Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

I was once placed on an in-house document management project team at a company where I worked.  The team was mandated to come up with a document management system and process that would replace the company’s then filing and document management systems.  The team comprised persons from each department within the company; the thought being that each department needed to give input into how their documents should be handled.  A member of the administrative department led the project; the thought here being that the admin staff would have a good handle on the company’s documentation and filing processes and improvements needed, as they were the ones primarily responsible for maintaining these functions. I represented the human resources function/section on the committee.

             In terms of meeting its mandate, this project failed at so doing and was abandoned midway.  Post-mortem evaluation of the project reveals the following contributors to the failure of the venture:

1.      Lack of Definition – The project turned out to be much more complicated and involved than anyone had imagined and what needed to be done was beyond the skill set of the project team.  According to the aspects involved in defining a project, as outlined by Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton & Kramer (2008), thorough project scoping would have given light to its background, scope and strategy, thereby providing a better understanding of what exactly needed to be done and who needed to be involved;

2.      Lack of technical expertise – None of the members of the project team was trained in the business of the project.  No one therefore could really give clear direction to the venture.  The company’s eyes were opened after a trained project manager was assigned to the task and after he conducted thorough research and commissioned technical consultancy.  Then it was revealed the enormity of the project’s scope.  This however, took place two years after the initial failed project and the wastage of resources that went along with that attempt.

3.      Incorrect technology – Again, without doing the proper research, the company went ahead and purchased expensive hardware and related software for the project.  As it turned out, the software was outdated and the entire package was no longer supported by the manufacturers at the time of this project.

In hindsight, some critical steps that needed to be taken to avoid the failure that occurred include:

·         Defining project and preparing a statement of work – This would have required research and proper thought and would have produced a clearer view of what needed to be done;

·         Consult with the experts – Whether through a workshop, research or by hiring a consultant, expert direction would have revealed the depth of what needed to be done;

·         Getting the two preceding points right would have lent direction to the required and correct resources for the project.

All in all, the company learnt a big lesson from this horrible first attempt and did things much differently the second time around.  As mentioned, a trained project manager was hired, the project was carefully defined and consultation was made with a technical expert.  Although there is still residual amazement within the company now that the actual scope is realized, the project is well on its way and successfully meeting its targets thus far.

Resources:

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.