I.P.E.C. in reality

So, you are likely familiar with the way in which most projects are broken down: Initiation, Planning, Executing and Closing (monitoring and controlling would be happening simultaneously to these). When I first started project management, most everyone approached these phases as gates. Hard stops for readjustment on your way to the end.


I used to have a form to fill out, where each stakeholder would sign off that this phase was complete. In practice, although we got the signatures, we rarely discussed the true meaning of this.


When I began working to integrate the WBS and the CPA sessions (see my earlier 3 part posts on this) we realized that we could still be as effective, in fact more so, by letting go of these "phases" and adopting a true shared understanding of the deliverables and their time lines.


We also began to realize that the I.P.E.C. phases were not really ever gates. We were always crossing the boundary. For instance: One task that fits squarely in Initiation, would need to occur after a task that fits squarely in planning. This rang true for all projects in our portfolio and all phases...
We came to see the I.P.E.C. phases in a new way. We draw them this way to explain to our customers what our "phases" look like. Then we explain where we are with our deliverables and this leads to a clearer understanding of the project and it's success. In fact, all status reports are deliverable based (again, see my WBS and CPA posts).