CSC 481 Knowledge-Based Systems Mutual Team Evaluation Winter 2001

Team Evaluation Evaluator Name:__________________


Read these directions carefully: Evaluate yourself and your fellow team members. For each one write the basis for evaluation. For example, worked together on detailed design and web server evaluation OR worked together on test planning and QA. Be as specific as possible. Remember: Documentation and quality will be an important part of the team evaluation.


For your self-evaluation please discuss specific reasons for your rating, either high or low. I will be looking for specific items in determining your contribution to the success of your team's project. If you rate yourself above average or great in a category, there must be specific accomplishments that support your claim.


Self evaluation: Circle one entry in each line

poor

Below average

average

Above average

Great

Don't know

communication - participation in group meetings, keeping group members up to date on work status

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Reasons:


reliability - does tasks on time

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Reasons:


quality of work product

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Reasons:


willingness to do fair share (or more) of the work

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Reasons:


team player - able to compromise and think win-win

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Reasons:


technical contribution

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Reasons:


Overall grade relative to the rest of the team

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Reasons:

Name:

poor

Below average

average

Above average

Great

Na

communication - participation in group meetings, keeping group members up to date on work status

1

2

3

4

5

Na

reliability - does tasks on time

1

2

3

4

5

Na

quality of work product

1

2

3

4

5

Na

willingness to do fair share (or more) of the work

1

2

3

4

5

Na

team player - able to compromise and think win-win

1

2

3

4

5

Na

technical contribution

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Overall grade relative to the rest of the team

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Comments, special issues both good and bad:

Basis for evaluation:


Name:

poor

Below average

average

Above average

Great

Na

communication - participation in group meetings, keeping group members up to date on work status

1

2

3

4

5

Na

reliability - does tasks on time

1

2

3

4

5

Na

quality of work product

1

2

3

4

5

Na

willingness to do fair share (or more) of the work

1

2

3

4

5

Na

team player - able to compromise and think win-win

1

2

3

4

5

Na

technical contribution

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Overall grade relative to the rest of the team

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Comments, special issues both good and bad:

Basis for evaluation:


Name:

poor

Below average

average

Above average

Great

Na

communication - participation in group meetings, keeping group members up to date on work status

1

2

3

4

5

Na

reliability - does tasks on time

1

2

3

4

5

Na

quality of work product

1

2

3

4

5

Na

willingness to do fair share (or more) of the work

1

2

3

4

5

Na

team player - able to compromise and think win-win

1

2

3

4

5

Na

technical contribution

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Overall grade relative to the rest of the team

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Comments, special issues both good and bad:

Basis for evaluation:


Name:

poor

Below average

average

Above average

Great

Na

communication - participation in group meetings, keeping group members up to date on work status

1

2

3

4

5

Na

reliability - does tasks on time

1

2

3

4

5

Na

quality of work product

1

2

3

4

5

Na

willingness to do fair share (or more) of the work

1

2

3

4

5

Na

team player - able to compromise and think win-win

1

2

3

4

5

Na

technical contribution

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Overall grade relative to the rest of the team

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Comments, special issues both good and bad:

Basis for evaluation:


Name:

poor

Below average

average

Above average

Great

Na

communication - participation in group meetings, keeping group members up to date on work status

1

2

3

4

5

Na

reliability - does tasks on time

1

2

3

4

5

Na

quality of work product

1

2

3

4

5

Na

willingness to do fair share (or more) of the work

1

2

3

4

5

Na

team player - able to compromise and think win-win

1

2

3

4

5

Na

technical contribution

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Overall grade relative to the rest of the team

1

2

3

4

5

Na

Comments, special issues both good and bad:

Basis for evaluation:


Comments about team interactions, team leadership etc:


Overall evaluation of team (you have bonus money to give out, $1000) how much would you give to each team member including possibly yourself? The most you can give to any team member is $500. Include an appropriate bonus for yourself. The bonus should be based on overall contribution including both the quality and quantity of work and how essential they were to the team's success. For example, an excellent manager or technical person may not have worked on a lot of visible aspects but their contribution in planning the project, encouraging team work, or coming up with a great design may have been crucial to its success.

NAME: BONUS

__________________ $___________

__________________ $___________

__________________ $___________

__________________ $___________

__________________ $___________

Franz Kurfess (based on Tim Kearns' evaluation sheet) Page 5 12/4/00