write an analysis of how an organisation about to embark on a number of major programmes for the first time can benefit from developing a generic model of the

programme life cycle.

Executing  p rogrammes and p ortfolios
Programme life cycles
In previous weeks’ sessions you focused on some of the complexities of the wider
environment in which programmes are formulated. These included the issue of dealing
with a wide variety of disparate stakeholders and the need to understand the
organisational contexts and the appropriate structures to respond to the demands of
these stakeholders and contexts. When establishing systems and processes to deal
with the life cycle through which programmes are created, and ultimately terminated, it
is crucial to ensure that consistency and integration with this wider environment is
maintained. This need for consistency and integration is neatly summarised by Thiry
(2010) in his introduction to a discussion of the programme life cycle, as follows:
‘The program management life cycle needs to reflect the rhetoric and concepts of
strategic long-term management, rather than the product-centric short term view
of project management in order to gain executive management support and truly
be able to support strategic decision management’.
(Thiry, 2010,  p.97)
This statement stresses the importance of recognising that the programme life cycle is
not the same as the cumulative project life cycles of all the individual projects that make
up a programme. Yes, both programmes and projects go through life cycles; yet, if the
two are taken in comparison, the perspective of the systems and processes established
to manage a programme is on a longer time scale and at a more strategic level than
those systems and processes set up to manage projects.
In the literature, you will find various different sources of programme life cycle models.
Thiry introduces what he terms as five ‘generic stages or processes’ (Thiry, 2010,
pp.99-100).

The focus of the stages/processes in Thiry’s model is summarised in the table below:
Stage/Process  Focus
Formulation  Defining the expected benefits (through
stakeholder analysis and [possibly] the
creation of a functional blueprint)
Organisation  Developing the detailed business case,
technical blueprint and operational procedures
and structures
Deployment  Delivering capabilities through individual
projects and related programme activities
Appraisal  Assessing benefits realization and evaluating
p rogramme success
Dissolution  Agreeing timing and grounds for dissolving the
programme and, hence, triggering the closure
process  ( including the implementation of the
long – term benefits measurement process)
Table 1: Stages and process of the programme life cycle (from Thiry, 2010, p.100 )
Other sources provide models that are variations on that presented by Thiry. For
example, the UK Office of Government Commerce (OGC), now provided through the
auspices of the Department for Business Innovation and  Skills (BIS), presents a number
of high-level  ‘transformational processes’ that a programme moves through from its
initial inception ,  which is triggered through some form of programme ‘mandate ’ through
to termination. These processes are ‘Identifying the Programme’ ,  ‘Defining the
Programme’,  ‘Managing the Tranches’ , and  ‘Closing the Programme’ . Within  ‘Managing
the Tranches’ are two broad activities: ‘delivering the capability’ and  ‘realising the
benefits’ (Department for Business Innovation and Skills , 2010, pp.14 -15).
The Project Management Institute Standard for Program Management conflates the
activities further into three broad phases, which are labelled as follows: ‘progra m
definition’,  ‘program benefits delivery’  and  ‘program closure’ (Project Management
Institute , 2013 c, p.9). The propensity for a three-phase life cycle is also evidenced in the
academic literature. For example, Lycett ,  Rassau and Danson (2004) present such a
model with the phases being: Stage 1 ‘Programme Identification’ (creating a vision,
aims and objectives), Stage 2 ‘Programme Planning’ (formulating design, approach,
resourcing and responsibilities) and Stage 3 ‘Programme Closure’ ( benefits
realis ation)—see Figure 3 on page 297 of the authors’ conceptual paper.

A comparative analysis of the different models reveals some common principles or
areas of agreement.
1. The ability to execute the programme—in terms of the project management of
the constituent projects and associated project programme management (PPM)
activities—is predicated upon the effectiveness of the stage(s) undertaken at the
start of the programme life cycle. Depending upon the model used (see the
examples above) these stages are labelled: ‘formulation’ and  ‘organization’
(Thiry, 2010); ‘ definition’ (Project Management Institute , 2013 c); ‘ identifying ’  and
‘defining’ (Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2010); and
‘identification’  and  ‘planning ’ (Lycett, Rassau a nd Danson, 2004).
2. A fundamental task to be undertaken is that of benefits management/realis ation.
Reflecting its importance, some models have distinct phases solely focused on
this topic, e.g. the PMI life cycle has ‘program benefits delivery’ (Project
Management Institute, 2013 c). Some models regard the task as being
undertaken as part of the programme execution. For example, it is undertaken as
part of ‘managing the tranches’ in the BIS (2010) model. Other models place it in
the post-execution phase(s); e.g .  Lycett, Rassau and Danson (2004) have it as
an integral part of ‘programme closure’. (The topic of benefits
management/realisation is the focus of next week’s Key Concept Overview.)
3. All models stress the importance of a formal process to be undertaken after all
the projects in the programme have been finished. Hence the existence of such
phases as: ‘dissolution’ (Thiry, 2010); ‘closing the programme’ (Department for
Business Innovation and Skills, 2010); and ‘program/programme closure’ (Project
Management Institute , 2013 c,  Lycett, Rassau and Danson, 2004). Regardless of
the name, this phase involves the formal closure and termination of the
programme and the instigation of processes for ongoing long-term benefits
measurement.
4. Regardless of the number of phases identified, the processes that make up the
phases are iterative and often cyclical and overlapping. The processes are also
distinct from, though complementary to, the project management processes.

5. The processes are ‘transformational’ in the sense that they lead to and manage
change. This change management involves some formal control over the move
from one phase of the programme to the next, i.e. by establishing end-of -phase,
phase gate, go/no-go decision points between the different phases.
Gover nance of projects in portfolios
You will recall from the session on organisational context in Week 2 that an important
responsibility of project portfolio management (PPM) during the execution of a
programme/portfolio is that of governance.  As articulated by the Enterprise Portfolio
Management Council (EPMC), demonstrating good governance enables an
organisation to answer the question: How well are we executing? (Enterprise Portfolio
Management Council, 2009, p p.10 -12).  In Chapter 5, the EPMC focuses in mo re detail
on this question by developing a short scenario involving Chris, a lead for PPM,
reporting to a c hief  information officer (CIO), who in turn, reports to a CEO. The
scenario involves Chris developing a PPM process map showing the steps to be taken
through the PPM life cycle (see Figure 5.1. p.71). This map is developed in response to
a number of questions asked by the CEO that, at first, could not be answered by the
CIO. These are paraphrased below:
•      Q1  Since we ask that the  project come to the [project governance] council
with a cost estimate accuracy of plus or minus 10%, how often do they finish
within that range?
•      Q2  Do all of the technology projects support one of our current corporate
priorities and, if so, what percentage of the total project spend is directed towards
each priority?
•      Q3  What is the prioritisation for the entire portfolio and what do the business
leaders agree are the top ten projects?
•      Q4  Since all of the projects are approved with a business case involving
project benefits, how often do we achieve those benefits and to what level?
(Enterprise Portfolio Management Council, 2009, p.70)
Developing a process map enables these questions to be answered and governance to
be undertaken as key steps are formalised and made transparent, such as: how
projects are approved/not approved and prioritised, how they are tracked during their
execution (including changing priorities) and how the projects are evaluated at their
completion. Too and Weaver (2013) developed a framework for effective project

governance to optimise the management of projects. The authors consider the wider
organisational context and present a petal diagram of governance, with each petal
representing the broad areas in which an organisation needs to govern (see Figure 1,
p.3). This diagram shows that as well as the traditional area of  financial  governance;
there is a requirement for governance of people,  change,  relationships, viability  and —
sustainability . The core values that enable these disparate petals to be effectively
governed are, according to the authors, having a strong commitment to ‘corporate social
responsibility’, a  ‘vision’ and high standards relating to ‘ethics’. Structures, such as
project governance councils, ensure that these values are reflected in practice. On page
8, Too and Weaver present their project governance framework, which, in the authors’
own words, ‘…  provides a mechanism not only for evaluating prospective projects but
also for their continuous review in the context of their suitability to the current
environment and relative to other projects in the portfolio’ (Too  and  Weaver, 2013, p.7).
On pages 6-10 they provide a narrative explaining the different elements of the
framework. Their concluding remarks are noteworthy. They state that good governance
is very much about finding the optimal balance between 1) portfolio management 2)
[individual] project sponsorship 3) project management offices (PMOs) and 4)
[individual] programmes and projects.
Thus, focusing on optimising one particular element, such as maximizing the
performance of a specific project or programme at the expense of others, can lead to
sub-optimisation at the higher organisational level.
Project portfolio control
As well as demonstrating effective governance during the execution of PPM, there is a
requirement to demonstrate adequate control. The relationship between portfolio control
and success was the focus of research undertaken by Müller, Martinsuo and  Blomquist
(2008). The authors operationalised these two constructs as follows:
1) portfolio ‘control’—selection ,  reporting and  decision-making (p.30)
2) portfolio management ‘success ’  achieving results (the common measures of
project success, i.e. delivering customer satisfaction, meeting cost, time and

quality objectives, delivering financial results and user requirements) and
achieving purpose (achieving project and programme-level purposes) . (p.34)
They also analysed the influence of a number of moderating variables on the
relationship, such as type of governance mechanism, industry and project type. Müller,
Martinsuo and Blomquist (2008) collected data from 242 respondents to a web-based
survey sent out via various project management professional bodies. The respondents
were managers working with programme and portfolio management. Firstly, the authors
undertook factor analysis to confirm the elements of their portfolio control and project
success constructs. Then ANOVA analysis and regression analysis were used to
explore the influence of the moderating variables and, finally, the relationship between
control and success was investigated using regression analysis. Key findings from the
analysis are:
•      Different portfolio practices are associated with different measures of portfolio
management performance
•      Strategic portfolio selection was positively associated with achieving results
•      Portfolio reporting was positively associated with achieving purpose
Based on their research findings the authors make some useful recommendations for
practice (see pages 39-40,  ‘Managerial implications’), which encompass the topics of
communication and reporting; measurement (metrics), review and comparison;
decision-making and selection processes.
References
(Note:  The complete references used in the Key Concept Overview can be found in
this week’s Learning Resources.)

.