A successful project review using the 7P method

Project reviews are an important part of portfolio governance. Since it mobilizes participants whose time is limited and costly, it's a good idea to approach it with an efficient framework. Common sense is not always enough to guarantee the success of such a meeting. Add to this a lassitude effect that erodes respect for fundamentals... and your project reviews risk accentuating the "meetingitis" syndrome. Your project managers may well think that it would be wiser to spend this time "moving projects forward" rather than reviewing them... This is where the 7P method comes into play to establish an effective meeting framework. 

The 7P method is part of the agilists' toolbox. It was first developed by James Macanufo, one of the three co-authors of the excellent book Game Storming. 

We invite you to consider the 7 P's method for :

• Setting the framework for your project reviews 
• Draw up a checklist for each project review - at the end of this article, you'll find a sample mind map in checklist mode.  
• Regularly re-examine your project review procedures 

What is the 7P method? 

The 7P method is a mnemonic acronym for the 7 key facets to frame for your project reviews: 

• Relevance: why project reviews? 
• Product: what will your project review deliver? 
• Participants: who should take part in the project review? 
• Process: how will it work? And how can we ensure that the product is produced? 
• Pitfalls: what risks threaten the effectiveness of your project review? 
• Preparation: what if a lot happened beforehand? What to prepare before the project review? 
• Practical concerns: what specific logistics do you need for your magazines (location, date, duration, etc.)? 

These elements apply to all work meetings involving more than three people. This 7P framework can also be applied to other governance bodies in your project portfolio: arbitration and investment committee, steering committee, budget review, staffing committee, etc.

How can you apply the 7P method to your project review? 

The author of the method invites you to develop a strategy for implementing the 7P framework. The main points to consider are : 

• Interdependence between the P's: for example, the participants needed to produce the deliverables must be present.
• It's a collective framework, so devoting a "session 0" of project review to defining the framework for future projects is surely a good way of getting participants on board. 
• Regularly re-examine the 7P framework. Project reviews are recurring sessions, a source of potential fatigue or erosion. And then you'll probably have new participants to bring on board. Don't hesitate to repeat "session 0" to re-interview the framework of your project reviews. 
• Remind, or better display the 7 P's at each session 
• Knowing how to adapt... because although the 7P method is a working framework, you have to know how to deal with unforeseen events, such as the absence of a participant. Case in point: a fire alarm in the middle of a project review. No problem, the meeting continues once everyone is safe and regrouped at the meeting point, with everyone taking "mental" notes to produce the minutes...

Focus on Relevance - Why a project review? 

It's the first P... and the most complicated. The relevance of reviewing portfolio projects is obvious to a PMO and the managers whose departments are involved in the projects. The project review is a time for sharing, synchronizing and putting the various projects into perspective. This review helps to ensure overall progress, identify sticking points, review relative project priorities and ensure that resources are properly allocated. But what about the other participants? Project managers, for example? Do they see this forum as a useful time or a "tax" on their lives as project managers? A word of advice: be sure to clarify the relevance for project managers if you decide to invite them. 

Put yourself in their shoes (or better still, get them involved in session 0): what's in it for them? Showcase their work? Share difficulties? Have decisions reviewed? Get support for their project? In what way does this complement, telescope or even become redundant with bodies such as the "steering committee", "project point", etc.? 

So make sure there's something for everyone, and that overlap with other bodies is limited.  

Focus on the product - What is the deliverable of the project review? 

This is the second P... and not the least. What should we expect from a project review? A simple report? A record of decisions? A "collegial" update of the project weather forecast? Or, less tangible but just as important: a motivational lever for the various project teams? We emerge from the review with a reaffirmed vision, adjusted priorities and visibility on the attractiveness of the projects underway. Managers have a key role to play in this opportunity to "get the message out". 

There's a very interesting "by-product" of project reviews. One of the virtues of project reviews is to trigger the project reporting reflex. When project reviews are ritualized, project managers say to themselves "my project information has to be up to date for the review". The big winner is a winner: data quality! 

The product spectrum is wide. Validating expectations with stakeholders will help you choose the right products. Based on our experience, the two essential products are : 

• A summary report: who was there, what projects were reviewed (and which ones were missed?). 
• An update of project weather forecasts during the meeting, based on the Project Manager's assessment. 

Project Monitor 's project review and slideshow functions are invaluable allies in the development of these "products". You don't have to pay extra for your review, as you can take synthetic notes directly at the meeting. And since everything is logged and time-stamped, even those who are absent can easily synchronize with the session. 

Project Monitora complete project tracking tool to manage your meetings

Use Project Monitor to create presentation templates for effective project management meetings:

• Restitution of project information via a simple and effective medium
• Extractions possible in PPT or Word format
• Customization of project data to be collected
• Adapt the form with your graphic charter
• Pre-made templates in our reference library
• Key project information: description, project team, objectives...
• Key progress indicators
• schedule : GANTT - milestone monitoring
• Tracking JH / € expenses

Focus on Participants: who should take part in the project review? 

Third P: participants. Who to invite to project reviews? Let's start with the essentials:  

• The PMO is the conductor of the project review. He or she organizes, facilitates and ensures compliance with the process and delivery of the "product". 
• managers of key project leaders. They carry the "transversal" dimension of the project review. What counts is the way in which each project's unitary situation sheds light on all the other projects. It also sends a strong message about the importance of project reviews.

Secondly, this is specific to your organization and the weightings of your piloting: 

• Project managers: Are they represented by their managers? Are they invited systematically, or on an ad hoc basis? Having a "dynamic" agenda with "rotating" invited projects is a good way to energize your project reviews. It also gives the various projects greater scope for expression. 

• Project resource managers (if not the same as project managers). They will provide answers to project staffing (particularly important for IT portfolios, where resources are scarce and in high demand).
• The management controller: if the financial side of your business is key, it's a good idea to invite the person who can put the financial side of your projects into perspective.
• Managers' managers... Well, there's no need to invite them if you're just going to take information from them, the minutes will suffice. On the other hand, if you want your project reviews to be decision-making bodies, their presence is essential. 

That's potentially a lot of people working on your projects. Common sense and alignment with the right people to deliver the "product" will be your guides.  

Varying your guests and having participants who will systematically play an active role in your reviews are two tips for finalizing your invitation list. 

Process: how will it be carried out? and how can we ensure that the product is achieved? 

The conduct of a project review is strongly conditioned by the size of your project portfolio. Going through five projects is not the same challenge as going through fifty (the size of our customers' portfolios is usually in excess of 50 active projects). 

A project review is not a project review! So, to get the collective dynamic off to a good start, here's a tip: start with a consolidated view of the portfolio (or of the projects on the review agenda). This is a collective project review. 

More often than not, it's an illusion to review every project. If you start with a one-hour review of 50 projects, that's 1 minute and 12 seconds per project... It's no longer a project review, it's a burst of projects! 

It is therefore necessary to target and dedicate the time required for the consolidated and unitary vision. Several strategies are possible: 

• Review projects according to the criticality of the situation (weather, delays, workload, budget...). From the most critical to the first "sunny" project ☀️. It's effective, and justifies the presence of decision-makers (even if the steering committee for each project must retain its place). Beware of the stigmatizing effect if it's "always the same projects". 

• By theme, this allows you to segment the list. By business department, by strategic importance, by financial scope... 

For the review of each project, nothing beats the "flash report" and to back it up with a synthetic project sheet. It allows you to get to the point, to complete the information gathering as needed. Another big advantage is that this duo allows you to have a project spokesperson who is not the project manager! 

Don't forget to conclude your project reviews by : 

• Announcing the distribution of the minutes (and statement of decision) 
• Recalling the next session 
• Share important news for the PMO (governance deadlines, methodological evolution, update of your favorite PPM platform...) 

Relying on a PPM solution like Project Monitor is a spectacular efficiency booster. If you're used to spreadsheet-based reviews like Excel here's how to change your PMO life: 

• Upstream drafting of project flash reports by each project manager 
• Updating of useful reporting to structure the review (weather, project sheet, schedule...) 
• Dynamic (or discrete) selection of projects for review 
• Information gathering dashboard with groupings by any analysis axis (business, weather, resource...) 

• Automatic consolidation of review project data (reminder: start review with consolidated view) 
• Slideshow" function for reviewing each project 
• Minutes function associated with the slideshow to gradually build up the "product" decision record 
• Automatic distribution of reports to review participants 

Video : Watch WÜRTH's project review feedback at CIO

Pitfalls: what risks threaten the effectiveness of your project review? 

How to avoid the main pitfalls of project reviews? The aim here is not to produce a "FMEA" of the process. But here are two classic pitfalls to consider and, above all, to keep under control. 

Time management: the cost of a project review is directly proportional to its duration. And if you're used to the "unlimited package", it would be a very bad idea to think that this is applicable to project reviews. It's an expensive instance (1h30 with 5 participants, and you're already at 1 man-day). Possible mitigation solutions are : 

• Appoint a "time keeper" at the start of the meeting (by default, the PMO).
• Limit the number of projects in the magazine. 
• Make a contract with each project spokesperson: three minutes maximum! 
• Gamify time by, for example, distributing two "time bonus" tokens to each speaker, which they can play if they need to expand on their point. 

The wrong focus: we call it a "project review". So avoid focusing on the details of a project. The principle is to gain efficiency in your portfolio as a whole. This means putting your projects in perspective, so that you can make decisions informed by the constraints of other projects. Possible mitigation solutions are : 

• Limit speaking time to flash report topics. Don't go off topic!
• Stop short in case of drift and take the decision to hold a meeting dedicated to the project or to revert to project comitology (project point, steering committee...). 
• Start and begin the project review with a consolidated vision: "Today we're going to talk about X projects, whose cumulative load represents Y man-days, we have Z key milestones planned for the next three weeks, the project weather breaks down as follows..."  

Preparation: what if a lot happened beforehand? What do you need to prepare before the project review? 

It's obvious: the better prepared, the more effective! (We'll spare you the Eisenhower quote, but you get the idea). In a well-established project comitology, project reviews are ritualized (every week, fortnight, month...). So everyone is aware of the upstream preparatory work. If there's one thing to be systematically prepared, it's up-to-date project data. 

Following on from the P - Process, the element to prepare is the flash report and the update of the reporting included in the project sheet. If you're planning a Friday or Monday review, you'll need to ask your project managers to prepare and send these elements to the PMO the day before (Thursday for Friday, Friday for Monday).

Another point to prepare for, and conditioned by the previous one, is the consolidated vision... 

This can be a challenge for the PMO, unless of course it relies on a PPM solution, since these elements are carried out automatically. 

Practical concerns: logistics (frequency, duration, location, etc.) 

The practical (or logistical) subject is not so trivial. We've already mentioned frequency and duration. 

• The frequency is to be agreed with the participants. It should be between one month and one week. If your agendas are dynamic, make sure that a project is reviewed at least once every quarter.  
• As far as duration is concerned, you need to be proportionate to challenges and the size of the portfolio. The maximum limit is probably two hours (and this can be a long time for people who have few projects to talk about, so don't hesitate to set up a random order so that everyone takes part in the review several times, and not just in batches). 
• When it comes to location and practical arrangements, be wary of the obvious. Be exemplary... Create a meeting that starts on time, and doesn't spend its first few minutes finalizing microphone tests, screen sharing, or the arrival of participants in parade mode. 

Don't forget that these instances are expensive, and participants are more likely to share their project rather than search for the screen-sharing key combination. 

We're all familiar with telecommuting by now. But there's one pitfall: the hybrid... those who are present, those who are remote. Did you remember to reserve a room for those present, and did the invitation include a link to a virtual meeting room?