Evaluate team performance

I am sure you realize the value of performance evaluation when it is done well. In fact, the discussion in the previous section about feedback says it all. Willing workers cannot improve without receiving feedback directly related to their performance, and such feedback is only available through an objective and periodic evaluation process. Evaluation is the key to accountability and responsibility as I detail in the next chapter. Here, I offer a few guidelines regarding the evaluation of safety teams so they might improve their performance. 

Your team needs to evaluate its performance periodically in order to assess successive improvements made possible by prior evaluations. Then, it has reason to celebrate its accomplishments. Quality team celebrations (as discussed in Chapter 13) are the key to enhancing team cohesiveness and mutual responsibility toward Ihe accomplishment of more shared goals. 

It is important to realize that although performance evaluation is listed sixth in this list of successive teamwork steps, this topic is inherent in every step. Whether selecting team members, establishing a team charter, or setting goals and assigning task responsibilities, evaluation plays an integral role. 

Team members continually evaluate each other s opinions and reactions throughout group discussions in order to arrive at decisions everyone can support. The presentation of project reports at team meeting is essentially an evaluation process. Team members appraise whether a project is progressing as planned and decide whether the time line 

Each item of the survey refers to a particular aspect Highly Agree  

---

Validation Team A well-defined validation team with a well-written description of responsibilities is required and assures the adequate realization of the validation tasks. A validation team should be composed by different responsibilities responsible-of-validation team, team leader, archive manager, test coordinator, quality assurance member, tester, and witness. The responsible-for-validation team elaborates and approves the VMP, protocols, and reports. The team leader should be responsible for the computer system validation and utilization. An archive manager is responsible for the management of all computer system validation documents. The test coordinator is responsible for the computer system test and coordinates the elaboration and operation of tests for evaluating the performance of the computer system. A quality assurance member is required to periodically inspect and train the personnel and review all the validation documents. The tester is responsible for the execution of the tests required to perform the validation protocol. The witness is responsible for observing and reviewing the operations of the tester. 

Preparing the appropriation estimate and MPS offers the Project Manager and the entire project team an excellent opportunity to get a firm grip on the project and gives them the best tools to monitor and evaluate contractors performance. As an experienced project manager said once... 

Superior full-scan duty cycle of the ion trap allowed Kantharaj et al. [63,309,310] to acquire on-the-fly MS/MS data for all the ions formed over a predetermined threshold (data-dependent MS/MS scan). For discovery compounds, which showed more than 20% metabolic turnover after 15 min of incubation, metabolite profiling evaluation was performed by interpreting the data-dependent MS/MS scans. Interpretation of the MS/MS scans involved comparison of the parent ion fragments with that of the metabolites. Once the structural elucidation was complete, data were discussed with the discovery teams and/or medicinal chemists to modify the structure for metabolic stability. 

Team effectiveness can be assessed by both qnalitative and quantitative measures (Tandy and Fan 1983 Guzzo and Dickson 1996). Qutilitative measures are more subjective and judgmental, such as ratings that require individimls to evaluate the performance of the tetun (e.g.. Campion et ah 1993). Quantitative measures, on the other hand, are objective and nonjudg-mental, such as reduction in length of stay, dollars saved, and reduction in error rate (e.g., CHSRA 1995). 

US NRC (2000) also raised several human performance issues associated with CBPs. The issues are as follows methodological and criterion requirements for evaluating CBP effects, role of plant personnel in procedure management, team performance, situation awareness, response planning, and operator error level of automation of procedure functions keyhole effects and use of multiple CBP procedures CBP failure in complex situations hybrid procedure systems and specific CBP design features. 

Instead, planning must expand the range of options considered in each element. Iterative review and realistic red-teaming challenge assumptions built into plans and promote itmovations in defense to successfully respond to the threats. The scope of red-teaming and review should encompass the threats and activities against which performance is assessed and the evaluations of performance are made. 

The fact that the evaluation is performed via a project team presents certain constraints, however ... 

In a performance-based approach to build structures, all decisions, choices, and tradeoffs start with the required behavior-in-use rather than prescribed solutions for how to meet the stated needs. The supplier responds with an offering that includes the estimated performance of that offering. A validation method, through measurement, calculation, or testing, is necessary to evaluate the performance (over time) and to compare alternative solutions (Szigeti Davis, 2005). The design/build team must warrantee and main-... 

There are several methods and tools that evaluate the performance of HS, E or Q. Some of these are developed to assess the performance of supplying companies while another have been developed to assess the principal companies performance. Kjellen (2000) lists three different data collection methods self-evaluation by a company rating team, rating by an independent assessor (third-party evaluations) and questionnaire to the workforce. 

In actual HSEQ meeting evaluation team (consisting of the main assessor and up to three assessors from different principal companies) visits the supplying company to perform the HSEQ assessment. 

Module 6 is the assessment phase. The evaluation of each student team performance is done through dry labs, development of experimental plans and management of time in the experiments in the lab, communication of the experimental results through statistical analysis and also in the form of reports. 

The process for the formal evaluation of student performance should be developed for each module in order to confirm the ability of each student to fulfil his or her task as an inspector/ inspector assistant. A final evaluation of student performance, based upon an overall assessment of all module evaluations and performance reports, will determine the final decision regarding the hiring of trainees into the OPC W and the selection of team leaders. 

My guess is most readers will find Figure 17.8 humorous. Why What is the problem with most performance appraisals If performance appraisals were objective, fair, and based on behavior, you would not see any humor in this illustration. Right So, a useful evaluation of team performance needs to be objective, fair, and related to changeable behaviors and conditions. 

Additionally, the reactor operators developed a code of ethics (Reference 5), adopted at all three reactor facilities, that commits them to operate those facilities in a safe, reliable, and skilled manner. The operators interviewed by the evaluation team believed in and embraced that code of ethics, Raised on the above, we find that the criterion to provide operational performance standards is acceptably satisfied. 

Constructive criticism and feedback is also provided to employees through the critiques that are performed of plant incidents. These critiques provide valuable lessons learned, and interviews by the evaluation team confirmed that they are required reading for operators. 

Simulator exams shall be required. Both team performance and individual performance shall be evaluated. 

---