Board summary sample data
Portfolio/Tools to try
Does your team see the project the way you do?
Write down what you expect a team to say about a piece of work, then set it against what they actually said. This one runs on a made-up project: a new CRM rolled out to a 40-person sales and customer service team, reviewed six weeks after go-live. You play the project lead. A sample team has already answered. Nothing you enter is sent anywhere or stored.
How this was built
I first built this for a charity board that wanted an honest review of a piece of work: a short form for the team, a review page and a board report. The version here runs on a made-up project and sample team. Consent to be quoted is stored as a fixed code, and anything the tool doesn't recognise is treated as "don't quote", so a muddled answer can never put someone's words in a board paper they didn't agree to. The most useful part was one tick-all-that-apply question: set against the lead's own notes, it showed which of the lead's assumptions the team didn't share, and surfaced a big issue that wasn't in the notes at all.
A sample, start to finish. The business, the project, the team and every answer are made up for this demo. It all runs in your browser: nothing is sent anywhere or stored, and it's gone when you close the tab.
Step 2 of 4
The team's answers
Nine people were invited onto the review panel from the four teams, and eight have answered. This is a sample team: the initials, the roles and every answer are made up. Each answer stored a consent code for quoting, shown on its card exactly as it came in. Written answers stay out of sight until the review, where consent decides what can be shown.
Answer the team form yourself (optional)
Step 3 of 4
The review
Everything here is worked out in your browser from the sample answers and your view, by fixed rules. Change your view in step 1 and it updates.
Ratings, worst first
The team's average out of 5. The top of the list is the improvement agenda; the bottom is what to protect. The upright marker on each bar is what you expected.
Who has responded
Consent is read from the stored code, not guessed at. Only named and anon allow quoting; anything else is treated as "don't quote".
What the team asked for
How many ticked each item, most first. An item counts as supported when at least half of those who answered ticked it.
You and the team
Your step 1 view set against the answers. A rating counts as different when the team's average is at least three-quarters of a point away from what you expected.
What they wrote
Only answers from people who agreed to be quoted appear here or in the board summary. Named answers carry initials and role; anonymous ones say "a team member".
Step 4 of 4
This is a demonstration on made-up data. The business, the project, the team and every answer are invented, and the findings describe the sample, not any real organisation or any research. The review and the board summary are built in your browser by fixed rules, with no AI: nothing you enter is sent anywhere or stored, and it's gone when you close the tab.
The rules: an ask counts as supported when at least half of those who answered ticked it; "all but one" needs at least four answers; a rating counts as different from what the lead expected when the team's average is three-quarters of a point or more away. Quotes appear only where someone chose a recognised consent code: named (initials and role), anon ("a team member") or none. Anything else, a blank included, is treated as "don't quote", and ratings and ticks still count either way.