Programme Management - A Critical Review

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT

International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

MANAGEMENT

Programme management: a critical review

Mark Lycett a,*, Andreas Rassau b, John Danson b

a Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UKb Global Manufacturing Supply IT, GlaxoSmithKline, Stockley Park West, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB11 1BT, UK

Received 20 December 2002; received in revised form 7 February 2003; accepted 27 June 2003

Abstract

There is an increasing recognition that programme management provides a means to bridge the gap between project delivery and

organisational strategy. Significant tensions tend to arise across this gap, however, between the inward-focused and task-oriented

view of projects and strategy-focused and often emergent wider organisational view. It is argued within this paper that standard

programme management approaches actually exacerbate these tensions. Through a critical review of standard programme man-

agement approaches, a number of issues are highlighted that concern (a) an excessive control focus, (b) insufficient flexibility in the

context of an evolving business strategy, (c) ineffective co-operation between projects within the programme. These issues are traced

back to the two flawed assumptions underlying programme management; namely that (a) programme management is in effect a

scaled-up version of project management and (b) a �one size fits all� approach to programme management is appropriate. In

combination these observations are used to provide grounding for a fundamentally different approach to programme management

designed for flexibility, enabled for adaptability in a changing business environment and focused throughout on the effective

management of key stakeholder relationships.

� 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Programme management; Project management; Multi-project management; Strategy; Learning

1. Introduction

Traditionally, the vast majority of practical and theo-

retical developments on project management have been

related to single projects considered in isolation [1]. This

can be traced back to the origins of the project manage-

ment discipline within the construction industry. Over

time, however, issues have arisen where multiple projects

are undertaken within organisations including (a) riskthat the lack of co-ordination and overall control will

negatively impact efficiency and effectiveness [2] and (b)

confusion over responsibility for managing multiple de-

mands on staff [3]. In some circumstances matrix struc-

turesmay diffuse authority to the point thatmanagers can

no longer carry out their responsibilities [4]. As a conse-

quence, there has been an increasing awareness of the

requirement for a new perspective on the management ofprojects, distinct from that applied in a single project

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1895-203050; fax: +44-1895-

251686.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Lycett).

0263-7863/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights re

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.06.001

context [2,5,6]. In this context the foundations have beenlaid for a new discipline, commonly referred to as Pro-

gramme Management – defined as the integration and

management of a group of related projects with the intent

of achieving benefits that would not be realised if they

were managed independently. Whilst connected, this is

distinct from portfolio management.

The aim of this paper is thus to provide a critical

summary of the status of programme management,highlighting the implications of the state-of-the-art for

both research and practice. Consequently, key issues

that have driven the development of the theoretical

discipline are reviewed alongside the practical difficulties

that arise when attempting to apply programme man-

agement principles in practice. The paper begins by

synthesising the perceptions that surround programme

management in order to state the fundamental goals ofthe approach. These goals provide a benchmark for

assessing emerging programme management standards,

which are then reviewed. A detailed critical analysis of

programme management is then presented and a num-

ber of issues highlighted that concern (a) an excessive

served.

mail to: [email protected]

290 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299

control focus, (b) insufficient flexibility in the context of

evolving business strategy and (c) ineffective co-

operation between projects within the programme. The

cause of these issues is traced back to the two underlying

and flawed assumptions namely that (a) programmemanagement is in effect a scaled-up version of project

management and (b) a one size fits all approach is ap-

propriate. Lastly, the paper concludes by presenting a

coherent research agenda and recommendations on how

programme management can best be used in practice.

2. The fundamental goals of programme management

Programmes exist to create value by improving the

management of projects in isolation [7]. Thus, while they

create benefits through better organisation of projects,

they do not in themselves deliver individual project

Table 1

Programme management goals and goal categories

Goal Description

Efficiency and effectiveness goals

Improved co-ordination Assist in identification and definition of

and thereby reduce the incidence of wor

Improved dependency

management

Reduce the amount of re-engineering req

management of the interfaces between p

More effective

resource utilisation

Improve the effectiveness and efficiency

Assist in providing justification for speci

improvement to programme delivery and

More effective

knowledge transfer

Provide a means to identify and improv

Facilitate organisational learning

Greater senior

management �visibility�Enable senior management to better mo

implementation process

Business focus goals

More coherent

communication

Improve communication of overall goals

and externally to the programme

Target management attention clearly on

that are defined and understood at the o

the lifetime of the programme and beyo

Assist in keeping personal agendas in ch

Improved project

definition

Ensure that project definition is more sy

thereby reducing the prevalence of proje

of failure or obsolescence

Enable either the unbundling of activitie

project-set into specific projects

Enable the bundling of related projects t

greater leverage or achieve economies of

Better alignment with

business drivers,

goals and strategy

Improves the linkage between the strateg

management activities required to achiev

Provide an enabling framework for the r

ongoing alignment of strategy and proje

environment (via project addition/culling

objectives. The fundamental goals of programme man-

agement can be categorised twofold:

• Efficiency and effectiveness goals. Aspects of manage-

ment that a proficient project manager should address,

even in the cases where related projects are undertakenwithout overall co-ordination. It is believed that a gen-

eral improvement in management efficiency and effec-

tiveness can be achieved by taking an integrated

approach to these particular aspects of management.

• Business focus goals. The external alignment of pro-

jects with the requirements, goals, drivers and culture

of the wider organisation. These goals are associated

with defining an appropriate direction for the constit-uent projects within a programme as well as for the

programme as a whole.

Goals appropriate to each category have been sum-

marised in Table 1 alongside literature representative of

each specific orientation. Two points are made in respect

of this classification (see Table 1).

Representative literature

project interdependencies

k backlogs, rework and delays

[7,8]

uired due to inadequate

rojects

[7,8]

of the allocation of shared resources [7–9]

alist resources that deliver an overall

/or business operations

e upon transferable lessons. (Mentioned in 10 but

otherwise not developed

in the literature)

nitor, direct and control the [7–9]

and direction both internally [7,8]

the realisation of benefits

utset and achieved through

nd

eck

stematic and objective,

cts with a high risk

[7,11]

s in a strategic

ogether to create a

scale

ic direction of organisations and the

e these strategic objectives

[7,9]

ealisation of strategic change and the

cts in response to a changing business

, etc.)

Project Board

Sponsoring Group

ProgrammeDirector

SeniorBusiness

Management

ProgrammeManager

BusinessChangeManager

SeniorSupplier

Senior User

ProjectManager

ProjectExecutive

Project Management

Programme Management

Fig. 1. Programme and project roles as per managing successful pro-

gramme approach [8].

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299 291

Firstly, the aspect of �knowledge transfer� has, for themost part, been neglected within the programme man-

agement discipline. Projects are by definition transient

phenomena and very few companies have developed the

means to identify and build upon transferable lessons[12]. Indeed, an effective means of transferring learning

from experience on projects has been noted as one of the

key factors leading to consistently successful projects

[13]. In spite of this, knowledge transfer is normally only

given a cursory reference in the context of programme

management. Consequently, it is argued that knowledge

and information sharing between projects should be a

cornerstone of effective programme management.Secondly, it is essential that programme management

approaches address both the areas of efficiency and ef-

fectiveness and business focus. As it stands, programme

management efforts are often conceived in ‘‘loose’’ form

(see [14]) and projects are related only by virtue of a

specific internal management feature or features, such as

shared resources or common technologies. This ap-

proach does not necessarily harness the full potential ofprogramme management and can serve to diffuse its

value. Whilst emerging programme management meth-

odologies claim to address both the types goals, in

practise they are designed predominantly around the

goals of efficiency and effectiveness. Again, this serves to

diffuse the value of programme management.

3. Emerging standards

A standard approach to programme management is

now starting to emerge, based on the same fundamental

principles as the standard approaches to project man-

agement; structure and control. In broad terms, the

common themes in these approaches are: (a) a hierarchy

of roles, (b) a linear lifecycle and (c) a set of definedactivities.

3.1. Programme roles and responsibilities

One of the crucial elements of any programme is the

definition of the programme organisation. The model

used within the Managing Successful Programmes

(MSP) approach [8] is typical of the designs presentedwithin the literature and is represented in Fig. 1. The

MSP approach singles out three key roles: (a) the Pro-

gramme Director who as ultimate responsibility and

accountability for the programme; (b) the Programme

Manager, who is responsible for the setting up and

running of the programme and (c) the Business Change

Manager, who has responsibility for the benefits man-

agement and realisation processes. Here, the separationof benefits delivery from the Programme Management

recognises the fundamental difference between project

delivery and benefits realisation. Pellegrini [7] suggests a

slightly different hierarchy of roles whereby the Pro-

gramme Client acts for the business as a whole in de-

termining the strategic requirements for the programme

and the Programme Manager has overall responsibility

for realising the anticipated benefits from the pro-

gramme. The common feature of these and other ap-

proaches, however, is that the Programme Manager role

sits in a linear hierarchy at a level above the projectmanagers, implying a direct reporting relationship.

There is no recognition, within these standard ap-

proaches, that the programme management role may be

a distinct although not necessarily hierarchically supe-

rior role to that of the project managers.

3.2. Programme management lifecycle

The second key feature of the standard approaches is

their basis on a lifecycle directly analogous to the equiv-

alent project lifecycles (see for example PRINCE2). The

staged programme lifecycle is based on the assumption

that a defined input will be provided at the outset of the

programme, which definitively outlines the overall direc-

tion and make-up of the programme. Consequently, the

perception is that the alignment with strategy canachieved by up-front definition of the appropriate

groupings and that, subsequently, �adjustment� is all thatis required to keep the programme and the strategy in line.

The lifecycle is illustrated in Fig. 3.

The stages that are generic to most approaches are

programme: (a) identification, (b) definition, (c) execu-

tion and (d) closure. Programme identification defines

‘‘the overall objective for the programme and positions


the programme within the organisation�s corporate

mission, goals, strategies and other initiatives’’ [ 8,p. 69].

In the IBM approach [16], it is suggested that this stage

should also include the determination of the best can-

didate grouping of projects whilst in the OGC approachthis is deferred until programme definition. Haughey

[15] suggests that, at the identification stage, it is im-

portant to give boundaries to the programme explaining

exactly what will be delivered. Indeed, this is conveyed

within the OGC approach by means of the Programme

Brief, which should include the programme vision,

outline benefits, risks and issues, as well as estimates of

costs time-scales and effort. Thus, just as in the case of aProject Brief, up front definition is achieved on the size,

constitution and projected duration of the proposed

programme.

The Programme Definition stage includes: (a) the re-

finement of the programme vision and objectives, (b)

creation of the programme organisation and (c) estab-

lishment of the processes and support structures re-

quired to facilitate the management of the programme.Here, the inter-dependencies of the projects that make

up the programme are clarified and used as the basis for

the high-level programme plan, which provides an in-

dication of the sequencing of projects [15].

During the Programme Execution stage the individual

project managers run the identified projects and the

Programme Manager has responsibility to monitor

progress, assess risks and report on progress [15]. Spe-cific activities during this stage include: (a) ensuring that

the target business environment is adequately positioned

to receive the changes and (b) ensuring that benefits and

risks are properly managed throughout the programme.

In both the OGC and IBM methodologies it is suggested

that projects are implemented in a series of groups, with

periodic review points following each grouping. In

outline terms, this idea relates to the concepts of evo-lutionary project management and rolling wave plan-

ning, thus providing some mechanism for business

alignment.

The Programme Closure stage is concerned with

benefits realisation. The essential objective of this stage

is to ensure that the programme delivers the planned

benefits and that these are fully realised where possible

[8]. The nature of this realisation is by formal assess-ment. In addition, it is this stage at which confirmation

is obtained that all projects in the programme have been

formally closed.

3.3. Programme management activities

A range of different programme management activi-

ties have been proposed, each focused around the as-sumption of hierarchy of programme roles and a linear

programme lifecycle as described above. The key com-

mon areas proposed in the literature are: (a) planning

and resource management, (b) monitoring and control,

(c) configuration management and change control, (d)

risk and issue management (e) benefits management,

and (f) stakeholder management.

The principle objective of Programme Planning and

Resource Management is to organise work in a way that

accomplishes the programme objectives and achieves

benefit across a programme of projects [8]. The funda-

mental difference between this activity and project

planning is that the activity is not just the organisation

of many inter-related projects but also includes the

maximisation and utilisation of the resources and asso-

ciated schedule(s) to implement these projects [8]. Inaddition, in cases where programmes do not have ded-

icated resources, resource management may be applied

at the organisational level [5]. Pellegrini [7] makes the

point that the practice of applying a rigid critical path

through a programme network (as would be implied by

the more standard programme planning approaches)

may not be advisable. This is based on a view that there

is often no single, clear outcome for a programme and alevel of intuition is required.

Programme Monitoring and Control involves tracking

progress on individual projects and taking action as and

when required [7]. The essential purpose is to alert the

programme manager to any project interdependencies

that are becoming critical in terms of delivery date, re-

source-utilisation, costs or benefits [8]. This is achieved

via an audit discipline, which examines the activitieswithin the programme with the intent of establishing

how closely they conform to internal standards and

procedures or external codes of practice [8]. In many

ways, the programme monitoring and control discipline

is analogous with the project management discipline,

albeit that the reporting structures may differ slightly

and the control steps will of course depend on the

context.The need for Configuration Management and Change

Control is clearly expressed in most of the standard

approaches to programme management. MSP, for ex-

ample, utilises a Programme Blueprint as a means of

indexing the overall configuration to be managed, the

configuration comprising information about the orga-

nisation, its people processes, tools and systems [8]. This

follows a common view that all programmes must havewell-defined baseline from which to measure costs and

benefits and that this baseline should define the overall

scope in order to facilitate change control. Configura-

tion management is supposed to ensure that the blue-

print is always cohesive and consistent and is coupled

with a programme-level change-control process, which

is applied to essential sets of information about the

programme; in particular the programme blueprint andprogramme plan.

Programme Risk Management differs from that con-

ducted at the project level in that it addresses strategic


issues such as: (a) programme effectiveness in enhancing

the organisations competitive position, (b) the achieve-

ment of the programme�s benefits and/or (c) the effects

of changes in the assumptions underlying the pro-

gramme business case [7,8]. The MSP technique of riskmanagement calls for the use of a risk log analogous to

the equivalent project-level log [8]. Pellegrini [7], how-

ever, suggests that mechanisms associated with strategic

management might be better suited, such as competitor

analysis and benchmarking. Programme Issues Man-

agement has been described as a formal means of esca-

lating project issues to the programme level, logging and

tracking them as part of the activity [8]. In essence,however, programme issues management is little more

than an alternate view of the issue logging and escala-

tion processes that exist at the project-level.

Programme Benefits Management has been discussed

in the project sense in a number of recent papers (e.g.,

[11,17]). The descriptions of the activity provided within

the programme literature do not differ fundamentally

from the project level concept, except in relation to thedivision of responsibilities [8]. Whereas the responsibil-

ity of the project manager ends with completion and

sign-off of project deliverable (the benefits enabler), the

programme organisation also has overall responsibility

for ensuring benefits realisation [8]. One view is that

benefits management should be entirely carried out at

the programme level, making the point that project

managers are not well positioned to consider the validityof their projects. MSP splits the activity by specifying a

number of key stages in terms of benefits management,

each with associated responsibilities [8].

MSP also highlights the important point that stake-

holders will come and go over the course of a

programme [8]. As such Programme Stakeholder Man-

agement needs to be inherently more flexible and

adaptable than the equivalent project-level discipline. Inspite of this, none of the current approaches offer a great

deal of insight as to how this additional flexibility should

be achieved.

4. A critique of current approaches

4.1. Significant difficulties of practical application

The review of current approaches to programme

management invites three major criticisms. Which relate

to the management of three key stakeholder relation-

ships associated with the programme:

• The management of the relationship between the pro-

gramme manager and the project managers within

the programme.• The management of the relationship between the con-

stituent projects of the programme and the wider

business context.

• The management of the relationship between the in-

dividual project managers within the programme.

It is our contention that all of the problems experi-

enced when programme management techniques are

applied in practice can be related to the ineffectivemanagement of one or more of these relationships. The

issues associated with each of these relationships are

now dealt with in turn.

4.1.1. The interface between programme management and

project management

Standard approaches to programme management

strive to obtain an inappropriate level of detail driven bya desire to exercise an inappropriate degree of control.

This tends to lead to systems of programme planning and

control that are complex to the point of becoming un-

manageable. Two negative consequences arise as a result:

• Excessive hierarchical bureaucracy and control. It can

be very difficult to achieve an appropriate balance be-

tween excessive control and insufficient control in a

multi-project context [17]. Standard approaches toprogramme management tend towards excessive con-

trol, a bias emphasised by currently available pro-

gramme management software, which focuses the

resource management and integrated planning ele-

ments [18]. Research indicates that excessive bureau-

cracy and control has a tendency to create

inflexibility, bureaucratic overheads of reporting re-

quirements and in extreme circumstances relegate pro-gramme management to little more than a mechanism

for reporting [6,19,20]. The negative consequences of

an overly bureaucratic approach to programme man-

agement are: (a) a deterioration of the relationship be-

tween project managers and programme managers

encouraging a culture of blame and (b) diversion of en-

ergy from value adding activities.

• Focus on an inappropriate level of detail. Large inte-grated plans/networks are difficult to formulate and

have a tendency to become cumbersome and exces-

sively complex [5,21]. This calls into question the em-

phasis of the standard programme management

techniques on detailed integrated planning. By focus-

ing at an inappropriate level of detail, there is a real risk

that programmemanagerswill fail to identify the issues

that are of real significance to the programme. Conse-quently, the focus at the programme level should be on

the interfaces between projects [21]. This is important

given that interdependencies often become associated

with issues of ownership. People working on different

initiatives either tacitly cover the same ground or else

assume that other people will do the work.

4.1.2. The interface between organisational strategy and

constituent projects of the programme


largely neglect the need to shape, embed and align pro-


grammes with the evolving business environment [7].

This is problematic give the programme management

role of building and maintaining a connection between

the task-focused view of projects and the strategic drivers

of emergent organisation. Standard approaches to pro-grammemanagement are based on a project-level view of

change-control rather than a strategic view of change

management, which results in intrinsic inflexibility that

manifests itself in two distinct but related ways:

• Programme lifecycle. Standard approaches focus on a

linear programme lifecycle. The underlying assump-

tion is that the programme can be defined in detail

at the outset and then carried through to a definedclosure point, closely managing the programme scope

throughout (see [15] for example). In this context, ac-

tivities such as adjustment of the direction of the

programme or addition of new projects to the pro-

gramme only occur by exception. Although it is in

theory possible to evolve the programme in response

to a changing business environment, the focus on def-

inition and control of programme scope severelyrestricts programme flexibility. In essence, an insis-

tence on tight definition and clear boundaries negates

part of the value of having a programme [7].

• Programme tenure. Many standard approaches per-

ceive programmes to have a finite life [15]. This is

constraining given that the underlying processes used

to identify strategies, whilst planned to some degree,

are fragmented, emergent, evolutionary and largelyintuitive [22]. Further to this, emotional and territo-

rial sensitivities unearthed during strategy formula-

tion are actually magnified during strategy

implementation, which may accentuate emergence

and unpredictability [11]. Consequently, it seems ill

advised to force fixed time-scales at the outset of a

programme. An alternate view that programmes

may have an indefinite time horizon [7] is more real-istic if constrained by the view that they should only

continue so long as they are justified in terms of busi-

ness benefit. This is consistent with a view expressed

by McElroy [9] that programmes need to be able to

assimilate projects on an incremental basis.

4.1.3. Interface between projects within the programme

Standard approaches to programme managementalso tend to ignore difficulties that are found at the in-

terface between projects themselves. Competition, for

example, is a natural feature of a multi-project envi-

ronment [23] and manifests itself in terms of rivalry to

achieve high prioritisation ratings and/or strong com-

petition to secure specific resources. Project rivalries

have two negative consequences:

• Inter-project competition. Organisations often operatean internal market forces system where projects com-

pete for resources. This market is typically reinforced

by individual and team-based performance-related

rewards. The tacit assumption is that organisational

effectiveness can be improved by focusing on individ-

ual project effectiveness. Evidence from a recent de-

fence, engineering and construction industry study,

however, suggests that competition between projectsis not in the best interests of the organisation as a

whole [24]. Other work notes that: (a) employees of-

ten do what is necessary for the evaluation in prefer-

ence to what is required for the job [25]; (b)

competition creates a level of anxiety that interferes

with performance [26] and (c) in an environment of

intense competition, projects operate so autono-

mously that they simply do not know what peopleoutside there own team are working on [23].

• Failure to harness organisational learning. Although

some reference is made by the standard methodolo-

gies to transfer learning between projects (see [8] for

example), this is not backed up the creation of an en-

vironment that actually enables this to happen. What

is required is not only a statement of intent that learn-

ing should be shared, but the creation of supportiveopen culture that enables this to happen. In the pro-

ject arena, natural incentives pressure project manag-

ers to get on with the next project and not to dwell on

the failures of the past [12]. Consequently, knowledge

is gained in a �hit and miss� fashion [27]. As Eskerod

[23] notes, learning that are communicated in such a

highly competitive environment are likely to be non-

symmetric in that they will be biased towards the rep-resentation of success.

4.2. Fundamentally flawed underlying assumptions

Two assumptions underlie all the issues outlined in the

previous section. Firstly, programme management is

misconceived as a scaled-up form of project manage-

ment. Secondly, it is assumed that there is a single form ofprogramme management, equally applicable in all cir-

cumstances. It is argued here that these assumptions are

flawed and have driven the development of the pro-

gramme management discipline into its current form.

4.2.1. Assumption that programme management is a

scaled up form of project management

Gareis [28] has suggested that any project lastinglonger than two years should be classed as a pro-

gramme. Similarly, other writers have pointed out that

project managers still think in terms of ‘‘programmes of

work’’, implicitly taking this to mean a schedule in the

traditional project sense [7,10]. The assumption of

equivalence between programme and project and man-

agement is made explicit by Gray [14], who has claimed

that a programme, project, sub-project and workpackage are simply different levels in a hierarchy of

project-type work activities. This underlying assumption


and its consequent weaknesses are reflected in the vari-

ous components of the standard programme manage-

ment methodologies:

• Strict hierarchical perspective. Programme manage-

ment organisations proposed within the standardmethodologies are strictly hierarchical, with a tradi-

tional line reporting relationship between the project

manager and the programme manager. In a pro-

gramme context insistence on a rigidly hierarchical

arrangement can lead to a negative spiral of bureau-

cracy and control.

• Time-constrained linear programme lifecycle. The

standard methodologies assume a relatively simplelinear input process, whereby the programme is es-

tablished based on defined organisational strategy

and then slight adjustments are made to the pro-

gramme as it progresses towards its target state. This

assumes a substantially complete and stable input

definition, which justifies the investment of effort to

create a detailed programme plan charting the course

of the programme through to completion. Insistenceon a relatively rigid form of programme life cycle in-

trinsically limits the ability of the programme to

adapt in response to changing business strategy.

• Parity of approach pervading programme management

techniques. The assumption of basic equivalence be-

tween project and programmemanagement disciplines

is reflected throughout the majority of the proposed

programme management techniques. For example,the proposed approach to programme planning is es-

sentially scaled-up versions of the equivalent project-

level technique. The effects of this are: (a) a potential

tendency towards complexity, bureaucracy and con-

trol; (b) limitations on the ability to evolve the scope

in response to changing business drivers, goals and

strategies and (c) a mechanical perspective that does

not offer insight into how to manage the softer issuesthat very often arise at the programme level.

• The implicit reinforcement of the similarity of roles.

An assumption commonly encountered in practise is

that programme management is simply a step on

the career path for project managers. In fact it has

been demonstrated that many talented individuals

find the transition between project and programme

management a huge challenge [7]. Many of the in-stincts that good project managers acquire over years

of experience may actually be counterproductive in a

programme management context. For example, it is

typical of the project management mind-set that pro-

ject scope is guarded defensively. This is likely to

highly restrictive in a programme context.

4.2.2. Assumption that there is a one size fits all approach

to programme management


implicitly assume that a single rigid and highly struc-

tured approach can be applied equally effectively in all

contexts. This outcome is reminiscent of one school of

thought in the project management domain, which

believes that project management principles are uni-

versal and generic (see [29]). Counter to this, a secondschool of thought argues that the appropriateness of

principles will depend on the characteristics of the

project, the organisation(s) in which it is performed

and the environment in which the organisation is op-

erating [17].

While standard approaches recognise a number of

different types of programme (e.g., strategic, business

cycle, infrastructure and R & D), little guidance is of-fered in terms of: (a) the necessary difference in ap-

proach for different programmes or (b) how the

standard approaches might be adapted to an uncon-

nected-projects scenario. Herein lies a paradox since,

whilst there has been an increasing recognition in the

literature of diversity of different programme forms and

contexts, there has also been a convergence on a pur-

portedly generic programme management approach thatfails to account for such differences. The key programme

design considerations are as follows:

• Programme benefits and project goal interdependence.

A key error in programme initiation hinges around

the failure to clarify the direction and purpose of

the programme. Pellegrini [7] argues that different ra-

tionales for programmes should lead to different pro-

gramme management structures and identifies threetypes of programme, each of which requires a differ-

ent programme management approach. Firstly, a

�portfolio� programme is used to co-ordinate distinct

projects using a common resource or skills base. Sec-

ondly, a �heart beat� programme is applicable in situ-

ations where there are requirements for regular

improvements to existing systems, infrastructure,

business processes and the like. Lastly, the �goal-oriented� approach to programme management,

which is focused around the translation of vague, in-

complete and evolving business strategies into tangi-

ble actions.

• The nature of the constituent projects. There is a

common perception that organisations should apply

a standard approach for the management of all

projects in a programme, regardless of type of theproject type, size, urgency or the type of resource

used [30]. The presumed benefits of this approach

include comparable progress reporting and the pos-

sibility for people to move freely between projects

without having to learn a new approach. Similarly,

there is a common perception that projects within a

programme are fundamentally homogeneous and

the engagement required is the same in all cases.This assumption is called into question, however,

by work suggesting that non-homogeneity adds an

important layer of complexity to programme man-

Improved Coordination

More effective ongoing alignment withbusiness drivers, goals and strategy

Project toProgramme

Project toProject

Better up front definition of projects

More effective transfer of knowledge,ideas, tools and techniques

More coherent communication

Improved dependency management

More effective and efficient resourceutilisation

Projects toBusiness

Greater senior management visibility

Fig. 2. Key programme management relationships and goals.


agement [5]. More specifically, it has been found

that better results are achieved at a project level

when people tailor procedures to the type of project

that they are working on [30]. Extending this logic

to the engagement between the projects and pro-grammes, it is likely that different types of project

will benefit from different programme management

approaches.

• The geographical distribution of the programme. A

further possible difference between programmes re-

lates to the geographical distribution of the staff

working within them. Evaristo and Fenema [1]

describe the following programme scenarios: (a) co-located programme, where multiple concurrent

projects are all in a single geographical location; (b)

multiple traditional projects, where concurrent pro-

jects are based at a different geographical location;

and (c) multiple distributed projects, where each pro-

ject encompasses several sites either at overlapping

locations or else at discrete locations.

• Strength of programme mandate. The choice of pro-gramme management approach depends not only

on desirability but also equally on feasibility [14].

Often, it will be the case that the design of a pro-

gramme may not be entirely within the programme

manager�s control given political constraints of the

context, which either force or preclude particular ap-

proaches. The programme manager�s ability to

choose the optimal approach for the context willthus depends on the strength of their mandate. In

turn, this will depend on the standing of the pro-

gramme management discipline within the wider or-

ganisation as well as the perceived authority of line

organisation to which the programme manager re-

ports. Since the overall programme is seen as being

owned the business, this may limit the flexibility

for defining the reporting structures of the pro-gramme organisation.

4.3. Conceptual and practical implications

Reflection on the review presented above suggests a

number of important implications for programme

management, which are currently poorly represented in

both in research and practice. The primary implicationfor both research and practice is that the �rational� basisof programme management (e.g., the lifecycles and ac-

tivities) represents only part of the equation and needs

to be strongly supplemented with competence(s) related

to the understanding and management of relationships.

Key relationships have been argued to be those: (a)

between programme management and project manage-

ment, (b) individual project managers within a pro-gramme and (c) individual projects and the goals and

drivers of the wider business. Fig. 2, ties these rela-

tionships to the fundamental goals of programme

management.

In attempting to direct programme management re-

search, the principal observations that stem from thiswork are that programme management should be per-

ceived as:

• Contextual. Appropriate programme structure, pro-

cesses and organisation are strongly dependent on

factors such as the degree to which the projects are in-

terrelated, the characteristics of the constituent pro-

jects and the nature of the wider organisation.

• Variable and concurrent in practice. Programme man-agement may operate on several levels simulta-

neously. For example, small groupings of projects

may be managed together in one type of programme

whilst another type of programme may simulta-

neously extend across the entire organisation.

• Evolutionary in sophistication. It is unrealistic to ex-

pect that the programme approach can be introduced

in a �big bang� fashion due to the level of organisa-tional change mandated by its introduction. Conse-

quently, it is more fruitful to accept that

organisational sophistication in programme manage-

ment will evolve and that it will not be possible to ap-

ply some of the more advanced features of

programme management unless appropriate founda-

tions exist.

Accounting for each of the three points above, it isclear that an approach to programme management is

required that is scaleable, flexible and appropriate both

to the organisational context as well as the capabilities

of those applying it. The points related to context and

variation account for the emergent nature of the

strategies on which programmes are to deliver along-

side the changing context of programme delivery

Fig. 3. Typical programme management lifecycle [15].


[11,18]. The point on adaptability in the context of achanging environment is proposed as one of the key

benefits of the programme management approach,

though research on the practicalities of adaptability is

scant.

Whilst ongoing research is required for the develop-

ment, adoption and institutionalisation of the findings

of this programme management review, practical guid-

ance can be drawn from the research as follows:• Programme management is more than just a named

role. Given a range of contexts in which programme

management can benefit an organisation, individuals

with a variety of different official role titles may prac-

tise the discipline of programme management. Broad

ranging communications and training are thus re-

quired in order to leverage the full benefit of the

approach.• Effective programme management is relationship-

based. Programme management should focus on cre-

ating a context that enables project managers to be

successful, facilitating the stakeholder relationships

that support this. In the context of a changing envi-

ronment, it is of vital importance to ensure an ade-quate ongoing connection between the projects

within the programme and the wider organisation if

projects are to remain aligned with the overall drivers

and strategic direction of the organisation. Equally, it

is important part of the programme management role

to facilitate effective relationships between the indi-

vidual project managers within the programme in or-

der to ensure that they work together effectively andremain collectively focused on the achievement of

overall business benefit.

• Effective programme management needs to take into ac-

count power dynamics. Programme management is not

always recognised as being in the best interests individ-

uals in positions of power. It is important to anticipate

potential issues related to the perceived power dynamic

between project sponsors, project managers the pro-gramme manager and manage the relationships ac-

cordingly. In particular, it is important to be aware

that goals defined at the programme level may become

incompatible as they translate into objectives at the

project level. The paradox of goal deconstruction


arises in spite of the fact that each individual activity re-

mains connected to the same set of high-level goals and

often leads to conflicting priorities and dysfunctional

relationships. Programme management must thus fa-

cilitate the adjustment of specific project objectives inorder to ensure that individual projects contribute in

a coherent way to the achievement of the overall pro-

gramme goals and benefits.

• Effective programme management enables adaptability

in the context of a changing business environment. Pro-

grammes often develop incrementally rather than by

design, which requires a dynamic and flexible view

of the programme lifecycle and overall definition ofthe programme. By mapping the constituents of a

programme against a series of high-level lifecycle

states and monitoring and controlling the transitions

between those states a focus on the high level under-

standing of the overall goals and direction of the pro-

gramme can be maintained as well as a focus on how

individual component projects contribute towards

this. A programme lifecycle must provide a clear sep-aration between the justification of individual pro-

jects within the programme and the justification of

the programme as a whole. Individual projects may

derive a proportion of their benefits case based on

their contribution to a programme; the programme

as a whole is justified on the basis of the cumulative

benefits case of its confirmed component projects.

Whilst change control is applied at the individualproject level, the focus at the programme level should

be on strategic alignment and business change

management.

5. Conclusions

This paper has argued that programme manage-

ment is far more than just the management of large

projects. Through a critical review of the literature, it

was recognised that a unique perspective and ap-

proach is required in order to address the cultural,political and organisational challenges at the pro-

gramme level. The paper has noted that the weak-

nesses of standard programme management techniques

can be traced back to two erroneous assumptions,

namely that: (a) project management and programme

management are essentially equivalent; and (b) that a

single standard approach to programme management

is applicable in all circumstances. Specific issues thatarise as a result of these flawed assumptions include:

• A dysfunctional and bureaucratic mode of pro-

gramme management due to an excessive control

focus.

• Ineffective alignment between programmes and an

evolving business context.

• Missed opportunities in terms facilitating genuinely

effective co-operation and shared learning between

project managers.

In terms of the mechanical components of the

standard programme management approaches, theseissues can be related to the insistence on a rigid pro-

gramme hierarchy; the assumption of a linear pro-

gramme lifecycle; and utilisation of a set of tools and

techniques that are functionally indistinct from their

project management equivalents. It is our contention

that what is required to address these issues is pro-

gramme management research and practice that fo-

cuses on the management of relationships and enablesthe incremental development of a programme over

time.

References

[1] Evaristo R, van Fenema PC. A typology of project management:

emergence and the evolution of new forms. Int J Project Manage

1999;17(5):271–81.

[2] Van Der Merwe AP. Multi-project management – organisational

control. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(4):223–223.

[3] Senior B. Organisational change. Harlow, UK: Prentice-Hall;

1997.

[4] Kerzner H, Cleland DI. Project/matrix management policy and

strategy. New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold; 1985.

[5] Payne JH. Management of multiple simultaneous projects: a state-

of-the-art review. Int J Project Manage 1995;17(1):55–9.

[6] Platje A, Seidel H. Breakthrough in multiproject management:

how to escape the vicious circle of planning and control. Int J

Project Manage 1993;11(4):209–13.

[7] Pellegrini S. Programme Management: organising project based

change. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(3):141–9.

[8] OGC. Managing successful programmes. Office of Government

Commerce; 1999.

[9] McElroy W. Implementing strategic change through projects. Int

J Project Manage 1996;14(6):325–9.

[10] Pellegrini S, Bowman C. Implementing strategy through projects.

Long Range Planning 1994;27(4):125–32.

[11] Grundy T. Strategy implementation and project management. Int


[12] Cooper KG, Lyneis JM, Bryant B. Learning to learn, from past to

future. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(1):213–9.

[13] Cooke Davies T. The �real� success factors on projects. Int J

Project Manage 2002;20(3):185–90.

[14] Gray RJ. Alternative approaches to programme management. Int


[15] Haughey D. A perspective on programme management. Project

Smart Website; 2001.

[16] Strange G. Programme management in IBM. The Programme

Management Group; 2001.

[17] Partington D. The project management of organisational change.

Int J Project Manage 1996;14(1):13–21.

[18] Thiry M. Combining value and programme management into an

effective programme management model. Int J Project Manage

2002;20(3):221–7.

[19] Gray RJ, Bamford PJ. Issues in programme integration. Int J

Project Manage 1999;17(6):361–6.

[20] Reiss G. Programme management demystified: managing multiple

projects successfully. London: E&FN Spon; 1996.


[21] Levene RJ, Braganza A. Controlling the work-scope in organi-

sational transformation: a programme management approach. Int


[22] Mintzberg H, Waters JA. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent.

Strategic Manage J 1985;6(3):257–72.

[23] Eskerod P. Meaning and action in multi-project environment:

understanding a multi-project environment by means of meta-

phors and basic assumptions. Int J Project Manage 1996;14(2):61–

5.

[24] Lord A. Implementing strategy through project management.

Long Range Planning 1993;26(1):76–85.

[25] Halachami A, Holtzer M. Merit pay, performance, targeting and

productivity. Rev Personnel Admin 1987;7:80–91.

[26] Moss-Kanter R. When giants learn to dance. London: Unwin

Paperbacks; 1989.

[27] Frame JD. Managing projects in organisations. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass; 1995.

[28] Gareis R. May the PMBOK Guide be challenged by the new

programme management paradigm? In Proceedings of the 30th

PMI seminars and symposium. Newton Square, PA: PMI HQ

Publishing; 1999.

[29] Sharad D. Management by projects, an ideological breakthrough.

Project Manage J 1986;(March):61–3.

[30] Payne JH, Turner JR. Company-wide project management: the

planning and control of programmes of projects of different type.

Int J Project Manage 1998;17(1):55–9.

Documents

Programme Management - A Critical Review