Project Plan Checklist
The Project Plan Checklist is a fully formed Process Chart that will be used throughout the execution stage of the project.
April 05, 2018 at 01:21 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
Your work on the BUDGETING CHECKLIST should have yielded an initial chart for the project. Ideally, this will have progressed through different iterations, starting with life as a basic project plan of the tasks, then becoming an 'Activity Assigner Chart' with names and assignments, then developing into a 'Budget' or 'Costed Roadmap.' All the while, this plan should be examined for waste, inefficiency, and justifiable savings. Now your plan is ready for the final stage of its evolution, as a fully formed Process Chart. This will be the reference tool that is used throughout the execution stage of the project.
Checklist:
- As always, gather in your planning work so far and project knowledge. The focus will be on the Costed Roadmap (or 'Budget') that is to be converted into a Process Chart.
- Review the Costed Roadmap or any other more current planning tool for robustness and fitness for purpose.
- Ensure that the plan and all of its components are clear and self-explanatory, or else explained.
- Verify that the plan is lean.
- Validate the plan with the project team. This enhanced and validated plan can now be treated as a Process Chart.
- Share the Process Chart with the team and appropriate external players and stakeholders.
- Report to the client.
Lean Routine:
- Have you verified that every main task has been captured? Has each one been broken into sensible and meaningful subtasks? Are these all tasks that you have personally done or seen others do successfully?
- How likely is it that each task will be successfully performed in full and on time? If so, how well would that meet the client's expectations as to the finished project? Have you left any margin for error or unforeseen circumstances? Have you verified that all of the contributors are still available, ready, and willing to participate?
- Do you have backup plans if one or more of the team becomes unavailable? Have you crosschecked the overall cost estimates against the client's expectation?
- Have you considered whether the overall plan is clear and makes sense as a whole? Is each task and subtask clear and obvious? Do any of them need explanation to ensure they can be done accurately and successfully the first time? If any explanation is needed, have you thought through how this will be handled? Would it be worth writing some bullet points in an email or maybe meeting the fee-earner to make sure it is understood? Is there some part of the plan that would be better depicted in some other way, such as a mind map, flowchart, or decision tree?
- Have you sequenced the tasks and subtasks in the optimum way? Have you thought about which jobs have to be completed before others can start and factored that in (such as with gateways)? Have you lined up individuals of appropriate skill and talent for each task? Have you checked again for waste, inefficiency, and justifiable savings? Are the estimated task times and deadlines manageable without being overgenerous? Do you have contingency buffers for the unexpected?
- Have you checked with all important contributors to the project to be sure that they understand what is expected? Do they all agree that their role is appropriate and manageable? Have you considered any suggestions arising during these conversations?
- Have you documented this work and the discussion and decisions?
- Has anything in this work impacted your view of the feasibility of performing the project on time, on budget, and with the right outcome? If so, have you told the client what has changed your view and gauged their comfort level?
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Look to Gen Z for AI Skills, as 'Data Becomes the Oil of Legal'
Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250