Project Excellence ModelDRAFT of new assessment tablesThor Möller

Hamburg, 2008-11-12

Intentions

The two assessment tables are recognised as the weakest point in the PEM. This is confirmed from different experts from IAMBo, PE trainers, etc.

For trainings in 2009 we made already some small modifications (quick fixes). In parallel work we started a total re-design of the assessment tables. They should easier to understand and to handle as well as more objective.

Hereby we developed a first DRAFT as basis for a workshop during world congress in Helsinki. In yellow boxes we’ve entered some remarks, questions already.

Please take your comments with you when you are planning to attend the workshop. Otherwise please send your comments in advance to: T.Moeller@GPM-IPMA.de.

Thank you very much!

Thor

Former assessment table 1

1050

3530252015

6055504540

8580757065

1009590

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

%Plan(sound process)

Do (systems and preventions)

Check(checking)

Act (improvement & integration)

Clear and extensive proof

Clear and extensive proof

Clear and extensive proof

Clear and extensive proof

Clear proof Clear proof Clear proof Clear proof

Proof Proof

Some proof Some proof Some proof Some proof

Topical Assessment Table 1: Project Management

No proof No proof No proof No proof

Proof Proof

Model for other projects

DRAFT new assessment table 1

Project ManagementSub-Criterion 1.1: It has to prove how the expectations and demands of parties involved are identified (the application should contain a list of identified parties involved and their expectations and demands. The parties involved should be organised based on criteria 6,7 and 8).

Model for other projects / new benchmark up to 100%

New benchmark in the sector up to 90%

Companies standards applied and adapted (innovated) up to 80%

Department standards applied and adapted (innovated) up to 70%

Companies standards applied up to 60%

Department standards applied up to 50%

Planned and done, checked , frequently, adapted up to 40%

Planned and done, checked , frequently up to 30%

Planned and done up to 20%

Done by coincidence up to 10%

Nothing done within this sub-criterion 0%

These steps must be optimised and well formulated, maybe short explanation must be added in each line

In assessors booklet it could be on the top of the page, followed by examples (former: points of departures).

Assessors can write their points in these boxes

Assessor won‘t start at 50% like today, but at 0%. To get up to the next line means that all points in below lines all fulfilled (???).

Integrate the aspect of lessions learnt? Or is it in Crit. 5.3 already?

topical assessment table 2

1050

3530252015

6055504540

8580757065

1009590

PROJECT RESULTS

%Comparison with project objectives

Comparison with other projects

ContinuityResults lead back to process

Excellent in all areas

Excellent in all areas

Excellent in all areas

Excellent in all areas

Good in most areas

Good in most areas

Good in most areas

Good in most areas

Good insome areas

Good insome areas

Good in a few areas

Good in a few areas

Good in a few areas

Good in a few areas

Topical Assessment Table 2: Project Results

No proof No proof No proof No proof

Good in some areas

Good in some areas

DRAFT new assessment table 2Project Results

Sub-Criterion 6.1: It has to prove how customers judge the project in its achievements and results directly.

High continuity and the project objectives are nearly reached

up to 20%Positive trends and the project objectives are nearly reached

up to 10%

Better (?): Benchmark for Projects •in the company• in the same sector•Nationaly•internationally

High continuity and good comparsions within the project objectives

up to 40%Positive trends and good comparsions within the project objectives

up to 30%

Results are leading back to the project management (enablers)

up to 60%High continuity and good comparsions with other projects of the company

up to 50%

High continuity and good comparsions with national benchmarks up to 80%

High continuity and good comparsions with projects in the same sector up to 70%

High continuity and good comparsions with international benchmarks up to 100%

High continuity and very good comparsions with national benchmarks up to 90%

No positive trends and/or the project objectives are not nearly reached 0 %