Change Fail!

One of the most important and overlooked project phases is the after-action review or project post-mortem .  If the project was successful, team members are often do not see the value in reviewing the actions and countermeasures taken throughout the project duration.  A project post-mortem will help identify what to keep doing and what strategies, tactics, and processes were beneficial.   If the project wasn’t successful or had many challenges throughout its duration, an analysis provides an opportunity to review what happened, identify warning signs which were missed, and discuss strategies for future use if the problem is encountered again (Greer, 2010).

When projects don’t go as planned, it can be difficult for a team member, sponsor, champion, or project lead to admit there was room for improvement in the approach.  One particular example is a project on developing a waste management system that still has not completed in over 10 months.  As I left the project to pursue other career interests, I had a post-mortem review with several key team members.  Unfortunately, there were no positives discussed that pertained to the project steps or phases.  Several areas of the project were identified as contributing to the problems seen on the project:

• Lack of definition
• Scope creep
• Lack of resources
• No support

Many of these issues could have been prevented in the beginning stages of the project.  Project management tools were not used, mainly due to the sponsor ’s direction.  The sponsor had his own particular way of running a project, which does not follow traditional project management (PM) principles, which affected the project lead since she was the sponsor's direct report.  There was no project charter, scope, or documentation other than a milestone list.  The only documentation created pertained to waste definitions and measurement systems.  Unfortunately, the project lead was not given responsibility, authority, or accountability and the sponsor dictated what they should do.

The project was severely constrained in terms of potential solutions.  The sponsor, yet again, told the project lead the exact solution he wanted to see, regardless of time, cost, headcount, and employee acceptance.  The primary stakeholders, managers of the area who were to adopt the solution, were highly resistive, but the sponsor ignored their concerns and directed the project lead to "tell them what they will be doing; don't hold their hand; and if they knew what was best for them they wouldn't be in this situation to begin with".

Scope creep was allowed to placate the stakeholders.  Even though the project lead pushed back on many of the changes made, stating that the project can be refined after the initial deliverables were met and providing information on why the changes were not feasible at the current time.  The sponsor, again telling the project lead what to do, allowed the changes because it kept the stakeholders engaged and semi-interested in the project.

Overall, the project should have not been started.  The timing was not right and communication, project planning, and personal/team dynamics harmed the project.  These areas are commonly identified as pitfalls and items to pay attention to to ensure a successful project in literature on change management (Beach, 2006; Portny et al, 2008, Allen & Hardin, 2008).  The project was not ran with a team approach, which caused many issues along the way (Scholtes, Joiner & Streibel, 2001).  Not having a clear, well articulated charter and deliverable that the group agreed upon was also an area that impacted the project (George, 2002).  Most importantly, the project sponsor threatened the project lead to do it his way becasue of the direct reporting relationship.  This made it extremely hard to use any project management tools, offer opinions and advice, and hold people accountable to their decisions.

 

Allen, S., & Hardin, P. C. (2008). Developing instructional technology products using effective project management practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(2), 72–97.  

Beach, L.R. (2006).  Leadership and the Art of Change.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications, Inc.

George, M. (2002).  Lean Six Sigma. New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill.

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.

 

Sholtes, P., Joiner, B., & Streibel, B.  (2001).  The TEAM Handbook (2^nd ed.). Madison, WI: Oriel

 
Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.