“For DAD”: a programme management life-cycle process

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00064-4Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper intends to demonstrate the need for a specific programme rhetoric and life cycle, distinct from that of project management. Grounded in strategic concepts, rather than project concepts, and addressing strategic level stakeholders, both the rhetoric of programme management processes and its structures must reflect the complexity, iterative and changing nature of programmes, as well as address executives and senior management, which are its key stakeholders. Programmes display both high uncertainty and ambiguity and programme management phases must be structured in such a way that they address both. The author has chosen words to describe this programme life cycle that clearly establish its relationship with strategy; they are formulation; organisation; deployment; appraisal and dissolution. All these terms reflect a strategic, long-term endeavour, representative of programmes’ nature. The formulation and appraisal phases, especially are close to strategy development concepts, whilst the organisation and deployment phases insist on a systemic an learning view of management.

Introduction

The author has already demonstrated in prior papers the need to adopt a different paradigm for projects and programmes [1]. A number of textbooks and papers [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] have suggested programme “phases” which, albeit their different names, are, in most instances, just transpositions of the project paradigm into programme management. Although it is now universally agreed that programmes need to produce business level benefits and are a link between the strategy and projects, little management rhetoric has made its way into the programme management literature and practice.

KPMG's [7] survey of over 1400 senior organisations found the lack of top management commitment to be a key factor in failed projects. Thomas et al. [8] have argued, in their research on “Selling project Management to Executives”, that “successful messages reflect the buyer’s needs as the buyer understands them”. This paper therefore argues that programme management needs to reflect the rhetoric and concepts of strategic long-term management, rather than the tactical short-term view of project management in order to gain executive management support and truly be able to support strategic decision management. This paper intends to present a life-cycle process that reflects the complexity of the programme context, as well as its learning and formative nature and distinguish it from the uncertainty, performing and controlling nature of projects.

Although number of projects start with unclear objectives, especially if they are complex, projects, as currently defined by recognised standards, [9], [10] are time-framed and require clear objectives. Project management, as defined in these standards, is based on a performance paradigm [11] embedded in an “uncertainty-reduction” process [12]. It is generally recognized by most authors that uncertainty is high at beginning (high assumptions/facts ratio) and that project processes are aimed at reducing this uncertainty through work breakdown; risk analysis and planning, followed by quality, time and cost control. Following the concept of “discourse” as developed by Foucault [13], This paper will argue that programme management rhetoric needs to be different from the current project management rhetoric, in order to convey the right message concerning their reliance on different paradigms.

The rationale for programme management lies in strategic management rather than the technical level; the focus is on the organisation rather than the team and instead of talking about deliverables, one talks about benefits. In addition, the programme environment is complex: there are multiple stakeholders with differing and often conflicting needs, emergent inputs are always affecting the process, and ambiguity is high. Because of the fact that programmes are typically of a longer duration than projects, needs and expectations will evolve, intermediate results will affect the final output and interdependencies will further complicate matters. Processes that are applicable to project management cannot be readily applied to programme management as programmes have an uncertain finality, which requires processes that are both cyclic and aimed at reducing ambiguity; typically: identification of needs and expectations, value management, ongoing negotiation and group decision-making.

There are two characteristics, already identified by other authors [3], that would make programme management the most suitable methodology to ensure successful implementation of strategies; they are:

  • 1.

    The concept of a cyclic process, which enable regular assessment of benefits, evaluation of emergent opportunities and pacing of the process.

  • 2.

    An emphasis on the “interdependability” of projects, which ensures strategic alignment.

In order to make the most of those characteristics a programme life cycle must be iterative, rather than linear, include periods of stability and it must have a learning and systems perspective.

It is to be noted that multi-project management and sometimes portfolio management do not take those two characteristics fully into account; they typically concentrate on human resources and cost and seldom have a systemic view of the programme.

Section snippets

Strategy and programmes

Strategic management is typically divided into three areas: analysis, choice and implementation. Analysis seeks to understand the strategic position of the organisation (environment, capability and purpose); choice is the formulation of possible courses of action and implementation is the planning and management of those actions [14]. These three areas are interlinked in an iterative and cyclic process. Typically, programme management follows strategic analysis, although some authors [4], [15],

The formulation phase

The formulation phase aims to identify internal or external pressures to change and determine the best way to address them to add value for the stakeholders. In programmes, it is crucial to take a value perspective to formulation, seeking the best balance between the purpose and the capability.

During formulation, benefits management [3], [18] includes the identification of the expected benefits and the assessment of their achievability. The author has suggested, in a number of previous papers

Conclusion

Project and programme management depend on different paradigms; whereas project management is subjected to a performance paradigm, based in short-term tactical deliverables, and has proven efficient for portfolio management or multi-project management, it has not proven its ability to deliver strategic change or improvement programmes. My own experience with a number of strategic programmes or soft organisational change programmes has demonstrated that programmes need to take into account a

Acknowledgements

This paper has made use of extracts of the “Programme Management” Chapter of “Project Management Pathways—a Guide to Project and Programme Management Practice” recently published by The Association for Project Management, UK, which has been written by the author.

References (22)

  • M Thiry

    Value management practice

    (1997)
  • Programme management case studies: vol. 1

    (1994)
  • Managing successful programmes

    (1999)
  • Murray-Webster R, Thiry M. Managing programmes of projects’ Gower handbook of project management, 3rd ed. In: Turner,...
  • Gareis R. Programme management and project portfolio management: new competences of project-oriented organisations. In:...
  • NASA. 1998. NPG 7120. 5A: Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements....
  • KPMG. What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects. http://audit.kpmg.ca/vl/surveys/it_wrong.htm....
  • Thomas J, Delisle C, Jugdev K, Buckle P. Selling project management to senior executives: what’s the hook? In: Project...
  • Guide to the project management body of knowledge

    (2000)
  • APM. 2000. The Association for Project Management Body of Knowledge, APM, High Wycombe,...
  • Thiry M. Sensemaking in value management practice. International Journal of Project Management,...
  • Cited by (79)

    • Differentiation and dynamism within the IT development program

      2020, Journal of Management Science and Engineering
    • The co-creation of values-in-use at the front end of infrastructure development programs

      2019, International Journal of Project Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Based upon such a front end of analysis the strategy and scope, that values that programs intend to deliver are specified (Martinsuo and Lehtonen, 2007). In this way, the front end can create the image of programs (Thiry, 2004). In sum, a good definition of programs' value is regarded as essential for value creation.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Presented at the Fifth European Project Management Conference, PMI Europe 2002, Cannes France, 19–20 June 2002. Organised by the PMI France Sud.

    View full text