Technovation 28 (2008) 633643

Post-project reviews as a key project management competence

Frank T. Anbari
a,c,
, Elias G. Carayannis
b,c,1
, Robert James Voetsch
d,2
a
Department of Decision Sciences, School of Business, Funger Hall 415, 2201 G Street, NW Washington, DC, USA
b
Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, School of Business, Funger Hall 415, 2201 G Street, NW Washington, DC, USA
c
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
d
Bethesda, MD, USA
Abstract
There is a general belief that post-project reviews are benecial. However, such reviews are not conducted in a consistent manner, if at
all, in many organizations. Therefore, there is a need to discuss post-project reviews as part of effective project management.
This paper explores the nexus of knowledge management and project management. It addresses the role of post-project reviews and
their impact on the success of future projects, improvement of the overall performance of the organization and its long-term competitive
position, and development of its learning processes. It discusses critical aspects and useful techniques in the implementation of post-
project reviews.
The data gathered from post-project reviews provide the historical database from which future project teams can develop meaningful
project plans based on their organizations project learning cycle. This database can provide project managers and teams with the
information they need on specic staff skill set needs, and the prole of the customer and operating environment that can impact the
ultimate success of projects and project management.
The paper discusses where post-project reviews t into the project life cycle and project management processes. It assesses how such
reviews can assist an organization in improving the manner in which its projects are conceived, planned, implemented, reported, and
evaluated.
r 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Project management; Knowledge management; Post-project evaluation; Lessons learned; Project learning cycle; Project success; Project failure
1. Introduction
This paper addresses and explores the linkage of
knowledge management and project management in
organizations. Specically, it asks three core questions:
What is the role of post-project reviews in projects? What is
the contribution of post-project reviews to the development
of new insights and project management knowledge in
organizations? And, most importantly, what is the impact
of such reviews on the emergence and development of
learning processes within the organization and the ultimate
improvement of overall organizational performance?
To answers these questions, we need to discuss the content
and purpose of the post-project review and its place in the
project life cycle as an important component of advancing
the organizations body of knowledge in project manage-
ment and its effective implementation. In answering these
questions, we discuss the nature of post-project reviews and
where they t into the project life cycle. We discuss the value
of these reviews and how they can assist the organization in
improving the manner in which its projects are conceived,
planned, implemented, reported, and evaluated. Finally, we
consider how post-project reviews might differ between
knowledge-based, service-focused projects and other type of
projects. We discuss post-project review as they relate to
technical, nancial, human resource, and project team
organization requirements, as well as traditional versus
virtual team composition requirements.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation
0166-4972/$ - see front matter r 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.12.001

Corresponding author at: Department of Decision Sciences, School of

Business, Funger Hall 415, 2201 G Street, NW. Tel.: +1 202 994 0404;
fax: +1 202 994 2736.
E-mail addresses: anbarif@gwu.edu (F.T. Anbari), caraye@gwu.edu
(E.G. Carayannis), dakrj@aol.com (R.J. Voetsch).
1
Tel.: +1 202 994 4062; fax: +1 202 994 5830.
2
Tel.: +1 301 229 3826; fax: +1 202 994 2736.
2. Perspectives on post-project reviews
In modern project management thought, there has been
a long-standing belief that post-project reviews are
benecial. Anbari (1985) maintains that project evalua-
tion needs to be implemented at various phases of the
project life cycle (p. 25). He further species During
the termination phase, a post-project evaluation needs to
be conducted to measure the success of the project in terms
of its original and modied objectives. This evaluation
should contain explanations of major variances, lessons
learned from the project, and recommendations to support
further success of future projects (p. 25). Cleland (1985)
species that project evaluation consists of three types:
(1) pre-project evaluation for the selection of the project
that best suits the overall strategy of the enterprise;
(2) ongoing evaluation of the project during its life cycle;
and (3) a post-project evaluation for the assessment of the
success and efcacy of the completed project, particularly
to develop a prole of lessons learned that can help
guide the management of projects in the future. A project
manager who neglects an ongoing evaluation is at sea
without a compass, for without such an evaluation there
is no check on whether planning, organizing, stafng
direction, and control have been effectively accomplished.
(p. 12). Kerzner (1984) species that the divestment phase
evaluates the efforts on the total system and serves as input
to the conceptual phases for new projects and systems. This
nal phase also has an impact on other ongoing projects
with regard to priority identication (p. 76). In later
editions (e.g., ninth ed., 2006), Kerzner (2006) replaces the
term divestment phase with closure phase (p. 69).
Collier et al. (1996) propose a standard process for
conducting post-project reviews, describe the activities,
roles and artifacts of this process, and suggest that
successful post-project reviews require a management
commitment to make such reviews mainstream activities.
They state that the goal of a post-project review is to use
the project analysis results to improve future project
management methods and practices. They indicate that
the tools used in this process are proactive problem-solving
tools. The artifacts included are documented procedures
and guidelines, established communication channels, posi-
tive/blame-free analysis, and a balance of the costs and
benets of post-project reviews. The model for the post-
project reviews proposed by Collier et al. (1996) comprises
the following phases: (1) design a project surveyin this
phase determine the questions to ask in a survey form,
distribute the survey to all persons involved in the project
and then tabulate and evaluate the results; (2) collect
objective project informationin this phase focus on areas
with the greatest opportunity for improvement. Use the
following metrics: cost, Schedule, and quality, then track
the data collected in the survey; (3) conduct a debrieng
in this phase a meeting is led by a chair, a coordinator, and
a facilitator to manage risks associated with this phase,
which include monopolization of time and issues, and
maintenance of clear documentation of the proceedings;
(4) conduct a project history dayin this phase partici-
pants should be responsible project managers and relevant
project staff only. Activities must include a root-cause
analysis of the problems identied, and results must
be grouped according to their causal relationship to the
problems experienced by the project; (5) publish the
resultsin this phase the results of the post-project review
are published in the form of an open letter to project teams.
The letter should include a description of the project as well
as the good, the bad, and the ugly experiences of he project;
and (6) establish an organic link between post-project
reviews and future projectsin this phase all review output
is documented and sorted according to the category of the
lessons learned by project team function and the affected
project management process or area. Senior executives
must see the results during regular organizational reviews.
Each lesson learned should be assigned to a staff member
who is then responsible to further investigate the lesson and
implement a solution.
Busby (1999) expressly states his dislike of the term
postmortem reviews, reports on an analysis of post-project
reviews, assesses whether such reviews should be con-
ducted, and if so, how they should be conducted, and offers
advice on how such reviews can be improved to become
more useful. He states that the reasons to conduct post-
project reviews are that: (1) people do not always
automatically learn from their professional experiences,
so the learning exercise needs to be prompted and
structured to be meaningful and useful to most people;
(2) the knowledge of what occurred in a project is usually
dispersed among several people; and (3) it is essential to
disseminate project management experiences and lessons
learned within an organization to avoid repeating the same
mistakes. He indicates that the potential drawbacks to
post-project reviews are that they are time-consuming, can
be embarrassing to project managers and project team
members, potentially damaging to social and professional
relationships, and rejected by people who think that
professional experience by itself is sufcient to acquire
lessons learned from a project. He describes two types of
post-project review structures: (1) chronological reviews in
which the lessons learned are compiled for each phase of
the project life cycle, and (2) categorical reviews in which
all lessons learned are compiled by all project team
members on the basis of whether they were positive and
negative experiences. Busby (1999) makes the following
observations on the execution of post-project reviews:
(1) such reviews are important and useful to staff members,
project managers and organizations; (2) deep diagnosis of
project shortcomings is highly recommended; (3) historical
issues need to be addressed to determine what is unique to
the completed project and what is systemic or structural to
such projects or to the organization as a whole; (4) these
reviews should examine the larger organizational and
operational environment issues beyond the specics of
the project itself; (5) glib categorization of problems under
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 634
headings such as communication blockages should be
avoided, since it is important to be as specic as possible
about the problems encountered; (6) remedial action
should be planned properly and promptly by examining
side effects and thinking through implementation issues;
and (7) outsiders should be invited to attend the post-
project reviewsincluding other project managersas this
will assist in disseminating the results of the reviews
throughout the organization.
Malik (2002) points out that the management of intra-
rm technology transfer is increasing in strategic impor-
tance, and species that these activities are amongst the
most problematic arrangements that exist in rms
(p. 427). He points out that in many large organizations,
there is likely to be a turnover among the project
management level staff, especially where long-range
projects are concerned (p. 435). He emphasizes the need
to recognize the uid boundaries between organizations
and the actors involved in technology transfer projects,
and identies the need to better document this key
activity so that such documentation can be accessed by
other parts of the organization for strategic purposes.
His study conrms that intra-rm technology transfer
is an interactive process involving actors with different
levels of competencies and that this process should
command higher strategic signicance in rms (p. 427)
and that intra-rm technology transfer is of considerable
strategic importance, but its management is often poorly
understood (p. 434).
Von Zedtwitz (2002) species that post-project reviews
are one opportunity to systematically improve performance
in subsequent projects (p. 255). However, a survey he
conducted reveals that only one out of ve R&D projects
receives a post-project review. Such reviews, if they take
place, are typically constrained by lack of time and
attention as well as lack of personal interest and ability.
They focus mostly on technical output and bureaucratic
measurements; process-related factors such as project
management are rarely discussed (p. 255). He reviews
the role of post-project meetings as a tool to improve
organizational learning at the group level, categorizes
learning impediments, points out the difculties of resol-
ving them, and proposes a ve-level post-project review
capability maturity model. He concludes that many
companies give away great potential for competence
building by neglecting post-project reviews as a tool for
systematic inter-project learning (p. 255).
Newell et al. (2006) indicate that capturing lessons
learned by project teams and storing them on a database
for others to access is a widely adopted strategy to transfer
knowledge from projects, but that such databases are not
widely used. They explore why cross-project knowledge
transfer fails ywhy knowledge captured from one project
is typically not used as a tool of knowing by others y
using data from 13 projects in six organizations (p. 167).
They conclude that the knowledge captured is not deemed
useful and/or project teams lack awareness that there is
knowledge that could be useful to help them improve their
processes (p. 167).
Williams (2006) species that a survey with 522 usable
responses showed that 32% of respondents organizations
had a specic department responsible for supporting
employee learning from projects. The main roles of these
departments were to capture learning from projects, to
ensure compliance to standards, to transfer learning to
future departments, and (less frequently) to audit the
lessons-learned process (p. 4). He highlights that the
most important aspect of lessons learned is the increased
competency of individual project managers (p. 11).
Huemann and Anbari (2007) maintain that a post-
project review or evaluation is a systematic inquiry
concerning the merit of management and technical
processes, and performance criteria. It helps identify root
causes of success or failure and highlights improvement
opportunities.
Post-project reviews provide an important opportunity
to link the effectiveness in meeting project goals, efciency
in utilizing the resources assigned to the project, and
transfer of the special knowledge gained in performing the
project to other projects, which is essential to the overall
performance improvement of current and future projects,
project management processes, and the organization as a
whole.
3. Organizational culture, structure, knowledge creation,
and information ow
Projects provide unique opportunities for organizational
learning. Post-project reviews allow the organization to
systematically capture the knowledge gained in various
projects and to interpret such knowledge in ways that can
greatly benet other projects and the organization. Devel-
oping such a learning culture is critical to the improvement
of an organizations performance and competitive position.
Drucker (1995) maintains that knowledge represents one of
the very few sustainable sources of comparative advantage
for an organization. This view is supported by widely
accepted concepts such as the learning organization
proposed by Senge (1990) and organizational learning
proposed by Argyris (1999). However, organizations have
not historically managed the transfer of project informa-
tion well and have not effectively developed a project
management learning culture that takes into account both
technology and people. This may be due to the temporary
and unique nature of projects and the typical release of
project resources as a project approaches its completion.
Kull (2005) argues that culture is becoming increasingly
recognized as a powerful and sustainable source of
innovation and competitive advantage. He maintains that
the importance of epistemologythe nature of knowl-
edgeis growing in organizations, and that knowledge
management is not about getting the right information to
the right people at the right time, rather it is about enabling
people to interpret what they observe and empowering
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 635
them to use their judgment. He maintains that the ability
of an enterprise to leverage soft knowledge and learn faster
than its competitors may be the only source of sustainable
advantage in the future (p. 109). He species that
storytelling should be a required skill of project managers,
and that the application of new media, such as digital
storytelling, to project planning, execution, and commu-
nication will evolve into innovative business practices that
will transform the project environment and culture
(p. 116).
The three knowledge transfer and creation methods
proposed by Nonaka (1994) and Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) are relevant as a point of departure in considering
the role of organizational structures alternatives in project
management and have important implications for organi-
zational learning from post-project reviews, which is
needed for performance improvement. These three meth-
ods of information ow are: top-down, middle-up-down,
and bottom-up. The main issues of organizational struc-
ture relate to the project managers decision-making
authority, control over resources, and information ows
within the organization, including collection and dissemi-
nation of lessons learned and results of post-project
reviews.
The type of organizational structure that prevails in an
organization reects the type of organizational culture that
holds sway. In turn, this organizational culture is a
reection of the strategy and mission of the organization.
For example, an entrepreneurial start-up company may
have a decentralized structure that empowers its line
managers who interface with customers and need to be
able to act and react quickly to opportunities and
challenges. On the other hand, a more mature or bureau-
cratic organization may concentrate decision-making
power at the senior ranks, and tends to have a top-down
decision-making and information ow. Thus, organiza-
tional structure follows the overall strategy of the
organization. Carayannis et al. (2005) show that when a
project is somewhat unbalanced between the capabilities
and experience of the team or the functional department,
or if the customer is new, then the project manager should
have more authority to effectively manage on the spot the
various dimensions of the project (Fig. 1). This includes
learning from prior projects and dissemination of lessons
learned to stakeholders (see also Carayannis, 1998;
Carayannis and Coleman, 2005).
The value of post-project reviews is derived from the
effective ow of information concerning lessons learned in
various projects to enhance the performance of current and
future projects, project management, and the ultimately the
entire organization. The top-down information ow most
closely ts the following types of project management
structures: (1) project management ofce (PMO) in which
this ofce may actively manage and control projects being
implemented throughout the organization; (2) chief project
ofcer (CPO), with a senior managerthe chief project
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Project
Sponsoring
Organization
Mission
Goals
Objectives
Stake
Project
Functional
Department
Mission
Goals
Objectives
Stake
Technical Ability
Project
Customer
Organization
Mission
Goals
Objectives
Stake
Project
Manager &
Team Members
Career Goals
Technical Ability
Personal Stake
Project Goals
Objectives &
Technical Nature
must be
consistent with
the same for all
Project
Stakeholders.
Choice of a Project Organization
Structure should consider the
above balance between all
stakeholders. The greater an
imbalance the more powerful
the Project Manager should be.
Fig. 1. Projects and stakeholders interests.
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 636
ofcerwho is responsible for all projects being imple-
mented in the organization; and (3) functional department
structure in which project teams are essentially under the
control of a functional department head, and the project
manager does not have real authority or control over the
project or ow of information.
The bottom-up information ow most closely ts
the following types of project management structures:
(1) virtual project teams (VPT) that do not share the same
physical space, are geographically dispersed, communicate
with one another via the Internet or intranet, and need to
keep each other and the rest of the organization informed
on project progress and issues; and (2) project support
ofce (PSO) that provides backup support to ongoing
project teams in response to requests for support from the
project teams themselves.
The middle-up-down information ow most closely ts
the following types of project management structures:
(1) project management center of excellence (PMCOE) that
serves as a corporate-wide clearinghouse for information
on best practices in project management both inside and
outside the organization, receives information from staff
members within the organization, and serves as an middle-
up-down information ow mechanism, keeping senior
executives, line management, and project teams aware of
best practices and lessons learned in project management;
and (2) matrix project teams formed out of the existing
staff in the functional departments that are contributing to
the stafng of the project. There are three main categories
of matrix project teams: the strong matrix where the
project manager has more authority over stafng and
resources than the functional department heads, the weak
matrix where the functional department head has more
authority than the project manager, and the balanced
matrix where the power and authority of both the project
manager and the functional department head are more or
less equal. Regardless of the type of matrix structure, the
information ow is from the project manager to both the
functional department managers and individual team
members.
Dissemination of lessons learned and generation of
knowledge gained from post-project reviews are inuenced
by: (1) the overall culture of the organization, i.e., how the
organization normally gets work done, (2) the extent to
which the organizations strategy requires one structure
over the other, and (3) the extent to which the organization
has implemented an enterprise project management (EPM)
approach to achieve its goals.
4. Post-project review process model
The following process model is proposed for ensuring
that post-project reviews are conducted effectively. The
steps described below provide a protocol that makes
formal completion of a project dependent upon holding a
post-project review where lessons learned are synthesized,
documented, archived, and made easily accessible to senior
executives, managers, and technical staff members in all
organizational units.
4.1. Step 1: initiating process
To begin, we need to identify the criteria against which
to measure the success or failure of a project in post-project
reviews. The most frequently considered criteria are
whether or not project delivery was completed on time,
within budget, and according to the technical and/or legal
specications of project documents. These criteria have
been called the triple constraint theory (Project Manage-
ment Institute, 2004) and represent the variables of scope,
time, and costthe explicit metrics by which a project is
judged. As a general rule, projects that are late, costly, and/
or not completed according to the agreed specications,
and therefore do not meet some or all of these triple
constraints, are most likely failures.
There are some notable exceptions such as the Sydney
opera house that was late, over budget, and not exactly
what was originally intended. However, the opera house is
clearly of a high quality in architectural design and
technical function. It has also met the expectations of its
ultimate customers the Australian national populace and
government who advertise Australia for tourism with
photos of the opera house. Finally, because the project
was ultimately completed and has safely operated since its
inauguration, there can be little argument but that the
project succeeded in overcoming and mitigating risks to its
successful completion.
Therefore, we propose that there are two sets of triple
constraints under which projects are judged. The rst set,
that we label the primary triple constraints, relates to the
variables of scope, time, and cost that most project
managers, team members, sponsors, and customers con-
sider when determining if a project has been a success or a
failure. The second set of triple constraints is not as widely
addressed. Therefore, we label it the secondary triple
constraints, and it relates to meeting customer expecta-
tions, nal quality, and successful mitigation of all
identied risks and threats to project completion. The
secondary triple constraints represent the intrinsic or
implicit metrics by which a project is judged. Project
sponsors, managers, team members, and customers do not
always consider these constraints when preparing project
documents. However, in the mind of the customer, the
quality and expectations for the project are the key factors
that determine whether the project is a success or a failure
and whether or not the project executor will be retained as
a contractor, even if there were to be legal actions against
the project executor for breach of contractual obligations.
Thus, in addressing the primary, traditional, explicit
constraints and the secondary, implicit, intrinsic con-
straints against which to measure the success or failure of
a project in post-project reviews, project managers should
consider both to be hurdles that the project would have to
pass to be considered a success ultimately. The challenges
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 637
to managers of knowledge-based service projects are
compounded by the fact thatunlike a physical opera
house that the world could see and judge daily and
objectivelythese projects are not as conspicuous and
thus, do not enjoy the potential benet of public scrutiny
and approval in the same manner. Thus, project managers
should be aware that the only effective result is the
completion of such projects in a way that makes the
customer satised that his/her interests and needs were
met. Lessons learned from prior projects can be particu-
larly helpful in determining the most effective approaches
to use in addressing both sets constraints.
4.2. Step 2: planning process
To provide us with the customer focus that is needed to
overcome the secondary triple constraints, we would rely
on widely known quality planning tools to address the
constraint of customer expectations and the risks asso-
ciated with that. As an example, the quality function
deployment (QFD) tool, also known as the house of
quality, helps identify customer needs, wants, and expecta-
tions, and translates them into technical requirements.
QFD is a form of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
decision-making method in which participants assign
subjective values to different components and technical
features of project deliverable(s) (Forman and Gass, 2001).
The systematic QFD process provides a structure for
identifying and prioritizing design characteristics and
integrating customer requirements into various aspects of
the design and delivery of project deliverable(s).
Effective utilization of quality planning tools ensures
the involvement of the customer with the project team
in the project planning process as well as the post-project
review process. Involving the project customer in project
planning greatly improves communication of his/her
needs and expectations to the project team with respect
to specic features and characteristics of project deliver-
able(s), thereby decreasing the chances of scope creep, and
the attendant risks of schedule slippages, cost overruns,
and specication gaps. Related to this effort is the
development of a scope management and change control
procedure between the project sponsor, customer, and
project team.
4.3. Step 3: executing process
After considering the above, it would be possible to
properly address quality management tools that we could
use to ensure that the project succeeds in meeting the
technical specications developed during the planning
process. The value of quality management tools in projects
is due to their ability to provide project managers,
sponsors, and customers a means by which to verify the
progress of the project in delivering a product or a service
that will be acceptable in terms of the legal contractual
requirements and specications of project documents, the
expectations of the project customer, and/or the nal end
user of the project deliverable(s).
The Project Management Institute (2004) identies
several quality control tools including the cause and effect
diagrams, control charts, owcharts, histogram, Pareto
chart, run chart, scatter diagram, statistical sampling,
inspection, and defect repair review. Manyif not allof
these quality management tools were initially developed to
assist in quality control of manufactured products (or
projects), however they are relevant to the needs of service-
based projects as well. The uses of these quality manage-
ment tools to meet the primary, explicit triple constraints
of the project and to evaluate its success during the post-
project review are:
scope/specications (check sheets, control charts, scatter
diagrams, and cause and effect diagrams);
time (all tools); and
cost (histograms, Pareto chart, control chart, scatter
diagrams, cause and effect diagrams).
In addition to the primary triple constraints, some of
these tools can be used to measure project progress in
meeting and overcoming the secondary, intrinsic triple
constraints and to evaluate project success during the post-
project review. These quality control tools and their uses
are:
Check sheetsespecially for the risk management
planning, monitoring, and control
Cause and effect diagramsto determine where pro-
blems have arisen in the quality of the product or
process, the advent of risks or threats to the project and
in managing the expectations of the customer
4.4. Step 4: controlling process
If we found that use of the above quality control tools
was insufcient for arriving at the cause for quality
deciencies, we would use other quality improvement
approaches such as: (1) the Six Sigma method and its
widely accepted Dene, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and
Control (DMAIC) process, and the related design for Six
Sigma (DFSS) method to enable the organization to meet
customer expectations and Six Sigma quality metrics
(Kwak and Anbari, 2006); (2) the seven-step method
(Scholtes et al., 2003) to determine the origin of quality
problems, and the extent to which QFD has been properly
implemented. This method enables the planning partici-
pants to revisit and reconsider the assumptions and priority
valuations assigned during the QFD process, and its value
rests on its ability to investigate the planning assumptions
and values determined during earlier stages of the process.
Thus, it is possible to view this method as a project-focused
laboratory test to determine the origin of project failure
and then to surgically remove it through remedial action;
(3) quality audits to determine whether the project is
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 638
complying with established procedures and to identify
opportunities for improvement (Project Management
Institute, 2004; Russell, 2006). When applied properly,
project audits can enhance the empowerment of project
teams and strengthen project and program governance
(Huemann and Anbari, 2007); and (4) other quality
enhancement and Six Sigma tools such as benchmarking,
design of experiments, and nominal group techniques.
4.5. Step 5: closeout process
The closeout process of the project is particularly critical
as this is when the project deliverable(s) must be handed
over to the customer for acceptance or rejection. If the
primary and secondary triple constraints have been
managed properly, the customer will be satised and will
accept the project as completed. However, if any constraint
has not been successfully met, the customer may reject the
nal product.
We should point out that the failure of the project
manager and his/her team to deliver the project to
completion within the tolerances of either or both sets of
triple constraints is not necessarily a reection of manage-
rial incompetence. Project failure is almost always a
function of many variables intersecting and combining
with one another to produce a negative result. Good
project scope, time, cost, risk and quality planning can
reduce the probability of project failure or customer
rejection. However, since project management implemen-
tation is such a dynamic, uid andespecially for complex
and new technology projectsuncertain and risky endea-
vor, threats will always emerge that were never anticipated.
Table 1 presents a summary of the extent to which
selected quality management tools and techniques can
assist the project team in addressing and overcoming the
two sets of triple constraints it will face as well as the
inuence of various tools on overall project success.
From Table 1, we conclude that QFD, Pareto chart, and
audits are the most important quality management and
planning tools available to a project manager due to their
impact on the two sets of triple constraints and thus, the
overall success of the project. All major quality manage-
ment tools can be considered as means of verifying and
controlling project delivery within the two sets of triple
constraints and of evaluating project success during the
post-project review.
5. Project management process groups
To discuss in detail the merits and demerits of the post-
project review exercise, it is well to rst outline project
management process groups based on the PMBOK
s
Guide (Project Management Institute, 2004).
5.1. The initiating process group
This process group occurs at the beginning of a project
or phase. This is the conceptual stage during which the
project team is formed and the project managerideally at
leastis appointed. The output of this effort is the project
charter followed by the project kick-off meeting when the
project team begins its work together.
5.2. The planning process group
This process group immediately follows initiation of the
project. In this process, the project team prepares a detailed
project management and implementation plan for all
knowledge areas of the projectintegration, scope, time,
cost, quality, human resource, communications, risk, and
procurement management. The deliverable from this
process is the project plan inclusive of a detailed work
breakdown structure, budget, schedule, and resource
matrix for various deliverables in the project plan.
5.3. The executing process group
This process group addresses project implementation.
This process is closely related to the controlling process
group that monitors the processes and outputs resulting
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Selected quality tools and their applications in both sets of triple constraints and overall project success
Quality tool or process Applications in primary triple
constraints (scope/specications,
time, cost)
Applications in secondary triple
constraints (quality, risk,
customer expectations)
Inuence on overall project
success
QFD All three constraints All three constraints Very strong
Pareto chart All three constraints All three constraints Very strong
Audits All three constraints All three constraints Very strong
Cause and effect diagram All three constraints All three constraints Strong when needed
Design of experiments All three constraints All three constraints Strong when needed
Flow chart All three constraints All three constraints Moderate
Histogram All three constraints All three constraints Moderate
Check sheet All three constraints Quality and risk Moderate
Control chart All three constraints Quality Moderate when needed
Scatter diagram All three constraints Quality Moderate when needed
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 639
from actual project execution. These process groups utilize
the Shewhart/Deming Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (Project
Management Institute, 2004) in which planned activities
are done, the results are checked against the original plan,
andif consonant with the planthe next act is to move
onto the next activity. However, if the results do not agree
with the original plan, then remedial action is taken to
rectify the situation until the activity is properly completed
and work on the next task begun.
5.4. The monitoring and controlling process group
As indicated above, this process group includes the
monitoring processes of the project throughout its life
cycle. The Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle is repeated through-
out various life cycle phases of the project until all the
project activities have been completed and the deliverables
prepared for handover to the customer(s).
5.5. The closing process group
This process group addresses the nal terminal processes
in the life of the project. During project closeout or
termination, the project deliverables (products, services, or
results) are handed over to the customer for nal
acceptance. The end of this effort represents the end of
the project. The PMBOK
s
Guide (Project Management
Institute, 2004) indicates that outputs of project closing
include updates of organizational process assets, such as
acceptance and closure documents, project les, historical
information, and lessons learned that are transferred to
the lessons learned knowledge base for use by future
projects (p. 102).
5.6. Lessons learned and process groups
In considering post-project reviews, it is essential to
highlight the importance and complexity of generating the
lessons learned output and the process by which lessons are
learned and how these are fed back into the historical
information knowledge base that is an input to the
initiating process group of future projects. Lessons learned
are outputs of several process areas, and historical
information provides critical input to several process areas,
such as project plan development, scope denition, activity
denition, activity duration estimating, resource planning,
cost estimating, risk identication, and risk analysis. In
view of the large number of processes that are organically
linked to one another, it is valuable to think in terms of
linking circular relationships between completed projects
and projects to be considered for implementation in the
future.
5.7. Examples
Defense projects are often technologically complex,
large-scale undertakings with lengthy schedules and high
cost. As such they present some of the greatest project
management challenges and learning opportunities. Nissen
and Snider (2005) point out that in such an environment,
project managers may gain much by learning from one
another, both contemporaneously across projects and
longitudinally through time (p. 118). They discuss the
system currently in use in the Center for Army Lessons
Learned (CALL) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which was
established in 1985 to collect lessons learned during
simulated combat exercises (US Army, 1997) and whose
mission was expanded over the years to include lessons
learned from actual combat and other military operations.
They specify that CALLs methods include both active
collections of lessons by dedicated expert observer teams as
well as passive collection of lessons submitted from the
eld. CALL is staffed with resources necessary to
accomplish a variety of lessons learned functions, including
collection, analysis, processing, dissemination, archiving,
and research. It publishes tailored lessons learned products
in a wide variety of media, including newsletters, hand-
books, bulletins, and the Internet, including both secure
and public on-line databases (p. 127).
Locurcio (2005) discusses the management by the US
Army Corps of Engineers of the Kuwait reconstruction
project that was necessitated by the Iraqi occupation and
the ensuing Gulf war of 1991. This project successfully
accomplished repair of the Kuwaiti national electrical,
water, and highway networks, sewer lines, two seaports,
international airport, over 150 schools, and over 850 public
buildings, including police, re, medical facilities, govern-
ment ofces, and defense facilities. Locurcio (2005), the
commanding ofcer and project manager for the overall
operation, points out several lessons learned concerning
the factors that contributed to the success of this highly
visible project. He highlights the importance of positive
team leadership, participants spirit that bridged cultural
and professional differences, precise and convincing
budget documents and funds accountability that helped
in establishing trust, a true partnership in decision-making
that eliminated potential misunderstandings and delays,
and open communications which ensured that both US
and Kuwaiti governments, and other stakeholders under-
stood exactly what was happening as the project pro-
gressed. He species that this project may well be a model
for the future international aid; namely, US military
assistance to Third World countries, followed by nation
assistance to restore civil infrastructure, establish internal
security and enable political reform (p. 203). He concludes
that as an intergovernmental experience, it holds a
promise for future application not only in the aftermath
of a conict, but potentially as an instrument of foreign
assistance. The security, political stability and good
will that resulted from the timely restoration of the
civil infrastructure in Kuwait cannot be over-emphasized
and warrants serious consideration as a conict manage-
ment or conict reduction tool for future nation assistance
operations (p. 229).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 640
6. Role of the post-project review
The discussion above suggests a bridging phase between
project closeout and project initiation: the post-project
review or the post-project evaluation. The post-project
review process is an essential exercise to be conducted
for all projectsand programs too for that matter.
The lessons learned from this exercise provide a consoli-
dated body of data and information that can serve
as the baseline historical information for future projects.
This database enables future project managers and
their team members to make more accurate estimates
of cost, schedule, and technical performance. Similarly,
the lessons learned on earlier projects enable project
managers to:
Identify the range of customer expectations;
Determine the probability of scope creep with certain
types of projects and specic project customers;
Establish the range of acceptable quality standards for
project deliverable(s);
Identify and quantify the impact of risks that can
disrupt, and even ensure, failure of a project;
Map the responses to project risks and uncertainties at
each phase of the project lifecycle; and
Identify potential invisible customers to the project.
Thus, enabling accurate mapping of all project custo-
mers and their stake in the project.
Organizations that routinely schedule and hold post-
project reviews can continually rene the conduct and
improve the benets of these exercises. Those organizations
that hold such post-project reviews sporadically, or not at
all, may wish to consider the discussion above for
organizing and conducting these reviews. This paper
indicates the importance of involving both senior execu-
tives and other project managers in the post-project review
process. When these key members of the organization are
involved in the process, the lessons learned from reviewed
projects can be immediately disseminated and used by
other members of the organization. Such involvement is
critical to overcoming the common reluctance to conduct-
ing post-project reviews, particularly in projects that fail to
meet some or all of their stated objectives. Project
managers and team members often attribute such reluc-
tance to lack of time and their commitments to other
projects and organizational requirements. Senior execu-
tives need to stress the value of post-project reviews,
particularly in failed projects, to the continual learning and
improvement of organizational processes rather than
having such reviews used to determine the role of various
individuals and units in the failure of the project. Emphasis
on learning from all projects for the long-term improve-
ment of the organization encourages project team members
to participate in post-project reviews and helps develop a
learning culture in the organization.
7. Impact of the post-project review on knowledge-based,
service projects
In view of the discussion above, it is essential that all
projects, including high technology projects and knowl-
edge-based, service focused projects be approached as
project-oriented endeavors as opposed to operations-
oriented processes. There are several reasons for this:
The primary triple constraints of delivering projects on
time, on budget and according to scope/specications
require that knowledge-based service projects be im-
plemented by a team of professionals deployed for the
purpose of implementing the project.
The secondary triple constraints of delivering projects to
the desired level of quality, meeting customer expecta-
tions, and succeeding in managing and mitigating
various risks (technical, schedule, cost, quality, etc. y)
are best met by a project team with a clear purpose.
Post-project reviews provide organizations an opportu-
nity to generate the historical information that allows
time and resources to be accurately estimated and
project risks to be contained.
The majority of knowledge-based service projects (e.g.,
software development, communications network imple-
mentation) are customized products/processes for a
specic customer. Thus, an off-the-shelf product or
process is not likely to succeed in meeting the customers
expectations. After all, if there was an off-the-shelf
product available, the customer would probably have
already purchased it. Thus, a project approach that is
unique to the special needs of the customer is the most
promising approach.
The work of Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) indicates
that the increasingly ambiguous project operating
environment requires a systematic approach to learning
lessons from completed or terminated projects. The
post-normal scientic paradigm compels organizations
to provide their project managers with as much
information as possible at the conceptual phase of a
project on how to develop project objectives, structure
project management decision-making, and access other
information sources as no one has all the requisite
expertise.
The virtuous cycle model of post-project reviews
(Table 2), based on the project life cycle stages critical
information model proposed by Carayannis et al.
(2005), can lead to institutionalizing and embedding
organizational learning and knowledge sharing pro-
cesses. Thus, bridging the gap between project teams
and the larger sponsoring organization.
Table 2 presents the general source(s) of knowledge
available to a project team. The purpose of this table is to
display the types of information that a project team can
access in each of the above organizational project learning
cycles. The nal post-project review process indicates the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 641
extent to which this process is a part of the project life cycle
of different organizational types.
Post-project reviews enable organizations to create a
virtuous cycle in which each project implemented
regardless of whether or not it was a successadds to
the repository of information and the depository of lessons
learned on such projects, their sponsors, customers (both
apparent and invisible), project manager, and project team
members. The result of this process is an ever-climbing
spiral of improvement of project planning, project im-
plementation, and project management in general, to the
benet of the organization.
8. Conclusions and directions for future research
This paper highlights the strategic importance of post-
project reviews as a vehicle for continual learning and
improvement in organizations. It stresses that regular
collection of lessons learned in projects, their careful
storage in the organizations historical information data-
base, and their meaningful utilization in subsequent
projects are critical elements of project success and
organizational competitiveness. This database is an essen-
tial resource from which future project teams can begin to
put together a comprehensive project plan that addresses
all project management knowledge areas. The database of
project histories and lessons learned provides project
managers with the information they need on specic staff
skill set needs, specic staff members to recruit, prole of
the customer, and the operating environment that can
greatly impact the nal success or failure of the project.
The historical information and lessons learned can be
extremely useful to the project team during various phases
of the project life cycle. This information depends on the
type of the project learning cycle used in the organization.
The quality of project management needs to be evaluated
as a function of both its quantitative and qualitative
performance. Furthermore, the extent to which the
secondary set of triple constraints (quality, risk, and
customer expectations) is successfully managed greatly
determines the extent to which the primary set of triple
constraints (scope/specications, time, and cost) is success-
fully managed. Cost overruns, schedule slippages, and
project deliverables that are inconsistent with project
specications are symptoms of a failure by the project
team to successfully deal with the secondary triple
constraints of risk management, quality management,
and customer expectations management.
Visible involvement of senior executives in post-project
reviews is essential to overcoming the reluctance to
conducting these reviews and institutionalizing them as
diagnostic-learning (rather than punitive) instruments
aimed at enhancing the potential success of future projects
and the performance of the organization. Senior executives
need to explicitly stress the value of post-project reviews,
particularly in failed projects, to the continual learning and
improvement of organizational processes. Emphasis on
learning from all projects in the organization encourages
project team members to participate in post-project reviews
in a meaningful way and helps develop a learning culture in
the organization.
The following research questions merit future research
and study: (1) Who is best qualied to chair and moderate
a post-project review: the project manager or a professional
project review ofcer? (2) What metrics can be devised
to calculate the cost-benet ratio for conducting post-
project reviews in terms of time and cost? (3) Is some
form of a project ofce the optimum and denitive
approach for leading the post-project review process?
(4) What are the promising practices in motivating
teams to share the lessons learned in their projects
with others in the organization and encouraging new
project teams to utilize the organizations existing lessons
learned effectively? (5) What empirical data is needed to
measure the return on investment in post-project reviews
and dissemination of lessons learned throughout the
organization?
References
Anbari, F.T., 1985. A systems approach to project evaluation. Project
Management Journal XVI (3), 2126.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Sources of knowledge available to a project team
Project management process
group
Vicious cycle Functional cycle Virtuous cycle
Initiating Team member knowledge Team members, other
organization staff, previous
project archives
Team members, other
organization staff, previous
project post-project reviews
Planning Same as above Same as above Same as above
Executing Same as above Same as above Same as above
Monitoring and controlling Same as above Same as above Same as above
Closing Same as above Same as above Same as above
Post-project reviews These are rarely if ever done. If
conducted, they are very
supercial
These are usually conducted.
However, the information may
not be well-disseminated
throughout the organization
These are always conducted.
Information is detailed and
well-disseminated throughout
the organization
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 642
Argyris, C., 1999. On organizational learning, second ed. Blackwell,
Oxford, UK.
Busby, J.S., 1999. An assessment of post-project reviews. Project
Management Journal 30 (3), 2329.
Carayannis, E.G., 1998. The strategic management of technological
learning in project/program management: the role of extranets,
intranets and intelligent agents in knowledge generation, diffusion,
and leveraging. Technovation: The International Journal of Techno-
logical Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management 18
(11), 697703.
Carayannis, E., Coleman, J., 2005. Creative system design methodologies:
the case of complex technical systems. Technovation: The Interna-
tional Journal of Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship and
Technology Management 25 (3), 831840.
Carayannis, E.G., Voetsch, R.J., Anbari, F.T., 2005. Stakeholder
mapping and the execution of successful projects: embedding and
institutionalizing learning as a key project management competence.
In: Carayannis, E.G., Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T. (Eds.), The Story of
Managing Projects: A Global, Cross-disciplinary Collection of
Perspectives. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 3149.
Cleland, D.I., 1985. A strategy for ongoing project evaluation. Project
Management Journal XVI (3), 1117.
Collier, B., DeMarco, T., Fearey, P., 1996. A dened process for project
postmortem review. IEEE Software Journal, 6571.
Drucker, P.F., 1995. Managing in a Time of Great Change. Truman
Talley, New York, NY.
Forman, E.H., Gass, S.I., 2001. The analytic hierarchy processan
exposition. Operations Research 49 (4), 469486.
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures
25 (7), 735755.
Huemann, M., Anbari, F.T., 2007. Project auditing: a tool for compliance,
governance, empowerment, and improvement. Journal of Academy of
Business and Economics 7(1) (in press).
Kerzner, H., 1984. Project Management: A Systems Approach to
Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, second ed. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Kerzner, H., 2006. Project Management: A Systems Approach to
Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, ninth ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Kull, M.D., 2005. Scaling the water cooler: digital storytelling for
knowledge continuity. In: Carayannis, E.G., Kwak, Y.H., Anbari,
F.T. (Eds.), The Story of Managing Projects: A Global, Cross-
disciplinary Collection of Perspectives. Praeger, Westport, CT,
pp. 106117.
Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T., 2006. Benets, obstacles, and future of Six
Sigma approach. Technovation: The International Journal of Tech-
nological Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management
26 (56), 708715.
Locurcio, R.V., 2005. Project management during the reconstruction of
Kuwait. In: Carayannis, E.G., Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T. (Eds.), The
Story of Managing Projects: A Global, Cross-disciplinary Collection
of Perspectives. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 203229.
Malik, K., 2002. Aiding the technology manager: a conceptual model for
intra-rm technology transfer. Technovation: The International
Journal of Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technol-
ogy Management 22 (7), 427436.
Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., 2006. Sharing
knowledge across projects. Management Learning 37 (2), 167185.
Nissen, M.E., Snider, K.F., 2005. Defense project management knowledge
ow through lessons learned systems. In: Carayannis, E.G., Kwak,
Y.H., Anbari, F.T. (Eds.), The Story of Managing Projects: A Global,
Cross-disciplinary Collection of Perspectives. Praeger, Westport, CT,
pp. 11331186.
Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 1437.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Project Management Institute, 2004. A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK
s
Guide), third ed. Project Management
Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Russell, J.P. (Ed.), 2006. The ASQ Auditing Handbook, third ed. ASQ
Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Scholtes, P.R., Joiner, B.L., Streibel, B.J., 2003. The Team Handbook,
third ed. Oriel, Madison, WI.
Senge, P., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. Doubleday Currency, New York, NY.
US Army, 1997. Center for Army Lessons Learned Handbook, Fort
Leavenworth, KS, pp. 97113.
von Zedtwitz, M., 2002. Organizational learning through post-project
reviews in R&D. R&D Management 32 (3), 255268.
Williams, T., 2006. How do organizations learn from projects? In:
Proceedings of PMI Research Conference [CD], Montreal, Canada,
Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.T. Anbari et al. / Technovation 28 (2008) 633643 643