Project “Post Mortem”

The project in question for this post is one of updating and modifying an existing degree program at a community college. I have been an intercollegiate basketball coach for many years. In this capacity, I had limited experience in curriculum development, and virtually no experience in project management (PM). Having been selected as our department representative to the college’s curriculum committee, I faced a steep learning curve. When our department agreed to proceed with making significant modifications to our particular degree, by default, I become a PM. At the time, I did not view the task through this perspective. Not only were there specific policies, procedures and criteria for curriculum development establish by our local college, the state has their own set of policies, procedures and guidelines with which to evaluate and ultimately approve or deny the proposed degree/curriculum modifications. Now, I really had my hands full!

Through the benefit of hindsight, and the past two weeks of beginning to learn about PM, I now have a clearer picture of where the overall project would have been more successful through the use of the PM concepts and models. While these PM tools were certainly not formally implemented, I can see where some aspects of the five life phases of a project, as identified by Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, and Kramer (2008), did contribute to the successful elements of the project. The five phases being: conceive; define; start; perform; and close.

The conception phase was well thought out, with the input of all department members and our department associate dean. The answer to both questions of, “Can and should the project be done” was yes. As such we were in a situation to proceed (Portny, et al., 2008). We had the necessary resources and the anticipated benefits were definitely worth the costs involved.

The next two phases of defining and developing the plan, and starting with forming a team were addressed in a very informal manner. This is where utilizing the PM process could have significantly benefitted this project. In particular, this project needed to have a clear and in-depth responsibility matrix developed. The roles and responsibilities of all team members should have been communicated (Portny et al., 2008). Greer (2010) additionally offers a clear responsibility/accountability matrix that identifies exactly who will be doing what in the project. In that this phase had little structure, there was a momentum leading into the start phase which continued to cause a detrimental impact. Responsibilities were not clearly defined or communicated.

With a huge variable in this projecting being the process and set of criteria required for curriculum development, at both our college as well as the state, assumptions made on my part as a PM existed, yet were not clearly formulated nor communicated. The project was unsuccessful in that it arrived at a road block when it reached the state level for authorization and approval. As the PM, if I were to have developed a statement of work (SOW), the research required for a comprehensive SOW would have identified some of these variables (assumptions, constraints, and risks) needing to be addressed, thereby circumventing the road blocks that ultimately arose when the project was sent to the state. These points coincide with the early “nuts and bolts” steps of project success outlined by Greer (2010). Loose nuts and bolts, result in unstable construction!

The aspects of the project coinciding with Portny et al’s. (2008) performance phase of projects was actually quite solid, in the early going. When any problem did arise, it was addressed with minimal effort and the project was able to proceed. It wasn’t until the end of the project came closer that the challenges which arose, pushed the project to a very slow crawl. Presently, it remains an open project, pending the acceptance and final approval of the most recent revisions.

In summary, I believe the project did not achieve the anticipated level of success for two primary reasons. The first being a lack of overall specific structure for the project. PM concepts and models would have provided a solutions. In offering an analogy, the foundation of the building we wished to build was not up to code! The second reason relates to not having identified the true scope of the project. Were this to have happened, the development of the project would have included the necessary elements needing to be addressed, specifically the depth of the project, with which the state would have accepted and approved the modifications of our degree program.

Lessons learned! (Why didn’t I take this course two years ago? Better late than never!)

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.