A.   PERFORMANCE AWARDS TO STATE COOPERATIVE BANKS 

Genesis

The National Federation of State Cooperative Banks Ltd. (NAFSCOB) introduced a scheme of Performance Awards to its member banks in 1982-83. The performance awards were intended to promote a meaningful and healthy competition among the member State Cooperative Banks (SCBs) and provide an impetus to their functioning. In order to operate the scheme of performance awards, the Board of Directors of NAFSCOB, constituted an independent Jury from time to time to evaluate and recommend award of performance.  

The members of the Jury are drawn from National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development (NABARD), Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (GOI), Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and National Institute of Bank Management (NIBM). NAFSCOB so far have  awarded  performance awards on annual basis since 1982-83 upto 1998-99 as per the recommendations of the Jury.

 

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for the Jury are as follows :

  1. To decide the parameters for collection of data from SCBs.  

  2. To design the format, for acquiring the data from SCBs, through NAFSCOB.

  3. To spell out the concepts and definitions of each of  the parameters.  

  4. To formulate a detailed technical framework/criteria for analysis of the data and analyse the performance of SCBs based on such criteria.  

  5. To finalise the recommendation for presentation of the Awards to SCBs.  

Methodology

The Jury has developed a Technical Criteria, Framework & Application for identification of the parameters for collection of data from SCBs and spelt out the concepts and definitions. The total analysis of the data is based on the Technical Criteria.  

The Jury designed a detailed format/questionnaire on the identified parameters for collection of data from SCBs.  The SCBs are advised to send the duly filled in questionnaire, keeping into consideration the spelt out concepts and definitions. Further, both the questionnaire and a note on concepts and definitions are made available to all SCBs by NAFSCOB.  

The information/data received from the SCBs are analysed.  The gaps if any, are bridged by depending upon the other authentic sources such as NABARD and NAFSCOB.  The above exercise is carried out by NAFSCOB under the guidance of the Jury.  

FRAME WORK AND APPLICATION

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF STATE COOPERATIVE BANKS  

1.1       Scope  

The selection of a State Cooperative Bank for the best performance award pre-supposes the ranking of all State Cooperative Banks in terms of their performance. It becomes, necessary to define : What is performance ? Thereafter all the banks can be evaluated in terms of such defined performance.  

What should constitute the performance of the State Cooperative Banks can be evaluated in terms of multiple indicators of performance as against a single indicator. Here, the question arises how to develop the composite index for all selected parameters to facilitate a meaningful ranking of the banks.  Accordingly a ‘Scoring Model - A Performance Evaluation Technique (PET)’ can be developed and the salient features of the PET and its application may be described as follows :  

1.2       Salient Features  

The ranking of the State Cooperative Banks could be based on a careful  analysis  of  the  impact  of  the inter-relationships of different variables (factors) that have a direct bearing on the economic and operational performance of the bank. This can be done by adopting a Scoring Model. The construction of the model involves the process of identifying different variables, selecting specific parameters, converting them in the form of ratios of any two variables at a time, assigning numerical values in terms of points of marks to each such parameter depending upon its relative impact on the total performance of the bank, and finally arriving at the composite score of the total performance of each bank. This model further aims systematically, factually and objectively determining the relative impact of the selected parameters on the overall performance of the bank. It is systematic because it is based on a uniform and scientific criterion developed after careful examination of relative importance of the parameters. It is factual because it is based on facts and figures secured from the authentic sources. It is objective because it involves the assessment of the performance of the banks in quantitative terms as against arbitrary ranking based on impressionistic views.  

1.3            Application  

The performance of State Cooperative Banks is multifaceted and cannot meaningfully be decided upon by a single indicator. In order to facilitate a quantitative comparison of the overall performance of a bank, numerical weightage are assigned to different parameters. The higher the importance of the impact of the parameter on the overall performance, the higher the weightage (in the form of marks) that is assigned to that parameter. The score of marks on each parameter is further distributed on a 5 degree scale with equal intervals between the degrees. The magnitude of the ratio suggests the degree in which it falls and accordingly the marks are assigned.  The composite score depicting the total performance of the bank is arrived at by adding scores of the different parameters. 
The various steps involved in developing the suggested scoring model is given below:  

  1. Decide  upon  the  minimum  of  parameters  that  would reflect the performance of the bank vis-à-vis the objectives/goals.
     

  2. Identify the variables relating to the above selected parameters.  

  3. Define the variable and establish their data sources.  

  4. Tabulate the data of the variables and work out the magnitudes of parameters in the form of ratios.  

  5. Assign a score of marks to each parameter depending upon its relative importance on the total performance and further distribute the marks on a five degree scale ranging between the minimum and maximum magnitudes arrived at for all banks in question.  

  6.   Apply the relative marks of the degree in which the magnitude of the parameters of the bank falls.

  7. Make the total of scores so assigned to different parameters of each bank.  

  8. Arrange the banks in the descending order of the composite score obtained by each bank. Accordingly, various parameters can be selected on the criteria that they should reflect the Banks performance.    

1.4            Tabulation of Data and Compilation of Ratios :  

The supporting data for the different variables can be tabulated as per the definitions.  

1.5            Assignment of Marks  

In a scoring model the practice is that some parameters are assigned higher score of marks depending upon the relative importance it is judged to assume. It is suggested to allot a total of 100 marks among the 25 parameters classified into six broad groups.


These weightages/marks can further be subdivided among different parameters in each group.The score of marks assigned to each parameter in each group can further be subdivided into 5 degrees ranging between the highest and lowest magnitudes of the ratios of all banks taken together in each group separately to facilitate the recognition of the marginal variations in the performance of the different banks. The allotment of the actual score of the marks to the first degree depends upon whether the highest magnitude to the parameter represents the best or the worst performance.  

1.6            Tabulation of Scores and Ranking  

The next step is to determine the degree in which the magnitude of each parameter falls and assign corresponding marks to that parameter and then sum up to arrive at the composite score of the bank as a whole. The banks can be ranked on the basis of the composite scores obtained by each one of them. Higher the composite score, higher the rank.  

 
The list of the winning State Cooperative Banks, since its inception, is given as Annexure-I.