A checklist for evaluating team performance
[Reference as: Kilvington, M. & Allen, W. (2001). Appendix II: A checklist for evaluating team performance. In: A Participatory Evaluation Process to Strengthen the Effectiveness of Industry Teams in Achieving Resource Use Efficiency: The Target Zero Programme of Christchurch City Council. Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0001/62 Available: http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/teams_evaluation.asp]
Download teams' evaluation checklist as an MS
Word document (13kb) 
As we went about designing an approach to learn more about how the effectiveness of teams can be improved to help reduce resource use by commercial organisations, we were conscious that we wanted to work with teams, rather than just ask them questions. Accordingly we designed a formative and participatory evaluation process to do this. This was intended to guide their thinking about the key things that make teams work, whether or not they were doing them, and whether what they are doing could be improved. Thus the evaluation was not designed to rate how effective each team has been, rather it was to help each of the groups taking part critically reflect on what has been effective for them and what they would like to do differently in the future.
The strength of this process is that generic issues of team activity were covered in a way that was unique and specifically relevant to each team. The process caused participants to reflect upon their own performance, rather than study a list of 'how- to's' that might seem self evident and would be unlikely to be retained. The process also worked with the goals the teams had set for themselves rather than those assumed to be theirs because of the overall structure of the Target Zero programme.
From a literature review of teams (Allen & Kilvington 2001) we developed a checklist of the factors that are important to the effective management and growth of teams. These points are presented in the order they were covered through the format of the evaluation, which asked each team to reflect on their performance in five main areas:
- Goals
- Results and productivity
- Team structure
- Team operation
- Team skills
Where teams felt they were doing well, they were prompted to think about the reasons why this was so. Where teams identified that they had a weakness, they were offered a short opportunity to work through the barriers and develop steps that could be taken to improve their performance. (A sixth section of the evaluation comprised a final checklist of essential skills that are required for team operation. However, because these skills underpin team performance in the above areas they were often covered in preceding sections.)
Begin with goals
Because teams are purposeful (they are there because people have come together to achieve certain tasks) each evaluation began by asking teams to define their goals. These goals were asked in terms of both general goals (i.e., the reason they were a team from the company's point of view) and personal goals (i.e., the personal goals that each team member hoped to achieve by their involvement in this team).
The remaining questions were asked as follows. Each of these questions was opened up for input from all team members. As a way of closure the team was asked to come to a consensus on their performance in this area. This was done using coloured dots according to a 'traffic light' system.
G 
| this aspect is well covered |
Y 
| we need to think about this as it maybe a limiting factor |
R 
| this factor needs to be addressed as it is limiting to team performance |
| No. | Task | Rate |
| 1. Results and productivity | ||
| 1.1 | Does the team have clearly identified actionable steps to achieve its goals? | |
| 1.2 | Does the team monitor its progress by concrete milestones? | |
| 1.3 | Does the team regularly and frequently assess how well they are working together? | |
| 1.4 | Are the team's successes big and small acknowledged? | |
| 2. Team structure | ||
| 2.1 | Is the team the right size, with the right mix of players for your purpose? | |
| 2.2 | Does the team have the flexibility to bring in people and change membership to suit the current project? | |
| 2.3 | Does the team have the right resources? Money | |
| 2.4 | Time | |
| 2.5 | People | |
| 2.6 | Does the team meet regularly? | |
| 3. Team operation | ||
| 3.1 | Does the team have effective leadership? | |
| 3.2 | Do team members understand their roles and are they able to carry them out effectively? | |
| 3.3 | Does the team have good networks? Internally | |
| 3.4 | Externally | |
| 3.5 | With management | |
| 3.6 | Does the team have useful meetings with clear identification of tasks? | |
| 3.7 | Does the team have effective ways of managing conflict? | |
| 3.8 | Is the team functioning in a way that people freely express ideas and share opinions? | |
| 3.9 | Does the team stay motivated? | |
| 4. Team skills: Does your team have these? | ||
| 4.1 | Managing meetings: setting agendas, managing time, etc.. | |
| 4.2 | Documenting progress : keeping minutes, records, etc.. | |
| 4.3 | Data and information gathering | |
| 4.4 | Facilitation : dealing with conflict, managing constructive debates, etc.. | |
| 4.5 | Innovation : introducing creative ideas | |
| 4.6 | Presentation : summarising findings to relevant audiences | |
| 4.7 | Networking : bring comment, feedback, etc.. to team | |
| 4.8 | Motivation : reminding team of success | |
| 4.9 | Task performing: reliably doing relevant tasks | |
Allen, W. and Kilvington, M. (2001) Building Effective Teams for Resource Use Efficiency. Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0001/60, Lincoln, New Zealand.
This webpage is Appendix II of the following report: Kilvington, M. & Allen, W. (2001). A Participatory Evaluation Process to Strengthen the Effectiveness of Industry Teams in Achieving Resource Use Efficiency: The Target Zero Programme of Christchurch City Council. Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0001/62. The formatting in this document has been amended to fit that of this website. Thanks to the Christchurch City Council's Target Zero Programme for permission to reproduce this report here.