UCL/APM Principles of Project Management
Hand-Over and
(Post-) Project Evaluation Review
and course summary
Graham Collins, UCL
graham.collins@ucl.ac.uk
Format of the evening






Hand-Over and (Post) Project Evaluation
Review
Reminder of the areas of the body of knowledge
and coverage of remaining syllabus
APM examinations and web-site
(Just outside the Housman room there is an
exhibition which you may wish to view)
Opportunity to meet informally in the Garden
Room 7.45/8.00pm
Evening ends 8.30pm
©Graham Collins 2005
APM Project Management Body of Knowledge
1. General
Project Management
Programme Management
Project Context
2. Strategic
Project Success Criteria
Value Management
Quality Management
Strategic/Project Management Plan
Risk Management
Health, Safety and Environment
3 Control
4 Technical
5 Commercial
6. Organisational
7. People
Work content and scope
management
Design, Implementation
and Hand-Over
Business Case
Life Cycle Design and
Management
Communication
Time
Requirements
Management
Scheduling/Phasing
Marketing and Sales
Financial Management
Opportunity
Leadership
Procurement
Design and
Development
Conflict Management
Legal Awareness
Implementation
Negotiation
Personnel
Management
Resource Management
Estimating
Budgeting and Cost
Management
Technology Management
Value Engineering
Hand-Over
Change Control
Modelling and Testing
Earned Value Management
Configuration
Management
Post) Project
Evaluation and
Review
Information Management
Teamwork
Organisation Structure
Organisation Roles
Adapted from the APM BoK (Body of Knowledge)
©Graham Collins 2005
Hand-Over



‘Hand-Over is the completion of the project to the
satisfaction of the sponsor. It involves management of the
introduction of the product or service being delivered by
the project
During Hand-Over, project records together with an audit
trail documentation are completed and delivered to the
sponsor. This documentation will be at the post project
evaluation review.
There should also be a review of the original business
case (Benefits Assessment) at this time, and /or in the
next phase Post Project Evaluation.’
From section 64 APM BoK (Body of Knowledge) Fourth
Edition 2000 edited by Miles Dixon, and based on the
research of Peter Morris, UCL
©Graham Collins 2005
Hand-Over
Handover criteria
Proposal
Contract
Planning for handover
Planning
Design
Purchasing
Commissioning:
advancement of an
installation from the
stage of static
completion to full
working order and
achievement of the
specified operational
requirements
Construction
(and precommissioning)
Project
Handover
Project
Acceptance
Adapted from ‘project planning and corrective action links to
handover’ diagram in section 64 ‘Handover’ by Peter Jones, in
Project Management Pathways, edited by Martin Stevens, APM
2002.
©Graham Collins 2005
Acceptance Definitions



Acceptance: the formal process of accepting
delivery of a product or a deliverable
Acceptance Criteria: performance requirements
and essential conditions that have to be
achieved before project deliverables are
accepted
Acceptance Test: formal, pre-defined test
conducted to determine the compliance of the
deliverable item(s) with the acceptance criteria
©Graham Collins 2005
Team members
‘As closure approaches the team members are
concerned about their next assignment’
 ‘May show as reduced motivation with a slowing
down of effort and lack of commitment’
 ‘You must keep the momentum going and avoid
losing team members to others projects’

(subject of last
week’s talk, and
research cited)
Extracts from ‘Successful project
management, Trevor L Young, Sunday
Times series, Kogan Page, 2000
©Graham Collins 2005
Team Development: Tuckman Model



Number of research studies outline
how a group develops over the
project life cycle
One study was carried out by
Tuckman (1965)
Tuckman’s research suggested four
stages of development - forming,
storming, norming and performing
Forming, starting to interact,
tentatively identify purpose of
group
Storming, views put forward
more forcefully. Conflicts may
emerge. Challenges to the tasks
and responsibilities may ensue
Norming, group will establish
norms and conflict is controlled
by group members
Performing, once group has
progressed through previous
stages the group can work
cohesively and effectively to
deliver the team (and project)
goals
©Graham Collins 2005
Project drift
‘Occurs when you take the pressure off the
control system and allow the customer or
any stakeholder to throw in a few add-ons:
‘Just before you finish the project, have a
look at this modification’ Control of late
changes of mind adds significant extra work
and considerable costs to the project. This is
often when some sleeping stakeholders
suddenly wake up and start making a lot of
noise!’
from ‘Successful project management,
Trevor L Young, Sunday Times series,
Kogan Page, 2000
©Graham Collins 2005
Change Control definitions





Change log: a record of all project changes, proposed,
authorised and rejected
Change Management: the formal process through which
changes to the project plan are approved and introduced
Change Control: process that ensures potential changes
to the deliverables of a project or a sequence of work in a
project, are recorded, evaluated authorised and managed
Change Control Board: A formally constituted group of
stakeholders responsible for approving or rejecting
changes to the project baselines
Change Request: a request needed to obtain formal
approval for changes to the scope, design, methods,
costs or planned aspects of a project. Change requests
may arise through changes in the business or issues in
the project. Change requests should be logged, assessed
and agreed on before a change in the project can be
instigated.
©Graham Collins 2005
Completion criteria








All tasks finished
Agreed deliverables completed
Testing completed
Training materials prepared
Equipment installed and operating
Documentation manuals finished
Process procedures finished and tested
Staff training finished
from ‘Successful project management,
Trevor L Young, Sunday Times series,
Kogan Page, 2000
The acceptance
process should
be in your plan
i.e. PMP
Check that the
specific criteria
they agreed to
use at the
outset is still
valid
All criteria must
be measurable
by agreed
metrics or
conflicts will
arise
©Graham Collins 2005
Acceptance process checklist




















Unfinished non-critical work
The project tasks completed
The deliverables achieved
Quality standards attained
Supply of equipment
Installation of equipment
Testing and validation of equipment
Testing and validation of operating processes
Documentation manuals
New standard operating procedures
Design of training programmes
Training of operating staff and management
Training of maintenance staff
Setting up of a help desk
Establishing maintenance functions
Outstanding issues awaiting resolution
Identifying any follow on projects
Limits of acceptability
Who monitors post project performance
Budget over-runs
Activities that
must be
finished
before
acceptance is
confirmed
Agree action
plans to
complete
outstanding
tasks to avoid
giving your
client an
excuse to
hold up the
acceptance
process
Source ibid
©Graham Collins 2005
The close out meeting








Review the project results achieved
Go through the handover checklist
Confirm and explain action plans for any outstanding
work to tidy up
Confirm and explain action plans for any issues
Agree and confirm responsibilities for any ongoing work
or support
Confirm who is responsible for monitoring project benefits
Thank the team and stakeholders for their efforts and
support
Thank the customer and your project sponsor for their
support and commitment
Source ibid
Provided you
have done
everything the
checklist
demands,
acceptance
should be
agreed and the
completion
certificate
approved and
signed.
You can then
organise an
appropriate
celebration for
the team and
stakeholders
©Graham Collins 2005
(Post) Project Evaluation Review



Projects as outlined, the Millennium Dome etc seem to
have a track record for being failures. Often projects cost
more, invariably exceed timescales. Typically various
stakeholders are unhappy with the process, do not
assess that the project has delivered the expected
benefits. Each stakeholder has their own perception of
success criteria.
At the start of a project, these reviews need to be
examined, for lessons learnt, and apply lessons where
necessary.
In addition, Health Checks can be carried out to ensure
stakeholders are focusing on the same criteria.
Based on APM Pathways
... ‘I go over
what I should or
shouldn’t have
said to
somebody.’
Alan sugar,
discussing ‘The
Apprentice’
series in the
article ‘Sweet
Smell of
Success’,
Media
section,p11
Independent
02/05/05
©Graham Collins 2005
What is evaluated



Active evaluation (during the project) i.e. learning from
doing. The process, progress and management are all
considered. An example could be an iterative project
where the progress, approach etc are examined at each
iteration, or milestone.
Initial post project evaluation (at closure). It is important to
learn what went well and what didn’t. Were the benefits
achieved. What processes enabled team work and
innovation.
Final post project evaluation (at a fixed period after
closure). This is often focused on the evaluation of the
business case and also the technical performance.
When you have
finished the
project, and the
customer
considers it a
success and
submitted your
final evaluation
report, have a
celebration
meeting.
Above all, give
recognition to
the contribution
of everyone
involved
©Graham Collins 2005
Estimating




Estimating: the act of combining the results of project
reviews, metrics, consultation and informed assessment
to arrive at time and resource requirements for an activity
Parametric estimating: an estimating technique that uses
a statistical relationship between historic data and other
variables (e.g. square metreage in construction, lines of
code in software development*) to calculate the estimate
Non-quantitative approach may include comparative
approaches cover examining similar activities. Also,
qualitative approaches may be through the experience of
project individuals. Quantitative methods include
parametrics, and analytical (bottom-up) based on the
costs of the of the individual tasks, in the WBS.
Statistical approaches, include Monte Carlo estimates
particularly applicable for risk (mentioned by speaker in
risk lecture).
*A more up to
date approach
is for example
function points,
which give a
better estimate
of size,
however this is
still of use as it
is easy to
measure and
there is often
historic data
from other
projects to act
as a
comparison
©Graham Collins 2005
A current study
During the course I’ve mentioned iterative projects, these often
encompass best practice and trends in project management. A recent
article on the management of such projects can be found at:
www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/may05/bittner-spence/index…
The authors assert that it is better is measure progress in terms of results
(working software) rather than subjective assessment of progress (e.g. in
terms of documentation produced). Reading pages 2 and 4 of this article
one can then consider the previous example (based on an actual project)
I gave earlier in the course
100%
Planned
budget
Development
progress
In the
project
(previously
outlined)
actual and
earned
value EV
were lower
than
planned
cost
(% complete
scenarios)
Results in
working
software
actual
EV
0%
iterations
time
©Graham Collins 2005
Final thoughts



Thucydides, commenting on Pericles, ‘power depended
on his oratory but also reputation and upon the
confidence he enjoyed as a man who was immune to
bribes’
Churchill was well known for his oratory, but above all he
thanked the people
Drucker, (mentioned at the start of the course) outlined
the importance of goals and defining the purpose, and
ensuring your team understood these. In his latest article
in Harvard Business Review, he outlines the most
important skill for a leader is to listen.
©Graham Collins 2005
Book slot
Body of Knowledge
Fifth Edition
2006
Association of Project Management
ISBN 1-903494-00-1
The foundation of this version was an extensive research
programme conducted by Professor Peter Morris, UCL.
©Graham Collins 2005