What this is
What is a post project review?
What is a post project review?
It's the record that checks a completed capital project against what it promised on cost, schedule, performance and reliability, using real operating history rather than the commissioning test result. It's carried out jointly by engineering and the project sponsor, and closes out the Capital Projects and Commissioning programme for that project.
Why review a project six months after handover rather than immediately?
Commissioning proves best-case performance under controlled conditions. Six months of normal shifts, real product mix and routine wear is what actually reveals whether the throughput, availability and reliability promised in the business case were real.
What's the difference between a snag list at handover and a retrofit found here?
A snag is a known defect recorded before the project changed hands. A retrofit recorded in this review is something that only became apparent once the asset had been running for months — usually a sign the design review or specification missed it entirely.
Scope
When is a post project review required?
This review is one step in a larger programme. Using it for work that belongs to a neighbouring template produces records that are hard to report on later.
Use this template when
- A capital project reached handover roughly six months ago and now has enough operating history to judge cost, schedule, performance and reliability against the original business case
- Retrofits, breakdowns or warranty claims have started appearing and need tracing back to a design, specification or installation decision
- The organisation needs to know whether a specification standard or design review checklist should be updated before the next capital project starts
- A lessons-learned record needs raising, or an existing one needs a reference back to the project it came from
- The sponsor and engineering need a single record confirming whether the promised benefits were actually realised, not just whether the project finished
Do not use it for
- Capital Project Safety Review, which reviews a capital project at each design stage for safety, hygienic design, access and maintainability before money is committed.
- Equipment Specification Record, which holds the performance, safety, hygiene, energy and maintenance-access specification a new machine must meet.
- Installation Progress Record, which tracks progress, quality, permits and contractor performance while the installation is still under way.
- Project Handover Record, which captures the moment a project transfers into operation, not what happens to it afterwards.
- Anything outside KnowMaintain, which belongs in the workspace that actually owns that process.
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 55001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 55001 cl.9.1 asks for monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation of asset performance — a post project review is where that evaluation actually gets written down for a capital investment.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation of asset management performance | Header |
| ISO 55001 cl.6.2 | Asset management objectives and planning to achieve them, evaluated against the actual outcome | Against the business case |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Performance evaluation of the asset once it is in routine operation | Reliability since handover |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.1 | Operational planning and control, reviewed against how the asset is actually used | In use |
| ISO 55001 cl.10.2 | Nonconformity and corrective action, feeding lessons back into specification and design standards | Learning |
| ISO 55001 cl.7.5.3 | Control of documented information, including traceability back to the handover record | Related records |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Evaluation results retained as documented information | Result |
What it does not cover
- Performance Target Met marked Yes with Achieved Throughput left blank, which asserts a result nobody actually measured.
- Retrofits Already Required greater than zero with no linked Lessons Learned Record ID, which lets a design gap repeat on the next project uncounted.
- Cost Variance Percent or Schedule Variance Weeks left blank while Status is marked Complete, which closes the business-case comparison the review exists to make.
- Specification Standard To Be Updated marked No with retrofits or infant mortality failures already recorded, which repeats the same design mistake into the next specification.
- Safety Issues Emerged marked None where Ergonomic Issues Emerged or Maintenance Access Adequate In Practice indicate problems, which narrows 'safety' to incidents already reported rather than conditions already observed.
Global
Post Project Review requirements by country
Most of this review sits inside a management-system framework rather than statute, but the warranty and defects window it reports against is set by commercial and contract law, not by ISO 55001.
FIDIC forms of contract — Defects Notification Period
The standard international mechanism setting how long after handover a contractor stays liable for defects, widely used on cross-border capital projects.
Warranty Claims Made and this review's reliability data need comparing against that window — claims raised after it closes usually fall to the asset owner.
Limitation Act 1980, s.5
Sets a six-year limitation period for bringing a claim founded on a simple contract, including most equipment supply and installation contracts.
It bounds how long the reliability evidence gathered in this review remains useful for pursuing a contractual claim against the original supplier.
Uniform Commercial Code Article 2, s.2-725
Sets a four-year statute of limitations for breach of a contract for the sale of goods, unless a shorter period was agreed.
For US-sited equipment, this is the practical clock on pursuing a supplier over the infant mortality failures or warranty claims this review records.
How to complete it
How to complete a post project review, step by step
Four judgement calls decide whether this review actually evaluates the project or just re-files the handover paperwork with a later date on it.
Capital Budget and Planned Completion Date should be the figures approved before the project started, not a baseline quietly revised mid-project. A review measured against a moved baseline can show zero variance on a project that actually ran over.
Safety Issues Emerged relies on incidents reaching whoever fills in this form. A None answer six months in is only meaningful if there's a route for operators to have raised something in the meantime — otherwise it measures reporting, not safety.
Retrofits Already Required is a count, not an investigation. The judgement call is whether each one gets matched to the design review or specification decision that missed it, or left disconnected from the process meant to learn from it.
Months Since Handover implies a review interval, but nothing stops it running late until the numbers look better. A review run at month eleven instead of month six is judging a more settled asset than the one operations actually lived with early on.
What auditors find
Most common post project review findings
The same gaps recur across post project reviews, and each traces to a specific clause and a specific fix.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Performance Target Met marked Yes with Achieved Throughput left blank or copied from the commissioning report | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Require a current Achieved Throughput figure taken from operating data before Performance Target Met can be marked Yes. |
| Cost Variance Percent calculated against a budget revised after project sanction | ISO 55001 cl.6.2 | Reference the originally sanctioned Capital Budget, not a later re-baselined figure, and record both if the budget was formally revised. |
| Retrofits Already Required recorded with no Lessons Learned Record ID | ISO 55001 cl.10.2 | Raise or link a lessons-learned record for every retrofit, and route it back to the specification or design review stage that should have caught it. |
| Specification Standard To Be Updated and Design Review Checklist To Be Updated both marked Not needed alongside recorded infant mortality failures | ISO 55001 cl.10.2 | Treat any infant mortality failure as a prompt to re-examine both fields before defaulting to Not needed. |
| Supplier Response Acceptable left unanswered where Warranty Claims Made is greater than zero | ISO 55001 cl.7.1 | Score the supplier's actual response, not just whether claims exist — a slow or poor response changes how the next contract should be written. |
| Handover Record ID left unlinked in Related records | ISO 55001 cl.7.5.3 | Populate the link back to the original handover record so this review's baseline can be checked against what was actually agreed at handover. |
Case in point
Case in point: a Yes that outlived the data it was based on
A conveyor upgrade was reviewed on schedule at six months. Performance Target Met was marked Yes, using the throughput figure from the site acceptance test eight months earlier. Availability Achieved Percent was left blank because nobody had pulled a report.
A second review, triggered by three breakdowns the following quarter, found the line running eleven percent below the promised rate under normal shifts, and had been since week two. The business case had been signed off as delivered on data never re-checked against how the line was actually running.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
7 sections
- Reference
- MNT-094
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- PPR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Benefits realised
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 55001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links Handover, Lessons learned
- Tags
- Projects, Review
- Sections
- 7
- Fields
- 52
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 5
Header
12 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format PPR-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Asset*
Asset ID*
Format AST-0000.
Links to FDN-002 Asset ID
Nobody Learns From Projects Nobody Revisits
Six months after handover the truth is visible. Whether it hit the rate, whether it is reliable, and whether the business case was honest.
Project Name*
Months Since Handover*
Sponsor*
Against the business case
9 fieldsCapital Budget
Actual Spend
Cost Variance Percent*
Planned Completion Date
Actual Completion Date
Schedule Variance Weeks*
Promised Throughput
Achieved Throughput
Performance Target Met*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Reliability since handover
6 fieldsBreakdowns Since Handover*
Downtime Hours*
Availability Achieved Percent*
Infant Mortality Failures*
Early failures usually trace to installation or commissioning rather than design.
Warranty Claims Made
Supplier Response Acceptable
- Yes3 pts
- Slow1 pt
- Poor0 pts
In use
6 fieldsSafety Issues Emerged*
- None3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Significant0 pts
Maintenance Access Adequate In Practice*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Cleaning Achievable In The Time Allowed*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Ergonomic Issues Emerged*
- None3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Significant0 pts
Operator Feedback*
- Positive3 pts
- Mixed1 pt
- Negative0 pts
Retrofits Already Required*
Every retrofit is something the design review should have caught. Count them and feed them back.
Learning
5 fieldsWhat Worked*
What Would Be Done Differently*
Specification Standard To Be Updated*
- Yes3 pts
- Not needed3 pts
- No0 pts
Design Review Checklist To Be Updated*
- Yes3 pts
- Not needed3 pts
- No0 pts
Lessons Learned Record ID
Links to FDN-031 Record ID
Related records
1 fieldHandover Record ID
The handover this review looks back on.
Links to MNT-093 Handover ID
Result
13 fieldsItems Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Project Engineer*
Signature*
Sponsor*
Second Signature*
MNT-094 · record IDs look like PPR-2026-000 · Links Handover, Lessons learned
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The review captures a snapshot at six months. Making sure the lessons it surfaces actually change the next specification is where these workspaces do the ongoing work.
Holds the review against the asset's reliability history, and flags a Performance Target Met answer that isn't backed by a current Achieved Throughput figure.
Tracks Safety Issues Emerged and any retrofit raised against it, so a 'None' answer can be checked against incident and near-miss records rather than taken on trust.
Follows up Ergonomic Issues Emerged and Maintenance Access Adequate In Practice, turning operator feedback from this review into a traceable design action rather than a comment nobody revisits.
Chases outstanding retrofits and lessons-learned links to a close, and prompts the review itself when Months Since Handover has passed the interval without one being raised.
This template lives in KnowMaintain — asset maintenance. Work orders, planned maintenance, calibration, reliability and shutdowns.
Meet KnowMaintain→Glossary
Post Project Review definitions and key terms
- Infant mortality failure
- An early failure that occurs soon after an asset is commissioned, usually tracing back to an installation or commissioning defect rather than a design fault.
- Benefits realisation
- The check that a project's promised outcomes — cost, schedule, throughput, reliability — actually materialised once the asset was in routine use, rather than stopping the assessment at handover.
- Baseline
- The originally approved budget, schedule and performance target a project is measured against; revising it mid-project without recording the change hides the true variance.
- Defects notification period
- The contractual window during which a contractor remains responsible for fixing defects that emerge in a completed project, after which liability generally passes to the owner.
- Lessons learned record
- A record capturing what a specific project revealed, so a specification standard or design review checklist can be updated before the mistake repeats on the next project.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about post project review
What is a post project review?+
A post project review is the record that checks a completed capital project against what it promised on cost, schedule, performance and reliability, roughly six months after handover. It is built against ISO 55001 cl.9.1 and closes out the Capital Projects and Commissioning programme.
Why wait six months to review a project?+
Commissioning tests measure best-case performance under controlled conditions. Six months of normal operation reveals whether the asset actually holds its promised throughput, availability and reliability once shift patterns, real product mix and routine wear are in play.
How does this review differ from the snag list at handover?+
The handover snag list captures defects known at the point of transfer. This review captures what surfaces afterwards — infant mortality failures, retrofits, warranty claims and operator feedback that only appear once the asset has been running for months.
How is a post project review scored?+
Scoring is benefits realised, and high is good. It weighs cost and schedule variance, reliability data and whether the promised performance target was actually met against real operating figures.
What happens to the findings from a post project review?+
Retrofits, infant mortality failures and lessons feed back into whether the specification standard or design review checklist needs updating, and link to a lessons-learned record, so the same gap doesn't repeat on the next capital project.
How many post project reviews should a project have?+
It's a singleton per project — one review, not one per event. It links back to the Project Handover Record it's evaluating by ID.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Capital Projects and Commissioning
Management of Change
Makes sure a change to equipment, materials, people or process is assessed before it happens rather than after
Pre-Commissioning Checklist
Confirms a new installation is complete and safe before it is energised or run
Factory Acceptance Test Record
Records testing of new equipment at the supplier's site before it ships
Site Acceptance Test Record
Records testing of new equipment once installed at your site
Shutdown Plan
Plans a planned outage, covering scope, sequence, resources, permits and restart
Capital Project Safety Review
Reviews a capital project at each stage for safety, hygienic design, access and maintainability before money is committed
More in Projects
Capital Project Safety Review
Reviews a capital project at each stage for safety, hygienic design, access and maintainability before money is committed
Equipment Specification Record
Holds the specification a new machine must meet, covering performance, safety, hygiene, energy and maintenance access
Installation Progress Record
Records progress, quality and safety during an installation, including permits and contractor performance
Project Handover Record
Transfers a completed project to the people who will run and maintain it, with documentation, training and outstanding items listed
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 55001:2014 cl.9.1 — Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
- ISO 55001:2014 cl.6.2 — Asset management objectives and planning
- ISO 55001:2014 cl.10.2 — Nonconformity and corrective action
- Limitation Act 1980, s.5 (UK)
- Uniform Commercial Code Article 2, s.2-725 (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.