Project Post Mortem

In this week's installment, we are evaluating past projects to determine the good and the bad. Just as reflection supports deeper learning, reflection of a project helps us learn how to become better project managers.  I considered several past projects for this assignment, and it was a difficult choice. Each project brings its own learning opportunities. I finally settled on a recent project in which 3000 iPads were distributed to high school students.  As you might think that simply handing out computers would be rather easy, but it's not. In order to put 3000 iPads in the hands of 3000 students was a ballet of paperwork, people, and technology.

This project had two primary phases. The first phase was an mandatory orientation for students and their parents and guardians.  Parents and students were asked to come to the school on specific days during specific times in order to attend a presentation about how the iPads would be used and then complete documentation allowing their student to receive an iPad.  Student and parent entered the school building, picked up their paperwork packet, and were shepherded to an auditorium where they were given a 15 minute presentation about the iPads.  After the presentation, they moved to the cafeteria where they filled in paperwork, submitted forms at two different stations, and paid for insurance on the iPad. On four different nights, three different sessions were held.  In each session, 200 to 300 students and their parents attended.  Each session was scheduled for an hour, but in most cases all students and parents were in and out within 30 to 40 minutes.

The second phase was the distribution and initialization of the iPads. During the first period of each day during a five-day period, approximately 600 students were shuffled to the cafeteria, ”little" theater, "large" theater, and media center where they received their iPad and completed an initialization process for that device.  This challenging project the required tremendous coordination and planning.

Overall this project was a success, though not without a few challenges.  TOne of the things that was done incredibly well was the coordination of a large number of individuals to support the processes.  Another thing that was done incredibly well was the preparation for the orientation and for the iPad distribution.  The specifications for the flow of people in both the orientation and the distribution was detailed and designed for efficiency.  Additional manpower to help direct and support the processes  were clearly instructed on how they needed to complete their specific assignment.   Assignments during orientation included

·         handing out packets after verifying the identity of each students parent or guardian,

·         directing students and their parents to the presentation location,

·         using both live and prerecorded to ensure every group the same message in information,

·         moving the group to the cafeteria where they could complete and return the required paperwork, and

·         the process for submitting forms and paying fees.

Likewise the coordination process was carefully planned and executed. Students were brought to the cafeteria in class groups, signed for and received their iPad ,  and then followed a step-by-step presentation on the steps required to initialize their iPad.  Instructional technology specialists,

 and information technology technicians, teachers, and school and district administrators monitored the initialization process and provided one-on-one support as needed.  I would say that this project team was particularly effective in completing the steps in Greer's (2010) second and third phase, which covered creating clear and detailed specifications  and communicating these to other stakeholders. The specifications of key processes, and the communication of these specifications to other stakeholoders resulted in a very efficient completion of the distribution.

The primary issues encountered were related to technical problems.  On the first day of iPad distribution, students were unable to complete the required initialization process because of an update to the software being used for the initialization.  In technology, it is important to test any changes in order to prevent these kinds of issues.  There was nothing in the project plan that addressed updates were testing of those of dates.  Another shortcoming was the fact that the step-by-step presentation given to the students was apparently not tested prior to the actual use by students.  This resulted in minor problems and unexpected revisions of the presentation and associated guide during the distribution process.  Again, this relates to a lack of change testing activities in the project plan.

So in summary, the detailed specifications and communications were instrumental in the positive results.   The action and people processes were clearly identified and tested, while the technology processes did not include key steps for testing those processes.

References

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.