Hi, I recently ran a survey asking staff members to provide their feedback on the project reporting process. The main bit of feedback was that it felt too much like an overhead. Digging a bit deeper into the feedback there were some comments about the cadence being too frequent and that the verbal updates were just repetition of the written updates which most people in the organisation said they either sometimes read them/didn't read them at all. It was also felt like time was wasted in putting together the reports as the audience who should be reading them were not doing so.
We are a very young organisation of only 4 years so project maturity is still in its early stages. When I started there were no project processes, almost 3 years down the line, there are processes but some staff members are resistant. I am now wondering whether I have introduced processes too quickly and scaling down the areas to be reported on and perhaps the cadence of the reporting (currently 2 weeks) would be a good idea. The problem with the former is that I think we're only reporting on the basics as it is (Phase, RAG (against time, resources, quality and scope), risks and issues and a written narrative) and reducing any further would compromise the value. Has anyone been in this position before and have any thoughts about how I can gain more buy into the process?
