Execution Cup

It tracks verified task completions using the task.completed scoring action. The standings are based on event count, then normalized per person so the contest stays fair across departments of different sizes. This makes it a good fit when you want to reward real execution, not self-reported effort.

An operations lead, team manager, or program owner should run it, because the organizer needs to define the eligible task sources and review the standings during the 2-week window. It works best when one person owns setup, communication, and the final winner call. If departments already have clear task systems, the rollout is straightforward.

The built-in duration is 14 days, which matches the natural cadence of a short execution sprint. That is long enough for meaningful task volume and short enough to keep energy high. If you want recurring contests, run it as an episodic challenge rather than leaving it open-ended like a leaderboard.

Per-capita scoring prevents large departments from automatically overpowering smaller ones. It makes the contest fair when team sizes differ and keeps the focus on execution density rather than headcount. That is especially important for department-wide contests where raw totals would bias the standings.

Not in this metric mode if the platform already tracks the underlying work events. Execution Cup is designed for verified task completion, not manual entry of external numbers. For sales, fundraising, steps, or NPS, a manual contest would be the better fit because those metrics are outside the platform's native event tracking.

The biggest mistake is using it for vague activity instead of clearly defined completed tasks. Another common issue is forgetting to confirm which task events count, which can create disputes about eligibility. A third pitfall is running it too long, which turns a contest into a leaderboard and weakens the finish-line effect.

You can tailor the eligible task sources, the department scope, the announcement copy, and the prize language while keeping the same scoring logic. If your team wants more collaboration, you can frame the prize as bragging rights or a team recognition moment. The core structure should stay focused on verified task completion per person.

Ad-hoc recognition is useful, but it is easy to miss quieter contributors or reward the most visible people. Execution Cup creates a defined contest window, visible standings, and a clear finish line, so effort is easier to compare and celebrate. It is better when you want a repeatable program instead of one-off praise.

Yes, that is one of the main reasons the template uses per-capita scoring. Smaller departments can compete credibly because the ranking reflects task completions per person, not just total volume. That said, the organizer should still explain the rules clearly so people understand how the standings are calculated.