The closing process group in project management and lessons learned

¶ … Closing

A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and an end. It creates a unique product or result; the distinguishing characteristics of which are progressively detailed as the project is better understood through an iterative planning and execution process. The Project Management Institute (PMI) has published its Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK, 2010) which breaks down the work of a project into five process groups: Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring & Controlling, and Closing. The Closing process group is the least discussed and often ignored step in the entire history of projects. All too often, projects never seem to officially finish. The project manager goes on to other things and the work of the project just stops. Experience shows that there is value to be learned from any project -- even a failure. According to the research of the Standish Group (2011), more than half of all formal projects are not successful because they do not satisfy the triple constraint of: delivered on time, on or under budget, and works as required. An effective Closing process is considered a key factor in improving project success rates. Project managers are advised to review case studies to gain valuable knowledge from the documented lessons learned.

Project Management Best Practices

Jeff Merron (2011) observes that the best way to achieve success is to assemble an experienced team, set clear objectives, and monitor progress of individuals in a way that allows the entire team to see what everyone else is doing. Charts and graphs can be highly effective in monitoring progress, but Merron finds that one-on-one communication is the common key to avoiding trouble. The project manager must meet with each team member on a consistent basis, to determine any anticipated roadblocks and support needed. The single biggest success factor is making sure that all the team members have "bought in" to their responsibilities and the steps needed to complete their deliverables on time and budget.

Project Retrospectives

Stacey Ann Allen has contributed her observations, which are paraphrased here. A project retrospective is a disciplined look back at prior events in search of a way to help project managers improve their team's effectiveness. Although retrospectives are often lumped in with other closing activities, best practice argues that they are not most useful as one-time events at the end of projects. The project manager should bring the team together at strategic points during the project cycle to determine what is working and what has to be fixed before moving on to the next phase. Allen recommends that there should be three goals of a retrospective: review the project from a number of different perspectives; capture and record details on what worked and what must be improved; and finally, create an action plan for implementing changes. (Allen, 2007)

Case Studies

Army Program Management in Afghanistan

Three field-grade U.S. military officers collaborated to produce a case study of their nation-building experiences in Afghanistan. (Ruhm, Marsh & Cooley, 2006) They argue persuasively that the use of program (project) management techniques have been helpful to the military leadership in the rebuilding of Afghanistan's infrastructure, institutions, government and Army. The starting point in managing any project is to establish the "baseline," which serves as the contract between the customer and the provider concerning cost, schedule, and performance. The authors found that documenting the baseline was essential for making decisions, but also for communicating with external (including Congress) and internal audiences. The use of scheduling techniques was useful when dealing with numerous linked and interdependent subsystems. In particular, this project was organized to increase the effectiveness of the Afghan military personnel. In that regard, the managers made use of capability milestones. "When will the Afghans stand up to the requirements of defending themselves?"

Zuquala Steel Mill

Wondimu Degnitu, head of Ethiopia's Project Engineering Unit, reported on the case of the construction of a steel rolling mill in Zuquala. The Ethiopians negotiated a deal to purchase an existing steel mill in South Africa. The terms included assistance from the South Africans in moving the plant, as well as their full participation in the reassembly and turnkey operations. Degnitu dwells on the importance of detail planning of the project from gathering high level requirements down to sub-activities showing "duration, accomplishment and responsible person." (Degnitu, 2000)

Common Attributes

These two cases couldn't be more different in their goals and implementation aspects. However, there are several attributes that the projects share in common. 1) the need for a contract plan: the Army called it setting down a Baseline and Zuquala referred to Overview Planning, but both recognized that it consists of "group generated ideas rather than an analytic process." 2) Requirement for detailed planning: the Army team described the toolkit of a project manager, with its most important tool being scheduling, while Zuquala referred to detail planning and scheduling. 3) Both teams recognized the desirability of in-process reviews. Zuquala utilized daily project meetings to review potential problems and to initiate preventive and contingent actions. The Army team had to deploy its plans in a rough form as soon as possible and "then evolve and grow them into more mature and capable systems over time." 4) Finally, there is no evidence in either case write-up that the teams actually conducted a formal closing process.