Project Task Reviews

94% PM compliance. Only 22% of tasks were valid. That is not a typo. A processing site was completing almost every scheduled task on time. Leadership reported it as a win. The maintenance team was proud of it. Then we reviewed the actual tasks. The Uncomfortable Truth 78% of the PM program was either redundant, unexecutable as written, or targeting failure modes that did not exist on those assets. The site had been running 847 scheduled tasks. 340 of them should never have been there. This is not unusual. We see it on almost every site we assess. Why It Happens PM programs are built once and never validated. Tasks get added after every failure, every audit, every new OEM recommendation. Nothing gets removed. The program grows, compliance stays high, and nobody questions whether the tasks actually prevent failures. Maintenance planners measure completion. They do not measure effectiveness. What Changes It Review tasks at the task level, not the schedule level. For each task, ask five questions: 1. What failure mode does this prevent? 2. Is there evidence this failure mode occurs on this asset? 3. Can a technician execute this task as written? 4. Is the interval based on failure data or a guess? 5. Is this task duplicated elsewhere in the program? That site eliminated 340 tasks. Redirected 2,100 labour hours per year to tasks that actually matter. Unplanned downtime dropped 31% in the first 12 months. Reality Check Pull your PM completion report. Now pull your failure rate trend. If compliance is above 90% and failures are not declining, you are measuring the wrong thing. What does your compliance rate actually tell you? #ReliabilityEngineering #MaintenanceStrategy #AssetManagement

How technical teams THINK they should review projects: • Confirm compliance with standards and codes • Deep dive into technical specs and materials • Make sure math is correct How successful teams ACTUALLY review projects: • Map interface points where systems meet • Question assumptions between disciplines • See how changes affect other areas I've seen this change improve projects for many companies. ✗ Parts work alone, fail together ↳ Teams make each piece perfect but don't test how they fit. ✗ Expert in one area, blind to others ↳ Reviews look too deeply at one thing and miss gaps between teams. ✗ Finding problems too late ↳ Issues show up during building when fixes cost much more. Try this simple change in your next review: ✓ Ask three cross-boundary questions: →"What are we assuming that other teams should know?" → "How will our changes affect other groups?" → "Where do we need help from others?" ✓ Hold connection-focused meetings:: → Have reviews that ONLY look at how systems connect, not the small details. Make teams WANT to find integration problems early. Don't just add more technical checkboxes. Which of these cross-boundary questions matches problems you've faced?

Here’s what you often wont hear about project debriefs. Most lessons learned sessions feel busy but teams still don’t see outputs. At Mayfair IT we keep our After Action Reviews (ARR) simple. We understand these three points. 1. What actually happened? 2. What helped or got in the way? 3. What will we do differently next time? This simple approach’s helps us focus on outcomes. I remember two moments that saved us time and money: - An engineer pointed out we were designing for executives instead of end users. We switched focus early and tasks from failing sprit a caught up with the timeline. - A tester flagged that QA sprints were planned after cutover. We changed the order and the weekend launch since stayed on track. The point of a review is not to revisit the past but to improve the next delivery. #DigitalDelivery #ProjectLeadership #ContinuousImprovement

The goal of each developmental project is to end with a better system. Or create one that delivers superior results. Most teams don’t review this,  And that’s where the issue lies. Shipping a project is only half the work. The other half is understanding what it taught you. A project review is simple. It does not need a long meeting.  It needs a proper structure. Ask these 4 honest questions before you move on: 1. What worked? 2. What didn't work? 3. What would you do differently next time? 4. What surprised you? The reason why each question matters: What worked → locks in your strengths. You know what to repeat. What didn't work → names the problem clearly. You stop guessing. What to do differently → gives you one upgrade per project. What surprised you → this is where the real learning hides. Do this for 10 projects in a row. You will have a clear picture of how your team thinks, builds, and improves. That is not just a review. That is a growth system. The project ends. The lesson should not. Save this and use it after your next project.