4Guidelines for Researching
and Writing IPQMS Case
Histories
Chapter 3 shows conclusively that the cornerstone of the IPQMS metho ol-
ogy is a ata base of case histories that provi e useful lessons to improve
the process of planning, esign, implementation, an management of projects
in all sectors. The international stu y team conclu e that the research an
writing must be con ucte similar to autopsies or postmortems to fully
un erstan why projects fail an how to prevent similar failures for new
projects. Thus, it was eci e to use the integrate project cycle as the basis
for the con uct of the postmortems.
The project team also agree that the case histories must be an integral
part of the curriculum for the e ucation an training of project managers.
Thus, the cases are use to provi e realistic contexts in stu ying the special
ifficulties inherent in soun project management nee s. To accomplish this
purpose, the cases must be written in a prescribe format with etaile
gui elines to ensure all factual ata relevant to each case are obtaine . This
can only be accomplishe by researching an writing the cases in the frame-
work of the IPQMS.
In summary, autopsies or postmortems of projects can furnish invaluable
lessons to improve planning, esign, implementation, an management for
new projects. To be effective, the postmortems must be con ucte in a
consistent an systematic manner. The integrate project cycle provi es an
i eal framework for the investigative proce ures an analyses. Experience
emonstrates it also promotes teamwork an holistic control which will
ensure accountability, cost effectiveness, an uality in all sectors.
4.1 GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE CASES
The form of the case histories shoul generally follow the framework of the
IPQMS an shoul be organize in the following manner:
Chapter 1 Project backgroun
Chapter 2 Planning, appraisal, an esign
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
Chapter 3 Selection, appraisal, an activation
Chapter 4 Operation, control, an han over
Chapter 5 Evaluation an refinement
Chapter 6 Conclusion
4.1.1 SUGGESTED DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Although the case writers shoul generally follow the se uence of chapters,
they may not be able to a here exactly to the se uence of tasks within each
chapter. The tasks may run together, or be out of se uence, or possibly be
omitte in one of the phases. Thus, the writers shoul exercise imagination
an flexibility in organizing a project s activities an interactions.
Moreover, since each project is a new situation set in a new environment,
it re uires the writers to highlight the factors significant to their particular
case. Thus, the writers must emphasize or e-emphasize phases accor ing
to the in ivi ual re uirements of their case history. This means that some
chapters of a case history will be more etaile than others. Above all, the
case writers must focus on the special lessons to be learne from their project,
escribing fully the ifferent sets of issues, problems, interrelationships, an
tasks.
The IPQMS is thus a focal point  not a rigi framework  from which
writers can eluci ate the many variables an interrelationships that make
their case an excellent learning evice.
4.2 GUIDELINES FOR CHECKLIST OF QUESTIONS
IN THE IPQMS
The 260Ä… uestions represent the composite experience of 18 senior scholars
an practitioners involve with policies, planning, esign, implementation,
management, an evaluation of large numbers of projects in their home
countries.
Thus, the checklist of uestions serves a variety of purposes in a ition
to provi ing a comparable framework for researching an writing case his-
tories. First, it gives the rea er an appreciation of the number an complexity
of the factors an issues affecting project management. Secon , the uestions
are useful in the analysis of other projects for either evaluation purposes or
for troubleshooting purposes. Thir , they are extremely useful for the instruc-
tor in planning an gui ing stu ent assignments for term papers, group
reports, an class iscussions. Fourth, uestions in the final phase of the
IPQMS are useful for both policy makers an planners in refining policies
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
an plans for new projects. The uestions are systematically arrange accor -
ing to the IPQMS.
4.3 CHECKLIST OF QUESTIONS IN THE IPQMS
4.3.1 PHASE 1: PLANNING, APPRAISAL, AND DESIGN
4.3.1.1 Identification and Formulation
1. Was the project i entifie in the course of the national (or
state/county) or corporate evelopment planning process?
a. If so, what was the policy-making characteristic or corporate
culture of this process?
b. If not, how i it come about? Is the project just a reaction to a
short-term opportunity but with a future potential for growth?
2. Can the national (or state/county) planning process ensure that
policies an programs for economic or social evelopment at that
level are translate into or integrate with counterpart plans at
regional an local levels? Similarly, can the corporate planning
process ensure that the project can eventually be integrate with
the other units of the organization?
3. Di the original project i ea relate to problems i entifie in the
national, sectoral, or regional plan? In the overall corporate context,
i the original project i ea relate to problems pertaining or obtain-
ing in the various units?
4. What were the major environmental factors  political, economic,
social, cultural, technical, or others that le to the project?
5. What was the primary source of the project i ea?
6. Who were the in ivi uals or groups that first propose the project?
What were their backgroun interests on the project?
7. Di other organizations or companies, allie or competitive,
become involve in efining the project?
8. What was the role of external onors or international fun ing agen-
cies an business finance institutions in project i entification? Were
foreign subsi iaries of the corporation involve in project i entifi-
cation?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
9. Who, other than the first proposers, supporte the project i ea?
Who oppose it? Who were ambivalent towar the project?
10. Were other groups or in ivi uals involve in the preparation, such
as clients, users, beneficiaries, political supporters or opponents,
resource suppliers, potential project implementors, competitors,
an other parties?
11. How an by whom was the initial i ea justifie in or er to be
inclu e in the country/state/county or corporate investment pro-
gram?
a. Shoul it be in the program at this stage? If so, why?
b. If it shoul not be, why not?
12. Were the prefeasibility stu ies one?
13. How clearly an explicitly were the purposes an goals of the
project state or efine ?
a. Were the major potential problems also i entifie at this time?
b. Were the time constraints, an bu get limitations an uality of
outputs taken into consi eration?
14. Was there a general commitment to the goals of the project by all
of the constituencies in its esign?
a. Whose political, a ministrative, technical, an financial support
coul initially be counte upon?
b. What resource i these supporters have?
c. What conflicts arose an how were they settle ? What were the
compromises ma e?
4.3.1.2 Feasibility Analysis and Appraisal
1. How extensive was the preliminary esign?
a. Who prepare it? What is the backgroun information on the
company or group that prepare the preliminary esign?
b. How reliable were the assumptions an supporting ocuments?
2. Was a formal feasibility analysis con ucte ?
3. Who con ucte it?
a. Was it a national organization, an international assistance agency,
a consulting team, or a combination of all of these? Or is it
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
within the project evelopment group of the corporate or regional
hea uarters?
b. What were the key ualifications of the key persons involve ?
4. How comprehensive an etaile were:
a. The technical feasibility stu ies (project location an layout,
subsurface con itions an problem areas, technology nee s,
availability of construction an raw materials, provision for envi-
ronmental impact re uirements, availability an training of tech-
nical personnel, an other areas of concern)?
b. The financial feasibility analyses (investment analysis, projecte
capital nee s at various stages)?
c. The economic feasibility analyses (regional/corporate economic
benefits, cost-benefit stu ies of alternative esigns, effect on
employment an cultural iversity in the project area)?
. The market an commercial/in ustrial feasibility of the corpo-
rate project, or as appropriate for a public sector project?
e. The a ministrative, organizational, an managerial stu ies?
f. The environmental baseline stu ies?
g. If nee be, the environmental impact stu ies (estimate impact
an mitigation involve in the project)?
h. The social an political impact stu ies?
5. Di the stu ies reveal any weaknesses in the project that might
affect future operations?
a. If so, what were these weaknesses?
b. How were these weaknesses a resse ?
c. Any provisions to prevent such weaknesses from recurring?
6. What appraisal criteria were use ?
a. Who ha authority for the appraisal?
b. Were the appraisers traine ?
7. What proce ures were use uring the appraisal process?
a. How many stages i it go through?
b. How extensive an intensive were they?
8. Di the appraisers an reviewers make an on-site inspection?
9. Were there any reservations about the overall ability of the project
to succee ?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
a. If so, what were these reservations? Who ma e these reserva-
tions?
b. Were there any problems that other appraisers foresaw that were
not inclu e in the final appraisal?
c. If so, what were the problems an why were they not inclu e ?
10. How were uncertainties an gaps in the reliable estimates or pro-
jections affecting project appraisal ealt with?
4.3.1.3 Design
1. What were the major sources of ata or information use in esign-
ing the principal components of the project? How about the semi-
major components?
2. How well i the project esign reflect the initial an most impor-
tant objectives an targets of the project i ea?
3. How clearly an explicitly were the purposes an goals of the
project efine an state ?
a. Were the imme iate goals istinguishe from longer-range
goals?
b. Were project objectives relate to broa er evelopment stu ies?
4. Di the proposal inclu e measurable targets for attaining objectives
an specifications for the project s outputs?
5. Di the source of the project s i entification influence how it was
prepare an esigne ? If so, how?
6. What attempts were ma e to i entify the potential project man-
ager(s) an to involve him or her in reviewing both project plans
an esign?
7. Were the project s activities, functions, tasks, an components
clearly i entifie an analyze ?
8. How many an what kin of esign alternatives were consi ere
an analyze ?
a. How were these alternatives evaluate an chosen?
b. Were relevant buil ing an other co es satisfie ?
c. Were relevant environmental impact assessments an stu ies,
inclu ing mitigation, ma e for each alternative?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
9. Were precon itions or prere uisites of success consi ere uring
the esign task? Were potential problems or bottlenecks to success-
ful implementation i entifie ?
10. Were potential social an cultural impacts of the project taken into
consi eration in its esign?
a. Were a verse effects i entifie ?
b. If so, how was the esign mo ifie ?
11. Di the project esign in icate an a e uate mechanism for internal
an external communication re uirements?
12. Were links an relationships with complementary or competing
projects examine ?
13. In how much etail were plans, bu gets, specifications, job escrip-
tions, an work sche ules prepare ?
14. Were alternative organizational arrangements for project execution
an operation consi ere ? Were plans ma e for expan ing the
a ministrative an technical capacity of the potential project imple-
mentation unit?
15. Di the project organization maintain a balance, appropriate to the
project task, between technical, a ministrative, an managerial per-
sons an functions?
16. Were the ifferent elements of the project esign integrate into a
coherent whole?
a. Was there any one person or group responsible for this integra-
tion?
b. If so, what were their ualifications?
17. Was a post-evaluation plan prepare , an were arrangements ma e
for collecting baseline ata for the various tasks?
a. If so, what metho was selecte for the evaluation?
b. Di it inclu e checks on project goals, costs, uality, an sche -
ule?
c. Do the baseline ata reflect all the feasibility stu ies as covere
in Chapter 2?
. Are they sufficient to prepare a checklist for project implemen-
tation an control?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
4.3.2 PHASE 2: SELECTION, APPROVAL, AND ACTIVATION
4.3.2.1 Selection and Approval
1. What appraisal an selection criteria were use ?
2. How many stages of review were necessary before reaching final
selection an approval? Who participate in the review, selection,
an approval processes?
3. Di these stages involve:
a. Obtaining legislative an /or policy change authorization?
b. Obtaining executive an /or corporate approval?
c. Confirming proce ures for bu get operation, human resources
management, an interagency an interbranch operation?
4. Di any changes occur in the project environment since the time
of the feasibility stu y that affecte project approval?
5. How long i the appraisal, selection, negotiation, an approval
processes take?
6. What major factors such as political, social, technical, economic,
a ministrative an managerial, environmental an others were con-
si ere that influence ecisions at each stage of the review?
7. How were the uncertainties an gaps in the reliable estimates of
projections affecting project appraisal an selection ealt with?
8. Was the proposal in competition with or complementary to others?
If so, was the project appraise an evaluate comparatively with
these others?
9. Which of the following criteria were use in the selection?
a. Linkage with national or local programs, or in the case of cor-
porate projects, linkage with other units an pro ucts in the
corporation?
b. Accelerating the pace of economic an social progress in the
area, or profitability of the corporation, or a vancing the frontiers
of competition against other pro ucts?
c. Availability of manpower, natural resources, an raw materials?
. Priorities ictate by political pressures, corporate culture, or
competitive positioning?
e. Quality, cost, an uration?
f. Other criteria? If so, list.
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
10. From what sources was the project to be fun e ? Internal
resources? Loans from fun ing organizations  corporate,
national, or international, an other sources?
11. Who was involve in the negotiation of loans, grants, or other forms
of fun ing for the project?
a. What were the major issues of negotiation?
b. What were the positions of the negotiators?
c. How were ifferences resolve ?
12. Were constraints an con itions place on the project s esign or
operation by the selection, approval, or fun ing authorities? Was
the plan mo ifie to conform to those con itions?
4.3.2.2 Activation
1. What criteria were use in choosing a project implementation unit
or executing agency?
2. What variables influence the choice of organizational structure?
3. What was the relationship between the project implementation unit
an higher organizational authorities in terms of responsibilities
an support?
4. Who was inclu e in the project team?
a. Were they relieve of their previous responsibilities temporarily
or permanently?
b. Were they inclu e on a part-time or full-time basis?
c. What were their ualifications?
5. What criteria were use in selecting personnel for the project team?
In selecting the project manager?
a. What recruitment metho s were use ?
b. What in ucements were provi e ?
6. Were the project lea er an the project team given their job respon-
sibilities clearly? Were they given orientation or a perio of retrain-
ing?
7. What working contracts an activation ocuments were use ? Who
prepare them?
8. Were a e uate information an control systems provi e at the
activation phase? If not, why not?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
9. How was the project organize internally with regar to:
a. Work an task ivision?
b. Authority, responsibility, an supervision?
c. Communication channels among ivisions an supporting orga-
nizations?
. Relationships between technical, managerial, an supporting
organizations?
e. Resource procurement an allocation?
f. Monitoring an reporting?
10. What types of systems or proce ures were establishe for bi ing
an contracting?
11. What were the major sources of the following project inputs?
a. Financial resources?
b. Materials, supplies, e uipment, an facilities?
c. Manpower?
. Political/corporate support?
e. Technology?
f. Public participation?
12. Were etaile an realistic project operation plans formulate for:
a. Bu geting?
b. Recruitment an training of personnel?
c. Data collection?
. Work an activity sche uling?
4.3.3 PHASE 3: OPERATION, CONTROL, AND HANDOVER
4.3.3.1 Implementation
1. How were work activities an project tasks sche ule ?
a. Di the project management team make use of such techni ues
as CPM or PERT analysis, an other a vance computer-ai e
techni ues?
b. What techni ue was use , an why was it selecte ?
2. Was there an a e uate management information system?
3. Di it efine:
a. Information re uirements?
b. Sources of information?
c. Systematic proce ures an organizations for collecting ata?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
 . A coor inate esign to integrate internal an external project
activities?
4. Were fee back channels an fee back elements i entifie ?
a. Was a e uate use ma e of these channels?
b. Was a e uate use ma e of the information receive from these
channels?
5. Were formal problem-solving or troubleshooting proce ures estab-
lishe ?
6. What arrangements were ma e for coor ination of project activities
with supporters, suppliers, clients, other corporate branches, an
the public?
7. What was the lea ership style of the project manager uring the
implementation phase? Coul it be characterize as:
a. Management by control? A management approach involving
authority an responsibility to oversee an coor inate all phases
in the project cycle in or er to ensure that project goals are met
on both bu get an sche ule.
b. Management by objectives? A management approach accor ing
to which performance is monitore by comparing actual outputs
with initial goals an objectives.
c. Management by exception? A management approach that
focuses on problems in sche uling an actual progress (progress
of the object is the primary concern).
8. Was the project re esigne or mo ifie to meet unanticipate prob-
lems uring implementation?
4.3.3.2 Supervision and Control
1. Were formal systems or proce ures create to:
a. Procure, inspect, an inventory at optimum levels raw materials
an other resources?
b. Ensure vigorous recruitment an optimum utilization of man-
power an output?
c. Monitor bu get performance an cash flows; forecast changes
in fun ing re uirements?
. Inspect the various activities in implementation to ensure esign
re uirements are met?
e. Test an a apt transferre technology?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
2. What metho s were use to report progress an problems to higher
authorities?
3. How were reme ial actions initiate an performe when monitor-
ing an control proce ures in icate problems?
4. Di conflicts occur:
a. Between technicians from ifferent isciplines or specializa-
tions?
b. Between a ministrators an technicians?
c. Between project managers within the parent organization?
. Between the project implementation unit an other organiza-
tions?
5. Were perio ic job meetings hel to resolve any conflicts? If so,
how often?
4.3.3.3 Completion and Handover
1. Were project completion reports prepare an reviewe ?
2. Was a plan prepare either for replication or for the transition of a
successful experimental, pilot, or emonstration project to full-
scale operation?
3. What arrangements were ma e for iffusion of project outputs an
results?
4. Were replicable components of the project i entifie ?
5. Were arrangements ma e for follow-up investment or multiphase
fun ing?
6. Were extension or technical assistance services create to assist
clients or users in a apting project outputs an results?
7. Were proce ures an metho s of han over to an ongoing organi-
zation well establishe ?
a. Were they complie with?
b. If not, why not?
8. What kin s of arrangements were ma e to transfer unutilize or
excess resources (human, financial, physical, an technical) from
the project at completion to other projects or organizations?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
9. What arrangements were ma e for the transfer or isposition of the
capital assets of the project?
10. What arrangements were ma e for cre it or loan repayment?
11. Woul levels of outsi e fun ing change consi erably upon han-
over to an ongoing organization?
12. Were project personnel reassigne to new uties at the project s
completion?
13. Di the han over mean that new persons took over the project
activities, or were the same persons transferre to a ifferent setting
within the organization?
14. What restructuring or mo ification was re uire of the receiving
agency, institution, or implementing company?
15. What ifficulties arose as a result of the transfer an han over:
a. To the project team?
b. To the receiving institutions?
c. To the beneficiaries?
. To the fun ing agencies?
4.3.4 PHASE 4: EVALUATION AND REFINEMENT
4.3.4.1 Evaluation and Follow-Up
1. Was the nee for the evaluation a e uately perceive ?
2. Were the objectives of the evaluation sufficiently clear?
3. What type of evaluation was eci e upon? Was the focus to be on
short-, me ium-, or long-term effects/benefits of the project?
4. Were formal evaluation proce ures establishe ? Was an evaluation
timetable set up?
5. What techni ues were use in the evaluation (cost-benefit analysis,
baseline measures, etc.)?
6. Who i the evaluation?
a. Was it an in ivi ual or a team?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
b. If a team, was it compose of in ivi uals in epen ent an out-
si e of the parent institution/hol ing corporation, or of in ivi -
uals from within, or both?
c. Why was this choice ma e?
7. What level of seniority i the evaluators have?
8. Were a e uate backgroun information an ata provi e for eval-
uation purposes?
9. Was the evaluation team provi e with a e uate a ministrative
support?
10. What were the results of the evaluation?
a. Were the inten e benefits realize ?
b. If not, why not?
11. Was project efficiency measure using time sche ule, bu get, an
performance output consi erations? What were the major factors
causing elay, cost overruns, an failure to meet project perfor-
mance criteria?
12. Were variance analysis an other metho s use to measure the
ifference between projecte an actual results?
13. Di the evaluation consi er the appropriateness of the following
aspects of the project:
a. Management information system?
b. Level of technology?
c. Operating esign?
. Manpower capabilities?
e. Organizational structures an flexibility?
14. Di the outcome of the project support the programmatic an policy
goals for which the project was inten e ?
15. What was the overall impact of the project on the region an
locality, sector, or corporation?
16. What was the prevailing attitu e an reaction of the en -users at
the start of the project?
a. What was it at the en ?
b. Di they perceive the project objectives in the same way?
17. Di the evaluation i entify unmet nee s? Di the evaluation i en-
tify piggyback or follow-up projects?
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
18. Di the evaluation i entify replicable components of the project?
a. Di it i entify the nee for follow-up investment or multiphase
fun ing?
b. Di it etect unforeseen si e effects of the project, whether
fortunate or unfortunate?
19. Were formal evaluation reports prepare an presente ?
a. To which in ivi uals or agencies were they given?
b. When?
c. How were they use ?
20. Di the project teams see the reports or participate in their formu-
lation or preparation?
a. If so, what was the response?
b. If not, why not?
4.3.4.2 Refinement of Policy and Planning
1. Were the results of the evaluation followe up?
a. If so, by whom an how soon afterwar ?
b. What were the results?
c. If there was no follow-up, why not?
2. Di the evaluation results lea to the formulation of proposals for
further projects? Di they lea to improvements or mo ifications
of national, regional, or corporate policy?
3. What lessons an insights were gaine from the project?
a. Was there an analysis of the reason for eviations in implemen-
tation from the operating plan?
b. Di the analysis reveal both long- an short-term lessons?
c. What were they?
4. How can these lessons be applie to refine the project or future
similar projects?
5. How can these lessons be applie to future policy ecisions on
project management?
As the foregoing list of uestions emonstrates, the issues an factors
affecting project planning an management are numerous an complex. To
bring or er out of this maze of iverse factors, the IPQMS organizes man-
agement tasks an issues into an integrate concept which views projects in
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
their entirety from i entification to follow-up an places them in a cohesive
framework. This conceptual framework provi es a comprehensive an bal-
ance approach to planning an management, one that will result in total
uality an cost effectiveness in all programs an projects.
4.4 SAMPLE PROPOSAL FOR CASE HISTORY
A sample of the form evelope for IPQMS case proposals follows.
1. Propose Title of Case History: ................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
2. Author: ........................................................................................................................
(Family) (First) (Title)
A ress:............................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
Present Position:...............................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
Qualifications: .................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
Curriculum Vitae: Please attach C.V. to proposal, giving further etails, particularly regar ing
positions hel , list of publications, etc.
3. About the Case
Description of the case: Please attach a two- to four-page escription of the case covering
the various stages as outline in the integrate planning an uality management system.
Inclu e in your escription:
(a) The ates of the project: commencement an completion.
(b) Details of the stages of your case you consi er woul be especially important for
teaching particular aspects of project management.
(c) The key organizational or management activities in the project which impresse you as
being particularly significant.
( ) Organization Setting: Attach a one- to two-page escription of the organizational setting
of the case, inclu ing etails of the project organization an project management personnel.
(e) Personal Involvement: State briefly any personal involvement you ha in the case.
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
4. Source Materials
(a) Are the materials, ocuments, etc. nee e for the case available for your use?
......................................................................................................................................
(b) What organizations have the materials?
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
(c) Is special permission re uire to use the materials? If so, please list those materials an
how permission shoul be obtaine .
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
5. Work Plan
(a) How long will it take you to write the first raft?
.................................................................................................................................
(b) When are you able to start writing the case?
.................................................................................................................................
(c) If your proposal is accepte , when o you expect to finalize the case?
.................................................................................................................................
Illustrations  Photos
(a) Do you propose to use illustrations (e.g., graphics, photos)?
(b) If you o, please estimate the number to be use .
Line rawings: .................................................................
Photos (Black & White): .................................................
© 1999 CRC Press LLC