Learning From a Project Postmortem

Most projects I have been directly involved with in my professional career have been fairly successful. I'm pretty lucky in that respect. Years of working as a nurse prepared me to expect the unexpected and act swiftly when the unexpected occurs. I am a planner. I recognize that what can go wrong will go wrong so it is best to be ready for anything. This attitude has served me well where project work is concerned.

I cannot recall being part of a truly unsuccessful project, but I was part of a project that was very mediocre. Some of you may be able to relate, I’m referring to the group instructional design project we completed in EIDT 6100 – Instructional Design. I’ll admit, I’m no fan of group work in when it comes to school. I understand the purpose of group work and in the real world, I like to work as part of a team, but I do not like having to depend on others when my grades are concerned. My fears related to group work came true while working on the EIDT 6100 project. The project was not a complete failure, but it wasn’t the caliber of work that I was used to producing. Greer’s “Postmortem” questions (2010) have been helpful in identifying some obvious mistakes our group made.

As I’m sure most of you know, in EIDT 6100, we worked in groups to develop an Instructional Plan. Each member of the group was assigned to take the lead on a phase of the ADDIE model. Groups with six members also had a dedicated project manager. I was part of a group that had six members and had volunteered to be project manager. My role was to review the assigned parts of the project submitted by each team member for each week, then format and compile them into one cohesive document. Our topic, applying for financial aid, was suggested by a group member who worked in a university financial aid office. She agreed to serve as the SME for the project.

A summary of the project’s challenges and issues:

·         Members of our group were living in different time zones and even different countries which made collaboration difficult. All of our communication occurred over the project message board and by email, so it was pretty disjointed.

·         After week one, a member of the group dropped the class, so I was shifted to the development role and we were left without a designated project manager. This shift in roles caused some confusion at first. One member thought I would serve as developer and PM for the whole project, rather than each individual taking the lead for their designated phase of the project.

·         Over the course of the project, our SME provided very little input about our topic; in fact she barely replied when we posed questions. We were each left to research the topic on our own.

·         Although due dates for all assigned work were expressly stated in the course, some members of the team had difficulty meeting deadlines or understanding what was due and when. Work was frequently submitted at the last minute which made it difficult for the leader to compile it cohesively.

·         We each seemed to have a different “vision” for what the project should be. It was difficult to come to an understanding and produce a unified project plan. Some members of the team were very thorough and others did the bare minimum.

What contributed to the project’s success or failure?

Although the project was not a total failure, it was certainly not a success. Lack of communication was a major contributing factor. The message board was very confusing; there were multiple threads and comments layered upon comments. It was not an effective way to communicate. Another problem was that the project team never seemed to be on the same page. There were misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and general differences in opinion about what should be done, when, how and by whom. Expectations of work were not clearly set in the beginning. I mistakenly assumed that the guidelines set forth by the instructor would suffice, but they did not.

Which parts of the PM process, if included, would have made the project more successful? Why?

Looking back, incorporating some basic project management strategies could have really improved the relationship of the project team and helped to develop a more successful project. Synchronous communication through conference calls or web chats would have been very helpful for our group, but unfortunately were not really feasible. A well-defined communication plan would have helped to ensure everyone on the team was receiving the right information in a way that was best suited to them (Allen & Hardin, 2008). A Statement of Work (SOW) providing written confirmation of what would be produced and under what terms could have helped the team agree, up front, what would be done and when (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton & Kramer, 2008). A linear responsibility chart would have helped to identify each member’s roles and responsibilities (Portny et al., 2008). A formal timeline could have helped to emphasize deadlines.

Using Greer’s postmortem questions, I have been able to look back at the EIDT 6100 project with a critical eye and identify what I would do differently. I still prefer to work independently, but if faced with another group course project, I am confident integrating some simple project management tools will provide for a better group dynamic and more successful project.

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. 

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.