Contractor Collaboration and Performance Management (SUFS) survey

Guide to answering questions

Section A1 – Delivery Performance Risks for Sydney Metro

This section explores if there are any governance, schedule or cost risks for Sydney Metro

1a. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s governance ability (direct and assure to achieve performance)?
Exemplar – New governance precedent that will have positive implications for Industry performance
Excellent – Strong governance that will improve Industry’s ability to deliver
On Target – Appropriate governance that will enable Industry to meet targets
Acceptable – Some governance activities will need improvement, but will not impact on Industry’s ability to deliver
Not on Target – Some governance activities will impact Industry’s ability to deliver, but can easily to be rectified
Corrective Action – Inadequate level of governance will significantly impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Will need dedicated action to mitigate
Unsustainable – Poor and/or unnecessary governance will significantly impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Executive investment required
Critical – Governance practices will detrimentally impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Executive intervention essential
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

2a. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to achieve schedule performance?

Exemplar – New time management precedent drove a step change in performance
Excellent – All tasks were delivered on time, and Industry’s schedule risk has been reduced
On Target – All tasks were delivered on time
Acceptable – Task delivery slipped to tolerance, and did not impact Industry
Not on Target – Task delays inconvenienced Industry. Needs attention
Corrective Action – Task delays impacted Industry. Needs investment
Unsustainable – Task delays caused major impact to Industry. Executive investment sought
Critical – Unrecoverable slippage impacted overall delivery. Executive intervention needed

3a. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to achieve cost performance?

Exemplar – New cost management precedent has enabled a step change in financial performance
Excellent – Effectively managed and understood cost drivers, and reduced financial risk to Industry
On Target – Effectively managed and understood cost drivers
Acceptable – Managed and understood cost drivers. Improvement will assist Industry
Not on Target – Misunderstanding of cost drivers impeded Industry’s ability to deliver
Corrective Action – Misunderstanding of cost drivers impacted Industry. Needs investment
Unsustainable – Will mismanage cost drivers that will materially impact Industry. Executive investment sought
Critical – Will mismanage cost drivers that will challenge viability for Industry. Executive intervention needed

4. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s plan to address your delivery concerns? (If any)

Exemplar – World-leading
Excellent – Better than the industry norm
On Target – Supports achievement of project goals
Acceptable – Does not stop achievement of project goals; requires re-work or work-arounds
Not on Target – Some practices impact project success, but can easily be rectified
Corrective Action – Significant impact on project success; needs dedicated action to mitigate
Unsustainable – Significant impact on project success; executive investment required
Critical – Unrecoverable impact to project success; executive intervention essential

Section B1 – Behavioural Performance Risks for Sydney Metro

This section explores if there are any behavioural risks for Sydney Metro

5a. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to develop effective working relationships

Above Expectations – Active engagement, demonstrated deep trust and complete understanding of Industry’s needs
As expected – Good level of trust and sought to understand Industry’s needs. Accepted feedback and acted accordingly
Below expectations – Had some reservations but tried to understand Industry’s needs. Feedback not accepted well
Not acceptable – Interactions were transactional. No demonstrated interest in building a relationship or understanding Industry’s needs. Feedback met with negativity
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

5b. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to coordinate with third parties, including other industry players and government agencies?

Above Expectations – Understood all performance interdependencies and proactively managed them to optimise internal and external results
As expected – Proactive coordination with others linked to broader performance
Below expectations – Only coordinated with others when requested to by Industry
Not acceptable – Neither coordinated with others nor influenced identified barriers to performance

5c. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to manage the claims process to limit impact on Industry?

Above Expectations –Went over and above to quickly understand factors influencing contract performance, including influences beyond Industry’s control
As expected – Reacted promptly and cooperatively to understand factors influencing contract performance, including influences beyond Industry’s control
Below expectations – Could have reacted more promptly or more cooperatively to understand factors influencing contract performance, including influences beyond industry’s control
Not acceptable – Rarely or never acts promptly or cooperatively to understand factors influencing contract performance, including influences beyond Industry’s control

6a. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to work collaboratively with Industry when circumstances change?

Above Expectations – Proactively engaged to forecast issues and Industry’s ability to respond. Actively used advice to optimise decisions
As expected – Regularly sought and used advice from Industry to effectively respond to change
Below expectations – Irregularly sought advice from Industry, or did not fully consider Industry before making decisions
Not acceptable – Rarely or never approached Industry for advice, and didn’t consider Industry’s ability to respond to change

6b. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to make timely decisions?

Above Expectations – Routinely made early decisions, and provided enough notice for Industry to optimise their response and monitor effects
As expected – Regularly made decisions in a timely manner and provided enough notice to respond appropriately
Below expectations – Didn’t regularly make decisions in a timely manner, but occasionally provided enough notice to respond appropriately
Not acceptable – Rarely or never made decisions in a timely manner, and rarely or never provided enough notice to respond appropriately

7a. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to balance time, cost and quality, driving best-for-project outcomes?

Above Expectations – Demonstrated a strong focus on getting the balance right through consistent trade-off considerations
As expected – Regularly focussed on balance through trade-off considerations
Below expectations – Didn’t regularly focus on balance through trade-off considerations
Not acceptable – Provided no focus on what is best for the project/product/service outcome

7b. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s ability to enable Industry to improve and innovate?

Above Expectations – Proactively encouraged and enabled Industry to improve or innovate, with measurable benefits returned to the Sydney Metro Sector
As expected – Encouraged and enabled Industry to improve or innovate, with expected benefits to the Sydney Metro Sector
Below expectations – Didn’t encourage or enable Industry to improve or innovate. Could benefit from added support
Not acceptable – Practices inhibited Industry’s ability to improve or innovate

8. How would you rate Sydney Metro’s plan to address your behavioural concerns?

Above Expectations – Proactively encouraged and enabled Industry to improve or innovate, with measurable benefits returned to the Sydney Metro
As expected – Encouraged and enabled Industry to improve or innovate, with expected benefits to Sydney Metro
Below expectations – Didn’t encourage or enable Industry to improve or innovate. Could benefit from added support
Not acceptable – Practices inhibited Industry’s ability to improve or innovate

Section A2 – Delivery Performance Risks for the Industry Partner

This section explores if there are any quality, schedule or cost risks for the Industry Partner

9a. How would you rate Industry’s ability to achieve quality performance?

Exemplar – Delivered a new benchmark for functionality and compliance, resulting in a step change in performance
Excellent – Functional requirements exceeded expectations without introducing compliance risk
On Target – Achieved functional and compliance requirements
Acceptable – Achieved functional and compliance requirements, but needs to improve general practices
Not on Target – Missed some of the agreed functional or compliance requirements, but gaps can be easily rectified
Corrective Action – Missed some of the agreed functional or compliance requirements. Needs dedicated action to mitigate
Unsustainable – Broadly missed functional or compliance requirements, affecting outcomes. Executive investment sought
Critical – Missed essential functional or compliance levels prohibiting outcomes. Immediate executive intervention needed

10a. How would you rate Industry’s ability to achieve schedule performance?

Excellent – All tasks were delivered on time, integrating with other activities to reduce Sydney Metro’s overall time risk
On Target – All tasks were delivered on time
Acceptable – Task delivery slipped to tolerance limits, creating risks but did not impact Sydney Metro
Not on Target – Task delays inconvenienced Sydney Metro. Needs attention
Corrective Action – Task delays impacted Sydney Metro. Needs investment
Unsustainable – Task delays caused a major impact to Sydney Metro. Executive investment sought
Critical – Timing created unrecoverable impact on overall delivery. Executive intervention needed

11a. How would you rate Industry’s ability to achieve cost performance?

Exemplar – New cost management precedent enabled a step change in cost forecasting and control
Excellent – Very effective cost forecasting and control that has reduced Sydney Metro’s financial risk
On Target – Financial targets were met through effective forecasting and control
Acceptable – Financial targets were met, but improvement to forecasting and/or control will assist Sydney Metro
Not on Target – Did not meet financial targets, but recoverable
Corrective Action – Financial issues impacted Sydney Metro. Needs investment
Unsustainable – Poor financial/cost management materially impacted Sydney Metro. Executive investment sought
Critical – Poor financial/cost management resulted in an unrecoverable position for Sydney Metro. Executive intervention needed

12. How would you rate Industry’s plan to address your delivery concerns? (If any)

Exemplar – New cost management precedent enabled a step change in cost forecasting and control
Excellent – Very effective cost forecasting and control that has reduced Sydney Metro’s financial risk
On Target – Financial targets were met through effective forecasting and control
Acceptable – Financial targets were met, but improvement to forecasting and/or control will assist Sydney Metro
Not on Target – Did not meet financial targets, but recoverable
Corrective Action – Financial issues impacted Sydney Metro. Needs investment
Unsustainable – Poor financial/cost management materially impacted Sydney Metro. Executive investment sought
Critical – Poor financial/cost management resulted in an unrecoverable position for Sydney Metro. Executive intervention needed

Section B2 – Behavioural Performance Risks for the Industry Partner

This section explores if there are any behavioural performance risks for the industry partner

13a. How would you rate Industry’s ability to develop effective working relationships?

Above Expectations – Active engagement, demonstrated deep trust and complete understanding of Sydney Metro’s needs
As expected – Good level of trust and sought to understand Sydney Metro ‘s needs. Accepted feedback and acted accordingly
Below expectations – Had some reservations but tried to understand Sydney Metro’s needs. Feedback not accepted well
Not acceptable – Interactions were transactional. No demonstrated interest in building a relationship or understanding Sydney Metro’s needs. Feedback met with negativity

13b. How would you rate Industry’s ability coordinate with third parties, including other industry players and government agencies?

Above Expectations – Understood all performance interdependencies and proactively managed them to optimise internal and external results
As expected – Proactive coordination with others linked to broader performance
Below expectations – Only coordinated with others when requested to by Sydney Metro
Not acceptable – Teamed poorly with others, impacting broader and/or downstream performances

13c. How would you rate Industry’s ability to submit claims appropriately?

Above Expectations – Always provides accurate and factual justification for claim event and value. No further clarifications needed for settlement
As expected – Mostly provides accurate and factual justification for claim event and value. Few further clarifications needed for settlement
Below expectations – Sometimes provides accurate and factual justification for claim event and value. Further clarifications are regularly needed for settlement
Not acceptable – Claims are rarely accurate or factually justified. Settlement of claims is contentious needing executive intervention

14a. How would you rate Industry’s ability to work collaboratively with Sydney Metro when circumstances change?

Above Expectations – Actively monitored emerging risks, issues and opportunities with dependable, complete advice. Re-prioritised to optimise changing circumstances
As expected – Provided dependable, complete advice within scope. Regularly re-prioritised activities to meet changing circumstances
Below expectations – Irregular, incomplete input to issues. Unwilling to re-prioritise activities to meet changing circumstances
Not acceptable – Did not contribute to resolving issues. Resistant to re-prioritising activities to meet changing circumstances

14b. How would you rate Industry’s ability to respond to agreed changes and timeframes?

Above Expectations – Responded to change very quickly, providing ample notice for Sydney Metro to maximise benefit from the change
As expected – Regularly responded to change within the agreed time, allowing Sydney Metro to benefit from the change
Below expectations – Did not respond to change within the agreed time, reducing Sydney Metro’s benefit from the change
Not acceptable – Rarely or never responded to change within the agreed time. Sydney Metro was usually negatively impacted by the change

15a. How would you rate Industry’s ability to balance time, cost and quality, driving best-for-project outcomes?

Above Expectations – Demonstrated a strong focus on getting the balance right through consistent trade-off considerations
As expected – Regularly focussed on balance through trade-off considerations
Below expectations – Didn’t regularly focus on balance through trade-off considerations
Not acceptable – Provided no focus on what is best for the project/product/service outcome

15b. How would you rate Industry’s ability foster an innovative, improvement-oriented environment?

Above Expectations – Demonstrated strong commitment to continuous improvement and innovation, maximising value to Sydney Metro
As expected – Implemented improvements and/or innovative practices that increased value to Sydney Metro
Below expectations – Introduced improvements with some value to Sydney Metro. Level of commitment to improvement was lower than expected
Not acceptable – Did not improve and/or innovate. Overall, practices have remained stagnant or have deteriorated

16. How would you rate Industry’s plan to address your behavioural concerns? (If any)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

C1 – Design

This section explores if there are any risks or issues with requirements and design, and design approval

17a. How would you rate the requirements and/or design at the tender/approach to market stage?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

17b. How would you rate the requirements and/or design at the contract award stage?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

17c. How would you rate the requirements and design now?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

18a. How would you rate the design approval process?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

19. How would you rate the plan to address your design concerns? (If any)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

C2 – Interface Contractor

This section explores if there are any risks or issues with program alignment, interface management, and interface scope

20a. How would you rate the alignment of the construction program across the contractors/packages you interface with?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

20b. How would you rate the alignment of the design program across the contractors/packages you interface with?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

21a. How would you rate the interface co-ordination approaches? (e.g. synchronising work to each other’s needs, accessing documents, accessing sites)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

21b. How would you rate the interface decision-making approaches? (e.g. determining priorities, deconfliction)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

22a. How would you rate the alignment of scope across interfaces (i.e. the presence of scope overlaps or gaps)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

23. How would you rate the plan to address your interface concerns? (If any)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

C3 – Project Team

This section explores if there are any risks or issues with the joint Sydney Metro-industry project organisation, resourcing, and mobilisation approach

24a. How would you rate the fitness-for-purpose of the joint Sydney Metro-Industry project organisation?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

24b. How would you rate the project team management approach?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

24c. How would you rate the project risk management approach?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

24d. How would you rate the project issue management approach?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

25a. How would you rate the quantity and skills of Sydney Metro’s resources?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

25b. How would you rate the quantity and skills of Industry’s resources?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

26a. How would you rate the project mobilisation approach?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

27 How would you rate the plan to address your project team concerns? (If any)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

C4 – Contract

This section explores if there are any risks or issues with contract terms, the procurement process, and claims management

28a. How would you rate the fitness-for-purpose of the contract?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

28b. How would you rate the risk allocation in the contract?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

29a. How would you rate the procurement process (i.e approach to market, tender, negotiation, award)?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

30a. How would you rate the claims management approach?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

31. How would you rate the plan to address your contract concerns? (If any)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

C5 – Leadership and Governance

This section explores if there are any risks or issues with leadership and governance outside of the joint Sydney Metro-industry project team

32a. How would you rate leadership alignment on the project vision?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

32b. How would you rate leadership alignment on the partnering approach (e.g. collaborative vs master-slave)?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

32c. How would you rate leadership alignment on the project outcomes?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

33a. How would you rate the management of contextual risk (i.e. outside of the package)?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

33b. How would you rate decision-making?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

<strong>33c. How would you rate project culture?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

33d. How would you rate senior leader and external oversight?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

33e. How would you rate project stage-gating?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

33f. How would you rate project performance management?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

33g. How would you rate integration of the package organisation into the broader Sydney Metro organisation?

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function

34. How would you rate the plan to address your leadership and governance concerns? (If any)

Above Expectations – Supports achievement of project goals, better than the industry norm
As expected – Supports achievement of project goals, on par with the industry norm
Below expectations – Project success somewhat impacted, below the industry norm
Not acceptable – Project success significantly impacted, well below the industry norm
Not Involved – My role does not deal with this function