Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

About four years ago, I was involved in a project to create curriculum for the Navy. We were asked to design and develop four very specific combat skills courses. Curriculum existed; however, it was not up to Navy standards. Our statement of work was to develop them to full NAVEDTRA 130B standards, ready for input into the Navy’s Authoring Instructional Materials system. The East and West coast training entities that had requested the curriculum development project had never operated on the same curriculum. We were the first to develop courses that would tie them together on the same training schedule and enforce the same curriculum standards.

Prior to project start, I was asked to estimate the development time. I initially set it at 14 months for the four courses which were over 320 hours of training combined. My estimate was based on a complete work breakdown structure and a Gantt chart that described how the project team would make it happen within the allotted time (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). Due to the need to maintain business with the Navy, the company immediately cut the time to 12-months thinking that the Navy would balk at the extended development time and money. After working with our business partner and prime-contractor, the time was further cut to 9-months. I had initially asked for six instructional designers and one lead instructional designer. I was given four instructional designers and one lead instructional designer for the 14-month period. I had also requested a graphics designer, but that was cut altogether. 

I reset the project schedule to match the 9-month delivery; however, we struggled constantly throughout to stay on track. There were constant shifts in client demand which resulted in scope creep (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). There were many delays in product approval along the way which set us even farther behind in moving on to the next phase. Eventually, we had to hire two more instructional designers as consultants just to get back on track. In the end, we delivered the course at between 12 and 14 months with the two additional instructional designers working full time. Throughout the course development process we involved all stakeholders keeping them informed of scheduling issues and progress (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). However, the project was finally completed at risk to the company, i.e. very little if any profit was obtained from it because we won the contract at a low price of 9-months but ended up taking 14-months. 

Looking back on the project, what happened was that the company chose the idea of wanting a good client relationship over the expert advice of their instructional design team lead. Business development managers decided that they knew what was best and overrode my estimate of 14-months. The project ended up costing the company their reputation and their money. According to Allen and Hardin (2008), "the manner in which the scope, schedule, costs, and human resources of a project are presented to the organization's management impact and often determine an ISD project's success (p. 73)." I think if I had been given the chance to present my plan to the business development managers versus simply “sending” it forward, I might have been able to persuade them differently. There was no champion to explain why it takes 14-months to develop four courses totaling over 320 hours of training. The project was a success in that quality curriculum was delivered, and we did receive positive feedback from the Navy curriculum manager. However, the 9-month delivery timeline was busted, and because of that, we didn’t receive good reviews from the commanding officer. Consequently, the company was not invited back to develop curriculum the next time.

References

Allen, S., & Hardin, P. C. (2008). Developing instructional technology products using effective project management practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(2), 72–97.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.