Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

Description of Project

About four year ago, the school at which I teach had a series of bomb threats.  Even though none of the threats were valid, the Academic Council, of which I am a member, was asked to create a new policy to deal with bomb threats.  The Academic Council consists of the Studies Director and the Chairs of each department.  We developed the following policy:

a.  All backpacks must be either see-through vinyl or mesh, and no bag may be used in the building (even for gym clothes) that covers the visibility of the contents.  Girls may carry only very small purses (6” x 8” or smaller) for essential items.

b.  When students arrive in the morning, all bags (except 6” x 8” or smaller purses) MUST be left in the lockers with coats.

EXCEPTION:  Only on days you have Physical Education, for only that PART of the day, a small mesh, see-through clothing bag (not your backpack) may be used for only sneakers and gym clothes (Student Handbook, 2009, p. 30-31).

This updated policy was supposed to let us see what students were carrying in their backpacks in the morning, and not let them carry anything concealed around during the day.  By requiring such small purses, it would keep girls from being able to transport any bombs, knives, or other weapons.

The policy was communicated at a faculty meeting (which occurs once every other month).  At first, at the end of the school year in which the bomb threats were being made, the communication was taken very seriously and everyone was on board with the policy.  Administration would stand at the doors and look into everyone’s backpack and make sure purses were the correct size.  Students knew we were taking the policy seriously.  Over the summer, however, the threat was not so eminent.  However, when we returned to school for the In-Service days, a review was made of policy in the handbook and we did try to continue to implement the policy.  Administration, however, no longer stood at the doors to check backpacks or purses as students arrived at school.  One thing that was impossible was to know whether students carrying clothing bags actually had gym during that part of the day as we do not have access to students’ schedules and there is no way to check their schedules when they bring clothing bags into class (our school does not have the facilities for students to have gym lockers).  Over time, girls started to bring in larger purses and only certain teachers would give them the detention that they were supposed to get.  As it became apparent that not everyone was disciplining the students, more teachers stopped giving detentions, and finally the size of purses was not noticed anymore except by the very strict teachers.  Students quickly learned to avoid those teachers.  We received no more communication from the administration on this problem.

What contributed to the project’s success or failure?

There are five phases in a project’s life cycle:  (1) conceive, (2) define, (3) start, (4) perform, and (5) close (Porty, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer, 2008, p. 76).  The idea to develop the policy was born out of the necessity to deal with an immediate danger.  The project then jumped from the conceive phase to the perform phase, a common mistake that Portny et. al. (2008) advise against (p. 105).  While this was a small project, we never considered the needs of all the stakeholders.  By failing to do this, not all teachers were on board with disciplining the students for failing to follow the new policy.  Students did not understand why purses had to be so small, so girls ignored the policy and when they were not disciplined, the size of purses continued to get larger.  The need to know students’ schedules in order to know whether or not to discipline students with backpacks was not determined to be a need, which also help lead to the failure of the policy.

We also skipped the close phase.  According to Beach (2006), “There are four follow-through tasks involved in institutionalizing policy:  communication, document updating, aligning the reward structure, and making sure the organization’s culture incorporates both the specific changes that have been made and the belief that continuing policy is desirable and normal (p. 114).”  While the board and administration did follow-through on updating the documents (the student handbook), they did not follow-through on the other three tasks.  Through their lack of communicating the continued importance of the new policy, the administration showed a lack of support for the policy.  Another task that was not accomplished was aligning the reward structure.  Most teachers who disciplined the students stopped because the teachers who did not were not reprimanded for their failures and very few teachers want to appear overly strict to the students.  For these reasons the fourth task failed and the policy was not incorporated into our culture because we did not see the policy as desirable or normal.  Most teachers viewed the policy as a reaction to the bomb threats and, since we have not had any more bomb threats in the past three years, this was a reaction to an abnormal situation which did not have to be incorporated into our structure.

Which parts of the PM process, if included, would have made the project more successful?

By including the define, start, and close phases of the project life-cycle, the project would have been more successful.  The Academic Council should have asked all stakeholders for their input on the new policy.  By doing this, someone would have pointed out that teachers could not check students’ schedules to make sure they have gym when they bring clothing bags into classes.  Active participation would have given the entire faculty ownership of the policy and they would have been more likely to implement and incorporate the policy into our culture.  By asking students for their input, they would have understood the need for smaller purses and not being able to carry backpacks.  By including parents and other external stakeholders we may have found out what other schools’ approaches are and their successes and failures.  The administration should also have used regular, consistent, persuasive communication with us to encourage us to continue our efforts and to reinforce to the others who were not inclined to enforce the policy that this was what needed to happen.

Lee (2008) states that "unless you back up your statements with genuine action, don't be surprised if your employees can see through the mask of propriety” (p. 25).  Administration slacked up on enforcing this policy.  As the new school year began, they were no longer at the door as students came in to check that the policy was being followed.  They did not communicate a sense of urgency that this policy should continue and did not confront the faculty when we did not enforce the policy.  Students with large purses and backpacks would walk by administrators and would not be punished.  The faculty began to feel that the policy, although documented in the student handbook, did not need to be enforced.  Therefore, to make this policy part of our culture, the administration should have showed the faculty that they wanted this policy by providing a leadership behavior example of disciplining students who were in violation of the policy.  By doing this, they would have reinforced to the faculty that this policy was, in fact, going to be the norm.

I think the biggest things to any successful project are communication and participation.  Randeree (2008) states that two-way communication induces stakeholders to become more committed and motivated to implement change. This is because change produces uncertainties. By providing all stakeholders a chance to provide their opinions and be involved in all aspects of change, the project manager and all stakeholders work as a team to identify difficulties and resolve them. This two-way communication has the benefit of both significantly influencing stakeholders' commitment to the project and decreasing the level of resistance (p. 43).  The Academic Council should have asked for the stakeholders’ input on how to address this situation.  If they would have been included in the plans, we would have been more likely to implement the policy and incorporate it into our culture.  The policy was not monumental, but teachers do not like to confront students over small battles such as purse size when we have so many more battles that, to us, seem more important.  Also, the administration should have continued to communicate the importance of this policy.  This could have been accomplished through our weekly faculty bulletin, at faculty meetings, at retreats and in-services, and through administration enforcing the policy with students.

References:

Beach, L. R.  (2006).  Leadership and the Art of Policy:  A Practical Guide to Organizational Transformation.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications.

Lee, T. J.  (2008).  Actions speak loudly.  Communication World, 25(4), 24-28.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E.  (2008).  Project management:  Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects.  Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Randeree, K. (2008). Managing organizational policy: Challenges to the e-learning paradigm in the United Arab Emirates. The International Journal of Learning, 14(10), 41-45.

Student Handbook:  2009-2010 Bishop McDevitt High School.