Risk Analysis and Project Completion
A post implementation review (PIR) is an important part of all projects that should be done after the project's working solution has been applied and the process has been operational for a period of time (Wallace, 2007). The PIR allows for an evaluation of the working solution's success and if the project's objectives were met (Wallace, 2007). Additionally the PIR allows for the stakeholders to discuss if further improvements can be made and to discuss lessons learned from the project that can be applied to future projects (Wallace, 2007).
In my experience accountants and management do not like to have funds reserved for the unknown, and I have also seen that asking for funds after a project is complete is viewed negatively as this means there was a cost overrun. These behaviours do nothing more than prevent projects from being optimized and once projects are complete they would become an afterthought until it is eventually replaced. Fink & Bonnes, (2005) have demonstrated that when proper metrics and research is used in the post implementation part of a project that there are many positive outcomes like positive attitudes, team building, and that process improvements can be realized.
Another benefit of a PIR is that it is a good opportunity to learn how to approach projects differently and to learn from past mistakes (Mindtools, 2012). These are golden lessons learned opportunities that build on the skills of the project manager and the project team. Lessons I have learned to date include, involving all stakeholders, having a robust training program with documentation (standard operating procedures), avoiding scope creep and more. I have also learned with a project review that it is ok to stop a project if issues are found and not try to force the project through to meet timelines. A company I worked for had a project to do some minor repairs on underground storage tanks. Once the workers dug up one of the underground lines for inspection they discovered signs of corrosion. Integrity testing of the lines and tanks was not part of the project and this could mean that what was considered a minor project could evolve into a huge environmental remediation project. Some of the workers were nervous and just wanted to stick with the original project scope and get out of there. I heard the rumors of these findings from other workers and I intervened and I hit the "stop" button and let the executives know the company had to redefine the project and accept that this project needed additional testing and information before proceeding. This project was supposed to have been completed last year but the companytook the time to gather the necessary data and was now in a good position to redefine scope and request adequate funding for the project. The project manager of the project thankfully no longer works for the company. Thank-fully now after integrity testing we know the underground tanks are good and the corrosion was only limited to the outside wall of piping that is double lined. Imagine if the company hadn't done the proper testing and the rumors of tanks leaking became public, it could have been a media and regulatory nightmare. Now the company has done the right thing, has documentation to verify all is well and the delay of 6 months of this project was justified. The PIR of this project gave confidence to the workforce and helped them be prepared to handle difficult situations for future projects.
Task
- Comment on the explanations above by expanding on, questioning, or offering further support for the ideas, or by suggesting new or alternative viewpoints.