Guidelines for Use of Project Review Form
This form is to be used as a part of the review process for project-specific evaluation of the analyst. Project reviews are used to determine career development objectives, provide training opportunities and assess promotion readiness. As such, reviews should address current performance in the context of past personal development objectives and should provide suggestions for future development needs. Neither sub-scores nor overall assessment should be adjusted to reward extra effort or hardship on the case.
A successful feedback process includes:
· Synthesis of feedback from the leadership team. All members of project leadership are expected to discuss the commentary and scoring prior to reviewing with the analyst.
· Constructive ideas with specific observations that illustrate the changes being suggested. Comments should always be included when any score other than a 3 is delivered, even as a sub point.
· Fair and candid appraisal. Scores are meant to reflect where the individuals stand against a long term average for individuals of similar tenure. Individual reviewers are expected to have a balanced distribution of scores over an extended period of time.
· Two-way dialog. All parties need to practice good listening and feedback skills. This should be done with face to face interaction. The review process should lay the foundation for more productive team interaction in the future.
· Timely feedback. Formal review should be done while the experience is still fresh (within three weeks of end of the project). Formal reviews should reinforce the informal feedback that is appropriate during the day-to-day management of the project. Few or no "surprise observations" should occur during the formal discussion.
Scoring should be easily interpreted and balanced. Do not use scores that are "between the boxes" or fractions. The expected distribution of overall project rating scores over time should be:
1 - Outstanding. Strength in all dimensions
2 - Performance well above expectations for someone of this tenure along all major dimensions.
3 - Meets expectations. Performance strong along a number of dimensions, few weaknesses. Exactly what I would expect from someone of this tenure
4 - Fell short of expectations. Performance weak in one or more areas
5 - Very poor performance.
The Mutual Development Agreement should be filled out by the reviewed and be agreed and signed by the project leader, manager or officer on the project. The hope is that the project leader, manager or officer on the project had a discussion with the analyst around development objectives at the outset of the project. The pair should have agreed to identify opportunities to support the analyst in working on his/her objectives during the project (e.g., be sure to find an opportunity for the analyst to present to senior management, carve a piece of work that is very complex, analytically, etc.). This discussion is by no means a promise, as all understand that situations can change during the course of a project; however, it is a two-way commitment to the analyst’s development. At the completion of the project, the pair can return to the objectives and note progress along the specific dimensions.