College of Leadership & Management (Sydney)

 View Only

  • 1.  Project Close Out Reports (Staged or Final) and Lessons Learned

    Posted 05-04-2024 04:35 PM

    Hi Everyone

    Our is a profession of continued improvement.

    It is my experience that individuals commonly move from one project to the next, in their respective sectors / industries. Along with them they carry embodied learnings from "lessons" they have personally experienced, i.e. to avoid past mistakes, or bad experiences from happening to them again, or where things have gone well (the latter commonly taken for granted, I feel).

    However, on projects it seems like mistakes continue to be repeated, as though they are not being learned. Leading to costly consequences. You may be aware of these in your own experience.

    I'm curious to know from our community:

    • Just how often (how common) are "lessons learned" actually completed? i.e. just at the end of some projects?
    • Do you get involved? If so, how thorough are the lessons learned analyses?
    • Do they provide any meaningful value, in either compiling them or carrying them forward?
    • Do you know if they are formally carried forward onto the next project? If so, how are they applied / incorporated, at a strategic level?

    I would love to know your experiences, perspectives, and opinions are around this. 

    I look forward to engaging with you here.

    Much appreciated and regards

    Jonathan

    0435 871 305



    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Haylock
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Project Close Out Reports (Staged or Final) and Lessons Learned

    Posted 30 days ago

    Hi Jonathan,

    Based on my experience so far, the short answer is yes, the lesson learnt are quite critical and always applied to the projects right from beginning as per my experience. The lesson learnt usually are also stored in knowledge bank or repository by several organization at end of each project. Usually the projects I have executed or managed so far the engineering phase starts with reviewing lesson learnt and classifying if they can be incoported during engineering or at which stage of the project the lesson learnt has to be executed.

    In many cases, critical lesson learnt which have impact on the project are considered part of risk register with proper mitigation planned for it and followed up properly.

    According to my experience , there are lesson learnt which are even transfered from ongoing current project to the other projects within the organization which helps to ensure the same issues are tackled on time for other project before any schedule or cost impact. It depends upon the organization setup and structure how effectively the lesson learnt from ongoing projects are implement in other projects.

    Hope it helps.

    Arun Nair

    0450999103



    ------------------------------
    Arun Nair
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Project Close Out Reports (Staged or Final) and Lessons Learned

    Posted 28 days ago

    Hello Jonathan,

    Lessons learned are for individuals to take further. As Arun mentioned already: "It depends upon the organization setup and structure ...".

    'Lessons learned' reports remain just that (likely unread) because.every project is supposedly 'new & better" and also with new leaderships / managers.

    My experience:

    1. A standard was incorrect as agreed but the leader was not interested in correcting the applicable standard ("maybe on another project").
    2. An 'engineering student' which asked for assistance was not interested in more brief (senior) assistance / advice.

    1 follows project cost/schedule idea and "we have done it for 25 years like that and it always worked" (although result was knowingly wrong).

    2. likely follows the idea that in future "every project is supposedly 'new & will be better" (although reality presents differently with large project cost blow-outs and errors which are great for 'business profits' though).

    The latter findings are largely since non-accountable business (managers) and purely administrative project accountants rule(d) engineering project decisions (since 1990s). Simple Project Data became more important (e.g.: how many tons of concrete was poured, noted weekly etc.) than project quality.

    Quality can only, and still has to return largely within 'engineering'. That can only happen when engineers (dare to) stand up against 'simple non-accountable business and or administrative employees like 'non-engineering managers', 'HR', 'accountants'. The 'professional legal authority' rests with whom has actual project decision authority. No HR, manager, or accountant employee can ever overrule such project decision unless officially specified differently.

    'Lessons learned' (ends up maybe in an old project file) remains for oneself to 'take with you' (or not). Possibly represent those lessons learned in practice but remain open to learn from others.

    Regards,



    ------------------------------
    Sebastian Tops
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Project Close Out Reports (Staged or Final) and Lessons Learned

    Posted 24 days ago

    The following may be of interest, despite that you may be aware etc:

    Australian Lessons for Developing & Delivering Large and Complex Projects

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170507093245/http://www.riskinteg.com/papers/MasteringComplexProjectsMelbNov14/MCPC14ColinCropley1057_AustralianLessonsPaperR2.pdf

    Regards,

    Lyle



    ------------------------------
    Lyle Brown
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Project Close Out Reports (Staged or Final) and Lessons Learned

    Posted 20 days ago

    Hello Lyle,

    Cannot say that I agree with the report because it fails to place accountabilities where they do belong (with all those at the "top" remuneration & many additional benefits bracket).

    To place blame with 'Australian performance', esp. on large projects that have been and are sadly still run by (European owned happy colonizing) foreign owned and managed engineering companies, combined with their own (foreign) HR employment agencies that simply dare to state that no suitably capable engineering professionals are suggestively available in Australia, is simply misleading and incorrect.

    Foreign leaders must accept blame for the $millions and even $billion cost blow outs on their managed & lead (Australian construction) projects for obvious colonizing reasons (transporting Australian wealth & minerals overseas).

    The report is likely fabricated to suit colonization practices continued by intentionally misrepresenting actual Project facts: no different to PwC, KPMG, or Deloitte political "consultancy sagas" exposed.

    The report seems thereby to exactly contrast 'leadership responsibilities' because it fails to 'honestly reflect' applicable Australian Project facts.

    I have worked in Europe and Australia (both also on several large Projects). I have been impressed with many capable Australian professionals (although unemployed for years) but have been deeply disappointed by European supposed 'engineers' placed in entirely unsuitable positions on Australian Projects instead of Australians present. Those (intentional) Project failures thereby belong purely to European (colonization) performances.

    Any Australian Engineering Project report must have critical assessment opportunities: that will not be allowed by colonizers, ever. If one really doubts that: please do read Australia's Constitution and it clearly states that England decides who will be placed, where, and when in Australia exactly as England desires. That Constitutional fact is no different for any Australian (political) Project. To own fault, where it belongs, is a necessary leadership skill.

    Regards,



    ------------------------------
    Sebastian Tops
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


Related Content