Basic Concepts of Program Management: Difference between revisions

From Risk Engineering
Created page with "= Program Management in Civil Engineering = ''(Under Construction)'' == See also == * Project Execution * Project Development * Project Definition * Project Life Cycle and Phase Models * Project Delivery Methods * Civil Engineering Projects * Project Management == Basic Considerations == Program Management has emerged as a distinct discipline from the maturing of the project management discipline in the late 1990s. It progressively developed..."
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
= Program Management in Civil Engineering =
''(Under Construction)''
''(Under Construction)''


Line 12: Line 11:


== Basic Considerations ==
== Basic Considerations ==
Program Management has emerged as a distinct discipline from the maturing of the project management discipline in the late 1990s. It progressively developed as project management was applied to more complex projects, the management of strategic objectives, or multiple interrelated endeavors to produce strategic benefits. It is now generally agreed that programs are a significant undertaking consisting of multiple actions spanning multiple business areas and that they are generally complex.<ref>Thiry, Michel. ''Program management''. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010.</ref>
Program Management has emerged as a distinct discipline from the maturing of the project management discipline in the late 1990s. It progressively developed as project management was applied to more and more complex projects, to the management of strategic objectives or the management of multiple interrelated endeavors to produce strategic benefits. It is now generally agreed that programs are a significant undertaking consisting of multiple actions spanning multiple business areas and that they are generally complex.<ref>Thiry, Michel. ''Program management''. Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010.</ref>


Program management deals in both high ambiguity and uncertainty and requires a high degree of organizational maturity.<ref>Thiry, Michel. "'''Program management: a strategic decision management process." The Wiley guide to project, program, and portfolio management''' (2004): 113-143.</ref>
Program management deals in both high ambiguity and uncertainty and requires a high degree of organizational maturity.<ref>Thiry, Michel. ''Program management''. Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010.</ref>


== Semantic, Epistemic, and Logical Frameworks ==
== Semantic, Epistemic, and Logical Frameworks ==
The semantic, epistemic, and logical frameworks for the concept of program management for executing civil engineering projects have multiple issues arising largely from interchangeable usages and lack of definition between civil engineering programs, projects, and portfolios.
Traditionally, most organizations undertake projects as part of their work. These projects are often treated as separate entities, independent from each other. Civil engineers in this aspirational vision, however, practice in mature organizations that use programs to execute projects to deliver intended benefits.
Programs can either be:
* '''Vision-led''' – driven by strategy and organizational mission.
* '''Emergent''' – representing an expedient or convenient grouping of existing projects.


=== Semantic Framework ===
=== Semantic Framework ===
No significant semantic issues were identified for this topic. However, Grasso (CMAA discussion) argues that a prevalent misconception equates program management with project-level delivery methods.<ref>Grasso, Barton. "Benchmarking the Management of Construction Programs." (2007).</ref>
No semantic issues were identified for this topic. However, one author (Grasso) in the CMAA discussion below argued that there was a prevalent misconception equating **program management** with **project-level delivery methods**.


=== Epistemic Framework ===
=== Epistemic Framework ===
Frameworks exist for distinguishing different types of civil engineering knowledge, related disciplines, knowledge components, and architecture. The hierarchical structure of civil engineering knowledge defines how it is developed and applied.
There are frameworks for distinguishing different types of **civil engineering knowledge**, as well as that of related disciplines and sciences. The key aspect of **civil engineering knowledge** is its hierarchical structure and the **process or sequential nature** in which knowledge is developed and, most importantly, how it is applied. Its models are grounded in underlying **knowledge domains**.


Key differences:
The key characteristic in this analysis is that knowledge models can be developed as **ontologies** or **taxonomies**, with critical differences:
* **Taxonomies** – Classification systems without hierarchical structure, useful mainly for formal education.
* **Taxonomy**: The practice and science of classification without necessarily requiring a hierarchical structure. Taxonomies are not useful for problem-solving outside formal education.
* **Ontologies** – Study of the essential properties and relationships that define a discipline.
* **Ontology**: The study of the basic nature, essential properties, and relationships. Civil engineering constructs **ontologies** to limit complexity, organize information, and improve problem-solving.


Civil engineers construct ontologies to control complexity, organize data, and sequence critical decisions, allowing them to demonstrate mastery in project execution and delivery.
Given this development, an **onto-logic knowledge model** for **civil engineering (CE) programs** requires the underlying **knowledge framework** for **CE projects** and the **overlaying Program Execution Outcomes**.<ref>Pellegrinelli, Sergio. "Program management: organizing project-based change." ''International Journal of Project Management'' 15.3 (1997): 141-149.</ref>


=== Logical Framework ===
=== Logical Framework ===
Key concepts:
The **Logical framework** for **civil engineering programs** consists of several key concepts:
1. A program starts with more than one project.
* A **program** necessarily starts with more than one project. (One project does not make a program.)
2. Projects must be related to achieve net positive benefits.
* The projects must be **related** in such a way that when managed as a group, a **net positive effect or benefit** is obtained.
3. Program-level controls must improve performance beyond stand-alone project management.
* The project group must support **controls** such that when managed as a **program**, the performance exceeds that which would occur if each project had been managed independently.
4. Programs may include ancillary elements outside the scope of discrete projects.
* Programs may include **ancillary elements** of related work outside the scope of the discrete projects.


== Practice Frameworks in Program Management ==
== Practice Frameworks in Program Management ==
Four components essential to the practice of program management:
Four key components are essential to the **practice of program management**:
1. Decision management
# **Decision Management**
2. Program governance
# **Governance**
3. Stakeholder management
# **Stakeholder Management**
4. Benefits management
# **Benefits Management**


These components are interconnected: stakeholders’ needs drive benefits, governance structures support them, and decision management ensures alignment with strategic goals.
These four components are **intimately linked**:
* **Stakeholders’ needs** drive **benefits**.
* **Key stakeholders** make decisions based on **expected benefits**.
* **Governance** provides the structures necessary to achieve them.


Programs, like projects, have life cycles:
The **main program guides** and **standards** already recognize **governance, stakeholder, and benefits management** as key program components. **Decision management** is an emerging area requiring a **learning cycle**, **decision-making process**, **performance cycle**, and a **decision realization process**.
 
Programs, like projects, have **life cycles**, namely:
* **Formulation**
* **Formulation**
* **Organization**
* **Organization**
Line 60: Line 57:
* **Dissolution**
* **Dissolution**


=== PMI Definition of Program Management ===
== PMI Definition of Program Management ==
PMI defines program management as:
The **Project Management Institute (PMI)** defines **Program Management** as:
:''"The centralized, coordinated management of a program to achieve the program’s strategic objectives and benefits."''<ref>The standard for program management. PMI, 2006.</ref>


==== Program Management Rationale ====
<blockquote>
Modern project management emerged in the mid-20th century, and at that time, the terms ''project'' and ''program management'' were used interchangeably. Over time, it became evident that managing multiple projects was more complex than managing a single project or a portfolio of projects.
"The centralized, coordinated management of a program to achieve the program’s strategic objectives and benefits, emphasizing the program’s long-term benefit orientation, strategic nature, and challenge to integrate and coordinate a complex network of resources."<ref>The standard for program management. Pennsylvania, USA: Project Management Institute PMI; 2006.</ref>
</blockquote>


Program management integrates the management of multiple related projects and activities, ensuring performance that wouldn't be possible if projects were managed separately.<ref>Lycett, Mark, et al. "Program management: a critical review." International Journal of Project Management 22.4 (2004): 289-299.</ref>
== Program Management Rationale ==
Modern **project management** emerged in the mid-20th century. At that time, the terms **project management** and **program management** were used interchangeably. The notion of **program management** was originally **project-centric**.<ref>Artto, Karlos, et al. "Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view." ''International Journal of Project Management'' 27.1 (2009): 1-18.</ref>
 
As **project management** evolved, it became clear that managing **multiple projects** was **more complex** than managing a single project or even a portfolio of projects. There were **coordination risks**, issues of **overall control**, and challenges in **developing management capacity** at the program level.<ref>Lycett, Mark, Andreas Rassau, and John Danson. "Program management: a critical review." ''International Journal of Project Management'' 22.4 (2004): 289-299.</ref>
 
**Program management** integrates related projects and activities to **achieve performance** that wouldn't be possible if projects were managed separately.
 
== Program Management Roles ==


=== CMAA Definition of Program Management ===
=== CMAA Definition of Program Management ===
CMAA (2006) defines program management as:
The **Construction Management Association of America (CMAA)** defines **Program Management** as:
:''"The practice of professional construction management applied to a capital improvement program of one or more projects from inception to completion."''
 
Comprehensive construction management services integrate different facets of the construction process, including planning, design, procurement, construction, and activation.<ref>CMAA, 2006.</ref>
<blockquote>
"Program Management is the practice of professional construction management applied to a capital improvement program of one or more projects from inception to completion. Comprehensive construction management services are used to integrate the different facets of the construction process—planning, design, procurement, construction, and activation—for the purpose of providing standardized technical and management expertise on each project."<ref>CMAA 2006.</ref>
</blockquote>


=== ISO and ASCE Definitions of Program Management ===
Program management is a **management technique** within construction. However, **management techniques differ from project delivery methods**.
(Commentary to be added.)


== Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks for Program Management ==
== Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Program Management ==
Managing for results and using empirical data to guide public managers' decision-making has shaped most discussions on program management in public and non-profit agencies since the 1990s.<ref>Newcomer, Kathryn E. "How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government?" Public Performance & Management Review 30.3 (2007): 332-350.</ref>
Managing for results—the idea that **empirical data** on program management and performance should guide public decision-making—has framed discussions of **program management** in public and non-profit agencies in the **United States since the 1990s**.<ref>Newcomer, Kathryn E. "How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government?." ''Public Performance & Management Review'' 30.3 (2007): 332-350.</ref>


== Further Guidance ==
== Further Guidance ==
(Commentary to be added.)
=== Working Definition ===
 
<blockquote>
== Working Definition of the Term ==
"Program Management is the centralized, coordinated management of a set of projects to achieve stated objectives and benefits. Program management deals in both high ambiguity and uncertainty and requires a high degree of organizational maturity. Programs manage project execution and delivery within a management framework of lifecycles and phases with milestone events termed 'kill points' or 'off-ramps,' where program management determines whether a project continues. Programs constitute the missing link between enterprise-level strategy and the projects that will meet stakeholder expectations and deliver value."<ref>Thiry, Michel. ''Program management''. Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010.</ref>
:''"Program Management is the centralized, coordinated management of a set of projects to achieve stated objectives and benefits. It deals with high ambiguity and uncertainty and requires a high degree of organizational maturity. Programs manage project execution and delivery within a management framework of lifecycles and phases with milestone events termed 'kill points' or 'off-ramps' where program management determines whether the project continues."''
</blockquote>
 
== Limitations of the Definition ==
(Commentary to be added.)


== Beneficial Outcomes ==
== See Also ==
(Commentary to be added.)
* ''Program Management Complexity: A Competency Model'' – J. LeRoy Ward, Auerbach Publications, 2011.


== Notes ==
== Notes ==
1. Pellegrinelli, Sergio. "Program management: organizing project-based change." ''International Journal of Project Management'' 15.3 (1997): 141-149. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786396000634 Link]
2. Pellegrinelli and Bowman advocate the program approach to managing interdependence between projects and adapting to strategic implementation.<ref>Pellegrinelli, Sergio, and Clifford Bowman. "The strategy process and the impact of evolving programs." ''Strategic Management Journal'' 15.3 (1994): 141-149.</ref>
== References ==
<references />
<references />

Revision as of 17:13, 11 February 2025

(Under Construction)

See also

Basic Considerations

Program Management has emerged as a distinct discipline from the maturing of the project management discipline in the late 1990s. It progressively developed as project management was applied to more and more complex projects, to the management of strategic objectives or the management of multiple interrelated endeavors to produce strategic benefits. It is now generally agreed that programs are a significant undertaking consisting of multiple actions spanning multiple business areas and that they are generally complex.[1]

Program management deals in both high ambiguity and uncertainty and requires a high degree of organizational maturity.[2]

Semantic, Epistemic, and Logical Frameworks

Semantic Framework

No semantic issues were identified for this topic. However, one author (Grasso) in the CMAA discussion below argued that there was a prevalent misconception equating **program management** with **project-level delivery methods**.

Epistemic Framework

There are frameworks for distinguishing different types of **civil engineering knowledge**, as well as that of related disciplines and sciences. The key aspect of **civil engineering knowledge** is its hierarchical structure and the **process or sequential nature** in which knowledge is developed and, most importantly, how it is applied. Its models are grounded in underlying **knowledge domains**.

The key characteristic in this analysis is that knowledge models can be developed as **ontologies** or **taxonomies**, with critical differences:

  • **Taxonomy**: The practice and science of classification without necessarily requiring a hierarchical structure. Taxonomies are not useful for problem-solving outside formal education.
  • **Ontology**: The study of the basic nature, essential properties, and relationships. Civil engineering constructs **ontologies** to limit complexity, organize information, and improve problem-solving.

Given this development, an **onto-logic knowledge model** for **civil engineering (CE) programs** requires the underlying **knowledge framework** for **CE projects** and the **overlaying Program Execution Outcomes**.[3]

Logical Framework

The **Logical framework** for **civil engineering programs** consists of several key concepts:

  • A **program** necessarily starts with more than one project. (One project does not make a program.)
  • The projects must be **related** in such a way that when managed as a group, a **net positive effect or benefit** is obtained.
  • The project group must support **controls** such that when managed as a **program**, the performance exceeds that which would occur if each project had been managed independently.
  • Programs may include **ancillary elements** of related work outside the scope of the discrete projects.

Practice Frameworks in Program Management

Four key components are essential to the **practice of program management**:

  1. **Decision Management**
  2. **Governance**
  3. **Stakeholder Management**
  4. **Benefits Management**

These four components are **intimately linked**:

  • **Stakeholders’ needs** drive **benefits**.
  • **Key stakeholders** make decisions based on **expected benefits**.
  • **Governance** provides the structures necessary to achieve them.

The **main program guides** and **standards** already recognize **governance, stakeholder, and benefits management** as key program components. **Decision management** is an emerging area requiring a **learning cycle**, **decision-making process**, **performance cycle**, and a **decision realization process**.

Programs, like projects, have **life cycles**, namely:

  • **Formulation**
  • **Organization**
  • **Deployment**
  • **Appraisal**
  • **Dissolution**

PMI Definition of Program Management

The **Project Management Institute (PMI)** defines **Program Management** as:

"The centralized, coordinated management of a program to achieve the program’s strategic objectives and benefits, emphasizing the program’s long-term benefit orientation, strategic nature, and challenge to integrate and coordinate a complex network of resources."[4]

Program Management Rationale

Modern **project management** emerged in the mid-20th century. At that time, the terms **project management** and **program management** were used interchangeably. The notion of **program management** was originally **project-centric**.[5]

As **project management** evolved, it became clear that managing **multiple projects** was **more complex** than managing a single project or even a portfolio of projects. There were **coordination risks**, issues of **overall control**, and challenges in **developing management capacity** at the program level.[6]

    • Program management** integrates related projects and activities to **achieve performance** that wouldn't be possible if projects were managed separately.

Program Management Roles

CMAA Definition of Program Management

The **Construction Management Association of America (CMAA)** defines **Program Management** as:

"Program Management is the practice of professional construction management applied to a capital improvement program of one or more projects from inception to completion. Comprehensive construction management services are used to integrate the different facets of the construction process—planning, design, procurement, construction, and activation—for the purpose of providing standardized technical and management expertise on each project."[7]

Program management is a **management technique** within construction. However, **management techniques differ from project delivery methods**.

Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Program Management

Managing for results—the idea that **empirical data** on program management and performance should guide public decision-making—has framed discussions of **program management** in public and non-profit agencies in the **United States since the 1990s**.[8]

Further Guidance

Working Definition

"Program Management is the centralized, coordinated management of a set of projects to achieve stated objectives and benefits. Program management deals in both high ambiguity and uncertainty and requires a high degree of organizational maturity. Programs manage project execution and delivery within a management framework of lifecycles and phases with milestone events termed 'kill points' or 'off-ramps,' where program management determines whether a project continues. Programs constitute the missing link between enterprise-level strategy and the projects that will meet stakeholder expectations and deliver value."[9]

See Also

  • Program Management Complexity: A Competency Model – J. LeRoy Ward, Auerbach Publications, 2011.

Notes

  1. Thiry, Michel. Program management. Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010.
  2. Thiry, Michel. Program management. Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010.
  3. Pellegrinelli, Sergio. "Program management: organizing project-based change." International Journal of Project Management 15.3 (1997): 141-149.
  4. The standard for program management. Pennsylvania, USA: Project Management Institute PMI; 2006.
  5. Artto, Karlos, et al. "Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view." International Journal of Project Management 27.1 (2009): 1-18.
  6. Lycett, Mark, Andreas Rassau, and John Danson. "Program management: a critical review." International Journal of Project Management 22.4 (2004): 289-299.
  7. CMAA 2006.
  8. Newcomer, Kathryn E. "How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government?." Public Performance & Management Review 30.3 (2007): 332-350.
  9. Thiry, Michel. Program management. Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010.