While dealing with projects, a frequent assertion is that certain projects achieve better performance than others. However, in order to make valid and effective benchmarks, the assessment criteria against which such evaluations are done need to be spelt out, and any possible doubts about glossary need to be clarified. Thus, how can `performance' be defined and how can it be measured? This article presents a logical path for properly defining and using the concept of `performance' from a process improvement viewpoint, proposing a customization of one of such models for the Project Management domain, the IPMA Project Excellence (PE) Model.

One of the most diffused problems in measurement is often due to the limited capability in defining terms and concepts for an entity of interest (a product, a service, a project, etc.), leading to a (proportional) low capacity in its measurement. In fact, it will be not possible to measure what we are not able to properly define, since for each entity we intend to measure, there are several possible measurable attributes by more possible measures. Thus, each time we have to measure something, it should be applied to a triple of elements (EAM - Entity/Attribute/Measure), in order to check, if the chosen measures are the right ones for returning information on the originating information goal. For instance, if in a software project we apply Function Points (whatever the method, IFPUG, COSMIC or another one), then what are we measuring? Applying the EAM triple, we are dealing with the software product (entity), taking care of its functionality (attribute), expressed by FP (measure), that are the functional size derived by a transformation of its Functional User Requirements (FUR).

And so on, we can apply this quick way for defining (EAM) and checking (MAE) measures, according to their informative goals. Since, the management of an entity of interest is driven by a monitoring and control system, and measurement represents its base mechanism, it becomes even more important to properly define terms and concepts, in order to make the root-cause analysis and take the right actions.

Even it could seem a bit strange, as noted from the activity on the field as consultant and appraiser in customers' companies, a couple of terms often confused or misinterpreted are productivity and performance, as well as efficiency and effectiveness. So, what is productivity and what is performance? Are they synonyms or not? Is the first term more (or less) comprehensive than the second one? Consequently, in an improvement program, what should we first take into account - productivity or performance?

Projects & Profits Magazine, Project Management Domain, IFPUG, COSMIC, EAM Triple, Functional User Requirements, FUR, Performance Management Models, Software Process Improvement, SPI, CMMI, OPD-OPF, Balanced Scorecard, BSC, Malcolm Baldridge Quality Model Award, MBQA, European Foundation for Quality Management, EFQM, Plan-Do-Check-Act, PDCA, ADAR, Approach-Deployment-Assessment-Review, IPMA, International Project Management Association, RADAR, project documentation, Maturity Models, MM, ODC, Orthogonal Defect Classification