RESPONSE TO COVER VARIOUS QUERIES W.R.T EPMS 2.

0 (STAGE-1)

A. GOAL ALIGNMENT CASCADE WORKSHOPS (GACW)

1. GACWs are the target sharing workshops to be organized by every department in the
beginning of the year. As per EPMS 2.0, it is mandatory for each department to
organize GACW.

2. Purpose of GACW is to identify the critical activities required to be undertaken and

completed by the Department/Section/Function with “specific time frame and
milestones”. This will help individual executives and Reporting Officers in the KPA
setting process.

3. Executives at the end of the GACW should have enough clarity about the tasks and
targets (KPAs) required to be taken & performed at their individual level as well at the
Section/Group level.

4. It is also envisaged that each Department will finalize the Team KPAs and Individual
KPAs through GACW.

5. All the executives should be covered in GACW(s). There is no restriction on organizing

separate GACW for different sections/functional groups within a department. In case
of bigger departments, multiple/separate sessions can be considered. Further, in case
of similarly placed/smaller departments/Plants/ Units, joint GACW(s) can be
organized, provided the purpose of identification of tasks and targets gets achieved.

6. As envisaged under EPMS, the responsibility of conducting the GACW rests with the
respective HoDs/CGMs- (Mandatory KPA). It is thus desirable that the GACW is
organized at the level of senior officials of the Departments (HoD/CGM) to accord
adequate sanctity to the process of target distribution.

7. In view of the prevailing circumstances, there is no bar in organizing GACW through

Video-conferencing/Zoom or any other similar mode. Therefore, in order to facilitate
adherence to various guidelines issued for prevention of spread of Covid, GACW can be
organized through VC/Zoom, etc.

8. Departmental Action Plan is one of the key outputs of the GACW which will provide
guidance to the team(s)/individual(s) in taking up KPAs aligned to overall business
strategy of the Department/Plant/Unit/Company.

9. In view of Covid pandemic, timeline for completing GACW for appraisal year 2020-21
has been prescribed as 10.09.2020.
10. Once organized, each department is to furnish the details w.r.t time, mode, no. of
executives covered, etc. to respective OD colleagues for records.

Disclaimer: This document has been prepared for the limited aim of bringing further clarity in various aspects
related to implementation of EPMS 2.0. For all other purposes, approved EPMS document needs to be referred.
 B. DEVELOPMENT OF KPA DIRECTORY

11. “KPA Directory” is envisaged to be a depository of standardized KPAs developed for a

particular Department/Section/Function, etc.

12. From appraisal year 2020-21 onwards, new format of KPAs has been introduced and
more objective criterion for KPA setting along with identification of four pre-defined
target levels at the stage of KPA setting has been made mandatory.

13. Appraisal year 2020-21 being the first year of implementation of the new format, KPA
Directory is likely to be very useful in facilitating and guiding the individuals in the
process of selecting the KPAs.

14. Each Department is required to develop its own KPA Directory which should ideally
suggest standard KPAs covering broad categories of executives within the department.
As of now, there is no need to prescribe the levels of achievement (i.e. L1, L2, L3 and
L4) against each KPA in the KPA Directory.

15. It needs to be ensured that the KPAs being included in the KPA Directory are as per the
laid-down criteria under EPMS i.e. SMART KPAs.

16. In order to further facilitate the executives, it is desirable that the different KPAs in the
directory may be grouped –section-wise/function-wise and the same may further be
categorized into Routine/Non-routine/ Mandatory/Team KPA, etc.

17. There is no limit prescribed regarding the maximum or minimum number of KPAs that
need to be included in the KPA Directory. Depending upon size/scale and nature of
activities of the Department, list of KPAs should be included in the directory.

18. As per EPMS 2.0, every executive is required to compulsorily take one special project
as his/her special KPA. The project should be such that it may aid to serve a bigger
purpose for the organization and may or may not be essentially belonging to his/her
direct area of responsibility.

19. Since Special Project KPAs are expected to be different for each executive as per his
initiative, they may not find a place in the KPA Directory of the Department. However,
it is desirable that an indicative list of Special Projects may be made available in the
directory to give the executives an idea of “what may constitute a special project”.

20. KPA Directory once prepared should be sent to Plant/Unit OD Team for enabling
uploading of the same on EPMS portal through IT Team.

21. Since the performance targets for the department would be changing every year, KPA
Directory would need to be updated on a year-to-year basis.

Disclaimer: This document has been prepared for the limited aim of bringing further clarity in various aspects
related to implementation of EPMS 2.0. For all other purposes, approved EPMS document needs to be referred.
 C. KPA SETTING

22. KPA setting is the most crucial stage of the EPMS. In order to enhance objectivity in
the overall performance management process, it is imperative that KPAs include such
tasks & targets against which performance is measurable in an unambiguous and
rational manner.

23. KPAs need to be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-bound).

24. Indicative number of KPAs should ideally range from 5 to 8. It is not desirable to take
either very less (2-4) or very high number (10-12) of KPAs.

25. KPA shall have a total weightage of 80 points for E-1 to E-5 grades and 70 points for
E-6 and E-7 grades.

26. Each KPA is to have pre-defined four levels of achievement against which
performance assessment would be carried out at the time of (i) Mid-Year Review and
(ii) the Final Assessment. Level-wise targets and corresponding score has to be under:
Target level Target Corresponding Score
(to be taken at the time of KPA setting) (at the time of final assessment)
L-1 Target 100% 100% of weightage
L-2 Target 90 to less than 100% will vary as per actual achievement
L-3 Target 80 to less than 90% will vary as per actual achievement
L-4 Target less than 80% 60% or less than the weightage

27. The four levels of performance have to be decided in consultation with Reporting
Officer with concurrence of HoD at the time of KPA setting stage itself.

28. The KPA and the four levels of achievement have to be in line with the targets
emerging from GACW/DAP/KPA Directory, etc. and are to be taken up by the
individual executive in consultation with the Reporting Officer and concurrence of
HoD. (However, in the online module, formal approval of only Reporting officer will
be required).

29. It is not necessary that all the KPAs have to be taken from the KPA Directory only or
should be cascaded ones alone. Depending upon individual’s role and responsibilities,
additional KPAs can be taken.

30. In case 8 KPAs are taken, 5 of these can be routine KPAs, and 1 each can be Team KPA
(for E4 & above grades), Mandatory KPA and Special Project KPA. The Team KPA and
the Mandatory KPA (say relating to safety, or statutory compliance, etc.) needs to be
decided by the department, preferably at the GACW stage and the same may have
section/function-wise variation.

31. It is envisaged that number of Non-Routine/Special Project KPAs should be higher for
grades say E-6 & E-7 and lesser for E-5 & below grades.

Disclaimer: This document has been prepared for the limited aim of bringing further clarity in various aspects
related to implementation of EPMS 2.0. For all other purposes, approved EPMS document needs to be referred.
32. Four levels of achievement that are to be defined at the KPA setting stage should be
quantifiable in terms of say absolute numbers, percentage, timelines, etc.

33. Since the Reporting Officer is required to approve the KPAs at a later stage and the
KPAs once approved cannot be changed under ordinary circumstances, it is
imperative that the KPAs are taken in consultation with Reporting Officer and
concurrence of HoD.

34. As already stated, KPAs once approved cannot be changed. However, in extraordinary
circumstances, primarily beyond the control of concerned appraisee, modification of
KPAs would be considered with the approval of HoD and in association with
Plant/Unit OD.

D. KPA APPROVALs by REPORTING OFFICER

35. Once the KPAs are recorded in the online system by the individual executive,
Reporting Officer will be required to consider the same for approval.

36. Reporting Officer has to keep following points in mind while considering the KPAs
for approval:-

a) Proposed KPAs are in accordance with the Departmental Action

Plan/Objectives/Overall Business Targets, etc. as may be emerging from the
GACW.

b) KPAs have the general concurrence of the HoD.

c) KPA fulfill the criteria viz. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-
bound.

d) Performance level against each KPA is quantifiable in terms of absolute

numbers, percentage, timelines, etc.

e) Weightage assigned against each KPA is commensurate with the effort and time
required for achievement of the KPA.

f) Too many or too less KPAs have to be avoided.

g) There is adequate element of challenge and productivity in the task and targets
as per the proposed KPAs. Either too lenient or too stringent targets need to be
avoided.

37. In case, the Reporting Officers is of the opinion that the KPAs proposed by the
subordinate require some modification, he/she will have the option of referring it
back to the concerned subordinate for carrying out the modifications and re-
submiting the same within the stipulated timeline.

Disclaimer: This document has been prepared for the limited aim of bringing further clarity in various aspects
related to implementation of EPMS 2.0. For all other purposes, approved EPMS document needs to be referred.
38. As per DPE guidelines, it is mandatory for SAIL to follow the Bell Curve Model.
Accordingly, Reporting Officer should, ensure that certain element of
differentiation in targets and performance levels for different grades is maintained
so as to facilitate adherence to basic tenants of Bell Curve Approach, later at the
time of final assessment.

39. The process of KPA setting and approvals by Reporting Officer requires to be
completed within stipulated timelines to avoid deduction of penal marks at the
time of final assessment.

40. At the final-assessment stage, the Reporting Officer can, after recording
justification, upgrade the score/marks if he/she is of the opinion that the level of
actual achievement does not commensurate with the effort made by appraisee and
external factors have caused non-fulfillment of targets.

Disclaimer: This document has been prepared for the limited aim of bringing further clarity in various aspects
related to implementation of EPMS 2.0. For all other purposes, approved EPMS document needs to be referred.