Know how the assignment went. Decide who goes next.
EVA is an AI agent that talks to the client and the worker within days of an assignment ending, records what each observed, and shows where every finding comes from.
EVA provides evidence and recommendations. Your people make the decisions.
Live within the United Nations and LVMH, across 120+ countries.
What did this assignment show, and what does it mean for the next one?
Assignment feedback can be scattered across emails, ratings and individual recollections. A short, structured review makes recent work easier to discuss. Capture what the worker did, what the client actually observed and what remains uncertain before using the information in another placement.
Hear from the worker and the client while the work is fresh.
Ask soon after the work ends.
Agree the event that closes an assignment, then invite the worker and the client or manager separately. A pilot can target invitations within 72 hours and conversations of around five minutes, focused on a few relevant competencies. Timing, reminders and connections to your assignment system are scoped before launch.
Capture what was done, with a concrete example.
Ask what was done, under what conditions and with what result. Record the assignment, dates, source and opportunity to observe. Keep worker reflection separate from client observations. Make it possible to say 'not observed', and flag disagreement for review instead of averaging it away.
Rank the next shortlist on reviewed evidence from work.
Both conversations go into the proposed profile, dated and sourced, with a review state. Recent assignment evidence adds to relevant prior experience. Give the worker a route to see and respond before a reviewer considers the evidence for the next role. Confirm current interest and availability; nothing is turned into a score of the person.
See what the next placement team could use.
The assignment record should show each perspective and its review state. Capture is not approval, and a missing response is not evidence of poor performance.
| Assignment | Client evidence | Worker reflection | Effect on next match | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-2041 · Interim finance controller, 4 months | Ran the month-end close on a newly migrated system, on time (client finance director, 3 days after close); three further competencies observed, one not observed | Describes the migration issues and what she would do differently | Considered against the next interim role's "systems transition" requirement; interest and availability confirmed 22 Sep | Reviewed with role context |
| A-2058 · Warehouse team lead | No response after the agreed reminder | Reflection captured | Keep the gap visible; no reduction for client silence | Client evidence missing |
| A-2063 · Field consultant | Two examples; one competency not observed | Provides an additional work example | Ask an appropriate reviewer to examine the example | Additional example needs review |
| A-2071 · Data analyst, 2 months | 2 of 6 competencies observed · one concern noted, with example (client manager, 1 day after close) | Recorded · worker invited to respond | Held for review · no change to any shortlist until reviewed | Review pending |
Keep both accounts visible when they differ.
Show what the client actually observed
Record what the reviewer had an opportunity to see. Neither seniority nor confidence establishes competency without supporting evidence.
Workers can respond
Agree access, correction and review before participation. A contested account needs resolution or a clearly recorded limitation before consequential reuse.
Use recent examples against the next role
Review the role, evidence age and work conditions. Keep current availability and interest separate from past performance.
Start with one branch or one client account.
Tell us how assignments close today, which competencies you place against and who owns client feedback. Scope a trial on the next fifty assignments: measure invitation timing and participation, then review how the evidence could inform the next shortlist.
- Bring to the first discussion
- One role family, your current closure and feedback process, a sample of its structure, and the decision owner. Do not enter personal worker or client records into Talk to EVA.
Use the same conversation after a roster deployment.
For emergency, surge and consultant rosters, scope the conversations around the end of each deployment so the next roster review can draw on recent work.
23,000 staff and contractors mapped · Shortlists in under 1 hour with EVA Talent Matching
United Nations Development Programme.
EVA's capacity mapping at UNDP. The proposed end-of-assignment workflow would extend this approach to evidence gathered after each assignment.
Does the new evidence improve the next placement?
Measure the effort to collect and review useful evidence, then assess whether it helps placements. Compare similar assignments and account for differences in demand, client and role; a higher re-placement rate alone does not prove that EVA caused it.
Usable examples and response rates
Measure worker and client response rates separately, plus the share of eligible closures with a relevant example that a reviewer can use. Keep non-response and disagreement visible.
Time spent collecting and reviewing
Record conversation time, reminders, reviewer effort and time to resolve corrections. The full operating cost includes human review.
Next-assignment outcomes
Track time to the next accepted start, re-placement and early assignment outcomes against a suitable baseline. Check whose evidence is missing before changing matching weights.
Corrections and disputes resolved
Record response and correction requests, time to resolution and any limitations retained before the evidence is used for another role.
Measures are agreed with you against your baseline; they are not promised results.
- Decision owner
- A staffing operations, service-delivery or roster leader accountable for placement quality and repeat business.
- Working lead
- A branch or account manager who secures client participation and owns the follow-up.
- Review and control partners
- Workers and client managers provide the accounts; quality, HR and privacy owners agree use, review, retention and access.
Questions before you start.
4 questions to explore
Is this a performance assessment?
It captures evidence about work and can inform later employment or placement decisions, so it needs an explicit purpose and review process. It is not a substitute for a formal appraisal or disciplinary procedure. Avoid a universal score of the person: consider the assignment context, the source and the specific role requirement.
You might also want to know
Where this connects.
International Workforce
Use recent evidence in a review of the next assignment and its required checks.
Explore International Workforce →Contingent Workforce
Find suitable temporary cover and confirm readiness.
Explore Contingent Workforce →Recruitment & Shortlisting
Review people against relevant role criteria and evidence.
Explore Recruitment & Shortlisting →Discuss one branch's assignment review.
Use the call to describe one branch's closure process, the people involved and what a useful first output would look like. No personal records are needed.