Many project management approaches suggest that once a project is authorized (by whatever criteria), then the project should have built in points at which the health of the project is reviewed as it proceeds. The review point(s) might include things like assessing the revised estimates-to-complete against the original business case, determining if the project still supports business strategy, etc. Most companies that do this make the decision as a Go/No-Go decision, i.e. the project either continues or it is killed at that point, never to be seen again.
I am hearing about a concept in which a project could be placed on a queue at those review points. Instead of the decision to continue or stop, a third alternative is to put the project on hold for restart at a later point. The project manager and project team may not be the same ones if/when the project is restarted.
My initial reaction is that I can think of many inefficiencies to this approach due to the cost of restarting the project at a later date with different people. It would seem that this method might ensure that everyone is focused on only the most important work if business conditions should change dramatically. But when business conditions change, you rarely “go back”, i.e. once a project doesn’t fit, it probably never will again.
What advantages could there be to such a practice? Or is this another consultant looking for something new to sell?
Saving Changes...
Good questions. My general feel is same as yours...if you kill it there and then for whatever reason, chances of it fitting again upon restart are slim. You also have to consider the business case that was originally prepared as things are now different to when that business case was done. My take is that we push the project up to the powers that be and get them to either fix the bottle necks/issues/risks or kill it off. The decision is theirs and has little impact to the PM. Although I would suggest that a formal close phase still take place as there would sure to be some good learnings to take away. Saving Changes...
Mark Price PerryBusiness Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT InternationalOrlando, Fl, United States
Dear Rich, I tend to favor your approach and Mr. Tucker's take. Placing a project on queue at project review points seems to intermix project management and portfolio management. As Mr. Tucker described, most organizations would make a decision to queue up or place an existing project on hold as part of managing the project portfolio. No doubt, project status reports and health checks would be inputs to the PPM process and reviewed by the powers that be. But to have a project placed on hold as part of a project review point seems a bit amiss. Perhaps this could work in a very small organization with a single decision making authority. But in a larger organization, it would seem unlikely that in a project review meeting the decision making authorities required to make a decision to queue up or place an approved project on hold would even be in attendance. Perhaps I am missing some of the context, but it seems that there is very little advantage and quite a bit of risk for organizational and portfolio mistakes and errors. I would like to hear and learn more from others. -- Mark Perry, VP of Customer Care, BOT International Saving Changes...
Mary Elizabeth DiabDirector| Leadership FormationTallassee, Al, United States
I'm going to agree with one point for consideration. Although it may be unlikely that the current project will be "re-started", it may occur that a very similar project is needed. As a result, even when the project is killed at its stage gate, the project documentation should be archived for future retrieval as appropriate. That way, you have the flexibility to re-use any deliverables that can be modified without having an "on-hold" project hanging out there in limbo. Saving Changes...
Basically this is a real world thing where pet projects often resurface in other guises. The need for the check points is to ensure there is a clear mandate and understanding of outcomes from the projects. As a project manager this is a good thing, and the larger the organisation the more important it is. Saving Changes...
