Post-Implementation Review (PIR)
What?
A Post-Implementation Review (PIR) is an
assessment and review of the completed working solution. It will
be performed after a period of live running, some time after the
project is completed.
Why?
There are three purposes for a Post-Implementation
Review:
- To ascertain the degree of success from
the project, in particular, the extent to which it met
its objectives, delivered planned levels of benefit, and
addressed the specific requirements as originally defined.
- To examine the efficacy of all elements of
the working business solution to see if further
improvements can be made to optimise the benefit
delivered.
- To learn lessons from this project,
lessons which can be used by the team members and by the
organisation to improve future project work and solutions.
In some cases, the first of these objectives
can be a contractual issue. Where that is the case, it may be
safer to run separate reviews - one focused on contractual
compliance and the other seeking to derive further benefit from a
no-blame review.
When?
A Post-Implementation Review should be scheduled
some time after the solution has been deployed. Typical
periods range from 6 weeks to 6 months, depending on the
type of solution and its environment.
The PIR is intended to be an assessment and
review of the final working solution. There should have
been at least one full processing and reporting cycle
completed.
It should not be performed while the
initial snags are still being dealt with or while users
are still being trained, coached and generally getting
used to its operation.
|
The PIR should be timed to allow the final improvements
to be made in order to generate optimum benefit from the
solution. There is no point in waiting too long as the
results are intended to generate that final benefit for
the organisation and team. |
Who?
There is often a difference of opinion as to
who should perform the Post-Implementation Review. Usually,
members of the project team will want to complete the review as a
natural extension of their responsibility to deliver optimum
benefit from the solution. They understand what was required,
what was changed, how it was achieved, how things are supposed to
work, how to fix problems, etc.
There is a converse argument that the review
should be performed by an independent team. This reduces the risk
that any errors or omissions of the project team might equally be
overlooked in their review.
A solution is to do both. An independent audit
team, working in consultation with the business users and project
team, could examine whether the results are satisfactory. The
project team might then reconvene to consider that input and also
to examine how to generate further value from the solution.
How?
A list of points should be drawn up to cover
all elements of the operational solution. They should include
such things as:
Current situation
- Is the required functionality
available?
- Are the procedures properly
documented, published and known about?
- Have users received adequate
training and coaching to take advantage of the
new facilities?
- Are staffing levels and skillsets
appropriate for the actual workloads?
- Are staff displaying appropriate
attitudes to get the best out of the system (confidence
in its capabilities, belief in its purpose,
willingness to make it work, etc)?
- How busy, usable, useful and
adequate are support services such as the systems
support function and help desk?
- Are third parties such as
customers and suppliers satisfied with the
service?
- Is the level and nature of
identified faults acceptable?
- Are faults handled at an
acceptable speed and with satisfactory results?
- Is data integrity being maintained
within the system and in relation to other
integrated or interfaced systems?
- Are systems controls being applied
correctly?
- Are business, procedural and
financial controls being applied correctly?
- Does the system and its usage meet
current legal and regulatory requirements?
- Is the system able to process
transactions at an adequate speed?
- Does the system have the capacity
to deal with the actual peak loadings as
encountered and foreseen?
- Are staff following operational
procedures including backup, recovery, security
and disaster recovery?
- Has the project been properly
demobilised, eg documentation filed, team members
appraised and reassigned, equipment and
facilities returned, final accounting and
reporting completed, success and completion
communicated?
Benefits
- What were the final costs of the
project?
- What is the actual operating cost
of the new solution?
- What is the actual benefit being
delivered by the new solution?
- How does that compare to the
original project definition?
Future improvements
- Could further training or coaching
improve the degree of benefit being generated?
- Are there further functional
improvements or changes that would deliver
greater benefit?
- Are specific improvements required
in procedures, documentation, support, etc?
- What learning points are there for
future projects?
|
These questions will be investigated through a
combination of investigative techniques including interviews,
examination of documentation, performance statistics, hands-on
tests and checks, etc. Implications and potential remedial
options would then be assessed and evaluated. The findings and
recommended actions would be prepared, normally in the form of a
report or presentation.
Next Steps
The findings and recommendations will be
presented to:
- the solution's business owners,
- the leading participants in the project,
and
- other parties who may be concerned with
the results.
Specific actions should be proposed to address
any further work that is recommended. This might be handled in
several different ways, for example:
- as routine support and maintenance,
- as remedial work to be performed by the
original project team,
- for line management to address through
user education and procedures etc,
- as further phases of development involving
new projects.
