Mihály Görög
DL, CSc, Professor of Project Management, Head of Department
Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Strategy and Project Management
Abstract
Over the past decade the efficient implementation of project portfolios became of great importance from the point of view of organizational success. Many authors are concerned with improving the professionalism of implementing project portfolios and project programs, and most of them identify so-called context-related factors that are considered to be the bases of successful portfolio and program implementation. However, little is written on how to use the project management toolkit in the case of project programs. In mid 2007 a research program was initiated in order to highlight the role of the single project management toolkit in the process of managing the implementation of project programs. During the research both case-based and interview-based qualitative research methods were used. The primary question addressed in this paper is how to translate single project management knowledge to program management. However, to achieve this end the author needs to clearly differentiate between project programs and project portfolios. Ultimately the paper demonstrates how single project management tools could be applied in a program management context in order to increase the efficiency of program implementation.
Keywords: program management, scope-related interdependence, resource-related interdependence, translating single PM knowledge to program management
Introduction
Nowadays big organizations – both profit oriented companies or public service organizations – are more and more concerned with project programs in order to realize their strategic objectives in an efficient manner. The fundamental reason behind this phenomenon is the innovative effort to renew the product portfolio and to reduce the time to market (Aubry et al., 2007). These circumstances have led to a growing number of projects on the one hand, while on the other hand, such groups of projects, i.e. project programs have emerged that consist of projects that are strongly interrelated during their implementation process. Managing the implementation of a project program clearly goes beyond managing the implementation of single projects (Maylor et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the successful implementation of a project program presumes the successful implementation of those projects that belong to the program. However, studying the efficiency and the associated success rate of implementing project programs have thus far been a rare topic in the literature (Martinsuo and Lehtonen, 2007a). Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2007a) analyze this phenomenon in a very general way, therefore the primary outcome of their research does not go further than highlighting the need for efficient management of those projects that belong to a program. The above authors introduce the outcomes of earlier research (e.g. Artto and Dietrich, 2004; Ditrich and Lehtonen, 2005; Elonen and Artto, 2003; Payne and Turner, 1999). The latter authors also emphasize that factors such as clear project goals, systematic decision- making, top management support etc, which contribute to achieving success on single projects, could undoubtedly contribute to achieving success on project programs too. Indeed, these are decisive success factors for program implementation as well. However, the associated solutions – e.g. how to define clear goals in a program context – are not explored by these authors. At the same time, the reviewed literature does not report on any empirical research (unlike in the case of single projects) that reveals the success or failure rate of implementing project programs.
Most of the literature reviewed during our research takes a general approach, therefore the authors emphasize the importance of a program office which is considered to be the primary success factor in the course of implementing project programs. As we can see later, the need for a program office is indisputable, although the program office alone is not sufficient for program management.
Currently there is no agreement on how to translate single project management knowledge to efficient program management (Thiry and Deguire, 2007). Improving the product and service portfolio and reducing the time to market are of great importance for organizations, and this effort requires efficient implementation of the associated project programs (Aubry et al., 2007). The efficiency of program implementation might be improved by means of translating single project management knowledge to managing programs. In order to satisfy this need, a research program was initiated in mid 2007 in order to reveal the applicability of the
single project management toolkit in a program context in order to improve the efficiency of managing project programs. The research used qualitative research methods, i.e. multi-phase case analysis. Information for the analyses was gained from both interviews and from studying available program documents and associated project documents.
The aim of this paper – based on the outcomes of the above research – is to highlight potential solutions by means of single project management knowledge, which could be translated to program management. By means of this translation the potential for more efficient program management could be increased. The paper is organized as follows: The first main section provides a literature review that summarizes the most decisive features of the present status of managing programs. The following section outlines the research and the research methods and defines two hypotheses and two propositions. The third section introduces the research outcomes, which is followed by a discussion of the outcomes in the light of the propositions and the hypotheses. This latter section is followed by an introduction to the way in which single project management tools can be applied in a program context, i.e. translating single PM knowledge to program management. The last main section of the paper is devoted to research conclusions.
Literature review
Project programs and their management: understanding the concepts
Although neither the phenomenon of project portfolios nor the phenomenon of project programs is new amongst academics and practitioners, there are still many ambiguities in terms of definitions.
Turner and Müller (2003) approached these phenomena from the perspective of single projects. They state that project programs are frameworks that provide strategic direction for a group of projects, while a project portfolio aims at providing efficient resource utilization across the projects that the program encompasses. Lycett et al. (2004) provide a critical review of earlier approaches to programs and their management, and they state that program management suffers from two flawed assumptions, namely they are: a) program management is considered to be scaled-up project management, and b) there is a single form for managing programs.
According to the approach of Gareis (2004) a project program is a temporary organization but contrary to a project (which is also a temporary organization according to Gareis) a program implies a unique and long-term process of large scope. Indeed, these are very important characteristics of programs. Partington et al. (2005) studied the different attributes of program management competence and their manifestation at four different levels, though they were concerned mainly with human related aspects of the problem. Morris and Jamieson (2005) provide a comprehensive picture regarding projects, project programs, and project portfolios
based on the approach of the authors of previously published papers. Morris and Jamieson (2005) themselves do not provide new definitions but they emphasize the extremely important role of projects, project programs, and project portfolios in forming and implementing organizational strategic objectives.
Blomquist and Müller (2006) with reference to Cooper et al. (2000) stress that project portfolios are management decision frameworks, and they are used to identify those projects that should be implemented to achieve strategic objectives. These authors also emphasize that project portfolio management is a governance method for selecting and prioritizing resource-interrelated projects in organizations. They point out that program management is different from portfolio management, though they are connected with each other. Program management in their view focuses on defining the desired goals of the individual projects in a specific manner. Project management is then used to complete these projects in an efficient way. Pellegrinelli et al. (2007) highlight the strategic role of project programs, and program management is considered by them to be the means that brings about planned changes (strategic objectives) in an organization. In their view program management is first of all an inter-project co-ordination mechanism for achieving desired change. From the point of view of the potential co-ordination benefits, the authors differentiate three archetypical programs, such as: portfolio, goal-oriented, and heartbeat. However, the authors do not give an explanation of these program types. Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2007a; 2007b) do not differentiate clearly between project portfolio and project program, i.e. the phenomenon of a project program is considered to be identical to the phenomenon of project portfolio. These authors emphasize that project portfolio (or multi-project) management is concerned with a group of projects which are competing with each other for the same resources in order to maximize strategic benefit under the supervision of top management. According to Aubry at al. (2007) both portfolio and program management are considered to be organizational project management with the aim of achieving organizational strategic objectives.
Thiry (2004a; 2004b; 2006), like Blomquist and Müller (2006), emphasizes that program management is not just scaled up project management, instead it is the governance of a number of interrelated projects. Thiry (2004a; 2004b; 2006) also states at the same time that project portfolio management is a process that aims at both analyzing and allocating organizational resources to projects and project programs in order to achieve organizational objectives and create value for the stakeholders. Maylor et al. (2006), making reference to Andersen and Jessen (2003), highlight the definite distinction between the terms project management, project program management, and project portfolio management. In this way, project management involves managing single projects, while project program management is concerned with a group of projects that have a common objective. Project portfolio management implies the management of a collection of projects and project programs that do not necessarily have a common objective but they are undertaken simultaneously.
Milosevic et al. (2007) emphasize that program management is the coordinated management of interdependent projects. The PMBok© (2009) also states clearly that a program is a group of related projects that are managed in a coordinated manner. However, this book fails to reveal the way in which the projects in a program are related to each other.
Concluding summary of the literature review
One of the outcomes of the literature review is that there is some ambiguity as to what specifically differentiates a project program from a portfolio of projects. However, as another outcome of studying the literature published in the last few years, it might be stated that most of the authors quote basically the same concepts regarding both project portfolio management and project program management and their role in organizations. Thus, project portfolio management is an organization- wide strategic issue that encompasses all those projects that are considered to be building blocks in the process of realizing organizational strategic objectives. In this way, a certain project portfolio is a means of achieving planned change in an organization. Project program management at the same time – akin to project management – is concerned with implementing the project portfolio. This relationship between these two phenomena does not imply that the concept of project program is identical to the concept of project portfolio. We need to bear in mind that the projects of a program are interrelated in some way while the projects of an entire portfolio could encompass individual projects as well. In order to understand what makes a project program, we need to make clear what defines the interrelationship between the projects of a program. The previously cited authors have not given a comprehensive answer to this question. If the common strategic objective is considered to be the only link that connects a group of projects as one program, we can not differentiate the phenomenon of project portfolio from the phenomenon of project program, since at a higher level of the hierarchic structure of organizational strategy (see e.g. Johnson and Scholes, 1993) the aim of each project is to realize the same final strategic goals. In other words, in this way, a certain project portfolio of an organization would be a single project program.
According to most of the authors cited earlier, project program management – contrary to project portfolio management – implies an implementation oriented approach. The PMBok© (2008) outlines clearly that a program is a group of related projects that are managed in a coordinated manner, while Milosevic et al. (2007) also emphasize that program management is the coordinated management of interdependent projects.
Based on the reviewed literature, the following concluding summary has been drawn:
• There is a lack of clear and unambiguous definitions as to what project programs are.
• Project program management implies an implementation oriented approach to a group of interrelated projects.
• The projects of a program are interrelated because of the common strategic objective thus they need to be managed in a coordinated manner. (However, in this way we can not differentiate project programs from project portfolios.)
• There is a failure to translate single project management knowledge to program management.
Considering all of the above assertions, one could say that efficient program management relies on those interrelationships – beside the potential common strategic objective – that exist between the projects of a program in the course of their implementation. It therefore seems to be logical to search for those specific interrelationships between the projects of a program that are linked during implementation. Identifying these interrelationships makes it possible to differentiate the phenomenon of project program from the phenomenon of project portfolio. At the same time, it can also make it possible to operationalize translating single project management knowledge to program management – which is central to this paper.
The research and the research method
The ultimate aim of the research was to highlight potential solutions by translating single project management knowledge to program management. In this way the research work focused – as the unit of analysis – on completed project programs and their associated projects. Our assumption was that translating this knowledge relies on those interrelationships (interdependences) that occur in the course of implementation, and which connect a group of projects as one project program during their implementation. We also relied on the presumption that identifying the main problem areas that were characteristic of program implementation and the reasons for the problems would make it possible to identify these interdependences. During the research program six different project programs were analyzed, and different industries were considered. Table 1 shows the analyzed programs by industry.
Table 1
Programs by industry
Industry Programs
Transport Developing operational competences
(Program A)
Construction Increasing efficiency of resource
Health Increasing operational efficiency (Program C)
Higher education Developing and introducing diploma programs (Program F)
Oil Business reengineering (Program B)
Trading Market penetration (Program E)
In the course of the research work qualitative research methods were used, especially an interview-based case analysis. Both interviews with different informants and a joint multi-phase case analysis with key informants were implemented. Amongst the informants there were managers in a key role (5 top managers), and both project and program managers (managers of each program and project), and sponsors (3 sponsors in client organizations) and key team members (18 professionals). The duration time of an interview ranged from 40 minutes (generally in the case of top managers and sponsors) to 100 minutes (program managers and key team members). The epistemological position adopted by the researcher was both constructivism (i.e. generating ideas) and critical realism (i.e. people learning together).
The literature review aimed at establishing an understanding of previous program management related research outcomes from the point of view of the previously mentioned research assumption and presumption. At the same time, the outcomes of the literature review served as a basis for identifying a focus area for the analysis and for outlining research hypotheses and research propositions. According to earlier literature (Fortune and White, 2006 provide an excellent overview of them) there are a few aspects of managing projects that include the most significant failure factors and the associated reasons for the failure (problem areas). The six programs were further analyzed from the point of view of:
• the organizational frame of the programs (regardless of the organizational arrangement of the projects that belong to the program),
• the scope definition of the project results that belong to the program, and the scope definition of the program result as a whole,
• the implementation plans (time schedule, resource allocation, and cost estimation) of the programs and their projects,
• the control used in the course of implementation at both project and program level.
Obviously, other researchers, based on different aims and approaches, have identified different problem areas. For example, Blomquist and Müller (2006) analyzed the roles and responsibilities of middle managers in both program and portfolio management, thus they emphasized the associated problem areas.
Pellegrinelli et al. (2007) highlighted the importance of the organizational context of program implementation, consequently central to their interest was the context- related approach and the implied problems. Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2007a) analyzed the role of single project management from the point of view of achieving efficiency in program or portfolio management. Since the latter authors were not concerned with the role of single project management toolkit in detail, they emphasized the need for efficient single project management in general, in order to achieve program or portfolio management efficiency. However, these latter authors stressed (among others) the importance of the clear scope definition of those projects that belong to a program or portfolio, and they point out the potential problems that are associated with weak project scope definition.
Based on the literature review (and taking into consideration the previously mentioned research assumption and presumption) we formulated the following research hypotheses and research propositions that provided foci for the research as a whole:
• H1: Besides the common underlying strategic objective there should be other interrelationships as well, that connect a group of projects within the boundaries of a program during their implementation.
• H2: These potential interrelationships clearly explain the differences between the phenomenon of a project program and the phenomenon of project portfolio.
• P1: Identifying the most decisive problem areas experienced in program management leads to identifying those interrelationships that connect a group of projects as one project program during their implementation.
• P2: The way in which single project management knowledge could be translated into program management knowledge rests on those interrelationships that connect a group of projects as one program during their implementation.
These research hypotheses and propositions do not reject the previously mentioned assertions, i.e. the efficiency of program management relies on the efficiency of managing the projects of the program (Martinsuo and Lehtonen, 2007a). However, our research aimed to go into further detail. Ultimately the research aimed to demonstrate how single project management tools could be applied in a program management context in order to increase the efficiency of program implementation. After having completed the literature review and having formulated the hypotheses