Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

Upon the conclusion of any project, questions may be raised regarding the actual effectiveness of the implementation. In The Project Management Minimalist, Greer (2010) raises various post-mortem questions regarding the project, its effectiveness, and thoughts surrounding best practices and better approaches for the next release (p. 42-43). Referencing some of these questions, the following provides a high-level post-mortem analysis for a project executed and implemented for a regional supply chain customer service organization.

In January 2010, the regional Customer Service Centers were faced with a massive overhaul in system integrations and upgrades. Such changes prompted differences in business with customers as well as daily business processes. By March 2010 the return rate increased 3 times more than the previous year. With raised concerns, the Returns Business Process Owner raised the task in determining the reason for such an influx and how the data translated into a quality performance metric. Through data validation two areas of opportunity were identified: training and system functionality. From a training perspective, it was identified that the Associates required cognitive skill building in the area of customer returns. The training session were scheduled in June through July 2010. Each session was structured in three two-hour blocks and delivered by one instructor and facilitator daily. To drive learner engagement, the sessions focused on cognitive skill building through interactive group activities and open forum discussions. Due to the limited timeframe, the training was delivered without performing an initial needs assessment or conducting a formal evaluation phase. At the conclusion of each training session the associates were asked to complete a reaction survey on a non-mandatory basis (Evans, 2010).

From a general overview of the project, there were many identified successes. Many of the completed reaction surveys reflected extremely positive reactions and feedback regarding the approach to the subject matter and training environment. Many times, training sessions conducted for the organization were instructor-led and highly didactic. To promote learner engagement, the sessions took on the structure similar to an open forum, or outlet, for the associates to discuss concerns or regarding the returns process among peers which promoted engaged discussions allowing the chance to dispel misconceptions and provide insight on how to effectively and efficiently approach the varying customer situations when managing returns. Because of such an approach, learner engagement was higher than expected driving success in the area of interpersonal skill building, collaboration, and communication. To drive deeper engagement, learners were further stimulated by viewing “how to” directed video podcasts. The podcasts served a dual purpose. One purpose of the podcasts were to engage the learners visually and in an auditory manner to potentially commit the process to memory, and the second purpose was to allow the learner to have access to the podcasts for later retrieval for self-learning, and/or reinforcement, sessions.

Conversely this approach also created a greater possibility in training variances. Although the training was led by a primary instructor with rotating facilitators, at times the posing of different questions from session to session caused a slight deviation from the prepared materials and training session structure.Yet, the most challenging aspects of the project were in making the attempts to draw out cognitive reasoning in relation to the processes. It was unfortunate that during the information sessions, the Return BPO was unable to provide any insight regarding the intricate processes and how each impacts the site (local) or regional model. Taking this into consideration, it would have been ideal to schedule mandatory meetings with the BPO to ensure all pertinent information was being addressed and the processes were aligned with the intended regional model.
Another identified area of opportunity was in direct relation to the lack of a needs assessment and a formal evaluation. Due to time constraints, the conduction of a needs assessment was curtailed eliminating visibility to any learner weaknesses and/or strengths to aid in the design and delivery of the training. Assumptions were high in the area of delivery, being certain to steer away from a traditional method of delivery (i.e. didactic) versus the more unconventional method (i.e. open forum). Although the collected reaction surveys identified this as a success, it masked any underlying issues for those associates that were not readily active during the sessions or may not have comprehended the information being delivered. To rectify this issue in future trainings, a mandatory reaction survey will be conducted prior to and after the sessions to set the tempo and gauge the best approach for those attending each session.

In retrospect, the project lacked project management. Portny, et al. (2008) urge consideration of whether a project should begin before moving forward with any aspect of the project at all (p. 77). If it has been determined to proceed with the project, than unlike the manner in which the returns project was handled, it is essential to establish, or define, a plan. Although the overall concepts were presented, the returns project lacked a firm and formal plan. For instance, the involvement of other team members would have alleviated strain on the primary instructor and would have level set expectations regarding deliverables and goals. As noted by Portny, et al. (2008), it is ideal to “Prepare a separate description of needs for each category of personnel to be recruited” (p. 85). Doing so provides transparency to the needs and responsibilities of those actively involved in the project and promote organization and efficiency. With such lessons learned, it is recommended, regardless of how small or large of a project that project management be highly considered.


Resources

Evans, R. (2010, August 11). The importance of evaluation [Msg 1]. Message posted to http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn

Greer, M. (2010). Project “post mortem” review questions. In The project management minimalist: Enough PM to rock your projects!. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/courses/56611/CRS-CW-4894953/educ_6145_readings/pm-minimalist-ver-3-laureate.pdf

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.