I think falsifying progress would be extremely difficult. Within the initiation phase of a project, project planning takes place and is a crucial step in keeping on track to meet deadlines. Any reason for falsification would mean that the progress of the project is falling short within a stage of the planned course. By doing so, a domino effect will be created and the team will have to play “catch-up” in order to meet the subsequent deadlines, which is extremely high risk and could cost them the entire project. 

Firstly, the project manager would be first in line to ensure the project is progressing as planned. The project manager is a trusted individual within the organization that leads the project and is the advocate between the team and management. Next up would be the department manager that will overlook the tasks of their specific departments ensuring the project is still within budget and on track. From there, the organizational governance, including the board of directors will oversee the work and responsibilities of management while also checking in to track the progress of the project. 

I agree with @Jbarbee in that there are multiple cross functional teams involved in seeing a project through. Any mistakes along the way that result in a time delay or an increase in cost will be impossible to cover up given oversight from managers and a board of directors. The only example I could think of where a project's progress was falsified is Theranos which is a company that claimed to have developed a technology able to perform hundreds of tests, ranging from cholesterol levels to complex genetic analysis, from a single pinprick of blood. The CEO of the company was eventually charged with criminal fraud after misleading investors with false claims about the efficiency of her technology, further, proving that it is impossible to falsify a project's progress as the lie will eventually catch up to you.

Along with the points made above. Falsifying progress will only hurt the person reporting as the project deadlines come to a close. Not only will they have to show proof of the work done but they may also have to provide documentation that are generated as a product is improved. This may also spill over to the office environment and may result in social condemnation from your colleagues. Even if the person well to leave the organization there work ethic may be reported to future employers causing more problems than simply telling the truth. These other factors make it very unlikely one would need to falsify progress report.

As it has come up many times in this course, communication is one of the most important aspects of a project, as well as for the company itself. It is crucial that there is always a healthy communication venue between the project managers and their team, as well as the project managers and the company directors. It should be expected that the project managers are always well informed of how well their team is doing and the progress that they have been making in their current assignments. It is also ethical that the information given to the project manager and the information relayed to any kind of higher-up position is truthful and not hiding any secrets. The communication between all of these parties is what is going to make sure people know if the project is progressing properly and can also be used to modify the way the team is working if the project is falling behind. A project team or company that is not able to properly communicate with themselves will always be running into problems such as deadlines not being met and people not knowing exactly what is expected of them.

In addition to all the earlier points, in a regulated industry such medical devices rigorous documentation is required at many of the project stages. Falsifying progress would mean lying on official documentation at some point, which would be a far more serious issue than falling behind schedule. It would be an incredibly unreasonable risk to take, considering the consequences, compared to the relatively mild benefit of not having to admit being behind. In addition to this, there would be frequent review meetings to check progress which could expose falsification, as well as when the work has to be ultimately delivered. This when combined with the potential consequences make outright falsification unlikely.

I agree with the points everyone has made so far. However, one thing I noticed is that everyone is assuming that falsification is happening intentionally. In a real-life situation, with capable leaders and team members, falsification may happen quietly and unknowingly until it becomes a bigger problem. This could happen when the team is reporting progress through more simplified metrics that don’t actually show the real state of the work, but are just metrics to show managers when asked for progress updates. 

For example, many organizations rely on milestone completion to judge where the project is. Checking the “prototype” box means that the prototype is done, but it does not mean that the prototype is actually going to work properly and that it even is a viable prototype. Documentation can be submitted even if critical assumptions are unresolved, and these issues will arise harder in the testing phase of the project. This would be falsification, because the project looks like it is on the right track from the outside, but this is all a facade for the wobbly interior. 

Some companies, to combat this, check the quality of the milestones instead of if the milestone is reached or not. The stability of the results is evaluated instead, and the number of design revisions after phase review, failed tests, and the number of changing requirements after verification are tracked to see if the project is actually progressing. 

Separating the reporting from the owner can also help ensure that accidental falsification doesn’t happen. When the same team that does the work also makes the success criteria, blind spots can be made unintentionally. Independent review groups can ensure this does not happen since there is no bias towards the work done. When a team is too close to the problem, things can be overlooked, and an independent reviewer team can catch these oversights. 

The cultural element is clear here, since teams are pressured to show results and progress even if the progress is not defined. This is the reality of our fast-paced work environment, and it could cost us down the line. For a healthy environment, it is crucial to ensure teams are comfortable with reporting that not much progress has been made. How do you think companies should act to ensure that their employees feel safe to admit that progress has not been made? What’s the line for this (i.e., would employees abuse the leniency from the company to go even slower)? What kinds of indicators do you think best reveal that a project is actually advancing?

Most companies use estimated deadlines and progress reports to look into whether the project is progressing properly or not. As per the lecture this week, status review meetings are done to review progress during the project execution. These regularly scheduled meetings are typically used to review progress like major milestones or checkpoints, while also looking out for any risks along the way that have developed or may potentially come up. The estimated deadlines could be based on the Gantt chart. When the deadline is coming up, they can check up on each person’s work tasks and progress closely even during the critical stages.

I agree a lot with what Dev has said. Falsifying information can be either intentional or unintentional and that is mainly based on the work culture and environment. Many people have that fear of failure, being humiliated, blamed, or punished for something going wrong hence that would lead them to falsify the actual progress they have or have not made. People do not want to be the bearer of bad news in a company that perhaps is only driven by good news only and failure is not an option. Another instance is that there are some project leaders who believe that they can fix or expedite the progress if they do not meet their quota, so they lie about it to catch up quietly like nothing happened and it was all done on time and within the time frame needed. Project teams should not be doing that in the first place because it can become a habit that can lead to a downward spiral or downfall to the team and potentially putting the company at risk for poor performance. A way to bypass that is to provide a sense of safety within the work culture. It should also be a thing where mistakes are learning opportunities rather than something that leads to punishment because failures can be progress as well. The company should also be transparent with mistakes, and the work environment should have that open communication and open culture that makes the workers feel safe to voice their concerns because not all projects run smoothly and not everyone is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.