Project Evaluation Process
Project Evaluation Process consisting the following Steps:
1. Selection of the Review team: However specific the call for help from a project the review team should always be prepared to find a situation very different from that defined. If the solution were easily seen no help would be needed. Thus flexibility of approach to the review is a factor in selecting the combination of experience and skill which will compose the review team. It should also be remembered that in remote locations access to specialists may not be available the success of a project performance review relies to a large extent on the review team gaining the support and respect of the member of of the project team particularly during the diagnostic stage. The review team must be specific and open minded in the pursuit of their enquiries and be prepared to overcome general skepticism or hostility, on the part some members of the project team particular when problem are encountered in their areas of responsibility.
- Project Definition: The review team must establish and understand the basic parameters governing the project. These include the project objectives, scope and standard of work, key program date and cost budget limits.
- Project Status: Where realistic planning and control procedures have not been established, a time schedule and cash flow may have to be produced by the review team as a basis for the appraisal.
2. Diagnostic Study: A diagnostic study will usually be based on interviews with individual members of the project team, together with an analysis of the project documentation and control procedures covering project manuals, project plans, programs, progress reports, budgets, cost reports, financial reports, contract documents, correspondence memorandum, minutes of meetings, etc. During this fact-finding stage, the co-operation of the members of the project team is essential and they should be consulted to use their experience as much possible. The review team should encourage the project team to propose and discuss their ideas and solutions with possible alternatives. Their contributions to the final recommendations can be thus invaluable. Such discussions often reveal unexpected opinions, which prepare the ground for acceptance of the report and implementation of the solutions put forward.
3. Evaluation of Finding: Completion of the diagnostic study, the review team should make a combined evaluation of their findings to identify the extent and effect of ail deficiencies in the performance of the project and their real causes. A verbal presentation of the findings of the diagnostic study to the senior management of the project can be of immense value. The response of this audience helps to conform the preliminary findings of the review team and frequently reveals any misunderstandings.
4. Recommendations: The review teams should recommend a plan of corrective action. These recommendations must be practical, objective and derived from the diagnostic study and the verbal presentation. If problems are identified sufficiently early in the project development, the recommended actions may create a turnaround in project performance in order to achieve the planned objectives . On the other hand, if the audit takes place in the later stages, it may only be possible to obviate the occurrence of the future problems and to stabilise adverse trends.
5. Reports: This should concentrate on the main issues and recommend specific and practical project actions. It should also include all the relevant supporting facts, figures, opinions and conclusions arising from the review.
6. Implementation of Recommendations: Successful project performance review result in prompt implementation of the recommendations within a defined timescale with the support of the project team. These recommendations are normally based on the review team’s own experience, but innovative ideas can also prove acceptable if they are practical and appropriate. Retention of the review team to assist or advice in the implementation phase of the reports recommendations is advantageous. Once these recommendations are introduced and seen to be implemented and effective, the review team should be withdrawn