INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Programme management: a critical review

Mark Lycett
a b

a,*

, Andreas Rassau b, John Danson

Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK 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. Signicant 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 management approaches, a number of issues are highlighted that concern (a) an excessive control focus, (b) insucient exibility in the context of an evolving business strategy, (c) ineective co-operation between projects within the programme. These issues are traced back to the two awed assumptions underlying programme management; namely that (a) programme management is in eect a scaled-up version of project management and (b) a one size ts all approach to programme management is appropriate. In combination these observations are used to provide grounding for a fundamentally dierent approach to programme management designed for exibility, enabled for adaptability in a changing business environment and focused throughout on the eective 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 theoretical 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 management discipline within the construction industry. Over time, however, issues have arisen where multiple projects are undertaken within organisations including (a) risk that the lack of co-ordination and overall control will negatively impact eciency and eectiveness [2] and (b) confusion over responsibility for managing multiple demands on sta [3]. In some circumstances matrix structures may diuse authority to the point that managers can no longer carry out their responsibilities [4]. As a consequence, there has been an increasing awareness of the requirement for a new perspective on the management of projects, distinct from that applied in a single project
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1895-203050; fax: +44-1895251686. E-mail address: mark.lycett@brunel.ac.uk (M. Lycett).
*

context [2,5,6]. In this context the foundations have been laid for a new discipline, commonly referred to as Programme Management dened as the integration and management of a group of related projects with the intent of achieving benets 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 diculties that arise when attempting to apply programme management principles in practice. The paper begins by synthesising the perceptions that surround programme management in order to state the fundamental goals of the 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 number of issues highlighted that concern (a) an excessive

0263-7863/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.06.001

290

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

control focus, (b) insucient exibility in the context of evolving business strategy and (c) ineective cooperation between projects within the programme. The cause of these issues is traced back to the two underlying and awed assumptions namely that (a) programme management is in eect a scaled-up version of project management and (b) a one size ts all approach is appropriate. 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 benets through better organisation of projects, they do not in themselves deliver individual project
Table 1 Programme management goals and goal categories Goal Description

objectives. The fundamental goals of programme management can be categorised twofold: Eciency and eectiveness goals. Aspects of management that a procient project manager should address, even in the cases where related projects are undertaken without overall co-ordination. It is believed that a general improvement in management eciency and eectiveness can be achieved by taking an integrated approach to these particular aspects of management. Business focus goals. The external alignment of projects with the requirements, goals, drivers and culture of the wider organisation. These goals are associated with dening an appropriate direction for the constituent projects within a programme as well as for the programme as a whole. Goals appropriate to each category have been summarised in Table 1 alongside literature representative of each specic orientation. Two points are made in respect of this classication (see Table 1).

Representative literature [7,8] [7,8] [79]

Eciency and eectiveness goals Improved co-ordination Assist in identication and denition of project interdependencies and thereby reduce the incidence of work backlogs, rework and delays Improved dependency management More eective resource utilisation Reduce the amount of re-engineering required due to inadequate management of the interfaces between projects Improve the eectiveness and eciency of the allocation of shared resources Assist in providing justication for specialist resources that deliver an overall improvement to programme delivery and/or business operations More eective knowledge transfer Provide a means to identify and improve upon transferable lessons.

(Mentioned in 10 but otherwise not developed in the literature) [79]

Facilitate organisational learning Greater senior management visibility Business focus goals More coherent communication Enable senior management to better monitor, direct and control the implementation process Improve communication of overall goals and direction both internally and externally to the programme Target management attention clearly on the realisation of benets that are dened and understood at the outset and achieved through the lifetime of the programme and beyond Assist in keeping personal agendas in check Ensure that project denition is more systematic and objective, thereby reducing the prevalence of projects with a high risk of failure or obsolescence Enable either the unbundling of activities in a strategic project-set into specic projects Enable the bundling of related projects together to create a greater leverage or achieve economies of scale Improves the linkage between the strategic direction of organisations and the management activities required to achieve these strategic objectives Provide an enabling framework for the realisation of strategic change and the ongoing alignment of strategy and projects in response to a changing business environment (via project addition/culling, etc.)

[7,8]

Improved project denition

[7,11]

Better alignment with business drivers, goals and strategy

[7,9]

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

291

Firstly, the aspect of knowledge transfer has, for the most part, been neglected within the programme management discipline. Projects are by denition transient phenomena and very few companies have developed the means to identify and build upon transferable lessons [12]. Indeed, an eective 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 eective programme management. Secondly, it is essential that programme management approaches address both the areas of eciency and effectiveness and business focus. As it stands, programme management eorts are often conceived in loose form (see [14]) and projects are related only by virtue of a specic internal management feature or features, such as shared resources or common technologies. This approach does not necessarily harness the full potential of programme management and can serve to diuse its value. Whilst emerging programme management methodologies claim to address both the types goals, in practise they are designed predominantly around the goals of eciency and eectiveness. Again, this serves to diuse the value of programme management.

Sponsoring Group
Programme Director
Senior Business Management

Programme Manager

Programme Management Project Management

Project Board
Senior Supplier
Project Executive

Business Change Manager

Senior User

Project Manager

Fig. 1. Programme and project roles as per managing successful programme approach [8].

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 management; 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 dened activities. 3.1. Programme roles and responsibilities One of the crucial elements of any programme is the denition of the programme organisation. The model used within the Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) approach [8] is typical of the designs presented within the literature and is represented in Fig. 1. The MSP approach singles out three key roles: (a) the Programme 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 benets management and realisation processes. Here, the separation of benets delivery from the Programme Management recognises the fundamental dierence between project delivery and benets realisation. Pellegrini [7] suggests a

slightly dierent hierarchy of roles whereby the Programme Client acts for the business as a whole in determining the strategic requirements for the programme and the Programme Manager has overall responsibility for realising the anticipated benets from the programme. The common feature of these and other approaches, however, is that the Programme Manager role sits in a linear hierarchy at a level above the project managers, implying a direct reporting relationship. There is no recognition, within these standard approaches, that the programme management role may be a distinct although not necessarily hierarchically superior 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 equivalent project lifecycles (see for example PRINCE2). The staged programme lifecycle is based on the assumption that a dened input will be provided at the outset of the programme, which denitively outlines the overall direction and make-up of the programme. Consequently, the perception is that the alignment with strategy can achieved by up-front denition of the appropriate groupings and that, subsequently, adjustment is all that is 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) identication, (b) denition, (c) execution and (d) closure. Programme identication denes the overall objective for the programme and positions

292

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

the programme within the organisations 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 candidate grouping of projects whilst in the OGC approach this is deferred until programme denition. Haughey [15] suggests that, at the identication stage, it is important 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 benets, risks and issues, as well as estimates of costs time-scales and eort. Thus, just as in the case of a Project Brief, up front denition is achieved on the size, constitution and projected duration of the proposed programme. The Programme Denition stage includes: (a) the renement of the programme vision and objectives, (b) creation of the programme organisation and (c) establishment of the processes and support structures required to facilitate the management of the programme. Here, the inter-dependencies of the projects that make up the programme are claried and used as the basis for the high-level programme plan, which provides an indication of the sequencing of projects [15]. During the Programme Execution stage the individual project managers run the identied projects and the Programme Manager has responsibility to monitor progress, assess risks and report on progress [15]. Specic activities during this stage include: (a) ensuring that the target business environment is adequately positioned to receive the changes and (b) ensuring that benets 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 evolutionary project management and rolling wave planning, thus providing some mechanism for business alignment. The Programme Closure stage is concerned with benets realisation. The essential objective of this stage is to ensure that the programme delivers the planned benets and that these are fully realised where possible [8]. The nature of this realisation is by formal assessment. In addition, it is this stage at which conrmation is obtained that all projects in the programme have been formally closed. 3.3. Programme management activities A range of dierent programme management activities have been proposed, each focused around the assumption of hierarchy of programme roles and a linear programme lifecycle as described above. The key common areas proposed in the literature are: (a) planning

and resource management, (b) monitoring and control, (c) conguration management and change control, (d) risk and issue management (e) benets 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 benet across a programme of projects [8]. The fundamental dierence 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 associated schedule(s) to implement these projects [8]. In addition, in cases where programmes do not have dedicated 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 a level 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, resource-utilisation, costs or benets [8]. This is achieved via an audit discipline, which examines the activities within 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 dier slightly and the control steps will of course depend on the context. The need for Conguration Management and Change Control is clearly expressed in most of the standard approaches to programme management. MSP, for example, utilises a Programme Blueprint as a means of indexing the overall conguration to be managed, the conguration comprising information about the organisation, its people processes, tools and systems [8]. This follows a common view that all programmes must have well-dened baseline from which to measure costs and benets and that this baseline should dene the overall scope in order to facilitate change control. Conguration management is supposed to ensure that the blueprint 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 and programme plan. Programme Risk Management diers from that conducted at the project level in that it addresses strategic

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

293

issues such as: (a) programme eectiveness in enhancing the organisations competitive position, (b) the achievement of the programmes benets and/or (c) the eects of changes in the assumptions underlying the programme business case [7,8]. The MSP technique of risk management calls for the use of a risk log analogous to the equivalent project-level log [8]. Pellegrini [7], however, suggests that mechanisms associated with strategic management might be better suited, such as competitor analysis and benchmarking. Programme Issues Management has been described as a formal means of escalating 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 escalation processes that exist at the project-level. Programme Benets 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 dier fundamentally from the project level concept, except in relation to the division of responsibilities [8]. Whereas the responsibility of the project manager ends with completion and sign-o of project deliverable (the benets enabler), the programme organisation also has overall responsibility for ensuring benets realisation [8]. One view is that benets management should be entirely carried out at the programme level, making the point that project managers are not well positioned to consider the validity of their projects. MSP splits the activity by specifying a number of key stages in terms of benets management, each with associated responsibilities [8]. MSP also highlights the important point that stakeholders will come and go over the course of a programme [8]. As such Programme Stakeholder Management needs to be inherently more exible and adaptable than the equivalent project-level discipline. In spite of this, none of the current approaches oer a great deal of insight as to how this additional exibility should be achieved.

The management of the relationship between the individual project managers within the programme. It is our contention that all of the problems experienced when programme management techniques are applied in practice can be related to the ineective management 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 by a 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 unmanageable. Two negative consequences arise as a result: Excessive hierarchical bureaucracy and control. It can be very dicult to achieve an appropriate balance between excessive control and insucient control in a multi-project context [17]. Standard approaches to programme management tend towards excessive control, a bias emphasised by currently available programme management software, which focuses the resource management and integrated planning elements [18]. Research indicates that excessive bureaucracy and control has a tendency to create inexibility, bureaucratic overheads of reporting requirements and in extreme circumstances relegate programme management to little more than a mechanism for reporting [6,19,20]. The negative consequences of an overly bureaucratic approach to programme management are: (a) a deterioration of the relationship between project managers and programme managers encouraging a culture of blame and (b) diversion of energy from value adding activities. Focus on an inappropriate level of detail. Large integrated plans/networks are dicult to formulate and have a tendency to become cumbersome and excessively complex [5,21]. This calls into question the emphasis of the standard programme management techniques on detailed integrated planning. By focusing at an inappropriate level of detail, there is a real risk that programme managers will fail to identify the issues that are of real signicance to the programme. Consequently, 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 dierent 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 Standard approaches to programme management largely neglect the need to shape, embed and align pro-

4. A critique of current approaches 4.1. Signicant diculties of practical application The review of current approaches to programme management invites three major criticisms. Which relate to the management of three key stakeholder relationships associated with the programme: The management of the relationship between the programme manager and the project managers within the programme. The management of the relationship between the constituent projects of the programme and the wider business context.

294

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

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 programme management are based on a project-level view of change-control rather than a strategic view of change management, which results in intrinsic inexibility that manifests itself in two distinct but related ways: Programme lifecycle. Standard approaches focus on a linear programme lifecycle. The underlying assumption is that the programme can be dened in detail at the outset and then carried through to a dened closure point, closely managing the programme scope throughout (see [15] for example). In this context, activities such as adjustment of the direction of the programme or addition of new projects to the programme only occur by exception. Although it is in theory possible to evolve the programme in response to a changing business environment, the focus on definition and control of programme scope severely restricts programme exibility. In essence, an insistence on tight denition and clear boundaries negates part of the value of having a programme [7]. Programme tenure. Many standard approaches perceive programmes to have a nite life [15]. This is constraining given that the underlying processes used to identify strategies, whilst planned to some degree, are fragmented, emergent, evolutionary and largely intuitive [22]. Further to this, emotional and territorial sensitivities unearthed during strategy formulation are actually magnied during strategy implementation, which may accentuate emergence and unpredictability [11]. Consequently, it seems ill advised to force xed time-scales at the outset of a programme. An alternate view that programmes may have an indenite time horizon [7] is more realistic if constrained by the view that they should only continue so long as they are justied in terms of business benet. 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 management also tend to ignore diculties that are found at the interface between projects themselves. Competition, for example, is a natural feature of a multi-project environment [23] and manifests itself in terms of rivalry to achieve high prioritisation ratings and/or strong competition to secure specic resources. Project rivalries have two negative consequences: Inter-project competition. Organisations often operate an internal market forces system where projects compete for resources. This market is typically reinforced by individual and team-based performance-related

rewards. The tacit assumption is that organisational eectiveness can be improved by focusing on individual project eectiveness. Evidence from a recent defence, engineering and construction industry study, however, suggests that competition between projects is not in the best interests of the organisation as a whole [24]. Other work notes that: (a) employees often do what is necessary for the evaluation in preference 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 autonomously that they simply do not know what people outside there own team are working on [23]. Failure to harness organisational learning. Although some reference is made by the standard methodologies to transfer learning between projects (see [8] for example), this is not backed up the creation of an environment that actually enables this to happen. What is required is not only a statement of intent that learning should be shared, but the creation of supportive open culture that enables this to happen. In the project arena, natural incentives pressure project managers 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 nonsymmetric in that they will be biased towards the representation of success. 4.2. Fundamentally awed 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 management. Secondly, it is assumed that there is a single form of programme management, equally applicable in all circumstances. It is argued here that these assumptions are awed and have driven the development of the programme 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 lasting longer than two years should be classed as a programme. 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 management is made explicit by Gray [14], who has claimed that a programme, project, sub-project and work package are simply dierent levels in a hierarchy of project-type work activities. This underlying assumption

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

295

and its consequent weaknesses are reected in the various components of the standard programme management methodologies: Strict hierarchical perspective. Programme management organisations proposed within the standard methodologies are strictly hierarchical, with a traditional line reporting relationship between the project manager and the programme manager. In a programme context insistence on a rigidly hierarchical arrangement can lead to a negative spiral of bureaucracy and control. Time-constrained linear programme lifecycle. The standard methodologies assume a relatively simple linear input process, whereby the programme is established based on dened organisational strategy and then slight adjustments are made to the programme as it progresses towards its target state. This assumes a substantially complete and stable input denition, which justies the investment of eort to create a detailed programme plan charting the course of the programme through to completion. Insistence on a relatively rigid form of programme life cycle intrinsically 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 between project and programme management disciplines is reected throughout the majority of the proposed programme management techniques. For example, the proposed approach to programme planning is essentially scaled-up versions of the equivalent projectlevel technique. The eects of this are: (a) a potential tendency towards complexity, bureaucracy and control; (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 oer insight into how to manage the softer issues that 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 nd the transition between project and programme management a huge challenge [7]. Many of the instincts 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 project scope is guarded defensively. This is likely to highly restrictive in a programme context. 4.2.2. Assumption that there is a one size ts all approach to programme management Standard approaches to programme management implicitly assume that a single rigid and highly struc-

tured approach can be applied equally eectively in all contexts. This outcome is reminiscent of one school of thought in the project management domain, which believes that project management principles are universal and generic (see [29]). Counter to this, a second school 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 operating [17]. While standard approaches recognise a number of dierent types of programme (e.g., strategic, business cycle, infrastructure and R & D), little guidance is offered in terms of: (a) the necessary dierence in approach for dierent programmes or (b) how the standard approaches might be adapted to an unconnected-projects scenario. Herein lies a paradox since, whilst there has been an increasing recognition in the literature of diversity of dierent programme forms and contexts, there has also been a convergence on a purportedly generic programme management approach that fails to account for such dierences. The key programme design considerations are as follows: Programme benets 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 dierent rationales for programmes should lead to dierent programme management structures and identies three types of programme, each of which requires a dierent programme management approach. Firstly, a portfolio programme is used to co-ordinate distinct projects using a common resource or skills base. Secondly, a heart beat programme is applicable in situations where there are requirements for regular improvements to existing systems, infrastructure, business processes and the like. Lastly, the goaloriented approach to programme management, which is focused around the translation of vague, incomplete and evolving business strategies into tangible 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 the project type, size, urgency or the type of resource used [30]. The presumed benets of this approach include comparable progress reporting and the possibility 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-

296

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

agement [5]. More specically, 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 programmes, it is likely that dierent types of project will benet from dierent programme management approaches. The geographical distribution of the programme. A further possible dierence between programmes relates to the geographical distribution of the sta working within them. Evaristo and Fenema [1] describe the following programme scenarios: (a) colocated programme, where multiple concurrent projects are all in a single geographical location; (b) multiple traditional projects, where concurrent projects are based at a dierent geographical location; and (c) multiple distributed projects, where each project encompasses several sites either at overlapping locations or else at discrete locations. Strength of programme mandate. The choice of programme management approach depends not only on desirability but also equally on feasibility [14]. Often, it will be the case that the design of a programme may not be entirely within the programme managers control given political constraints of the context, which either force or preclude particular approaches. The programme managers ability to choose the optimal approach for the context will thus depends on the strength of their mandate. In turn, this will depend on the standing of the programme management discipline within the wider organisation as well as the perceived authority of line organisation to which the programme manager reports. Since the overall programme is seen as being owned the business, this may limit the exibility for dening the reporting structures of the programme organisation.

Project to Programme

Improved Coordination

Improved dependency management More effective and efficient resource utilisation

Project to Project

More effective transfer of knowledge, ideas, tools and techniques Greater senior management visibility More coherent communication Better up front definition of projects

Projects to Business

More effective ongoing alignment with business drivers, goals and strategy

Fig. 2. Key programme management relationships and goals.

4.3. Conceptual and practical implications Reection 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 implication for both research and practice is that the rational basis of programme management (e.g., the lifecycles and activities) 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 management, (b) individual project managers within a programme 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 research, the principal observations that stem from this work are that programme management should be perceived as: Contextual. Appropriate programme structure, processes and organisation are strongly dependent on factors such as the degree to which the projects are interrelated, the characteristics of the constituent projects and the nature of the wider organisation. Variable and concurrent in practice. Programme management may operate on several levels simultaneously. For example, small groupings of projects may be managed together in one type of programme whilst another type of programme may simultaneously extend across the entire organisation. Evolutionary in sophistication. It is unrealistic to expect that the programme approach can be introduced in a big bang fashion due to the level of organisational change mandated by its introduction. Consequently, it is more fruitful to accept that organisational sophistication in programme management will evolve and that it will not be possible to apply some of the more advanced features of programme management unless appropriate foundations exist. Accounting for each of the three points above, it is clear that an approach to programme management is required that is scaleable, exible 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 alongside the changing context of programme delivery

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

297

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

[11,18]. The point on adaptability in the context of a changing environment is proposed as one of the key benets of the programme management approach, though research on the practicalities of adaptability is scant. Whilst ongoing research is required for the development, adoption and institutionalisation of the ndings of this programme management review, practical guidance 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 benet an organisation, individuals with a variety of dierent ocial role titles may practise the discipline of programme management. Broad ranging communications and training are thus required in order to leverage the full benet of the approach. Eective programme management is relationshipbased. Programme management should focus on creating 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 adequate 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 eective relationships between the individual project managers within the programme in order to ensure that they work together eectively and remain collectively focused on the achievement of overall business benet. Eective programme management needs to take into account power dynamics. Programme management is not always recognised as being in the best interests individuals in positions of power. It is important to anticipate potential issues related to the perceived power dynamic between project sponsors, project managers the programme manager and manage the relationships accordingly. In particular, it is important to be aware that goals dened at the programme level may become incompatible as they translate into objectives at the project level. The paradox of goal deconstruction

298

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299

arises in spite of the fact that each individual activity remains connected to the same set of high-level goals and often leads to conicting priorities and dysfunctional relationships. Programme management must thus facilitate the adjustment of specic project objectives in order to ensure that individual projects contribute in a coherent way to the achievement of the overall programme goals and benets. Eective programme management enables adaptability in the context of a changing business environment. Programmes often develop incrementally rather than by design, which requires a dynamic and exible view of the programme lifecycle and overall denition of the 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 understanding of the overall goals and direction of the programme can be maintained as well as a focus on how individual component projects contribute towards this. A programme lifecycle must provide a clear separation between the justication of individual projects within the programme and the justication of the programme as a whole. Individual projects may derive a proportion of their benets case based on their contribution to a programme; the programme as a whole is justied on the basis of the cumulative benets case of its conrmed component projects. Whilst change control is applied at the individual project level, the focus at the programme level should be on strategic alignment and business change management.

Missed opportunities in terms facilitating genuinely eective co-operation and shared learning between project managers. In terms of the mechanical components of the standard programme management approaches, these issues can be related to the insistence on a rigid programme hierarchy; the assumption of a linear programme 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 programme management research and practice that focuses on the management of relationships and enables the 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):27181. [2] Van Der Merwe AP. Multi-project management organisational control. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(4):223223. [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 stateof-the-art review. Int J Project Manage 1995;17(1):559. [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):20913. [7] Pellegrini S. Programme Management: organising project based change. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(3):1419. [8] OGC. Managing successful programmes. Oce of Government Commerce; 1999. [9] McElroy W. Implementing strategic change through projects. Int J Project Manage 1996;14(6):3259. [10] Pellegrini S, Bowman C. Implementing strategy through projects. Long Range Planning 1994;27(4):12532. [11] Grundy T. Strategy implementation and project management. Int J Project Manage 1998;16(1):4350. [12] Cooper KG, Lyneis JM, Bryant B. Learning to learn, from past to future. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(1):2139. [13] Cooke Davies T. The real success factors on projects. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(3):18590. [14] Gray RJ. Alternative approaches to programme management. Int J Project Manage 1998;15(1):59. [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):1321. [18] Thiry M. Combining value and programme management into an eective programme management model. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(3):2217. [19] Gray RJ, Bamford PJ. Issues in programme integration. Int J Project Manage 1999;17(6):3616. [20] Reiss G. Programme management demystied: managing multiple projects successfully. London: E&FN Spon; 1996.

5. Conclusions This paper has argued that programme management 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 approach is required in order to address the cultural, political and organisational challenges at the programme level. The paper has noted that the weaknesses 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. Specic issues that arise as a result of these awed assumptions include: A dysfunctional and bureaucratic mode of programme management due to an excessive control focus. Ineective alignment between programmes and an evolving business context.

M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289299 [21] Levene RJ, Braganza A. Controlling the work-scope in organisational transformation: a programme management approach. Int J Project Manage 1996;14(6):3319. [22] Mintzberg H, Waters JA. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Manage J 1985;6(3):25772. [23] Eskerod P. Meaning and action in multi-project environment: understanding a multi-project environment by means of metaphors 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):7685. [25] Halachami A, Holtzer M. Merit pay, performance, targeting and productivity. Rev Personnel Admin 1987;7:8091.

299

[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):613. [30] Payne JH, Turner JR. Company-wide project management: the planning and control of programmes of projects of dierent type. Int J Project Manage 1998;17(1):559.