Work Performance Data
Unmodified observations, metrics, and figures gathered directly during project execution activities.
§1 Overview
Work Performance Data captures the raw, unvarnished realities of the project as work is performed.
This data serves as a foundational input for the Monitor and Control Project Work process. It is vital to separate raw metrics (such as the actual dollars spent or the exact number of defects logged) from the analytical interpretation of those metrics. Variance calculations, forecasting (EAC, ETC, VAC), and broader trend analyses do not belong here—they are generated downstream as Work Performance Information (WPI).
§2 Blank Template Structure
The layout below illustrates the typical structure required to capture execution metrics logically. This framework groups related work, costs, and quality events to facilitate seamless downstream reporting.
Schedule — Activity Status
| ID | Activity | Planned Finish | Actual Finish | % Complete | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost — Actual Cost (AC)
| Cost Item | Planned (PV) | Actual (AC) | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| TOTAL to date |
Quality & Events
Defect Counts
[Count] new this period. [Count] cumulative. [Count] resolved.
Notable Events
Log any delays, sponsor requests, or safety/compliance events observed during the period.
§3 Worked Example: Company Website
This worked example demonstrates how raw data is collected for a real-world scenario (Mary's Consulting - New Company Website) during Week 19 of execution.
Schedule — Activity Status
| ID | Activity | Planned Finish | Actual Finish | % Complete | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A021 | Set Up Dev/Staging/Prod Environments | Aug 14 | Aug 13 | 100% | Complete (1 day early) |
| A022 | Configure CMS | Aug 25 | Aug 26 | 100% | Complete (1 day late) |
| A023 | Build Component Library | Sep 11 | Sep 11 | 100% | Complete (on time) |
| A024 | Build Page Templates | Oct 2 | — | 35% | In progress; 4 of 12 templates complete |
| A025 | Develop Backend APIs | Sep 30 | — | 60% | In progress; CRM endpoint blocked (see 1-006) |
| A011 | Develop Visual / Brand Design | Aug 4 | Aug 5 | 100% | Complete (1 day late) |
| A014 | Write Marketing Page Copy | Sep 18 | — | 75% | In progress; on track |
| A015 | Produce Case Studies | Sep 25 | — | 55% | In progress; 11 of 20 done |
| A016 | Collect Consultant Bios | Sep 30 | — | 40% | Behind plan; bio response rate 38% (target 60%) |
Cost — Actual Cost (AC) Through Sep 13
| Cost Item | Planned (PV) | Actual (AC) | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal labour (PM, Dev, UX, Content) | $66,200 | $72,500 | +$6,300 |
| Frontend contractor (D-1 paid) | $800 | $800 | $0 |
| Cloud/hosting (env. setup) | $800 | $850 | +$50 |
| CMS license (annual) | $3,000 | $3,000 | $0 |
| Stock imagery (partial) | $1,200 | $1,150 | -$50 |
| TOTAL Actual Cost (AC) to date | $72,000 | $78,300 | +$6,300 |
Defect Status
- Logged this period: 14 (8 from component testing, 6 from design review)
- Cumulative logged: 23
- Resolved this period: 9
- Open at end of period: 14
Severity Breakdown: Sev 1: 0, Sev 2: 3, Sev 3: 9, Sev 4: 2.
Notable Events This Period
- Sep 8: CRM API discovery revealed a missing "industry vertical" field. Logged as 1-006; mitigation in progress.
- Sep 10: Sponsor signed design review early (3 days ahead of plan).
- Sep 11: Component library completed on schedule.
- Sep 12: Bio response rate below target. Triggered Risk R-05 mitigation actions. Change request CR-007 drafted.
- Sep 13: Sponsor requested new Press / Media section.
Handbook application: from concept to controlled practice
Purpose. This expanded section turns the original page into a practical handbook. It preserves the supplied material and adds a repeatable way to apply, check and review Work Performance Data: Template & Example. It does not replace a contract, legislation, a controlled standard, competent engineering judgement or specialist advice.
The operating aim is to make the blank artefact usable by explaining what belongs in each field, who supplies it and how it is reviewed. Read the original explanation first, then use the workflow and checks below to convert knowledge into evidence.
Use Work Performance Data: Template & Example as a decision instrument rather than an administrative form. The subject terms—cost, template, example, work, performance—need an explicit connection to the project objective, business value and stakeholder commitments. Before completing the artefact, write one sentence stating who will use it, what decision it supports and when that decision is required.
Apply a disciplined information model. Separate facts supported by evidence, forecasts derived from a method, assumptions awaiting validation, constraints that limit choice, risks that may occur, issues that already exist and actions assigned to people. Each material entry should have an owner, date, status and next review point. Where probability or impact scores are used, define the scale so different reviewers interpret it consistently.
A baseline is useful only when changes are visible. Give the artefact an identifier, version, approval state and effective date. Define which changes require reapproval, how superseded versions are retained and where supporting evidence is stored. During reviews, focus on exceptions, decisions and trends rather than reading every field aloud. Record the decision and rationale, not merely that a meeting occurred.
Close the loop beyond delivery. Confirm acceptance criteria, unresolved items, transferred responsibilities and operational ownership. Where benefits are expected, identify the outcome measure, baseline, target, observation period and owner who remains accountable after the project team disbands. Lessons should describe the condition, consequence and reusable action; a generic statement such as “communicate better” cannot improve the next project.
Step-by-step operating method
- Name the decision. Write the decision, approval, handover or control activity the completed template must support.
- Assign ownership. Nominate one accountable owner and identify contributors, reviewers and approvers.
- Gather evidence. Use records, estimates, stakeholder input and source references rather than unsupported opinion.
- Complete with discipline. Use consistent dates, units, identifiers, status values and version controls.
- Review and maintain. Check completeness and logic, approve the baseline, then update it when trigger conditions occur.
Completion and governance protocol
Start with a short drafting workshop involving the accountable owner and the people who hold the evidence. Complete high-consequence fields first: objective, scope, owner, baseline, acceptance, dependencies and escalation. Mark unknowns as assumptions or actions rather than hiding them behind vague prose. Circulate a review draft, resolve conflicting interpretations, baseline the approved version and place the next review date in an owned schedule.
| Information type | Minimum useful content | Review test |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Observable change and intended recipient | Not merely a deliverable or activity |
| Measure | Definition, baseline, target, frequency and source | Two reviewers would calculate it the same way |
| Ownership | One accountable role plus contributors and approver | Authority matches responsibility |
| Uncertainty | Assumption, risk or issue with response and trigger | Status reflects current reality |
| Control | Version, approval, review date and change rule | Current baseline is identifiable |
Common failure modes and recovery actions
1. Watch for
Filling every box even when a field is not applicable instead of recording why.
Recovery: Return to the governing definition or requirement and restate the decision in one sentence.
2. Watch for
Writing vague statements without an owner, measure, date or evidence source.
Recovery: Separate evidence from assumption, assign an owner and set a date for validation.
3. Watch for
Copying a previous project without revalidating assumptions and stakeholders.
Recovery: Run a small counterexample, boundary test, pilot or independent check before proceeding.
4. Watch for
Using the document as a private worksheet when it is meant to support a shared decision.
Recovery: Record the consequence, decision and rationale, then update the controlled baseline.
5. Watch for
Creating an approved baseline but failing to define who maintains it and when.
Recovery: Escalate when the issue affects safety, compliance, acceptance, material value or an agreed tolerance.
Review checklist
- Is the purpose and intended decision clear to a reader outside the team?
- Are owners, dates, measures and sources complete and internally consistent?
- Which fields are assumptions and how will they be validated?
- What event, threshold or review date causes this document to change?
- Are mandatory requirements distinguished from recommendations and illustrative values?
- Are sources, assumptions, units, dates and versions recorded closely enough to reproduce the decision?
- Have safety, legal, ethical, stakeholder and operational consequences been considered at the appropriate level?
- Is there a named owner and a trigger for review, escalation, change or retirement?
Questions for deeper application
What is the most important distinction a practitioner must preserve when applying Work Performance Data: Template & Example?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Which assumption about cost would change the result most if it proved false?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
What evidence would allow an independent reviewer to reproduce or challenge the conclusion?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Which boundary, exception or failure case has not yet been tested?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
What must be handed over, monitored or reviewed after the immediate work is complete?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Authoritative references and use notes
The sources below were selected as institutional or primary guidance for the broader practice. They support the handbook method; they do not imply that every statement or clause in a source applies to every project. Confirm the current edition, jurisdiction, contract and application before treating any requirement as mandatory.
- PMI Standards and Publications — Project Management Institute. Used for project, program, portfolio and organisational project management. Accessed 2026-08-13.
- ISO 31000 family — Risk management — International Organization for Standardization. Used for principles and guidance for enterprise risk management. Accessed 2026-08-13.