METHOD OF EVALUATING
A PROJECT MANAGER OF A PROJECT OF A PROVIDER
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Field of the Invention
This invention pertains generally to evaluation methods and, more
particularly, to such methods for evaluating project managers.
Background Information
"Management by objectives" and "pay-for-performance" and are well
known concepts.
Management by objectives (MBO) is a process of agreeing upon
objectives within an organization so that management and employees agree to the
objectives and understand what they are. MBO substitutes for good intentions a
process that requires rather precise written description of particular objectives (for the
period ahead) and timelines for their monitoring and achievement. The process
requires that the manager and the employee agree to what the employee will attempt
to achieve in the period ahead, and (very important) that the employee accept and
agree to the objectives (otherwise commitment will be lacking). MBO is often
achieved using set targets. MBO introduced the SMART criteria in which the MBO
objectives are "SMART" (Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, and Time-
specific). However, it has been reported in recent years that this style of management
receives criticism in that it triggers employees' unethical behavior of distorting the
system or financial figures to achieve the targets set by their short-term, narrow
bottom-line, and completely self-centered thinking. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_by_objectives, 2007.
Pay-for-performance systems link compensation to measures of work
quality or goals. It is believed that a majority of companies in the United States
connect at least part of an employee's pay to one or more measures of performance.
Some scholars contend that pay-for-performance can cast a pall over
self-esteem, teamwork and creativity. Conversely, other scholars argue that the real
problem is that incentives work too well. "Specifically, they motivate employees to
focus excessively on doing what they need to do to gain rewards, sometimes at the
expense of doing other things that would help the organization ...." Lagace, M.,

"Pay-for-Performance Doesn't Always Pay Off," Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge, April 14, 2003,4 pp.
Some known incentive and evaluation systems for project managers
are subjective and are based on customer ratings and/or management's perception of
the effectiveness of the project manager on a number of projects.
For example, it is known to incentivize project managers on the dollar
volume of projects that they are managing. The actual evaluation of the project
manager's strengths and weaknesses happens periodically as part of their annual or
semi-annual performance reviews.
Other known incentive systems for project managers involve
measurement of margin or direct financial performance on a project. However, these
approaches are far easier for a contractor, rather than a provider, since all of the
material is bought for the particular project, labor is directly tied to that project, and
overhead is directly proportioned to that specific project. This, however, is not the
case with manufacturers or suppliers for which overheads and product costs are not
easily tied to specific projects.
Accordingly, there is room for improvement in methods of evaluating
project managers.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
These needs and others are met by embodiments of the invention,
which employ a project manager scorecard and an incentive plan that stems from the
project manager scorecard, in order to provide a direct and systematic way to evaluate
a provider's project manager. By measuring and incentivizing performance against
predetermined project milestones that lead to financial performance, suitable financial
performance is achieved along with directly driving the project manager's
performance against the scorecard.
The disclosed method may consider financial performance changes
that occur from when a project manager is assigned to a project to when the project
completes.
In accordance with one aspect of the invention, a method evaluates a
project manager of a project of a provider, the project being for a customer. The
method comprises: utilizing a project manager scorecard comprising a plurality of

predetermined project phases which are common to a plurality of different projects;
including with each of the predetermined project phases a plurality of predetermined
project milestones which are common to the different projects; pre-assigning a
potential value to each of the predetermined project milestones for the different
projects; evaluating the project manager with respect to the predetermined project
milestones and responsively assigning an assigned value, which is less than or equal
to the potential value, for each of the predetermined project milestones; determining a
sum of the assigned value for each of the predetermined project milestones; and
evaluating performance of the project manager on the project of the provider based
upon the sum.
As another aspect of the invention, a method evaluates a project
manager of a plurality of different projects of a provider, the projects being for a
number of customers. The method comprises: utilizing a project manager scorecard
comprising a plurality of predetermined project phases which are common to the
different projects; including with each of the predetermined project phases a plurality
of predetermined project milestones which are common to the different projects; pre-
assigning a potential value to each of the predetermined project milestones; evaluating
the project manager with respect to the predetermined project milestones and
responsively assigning an assigned value, which is less than or equal to the potential
value, for each of the predetermined project milestones and for each of the different
projects; for each of the different projects, determining a sum of the assigned value
for each of the predetermined project milestones; and evaluating performance of the
project manager on the different projects based upon the sum for each of the different
projects.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
A full understanding of the invention can be gained from the following
description of the preferred embodiments when read in conjunction with the
accompanying drawings in which:
Figure 1 is a block diagram of four process areas of a project in
accordance with embodiments of the invention.
Figure 2 is a breakdown of process evaluation weightings for the
process areas of Figure 1.

Figures 3A-3C form a process management process scorecard in
accordance with another embodiment of the invention.
Figure 4 is a plot of project management scores versus changes in the
net project margin from order entry to close of the project in accordance with
embodiments of the invention.
Figure 5 is a project management monthly report for a project manager
in accordance with another embodiment of the invention.
Figure 6 is a risk assessment evaluation in accordance with another
embodiment of the invention.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
As employed herein, the term "number" refers to the quantity one or an
integer greater than one (i.e., a plurality).
As employed herein, the term "manufacturer" means a number of
persons and/or business entities that produce, make, fabricate, distribute and/or supply
equipment, finished goods and/or information to or for a customer.
As employed herein, the term "supplier" means a number of persons
and/or business entities that distribute and/or supply equipment, finished goods and/or
information to or for a customer.
As employed herein, the term "provider" means a manufacturer or a
supplier.
As employed herein, the term "contractor" means a number of persons
and/or business entities that act as a systems integrator and/or perform work in
connection with equipment, finished goods and/or information from a provider for a
customer. A contractor expressly excludes a manufacturer. Instead, a contractor may,
for example, buy components, mount components and/or provide mounting structures
for components in accordance with specified designs for a customer.
As employed herein, the term "customer" means a number of persons
and/or business entities that purchase or receive equipment, finished goods and/or
information from a contractor or provider.
As employed herein, the term "project" means a specific plan or
design, and/or a legal contract in connection with providing equipment, finished
goods and/or information from a provider to or for a customer. A project typically is

funded by capital expenditures as opposed to an operating budget. Non-limiting
examples of projects include projects in the fields of switchgear (e.g., without
limitation, low voltage; medium voltage; high voltage), HVAC (heating, ventilation
and air conditioning), electrical distribution systems, uninterruptible power supply
systems, and generators.
As employed herein, the term "project manager" means a number of
persons (e.g., typically, one person) responsible for planning, managing, executing,
reviewing, evaluating and/or monitoring a project.
As employed herein, the term "project scorecard" means a structure or
method that breaks down a project chronologically into a plurality of predetermined
project milestones and, for each of the predetermined project milestones, assigns a
corresponding weighted value associated with a project manager meeting, partially
meeting or missing the corresponding predetermined project milestone.
As employed herein, the term "milestone" means, prior to completion
of a project, a mutually agreed upon date or result for a specific project task or other
project event. When used in operative relation to the project scorecard, a specific
"milestone" is common to a plurality of different projects and, preferably, is common
to all projects.
Referring to Figures 1, 2 and 3A-3C, a project 2 and a project
management process scorecard (or project scorecard) 4 include four phases: (1) vision
and set-up 6; (2) managing information 8; (3) managing equipment 10; and (4) close
out and feedback 12. AH four of these phases 6,8,10,12 are common to every project.
The disclosed project scorecard 4 is the basis for evaluation of project
manager performance, since it shows objectively whether the project manger is doing
those things that lead to successful projects.
The project scorecard 4 may preferably also be an outline for a training
and development program (not shown) operatively associated with improving project
manager performance. For example, strategies for achieving predetermined project
milestones in all kinds of different circumstances are developed and shared in the
training and development program. These strategies may include technical as well as
softer topics, such as, for example, negotiating skills. For example, training and
development may be targeted based upon a number of the predetermined project

milestones, such as 50,52,54,56,58, and each of the actual points 96 therefor. In this
manner, if the project manager scores poorly or inadequately on certain project
milestones, then a corresponding training and development program is needed.
Conversely, if the project manager scores well on certain project milestones, then
valuable training and development resources should preferably be devoted to other
project managers who score poorly or inadequately on those project milestones.
As shown in Figures 3A-3C, the vision and set-up phase 6 considers:
(1) forecasting upcoming projects with sales 14; (2) risk assessment completed and
approved by the corresponding pricing organization 16; (3) establish project
milestones (scope timing requirements) 18; (4) obtain terms and conditions approval
20; (5) project review prior to order close 22; (6) the project manager has a role in
order closing 24; (7) meet contacts (e.g., without limitation, customer; contractor)
face-to-face 26; (8) document any unclear areas (where information is needed to
proceed) 28; (9) establish order baseline (e.g., without limitation, revisions; addenda)
30; (10) establish project milestone matrix 32; and (11) rationalize plant schedules to
project milestones 34. The last five items pertain to a transition meeting 36.
The managing information phase 8 considers: (1) formal order
confirmation communication (e.g., without limitation, letter) 38; (2) communicate
change notice pricing and delivery policy 40; (3) transition meeting with support team
and operations 42; (4) review approval drawings prior to submittal 44; (5) obtain
"approved as noted" on submittals 46; and (6) survey of vision and setup (managing
information phase) 48.
The managing equipment phase 10 considers: (1) verify drawings
against equipment built (e.g., without limitation, witness test or digital photographs;
verify coordination items) 50; (2) manage the transportation to site 52; (3) manage the
equipment on site (e.g., offloaded and stored properly; verify packing lists and
material received) 54; (4) start-up of equipment and operator training 56; and (5)
survey of managing equipment phase (e.g., without limitation, jobsite contacts) 58.
The close out and feedback phase 12 considers: (1) equipment
documentation accepted on first attempt (e.g., without limitation, Operation and
Maintenance Manuals) (O&Ms) 60; (2) internal project review against order baseline
62; (3) financial review with customer 64; (4) introduce after market contacts and

distributor support 66; and (5) customer survey by District Manager (DM) (e.g.,
without limitation, a front line, field based sales manager), Team Leader (TL) (e.g.,
without limitation, in a relatively large office, a market segment focused front line
sales manager reporting to the District Manager) and sales 68.
Hence, it will be appreciated that a number of the above described
predetermined project milestones are related to a number of persons responsible to the
provider and a number of persons responsible to the customer.
The project scorecard 4 of Figures 3A-3C provides: (1) a milestone
based definition of the roles and responsibilities of involved parties (e.g., provider
(including, but not limited to, the provider's project manager); customer;
contractor(s)) of the project; (2) tracking of progress against project milestones as the
project progresses; (3) an evaluation system for the project manager; (4) a training
and development program for the project manager; (5) an incentive structure for the
project manager that drives the right behavior; (6) a linkage between project
management performance and financial results that has been or can be tested and
verified; and (7) a linkage between a project management and customer satisfaction
that has been or can be tested and verified. The customer surveys embedded within,
and at the end of, a project give the provider specific feedback on customer
satisfaction against project management performance in the specific part of the project
that is being scored and surveyed.
The disclosed method is built around project management functions
that a provider fulfils, as opposed to the functions of a contractor (e.g., systems
integrator) on a jobsite. A significant portion of the project scorecard 4 deals with
communications from the provider (e.g., from the project manager) to a number of
contractors (or to the customer of the provider) on or about a customer's jobsite.
The milestone based definition of the roles and responsibilities of
involved parties defines the roles and responsibilities of the provider's project
manager (and, perhaps, the customer's project manager as it relates to dealing with
the provider), but not the performance of the customer's project management
functions. In contrast, the customer's project manager deals with, for example,
coordination of trades at the customer's jobsite, managing labor and managing
material from a variety of different providers. The disclosed method and project

scorecard 4 deal with, for example and without limitation, the provider end of
managing the equipment, the approval information (e.g., documentation) specific to
the equipment being supplied, the logistics of delivering the equipment, and
commissioning and operator training on the equipment.
The disclosed method adds value to the customer by reducing or
eliminating the pressure of managing the provider's equipment. For example, a
service (i.e., implementing the method) may be sold (e.g., without limitation, to the
customer; to a contractor; to another industrial customer) in which the provider's
project manager employs the method. This may be done, for example, based upon the
value supplied to the customer by such project manager utilizing the method.
Another application of the disclosed method is through use of the
method by another provider, and not by a contractor or by an industrial customer. By
using the disclosed method, another provider can provide relatively more value to its
project customers. It is believed that this provider focus is not used by known project
management systems and methods used by contractors, customers and system
integrators.
Referring to Figure 2, the four phases 6,8,10,12 of the project
scorecard 4 (Figures 3A-3C) preferably correspond to predetermined potential values
(e.g., points) 70. In this example, the predetermined potential values 72, 74, 76 and
78 are 35 points, 30 points, 20 points and 15 points for the respective phases 6, 8,10
and 12, although any suitable potential values may be employed for these phases. The
total potential value 80, in this example, is 100 points, although any suitable total
potential value may be employed.
Figures 3A-3C show that predetermined potential points 82 are
employed for each of the items of the four phases 6,8,10,12. For example, for the
managing equipment phase 10, the items 50, 52, 54, 56 and 58 employ predetermined
potential values 84, 86, 88, 90 and 92 of 3, 5, 5,4 and 3, respectively, which total 20
points, although any suitable potential values may be employed. It will be
appreciated that other predetermined potential values 82 are employed by the items of
the other three phases 6,8,12.
The project scorecard 4 preferably includes a selection of action taken
94 for each of the items of each of the phases 6,8,10,12. This may assist the evaluator

of the project manager with the assignment of the actual points 96 for those items as
will be discussed. In turn, the actual points 96 for each of the phases 6, 8,10 and 12
are manually or automatically summed to provide sub-totals 98, 100, 102 and 104,
respectively. Then, the sub-totals 98,100,102,104 are manually or automatically
summed to provide a total score 106 for the project scorecard 4.
The disclosed project scorecard 4 may be employed as the basis for an
overall project performance rating system, as an evaluation tool for the provider's
project manager (e.g., without limitation, a relatively higher total score 106 indicates a
relatively higher level of performance by the project manager), as a training program
outline (e.g., without limitation, to enable the project manager to learn specific
techniques to achieve the milestones under different project circumstances), and as an
outline for an incentive system. All of these elements focus on the unique needs of
the project managers of providers.
For example, the incentive system may be a points-based system where
the project manager earns points for meeting milestones and completing tasks
throughout the project. This is not a volume or purely margin-based system. Instead,
if the project manager is doing the right things, then the margin takes care of itself.
Hence, the project scorecard 4 measures and rewards the "right" project manager
behaviors, instead of the results of those behaviors. The incentive system may be run,
for example, in parallel with a conventional volume-based incentive plan for a
predetermined period of time (e.g., without limitation, a number of calendar quarters).
This allows the provider to verify the suitable compensation (e.g., without limitation,
dollars per point), in order to make sure that it fits with the provider's financial
budget. Preferably, risk of the particular project is assessed (Figure 6) as part of the
incentive plan, since scoring a relatively greater number of points on a project of
relatively greater risk should be rewarded as compared to, for example, scoring a
relatively fewer number of points on a project of relatively less risk.
It is believed that there is a direct link between a relatively higher
project manager scorecard total score 106 and the financial results of an individual
project. The project scorecard 4 puts a relative score 96 on effective project
management best practices (i.e., the various items of the four phases 6,8,10,12) that
are preferably generated by statistical data from a range of projects (as shown in

Figure 4). This answers the question: "How do you measure the bad things that don't
happen because you avoided them with effective project management?" As shown in
Figure 4, the total scores 106 from various project scorecards 4 (project management
score) are plotted against the financial performance (AZ), as will be described, of the
corresponding projects from the later of order entry or the project being assigned to
the project manager, to the close of the project. The budgeted margin of the project at
the time of sale is not considered. Only the change in margin after the project is
assigned to a project manager is considered.
For example, as shown in Figure 4, a significant number of past
projects were reviewed and scored, in order to verify the relationship between the
project manager's project scorecard total score 106 and the financial performance of
the project after the project manager was assigned. Since the past projects did not
employ all of the scorecard items, it was impossible for a past project to score the full
amount of points 80 of Figure 2 (e.g., without limitation, 100). However, the various
project managers all use some of those items. A range of scores on the example
projects was from 17 to 92 in Figure 4. When the financial performance of all of the
projects is plotted versus those scores, there is a clear trend 108 that all of the projects
followed-the higher the score, the better the financial performance. This shows that
there is a suitable correlation between the total scores 106 and the financial
performance of the projects. Hence, this confirms that future projects will continue to
benefit from relatively higher scores.
The trend 108 of Figure 4 verifies that the closer the method is
followed (and, therefore, the more points that are earned on the project scorecard 4),
the better the financial performance of the project. The ΔZ account measures that
performance. Hence, the higher the project manager's score, the better the financial
performance of the project.
The project scorecard 4 is preferably the same for every project. The
items of the project scorecard 4 are done in the same order for every project. Hence,
consistency in this approach allows the provider to provide better service to its
customers and, also, to teach, evaluate and pay the project managers in-line with
delivering consistent performance to those customers.

Example 1
The following scoring guidelines provide example details on how to
score different levels of performance against a particular item in the project scorecard
4, in order to ensure consistent application across all projects and all project
managers. These relate to the selection of action taken 94 and the actual points 96 of
Figures 3A-3C.
In general, to get all of the potential points 82 on a particular item,
there should preferably be regular, scheduled activities and/or documented evidence
that the item is consistently done. If the item is generally done, but less formally,
verbally only, or not in every instance, then the scoring guideline should be roughly
half of the potential points 82 for the particular item. If an item was done in a cursory
or informal way, then a nominal point credit may be subject to a judgment call by the
scorer. On a two point item, this might result in a "0" score on the item, but on a five
point item, this might result in a "1" score.
The "Vision & Setup" phase 6 of the project scorecard 4 is intended to
evaluate the quality of communication between the sales teams and the project
manager (PM). Here, relevant questions include: How involved is the PM in the pre-
order phase of projects with the sales teams? Is the PM included in construction
meetings? Do sales engineers (SEs) know the load capacity of the PM? Does the PM
have a vision of potential upcoming orders?
The "Vision & Setup" phase 6 includes: forecasting upcoming projects
with sales 14; risk assessment being completed and approved 16; establishing project
milestones 18; obtaining approval of terms and conditions 20; project review prior to
order close 22; the project manager has a role in order closing 24; and the transition
meeting 26.
Forecasting 14 considers: Is this formally communicated? Is the PM's
name assigned to upcoming potential projects?
Risk assessment 16 (as shown for example, in Figure 6) determines
areas to focus on and quantifies risks. Is this or another formal tool used?
Complexity and sheer project size have a good deal to do with filling the capacity of
project managers. A Risk Assessment tool 110 (Figure 6) is preferably employed to
acknowledge that relatively larger and more complex projects are worth more points

in the incentive and evaluation systems than relatively smaller and less complex
projects. The Risk Assessment tool 110 is used before the start of the project (e.g.,
without limitation, pre-order), as an indicator of how much money or margin will be
needed in a project to ensure that it finishes at an acceptable level. Risk assessment
16 does not figure into financial measurements. For example, even relatively high
risk projects, if run properly (and, thus, earning a relative high project manager total
score 106), end up having positive Z movement (i.e., +ΔZ) from the beginning to the
end of the project. The Risk Assessment tool 110 may, preferably, be employed in an
incentive system. Preferably, the final ΔZ is not directly tied to compensation of the
project manager, but is at least integral to the performance evaluation of the project
manager.
As a non-limiting example, a "normal" sized and "normal" complexity
project is worth 30 points in the incentive system. A relatively larger sized and more
complex project would be factored up using a suitable risk assessment score and a
project volume factor so that it may be worth 40,50 or more points. Hence, this
compensates the project manager for performing on relatively more difficult projects.
For obtain terms and conditions approval 20, in many instances, the
provider never obtains formal approval and plays "the battle of the [UCC] forms"
with the customer. If this is the case, then partial points can be awarded if the PM is
aggressively keeping ahead in that "battle".
Project review 22 and the project manager has a role in order closing
24 consider: Does sales act independently and throw orders over the fence or does the
PM get to examine the project before the order is taken, in order to put fresh eyes and
post order perspective into the process? Is the PM used as part of the value offering
on the project? Is the provider selling the value that a dedicated PM is worth
something to the customer?
The transition meeting 36 is a customer meeting with both sales and
the PM present. A formal meeting is preferred. Varying degrees of time and
formality are evident depending on a number of variables, but in many cases these
meetings are not done. If there is not an identifiable event where these activities were
integral to the agenda, then points must be deducted from the total potential points 82
for the corresponding items.

Rationalize plant schedules to milestones 34 considers that the PM has
to have milestones to get any points here. If such milestones, exist, then is there a
process in place to match items to the milestone schedule and communicate any
conflicts to either the plant, the customer or both?
The "Managing Information" phase 8 of the project scorecard 4
includes: formal order confirmation communication 38; communicate change notice
pricing and delivery policy 40; transition meeting with support team and operations
42; review approval drawings prior to submittal 44; obtain "approved as noted" on
submittals 46; and survey of vision and setup (managing information phase) 48.
Formal order confirmation 38 is focused on written correspondence.
The more detail and clarification, the more points should be awarded. If a letter or
email is general and does not reference specific issues regarding the project, then
points must be deducted from the total potential points for this item.
Communication change notice pricing and delivery policy 40
considers: Have we spelled out to the customer formally that changes during different
phases of the project will be handled differently? For example, a change before
drawings are produced is less expensive than the same change after equipment is
released.
Clean Order Entry Checklists are formal documents that various
providers employ. When they are done relatively early, even if it means that order
entry is delayed, it is better. Partial points can be awarded for prompt submittal of
these documents if after order entry. Clean Order Entry Checklists are a tool used as
part of the transition meeting with support team and operations 42. This is an internal
meeting where specific requirements from the customer transition meeting are
communicated to all internal stakeholders on the project. Clean Order Entry
Checklists are required by the product factories to confirm various technical items.
One non-limiting example of an item included would be the size of the customer's
cables feeding into and out of the provider's equipment. The price and other
commercial aspects are not affected, but the correct provisions need to be included in
the equipment.
Review approval drawings prior to submittal 44 considers that the best
practice is for the PM to do a complete review of the approval drawings before

sharing them with the customer. Hence, mistakes and misinterpretations are corrected
and the drawings may need to be re-issued.
Obtain "Approved as Noted" on submittals 46 considers that taking a
delay at this stage of the project is better than risking a "Revise and Resubmit" cycle.
Full points should only be awarded where a summary of clarifications and any
assumptions are included with approval drawings to facilitate approval on the first
drawing cycle. One drawing cycle is not realistic in some situations, so the scorer
will have to determine a best judgment as to whether the minimum number of
drawing cycles possible was achieved.
Survey of vision and setup and managing information phase 48
considers the advantages of measuring the most important initial phases 6,8 of the
project early in the project cycle rather than waiting until the end of the project, which
only gives good customer feedback on the latter phases of the project.
The "Managing Equipment" phase 10 of the project scorecard 4
considers: verify drawings against equipment built 50; manage the transportation to
site 52; manage the equipment on site 54; start-up of equipment and operator training
56; and survey of managing equipment phase 58.
Verify drawings against equipment built 50 considers that witness tests
are the best way to do this, but are not always possible. Digital photographs or
another suitable method of making sure that the customer's drawings have been
matched to the equipment before shipment is desired. Here, there is the scorer's
judgment call as to the actual points 96 for this item. The more rigorous and complete
the process, the more actual points should be awarded.
Manage the transportation to site 52 considers communication of
shipping reference information and schedules, carrier contact information, equipment
needed to off load equipment and any special instructions. The more formal the
communication, the more actual points 96 for this item should be awarded.
Manage the equipment on site 54 considers formal communication
giving on site storage instructions and detailed instructions for inspecting for damage
in transit. This insulates the providers from back charges later in the project.
Start-up of equipment and operator training 56 is usually a separate
order item. If it is not a part of the order, then it should be communicated formally

that the service is available for an additional cost and is recommended to ensure a
smooth commissioning process. If it is included in the order, then what is involved is
scheduling engineering services time to conduct the training and providing to the
service engineer the scope of work and equipment details.
Survey of managing equipment phase 58 is intended to get specific
feedback on this managing equipment phase 10 mainly from the customer contacts on
the job site as opposed to the front office.
The "Close Out and Feedback" phase 12 of the project scorecard 4
considers: equipment documentation accepted on first attempt 60; internal project
review against order baseline 62; financial review with customer 64; introduce after
market contacts and distributor support 66; and customer survey 68.
Equipment documentation accepted on first attempt 60 considers:
Were the Operation and Maintenance Manuals (O&Ms) and other documentation
accepted by the customer on the first submittal? This is really a "Yes or No"
question.
Preferably, the project scorecard 4 employs a periodic (e.g., without
limitation, monthly) report format 112 (as shown in Figure 5) that makes performance
on a number of projects, each of which moves forward in different phases, visible to
both the project manager and his/her management. Internal project review against
order baseline (e.g., ΔZ (or Delta Z) account summary) is intended to track financial
performance and especially the changes to the position of the project from order entry
to project close. In the project management monthly report format 112, the AZ
account is an internal account where additional margin is collected above the
authorized plant levels both on the original order and on change notices. Back
charges, premium freight, sales errors and commercial concessions related to the job
are deducted from this account. The ΔZ account balance from the beginning of a
project to the end of the project captures the sum total of the extra margin taken in and
all of the concessions made on a particular project. In short, the ΔZ account balance
measures the financial performance of the project manager regardless of the purchase
price of the project, as sold.
As shown in Figure 5, the periodic report 112 includes sub-totals
114, 116, 118, 120 for each of the predetermined project phases 6, 8, 10, 12 for the

various different projects 122, 124, 126, 128, 130 of the project manager. Preferably,
these sub-totals 114, 116, 118, 120 and the sum 132 for the corresponding project are
displayed with a corresponding indicator 134, 136, 138 of the performance of the
project manager. These indicators 134, 136, 138 are selected from a plurality of
different indicators (e.g., without limitation, yellow; red; green, respectively)
corresponding to relative performance (e.g., without limitation, needs improvement;
poor; good, respectively) of the project manager.
Regardless of the particular project manager, the same project manager
scorecard 4 is preferably employed for each different project of the provider. The
predetermined project phases 6,8,10,12 of Figure 1 and the predetermined project
milestones, such as 50,52,54,56,58 of Figure 3B, are objectively determined from, for
example, "best practices" of a wide range of different projects. The actual points 96
of Figures 3A-3C for each of those predetermined project milestones are preferably
subjectively determined by the evaluator of the project manager based upon all
objective data at hand. In Figure 5, each of the total points 106 (Figures 3A-3C) for
the different projects are preferably employed to evaluate the project manager.
Referring again to Figures 3A-3C, financial review with customer 64
considers: Has a formal communication been sent to and agreed to by the customer
regarding the financial status of the project? Is there any retention or open items that
are holding up payment to either the distributor (e.g., without limitation, a "middle
man"; an electrical wholesaler) or to the provider? Full points should only be
awarded where this communication is formal or a written confirmation of a verbal
agreement.
Customer survey 68 is primarily a back to the front office focused
survey. The objectives are to gain feedback on things the provider could improve on,
but also (very important), to ensure that the customer recognizes the value of the
project management service in order to set up future business.
Example 2
Customer satisfaction is preferably measured by three example surveys
48,58,68 that are done during the course of a project. Hence, the provider can
compare and link relatively strong performance on the project scorecard 4 at sub-
totals 100,102,104 to relatively high customer satisfaction ratings in these surveys.

By doing the surveys 48,58,68 at different points in the project and corresponding to
the predetermined project phases 8,10,12, respectively, of the scorecard 4, the
provider can use customer satisfaction as another measure of project manager
effectiveness and of the overall effectiveness of the disclosed evaluation method.
Linking relatively high scores from the scorecard 4 to both improved financial
performance and increased customer satisfaction is also employed. For example, for
ease of comparison and linking, the customer satisfaction ratings can be normalized to
the predetermined potential values 74,76,78.
The disclosed method drives consistency and profitability into project
management. This is particularly beneficial for a provider since it favorably impacts
the profitability of the projects of the provider. This is also very beneficial for a
customer of the provider since it favorably impacts performance of the project on or
suitably close to project schedule, thereby providing documentation and defense for
coordination of trade issues associated with the customer's related projects from
different providers.
Preferably, the scorecard 4 and the monthly report format 112 are
suitably output by, for example, being manually or automatically printed on hard
copy, although it will be appreciated that such information may be displayed, stored,
be computer modified, or be combined with other data. All such processing shall be
deemed to fall within the terms "display" or "displaying" as employed herein.
While specific embodiments of the invention have been described in
detail, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that various modifications and
alternatives to those details could be developed in light of the overall teachings of the
disclosure. Accordingly, the particular arrangements disclosed are meant to be
illustrative only and not limiting as to the scope of the invention which is to be given
the full breadth of the claims appended and any and all equivalents thereof.

What is Claimed is:
1. A method of evaluating a project manager of a project of a
provider, said project being for a customer, said method comprising:
utilizing a project manager scorecard comprising a plurality of
predetermined project phases which are common to a plurality of different projects;
including with each of said predetermined project phases a
plurality of predetermined project milestones which are common to said different
projects;
pre-assigning a potential value to each of said predetermined
project milestones for said different projects;
evaluating said project manager with respect to said
predetermined project milestones and responsively assigning an assigned value, which
is less than or equal to the potential value, for each of said predetermined project
milestones;
determining a sum of the assigned value for each of said
predetermined project milestones; and
evaluating performance of said project manager on said project
of the provider based upon said sum.
2. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
employing as said predetermined project phases a vision and
set-up phase, a managing information phase, a managing equipment phase and a close
out and feedback phase.
3. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
providing an incentive plan for the project manager as a
function of said sum.
4. The method of Claim 3 further comprising
assessing risk of said project of the provider as part of said
incentive plan.
5. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
employing managing equipment and approving information
related to said equipment as at least some of said predetermined project phases.

6. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
determining financial performance of said project of the
provider; and
correlating said sum to said determined financial performance.
7. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
employing the same project manager scorecard for each of said
different projects;
objectively determining said predetermined project phases;
objectively determining said predetermined project milestones;
and
subjectively assigning the assigned value for each of said
predetermined project milestones of said project of the provider.
8. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
employing a number of said predetermined project milestones
being related to a number of persons responsible to said provider and a number of
persons responsible to said customer.
9. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
tracking progress against said predetermined project milestones
as said project of the provider progresses.
10. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
employing said sum for a number of said different projects to
evaluate said project manager.
11. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
providing a training and development program for the project
manager based upon at least some of said predetermined project milestones and each
said assigned value therefor.
12. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
providing a incentive plan for the project manager based upon
said sum.

13. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
considering changes to financial performance of said project of
the provider from when the project manager is assigned to said project of the provider
to when said project of the provider is completed.
14. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
employing said sum for a number of said different projects; and
trending said sum versus financial performance of said different
projects.
15. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
providing a periodic report for the project manager including
said sum for said project of the provider; and
including with said periodic report a sum of assigned values for
at least another one of said different projects.
16. The method of Claim 15 further comprising
including with said periodic report a plurality of sub-totals of
each of said assigned value for each of the predetermined project phases for said
project of the provider and for said at least another one of said different projects.
17. The method of Claim 16 further comprising
displaying said sub-totals and said sum for said project of the
provider and for said at least another one of said different projects with a
corresponding indicator of the performance of said project manager.
18. The method of Claim 17 further comprising
selecting said corresponding indicator from a plurality of
different indicators corresponding to relative performance of said project manager.
19. The method of Claim 18 further comprising
selecting said different indicators from a plurality of different
colors.
20. The method of Claim 1 further comprising
measuring customer satisfaction through a plurality of surveys
during said project of the provider, each of said surveys corresponding to one of said
predetermined project phases; and

linking the measured customer satisfaction of each of said
surveys to a sum of the assigned value for the predetermined project milestones of a
corresponding one of said predetermined project phases.
21. A method of evaluating a project manager of a plurality of
different projects of a provider, said projects being for a number of customers, said
method comprising:
utilizing a project manager scorecard comprising a plurality of
predetermined project phases which are common to said different projects;
including with each of said predetermined project phases a
plurality of predetermined project milestones which are common to said different
projects;
pre-assigning a potential value to each of said predetermined
project milestones;
evaluating said project manager with respect to said
predetermined project milestones and responsively assigning an assigned value, which
is less than or equal to the potential value, for each of said predetermined project
milestones and for each of said different projects;
for each of said different projects, determining a sum of the
assigned value for each of said predetermined project milestones; and
evaluating performance of said project manager on said
different projects based upon said sum for each of said different projects.
22. The method of Claim 21 further comprising
providing a periodic report for the project manager including
said sum for each of said different projects; and
including with said periodic report a plurality of sub-totals of
each of said assigned value for each of the predetermined project phases for each of
said different projects.
23. The method of Claim 22 further comprising
displaying said sub-totals and said sum for each of said
different projects with a corresponding indicator of the performance of said project
manager.

24. The method of Claim 23 further comprising
selecting said corresponding indicator from a plurality of
different indicators corresponding to relative performance of said project manager.

REFERENCE NUMERICAL LIST
2 project
4 project management process scorecard (or project scorecard)
6 vision and set-up phase
8 managing information phase
10 managing equipment phase
12 close out and feedback phase
14 forecasting upcoming projects with sales
16 risk assessment completed and approved
18 establish project milestones (scope timing requirements)
20 obtain terms and conditions approval
22 project review prior to order close
24 the project manager has a role in order closing
26 meet contacts face-to-face
28 document any unclear areas (where information is needed to proceed)
30 establish order baseline
32 establish project milestone matrix
34 rationalize plant schedules to project milestones
36 transition meeting
38 formal order confirmation communication
40 communicate change notice pricing and delivery policy
42 transition meeting with support team and operations
44 review approval drawings prior to submittal
46 obtain "approved as noted" on submittals
48 survey of vision and setup (managing information phase)
50 verify drawings against equipment built
52 manage the transportation to site
54 manage the equipment on site
56 start-up of equipment and operator training
58 survey of managing equipment phase
60 equipment documentation accepted on first attempt
62 internal project review against order baseline
64 financial review with customer
66 introduce after market contacts and distributor support
68 customer survey by DM, TL and sales
70 predetermined potential values (e.g., points)
72 predetermined potential value
74 predetermined potential value
76 predetermined potential value
78 predetermined potential value
80 total potential value
82 predetermined potential points
84 predetermined potential value
86 predetermined potential value
88 predetermined potential value
90 predetermined potential value
92 predetermined potential value

94 selection of action taken
96 actual points
98 sub-total
100 sub-total
102 sub-total
104 sub-total
106 total score
108 trend
110 Risk Assessment tool
112 monthly report format
114 sub-total
116 sub-total
118 sub-total
120 sub-total
122 project
124 project
126 project
128 project
130 project
132 sum
134 indicator of the performance of the project manager
136 indicator
138 indicator

A method evaluates a project manager of a project of a provider, the
project being for a customer. The method includes utilizing a project manager
scorecard (4) comprising a plurality of predetermined project phases (6,8,10,12)
which are common to a plurality of different projects, and including with each of the
predetermined project phases a plurality of predetermined project milestones
(50,52,54,56,58) which are common to the different projects. A potential value (82)
is pre-assigned to each of the predetermined project milestones for the different
projects. The project manager is evaluated (94) with respect to the predetermined
project milestones and an assigned value (96), which is less than or equal to the
potential value, is responsively assigned for each of the predetermined project
milestones. A sum (106) is determined of the assigned value for each of the
predetermined project milestones. The performance of the project manager on the
project of the provider is evaluated based upon the sum.