1

PROJECT CLOSURE

Introduction
1. Every project comes to an end, eventually. Carefully managing the closure phase
is as important as any other phase of the project. Observation tells us that organizations
that manage closure and review well prosper. Those who don’t tend to have projects
that drag on forever and repeat the same mistakes over and over. Closing out a project
includes a daunting number of tasks. In the past and on small projects the project
manager was responsible for seeing all tasks and loose ends were completed and
signed off. This is no longer true. In today’s project-driven organizations that have many
projects occurring simultaneously, the responsibility for completing closure tasks has
been parsed among the project manager, project teams, project office, an oversight
“review committee,” and an independent retrospective facilitator. Many tasks overlap,
occur simultaneously, and require coordination and cooperation among these
stakeholders.

Aim

2. The aim of this presentation is to explain the concept of project closure and
related details to the student officers.

Sequence
3. This presentation will be covered as per following sequence:-
a. Conditions of Closure
b. Close-out Plan: Questions to be asked
c. Implementing Closedown
d. Project Performance Evaluations
(1) Reasons for Poor-Quality Project Performance Evaluations
(2) Team Evaluations
(3) Individual Evaluations
e. Conducting Performance Reviews
f. Questions and Answers
g. Conclusion
 2

Conditions of Closure
4. On some projects the end may not be as clear as would be hoped. Although the
scope statement may define a clear ending for a project, the actual ending may or may
not correspond. Fortunately, a majority of projects are blessed with a well-defined
ending. Regular project reviews will identify projects having endings different from plans.
The different conditions of project closure are identified here:-
a. Normal. The most common circumstance for project closure is simply
a completed project. In the case of “turnkey” projects, such as building a
new manufacturing facility or creating a customized information system,
the finish is marked by the transfer of ownership to the customer. For
many development projects, the end involves handing off the final design
to production and the creation of a new product or service line. For other
internal projects, such as system upgrades or creation of new inventory
control systems, the end occurs when the output is incorporated into
ongoing operations. Some modifications in scope, cost, and schedule
probably occurred during implementation.
b. Premature. For a few projects, the project may be completed early with
some parts of the project eliminated. The pressure is on to finish the
project and send it to production. Before succumbing to this form of
pressure, the implications and risks associated with this decision should
be carefully reviewed and assessed by senior management and all
stakeholders. Too frequently, the benefits are illusory, dangerous, and
carry large risks. Why have the original project scope and objectives
changed? If early project closure occurs, it should have the support of all
project stakeholders. This decision should be left to the audit group,
project priority learn, or senior management.
c. Perpetual. Some projects never seem to end. That is, the project
appears to develop a life of its own. Although these projects are plagued
with delays, they are viewed as desirable when they finally are completed.
The major characteristic of this kind of project is constant “add-ons”. The
owner or others continuously require more small changes that will improve
the project outcome—product or service. These changes typically
represent “extras” perceived as being part of the original project intent.
Examples arc adding features to software, to product design, to systems,
 3

or to construction projects. Constant add-on changes suggest a poorly

conceived project scope. More care in upfront definition of the project
scope and limitations will reduce the add-on phenomenon. At some point
the project manager or audit group needs to call the project design locked
to bring closure. Although these projects are exhibiting scope, cost, and
schedule creep, facing the fact that the project should be brought to an
end is not an easy chore. Project managers or audit/priority groups have
several alternatives available. They can redefine the project end or scope
so that closure is forced. They can limit budget or resources. They can set
a time limit. All alternatives should be designed to bring the project to an
end as quickly as possible to limit additional costs and still gain the
positive benefits of a completed project. The audit group should
recommend methods for bringing final closure to this type of project.
Failed projects are usually easy to identify and easy for an audit group to
close down. However, every effort should be made to communicate the
technical reasons for termination of the project; project participants should
not be left with an embarrassing stigma of working on a project that failed.
d. Failed Project. In rare circumstances projects simply fail—for a
variety of reasons. For example, developing a prototype of a new
technology product may show the original concept to be unworkable. Or in
the development of a new pharmaceutical drug, the project may need to
be abandoned because side effects of the drug are deemed unacceptable.
e. Changed Priority. The priority team continuously revises project
selection priorities to reflect changes in organizational direction. Normally
these changes are small over a period of time, but periodically major shifts
in organization require dramatic shifts in priorities. In this transition period,
projects in process may need to be altered or canceled. Thus, a project
may start with a high priority but see its rank erode or crash during its
project life cycle as conditions change. For example, a computer game
company found their major competitor placed a 64-bit, 3-D game on the
market while their product development projects still centered on 32-bit
games. From that moment on, 32-bit game projects were considered
obsolete and met sudden deaths. The priority team of this company
revised organization priorities. Audit groups found it easy to recommend
 4

closure for many projects, but those on the margin or in “gray areas” still
presented formidable analysis and difficult decisions. In some cases the
original importance of the project was misjudged; in some the needs have
changed. In other situations implementation of the project is impractical or
impossible. Because the audit group and priority team are periodically
reviewing a project, the changed perception of the project’s role (priority)
in the total scheme of things becomes apparent quickly, If the project no
longer contributes significantly to organization strategy, tire audit group or
priority team needs to recommend the project be terminated. In many
termination situations, these projects are integrated into related projects or
routine daily operations. Termination of “changed priority” projects is no
easy task. The project team’s perception may be that the project priority is
still high in relation to other projects. Egos and, in some cases perhaps,
jobs are on the line. Individuals or teams feel success is just over the
horizon. Giving up is tantamount to failure. Normally, rewards are given for
staying with a project when the chips are down, not giving up. Such
emotional issues make project termination difficult.

Project Closure Process

5. As the project nears the end of its life cycle, people and equipment are directed
to other activities or projects. Carefully managing the closure phase is as important as
any other phase of the project. The major challenges for the project manager and team
members arc over. Getting the project manager and team members to wrap up the odds
and ends of closing down the project is sometimes difficult. For example, accounting for
equipment and completing final reports arc perceived as boring by project professionals
who are action-oriented individuals. They are looking forward to new opportunities and
challenges. The major activities found in project terminations are developing a plan,
staffing, communicating the plan, and implementing the plan. The typical close-out plan
includes answers to questions similar to these:-

a. What tasks are required to close the project?

b. Who will be responsible for these tasks?

c. When will closure begin and end?

d. How will the project be delivered?

 5

Implementing the Closedown Plan

6. Implementing the closedown plan includes several wrap-up activities. Many
organizations develop lengthy lists for closing projects as they gain experience. These
are very helpful and ensure nothing is overlooked. Implementing closedown includes
the following five major activities:-
a. Getting delivery acceptance from the customer.
b. Shutting down resources and releasing to new uses.
c. Reassigning project team members.
d. Closing accounts and seeing all bills are paid.
e. Evaluating the project team, project team members, and the project
manager.
Team, Team Member, and Project Manager Evaluations
7. Auditing includes performance evaluations of the project team, individual team
members, and the project manager. Evaluation of performance is essential to
encourage changes in behavior and to support individual career development and
continuous improvement through organization learning. Evaluation implies
measurement against specific criteria. Experience corroborates that before
commencement of the project the stage must be set so all expectations, standards,
supportive organization culture, and constraints are in place; if not, the effectiveness of
the evaluation process will suffer. In a macro sense, the evidence today suggests that
performance evaluation in each of these realms is not done well. The major reasons
cited by practitioners are twofold:-
a. Evaluations of individuals are still left to supervisors of the team member’s
home department.
b. Typical measures of team performance center on time, cost, and
specifications.

Team Evaluation
8. Before an auditing of the project team can be effective and useful, a minimum
core of conditions needs to be in place before the project begins. Some conditions are
listed here in the form of questions:-
a. Do standards for measuring performance exist? (You can’t manage what
you can’t measure.) Are the goals clear for (he team and individuals?
Challenging? Attainable? Lead to positive consequences?
 6

b. Are individual and team responsibilities and performance standards known

by all team members?
c. Are team rewards adequate? Do they send a clear signal that senior
management believes the synergy of teams is important?
d. Is a clear career path for successful project managers in place?
e. Does the team have discretionary authority to manage short-term
difficulties?
f. Is there a relatively high level of (rust emanating from the organization
culture?
g. Team evaluation should go beyond time, cost, and specifications (the
“characteristics of highly effective teams’ from Chapter 10 can easily be
adapted as measurements of team effectiveness. An example of a partial
survey is found in Table 14.3 which is shown here).
Individual Team Member and Project Manager Evaluation
9. Team evaluation is crucial, but at some point a project manager is likely to be
asked to evaluate the performance of individual members. Such an evaluation will
typically be required as part of the closure process and will then be incorporated in the
annual performance appraisal system of the organization. These evaluations constitute
a major element of an individual’s personnel file and often form the basis for making
decisions about promotions, future job assignments, merit pay increases, and other
rewards.
10. Organizations vary in the extent to which project managers are actively involved
in performing the appraisal process. In organizations where projects are managed
within a functional organization or functional matrix, the individual’s area manager, not
the project manager, is responsible for assessing performance, the area manager may
solicit the project manager’s opinion of the individual's performance on a specific project;
this will be factored into the individual’s overall performance. In a balanced matrix, the
project manager and the area manager jointly evaluate an individual’s performance. In
project matrix and project organizations in which (lie lion’s share of the individual’s work
is project related, the project manager is responsible for appraising individual
performance. One new process, which appears to be gaining wider acceptance, is the
multirater appraisal or the “360-degree feedback,” which involves soliciting feedback
concerning team members’ performance from all the people their work affects. This
 7

would include not only project and area managers, but also peers, subordinates, and
even customers.
11. Performance appraisals generally fulfill two important functions. The first is
developmental in nature; the focus is on identifying individual strengths and
weaknesses and developing action plans for improving performance. The second is
evaluative and involves assessing how well the person has performed in order to
determine salary or merit adjustments. These two functions are not compatible.
Employees, in their eagerness to find out how much pay (hey will receive, tend to tune
out constructive feedback on how they can improve their performance. Likewise,
managers tend to be more concerned with justifying their decision than engaging in a
meaningful discussion on how the employee can improve his or her performance. It is
difficult to be both a coach and a judge. As a result, several experts on performance
appraisal systems recommend that organizations separate performance reviews, which
focus on individual improvement, and pay reviews, which allocate the distribution of
rewards.
Performance Reviews
12. Organizations employ a wide range of methods to review individual performance
on a project. In general, all review methods of individual performance center on the
technical and social skills brought to the project and team. Some organizations rely
simply on an informal discussion between the project manager and the project member.
Other organizations require project managers to submit written essays that describe
and assess an individual’s performance on a project. Many organizations use rating
scales similar to the team evaluation survey in which the project manager rates the
individual according to a certain scale (i.e., from 1 to 5) on a number of relevant
performance dimensions (i.e., teamwork, customer relations). Some organizations
augment these rating schemes with behaviorally anchored descriptions of what
constitutes a 1 rating, a 2 rating, and so forth. Each method has its strengths and
weaknesses, and, unfortunately, in many organizations the appraisal systems were
designed to support mainstream operations and not unique project work. The bottom
line is that project managers have to use the performance review system mandated by
their organization as best they can. Regardless of (lie method, the project manager
needs to sit down with each team member and discuss his or her performance. Here
arc sonic general tips for conducting performance reviews:-
 8

a. Always begin the process by asking the individual to evaluate his or her
own performance. First, this approach may yield valuable information
that you were not aware of. Second, the approach may provide an early
warning for situations in which there is disparity in assessments. Finally,
this method reduces the judgmental nature of the discussion.

b. Avoid, when possible, drawing comparisons with other team members;

rather, assess the individual in terms of established standards and
expectations. Comparisons tend to undermine cohesion and divert
attention away from what the individual needs to do to improve
performance.

c. When you have to be critical, focus the criticism on specific examples of

behavior rather than on the individual personally. Describe in specific
terms how the behavior affected the project.

d. Be consistent and fair in your treatment of all team members. Nothing

breeds resentment more than if, through the grapevine, individuals feel
that they are being held to a different standard than are other project
members.

e. Treat the review as only one point in an ongoing process. Use it to reach
an agreement as to how the individual can improve his or her
performance.

Conclusion
13. The goals of project closure are to complete the project and to improve
performance of future projects. Implementing closure and review has three major
closure deliverables, wrap-up, audit, and performance evaluation. Wrap-up activities put
the project “to bed” and include completing the final project deliverable, closing
accounts, finding new opportunities for project staff, closing facilities, and creating the
final report. Project audits assess the overall success of the project. Retrospectives are
used to identify lessons learned and improve future performance. Individual and team
evaluations assess performance and opportunities for improvement. A project should
not be considered closed until all three activities have been completed. The culture of
the organization and the project team will play a major factor in the efficacy of these
activities.