While the obvious answer is … if the project KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are met, then the job is done well, is this answer good enough? The global financial crisis was brought on in part by organisations meeting their KPIs. So it is clear to me that the KPI approach in isolation is not adequate, and potentially short sighted. It is a valid method, and should not be scrapped, but by itself it is probably not universally adequate.
The project manager has other tools available – such as audits. Speaking from first hand experience, I hate being audited for anything. I consider it an insult to my professionalism. But … I have learned to accept them. An auditor provides confidence to the project manager that I am doing my job well. A good audit result means my credibility goes up. A non-compliance in the audit gives me a tangible item to improve my performance – which will become good for me.
So … how does a project manager decide when to do an audit, and what kind of audit is required?
There are numerous audits (ISO9001 audits, safety audits, compliance to internal corporate procedures audits, tax audits, etc). Some are initiated by a project execution plan. Others are initiated by a concerned project manager. Some are one-off, others are on-going. But one thing about audits is constant … any non-compliance is a problem that needs to be addressed.
I remember one of the best project managers I ever had. He possessed an uncanny ability to know when something was going onto the critical path about 2 days before it happened. He would then go ask the lead engineer about it, and the problem was avoided. On one project with an extremely aggressive schedule, he approached me quite frequently. While I was able to keep to the schedule, I was not happy with the way the project was progressing. He sensed this and organised a schedule audit for me and my discipline. While I was originally insulted by the “special treatment”, the audit found ways for me to improve my performance. I implemented the recommendations, and not only was the project successful, but I became a much better engineer because of it. I am forever grateful to that insightful project manager.
I recently met one of the most respected specialists in Process Safety in Australia. While we never mentioned this verbatim, I got the impression he feels there is a need to audit the performance of safety audits (such as HAZOP studies). Compliance with IEC61882 may not be good enough for many risk assessments. Having participated in many HAZOP studies and risk assessments, I will agree with him.
Other “things” that may justify an audit
Effectiveness of the spam filter on your email. Mine is quite good, but not perfect. The other day I found a normal client email in my spam folder. I have learned the best path forward for me is to leave the setting alone, but check the spam folder daily. So far I have not had any spam in my inbox, and just the occasional non-spam email in my spam folder.
Filter performance. A perfect filter will provide perfect separation of the “good stuff” and the “bad stuff”. While it is normal to measure the performance based on the amount of bad stuff that passes through the filter, should we also consider the amount of good stuff that is trapped with the bad stuff? For a drinking water filter, the amount of good stuff trapped with the bad stuff is trivial, but how about a process where the trapped good stuff can be a hazard?
I am sure there are others.
Have you had an interesting audit? Please tell us about it, and with your permission we will put it in a future newsletter.