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