Without further explanation, the list below consists of our 10 CTQ (critical to quality) factors viewed through our classic T-O-P-P framework which we find priceless when engaging long-distant service providers to discuss challenges and improvement areas.

1. 2020 performance summary
Put service
provider logo
here

2. Did not meet expectations 0
Rarely meets expectations 1
Sometimes meets expectations 2
Consistently meets expectations 3
Exceeded expectations 4
Assessment scale

3. DAILY PERFORMANCE assessment for 2020
Technical 1 2 3 4 5
1. Product uptime – n° hours where IT products and services was not available to
clients due to lost connectivity X
2. Connectivity – Represents the quality of communication and the effectiveness of
the devices used (e.g. laptops) to ensure that the assigned work is completed X
3. Legacy code performance & reliability – Represents the consistency of the product
released in production & user experience (e.g. amount of unexpected rework on
code already delivered, lost code, performance issues from poorly constructed
queries, etc.)
X
Organisation / Collaboration / Teamwork
3. Availability of staff - Represents the number of hours dedicated to agreed work X
4. Communication & collaboration among the team - Represents the quality in which
the team communicates among themselves to optimise the daily handoffs of work
from colleague to colleague while minimising downtime & confusion
X
5. Overall organisation and ability to plan future tasks - the overall organisation of the
team to ensure that each product deliverable agreed, distributed and managed
effectively to completion.
X
Process & Product
6. Quality of deliverables received - Represents the level of quality of work
completed and delivered to client for testing and/or client delivery X
7. Quickness on delivery – Represents the overall quickness from the time a single
task is identified and the time it is completed X
People
9. Responsiveness & concentration - How responsive and focused the staff is in the
day-to-day management of phone calls, messages, etc. X
10. Knowledge of the product – How confident the developer is in making a
commitment to a new work order based on estimated required R&D X

4. Notes
Technical 2020 Score
1. Product uptime 4 • 2 total instances reported in 2020. 3 total hours lost
2. Connectivity 2.5
• Several instances of downtime & confusion due to lost internet access
• Machine setup / failure (e.g. Git)
3. Legacy code performance &
reliability
3.5
• Since April more than 35 hours have been dedicated to the research & resolution
of code
Organisation / Collaboration /
Teamwork
3. Availability of staff - 2.5 • 11 unplanned absences
4. Communication & collaboration
among the team -
2.75 • There is still excessive confusion & downtime when handing off tasks. Can improve
5. Overall organisation and ability
to plan future tasks - 2
• Consistently underestimating effort required for workorders
• Several instances occurred that delivery was postponed due to planned vacation
days which weren’t considered in the initial timeline
Process & Product
6. Quality of code received
3.5
• When RXXXX concentrates, his work is very thorough with minimal bugs
• RXXXX deliverers high quality work quickly but sometimes breaks old code or
leaves something unfinished due to the quickness in his delivery
7. Quickness on task delivery 2.5
• In the 2nd half of 2020 XXXXX has made significant improvements in delivering fixes
quickly based on his estimations
People
9. Responsiveness & concentration
-
2.75
• RXXXXX is improving in his responsiveness online with random issues of lost
messaging & lack of response
10. Knowledge of the product –
2.75
• RXXXX is doing a good job to understand product with occasional necessity to
dedicate time to R&D to understand how to approach his assignments. He has
repeated on several occasions that the KT exercise could have been optimised

5. 2020 Performance Score
2.85
Sometimes meets expectations
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Knowledge of product
Responsiveness & concentration
Quickness in delivery on agreed tasks
Quality of code received
Overall ability to plan for the future
Communication among team
Availability of staff
Legacy code performance & reliability
Connectivity among the team
Product uptime
Score

6. Did not meet expectations 0 + 0%
Rarely meets expectations 1 + 0%
Sometimes meets expectations 2 + 0%
Consistently meets expectations 3 + 5%
Exceeded expectations 4
Fair pricing for 2021