Scored project assessments
A calculator answers a bounded question. An assessment scores a whole position, interprets it against bands, and tells you what to do next. Everything runs in your browser.
This assessment scores a single project's adherence to the Construction Management Excellence Framework — six performance domains, each with a defined cadence, a measurable output and a single named owner. Read the framework.
Weakest: Mobilisation & first-30-day cadence (65)
Weakest: Baseline integration model (54)
Weakest: PPC tracking & field reporting (58)
Weakest: Change control & cash flow (62)
Weakest: Independent assurance triggers (45)
Weakest: Lessons-learned capture & embedding (35)
Charter agreed, stakeholder map live, decision rights named
Mobilisation plan executed; reporting rhythm established from day one
Schedule, cost and risk baselines exist, are approved and are under change control
The three baselines are linked — a slip moves the forecast automatically
Six-week look-ahead with constraint analysis, run by the people doing the work
Percent Plan Complete measured weekly; daily field reporting is actually used
EVM run on a fixed cadence; EAC rebuilt, not extrapolated
No work without instruction; cash flow forecast maintained against the programme
Register current, owners named, triggers defined, reviewed weekly at leadership level
Defined events that force an independent check, and evidence they have fired
Staged commissioning, verified snag closure, statutory approvals tracked to issue
Captured with owners, and the target standard or template actually amended
Ranked by points lost, not by raw score
A 62 on a 20%-weighted category costs more than a 54 on a 10% one — weight decides where the effort goes.
- 1Baseline integration modelscore 54 · weight 9%−4.14DEFINED
- 2Lessons-learned capture & embeddingscore 35 · weight 6%−3.90INITIAL
- 3Independent assurance triggersscore 45 · weight 7%−3.85DEFINED
- 4PPC tracking & field reportingscore 58 · weight 9%−3.78DEFINED
15 actions from this scoring
Some linkage exists but it is manual and periodic. Define how a schedule change propagates to the cost forecast and the risk exposure, and who performs it.
Nothing is being captured, and the knowledge leaves when the team does. This is the cheapest item in the framework and the only one that cannot be recovered later — book the first session this month.
Assurance triggers are defined but have never fired, which usually means the thresholds are set where nothing reaches them. Review whether the triggers are real or decorative.
PPC is measured but not acted on. A falling PPC trend predicts the slip weeks before the master programme shows it — put the trend in front of leadership, not in an appendix.
Change control exists on paper but is bypassed under time pressure. Every bypass becomes an entitlement argument later — enforce the threshold or lower it to one people will actually use.
Register discipline is good. Test the top three exposures against remaining contingency — that reconciliation is what turns a register into a control.
EVM cadence is solid. Rebuild the EAC bottom-up at least quarterly and reconcile it against the trend — where they diverge, the trend is usually optimistic.
Pull planning is working. Push the constraint analysis further out so constraints are removed before they bite, not logged as they do.
Closeout is under control. Split claimed-complete from verified-complete — the gap between the two is where the final inspection surprises come from.
Cadence is established and holding. Test whether the outputs are actually read — a report nobody uses is cadence without control.
Baselines are sound and controlled. Verify the schedule baseline still reflects the actual construction methodology, not the tender assumption.
Charter and stakeholder map are in place. Refresh the stakeholder map at each stage change; the influential parties at consent are not the ones that matter at handover.
Baseline integrity is good while the integration model is weak — three well-kept records in three separate places. A schedule slip that does not move the cost forecast means the integration model is decorative. This is the highest-value fix available to this project.
The collaborative planning is happening but nothing measures whether the plan is achieved. PPC is what converts the ritual into a control — without it you have well-attended meetings, not a production system.
Assurance triggers are the mechanism that catches the other five domains failing. Below this level every other score on this page is self-reported. Restoring assurance is the single highest-leverage action in the framework.
How this score was produced
| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted | Points lost | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charter & stakeholder definition | 78 | 6% | 4.68 | 1.32 | MANAGED 78 |
| Mobilisation & first-30-day cadence | 65 | 6% | 3.90 | 2.10 | MANAGED 65 |
| Baseline integrity | 82 | 11% | 9.02 | 1.98 | MANAGED 82 |
| Baseline integration model | 54 | 9% | 4.86 | 4.14 | DEFINED 54 |
| Pull planning & look-aheads | 71 | 9% | 6.39 | 2.61 | MANAGED 71 |
| PPC tracking & field reporting | 58 | 9% | 5.22 | 3.78 | DEFINED 58 |
| EVM cadence & forecast at completion | 76 | 11% | 8.36 | 2.64 | MANAGED 76 |
| Change control & cash flow | 62 | 9% | 5.58 | 3.42 | DEFINED 62 |
| Live register & leadership review | 69 | 9% | 6.21 | 2.79 | MANAGED 69 |
| Independent assurance triggers | 45 | 7% | 3.15 | 3.85 | DEFINED 45 |
| Commissioning, snag closure & sign-off | 73 | 8% | 5.84 | 2.16 | MANAGED 73 |
| Lessons-learned capture & embedding | 35 | 6% | 2.10 | 3.90 | INITIAL 35 |
| Total | 100% | 65.31 | 34.69 |
Weighted score = Score × Weight ÷ 100. Final = sum of all weighted scores. Points lost = Weight × (100 − Score) ÷ 100.