I am quite aware of the history of HRD in India as found on the TVRLS website. Correct as it is, believe I need more particular information for a deeper enquiry.
My objective is to solve what makes stakeholders abuse or neglect the HR-D function vis a vis the HR-M function. In other words I need to discover why L & T's board went after the 'performance appraisal' system leaving out a host of other business issues. Going by T.V Rao's document I suspect that the reasons and factors why organisations should go in for HR systems today remains the same that were prevalent at different times.
My constant lament is that HR folks (especially in the new economy) have not been able to make their stakeholders see that HR processes are more than a cliche and can truly add value. One reason surely is that while they are reasonably familiar with the nuts and bolts of HR processes they do not know where the nut and bolt fits in within the larger vehicle. This is helped by the fact that the HR function rarely forms a part of the strategy think-tank in many organisations. Likewise the HR manager often mis-thinks his role to be only a employee champion.
My approach needs to be critical and historical. I look back to history and intend to study the periods when HRD was rejuvenated/ born/flourished . Doing so will help me to collect all the factors and contexts that drove the stakeholders of the period to such a decision in those times.
I hope such a collection of factors would help HR managers to look at their businesses similarily and convince stakeholders of the need, method and necessity of HR processes.
Comments and suggestions most welcome.