Lack of accountabilit y in
decisions taken Processes
not clearly defined
In many cases the processes are person dependent rather than system dependent
Difficulty in fixing responsibilit y
Process inefficiencie
The Sports Law & Policy Centre, Bengaluru is an independent think-tank established with a vision to provide and disseminate high-quality interdisciplinary research, scholarship, education and institutional support for public and private enterprises in areas relating to sports law and policy. The Centre comprises a group of researchers with extensive knowledge of and experience working in the sports eco-system in India.
Author Profiles
THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEEBACKGROUND
NCRCL was approached by the Management of KSCA for Business Process Reengineering and implementation of a Management Information System.
The assignment began with a documentation of the existing processes. NCRCL team discussed with the department heads of KSCA to understand the current flow of information, documents and reporting system in place. The necessary information and documents were also collected. Based on the information and documents collected, NCRCL came up with “AS IS” Process Documentation for all the departments. The document has been submitted to KSCA for validation by the department heads as well as the Management.
MAJOR GAPSOBSERVED
During the process mapping exercise, a number of gaps were identified. The identified gaps are presented in the 3PT framework. The 3PT framework developed by NCRCL recognizes that for every initiative to be successful, the Policy aspects, Processes, People and Technology aspects need to be addressed adequately. Accordingly, the gaps are summarized in table below. Against each gap, the implication in terms of the inherent risk is given along with a rating of the criticality of the risk. The rating is on a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ indicates least risk and ‘5’ indicates maximum risk.
Gaps
Description
Policy Process People Technology Inherent
Risk Risk
Rating 1 2 3 4 5
Delegation of Powers not
comprehensi ve
Though delegation of powers has been defined, it was observed that it is not followed in many cases
Lack of accountabilit y in
decisions taken Processes
not clearly defined
In many cases the processes are person dependent rather than system dependent
Difficulty in fixing responsibilit y
Process inefficiencie
R. Seshank Shekar is a Researcher at The Sports Law & Policy Centre, Bengaluru.
Seshank graduated with a B.B.A. LL.B from Symbiosis Law School, Pune and has written several articles on topics such as the tax treatment of athletes, fair play, gender determination and issues related to drug testing in sport. His research at the Centre focuses primarily on sports business and commerce, and the interplay of these areas with sports law and policy.
Abhinav Shrivastava is a Researcher at The Sports Law & Policy Centre, Bengaluru. He graduated with a B.A. LL.B (Hons) from NALSAR University of Law and received an LL.M in Regulation and Technology from King's College London.
While at King's, he was awarded the 'Dickson Poon School of Law Prize for the Best
THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEEBACKGROUND
NCRCL was approached by the Management of KSCA for Business Process Reengineering and implementation of a Management Information System.
The assignment began with a documentation of the existing processes. NCRCL team discussed with the department heads of KSCA to understand the current flow of information, documents and reporting system in place. The necessary information and documents were also collected. Based on the information and documents collected, NCRCL came up with “AS IS” Process Documentation for all the departments. The document has been submitted to KSCA for validation by the department heads as well as the Management.
MAJOR GAPSOBSERVED
During the process mapping exercise, a number of gaps were identified. The identified gaps are presented in the 3PT framework. The 3PT framework developed by NCRCL recognizes that for every initiative to be successful, the Policy aspects, Processes, People and Technology aspects need to be addressed adequately. Accordingly, the gaps are summarized in table below. Against each gap, the implication in terms of the inherent risk is given along with a rating of the criticality of the risk. The rating is on a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ indicates least risk and ‘5’ indicates maximum risk.
Gaps
Description
Policy Process People Technology Inherent
Risk Risk
Rating 1 2 3 4 5
Delegation of Powers not
comprehensi ve
Though delegation of powers has been defined, it was observed that it is not followed in many cases
Lack of accountabilit y in
decisions taken Processes
not clearly defined
In many cases the processes are person dependent rather than system dependent
Difficulty in fixing responsibilit y
Process inefficiencie
Student on the ‘LLM in Regulation and Technology 2011/12'. His research at the Centre focuses on sports regulation and governance, and the instance and influence of technology in sports.
THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEEBACKGROUND
NCRCL was approached by the Management of KSCA for Business Process Reengineering and implementation of a Management Information System.
The assignment began with a documentation of the existing processes. NCRCL team discussed with the department heads of KSCA to understand the current flow of information, documents and reporting system in place. The necessary information and documents were also collected. Based on the information and documents collected, NCRCL came up with “AS IS” Process Documentation for all the departments. The document has been submitted to KSCA for validation by the department heads as well as the Management.
MAJOR GAPSOBSERVED
During the process mapping exercise, a number of gaps were identified. The identified gaps are presented in the 3PT framework. The 3PT framework developed by NCRCL recognizes that for every initiative to be successful, the Policy aspects, Processes, People and Technology aspects need to be addressed adequately. Accordingly, the gaps are summarized in table below. Against each gap, the implication in terms of the inherent risk is given along with a rating of the criticality of the risk. The rating is on a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ indicates least risk and ‘5’ indicates maximum risk.
Gaps
Description
Policy Process People Technology Inherent
Risk Risk
Rating 1 2 3 4 5
Delegation of Powers not
comprehensi ve
Though delegation of powers has been defined, it was observed that it is not followed in many cases
Lack of accountabilit y in
decisions taken Processes
not clearly defined
In many cases the processes are person dependent rather than system dependent
Difficulty in fixing responsibilit y
Process inefficiencie