It was early spring, and I was sitting in an afternoon meeting with two fellow senior program managers from another company. We were each openly discussing our respective work experiences. While describing to them how my role as program manager fit into my own organization's activities, I was suddenly interrupted mid-sentence by a piercing question from one of them – “When I say program management, what exactly does that mean, to you?”
The question stopped me in my tracks....here was another professional in the same industry, with the same title as me probing as to what it was that I did, as it compared to what he was doing!
To me, the tone of his question sounded almost...existential. The question really made me think, and I realized that perhaps, there was something here worth digging into further.
Would such an existential question be posed in the same way for other organizational roles like mechanical engineers, accountants, quality inspectors, or even project managers? Maybe I’m reaching, but intuitively I feel that the shared purpose for each of those functions would be clear enough between practitioners that such a basic question wouldn’t be warranted. Perhaps, mutual job discussions might center around workflow, approaches, product challenges and technologies, but regarding the very essence of the job function itself? I don't see that happening.
So why then the apparent confusion surrounding program management and the role it serves in an organization? If everybody knows intuitively what a project manager is expected to do (manage a project), then why the confusion over such a closely related function which exists in the same enterprise realm?
If we seek the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) definition of program management to help clarify, we see:
"A program is a group of related projects managed in a coordinated manner to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually. Program management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to meet program requirements"
OK, so if the project manager’s role is to manage a project, then the program manager’s role is to manage a group of related projects, now called a program. That seems simple enough...but does this get us closer to better understanding the role?
Through my years in industry working as a program manager and speaking with other program managers, the definition does well to capture the core, or ‘essence’ of program management, but falls well short of capturing how the role is (and can be) performed in practice.
Read a few job descriptions for ‘Program Manager’ online and the listed responsibilities can range from basic administrative processing and fulfillment of customer orders all the way to performing business analysis, drafting proposals and bids, managing contracts and taking full profit and loss (P&L) responsibility for a portion of a company’s business. So what is going on here? Sometimes, the job title is simply not the most appropriate one to use (which further demonstrates people’s confusion about the role), but most times the essence of the role meets the basic definition, but is so obscured by many other layers of responsibilities and duties that a clear trend can be very hard to see.
I believe that the primary reason for this role’s ambiguity lies in the difference between tactics and strategy, and many people’s lack of understanding of the difference.
For the purposes of our discussion, it may help to think of strategy as simply a high level action plan designed to achieve a desired future state for an organization. This is the 'what' and 'why' of organizational action. In contrast, tactics refer to the specific means and methods used to achieve each strategic objective that will lead to the desired future state. Tactics are the 'how' and 'who' of organizational action.
For the purposes of our discussion, it may help to think of strategy as simply a high level action plan designed to achieve a desired future state for an organization. This is the 'what' and 'why' of organizational action. In contrast, tactics refer to the specific means and methods used to achieve each strategic objective that will lead to the desired future state. Tactics are the 'how' and 'who' of organizational action.
Project management, from an organizational perspective, is largely a tactical function; there is temporary work to be done such a new product to be developed, a new company initiative, an upgrade to existing IT systems, a process to be fixed, etc. When the project manager receives the project to manage, its existence has already been reasoned. The desired benefits to the organization from investing in this project have been identified at an organizational strategic level. To be most effective, the project manager should be primarily focused on achieving the defined project outcome. The project manager expertly applies tactics through proven project management methodologies and tools to achieve this.
Program management in contrast is a more strategic function; this is evident in the PMI definition above, in the words “obtain benefits not available from managing them individually”. There is the idea here of strategic leverage applied through focused effort that the program manager is to exploit to obtain greater benefits to the performing organization. Instead of managing independent projects, they are tasked with managing groups of related projects in such a way as to amplify their effectiveness in realizing the organization's strategy. How might this concept contribute to the apparent ambiguity of the role? Well, like strategy itself, program management must be by intention more fluid and formless than a comparative tactical role would be; it is not so easy to simply distill the entire strategic function down to a standardized job description. Each organization and business challenge is unique, and will require program managers to react strategically to the particular scope of work they face.
Strategy is about connecting the dots in highly dynamic conditions to conceive of actions intended to achieve a desired outcome. Once those strategic actions have been identified, it becomes much more straightforward to then select the best tactics that may be used to plan and execute to achieve those outcomes, such as well established project management methodologies and workflow.
If we suppose that tactical leaning roles (like project management) more readily lend themselves to process optimization and standard work due to widely studied and accepted best practices available for all organizations to implement, how might this affect competitiveness in the larger marketplace?
Strategy is about connecting the dots in highly dynamic conditions to conceive of actions intended to achieve a desired outcome. Once those strategic actions have been identified, it becomes much more straightforward to then select the best tactics that may be used to plan and execute to achieve those outcomes, such as well established project management methodologies and workflow.
If we suppose that tactical leaning roles (like project management) more readily lend themselves to process optimization and standard work due to widely studied and accepted best practices available for all organizations to implement, how might this affect competitiveness in the larger marketplace?
It could be hypothesized that the best organizations will adopt very similar best practices and then internally refine those tactics until such a point of time as there would appear to be no effective difference between each organizations ability to execute similar work tactically.
Let’s pause with a brief disclaimer here: I say ‘best organizations’ with my hypothesis, meaning that if an organization does not put forth the effort to optimize and continuously improve their tactical methods, then they will not match the performance of their competitive peers and will be at a disadvantage. Even if strategic planning is outstanding, with poor tactics an organization will have difficulty with realizing their strategy, spending too much money and wasting too much time in the process.
With that said, given similar tactical performances at the best organizations, the competitive advantage will then reside in how each organization performs strategically. Due to the dynamics of the marketplace they compete in and constant uncertainty, strategy will make the difference; namely how each respective strategy is distilled into a specific action (what to do) and then executed tactically (how to do it). If each organization’s ‘how to do it’ becomes equally effective, then over the long term, the ability to compete becomes most dependent on quickly, accurately and efficiently getting good strategic initiatives to the point of tactical action.
The best way to achieve this is to insert a function into the organization that is responsible for understanding the organization’s strategic plan and then shaping that plan into coordinated project actions that can be managed with strategic leverage while continuously keeping actions aligned with organizational strategy and desired benefits. The role just described is the real essence of program management, and it can be deployed by an organization to achieve this core purpose while also performing additional responsibilities carefully chosen to enhance performance across the entire working spectrum of the enterprise.
The program manager, in contrast with the project manager, must be tied in with, and fully aware of organizational strategy at all times, and manage a group of component projects and initiatives in such a way as to continuously keep them in alignment with that strategy. This responsibility should also inform the program manager’s own actions within and on behalf of their organization. For example, if the organization’s strategy is to gain market dominance with a proprietary technology, then one strategic goal may be to grow the total scope of work with an existing customer and insert that technology into more of their products. The program manager, a vital interface or ‘touch point’ with that customer, may then align their actions with this strategy by attempting to develop new business opportunities with that customer through uncovering unmet needs and proposing expansions in work scope. I have seen business development responsibilities given to program managers in many different organizations, and it can make good strategic sense. Alternatively, if this task specialty is mandated to be exclusive of Sales and Marketing in a particular organization, the program manager should instead strategically collaborate cross-functionally with that department to achieve the same result by information sharing and aligning work efforts. A good program manager operates with system level thinking, and should be involved either directly or indirectly with many other functional areas and departmental groups to amplify the desired strategic outcomes and planned benefits of their programs.
It’s this strong link with organizational strategy that adds such powerful value in utilizing program management, and conversely, as we have discussed, it is this same characteristic which causes so much ambiguity when trying to nail down a specific definition or job description for a program manager. Organizations can define and deploy the program management function in an infinite variety of ways to best meet their needs and desired enterprise project management (EPM) maturity level. In its most elementary form, it can be used for coordinating multiple project activities and performing administrative tasks. If used to its fully realized strategic potential in an organization, the program manager can lead programs in a portfolio much like a CEO or general manager leads sites in a portfolio of business units.
In such a scenario, the program manager is responsible for working on the business case, managing program benefits, meeting metrics and is fully accountable for profit and loss in their assigned portfolio of programs and projects. This is the ultimate way to utilize program management strengths, and sadly many organizations are not fully realizing this potential because of a lack of understanding, or other structural barriers. Many organizations are not harnessing the power of enterprise project, program and portfolio management in any capacity; perhaps it’s just because they don’t see an immediate use for it. Like a garden choked with weeds, or a tree that needs to be pruned to grow stronger, all organizations need to periodically review their work portfolio to eliminate business that no longer aligns with their strategy or has become unprofitable. New initiatives can then be added to the portfolio to make better use of resources. Since new initiatives and start-ups can best be thought of as projects to manage (temporary work to create a new product, service or result), then it stands to reason that strategically grouping and overseeing projects together to enhance their benefits via program management can provide value to just about any organization, regardless of size, or industry.
In such a scenario, the program manager is responsible for working on the business case, managing program benefits, meeting metrics and is fully accountable for profit and loss in their assigned portfolio of programs and projects. This is the ultimate way to utilize program management strengths, and sadly many organizations are not fully realizing this potential because of a lack of understanding, or other structural barriers. Many organizations are not harnessing the power of enterprise project, program and portfolio management in any capacity; perhaps it’s just because they don’t see an immediate use for it. Like a garden choked with weeds, or a tree that needs to be pruned to grow stronger, all organizations need to periodically review their work portfolio to eliminate business that no longer aligns with their strategy or has become unprofitable. New initiatives can then be added to the portfolio to make better use of resources. Since new initiatives and start-ups can best be thought of as projects to manage (temporary work to create a new product, service or result), then it stands to reason that strategically grouping and overseeing projects together to enhance their benefits via program management can provide value to just about any organization, regardless of size, or industry.
So what is program management? In the hands of a great strategic organization, it is a real difference maker. What makes program management so useful is also what makes it so hard for us to define and contain; and that is its unlimited potential to shape and be shaped by strategy. Its intelligent use greatly enhances an organization’s ‘strategic agility’; the ability to execute strategy swiftly to stay ahead of the competition.
If you already use program management in your organization, take a moment to think about how you currently use it. Can you further empower your program managers to ensure your strategy is reflected in your organization’s work efforts? If you are not using it, then I hope that this article has shed some light on what the function can do and how it will help your organization.
In my next posts, I’ll be further exploring project, program and portfolio management, and highlighting specific ways that these functions can be integrated in an organization. I’ll also examine how program management can be strongly integrated with other functional areas to increase strategic leverage and powerfully enhance organizational performance and competitiveness.