System and method for evaluating the performance status of a business organization and
forecasting its road map for improving it
Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to a system for objectively evaluating the performance of an organization and the method employed therein. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system and method for objectively evaluating an organization's performance in a result oriented manner on a real-time basis wherein the performance analysis is carried out to determine the cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile among different result areas of the organization viz. Business Planning, Sales Enhancement, Cost Reduction and Operational Excellence. The present invention also relates to providing a real-time impact analysis of any business decision upon performance of the organization among its functional areas in terms of its cost, adequacy, growth and risk profiles.
Background of the Invention
All business organizations need to take effective, efficient and quick business decisions on a recurring basis to not only to adapt with but also to keep pace with the highly dynamic industry. In an organization, such decisions are taken within functionally segregated divisions, at different hierarchies and by different people, all affecting the single organization. Each division is mainly concerned with a particular functional area. These functional areas are highly interdependent on each other, and decision taken across one particular functional area affects the performance of the organization across at least a set of other functional areas. The impact of every decision taken within an organization is generally perceived in terms of cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile of the organization. There are few models available in the existing state-of-the-art which claims to predetermine the effect of decisions upon the performance, but all such existing models are either limited to one specific functional aspect of the organization such as financial performance, risk assessment etc. or they do not take into consideration all the essential parameters - cost, adequacy, growth and risk across the functional areas of the organization into consideration. Apparently, the existing models and systems are not as effective,

efficient and accurate in providing a comprehensive real-time performance analysis for an organization as a whole. Therefore, there are no existing models available for identifying and establishing the organization specific interdependency of these parameters, as also due to a definitive but unknown interplay among these parameters, the decisions taken across various functional areas within an organization are liable to produce unanticipated results that are different from what is expected or desired. In light of this, it was a long felt need to have a mechanism for objectively ascertaining the holistic performance status of an organization based upon the key performance indicators across its various interlinked functional areas to ascertain its cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile across the four key results for which any organization functions and takes decisions across various functional areas. This is so required not only to check the aftermaths of any decision already adopted/implemented, but also to test the viability of certain decisions yet to be taken or is under implementation for achieving the best practice of informed strategic decisions. Such pre-determined performance analysis is utmost essential for business organizations to gain and retain its competitive advantages.
Object of the invention
Object of the present invention is to provide a system and method which overcomes some or all of the problems associated with the existing prior art as disclosed above. One of the primary objectives of the present invention is to provide a system and an associated method for comprehensively and objectively evaluating the performance of a business organization on a real time basis.
Another object of the present invention is to provide a system and a method associated thereto for evaluating, analyzing and schematically representing the performance of a business organization in terms of its cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile for its diversified result areas - Business Planning, Sales Enhancement, Cost Reduction and Operational Excellence.

Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a system (and associated method) for providing a real-time impact analysis of any business decision upon the performance of the organization - at any stage of implementation of the decision.
Still another object of the present invention is to provide a system and an associated method for providing a pre-implementation impact analysis of any business decision upon performance of different function of the organization.
Another object of the present invention is to provide a system and a method associated thereto for evaluating performance of a business organization in terms of its cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile of its diversified result areas wherein the system and the associated method is not limited to any particular kind of organization.
Other objects and preferred embodiments and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from the following description of the present invention when read in conjunction with the accompanying examples, figures and tables, which are not intended to limit scope of the present invention in any manner.
Summary of the Invention
Accordingly the present invention provides for a system for objectively evaluating the performance of a business organization, the system comprising: (a) a user interface adapted to receive the data inputs in terms of informational data and variable parameters; (b) a memory storage device for storing the informational data including the result areas of the organization; a set of functional areas such that each result area is driven by more than one such functional area; a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) such that each functional area has atleast one KPI associated to it; a set of assessment questions wherein each assessment question is designed to rate performance of the organization and is associated with atleast one KPI; a plurality of impact factors including cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile of the organization; and variable parameters including assigned as well as system-derived correlation charts; (c) a means for deducing a correlation matrix for desired result areas of the organization against the functional areas; (d) a means for preparing a correlation chart of functional areas against the KPIs; (e) a means for correlating a set of KPIs to each assessment question on the basis of ratings assigned to

them; (f) a means for a grading each assessment question against the desired impact factor; (g) a means for processing and deducing an objective correlation matrix for the said result areas against the said impact factors, based on the above derived correlations, wherein the performance evaluation outcome for the desired result areas of the organization is obtained across the desired impact factors in the form of an objective graded matrix.
The present invention also provides a method for evaluating performance of a business across the key result areas of the organization, the method comprising the steps of: identifying the desired result areas and set of functional areas driving those result areas; establishing an objective correlation matrix for said result areas against the functional areas; identifying and mapping key performance indicators (KPIs) for each functional area; designing a set of assessment questions and assigning a set of KPIs for each assessment question; rating each assessment question on the basis of assigned KPIs; scoring each assessment question against the desired set of impact factors; objectively quantifying the score for said result areas against the said impact factors based on the above correlation matrices and scoring values, wherein the performance evaluation outcome for the desired result areas of the organization is obtained across the desired impact factors in the form of an objective graded matrix.
Detailed Description of the Invention
Accordingly, the present invention provides a system and an associated method for comprehensively analyzing and objectively ascertaining the performance of a business organization and the impact of business decisions upon it. The system, as provided in accordance with the present invention, is founded on a result oriented model. This model is based on a researched premise that every organization, in every aspect of its business activities, primarily works for four key results viz. Business Planning, Sales Enhancement, Cost Reduction and Operational Excellence. Knowingly or unknowingly and irrespective of the terminology used for their identification, these four result areas are found to be inherently common to any business organization and are key result areas. It was interestingly observed and ascertained by the present inventor, that each of these four result areas are driven by a plurality of functions (hereinafter referred to as functional areas) each. It was further observed that each of these functional areas is further driven by a plurality of

core skills such that to excel in a particular functional area, the organization needs to gain expertise across the core skills ascribed to that particular functional area. It is also found and ascertained that there is a definitive linkage and logical interplay among the functional areas and their respective core skills. This complex correlation is objectified in accordance with the preset invention by means of grading each core skill against each functional area thereby generating a functional area versus core skills matrix. On the basis of the resulting matrix data, another matrix is generated for functional area versus the result areas. Thus the core skills are essentially used to carve out the objective correlation among the functional areas and the result areas.
In order to evaluate the performance of the organization among these functional areas, and eventually among the key result areas on the basis of above identified correlation, the present inventor also identified a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) corresponding to each of the functional areas. Although, some of these KPIs may be known to be generic and/or academically known in the industry, it is their individual identification, mapping with functions and also segregation and classification into categories which is of particular relevance and of inventive appearance herein.
In accordance with the present invention, for each functional area, one or more KPIs, which directly measure the performance of that functional area, are identified. Some of the KPIs may also affect the performance of more than one functional area. These KPIs are usually decided on the basis of the general consensus among the industry experts about the relevance of these KPIs. The relationship between functional areas and the list of KPIs which help in measuring the performance of the organization across that functional area is accordingly mapped. The source for calculating the KPIs is the information provided by the subscriber while on-boarding (On-boarding information) such as company profile, financial statements, assessment tools (available in Information Docket) or secondary information such as industry research, the self assessment of the user of the invention and assessment by the administrator of the tool using the on-boarding information and industry research including tools such as benchmarking etc.

The value of KPIs provides information about the performance of the organization. The value of different KPIs helps in rating a particular Assessment Question. The present inventor identified a unique set of assessment questions, which are critically used to rate performance of an organization. For each question, a rating is provided, which is usually given by the organization's owner or an independent assessor of the organization or a weighted average of two or more such ratings. For each of the assessment questions, different KPIs which will help in providing a rating for the assessment question are identified. KPIs which help in rating a question are identified by analyzing the question, and the different parameters whose values can help in providing a rating for the question. These parameters are mapped with different KPIs. If a KPI is related to a particular parameter, that KPI will help in rating the assessment question related to that parameter. Accordingly, a relationship matrix is established between assessment questions and KPIs. The assessment questions and their mapping with the KPIs are of particular inventive appearance herein.
Another researched premise on which the present model is based is that the each decision taken by an organization primarily affects the impact factors including - cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile of the company. Thus, in accordance with the present invention, the performance of a business or the effect of any decision on the Organization is expressed in terms of its cost, adequacy, growth and risk (CAGR) profile of the organization. In order to quantify the result-performance in terms of CAGR profile, each assessment questions is ascribed a differential score for a desired set of impact factors viz. cost, adequacy, growth and risk. This sets up a correlation matrix among the assessment questions and CAGR profile of the organization.
Therefore, in light of the above prescribed mechanism, each of the result areas is correlated to a set of functional areas. Each functional area is correlated to a set of KPIs. Each KPI is correlated to at least one assessment questions. Each assessment question bears a specific CAGR profile. All these correlations are objectively quantified and thus give a final assessment of business performance in terms of cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile across its four result areas viz. Business Planning, Sales Enhancement, Cost Reduction and Operational Excellence.

For the purpose of imparting more clarification only, these four all-encompassing result areas could be broadly defined, without limiting the scope of the present invention, as below:
Business Planning - It includes decisions related to planning for future, managing
opportunities and risks.
Sales Enhancement - It includes decisions related to enhancing the revenues of
organization.
Cost Reduction - It includes decisions taken to reduce the cost of the products/ services and
increase the profit margin.
Operational Excellence - It includes the decisions taken to improve the efficiency of
operations that need to be performed in order to manufacture, market or deliver
products/services.
Similarly, the four impact factors could also be defined, without limiting the scope of the
present invention, as below:
Cost - The cost of operating the functions in a business result area
Adequacy - The preparedness of the functions in a business result area to meet present and
aspiration needs of the business
Growth - The ability of the functions in a business result area to drive sustainable growth
Risk - The risk profile or sustenance stability of the functions in a business result area
According to one of the most preferred embodiments of the present invention, the four key result areas are driven by 4 functional areas each viz. 16 functional areas, in total, assigned to 4 result areas. Further, each of the said key functional areas is driven by five core skills viz. 80 core skills, in total, assigned to 16 functional areas which are further assigned to 4 key result areas. The result areas and the associated functional areas are identified in Table 1 below.

(Table Removed)
TABLE 1.
Accordingly, each of the function areas is affected by 5 core skills. It is observed by the present inventor that the same core skill might also affect more than one function areas. For example "Deal Structuring Skills" directly impact functional area of "Partnership Management". But these skills also have some impact on functional area of "Opportunities Management".
In another preferred embodiment of the present invention, The KPIs could also be categorized into a plurality of classes broadly depending upon the impact of each KPI on the performance of the organization These set of KPIs, according to one of the preferred embodiment, can be categorized into 3 levels: -
• Level 1 KPI
• Level 2 KPI
• Level 3 KPI
Level 1 KPI helps measuring the performance of the organization at a broad level across multiple functional areas, such as Profit Margin, Customer Retention Rate etc. These Level 1 KPIs decides the questions to be asked from customer in On-board information; Level 2 and Level 3 KPIs are derived from Level 1 KPIs and helps measuring the performance of the organization for a single functional area. These Level 2 and 3 KPIs affect the business at micro-level and are very essential in valuing performance. The Level 2 and Level 3 KPIs leads to Assessment Questions, rating for which provides the data to assess the performance of the organization.

Therefore, in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention, a correlation chart is created to depict the relationship between functional areas and the list of categorized KPIs which help in measuring the performance of the organization across that functional area. In the correlation chart, rows represent the 16 functional areas and 3 columns represents level 1, level 2, and level 3 KPIs. A correlation chart, depicting correlation among the result areas, functional areas and the KPIs for one of the result area viz. Sales Enhancement, is provided in the Table 2 below:
(Table Removed)

Similar correlation chart are prepared for all 4 result areas. There could be primary and secondary sources for ascertaining KPIs. The primary sources for ascertaining KPIs are Company Profile, Onboarding Questions, Financial Statements (BS&PL), Assessment Tools etc. whereas the secondary sources for ascertaining KPIs are Industry Research. On the basis of these mapped and categorized KPIs, a set of information docket is developed by the system which is easily referable and relatable by owners of organization's functional areas.
In another preferred embodiment of the present invention, there is a set of 15 assessment questions which are specifically designed to rate the performance of an organization. These assessment questions are answered by the user and/or by an independent neutral person using information provided and industry data for setting up the benchmark. For each assessment question, a rating is provided by both the organization's owner, and an independent assessor of the organization. The final rating for a question is a weighted average of the ratings provided by the organization's owner and the independent assessor. The value of different KPIs helps in rating a particular assessment question. KPIs which help in rating a question are identified by analyzing the question, and the different parameters whose values can help in providing a rating for the question. These parameters are mapped with different KPIs. If a KPI is related to a particular parameter, that KPI will help in rating the assessment question related to that parameter. Thus, for each of the assessment question, different KPIs which will help in providing a rating for the assessment question are identified. Thus for all 15 assessment question, a set of KPIs are identified and tabulated. A tabulated representation for two of such assessment questions and their corresponding KPIs is provided in Table 3. Similarly, the KPIs are identified for all 15 assessment questions.

(Table Removed)
The Assessor gives score to each assessment question on the basis of primary and secondary research. This rating is provided for each Assessment Question, independently by the owner of the organization from his past experience in running the business and the Assessor through secondary research and analysis of the information provided by the Business Owner. The mapping of KPI with Assessment Questions and K.PI with Functional Areas, gives the effective Assessment Question Functional Area relationship. Functional areas arc found to make logical impact over each other and have definitive cross linkages among themselves. These cross linkages give the relationship between 16 Functional areas and 4 Result areas. The Function area - Result area relationship combined with Assessment Questions Functional area relationship gives the actual relationship between Assessment Questions and Result Areas.

In accordance with another preferred embodiment of the present invention, a unique set of information docket is developed which helps in finding out the value of different KPls. Following is the set of information docket used for finding the value of KPls:
• Company Profile - contains the general description of the company such as company background, its product and services, customers and markets, certification & practices, and number of employees in different functions, R&D activities in the organization, the number of strategic alliances formed by the company, and subsidiaries held by the company etc.
• Organization Chart - captures the structure of the organization in terms of different levels in the organization, and/or different functions in the organization.
• financial statements - balance sheet and Profit & Loss statement for the last 3 years. In accordance with the preferred embodiment, a unique template could be used which enables capturing the information required for deriving value of KPIs such as profit margin, capital invested in technology etc. and also to standardize the format of financial statements, so that the financial statements of two organizations can be easily compared.
• Set of 7 (On Boarding) information seeking questions - related to business operations, MR and Skill management, challenges faced by the organization, and the growth strategics adopted by the organization, in an attempt to capture information about current business priorities of the organization, customer acquisition and retention strategy, distribution strategy, purchase system, HR policies, and the level of technology adoption in the company.
The information supplied by each information docket is used to find out the value of different KPIs. It is observed by the present inventor that some of the KPIs arc quantitative in nature, while others are qualitative in nature. Quantitative KPIs are the KPls for which an absolute value can be calculated. Qualitative KPIs arc KPIs for which an absolute value cannot be calculated, and a rating must be assigned to these KPIs. KPIs like profit margin. ROCE, Number of patents etc arc quantitative in nature; while measures like quality of financial MIS, adequacy of distribution channel, adequacy of supplier base etc are qualitative in nature. Some information dockets (example organization chart) provides only

qualitative information, some (example Financial statements) provides only quantitative information, while others (example company profile, and information seeking questions) provide both qualitative and quantitative information. Thus the set of information docket used help in measuring values of both qualitative and quantitative KPIs.
Each KPI affecting an assessment question has to be rated independently. Rating for qualitative KPIs is arrived after comparing the performance of the organization on that parameter with the performance of the industry (on that parameter) to which the organization belongs. For example, for rating KPI "adequacy of distribution network'', the performance of the organization on this parameter can be compared with the performance of the market leaders on the same parameter. For deriving the rating for a quantitative KPI, two types of benchmark arc required. Both of these benchmark values arc determined using the proprietary industry database management system. Industry benchmark is the benchmark value of a given KPI for the industry. This value is the average of the value of the KPIs for the major players in that industry. Desired benchmark is the desired value for that KPI. This desired value is the ideal value of the KPI and is calculated from the historical value of a KPI which has helped many organizations (across industries) in achieving good profit margins in the past. Better of the two benchmark values is used for the comparison of quantitative KPIs. This value will be compared with the value of a quantitative KPI for an organization. If organization's KPI values arc better than the benchmark value of KPI, then higher rating will be provided for that KPI, and vice versa.
Further, each assessment question is scored against impact factors (preferably CAGR profile). It is observed that an assessment question docs not equally relate to the each of the cost, adequacy, growth and risk. Some assessment question may be more closely related to "risk" profile of the organization, and may not so closely related to the "growth" profile of the organization. In accordance with yet another preferred embodiment of the present invention, total relationship of an assessment question with CAGR profile is quantized to 1. Now the CAGR are arranged in decreasing order, with the most relevant relationship getting .4, and most irrelevant relationship getting .1. Accordingly a relationship matrix

capturing the relationship between assessment questions and the CAGR profile of the organization is prepared. This is a 15x4 matrix, wherein each row corresponds to an assessment question, and 4 columns represent cost, adequacy, growth, and risk profile of the organization.
Thus, in continuance and combination with the earlier embodiments, each Assessment Question, the Cost, Adequacy, Growth and Risk weights arc decided. These decided values when combined with the Assessment Questions Result Area mapping gives a consolidated performance index which identifies the performance impact of the four result areas across the four impact factors of cost, adequacy, growth and risk. In this manner, the performance of the organization is evaluated in a highly objective manner wherein the derived individual and relative values for the above defined parameters are schematically represented, preferably in the form of a matrix for conferring quick and accurate results. This is performablc on a running platform by the System for providing the real-time reports.
The system in accordance with the present invention is customized to collect, process and analyze the information docket provided by different functional units in the organization. Upon such analysis, the system derives and provides the cost, adequacy, growth and risk profile of an organization across its various functional areas. In addition to this, the system also provides the list of function areas where the organization needs to focus on, immediately on a priority basis. Further to this, the system also comprises an Industry Database Management System which enables capturing the related industrial data, performing trend analysis and then providing benchmarks, which can then be used for answering the assessment question by the independent/neutral person.
Such a system is highly efficient and effective in providing the results and required analysis on the basis of data and information which is standardized, defined and regulated independently of the judgments of the interested parties. All of these processes take place in real time and are preferably delivered as a set of customized graphs, charts and written analysis via the internet platform or any other means as applicably desired.

Although the present invention has been described in considerable detail with reference to certain preferred embodiments thereof, other embodiments and equivalents arc possible. Even though numerous characteristics and advantages of the present invention have been set forth in the foregoing description, together with functional details, the disclosure is illustrative only, and changes may be made in details, within the principles of the invention to the full extent indicated by the broad general meaning of the terms in which the appended claims arc expressed. Thus various modifications arc possible of the presently disclosed system and the associate method without deviating from the intended scope and spirit of the present invention. Accordingly, in one embodiment, such modifications of the presently disclosed system and the associated method are included in the scope of the present invention.
Practically, the conceptual aspect of the model in accordance with the present invention could be described in the form of suitable examples as provided below. The examples arc for the purpose of illustration and better understanding only without prejudicing or putting any limitation upon the scope of the present invention.
EXAMPLE 1
In accordance with one of the working examples of the present invention, the correlation between the business skills and functional area is represented in the form of an 80x16 matrix. Each row corresponds to a business skill, and each column corresponds to a functional area. If a business skill impacts the performance of a functional area, then a value of 1 is assigned to that cell, otherwise 0 is assigned to that cell. Additionally, if a core skill directly drives a functional area (to which the skill belongs), then 0 value is assigned to the related cell, finally each group of the 5x4 cells (as one represented in the fable 4), starting from left corner, is combined together, and is replaced by a single cell. The sum of all 1 in the 5x4 cells is assigned to the new single cell. These 5x4 cells represent relationship between a functional area (driven by 5 skills), and a business result area (driven by 4 functional areas).

(Table Removed)
In the Table 4, the 5 skills belong to functional area "Opportunities Management". And 4 functional areas belong to result area of business planning. Sum of all 1 in the 5x4 cells is 10. These 5x4 cells will be replaced by a single cell, and a value of 10 will be assigned to that cell. That cell will belong to functional area of "Opportunities Management" and result area of "Business Planning". Similarly we will have other cells capturing the relationship between a functional area and a result area. Thus original 80x16 cells will be converted to 16x4 cells.
In the next step, the absolute numbers in different cells of the derived matrix arc normalized. The value in each cell is divided by the sum of all numbers in that row. Thus all values will be less than 1, and sum of all values in a row will be equal to 1.
Once the above matrix is finalized, the next step is to obtain the correlation chart for assessment questions and KPIs and eventually the functional areas. In accordance with the present example, if an assessment question Q is linked to KPIs a, b and c. Now KPI "a" helps in measuring the performance of business across functional areas F1 and F3. KPI "b" helps in measuring the performance of functional areas F2, F4, F5, and F7. KPI "C" helps

in measuring the performance of functional areas F3, F5 and F8. So the list of functional areas which arc related to the assessment question Q will be the union of set {F1,F3}, {F2,F4,F5,F7}, and {F3,F5,F8}. Thus the final list of functional areas which are related to the assessment question Q is {F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F7,F8}.
The consolidated performance index results, as obtained for subject organization, by the system in accordance with the present invention could be represented in a form as tabulated below:
(Table Removed)
It is observed that in an ideal situation, the percentages in the above index should be 100 %, which implies no further improvement is possible. In the present case above, good business planning would lead to cost reduction, which now, as identified, is 100 % - 54% 46 % below the ideal case. Thus, it inspires to take new methodology for effectuating strategic decisions. For example if the score is extremely low in the (Cost Reduction, Growth cell), one need to improve on its Growth aspect, which can be attained through Cost Reduction. Similar data can be obtained to determine the effect of a proposed business decision before its implementation in order to achieve informed strategic business practice. Interpretation of different scores could be identified, without limitations, as:
• If the value of a cell is between 75% and 100%, then the company is performing optimally along the given result area and the business profile.
• If the value of a cell is between 50% and 75%, then the company is performing at the average industry level. But to improve its performance in long term, it needs to change its strategy.
• If the value of the cell is between 25% and 50%, then the company needs to change its strategy in short term to improve its performance.
• If the value of the cell is less than 25%, then the company needs to act immediately to improve its performance and to avoid any impending trouble.

liven though numerous characteristics and advantages of the present invention have been set forth in the foregoing description, preferred embodiments and cxample(s), the disclosure is illustrative only and several modifications arc possible of the presently disclosed invention without deviating from the intended scope and spirit of the present invention. Accordingly, in one embodiment, such modifications of the presently disclosed invention arc included in the scope of the present invention.

We Claim:
1. A system for objectively evaluating the performance of a business organization, the system comprising: (a) a user interface adapted to receive the data inputs in terms of informational data and variable parameters; (b) a memory storage device for storing the informational data including the result areas of the organization; a set of functional areas such that each result area is driven by atleast one such functional area; a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) such that each functional area has atlcast one KPI associated to it; a set of assessment questions wherein each assessment question is designed to rate performance of the organization and is associated with atleast one KPI; a plurality of impact factors including cost. adequacy, growth and risk profile of the organization; and variable parameters including assigned parameters as well as system-derived correlation parameters; (c) a means for deriving a correlation matrix for desired result areas of the organization against the functional areas; (d) a means for preparing a correlation chart of functional areas against the KPIs; (e) a means for correlating a set of KPIs to each assessment question on the basis of ratings assigned to them; (1) a means for grading each assessment question against the desired impact factor; (g) a means for processing and deducing an objective correlation matrix for atlcast one result area against atlcast one impact factors, based on the above derived correlations, wherein the performance evaluation outcome for the desired result areas of the organization is obtained across the desired impact factors in the form of an objective graded matrix.
2. A system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the said memory storage device is dynamically configurable with new fields and sub-fields to all the data entries therein.
3. A system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the said result areas arc broadly categorised into four categories, preferably as Business Planning, Sales Enhancement, Cost Reduction and Operational Excellence.
4. A system as claimed in claim 1 wherein each result area is driven by a set of four functional areas.

5. A system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the said memory storage device further stores information of a plurality of core skills wherein each functional area is driven by a set of core skills.
6. A system as claimed in claim 5, wherein each functional area is driven by a set of 5 core skills.
7. A system as claimed in claim 5 wherein the correlation matrix of core skills against the functional areas is used to derive the correlation matrix for result areas against the functional areas.
8. A system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the key performance indicators (KPIs) are categorised into subcategories depending upon their impact on the performance of the organization.
9. A system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the said assessment questions arc 15 in number.
10. A method for evaluating performance of a business across the key result areas of the organization, the method comprising the steps of:
a. Identifying the desired result areas and set of functional areas driving those result areas;
b. Kstablishing an objective correlation matrix for said result areas against the functional areas;
c. Identifying and mapping key performance indicators (KPIs) for each functional area;
d. Designing a set of assessment questions and assigning a set of KPIs for each assessment question;
c. Rating each assessment question on the basis of assigned KPIs;
f. Scoring each assessment question against the desired set of impact factors;
g. Objectively quantifying the score for said result areas against the said impact factors based on the above correlation matrices and scoring values.
wherein the performance evaluation outcome for the desired result areas of the organization is obtained across the desired impact factors in the form of an objective graded matrix.

11. A method as claimed in claim 10 wherein a set of core skills are also identified such that each functional area is driven by a set of core skills.
12. A method as claimed in claim 11 wherein the said core skills are mapped against the functional areas and the correlation matrix is used to derive the correlation matrix for result areas against the functional areas.
13. A method as claimed in claim 10 wherein the said assessment questions arc 15 in number.
14. A computing system comprising a processor coupled to a computer-readable memory unit, said memory unit comprising a computer readable code configured to be executed by the processor to perform the method of claim 10.