Project Review: Resolve Interfaces Before Release

Human Performance weekly series: lesson 34 of 52.

A 5–10 minute crew discussion, plus time to verify the actual controls. The crew talk and Word version are public. Separate supervisor and attendance records are included with free Safety & Systems membership.

Why this matters

A project can look complete within each discipline while the connections between them remain unresolved. A review should make those gaps visible before implementation. Bring the people who understand the affected work and leave with decisions, restrictions and evidence that can be followed.

Learning objective

Review a proposed release with affected roles and resolve consequential interface questions through the required authority.

Key hazards or failure points

Missing disciplines; incompatible revisions; silent disagreement; unclear decision authority; meeting attendance treated as approval; an action assigned but not closed.

Practical controls

• State the proposed decision and provide current documents before the review. Identify affected users and technical roles whose input is needed. Give them a realistic opportunity to examine the information and raise concerns.
• Compare boundaries between activities: inputs, outputs, access, support and responsibility transfers. Invite contrary information and record unresolved differences. A majority preference cannot override technical requirements or required approval.
• Give each action an owner, due point and closure evidence. Separate items that prevent release from later follow-up. The designated authority determines disposition under the governing process; meeting minutes alone do not authorize work.

Verify It in the Field

• Use a paper example of a handoff. Have both sides identify the revision, expected condition and responsible role. Compare their answers with the controlling records; log disagreement rather than smoothing it into a general statement of agreement.
• For one consequential review comment, trace the response to its supporting evidence and authorized disposition. Record reviewer, source, actual finding and time. An email promising correction leaves the required closure pending.
• Before release, compare outstanding actions with the applicable acceptance requirements. Confirm that changes reached affected documents and users. Keep required field checks separately pending until performed; technical acceptance does not establish installed protection.

Stop and reassess

Hold the affected release for missing required representation, conflicting technical bases, an unresolved safety condition or absent approval. Obtain the needed review, verify closure and communicate restrictions before implementation. Reopen the decision when a later change invalidates its basis.

Crew discussion questions

• Which connection between our work and another activity needs review?
• What evidence closes this comment?
• Who can authorize release, and what remains held?

For each required control, record its acceptance source and criterion, safe verification method, responsible checker, actual result and time. Use VERIFIED, HOLD/NOT VERIFIED, or N/A with a reason. A tick alone is not evidence. Complete all applicable task inspections; do not enter danger or improvise a test to fill out a form.

Leader preparation and practical detail

Two acceptable parts can make an unacceptable connection

Illustrative situation: installation planning assumes an isolation remains in place, while commissioning planning assumes it is removed. Each local plan may appear complete. The review identifies the incompatible handoff and routes the sequence and authority question to the responsible people before either activity relies on it.

A meeting is a means, not the acceptance criterion

The excerpt is headed Project Review Meeting while its body refers to product reviews. This adaptation focuses on reviewing a project decision and interfaces. Use the applicable review and approval requirements; do not infer that everyone present can approve the design, or that a meeting is mandatory for every minor decision.

Close the loop on the exact revision

Record the reviewed document versions, comment disposition and required approval. A later revision can reopen a resolved interface. Make the changed status available to the people executing the work and retain a clear hold where required. Link Project Planning for resource preparation and Decisions Under Uncertainty for comparing options; this lesson checks readiness of a proposed release.

Short supervisor field check

• Decision and current documents identified.
• Affected roles contributed required review.
• Disagreements and interfaces recorded.
• Action closure supported by actual evidence.
• Release authority and remaining restrictions clear.

Confirm the relevant trained/authorized people, unresolved items, interim protection, correction owner and recheck. Record required release authority and rebrief anyone affected. The separate sheet supports these records; it does not replace a specialist inspection, permit or engineering determination.

Attendance and follow-through

Use the separate attendance sheet for participants, roles, discussion concerns, actions and late-arrival rebriefs. Attendance is not proof of competence, functioning controls or authorization to work. Keep completed records private under employer procedures.

Source acknowledgment

This resource draws on the U.S. Department of Energy’s DOE-HDBK-1028-2009, Human Performance Improvement Handbook, Volume 2 (June 2009). Todd Jerome Jenkins makes no claim of authorship or copyright ownership in the original U.S. Government work. New explanations, examples, exercises and layouts are Todd Jerome Jenkins adaptations. No endorsement by DOE or the U.S. Government is implied. Third-party material credited in the handbook remains attributed to its source; this notice does not claim rights in that material.

Source excerpt: Volume 2/VOLUME 2 PROJECT REVIEW MEETING.pdf; Printed pp. 66, 67. The June 2009 handbook supplies concepts; this lesson uses original explanations and exercises.

Technical scope and references

References reviewed October 9, 2026. DOE human-performance tools and OSHA recommended practices support preparation and discussion; they do not establish universal technical acceptance criteria. Apply the current task procedure, manufacturer instructions, permit and required competent or qualified decisions. A successful exercise does not replace required training, technical verification or work authorization.

1. DOE-HDBK-1028-2009, Volume 2 — Reviewing a project decision — June 2009 illustrative guidance; Printed pp. 66, 67. Original ZIP excerpt inspected in full; no claim of universal mandated process.
2. OSHA — Communication and Coordination — Recommended practices: exchange hazard information and coordinate scheduling and responsibilities across employers.

Connect this discussion to your JHA/JSA

Use the JHA/JSA planning and field-verification worksheet to record the actual task steps, hazards, responsible roles and controls. No task-specific worked example is linked for this topic yet. Return to What Changed Today? when the plan or conditions change.

Related Todd Jerome Jenkins articles: How to Conduct a Job Safety Analysis and What Is Human and Organizational Performance?.

Related crew discussions

• Technical Task Briefing: Clarify the Deliverable Before Work
• Decisions Under Uncertainty: Make the Trade-Offs Visible

Continue the weekly series

• Lesson 33: Project Planning: Make Safe Work Achievable
• Lesson 35: Decisions Under Uncertainty: Make the Trade-Offs Visible

Put one check into practice

Use the free JHA/JSA planning and field-verification worksheet to record today’s change, the required protection and the evidence needed before exposure.