Master of project management
Strategic Project Delivery - BUSM4413
Assessment Task 3 - Individual Review and Reflection Notes
The aim of this Assessment Task is to help you to better understand the relationships
etween projects, programs and project portfolio management within their
oader
operating contexts.
The Assessment Task is an individual task comprising the development of structured
eview and reflection notes for the four (4) Topic 3 Recommended Readings, with each
eading reviewed and reflected upon, by addressing
1. Ideas that were completely new to me;
2. Ideas that reinforced my prior understanding of this topic;
3. Ideas that contradicted my prior understanding of this topic;
4. Quotes (including page number) that are worthwhile noting for possible future citation;
5. The relevance of this reading to my past/cu
ent/potential future work role/s;
6. The relevance of this reading to my past/cu
ent academic assignments.
Word Count = XXXXXXXXXXwords (excluding Bibliography)
Marking ru
ic:
Marking ru
ic
Criteria Ratings Pts
Discussion of Ideas - New, Reinforced, Contradictory to my
understanding
35.0 pts
Quotes - (including page number) that are worthwhile noting for
possible future citation;
10.0 pts
Discussion of Relevance - to my work roles and academic
assignments
35.0 pts
Written Communications including Citation format
20.0 pts
Total points: 100.0
Topic (3) Recommended readings:
1. A) Thiry M., Dalcher D., XXXXXXXXXXProgram Management, Ashgate Publishing Ltd
(http:
www.rmit.eblib.com.au.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/patron/SearchResults.aspx?pu=53182) ,
Chapter 2 “Organizational Context”: XXXXXXXXXXonly) (available from RMIT Li
ary as an ebook)
B) Thiry M., Program Management YouTube video (2 ½ minutes) Michel Thiry
Program Management.mov:
(https:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO8WD85_GyA)
Whilst this video is a summary of a Program Management subject taught by Thiry at UTS,
he provides a good description of how Program Management practice differs from Project
Management practice.
2. Levin G., Ward L J., XXXXXXXXXXProgram Management Complexity : A Competency Model,
Chapter 2 “A Competency Model for Program Managers” : XXXXXXXXXXavailable from RMIT
Li
ary as an eBook)
3. Shao, J., Müller, R. & Turner, R. J. (2012). "Measuring Program Success." Project
Management Journal 43(1): 37-49
4. Padovani M. Carvalho M.M, XXXXXXXXXXIntegrated PPM Process : Scale Development and
Validation, International Journal of Project Management, 34 : XXXXXXXXXX
https:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO8WD85_GyA
someTitle
ChaPter �
organizationaL Context
Chapter 1 outlined how different people and organizations view programs in
different ways; it also reviewed existing PgM standards and analysed them in
egards of their suitability in different situations. chapter 2 completes this
understanding of the usefulness and appropriateness of programs by examining
the context of program management, more specifically, in the first section, it
discusses different types of project-based organizations and how programs fit in.
The relationship between programs and other project organization components
like portfolios and projects are examined, as well as the relation between programs
and the organization’s strategies and value.
PROjECTS, PROGRAMS AND PORTFOLIOS
in order to understand the objectives and characteristics of program management,
it is essential to clarify the different views that exist concerning the different
project-based components.
Comparison Between Project, Program and Portfolio
in order to clearly distinguish programs from projects, we need to understand
the distinction between the european and the American approach to project
management.
Traditionally, the european view of Project Management has been wider ranging
than the North American view. For european practitioners and project associations
a project starts with an initiating idea and business justification and ends with
the “operationalization” of its deliverables, often covering multiple smaller
single projects. This links and often overlaps project management with change
management. For example, the UK’s Association of Project Management’s Body
of Knowledge (APM, 2006) has 52 knowledge areas, as compared with the nine
of the Project Management Institute’s (PMI®) PMBOK® Guide (PMi, 2008).
europeans, to some extent, describe a discipline rather than a process (iPMA,
2006; APM, 2006); in contrast, North Americans have mostly taken the view that
project management is a process to manage single projects. The different views of Thiry, M 2010, Program Management, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [5 September 2018].Created from rmit on XXXXXXXXXX:31:49.
C
op
y
ig
ht
©
2
01
0.
A
sh
ga
te
P
u
lis
hi
ng
L
td
. A
ll
ig
ht
s
e
se
v
ed
.
Program management��
what a program is have definitely been influenced by each project perspective. In
North America, traditionally, the term program was associated with large complex
projects, whereas in europe, and especially the UK, it is associated with change
management. When project management is limited to the processes between
the attribution of a mandate to the project manager and the project closing, it is
assumed that the project deliverables can be fairly accurately described and that
any required handover or transfer period is outside the scope of the project (PMi,
1996, 2000, 2004; cMAA, 2002; DSMc, 1999; NASA, 1998).
Theories aside, practice has shown, even in Europe (OGC, 2005), that, more
often than not, the role of project manager is restricted to the management of
the activities taking place between initiation and closure. The “directing” and
operational integration roles are usually taken on by distinct people who often have
authority over the project manager. Most practitioners and writers now agree that
the discipline that oversees the role of the project manager and connects projects
to the business and strategy is program management.
Until recently, the boundary between programs and portfolios was often blu
ed;
there was confusion and often divergence about what distinguished them. elonen
and Aarto XXXXXXXXXXstated: “Terms closely related or in some contexts almost
synonymous to project portfolio management include program management and
multi-project management” (p. 2). For example, Dye and Pennypacker, (1999)
were giving the following definition of portfolio:
“A project portfolio is a collection of projects to be managed concu
ently under
a single management um
ella. each project may be related or independent of
each other. The projects share the same strategic objectives and the same scarce
esources.”
At the same time, the PMI XXXXXXXXXXwas defining programs as: “a group of projects
managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not available from managing
them individually.” And the ccTA XXXXXXXXXXas: “The co-ordinated management of a
portfolio of projects that change organizations to achieve benefits that are of strategic
importance.” Additionally, as stated earlier, many endeavours called “programs”
are in fact ongoing operations, which Sergio Pellegrinelli XXXXXXXXXXcalled “portfolio
programmes” and “heartbeat programmes” and Mu
ay-Webster and Thiry (2000)
called “portfolio programmes” and “incremental programmes”. The 2000 version
of the PMBOK® Guide,1 states: “This diversity of meaning makes it imperative that
any discussion of program management versus project management be preceded
y agreement on a clear and consistent definition of each term” (p. 10).
1 PMBOK® Guide: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMi,
2004). PMBOK® Guide is a Registered Trademark of the Project Management Institute.
Thiry, M 2010, Program Management, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [5 September 2018].
Created from rmit on XXXXXXXXXX:31:49.
C
op
y
ig
ht
©
2
01
0.
A
sh
ga
te
P
u
lis
hi
ng
L
td
. A
ll
ig
ht
s
e
se
v
ed
.
organIzatIonal Context ��
At this point in time, there is relative agreement on the focus and purpose of
projects, programs and portfolios. The cu
ent views can be summarized as:
Projects generally deliver a single product or service. They are reasonably
well defined and although they can be complicated, they are generally not
complex. Their focus is tactical or operational.
Programs deliver multiple deliverables which, together, produce business
enefits. They are generally complex with frequent realignments required
during their life cycle. Their alignment is with the business strategy and
they are business focused.
Portfolios can cover two areas: the organization’s projects or its whole
investment portfolio. They have an overall corporate deliverable and are
ongoing and recu
ent. They are fairly predictable in terms of their outcomes,
ut require constant adjustments. They both have a mission focus and are
aligned with the corporate strategy.
Table 2-1 compares these three components of the organization on a series of
elements:
Table 2-1 Detailed comparison between projects, programs and portfolios
(Thiry, 2008 in Gower Management Handbook 4th Edition,
Chapters 3 and 4)
Area Project Program Portfolios
scope set, limited scope
with clearly defined
deliverables.
oad scope with
flexible boundaries to
meet medium-term
expected business
enefits.
Organizational
scope adapted to
corporate goals.
Change Change should be
avoided; baseline is
key.
Change is first seen
as an opportunity.
Monitor
environmental
changes that
affect the
corporate
strategy.
Success Measured through
espect of cost,
time, quality preset
parameters: the Pm
triangle.
Measured in financial
terms, value creation
and benefits delivery.
Measured
in terms of
overall portfolio
performance:
maximum
esults, minimal
esources.
•
•
•
Thiry, M 2010, Program Management, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [5 September 2018].
Created from rmit on XXXXXXXXXX:31:49.
C
op
y
ig
ht
©
2
01
0.
A
sh
ga
te
P
u
lis
hi
ng
L
td
. A
ll
ig
ht
s
e
se
v
ed
.
Program management��
Leadership Transactional
leadership, authority-
ased directive style,
management of
subalterns, conflict
esolution. Rational
decision-making.
Facilitating style,
management
of powerful
stakeholders, conflict
esolution. Intuitive
decision-making.
Administrative
style focused on
adding value,
power results
from allocation
of resources.
Rational
decision-making.
ole Task and parameters
management; product
(project output)
delivery
Pacing and
interfacing of projects;
usiness benefits
delivery.
Resource
management
across portfolio;
deliver value
to