TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention relates to assessing performance, and more particularly, to a method of assessing process quality, product quality of a plurality of projects, accounts and groups of a respective enterprise and also the resultant business impact of the respective enterprise.
BACKGROUND
In the current business scenario, an enterprise may conscientiously define a goal(s) to aspire, to stay active in the market. Usually, time and again, it may be necessary for the enterprise to identify, analyze and improve existing processes within an organization to meet defined goals and objectives. Currently, in the software business scenario, a Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) or an International Standards Organization (ISO) kind of models are used for a process improvement approach, which provides the enterprise with the essential elements, to maintain or improve the processes, time and again.
Typically, many software enterprises may have conscientiously defined goals to aspire and each of these software enterprises may try to execute innumerous number of projects in any calendar or fiscal year with high productivity and quality levels to stay active in market, which is business imperative. The above mentioned process improvement models may be used to guide process improvement across a project, a division, or a group or an entire enterprise. Among those models, the CMMI model may help to integrate traditionally separate enterprise functions, set process improvement goals and priorities, provide guidance for quality processes, and provide a point of reference for appraising. Wherein, the ISO model may include a set of procedures that cover all key processes in the business, for the enterprise to follow.

However, the above mentioned models do not feature the steps or methods the respective enterprise should follow to meet the performance. The performance assessing factor is missing in all models or approaches currently existing and the existing models or approaches are primarily for defining processes not for measuring or assessing the performance. In any enterprises, it is also necessary to compare projects, accounts, groups in terms of quality and productivity performance to determine whether the respective enterprise is heading in right direction to achieve the defined goals.
Thus, there is a need for a method for assessing performance of projects, accounts, and groups, which will be helpful in determining the enterprise progress towards achieving the defined goal.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In one embodiment of the present invention, a method of assessing performance of a plurality of projects in an enterprise is detailed. The method may include determining one or more parameter associated for each project to evaluate performance of the project and setting the threshold value for each of the parameter determined for the respective project. The method may further include deriving a plurality of performance level for assessing the performance of the project. The respective project may be assessed by comparing the performance parameter value attained by each determined parameter with the set threshold value of the respective parameter. Thus the respective project may be rated based on the evaluated performance level obtained post comparison of the performance parameter.
In one embodiment of the present technique, the plurality of project may include at least one of a closed project or an open project or both. The project may be at least one of a development project or maintenance project or a testing project or combinations thereof.
In another embodiment of the present technique, the method of assessing performance may be even applied to a plurality of services of the enterprise.

In yet another embodiment of the present technique, the approach may also be used for assessing performance of a plurality of accounts comprising one or more projects of the respective enterprise. Also, the plurality of accounts may further include determining one or more account parameter for assessing performance of the respective accounts.
In yet another embodiment of the present technique, the approach may also be used for assessing performance of a plurality of groups comprising one or more accoimts of the respective enterprise.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The above mentioned features as well other features, aspects, and advantages of the present invention will become better understood when the following detailed description is read with reference to the accompanying drawings in which like characters represent like parts throughout the drawings, wherein:
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a plurality of performance level illustrating a process of assessing performance of a project using the plurality of performance level, according to one embodiment of the present technique;
FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an enterprises business cluster illustrating a process for assessing performance of the enterprises' various businesses cluster, according to one embodiment of the present technique;
FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating a method of assessing performance of an entity in the enterprise, according to one embodiment of the present technique;
FIG, 4 is a block diagram of an exemplary example illustrating an approach of assessing performance of the enterprises' various cluster, according to one embodiment of the present technique; and
FIG. 5 is a system illustrating a generalized computer network arrangement, in one embodiment of the present technique.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The following description is full and informative description of the best method and system presently contemplated for carrying out the present invention, which is known to the inventors at the time of filing the patent application. Of course, many modifications and adaptations will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant arts in view of the following description in view of the accompanying drawings and the appended claims. While the system and method described herein are provided with a certain degree of specificity, the present technique may be implemented with either greater or lesser specificity, depending on the needs of the user. Further, some of the features of the present technique may be used to advantage without the corresponding use of other features described in the following paragraphs. As such, the present description should be considered as merely illustrative of the principles of the present technique and not in limitation thereof, since the present technique is defined solely by the claims.
The present invention relates to a method of assessing performance of a plurality of projects for a respective enterprise. In particular, a method of assessing process quality, product quality of at least one of a project(s), an account(s) and a group(s) of the respective enterprise and also the resultant business impact of the respective enterprise.
The following description is presented to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention and is provided in the context of the requirement for obtaining a patent. The description is presently best contemplated method for carrying out the present invention. Various modifications to the preferred embodiment will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art and the generic principles of the present invention may be applied to other embodiments, and some features of the present invention may be used without the corresponding use of other features. Accordingly, the present invention is not intended to be limited to the embodiment shown but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features described herein.

A method of assessing the performance of a plurality of entities of the respective enterprises is detailed. As will be appreciated by people skilled in the art, to best understand the present invention it is important to be familiar with the environment in which it is used.
The entity in the present context may include at least one of a project or a service of the respective enterprise. The project of the respective enterprise may include at least one of an open project or a closed project or combinations thereof In addition, method of assessing the entity may be applicable for services of the respective enterprise as well, which is omitted or simplified in order not to obscure the illustrative embodiments. The scope of assessment should not be limited in light of the present technique detailed in the subsequent sections to follow.
The open project may include the project comprising at least one remaining milestone of the project to be completed or the project including at least some part of fixed scope to be completed or combinations thereof
The closed project may include the project comprising at least one of a project completed all agreed milestones or the project completed all part of fixed scope or combinations thereof The milestones may be set during the initial phase of the project indicating the speculated time line for completion.
The project may be an individual project or a part of the collection of projects or both. The plurality of projects may include at least one of a development project or a maintenance project or a testing project or combinations thereof
Referring to the figures. Fig 1 is a block diagram of a plurality of performance level 100 illustratmg a process of assessing performance of the project using the plurality of performance level, according to one embodiment of the present technique. The plurality of performance level 100 may comprises at least one of a fail compliance level (herein also referred as "below hygiene level") 110 or a below average level (herein also referred as below "Performance Assessment Maturity Matrix" level-4 or "below PAMM level-4") 120 or a better then average level (herein

also referred as "PAMM level-4") 130 or a best in class level (herein also referred as "PAMM level-5") 140 or combinations thereof
In one embodiment of the present technique, the below hygiene level 110 comprises the plurality of projects failing the 85% of hygiene parameter submission. The hygiene parameter submission may be different for the open project and the closed project. The hygiene parameter for the open project may include at least one of a daily activity report (herein also referred as "DAR") or milestone report (herein also referred as "MSR") or both. The hygiene parameter for the closed project may include a process database (herein also referred as "PDB"). Each of the plurality of projects is evaluated against these hygiene parameters. The projects, which are successful in fulfilling the desired percentage of each hygiene parameter, are selected for further performance level assessment. The plurality of project, which are not successful in fulfilling the desired percentage of each hygiene parameter are grouped under the below hygiene level 110 category.
In one embodiment of the present technique, the below PAMM level-4 120 comprises all of the plurality of projects successfully fulfilling the hygiene parameters. In another embodiment of the present technique, the below PAMM level-4 120 determines or lists the plurality of projects not meeting average performance. The pluralities of projects, which are under this category level, are furflier assessed for determining their performance, thus checking the possibility of categorizing them in either PAMM level-4 130 or the PAMM level-5 140.
The performance of the plurality of the projects is determined by evaluating the number of identified performance parameter' successfully fulfilling a set threshold value for each of respective performance parameter identified for the respective project, for segregating the projects either in PAMM level-4 or PAMM level-5. The PAMM level-4 130 may determine the plurality of project having performance better than average. In the plurality of projects, selected from the below PAMM level-4 category, if one or more of identified performance parameter fails to fulfill the set threshold value against the associated performance parameter, the respective project is categorized in the PAMM level-4 130. The PAMM level-5 140 may determine the

plurality of projects in the top 25% performance or else the benchmark range performance. From the plurality of projects selected from the below PAMM level-4 category, if all of identified performance parameter fulfill the set threshold value against the associated performance parameter, the respective project is categorized in the PAMM level-5 140.
Referring to the figures, FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an enterprises business cluster 200 illustrating a process for assessing performance of the enterprises' various businesses cluster, according to one embodiment of the present technique. According to one embodiment of the present technique, enterprises business cluster 200 may include the pluralities of projects or services at the root for evaluating performance of the plurality of enterprises. The plurality of projects together may form the one or more accoxmts, which may be also be evaluated for determining the accounts performance. Later, the plurality of accounts forming a group of the enterprise may be evaluated to determine the performance of the group, in turn the overall performance of the respective enterprise. The enterprise business cluster 200 may include a CMMI model 205 or a project maturity level 210 or an account maturity level 220 or a group maturity level 230 or combinations thereof.
In one embodiment of the present technique, the CMMI model 205 may be used to compliment the performance assessment process by providing a process improvement approach, which provides the enterprise with the essential elements, to maintain or improve the processes, time and again.
In one embodiment of the present technique, the project maturity level 210 may comprise the absolute threshold values 213 or a product and process metrics 215 or a business impact matrix 217 or combinations thereof. The absolute threshold values 213 may include the entire list of set threshold values for each of the identified performance parameter for respective projects. The product and process metrics 215 may include at least one of the productivity parameter or quality parameter or effort deviation parameter. The business impact metrics 217 may include the client satisfaction or client complaints. The project maturity level 210 determines the plurality of projects which may be considered for evaluating the performance of the

respective account which they belong to. The plurality of projects may include at least one of a project comprising the PAMM level-4 or PAMM level-5 or combinations thereof.
The account maturity level 220 may include roll up of project maturity level 210 and customer related metrics like customer satisfaction or customer complaints. The group maturity level may include a roll up of account maturity level 220 and trends in parameters including at least one of a productivity trends or a quality trends. The enterprises business cluster 200 may thus be useful for determining the overall performance of the respective enterprise.
The subsequent section to follow will detail the method of assessing performance of the plurality of project according to one embodiment of the present technique.
In one embodiment of the present technique, the project may need to fulfill one or more key process compliance to consider for performance assessment. The key process compliance may be determined using one or more parameters, which includes at least one a submission of project plans or a submission of status reports or compliance to reviews or compliance to configuration and security policies or combinations thereof However, the list of key compliance parameters or simplified in order not to obscure the illustrative embodiments. The scope of assessment illustrated should not be limited in light of the present technique.
In one embodiment of the present technique, each of the plurality of projects may have the associated key performance parameter or measures. The key parameter for the development project may include at least one of development productivity or a development quality or a development effort deviation or a development schedule deviation or a development customer satisfaction or combinations thereof. The parameter for the maintenance project may include at least of maintenance productivity or maintenance utilization or a maintenance quality or a maintenance schedule deviation or a maintenance customer satisfaction or combinations thereof. Similarly, the testing project may include at least of a testing

productivity or testing quality or testing effort deviation or testing schedule deviation or combinations thereof
In one embodiment of the present technique, the plurality of key parameter determined for assessing the performance of associated projects may be unified. The unified value of the parameters may help to derive the value of respective parameter of the associated project clearly with transparency.
In one embodiment of the present technique, a threshold value(s) is set for each of the parameters for the respective project type. The threshold value is set or determined based on the logic build for deriving one or more performance level for the respective project parameter. In one embodiment of the present technique, the business logic for setting or determining the threshold value may include considering the closed project comprising at least one of a Capability Maturity Model Integration (herein referred as "CMMI") level-4 or a CMMI level-5 or both. The closed project comprising the CMMI level-4 or CMMI level-5 or both may be used to compute the threshold value for each of the identified performance parameter. Computing the threshold value may include the process of calculating 25 percentile or 50 percentile value of that project parameter
In one embodiment of the present technique, the performance level may include at least one of a fail compliance level or a below average level or a better then average level or a best in class level or combinations thereof
The fail compliance level or below hygiene level may include the plurality of project not fulfilling the defined percentage of one or more hygiene parameter, which may include at least of a daily activity report (herein also referred as "DAR") or milestone report (herein also referred as "MSR") for a open project or a process Data Base (herein also referred as "PDB") for a closed project. However, the list of hygiene parameters or simplified in order not to obscure the illustrative embodiments. The scope of assessment illustrated should not be limited in light of the present technique.

The below average level or below Performance Assessment Maturity Metric (herein also referred as "PAMM") level-4 may include the project, which have successfully fulfilled all hygiene parameters defined in the hygiene level.
In one embodiment of the present technique, the better then average level or PAMM level-4 and the best in class level or PAMM level-5 may include one or more project selected from the below PAMM level-4 for further performance assessment. The plurality of performance parameters identified for one or more project selected from the below PAMM level-4 must fulfill the set threshold level. If all of performance parameter fulfills the threshold value, the project may be placed in PAMM level-5 else if one or more performance parameter fails to fulfill the set threshold value, the project may be placed in PAMM level-4. If none of the performance parameters fails to fulfill the set threshold value, the project is retained in below PAMM level-4.
In another embodiment of the present technique, the method of assessing the performance further includes at least for a plurality of account(s) comprising one or more projects or for a plurality of group(s) comprising one or more accounts.
The account in the respective enterprise may include at least one of an individual project or service or product or plurality of projects. The group may include at least one of the accounts or the blind of certain account comprising some common projects or combinations thereof
In another embodiment of the present technique, the plurality of projects satisfying the desired performance level may be considered for assessment of performance of the respective account. The assessment of the accounts further includes considering at least one of an account parameter for assessing the accounts' performance. The plurality of accounts parameter may include at least one of revenue related parameter or client satisfaction related parameter or account productivity parameter. In another embodiment of the present technique, evaluating performance of the respective accounts may further include considering at least one of the account parameter or the plurality of projects satisfying the derived performance level or

combinations thereof Further, the performance of the accounts may be determined by evaluating an account performance level, which is in similar lines with assessing the performance level of the projects.
In another embodiment of the present technique, the assessment of the groups further comprises considering at least one of a group parameter for assessing the groups' performance. The plurality of accounts satisfying the desired accounts performance level may be considered for assessment of performance of the respective group. The plurality of groups' parameter may include at least one of a group client satisfaction parameter or employee satisfaction parameter or group productivity parameter. In another embodiment of the present technique, evaluating performance of the respective groups may include considering at least one of the group parameter or the plurality of accounts satisfying the derived accounts performance level or combinations thereof. Further, the performance of the groups may be determined by evaluating the group performance level, which is in similar lines with assessing the performance level of the projects.
Fig 3 represents a flow diagram illustrating a method for assessing performance of an entity in the enterprise, according to one embodiment of the present technique. For explanation purpose, the plurality of projects of the enterprises is considered as the entity. However, in addition plurality of services of the respective enterprise may also be considered for performance assessment. The method comprising: 1) defining scope of an enterprises' entities that needs to be assessed (block 302), 2) identify one or more key process compliance that the defined entity must fulfill to consider for assessment (block 306), 3) skip the entity for further assessment (block 310), 4) determine all key parameter for the entity (block 314), 5) set a threshold value for each determined parameter of the entity (block 318), 6) build the logic for deriving one or more performance level for the entity (block 322), 7) derive the performance level based on the build logic for the entity (block 326), 8) assess the performance of the entity (block 330), 9) define plurality of accounts of the enterprise for assessment (block 334), 10) determine the key parameter of the account for assessment (block 338), 11) derive accounts performance level and assess the respective accounts' performance (block 342), 12) define plurality of groups of the

enterprise for assessment (block 346), 13) determine the key parameter of the group for assessment (block 350), and 14) Derive groups performance level and assess the respective groups' performance (block 354). Each of the steps will be explained in greater extent in the subsequent sections as follows.
In step 302, the respective enterprise may define the entity, that the enterprise may want to be rated in PAMM. The process of defining the entity may be equivalent of fixing the scope of any continuous audit or assessment. The entity may include at least one of a project or a service or both. Post selection of the entity for performance assessment, the identification process of one or more key process compliance associated to the selected entity needs to be achieved, as represented by reference numeral 304. In step 306 the key process compliance parameters are identified, which the entity may fulfill, for performance assessment. This process may serve as entry criteria for PAMM rating. This may even ensure that PAMM ratings for the entities are not obtained by fluke. The key process compliance parameter may include at least one a submission of project plans or a submission of status reports or compliance to reviews or compliance to configuration and security policies or combinations thereof. If the selected entity does not successfully fulfills all of the identified key process compliance parameters they are skipped for further assessment as represented by step 310. If the selected entity successfully fulfills all of the identified key process compliance parameters they may be considered for further performance assessment as represented by reference numeral 312.
In step 314, all key performance parameters associated with the selected entity may be identified. The performance parameter may vary for the closed project and for the open project. Also, the performance parameter may be different for a development project or maintenance project and testing project. The performance parameters are meticulously chosen for deriving the performance rating of the project.
The plurality of key parameter determined for assessing the performance of associated projects may be unified. The unified value of the parameters may help to derive the value of respective parameter of the associated project clearly with transparency

Post selecting one or more performance parameters for each of the projects, the threshold value may be determined or set. The process of setting the threshold value for each of the identified performance parameter may be based on the logic build for deriving one or more performance level for the respective project parameter as represented in step 322. In one embodiment of the present technique, the business logic for setting or determining the threshold value may include considering the closed project comprising at least one of a Capability Maturity Model Integration (herein referred as "CMMI") level-4 or a CMMI level-5 or both. The closed project comprising the CMMI level-4 or CMMI level-5 or both may be used to compute the threshold value for each of the identified performance parameter. Computing the threshold value may include the process of 25th percentile or 50th percentile value of that project parameter.
In step 326, the performance levels applicable for assessing the performance of the entity are derived. The performance levels may include at least one of a fail compliance level (herein also referred as below hygiene level") or a below average level (herein also referred as "below PAMM level-4") or a better then average level (herein also referred as "PAMM level-4") or a best in class level (herein also referred as "PAMM level-5") or combinations thereof.
In step 330, the derived performance level for each of the identified performance parameter of the respective entity may be assessed/ evaluated. The evaluation process includes rating certain projects in any of the derived performance level rating. The respective project not fulfilling the defined percentage of one or more hygiene parameter is categorized in below hygiene level. The PAMM level-4 may include the plurality of project, which have successfully fulfilled all parameters defined in the hygiene level. The PAMM level-4 and the PAMM level-5 may include one or more project selected from the below PAMM level-4 for further performance assessment. If all of performance parameter fulfills the threshold value, the project may be placed in PAMM level-5 else if one or more performance parameter fails to fulfill the set threshold value, the project may be placed in PAMM level-4. Determination of whether all of performance parameters fulfill the set threshold value is done by comparing the value attained by each determined parameter with the set

threshold value of the respective parameter. If none of the performance parameters fails to fulfill the set threshold value, the project is retained in below PAMM level-4.
In step 334, the pluralities of the accounts are determined for further assessment. The accounts may include one individual project or combination of several projects. The projects which have a performance level rating as either PAMM level-4 or PAMM level-5 may be selected for assessing the performance of the account. In step 338, all projects or entities of the accounts which have either PAMM level-4 or PAMM level-5 are selected and the key account performance parameters associated with each of the associated accounts are identified. In step 342, the pluralities of the account performance level are derived and evaluating of the account performance level of the account as per the derived account performance level is achieved using the account level performance parameter. The accounts are rated either in APAMM level-4 or APAMM level-5 or combination thereof The process of segregating the accounts may be similar to the process or steps detailed out early for segregating the plurality of projects either in below PAMM level-4 or PAMM level-4 or PAMM level-5 or combinations thereof.
In step 346, the pluralities of the groups are determined for further assessment. The groups may include one individual accounts or combination of several accounts. The accounts which have a performance level rating as either APAMM level-4 or APAMM level-5 may be selected for assessing the performance of the group. In step 350, all accounts which have either APAMM level-4 or APAMM level-5 are selected and the key group performance parameters associated with each of the associated groups are identified. In step 354, the pluralities of the group performance level are derived and evaluating of the group performance level of the account as per the derived group performance level is achieved using the group level performance parameter. The groups are rated either in GPAMM level-4 or GPAMM level-5 or combination thereof The process of segregating the groups may be similar to the process or steps detailed out early for segregating the plurality of projects either in below PAMM level-4 or PAMM level-4 or PAMM level-5 or combinations thereof.

FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an exemplary example illustrating an approach of assessing performance of the enterprises' various cluster, according to one embodiment of the present technique.
The exemplary example as per one embodiment of the invention is explained in two phase. The first phase or phase 1 405, being assessing the performance of the plurality of projects of the respective enterprise and the second phase or phase 2 455, being assessing the resultant business impact of the respective enterprise. The project considered is off development open project type. However, the illustrative steps of assessing the project may be application for other project types of the respective enterprise as well, which is omitted or simplified in order not to obscure the illustrative embodiments. The scope of the method of assessment illustrated should not be limited in light of the present technique.
In one embodiment of the present technique, the phase 1 405 is for project level assessment 410. The phase 1 may comprise CMMI ratings 415 or CMMI model 420 or a hygiene layer 425 or a PAMM 4 430 or a PAMM 5 435 or combinations thereof
The CMMI ratings 415 may be used to integrate traditionally separate enterprise functions, set process improvement goals and priorities, provide guidance for quality processes, and provide a point of reference for appraising. The CMMI model 420 may comprise the plurality of closed project including either one of a CMMI level-4 or CMMI level-5 for setting a threshold value for each of a performance parameter specific to the project.
The selected projects are subjected to the performance assessment, in that process the projects which are not meeting a hygiene parameter are streamlined and segregated under hygiene layer 425. The hygiene parameter includes at least one of the projects not meeting 85% of DAR submission or the project not meeting 85 % of set milestone. The plurality of project which are able to successfully fulfill the hygiene parameters are promoted for further assessment. The plurality of projects may be further categorized into PAMM level-4 430, wherein those projects were

successfully fulfilling only one or more performance means. The performance mean are evaluated against the set threshold value for each of the performance parameter. The plurality of projects, which were able to successfully fulfill all of the performance means are categorized in PAMM level-5 435. The performance mean may again be evaluated against the set threshold value for each of the performance parameter. Only top 25 percentile of the projects may be categorized in PAMM level-5.
In one embodiment of the present technique, the phase 2 455 is for at least one of an account level assessment 460 or a group level assessment 480 or combinations thereof. The account level assessment 460 may comprise an APAMM level-4 465 or an APAMM level-5 475 or both. The group level assessment 480 may comprise a GPAMM level-4 or a GPAMM level-5 or both.
The APAMM level-4 465 includes greater than 50 % of accounts in PAMM level-4 & 5 or accoxmts having zero critical complaints, wherein the APAMM level-5 479 includes greater than 50 % accounts in PAMM Level-5 or accounts with zero critical complaints and critical risk projects or accounts having average engineering level score greater than 6.
The GPAMM level-4 485 includes greater than 50 % of groups in APAMM 4 & 5 or groups with 10 % improvement in Q&P or groups with zero critical complaints or combinations thereof, wherein the GPAMM level-5 490 includes greater than 50% of group in APAMM 5 or group with zero critical complaints & critical risk projects or group with improvement trend in Q & P or combinations thereof
Advantage of the PAMM rating being that it is built on the CMMI model, to assess process quality, product quality and business impact, at project level, account level and group level, using unified values. The data driven approach of assessment is an objective approach to determine process and product maturity. Thus helping the plurality of enterprises to push the performance levels and bench mark the performance against the best in the industry.

While the present invention has been related in terms of the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention is not limited to the embodiments depicted. The present invention can be practiced with modification and alteration within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. Thus, the description is to be regarded as illustrative instead of restrictive on the present invention.
Exemplary Computing Environment
One or more of the above-described techniques can be implemented in or involve one or more computer systems. Figure 5 illustrates a generalized example of a computing environment 500. The computing environment 500 is not intended to suggest any limitation as to scope of use or functionality of described embodiments.
With reference to Figure 5, the computing environment 500 includes at least one processing unit 510 and memory 520. In Figure 5, this most basic configuration 530 is included within a dashed line. The processing unit 510 executes computer-executable instructions and may be a real or a virtual processor. In a multiprocessing system, multiple processing units execute computer-executable instructions to increase processing power. The memory 520 may be volatile memory (e.g., registers, cache, RAM), non-volatile memory (e.g., ROM, EEPROM, flash memory, etc.), or some combination of the two. In some embodiments, the memory 520 stores software 580 implementing described techniques.
A computing environment may have additional features. For example, the computing environment 500 includes storage 540, one or more input devices 550, one or more output devices 560, and one or more communication connections 570. An interconnection mechanism (not shown) such as a bus, controller, or network interconnects the components of the computing environment 500. Typically, operating system software (not shown) provides an operating environment for other software executing in the computing environment 500, and coordinates activities of the components of the computing environment 500.

The storage 540 may be removable or non-removable, and includes magnetic disks, magnetic tapes or cassettes, CD-ROMs, CD-RWs, DVDs, or any other medium which can be used to store information and which can be accessed within the computing environment 500. In some embodiments, the storage 540 stores instructions for the software 580.
The input device(s) 550 may be a touch input device such as a keyboard, mouse, pen, trackball, touch screen, or game controller, a voice input device, a scanning device, a digital camera, or another device that provides input to the computing environment 500. The output device(s) 560 may be a display, printer, speaker, or another device that provides output from the computing environment 500.
The communication connection(s) 570 enable communication over a communication medium to another computing entity. The communication medium conveys information such as computer-executable instructions, audio or video information, or other data in a modulated data signal. A modulated data signal is a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media include wired or wireless techniques implemented with an electrical, optical, RF, infrared, acoustic, or other carrier.
Implementations can be described in the general context of computer-readable media. Computer-readable media are any available media that can be accessed within a computing environment. By way of example, and not limitation, within the computing environment 500, computer-readable media include memory 520, storage 540, communication media, and combinations of any of the above.
Having described and illustrated the principles of our invention with reference to described embodiments, it will be recognized that the described embodiments can be modified in arrangement and detail without departing from such principles. It should be understood that the programs, processes, or methods described herein are not related or limited to any particular type of computing environment, unless indicated otherwise. Various types of general purpose or

specialized computing environments may be used with or perform operations in accordance with the teachings described herein. Elements of the described embodiments shown in software may be implemented in hardware and vice versa.
In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, we claim as our invention all such embodiments as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.

We Claim:
1. A method of assessing performance of a plurality of projects in an enterprise, the method comprising:
determining at least one parameter associated for each project to evaluate performance of the project;
setting at least one threshold value for at least one parameter determined for the respective project;
deriving at least one performance level for at least one parameter of the respective project by comparing the value attained by each determined parameter with the set threshold value of the respective parameter; and
assessing the performance of the project by evaluating at least one ore more derived performance level of the respective project
2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the project includes at least one of an open project; wherein the open project refers, the project comprising at least one remaining milestone or the project comprising at least some part of fixed scope to be completed or combinations thereof
3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the project includes at least one of a closed project; wherein the closed project refers, the project completed all agreed milestones or the project completed all part of fixed scope or combinations thereof
4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the project includes at least one of an individual project or a collection of projects or both.

5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein each project further comprising a plurality of key process compliance to fulfill for considering the respective project for assessing the performance.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of key process compliance includes at least one of a submission of project plans or a submission of status reports or compliance to reviews or compliance to configuration and security policies and combinations thereof.
7. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of parameter determined for assessing the performance of each project is unified.
8. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the plurality of parameter includes at least one of a development project parameter or a maintenance project parameter or a testing project parameter or combinations thereof.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of development project parameter includes at least one of development productivity or a development quality or an development effort deviation or a development schedule deviation or a development customer satisfaction or combinations thereof.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of maintenance project parameter includes at least one of maintenance productivity or maintenance utilization

or a maintenance quality or a maintenance schedule deviation or a maintenance customer satisfaction or combinations thereof
11. The method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of testing project parameter includes at least one of a testing productivity or testing quality or testing effort deviation or testing schedule deviation
12. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the threshold value for each of the parameter includes at least one of a development project threshold value or a maintenance project threshold value or testing project threshold value or combinations thereof
13. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the threshold value is set considering the closed project comprising at least one of a CMM level-4 or a CMM level-5 or both.
14. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the performance level includes at least one of a fail compliance level or a below average level or a better then average level or a best in class level or combinations thereof
15. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein assessing performance further includes for a plurality of accounts comprising one or more projects.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of accounts includes determining one or more account parameter for assessing performance of the respective accounts.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein evaluating performance of the respective accounts include at least one of the account parameter or the plurality of projects satisfying the derived performance level or combinations thereof.
18. The method of claim 15, wherein performance of the accoimts is assessed by deriving an accounts performance level.
19. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein assessing performance further includes for a plurality of groups comprising one or more accounts.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the plurality of groups includes determining one or more group parameter for assessing performance of the respective groups.
21. The method of claim 20, wherein evaluating performance of the respective groups include at least one of the group parameter or the plurality of accounts satisfying the derived accounts performance level or combinations thereof.
22. The method of claim 19, wherein performance of the groups is assessed by deriving a group performance level.

23. A computer program product comprising a computer usable medium
having a computer readable program code embodied therein for assessing
performance of a plurality of projects in an enterprise, the method comprising:
program code adapted for determining at least one parameter associated for each project to evaluate performance of the project;
program code adapted for setting at least one threshold value for at least one parameter determined for the respective project;
program code adapted for deriving at least one performance level for at least one parameter of the respective project by comparing the value attained by each determined parameter with the set threshold value of the respective parameter; and
program code adapted for assessing the performance of the project by evaluating at least one ore more derived performance level of the respective project
24. The product as recited in claim 23, further comprising program code
adapted for assessing performance of a plurality of accounts comprising one or more
projects.
25. The product as recited in claim 23, further comprising program code
adapted for assessing performance of a plurality of groups comprising one or more
accounts.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2008