Scorecard logic for measuring performance of managers

#1
Hello,
I need to create a scorecard where I can compare and contrast 3 different managers on one single measures/metric. The problem I'm having is to come up with a defend-able and fair scorecard logic/concept on comparing these 3 managers based on missed deadlines on their respective tasks. Few things I have to mention: These managers don't have equal amount of workload meaning:

- Manager #1 has 100 tasks of which 20 of them missed their deadline
- Manager #2 has 50 tasks of which 10 of them missed their deadline
- Manager #3 has 25 tasks of which 5 of them missed their deadline

At first look, mgr#3 has the least amount of missed deadlines, so he should have the highest rating/score compared to others, but that's obviously not the case as he only had 25 task on his desk compared to mgr#1's 100 tasks. I've tried using weighted average method but couldn't come up w/ something.

I was wondering whether any of you can suggest me a logic that can enable me to rate these three managers based on above-mentioned data. The scorecard can be a 5-star rating, RAG status or a 100 points scale. I am not much concerned about the cosmetic of the scorecard at this point.

To make the problem less complicated, it will be assumed that all tasks regardless of manager have the same degree of difficulty.

Any help/guidance will be greatly appreciated.

P.S. My apologies for posting this thread for the second time to a different sub-forum this time. I haven't received any response from General Discussions, so trying my luck here this time.
 
#2
I guess I don't understand the question. Why do you not simply report each one as having an 80% on-time completion rate? (I assume in your real data they have different completion rates.)
 
#4
I guess I don't understand the question. Why do you not simply report each one as having an 80% on-time completion rate? (I assume in your real data they have different completion rates.)
IMO the 80% success rate does not truly reflect the performance of managers as one has lot more tasks to complete compared to the other.
 
#5
Then it sounds to me like you're describing is actually an efficiency rating -- yes? You could simply compare the average number of hours/days/weeks/etc. needed to complete each task successfully. If the tasks really are all equally difficult, then that would be an easy comparison that will make sense to a layman (at least it would make sense to my boss).

But I would actually look at the average time for each task attempted and then look at tasks completed. So I would calculate it as:

(Total tasks / Total time) x Tasks successfully completed = Rating

Given your hypothetical for one 40-hour work week, Manager #1 would have a rating of 200, #2 would have a rating of 50, and #3 would have a rating of 12.5. In other words, Manager #1 spent 40 hours working on the 100 projects they were assigned, or an allocation of 2.5 hours per project. They were able to successfully complete 80 of those projects within the allocated 2.5 hours.

This approach also addresses the possibility of unequal time worked -- for example, if one manager has additional responsibilities or goes on vacation. Simply adjust the total time for that manager as appropriate.

That's my initial thoughts. But full disclosure -- I haven't finished my coffee yet...