| The different types of project review each | | | | There can be subtle issues arising from the |
| have their own characteristics and benefits. | | | | background of those carrying out the project |
| For any review however it is important to | | | | review. Some reviewers will be much more |
| decide what the overall purpose is, and who | | | | technologists than project managers, whilst |
| should gain what from the output. This step | | | | others will be the reverse. Although it makes |
| is missed out in many cases and the design of | | | | competent practitioners much harder to find |
| the review is not given sufficient attention. | | | | there is a good case for insisting on both |
| Standard methodologies for carrying out | | | | sets of skills. |
| project reviews can be helpful, but must be | | | | |
| supplemented by intelligent thought! In the | | | | Bias due to distance |
| author's experience a review should consider | | | | |
| both the project management standards and the | | | | Reviews are sometimes undertaken by those who |
| subject matter of the project. Mistakes in | | | | inhabit a management world of reports. If |
| either or both of these can lead to disaster, | | | | they then communicate with project managers |
| and it can take considerable skill and | | | | and others who are somewhat distant from the |
| knowledge to uncover the truth. | | | | actual tasks then the overall effect may be |
| | | | that the blind are leading the blind. |
| If you are responsible for a project's | | | | Remember that real people, somewhere, should |
| success then you need the truth, and you are | | | | be actually doing the work to deliver the |
| responsible for setting the principles and | | | | tasks required by the project. A competent |
| scope that will govern how effective the | | | | reviewer needs to find them, understand them |
| review will be in uncovering that truth. In | | | | and discover what they think. This |
| particular you need to pick the reviewer so | | | | necessitates not only people and managerial |
| that you understand what bias is likely to be | | | | skills but also some understanding of the |
| reflected in the results. Bias can arise from | | | | skills employed by the project staff. |
| background, review methodology or political | | | | |
| interests; and may not be intentional. | | | | Checklists |
| | | | |
| Bias due to interests | | | | These are useful for ensuring appropriate |
| | | | coverage but it is equally important that the |
| The review may been commissioned, designed or | | | | reviewer can think freely and explore the |
| just operated by people who wish to prove | | | | implications of the information that the |
| certain results and disprove others. It may | | | | project team give. This information is |
| be that some wish to prove a particular | | | | normally messy and ill organised. Coherent |
| methodology works, and therefore the review | | | | results pointing in a single direction are |
| concentrates on the extent to which that | | | | unlikely and the reviewer needs to be able to |
| methodology has been completely and fully | | | | cope with |
| employed. This may be completely different | | | | |
| from assessing whether the project itself is | | | | So what should the balance be ? |
| likely to succeed or fail. The Prince2 manual | | | | |
| for instance has a comprehensive healthcheck. | | | | Project Management skills in medium or large |
| This will check for the complete use of | | | | projects are certainly critical as the need |
| Prince2 but the questions are mostly of the | | | | to be organised is a critical success factor. |
| 'is there...item X' type, and there are very | | | | 'Ready aim fire' expresses the simple truth |
| few questions asking about the quality of any | | | | that without those competent to first aim the |
| of the items whose existence is being | | | | project team members in the correct direction |
| checked. Jobs and career progress may be at | | | | there is little chance of the target being |
| stake and informal alliances may be formed to | | | | hit. It is important that clear business |
| ensure that the "correct results" are | | | | justification and rules for project control |
| obtained by the review. | | | | are created and maintained during the life of |
| | | | the project. Appropriate risk management and |
| Bias due to role | | | | planning are also vital to enable the overall |
| | | | project to achieve its intended results. |
| The UK government OGC gateway review is an | | | | |
| externally focused health check which | | | | That the reviewer also possesses a reasonable |
| concentrates on the extent to which the | | | | level of subject related understanding is |
| project is still required and could deliver | | | | also critical so that those who are |
| the benefits sought by stakeholders. It is | | | | undertaking the work can be questioned |
| also quite reasonably designed to protect a | | | | rigorously about the quality and assumptions |
| purchaser ( because the UK government almost | | | | underlying the work they are undertaking. |
| always has this role ), rather than the | | | | This isn't about the facility to do the work, |
| creator or supplier of the project. This | | | | but the ability to discuss designs, build |
| affects the questions and can lead to a | | | | dependencies, test conditions and the like in |
| situation in which the project is affirmed as | | | | the detail that will establish whether the |
| meeting all the criteria for the purchaser | | | | sequence of work intended is viable. |
| but is doomed as a result of events being | | | | |
| suffered by the supplier ( e.g. commercial | | | | Reviews can be very important, but deciding |
| losses, staff turnover etc. ) | | | | who should carry them out, and how they |
| | | | should be undertaken is not simple. The most |
| Bias due to reviewer's background | | | | important determinant of success is your |
| | | | choice of reviewer. |