Two-Part Assignment: (1) Individually Develop A Tailored Pro ✓ Solved

Two-part assignment: (1) Individually develop a tailored proj

Two-part assignment: (1) Individually develop a tailored project closure checklist for your group project (no more than 1 page). (2) Prepare a written response describing the concepts of project lessons learned and project retrospectives. Respond to: Exercise 1 - Project Closure Checklist: Using the concepts discussed this week to develop a short project closure checklist to close out your group project. Question 1 - Project Retrospectives: Conduct a search of the University's academic databases to learn more about the project retrospective process. What are the distinguishing characteristics of project lessons learned and project retrospectives? How are these two concepts different? How does each characteristic enhance project closure and review?

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction. The two-part assignment invites you to operationalize knowledge about project closure while also exploring retrospective practices that help organizations learn from experience. A well-conceived closure checklist ensures that administrative, deliverable, and knowledge-management activities are completed, while a rigorous retrospective framework captures, analyzes, and disseminates lessons learned for future projects. This paper first outlines a concise, tailored project closure checklist suitable for a typical group project in a course setting. It then contrasts project lessons learned with project retrospectives, drawing on foundational PM theories and evidence from scholarly sources to explain how each concept contributes to more effective project closure and organizational learning. Throughout, I draw on widely cited PM frameworks to ground the discussion (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017; Derby & Larsen, 2006).

Part 1 — A tailored Project Closure Checklist (no more than 1 page)

The closure checklist is a compact, action-oriented instrument designed to codify the finalization of a group project. A one-page checklist should cover five core domains: governance and formal sign-off, deliverables and acceptance, knowledge transfer and documentation, financial and contractual closure, and archival of artifacts plus lessons capture. The items below reflect these domains and are intended to be completed within the final project week, with owners appointed for each item to ensure accountability (PMI, 2021; Maylor, 2013).

• Governance and sign-off: Obtain formal approval from project sponsor and stakeholders that the project is complete; secure signed acceptance of all deliverables; document any deviations from scope and their final disposition.
• Deliverables and acceptance: Confirm that all required artifacts meet defined acceptance criteria; attach final test results, user documentation, and training materials; ensure no critical defects remain open.
• Knowledge transfer and documentation: Compile a project narrative, including goals, decisions, and outcomes; capture tacit knowledge in a concise lessons-learned repository; transition responsibilities to ongoing operations or maintenance teams; provide access to source files, configs, and models in a centralized repository.
• Financial and contractual closure: Reconcile budgets and actuals; close out vendor and internal financial accounts; confirm all invoices and payments are settled; document final cost variance and value realization metrics where applicable.
• Archival of artifacts and organizational learning: Archive final versions of project plans, status reports, risk registers, communications logs, and design artifacts; populate a Lessons Learned entry with context, cause, effect, and recommended actions for future projects (what worked, what did not, why, and how to apply insights).
• Post-closure review scheduling: Schedule a short post-closure review or retrospective with core team members to validate the lessons learned and confirm responsible owners for follow-up actions; set a cadence for revisiting the lessons learned database as part of program governance (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017).

Rationale. The suggested checklist marries the PMBOK’s Closing processes with practical, team-level retrospection needs. A concise, well-structured closure checklist helps guarantee formal closure, reinforces accountability, and creates a stable foundation for organizational memory. The inclusion of a dedicated knowledge-transfer item and a formal “lessons learned” entry aligns with best practices in project governance and organizational learning (PMI, 2021; Turner, 2014). The one-page constraint encourages discipline in capturing essential outcomes and enables faster reuse of insights across future projects (Derby & Larsen, 2006).

Part 2 — Project Retrospectives: Distinguishing characteristics and differences from lessons learned

Overview and purpose. Project retrospectives, particularly in agile and iterative contexts, are structured reflective sessions aimed at improving the team’s processes and collaboration during the current or immediately upcoming project cycle. Unlike generic post-project “lessons learned” exercises, retrospectives are time-boxed, action-oriented, and focused on concrete process changes the team can implement in the near term (Derby & Larsen, 2006; Schwaber & Beedle, 2002). The retrospective practice integrates empirical feedback into ongoing improvement loops, which aligns with continuous improvement philosophy central to many PM methodologies (PMI, 2021).

Distinguishing characteristics. A robust retrospective typically exhibits these core traits: collaboration and psychological safety, a clearly defined scope and time-box, data-informed discussion, facilitator-led but team-owned discourse, generation of actionable improvement actions, and follow-up accountability with owners and due dates. These characteristics differentiate retrospectives from generic “lessons learned” exercises by targeting process improvements within the project’s life cycle, encouraging immediate experimentation, and embedding learning into team rituals (Derby & Larsen, 2006; Larman & Vodde, 2016).

How retrospectives differ from lessons learned. Lessons learned (LL) is a broader concept that aggregates knowledge across multiple projects or time periods, capturing what worked well and what did not in a more organizational, cross-project context. LL aims at creating reusable knowledge repositories that inform future projects but does not inherently prescribe short-term changes or owner accountability in the moment. In contrast, retrospectives produce specific, actionable improvement items for the current project team; they emphasize timely experimentation and rapid validation of changes, with explicit ownership and timelines. The LL corpus may remain static unless actively curated, while retrospectives are dynamic, iterative events designed to close feedback loops quickly (PMI, 2021; Derby & Larsen, 2006).

How each characteristic enhances closure and review. Time-boxing and structure ensure that reflection does not devolve into unproductive critique; a focused agenda yields concrete actions that can be tracked and closed during the project lifecycle, strengthening the eventual closure phase. Data-informed discussions improve the reliability of insights by grounding them in measurable observations (e.g., sprint metrics, delivery cycle times, defect rates), supporting more credible closure reviews and knowledge capture (Schwaber, 2002; PMI, 2021). Facilitated, psychologically safe discussions enable candid identification of process weaknesses without personal blame, promoting a culture of continuous improvement essential for effective project closure and organizational learning (Derby & Larsen, 2006; Turner, 2014).

Implementation for course group projects. A practical approach is to schedule a brief, guided retrospective at project milestones and at finalization. Use a standard template that asks: What went well? What can be improved? What will we commit to changing for the next project? Assign owners and due dates for improvements, and link the outcomes to the closure checklist to ensure changes are captured in the Lessons Learned database and reflected in the final project artifacts. Integrate the retrospective outputs into the “lessons learned” repository with a clear linkage from each action item to its responsible party and target completion date. The combination of structured retrospection with formal LL documentation creates a robust closure process that benefits future projects and enriches academic learning (Pinto, 2010; PMI, 2021).

Conclusion. The two concepts — project retrospectives and lessons learned — are complementary components of a comprehensive project closure framework. Retrospectives provide immediate, team-driven, action-oriented improvements for the current project lifecycle, while LL captures broader, cross-project knowledge to inform future endeavors. Together, when embedded in a formal closure process, they enhance the quality of project reviews, accelerate organizational learning, and improve the return on project investments. By adhering to a concise closure checklist and instituting disciplined retrospective practices, students and practitioners can close projects more effectively, document learning in accessible formats, and apply insights to subsequent work in ways that advance both individual and organizational performance (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017; Derby & Larsen, 2006).

References

• Project Management Institute. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Seventh Edition. Project Management Institute, 2021.
• Kerzner, Harold. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. 12th Edition. Wiley, 2017.
• Maylor, Harvey. Project Management. 4th Edition. Pearson, 2013.
• Wysocki, Richard. Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, and Extreme. 7th Edition. Wiley, 2018.
• Schwalbe, Kathy. Information Technology Project Management. 9th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2018.
• Turner, J. R. Handbook of Project-Based Management: Leading Strategic Change in Organizations. 3rd Edition. Routledge, 2014.
• Derby, Esther; Larsen, Diana. Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great. Pragmatic Bookshelf, 2006.
• Schwaber, Ken; Beedle, Mike. Agile Software Development with Scrum. Prentice Hall, 2002.
• Larman, Craig; Vodde, Bas. Large-Scale Scrum: More with LeSS. Addison-Wesley, 2016.
• Pinto, Jeffrey K. Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage. 3rd Edition. Pearson, 2010.