PROJECT CLOSURE

TI 322
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
WHERE WE ARE NOW

14–2
MAJOR TASKS OF PROJECT CLOSURE

1. Evaluate if the project delivered the expected benefits to all stakeholders.

 Was the project managed well?

 Was the customer satisfied?

2. Assess what was done wrong and what contributed to successes.

3. Identify changes to improve the delivery of future projects.

14–3
PROJECT CLOSURE
 Types of Project Closure
 Normal  Close-out Plan: Questions to be
 Project was completed and objective was met
Asked
 Premature  What tasks are required to close the
project?
 Completed with reduction in scope or parts
 Who will be responsible for these
 Perpetual
tasks?
 Which never ends (due to poor planning)
 When will closure begin and end?
 Failed Project
 How will the project be delivered?
 Completed but objective was not met

 Changed Priority
 Project was cancelled due to changes in priority 14–4
BARRIERS TO PROJECT SUCCESS
Activity* Barrier Incidence (%)
Planning Unclear definition 16%
32% Poor decision making 9
Bad information 3
Changes 4
Scheduling Tight schedule 4
12% Not meeting schedule 5
Not managing schedule 3
Organizing Lack of responsibility or accountability 5
11% Weak project manager 5
Top management interference 1
Staffing Inadequate personnel 5
12% Incompetent project manager 4
Project member turnover 2
Poor staffing process 1
Directing Poor coordination 9 *To interpret the table, note that
26% Poor communication 6 32 percent of the 1,654
participants reported the
Poor leadership 5 barriers under “Planning,” 12
Low commitment 6 percent reported the barriers
under “Scheduling,” and so on.
Controlling Poor follow-up 3
7% Poor monitoring 2
No control system 1 Table 14.2
No recognition of problems 1
IMPLEMENTING CLOSEDOWN

1. Getting delivery acceptance from the customer.

2. Shutting down resources and releasing to new uses.
3. Reassigning project team members.
4. Closing accounts and paying all bills.
5. Evaluating the project, project team, project team members, and the project manager.

14–6
EUROPEAN SPACE LAUNCH, AG—PROJECT CLOSURE
CHECKLIST
CREATING THE FINAL REPORT
 Executive Summary
 Project goals met/unmet
 Recommendations
 Stakeholder satisfaction  Technical improvements
with project  Corrective actions
 User reactions to quality  Lessons Learned
of deliverables
 Reminders
 Analysis
 Retrospectives
 Project mission and objective
 Appendix
 Procedures and
systems used  Backup data
 Organization resources  Critical information
used
14–8
PROJECT EVALUATION TASKS AT CLOSURE

 A review of why the project was selected.

 A reassessment of the project’s role in the organization’s priorities.

 A check on the organizational culture to ensure it facilitates the type of project being
implemented.
 An assessment of how well the project team is functioning well and if its is appropriately staffed.

 A check on external factors that might change where the project is heading or its importance.

 A review of all factors relevant to the project and to managing future projects.

14–9
PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CONDITIONS: TEAM

 Are standards and goals for measuring performance clear, challenging, and attainable? Lead to
positive consequences?
 Are responsibilities and performance standards known by all team members?

 Are team rewards adequate? Management believes teams are important?

 Is there a career path for successful project managers

 Does the team have discretionary authority to manage short-term difficulties?

 Is there a high level of trust within the organization culture?

 Are there criteria beyond time, cost, and specifications?

14–10
SAMPLE TEAM EVALUATION
AND FEEDBACK SURVEY

TABLE 14.3
PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: INDIVIDUAL

 Who should assess performance?

1. In a functional organization (or functional matrix):

 The functional (area) manager may solicit the project manager’s opinion of the individual’s performance on a specific
project.

2. In a balanced matrix:
 The project manager and the area manager jointly evaluate an individual’s performance.

3. In a project organization (or project matrix):

 The project manager is responsible for appraising individual performance.

14–12
CONDUCTING PERFORMANCE REVIEWS

 Begin by asking the individual to evaluate his or her own performance.

 Assess the individual in terms of established standards and expectations.

 Avoid drawing comparisons with other team members; rather,.

 Focus criticism on specific behaviors rather than on the individual personally.

 Be consistent and fair in treatment of all team members.

14–13
 INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

 Multirater appraisal (“360-degree feedback)

 Involves soliciting feedback concerning team members’ performance from all of the people
that their work affects.
 Project managers, area managers, peers, subordinates, and customers.

14–14
RETROSPECTIVES

 Lessons Learned
 An analysis carried out during and shortly after the project life cycle to capture positive and negative project
learning—“what worked and what didn’t?”
 Purposes of Retrospectives
 To reuse learned solutions
 To stop repetitive mistakes

 Barriers to Organizational Learning

 Lack of post-project time for developing lessons

 No post-project direction or support for teams

 Lessons become blame sessions

 Lessons are not applied in other locations

 Organizational culture does not recognize

value of learning 14–15
INITIATING THE RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW

 Avoid surprises.
 Project closures should be planned and orderly.
 Schedule ahead so that people know when reviews will take place.

 Conduct reviews carefully and with sensitivity

 Reviewers must be independent from the project.
 Review reports need to be used and accessible.
 Reviews support organizational culture
 Certain “core conditions” must be in place to support team and individual evaluation.
 Conduct individual and team evaluations separate from pay or merit reviews.
14–16
KEY TERMS

Lessons learned
Organization evaluation
Performance review
Project closure
Project evaluation
Project facilitator
Retrospective
Team evaluation
360-degree review

14–17