Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Adarsh Gopi (H12062) Aditya Khokhar (H12063) Akanksha Jain (H12064) Amey Joshi (H12065) Anabel Benjamin Bara (FH12001)
Organization Structure
Since inception JUSCO had different divisions/departments with their respective Executive Heads: 11 departments in total
However managing these departments altogether became difficult Therefore these departments were restructured and merged into five different departments in order to bring synergies and coordination in their activities
MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHIEF EDUCATION
CFO
COMPANY SECRETARY
GM (WD)
GM (PSD)
GM (JTS)
BD & CS - Business Development & Corporate Service division WD - Water and Waste Water division PSD - Power Service division HR & IR - Human Resource & IR division JTS - Jamshedpur Town Services division
Power Distribution
Jusco uses its experience and expertise to ensure that the overall level of AT&C losses in Jamshedpur distribution system remains at about 8% against about 24% of other distributors
The Power Services Division holds two licenses for the purchase, sale and distribution of electricity; augmenting and maintaining the power distribution infrastructure
Road Construction and Maintenance facilitating economic growth Design and Planning Consultancy
Understanding and delivering the physical planning, architectural and structural needs of modern townships
It adheres to the MSW-Management & handling Rules 2000 were enacted with obligatory requirements for improvement in MSW management infrastructure in cities across the country
PMS at Jusco
JUSCOs PMS can be classified into two parts: For executives and
Officers, & For non-officers
Performance of officers
It is measured at an individual level and targets are mutually decided between he officer and immediate superior JUSCO has adopted the PMS for officers based on the Ensuring Development and growth of Employees (EDGE) framework The process begins with finalization of corporate BSC, which is cascaded through business/functional BSCs to KRAs of each officer through the KPM tree Goal setting happens through a dialogue with the superior The process involves target setting against cascade measures and initiatives, signing performance contracts, deciding PDP, mid-year review, end year appraisal and Talent review and Feedback
Weights
Targets
CSSC> 4 (5pt scale) 90% Reduction by 10% Reduction of cost by 10% 100% compliance within stipulated dates 100% support to other departments Allocation of Pcs., Laptops, Furniture within 3 days of requisition. Regular meeting with the govt. officials to build rapport and smooth operations. 1 OJT project for each team members Reduction by 12% w.r.t.. FY12
Finance
Column1 E1/E1B E2 E3 Finance 25 20 15 Customer 25 25 20 Internal Business 15 20 30 People Development 25 25 20 Special project 10 10 15 100 100 100
E4 10 20 45
E5 5 20 55
E6 5 20 55
O 0 15 65
E1 - GMs E1B- DGMs E2 - Chiefs E3 - Senior managers (Head of department) E4 - Manager E5 - Deputy manager O - Officer
Steps Involved
1. Weights are defined for 5 different performance measures 2. The supervisor and employees set certain KRA measures and accordingly a final rating is arrived at 3. Now the supervisor presents the case of the employee under him to the talent Review team 4. The final rating is normalized to fit the bell curve.
Organizational Problems
Managing surplus manpower Volatile industry
14-15% attrition at the mid to senior management level
Recommendations
Normalization of rating according to geographies Objective measures (as proposed by us) are used to arrive at a rating of the employee and then only normalization through bell curve occurs. Sufficient time given to set KRAs. They should be in line with organizational objectives
Metrics Development
JUSCO is a utility service that also undertakes major projects all across India
Metrics for:
Projects Services
Time Adherence to milestone achievements Adherence to execution plan as per execution plan.
Safety Adherence to safety standards is Lost time injury frequency project sites.
Output Indicators
These are the indicators that measure the quality as well as the impact of the products in terms of the achievement of the overall objectives
In terms of quality, they measure whether the products meet the set standards in terms of the perceptions of the beneficiaries of the service rendered
Removed Subjectivity
For example, this rating system is for the Budget Utilization metric
Budget Utilization (Finance) Less than 0.6 or greater than 1.4 0.6-0.7 or 1.3-1.4
Rating 1 2
0.7-0.8 or 1.2-1.3
0.8-0.9 or 1.1-1.2 0.9-1.1
3
4 5