Currently, we use a 13 question survey to sponsors where they can respond 1-5 and make additional comments at the end. This results in a percentage satisfied. However, if one area scores low or (as some sponsors do) see a "3" as average, this skews the end result to be very low - perhaps lower than one would imagine (e.g. 66% for a project that went well by definition). How can we improve this to still reflect satisfaction but perhaps not have such focus on numbers? Saving Changes...
Does this method serve a purpose! I dont think it forms part of lessons learned, it is more of a performance scoring method how well the Project Manager\team has performed and this should also include the Stakeholders. Document Lessons Learned and do not seek a score from Stakeholders as they too were part of the end results. Saving Changes...
I agree with Vasoula that this appraoch does not seem to add any value. What happens to the results once you have them?
I use a different apporach (See attached questions). These questions are asked of all the key project stakeholders including the sponor. It is a yes/no and comments format that allows lessons learned to be captured and highlights areas that went well and other less so well. It can identify training needs in both PM and project teams. The person doing the PIR ideally should have had no involvement in the project so that they have an objective view.
All the answers are collated and common themes identified and a Post Implementation Review report written pulling all the information together, The recommendations out of the report are then actioned by the relevant parties with the PMO following up to ensure that they are not forgotton. Saving Changes...
Richard ZoomerProgram Office Manager - Institutional Banking & Markets| Commonwealth Bank of AustraliaSydney, Nsw, Australia
I hate that middle option on any scale as it's so non-commital. Try changing your scale to be 0-4 with 0 as not applicable, then 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree. In this way the respondant has to commit if it is applicable to them. Similar to Julies suggestion but provides a little more granularity.
Our Post Implementation Review process involves 58 questions grouped by the Knowledge areas of PMBOK. We have standardised in this way so that all project team members can participate in the review and get "closure" from the project. Also because not everyone is involved with all knowledge areas we allow the 0=Not Applicable option. Becuase of this standardisation we can track trends across the entire portfolio and against the knowledge areas which allows more focussed analysis. Saving Changes...
David NealeyProposal Writer| Luster NationalLittleton, Co, United States
Stacey,
It looks like your questions are not weighted. You can use serial weights like 1, 2, and 3 or what I call consultants weights like 1, 3, 5, and 9. Sit down with your team and establish the weights for each question. If your team creates several questionnaires for each project, consider using MS Access. If only a few, then Excel should do the trick.
We use a stakeholder questionnaire in our team which is scored along similar lines. However, as Vasoula states, the purpose of this is to asssess project managers. The point about the same stakeholders being involved in the project is an excellent one as we request comments from the stakeholders to support their ratings for each question and we are finding that the results are showing us as much about project board performance and understanding of effective project management as it does the performance of the PMs themselves!
However, this has no place in our lessons learnt process which are managed separately. I have seen many forms of lessons learnt in my years in Change Management and am often disappointed to see that they tend towards a tick box exercise rather than a useful piece of analysis that can be picked up on future projects. I use a combination of workshops and questionnnaires and lessons learnt logs (see attached example) to capture lessons learnt feedback with the focus being on understanding the true root of any issues or successes experienced on the project so that the tools, strategies and behaviours that were employed to obtain the project results can be clearly identified. Where these were not sufficient, recommendations should then be made as to how they could have been handled better so another team does not have to experience a painful learning curve.
I do like the idea of capturing a level of satisfaction, but think this should probably form part of broader lessons learnt activity and used as a performance tool rather than a project one. Saving Changes...
Bill BiglerProject Scheduler| Booz Allen HamiltonCentreville, Va, United States
You use the word sponsors (plural). Have you mapped the responses on a project against the utility of the project product to each sponsor? Let me give you an example. I am on the sponsor council for the latest system security upgrade. It goes well and none of my people have been negatively affected by the upgrade. I probably would rate the project from 3 to 5 (5 being the most favorable response) on the various questions. The 3's would be for those questions that I do not care about or I cannot judge other than to say it did not negatively impact me.
On another project in which the product is a new tool for my staff and the results are the same, I may rate each question with a 5.
If you find a sponsor who consistently rates projects low across the portfolio, I would ask myself if that person suffered from the creation or hiring of our current client or the establishment of this project? Saving Changes...
Post mortem analysis is completely different from lessons learned.
For lessons learned, you will talk to the all stake holders of the project from the vendor organization and supplier organization. Stake holders include - project sponsors, project managers, team members, etc..
For post mortem analysis, you simple collect feedback from the client and collect the project metrics for your analysis.
Best Regards,
Vivekanandan M Saving Changes...
Wayne MackRetired| RetiredSouth Riding, Va, United States
I would recommend going with a non-numeric rating level - 1-5 rating scales will not lead to mathematically supportable results. Try a variation of a "Kano Questionnaire" (use your favorite search engine for details). This can give some reportable results that are not dependent upon users' interpretations of what 1 - 5 might mean.
Saving Changes...
It has to be qualitative and quantitative. So please go ahead with receiving inputs that are descriptive. Though we have got into the habit of giving most importance to data, " The art of project management" looks for descriptive information which you will be able to use in your analysis. This has worked many a times for me.
Dont complicate your questionnaire. I suggest a simple 3 point scale. It is important to have the scale as odd numbered. Ofcourse many people could take the "Middle path" and that data will be useful to understand the interest and openness of your audience. Have some attributes to categorize the results (demographics if required)
There are many names to call it, Some call it "Iteration Assessment" (RUP) and some organizations call it "Post Harvest" and some "Lessons learned", some "Post mortem". Need to view that in the context of your organization.
The mantra is "Keep it simple". Too much data will be difficult to get and analyze, and the shelf life of these kind of data is usually very short. Saving Changes...
Alan CaseySenior Project Manager| Ford Motor Credit CompanyDewitt, Mi, United States
Stacey,
This sounds familier. Are you working with a large insurance company in Columbus? As I recall, that customer satisfaction survey didn't touch lessons learned - just customer satisfaction with the project and the PM. I think we should welcome this type of feedback - everyone in the organization knows what the scores mean and who is a "hard Grader." No worries - just figure out how to get your next project to grade out better :)
"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed - but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
