Setting Up Employee Performance Evaluation in Bitrix24

Why employee performance evaluation in Bitrix24 doesn't work

Most often, employee performance evaluation in Bitrix24 breaks down not at the reporting stage, but earlier — at the data stage.

Tasks are closed "for the sake of a checkmark," the fact of completion lives in a chat, no one records labor costs, and by the time the analysis of employee performance indicators comes around, it turns out there is nothing to measure.

The manager gets either an empty report or numbers that don't match reality, and makes decisions based on gut feeling.

The second typical cause is manual collection. Someone exports tasks into a spreadsheet, consolidates statuses, manually assigns weights and deadlines, and then recalculates every time something changes.

Such task and results tracking survives exactly until the first crunch: the spreadsheet goes stale within a day, versions diverge between departments, and no one can give a coherent answer to the question "why does this employee have a low score." An error in a single formula quietly drags along incorrect conclusions for the entire department.

The third problem is fragmented metrics. Sales are measured by deals, development — by closed tasks, support — by tickets, and each department measures with its own yardstick.

Bringing this into a single picture without a unified data model is impossible: the indicators are not comparable with one another, and comparing departments turns into an argument about methodology rather than results.

The problems of personnel evaluation here are not in the people, but in the fact that the company has no common denominator.

As a result, the manager sees fragments instead of a system: inflated scores in one place, unclosed tasks in another, and somewhere a metric that no one has ever verified. Evaluation stops being a management tool and becomes a cause for conflicts.

Let's break down how this gets resolved — from setting up data collection inside Bitrix24 to transparent calculation rules that don't need to be reassembled by hand.

How to set up employee performance evaluation in Bitrix24

Employee performance evaluation in Bitrix24 is built on three layers: metrics, the rules for calculating them, and reports by employee. Metrics are taken from already existing data — tasks, deals, calls, working time — rather than entered manually.

Setting up metrics comes down to choosing the source, the metric, and the period: for example, the share of tasks closed on time, or the average time to first response to a client.

Metrics and calculation rules

The rules for calculating performance are set by weights and thresholds, not by an "average across the board." An employee can be assigned a target for quantity and for quality separately: the volume of closed deals is calculated by the pipeline, while adherence to deadlines is calculated by the task calendar.

The trigger threshold is configured so that a deviation is recorded before the final review, not after.

Reports by employee

Reports by employee are compiled by department and by period, with detail down to a specific task or deal. A manager sees not only the final number but also what it is made up of — this eliminates disputes about the subjectivity of the evaluation.

A combination of modes gives a stable picture: automatic metrics cover regular roles, while surveys cover areas where the result is poorly quantified. We set it up so that data is not duplicated and does not contradict itself.

Bitrix24

Stages of implementing performance evaluation in a company

Implementing performance evaluation in Bitrix24 starts not with configuration, but with an audit: which metrics are already being collected in tasks, CRM, and documents, where data is duplicated, and where it physically does not exist.

At this stage, we fix the list of metrics, sources, and calculation rules — otherwise, reporting automation will lock contradictory numbers into the system, and decisions about people will be made based on them.

1. Audit of metrics and data sources. We review current reports, exports, and manual spreadsheets, and verify which metrics actually influence managers' decisions and which are collected "just in case." The output is an agreed-upon list with the calculation formula and the owner of each number.
2. Designing the evaluation model. We determine what we evaluate — results, discipline, or competencies — and how this maps to roles and departments. We define the weights, frequency, and thresholds at which a metric is considered met.
3. Setting up data collection in Bitrix24. We link tasks, CRM, work reports, and business processes so that metrics are calculated from the employee's actual actions, rather than from a separate manual form. We eliminate double entry and manual reconciliations.
4. Reporting automation. We set up regular reports and dashboards by managers and departments, with an export schedule and access differentiation: each person sees their own slice, not the entire company.
5. Pilot on one department. We launch the model on a limited group, compare calculated metrics with actual results, and adjust formulas where the numbers diverge from common sense.
6. Training managers and regulations. We show how to read reports and what to do about deviations, and we fix the review frequency and the rules for revising weights.
7. System handover and support. We hand over the configured processes, calculation schemes, and instructions so that metric adjustments do not require us at every step.

This order delivers a predictable result: first we agreed on the numbers, then we automated them. Describe your task — we will come back with an assessment and a plan for your department structure.

How does task-based evaluation differ from project-based evaluation?

Task-based evaluation counts closed units of work: how many tasks are in the "completed" status, whether they were on time, without being returned for rework. The efficiency criterion here is the performer's throughput and deadline discipline.

The metric works honestly where the flow is uniform and cut into comparable chunks: support, request processing, regular scheduled operations. The weak spot is the weight of a task.

Closing ten small edits is easier than one integration, yet in a report by count the second looks worse than the first, even though it holds up the entire contour.

Project-based evaluation counts contribution to the result: whether the performer brought a block to a state where it can be delivered, whether they met the milestones, how many times their part became the cause of a milestone shift.

Here the criterion is not the number of closed items, but the impact on the project's outcome. This approach is resistant to varying sizes of work and does not penalize for long tasks, but it requires mature accounting: stages, dependencies, owners by block.

If the system has no marking of stages and roles, project-based evaluation degenerates into a subjective one — the manager assigns a score from memory.

Comparing evaluation methods comes down to the horizon. Tasks give a snapshot for a week and catch discipline failures well: stuck in progress, overdue, returned.

Projects give a snapshot for a quarter and show who actually moves the result and who creates the appearance of activity.

In practice, they are not set against each other: tasks remain the primary data layer, while project-based evaluation aggregates them by stages and milestones.

In Bitrix24, this maps onto the native entities. Tasks are closed in the kanban, projects and groups collect them into stages, and contribution is calculated through linking tasks to a stage and the owner of the block.

If you already keep task records but have no marking of stages and roles — project-based evaluation will only work after that structure appears in the groups themselves.

What if tasks are already being managed chaotically? First we bring order to the reference data: unified statuses, a mandatory owner, linking to a stage. Without this, any metric will be counting noise.

Can both approaches be combined? Yes, and this is a workable option: tasks — operational control, projects — the final evaluation of contribution. We separate them into different reports so as not to mix discipline and result in a single number.

Case study: how a sales department saw the real workload of employees

Before implementation, the head of the sales department assembled the workload picture manually: exporting deals from the CRM, reconciling with a call log, a separate file for activity in email and messengers.

Preparation took 2-3 days at the end of the month, and the figures still diverged from what the managers themselves saw — every dispute about a bonus turned into an investigation of who had underfilled what. The assessment of the sales department's effectiveness rested on a person's word, not on data.

What was changed

A single contour of metrics was assembled inside Bitrix24: activity (calls, emails, meetings) is pulled from the deal card automatically, funnel stages record the time at each step, and the revenue plan is broken down by managers and periods.

Manual entry was removed — data comes from the same actions that the employee already performs in the system.

The key is transparent criteria. Each metric received a weight and a threshold, the calculation formula is visible to the manager in their card, not only to the supervisor. The dispute "why do I have less" is closed by the fact that both sides look at the same calculation.

What happened as a result

The workload report is generated on demand, not once a month — the supervisor sees deviations during the period and manages to intervene.

The time to prepare the summary was reduced from several days to minutes, and discrepancies between CRM data and actual work disappeared as a category. Bonus reviews stopped being negotiations: the criteria are fixed in advance, not selected retroactively.

A separate effect is the distribution of workload. It became clear whose deals are stuck at a stage and who is overloaded: some tasks were redistributed without hiring new people.

Bitrix24

Concerns before implementation: access, migration, rollback

Implementing performance evaluation in Bitrix24 almost always comes down not to functionality, but to three technical questions: how to separate access and permissions, what to do with already accumulated employee data, and whether changes can be rolled back if the evaluation policy turns out to be unsuccessful. Let's break down each one substantively — without generalities.

What if the evaluation policy doesn't take hold? We separate the settings into distinct entities without touching the portal core: rollback means restoring the previous set of rules and permissions, not rebuilding the system.

Before every change, we record the current state, so you can return to a working version at any time.

How are access and permissions separated? We configure roles on the principle of least privilege: a manager sees evaluations of their department, HR sees consolidated data, an employee sees only their own.

Permissions are inherited from the company structure, so when someone is transferred or a new person is hired, access is pulled in automatically.

Upon completion, the client receives:

• a role map and permission matrix for all participants in the evaluation process;
• configured evaluation policies with a description of periods and criteria;
• a data migration scheme with verification checkpoints;
• instructions for rolling back changes and returning to the previous version of settings;
• a backup policy for settings and evaluation data;
• system documentation: structure, relationships, integration points with 1C;
• a guide for HR and managers on working with evaluations.

Describe your task — the current structure, evaluation policy, and access requirements. We'll come back with an assessment and a phased implementation plan.

Timeline for setting up performance evaluation by stages

Evaluating employee performance in Bitrix24 is not a single module that you turn on with one switch, but a set of settings: evaluation templates, scales, frequency, linkage to the org structure and access rights.

Therefore, the timeline depends on the number of groups being evaluated, the depth of integration with tasks and CRM, and how ready the regulations are on the client's side.

Below are approximate timelines by stage: they are given in working days and are not tied to calendar dates, so that the plan remains relevant regardless of when you start.

The ranges add up: a typical setup without deep integrations fits within 3–5 weeks, while one with linkage to tasks and CRM and several groups with different models takes longer.

We provide an exact work plan after analyzing your org structure and regulations, because those most often determine the timeline, not the setup itself. Describe your task — we will get back to you with an estimate and a stage-by-stage plan.