PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, CLOSURE, AND EVALUATION

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, CLOSURE, AND EVALUATION

1. project implementation

   • direct cutover
     • the old system is shutdown and the new system is turned on.
     • a target, or go live,date is agreed upon, and the new system simply replaces the old.
     • effective & appropriate
       • quick deliv-ery of the new system is critical
       • existing system is very poor
       • the system is not mission critical
         • failure will not have a major impact on the organiza-tion
     • Risk
       • Can be risky if systemis not fully tested
       • Places more pressureon the project team
   • parallel
     • the old and the new systems to run concurrently for a time.
     • At some point, the organization switches entirely from the old system to the new.
     • appropriate
       • a major impact on the organization
       • both systems run concurrently in order to compare the outputs of both systems
         • backup
       • provides confidence that the new system is functioning and performing
     • disadvantages
       • create more stress for the users of the system.
         • User
           • enter data into both systems
           • and even be responsible for comparing the outputs
       • Unexpected problems
         • change of target switchdate
           • extra workload and overtime hours
   • phased
     • the system is intro-duced in modules or in different parts of the orga-nization incrementally
     • Appropriate
       • introducing a software system to different areas ofthe organization
         • departmental
           • each department to plan for the upgrade accordingly
         • geographical
       • Experience with early implementation can guide and make later implementations go more smoothly
       • less risky and much more manageable
     • Disadvantages
       • take more time than the direct cutover approach
       • chain reaction
         • Problems encountered during early phases canimpact the overall implementation schedule
   • focuses on installing or delivering the project’s major deliverable in the organization
     • requires a tactical plan that allows the project team to move the IT solution from a development and test environment to the day-to-day operationsof the organization.

2. closure

   • normal
     • completed as planned
       • within the cost, quality, and schedule objectives,
       • some variation and modification along the way
       • transferred to the project sponsor,
   • premature
     • pushed to complete a project early
       • system may not include all of the envisioned features or functionality
       • may need to have a new system operational
         • only acore set of original requirements
       • respond to a competitor’s actions
         • enter a newmarket early
       • result of a legal or governmental requirement
       • risks of this decision should be considered by all stakeholders
   • perpetual
     • Operation than project
     • never seem to end
       • may result from delays or a scope or MOV that was never clearly defined or agreed upon.
       • attempt to add on various features orfunctionality to the system
         • time and resources that increase theproject schedule and drain the project budget
       • may also occur when the project has a high payoff to the organization and when admitting to failure is strongly against the corporate culture
         • Keil 1995)
       • project resources are eventually drained to a point where a potentially successful project becomes unsuccessful
         • Nicholas 1990
     • defining and agreeing to the project’s MOV, the project scope processes, and timely project reviews can reduce the risk of perpetual projects.
   • failed
     • MOV may define the project’s value to the organization
     • cost and schedule overruns may drain the project’s value
   • changed priorities
     • management - divert resources to higherpriority project
       • original importance or value of theproject was misjudged or misrepresented
       • when organizational needs or technologychange over the course of a long-term project
       • successive budget cuts over time -> slowly starve a project budget -> it is ended but the terminationis masked.

3. evaluation

   • Different stakeholders will have different views of success. •Difficulties   –Lower priority –People availability What deliverables?  (often vague requirement)    
   • project audit
     • Gray and Larson (2000) suggest, the depth of the audit depends on the organization’s size, the importance and size of the project, the risks involved, and the problems encountered
     • by an outside party
       • no direct involvement or interest in the project
       • Be respected and viewed as impartial and fair
       • Be willing to listen
       • Present no fear of recrimination from special interests
       • Act in the organization’s best interest
       • Have broad base of project and/or industry experience
     • include
       • project plans
       • PMBOK areas
       • Ethical
         • assess whether the project manager and team acted in a professional and ethical manner.
   • evaluation of the project’s MOV
     • important to assess the value that the project provides the organization.
     • By
       • project sponsoror client’s organization
       • organization or area responsible for carrying out the project
     • focus
       • Care should be taken to ensure that the system being evaluated is the system that was delivered (Nicholas 1990).
       • Did the project achieve its MOV
       • Was the sponsor/customer satisfied
       • Was the project managed well?
       • Did the project manager and team act in a professional and ethical manner?
       • What was done right?
       • What can be done better next time?
   • Internal workings of the project
     • conducted between the project manager and the project team
     • individual performance review
       • The project manager should conduct an individual performance review with each project team member.
       • Focus
         • Begin with the individual evaluating his/her performance
           • begin by asking howthat person would evaluate her or his performance
         • Avoid “why can’t you be more like...?
         • Focus on specific behaviors, not the individual
         • Be consistent and fair
         • Reviews should provide a consensus on improving performance.
       • With ea member of the team
       • help prepare the individual to move on
         • The meeting can serve to help prepare the individual to move on and accept the psycho-logical fact that the project will end (Gray and Larson 2000).
     • postmortem review/Critical Analysis
       • Shortly after the final project report and presentation are completed
       • Shortly after the final project report and presentation are completed
         • formal project summary repor
           • project’sMOV
           • project management knowledge areas
       • done before theproject team is released from the current project
         • difficult to get people to participate once they are busy working on other projects or if they no longer work for the project organi-zation. Moreover, memories tend to become clouded as time passes.
       • Focus
         • Review the initial project’s MOV.
         • Review the project scope, schedule, budget, and quality objectives.
           • How well was the scope defined? Did it change? How effective were the scope management processes? How close were the project schedule and budget estimates to the actual deadline and cost of the project? Were the quality objectives met? How well did the quality management processes and standards support the project processes?
         • Review each of the project deliverables
           • How effective were the business case, the project charter, the project plan, and so forth? How could these deliverables be improved?
         • Review the various project plans and Project Management Body of Knowledge(PMBOK®) areas.
           • Project integration management
           • Project scope management
           • Project time management
           • Project cost management
           • Project quality management
           • Project human resources management
           • Project communications management
           • Project risk management
             • •How good were the original plans? •What did we overlook? •Did we get the risk severity right?  Did contingencies work?    
           • Project procurement management
           • Organizational change management
           • Project implementation
         • How well did the project team perform
           • Were conflicts handled effectively? Did the team suffer any morale problems? What main challenges did the team face? How well did they handle these challenges? How well did the members function as a cohesive team?
   • Key Lessons
     • •Emphasis on “What went right?” –Summarise –specific examples •Best forms •Best reports  Best communication methods    
   • Where to from here?
     • •Any recovery tasks?  •Follow-on Project ?  •Further training? •Documentation upgrades? Other ?    
   • Recommendations
     • •Key recommendations –For Project Team  –For Management  –For Client  •Plan how to Distribute the recommendations