Section A
Programme Management – What's in A Name?
Potato – patata, tomato – tamata, project manager – programme manager: just words and pronunciation or a real difference? Ask many practitioners what the difference is and they will answer: “The salary…”. So, to a practicing programme manager what is the difference and is it important? Never mind going into what is a programme manager or a portfolio manager.
From the experience of the principal author of this section1, managing both major projects and major programmes across several industries, the conclusion is that the academic differentiation can be useful. It articulates the fact there is a difference and that different skills and approaches are necessary. However, in reality, projects and programmes are intertwined at several levels, in all but the simplest of situations.
Consider the design and build of a highly complex navy warship. In itself it would seem an easy case to define, being a classic design, manufacture, assemble, commission, and handover project. You start with a concept and end up with a very definable end product – a warship. However, the ship is part of a broader programme of defence capability acquisition that will comprise aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, logistics ships and all manner of other associated materiel. These together will form an overall programme, with each element playing a part in the whole. So what seems like a straightforward major project is actually part of a larger programme. Further, given that a new warship itself will be in design and production for some five years, and then operate with a twenty‐five‐year design life, it in its own right is part of a programme of, in the jargon of the trade, ‘incremental capability acquisition’. So according to funding and capability trade‐offs, new capabilities will be added to the scope of the build over time. The ship, therefore, incrementally acquires capability from the very start, each period bringing a more capable ship at the end of the period than at the start. Thus, is the ship itself a project or a programme? It becomes clear that there are nested programmes: an overall programme of defence capability at the overall navy level, as well as a programme of activity to incrementally acquire capability in each specific element of the programme (namely, the ship). There is also undoubtedly a major project as well, in terms of the design, build and commission of a warship.
There are similarities and parallels here with a large corporation having branches right across the UK embarking on a programme of continuous improvement (capability acquisition), in order to stay competitive. This might involve projects such as introducing new products, installation and upgrading equipment, office refurbishments, enhancing the marketing capability, overhauling procedures, updating the website for each branch, and so on. Clearly, an overall programme made up of a collection of projects, some of which might be programmes of work in their own right. All of them will be aligned to the long‐term strategy of the organization and will focus on long‐term outcomes and benefits.
Railway infrastructure provides another perspective. There are two basic components to rail infrastructure. The first is capacity, route, and linespeed improvements (getting more people more quickly to more places), and the second is infrastructure renewal (keeping what you have reliable and safe). Both require major projects, such as Thameslink or Kings Cross, but also programmes such as track renewals or signalling renewals. Thus, there is a capability acquisition programme for the overall railway including major programmes such as Crossrail. However, Crossrail itself is a programme of incremental capability acquisition. This sounds remarkably familiar, as indeed it is. It is no different in principle to the defense model.
The national programme of track renewals at Network Rail has some unique characteristics. Firstly, there is no end to the programme – literally. It even puts painting the Forth Bridge in the minor league of epics. Track renewals have been conducted as a rolling programme for over a hundred years and will continue as long as the railway operates. This is quite different to the defence environment where there are long programme durations, of the order of five to ten years, but not endless. Secondly, the programme of work spanned the length and breadth of the UK, from North Scotland to Cornwall and from West Wales to Dover. Thirdly, there existed a legacy of internal and supply chain arrangements. Each individually had a rationale and logic at some time, but there was no current guiding mind or coherent rationale. Those were some of the conclusions of interpreting the work involved in the programme.
A programme of the dimensions of Network Rail's cannot be managed as a whole. Therefore, as with large projects, it had to be broken down into smaller chunks; in this case geographically into five regions, with a senior programme manager in charge of each region. This provides ownership of the five regional programmes that can be planned and executed. The next step was to align the activities of Switch and Crossing Renewal (S&C) and Plain Line (PL) track renewal. Historically, these had been separated as they have different characteristics; S&C being more like mini projects with design, manufacturing, installation and commissioning, whereas PL renewals are more of a production line of standard components. The regions are aligned to be accountable for delivering both in an integrated plan, and the supply chain is aligned to the same arrangement. Lastly, an endless programme needs a motivating mechanism. This is achieved by means of a balanced scorecard of key success factors that are evaluated on an annual basis. Thus, the regions compete with each other every year and similarly for the contractors. It also brings clarity as to what is important, i.e. the dimensions of safety, installed quality, volume delivered, impact of the operational railway and cost efficiency.
Those alterations were the translation of the interpretation of the circumstances and environment into tangible changes. The changes brought ownership and effectiveness into a very disparate programme of works; annual key success factors, that drove competition and performance and brought clarity of vision to an otherwise endless rolling programme of works.
1 Programme Management Conclusions
1.1
Conclusion number one for the practicing programme manager – is that it is about shades of grey and in particular, how to manage and succeed in an environment that is shades of grey. The conclusion from being involved in project and programme management benchmarking is that, for the most part, the only answer to typical benchmarking questions is: ‘it depends…’. For example, consider a typical set of questions:
- What is the most effective contracting strategy – for example, fixed price, target cost, fixed fee and so on?
- Do you insource or outsource design?
- Do you employ delivery partners?
- Which construction design and management regulations roles do you fulfill?
In each case the answer will vary; fixed price is often useful in an open market like civil construction for offices or footbridges. However, a framework contract may be more appropriate in a more specialised market like rail signalling works. Insourcing or outsourcing design, or the use of a delivery partner, is likely to be dependent on in‐house capability. The amount of capable management that is available, the volume of activity and the volatility of the workload are the determining factors. At a regional level rail infrastructure is prone to peaks of workload, and it certainly is in the shipbuilding and power businesses. Consequently, depending on the contracting strategy, the roles of each part of the supply chain and the nature of the project, the various CDM roles will be discharged in a variety of ways. So the answer is nearly always – it depends. There is unlikely to be a correct answer; it is more likely to be a best answer in the circumstances.
Thus, there is no universal best, benchmark solution; it all depends on the industry environment and circumstances.
1.2
Conclusion number two – do not employ the strategies you used on your last programme, no matter how successful. Don't do it unless you are certain the new programme you are managing is a carbon copy of the previous one (which is highly unlikely in today's environment).
1.2.1
There is a real need to work from first principles, which itself needs an understanding of the nature of the programme, the customers, the political and industrial context and the capabilities of your company and of the supply chain, not to mention an excellent grasp of what great programme and project management looks like.
2 Summarizing Programme Management
Life is shades of grey, and there are no universal solutions.
That may sound really inadequate, but, in fact, it is profoundly useful. If you can accept this premise, then it avoids the two most common mistakes observed in project and programme management:
- Assuming the contract and technical specification is all that matters
- Applying what worked well last time.
So what does this mean for a programme manager? The conclusion is that a programme manager needs the skills to be able to fulfill three key roles.
3 Key Roles for a Programme Manager
3.1 The Interpreter
3.1.1
Stage one is to assess and interpret the programme that is being developed. How much of it is a programme and how much of it is a collection of projects? Who are the key stakeholders? What is the political, economic or social environment? What are your capabilities and what is the capability of the supply chain and most importantly, what does success look like?
3.1.2
Interpreting these dimensions is essential to be able to create a compelling and congruent vision for the programme that recognises its various facets. Without this understanding it is unlikely that success will follow. It is much more than understanding the terms and conditions of a contract.
3.2 The Translator
3.2.1
Stage two is to turn the interpretation of the programme into a compelling vision that engages all the key stakeholders. In other words, to translate the understanding of the programme into a tangible and clear vision and direction that will be essential to success. Indeed creating key success factors is an essential outcome of this stage.
3.3 The Energy manager
3.3.1
Having understood the programme environment and translated it into a compelling vision, the third key skill is to create the energy (as with projects) in the programme team to deliver an exceptional result. This has two dimensions to it: energy creation and energy direction.
3.3.2
Harnessing the energies of all the programme team is essential, tapping into their motivations and creating an energized environment so everyone is giving of their best. Equally important is directing that energy to the end goal and not to the many distractions and cul‐de‐sacs that litter most programmes.
3.3.3
Having a highly energized team moving in different directions, or in the wrong direction, is more difficult to correct than a lacklustre team.