Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

In projects, “it's important for project managers and team members to take stock at the end of a project and develop a list of lessons learned so that they don't repeat their mistakes in the next project. Typically, such reviews are called post-project reviews or ‘post mortems’” (Greer 2010). Reflecting on a past project I was a part of is a reminder of what (and what not) to do. This particular project did not end up being successful. The project was designing and implementing online learning into a face-to-face course making it become a blended learning course. The course was for new employees to the company. The project was called “Blended Learning”. There are two questions that will help me reflect on this project in what went well and what needed improvement:

1. What processes, project artifacts, or activities did you include in the project that contributed to its success?

2. What processes, project artifacts, or activities did you not include in the project that might have made the project more successful?

To answer the first question, there were a lot of areas that went well and it looked like it was going to be successful. There are 5 phases that a project needs to pass through: conceive, define, start, perform, and close phase (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer 2008). The “Blended Learning” project did follow this process and created the idea to incorporate blended learning to enhance the learners’ experiences in the new hire course. The plan was then developed explaining how the team will make this possible. The project then began with the project manager, in case the unit manager, picking the members that would be a part of this project team and the core work began. At the close of the project, approval was received of the final results.

In addition to the 5-phase process, weekly communication was conducted via e-mail and meetings were held once a month to ensure the team was on track and in an effort to keep the lines of communication open. In each monthly meeting, the materials created thus far were brought for review to determine if it met the goals and objectives of the project. Towards the end of the project and before implementation, a Train-the-Trainer session was held to receive feedback from the Training team and make any necessary adjustments before the roll-out date. Once implemented, evaluations were performed during the blended learning course from the Trainer as well as completed by the learners. After 10 blended learning classes, data was put together from the evaluations and the test scores to see how they compared to the traditional face-to-face course. The results of the data is where it was determined the project had been unsuccessful, which leads me into the second question.

The test scores revealed a dramatic drop from face-to-face to blended learning and the evaluations were mostly negative as to how the learners felt the blended learning course impacted their learning. At first glance, it looks like the perfect thought out project on paper; however, there were a lot of holes that should have been filled. To begin, the 5 phases may have been performed, but not diligently or thoroughly. The conceive phase was performed like this was a small project when in fact, this was a large project that should’ve had “formal review and decision” before proceeding (Portny, et al. 2008). All upper management and Vice President of the company’s Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina sites should have been involved as this project’s goal was to be first conducted in Ohio and then implemented in the other sites in phase 2 of the project. Therefore, the other sites were supporters and the project needed their approval of the idea. If that were done, many of the issues with implementation at the other sites wouldn’t have been there.

The define phase did not include many of the elements that are needed such as, “a detailed description of results to be produced, a detailed project schedule, budgets, assumptions, and detailed roles all team members will play” (Portny, et al. 2008). There was not a detailed plan as to how the project team will conduct this project. Including a more detailed plan and in writing would have dramatically increased the probability of success with this project.

When the team was formed (the start phase), the project manager didn’t look into detail everyone that needed to be a part of this project. This allowed for many stakeholders that have now caused a lot of rework to try and get the “Blended Learning” project to be successful the second time around. One important group that was left out the majority of the project was the IT Department. They needed to be included as they are supporters and would help the project team know what software and capabilities the computers can do with the online portion of the course. For the members that were chosen, project roles were not assigned right away and instead, done sporadically throughout the project as the project manager saw fit. Another big downfall in this phase was when it was time for implementation, instead of letting the whole center know the progress of the project, only the associates who were signed up for the course, and their managers, were notified that they would be going through the new blended learning course. This caused for a lot of frustration as the managers thought they were signing their associate up for the traditional course (face-to-face), not be a beta tester in the new blended learning course. Had the project manager ensured all needed people were a part of the team, taken into consideration the stakeholders, and assigned roles at the beginning it would have made the project more successful. A work breakdown structure and responsibility chart would have been two excellent forms to utilize in this project helping it be more productive and successful.

The perform phase seemed to be better than the first three phases; however, it also had areas of improvement. The biggest improvement would be to keep everyone informed of changes, scope creep, issues arising, revisions, etc. The drivers of the project were informed throughout, but the supporters and observers were not. The supporters are the ones that have a heavy involvement in all of the phases as they are the “people who help to perform project work” (Portny, et al. 2008). These are the members that are working on the project and to not inform them of changes needed produces work that isn’t following the revised project plan. The project ended up following none of the new objectives since the supporters were not informed of changes made to the original objectives. This was discovered during the close phase with the evaluations and the observers noticing a different flow than what was discussed.

The close phase was the best phase conducted out of the others simply because without this phase, the project wouldn’t have been deemed unsuccessful and would have continued as it was. As many Training Departments know, evaluations are vital when conducting courses as things will need improved in order to keep up with the learners. The downfall in the close phase is that the final results did not receive approval of the other sites before implementation. Because of this and the results from the evaluations, the project team went back to square one to go through the project in more detail the second time around ensuring the same mistakes aren’t made twice.

My portion in the project was one of the supporters and I created the majority of the online material being implemented into the blended learning course. Being left in the dark about many things was quite frustrating, but I also learned from it and this time around I am ensuring I ask many questions and for the Project Manager to keep the supporters in the loop. This time around, I have been appointed the second project manager to help the original one out. So far, I have conducted a statement of work and am currently working on a work breakdown structure and responsibility chart. This Project Management course couldn’t have come at a better time as it is truly helping me conduct a successful project.

References

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

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.