An Assessment of Post-Project Reviews

Abstract

A detailed analysis of post-project reviews was conducted to assess whether such reviews should be conducted, and, if so, how they should be conducted. It was found that post-project reviews are effective in disseminating knowledge about good practices, correcting errors in individuals’ knowledge (especially their knowledge about other functions within the organization), and predicting how well alternative practices would have turned out. At the same time these reviews demonstrated several limitations. The diagnosis that took place in reviews tended to be shallow, remedies were planned only at a very superficial level, and explanations of events tended to be overly specific. Participants also made potentially misleading assumptions: for example, that unimportant problems implied unimportant causes. Nonetheless, post-project reviews are important learning mechanisms and their value seems to be underestimated by individuals who do not appreciate the need to disseminate insights throughout the organization.