What risks do you face when managing a program instead of a project?

The biggest problem I have seen is Program Managers trying to absorb projects that may be on a similar path or that they have a dependency on. I have had to argue that the risk associated with the dependency project or similar path are definitely "risks" but a risk doesn't mean the program should absorb the project.

Managing a program is like managing a household or family, and managing project management is like managing one child. The program manager, like the parent, always considers the entire family's needs. They want to minimize risk, manage assets effectively, and allocate resources so everyone succeeds. In comparison, the project manager must effectively control the project while considering their household role. In summary, to work harmoniously, the program and project must cooperatively manage scope, risks, dependencies, performance, costs, and resources to satisfy their customers.

Scope creep can kill a program or project within a program if not managed carefully. Establishing an official process for requesting changes, obtaining approvals, and making applicable contract changes (price and/or schedule expectations) is essential to success. This applies for customer driven changes as well as internal changes - either of which can introduce scope creep. Sometimes changes are important and must be incorporated, but that has to be done correctly and with full understanding of the impacts as well as benefits. Other times, the changes are not really necessary and should be avoided or delayed. A process to make these decisions is essential.

The resource constraints in program management are additionally pressured when the program has a longer goal time than competing projects. It’s very easy to focus on a project and have resources allocated when the project completion date is set and short (less than a fiscal year for example). A program has a much longer goal and keeping people or budget allocation can be tough when the executive group loses focus or forgets what the long term outcome is. In my experience, managing a program requires regular check-ins with the steering committee and the executive so they are always aware of where you are in the goal and why you’re doing it. Keeping your plans updated so you continue to meet the overall org goals is also vital.

Every delay in a set timeline for a program will eventually lead to resource conflict. As a program manager, you are saddled with the responsibility of ensuring that in the case of resource conflict, you as a manager can be proactive in providing a scalable solution to resolve conflicts and deliver the program without straining the budget any longer.

The integration of inter-connected projects under a program requires delicate resource-management, as those resources are no longer dedicated but shared across activities. Transparent prioritization becomes more critical under this paradigm.

Unfortunately, financial and human resources are limited in programme and project management. The organisation has to achieve more deliverables with fewer resources. In my experience, the compensation of employees drives them to stretch themselves to reach programme objectives. When individuals have to be allocated many projects without additional compensation, they become demoralised and start looking for other vacancies. The staff turnover is usually high under these conditions, and the remaining employees are generally unhappy. If the situation is not well managed, even additional compensation will not be enough, people will leave.

Access to resources is essential (how's the work going to be completed otherwise?). However, resource availability planning for programmes that stretch over longer timeframes is often overlooked. As a result, resources are stretched too thin across the programme. Remember to take into account personnel turnover rates, handover times, equipment lifetimes, and prevent costly delays to your programme.

Projects are independent packages of work, it doesn’t need to be part of a program and can function and deliver independently. When a project becomes part of a program, things change; there is an identified interdependence where the benefits of integration between projects in the program take priority and precedence. The real risk is in managing and maintaining the pace and balance of each project so traction is not lost and risk is not created by any project going too fast or slow, creating an undertow where the ripple effects will create additional risk that must be mitigated. It’s like being a conductor in an orchestra; you have to keep everyone playing to the same beat while allowing them to have their own unique rhythm.

Often, projects contain pilots or new approaches that are under consideration for integration into the program. Scalability and sustainability in methodology, scope, and outputs must be examined to determine if the pilot is fit for purpose for a larger rollout. Is the pilot developed cost effective? Appropriate? Feasible? Sustainable over time? Is expertise available? Once the time comes to examine these questions, collaborators must be ready to adapt project goals to program objectives, and adopt program processes to ensure that integration is successful, effective, and efficient.

Consider aligning the various components of a program akin to orchestrating a symphony. Each project within the program plays its unique melody, yet all must harmonize with the overarching rhythm of the program. The challenge here is achieving this synchrony and ensuring scalability and sustainability, particularly when integrating new methodologies or pilot projects. It’s a balancing act, where the pace and progress of each project must be carefully managed to avoid creating ripples of risk across the program.

Programs usually consist of multiple interconnected projects. Managing dependencies and ensuring proper integration between various components can be complex and may lead to delays if not handled effectively. The best approach to address this is to develop a detailed dependency management plan to identify, track, and manage interdependencies among program components. Implement a robust change control process to address modifications to project plans that may impact integration. One of the ways to address this is using project management tools to visualize dependencies, conduct regular reviews of project interdependencies, and establish clear communication channels among project teams.

You might find the integration is easier when the change is built by the ones undergoing the change. When those can have a voice in the design, you might not have the complete quality at once, but an idea of continuous improvement towards the final result is usually easier to govern than the implementation program.

Type of risks per se won't be very different be it Project or Program Management. The order and magnitude of risk impact will be different. Also the affected parties and those who can help addressing the risks will be different. Risks always stem from underlying assumptions and dependencies. At a program level complexity and magnitude are higher hence risks will have larger impact.

A] Strategic Collaboration - Program demands effective & efficient Collaboration between stakeholders. B] Transparent Communication - Program Manager has to choose between Lean & Agile way of communication based on necessity, which align with stakeholders, customer and business partner expectations C]Group Unification - Apply management techniques to unify various teams to focus on purpose and common goal. - This requires "Problem solving, Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Management skills" applied by Program Manager D] Reinforce Strength to overcome weakness - Keep a balance between Business outcome and Employee Satisfaction by motivating and highly engaging team morale E] Close the loop - Apply experiences to ongoing/ new programs.

Overcoming stakeholder resistance requires a multifaceted approach rooted in effective communicaiton, transparency, collaboration and connection. First, define the program's connection to the business value. Is it income generation, something that shifts the culture, matters to your workforce or a major costs savings? Be explicit on the purpose and why. Test the waters for resistance. If pushback or changes are required, go back and reshape the messages and engagement strategies to address the concerns. Leverage listening to sway skeptics and transformation to advocates. Additionally, involve stakeholders in decision-making and provide opportunities to foster ownership, feedback, trust and innovation.

I address stakeholder resistance by understanding needs and adapting to evolving political and economic landscapes. It's important to include communities in your work from the outset, and not wait for their voices to be heard until consequential decisions have already been made.

Stakeholder resistance is a common challenge in program management, often stemming from concerns about change, loss of control, or misunderstandings. Effectively managing and addressing this resistance is crucial to the success of the program. It requires open communication, active engagement, and a focus on addressing stakeholders' needs and concerns to gain their support and cooperation.

Benefit realization and benefit realization tracking is one of the most contentious items in many organizations. Although most organizations are good at defining the intended benefits up front as part of the business case to get funding very few organizations actually measure if those benefits have been realized. This is however critical to adjust current and future funding. The most effective way to do this is to start benefits tracking as early as possible and adjust portfolio planning as early as possible.

Hmmm. A program, as a set of projects delivering one objective, achieves a result that has value to the organization and is beneficial to the organization. I'm not sure 'benefit realization' differs all that much between a program and a project (the objective is delivered....or not). Benefit/Outcome management is separate and distinct from both project management and solution delivery (that path from where an organization is to where they want to be) processes. In a world of better/faster/cheaper, be careful to not trade away the scope of the project's result (the 'product'); every scope reduction in favor of a faster schedule or lower costs also lowers the benefits and value of the project's result.

It is ideal to know what the expected benefits are from the beginning of a program. As projects progress within a program, more benefits may become known. It is always important to recognize those benefits, measure them and attribute them to the overall success of the program. While risk exists that some benefits may not be achieved, the others that emerge can have a positive impact to the program itself.

Measuring a program’s impact on the target audience(s) includes the usual challenges of separating activities and short-term results from outcomes and long-term results…but it also requires a solid estimate of the counterfactual. That is, a program needs to make reasoned, educated assumptions about what *would* have happened if the program was not in place. This estimate of the counterfactual is then compared to the outcome(s) realized through the program. This is difficult to do, but there are good resources out there to help get it right. The World Bank Group’s “Impact Evaluation in Practice” does a great job and serves as a good reference too.

YOU are a RISK. if the customer loose trust on you, you need to be replaced. So, need to form a strong management team that trust you, good relationship with customer and create document for everything. document, document, document..

One of the biggest risks to managing programmes in my experience is not knowing when or if you have identified them all. You don't know what you don't know, so it's important all delivery members and key stakeholders regularly ensure all bases are covered. This can sometimes be challenging but transparency and realism is key - it's sometimes surprising what risks can be discovered by simply having frank conversations in psycologically safe environments.

Programs tend to be larger and longer, increasing risks like scope creep, unclear requirements, and integration complexity across multiple systems and teams. Keeping multiple projects aligned with program goals is challenging, as is managing more stakeholders with competing needs. Communication across many teams and stakeholders can be difficult. There are greater risks with more technologies to integrate, and more competition for shared resources. Larger programs also face increased risks of budget changes over time, loss of key staff, and overall uncertainty due to larger scale and longer timelines. Minimizing these program risks requires careful organization, strong cross-project leadership, robust communication, across the program.

The MAIN risk for a program over a project is SPONSORSHIP EROSION. Everyone recognises that programs are more complex, take longer, cost more and inherently have more risk ... but in taking longer the SPONSORS who initiated the program under a certain set of circumstances (business, environmental, commercial, political) may CHANGE THEIR MINDS because those circumstances have changed, or simply not be in role. This is why programs can go into a hiatus or get shut down. This is more of a risk in enterprises that prone to short term decision making, e.g. those that are publicly listed vs in private ownership.

- Ensuring alignment between the program's goals and the organization's objectives can be challenging. - Program scope can expand over time due to changing requirements, Managing scope creep across multiple projects can be complex and may impact timelines and budgets. - Coordinating resources across multiple projects within a program can be demanding. Resource conflicts, such as competing priorities or resource shortages, may arise and impact project schedules and overall program delivery. - Effective communication and stakeholder management become more critical in program management. Coordinating stakeholders with diverse interests can be challenging. - Risks in a program are often more complex and interconnected.

Project vs programme, does it matter? The reality is that it's all change. It's just the scale of the change and the complexity of what's involved will determine the appropriate mechanism to manage and deliver it (project, prog., transformation prog etc). Any change can face the challenges mentioned in this article to varying degrees (scope creep, resource conflict, integration challenges, stakeholder resistance, benefit realisation). Applying something to project mgmt but not to programme mgmt (or vice versa) is too binary, too black-and-white. The real world doesn't work like that, and I for one would like to see the focus on understanding the change that's needed and what's required to 'do it properly' rather than discuss semantics.