Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Andy Jordan discusses the various aspects of the optimal project audit processOver the months and years, I have written about many aspects of a project management office (PMO), but I have never touched on a project audit.
In this article, I wish to provide an overview of what I think the most useful form of project audit is, and why it is of benefit to an organisation to conduct periodic audits.
To some of you, this may be a new concept; to others, you may have been subjected to (or performed) project audits already. Either way, it is worth defining my view of an audit, as it may be different from yours.
To me, an audit is a review of various aspects of a project by an expert from outside the project. Typically, this would be a PMO function and may cover a number of different aspects: compliance, results, timeliness, etc.
You may have slightly different definitions within your organisation, but I am going to work from this one for the purpose of this article.
I am deliberately avoiding issues such as one-off audits of a specific project, which are generally focused more on the specific deliverables/challenges of that initiative, rather than on project management as a whole.
The best kind of audit
By their nature, audits can look at a multitude of various aspects of a project, but I strongly feel that they deliver the best results when targeted appropriately.
An audit that looks to ensure that every box is correctly completed on a status report will not do much to advance project management discipline, and it may set it back by alienating project managers.
Instead, an audit should focus on the process of project management, and the following questions are key:
* Is each step in the process achieving its intended goals?
* Are the tools and templates adequately supporting each step in the process?
* Are the processes being complied with, and are the standards being met?
* Is management of the project consistent with other similar projects?
For a PMO that is focused on improving the way that projects are executed, this should be sufficient. Anything more granular than this becomes an analysis of the details of the way in which a PM manages and runs the risk of getting into issues of different project management styles.
The way in which the audit is conducted is also important. Many of you will have been subjected to more formal audit processes where nameless people walk around saying nothing and making notes – it is not a comfortable situation.
Far better is to make the audit a collaborative process. Have the auditor work with the project manager, and position the audit as an opportunity to improve the way in which projects are handled across the entire organisation (more on that later).
Even the way in which questions are asked can make a huge difference. For example, “How easy do you find it to follow that template?” is likely to garner a much more constructive (and ultimately helpful) response than “Why don’t you fill in this box?”
Perhaps most important of all is the way project managers see auditors. The natural reaction by most PMs is to see the auditor as ‘against’ them, and I always try and turn that around.
If I am auditing, I will start by meeting with the PM to discuss the areas that are likely to be of focus, but in a way that makes the project manager an integral part of the process.
A question as simple as “What part of the process do you find the most frustrating?” is an easy way to try and identify areas of focus in a way that encourages the PM to be part of the process.
The audit process
For an audit to be successful, you have to know how it is carried out. Is this simply a series of questions and a review of documentation, or is there a quantitative element as well?
If you are looking at data, then what data points are to be considered and what can they be compared against?
There may be some value in knowing that the PM spends two hours a week updating the project plan, but there is much more value in knowing what the numbers are from other projects to have something to compare against.
If the process is purely qualitative, then how will you ask questions: interviews, group discussions, questionnaires or a combination? How will you present the questions to the team?
You need to have honest feedback rather than the answers that they think you want, but you also need to ensure that it is not a confrontational relationship that could cause them to shut down completely.
There needs to be consistency in the way in which audits are conducted. You need to be able to compare results across projects – both similar and different.
The most meaningful results are not the data elements or findings from one particular project, but rather the trends that occur across projects.
Finally, you need to consider how many projects will be audited. It is likely not practical to audit every project (although it may be possible to capture data points on completed projects), but what is the correct mix of projects based on type, size, project manager, etc?
In some cases, you may want to audit the same project multiple times – particularly if it is a long-term initiative.
Analysing the audit
The most important part of a project audit is interpreting results and acting accordingly. This is an area that can lead to mistakes, so care is required.
In some cases, trends will occur across audits – one particular template or process that simply does not seem to be working.
That is easy to address: you revisit the process and make adjustments to try and address the identified problems. Then you reassess after the changes have been made to see whether the expected improvements have occurred.
Similarly, if a PM is struggling with one particular aspect, it may signify a need for training of that individual – a quick lift in their skills that solves the problem permanently.
Not all audit findings are as clear cut, however.
Consider the project manager who is not following one aspect of the process. Is this simply a training issue, or is there something else going on? Is it possible that the PM in question has actually found a better way of doing things?
It is entirely possible that the outcome of this audit should be a change to the process to include the changes that the PM made on his/her own initiative.
That is not to say that there should not also be some training for the PM on the right way to introduce process enhancements, but the auditor should never lose sight of the overall goals of the audit process – to improve the quality of project management within the organisation.
Conclusion
Audits should be an important part of the PMO’s governance of projects within an organisation. They are a connection to what is actually happening on projects.
While audits could be a ‘stick’ that forces compliance with process, that is not the real value they bring. Instead, they should be able to help identify areas that require focus to improve the way in which projects should be managed.
Far from being something to be feared, that is something that project managers should embrace; after all, you all want a better way of managing projects.
Andy Jordan is president of Roffensian Consulting Inc., a Canada-based management consulting firm with a comprehensive project management practice. Andy always appreciates feedback and discussion on the issues raised in his articles and can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Andy is also vice president of a new Canadian professional project management body, the Project Management Association of Canada.
Learn more about the organisation at www.pmac-ampc.ca.
This article was published with the kind permission of gantthead (www.gantthead.com).
I
