Program Management

Michel Thiry

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781351965538
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Organisational Behaviour
• Index: Business

Program management (PgM) is fast developing as the essential link between strategy and projects and as a vehicle for organizational change. It offers the means to manage groups of projects with a common business purpose in an integrated and effective way. The Second Edition of Michel Thiry's Program Management builds on the bestselling title first published in 2010. The heavily revised text reflects the latest program management guides and international standards and includes: a new section on agile management in programs; the author's own program management maturity measure; a new section on change management, which is now integral to many programs. Michel has also reviewed and revised the program lifecycle to align with the more unified view of program management that has emerged since the book was first published. The result is an essential guide to program management that incorporates a robust theoretical framework, complemented by examples and advice from one of the world's leading practitioners.

Part I
The Program Context

Part I concerns the program context. Chapter 1 explains why program management is an essential tool for achieving strategic decisions, how programs are viewed differently by different people and how program management became what it is today; it also examines and compares the latest program standards. Chapter 2 outlines the relationship between programs and other components of the business and explains how developing project, portfolio and program management concepts can create synergy in the business and increase agility and competitiveness. Finally, Chapter 3 describes how a program culture can be developed and how organizations can increase their program maturity. It outlines what constitutes program maturity for an organization and how to set up a program culture.

Chapter 1
Background and Definitions

The purpose of Chapter 1 is to give a historical perspective of the development of program management as a distinct discipline and to explain how programs are viewed differently by different communities. It explains how it can fill a gap in current management practice by helping realize strategic decisions and complement other project-based practices. It also takes a critical look at the current program standards.

1.1 The Emergence of Program Management

As practitioners started applying project management concepts to more complex projects, to the management of strategic objectives or to the management of multiple interrelated projects to produce strategic benefits, they recognized the limitations of traditional project management techniques. Well-publicized large-scale studies (Standish Group, 1996; KPMG, 1997) have demonstrated that up to 30 per cent of projects are cancelled before the end and that large-scale long-term projects are “significantly less predictable” in terms of time and scope. These studies exposed the failure of traditional project management methods to respond to emergent situations and to ambiguity, as well as the lack of integration between strategic intent and the results generated by projects. Program Management has emerged as a distinct discipline from the maturing of the project management discipline at about the same time as these studies were published. This could be seen as a result of the maturing of project management and the development of what the PMI has called “Organizational Project Management” (OPM).

1.2 Visions of Program

In project management practice and the associated literature, program management (PgM) is defined in many ways. Etymologically, the word program derives from the Greek prographein, meaning: to write before. It has evolved in Latin and French to mean a “notice or list of a series of events”. One of the definitions of the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary 2000 is: “a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal”. In architecture a program is the written functional description of the needs of the customer, which becomes the mandate of the architect. The concept of program used in the project management community probably originates from a number of sources. Today, typical uses of the word program are quite varied. A search on the Internet (www.google.co.uk) using the word “programme” (British spelling) yielded the following:

• UN and Governmental Programmes (United Nations Development Programme and National Toxicology Programme).
• Computer programmes (Windows XP and Adobe Acrobat Programmes).
• Space Exploration Programmes (Mars Exploration Program).
• Non-Governmental Non Profit Programmes (Fullbright Programme, International Baccalaureate Programme).
• Television programmes (BBC Programme).
• Large publicly funded undertakings (Chesapeake Bay Programme, Endangered Species Programme).

This search shows the diversity of the uses of the word in the public, but also points towards defining a program as a larger undertaking consisting of multiple actions of smaller scale with a higher-level objective.

Some authors also draw a difference between governmental and non-profit organizations and commercial or for-profit organizations:

Nonprofits usually refer to programs as ongoing, major services to clients, for example, a Transportation Program, Housing Program, etc. For-profits often use the term for very large business efforts that have limited duration and a defined set of deliverables. Nonprofits and for-profits might refer to programs as a one-time or ongoing set of activities internal to the organization, for example, a Total Quality Management Program, Workplace Safety Program, the Space Program, etc. (McNamara, 1999)

1.2.1 A Definition for the Twenty-First Century

In the late 1990s and early 2000s many different definitions of program and program management coexisted and were often contradictory, going anywhere from: a collection of similar projects, mega-projects, the combination of projects and operations, a top-down realization of strategic process to the bottom-up tactical grouping of actions. Typical definitions were still wide-ranging and included:

The co-ordinated management of a portfolio of projects that change organizations to achieve benefits that are of strategic importance. (CCTA, 1999)

A collection of projects related to some extent to a common objective. (APM, 2000)

A collection of change actions (projects and operational activities) purposefully grouped together to realize strategic and/or tactical benefits. (Murray-Webster and Thiry, 2000)

A group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them individually. (PMI, 2006)

Since then, the project and program management community have generally agreed on a view of what program management is. In its 3rd Edition, the PMI Standard defines a program as:

a group of related projects, subprograms and program activities that are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually. (PMI, 2013a, p. 9)

MSP defines a program as:

a temporary flexible organization created to coordinate, direct and oversee the implementation of a set of related projects and activities in order to deliver outcomes and benefits related to the organization’s strategic objectives. (OGC, 2011, p. 5)

P2M states that:

A program is established to carry out the business strategy. (PMAJ, 2015, p. 30)

The PMI definition insists on the grouping of interrelated projects and other related activities for strategic and tactical reasons; the MSP definition focuses on the organization required to deliver strategic benefits and outcomes. The PMI also identifies the need to deliver benefits over and above those that could be achieved by managing the projects independently. For P2M the program consists of the integration of all the activities necessary to successfully create value for the organization on the basis of a strategic mission.

I would suggest that the following definition is relevant in today’s context: “A program is a collection of change actions purposefully grouped together to realize value for a number of stakeholders” (adapted from Thiry, 2007, p. 118). This definition underlines the fact that the grouping of actions within a program has to be purposeful, identifying important interdependencies and synergy both between actions and stakeholders. It recognizes that programs comprise projects and other transition and integration activities that need to be managed together to create sustainable change, either strategic or incremental, and that they aim to realize targeted benefits, either strategic or tactical. As shown in Figure 1.1, programs comprise a number of projects, and other operations that, once integrated, deliver benefits to the business in a consistent, harmonized way.

Figure 1.1 The Program and its Elements

For example, an organization might aim to improve its competitiveness. In order to do so it may require preparing a marketing campaign, standardizing its processes, training some its employees, improving its production methods and logistics and finally updating its IT systems. If all these projects are undertaken without a centralized vision and clear strategic objectives it is very possible that the results will not achieve the stated objectives and that many projects will overlap or even work against each other. For example, HR may prepare training that is not in line with the new standards that will be put in place or IT may put in place new systems that do not align with production and logistics’ improved methods.

The program management team needs to align the program with both the corporate strategic objectives and the objectives of each of the business units and make sure the projects within the program are aligned and synchronized. These issues are probably better addressed by the following definition of program management: The governance and harmonized management of a number of projects and other actions to achieve targeted benefits and create value for the stakeholders.

As explained further (Chapter 4, p. 81), governance is the process of defining and maintaining direction, putting in place the structures necessary to ensure success and making sure the stated objectives and benefits are achieved. Harmonization is necessary to create synergy between different interrelated actions and their outputs to deliver an integrated outcome. Expected benefits should be stated from the beginning; this is an essential element of both good governance and good management. The ultimate purpose of a program is to deliver value to its multiple stakeholders through the use of new products and services that enhance the organization’s capabilities and increase its competitiveness. This concept is also promoted in P2M (PMAJ, 2015), the Japanese Standard for project and program management that outlines the dual role of the program manager in defining the program’s mission and proactively creating value for the business.

Finally it is worth mentioning that agile management and program management are both based on the concept of an integrated, mutually reinforcing set of decisions that form a coherent whole aimed at creating stakeholder value. And that, as such, they share a number of common concepts, among which:

1. an evolutionary and adaptive development, which translates into gradual and measured release of benefits;
2. the team as an integrated evolving system where all stakeholders are actively involved; and finally
3. an approach based on simplicity to improve response to changing demands and turbulent environments.

In both programs and agile development, responsiveness is the measure of value whereas in project and traditional management, efficiency and reliability are the keys to success (Thiry, 2010). This is exemplified by the nature of programs that are intrinsically ambiguous, as well as uncertain.

1.3 The Issue of Uncertainty and Ambiguity

Over the years researchers and practitioners have tried to understand the reasons why program management is needed and why it has emerged as distinct from project management. These reasons can probably be best understood through the concepts of uncertainty and ambiguity and how they affect decision-making, strategy development and management practices. Early research by Earl and Hopwood (1980) on the factors that determine the choice of a decision-making approach and later by Mintzberg (1990) and Weick (1995) on management methods in uncertain environments has identified how uncertainty and ambiguity influence both decision-making and management methods in different contexts. Today’s organisational context is recognized as being both highly complex and turbulent; it is also generally accepted that complexity breeds ambiguity and that turbulence, or fast pace, increases uncertainty.

A few authors have made attempts at program classification. Most of those classifications use two scales, from “known to emergent” vs “impact on organization” (Pellegrine...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Executive Summary
• PART I THE PROGRAM CONTEXT
• PART II THE PROGRAM CONSTITUENTS
• PART III THE PROGRAM LIFE CYCLE
• Conclusion
• References
• Index