Queries
Dear Team, I have a clarification. Am designing KRA for Marketing Executives. Against each field/activity weightage are given like 50, 20, etc totalling to 350 marks.
Is there any restriction to give total weightage only to 100 or it can be more than 100. Please clarify.

Thanks,
Narasimhan S
16th November 2017 From India, Bangalore

PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION:
Dinesh Divekar
Business Mentor, Consultant And Trainer
Rujul
Sr.officer At J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd
Sharmavk05
Vice President.(hrm)
Srinath Sai Ram
Hr Manager
KK!HR
Management Consultancy
Karnarun
Service

Dear Narasimhan S,

Total of all the weights (it is not weightage, though the word has been used widely in India) should be 100 as the percentage is calculated on 100.

Why we assign weights to KRAs? We assign weights to KRAs in order to distinguish the degree of the importance. Higher the weight, higher is the degree of importance. The formula for calculation for each KRA is as below:

(score attained / score for the KRA)*weight

If you keep the total of all the weights as 350, then the question arises is why 350, why not 250 or 450 or some another number. While you may come up with logic for the number 350, someone else will have his/her logic for 250, 300 and so on. It will only create chaos. Therefore, the total weight of 100 is scientific and proven too.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar
16th November 2017 From India, Bangalore

HI Dinesh,

Thanks..i do agree. But my question was can be it be more than 100.
Is there any limitation to set the weightage.
16th November 2017 From India, Bangalore

Dear Mr Narasimhan, please peruse reply of Mr Dinesh Sir, with specific reference to "the total weight of 100 is scientific and proven too"
you have not clarified the rationale of keeping total weights as 350
16th November 2017 From India, New Delhi

rujul 12
if you want to take forward of total 350 only then considered 350 as 100% and divide KRA score accordingly. but we didn't understand why its 350 ? may be you are calculating mote number of KRA's.
17th November 2017 From India, Gurgaon

KK!HR 146
Dear, The aggregate weightage of KRAs can be more than 100, it depends on the needs of the organisation. Higher the score, finer will be the distinction between one executive and another. But the universal method is to aggregate to 100 and comparison on percentile basis is easier and facilitates benchmarking. Let the scorecard aggregate be 350, I suggest, the interpersonal comparison be made reducing the score to percentile basis allowing one or two decimal places. It will render the exercise more meaningful while retaining your uniqueness.
17th November 2017 From India, Mumbai

Dear Narasimhan S,
I do agree with Mr. Dinesh. I think you have doubts to understand the KRA in totality. Key Result Area defines the main job responsibility of an individual within the organization. KRA is decided by the organization to judge the individual's quantitative and qualitative analysis ability for a specific job assigned to him. The individual sets target aginst each key area with a weightage and the sum total is 100. This calculation is presented in %percentage



Thanks,
18th November 2017 From India, Mumbai

Dear Narasimhan S,

Pl go by Mr. Dinesh advise because the sum of total weight-age can not be more than 100. It can be distributed as per focused areas of organisation.

Thanks,

V K Sharma
19th November 2017 From India, Delhi

Mr.Dinesh Has already clear the matter, but still want to go any number you can take, whenever you will calculate the result it will come up on 100 only which is a scientific value , acceptable to all and easy to satisfy.
23rd November 2017 From India, Delhi

Hi Narashiman,

If you designing KRA for any position the end result is % so if you want to go with 350 then it will end up with %/100 what Mr. Dinesh said is completely proven.
23rd November 2017 From India, Madras

Please login to participate in this discussion or start your own. Create Account



About Us - Advertise - Contact Us - RSS   On Google+  
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Terms Of Service
Facebook Page | Follow Us On Twitter | Linkedin Network

All rights reserved @ 2017 Cite.Community™