In short
In consulting firms, a project review means one of two things: project controlling assesses a project’s budget, hours and margin, while a project-based performance review assesses each consultant at the end of an engagement. Project and PSA software such as PACS, Projektron BCS, MOCO or Vertec covers the first. The second needs appraisal software: Leapsome, for example, documents project-based reviews and calibration meetings, while ValueScore from LEADBeyond shows several project leads’ reviews in one view and removes leniency and severity.
Key takeaways
- In consulting firms, “project review” has two meanings: controlling the project and assessing the people on it. Each needs different software.
- Review close to the end of the engagement, against behavioural anchors per criterion and independently of other project leads’ views.
- In two large samples, the rater effect explained more variance than performance itself; three project leads bring three standards.
- At year end, project reviews are weighted by duration and role, cleaned of leniency and severity and aligned in a calibration meeting.
- PACS, Projektron BCS, MOCO, KUMAVISION and Vertec document project controlling, but no reviews of people per project.
- In Germany, appraisal principles need the works council’s consent; we recommend that people decide on rating, promotion and bonus.
Project reviews: evaluating the project or assessing the people?
Search for project review software for a consulting firm and you mostly find project controlling: budget, hours, margin. In a consulting firm’s people processes, a project review means something else. At the end of an engagement, the project lead assesses the performance of each consultant on the team. Both are useful, but they answer different questions and need different tools.
Definition
Project-based performance review The assessment of one person by the project lead at the end of an engagement or engagement phase, against criteria set in advance for their level. Over a year, each person collects several such reviews. At year end they are combined, calibrated and become the basis for final rating, promotion and bonus. Other names: engagement review, project feedback, staffing feedback.
| Question | Project evaluation (controlling) | Project-based review of people |
|---|---|---|
| What is assessed? | The project’s economics, deadlines and outcome | One person’s performance and behaviour on the project |
| Who assesses? | Project controlling, project lead, partner | The project lead, often with the responsible partner |
| Based on what? | Hours, budget, invoices, plan against actuals | Observations and evidence against level criteria |
| Result | Post-calculation, contribution margin, utilisation | One review per engagement, combined at year end |
| Typical software | Project and PSA software | Appraisal and performance software |
How it works: the end-of-engagement review in six steps
We derive these steps from research on rater bias; they have not been tested as a process (LEADBeyond practice recommendation).
- Record the role at the start. Project lead and consultant note the person’s role and which criteria of their level the engagement will show.
- Review close to the end of the engagement. Not only at year end: by then the impression from spring has faded, and a strong finish outshines the year.
- Rate against behavioural anchors. For each criterion and rating step, an anchor describes observable behaviour, for example what separates a 3 from a 4.
- Record the basis. Engagement, duration, role and two or three concrete observations. This lets you weight and explain the review later.
- Rate independently. Each project lead rates alone, before seeing anyone else’s view.
- Give feedback. The project lead discusses the review with the consultant while the engagement is still fresh.
Several engagements, several standards: why combining matters
Each rater uses the scale in their own way. In two large samples of developmental 360° ratings, this idiosyncratic rater effect explained 62% and 53% of the variance; actual performance only 21% and 25% (Scullen, Mount and Goff, 2000). A consultant who worked for three project leads in a year therefore brings three standards.
- Different work. One lead sees the analysis, another the client work; part of their difference is real.
- Shared bias. Averaging cannot fix a bias that all raters share, such as general leniency when bonuses depend on ratings.
- Dependent judgements. Leads who know each other’s views before rating no longer err independently.
At year end: weight, clean, calibrate
- Weight. By duration and role: a review after two weeks should count less than one after six months. Set the weights in advance (practice recommendation).
- Remove leniency and severity. When several project leads rate the same people, you can estimate how far each sits above or below the others. In a reanalysis of a medical oral exam, such an adjustment would have changed the result for about 7–9% of candidates (Raymond and Viswesvaran, 1993); applying this to appraisals is our inference.
- Calibrate. Leaders align results per level in a calibration meeting. At one large organisation, calibration committees adjusted 25% of ratings (Demeré, Sedatole and Woods, 2019).
- Decide. Final rating, promotion and bonus follow from the calibrated result. The bonus calculator shows the path to the amount.
Which software covers what
Two kinds of vendors answer the question of project review software, and they mean different things. The table states only what the vendors document on their own pages (accessed 19 October 2026), with no prices and no ranking. “Not documented” means ask, not “not possible”. ValueScore is our own product; it sits in the same table as everyone else.
| Vendor | Kind of software | Project controlling (documented) | Assessing people (documented) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PACS (Munich) | Project controlling and project ERP for project-based service firms | Plan against actuals, multi-level contribution margins for projects and employees, utilisation | Add-ons store results of annual and employee talks and track targets; reviews per project not documented |
| Projektron BCS (Berlin) | Project management with ERP functions, including for consulting firms | Plan against actuals, earned value analysis | Employees enter and rate their own skills; reviews per project not documented |
| MOCO (Zurich) | ERP software for consulting firms and agencies | Budget tracking, project profitability, billable hours | Skills as filters in staff lists and planning; reviews not documented |
| KUMAVISION project365 (Markdorf, Germany) | Industry ERP based on Microsoft Dynamics 365 | Plan against actuals, contribution margin analysis, post-calculation | Skills for resource planning; reviews not documented |
| Vertec (Zurich) | CRM and ERP software for consulting firms | Contribution margins per project, post-calculation, utilisation | Competencies for resource planning; reviews not documented |
| Leapsome (Berlin) | People platform, which Leapsome says is also built for consulting and professional-services firms | Not its purpose | Project-based reviews and calibration meetings documented; AI pre-reads flag issues such as leniency but, per Leapsome, never change a rating; combining several project leads into one score not documented |
| ValueScore (LEADBeyond) | Appraisal platform for consultancies and professional-services firms | Not its purpose | Cross-project view; leniency and severity are detected statistically and corrected; final rating, promotion and bonus from normalised scores |
For a consulting firm this means: project and PSA software supplies the hours, role and duration of each engagement, the basis for weighting. The review itself, combining reviews and calibration need appraisal software. Performance review software for consulting firms compares the appraisal and calibration tools.
Works councils and data protection
- No solely automated decisions (EU). Article 22 GDPR gives people the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing with legal or similarly significant effects. We recommend that people decide on final rating, promotion and bonus.
- Appraisal principles (Germany). Under § 94(2) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG), general appraisal principles need the works council’s consent, and the Federal Labour Court extends this to the design of the appraisal procedure (1 ABR 48/13). Criteria, anchors and the weighting of project reviews therefore belong in the conversation with the works council.
- Software (Germany). Software that is objectively suited to monitor performance can fall under § 87(1) no. 6 BetrVG (1 ABR 7/15).
ValueScore for project-based reviews
LEADBeyond built ValueScore for performance appraisals in consultancies and professional-services firms: every appraisal, every project, every rater on one scale. Ratings are based on concrete behaviour, with anchors for each rating step and criterion and a nudge against score inflation. A cross-project view shows one consultant as several project leads rated them. Leniency and severity are detected statistically and corrected, and final rating, promotion and bonus are derived from normalised scores. We recommend treating every correction as a proposal that people decide on in the calibration meeting.
Frequently asked questions
What is a project-based performance review in consulting?
The assessment of a consultant by the project lead at the end of an engagement or engagement phase, against criteria set in advance for their level. Each person collects several reviews a year, combined and calibrated at year end. It is different from project evaluation in controlling, which looks at the project’s budget, hours and margin.
How often should consultants be reviewed?
Our practice recommendation: after every engagement or longer engagement phase, close to its end, not only at year end. The work is still fresh, and a strong finish does not outshine the whole year. Short assignments of a few weeks can be grouped or given less weight.
How do you combine several project reviews into one result for the year?
In three steps: weight them by rules set in advance, for example by duration and role; remove the leniency and severity of individual project leads where raters overlap; then align results per level in a calibration meeting. Final rating, promotion and bonus follow from the calibrated result.
Which software supports project-based reviews in consulting firms?
Two kinds. Project and PSA software such as PACS, Projektron BCS, MOCO, KUMAVISION project365 or Vertec documents project controlling. Appraisal software assesses the people: Leapsome documents project-based reviews and calibration meetings; ValueScore, our own product, puts every appraisal, every project and every rater on one scale and removes leniency and severity. Per vendor pages, as of 19 October 2026.
Can project or PSA software assess employees?
Barely, judging by the vendors’ own pages. PACS stores results of annual and employee talks in an add-on, Projektron BCS lets employees rate their own skills, and MOCO, KUMAVISION and Vertec use skills for planning. None of the five documents reviews per project with criteria, several raters and calibration (as of 19 October 2026).
How do you stop strict project leads from disadvantaging their team?
Through overlap and statistics: when project leads also review people whom other leads review, you can estimate how far each sits above or below the others. Show these effects with a confidence interval and treat every correction as a proposal that the calibration meeting decides on.
Do project reviews need works council consent?
In Germany, where there is a works council, usually yes: general appraisal principles need the works council’s consent under § 94(2) BetrVG, and software that can monitor performance can fall under § 87(1) no. 6 BetrVG. Other countries have their own rules. This is not legal advice; check your situation with your legal team.
Who decides on rating, promotion and bonus in the end?
We recommend that people do, for example the calibration meeting and a named partner. Article 22 GDPR gives people the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing with legal or similarly significant effects. Software can combine results, clean them and make proposals.
Sources
- Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 956–970., American Psychological Association (2000). Peer-reviewed study of two large samples of 360° ratings (2,350 and 2,142 managers, seven ratings each). Cited for the shares of variance given in the abstract: idiosyncratic rater effects 62% and 53%, actual performance 21% and 25%. The data are developmental ratings; they do not establish shares for pay-linked appraisals or for consulting firms.
- Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 557–574., American Psychological Association (1996). Meta-analysis; cited for the mean inter-rater reliability of 0.52 for supervisors’ overall performance ratings and the lower reliability of peer ratings. Not a value for any one firm, and its interpretation is debated. The Spearman–Brown calculation in the example is our illustration, not a result of the study.
- Raymond, M. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (1993). Least squares models to correct for rater effects in performance assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 253–268., Wiley (National Council on Measurement in Education) (1993). Cited for correcting leniency and severity when raters overlap, and for the medical oral exam example (40 examiners, about 115 candidates, four examiners each) in which adjustment would have changed pass or fail for about 7–9% of candidates in a reanalysis. Applying this to business appraisals is our inference.
- Demeré, B. W., Sedatole, K. L., & Woods, A. (2019). The role of calibration committees in subjective performance evaluation systems. Management Science, 65(4), 1562–1585., INFORMS (2019). Peer-reviewed field study using internal data from a large multinational organisation. Cited (from the abstract) for the 25% adjustment rate. One organisation, so transfer is open.
- § 94 BetrVG – Personalfragebogen, Beurteilungsgrundsätze (Works Constitution Act, personnel questionnaires and appraisal principles), gesetze-im-internet.de (German Federal Ministry of Justice) (2026). Official German text as of the research date, 14 October 2026. Cited for para. 2 (works council consent to general appraisal principles); the English rendering is ours. Not legal advice.
- Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), decision of 17 March 2015 – 1 ABR 48/13, Bundesarbeitsgericht (2015). Cited for the headnote: co-determination under section 94(2) BetrVG extends to the design of the appraisal procedure, including appraisal conversations. That statistical correction rules fall under it is our reading, not a holding; not legal advice.
- § 87 BetrVG – Mitbestimmungsrechte (Works Constitution Act, co-determination rights), gesetze-im-internet.de (German Federal Ministry of Justice) (2026). Official German text as of the research date, 14 October 2026. Cited for para. 1 no. 6 (technical devices for monitoring behaviour or performance); the English rendering is ours. Not legal advice.
- Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), decision of 13 December 2016 – 1 ABR 7/15, Bundesarbeitsgericht (2016). Cited for para. 22: technical devices are “intended” for monitoring if they are objectively suitable for it, regardless of the employer’s intention. The case concerned an employer’s Facebook page; applying it to appraisal software is our reading.
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) – Article 4(4), Article 22 and Recital 71, EUR-Lex, Publications Office of the European Union (2016). Official text. Cited for the definition of profiling (performance at work), the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing with significant effects, and Recital 71’s “appropriate mathematical or statistical procedures”. Not legal advice; UK GDPR is not covered.
- Projektcontrolling-Software für Beratungsunternehmen – PACS, PACS Software GmbH & Co. KG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: project controlling for consulting firms, staffing by skills and project roles. In German.
- Basis-Modul Projektcontrolling und Projektreporting – PACS, PACS Software GmbH & Co. KG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: plan against actuals and multi-level contribution margins for projects and employees. In German.
- Personalakte – PACS, PACS Software GmbH & Co. KG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: add-on stores results of annual and employee talks. In German.
- Projektcontrolling – Projektron BCS, Projektron GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: plan against actuals and earned value analysis. In German.
- Personalverwaltung – Projektron BCS, Projektron GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: employees enter and rate their own skills in resource management. In German.
- ERP-Software für Beratungen – MOCO, everii Switzerland GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: ERP software for consulting firms. In German.
- Übergreifende Berichte – MOCO, everii Switzerland GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: project profitability and billable hours against target hours. In German.
- ERP für Beratungsunternehmen – KUMAVISION project365, KUMAVISION AG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: industry software for consulting firms based on Microsoft Dynamics 365. In German.
- Projektcontrolling – KUMAVISION, KUMAVISION AG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: plan against actuals, contribution margin analysis and post-calculation. In German.
- Nachkalkulation – Vertec, Vertec AG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: contribution margins for individual projects. In German.
- Personalverwaltung – Vertec, Vertec AG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: employees’ competencies and attributes for resource planning. In German.
- Performance Reviews – Leapsome, Leapsome GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: project-based reviews; AI pre-reads flag inconsistencies such as manager leniency, and “the AI never changes a rating on its own”.
- Leapsome for Professional Services, Leapsome GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: “built for consulting and professional services firms”, decentralised project reviews.
- Running a calibration meeting – Leapsome Help Center, Leapsome GmbH (2026). Vendor documentation, accessed 19 October 2026: calibration via heatmap, distribution and box view; rating changes are logged.
- Zusatzmodule und Add-ons – PACS, PACS Software GmbH & Co. KG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: “Mitarbeiter-Zielvorgaben” add-on with targets per employee and the rate of target achievement. In German.
- Personal – MOCO, everii Switzerland GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: staff can be filtered by skills in the staff list and in planning. In German.
- Resource planning in project management – KUMAVISION, KUMAVISION AG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: availability, skills, certifications and experience level can be recorded for each employee.
- Auswertung nach Teams und Skills – Vertec, Vertec AG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: utilisation charts by team and skill. In German.
- Impressum – PACS, PACS Software GmbH & Co. KG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: location: PACS Software GmbH & Co. KG, Munich.
- Impressum – Projektron, Projektron GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: location: Projektron GmbH, Berlin.
- Impressum – MOCO, everii Switzerland GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: location: everii Switzerland GmbH, registered in Zürich.
- Impressum – KUMAVISION, KUMAVISION AG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: location: KUMAVISION AG, Markdorf.
- Impressum – Vertec, Vertec AG (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: location: Vertec AG, Zürich.
- Impressum – Leapsome, Leapsome GmbH (2026). Vendor page, accessed 19 October 2026: location: Leapsome GmbH, Berlin.