LEARNING FROM A PROJECT "POST-MORTEM"

Approximately two years ago as I was near the end of my service in the military; I was a part of implementation program to help further the education of all the naval enlisted members working in the legal field. Individuals serving in this occupation are referred to as “Legalman” and are trained paralegals to assist lawyers in legal offices throughout the Navy’s fleet and shore command offices.

The new project was called the implementation of The Legalman Paralegal Education Program. The program started as a vision from many of our leaders that have now moved on into retirement. They laid down the foundation and planted the seed that we are now seeing finally becoming a reality. Since the inception of the Legalman rating in the naval service many of our top leaders have always believed that the enlisted members were not being properly utilized in their roles as paralegals. Just as many civilian organizations have undergone cut backs and layoffs, the naval service was no exception and faced a series of job mergers and possible realignment. In 2003, the Legalman rating along with four other occupational ratings were identified to face possible mergers or total disestablishment.

The future was uncertain and this left many in the organization with uneasiness. This was not what anyone in our organization desired nor wanted to see happen. The organization set out on a mission to prove that there was a need for enlisted paralegals and further to prove that our job was very distinct from other administrative occupation counterparts. We further needed to prove that our job required a very specific skill set that other administrative ratings did not possess. Ultimately the top leadership within the Department of the Navy made the decision that the Legalman rating would not be merged or discontinued. This was a great victory for our organization. We began asking ourselves, “How do we ensure that we are never on the chopping block again?” This led us to what started out as an initiative and finally implementation of the Legalman Paralegal Education Program.

One of the key aspects to keeping the Legalman rating relevant was by ensuring that all our members in the field obtain the proper level of education that would equip them with a skill not only beneficial to the organization, but also to those entities that would require the services outside the organization. The Naval Justice School was the key organization in implementing these educational changes. The Legalman Education Paralegal Program provided us with the avenue to provide those Legalman with a higher education in paralegal studies that would allow them to satisfy these requirements and better prepare them for other duties as they progress in the Navy.

Although there was much collaboration between several offices located in several geographical locations we did not include some key personnel when we designed the programs operating manuals. Allen and Hardin (2008) explained, “Communicating effectively is probably the greatest challenge that people encounter during any project so it is imperative that instructional designers model and establish good communication techniques and patterns at the onset of a project” (p. 79). In my opinion it was not that we did not have collaboration or communication, but it was not inclusive from all the right levels. This lapse in judgment required readjustment of timelines and had potential damaging affects to the success of the program. This was the case in the implementation of our program. Although important documents were drafted early on to provide guidance of the program we ran into administrative issues with dealing with participants that chose not to be a part of the program. These documents did not provide the necessary authority or level of power to the program director to take any administrative or disciplinary action if required. This was a major flaw in the overall success of the project and had a potential to derail the organization’s efforts in effectively administering the program.

The flaw was not discovered until after our first phase of the program. It was during our post-mortem and year end lessons learned meeting that we saw a trend that several participants were resistant to participating or simply refused to be a part of the program. This has required some quick action by many of those that were in the initial planning meeting to figure out how to fix the problem and close the loop before there was any more financial loss. Although by far the program has been a success, but not without a few bumps in the road. While I complement the organization for their thoroughness in planning, but the project possibly could have avoided some of the issues if they had included the workers that was going to be in charge with the day-to-day operations. It is these individuals that can bring to the planning table items of concern not only on a big scale, but they often are aware of the smaller things that can grow into bigger problems.

Reference:

Allen, S., & Hardin, P. C. (2008). Developing instructional technology products using effective project management practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(2), 72–97. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/courses/81238/CRS-CW-6493367/EDUC_6145_readings/Allen_Hardin_W2_6145.pdf

Photo retrived from www.flickr.com