Program Management in Civil Engineering

(Under Construction)

See also

See also Project Execution, Project Development, Project Definition, Project Life Cycle and Phase Models, Project Delivery Methods.

See also 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 as project management was applied to more and more complex projects, to the management of strategic objectives, and to the management of multiple interrelated endeavours to produce strategic benefits. It is now generally agreed that programs are significant undertakings consisting of multiple actions spanning multiple business areas and that they are generally complex.

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

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 of projects.

Traditionally, most organizations undertake projects as part of their work. Mostly, these projects are treated as separate entities, independent from each other. They are often generated within a business unit and managed with that unit’s resources. Larger projects undertaken either for external clients or for strategic purposes are usually managed on an ad hoc basis by a dedicated team.

In this aspirational vision, however, civil engineers practice in mature organizations that use programs to execute projects and deliver intended benefits.

Programs can either be “vision-led”, driven by strategy and organizational mission, or “emergent”, representing an expedient or convenient grouping of existing projects.

Semantic framework

No significant semantic issues were identified for this topic, although one author (Grasso) in the CMAA discussion below argues there is a prevalent misconception that equates 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, and for describing knowledge components and knowledge architecture. The key aspect of civil engineering knowledge is its hierarchical structure and the process / sequential nature in which knowledge is developed and, most importantly, how it is applied. Its models are grounded in underlying knowledge domains.

Knowledge models can be developed as ontologies or taxonomies, with critical differences:

• Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification without necessarily requiring a hierarchical structure. Taxonomies are not very useful for problem solving outside of formal education.
• Ontologies concern the basic nature, essential properties, and relationships. Professions like civil engineering construct ontologies to limit complexity and organize information and thereby increase the value of knowledge for solving problems.

Civil engineers are skilled at constructing engineering ontologies that control complexity, organize data, produce information and knowledge. These ontologies are useful for solving engineering problems, sequencing critical decisions, and sharing and reusing knowledge. This allows civil engineers to demonstrate mastery of the professional role in project execution and delivery.

Given this development, an onto-logic knowledge model for civil-engineering programs requires:

• The underlying knowledge framework for CE projects, and
• The overlaying Program Execution Outcomes. [Note 1]

Logical framework

The logical framework for civil-engineering programs has several key concepts:

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

Top of current page

Practice frameworks in Program Management

Four “components” can be identified as essential to the practice of program management:

• Decision management
• Governance
• Stakeholder management
• 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 a newer area of development that requires both a learning cycle (decision-making process) and a performance cycle (decision realization process). Program managers understand that decision-making is not just about tools, but about making the right choices based on objectives that have been agreed upon and can be measured within a performance framework.

There are four key program components: decision management, program governance, stakeholder management and benefits management.

Programs, like projects, have life cycles: **Formulation**, **Organization**, **Deployment**, **Appraisal**, and **Dissolution**.

The formulation process enables the program team, its sponsors and other key stakeholders to achieve agreement on the benefits that the program must realize and how they will be assessed within a performance framework. Formulation is a learning cycle of strategic decision-making in which stakeholders agree the objectives, critical success factors and measures of success for the program.

Formulation, organization, deployment and appraisal are linked through an iterative process where the program is progressively developed while continually verifying benefits and value realization. Program termination occurs using pre-determined criteria / performance frameworks and on the basis of significant data defined at the formulation and organization stages.

PMI Definition of Program Management

More recently, PMI work has defined Program Management as:

"the centralized, coordinated management of a program to achieve the program’s strategic objectives and benefits", emphasizing programs’ long-term benefit orientation, strategic nature, and the challenge of integrating and coordinating a complex network of resources.

Program Management Rationale

• Modern project management emerged in the mid-20th century. At that time, “project” and “program” management were often used interchangeably – a project-centric notion of program management.
• As project management was applied more broadly, it became evident that managing multiple projects is more complex than managing a single project or even a simple portfolio. Issues arise in coordination, overall control, and management capacity and capability for the program versus individual projects. Program management emerged as a way to integrate management of related projects so that performance exceeds what would be feasible if projects were managed separately.

While program management is similar to portfolio management, they are not the same. A common misconception is that program management is simply a scaled-up version of project management.

• Lycett et al. argue programs create value by executing projects more efficiently than in isolation, while portfolios exist primarily to enable individual projects to reach their objectives. Program management is about both effectiveness and efficiency and can apply equally to business and policy / legislative goals, e.g. public works programs under FHWA or FTA.
• As project management became more integrated as a method for implementing strategic objectives through “hard” projects, it was also applied to less tangible or shifting objectives inherent in organizational change. Project management is increasingly used as an organizational design model (cross-functional project teams).

The main rationale for Program Management (PgM) as a separate discipline is to organize independent project execution in a coherent manner and:

• apply learning across projects,
• realign projects to changing objectives and strategies,
• and add value at the program layer.

Many practitioners still see programs only as “projects plus more Gantt charts”. However, in multi-project environments the key challenge is often managing limited or critical resource pools.

Program management goes beyond portfolio techniques that focus mainly on common resources and finance. In practice, many organizations do not treat project initiation or termination as part of Program Management, but in reality:

Programs exist prior to many specific projects, and they serve as vehicles for developing, initiating, controlling, and sometimes terminating projects that do not offer acceptable prospects of success or risk profiles.

Programs also:

• align multiple projects with major objectives,
• transfer knowledge between projects,
• adapt strategies to subtle shifts in program-layer goals,
• and mediate conflicts between sponsors and project-level stakeholders.

Programs arise to manage business cases and processes for initiating projects, allocating resources, sequencing work, and balancing the often competing interests of program sponsors and project stakeholders.

Programs also offer more specialized forms of control, namely **oversight**, beyond ordinary project controls. Programs have archetypal configurations, life cycles and phasing.

Program Management Roles

(Under construction.)

CMAA Definition of Program Management

The CMAA (2006) definition of Program Management is:

"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."

CMAA emphasizes that:

• Program management is a **management technique** within construction.
• Management techniques differ from project delivery methods:

 * A project delivery method is “a comprehensive process of assigning the contractual responsibilities for designing and constructing a project”.  
 * A management technique or method is “a method of managing design and construction services”.

Grasso argues there is a common misconception that management techniques and project delivery methods are logically equivalent.

Commentary:

(Under construction.)

ISO Definition of Program Management

Commentary:

(Under construction.)

ASCE Definition of Program Management

Commentary:

(Under construction.)

Top of current page

Legislative framework for Program Management

Top of current page

Regulatory framework for Program Management

"Managing for results" – the idea that empirical performance data should guide public managers’ decision-making – has framed much of the discussion about management in public and non-profit agencies in the United States since the 1990s.

(Under construction.)

Further Guidance

(Under construction.)

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, in an exercise of decision authority, determines whether the project goes forward. This decision is often made in the context of authorizing the project to transition to the next life cycle phase and is supported by a number of reviews. Programs constitute the missing link between enterprise-level strategy and the projects and operations that will enable the program to meet stakeholder expectations and deliver value."

Top of current page

Limitations of the definition

(Under construction.)

Beneficial Outcomes

Commentary:

(Under construction.)

See also

• J. LeRoy Ward, Program Management Complexity: A Competency Model. Auerbach Publications, 2011. Print ISBN 978-1-4398-5111-1, eBook ISBN 978-1-4398-5112-8.
• Wikipedia article on Program management (largely "project-centric" as discussed above).

Top of current page

Notes

• [Note 1] Onto-logic model for programs builds on the knowledge framework for civil-engineering projects and the program execution outcomes.
• [Note 2] Pellegrinelli & Bowman (1994) as cited in Pellegrinelli (1997) – program approach to managing interdependence between projects and strategy implementation.
• [Note 3] Pellegrinelli (1997) – programs as vehicles for initiating/terminating projects and balancing sponsor/stakeholder interests.