Program Actors: Roles and Responsibilities

CHAPTER 5
Program Actors
In the previous chapters, we looked at different views of program management, at

the program management context, at how to structure programs in different contexts
and finally at the key components of a good program. This chapter describes the
roles of the main program actors for each of these program components and the
role of the program manager at each stage of the program. I will take a broad
view of those roles and responsibilities by encompassing the views promoted by
different organizations.
Roles and Responsibilities
It is essential to acknowledge the full range of interests of stakeholders in the

success (or failure) of the program. The successful conclusion of a program,
or its realistic termination, is highly dependent on negotiations between those
Copyright © 2010. Ashgate Publishing, Limited. All rights reserved.
interested stakeholders, especially when changes are necessary. A significant

amount of the stakeholders’ interactions will take place at the interfaces and in the
interdependencies between projects, therefore the recognition of their roles and
responsibilities at these points becomes particularly significant.
Both MSP and the PMI Standard define a number of program stakeholders. I have
extracted eight roles from these standards. These correspond to roles that I and my
colleagues encountered in our practice. Table 5.1 overleaf defines these roles.
Whereas most roles are similarly described in both standards, albeit with different
designations, the PMI attributes the responsibility of ensuring that program goals
are achieved to the Program Governance Board, whereas the MSP attributes it
to the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO). The reality of practice shows that both
are applied and that the choice of one or the other depends on the delegation of
authority in the organization and the seniority of the SRO/Director. In MSP, the
Programme Board is appointed by the SRO who has full authority over it. I separated
the BCM and customer although they would play similar roles. MSP seems to
consider the BCM’s role mainly as that of an internal customer, whereas PMI sees
the customer more as external, having only a needs definition and an acceptance of
Thiry, Michel. Program Management, Ashgate Publishing, Limited, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,
the program’s outcome function; for PMI, the transition is seen as formal contract-
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liverpool/detail.action?docID=564132.
Created from liverpool on 2020-03-27 08:15:47.
84 Program Management
Table 5‑1 Main Program Stakeholders and their Roles
PMI® MSP™ Role

Executive Sponsor Sponsoring The individual or group who champions
Group the program initiative and provides
the investment decision and top level
endorsement
Program Director Senior The individual with executive ownership
Responsible of the program and overall responsibility
Owner (SRO) for ensuring that the program meets its
objectives and delivers the projected
benefits
Program Programme The group responsible for ensuring
Governance Board Board that program goals are achieved and
providing support to the SRO/Director
(PMI: responsible for ensuring that
program goals are achieved)
Program Manager Programme Typically a single individual, responsible
Manager for the set up, management and
delivery of a program
Program Office Programme The function providing central
Office administrative support program
managers and teams
Executive Sponsor* Business Person(s) responsible for benefits

Change management and ensuring the
Manager (BCM) implementation and embedding of new
capabilities delivered by projects
Project Managers The individuals responsible for
managing the individual projects within
the program
Customer The individual or organization that will
use the new capabilities/results of the
program and derive the anticipated
benefits
* In the PMI Standard, it is the responsibility of the executive sponsor to deliver the benefits
to the business, but it is more a supervising role than actual implementation role; in MSP the
BCR’s role is more “hands on”.
Program Actors 85
based activities. The project managers are described as stakeholders only in the
PMI Standard. MSP attributes the responsibility of appointing the project managers
and the authority over them to the Program Manager, which is more effective from
a program point of view; if this authority is not clearly defined, it becomes very
difficult to run the program. I will elaborate on the role of the project manager in
Chapter 9: Deployment.
In the rest of the book, I will primarily use the PMI terms as they seem more
generic and more pertinent for a worldwide application. However, I will use the
term and the role of the Business Change Manager (BCM) as there is no equivalent
in the PMI Standard and, in my opinion, it is an essential role in the success of a
program.
Table 5-2 presents some more specific responsibilities for each of the roles
previously described within a number of program functions. The customer’s role,
as described by PMI, is essentially subjected to contractual arrangements and
therefore fairly standard. One group of actors that do not appear in MSP is the
Project Managers; I will not cover it either as it is well described in standards like
the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2008).
Table 5‑2 Specific Responsibilities of Program Actors
Process Sponsor Director Program BCM Program

Manager Office
Outcomes Define Own the vision Deliver Realize, Administer
direction of (champion) capability embed and support
business benefits
Governance Endorse, Accountable Define Compatibility Quality
advise governance governance of new control
director arrangements framework capability
Investment Provide Secure Manage Financial
investment investment program accounting
decision budget
Formulation/ Program Program Plan and Prepare Set up
Organization mandate charter/brief, design organization monitoring
business case program for change and reporting
Deployment Approve vs Maintain Ensure Monitor Tracking and
strategic alignment overall outcomes vs configuration
objectives integrity and predicted management
coherence
Risks and Manage Manage Manage Risk and
Issues strategic risks programme operational issue
risks risks tracking
Table 5-2 Concluded
Process Sponsor Director Program BCM Program

Manager Office
Change Define Lead change Initiate Measure Control
Management change process change change change
framework activities impact process
Appraisal Continued Commission Demonstrate Optimize Health
commitment and chair results and timing of checks
and support reviews progress release
Dissolution Confirm Ultimate Ensure Lead Control
success accountability meeting of transition dissolution
and sign-off for outcome requirements management process
In a commercial or consulting environment, program managers will also have a

sales role. Since they already manage and influence stakeholders’ expectations
they can help build or maintain strong and effective customer relationship. Good
program managers will participate in client/sales meetings, making sure they know
the customer’s account and understand the customer’s strategy. They are proactive
in identifying emergent project opportunities early by using current projects to
uncover future needs. They will verify that needs are clearly defined by clarifying
existing expectations and uncovering expectations that their organization can fulfil
and then, help the customer develop their requirements to initiate new projects that
support their organization’s capabilities.
Accomplished program managers will also improve their team’s career development
opportunities by ensuring that the core team members gain satisfaction from their
role, recognising their contribution and allowing them to gain valuable experience.
Program Responsibility Structure in Traditional and Integrated

Organizations
As a growing number of organizations are adopting project and program management

as a way to do business, organizational structures are evolving to accommodate
a project approach. Most organizations maintain a traditional approach, though,
and do not use all the capabilities that a project/program approach can offer. In
particular, they clearly separate the project functions from the operations and
focus on the management of a “handover” period to integrate the capabilities that
projects deliver. No wonder then that many research studies show that projects
are not well integrated. These organizations typically use an emergent program
perspective where projects are defined before the program is formulated, therefore
losing the opportunity to integrate the program outcomes and the project outputs
in the business. Figure 5‑1 displays such a structure.
Program Actors 87
Figure 5‑1 Programs in Traditional Organizations
On the other hand, a mature and well-integrated organization will use all the
flexibility and dynamism that a project and program approach can generate. The
program board will consist of the sponsor, program manager and business managers
that are concerned by the change that the program brings about. As the members
of the program team will be responsible for the realization of the benefits, they
will ensure a good integration with the operations. The operations users, under
the guidance of the business managers, will prepare the business for the new
capabilities that will be delivered and give constructive feedback to the program
team. In this sense, the program will become like the value chain described on
p. 51. This approach is more effective when using a vision-led approach, but can
also be achieved with an emergent program if there is a firm dedication to the
success of the business and a commitment to an end-to-end process that spans
business units or departments. Figure 5‑2 graphically depicts this situation.
In the next three sections, I will discuss the responsibilities for realizing benefits,
governance and stakeholder management; each of these will be further developed
in Part Three.
The Responsibility for Realizing Benefits
A number of organizations consider that it is the responsibility of the program

manager to deliver benefits to the business, but this requires authority over
the resources necessary to do so. MSP recommends that the Program Manager
be responsible for delivery of capabilities and governance of the program,

the “Business Change Manager” (MSP), or Executive Sponsor (PMI), being
responsible for the benefits realization and integration in the business. The full
collaboration between business managers and the program manager is essential
for successful benefits realization since one of the main reasons for using program
management is to integrate the horizontal strategic decision management process.
MSP recommends the formation of a Program Board, which may compensate for
this gap, but many programs do not require the increased overhead that comes with
it. The PMI® PgM Standard, on the other hand, makes the following statement:
“The program manager must see that the program transition activities provide
for continued management of program benefits within the framework of ongoing
operations” (PMI, 2008, p. 10). It views the equivalent of the Business Manager
as the customer or executive sponsor, who then has only an approval role. In
Appendix E.4 (p. 89), though, the PMI PgM Standard recognizes that the nature
of this distinction between operational and program management may differ from
organization to organization.
In my experience the traditional handover process is not really effective for programs
that deal with organizational change, and the role of the program manager should
extend beyond the delivery of project outputs. The ongoing collaboration of the
program manager and the business manager/customer is essential, but the program
manager should take the responsibility, and be given the authority to realize the
benefits. Only in the case of highly strategic programs would the role of Business
Change Manager be warranted and this role would mainly entail preparing the
organization for the change, which the program manager cannot always do.
In cases where full program manager authority is not possible, the business manager
should be as involved as possible in all program decisions from the start.
Figure 5‑2 Programs in Integrated Organizations
Program Actors 89
The Responsibility for Governance
Both the PMI PgM Standard and MSP recognize that the governance of the
program needs to be embedded within the corporate governance system. The MSP
defines overall program governance responsibilities as the design and approval of,
and compliance with the corporate controls, governance strategies and assurance
reviews. The PMI PgM Standard defines governance activities as controlling the
program investment and monitoring the delivery of benefits. Although MSP has a
program definition phase, in their processes, both of them focus on the compliance
and control aspects of program governance. Only P2M insists on the development
of the program vision as part of the program process. The APM (Association for
Project Management, UK), in their Guide to Governance of Project Management,
identify four components to project governance: a) portfolio direction, b) project
sponsorship, c) project management effectiveness and efficiency, and d) disclosure
and reporting (APM, 2004). Only efficiency, disclosure and reporting concern
control, all the other elements concern leadership and direction. This seems like a
better focus for governance.
Whereas the conformance aspect of program governance is essential, emphasis

should also be put on setting the program purpose and objectives and ensuring
that the means to realize value are in place. In fact the P2M life-cycle closely
follows the concept of three main functions for governance “forming-performing-
controlling” as defined by DeWit and Meyer (2004) (see p. 65) with the first three
phases focused on defining and sharing the vision and the last two on performing
and conforming (see p. 100).
Often strategies and strategic objectives are communicated in ways that are not
clear and leave a lot to interpretation. Setting strategic objectives involves that the
person responsible exercises leadership by consulting with the main stakeholders
to identify their needs and expectations to define what constitutes value for them.
This is typically the role of the sponsor, who can delegate it to the program manager
when they have enough seniority. Following this process, the sponsor will need
to formulate and clearly communicate the program strategy in measurable terms;
this is usually done through the program mandate which is clarified in the business
case. When a Program Board is set up, the Program Board may take up this
responsibility.
Management has to commit, not only to clear, measurable objectives, but also
allocate the necessary resources – financial, human, technical and time – to
achieve them. The sponsor and Program Board has a responsibility to use their
expert knowledge to assess the achievability of these objectives and correct
any discrepancies. They bear the responsibility to provide the program with the
necessary resources to deliver the benefits and to authorize changes in the program.
This role is well described in the PMI PgM Standard, but not in MSP.
Inasmuch as MSP describes the stakeholder management aspect of governance as

part of the program manager’s role, the PMI Standard sees it more as interactions
at the board level, which is composed of the key stakeholders. My personal
experience, as well as that of many of my colleagues, is that this is an ongoing
consultation process and should be the responsibility of the program manager, with
the potential to refer to the Program Board when additional authority is required of
decisions involve conflict between board members.
Monitoring the achievement of the program objectives is currently viewed by

many organizations as a rigid system, focused solely on bottom-up reporting in a
standardized and imposed format. The purpose is often to protect managers from
any legal consequences that their decisions could have. Such a system can be
bureaucratic and kill accountability, initiative and creativity. In an innovative fast-
moving environment this can make the difference between competitiveness and
stagnation. So, what is the answer? To be dynamic, and at the same time make sure
that legal accountability is not compromised, program governance should ideally
integrate the three elements of governance through a system that enables strategic
decisions to be reformulated to adapt to changing circumstances. This means that
monitoring is not done solely for verification purposes, but also to provide data
for management to make the right decisions, if and when changes are required. In
this way, legal accountability is not compromised and the organization retains its
flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.
Governance is essential to integrate corporate and business strategy with programs

and projects and to communicate strategy to program and project managers. It is

also an essential element of decision and change management.
The Responsibility for Stakeholder Management
The PMI Standard explicitly identifies a range of program stakeholders and

puts the emphasis on sound communication; it also introduces the concept of
marketing; MSP uses the term “stakeholder engagement”. The PMI takes a bit of a
clinical approach to stakeholder management in comparison to MSP, which states
that “stakeholders are people with feelings, perceptions, desires and influence”
(OGC, 2007, p. 48). MSP describes stakeholder engagement as a way of achieving
influence through the effective management of relationships. This is very different
from the management of communications. Some of the supportive activities that are
recommended are workshops, transformational leadership and a range of adaptive
behavioural attitudes. MSP also insist on the changing aspect of stakeholders over
the course of the program and therefore the need to constantly review and work
on the relationship.
In terms of stakeholder management, the PMI PgM Standard defines the role of
the program manager as communicating a vision of the need for change, specific

Program Actors: Roles and Responsibilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Program Actors: Roles and Responsibilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 5

In the previous chapters, we looked at different views of program management, at

Roles and Responsibilities

It is essential to acknowledge the full range of interests of stakeholders in the

interested stakeholders, especially when changes are necessary. A significant

Table 5‑1 Main Program Stakeholders and their Roles

PMI® MSP™ Role

Executive Sponsor* Business Person(s) responsible for benefits

Table 5‑2 Specific Responsibilities of Program Actors

Process Sponsor Director Program BCM Program

Table 5-2 Concluded

Process Sponsor Director Program BCM Program

In a commercial or consulting environment, program managers will also have a

support their organization’s capabilities.

Program Responsibility Structure in Traditional and Integrated

As a growing number of organizations are adopting project and program management

Figure 5‑1 Programs in Traditional Organizations

The Responsibility for Realizing Benefits

A number of organizations consider that it is the responsibility of the program

be responsible for delivery of capabilities and governance of the program,

The Responsibility for Governance

Whereas the conformance aspect of program governance is essential, emphasis

and conforming (see p. 100).

Inasmuch as MSP describes the stakeholder management aspect of governance as

Monitoring the achievement of the program objectives is currently viewed by

Governance is essential to integrate corporate and business strategy with programs

and projects and to communicate strategy to program and project managers. It is

The Responsibility for Stakeholder Management

The PMI Standard explicitly identifies a range of program stakeholders and

You might also like