Learning from a Project "Post- Mortem"

I would like to share an experience I had on my last project. I was the instructional designer asked to create a student satisfaction survey for our post- secondary allied health bound student population. The purpose of this survey was to identify any concerns in order to address them prior to the implementation of the corporate instituted survey conducted twice a year. The last survey had us among the lowest ranking in student satisfaction, while we were the largest in enrollment boasting the highest profit in comparison to all the other campuses. The campus president asked for volunteers via email and from there he created a team with a mixed organizational structure. The team consisted of one lead, most popular or influential instructor or employee from every department.

The entire team was highly satisfied with the “finished deliverable” or student survey. The single most frustrating thing to the team and the project was the completely unsolicited involvement of observers and their attempts to change the scope of the project to include teacher surveys and irrelevant questioning. If there was one thing that should have been done differently I would have to say that following a more formal work breakdown structure with specific responsibilities and deadlines for each task in writing and signed off on would have increased the success of the project by identifying in writing who the “resistors” were would have cause a more amicable approach by all. Communication was better than expected throughout the team considering work across departments was a relatively new concept at our campus. It should also be noted that the project manager was a former student of mines, downsized from a popular television station were project management was his official responsibility. The instructional design ADDIE model and the project manager’s ability to manage risk and minimize damage were also significant to this project. The most difficulty we faced was among middle management’s responses and zero buy-in beyond conception. Many observers and stakeholders initially expressed support but later stated they never expected the project to make it this far. So in hind sight really engaging observers with critical and political influence would have just about guaranteed the project’s success.

Phase I feasibility and need were determined but this would have been a good time to engage the director of education, also known as the Dean (we will come back to this). Phase II thru V were surprisingly efficient and effective, estimates were on point, the right resources, human capital and SME’s were assigned. I later learned senior management’s intentions were to “shake things up”, spark creativity, and get management’s attention; while conducting a “rookies players’ draft pick” to help him as he planned out how to satisfy a much broader corporate downsizing plan. This plan inside a plan (our plan) did not consider nor have in place contingencies’ for members that would opt out or observers that did not want the plan to succeed. Many of us learned how things really worked. Alliances were formed and I earned a promotion without pay for all my effort. Hey, if this was an episode of survivor, I was safe from elimination. We did not have any vendor issues. We planned to use survey monkey (a data reporting website) to gather and compile data after creating our own questionnaire on the website. To do all this was extremely affordable for a student population over 1500 the cost would have come in around $200.00. The alternative would have been to pay 10 core team members for 24 hours of overtime. Deliverables and specs were decided on during group discussions and then responsibilities were volunteered for and achieved with minimal rift. Some members dropped out 3 in total due to work constraints, schedules and inability to commit to the level of effort expected. The only unexpected delay involved the Dean’s demand to be included and assume supervision of the project. Since he had not signed any work order agreements (Portny & Sutton) which would have included an agreement to standard response time his involvement threatened to end the project. Testing went well but implementation was halted because of politics. This brings us back to the intention of the campus president and the fact that the project was not supposed to succeed as far as it did. We obtained the approval of the Dean and identified the negative intention of the insecure IT guy whose job it was to implement the corporate survey somehow gained something intrinsically by seeing our numbers decline.

What I found most interesting was the message the president sent his management team letting them know that he was aware of their intentions to see bad reports from corporate and that if they did not start to “put out these fires” (address students concerns) then he had lower level staff hungry, eager, creative, skilled and ready to get the job done!
So my impression, given the culture and politics of this organization this project was a success.

All the tools, resources and authorizations were in place to complete the project but it also set out to identify newer key, talented and highly invested employees. Every employee that dropped out of the project did not make the cut and were all let go within 90 days. In closing, our project manager should have been able to gain the approval of overlooked stakeholders during conception and incorporated or at the very least extended the opportunity for participation to these two individuals into both the “dedicated and assigned teams” with signed dedication agreements (Murphy, 1994). Another alternative would have been to keep the director of education informed of the project’s intentions and progress (Portny & Sutton, 2008). Human relations and effective and strategic communication proved to be the missing ingredient in this project. For future projects, I will be more focused on following a more formal plan and ensuring key stakeholders are identified, engaged and held accountable to the success of upcoming projects.

References:

References:

Allen, S., Hardin, P., C. (2008) Developing Instructional Technology Products Using Effective Project Management Practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. Spring 2008, Vol. 19 (2), 72-97. Retrieved on November 7, 2011 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/courses/74759/CRS-CW-6052000/EDUC_6145_readings/Allen_Hardin_W2_6145.pdf

Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. (2007). The ID CaseBook: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Prentice Hall

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.
Murphy, C. (1994). Utilizing Project Management Techniques in the Design of Instructional Materials. Performance & Instruction, 33(3), 9–11.

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. (Pages 31 & 43.)

Stolovitch, H., (2011) “Defining the Scope of an ID Project”. Walden University. [Video]. Baltimore, Maryland: Laureate Education, Inc. Available: EDUC-6145-4 Project Management in Education and Training. Week 2 Resources.

Stolovitch, H., (2011) “Project Management Concerns: ‘Scope Creep’”. Walden University. [Video]. Baltimore, Maryland: Laureate Education, Inc. Available: EDUC-6145-4 Project Management in Education and Training. Week 2 Resources.

Van Rekom, P, Burdrovich, V., & Achong, T, (2011) “Practitioner Voices: Overcoming ‘Scope Creep’”. Walden University. [Video]. Baltimore, Maryland: Laureate Education, Inc. Available: EDUC-6145-4 Project Management in Education and Training. Week 2 Resources.