MSP® PRINCE2® P3O® P3M3™

This article, supported by APM Group, brings you news and views on the continuing development of PRINCE2 and Managing Successful Programmes

Making the case for programme management by Rod Soden, Aspire Europe Ltd

Just as project management was the challenge for the 90s it seems that Programme Management is the challenge for the millennium. This is hardly surprising because the development and adoption of project management best practice, be it the Prince2 public domain or in-house method, has generally raised the quality and awareness of project delivery and expectations about the benefits. But organisations, having improved their project delivery, are now coming to terms with the consequences.

Many people now work in organisations where everything has become a project, whether it be a new building, an office move, an IT development, implementing a new business process, or simply renumbering the parking bays in the car park!

I will happily hold up my hand here and say that I think this is the right way to do things: structured change, with clear objectives, management of risk, timescale and benefits provides organisations with a degree of control and certainty in rapidly changing environments and ensures focus and delivery is maintained along with
accountability.

If there is no structure to monitor, control and schedule your projects, you can easily end up with dozens of wonderfully well run projects delivering a vast array of deliverables and capabilities, happily gobbling up operational and project resources as they progress in their fully authorised and structured way.

The problem here is that projects operate in silos, they are by nature focused, constrained by their brief and to be quite frank, not that focused on the ‘bigger picture’. It’s all about delivery to the holy trinity (time, cost and quality). Who is making sure the benefits are delivered?

A bigger problem for organisations is maintaining a clear link between the strategic vision and how the projects that are delivering the capabilities will enable the achievement of strategic benefits. Time, then, for organisations to consider Programme Management but do people understand what this involves?

Programme Management should be the mechanism that turns the strategic vision into reality. It is the link between projects and the ‘bigger picture’. Unfortunately in many organizations Programme Management simply seems to have been adopted as a means of bringing of order to a project delivery environment.

Strategy, benefits and blueprint are the key words for effectively putting programme management into context. But few organisations fully grasp this point. They view the programme manager as a kind of enforcement agency for project delivery, rather than seeing him or her as the custodian of the organisation blueprint; in many cases Programme Management is a re-badged Project Support Office.

So what are the key questions that can be asked of an organisation to test whether it has adopted Programme Management as a project control mechanism or as a strategic enabler?

34 PROJECT MANAGER TODAY JULY 2003
1. Who does the Programme Manager directly report directly to?
If it isn’t a director or senior manager, it is possible that the term Programme Manager is being used where Senior Project Manager may be more appropriate.

2. Is there a Strategic Vision for the Programme?
If there isn’t, how does the programme link into the corporate vision and strategy? Without one, will the objectives and benefits that the programme is designed to deliver have been really thought through, because if they haven’t it will fail.

3. How importantly is the delivery of benefits rated ? Unlike a project, a programme should be around to see the benefits delivered into the organisation, rather than just capabilities. If there are no processes that track benefits achievement after projects complete, which monitors operational KPI’s for the savings and efficiencies, and defines clear ownership for delivering the improvements, then one would have to question whether you actually have a programme.

4. Are there success measures for the programme?
Is it simply a process for checking project progress and reviewing highlight reports, or is it actively contributing to and adjusting the strategic blueprint for the organisation and initiating the projects to achieve that blueprint.

5. Who are the stakeholders for the programme?
If they aren’t directors or senior managers, and there isn’t a structured communications plan to maintain their commitment and ensure they are engaged with the delivery, then there should be. Does the managing director or CEO see the programme reports ?

If you have more ‘no’ than ‘yes’ answers, there is no need to panic, it just helps to illustrate my point that programme management is still an immature concept and has become jargon for management of a project environment or a portfolio project manager.

Programme management is not project management for grown ups. I would argue that it is something different. Its focus is to deliver the strategy, and engage with internal and external stakeholders as an equal if not higher priority than assuring project delivery.The tools, techniques and skills are different.

For people who are new to the term, or have landed a role and are now realising that things aren’t quite as straightforward as they expected, don’t worry, we’ve all been there. We would recommend however, that you have a look at the OGC (Office of Government Commerce) publication called ‘Managing Successful Programmes’; it is the programme management equivalent of Prince2, but is far less prescriptive.This is helpful, as two programmes are never the same.

The competency and experience for a programme manager should be more than a track record of delivering projects; there must also be an understanding of the operational needs and the broader impact of change.

The programme manager should be a skilled manager who will empathise with and effectively handle the variety of cultural and business challenges and demands that are present in any major programme.

I hope that this article has shed some light onto the shady area of programme management and at least open up some of the issues for debate. In my view, programme management is undoubtedly the way forward for organisations wanting to align their business strategy to business reality, just as projects are recognised as effective vehicles for achieving change, programme management is the vehicle for linking that change to the vision.

However, as with project management in the 90’s, until the inconsistencies are recognised and addressed through common standards, language, and practices, misunderstanding will continue.

This is why I am a strong advocate of MSP, and, though the first version had its limitations, it does provide a strong foundation to build good programme management delivery. There is no doubt that the new version will further enhance its standing in the profession.

Rare Futures Ltd is an independent consultancy specialising in Programme and Change Management

PRINCE2 focus

Technorati Tags: PRINCE2 focus

Ths page, sponsored by the APM Group look at news and best practice around PRINCE2, MoR – Management of Risk, and MSP – Managing Successful Programmes.

Rod Sowden of Rare Futures Ltd is the APM Group’s first registered MSP Consultant, and has delivered a number of MSP-based programmes within the public and private sectors as well as delivering a range of MSP-related courses.

PROJECT MANAGER TODAY MAY 2004 31
Would you recognise a business change manager?

Managing Successful Programmes (OGC) defines three core roles and provides a list of responsibilities within its manual. Rod Sowden looks at the reality of one of these roles – the Business Change Manager – and the problems that develop.

When delivering an MSP based consultancy assignment or a course, it is quickly evident that the critical role of the Business Change Manager (BCM) is either not recognised or has been misunderstood; the same could probably be said for Benefits Management in general, but that’s a topic for another time.

What is the purpose of the role?
The BCM is responsible to the sponsors, or programme board, for a number of key elements of the programme. These can be summarised as:
•    ensuring that the solutions delivered meet the business requirement
•    defining the benefits, ensuring business ownership, and the implications are understood
•    managing business and operational transition from the old to the new working practices
•    changing the business modus operandi to realise defined at the outset of the programme from business operations.
•    providing a bridge between the programme and business management structures

It is a tough job. In the hierarchy the role reports to Programme Director (or Senior Responsible Owner in the public sector) and is responsible for ensuring that the business processes and structures are changed to adapt to the new capabilities delivered by the programme. This is always the toughest part of delivering a change programme.

Why is it so difficult to find a BCM? If we look at the characteristics of the few effective BCMs that I have had the pleasure to work with, you will see why it is a difficult role to fill. He or she has to be, or have, the following attributes:
•    A sophisticated communicator, with experience of unfreezing organisations and attitudes and preparing them for transition
•    Credibility within the management structure and chain. This is critical to ensure sufficient influence to ensure changes are delivered, ie, well connected
•    Good understanding of the business environment and processes so that the implications of projects and initiatives are understood and agreed with business managers
•    Politically aware and an effective negotiator both within the business and within the programme structure, in order to optimise the best outcomes for the business and best utilisation of the programme resources.

In summary, they must have empathy with the business operations; not something that can easily be imported in to the organisation on a temporary basis. I have also noticed a trend to appoint individuals into the role that are either too junior or happen to be ‘available’ within the organisation and may have different agendas. Those best suited to the role are often those in pivotal positions and are often seen as too important to be released.

What are the options?
I have seen a few variations of the role. The most effective is where the members of the programme board or sponsor group take on the ownership of changing their organisation directly, in effect delivering the role themselves.

They may delegate some of the detail to a junior manager, for example benefits definition and interfacing with the programme processes. They lead from the front in the transition. They are usually focused and more difficult to knock off course. They are less likely to succumb to subversion within the middle management tiers when the change starts to bite and tough decisions have to be made and delivered.

On smaller programmes, a business-orientated Programme Manager with an operational background may well have the credibility and influence within the business operations to be able to take on some of the responsibilities if supported by knowledgeable people from the operations.

Conclusion
The role of BCM is unique. It requires significantly different skills to those normally sought from people in the programme and project environment. That’s part of the reason we have developed a course specifically for BCMs.

Not only is the BCM role the toughest, it is also potentially the most rewarding. This is because it comes into existence quite early on in the programme, is core to the delivery of the change, and remains in place through to the completion of benefits realisation, most likely after the bulk of the programme organisation has been disbanded.
So, the key message is: don’t underestimate the criticality of the role and take care when making the appointment. It is a role that will have a major influence on the outcome of the programme, successful or otherwise

Best Practice Focus for PRINCE2, MoR and MSP

Technorati Tags: Best Practice Focus for PRINCE2, MoR and MSP

Rod Sowden, Managing Director of Aspire Europe Ltd, the only consultancy and training organisation dedicated to Managing Successful Programmes, shares in insight into the Golden Thread that is common throughout successful change programmes.

Aspire Europe Ltd are an APM Group Accredited Training Organisation and Accredited Consultancy Organisation

How fit is your programme?

Across the UK at the moment there will be hundreds of programmes being run, but how well are they being run and how does the sponsor know that his or her programme is in a healthy shape.

There are a number of ways to find out, most of them costing money from consultants. Most programmes are complex, and are being run using a methodology that fits one of the following descriptions:
1.    Home grown – the organisation has taught itself how to run large complex change initiatives based on its project experience
2.    Proprietary methodologies – from one of the big consultancies at a significant cost
3.    OGC Managing Successful Programmes – methodology available for public use and owned by the OGC. This is by far the dominant approach on the current market place.

From our experience there is a thread that runs through most proven methodologies, and is often missing from the home grown approach. We call it the Golden Thread, as all the successful programmes we have come across have it, whilst less successful ones don’t.

The Vision Statement – clearly sets out the direction and purpose of the programme.
Blueprint – a detailed description and understanding of what the future state of the organisation will be like, an important step often missed. If you don’t know where you are going how will you know when you have arrived ?
Quantified Benefits – detailed description of the benefits to be delivered, not a set of bullet points buried in a business case. This is the core of an effective programme, and can’t effectively been done until you know where you are going.
Project portfolio – well structured to maximise the efficient use of resources, designed to deliver dividend early and effective control points to stop the programme running away with itself.
Business transition - effective plans to minimise the instability caused to the business whilst remaining ambitious about the intended achievements.
Outcomes achieved – The focus has remained and the new systems have been installed, moved to the new building, you have reached the new state, but you still wont have achieved the benefits.
Benefits realisation – it is all too easy to declare victory before the benefits have been achieved, people still think that a miracle will occur that turns outcomes into benefits which is wrong – management intervention will still be required.

With this information, you can do your own health check to test the quality of your programme, if the key components of the Golden Thread are not in place you will undoubtedly run into trouble. It is all too easy too to bypass the blueprint or benefits through expediency to move forward, but if we had a tenner for every senior manager who has said “if we’d done this in the first place we would have headed off all the problems later”, we’d be very rich people by now.

Managing Successful Programmes

Technorati Tags: Managing Successful Programmes

First there was change, and then according to Tom Peters it became chaos. It came to pass that project management bought order to change and organised the chaos. Evolution took hold and very soon we had lots and lots of projects spending money and delivering products with alarming efficiency, the chaos returned. Nature created project and programme offices to control the projects (a bit like zoo keepers controlling animals) and it produced lots of reassuring information. Peace at last, but hang on, whatever happened to the savings the projects were going to produce, and what about the efficiencies and benefits that didn’t happen. The process guru’s spotted that benefits don’t happen by natural selection from putting new things in place, benefits realisation requires stimulation. Evolution again took hold and eureka – Programme Management appeared, the holistic approach to delivery of change.

After all these lessons from evolution, why do we still find clients trying to implement project management and in particular Prince2, when in reality they have a programme scenario. In our view, the reason is that they ask themselves the wrong question when faced with a challenge.

When responding to a challenge, if you ask yourself “What do we need to do?” you will almost certainly end up with a project because you will end up with a task list.

If, however, you ask yourself “Why are we doing this?” you are more likely to end up thinking about the benefits, which is the fundamental key to starting from a programme perspective.  Follow up with the questions “Where do we want to get to?”,  “What could go wrong?” and “How much is this going to cost” and you will have completed the first deliverable of an MSP Programme, the Programme Brief, the technical jargon requires you have a vision statement, benefits summary, cost estimates and risk analysis. By answering those 4 simple questions you have achieved the brief.

The underpinning problem when there isn’t programme management in place is that projects operate in silo’s, they are by nature focused, constrained by their brief and to be quite frank, not that focused on the ‘bigger picture’. It’s all about delivery to the holy trinity (time, cost and quality). Who is making sure the benefits are delivered?

Without a structured programme, organisations struggle to maintain a clear link between the strategic vision and the projects that are delivering the capabilities that will enable the achievement of strategic benefits. Time, then, for organisations to consider Programme Management but do people understand what this involves?

Programme Management should be the mechanism that turns the strategic vision into reality. It is the link between projects and the ‘bigger picture’. Unfortunately in many organizations the term Programme Management has come into the vocabulary means  bringing of order to a project delivery environ¬ment.

Strategy, benefits and blueprint are the key words for effectively putting programme management into context. But few organisations fully grasp this point. They view the programme manager as a kind of enforcement agency for project delivery, rather than seeing him or her as the custodian of the organisation blueprint; in many cases Programme Management is a re¬-badged Project Support Office.

Programme management is not project management for grown ups. I would argue that it is something different. Its focus is to deliver the strategy, and engage with internal and external stakeholders as an equal if not higher priority than assuring project delivery. The tools, techniques and skills are different.

For people who are new to the term, or have landed a role and are now realising that things aren’t quite as straightforward as they expected, don’t worry, we’ve all been there. We would recommend however, that you have a look at the OGC (Office of Government Commerce) publication called ‘Managing Successful Programmes’; it is the programme management equivalent of Prince2, but is far less prescriptive. This is helpful, as two programmes are never the same.

The competency and experience for a programme manager should be more than a track record of delivering projects; there must also be an understanding of the operational needs and the broader impact of change.

The programme manager should be a skilled manager who will empathise with and effectively handle the variety of cultural and business challenges and demands that are present in any major programme.

I hope that this article has shed some light onto the shady area of programme management and at least open up some of the issues for debate. In my view, programme management is undoubtedly the way forward for organisations wanting to align their business strategy to business reality, just as projects are recognised as effective vehicles for achieving change, programme management is the vehicle for linking that change to the vision.

However, as with project management in the 90s, until the inconsistencies are recognised and addressed through common standards, language, and practices, misunderstanding will continue.

This is why I am a strong advocate of MSP, and, though the first version had its limitations, it does provide a strong foundation to build good programme management delivery. There is no doubt that the new version will further enhance its standing in the profession.

Evolution is again taking hold, now we have organisations with dozens of programmes, in the public sector it is not uncommon to hear talk of programmes being counted in 100s. We don’t have a collective noun for multiple programmes, I have heard the term “portfolio” used but, this is already taken - we propose a “chaos of programmes” until something better evolves. Finally we would point out to people who are trying to juggle a “chaos of programmes” – don’t forget the benefits.

Managing Successful Programmes, MSP

Technorati Tags: Managing Successful Programmes, MSP