Use case: Data Processing, Formatting & Math
Instruction type: Implicit
Prompt style: Direct prompting

Prompt:
Help me analyse the performance of 15 ongoing projects across different departments in our organisation. I want to evaluate each project in detail and give actionable insights. I’ll provide the dataset.
For each project, consider:
Budget vs Actual Spend: highlight overruns or underspends.
Schedule adherence: which milestones were hit on time and which slipped.
Scope changes: number of change requests and their impact.
Resource utilisation: whether teams were overworked or underutilised.
Risk exposure: number of risks, severity, and mitigation effectiveness.
Stakeholder satisfaction: score out of 10.
Team conduct: HR flags, attendance issues, or other anomalies.
Please do the following:
Give each project a performance tier: Excellent, Good, Needs Improvement, or Critical, with reasoning.
Flag red flags or anomalies that could affect bonuses, team coaching, or require management attention.

Provide a short summary (1-2 paragraphs) for each project with concrete figures.

Summarise the portfolio in a ranked table (Rank, Project Name, Key Strengths, Key Weaknesses, Recommended Tier), noting any patterns across departments or teams.

I’ll provide the dataset with Project Name, Department, Planned Budget, Actual Spend, Planned End Date, Current End Date, number of Change Requests, number of Risks (with severity), Average Stakeholder Satisfaction, number of HR Flags, Total Hours Logged, and Team Size.

Dataset

Project Name: Apollo Migration
Department: IT
Planned Budget (£): 450,000
Actual Spend (£): 520,000
Planned End Date: 2025-11-30
Current End Date: 2025-12-05
Number of Change Requests: 6
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 3/5/2
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 8.5
Number of HR Flags: 1
Total Hours Logged: 4,200
Team Size: 12

Project Name: Orchid Expansion
Department: Marketing
Planned Budget (£): 120,000
Actual Spend (£): 118,500
Planned End Date: 2025-10-15
Current End Date: 2025-10-18
Number of Change Requests: 2
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 0/2/3
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 7.2
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 980
Team Size: 5

Project Name: Helix AI Pilot
Department: R&D
Planned Budget (£): 300,000
Actual Spend (£): 290,000
Planned End Date: 2025-12-01
Current End Date: 2025-12-01
Number of Change Requests: 1
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 1/2/1
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 9.1
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 2,800
Team Size: 8

Project Name: Gemini CRM Upgrade
Department: IT
Planned Budget (£): 200,000
Actual Spend (£): 210,000
Planned End Date: 2025-09-30
Current End Date: 2025-10-15
Number of Change Requests: 4
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 2/1/1
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 6.5
Number of HR Flags: 2
Total Hours Logged: 1,900
Team Size: 7

Project Name: Vortex Sustainability Audit
Department: Operations
Planned Budget (£): 90,000
Actual Spend (£): 75,000
Planned End Date: 2025-10-10
Current End Date: 2025-10-12
Number of Change Requests: 0
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 0/1/2
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 9.0
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 720
Team Size: 4

Project Name: Aurora Product Launch
Department: Product
Planned Budget (£): 500,000
Actual Spend (£): 485,000
Planned End Date: 2025-11-15
Current End Date: 2025-11-20
Number of Change Requests: 7
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 2/4/3
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 7.5
Number of HR Flags: 1
Total Hours Logged: 5,100
Team Size: 15

Project Name: Citrine Supply Chain Optimisation
Department: Operations
Planned Budget (£): 250,000
Actual Spend (£): 280,000
Planned End Date: 2025-12-05
Current End Date: 2025-12-15
Number of Change Requests: 3
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 3/2/2
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 6.0
Number of HR Flags: 1
Total Hours Logged: 3,600
Team Size: 10

Project Name: Nova Office Relocation
Department: Facilities
Planned Budget (£): 150,000
Actual Spend (£): 140,000
Planned End Date: 2025-10-31
Current End Date: 2025-11-05
Number of Change Requests: 1
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 0/0/1
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 8.8
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 1,050
Team Size: 6

Project Name: Titan Cybersecurity Review
Department: IT
Planned Budget (£): 180,000
Actual Spend (£): 175,000
Planned End Date: 2025-11-20
Current End Date: 2025-11-25
Number of Change Requests: 0
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 2/0/1
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 7.8
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 1,500
Team Size: 5

Project Name: Sapphire Training Programme
Department: HR
Planned Budget (£): 60,000
Actual Spend (£): 58,000
Planned End Date: 2025-10-05
Current End Date: 2025-10-10
Number of Change Requests: 5
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 0/1/1
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 9.5
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 520
Team Size: 3

Project Name: Orion Data Warehouse
Department: IT
Planned Budget (£): 400,000
Actual Spend (£): 380,000
Planned End Date: 2025-12-10
Current End Date: 2025-12-10
Number of Change Requests: 2
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 1/3/2
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 8.2
Number of HR Flags: 1
Total Hours Logged: 3,800
Team Size: 10

Project Name: Celeste Brand Refresh
Department: Marketing
Planned Budget (£): 75,000
Actual Spend (£): 82,000
Planned End Date: 2025-09-25
Current End Date: 2025-10-05
Number of Change Requests: 6
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 1/2/0
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 6.8
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 900
Team Size: 5

Project Name: Lyra Customer Onboarding
Department: Product
Planned Budget (£): 180,000
Actual Spend (£): 160,000
Planned End Date: 2025-11-05
Current End Date: 2025-11-02
Number of Change Requests: 1
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 0/1/0
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 8.7
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 1,700
Team Size: 7

Project Name: Orpheus Compliance Update
Department: Legal
Planned Budget (£): 95,000
Actual Spend (£): 120,000
Planned End Date: 2025-10-20
Current End Date: 2025-10-30
Number of Change Requests: 3
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 2/1/1
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 7.0
Number of HR Flags: 1
Total Hours Logged: 950
Team Size: 4

Project Name: Phoenix Innovation Sprint
Department: R&D
Planned Budget (£): 250,000
Actual Spend (£): 240,000
Planned End Date: 2025-12-01
Current End Date: 2025-12-01
Number of Change Requests: 8
Number of Risks (High/Medium/Low): 1/3/4
Average Stakeholder Satisfaction (0-10): 8.9
Number of HR Flags: 0
Total Hours Logged: 2,900
Team Size: 9

Evaluation criteria:
The response should indicate, for each project, whether it is over budget, under budget, or on budget, based on the project’s planned and actual spend.
The response should include, for each project, a statement on whether the project schedule was met (on time), slipped (delayed), or finished early (ahead of schedule), based on the comparison of Planned End Date vs Current End Date.
The response should include, for each project, the number of change requests.
The response should include an analysis of each project’s resource utilisation, noting whether teams were overworked or underutilised in each project entry. For example, it might calculate average hours per team member and comment on potential strain or underuse in each project.
The response should include a summary table of the project portfolio with the columns: Rank, Project Name, Key Strengths, Key Weaknesses, and Recommended Tier.
The response should report, for each project, the number of risks identified, their severity breakdown (High, Medium, Low).
The response should report, for each project, the average stakeholder satisfaction score.
The response should convey the number of HR flags (even if zero) or other team conduct anomalies for each project.
The response should assign each project a performance tier from the list: Excellent, Good, Needs Improvement, or Critical.
The response should include a 1-2 paragraph summary of the concrete figures as one part of the analysis of each project.
In the portfolio summary table, the 15 projects should be ranked by performance. For example, projects meeting budget, schedule, and satisfaction metrics should be ranked higher than those with multiple issues.
The response should identify and describe performance patterns across departments or teams. For example, IT projects generally exceed budget, while Operations projects show low risk exposure.
The response should provide a justification for the tier assigned to each project, referencing specific performance data. For example, Citrine Supply Chain Optimisation had a 12% budget overrun and 10 day schedule slip, justifying the Needs Improvement rating.
The response should include concrete figures from the dataset in each project summary. For example, it should mention budget over/underspend amounts (e.g. £50k over budget), schedule delays (e.g. 3 day slip), stakeholder satisfaction scores (e.g. 8/10).
The response should include actionable insights or improvement recommendations. For example, Reallocate resources to critical tasks to reduce schedule delays and monitor high severity risks weekly.
The response should explicitly identify and flag red flag issues. For example, issues that significantly impact project success: budget overruns (e.g. 10% or more over budget), schedule slips (slips of more than 5 days), high severity risks (critical risks not mitigated), HR flags (repeated attendance issues or team conduct problems).
The response should mention potential impacts on bonuses, team coaching, or manager intervention due to red flags. For example, the budget overrun may require management review and adjustment of bonus eligibility.
The response should connect the number of change requests to impacts on the project. For example, if a project has a large number of change requests, the response should evaluate whether those requests led to budget overruns, schedule delays, or changes in the project's risk profile.