Review results communication to the employee : This is the last step of the

196 CASE STUDIES Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Levels 1, 2 Items Plus . . . Level 4 Level 3 Plus Technical Expertise Demonstrates basic engineering skills. Work is of good quality. Works on tasks of low to medium complexity, based on specifications developed by others. Working technical knowledge in one technical area. Work employs company - wide BKMs. Shows consistent growth improvement in areas of contribution. Works on tasks of low to medium complexity, based on specifications developed by others. Regarded as an expert in area of contribution. Work has high quality consistent with the complexity and risk of assignment. Work either extends or employs company - wide BKMs. Shows consistent growth improvement in area of expertise and its application. Needs minimal assistance on medium to complex tasks. Regarded as an expert in several technical areas. Understands risks and manages them effectively. Exhibits initiative independence in finding ways to ramp up in new technical areas. Comfortable with medium to high complexity projects. Teamwork and Leadership Viewed by peers as a positive team player; demonstrates a professional attitude. Gives credit where credit is due. Viewed by peers as a positive team player; demonstrates a professional attitude. Displays a willingness to volunteer for projects outside job scope. Gives credit where credit is due. Viewed by peers as an excellent role model for communication, teamwork, and leadership skills. Shifts between leader and follower as needed. Sets clear expectations and requirements for team. Networks effectively to share methods and information to uncoversolve issues. Openly shares and accepts ideas. Viewed by manager as more of a peer than a subordinate. Builds credibility and consensus both within team and external to team. Identifies problems and solves them. Business Understanding Understands high level of how his work impacts the whole project. Understands how hisher work and that of hisher immediate work group fits business goals. Independently adapts hisher work and that of hisher immediate work group based on a solid understanding of business goals. Identifies, quantifies, and flags problems at a team level. Proactively generates possible solutions to problems including cost benefit analyses; drives solutions across the project. Project Human Resource Management 197 Problem Solving Actively seeks appropriate guidance to overcome roadblocks issues. Identifies, quantifies, and flags problems. Proposes viable solutions to problems and analyzes options with stakeholders. Investigates and overcomes challenges through creative methods, principals, and practices. Learnings from other projects are incorporated such that problems encountered previously are avoided on current project. May contribute to project - level productivity enhancements. Correctly implements technical solutions of a projecttask involving a small team of engineers. Crisply identifies problem statement and develops a phase solution plan. Contributes to productivity enhancements. Responsible for developing a function, reusable by other projects. Planning Scheduling Executes to schedule on assigned work with attention to detail. Clearly communicates workschedule to supervisor. Tracks progress against schedule. Detects and promptly flags schedule risks. Clearly communicates workschedule to supervisor. Develops own plansschedule; can organize and schedule group tasks. Recognizes the importance of setting, tracking, and meeting schedules. Identifies schedule - limiting tasks and proactively searches for improvements. Deals effectively with dynamically changing circumstances and minimizes negative impact consequences. Performs proper scoping of tasks and risk assessment. Detects schedule risks and communicates and addresses them quickly. Proactively provides options for controlling schedule change. Coach, Train Mentor Freely and proactively shares knowledge with others. Freely and proactively shares knowledge with others. Provides guidance to the projectteam in area of expertise. May lead or act as primary reviewer during designproject reviews. Considered the primary reviewer for high - level product documents. Clearly presents concepts to outside groups and upper - level management. Produces clear technical documents and training materials. Minimum Qualification Guidelines BS 0+ years experience. MS 0+ years experience. BS 3+ years experience or MS 2+ years experience. BS 4+ years experience or MS 3+ years experience or PhD 0+ years experience. 198 CASE STUDIES RATING AND RANKING The outcomes of the evaluation process are a measurement of employees ’ per- formances, rewarding those who performed to expectations, developing all employees, and adjusting their compensations. Some people think that the review and evaluation is done at a certain time, such as the beginning of the year, but the truth is that the review process is a year - long process. Managers ’ observa- tions of employee performance are continuous. Managers set the expectations for employee performance at the beginning of the year and communicate them clearly to employees. Table 9.1 shows the level of performance set by the organi- zation for the fi rst four job levels at SEMITech. Each employee should know these expectations by heart and perform according to their job level or higher. After all, employees are going to be measured against these expectations which means they are going to be “ Rated and Ranked ” with these performance metrics in mind. Direct Manager Rating DMR Managers evaluate annual employees ’ performances and determine their ratings. The “ rating ” is just an indication of the employee ’ s performance compared to the manager ’ s expectation and compared also to peers ’ performance. Simply put, it is a score of “ how each employee performed. ” The “ measuring stick ” is a matrix, such as the one in Table 9.1 , preset by the company or the specifi c department. The manager ’ s expectation is this measuring stick. It should not be set higher or lower than the expectation set for the employee ’ s job level. For example, if an employee is level 1, the manager ’ s expectation should not be that the employee should manage hisher own tasks or perform on par. At the same time, a level 4 employee should not be expected to be given low - level instructions on how to perform their tasks. For SEMITech, an employee gets one of five ratings: 1. Outstanding O: This rating indicates the employee consistently outperforms peers with similar job scope and responsibilities. 2. Overachieve OA: This indicates that the employee achieved results that go beyond the requirements of the job in all key areas. The employee often out- performs others with similar job descriptions and level. 3. Meet Expectation ME: The employee makes a solid contribution in key areas of responsibility with some guidance and supervision. The employee performs on par with peers with the same level and similar responsibilities. 4. Below Expectation BE: The employee successfully meets some but not all of the responsibilities and expectations outlined in Table 9.1 . Heshe requires substantial supervision for the level of experience at which heshe was hired. The employee performs below peers with similar responsibilities. 5. Need Improvement NI: Frequently does not meet job requirements and needs substantial supervision and more guidance than is justified to carry Project Human Resource Management 199 out responsibilities. Heshe consistently underperforms job requirements compared to peers with a similar level of experience. The DMR process is as follows: 1. The employee provides a self - assessment sheet describing the employee ’ s view of hisher performance. The self - assessment contains the employee ’ s current position and area of responsibilities, main achievements of the previous year, main strengths, and areas of improvements. 2. The manager and the employee discuss the self - assessment and feedback is provided by the employee ’ s peers and customers about hisher performance. They also discuss a development plan. The manager integrates the feedback with the self - assessment and has an initial review for the employee. 3. Based on the discussion, the performance matrix is created showing the employee ’ s self - assessment, the feedback solicited from peers, the manager ’ s observations, and a comparison of employee ’ s performance to his peers in the same team. The manager then assigns a “ Rating ” to the employee 4. The manager discusses his decision with his manager to ensure proper rating distribution. Then the manager creates a matrix with all employees ’ names and their ratings. The matrix also includes employees ’ levels and positions. See Table 9.2 . Organization Rating and Ranking Session After the manager decides on a rating for each of his subordinates, an objective rating and ranking calibration session is assembled on the organizational level Table 9.2 Direct Manager ’ s Rating and Ranking Matrix Rank Name Level Position 1 John Smith I 2 SW Engineer 2 Jane Doe 4 HW Engineer 3 Samantha Jay 1 SW Engineer 4 Dennis McDonald 3 SW Engineer 5 Vijay Krishna 5 SW Engineer 6 Hou Meng 4 SW Engineer 7 Sasha Tee 3 SW Engineer 8 Matt Pen 1 SW Engineer 9 Jacob Gauge 1 SW Engineer 10 Kyle Mist 1 HW Engineer 200 CASE STUDIES and attended by all peer managers of the same organization and the second - or third - level managers. The purpose of this staff level review is to ensure each employee ’ s performance is evaluated relative to the expectations of the job level set by the organization and the peer performance in other teams. In other words, the employee performance is not only measured against his immediate peers of the same team, but also against peers with the same job level from other teams in the organization. This is to ensure that peers from different teams in the same big organization are treated and compensated equally. This is an attempt to neu- tralize a manager ’ s bias. The following steps are SEMITech ’ s organization level rating and ranking process which spans across multiple sessions over one to three months. 1. Each manager provides his own list of employees with their performance rat- ings, positions, and job levels see Table 9.2 . 2. A matrix is created with all employees in the organization of the same job level and function. They are grouped together to rank them against one another. 3. The high - level managers review the matrix in depth and analyze the achieve- ments of all employees. These managers mark questionable ratings and make notes to question managers for details. 4. An R R meeting session is scheduled. The meeting starts with each manager justifying to the second - or third - level managers ’ questionable ratings, pro- motions, and demotions of hisher employees. This step is very emotional, as managers try to defend their employees ’ achievements as they reflect on their own performance eventually. It is very likely that high - level managers will ask their subordinate managers to reconsider some ratings for some employees and maybe re - rate them and submit a modified matrix. 5. It may take several sessions to reach a final Organization Rating and Ranking. The final outcome of these sessions is a calibrated rating and ranking matrix which means some ratings for some employees may change. An employee may not get promoted this year as hisher manager would have wished. Some employees may get promoted and some may get demoted. Historically speak- ing, about 90 to 95 percent of submitted employees ’ ratings are approved by the second - or third - level managers from the first time because all managers go through review training beforehand and they realize they have to justify every decision they make on employees ’ ratings. 6. The second - or third - level manager approves the final rating and ranking matrix after heshe considers SEMITech ’ s own performance rating distribu- tion guideline. The guideline is as follows: 15 to 20 percent for OutstandingOverachievers 65 to 75 percent Meet Expectation 5 to 15 percent Below ExpectationNeed Improvement ● ● ● Project Human Resource Management 201 7. After finalizing the organization R R matrix, each manager takes the ratings and integrates them in the employees ’ reviews with compensation changes made where applicable. Many of SEMITech ’ s employees wonder if their annual review and rating and ranking processes are the best method to measure employee performance. Employees point to the fact that the average employee worked for SEMITech for only five years. Senior management thinks the process provides the best and most fair method for employee evaluation. They point to the evidence that the company has been very successful in the industry for more than 30 years. Discussion items 1. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of SEMITech ’ s rating and ranking approach. 2. Does the employee ’ s promotion depend heavily on the marketing skill of their manager to represent them well during the R R session? 3. How do the government ’ s diversity quota and affirmative action impact SEMITech ’ s R R approach? 203

Chapter 10 PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS

MANAGEMENT This chapter contains six cases — one critical incident and five issue - based cases. The cases relate to Project Communications Management, Chapter 10 of the PMBOK ® Guide . The cases illustrate different approaches to promote communi- cation among project stakeholders both at the beginning of a project and during the mainstream activities. 1. The Russians Join Us Late at Night The Russians Join Us Late at Night is a critical incident, discussing an approach to promote communication among team members of different time zones. The case shows that the team members, especially the project manager, must be flexible in communication. It sounds easy. Is it also easy in practice? 2. Quest for Clear Quest for Clear is an issue - based case. It details an implementation of new change management software in one organization replacing the existing software. It is typical that such an initiative must involve managing changes. This case portrays the importance of communication to such an initiative and how the project manager must practice strong communication management. 3. Electronic Medical Record Electronic Medical Record is an issue - base case. It focuses on project communication in the early phases of a project life cycle. Such communication helps initiate conversations among project stakeholders, especially during the requirement gathering process. 204 CASE STUDIES 4. Improving Public Health Informatics Improving Public Health Informatics is an issue - based case. It provides an example of a project communication plan used by a project team. Such a communication plan is necessary for successful communication, especially for a project involving multiple groups of stakeholders. 5. A Simple Metric Goes a Long Way A Simple Metric Goes a Long Way is an issue - based case, discussing the development of a simple metric to report the status of projects. The metric is expected to promote cross - project coordination and executive oversight. 6. Executive Project Metrics As an issue - based case, Executive Project Metrics discusses the issue of how to communicate project status to senior executives. The case suggests some parameters that should be of executives ’ interest. It also provides an example of how such metrics work. CHAPTER SUMMARY Name of Case Area Supported by Case Case Type Author of Case The Russians Join Us Late at Night Communication in Different Time Zones Critical Incident Dragan Z. Milosevic, Russ J. Martinelli, and James M. Waddell Quest for Clear Communication Management Issue - based Case Mathias Sunardi Electronic Medical Record Communication Among Stakeholders Issue - based Case Mathius Sunardi and Abdi Mousar Improving Public Health Informatics Communication Plan Issue - based Case Abdi Mousar A Simple Metric Goes a Long Way Project Status Report Issue - based Case Art Cabanban Executive Project Metrics Project Status Report Issue - based Case Dragan Z. Milosevic, Peerasit Patanakul, and Sabin Srivannaboon