While project teams self evaluate their projects at regular points, organisations need to complement these updates with formal independent project reviews to affirm the project is progressing to plan in the best possible way.
We bring project management expertise and focus to the entirety of the project or any specific area of interest, with the highest level of impartiality possible. We examine all project artifacts and meet with any impacted people you indicate. findings and conclusions about actual or potential obstacles, frustrations, or unwanted outcomes are highlighted.
We use our project management expertise to formally assess the status of your project against the challenges,
with the intention of recommending change if necessary.
Evidence is examined, findings and conclusions about actual or potential obstacles, frustrations, or unwanted outcomes are highlighted.
We will support your internal project review (IPR) as the independent member of your review team or deliver an entire independent external project review (EPR) on your behalf.
----
expertise, focus, impartiality
Evidence is examined, findings and conclusions about actual or potential obstacles, frustrations, or unwanted outcomes are highlighted.
Balanced findings and conclusions are presented. And most importantly, reviews should point the way forward with useable recommendations.
It is the usable feedback that will increase the likelihood of project success.
As a matter of good organisational governance and project management control, all projects require independent reviews.
Impartial, independent reviews can highlight risks, confirm progress,
- level of impartiality that can be achieved
- areas focused on
- level of expertise that can be applied
While project teams self evaluate their projects at regular points, organisations complement these updates with formal independent project reviews. We will support your internal project review (IPR) as the independent member of your review team or deliver an entire independent external project review (EPR) on your behalf.
Projects are challenging for many reasons; inherent value, technical difficulty, objectives uncertainty and relationship complexity. Aspects of these challenges are common to all projects, while others are unique to your organisation.
Project reviews formally assess the status of the project against these challenges, with the intention of recommending change if necessary. Evidence is examined, findings and conclusions about actual or potential obstacles, frustrations, or unwanted outcomes are highlighted. Balanced findings and conclusions are presented. And most importantly, reviews should point the way forward with useable recommendations. It is the usable feedback that will increase the likelihood of project success. As a matter of good organisational governance and project management control, all projects require independent reviews.
The types of project reviews range from self assessment, to independent internal reviews to completely independent external review. All of these reviews should be seen in the wider context of your organisation. What differentiates the types of review are the:
- level of impartiality that can be achieved
- areas focused on
- level of expertise that can be applied
Impartiality (Low): Project teams successfully self assess their project status. This is possible because projects are assessed by progress against agreed plans. They tend to be a snap shot of a point in time. The majority of opinion will be that of one person, the project manager, hence the rating of low impartiality.
Focus (Narrow): By design, projects must focus on themselves, and cannot be expected to have a full scan of the wider organisation in which they exist. Aspects of a project such as benefits realisation are correctly assigned to other organisation functions, who must be allowed to review the project in this context.
Expertise (Broad): Project management has a broader set of knowledge domains than a lot of other functions, all of which cannot be mastered by one person.
- We address this kind of review as part of our project manager training >
Impartiality [Low]: Project teams successfully self assess their project. This is possible because projects are assessed against agreed plans. The majority of opinion (optimism, pessimism) will be that of one person, the project manager, hence from the organisations point of view, low impartiality.
Focus [Narrow]: By design, projects must concentrate on themselves, and cannot be expected to have a full view of the wider organisation in which they exist. Aspects of a project such as benefits realisation are correctly assigned to other organisation functions, who must be allowed to review the project in this context.
Expertise [Broad and Shallow]: Project management has a broader set of knowledge domains than a lot of other functions, all of which cannot be mastered by one person.
- We address this kind of review as part of our project manager training >
Reassurance:
Our independent and unbiased reviews confirm the project position, and the process behind these claims, are true and fair is reassuring.
Investors and shareholders: Owners of the organisation, in many cases, will not be closely involved in its day to day running. These reviews provide a trusted second opinion on the project status and gives insight as to how well it is being managed.
Senior Management: mostly about confidence and peace of mind. Having an independent expert poring over your project might be a little bit uncomfortable at times, but the reward is in making sure that the project will succeed.
Reviewers look at ‘internal control systems’ as well as their output. Knowing these control systems are sufficiently strong and are working properly is also very reassuring.
Readiness to proceed
Often the fear of losing momentum will cause project teams to misjudge the readiness to proceed to the next phase or stage. For example heroic efforts can only bring you so far, they are unsustainable. Extra oversight from internal functions like finance, or the project management office,
Project Product Integration
Often the many project products that a project delivers along the way can be deemed successful. However it is the greater integration of these products that matters to the organisation. Reviews tend to highlight such issues.
Ensure orderly and mutually supportive progress of various project efforts.
Confirm functional integration of project products and efforts of organizational components.
Enable identification and resolution of issues at the earliest time, lowest work level, and lowest cost.
Support event-based decisions.
Control risk.
Peer Reviews:
All professional groups such as project management welcome peer reviews. Peers can identify each others errors quickly and easily, speeding up the time it takes for risks to be identified and managed. The goal is to improve quality and uphold. It gives everyone involved the opportunity to reach higher order processes in project management.
peer review processes is to verify whether the work satisfies the specifications for review, identify any deviations from the standards, and provide suggestions for improvements.
Reassurance:
Our independent and unbiased reviews confirm the project position, and the process behind these claims, are true and fair is reassuring.
Investors and shareholders: Owners of the organisation, in many cases, will not be closely involved in its day to day running. These reviews provide a trusted second opinion on the project status and gives insight as to how well it is being managed.
Senior Management: mostly about confidence and peace of mind. Having an independent expert poring over your project might be a little bit uncomfortable at times, but the reward is in making sure that the project will succeed.
Reviewers look at ‘internal control systems’ as well as their output. Knowing these control systems are sufficiently strong and are working properly is also very reassuring.
Readiness to proceed
Often the fear of losing momentum will cause project teams to misjudge the readiness to proceed to the next phase or stage. For example heroic efforts can only bring you so far, they are unsustainable. Extra oversight from internal functions like finance, or the project management office,
Project Product Integration
Often the many project products that a project delivers along the way can be deemed successful. However it is the greater integration of these products that matters to the organisation. Reviews tend to highlight such issues.
Ensure orderly and mutually supportive progress of various project efforts.
Confirm functional integration of project products and efforts of organizational components.
Enable identification and resolution of issues at the earliest time, lowest work level, and lowest cost.
Support event-based decisions.
Control risk.
Reassurance:
Our independent and unbiased reviews confirm the project position, and the process behind these claims, are true and fair is reassuring.
Investors and shareholders: Owners of the organisation, in many cases, will not be closely involved in its day to day running. These reviews provide a trusted second opinion on the project status and gives insight as to how well it is being managed.
Senior Management: mostly about confidence and peace of mind. Having an independent expert poring over your project might be a little bit uncomfortable at times, but the reward is in making sure that the project will succeed.
Reviewers look at ‘internal control systems’ as well as their output. Knowing these control systems are sufficiently strong and are working properly is also very reassuring.
Readiness to proceed
Often the fear of losing momentum will cause project teams to misjudge the readiness to proceed to the next phase or stage. For example heroic efforts can only bring you so far, and are unsustainable. Extra oversight from internal functions like finance, or the project management office,
Project Product Integration
Often the many project products that a project delivers along the way can be deemed successful. However it is the greater integration of these products that matters to the organisation. Reviews tend to highlight such issues.
Ensure orderly and mutually supportive progress of various project efforts.
Confirm functional integration of project products and efforts of organizational components.
Enable identification and resolution of issues at the earliest time, lowest work level, and lowest cost.
Support event-based decisions.
Control risk.
Reassurance:
Our independent and unbiased reviews confirm the project position, and the process behind these claims, are true and fair is reassuring.
Investors and shareholders: Owners of the organisation, in many cases, will not be closely involved in its day to day running. These reviews provide a trusted second opinion on the project status and gives insight as to how well it is being managed.
Senior Management: mostly about confidence and peace of mind. Having an independent expert poring over your project might be a little bit uncomfortable at times, but the reward is in making sure that the project will succeed.
Reviewers look at ‘internal control systems’ as well as their output. Knowing these control systems are sufficiently strong and are working properly is also very reassuring.
Readiness to proceed
Often the fear of losing momentum will cause project teams to misjudge the readiness to proceed to the next phase or stage. For example heroic efforts can only bring you so far, they are unsustainable. Extra oversight from internal functions like finance, or the project management office,
Project Product Integration
Often the many project products that a project delivers along the way can be deemed successful. However it is the greater integration of these products that matters to the organisation. Reviews tend to highlight such issues.
Ensure orderly and mutually supportive progress of various project efforts.
Confirm functional integration of project products and efforts of organizational components.
Enable identification and resolution of issues at the earliest time, lowest work level, and lowest cost.
Support event-based decisions.
Control risk.
Internal functions with some distance from the project, can apply a greater level of impartiality and better assess the project from the perspective of their areas of focus with their expertise. These include internal audit, finance or the project management office.
- We will work with your nominated function as the independent member of the review team, bringing the impartiality that only an external person can bring, combined with our project management expertise.
This service will allow us manage the entire review process on your behalf.
We will work with your nominated function as the independent member of your review team, bringing the impartiality that only an external person can bring, combined with our project management expertise.
And all must be expertly managed to deliver the on-time, on-budget results, learning and integration that organizations need.
Some of the challenges and How Project Reviews can Help
- its inherent size usually measured in terms of value;
- the degree of technical difficulty (complication) involved in the work;
- the degree of uncertainty involved in defining its objectives;
- the complexity of the relationships surrounding the project.
Alleviate pain
Pain: Risk:
Projects are challenging for many reasons (inherent value, technical difficulty, objectives uncertainty and relationship complexity).
Aspects of these challenges are common to all projects, while others are unique to your organisation.
And all must be expertly managed to deliver the on-time, on-budget results, learning and integration that organizations need.
Pain reliever: Reviews (intention of instituting change if necessary)
Project reviews formally assess these challenges at a point in time with the intention of instituting change if necessary.
It is the usable feedback that will increase the likelihood of success.
-------------------
They highlight actual or potential obstacles, frustrations, bad outcomes
Review types range from self assessment, to independent internal reviews to completely independent external review.
What truly differentiates the types of review, are the level of impartiality that can be achieved and the different areas that are focused on.
Projects reviews are a founding principle of project management.
Pain: IMPACT:
The level of impartiality of a review determines the amount of risk that is reduced.
Reviews range from self assessment to internal reviews to completely external reviews.
Having us as a member of tiyr review team
Self assessment progress against plans to the people that agreed them, ensures transparency and increases the likelihood of success.
Projects reviews are a founding principle of project management.
What truly differentiates the range of review types from one another is the level of impartiality that can be achieved.
Project teams can successfully self assess the project status because projects are built on agreed plans.
Internal departments with a distance from the project can better assess the situation
They are one of the reasons that project management succeeds, everyone is held responsible and communicates this frequently.
The challenge arises when reviews are undertaken we assign a team to get deeply involved in an activity and expect them to be impartial.
However successful reviews require impartiality.
Our involvement in your project reviews will reduce risk associated with impartiality.
They range from self assessment by the project team report at agreed times to completely ext
Highlights obstacles actual or potential
Frustrations
bad outcomes
Create Gain
Expected benefits wants
A quality review is the springboard to a successful project.
The confidence you get
The opportunity to make corrective actions.
The impartiality of an outside expert.
Impartiality
A successful project will have been reviewed many times in many ways.
For activities to exist as a project, requires them to be reviewed.
All projects require reviews. These are a founding principle of project management. just as much as successful reviews require impartiality.
The challenge arises when reviews are undertaken we assign a team to get deeply involved in an activity and expect them to be impartial.
Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
Independent reviews of projects are the
The nature of projects calls for reviews at weekly, monthly and decision points as a matter of course.
To increase the chances of success, to ensure good governance, an independent ingredient is mixed into the process.
Internally, this independent function can be given to the project management office if one is in place. This ensures a greater degree of impartiality
Even then they often seek outside indepnde to ensure
This can often be
reviews of projects are the
US ----
Having reviewed and managed many projects, we know how to shine a light on the important actual or potential obstacles .
We understand how frustrations arise and how to dampen them.
We can prevent bad outcomes associated with
We'd love to talk to you about
-----
For your organisation to be successful, your projects need to be too.
-------------
REVIEW PLANNING PROCESS AND TAILORINGThe EIR process is controlled by the OECM and has been implemented by three outside contractors.1 These independent contractors are tasked with assembling a team of experts with the knowledge and skills appropriate for the project being reviewed, examining project management and design documents, planning and conducting on-site interviews, and reporting on the readiness of the projects to proceed beyond approval of the project performance baseline (CD-2). The EIR manual developed by the OECM provides general guidance for the process (DOE, 2003b). The IPT is responsible for assembling information required by the EIR team, providing on-site briefings, and, eventually, responding to the EIR recommendations.An EIR is initiated prior to CD-2, when a project’s front-end planning should be complete and its scope has been judged to be valid and stable. To produce an effective review, the EIR team must understand the information in a large array of complex documents, the decisions they record, the interaction of these decisions, and their impact on the validity of the project baseline. Transferring and acquiring the necessary understanding of the project requires a significant investment of time by the IPT and the EIR team.It is the committee’s opinion that the current practice of initiating this effort four or five weeks prior to an on-site review and relying on IPT briefings to complete the process is not always efficient or effective. The process could be facilitated by involving some of the external reviewers in IPRs that occur earlier in the project. The objective would be to facilitate the transfer of information across process1The number of contractors was increased to five during the course of this study.Page 17Suggested Citation: "2 Characteristics of Effective External Independent Reviews." National Research Council. Assessment of the Results of External Independent Reviews for U.S. Department of Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. doi:10.17226/11887×SaveCancel“interfaces” when information is handed off from DOE staff to external contractors. By participating in earlier discussions, the external contractors could hear first hand about potential issues and the discussions surrounding them and thus avoid going over the same ground when the IPT briefs the external contractors. It would also provide a crosscheck to help ensure that significant information does not “fall through the cracks” when the IPT relays information from IPRs to the EIR contractors. The IPRs, in turn, could benefit from the added perspective of fully independent reviewers who might be less constrained than in-house staff or M&O contractors to question planning assumptions.DOE projects often involve specialized scientific equipment or innovative technologies with significant risks and implementation challenges. The nonroutine, sometimes unique, nature of DOE projects requires a case-by-case treatment. For this reason, EIRs often call for peer reviewers who have unique expertise. In addition, critical issues change over the course of a project’s development, with planning issues dominating in the early stages and implementation issues in the later stages. As a result, the composition of a review team must be carefully considered to ensure that members have the appropriate expertise.The nonroutine characteristics of DOE projects is recognized in DOE policies regarding tailoring which note that an EIR can be tailored to the size, risk, technological readiness, and complexity of the project being reviewed (DOE, 2000, 2003). Tailoring allows for modifying the methodology and approach used to meet EIR requirements and might involve consolidating decisions or process concurrency or other changes. Thus, an EIR for small, routine projects might be streamlined and involve a smaller team, although all key review elements must be addressed.The committee observed little evidence of effective tailoring for EIRs. Determining how to tailor an EIR requires experience as well as judgment about the value of peer reviews per se. For example, tailoring that involved eliminating the on-site sessions for smaller projects was reported to severely diminish the effectiveness of the EIR. Because much of the value of a peer review lies in the interaction of the participants, it is not surprising that eliminating the on-site review was counterproductive. In contrast, tailoring that was done by a collaboration of the EIR contractor, the IPT, the PSO, and the OECM produced effective reviews. For example, the CD-3 review for the Microsystems and Engineering Science Applications (MESA) project at Sandia National Laboratories conducted by Burns & Roe Enterprises in February 2003 was formulated jointly by the OECM, Burns & Roe, and MESA project personnel.The timing of peer reviews is also significant. For most projects the practice is to conduct an EIR prior to CD-2 and for major systems another EIR prior to CD-3. However, it may be advantageous to tailor the timing. For quality assurance, some projects could probably benefit from annual reviews when more than 1 year elapses between CDs. Such reviews could provide a fresh look at the project, account for changing circumstances, identify emerging problems, and revisit project assumptions and the information on which decisions were based to ensure they remain valid.
--------------
We will independently determine and clearly present, how well your project is adhering to the approved plans and if all the benefits you seek remain valid and credible.
We will reduce the risk of failure by identifying existing and potential problems in a timely manner and recommending solutions.
For external project reviews (EPR) where you need us to manage the entire process, we design, conduct and manage all the evaluation activities
---
with the competence of people who have been involved in small, medium and large projects.
We have all necessary skills to conduct high-quality and ethical work as defined by professional standards.
---
Our approach is success oriented around what can we do to make this project successful.
The goal is to provide useable feedback that will increase the likelihood of success.
EXPERIENCE
With years of experience in project management, audit, and technical fields, only principle members of our team will conduct reviews.
We know projects, project management and how to avoid failure.
We are more interested in good project principles than personalities.
----
• Usefulness: The selection, design and follow-up of evaluations aim to be useful, particularly to support decision-making.
• Impartiality:
Evaluation processes are established to minimize bias and protect impartiality at all stages of the evaluation,
thereby supporting the credibility of the evaluation function and evaluation results.
Reports must present the evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way.
• Independence: There should be a clear separation of evaluation responsibility from line management functions. Evaluators are selected with due regard to their independence and professionalism to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
• Quality: Each evaluation should employ design, planning and implementation processes that are inherently quality oriented, covering appropriate methodologies for data collection, analysis and interpretation.
• Competence: Those engaged in designing, conducting and managing evaluation activities shall have all necessary skills to conduct high-quality and ethical work as defined in the UN Evaluation Group’s professional standards.
• Transparency and consultation: Transparency and consultation with the major stakeholders are essential features in all stages of the evaluation process. This improves the credibility and quality of the evaluation. It can facilitate consensus building and ownership of the findings, conclusions and recommendations
----
We will present evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way through a relevant, effective, efficient and sustainable appraisal.
Relevance: Make sure that the project objectives remain consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, and relevant needs, priorities and policies. project results or approach are strategic and include the comparative advantage of the organisation; so that prompt and effective resolution is possible.
Effectiveness: determine the extent to which the project's immediate and prioritised objectives are being achieved. We've found that it is important that the extent to which organisational capacities and arrangements support the achievement of results should be measured.
Efficiency: We will measure how economically resources and project inputs are converted to results.
Sustainability: Analyse the project’s contribution to broader, long-term, sustainable organisations changes.
Assess the likelihood that the results of the intervention are durable and can be maintained or even scaled up and replicated by the organisation after major assistance has been completed.
We follow a graded approach, to use the allotted time available to reach a supportable conclusion that you can use.
- Review the implementation of any previously recommended corrective action
- Provide an independent status of the project;
> can it be delivered within its approved cost
> can it be delivered within its approved schedule
> whether alternative solutions may be preferable
- Readiness of the project to proceed to the next the critical milestone
- Constructive recommendations for:
> alternatives
> improvements
- Assessment of project risks and issues management
Description of Responsibility
Responsibility is our duty to take ownership for the decisions we make or fail to make, the actions we take or fail to take, and the consequences that result
We protect proprietary or confidential information that has been entrusted to us.
Respect:
We always show a high regard for the people, money, reputation, safety and natural resources entrusted to the project.
We build an environment of respect around the review process by fostering mutual cooperation.
We know how project environments contain diverse perspectives and views are encouraged and valued.
to engender trust, confidence, and performance excellence
We work within the norms and customs of your organisation and avoid engaging in behaviors they might consider disrespectful.
We listen to others’ points of view, seeking to understand them.
CHAPTER 4. FAIRNESS
4.1 Description of Fairness
Fairness is our duty to make decisions and act impartially and objectively. Our conduct must be free from competing
self interest, prejudice, and favoritism.
We follow a graded approach, to use the allotted time available to reach a supportable conclusion that you can use.
- Review the implementation of any previously recommended corrective action
- Provide an independent status of the project;
> can it be delivered within its approved cost
> can it be delivered within its approved schedule
> whether alternative solutions may be preferable
- Readiness of the project to proceed to the next the critical milestone
- Constructive recommendations for:
> alternatives
> improvements
- Assessment of project risks and issues management
An independent review will objectively determine, whether the progress of your project or programme is accordance with the approved plans and the all the benefits remain valid and credible.
• Improved governance;
• Harmonised evaluation practice to support transparency and accountability;
• Evaluation capability expanded in the form of knowledge, skills and tools.
Project management offices (or other functions within an organisation) are often tasked with independent programme and project reviews. To ensure independence and as an often non available resource internally, outside support is valuable.
The different forms of reviews are:
Independent Project Reviews (IPR) supports an internal review
External Project Reviews (EPR) Completely separate review
As a matter of good governance and project management control, projects of any magnitude require independent reviews
that have greater independence than the self evaluation of projects by their team.
These reviews should ideally be part of the plan, but sometimes senior management make the decision to call for an independent review.
These reviews processes must be established in a way that minimises bias and protects impartiality. As an independent member of your internal project review team we support the credibility of its evaluation and results by bring project management experience, project review experience and by presenting the evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way.
Should you need direction on these reviews structure, we will manage the process put in place a best practice review structure and as an External project review (EPR).
remains within the approved boundaries of cost, schedule,
contingency provisions are are acceptable levels
all administrative are being followed
Evaluation processes are established to minimize bias and protect impartiality at all stages of the evaluation, thereby supporting the credibility of the evaluation function and evaluation results.
Reports must present the evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way.
Evaluation processes are established to minimize bias and protect impartiality at all stages of the evaluation, thereby supporting the credibility of the evaluation function and evaluation results.
Reports must present the evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way.
Evaluation processes are established to minimize bias and protect impartiality at all stages of the evaluation, thereby supporting the credibility of the evaluation function and evaluation results.
Reports must present the evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way.
EXPERIENCE
With years of experience in project management, audit, and technical fields, only principle members of our team will conduct reviews.
We know projects, project management and how to avoid failure.
OUR STANDARDS
OUR APPROACH
THE OUTCOMES
We are more interested in principles before personalities. We will present evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way.
Our independent reviews
objectively determine unbiased status, progress and direction of your project.
We approach this independently but are no less invested than if the project was our own.
Our approach is success oriented,
the goal is to provide useable feedback that will increase the likelihood of success.
Our process combines a number of lines of inquiry, informed by your initial direction (e.g. concerns about estimates), project management best practice, all designed to achieve maximum returns in the shortest time frame.
The 2 board categories of reviews are
We will also coordinate with key stakeholders
review coordination and logistics,
to specific questions based on our experience and information provided by the project.
While we do not have standard lines of inquiry, in advance of the review, guidance from your organisation will determine our review construction. (e.g. we're concerned with a time overrun).
We will address any areas of concern.
list of questions in their area of expertise and make contact with their project counterparts to start the flow of information.
We assess the extent that the objectives of the project are consistent with the gathered requirements, and relevant organisations needs, priorities and policies.
the project results
or approach are strategic
and include the comparative advantage of the ILO;
We assess the extent that the objectives of the project are consistent with the gathered requirements, and relevant organisations needs, priorities and policies.
the project results
or approach are strategic
and include the comparative advantage of the ILO;
the relatively informal, reporting format of self-evaluation and the more formalized evaluation format of internal evaluation
the relatively informal, reporting format of self-evaluation and the more formalized evaluation format of internal evaluation
• Improved use of evaluation by ILO constituents and management for governance;
• Harmonized Office-wide evaluation practice to support transparency and accountability;
• Evaluation capability expanded in the form of knowledge, skills and tools.
• Improved use of evaluation by ILO constituents and management for governance;
• Harmonized Office-wide evaluation practice to support transparency and accountability;
• Evaluation capability expanded in the form of knowledge, skills and tools.
...
...
...
Formal authorisation of the project by Senior Management
While a business case can stack up, it initiself will not convince
Our independent reviews objectively determine the status, progress and direction of your project.
We approach this independently but are no less invested than if the project was our own.
Our approach is success oriented,
the goal is to provide useable feedback that will increase the likelihood of success.
Our process combines a number of lines of inquiry, informed by your initial direction (e.g. concerns about estimates), project management best practice, all designed to achieve maximum returns in the shortest time frame.
The 2 board categories of reviews are
We will also coordinate with key stakeholders
review coordination and logistics,
to specific questions based on our experience and information provided by the project.
While we do not have standard lines of inquiry, in advance of the review, guidance from your organisation will determine our review construction. (e.g. we're concerned with a time overrun).
We will address any areas of concern.
list of questions in their area of expertise and make contact with their project counterparts to start the flow of information.
-------
The review consists of the project presenting relevant information to the review committee;
the committee evaluating the information provided; and the committee providing responses to the questions included in the review charge memo.
We provide feedback to the project team concerning findings, comments, and recommendations during the review and at our closeout briefing.
-------
against its approved plans, and if all the benefits remain valid and credible. And project management best practice.
Our application of our proven review process, review experience, project management knowledge, attention to detail, consistency and accuracy of information that ensure a successful review.
allow sufficient time for familiarization with the specific project under review and for organizing the review.
Triggers
As a matter of practice, project management use weekly and monthly reviews as project controls
Independent project reviews are considered deep dive reviews because they not only look at the many dimensions of project management but also how it applied, hence the reason why reviews are
internal project review (IPR)
as an independent member of the review team or delivering a complete independent
external project review (EPR)
on your behalf, we have the years of the experience to get in and get it done.
These deep dives can only benefit from having experienced independent outside support.
Often milestones offer the natural opportunity for a review. These deep dives can only benefit from having experienced independent outside support.
Progress review
of a greater magnitude of the standard weekly and monthly reviews.
Often milestones offer the natural opportunity for a review.
Outside of the plan, project management offices and other key people with a stake in the project have the mandate to request a project review for their own reasons.
Typical Objectives
- Review the implementation of any previously recommended corrective action
- Provide an independent status of the project;
> can it be delivered within its approved cost
> can it be delivered within its approved schedule
> whether alternative solutions may be preferable
- Readiness of the project to proceed to the next the critical milestone
- Constructive recommendations for:
> alternatives
> improvements
- Assessment of project risks and issues management
We follow a graded approach, to use the allotted time to reach a supportable conclusion that you can use.
Review Planning
The proposed scope of the review is planned by codetta with your PMO (or designated function) who coordinate with the project / programme managers and all other key points of contact.
The Engagement
Start Review Planning -16 weeks
Approve Charge Memo -8 weeks
Assemble Review Committee (size and configuration) -8 weeks
Start Logistics Planning -8 to -6 weeks
Draft Agenda -8 weeks
draft
Consultant Funding (as required) -4 weeks
Advance Review Material Prepared -3 weeks (at least)
Advance Review Material Distribution -2 weeks (at least)
Conference Call with Committee (if necessary) -1 to 3 weeks
Begin Review 0
Complete Review/Closeout Presentation to Project Management +2 to +5 days
Complete Summary Report (2-Page Report) to SC Management +2 business days after review
Associate Director Meeting with Office of Science Management +5 business days after review
Draft Report +1 to +2 weeks
Review and Comment by Committee +1 week
Complete Final Report +8 weeks
Track Review Recommendations At next review
Review Team
Coordination
A successful review requires coordination and forward preparation. All the necessary documents should be available to the reviewer at the earliest possible time. Logistical aspects such as onsite meeting rooms and access to relevant intranet, SharePoints, project systems and email.
Conducting the On-Site Review
Clear Reviewer Role & Responsibilities
We take responsibility for the organisation and success of the independent
review.
organizing the review.
During the review, the chairperson’s primary responsibilities include:
Ensuring that the review team remains focused;
Maintaining an appropriate professional code of conduct;
Maintaining the review schedule,
managing to the agenda;
Establishing and maintaining interfaces with project staff;
Organising and conducting parallel breakout sessions;
Organising the closeout briefing
Protocols, Tone, and Conduct
The tone of the review is positive and success-oriented; questions and challenges of the
information presented are made with the goal of providing candid feedback to enable successful
project completion. Conversations are catalytic and not confrontational.
The review consists of the project presenting relevant information to the review committee; the
committee evaluating the information provided; and the committee providing responses to the
questions included in the review charge memo. Review committee members are expected to
provide feedback to the project team concerning findings, comments, and recommendations
during the review and at the Closeout Briefing.
SC does not have standard lines of inquiry (LOI). This approach is used to allow the committee
flexibility to formulate specific questions based on their experience and information provided by
the project. The primary guidance document for determining potential LOI is the Charge
Memorandum to the review committee. However, in advance of the review, the subcommittee
chairpersons develop a list of questions in their area of expertise and make contact with their
project counterparts to start the flow of information.
There are numerous other sources of information that may need to be considered in the execution
of the review. These documents may be specific to SC or may apply DOE wide, such as:
Established technical, cost, and schedule procedures;
Management plans and organizational structures;
Integration procedures;
Regulatory drivers; and/or
DOE Orders and guidance documents.
Typically, the morning of the first day includes overview of the project and the project status, and
the afternoon includes more detailed presentations. The afternoon and/or the breakout sessions
are also used to clarify information provided, interview project team members, and provide
opportunities for other interactions that enable the committee to gain sufficient understanding to
respond to the charge questions.
Presentations should be concise and allow for questions and answers within the allotted time.
Detailed information should be transmitted via supplemental handout documents or through
electronic media (i.e., USB drives, website, etc.). The review committee is the primary audience
for the presentations, but other individuals may attend, particularly if their presence may be
advantageous to any line of questioning from the review committee. When the agenda calls for
discussion time, or at the conclusion of a particular topic presentation, a more informal roundtable
format is appropriate.
The Committee members are encouraged to bring portable computers to view project documents,
presentations, and to draft the closeout report.
Initial Executive Session/Closeout Presentation
Typically, the first agenda item is a “DOE Executive Session”. This is an opportunity to conduct
formal introductions and review the charge, procedures, and logistics. Attendance is usually
limited to the review committee and DOE observers (e.g., program representatives).
At the close of the review, a “Closeout Presentation” is conducted, which represents the
consensus of the full review committee. At this time, the review committee presents the results
of the review. Findings, comments, and recommendations are presented (Appendix G).
Presentations are made by the subcommittee chairperson assigned to each topic under review
(following the draft report outline, Appendix F). Depending on the circumstances, attendance at
this session may or may not be limited. A separate briefing with site management may also be
arranged as appropriate.
3.4 Post Review Coordination
Summary (2-Page) Report
Within two business days of the project closeout, the Review Chairperson completes a summary
report (also referred to as the 2-page report) of the review results. The summary report identifies
status, issues, major recommendations and action items of the review. The draft summary will be
forwarded to the FPD and the Headquarters Program Manager for review and comments prior to
finalization; however, the Review Chairperson is responsible for the report’s content. After
finalization, the summary is provided to SC Management and/or used during a meeting between
OPA and SC Management to discuss the review (see following section and Appendix I).
Reporting to DOE/SC Management
SC Management does not influence the outcome of the review (i.e., the committee’s
recommendations). Following the review, findings, comments, and recommendations are
discussed with SC management using the summary (2-page) report. Depending on the size and
complexity of the project, individuals involved in the meeting may include the Committee
Chairperson, other OPA staff, the Acquisition Executive, the Program Manager, and the Federal
Project Director.
The project is requested to provide written responses (within a given time frame) for each
recommendation. Headquarters program office staff track each recommendation to closure and
the subsequent review committee verifies that corrective actions are resolved as intended.
Final Report Preparation
The report is divided into sections that are assigned to the subcommittee chair person or a
specific committee member for writing.
Writing may commence prior to the review, based on
information provided in advance. Some subcommittees may complete a draft report before the
review committee leaves the site. The draft report is reviewed by a designated editor to provide
consistency without changing content. The consolidated draft report is then provided to the
committee for a final review. The draft report is also provided to the DOE site representative for
a factual accuracy review. Comments are resolved and incorporated by the editor and a final
report is generated. The final report is transmitted to the individual or program office requesting
the review, and to the review committee.
Records
All presentations and documentation provided at the review are made available to the committee
members, unless identified as proprietary, procurement-sensitive, or covered by a non-disclosure
agreement. It is recommended that all information be retained, by individual committee
members, for future reference. This reference may be needed for finalizing the review report
and/or for comparison to future reviews. OPA staff also retains this information through the life
of the project.
The final report is transmitted from the Director of OPA to the person requesting the review or to
the responsible SC program Associate Director in response to the charge to the committee. The
program office is responsible for transmitting the final report to the laboratory and/or project.
----------------
at managing reviews,
As a good project management control, practice, they are often part of the plan. Sometimes senior management want an independent review.
where we completely manage the review
project management office (or other nominated function) as you carry out an
Project management review progress as integral part of their project planning and implementation cycle. Independent reviews are the norm in some organisations
Relative Effort and Time:
Designed to increase the probability of project success
Independently invested
Reviews reduce risk
rEVIEWS rEDUCE rISK
reduce risk
Timely independent reviews,
increase the probability of project success
Relative Effort and Time:
You will have:
- explored and chosen the best option to deliver your idea
- captured the benefits that will define success
- identified initial estimated costs and resources
- decided that project management is the correct management approach to use
If you need pre initiation support click here >
We will work with you to:
create your project charter. This gives explicit authority from senior management for the project to proceed into planning.
We will further elaborate on the business case to achieve an order of magnitude
- Clearly identify the stages and phases of the project and the objectives of each one.
- Identify all the stakeholders, not just the obvious ones
- gather high level requirements
- gather high level expectations
- Initial communications plan stakeholder plan put forward a plan on how stakeholders will be managed and communicated high level scope agreement Agree project success criteria
- summary milestones Identify the order of magnitude budget for the project, stage or phase
- Confirm that the project is aligned with the organisations strategy
- Communicate the roles and responsibilities within the project
- If you haven't an internal project manager assigned we will assist you selecting the right one.
You can be confident that:
Senior decision makers will be confident that they can justify the commitment to:
- authorise the formation of the project team with enough resources for the planning stage
- delegate authority by assigning responsibility to a project manager.
formally authorise the project to proceed by a project charter that sets out
To delegate authority by assigning responsibility to a project manager;
The project team is formed and will understand
- their project roles and responsibilities for the planning stage
The project team will be ready for perhaps the most important stage of any project, the planning stage. It is this highly driven stage where front loading of effort occurs reducing the chances of failure and the costs of change once
All stakeholders are identified and a plan is in place to work with them
From experience we understand that initiation can be an unusual stage to manage. Here are just 3 common reasons:
...
Anyone can assess any project and come up with useless criticism,
Project reviewers who understand project organisations in the context of their wider organisations, are focussed on success and not the demoralisation of a project manager or team. For example, if a task was delayed but a milestone was on time and successful, we will not dwell on the task delay. We will not however analyse it to determine if there is a pattern or an issue that needs addressing and come up with a recommendation. If it was just a moment in the life of a project, we will identify it as such.
Many individuals and project teams naturally resist reviews of any kind. To overcome this resistance, an organization’s culture needs to be molded to look at a review as a means of adding value, not just as an audit or oversight function. Reviews can do many things, not just corroborate baseline costs and schedule estimates. They can improve overall management processes as well as a specific project’s performance. In addition to ensuring compliance with policies and procedures, they can assure quality. Maximizing the value of a review requires all the parties involved to collaborate in tailoring the scope of the review to suit the risks and characteristics of a specific project and to satisfy multiple objectives.
If you want project initiation (along with all other project management capabilities) organisation wide and always to hand, our core solution, "Pro" project management framework solution, tailored to your company, can be put in place at a fraction of the cost of a few individual initiation engagements.
Learn more about a permanent solution
Findings and supporting evidence are consistent with methods and data
Factors that are contributing to the success of the project
Factors that are contributing to potential failure of the project
Findings related to the implementation and the delivery process (activities and
outputs) are discussed
Findings related to the effectiveness of the project are discussed (achievement of
outcomes / objectives or progress made)
Adequacy and efficiency of resource use are discussed
Findings related to the effectiveness of management arrangements are discussed
Findings related to the likelihood longer-term development impacts are discussed
Unintended or unexpected effects are discussed
Findings related to the sustainability of the project are included
Cross-cutting issues should be covered such as: (i) mainstreaming of gender; (ii)
poverty-alleviation; (iii) labour standards; and (iv) social dialogue
7. Conclusions, lessons learned, good practices
8. Recommendations
...
Our independent reviews objectively determine the status, progress and direction of your project.
We approach this independently but are no less invested than if the project was our own.
Our approach is oriented towards the success of the project.
Our goal is to provide useable feedback that will increase the likelihood of success.
Our process combines a number of lines of inquiry, informed by your initial direction (e.g. concerns about estimates), project management best practice, all designed to achieve maximum returns in the shortest time frame.
• Usefulness: The selection, design and follow-up of evaluations aim to be useful, particularly to support decision-making.
• Impartiality:
Evaluation processes are established to minimize bias and protect impartiality at all stages of the evaluation,
thereby supporting the credibility of the evaluation function and evaluation results.
Reports must present the evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way.
• Independence: There should be a clear separation of evaluation responsibility from line management functions. Evaluators are selected with due regard to their independence and professionalism to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
• Quality: Each evaluation should employ design, planning and implementation processes that are inherently quality oriented, covering appropriate methodologies for data collection, analysis and interpretation.
• Competence: Those engaged in designing, conducting and managing evaluation activities shall have all necessary skills to conduct high-quality and ethical work as defined in the UN Evaluation Group’s professional standards.
• Transparency and consultation: Transparency and consultation with the major stakeholders are essential features in all stages of the evaluation process. This improves the credibility and quality of the evaluation. It can facilitate consensus building and ownership of the findings, conclusions and recommendations
----
• Usefulness: The selection, design and follow-up of evaluations aim to be useful, particularly to support decision-making.
• Impartiality: Evaluation processes are established to minimize bias and protect impartiality at all stages of the evaluation, thereby supporting the credibility of the evaluation function and evaluation results. Reports must present the evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations in a complete and balanced way.
• Independence: There should be a clear separation of evaluation responsibility from line management functions. Evaluators are selected with due regard to their independence and professionalism to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
• Quality: Each evaluation should employ design, planning and implementation processes that are inherently quality oriented, covering appropriate methodologies for data collection, analysis and interpretation.
• Competence: Those engaged in designing, conducting and managing evaluation activities shall have all necessary skills to conduct high-quality and ethical work as defined in the UN Evaluation Group’s professional standards.
• Transparency and consultation: Transparency and consultation with the major stakeholders are essential features in all stages of the evaluation process. This improves the credibility and quality of the evaluation. It can facilitate consensus building and ownership of the findings, conclusions and recommendations
We will independently determine and clearly present, how well your project is adhering to the approved plans and if all the benefits you seek remain valid and credible.
We will reduce the risk of failure by identifying existing and potential problems in a timely manner and recommending solutions.
Knowing your project goals and direction, you need to clarify the organisational, user (and often the system) requirements and ensure that everyone knows what they are responsible for, what is in and out of scope, the costs and the schedule to complete.
A professional set of project management plans for: cost, scope, human resources, risk, time, quality, procurement, stakeholder and communications. Key performance baselines for: scope, schedule & cost. Supported by an agreed approach to change.
Project management plans are the cornerstone of project success. Their creation by a professional ensures that the project is fully thought out and greatly increases the chances of goals being achieved, to specification, on time, on budget, while reducing the risks.
