Program & Project Management

The private and public sectors both suffer all too often from expensive and embarrassing failures of project and change management. A couple of private sector examples are mentioned here.    Although drawing heavily on government and government-related publications, this part of this website offers advice which should be relevant to senior mangers in all sectors of the economy.

The British government spends an unfathomable £670 billion every year – and often does so in ways that are wasteful and misguided – So begins the cover blurb for Conundrum – Why Every Government Gets Things Wrong by Richard Bacon MP and Christopher Hope.  The book contains a depressing and all too familiar catalogue of badly designed and implemented major programs, but its central thesis is that delivery is too often the poor relation to policy for both Ministers and civil servants.  The following advice does not aim to remedy all the faults identified by Messrs Bacon and Hope, but – if you were to follow it – it would certainly improve matters.

To begin at the beginning - the words ‘program’ and ‘project’ are, in most cases, interchangeable. The key thing is that they conceptually follow on from a policy decision – a decision that will hopefully have taken account of the practical, financial and other factors that will constrain the deliver of that policy.  In theory, a program is large scale, and often consists of a number of projects. But a project can be pretty big too, and can certainly appear very challenging to those in charge of it. Programs and projects should therefore be managed in pretty much the same way, using the approach outlined below.

But it is first worth noting that the initiation of a major government project can be a very sudden affair.  Presidents and Prime Ministers feel under great pressure to announce dramatic goals.  Some of these work out OK, such as Kennedy’s 1961 belief “that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth”.  Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Sea of Tranquility in 1969.  Some don’t turn out quite so well.  I’ll leave you to think of your own UK examples.

And many lesser mortals can fall into the trap of what the World Bank tactfully calls appraisal optimism – the presentation of best case scenarios including under-estimated costs and timescales, and over-estimated benefits, in order to get projects started. 

Mainstream officials are more likely to be heavily involved in the policy development and project definition phase of major projects and then acting as the principal customer of a specialist project/program manager.  Indeed, significant projects should always be led by someone with proper project management training and experience, and the civil service has recruited a good number of these in recent years.  So the first thing to get right is the ownership of the project. 

The 2019 report on the TSB banking systems failure makes it clear that neither the Board nor the delivery team understood the challenges, and that no-one had been given clear responsibility for it..

"5.15  ... TSB has told us that the entire BEC was responsible for the Programme  ...  It is clear [to is] that the TSB CEO, the TSB CIO and the TSB COO were responsible for leading this Programme."

The National Audit Office has listed the following perennial problems:                        

And here is the NAO’s summary of what happens when officials ignore inconvenient facts – as they do:

There is more information about such appraisal optimism here.

It follows, therefore, that you should do your best to persuade an enthusiastic Minister that more haste equals less speed, even though they may feel that you are dragging your feet and/or seeing unnecessary obstacles. They may however recognise the thought that there is a natural rhythm to a good project – nice and slow and cautious at the beginning, so that rapid pre-planned progress can be made at the end. It is a trite but accurate observation that a new building will soon be finished after its foundations have been laid.   Ministers will still need to make those big bold announcements, if only to forestall the announcement of a similar ambition by a rival.  But such announcements should explicitly allow you time to research and plan the project in some detail. 

There is another trap, in that some projects look to be obviously sensible, when a bit of research would have shown the opposite.  The classic example is the 1970 Scared Straight! projects in the States, where juvenile delinquents were exposed to inmates in local prisons with a view to persuading the kids to turn away from a life of crime.  Nearly 40 years on, these projects are still being started, although it is clear that they increase criminality, not reduce it.  The original survey and statistical research was badly flawed.

Click here to access a sensible checklist to help you plan a large project. It includes nine key questions that must be answered before there is full commitment to the desired objective.

 

Martin Stanley

Spotted something wrong?
Please do drop me an email if you spot anything that is out-of-date, or any other errors, typos or faulty links.