Maximising value, minimising risk

How much detail should a programme manager engage in if successful outcomes are to be achieved? The decisions generals make on battlefields may provide an answer, says David Walton. Many of the problems created by descending into details and not delegating may be averted by keeping the real aim overall benefits realisation as the strategic goal.

A programme manager faced with multiple projects, many resources and often hundreds of activities must be selective about the crucial priorities upon which to focus: i.e. those key factors that will make or break desired outcomes and where most value can be added or gained.

Fully understanding and becoming involved in details is unrealistic and if attempted, critical programme issues are likely to be missed altogether. The challenge is to identify when to drill down into at risk areas of the programme that need sorting out. Afterwards, the manager needs to quickly return to a strategic view.

Think of the pre-mechanised battles fought a century or two ago. A general would plan the encounter, retreat to high ground and watch the conflict unfold. From his lofty position he could see the whole battlefield and quickly spot where problems were developing in his troop deployment. His officers would then be dispatched with new instructions and ride out to the areas under pressure. The crises addressed, the general would turn his attention back to the whole battle and decide on the next priority. To become involved in skirmishes would risk becoming diverted from the task of overall control, and worse, becoming a casualty.

Todays programme manager faces a similar situation, where resources have been marshalled to deliver a multi-project programme. To work effectively, he or she needs to take the high ground and only intervene in the detail when and where necessary. So how can the programme manager take this analogous position? In my experience there are a number of ways it can be achieved.

First, ensure that project managers and their staff fully understand the fundamental reasons for investment in the programme the real changes and improvements that are ultimately required. Project managers are charged with delivering high quality results on time, to budget and to the brief, but in focusing on the tactical objectives, there is a tendency to overlook the real purpose of the task ultimately, to deliver a strategic business benefit. For a programme to be judged entirely successful it must realise significant benefits over the lifetime of the investment.

(Above: David Walton)

So you need to expand project managers vision by making sure the desired outcomes of the programme are clearly understood by the project teams at the outset. Then ensure they check throughout the duration of the programme that real outcomes are likely to be delivered. If an issue is identified, appropriate and timely corrective action can be taken. Specialised approaches and methodologies exist for doing this, aided by software tools.

Second, create a climate of support and remove any presence of fear. Countless times I have run programme health checks that resulted in a critical diagnosis or a Red delivery status. Yet the programme manager cheerfully told his sponsor that the programme was fit and healthy, i.e. showing a green status.

In a recent health check conducted for a major retailers new eCommerce project, it was clear from an external viewpoint that the positive status being reported by the project manager was a misrepresentation of the true state of the programme. He maintained that his project plan was do-able and on track. But his key lieutenants had frequently told him that it was not achievable in the timescales. Whats more, it was also evident by checking the plan, scope and recent progress, that it would take a miracle to achieve it.

In reality, the project manager knew this, but thought that if he worked hard enough (intervened in the details) it could be turned around. It is possible to get away with this wishful thinking approach in a small project, but not a sizeable programme. Contrary to what many project managers think, most project sponsors, directors and stakeholders will, in fact, take bad news; what they cannot take is late bad news.

Third, highlight and track key programme milestones, risks and issues. In the programmes I have run, we have used a well-proven, systematic and high-level process. This approach entails jointly agreeing with project managers the milestones that need to be promoted or escalated to a programme level. For a programme manager to understand what is going to threaten the delivery of desired outcomes, he or she will need help from the project managers. These individuals will know, in conjunction with the programme manager, which project milestones are crucial. If these key milestones slip they will have a wide-ranging impact on the programme as a whole. There is no algorithmic way of doing this; it is a matter of judgement.

Based on this pragmatic approach, your programme should not end up becoming a battlefield. Instead it will be well planned, structured and most importantly, you will take a strategic, generals view of your programme and only get close to the battle when it is essential. However, if you constantly get involved in hand-to-hand fighting, it will be you, the programme manager, who is likely to be the first casualty.

• David Walton is managing director of Bestoutcome, a management consultancy that specialises in project and programme management. Before founding the company six years ago, he spent eleven years as a management consultant with PricewaterhouseCoopers. Prior to PwC he held IT management positions at the International Stock Exchange and Max Factor. david.walton@bestoutcome.com, http://www.bestoutcome.com