Memorandum of Post-Mortem Assessment, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The conduction of a post-mortem assessment is critical in the determination of what went wrong in the aftermath of a managerial blunder. The assessment also gauges which actions were appropriate and accomplished correctly; this is important to keep the managerial team’s morale up so they are not presented only with failures. Finally, the assessment identifies which tasks might have been accomplished more efficiently or more expediently. The purpose of the assessment is essential to the rapidly-changing environment of business.

Post-Mortem Assessment Criteria

The criteria for the post-mortem assessment in this study includes addressing the following specific questions: (1) What are the key success factors in managing large, multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional response programs?(2) How can we determine or measure “success” in response?(3) How can we design drills and tests that specifically evaluate the key success factors for response?

Failure and Lessons

According to Prieto (2008), the findings on a troubled project include failing to adequately plan: This includes the presence of objectives that are poorly defined resulting in weak planning which results in “inefficiency and rework” as well as a plan being implemented in which the end is not understood clearly and the plan not being used or being kept up to date.

Another lesson comes from the failure of weak communications. This involves a lack of defined stakeholders and a communication plan that is not operational. Additionally, the frequency and completeness of communication does not meet the needs of stakeholders and the approach provides insufficient means for active listening. Finally, there is failure to communicate the status of the project on a frequent basis and in necessary detail.

Failure to Procure Team Buy-in is another failure. This outcome often results from planning that is top-down and this results in the limitation of team buy-in and the failure of the team to accept responsibility as they are not offered the opportunity to provide input, feedback and constructive suggestions.

Team Skills Don’t Meet Project Needs: This is characterized by lack of education and training as well as a failure to identify skill gaps. No One is Responsible: due to failure to articulate roles and responsibilities and to provide support mechanisms

Performance Metrics not Effectively Used: this includes the lack of information concerning the actual project status and accountability failing to be linked to performance. This also includes failure to establish cross-functional activities and communication and collaboration metrics and the importance to safety and quality not addressed by metrics.

Team Culture not defined, communicated, established or supported: This is due to toleration of negative behaviors and lack of team building.

Plan not sufficiently developed: planning allows gaps and planning assumptions not stress tested by detailed plan development.

Failure to Fully Assess and Manage Risks: event risks are not adequately addressed and “known unknowns” are not factored into risk analysis and failure for contingency planning and provision.

Failure to understand ‘critical path and failure to properly allocate resources.

Schedule Does Not Reflect Realities of Project in that: (a) morale impact of unrealistic dates and intermediate milestones not appreciated; (b) Project sequencing and decision time frames not understood; (c) External schedule drivers and constraints not adequately considered; and (d) Interdependences not adequately reflected in project schedule

Quality Management Culture Not Built Into Project: failure to develop quality plan at project beginning and quality activities not flowed into all elements of the project. Furthermore involved is the failure to extend quality requirements through the supply chain. Inadequate training provided to close gaps in skills and failure to identify skill gaps.

Dysfunctional Project Organization: this is characterized by no clear lines of authority and a general lack of empowerment and a lack of timely informationsharing.

Project Management Framework Systems Not in Place or Appropriately Utilized: This includes failure to integrate framework systems and to provide timely and comprehensive view of the project;

Project Execution Lacks Rigor: this involve the lack of consideration for early and late start scenarios and a failure to understand the preconditions to undertaking a little understood activity as well as failure to manage changes and their inevitable disruption. Resource allocation fails to match the priorities as stated and the organizational process or process silos are not broken down.

Project Execution Bottlenecks not Aggressively Addressed: this involves the funneling and hoarding of information rather than the dissemination of information.

Failure to use audit process and Audit Process Not Used to Support Project Execution: this involves the audit process being viewed as invaluable and the frequency of audits being such that are inadequate to provide input necessary for a timely correction of the course.

When training is not viewed as an ongoing activity no consistency of approach and not feedback loops for capturing what has been learned.Inadequate project closeout: lack of closeout plan and checklist. Commissioning requirements may not comprehensively addressed be.

Failure to learn lessons is another example. This is because the previous project post mortems were notreviewed resulting in a failure to capture or communicate lessons learned and best practices encountered.

Key Success Factors in Managing Large, Multi-Agency and Multi-Jurisdictional Response Programs

It is clear from the literature reviewed in this work that the key success factors are related to communication efficiencies, planning efficiencies, training and education efficiencies, and collaborative effort in disaster mitigation, response, planning and post mortem assessment initiatives. Steps that would be followed in the assessment of response in an emerging disaster situation begin with the determination of where there problems lie. Once the problematic area is defined, the magnitude of the damage sustained by the company is assessed. By effectively identifying populations at risk, a preemptive measure can be taken to prevent further damage to those sectors.

After the initial evaluation defining the problem and its overall effect on a specific sectors of the population, the post-mortem assessment should compile a course of action to reduce immediate risks, prioritizing some by the immediacy of their problems. The company will then garner the resources for medical, organizational, and logistical resources.

Using the past problems as a guide toward future actions is one of the benefits of mistakes. The word failure has negative connotation, but the unique and unrivaled improvements it provides through corrective progression in subsequent attempts prove more valuable than any other mode of improvement. Trials and tribulations grant a very insightful tool for perfecting a person’s attempt at a new project. Walter Brunell conveys this in his apt quote: ‘Failure is the tuition you pay for success’.  Success is derived only through the lessons learned from failure.

How to Determine or Measure ‘Success in Response’

The determination or measure of success in response would address the following criteria: (1) Determine the telecommunication status between police, fire services and hospitals in the most damaged areas; (2) Identify information needs and sources of reliable data; (3) Decision-makers must build a conception of where people are, what condition these people are in, what needs are present in this population and what services and resources area available; (4) Establish boundaries of the damaged or disrupted zone as well as identifying damage to major urban areas; and (5) Identification of primary route transportation blockages.

How to Design Drills and Tests that Evaluate the Key Success Factors for Response

The design of drills and tests for evaluating the key success factors for response should follow the FEMA response testingprocedures. Testing procedures and protocols are set out in the report entitled “National Preparedness Guidelines” published by FEMA in September of 2007. Prevention is defined as a goal to preclude future recurrences of failures. and is stated to involve “…actions taken to protect lives and property.  It involves applying intelligence and other information to a range of activities that may include such countermeasures as deterrence operations; heightened inspections; improved surveillance and security operations; investigations to determine the full nature and source of the threat; public health and agricultural surveillance and testing processes; immunizations, isolation, or quarantine; and, as appropriate, specific law enforcement operations aimed at deterring, preempting, interdicting, or disrupting illegal activity and apprehending potential perpetrators and bringing them to justice.” (National Preparedness Guidelines, 2007)

This involves plans that “incorporate an accurate threat analysis and risk assessment and ensure that capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from all-hazards events are available when and where they are needed.  Plans are vertically and horizontally integrated with appropriate departments, agencies, and jurisdictions.

Where appropriate, emergency plans incorporate a mechanism for requesting State and Federal assistance and include a clearly delineated process for seeking and requesting assistance from appropriate agency(ies).” (National Preparedness Guidelines, 2007) Assessment and reporting is stated to involve assessments that are based on “established readiness metrics and reporting on progress and effectiveness of efforts to achieve the vision of the Guidelines.” (National Preparedness Guidelines, 2007) It is stated that the Capabilities-Based Preparedness tools and the assessment system; as outlined should be coordinated with the Federal departments and agencies associated with the following: Federal preparedness assistance, First responder equipment standards, Preparedness research and development activities, Federal training programs, National Exercise Program, Interagency planning processes, Performance measurements for national preparedness, Relevant Federal regulatory requirements, and Federal assets in support of State, local, territorial, and tribal government operations. (National Preparedness Guidelines, 2007)

References

Pastekova, Elena (2000) Contingency Preparedness Methodology. Auerbach Corporation 2000. Retrieved from: http://www.auerbach-publications.com/dynamic_data/1952_875_23-10-25.pdf

National Preparedness Guidelines (2007) FEMA Sept. Retrieved from: http://www.fema.gov/txt/government/npg.txt

Prieto, Bob (2008) The Post Mortem You Never Want: How to Determine Findings from a Troubled Project. PM World Today – November 2008 (Vol X, Issue XI). Retrieved from: http://www.pmforum.org/library/tips/2008/PDFs/Prieto-11-08.pdf

Faulkner, Bill (1999) Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Centre for Tourism and Hotel Management Research, School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Grizth University, PMB 50 Gold Coast Mail Centre,  Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.hospitality.ucf.edu/faculty/raywang/documents/HFT6938/Safety%20and%20Security/FrameworkForTourismDisasterManagement.pdf

Target Capabilities List: A companion to the National Preparedness Guidelines (2007) U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Sept 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.fema.gov/txt/government/training/tcl.txt National Preparedness Guidelines (2007) Homeland Security. Retrieved from: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/National_Preparedness_Guidelines.pdf