB-PBMS Project, January 2001.Organization Performance Assessment of the Coconut Research Institute, Lunuwila, Sri Lanka.

ISNAR-ADB-PBMS Project, June 2001. Organization Performance Assessment of BPTP. Ungaran, Central Java, Indonesia.

ISNAR-ADB-PBMS Project, October 2000. Report on Organizational Assessment-Crop Diseases Research Institute.International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) and National Agricultural Research, Islamabad, Pakistan.

NAAS, December 2002. Scientists’ View on Good Governance of an Agricultural Research Organization. Nationa Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi.

205

Susan E. Cozzens, 1995. Performance Assessment at the National Science Foundation. Propsals for NSF’s response to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Discussion Paper, November 13,1995, USA.

Terry Smutylo and Charles Lusthaus, October 1998. Maximizing the Benefits of Self-Assessment: Tools and Tips. Presented at the European Evaluation Society Conference, Rome, Italy.

Warren E. Peterson, 1998. Assessing Organizational Performance: Indicators and Procedures- Agricultural Research Organizations: The Assessment and Improvement of Performance. Discussion Paper, ISNAR, the Hague, Netherlands.

Warren E. Peterson, G. Gijsbers, and M. Wilks, 2003. An Organizational Performance Assessment System for Agricultural Research Organizations: Concepts, Methods, and Procedures. Research Management Guidelines No. 7, ISNAR,the Hague, Netherlands.

Warren E. Peterson, U. N. Khan, Abdul Ghaffar, and Imdad H. Mirza, October 2000. Organizational Performance Assessment of Animal Sciences Institute, National Agricultural Research Centre, Islamabad, Pakistan.

206

Annexure I

Management Assessment Question Sets

Management Area 1 - Assessment of Context and Organizational Responsiveness

It is vital for the research organization to properly understand the opportunities and threats prevailing in its environment (in terms of farmer’s conditions and aspirations, national policies and goals, markets, prices, funding levels, partners and competitors) in order to plan relevant research and produce outputs that are useful for its varied stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Questions Score0 1 2 3

1. Are user needs, resources and constraints taken into account?2. Are context factors, opportunities and threats regularly examined by

the organization?3. Are information on policy and price effects on users analyzed and used?4. Are marketing and other context factors that affect client adoption of

research outputs considered?5. Are overall Government funding and disbursement levels for research

analyzed?6. Are the roles and activities of other actors in agriculture analyzed?7. Whether internal (domestic) and external (international) requirements of

research have been considered in the light of changing national and global agricultural scenario due to WTA?

8. Does mutually beneficial interaction with industry and allied sectors exist?

9. Whether environmental security is guaranteed to realize sustainability?10. Whether a complete database on context related factors is established?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency4 3 2 1

1. There is excessive dependence on Government funding for research. 2. Government civil service requirements and bureaucratic procedures

affect financial resource management and are not efficient.3. Budget allocation procedure affects the performance of the organization

with regard to its responsiveness.4. There is lack of awareness among scientists about WTA. 5. Institute has nothing to do with policy, marketing and price as it rests

with the government.6. Limited or lack of interaction with input agencies. 7. Participatory rural appraisal is not mandatory.8. Lack of training/exposure about agro-industry/trade/export. 9. There is lack of manpower for user survey. 10. Lack of awareness about database on external environment. 11. Lack of quality control infrastructure (physical and manpower) to meet

the market - driven internal demands for trade.

207

Management Area 2 - Planning Strategy and Goals for the Organization

In order to effectively respond to the rapidly changing environment, it becomes pertinent for the organization to periodically review and adjust its directions and goals. Strategic planning can be a better option available for repositioning itself in its environment.

Questions Score Comments0 1 2 3

1. Any strategic planning process periodically used? 2. Are stakeholders and users adequately represented in strategic planning

process?3. Has an operational plan been developed that is derived from strategic

objectives?4. Are structure, organization and infrastructure adjusted to changes in

strategy?5. Whether expert groups are consulted in the strategic planning process? 6. Whether the long-term research plans are suitable to periodical review

(internally / externally), and corrective action (contingent plan) taken, whenever needed?

7. Whether the strategies are in line with the Government policy? 8. Is there any long-term vision / perspective plan developed? 9. Whether the strategic planning is in accordance with regional, state and

regional problems? 10. Are there effective linkages and cooperation between the organization

and the government in planning the research strategy? 11. Are agricultural research strategy or policy documents used to establish

goals?12. Weather the availability of manpower and infrastructure facilities are

taken into account while deciding the goals for the organization? 13. Are context changes examined when research objectives are considered?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency Comments4 3 2 1

1. Policies and decision-making are too centralized, that affect planning and operations at institute level.

2. Fund disbursement procedures at higher level cause inordinate delays.

3. Core budget is predictable, but is not sufficient to address high priority objectives.

4. The availability of sufficient infrastructure facilities and manpower is not considered while formulating research strategy.

208

Management Area 3 - Selecting Research Objectives and Outputs

At the operational level, the development goals and client needs are to be reflected in the organization’s research objectives and priorities for making them more relevant.

Questions Score0 1 2 3

1. Do the research priorities reflect the national development goals? 2. Is there an operational plan, which identifies component projects for a

medium-term period?3. Are there user surveys that identify researchable constraints? 4. Are there field research activities with user participation and effective

feedback?5. Are there effective feedback from users that influence research

objectives?6. Are there participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools used to identify

opportunities and constraints for arriving at research objectives? 7. Whether on-farm activities are carried out, with user participation, which

influences the research agenda through effective feedback? 8. Do the research objectives reflect the basic felt needs of farmers, agro-

industry, trade and export? 9. Have the measurable output indicators been identified? 10. Whether the organization’s research priorities reflect the sustainability of

natural resources?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency4 3 2 1

1. There is no policy encouragement to involve farmers in setting research objectives.

2. There is little feedback from farmers through the extension. 3. Budget limits the possibility of undertaking user surveys to set

objectives.4. Limited participation of farmers in setting research objectives.

Management Area 4 - Research Project Management

The organizational objectives and strategies are to be translated into relevant projects that need to well planned and managed in terms of inputs, activities and expected outputs.

Questions Score0 1 2 3

1. Is there a formal procedure for planning and budgeting research projects?

2. Are production constraints analyzed during research planning?

209

3. Is there any involvement of stakeholders and beneficiaries, other than subject matter specialists, in planning and managing projects?

4. Has extension and user feedback been considered in project design?5. Is there a formal research priority setting procedure being followed?6. Are there mechanisms for periodical monitoring of on-going projects

and for evaluation of completed projects?7. Are certain milestones set up, as indicators, for implementing and

monitoring of research projects?8. Whether research activities are made compatible with traditional

practices and knowledge (ITK) of farmers?9. Whether inter-disciplinary / inter-institutional collaboration is promoted? 10. Whether project management tools are used for effective implementation

of research projects?11. Is there any provision for mid-course correction based on the mid-term

review? 12. Whether impact assessment of research results carried out systematically

by using suitable indicators that can be measured?13. Is the efficacy of results obtained from the completed projects evaluated

in farmers’ field in terms of increased productivity, profitability, feasibility and sustainability?

14. Whether the formulation and progress of the research projects is documented in prescribed format like RPF ?

15. Are research result reports produced, catalogued and retrievable?16. Is there any Project Management Cell, with suitable manpower, centrally

located?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency

4 3 2 11. Funding is not sufficiently stable to maintain priority research directions. 2. There is lack of encouragement for project based budgeting.3. Lack of documentation about ITK. 4. There are staffs with inadequate skills for effective management of

research projects.5. Lack of qualified manpower to carry out effective monitoring and

evaluation of research projects.

Management Area 5 - Maintaining Quality of Operational Research

210

To ensure effective research operations and quality of output, improved research management practices need to be followed by creating conducive working

environment in the organization.

Questions Score

0 1 2 31. Are researchers activities periodically evaluated, modified o terminated? 2. Do scientists have managerial control of research projects? 3. Is there proper assignment of responsibilities for logistic support to field

operations?4. Is there an institutional mechanism to provide details of resource costs,

indicators of success and time frame for research activities?5. Whether sufficient inputs are provided? 6. Is there any mechanism to ensure adequacy of funds, timeliness of

disbursement and hassle-free utilization?7. Whether resources and responsive administrative support provided to the

research teams are adequate and timely?8. Whether any incentive for quality research is considered? 9. Are there mechanisms to formally communicate research results to users

directly?10. Whether required collaboration with sister institutions is existing for

effective implementation of projects?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency

4 3 2 11. There is lack of well laid-out procedure for provision of logistic support.2. Access to transport facilities is limited.3. Lack of funds. 4. Financial and administrative problem. 5. No incentive for quality research. 6. Limited land availability restricting the expansion of infrastructure

facilities. 7. Procedures for importing germplasm for use in breeding programmes are

cumbersome.8. Lack of sufficient technical support to the scientists is slowing down the

research output.9. Mechanism for direct communication of research results to users does

not exist

Management Area 6 - Human Resource Management

It is important that adequate number of qualified staff, in different category, are in position to ensure expected level of organizational performance. Proper human resource management practices in terms of planning, recruitment, development, and evaluation are to be implemented for realizing improved performance.

211

Questions Score0 1 2 3

1. Does the organization carry out periodic manpower planning exercise?2. Does the salary structure attractive enough to ensure inflow and

retention of talented staff?3. Whether the right person is assigned with the right type of job? 4. Is there a systematic HRD plan in practice?5. Does the existing work environment promote better performance of

staff?6. Are there effective incentive and reward systems that motivate the staff?7. Is there any system to prefer merit over simple seniority in promotions? 8. Is there any means to effectively deal with recalcitrant staff / poor

performers?9. Are there provisions to sensitize the senior level functionaries to

scientific management principles and practices in a formal way?10. Whether the operational problems of staff are addressed regularly? 11. Whether welfare activities for the staff are given adequate attention? 12. Whether all the sanctioned posts are filled? 13. Are staff records regularly maintained and continuously updated?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency4 3 2 1

1. There is ad hocism in manpower planning and recruitment.2. Policy decisions severely restrict the manpower recruitment. 3. Inadequacy of funds for effective HRD planning.4. Limited manpower availability leading to administrative constraints in

deputing personnel for HRD at the desired frequency. 5. Limitation of civil service rules and procedures to realize better

performance of staff.6. Lack of incentives. 7. Lack of merit in the system followed in giving promotion. 8. No mechanism for checking inbreeding.

Management Area 7-Coordination and Integration of Internal Functions, Units and Activities

For the smooth and efficient running of research operations, activities of various functional units within the organization are to be well integrated through a proper coordination mechanism. Suitable organizational structure facilitative for good governance, effective cooperation and internal communication needs to be ensured.

Questions Score0 1 2 3

1. Is there a periodic evaluation and adjustment of the organization’s structure in relation to strategic plans?

2. Is there a felt need to shift from the hierarchical structure to a more flat or matrix structure more conducive for creative research activities?

3. Is there a formal mechanism for information flow and coordination

212

between structural / functional units?4. Whether distinct reporting processes exist for the various management

levels?5. Is there a specific entity, which ensures a coherent direction and

coordination of resources?6. Is the communication system effective in the organization? 7. Is there any mechanism for integration of research teams with each

other? 8. Are there inter-divisional and inter-institutional collaborations to avoid

duplication of research activities and help sharing of resources

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency

4 3 2 11. Because of Government civil service rules, structural adjustment is

seldom attempted.2. Instead of programme orientation, discipline-oriented divisional set-up

results in inefficient resource use.3. Special unit is not available for direction and coordination of research.

4. Special unit is not available for direction and coordination of research.

5. Due to lack of open communication, culture of distrust prevails in the

organization.

Management Area 8 - Transfer of Technology

For effective dissemination of research results, in the form of new knowledge and technology, to the end users, it becomes necessary to establish strong linkages and working relationships with various agencies such as farmer organizations, extension, development agencies including NGOs, universities, private sector, and other agencies (both national and international). This will not only help to put into practice the developed technologies but will also provide the necessaryfeedback to the organization for developing relevant research agenda.

Questions Score0 1 2 3

1. Is there adequate planning of technology generation-transfer linkage strategies and mechanisms?

2. Are there effective mechanisms for feedback from clients to researchers influencing the research agenda?

3. Are there effective research-extension dissemination events? 4. Do the users actively participate in dissemination events?5. Have adequate resources (including staff) been provided for performing

linkage tasks?6. Is there any follow-up action on the technologies resulting from past

researches to track development in adoption by the end users? 7. Is there any mechanism of adoption of villages for effective

dissemination of technologies developed?8. Do the clientele get all the information they need through a single

213

window system?9. Whether the useful extension literature been generated? 10. Whether special budgetary provision is kept for technology transfer? 11. Whether specialist / trained personnel are available? 12. Is there a mechanism to monitor and evaluate the efficiency and

effectiveness of technology transfer? 13. Is there proper accountability of technology transfer staff with regard to

their performance?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency

4 3 2 11. Explicit budgeting for attending to linkage tasks does not exist.2. Cooperation with extension is weak.3. Line department (extension) is separated from the researchers. 4. Incentives for the researchers to engage in technology transfer activities do not

exist.5. There is no organized extension wing with specialist extension personnel

for technology transfer.6. The existing make shift arrangement for transfer of technology is not

fully effective.

214

Management Area 9 - Protecting Organization Assets

In the best interest of the organization, due attention needs to be paid to protect its assets such as staff, funds, infrastructure facilities and intellectual property.

Questions Score0 1 2 3

1. Does the organization enjoy legal provisions to ensure use of its mandated and statutory powers and property?

2. Has the inventory of infrastructure and other assets been prepared?3. How adequate budgetary provision been made to maintain the

infrastructure in working condition?4. Are there service and maintenance contracts, in adequate measure, for

costly infrastructure?5. Does the organization effectively pursue replacement of outdated

equipment?6. Have procedures and mechanisms to attract and retain qualified staff

been planned and implemented?7. Whether revenue generating activities been identified and implemented?

8. Does the organization pursue the protection of its intellectual property

rights?9. Whether the germplasm developed has been protected from being

illegally multiplied for commercial exploitation? 10. Have scientists been rewarded for institution building? 11. How effective and efficient is the budgetary utilization? 12. Is there any mechanism to safeguard and put into optimal use the

organization’s assets?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency

4 3 2 11. There is inadequate provision for effective maintenance and repair.2. There are no effective policies for revenue generation as well as for

ploughing back of generated revenue.3. Lack of resources to attract and retain qualified staff and also to replace

the outdated equipment.4. There is no mechanism to check illegal use of germplasm for

commercial exploitation by unauthorized agencies.

Management Area 10 - Information for Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

Proper monitoring, evaluation and reporting of research through systematically designed and managed information system will immensely benefit the organization

by providing useful information for sound decision making as well as for ensuring accountability.

Questions Score0 1 2 3

215

1. Has an effective monitoring and evaluation system been planned and implemented?

2. Whether the monitoring and evaluation system is based on adequate MIS?

3. Are adequate financial and staff resources available for undertaking monitoring and evaluation activities?

4. Whether adequate infrastructure facilities available for MIS? 5. Are organizational outputs adequately reported, internally and

externally?6. Is there a process of periodic external review of management and

operations?7. Does the corrective action recommended by the external review team

implemented, either fully or partially?8. Whether office automation is attempted to improve performance? 9. Whether important management decisions are made based on analysis of

information emanating from an organized MIS, or the reports are just filed?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency

4 3 2 11. Monitoring and evaluation functions are taken for granted without

adequate attention being given. 2. Qualified staff are not available to carry out effective monitoring and

evaluation functions.3. In spite of realizing its importance and usefulness of MIS, it is not in

operation at present.4. No formal MIS is practiced separately. 5. Adequate staffs are not available for developing and effectively

managing the MIS.

Management Area 11 - Governance

Provision of inspirational leadership through participatory decision-making as a team, empowering people with operational freedom and rights due for them, existence of personnel policies conducive for improved performance, proper motivation to get the best out of the individual, and devolution of power resulting in decentralized decision-making will lead to good governance of the research organization.

Questions Score0 1 2 3

1. Whether the leadership is able to ensure involvement and commitment of employees to the organization activities through participatory mode of decision making?

2. Does the leadership inspire people to give their best to the organization by serving as a role model?

216

3. Do the employers enjoy adequate opportunities for professional development and the right due for them in effectively discharging their duties?

4. Whether the existing personnel policies promote excellence in the organization?

5. Whether the organizational climate is conducive to motivate employers towards greater achievement?

6. Is there any effort made for achieving devolution of power up to the working scientist level?

7. Whether decentralized decision-making is in practice in the organization?

8. Is there delegation of authority commensurating with responsibility? 9. Whether team work is considered as the hall-mark by the leadership for

greater performance?

Constraint Statements Level of Urgency

4 3 2 11. Lack of participative mode of decision-making.2. Proper direction and guidance for the subordinates are missing.3. Lack of freedom to decide and execute the responsibilities assigned.4. Existing personal policies tend to encourage mediocrity in the

organization.5. De-motivation of employees due to improper organizational climate.6. There is abdication rather than delegation of authority.7. Highly centralized decision-making in the organization.8. Lack of importance for teamwork.

217

ANNEXURE IILIST OF SENIOR LEVEL FUNCTIONARIES RESPONDED TO THE STUDY

I.QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

218

Deemed Universities:

Dr M. P. Yadav Director Indian Veterinary Research Institute Izatnagar - 243 122

Dr N.Balaraman Director i/c National Dairy Research Institute Karnal -132 001

National Bureau: Dr B.S. Dhillon

Director National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources Pusa Campus New Delhi - 110 012

Central Institutes:

Prof. B.N. Singh

Director Central Rice Research Institute Cuttak - 753 006

Dr Prasad Rao Principal Scientific Officer for Director Central Tobacco Research Institute Rajahmundry - 533 105

Dr N. BalasundaramDirectorSugarcane Breeding InstituteCoimbatore - 641 007

Dr D.G. Dhandar Director

Central Institute for Arid Horticulture Sri Ganganagar Highway Beechwal Industrial Area P.O. Bikaner - 334 006

Dr V. Rajagopal Director Central Plantation Crops Research

Institute Kasaragod - 671 124

Dr I.A. Khan Head, RCMU Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture Santhoshnagar, Saidabad Hyderabad - 500 059

Dr P.S. Pathak Director Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute Pahuj Dam, Gwalior Road Jhansi - 284 003

Dr C.S. Prasad Principal Scientist & i/c RCM National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology Adugodi Bangalore - 560 030

Dr K. Devadasan Director

Central Institute of Fisheries

Technology

Willingdon Island Matsypuri P.O.

Cochin - 682 029

Dr Mruthyunjaya Director National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research Post Box No. 11305 Library Avenue,Pusa New Delhi - 110 012

ICAR Research Complex:

Dr B.S.Saha Sr.Scientist & i/c Technical Cell, ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region WALMI complex Phulwari Sharif P.O. Patna - 801 505

219

Project Directorates:

Dr D.M. HegdeProject DirectorDirectorate of Oilseeds ResearchRajendranagarHyderabad - 500 030

Sri D.K. MandalScientist & i/c Project Planning and MonitoringProject Directorate on CattlePost Box No. 17Grass Farm Road Meerut - 251 001

Dr R.P. Sharma Project Director

Project Directorate on PoultryRajendranagar - 500 030

National Research Centres:

Dr M. M. MustaffaI/c RMCUNational Research Centre for BananaThogaimalai RoadThayanur PostTrichy - 620 102

Dr O.P. Joshi Acting Director National Research Centre for Soybean

Khandwa Road Indore - 452 017

Dr E.V.V. Bhaskara Rao Director

National Research Centre for CashewPuttur - 574 202

Dr O.P.Vijay Director National Research Centre for Seed Spices Tabiji Ajmer - 305 206

Dr M.P. Sagar Scientist (Agric. Extension)

National Research Centre for Mushroom Chambaghat Solan - 173 213

Dr Poonam J. Singh I/c Technical Cell National Research Centre on Camel Post Bag No. 07 Bikaner - 334 001

Dr S.K. Dwivedi Director National Research Centre on Equines Sirsa Road Hissar - 125 001

ICAR Headquarters:

Dr Anwar AlamDeputy Director General (Engg.)ICAR, Krishi BhawanNew Delhi - 110 001

Dr S.P. TiwariAsst. Director General (Seeds)ICAR, Krishi Bhawan New Delhi – 110 001

National Agricultural Technology Project:

Dr A. Bandyopadhyay National Coordinator (O & M)Krishi Ansandan Bhavan II, PusaNew Delhi - 110 012

220

221

Vice Chancellors:

Dr V.V. Ranga Rao Tech. Secretary to Vice Chancellor

Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University Rajendranagar Hyderabad - 500 030

Dr R. Yamdagni Narendra Dev University of Agriculture

& Technology Kumarganj

Faizabad - 224 229

Dr S.Kannaiyan Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Coimbatore - 641 003

Dr S.A. Patil University of Agricultural Sciences Krishinagar Dharwad - 580 005

Directors of Research:

Dr A.K. Pathak Assam Agricultural University Jorhat - 785 013

Dr N.D. Jambhale Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth Dapoli - 415 712

Dr K. Kumaran Kerala Agricultural University

Vellanikkara

Thrissur - 680 656

Dr R.B. Deshmukh Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Post Box No. 11 Rahuri - 413 722

Prof. S.V. SarodePanjabrao Deshmukh Krishi VidyapeethAkola - 444 104

Additional Director of Research (Agriculture) Nodal Officer-NATP Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana - 141 004

Dr M. SubramanianTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore - 641 003

Dr S. Lingappa

University of Agricultural Sciences Krishinagar Dharwad - 580 005

Associate Director of Research:

Dr Affifa S. Kamili S.K. University of Agric.Sciences & Technology Shalimar Campus Srinagar - 191 121

Deans:

Prof. M.M. Adhikary Faculty of Agriculture

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Mohanpur - 741 252

Dr V.C. Srivastava Faculty of Agriculture Birsa Agricultural University Ranchi - 834 006

Dr A.P. Singh College of Veterinary Sciences C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University Hissar - 125 004

Dr K.D. Upadhyay C.S. Azad University of Agriculture &

Technology Kanpur - 208 002

222

Prof. Pritam K. Sharma College of Agriculture C.S.K. Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University Palampur - 176 062

Dr A.Y. Desai Gujarat Agricultural University Sardar Krushinagar - 385 506

Dr D.Sahu College of Agriculture Orissa University of Agriculture &

Technology Bhubaneswar - 751 003

Dr Malvinder Singh Tiwana College of Agriculture Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana - 141 004

Dr D.R. Sharma College of Horticulture Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry Nauni Solan - 173 230

Associate Dean:

Dr K.S. Deshpande College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences Marathwada Agricultural University Parbhani - 431 402

Directors:

Dr R. K. Punia Directorate of Human Resource Management C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University Hissar - 125 004

Dr R.N. Srivastava Directorate of Human Resource Management C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University Hissar - 125 004

Dr Basant Ram Directorate of Experiment Station Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology Pantnagar - 263 145

Heads of Department:

Dr A.K. Sarkar I/c Planning & monitoring Unit

Office of the Vice Chancellor Assam Agricultural University Jorhat - 785 013

Dr D. N. Sharma College of Vet. & Animal Sciences

C.S.K. Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University Palampur - 176 062

Head Department of Agricultural Economics C.S.K.Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University Palampur - 176 062 Nodal Officer:

Dr A.K. Sarkar Birsa Agricultural University Ranchi - 834 006

Coordinator: Dr N. Nagaraja

Project Planning & Monitoring University of Agricultural Sciences GKVK Campus Bangalore - 560 065

223

Retd.Functionaries

224

ICAR Institutes:

Dr M. V. RaoEx-Addl. Director General (ICAR)H.NO. 6-1-280/3/BPadma Rao Nagar ColonySecunderabad - 500 025

Dr K.V. RamanEx-Director (NAARM)Apt.#3A, “Shreyas”36, Fourth Seaward RoadValmikinagarChennai - 600 041

Dr K.V.Subba RaoEx-Professor (NAARM)9-158, Venkateswara NagarMalkajigiri

Hyderabad - 500 047

Dr V.S. ShastryEx-Director (CRRI)Rice Expert Neevaram, 74 Nagarjuna Hills Panjagutta Hyderabad - 500 482

Dr B. VenkateswarluEx-Director (CRRI)Ashok Nilayam1-10-71/2, Ahoknagar

Hyderabad - 500 020

Dr M. S. ChariEx-Director (CTRI)

Advisor - Pest Management Centre for World Soldarity H.No. 12-13-438, Street No. 1 Tarnaka Secunderabad - 500 017

Dr J. VenkateswarluEx-Director (CAZRI)26, SBI Colony

GandhinagarHyderabad - 500 080

Dr P.S. ReddyEx-Project Director (DOR)Flat No. 201, Block CAmrutha Enclave, Road No. 14Banjara HillsHyderabad - 500 034

Dr B.S. RanaEx-Director (NRCS)16-2-146/22, Dayanand NagarMalakpetHyderabad - 500 036

Dr Anupam Varma National Professor Advanced Centre for Plant Virology Division of Plant Pathology Indian Agricultural Research

Institute Pusa New Delhi - 110 012

Dr Dayanatha JhaNational ProfessorNational Centre for Agricultural

Economics & Policy Research Post Box No. 11305 Library Avenue, Pusa New Delhi - 110 012

SAUs:

Dr K. Pradhan Ex-Vice Chancellor (OUAT) National Academy of Agricultural Sciences P.O. Box No. 11325 NASC Complex DPS Marg, Pusa New Delhi - 110 012

Dr S. Chellaiah

Ex-Director of Research (TNAU)M.S. Swaminathan Research

Foundation3rd Cross StreetTaramani Institutional Area Chennai - 600 113

II. NATIONAL WORKSHOP

List Of Participants

1. Prof. Adhikary, M.M. Dean, AgricultureBidhan Chandra Krishi VishwavidyalayaMohanpur-741 252Phone : 033-25878338Fax : 03473-222273E-mail: mmabckv@vsnl.net

2. Dr Alapati SatyanarayanaDirector of ExtensionANGRAU, Admn. OfficeRajendranagarHyderabad-500 030Phone : 040-24015326Fax : 040-24015326E-mail : alapatisatyam@yahoo.com

3. Dr Balachandran, P. V.Associate Director of Research &Nodal Officer, PME CellKerala Agricultural UniversityMain CampusThrissur– 680 656Phone :0492-612228, 0492-612275E-mail: kauhqr@hub.nic.in

4. Dr Balaguru, T.Principal Scientist & Head – ARSMP DivisionNAARMHyderabad-500 030Phone : 040 – 24015394/5Fax : 040 – 24015912E-mail: bala@naarm.ernet.in

5. Dr Bandyopadhyay, ANational Coordinator (O&M)Krishi Anusandan Bhavan II, PusaNew Delhi – 110 012Phone : 011-25728710E-mail: bandy@icar1.nic.in

6. Dr Chellaiah, S.S4 Sorrento Residency30 Ormes RoadKilpaukChennai-600 010Phone : 044-26613286

E-mial : chelliahs@hotmail.com

7. Dr Gajbhiye, K.S.DirectorNational Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning,Amravati RoadNagpur – 440 010Phone: 0712-500386Fax : 0712-500534

E-mail: ksgajbhiye@nbsslup.mah.nic.in

8. Dr Hegde, D.M.Project DirectorDirectorate of Oilseeds ResearchRajendranagarHyderabad – 500 030Phone : 040-24015222Fax : 040-24017969E-mail : director@dor-icar.org

9. Dr Kalpana Sastry, R.Senior ScientistNAARM, Hyderabad-500 030Phone : 040 – 24015394/5Fax : 040 – 24015912E-mail: kalpana@naarm.ernet.in

10. Prof. Kannaiyan, SFormer Vice-ChancellorPlot No.2667, New “Y” BlockOld “AM” Block, 9th Street12th Main Road, Anna NagarChennai – 600 040Phone : 044-26288181E-mail: skannaiyan@hotmail.com

11. Dr Kaul, G.L.

Vice ChancellorAssam Agricultural UniversityJorhat-785 013 Phone: 0376 – 2320965Fax : 0376 – 2320965 0376 – 2340001E-mail: vc@aau.ren.nic.in

12. Dr Manikandan, P.Principal Scientist & Head – HRD DivisionNAARMHyderabad-500 030Phone : 040 – 24015394/5Fax : 040 – 24015912E-mail: manik@naarm.ernet.in

13. Dr Mathur, B.N.DirectorNAARMHyderabad-500 030Phone : 040 – 24015070Fax : 040 – 24015912E-mail: director@naarm.ernet.in

14. Dr Mehta, S.L.National DirectorNational Agricultural Technology ProjectKrishi Anusandhan Bhavan IIIARI CampusNew Delhi – 110 012Phone : 011-25817772E-mail: slmehta@icar1.nic.in

15. Dr Mishra, BDirectorDirectorate of Rice ResearchRajendranagarHyderabad-500 030Phone : 040-4015120Fax : 040-4015308E-mail : mishra.b@eudoramail.com

16. Dr Padma Raju, A

Director of ResearchANGRAURajendranagarHyderabad -500 030Phone : 24015078Fax : 24017453

E-mail : padmaraju-dr@hotmail.com

17. Dr Patil, B. V.Associate Director of ResearchRegional Agricultural Research StationRaichur-584 101E-mail: arisuasd@satyam.net.in dr<arisuasd@satyam.net.in.

18. Dr Patil, S.A.Vice-ChancellorUniversity of Agricultural SciencesYettinagudda campus, KrishinagarDharwad – 580 005Phone : 0836-447783Fax : 0836-448349E-mail: Sapatil-uas@rediffmail.com

19. Dr Rama Rao, D.Principal Scientist & Head – ICM DivisionNAARMHyderabad-500 030Phone : 040 – 24015394/5Fax : 040 – 24015912

E-mail: ramarao@naarm.ernet.in

20. Dr Ramakrishna, Y.S.Project Coordinator (Ag. Met.)Central Research Institute for Dry land Agriculture (CRIDA)Santhosh Nagar-500 059Phone : 040-2453909Fax : 040-2453909E-mail: ysrk@crida.ap.nic.in

21. Dr Raman, K.V.Former Director (NAARM)

# 3 A, “Shreyas”36, Fourth Seaward RoadValmiki NagarChennai-600 041Phone : 044-2445 6063 / 2442 1285E-mail: kvraman@satyam.net.in

22. Dr Rana, B.S.Former Director NRCS16-2-146/22, Dayanand NagarMalakpetHyderabad – 500 036Phone : 040-24551140

23. Dr Rao, M.V.ChairmanAP – NL Biotechnology ProgrammeBiotechnology UnitInstitute of Public EnterpriseOU CampusHyderabad-500 007Phone : 040-27097018

24. Dr Rao, R.V.S.Senior ScientistNAARMHyderabad-500 030Phone : 040 – 24015394/5Fax : 040 – 24015912

E-mail: rvs@naarm.ernet.in

25. Dr. Rosaiah, BAssociate Director of ResearchRegional Agricultural Research StationLam, Guntur-522 034Phone : 0863 – 2524053Fax : 0863 – 2524073E-mail: root@zrcapol.ap.nic.in

26. Dr. Saha, S.N.Joint DirectorNAARMHyderabad-500 030Phone : 040 – 24015394/5Fax : 040 – 24015912E-mail: saha@naarm.ernet.in

27. Prof. Sarode, S.V.

Director of ResearchDr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi VidyapeethAkola- 444 104Phone : 0724-2258419Fax : 0724-2258219E-mail : dr@pdkv.mah.nic.in

28. Dr Sharma, S.D.DirectorIndian agricultural Statistics Research InstituteLibrary Avenue, Pusa, New Delhi-110 012Phone : 011-25741479Fax : 011-25780564E-mail: sdsharma@iasri.delhi.nic.in

29. Dr Sharma, R.P.Project DirectorProject Directorate on PoultryRajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030Phone : 040-24015650Fax : 040-24015650E-mail: pdpoult@ap.nic.in

30. Dr Shikhamany, S.D.DirectorIndian Institute of Horticultural ResearchHessaraghatta Lake PostBangalore – 560 089Phone : 080-8466353Fax : 080-8466291E-mail: director@iihr.kar.nic.in

31. Dr Subba Rao, I.V.Vice-ChancellorAcharya N.G. Ranga Agril. UniversityAdmn. Office, Rajendranagar Hyderabad– 500 030Phone : 040-24015035Fax : 040-24015031E-mail : root@apau.ren.nic.in

32. Dr Subba Rao, K.V.Retired Professor

9-158; VenkateswarnagarMalkajgiri

Hyderabad-500 047Phone : 040-27050321E-mail: murali_vajra@hotmail.com

33. Dr SubramaniamDirector of ResearchTamilnadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore – 641 003Phone : 0422-431788 0422-431222Fax: 0422-431672E-mail : vctnau@vsnl.in, c_ramasamy@yahoo.com

34. Dr Venkat Reddy, N.Associate Director of ResearchAnd Principal (Agril. Polytechnic)RARS, ANGRAUPalem -509 215Phone : 08540-221017Fax : 08540-228646E-mail: adrpalem@rediffmail.com

35. Dr Yadav, M.P.DirectorIndian Veterinary Research InstituteIzatnagar – 243 122 Phone : 581-447060Fax : 581-2447284E-mail: dirivri@ivri.up.nic.in

III DISCUSSION MEETING

Prof. Adhikary, M.M.Prof. Agril. Extn & Dean, AgricultureBidhan Chandra Krishi VishwavidyalayaDist. Nadia, West BengalPhone : 033-25878338(o) Mobile : 09433010699/ 09830006996

033-25829324 (r)Fax : 03473-222273Email: mmabckv@vsnl.net

Dr Alapati SatyanarayanaDirector of ExtensionANGRAU, Admn. OfficeRajendranagarHyderabad 500 030Phone: 040-24015326, 9848054851Fax : 040-24015326alapatisatyam@yahoo.com

Dr Balachandran, P. V.Associate Director of Research &Nodal Officer, PME CellRegional Agricultural Research StationKerala Agricultural UniversityPattambi, Pallakkad – 679 306 (KERALA)Phone : 0492-612228Fax : 0492-612275Email : pvbalu@sancharnet.in

Dr Balaguru, T.Principal ScientistNAARMHyderabadPhone: 040 – 24015394/5Fax: 040 – 24015912E-mail:naarm.hyd@naarm.ernet.in

Prof. S. Chelliah

Former Director of Research,Tamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityS4 Sorrento Residency30 Ormes Road, KilpaukChennai 600 010Phone : 26613286;98-401-83100

Emial :chelliahs@hotmail.com

Dr Hegde, D.M.Project DirectorDirectorate of Oilseeds ResearchRajendranagarHyderabad – 500 030Phone: 040-24015222Fax: 040-24017969E-mail: director@dor-icar.org

Dr Kalpana Sastry, R.Senior ScientistNAARMHyderabadPhone: 040 – 24015394/5, 9848135024Fax: 040 – 24015912E-mail : naarm.hyd@naarm.ernet.in

Prof. Kannaiyan, SFormer Vice-ChancellorAL-85, 4 th street,11th Main Road, Anna Nagar WestChennai – 600 040.Phone : 044-26288181Mobile : 9884073441Email : skannaiyan@hotmail.com

Dr Manikandan, P.Principal ScientistNAARMHyderabadPhone: 040 – 24015394/5Fax: 040 – 24015912E-mail :naarm.hyd@naarm.ernet.in

Dr Mishra, BDirector

Directorate of Rice Research Rajendranagar Hyderabad – 500 030 Phone : 040 – 24015120 Fax : 040 –24015308 Email : mishra.b@eudoramail.com

Dr Mehta, S.L.National DirectorNational Agricultural Technology ProjectKrishi Anusandhan Bhavan IIIARI CampusNew Delhi – 110 012Email: slmehta@icar1.nic.in

Dr Padma Raju, ADirector of ResearchANGRAURajendranagarHyderabad 500 030.Phone : 24015078, 9858054850Fax : 24017453

Email : padmaraju-dr@hotmail.com

Dr Patil, B. V.Associate Director of ResearchRegional Agricultural Research StationRaichur, Karnataka –584 101Phone : (08532) 220193, 220629Fax : (08532) 220193E-mail : bvp2001@rediffmail.com

Dr Patil, S.A.Vice-ChancellorUniversity of Agricultural SciencesYettinagudda campus, KrishinagarDharwad – 580 005.Phone: 0836-2447783, 2447972 (o)Fax : 0836-2448349Email : Sapatil-uas@rediffmail.com

Dr Rama Rao, D.Principal ScientistNAARMHyderabadPhone: 040 – 24015394/5Fax: 040 – 24015912

E-mail :naarm.hyd@naarm.ernet.in

Dr Raman, K.V.# 3 A, “Shreyas”36, Fourth Seaward RoadValmiki NagarChennai 600 041Phone: (044) 2445 6063 / 2442 1285E-mail: kvraman@satyam.net.in

Dr Rana, B.S.Former Director NRCS16-2-146/22, Dayanand NagarMalakpetHyderabad – 500 036.Phone : 24551140

Dr Rao, M.V.ChairmanAP – NL Biotechnology ProgrammeBiotechnology UnitInstitute of Public EnterpriseOU CampusHyderabad 500 007Phone : 27097018Residential address:Plot No.4, BHEL ColonyBowenpallyHotel Diamond PointAkbar RoadSecunderabadCelll : 9849477088Phone : 27505651 27505652

Dr Rao, R.V.S.Senior ScientistNAARMHyderabadPhone: 040 – 24015394/5Fax: 040 – 24015912

E-mail :naarm.hyd@naarm.ernet.in

Mr Rahul AgarwalTata Consultancy Services4th & 5th floorPTI Building,4 Parliament StreetNew Delhi – 110 001Phone : 91-11-55506555Fax : 91-11-23311735 / 91-11-23318947Email :

Dr. Raju, M.V.L.N. Senior Scientist Project Directorate on Poultry Rajendranagar HYDERABAD-500 030. Phone : 040 – 24015650 Fax : 040 – 24015650 Email : pdpoult@ap.nic.in

Dr Samanta, R.K.Acting DirectorNAARMHyderabad-500 030.Phone: 040 – 24015394/5Fax: 040 – 24015912

E-mail :naarm.hyd@naarm.ernet.in

Dr Saha, S.N.Principal ScientistNAARMHyderabad-500 030.Phone: 040 – 24015394/5Fax : 040 – 24015912E-mail :naarm.hyd@naarm.ernet.in

Prof. Sarode, S.V.Director of ResearchDr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi VidyapeethAkola 444 104 (M.S.)Phone : 0724-2258419

0724-2450103/2401127Fax : 0724-2258219 / 2258419E-mail : dr@pdkv.mah.nic.in

Dr Sharma, R.P.Project DirectorProject Directorate on PoultryRajendranagar Hyderabad-500 030Phone: 040-24015650Fax: 040-24015650Email : pdpoult@ap.nic.in

Dr Sharma, S.D.DirectorIndian Agricultural Statistics Research InstituteLibrary Avenue, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012Phone: 25841479Fax: 25841564

Email : director@iasri.res.in

Dr Shikhamany, S.D.DirectorIndian Institute of Horticultural ResearchHessaraghatta Lake PostBangalore – 560 089.Phone: 080-28466471, 28466353Fax: 080-28466291Email: director@iihr.res.in

Dr Subba Rao, K.V.Retired Professor302, Royal comfort apartmentAhmadnagar RoadMasab TankHyderabad-500 028Phone:040-23315642E-mail: murali_vajra@hotmail.com

Dr Subramaniyan, K.V.Tata Consultancy ServicesSJM Towers, No.18 Sheshadri RoadGandhinagarBangalore – 560 009Phone : (080) 2388000 Etn : 3526Fax : (080) 2207510Email : subramkv@blore.tcs.co.inWebsite : www.tcs.com

Dr. Sudhakar, R. Scientist(Plant Pathology Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Acharya N G Ranga Agril.Univ. PALEM-509 215 Mahaboobnagar (Dt) Phone: 08540- 228646 (o) Fax : 08540- 228381 (r) Email : ravuru-sudhakar@yahoo.com

Dr Venkat Reddy, N.Associate Director of ResearchAnd Principal (Agril. Polytechnic)RARS, ANGRAUPalem 509 215, Mahaboobnagar Dist.Phone: 08540-221017, 9849693904Fax : 08540- 228646Email : adrpalem@rediffmail.com

Dr Vishnu Sankar Senior Scientist Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural Univ. GUNTUR-522 034 Phone : 0863-2524017 (o) 0863-5587354 (r)