The characteristics or qualifications of a good project reviewer

In response to the questions to last week’s post, “what are the characteristics or qualifications should a good project reviewer have? How do you determine or identify ‘a good reviewer’? To answer the question raised, “how do you determine or identify ‘a good reviewer’?.” One must not see the completion of a project, as the end of project management processes of a project. This is because the organization or project manager, completed a project, may not see benefits from its outcome. Thus, the post-­project review needs to be put in place as identified by Zetwitz (2002), because it helps professionals to determine areas of advantage from a completed project. Sanjay (2002) offered few elements and characteristics of a good review. And stated, a good reviewer should be able to identify items that were done well in a project. More so, the reviewer should be able to identify issues that could be improved to an advantage, by evaluating the complete project.

Also, define the project task that is broken, which require a complete restructuring. For example, the project manager after evaluating the process used for managing a project, e.g. waterfall methodology may find that this approach is weak to administer a project of a particular profile, so the agile framework is employed or hybrid method. Besides, a good reviewer should be able to decide on action plans, i.e. to get stakeholder agreements and action plan, which could be employed to improve the process and fix the broken part of a project. And according to the characteristic above, a good reviewer will be said to be a ‘supper’ project manager (Krane, Olsson & Rolstadas, 2012). Otherwise, one could term a good reviewer as transformational because the individual is able to lead in such a way that all follower types identified by Kelly (1988), can operate in a collaborative form and share their past experience on a project. Whereas, they could also be completed in a systematic format, as detailed in the components (OX, nd) detailed.

Further Reading

Krane, H.P., Olsson, N.O. & Rolstadås, A. (2012), ‘How project manager– project owner interaction can work within and influence project risk management,’ Project Management Journal, 43 (2), pp. 54-67, Business Source Complete [Online]. Available from: [Accessed: February 11, 2016]

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. & Shamir, B. (2002), ‘Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment,’ Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4), pp. 735­744, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: [Accessed: February 24, 2016]

Kelley, R.E. (1988) ‘In praise of followers,’ Harvard Business Review, 66 (6), pp. 142-148. [Online]. Available from: followers [Accessed: February 24, 2016]

OX., (nd) What makes a good systematic review? [Online] Available from:­practitioners/what­is­good­evidence/what­makes­ a­good­systematic­review.html [Accessed: February 28, 2016]

Sanjay M., (2002) The Importance of Post Project Reviews [Online] Available from:­Importance­ of­Post­Project­Reviews.htm [Accessed: February 28, 2016]

Zedtwitz V. M., (2002) ‘Organizational learning through post­project reviews in R&D’, R&D Management, 32 (3), pp. 255­268 [Online] Available from: [Accessed: February 25, 2016]