In the world, there are two main programme management frameworks, the MSP® framework which we have been so heavily involved in, and the PMI Programme Management framework from the US based community.
We were commissioned to write a paper comparing the two approaches and we thought this article would be an interesting reference point if you are looking to develop programme management understanding.
The overwhelming conclusion of this article is that organisations delivering programmes need to exploit the strengths of both approaches and once understood, they are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches.
The article has been written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP® 2007 and 2011.
MSP® is a [registered] trade mark of AXELOS Limited, used under permission of AXELOS Limited. All rights reserved
No organisation can successfully deliver programmes and projects without an effective framework and common lifecycle around which controls can be based.
Our maturity and capability assessment of over 120 organisations enabled us to review a wide range of processes, guidance and tools that are used across a range of sectors.
- Incomplete frameworks with inadequate lifecycles
- Frameworks that replicate manuals and basic theory but add no value
- Roles and responsibilities that are generic, confusing or conflicting
- Themes, such as risk, that are not connected to the lifecycle or sit in isolation
- Generic role definitions with no application of the responsibilities
- Templates that bear no resemblance to the lifecycle or processes
- Little connection between programme and project management systems
- Portfolio Management frameworks that fail to address balancing priorities
To overcome this, we developed our own Align Framework® and offer it as a fully supported package. If you would like to find out more about the Align Framework®, click here
Align Framework® is a registered trademark of Aspire Europe Limited.
Integrated Assurance is a term that has become common parlance over the last 5 or 6 years. The origins of the concept were the UK government monitoring of the London Olympics. It was such a complex programme with so many governance bodies wanting to satisfy themselves that everything was going well that people with in the programme were almost professional interviewees.
However, there is little definition around what integrated assurance actually is, for those of you that have an interest in this, we have found this useful article by KPMG that provides a useful overview of the “Three lines of defence” concept.
We were fortunate enough to attend the APM Programme Management Special Interest Group conference last week, where there was a tremendous presentation from one of the grandees of major infrastructure programmes and projects in the UK. He outlined how politics was and has been at the root cause of the degeneration of the UK infrastructure over many generations.
I had always thought of the Victorian era as our golden age, but I was disappointed to find out that most of the investment was by entrepreneurs rather than our government, and most of them ended up broke as a result of the altruism, so the only people making money out of infrastructure appears to be the builders.
The golden age of UK infrastructure investment was the 50’s and 60’s – an era pre the dawn of Thatcherism, that was when big decisions and actions were taken on motorways, power stations, schools and infrastructure. Unfortunately it is the period we remember for the demise of railways and not much else, so history has been very unkind to that generation.
It was also an era of nationalised industries and high levels of government controlled investment. Apparently the countries that have the highest levels of infrastructure investment tend to be a little light on the democracy side of things, hence the conclusion that democracy is killing our infrastructure.
By chance I have come across this excellent youtube video which looks at mega project failure and provides an interesting insight by Michael Hobbs into a major tunnel project in Seattle
I hope you enjoy it
Integrated Assurance is a very popular topic at the moment; however, most organisations have a fragmented approach to how it is achieved. To have an integrated approach requires multiple layers in the organisation to function coherently. This article explains how to achieve this integration.
The three tier approach clarifies how the models (and terms) fit together:
- Organisational capability – assessed using P3M3 and identifies your systemic strengths and weaknesses which can be addressed
- Programme and project viability – assessed by independent or peer assurance to provide an objective assessment of the likelihood of success
- Gate reviews – line management decisions on whether to continue to invest in the idea