Policy
Post project reviews should be held on all Technology Planning Team projects.
Projects that have previously included peer review of deliverables should skip that step in the post project review.
Currently, time that is used for post project review should be accounted for under the project code, but as unbillable.
Purpose
The purpose of post project review is four fold:
Improve our ability to control and predict project work.
Peer learning opportunity for consultants.
Develop and propagate consensus around our consulting methodology and recommendations.
Make recommendations on the structure of future projects with the client, based on experience from the reviewed project.
Review Process
Roles & Responsibilities
Engagement Manager
- Gathers and distributes appropriate information.
- Identifies review session participants
- Organizes the meeting.
- Leads the review session.
Participants
- Read any deliverables or other information provided in advance.
- Make comments on areas that are good, that they think should be adopted as standard, things they don't understand and suggestions for improvements.
- Attend the review meeting.
Facilitator (Engagement Manager's Senior Program Manager or Director)
- Ensures the tone of the meeting stays positive, focused and supportive of all staff.
- Takes notes during the meeting.
- Publishes a summary of the review session.
- Takes action on issues as necessary.
Procedure
With at least 14 days notice:
- Engagement manager identifies participants involved in the project, other participants if necessary[1], and an appropriate facilitator and arranges a review session.
- Engagement manager arranges meeting venue.
One full business day before the review meeting:
- Engagement manager sends documentation to participants and facilitator. Documentation should include:
- Scoped deliverables
- Scoped timeline
- Scoped costs (time and expenses)
- Scoped revenue
- Actual deliverables
- Actual timeline
- Actual costs
- Actual revenue
- Client evaluation (if completed)
- Peer review notes[2] if available
- Other relevant information and project artifacts
Before the review session:
- Participants and facilitator familiarize themselves with the provided documentation and be prepared to comment on:
- Areas they think are good, in particular things they think should be adopted as standard.
- Things they don't understand.
- Suggestions for improvements.
Note: When reading deliverables, proof reading issues such as spelling, style, and formatting suggestions, and calculation errors need not be individually noted. Comments are appropriate if an error with potentially serious consequences has been made, or a document exhibits style or formatting that participants would like to see adopted as standard or that falls below acceptable standards.
During the review session
The engagement manager leads the meeting.
Facilitator acts as the recorder and intervenes to keep the meeting focused and to resolve conflict.
The meeting should cover:
- Review of positive outcomes. In particular note any practices that could be adopted by others to raise our consulting standards.
- Note and discuss any discrepancies between the scope and the delivered project.
- Peer review deliverables, record any recommendations.
- Discuss areas that were particularly problematic in order to suggest better approaches for future projects.
After the meeting
All participants reflect on best practices.
Facilitator publishes meeting summary and acts on issues that affect a wider audience (e.g. new best practices, standards issues, gaps in group knowledge).
We will review the procedure after 5 reviews to see what we have learned, whether we can make it better, shorter etc.
[1] Other participants may include other internal stakeholders or consultants who, though not involved, might have useful insight. Participants who were not directly involved in the project can add useful insight and help with the goal of building consensus. However, it is important to keep the meetings to a manageable size.
[2] Peer review on deliverables is being introduced in the technology planning team.