Thursday, 9 November 2017

6145 Week 2 - Project Postmortem

Completing a project postmortem can help teams avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. In this post I will review a project I was part of in the role of developer, and a sort of co-project manager.

For more than 50 years project manager and project success has typically been defined by the common image of the Iron Triangle. The three corners of the triangle include budget, schedule and quality. Yet these are not the only way to measure project success (Atkinson, 1999). I project that I worked on a few years ago was a success by these three common criteria. However, it was widely viewed as a failure by upper management. The main reason is that even though we met the schedule, kept within approved budget limits, and produced a product the customers loved; it did not result in the long-term revenue that management was looking for.

By including long-term revenue in the success criteria, management stakeholders virtually guaranteed the project would be a failure. An extensive project plan included the assessment that these revenue goals would not be met. It was clear to most of the team (including the project manager) from the outset, that the stakeholders responsible for the marketing, sales, and business plan of the project, were not sufficiently motivated, or adequately skilled for the task. These specific risks were not included in the project plan for political reasons.

This type of organizational culture is a frequent cause of project management problems and projects being viewed as failures (Atkinson, 1999). This project was actually Phase 2 of a longer-term strategy. Because of problems during Phase 1, the project management team was far more proactive and on top of things during Phase 2. The problem however, was that overall corporate and management culture did not change. The project management team lacked the authority and the trust of management stakeholders that would enable them to do their jobs properly. In my opinion however, even a perfect project manager could not have made this project a success in the eyes of management stakeholders, as many of those stakeholders simply did not want the project to succeed. There are probably a variety of reasons for this including fear of change, and possibly the self-sabotage of failure avoidance, by setting impossible goals (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009). Of the organizational biases outlined by Barry Shore (2008), I feel that conservatism and groupthink were the main factors at play, although sunk costs certainly were a factor in some decisions.

Sometimes all a PM can do in those circumstances is try to document everything well enough that they are saddled with as little blame as possible. Perhaps a knowledgeable enough project manager could have found a senior manager willing to fight to make the long-term sales the primary measure of success. If this had been done, it might have been possible to force the rest of the stakeholders to include having a business plan, customer support team, and marketing plan, as part of the overall Project Plan and Charter (Brownlee, 2009). As it was, the Charter only covered development aspects. Lacking these other elements, the project was dead on delivery.

References:

Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337–342.

Brownlee, D. (2009, Dec 23). The project manager's guide to dealing with difficult sponsors. ProjectSmart [Web site]. Retrieved from https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/the-project-managers-guide-to-dealing-with-difficult-sponsors.php

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson.

Shore, B. (2008). Systematic biases and culture in project failures. Project Management Journal, 39(4), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20082



No comments:

Post a Comment