Performance evaluation in IT company
7 likes5,841 views
The document outlines the evolution of the performance review process at CQG Ukraine, detailing its growth from informal evaluations in the 1980s to a structured, competency-based system by 2012. Key milestones include the introduction of semi-annual reviews, external and internal tools for feedback, and the establishment of defined roles and competencies. Future plans involve the development of an in-house web-based solution for performance evaluation utilizing key performance indicators.
Performance evaluation in IT company
- 1. Building performance review process in IT company CQG Ukraine Dmitry Guyvoronsky
- 3. About us Proprietary solutions for financial trading industry Client/server software High quality and performance requirements Own product, almost no external customers Long-term employment (5+ years on average)
- 4. History Product development expansion 1980: CQG founded in Denver (2 employees) 1998: Moscow office (50+) 2004: Kiev, Samara, Yerevan (120+) 2006: Zelenograd (250+)
- 5. Employees over time (very approximately)
- 6. Present day 6 development offices, 15 offices worldwide, 300+ developers, 500+ employees total Average employee spent 5+ years in company, some spent 15+ yrs 100+ projects / year We love numbers - and collect a lot of metrics LOCs, defects, code review rate, D/density, time distribution
- 8. 1980-1990 The beginning 10-50 employees, “family business” Single office, everyone knows everyone Ad-hoc performance management No formal process No defined expectations
- 9. 1990-2003 Sizing up 60-120 employees 2 PD offices, distributed development Annual performance review w/ manager Basic process (paper-form feedbacks, Word documents, emails, set of questions) No software tools
- 10. 2004-2007 Rapid growth 120-350 employees 6 offices Semi-annual performance review w/ different managers Formally defined process (v1.0) For everybody (not only PD) External software - 360degree, SuccessFactors, iVantage
- 11. Process v1.0 Roles defined Developer, Team Lead, Process Coach, Project Manager, System Owner, Resource Director, etc. Formal job description for each role Success criteria for each role
- 12. Process v1.0 Core competencies defined for each role: Developer: drive for results, quantity, quality, functional skills, timeliness Team Lead: building effective teams, motivating others, organizing Process Coach: customer focus, presentation skills Project Manager: dealing with ambiguity, negotiating, informing, ...
- 13. Define: Competence(y) Ability of an individual to perform a job properly. A competency is a set of defined behaviors that provide a structured guide enabling the identification, evaluation and development of the behaviors in individual employees. As defined, the term "competence" first appeared 1970 article titled "Planning the Executive Development Program" Has since been popularized by McBer & Company (currently the "Hay Group") colleague Richard Boyatzis and many others
- 14. Competency example BUILDS EFFECTIVE TEAMS: Blends people into teams when needed; creates strong morale and spirit in his/her team; shares wins and successes; fosters open dialogue; lets people finish and be responsible for their work; defines success in terms of the whole team; creates a feeling of belonging in the team. Unskilled: Doesn’t assemble, build or manage in a team fashion Doesn’t create a common mindset or common challenge; rewards and compliments individuals, not the team Doesn’t manage in a way that builds team morale or energy ...
- 15. Process v1.0 Team Process Project Self Dev Lead Coach Manager Dev + Team + + + Lead Process + + + Coach Project + + + Manager
- 16. Process v1.0 Semi-annual cycle, May/Dec External tools to collect and process feedback 2 weeks to collect/process feedback 1 month for performance talks
- 17. Process v1.0 Pros Defined process known to everybody Success criteria for each role Documented performance history Cons “Shtirlitz syndrome” (only last project matters) No correlation with project metrics No direct comparison External tools suck at large
- 18. 2008-2012 Stable success 350-500+ employees 6 offices, more sales/support offices worldwide Semi-annual performance review w/ different managers Formally defined process (v2.0) External tools partially replaced with internal tools Grades for developers (QA, SysAdmins, ...) Product/department goals formally defined
- 19. Process v2.0 Additional roles defined (Business Analyst, ...) Same competencies-based approach
- 20. Process v2.0 New: Project-based performance feedback 2 weeks after project went to production Collected for whole project team Discussed and corrected at project postmortem (metrics could be included)
- 21. Process v2.0 Semi-annual feedback form refined Competencies now include numeric ratings along with free-form text Switched from external tool to Excel forms for pilot project
- 22. Process v2.0 Grades introduced Junior/Regular/Senior/Lead Developer/AT engineer/Sysadm/SCM engineer Grade depends on Technical skills Leadership Process maturity English level Grades help define roadmap for personal development
- 23. Process v2.0 Pros Defined process known to everybody Success criteria for each role Documented performance history Short-term (project-based) + long-term (6 months) feedback = more complete feedbacks Ratings = analytics & reporting becomes possible (aggregated) Grades define requirements for personal/professional growth Cons Still lacking correlation with project metrics (remember, we love numbers!) Excel automation sucks too
- 24. What’s next? Sky is the limit
- 25. 2012 and beyond Replace ext. tools with in-house solution Web-based Integrated with project database Previous history imported Easy to use on daily basis Use KPI/metrics for annual performance evaluation where appropriate - Team Leads, Project Managers, Business Drivers, ...