1、Lessons Learned Entry: 1564Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 1564a71 Lesson Date: 2005-01-01a71 Submitting Organization: ARCa71 Submitted by: Ronald C. Winterlina71 Authored by: Ronald C. WinterlinSubject: Management Reviews, Reporting and Technical Publications Abstract: A. Reviews: General Feedback R
2、eceived From All Levels of Project Participants- There are too many reviews without clear definition of their purpose. As a result, reviews tended to overlap in their charters and often provided conflicting recommendations. Those involved in projects would be more motivated to support reviews if the
3、y could see and experience distinct and valuable purposes that each review served. Independent review committees are not slowed (or do not take) adequate review time to understand the projects work, accomplishments, etc. and alignment with schedule and budget. As a result, many of the findings are i
4、ncorrect or misleading as a result of misunderstandings or lack of knowledge about the project. B. Reporting: General Feedback Received - Too much disconnected upward reporting with little downward direction where the Program and/or Headquarters express direct interest or understanding in the work o
5、f the project and helping to make it successful. AATT spent a lot of time and resources dealing with high-level issues throughout the life of the project. C. Technical Publications: The AATT Project Office made a special point to request and remind technical and sub-project managers that project rec
6、ognition be appropriately documented in technical publications. This was a recurring problem throughout the 9-year life of the project. Description of Driving Event: Not Applicable Lesson(s) Learned: Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-To
7、o many reviews and reports that often times are repetitive and redundant providing the same information in different formats to different managers and teams, is costly in time, resources and moral. Every minute taken to put together and prepare huge packages of information that does not seem to be r
8、ead and/or understood, takes away from a managers time and resources to assure the work of the project is successfully accomplished. Recommendation(s): A. It is recommended that there be fewer independent reviews, each with more time allotted to the project under review. There should be adequate tim
9、e provided for discussion of the draft findings with the project manager, for a feedback loop that may lead to the committee modifying or refining its findings. Related to the above is up-front accurate communication to the projects exactly what the reviewer wants covered in terms of content. Too of
10、ten AATT Project personnel were trying to determine what the reviewers wanted to see and hear. A reasonable and practical amount of format/content standardization would be helpful in preventing waste of time and having to scramble to get what the review committee decides it really wants to see on si
11、te during the review itself. B. The obvious ideal reporting scenario is one that minimizes duplicative, redundant and multiple ways of providing the same information. A single Agency-wide reporting/information system should be developed and carefully thought out with the input of those having to pro
12、vide the information. Project managers should only have to deal with this kind of thing once a month (at most) and it should suffice for all organizations and levels of management including Program Management Councils. The only thing that might be different is the level of detail, but in no case sho
13、uld detailed project level information be required that is not really necessary for upper level managers to have. This becomes micro-management at its worst and can result in inefficient waste of scarce resources and time. Project managers usually end up spending valuable time away from managing the
14、ir projects in order to answer questions and explain to those not knowledgeable or involved in the specific needsand day-to-day operations of the projects work. C. The AATT Project recommends that project recognition in publications be brought up and made a written policy to all involved individuals
15、 and managers from the very beginning. The appropriate standards, including place and format should be discussed and agreed to as part of this policy arrangement. The AATT Project also recommends that future projects have a common process and format for technical documents to ensure easy retrieval f
16、rom a database. A simple summary sheet and key words similar tot the Report Documentation Page, as specified in NASA Publications Guide for Authors, NASA/SP -1999-7602, November 1999, is proposed. Evidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networkin
17、g permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Not Applicable Documents Related to Lesson: Not Applicable Mission Directorate(s): N/AAdditional Key Phrase(s): a71 Independent Verification and Validationa71 Policy & Planninga71 Program and Project ManagementAdditional Info: Approval Info: a71 Approval Organization: ARCProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-
