Introduction

According to a number of recent CEO and CIO surveys, strategic thinking has been at the top of the leadership agenda for executives, but implementing a strategy to realize value is not as obvious as it seems and optimizing the use of resources to achieve this is even less evident. Can program management provide executives with the means to achieve their objectives and increase the organization’s competitive edge? Can it provide sponsors with a clear method for defining outcomes and benefits and mastering their delivery? Can it provide users with an assurance that their needs will be fulfilled, as much as is possible, within stated parameters?

There are currently three main program management guides, or standards, published by distinct professional bodies in America, Europe and Asia. In the UK and Japanese guides, program management is associated with the management of complex organizational or societal change. The PMI Standard associates program management with the management of multiple projects within the context of a strategic plan, where benefits can be obtained from managing these projects together. Each of these publications describes roles, relationships with other processes, program specific processes, program knowledge areas and other program management components in more or less detail, but where does this leave the executive, sponsor and user?

Program Management has emerged as a distinct discipline in the late 20th Century. It progressively developed as project management was applied to more and more complex projects, to the management of strategic objectives or the management of multiple interrelated endeavors to produce strategic benefits. It is now generally agreed that programs are a significant undertaking consisting of multiple actions spanning multiple business areas and that they are generally complex. Program management deals in both high ambiguity and uncertainty and requires a high degree of organizational maturity.

Program Maturity

Traditionally most organizations undertake projects as part of their work. Mostly these projects are treated as separate entities, independent from each other. They are often generated within a business unit and managed with that unit’s resources. Larger projects undertaken either for external clients or for strategic purposes are usually managed on an ad hoc basis by a dedicated team. Programs can either be “vision-led”, driven by strategic objectives, or “emergent”, a convenient grouping of existing projects for tactical reasons. Mature organizations will favor the more integrated vision-led approach that enables greater agility and responsiveness. Because of their overall strategic vision; they are more likely to realize business benefits.

As program management is used more and more to manage organizational change, the program becomes a vehicle for interaction between business stakeholders to generate creative ideas and innovative products that increase the organization’s competitiveness. In order to be competitive, a mature organization will use programs to link a number of business processes and understand how to create synergy between its different components (see Figure 1). Traditional organizational structures are well adapted to stable well-defined environments; they are typically hierarchical and based on strong organizational control. In these structures, the portfolio is typically divided into sub-portfolios, programs and projects. Recently, new organizational models have been developed that are more adapted to today’s turbulent and fast-moving environment. These new organizational models are similar to a supply or value chain and the program methodology is at the centre of the strategic decision management process.

In this type of organization, Program Management could be labeled as:

“The governance and harmonized management of a number of projects and other actions to achieve stated business benefits and create value for the stakeholders.”

But, developing a strong program culture involves a shared understanding of a number of objectives and a strong framework that can be outlined in four key program components: decision management, governance, stakeholder management and benefits management.

Key Program Components

The main program guides and standards already recognize governance, stakeholder and benefits management as key program components. Decision management is a new area of development that requires both a learning cycle, the actual decision making process, and a performance cycle, the decision realization process. Experienced managers know that successful change takes time and requires a sound decision making process. They also understand that decision making is not just about tools, but about making the right choices, based on objectives that have been agreed and can be measured. Making sense of the issues at hand, generating ideas and elaborating them into viable options are essential elements of a sound decision making process. Figure 2 depicts the whole program decision management cycle.

Mature organizations also adopt new developments and ideas for the other three program components. Whereas most organizations focus on the control aspect of governance, mature organizations consider a broader area of governance that includes leading: defining the vision; structuring: providing the structures and resources necessary to achieve the vision; and conforming: making sure the vision and value are achieved. They adopt a stakeholders’ management perspective that goes beyond roles and responsibilities of the different program stakeholders to include the steps necessary to manage and engage stakeholders. Understanding the required contribution of the different program stakeholders is an essential element of both program governance and stakeholder management because both boundaries and relationships between the responsibilities of the different program actors should be clearly identified to enable a smooth transition process between the strategy, the program and operations.

Finally, benefits management includes the development of a sound benefits management system, from the definition of meaningful expected benefits to their actual measurable realization. In order to ensure the realization of strategic objectives, the program life cycle is cyclical to enable regular assessment of benefits, evaluation of emergent opportunities and pacing of the process; it takes into account the ‘interdependence’ of component projects to ensure strategic alignment. To achieve this, a program life cycle must be iterative, rather than linear, include periods of stability and have a learning and systems perspective. Executives and sponsors become change leaders by taking responsibility for three steps that underlie every program decision: value creation, transition and value realization.

Program Management Life Cycle

Most books and guides on program management have suggested program “phases” which are simply transpositions of the project perspective. This view can jeopardize the effectiveness of program management and its capability to deliver strategies. Although it is now agreed that the objective of programs is to produce business level benefits by linking the strategy and projects, little management rhetoric has made its way into the program management literature and practice.

The current view of the program management life-cycle can be summarized through five generic stages or processes:

1. The Formulation stage, which consists of the definition of the program’s expected benefits through a stakeholder analysis and the agreement on the program purpose and objectives, which can include a functional blueprint. This process is iterative.
2. The Organization stage, which consists of the development of the program’s detailed business case and technical blueprint as well as operational procedures and structures. This process is iterative with the formulation.
3. The Deployment stage, which consists of the delivery of capabilities through the program’s constituent projects and other actions, including the transition into the business. This is a cyclical process.
4. The Appraisal stage, which consists of a program-level assessment of the benefits realization and evaluation of the success of the transition to operational benefits. This is also a cyclical process.
5. Finally, the Dissolution stage, which consists of the agreement on the timing and grounds for dissolution and implementation of the closing process, which includes long-term benefits measurement processes.

The formulation and the strategy development part of the organization stage are learning cycles, as is the appraisal of benefits realization. These stages require the application of value management tools and techniques. The structuring part of the organization stage as well as the management of projects in the deployment stage, are performance cycles where project management tools and techniques can be appropriately used.

The program life cycle diagram (Figure 3) exhibits the cyclical nature of programs where benefits are appraised on a regular basis and the resulting operational outcomes are used to realign the strategy, if required. Typically the cycles of the program life-cycle also correspond to periods of stability that enable the organization to absorb change at a rhythm that corresponds to its culture. These periods of stability, which usually correspond to stage gates, are typically determined when pacing the program.

Conclusion

Whether you are an executive, a sponsor, a user, a program or project manager, guides and standards can be useful, but it is your responsibility as a program stakeholder to understand what your role in a program is and how program management can help your organisation achieve its objectives.

Program management is the link between the business strategy and the value it will generate when implemented. It is the process through which executives will be able to express their needs and make sure they are fulfilled. Sponsors will be able to define the improvements they are expecting and clearly link them to the strategy to ensure they are realized and aligned with the business objectives. Program managers will understand how to support both executives and sponsors in a tangible way and how to deliver measurable results to the business. Project managers will understand how their role is essential to the program’s success and finally, operational and technical users will be able to make sure the expected improvements are well integrated and produce the expected results.

This white paper was first published in PMForum (The online journal) in April 2010. http://www.pmworldtoday.net/column_series/2010/april/PM-Beyond-Standards-Guides.html

Voglio vedere la crisi alle spalle, quindi non sto a domandarmi se è veramente passata, se stiamo di nuovo crescendo, eccetera. Io credo che il cambiamento nel contesto ci sia stato: crisi non come momento passeggero, dopo il quale tutto torna più o meno come prima, ma come l’esaurimento di un modello e l’instaurarsi di un nuovo paradigma, che va quindi interpretato e affrontato.

In questo senso le ricette si sprecano ed ogni analista , mondiale o locale, offre la sua visione di breve, medio e lungo termine. Io, così in piccolo, non posso permettermi di interpretare scenari per azzardare ipotesi (e temo che neppure i grandi lo possano fare), così il mio atteggiamento post-crisi non può che essere molto simile a quello pre-crisi: puntare sull’adattabilità, eventualmente rinforzata da maggiori attenzioni a costi ed investimenti.

Credo che solo così sia possibile sostenere la situazione. Basare la strategia sulla capacità di agire adeguatamente agli stimoli ed alle richieste che di volta in volta si affacciano, a partire da una competenza globale, ma mirata e declinata sul singolo caso e curare gli investimenti secondo questi principi di selettività ed adattività.

Nuovi scenari competitivi

Detta così sembra semplice, ma la sua declinazione nel concreto apre approcci non così scontati, che provo a ragionare uno ad uno.

Si impone, in questa logica, una attenta gestione del portfolio dei progetti e della gestione dei progetti stessi. In un’ottica di costante adattamento il numero delle iniziative “atipiche” (progetti) tende a prevalere sulle attività consolidate, quindi occorre misurare adeguatamente l’andamento delle singole iniziative e la costante rispondenza allo scopo che si prefiggevano, ma anche che questo scopo continui ad esistere ed a essere non solo valido, ma il più valido, perché, inserito nell’insieme delle iniziative in corso, deve portare il massimo valore aggiunto rispetto ad uno scenario che, per natura e per scelta, ho voluto variabile.

La mia capacità e rapidità di adattamento saranno allora strettamente legate non solo alla costante lettura del contesto intorno a me, ma anche alla semplicità e oggettività della analisi di quanto sta accadendo al mio interno.

Anche la pressione sui prezzi e la personalizzazione dei prodotti sempre più mi impongono l’avvicinamento ad una forma di “artigianato del servizio”, che costruisce su un impianto di base un prodotto unico legato al committente, mediando conoscenze profonde, economie di scala e capacità di dettaglio.

Questo impone un ripensamento sul personale, sulle esternalizzazioni e sui fornitori: qualificare sempre più le capacità, lasciando spazio all’estro ed al talento è un fattore determinante verso il successo, che collide con il massificare verso l’esterno la produzione e che richiede un rapporto costruttivo e di valore con chi collabora ai vari componenti del prodotto: occorre che ognuno apprezzi la soddisfazione di fare bene il proprio lavoro, anche in una situazione non favorevole o idilliaca, anzi soprattutto in contesti di vincoli o contrarietà.

La maggior variabilità richiede poi una grande capacità comunicativa, sia in termini di competenza che di strumenti, per mettere a disposizione di tutti chiarezza e idee, in modo che ognuno possa valorizzarle. Con ruoli e capacità diverse stiamo governando insieme quest’avventura e tutti devono sentirsene parte. Un percorso che, se ben fatto, viene percepito anche dall’esterno, qualificando il brand e la reputazione di tutti.

Come dicevo, sembrava semplice, ma potete intuire anche solo dagli accenni fatti, come l’effetto di questa crisi abbia scardinato molti luoghi comuni ed abitudini consolidate. Eppure io non vedo altra via d’uscita e, vi dirò, …. non è uno scenario che mi dispiace!