Alas, I am old enough to remember when there was some confusion about programs, portfolios, and multi-project management, a fog which has at least partly cleared thanks to the Project Management Institute’s continuing work on standardizing the terminology and developing standards for the various roles related to “management by projects” (or the organizational elevation of project management). However, it is interesting to see the welter of definitions for a program that are out there, for example in the PM Glossary compiled by Max Wideman. One gets the impression that a program is whatever an individual company says it is; and the program manager role description is a moving target. When we developed the role descriptions in our book, we looked at hundreds of actual job descriptions. Here’s part of what we included on the Program Manager:

Role Overview

In large organizations with many project managers, project managers may be awarded “grades” based on their span of control. This position manages complex, strategic projects that span organizational boundaries, so Program Managers should have experience managing multiple high-risk projects, including projects involving external vendors and multiple business areas. This grade is a logical training ground for Manager of Project Managers, Manager of Project Support, Strategic Project Office Director, and CPO positions for the program manager with business acumen. When groups of related projects are organized into programs, this position may manage multiple project managers whose projects provide specific deliverables; all which must be collectively managed to provide the desired programmatic results.

Whew. As I read that I am reminded of the Cat in the Hat, who boasted he could “fan with my tail while I hop on a ball/ and that is not all! …” But seriously, as we have seen the PMO grow in stature and span of influence, those with program management skills have increasingly been in demand. They have the skills, honed in the coordination of many conflicting priorities, issues, and personalities, to assist a PMO Director in pursuing multiple objectives, each with its project or fleet of projects. It’s a natural training ground for the Portfolio Manager … and may even be the Portfolio Manager in all but name.

Here’s a great article about the Program Manager role by one of our PMO of the Year judges.

And, speaking of the PMO of the Year; check back here on March 2 for an announcement of this year’s application process, and links to the contest materials.

I’d like to tie those last two posts together with a couple of thoughts engendered by listening to Kent’s keynote, and by some of the conversations I shared with PMO directors at the Summit.

“Governance” is in danger of becoming a buzzword. It’s one of those ideas that many corporate leaders accept is important, and necessary, without having the time to really drill down into what that will mean for their organization’s processes.

Yet, like most profoundly important ideas, governance is pretty simple. I liked the definition Kent used in his presentation, from the IT Governance Institute:

“A set of responsibilities and practices in use by executive management with the goal of:

• Providing strategic direction
• Achieving objectives
• Managing risks
• Using resources wisely.”

When I read that list, I thought: sounds like simply what executives are supposed to do. Yet how easy it is, especially in public companies with the pressure to boost stock price; or in public agencies blown about by the winds of politics; to forget that wisely providing direction is what it’s all about. Every now and then we need a new word to buzz in the ears of management, waking them up to thier true path.

When the buzz of governance is paired with the concept of the PMO, I think we are really getting somewhere, however. The definition of governance above asks leaders to rise to the occasion. The PMO gives them a structure for doing that.

Why do I say that? –in part because I’ve read, heard and seen that, without a PMO, the portfolio management process goes astray … and without portfolio management, you don’t really have a mechanism for governance. In our 2007 book Seven Steps to Strategy Execution, Jim Pennypacker wrote:

“Each level within the organization must apply the same principles of setting objectives, providing and getting direction, and providing and evaluating performance measures. A common governance framework ensures that decisions are made the same way up and down the organization …”

True. And some entity within the organization must specialize in making these processes flow up and down the organization; must be the seat of metrics collection and analysis; must red flag what isn’t working and grease the wheels for what must work. And if that entity isn’t a PMO … then what is it?

Any alternative structures I should know about, readers, for governing the portfolio of projects that is today’s organization?