- Purpose and Principles
- Blank Template Structure
- Worked Example: Website Delivery Project
- Quick Reference Rules
§1 Purpose and Principles
A Work Performance Report is the formal instrument used to communicate project status to the sponsor and steering committee. It is not merely a list of tasks completed; it is a vital project control document designed to highlight schedule slips, budget variances, and emerging risks before they become unrecoverable.
By forcing the project manager to document the root causes of variances alongside a planned corrective action, the report shifts the conversation from passive data monitoring to active problem-solving.
§2 Blank Template Structure
The standard KEVOS® Work Performance Report is structured across four distinct pages, separating narrative status from strict financial analysis.
Page 1: Core Status
Features the Executive Summary, detailing the overall health indicator (Red/Amber/Green). It explicitly lists work completed, work planned but missed, and the root causes of any immediate variances.
Page 2: Schedule & Near-Term Costs
Focuses on the immediate future. It captures Impact to Upcoming Milestones resulting from any slips identified on Page 1, alongside the funds spent during the current reporting period.
Page 3: Financial Forecasting
The Earned Value Management (EVM) hub. Details the Impact to Overall Budget, remaining contingency funds, and tracks the Estimate at Completion (EAC) against the Budget at Completion (BAC).
Page 4: Risks & Issues
A distilled view of the risk register. Highlights New Risks Identified with their probability/impact scores, escalated issues requiring sponsor attention, and general PM commentary.
§3 Worked Example: Website Delivery Project
To demonstrate the template in practice, consider the following data synthesised from a real-world scenario (Mary's Consulting — New Company Website). The report is dated 30 September 2026.
The schedule on the critical path has compressed to just 2 days of slack. The cost forecast (EAC: $154,520) exceeds the approved baseline by $11,568. However, this is fully recoverable within the existing contingency reserve. Quality metrics remain strong, with zero Severity-1 defects preventing entry into User Acceptance Testing (UAT).
1. Schedule and Work Variances
While the component library and CMS configuration were completed on schedule, two critical backend deliverables (Build Page Templates and Backend APIs) suffered slips. The root cause was an unbudgeted CRM API gap discovered mid-build, consuming five days of developer effort.
| Milestone Impact | Original Target | Revised Target | Corrective Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| M06 Build Complete | Oct 9 | Oct 12 | Absorbed by test phase buffer; reduce launch scope by deferring two templates to Phase 2. |
| Consultant Bios | 60% submitted | 44% submitted | Tiered launch plan: top 50 consultants go live first, remainder batched in Phase 2. |
2. Financial Performance (Earned Value)
The financial data reveals the exact impact of the CRM rework and an approved change request (CR-007). In September, the project consumed an Actual Cost (AC) of $24,500. By calculating the Earned Value (EV) at approximately $22,001, we observe a Cost Variance (CV) of -$2,499 and a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 0.898 for the period.
Extrapolating this cumulatively:
- Cumulative AC to date: $93,500 (approx. 65% of the baseline budget).
- Budget at Completion (BAC): $142,952.
- Estimate at Completion (EAC): Using the typical EVM formula (BAC / cumulative CPI), a cumulative CPI of ~0.925 yields an EAC of $154,520.
- Variance at Completion (VAC): An $11,568 overrun.
Because the project holds $11,200 in remaining contingency, and a $7,500 management reserve remains entirely untouched, the project manager correctly advises that no financial change request is required at this time. The trend will be presented to the steering committee, with the management reserve acting as a backstop.
3. New Risks Escalated
The report logs Risk R-16: Reduced schedule slack limits the ability to absorb further variance (Score: 12, Medium-High). The mitigation strategy is aggressive weekly monitoring of October critical-path activities. A second risk (R-17) involving a hosting vendor maintenance window conflict (Score: 15, High) has been escalated directly to the vendor's account team.
Contents§4 Quick Reference Rules
Lead with the Critical Path
Highlight tasks that directly impact the final delivery date. A schedule slip on a non-critical activity requires far less executive attention than a one-day slip on the critical path.
Quantify with Earned Value
Always provide objective cost and schedule performance indices (CPI/SPI) rather than subjective estimates of progress. "We are 80% done" is a guess; an EAC of $154,520 is a mathematical forecast.
No Problems Without Plans
Never present a variance or a high-severity issue without an accompanying corrective or preventive action plan for the sponsor to review and approve.