INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Programme management: a critical review

a,*
Mark Lycett , Andreas Rassau b, John Danson b

a
Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK
b
Global Manufacturing Supply IT, GlaxoSmithKline, Stockley Park West, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB11 1BT, UK
Received 20 December 2002; received in revised form 7 February 2003; accepted 27 June 2003

Abstract

There is an increasing recognition that programme management provides a means to bridge the gap between project delivery and
organisational strategy. Significant tensions tend to arise across this gap, however, between the inward-focused and task-oriented
view of projects and strategy-focused and often emergent wider organisational view. It is argued within this paper that standard
programme management approaches actually exacerbate these tensions. Through a critical review of standard programme man-
agement approaches, a number of issues are highlighted that concern (a) an excessive control focus, (b) insufficient flexibility in the
context of an evolving business strategy, (c) ineffective co-operation between projects within the programme. These issues are traced
back to the two flawed assumptions underlying programme management; namely that (a) programme management is in effect a
scaled-up version of project management and (b) a Ôone size fits allÕ approach to programme management is appropriate. In
combination these observations are used to provide grounding for a fundamentally different approach to programme management
designed for flexibility, enabled for adaptability in a changing business environment and focused throughout on the effective
management of key stakeholder relationships.

2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Programme management; Project management; Multi-project management; Strategy; Learning

1. Introduction context [2,5,6]. In this context the foundations have been

Traditionally, the vast majority of practical and theo-
retical developments on project management have been
related to single projects considered in isolation [1]. This
can be traced back to the origins of the project manage-
ment discipline within the construction industry. Over
time, however, issues have arisen where multiple projects
are undertaken within organisations including (a) risk
that the lack of co-ordination and overall control will
negatively impact efficiency and effectiveness [2] and (b)
confusion over responsibility for managing multiple de-
mands on staff [3]. In some circumstances matrix struc-
tures may diffuse authority to the point that managers can
no longer carry out their responsibilities [4]. As a conse-
quence, there has been an increasing awareness of the
requirement for a new perspective on the management of
projects, distinct from that applied in a single project
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1895-203050; fax: +44-1895-
251686.
E-mail address: mark.lycett@brunel.ac.uk (M. Lycett).
laid for a new discipline, commonly referred to as Pro-
gramme Management – defined as the integration and
management of a group of related projects with the intent
of achieving benefits that would not be realised if they
were managed independently. Whilst connected, this is
distinct from portfolio management.
The aim of this paper is thus to provide a critical
summary of the status of programme management,
highlighting the implications of the state-of-the-art for
both research and practice. Consequently, key issues
that have driven the development of the theoretical
discipline are reviewed alongside the practical difficulties
that arise when attempting to apply programme man-
agement principles in practice. The paper begins by
synthesising the perceptions that surround programme
management in order to state the fundamental goals of
the approach. These goals provide a benchmark for
assessing emerging programme management standards,
which are then reviewed. A detailed critical analysis of
programme management is then presented and a num-
ber of issues highlighted that concern (a) an excessive

0263-7863/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.06.001
290 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299

control focus, (b) insufficient flexibility in the context of objectives. The fundamental goals of programme man-
evolving business strategy and (c) ineffective co- agement can be categorised twofold:
operation between projects within the programme. The • Efficiency and effectiveness goals. Aspects of manage-
cause of these issues is traced back to the two underlying ment that a proficient project manager should address,
and flawed assumptions namely that (a) programme even in the cases where related projects are undertaken
management is in effect a scaled-up version of project without overall co-ordination. It is believed that a gen-
management and (b) a one size fits all approach is ap- eral improvement in management efficiency and effec-
propriate. Lastly, the paper concludes by presenting a tiveness can be achieved by taking an integrated
coherent research agenda and recommendations on how approach to these particular aspects of management.
programme management can best be used in practice. • Business focus goals. The external alignment of pro-
jects with the requirements, goals, drivers and culture
of the wider organisation. These goals are associated
with defining an appropriate direction for the constit-
2. The fundamental goals of programme management uent projects within a programme as well as for the
programme as a whole.
Programmes exist to create value by improving the Goals appropriate to each category have been sum-
management of projects in isolation [7]. Thus, while they marised in Table 1 alongside literature representative of
create benefits through better organisation of projects, each specific orientation. Two points are made in respect
they do not in themselves deliver individual project of this classification (see Table 1).
Table 1
Programme management goals and goal categories
Goal Description Representative literature
Efficiency and effectiveness goals
Improved co-ordination Assist in identification and definition of project interdependencies [7,8]
and thereby reduce the incidence of work backlogs, rework and delays
Improved dependency Reduce the amount of re-engineering required due to inadequate [7,8]
management management of the interfaces between projects
More effective Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the allocation of shared resources [7–9]
resource utilisation
Assist in providing justification for specialist resources that deliver an overall
improvement to programme delivery and/or business operations
More effective Provide a means to identify and improve upon transferable lessons. (Mentioned in 10 but
knowledge transfer otherwise not developed
in the literature)
Facilitate organisational learning

Greater senior Enable senior management to better monitor, direct and control the [7–9]
management ÔvisibilityÕ implementation process

Business focus goals

More coherent Improve communication of overall goals and direction both internally [7,8]
communication and externally to the programme
Target management attention clearly on the realisation of benefits
that are defined and understood at the outset and achieved through
the lifetime of the programme and beyond
Assist in keeping personal agendas in check
Improved project Ensure that project definition is more systematic and objective, [7,11]
definition thereby reducing the prevalence of projects with a high risk
of failure or obsolescence
Enable either the unbundling of activities in a strategic
project-set into specific projects
Enable the bundling of related projects together to create a
greater leverage or achieve economies of scale

Better alignment with Improves the linkage between the strategic direction of organisations and the [7,9]
business drivers, management activities required to achieve these strategic objectives
goals and strategy
Provide an enabling framework for the realisation of strategic change and the
ongoing alignment of strategy and projects in response to a changing business
environment (via project addition/culling, etc.)
 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
Firstly, the aspect of Ôknowledge transferÕ has, for the
most part, been neglected within the programme man-
agement discipline. Projects are by definition transient
phenomena and very few companies have developed the
means to identify and build upon transferable lessons
[12]. Indeed, an effective means of transferring learning
from experience on projects has been noted as one of the
key factors leading to consistently successful projects
[13]. In spite of this, knowledge transfer is normally only
given a cursory reference in the context of programme
management. Consequently, it is argued that knowledge
and information sharing between projects should be a
cornerstone of effective programme management.
Secondly, it is essential that programme management
approaches address both the areas of efficiency and ef-
fectiveness and business focus. As it stands, programme
management efforts are often conceived in ‘‘loose’’ form
(see [14]) and projects are related only by virtue of a
specific internal management feature or features, such as
shared resources or common technologies. This ap-
proach does not necessarily harness the full potential of
programme management and can serve to diffuse its
value. Whilst emerging programme management meth-
odologies claim to address both the types goals, in
practise they are designed predominantly around the
goals of efficiency and effectiveness. Again, this serves to
diffuse the value of programme management.
3. Emerging standards
A standard approach to programme management is
now starting to emerge, based on the same fundamental
principles as the standard approaches to project man-
agement; structure and control. In broad terms, the
common themes in these approaches are: (a) a hierarchy
of roles, (b) a linear lifecycle and (c) a set of defined
activities.
3.1. Programme roles and responsibilities
One of the crucial elements of any programme is the
definition of the programme organisation. The model
used within the Managing Successful Programmes
(MSP) approach [8] is typical of the designs presented
within the literature and is represented in Fig. 1. The
MSP approach singles out three key roles: (a) the Pro-
gramme Director who as ultimate responsibility and
accountability for the programme; (b) the Programme
Manager, who is responsible for the setting up and
running of the programme and (c) the Business Change
Manager, who has responsibility for the benefits man-
agement and realisation processes. Here, the separation
of benefits delivery from the Programme Management
recognises the fundamental difference between project
delivery and benefits realisation. Pellegrini [7] suggests a
291
Sponsoring Group
Senior
Programme
Business
Director
Management
Programme Business
Manager Change
Manager
Programme Management
Project Management
Project Board
Project
Executive
Senior
Senior User
Supplier
Project
Manager
Fig. 1. Programme and project roles as per managing successful pro-
gramme approach [8].
slightly different hierarchy of roles whereby the Pro-
gramme Client acts for the business as a whole in de-
termining the strategic requirements for the programme
and the Programme Manager has overall responsibility
for realising the anticipated benefits from the pro-
gramme. The common feature of these and other ap-
proaches, however, is that the Programme Manager role
sits in a linear hierarchy at a level above the project
managers, implying a direct reporting relationship.
There is no recognition, within these standard ap-
proaches, that the programme management role may be
a distinct although not necessarily hierarchically supe-
rior role to that of the project managers.
3.2. Programme management lifecycle
The second key feature of the standard approaches is
their basis on a lifecycle directly analogous to the equiv-
alent project lifecycles (see for example PRINCE2). The
staged programme lifecycle is based on the assumption
that a defined input will be provided at the outset of the
programme, which definitively outlines the overall direc-
tion and make-up of the programme. Consequently, the
perception is that the alignment with strategy can
achieved by up-front definition of the appropriate
groupings and that, subsequently, ÔadjustmentÕ is all that
is required to keep the programme and the strategy in line.
The lifecycle is illustrated in Fig. 3.
The stages that are generic to most approaches are
programme: (a) identification, (b) definition, (c) execu-
tion and (d) closure. Programme identification defines
‘‘the overall objective for the programme and positions
292 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
the programme within the organisationÕs corporate
mission, goals, strategies and other initiatives’’ [ 8,p. 69].
In the IBM approach [16], it is suggested that this stage
should also include the determination of the best can-
didate grouping of projects whilst in the OGC approach
this is deferred until programme definition. Haughey
[15] suggests that, at the identification stage, it is im-
portant to give boundaries to the programme explaining
exactly what will be delivered. Indeed, this is conveyed
within the OGC approach by means of the Programme
Brief, which should include the programme vision,
outline benefits, risks and issues, as well as estimates of
costs time-scales and effort. Thus, just as in the case of a
Project Brief, up front definition is achieved on the size,
constitution and projected duration of the proposed
programme.
The Programme Definition stage includes: (a) the re-
finement of the programme vision and objectives, (b)
creation of the programme organisation and (c) estab-
lishment of the processes and support structures re-
quired to facilitate the management of the programme.
Here, the inter-dependencies of the projects that make
up the programme are clarified and used as the basis for
the high-level programme plan, which provides an in-
dication of the sequencing of projects [15].
During the Programme Execution stage the individual
project managers run the identified projects and the
Programme Manager has responsibility to monitor
progress, assess risks and report on progress [15]. Spe-
cific activities during this stage include: (a) ensuring that
the target business environment is adequately positioned
to receive the changes and (b) ensuring that benefits and
risks are properly managed throughout the programme.
In both the OGC and IBM methodologies it is suggested
that projects are implemented in a series of groups, with
periodic review points following each grouping. In
outline terms, this idea relates to the concepts of evo-
lutionary project management and rolling wave plan-
ning, thus providing some mechanism for business
alignment.
The Programme Closure stage is concerned with
benefits realisation. The essential objective of this stage
is to ensure that the programme delivers the planned
benefits and that these are fully realised where possible
[8]. The nature of this realisation is by formal assess-
ment. In addition, it is this stage at which confirmation
is obtained that all projects in the programme have been
formally closed.
3.3. Programme management activities
A range of different programme management activi-
ties have been proposed, each focused around the as-
sumption of hierarchy of programme roles and a linear
programme lifecycle as described above. The key com-
mon areas proposed in the literature are: (a) planning
and resource management, (b) monitoring and control,
(c) configuration management and change control, (d)
risk and issue management (e) benefits management,
and (f) stakeholder management.
The principle objective of Programme Planning and
Resource Management is to organise work in a way that
accomplishes the programme objectives and achieves
benefit across a programme of projects [8]. The funda-
mental difference between this activity and project
planning is that the activity is not just the organisation
of many inter-related projects but also includes the
maximisation and utilisation of the resources and asso-
ciated schedule(s) to implement these projects [8]. In
addition, in cases where programmes do not have ded-
icated resources, resource management may be applied
at the organisational level [5]. Pellegrini [7] makes the
point that the practice of applying a rigid critical path
through a programme network (as would be implied by
the more standard programme planning approaches)
may not be advisable. This is based on a view that there
is often no single, clear outcome for a programme and a
level of intuition is required.
Programme Monitoring and Control involves tracking
progress on individual projects and taking action as and
when required [7]. The essential purpose is to alert the
programme manager to any project interdependencies
that are becoming critical in terms of delivery date, re-
source-utilisation, costs or benefits [8]. This is achieved
via an audit discipline, which examines the activities
within the programme with the intent of establishing
how closely they conform to internal standards and
procedures or external codes of practice [8]. In many
ways, the programme monitoring and control discipline
is analogous with the project management discipline,
albeit that the reporting structures may differ slightly
and the control steps will of course depend on the
context.
The need for Configuration Management and Change
Control is clearly expressed in most of the standard
approaches to programme management. MSP, for ex-
ample, utilises a Programme Blueprint as a means of
indexing the overall configuration to be managed, the
configuration comprising information about the orga-
nisation, its people processes, tools and systems [8]. This
follows a common view that all programmes must have
well-defined baseline from which to measure costs and
benefits and that this baseline should define the overall
scope in order to facilitate change control. Configura-
tion management is supposed to ensure that the blue-
print is always cohesive and consistent and is coupled
with a programme-level change-control process, which
is applied to essential sets of information about the
programme; in particular the programme blueprint and
programme plan.
Programme Risk Management differs from that con-
ducted at the project level in that it addresses strategic
 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
issues such as: (a) programme effectiveness in enhancing
the organisations competitive position, (b) the achieve-
ment of the programmeÕs benefits and/or (c) the effects
of changes in the assumptions underlying the pro-
gramme business case [7,8]. The MSP technique of risk
management calls for the use of a risk log analogous to
the equivalent project-level log [8]. Pellegrini [7], how-
ever, suggests that mechanisms associated with strategic
management might be better suited, such as competitor
analysis and benchmarking. Programme Issues Man-
agement has been described as a formal means of esca-
lating project issues to the programme level, logging and
tracking them as part of the activity [8]. In essence,
however, programme issues management is little more
than an alternate view of the issue logging and escala-
tion processes that exist at the project-level.
Programme Benefits Management has been discussed
in the project sense in a number of recent papers (e.g.,
[11,17]). The descriptions of the activity provided within
the programme literature do not differ fundamentally
from the project level concept, except in relation to the
division of responsibilities [8]. Whereas the responsibil-
ity of the project manager ends with completion and
sign-off of project deliverable (the benefits enabler), the
programme organisation also has overall responsibility
for ensuring benefits realisation [8]. One view is that
benefits management should be entirely carried out at
the programme level, making the point that project
managers are not well positioned to consider the validity
of their projects. MSP splits the activity by specifying a
number of key stages in terms of benefits management,
each with associated responsibilities [8].
MSP also highlights the important point that stake-
holders will come and go over the course of a
programme [8]. As such Programme Stakeholder Man-
agement needs to be inherently more flexible and
adaptable than the equivalent project-level discipline. In
spite of this, none of the current approaches offer a great
deal of insight as to how this additional flexibility should
be achieved.
4. A critique of current approaches
4.1. Significant difficulties of practical application
The review of current approaches to programme
management invites three major criticisms. Which relate
to the management of three key stakeholder relation-
ships associated with the programme:
• The management of the relationship between the pro-
gramme manager and the project managers within
the programme.
• The management of the relationship between the con-
stituent projects of the programme and the wider
business context.
293
• The management of the relationship between the in-
dividual project managers within the programme.
It is our contention that all of the problems experi-
enced when programme management techniques are
applied in practice can be related to the ineffective
management of one or more of these relationships. The
issues associated with each of these relationships are
now dealt with in turn.
4.1.1. The interface between programme management and
project management
Standard approaches to programme management
strive to obtain an inappropriate level of detail driven by
a desire to exercise an inappropriate degree of control.
This tends to lead to systems of programme planning and
control that are complex to the point of becoming un-
manageable. Two negative consequences arise as a result:
• Excessive hierarchical bureaucracy and control. It can
be very difficult to achieve an appropriate balance be-
tween excessive control and insufficient control in a
multi-project context [17]. Standard approaches to
programme management tend towards excessive con-
trol, a bias emphasised by currently available pro-
gramme management software, which focuses the
resource management and integrated planning ele-
ments [18]. Research indicates that excessive bureau-
cracy and control has a tendency to create
inflexibility, bureaucratic overheads of reporting re-
quirements and in extreme circumstances relegate pro-
gramme management to little more than a mechanism
for reporting [6,19,20]. The negative consequences of
an overly bureaucratic approach to programme man-
agement are: (a) a deterioration of the relationship be-
tween project managers and programme managers
encouraging a culture of blame and (b) diversion of en-
ergy from value adding activities.
• Focus on an inappropriate level of detail. Large inte-
grated plans/networks are difficult to formulate and
have a tendency to become cumbersome and exces-
sively complex [5,21]. This calls into question the em-
phasis of the standard programme management
techniques on detailed integrated planning. By focus-
ing at an inappropriate level of detail, there is a real risk
that programme managers will fail to identify the issues
that are of real significance to the programme. Conse-
quently, the focus at the programme level should be on
the interfaces between projects [21]. This is important
given that interdependencies often become associated
with issues of ownership. People working on different
initiatives either tacitly cover the same ground or else
assume that other people will do the work.
4.1.2. The interface between organisational strategy and
constituent projects of the programme
Standard approaches to programme management
largely neglect the need to shape, embed and align pro-
294 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
grammes with the evolving business environment [7].
This is problematic give the programme management
role of building and maintaining a connection between
the task-focused view of projects and the strategic drivers
of emergent organisation. Standard approaches to pro-
gramme management are based on a project-level view of
change-control rather than a strategic view of change
management, which results in intrinsic inflexibility that
manifests itself in two distinct but related ways:
• Programme lifecycle. Standard approaches focus on a
linear programme lifecycle. The underlying assump-
tion is that the programme can be defined in detail
at the outset and then carried through to a defined
closure point, closely managing the programme scope
throughout (see [15] for example). In this context, ac-
tivities such as adjustment of the direction of the
programme or addition of new projects to the pro-
gramme only occur by exception. Although it is in
theory possible to evolve the programme in response
to a changing business environment, the focus on def-
inition and control of programme scope severely
restricts programme flexibility. In essence, an insis-
tence on tight definition and clear boundaries negates
part of the value of having a programme [7].
• Programme tenure. Many standard approaches per-
ceive programmes to have a finite life [15]. This is
constraining given that the underlying processes used
to identify strategies, whilst planned to some degree,
are fragmented, emergent, evolutionary and largely
intuitive [22]. Further to this, emotional and territo-
rial sensitivities unearthed during strategy formula-
tion are actually magnified during strategy
implementation, which may accentuate emergence
and unpredictability [11]. Consequently, it seems ill
advised to force fixed time-scales at the outset of a
programme. An alternate view that programmes
may have an indefinite time horizon [7] is more real-
istic if constrained by the view that they should only
continue so long as they are justified in terms of busi-
ness benefit. This is consistent with a view expressed
by McElroy [9] that programmes need to be able to
assimilate projects on an incremental basis.
4.1.3. Interface between projects within the programme
Standard approaches to programme management
also tend to ignore difficulties that are found at the in-
terface between projects themselves. Competition, for
example, is a natural feature of a multi-project envi-
ronment [23] and manifests itself in terms of rivalry to
achieve high prioritisation ratings and/or strong com-
petition to secure specific resources. Project rivalries
have two negative consequences:
• Inter-project competition. Organisations often operate
an internal market forces system where projects com-
pete for resources. This market is typically reinforced
by individual and team-based performance-related
rewards. The tacit assumption is that organisational
effectiveness can be improved by focusing on individ-
ual project effectiveness. Evidence from a recent de-
fence, engineering and construction industry study,
however, suggests that competition between projects
is not in the best interests of the organisation as a
whole [24]. Other work notes that: (a) employees of-
ten do what is necessary for the evaluation in prefer-
ence to what is required for the job [25]; (b)
competition creates a level of anxiety that interferes
with performance [26] and (c) in an environment of
intense competition, projects operate so autono-
mously that they simply do not know what people
outside there own team are working on [23].
• Failure to harness organisational learning. Although
some reference is made by the standard methodolo-
gies to transfer learning between projects (see [8] for
example), this is not backed up the creation of an en-
vironment that actually enables this to happen. What
is required is not only a statement of intent that learn-
ing should be shared, but the creation of supportive
open culture that enables this to happen. In the pro-
ject arena, natural incentives pressure project manag-
ers to get on with the next project and not to dwell on
the failures of the past [12]. Consequently, knowledge
is gained in a Ôhit and missÕ fashion [27]. As Eskerod
[23] notes, learning that are communicated in such a
highly competitive environment are likely to be non-
symmetric in that they will be biased towards the rep-
resentation of success.
4.2. Fundamentally flawed underlying assumptions
Two assumptions underlie all the issues outlined in the
previous section. Firstly, programme management is
misconceived as a scaled-up form of project manage-
ment. Secondly, it is assumed that there is a single form of
programme management, equally applicable in all cir-
cumstances. It is argued here that these assumptions are
flawed and have driven the development of the pro-
gramme management discipline into its current form.
4.2.1. Assumption that programme management is a
scaled up form of project management
Gareis [28] has suggested that any project lasting
longer than two years should be classed as a pro-
gramme. Similarly, other writers have pointed out that
project managers still think in terms of ‘‘programmes of
work’’, implicitly taking this to mean a schedule in the
traditional project sense [7,10]. The assumption of
equivalence between programme and project and man-
agement is made explicit by Gray [14], who has claimed
that a programme, project, sub-project and work
package are simply different levels in a hierarchy of
project-type work activities. This underlying assumption
 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
and its consequent weaknesses are reflected in the vari-
ous components of the standard programme manage-
ment methodologies:
• Strict hierarchical perspective. Programme manage-
ment organisations proposed within the standard
methodologies are strictly hierarchical, with a tradi-
tional line reporting relationship between the project
manager and the programme manager. In a pro-
gramme context insistence on a rigidly hierarchical
arrangement can lead to a negative spiral of bureau-
cracy and control.
• Time-constrained linear programme lifecycle. The
standard methodologies assume a relatively simple
linear input process, whereby the programme is es-
tablished based on defined organisational strategy
and then slight adjustments are made to the pro-
gramme as it progresses towards its target state. This
assumes a substantially complete and stable input
definition, which justifies the investment of effort to
create a detailed programme plan charting the course
of the programme through to completion. Insistence
on a relatively rigid form of programme life cycle in-
trinsically limits the ability of the programme to
adapt in response to changing business strategy.
• Parity of approach pervading programme management
techniques. The assumption of basic equivalence be-
tween project and programme management disciplines
is reflected throughout the majority of the proposed
programme management techniques. For example,
the proposed approach to programme planning is es-
sentially scaled-up versions of the equivalent project-
level technique. The effects of this are: (a) a potential
tendency towards complexity, bureaucracy and con-
trol; (b) limitations on the ability to evolve the scope
in response to changing business drivers, goals and
strategies and (c) a mechanical perspective that does
not offer insight into how to manage the softer issues
that very often arise at the programme level.
• The implicit reinforcement of the similarity of roles.
An assumption commonly encountered in practise is
that programme management is simply a step on
the career path for project managers. In fact it has
been demonstrated that many talented individuals
find the transition between project and programme
management a huge challenge [7]. Many of the in-
stincts that good project managers acquire over years
of experience may actually be counterproductive in a
programme management context. For example, it is
typical of the project management mind-set that pro-
ject scope is guarded defensively. This is likely to
highly restrictive in a programme context.
4.2.2. Assumption that there is a one size fits all approach
to programme management
Standard approaches to programme management
implicitly assume that a single rigid and highly struc-
295
tured approach can be applied equally effectively in all
contexts. This outcome is reminiscent of one school of
thought in the project management domain, which
believes that project management principles are uni-
versal and generic (see [29]). Counter to this, a second
school of thought argues that the appropriateness of
principles will depend on the characteristics of the
project, the organisation(s) in which it is performed
and the environment in which the organisation is op-
erating [17].
While standard approaches recognise a number of
different types of programme (e.g., strategic, business
cycle, infrastructure and R & D), little guidance is of-
fered in terms of: (a) the necessary difference in ap-
proach for different programmes or (b) how the
standard approaches might be adapted to an uncon-
nected-projects scenario. Herein lies a paradox since,
whilst there has been an increasing recognition in the
literature of diversity of different programme forms and
contexts, there has also been a convergence on a pur-
portedly generic programme management approach that
fails to account for such differences. The key programme
design considerations are as follows:
• Programme benefits and project goal interdependence.
A key error in programme initiation hinges around
the failure to clarify the direction and purpose of
the programme. Pellegrini [7] argues that different ra-
tionales for programmes should lead to different pro-
gramme management structures and identifies three
types of programme, each of which requires a differ-
ent programme management approach. Firstly, a
ÔportfolioÕ programme is used to co-ordinate distinct
projects using a common resource or skills base. Sec-
ondly, a Ôheart beatÕ programme is applicable in situ-
ations where there are requirements for regular
improvements to existing systems, infrastructure,
business processes and the like. Lastly, the Ôgoal-
orientedÕ approach to programme management,
which is focused around the translation of vague, in-
complete and evolving business strategies into tangi-
ble actions.
• The nature of the constituent projects. There is a
common perception that organisations should apply
a standard approach for the management of all
projects in a programme, regardless of type of the
project type, size, urgency or the type of resource
used [30]. The presumed benefits of this approach
include comparable progress reporting and the pos-
sibility for people to move freely between projects
without having to learn a new approach. Similarly,
there is a common perception that projects within a
programme are fundamentally homogeneous and
the engagement required is the same in all cases.
This assumption is called into question, however,
by work suggesting that non-homogeneity adds an
important layer of complexity to programme man-
296 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
agement [5]. More specifically, it has been found
that better results are achieved at a project level
when people tailor procedures to the type of project
that they are working on [30]. Extending this logic
to the engagement between the projects and pro-
grammes, it is likely that different types of project
will benefit from different programme management
approaches.
• The geographical distribution of the programme. A
further possible difference between programmes re-
lates to the geographical distribution of the staff
working within them. Evaristo and Fenema [1]
describe the following programme scenarios: (a) co-
located programme, where multiple concurrent
projects are all in a single geographical location; (b)
multiple traditional projects, where concurrent pro-
jects are based at a different geographical location;
and (c) multiple distributed projects, where each pro-
ject encompasses several sites either at overlapping
locations or else at discrete locations.
• Strength of programme mandate. The choice of pro-
gramme management approach depends not only
on desirability but also equally on feasibility [14].
Often, it will be the case that the design of a pro-
gramme may not be entirely within the programme
managerÕs control given political constraints of the
context, which either force or preclude particular ap-
proaches. The programme managerÕs ability to
choose the optimal approach for the context will
thus depends on the strength of their mandate. In
turn, this will depend on the standing of the pro-
gramme management discipline within the wider or-
ganisation as well as the perceived authority of line
organisation to which the programme manager re-
ports. Since the overall programme is seen as being
owned the business, this may limit the flexibility
for defining the reporting structures of the pro-
gramme organisation.
4.3. Conceptual and practical implications
Reflection on the review presented above suggests a
number of important implications for programme
management, which are currently poorly represented in
both in research and practice. The primary implication
for both research and practice is that the ÔrationalÕ basis
of programme management (e.g., the lifecycles and ac-
tivities) represents only part of the equation and needs
to be strongly supplemented with competence(s) related
to the understanding and management of relationships.
Key relationships have been argued to be those: (a)
between programme management and project manage-
ment, (b) individual project managers within a pro-
gramme and (c) individual projects and the goals and
drivers of the wider business. Fig. 2, ties these rela-
Project to
Improved Coordination
Programme
Improved dependency management
More effective and efficient resource
utilisation
More effective transfer of knowledge,
Project to
ideas, tools and techniques
Project
Greater senior management visibility
More coherent communication
Better up front definition of projects
Projects to
Business
More effective ongoing alignment with
business drivers, goals and strategy
Fig. 2. Key programme management relationships and goals.
tionships to the fundamental goals of programme
management.
In attempting to direct programme management re-
search, the principal observations that stem from this
work are that programme management should be per-
ceived as:
• Contextual. Appropriate programme structure, pro-
cesses and organisation are strongly dependent on
factors such as the degree to which the projects are in-
terrelated, the characteristics of the constituent pro-
jects and the nature of the wider organisation.
• Variable and concurrent in practice. Programme man-
agement may operate on several levels simulta-
neously. For example, small groupings of projects
may be managed together in one type of programme
whilst another type of programme may simulta-
neously extend across the entire organisation.
• Evolutionary in sophistication. It is unrealistic to ex-
pect that the programme approach can be introduced
in a Ôbig bangÕ fashion due to the level of organisa-
tional change mandated by its introduction. Conse-
quently, it is more fruitful to accept that
organisational sophistication in programme manage-
ment will evolve and that it will not be possible to ap-
ply some of the more advanced features of
programme management unless appropriate founda-
tions exist.
Accounting for each of the three points above, it is
clear that an approach to programme management is
required that is scaleable, flexible and appropriate both
to the organisational context as well as the capabilities
of those applying it. The points related to context and
variation account for the emergent nature of the
strategies on which programmes are to deliver along-
side the changing context of programme delivery
 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
Fig. 3. Typical programme management lifecycle [15].
[11,18]. The point on adaptability in the context of a
changing environment is proposed as one of the key
benefits of the programme management approach,
though research on the practicalities of adaptability is
scant.
Whilst ongoing research is required for the develop-
ment, adoption and institutionalisation of the findings
of this programme management review, practical guid-
ance can be drawn from the research as follows:
• Programme management is more than just a named
role. Given a range of contexts in which programme
management can benefit an organisation, individuals
with a variety of different official role titles may prac-
tise the discipline of programme management. Broad
ranging communications and training are thus re-
quired in order to leverage the full benefit of the
approach.
• Effective programme management is relationship-
based. Programme management should focus on cre-
ating a context that enables project managers to be
successful, facilitating the stakeholder relationships
that support this. In the context of a changing envi-
297
ronment, it is of vital importance to ensure an ade-
quate ongoing connection between the projects
within the programme and the wider organisation if
projects are to remain aligned with the overall drivers
and strategic direction of the organisation. Equally, it
is important part of the programme management role
to facilitate effective relationships between the indi-
vidual project managers within the programme in or-
der to ensure that they work together effectively and
remain collectively focused on the achievement of
overall business benefit.
• Effective programme management needs to take into ac-
count power dynamics. Programme management is not
always recognised as being in the best interests individ-
uals in positions of power. It is important to anticipate
potential issues related to the perceived power dynamic
between project sponsors, project managers the pro-
gramme manager and manage the relationships ac-
cordingly. In particular, it is important to be aware
that goals defined at the programme level may become
incompatible as they translate into objectives at the
project level. The paradox of goal deconstruction
298 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
arises in spite of the fact that each individual activity re-
mains connected to the same set of high-level goals and
often leads to conflicting priorities and dysfunctional
relationships. Programme management must thus fa-
cilitate the adjustment of specific project objectives in
order to ensure that individual projects contribute in
a coherent way to the achievement of the overall pro-
gramme goals and benefits.
• Effective programme management enables adaptability
in the context of a changing business environment. Pro-
grammes often develop incrementally rather than by
design, which requires a dynamic and flexible view
of the programme lifecycle and overall definition of
the programme. By mapping the constituents of a
programme against a series of high-level lifecycle
states and monitoring and controlling the transitions
between those states a focus on the high level under-
standing of the overall goals and direction of the pro-
gramme can be maintained as well as a focus on how
individual component projects contribute towards
this. A programme lifecycle must provide a clear sep-
aration between the justification of individual pro-
jects within the programme and the justification of
the programme as a whole. Individual projects may
derive a proportion of their benefits case based on
their contribution to a programme; the programme
as a whole is justified on the basis of the cumulative
benefits case of its confirmed component projects.
Whilst change control is applied at the individual
project level, the focus at the programme level should
be on strategic alignment and business change
management.
5. Conclusions
This paper has argued that programme manage-
ment is far more than just the management of large
projects. Through a critical review of the literature, it
was recognised that a unique perspective and ap-
proach is required in order to address the cultural,
political and organisational challenges at the pro-
gramme level. The paper has noted that the weak-
nesses of standard programme management techniques
can be traced back to two erroneous assumptions,
namely that: (a) project management and programme
management are essentially equivalent; and (b) that a
single standard approach to programme management
is applicable in all circumstances. Specific issues that
arise as a result of these flawed assumptions include:
• A dysfunctional and bureaucratic mode of pro-
gramme management due to an excessive control
focus.
• Ineffective alignment between programmes and an
evolving business context.
• Missed opportunities in terms facilitating genuinely
effective co-operation and shared learning between
project managers.
In terms of the mechanical components of the
standard programme management approaches, these
issues can be related to the insistence on a rigid pro-
gramme hierarchy; the assumption of a linear pro-
gramme lifecycle; and utilisation of a set of tools and
techniques that are functionally indistinct from their
project management equivalents. It is our contention
that what is required to address these issues is pro-
gramme management research and practice that fo-
cuses on the management of relationships and enables
the incremental development of a programme over
time.
References
[1] Evaristo R, van Fenema PC. A typology of project management:
emergence and the evolution of new forms. Int J Project Manage
1999;17(5):271–81.
[2] Van Der Merwe AP. Multi-project management – organisational
control. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(4):223–223.
[3] Senior B. Organisational change. Harlow, UK: Prentice-Hall;
1997.
[4] Kerzner H, Cleland DI. Project/matrix management policy and
strategy. New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold; 1985.
[5] Payne JH. Management of multiple simultaneous projects: a state-
of-the-art review. Int J Project Manage 1995;17(1):55–9.
[6] Platje A, Seidel H. Breakthrough in multiproject management:
how to escape the vicious circle of planning and control. Int J
Project Manage 1993;11(4):209–13.
[7] Pellegrini S. Programme Management: organising project based
change. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(3):141–9.
[8] OGC. Managing successful programmes. Office of Government
Commerce; 1999.
[9] McElroy W. Implementing strategic change through projects. Int
J Project Manage 1996;14(6):325–9.
[10] Pellegrini S, Bowman C. Implementing strategy through projects.
Long Range Planning 1994;27(4):125–32.
[11] Grundy T. Strategy implementation and project management. Int
J Project Manage 1998;16(1):43–50.
[12] Cooper KG, Lyneis JM, Bryant B. Learning to learn, from past to
future. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(1):213–9.
[13] Cooke Davies T. The ÔrealÕ success factors on projects. Int J
Project Manage 2002;20(3):185–90.
[14] Gray RJ. Alternative approaches to programme management. Int
J Project Manage 1998;15(1):5–9.
[15] Haughey D. A perspective on programme management. Project
Smart Website; 2001.
[16] Strange G. Programme management in IBM. The Programme
Management Group; 2001.
[17] Partington D. The project management of organisational change.
Int J Project Manage 1996;14(1):13–21.
[18] Thiry M. Combining value and programme management into an
effective programme management model. Int J Project Manage
2002;20(3):221–7.
[19] Gray RJ, Bamford PJ. Issues in programme integration. Int J
Project Manage 1999;17(6):361–6.
[20] Reiss G. Programme management demystified: managing multiple
projects successfully. London: E&FN Spon; 1996.
 M. Lycett et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 289–299
[21] Levene RJ, Braganza A. Controlling the work-scope in organi-
sational transformation: a programme management approach. Int
J Project Manage 1996;14(6):331–9.
[22] Mintzberg H, Waters JA. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent.
Strategic Manage J 1985;6(3):257–72.
[23] Eskerod P. Meaning and action in multi-project environment:
understanding a multi-project environment by means of meta-
phors and basic assumptions. Int J Project Manage 1996;14(2):61–
5.
[24] Lord A. Implementing strategy through project management.
Long Range Planning 1993;26(1):76–85.
[25] Halachami A, Holtzer M. Merit pay, performance, targeting and
productivity. Rev Personnel Admin 1987;7:80–91.
299
[26] Moss-Kanter R. When giants learn to dance. London: Unwin
Paperbacks; 1989.
[27] Frame JD. Managing projects in organisations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass; 1995.
[28] Gareis R. May the PMBOK Guide be challenged by the new
programme management paradigm? In Proceedings of the 30th
PMI seminars and symposium. Newton Square, PA: PMI HQ
Publishing; 1999.
[29] Sharad D. Management by projects, an ideological breakthrough.
Project Manage J 1986;(March):61–3.
[30] Payne JH, Turner JR. Company-wide project management: the
planning and control of programmes of projects of different type.
Int J Project Manage 1998;17(1):55–9.