Beyond the iron triangle

Defining ‘true’ success in programme management is not as simple as looking at the iron triangle, writes Olanrewaju Adebayo.

Most organisations attribute programme success or failure to one of three elements in the project change triangle (PCT): cost, time and baseline requirement. The latter refers to performance at the point of delivery – with separate attention given to post-delivery success. Programme performance measurement and the achievement of programme success are two distinct concepts, but the former is fundamental to achieving the latter.

There is a common perception that the notion of success from a programme management perspective is found at the point of delivery, with the PCT as tangible measurement. Yet there is a second notion of success, which is found ‘beyond delivery’ – that is the user’s satisfaction, aligning with benefit realisation.

This article is based on research and interviews with programme leaders. It asks: how do you affirm ‘true success’, and what is its impact on programme leadership?

Notions of success

According to Franceschini et al, “you get what you measure”.  Large organisations, including the National Audit Office, often apply success measurement based on the PCT for these reasons:

• Key-user requirements: There is a perception at an organisational level that measures of success are the satisfaction of key-user requirements, using a set of milestones and performance targets against the PCT, which are tracked.
• Approved business case: A widely accepted norm by programme leaders is that their performance is based on meeting overt corporate and departmental targets that translate to corporate success. The assertion that success is staying within the PCT envelope is approved in the business case.
• Commitment: Programme leaders are judged on commitment to corporate targets in their appraisals. An interviewee explained: “If I agree to do something and I achieve it, that is success.”

Most large organisations thus define success at the point of delivery, with PCT parameters as its measurement. Corporate measures of performance win, as they are more tangible and link well to staff performance reporting, which only gives a partial indication of success.

Beyond delivery

Interviewees for this article recognised that success extends beyond delivery, but the constraint of corporate performance-measurement metrics hinders their ability to do anything about it. The reasons for this notion are as follows:

• Reputation: Programme success is a reputational issue with through-life legacy, where the programme management organisation is seen to have a positive reputation for delivering what it said it would deliver, and also meets the need of the customer (an effective solution).
• The user’s need: The end goal of giving the customer what it wants, from a professional point of view, which is centred on getting the desired solution that delivers effects with respect to the present time.
• Capability delivery: The delivery of capability that is fit for purpose but recognises that the complexity of the changing environment is paramount. “There is a huge amount of uncertainty in the delivery of these programmes, so to simply measure their success on a time and cost basis is wrong in my opinion,” said one interviewee, adding: “There is little point in delivering to the customer something it no longer needs because the environment has changed.”
• Benefits and outcomes: Achieving the high-level objectives for an organisation, such as efficiencies, certain types of capability, or value for money for both shareholders and employees. The PCT is not a measure of success, but a measure of delivery.

Leaders in programme success

Achievement of success in programme management requires a leader that understands both notions of success: at the point of delivery with PCT measurement criteria, and beyond delivery, where this relates to customers’ or stakeholders’ needs in an ever-changing environment.

Leaders must display competency in project/programme management, the accepted definition of which is given to Crawford, cited by Gehring: “[Competency] encompasses knowledge skills, attitudes, motives, traits and behaviours that are causally related to bring about a superior job performance.”  A leader that displays a strong causal relationship between these six factors of competency may achieve success – although the consequence of the causal relationship may also be affected by that organisation’s view of success.

Causal-relationship model

The causal-relationship model highlights the combination of attitude, traits, and knowledge and experience. This makes a programme leader highly skilled in dealing with complex programmes. These skills are also reflected in the leader’s behaviour and are shaped by drive and motivation. A person’s ‘attitude’ is an individual, settled way of thinking and feeling, and is influenced by the individual’s choice of action or response to a challenging situation or context. ‘Traits’ are a leader’s intuitive ability in terms of sensing and judgement based on reflection and emotional intelligence. ‘Knowledge and experience’ is the human faculty with respect to data interpretation, and held to be true based on evidence or context.

These three factors – attitude, traits and knowledge/experience – have an influence on leadership skills, which are gained through the ability and capacity acquired through these three factors, and then applied in a systemic way. This enables programme leaders to adaptively carry out complex activities involving ideas through cognition (traits), technical ability (knowledge and experience) and interaction with people (attitude).

The skills acquired by a programme leader will shape that person’s behaviour, which is influenced by motivation and drive. This results in the causality to bring about a superior job performance, as expressed by the definition of ‘competency’.

Impact of success

A programme leader’s belief system, in terms of motivation and drive, is the underpinning starting point for success achievement. However, it can be in contradiction with the organisation’s perception of success and its measurement.

Though a programme leader’s motivation or drive is to deliver to the user’s need, evidence suggests that organisational emphasis on the PCT can override this. Hence, a leader may succumb to pressure and just deliver to the PCT as stated in the business case, even though the users may be unhappy or dissatisfied. 

From a strategic point of view, programme leaders in organisations ought to feel duty-bound to look beyond, irrespective of what’s written in their terms of reference. They must make sure that programme delivery is aligned to the wider environment and still relevant. They must have a long-term view and look beyond their immediate responsibilities to be successful.

The understanding of success extending beyond delivery is crucial, as a distinction is made between programme performance measurement and the ability to meet the users’ needs while also satisfying stakeholders’ requirements. Organisations will limit their programme leaders’ competency attributes – the six factors to achieve success, as above – if the view is only at the point of delivery.

“I might think or know that my programme is delivering the wrong products, but my pay depends on whether I am deemed to have met my objectives. Ultimately, this comes down to what I had agreed with my boss,” explained an interviewee. “So, on the one hand, success is meeting what I said that I would, even though it can be wrong. In a broader sense, as a senior leader, I wouldn’t consider that a total success, because I know that the projects within the programme are not strictly relevant.”

However, if the organisation’s view of success extends beyond delivery, programme leaders will be empowered and encouraged to exhibit and enhance the full spectrum attributes of the six competency factors and their causality. This, in turn, may lead to ‘true success’ in programme management. 

If a programme leader agrees to deliver a programme, but the environment changes around the programme so that it is no longer fit for purpose – even if within PCT measurements – the outcome is not ‘true’ success. 

This tension, between programme performance measurement and the true essence of programme success, shows that the PCT parameters of measurement may be erroneous as a standard measurement of success for major programmes.
 

Olanrewaju Adebayo is a project and programme management practitioner at the UK Ministry of Defence.