Peer reviews can help project teams surface vulnerabilities while there is still time to address them. In a 2016 CIO opinion article, Bob Ronan recommends reviews as a way to make risks visible to both the team and senior management—not as a guarantee of success or a proven way to prevent overruns.
What a project peer review is meant to do
Ronan’s model is a constructive check on a project’s prospects. A reviewer gathers perspectives from the team, identifies risks or obstacles, and helps bring those issues to management’s attention so the team can get support or make changes.
That purpose distinguishes the review from a punitive audit. If participants expect blame, they may hide problems rather than explain them. Ronan’s recommendation is to frame the exercise around improving the project and identifying where management can mitigate risk. His article is based on professional experience; it does not report controlled evidence that peer reviews cause projects to succeed.
Bob Ronan’s CIO article was published January 11, 2016, and addresses IT projects. Its approach can inform other kinds of work, but the questions should be adapted to each project’s risks.
#1 Best Overall
Choose review rigor according to the project
Not every project needs the same level of scrutiny. Ronan recommends that senior management identify mission-critical projects for more formal reviews. Less critical work can use lighter discussions within the team. The article mentions a project costing more than $1 million only as an example of a possible selection threshold—not as a universal rule.
- More formal review: Consider it when failure could have substantial consequences. It can include individual questionnaires, interviews, documented findings, and a presentation to senior management.
- Lighter review: For less critical work, a structured team discussion may be proportionate, provided it surfaces risks and leads to action.
In either case, select a reviewer who is trusted by the project team and respected by senior management. The reviewer needs enough credibility with both groups for the team to speak candidly and for management to take the findings seriously.
Run the review while changes are still possible
Ronan recommends an initial review very early in a project, then additional reviews soon after a new phase begins. That timing gives the team an opportunity to make adjustments rather than receiving findings after a decision window has closed.
- Set the purpose and scope. Explain that the review is intended to improve the project’s prospects and identify needed support. Choose a level of formality proportionate to the project’s importance.
- Gather individual views. Ask team members to answer a brief questionnaire before interviews, so the reviewer can see where perspectives align or differ.
- Look for patterns and gaps. Examine low scores, outliers, and differences across disciplines or levels of seniority. Use them to guide follow-up, not as a standalone verdict.
- Interview team members. Probe low or inconsistent responses and ask for context behind open-ended answers.
- Discuss preliminary findings with the project manager. Resolve disagreements and fill information gaps before finalizing conclusions.
- Present findings to senior management. Identify vulnerabilities, propose corrective actions, and state specifically what help the team needs. Keep the emphasis on resolving issues.
- Repeat at useful decision points. Schedule follow-up reviews soon after phase starts, while recommendations can still affect the work.
What to ask in the questionnaire
Ronan describes a questionnaire with 11 scored questions using a 1-to-5 scale and one open question. The scored topics cover:
Rank #3
- book
- A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) – Seventh Edition and The Standard for Project Management (ENGLISH)
- Whether requirements are complete and understood, and whether scope is stable.
- Whether executive sponsorship is in place.
- Whether business and technology resources are sufficient and appropriate.
- Whether the team has the technology skills it needs, and whether any new technology is understood and working.
- Whether status metrics are useful and the timeframe is realistic.
- Whether ownership and accountability are clear.
- Whether morale and collaboration are healthy.
- Whether there is a formal, quantitative business case.
The open question asks respondents what one thing they would change and why. The point is not to reduce the project to a score: compare answers across roles—for example, business and IT—and investigate differences in interviews. Ronan says open-ended responses often provide important material for the report, based on his experience rather than a measured general finding.
Turn findings into management action
A review has limited value if it only documents risks. The final presentation should connect each important vulnerability to a proposed response and make clear what assistance is needed from leadership. That might mean resolving an obstacle, clarifying ownership, or addressing a resource concern identified by the team.
Rank #4
- Harvard Business Review Project Management Handbook: How to Launch, Lead, and Sponsor Successful Projects
- Harvard Business Review Press
- BLANK BOOK
Ronan’s central recommendation is that management give the team a chance to address issues surfaced in the review. The process is intended to make those issues actionable—not to promise that every risk can be removed or that the project will succeed.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the article does—and does not—establish
Ronan presents peer reviews as a practical management recommendation grounded in his professional experience. His CIO article does not cite a study or provide a measured success rate, savings figure, or reduction in defects attributable to project peer reviews. It therefore supports a case for using reviews to surface concerns and seek help, not a quantified claim that they cause success.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
