Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Project Closure
Project Closure
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
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.
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
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.
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.