It’s that time of year where most employees tend to be tasked with completing their year-end self-evaluations. You know the one: where we need to list all the things we accomplished over the past year and then rank ourselves on how we did. For some, this exercise also requires listing commitments we did not complete.

Many people dread this exercise, but there is value in reviewing accomplishments, comprehending shortfalls and most important, getting a handle on what we still want or need to accomplish. Often, these outstanding tasks become our goals for the upcoming year.

QECR FrameworkWhat if we conducted a similar exercise for our CW program and the program office? This would be different from a scorecard or quarterly business review. Instead, it would be a year-end review of the VMS, MSP and the program services and capabilities. Understanding what each piece of the program accomplished and how well, and perhaps more important, what they did not complete can help create the program’s goals and roadmap for the upcoming year.

Use the Framework

When it comes to reviewing CW program performance, we recommend utilizing the QECR (quality, efficiency, cost, risk) framework, which focuses on key dimensions that define a program’s overall performance.

Quality PillarsQuality. This should be looked at in the context of the three pillars we reference within our CCWP certification: Talent, Supplier Service and the Program Operation. For this year-end review, consider where each of the partners affects each pillar. Does the program deliver quality candidates to the engagement managers, do the suppliers follow the rules of engagement, do the VMS and MSP provide quality service to the program and the stakeholders? Were there goals or expectations for improvement this past year and were they met. If not, understanding what needs to be done to ensure we can accomplish this in the upcoming year is critical as the quality dimension often is considered the most vital for any CW Program.

Efficiency. This is a review of the speed and complexity of various processes within a CW program. This usually covers what we refer to as the req-to-check process. Looking at the respective role of each partner within the various processes, were there efficiencies gained? Did the VMS or MSP identify areas of improvement that brought additional value to the program or the stakeholders? Review each process, such as requisition creation, candidate submissions and onboarding/offboarding, sourcing, financial/ transaction reporting, invoicing and payment. Ask your partners to provide ideas or suggestions that they feel should be included in the upcoming year’s roadmap for this dimension.

Cost. This dimension covers not just the cost of the contingent labor but also of the program holistically, such as VMS and/or MSP fees. Cost management includes not just bill rate governance, but the total costs of the overall program, including technology, data management and analytics, memberships, marketing/communication, program office expenses, and uncontained risks. Were there any cost savings the program delivered? Did the MSP identify areas of opportunity for cost savings or cost correction (market bill rates) or did the program negotiate better fees with providers and or suppliers? Identify if there are any targets that should be included in the 2018 roadmap for the program and or partners for cost savings or cost reduction.

Risk. This includes co-employment/classification, or other legal risks, but should also take into consideration risks for the program service delivery, such as service delays, system outages, and data and intellectual property risks/breaches. For the VMS, the year-end review should cover any type of system outages or interruptions experienced over the year, as well as how well they communicated and were prepared for any type of natural disasters. Were there any system improvements implemented to minimize any risks to service? Are there areas of opportunity to focus on in the upcoming year? Are there standard operating procedures and if so, are they up to date? Did the MSP mitigate any risk such as misclassification of candidates or improperly labeled SOWs? Are there areas that warrant focus for the upcoming year in this dimension?

Utilizing these key dimensions to create a program-level year-end performance review can enable you to validate the program’s value proposition. It can also help the program and its strategic partners to mature their capabilities and performance over time and create a roadmap for success.