[873] in magellan
Re: Project Performance Evaluations - Draft Recommendations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joanne M. Hallisey)
Tue Apr 1 12:46:37 2003
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p05200f17baaf7f17215a@[18.152.2.178]>
In-Reply-To: <p05010404baaf5354bc79@[18.152.1.35]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:44:57 -0500
To: Ed Dolan <edolan@mit.edu>, cgteam@mit.edu, delivery-council@mit.edu,
magellan@mit.edu
From: "Joanne M. Hallisey" <hallisey@MIT.EDU>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1162903301==_ma============"
--============_-1162903301==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Hello Ed,
Directly or indirectly, we review every Discovery project at the
Discovery Council before, during and after. We have also brought
projects to ITLT for review and prioritization. Additionally,
quarterly, Discovery and Delivery do an ILEAD to review recently
completed projects. I do not think that adding another level of
project review is going to enhance the adoption/completion of the
project participant appraisals. If that is the desired outcome,
then, we, as the Discovery Team project managers, should follow up
with the primary reviewers to ensure that they have received some
acknowledgement and review of their team member's participation in a
Discovery project.
The change in the form is more likely to help with compliance and
seems like a good idea.
Thanks,
Joanne
At 9:54 AM -0500 4/1/03, Ed Dolan wrote:
>Based on my discussions with the CG Team, Discovery, and the
>Delivery Council, these are my recommendations for improving the
>process. I would appreciate feedback before moving ahead to ITLT
>with recommendations.
>
>Directors and/or the Discovery Council schedule post-project reviews
>of each project itself.
>If the project work and outcome itself is not important enough to us
>to review, it will be hard to convince project team leaders that
>individual performance reviews are important enough for them to do.
>
>Change the evaluation form to a 3 option form - and make it a web form.
>After a few introductory remarks (that encourage accuracy,
>thoroughness, and flexibility) and basic information (team member,
>team leader, project name, date the form is being filled out):
>
>Option 1: 1/1 discussion with the person's primary reviewer. Fill
>in the date of the conversation. Check off the box for Option 1.
>Option 2: Simple narrative. Fill in the text box with your
>evaluation of the individual. As you do so, it will be useful to
>touch on the areas of project performance (a - h) listed under
>Option 3.
>Option 3: The current checklist with comments form.
>
>As a web form, perhaps we could link this form to a list of staff,
>their primary reviewer, and CG liaison, and then have the form sent
>to each.
>
>There are 2 improvements that have been suggested that I am not
>recommending: setting up a tracking database and creating enhanced
>structures of accountability.
>
>Tracking database
>There are 2 problems that militate against this as a recommendation.
>First, while I would be happy to work at creating a Filemaker or
>Excel database, its success will lie in its being kept up to date
>and in primary reviewers actually using it to keep track of what
>evaluations they should be receiving from whom. I am highly dubious
>that either of those activities would take place at a level to
>justify the energy and time that would be invested in creating the
>database. Second, there is real (and, I believe, justified)
>resistance to putting yet another database out there for people to
>deal with.
>
>Enhanced structures of accountability
>We could set up processes, procedures, tools, databases, and/or job
>expectations for CG and/or Directors and/or primary reviewers and/or
>individual staff members to audit and/or police the actual
>compliance with expectations on supplying project performance
>evaluations. But, once again, given long-standing practice and
>attitudes, the marginal improvement over what is likely to be gained
>by the 2 recommendations above does not seem to justify the
>expenditure of energy and optimism that would be required.
--============_-1162903301==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Project Performance Evaluations - Draft
Recommenda</title></head><body>
<div>Hello Ed,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Directly or indirectly, we review every Discovery project at the
Discovery Council before, during and after. We have also brought
projects to ITLT for review and prioritization. Additionally,
quarterly, Discovery and Delivery do an ILEAD to review recently
completed projects. I do not think that adding another level of
project review is going to enhance the adoption/completion of the
project participant appraisals. If that is the desired
outcome, then, we, as the Discovery Team project managers, should
follow up with the primary reviewers to ensure that they have received
some acknowledgement and review of their team member's participation
in a Discovery project. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The change in the form is more likely to help with compliance and
seems like a good idea.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Joanne</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 9:54 AM -0500 4/1/03, Ed Dolan wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Based on my discussions with the CG Team,
Discovery, and the Delivery Council, these are my recommendations for
improving the process. I would appreciate feedback before moving
ahead to ITLT with recommendations.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000"><u><b>Directors
and/or the Discovery Council schedule post-project reviews of each
project itself.<br>
</b></u>If the project work and outcome itself is not important enough
to us to review, it will be hard to convince project team leaders that
individual performance reviews are important enough for them to
do.<br>
<br>
<u><b>Change the evaluation form to a 3 option form - and make it a
web form.<br>
</b></u>After a few introductory remarks (that encourage accuracy,
thoroughness, and flexibility) and basic information (team member,
team leader, project name, date the form is being filled out):<br>
<br>
<b>Option 1</b>: 1/1 discussion with the person's primary reviewer.
Fill in the date of the conversation. Check off the box for
Option 1.<br>
<b>Option 2</b>: Simple narrative. Fill in the text box with
your evaluation of the individual. As you do so, it will be
useful to touch on the areas of project performance (a - h) listed
under Option 3.<br>
<b>Option 3</b>: The current checklist with comments form.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">As a web form,
perhaps we could link this form to a list of staff, their primary
reviewer, and CG liaison, and then have the form sent to
each.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">There are 2
improvements that have been suggested that I am not recommending:
setting up a tracking database and creating enhanced structures of
accountability.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000"><u>Tracking
database</u></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">There are 2
problems that militate against this as a recommendation. First,
while I would be happy to work at creating a Filemaker or Excel
database, its success will lie in its being kept up to date and in
primary reviewers actually using it to keep track of what evaluations
they should be receiving from whom. I am highly dubious that
either of those activities would take place at a level to justify the
energy and time that would be invested in creating the database.
Second, there is real (and, I believe, justified) resistance to
putting yet another database out there for people to deal
with.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000"><u>Enhanced
structures of accountability</u></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>We could set up processes, procedures,
tools, databases, and/or job expectations for CG and/or Directors
and/or primary reviewers and/or individual staff members to audit
and/or police the actual compliance with expectations on supplying
project performance evaluations. But, once again, given
long-standing practice and attitudes, the marginal improvement over
what is likely to be gained by the 2 recommendations above does not
seem to justify the expenditure of energy and optimism that would be
required.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1162903301==_ma============--
