How do we compare projects without rewarding easy work?
Unfair performance comparisonAccount for differences in complexity, uncertainty, constraints, and outcome significance. Use comparison to learn and allocate support, not to create a simplistic league table.
What to do now
- Define the comparison's purpose
- Group reasonably comparable work
- Include context and outcome evidence
- Discuss patterns rather than raw rankings
When to escalate
The comparison drives consequential personnel or investment decisions without context.
The metric owner and relevant decision maker
Example
Projects with different regulatory and integration demands are not judged by identical raw delivery counts.
Mistake to avoid
Ranking project managers solely by the number of tasks closed.
Prevent a repeat
Check data freshness and meaning, and verify that the measure improves decisions rather than encouraging cosmetic progress.
Suggested ApprovedFlow setup
- Projects
- Tasks
- Timesheets
- Documents
Use the underlying named records and evidence when explaining a metric; validate any dashboard behavior against the current implementation. See the platform
Related cases
- A metric improved after we changed its definition. Can we claim success?Broken metric comparability
- Our dashboard is green while the site has unresolved work. How do we fix it?Summary disconnected from evidence
- Management compares story points between teams. Is that useful?Invalid cross-team comparison
- How do we evaluate vendor performance fairly?Inconsistent supplier assessment