Thursday, January 13, 2011

Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

One of the most challenging projects that I’ve been involved in was a technical sales certification program that I was called upon to manage in partnership with another Project Manager. This PM had successfully implemented a similar certification program for another client group (prior to a merger) on another technology and the client wanted to replicate it for a specific technology certification in the merged company. Since the goal was to replicate his approach, he acted as the lead PM and was chartered with managing the project charter, project scope, communications plan and all of the key PM components of the project. The program was comprised of web-based training, synchronous virtual training elements and some leader led face-to-face workshops. I was asked to manage the development of the web-based training.

The situation was complicated by the fact that our company had just gone through a significant merger. The lead PM was from the new company and I was in the learning organization they were being integrated into. As a result of the merger, our organization was going through a painful cultural struggle wrought with power struggles, fear, resentment and distrust. This impacted the project and complicated the relationships amongst project team members. As the project progressed, the lead PM and I found ourselves disagreeing on many of the tasks that needed to take place in terms of instructional design approaches, the standards and processes of the organization, and the tracking of certification testing results – most of which were new to the lead PM. Eventually, rather than deal with the realities of the new organization, he began negotiating with the client and making decisions on his own. Many of these decisions were not communicated across the functional teams and this resulted in confusion, missed dates, diminished quality and integrity of the instructional design, problems with the assessments and tracking of the certification, and missed dates. Additionally, many of the agreements he made with the client he could not come through on and he had to reach out to me later to create fixes and come up with last minute solutions. There was no structured change management plan, the client was very aggressive and she wouldn’t take “no” for an answer, and the lead PM was intimidated by her. The scope creep went completely out of control (Portny, et. al., 2008).

Overall, if I was faced with this same situation again, I would have made clear agreements with the lead PM. This would include clearly defined roles and responsibilities, project charter, statement of work, project scope, work breakdown structure, communication plan, and change management process. I would follow the phases of ISD Project Management more closely. This would include the standard ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation) approach to managing instructional design deliverables – as well as Allen & Harden’s approach that includes Project Initiation, Project Definition, Project Planning, Project Tracking and Project Closeout. (Allen & Harden, 2008). While there are many valid approaches to Instructional Systems Design (ISD) and project management, deciding on and consistently applying a methodology, throughout the lifecycle of the project, ensures that all aspects of your project will be cared for. This provides clear expectations for all stakeholders and truly helps to keep the project on track through completion and project close.

References

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. Copyright by Springer-Verlag, New York.

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects. Laureate International Universities.

Portney, 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. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ.

5 comments:

  1. Beth,
    You've shown a real life example of Allen and Hardin's point, "Instructional design must be done with a systems approach. Planning the instruciton in a systematic manner..." Your post mortem sounds as though the systematic approach was possibly lacking a bit... I've done the same, and then looked back and can clearly see if I had followed the steps, many of the project problems could have been avoided.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your post, Sheri. Yes, this experience was a huge learning experience. It certainly did drive home the point that a methodical approach ensures each aspect of a project is adequately and effectively cared for! These "live and learn" experiences are invaluable!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Beth,

    While looking at your blogger, I had a chance to visit your web-page. I like the way you planned and coordinated the visuals and audio. After reading your post, I find that it is important for the team to stand ground on decision and plans! There is so much rework and usually one person is left with the rescue but sometime a whole team is left with the consequences of poor planning. I really related with Michael Greer's final comments "BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE"(Greer,p.84) -

    "You must be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi

    It helps when the key player know their roles also.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beth,
    This project sounds like a nightmare. It's difficult enough to lead a project, but with the added power struggles and politics it adds a strain on the working relationships. In this case I believe that you have the right idea in following an instructional design plan such as ADDIE for structure. However, I also believe that it would be beneficial to hold frequent meetings with all stakeholders to ensure that everyone was engaged and on the same page as the project progressed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Beth,
    The project you described had so many elements of what not to do. It seems the Project Manager (PM) did not have a clear, feasible project plan for how everyone will reach performance targets (Portny, S., Mantel, S., Meredith, J., Shafer, S., Sutton, M., & Kramer, B., 2008) nor had the skills to meet the demands of project management. The project team was composed of individuals from two different organizations. These members who did not know one another nor had a chance to work with each other were expected to function as an experienced group. It seems the PM did not intervene to help the members form an open, trust-based working relationship (Portny, S., Mantel, S., Meredith, J., Shafer, S., Sutton, M., & Kramer, B., 2008). I question if this person was the right one for the job. Especially since he was intimidated by the client and allowed scope creep. He had an issue with delegation considering he made decisions on his own with having all supporting data. Communication was a problem. The PM communicated up the chain but did not communicate down the chain causing confusion and missed deadline dates. This was a good one. Thanks for sharing.

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

    ReplyDelete

Share your thoughts!