Evaluation Study MSE Cluster Development - Ministry of Micro ...

Chapter No: 3 – The Cluster Development Executive/Agent“soft interventions” seem to continue in perpetuity. Such a situation can lead to aserious loss of credibility not only for the CDP as a whole, but also the CDE in particular.In such situations cluster actors seem to be the ultimate losers and often fail to realizethe potential for improving their lot through collective action. They often loose theirlivelihoods falling prey to predatory competitors, and becoming increasingly dependentand exploited.It is therefore essential to assess the performance of CDEs regularly, adequatelyrewarding them for good performance while also penalizing them for failures. Suchsafeguards can only be ensured through a complete review of the terms of appointmentand tenure of the CDEs. Failure to perform according to the standards set, should in thecase of CDEs who are on deputation from parent organization, lead to a reversion to theparent cadre. In the case of CDEs directly recruited, failure to perform as per standardsof assessment should lead to a termination of the contract. In other words nopermanent appointments should be made in the case of CDEs.On the basis of information canvassed through the CDE schedule we have compiledTable 3.3 wherein the stage at which the CDEs were assigned to or deployed in thesampled clusters is highlighted. It is encouraging to note that as many as 10 CDEs outof a total of 21 CDEs, (47.62 percent) joined the specific cluster at the first stage andcontinue to work in these assigned clusters. They have thus enjoyed a fairly stabletenure and have not been shunted about Table 3.3 also indicates that 5 of the 21 CDEs(23.81 percent) joined their respective clusters after the diagnostic study was completedby their predecessors and after the cluster had been identified. They were assigned theirclusters at the time when the soft interventions were initiated. These 5 CDEs have alsocontinued to work in their respective clusters undisturbed by transfers and have alsoenjoyed an uninterrupted tenure. It must be emphasized that these figures do notnecessarily mean that these clusters have progressively graduated to the higher stagesof intervention, on the contrary, a fairly large number of clusters continue to linger in the1st stage itself as was seen in the earlier chapter.Table No.-3.3: STAGES AT WHICH CDEs WERE DEPLOYED IN SAMPLED CLUSTERSStage at which CDEs Deployed Number of CDEs % DistributionStage I (A): Diagnostic Study / Cluster10 47.62IdentificationStage I (B): Starting of Soft Interventions 5 23.81Stage I (C): Middle of Soft Interventions 1 4.76Stage II & III: Formation of SPV /1 4.76Preparation and Approval of DPRStage IV & V: Setting up of CFC/ testing andCommissioning of CFC4 19.05Total 21 100.00It is also seen that 1 of the 21 CDEs (4.76 percent) was deployed in the middle of softinterventions. Another CDE was assigned the cluster during Stage II while as many as 4of the 21 CDEs were assigned their clusters during Stage IV. These figures indicate thatas many as 6 out of the 21 CDEs (28.57 percent) have joined the cluster during the later70