Performance review preparation with constant improvements (personal due diligence of soft skills and feedback processing)

[turkhale]

---

TBC is just a stub so far.
Language-market fit experiment here

User segment:
Development teams working in meritocratic or corporate environments where regular performance assessment exists or is planned to be introduced. People are ready to spend time and effort to provide verifiable track records because it will affect their careers. They are prepared to use structured documents to perform assessments, not oral ad hoc discussions over the performance standard, where the boss decides everything.

User story:
As a project or product manager of the development team, I want to perform a fair, transparent (explainable), and evidence-based assessment process with the PDCA improvement cycle.
As an engineer and team member of the development team, I want to keep a proper track record of my achievements that do not need redoing for each project or job, that can be easily supported with evidence from different data sources, and publish this track record for my manager, customer, or peers for review so they corroborate it like on LinkedIn, but more privately and profoundly.

Problem: Asymmetry of the information about individual performance (manager cannot understand whether the engineer's job done is significant) and team performance (engineer cannot know what other people on the team did and their level).
For project and product managers, getting concise but precise descriptions of achievements from qualified engineers and supporting them with verifiable evidence can be challenging, especially when engineers switch jobs. And it is tiring to make engineers provide such depictions, especially in verbal reports. So, managers only give their credentials (which they formulate themselves) to those they have worked with for a long time and refrain from hiring or referring prominent candidates based on the story these candidates provide, as they cannot verify the validity of the job experience. Also, people change over time for the worse, so even when the manager knows someone from years ago, he still can be reluctant to give his recommendations because this is risky.
For engineers, it is difficult to understand what managers want when asking broad questions like "Tell me about yourself." Many qualifications of such engineers stay hidden because nobody asked specific questions during the interview or review; engineers rarely possess oratory skills and don't want to spend time acquiring them. But they want a fair and transparent assessment process.
And even more specifically - how do engineers interpret the feedback, and how do managers ensure engineers receive and process the feedback? Because the concept of behavior feedback is vague, see my post "Feedback went wrong".
Even worse - if we present at the CEO speech, how do we consider what her feedback is we should be considering? If we listen to the podcast where we hear the advice to change something, why is it not feedback for us? It should be.
In this use case, we use the talent digital shadow to hashtag the received feedback to help the user interpret it correctly and the author of the feedback to ensure the feedback is valuable.

Situation (context):
The team does not use commercial or corporate HRM solutions to manage the assessment process. They may want to buy such a solution later but want to test if the process works first. So it is small and medium-sized companies.
The team now does not value the existing assessment process and executes it only to meet corporate requirements and considers time spent on it wasted.
People cannot use the results of the assessment after they switch the job. And with an average position switching every 2-3 years, that is a lot of wasted effort over a 40-year career.
As the process is worthless, it is performed the day before the deadline with minimal effort, so performance records produce no factual information to the managers above.
As records contain no actual information about the team member's skills and experience, the decisions about salary raises or promotions or otherwise keeping people are heavily biased toward people with whom the decision-makers have personal knowledge. Project and product managers cannot argue to save people with evidence in their hands; they need to have track records.
When you switch jobs, you don't transfer your reputation because your track record is scattered across LinkedIn, verbal evidence from your colleagues and bosses, your contracts, and, most importantly, not searchable for others even if you manage to collect it.

Solution:

1. "Business card with a change history." A personal website contains a CV and a personality traits assessment with a history. The site is searchable with Terraphim, and evidence is stored in Atomic Server.
2. Collection of Logseq templates and guidelines to build and populate this website.
3. Method to extract key terms from the self-descriptions on the website.
4. Terraphim role [[Employee]] that matches the feedback to the terms extracted from self-descriptions on the website. This role is used to process the transcript of the discussion podcast or speech that you think should be feedback.
5. Import feature from Discord chat if feedback is in the chat. Terraphim command?
6. Import feature from daily journals if the feedback is sent through the Telegram Terraphim bot. Terraphim command?
7. On the output (Terraphim search results), you get the list of personality traits affected by the feedback. They are tagged with your key terms and provided with guidelines to make them actionable. You make a to-do list from this result, and you can discuss it with others.
8. To compare your profile with others, you can extract the profile into the Pareto-best trade-off diagram (CSV or JSON?).

Benefit:

---

End-to-end user flow:

---

It's a part of the due diligence demo flow:

Demo1: Job interview (customer meeting) prep (both CV and STAR-answers techniques prep)

1. target audience — engineers switching jobs (both company and project or team)
2. demo or trial product with required features (breakdown of components) — Logseq as CRM.
   1. missing feature Terraphim Cortex - list documents in Terraphim per role with expiration date for items
   2. add a document from the web extension to the Terraphim cloud
   3. /readit bot command adds a document to Terraphim Cortex
      1. add a file to the Terraphim cloud
      1. security of terraphim cloud (public for demos and ensure security for people)
   4. tag the document that I sent to the bot
3. marketing - what is required to market 2 to 1. Demo, webinars, YouTube (create using [terraphim.ai](http://terraphim.ai) e-mail), forms, technical mailing lists, YCombinator, Reddit, list all channels and distribute posts with announcements by media.
4. enabling capabilities - what is required to build 2
   1. Terraphim role = System operator
   2. public cloud instance for demo — need to create a flow
   3. private cloud instance for experiments
5. what are the success criteria or failure (how do we disprove the hypothesis as soon as possible)
   1. Donations.
   2. No video views over two days, no sharing, no questions, and user requests.