FEATURED PAPER

GENERIC ORIGINS OF PROJECTS/PROGRAMS/ PORTFOLIOS?

By Alan Stretton, PhD

Sydney, Australia

Abstract

In a paper entitled “Program Management Diversity – Opportunity or Problem” (Stretton 2009b) I discussed several aspects of diversity in the program management literature, and essentially posed the question as to whether, and if so how, some of these diversities might be reconciled. This paper looks at a somewhat different aspect of diverse perceptions in the literature, namely on the origins of projects, programs and portfolios. I propose a generic perspective on how they are initiated, which I hope will either find general acceptance in most program/project application areas, or lead to such a generally accepted perspective. I am therefore seeking feedback on the following.

This particular perspective is based on the proposition that projects, programs and portfolios are initiated through recognitions of broader organisational/institutional needs/opportunities that cannot reasonably be satisfied within the context of normal operational processes. This then prompts initiation of specific projects/programs/portfolios to help satisfy these needs.

Which of the latter is chosen will depend on individual circumstances, including factors such as scale/complexity. With very substantial scale/complexity, two or more relatively independent programs/projects may be required, commonly organised as portfolio(s). At a lesser scale, two or more inter-related projects may be needed, which are organised as program(s). On a yet smaller scale, a single project (here called an ‘independent’ project) may be sufficient to deliver the needed products/outcomes.

If this proposition is accepted – and this paper invites feedback on its acceptability – then certain consequences follow. For example, an ‘independent’ project has the same basic attributes as a program, except for management coordination of ‘component’ projects, and some allied consequences. In comparing programs and projects (which is often done in the literature), it is therefore important to distinguish between ‘independent’ projects and ‘component’ projects within a program, to avoid misunderstandings, or indeed misrepresentations. Examples are given.

It is further noted that emerging broader perceptions of the scope of projects indicate several commonalities between ‘independent’ projects and programs. However, programs and projects are different, and it is suggested that the program management literature should focus more attention on program-distinctive attributes.

To read entire paper (click here)

About the Author Alan Stretton, PhD Author Alan Stretton is currently a member of the Faculty Corps of the University of Management and Technology, Arlington, Virginia, USA. In 2006 he retired from a position as Adjunct Professor of Project Management in the Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia, which he joined in 1988 to develop and deliver a Master of Project Management program. Prior to joining UTS, Mr. Stretton worked in the building and construction industries in Australia, New Zealand and the USA for some 38 years, which included the project management of construction, R&D, introduction of information and control systems, internal management education programs and organizational change projects. He has degrees in Civil Engineering (BE, Tasmania) and Mathematics (MA, Oxford), and an honorary PhD in strategy, programme and project management (ESC, Lille, France). Alan was Chairman of the Standards (PMBOK) Committee of the Project Management Institute from late 1989 to early 1992. He held a similar position with the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), and was elected a Life Fellow of AIPM in 1996. He was a member of the Core Working Group in the development of the Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management. He has published over eighty professional articles. Alan can be contacted at alanailene@bigpond.com.au.