MSP: the 'Do Nothing' vision

What is a ‘do-nothing vision’ in MSP?

Managing Successful Programmes suggests that a programme team should elaborate a vision of the future. This is an agreed and communicated vision of the desired future. As a contrast to this desirable future vision, it can be useful to analyse the "do nothing" option.

Your change programme may encounter resistance. Both the future vision and the "do nothing" vision are useful to overcome resistance and to help motivate people to support the proposed changes.

In Nokia, the new boss, Stephen Elop came in from Microsoft with a new strategy. He wanted Nokia to work with Microsoft, and to put Windows on their smartphones. That meant abandoning Symbian and Meego, two existing Nokia operating systems.

He used the "burning deck" scenario to drive the change. This scenario said that "do nothing" was impossible. We - the Nokia team - are on a burning deck, and if we do nothing we will burn. We have a choice to jump off the deck, into the cold black sea below. This is a risk, but a risk that we must take. Doing nothing is certain death, whereas we might survive in the sea...

For Nokia, the do-nothing option was clear... uncompetitive products, declining market share, increasing irrelevance in the global marketplace. So Nokia took the risk, and jumped off the burning desk. They closed their Symbian and Meego teams and went for the Windows option.

Sometimes, doing nothing might appear to be a good choice.

Hewlett Packard have just voted for the "do nothing" choice. They were thinking of selling their PC business. They decided against it. They compared the option of floating off the PC unit with the option of doing nothing, and choose to do nothing.

Some say that, in the long running Euro-crisis, Angela Merkel is failing to provide leadership, and very often favours the "do nothing" option (or at least, do too little, too late)...

London 2012 Olympic Games

Lessons for MSP Programme Managers

For several years, the 2012 games have been criticised because their costs were constantly rising. Now, a different type of criticism is appearing, saying that some of the promised benefits will be hard to deliver.

This article reviews the London Olympics using the perspective of MSP (Managing Successful Programmes). As a major UK government initiative, this is reasonable - the Olympic Games programme should use MSP, which is the approved UK government Programme Management method

London 2012 Olympic Games - Tranches and Blueprints

If we analyse the 2012 Olympics as an MSP programme, then – here I simplify things – there are two main tranches. Tranche 1 is to prepare the games and run the event; Tranche 2 is to deliver the legacy. In this case, the programme will have two main Blueprints – an Intermediate Blueprint for the summer games in 2012, and a Final Blueprint that specifies the long-term outcome, where the stadium, the aquatic centre, etc. are handed over to the local community.

London 2012 Olympic Games – Initial Business Case

The London bid for the Olympics, as presented in Singapore in 2004, was full of promise. The list of benefits included

• 20,000 local construction jobs
• Boost to Tourism during the Games
• Legacy sporting venues (Stadium, Aquatic centre)
• A boost to Sport in UK
• Rejuvenation of East London
• New transport infrastructure

This gave a positive business case. For £2.3 billion of costs, the benefits would be high. An easy-to-justify Business Case.

London 2012 Olympic Games – Updated Business Case

Now, seven years later, the picture has changed. The preparation for the 2012 London Olympic Games is advancing. The major building works are done, and preparations for the summer games are well advanced.

The costs have risen, and keep rising. Some benefits are fragile or negative.

The cost estimates have grown and grown. The budget has grown from £2.3 billion to £9.3 billion. This cost growth has been widely documented, so I won’t discuss it here. The most recent cost expansion, identified this week, concerns security staff. The original plan (on the Intermediate Blueprint, i.e. for the 2012 Games period) included a major element for event security, with 10,000 security staff. This has been found to be insufficient, and 20,000 security staff will be needed, at considerable additional cost.

London 2012 Olympic Games – A benefits review

The benefits forecast has come under more recent scrutiny. Two major sporting venues will be created for the Games, the Aquatic centre and the Olympic stadium. Both have serious problems with their benefit realisation, but the problems with benefits are wider:

• 20,000 local jobs – The massive building programme created tens of thousands of construction industry jobs. On a recent BBC radio programme “File on Four”, local politicians explained that only a few hundred local residents got jobs. The benefit has not been delivered. In MSP terms, this benefit is badly profiled. A benefit profile must pass the DOAM test (Describable, Observable, Attributable, Measurable). The authorities can track the jobs and the workers, but there is no way to trace whether the workers are local people. Many building workers came from outside London, but now have London addresses while they are working on there. They are not local people, they are temporary residents. So this benefit profile fails the DOAM test – not observable and/or not measurable – and is therefore hard to claim as a benefit for the programme. This benefit should therefore be removed from the Benefit Map and the Business Case.
• Boost to Tourism - Many politicians are still talking of increased tourism due to the Games. This is a just a dream. The politicians need to learn from the past. As a recent article in “The Economist” explains “Since the 1992 Barcelona games, hosts have seen a fall in foreign guests during each Olympics, as well as in the months before and after”. This supposed benefit is therefore actually a dis-benefit, because there will be fewer tourists in 2012 than in a normal year. Indeed some West End theatre owners fear they will have to close their shows next summer due to lack of customers. This dis-benefit makes the already bad programme Business Case even worse.
• Legacy – the Aquatic Centre. The Final Blueprint for the programme specifies that the aquatic centre will be a community leisure pool, with slides and toboggans. Have fun, bring the kids! However the intermediate blueprint for the aquatic centre is not aligned to this need. The aquatic centre has now been built – it’s a large, iconic architectural masterpiece, probably good for the summer Olympics. But it has low roof, which cannot be converted to give room for the future slides and toboggans, which will attract families with kids. Additionally, the large prestigious building will be expensive to run and maintain (perhaps £2m per year). So the benefit delivery from the aquatic centre may be bad, with high costs and low income. The cashable value of the benefit will go down, and the programme Business Case gets worse.
• Legacy – the Stadium. The second legacy venue is the stadium. The initial benefit realisation plan for the Olympics proposed the sale of the stadium, but this has hit major problems. The expected sale to either Tottenham or West Ham football clubs hit legal issues, and the stadium will now be rented, not sold, which directly hits the benefits stream and the programme Business Case. No rental contract has been signed, so a large cash benefit has been replaced by a possible long-term rental income. Worse, the new rental tenant may ask for building work as a condition for rental, which would add to programme costs.
• Regeneration of East London – the Village – The Olympic village will be built for the Games, and then converted into housing, at a cost of £1.1billion. This seems to have been sold to developers for £825million. While some politicians dispute the figures, it seems to that the regeneration (an intangible benefit) must be balanced by a significant cost or dis-benefit (the £275 million loss on the sale of the Village).
• Regeneration of East London – the Media Centre. A huge building has been built for the media, to support 20,000 journalists and TV crews during the games, at a cost of a third of a billion pounds. However, there is no decision, and no clear plan about the legacy use of the Media Centre. The Final Blueprint is unclear, after 7 years!

London 2012 Olympic Games – Not a viable programme?

For any normal Programme, the Business Case is regularly reviewed. A golden rule of MSP is that if the Business Case is bad, the programme should be halted. The Business Case of the 2012 Games looks very bad, with high costs and low benefits. Additionally, the Business Case has been artificially lightened by hiding many costs, such as infrastructure improvements (£6.5 billion) and counterterrorism (£1 billion)

However, this programme is a political programme, with the UK prestige at stake. In reality, the programme will not be halted. This once-justifiable programme seems to have become an expensive folly.

London 2012 Olympic Games – Lessons for MSP Programme Managers

The lesson for Rio 2016 and for future Olympic Games? In the recent BBC radio programme “File on Four”, the final comment from a London politician gives us a key lesson about Stakeholder Engagement – “Make sure that the people who are responsible for your legacy are there at the start; don’t plan an Olympic Games where everybody is in there just for the purposes of delivering an Olympic Games”. A good lesson for Rio and a good lesson for all Programme Managers.

© Copyright Triotime 2011

Aim high to build a high performance team

In today’s fast moving world, most organisations have a large change agenda. Do you have more projects to run than people to run them? Are you forced to use inexperienced staff to run key projects?

One response to this challenge is to look at best-practice frameworks like Prince2 for Project Management, or MSP for Programme Management. But it’s important to set the right goal.

When you start to deploy a best practice framework like Prince2 or MSP for your team or company, you should set the goal high. You want a high performance team, not just a few star performers. If you create team-wide strength in project management, you can really start to deliver your organisation’s change agenda.

Some organisations hesitate to standardise on a framework like Prince2; perhaps they train a few people, but they don’t roll it out to everyone.

They are missing the benefits of a generalised solution. The way to get full benefit from a framework like Prince2 is to generalise its use.

There are three reasons why you should widen the rollout of a framework like Prince2 or MSP:

1) each framework is relatively simple to learn so training is short and relatively cost effective

2) a framework provides a single point of truth to unite the team

3) a framework helps your organisation to improve and innovate.

Let’s look at those points

1) Speed: Learn in a week

All the best practice frameworks from OGC (Prince2, MSP, MoP, P3O, etc) are reasonably simple to understand. With a week’s training, you can understand the key concepts, pass an exam and get a basic understanding of how to use the framework.

At the team or enterprise level, this means that all your team can learn your method. You can train them all. This is a key to success.

2) Single point of truth

If your organisation uses a framework such as Prince2, you have an external reference.

There are thousands and thousands of books on Project Management. Every author has his or her own ideas. If you don’t have some reference point for your organisation, every Project Manager will have his or her own ideas.

Prince2 has condensed a huge diversity of opinion into one book, which covers a major part of Project Management . That means that an organisation which adopts Prince2 has started to simplify its Project Management problem. With Prince2, you start to introduce a single vocabulary, a single point of view, a single intellectual framework. That’s significant added value, and a second key to success.

3) Improve and innovate

Don’t be worried by Prince2’s apparent complexity. Treat it like a supermarket which stocks 10,000 items, but you only need a week’s groceries. It up to you to choose. You can adapt Prince2 to your needs. This is what Prince2 calls “tailoring”.

If you tailor Prince2 with intelligence, it becomes a springboard to innovation. It becomes easier to implement, easier to use, and easier to adapt to your business needs.

You should start with the standard framework of Prince2, then simplify in order to implement it. If you hit barriers to implementation, then simplify it further. (That’s quite normal - the first simplification is never quite enough!). This simple core is your starting point. It’s your foundation for building team-wide high performance.

As you continue, you can build on this foundation. You have focussed on the essentials of your project management problem. You have a basis for continuous improvement, for further innovation. And that’s your third key to success.

That’s three keys to success to building in-depth strength, and a high performance team. You need to aim high to increase your project capacity, and to meet the challenge of delivering an ambitious change agenda. Aim high, deliver high performance.

Aim high to build a high performance team

In today’s fast moving world, most organisations have a large change agenda. Do you have more projects to run than people to run them? Are you forced to use inexperienced staff to run key projects?

One response to this challenge is to look at best-practice frameworks like Prince2 for Project Management, or MSP for Programme Management. But it’s important to set the right goal.

When you start to deploy a best practice framework like Prince2 or MSP for your team or company, you should set the goal high. You want a high performance team, not just a few star performers. If you create team-wide strength in project management, you can really start to deliver your organisation’s change agenda.

Some organisations hesitate to standardise on a framework like Prince2; perhaps they train a few people, but they don’t roll it out to everyone.

They are missing the benefits of a generalised solution. The way to get full benefit from a framework like Prince2 is to generalise its use.

There are three reasons why you should widen the rollout of a framework like Prince2 or MSP:

1) each framework is relatively simple to learn so training is short and relatively cost effective

2) a framework provides a single point of truth to unite the team

3) a framework helps your organisation to improve and innovate.

Let’s look at those points

1) Speed: Learn in a week

All the best practice frameworks from OGC (Prince2, MSP, MoP, P3O, etc) are reasonably simple to understand. With a week’s training, you can understand the key concepts, pass an exam and get a basic understanding of how to use the framework.

At the team or enterprise level, this means that all your team can learn your method. You can train them all. This is a key to success.

2) Single point of truth

If your organisation uses a framework such as Prince2, you have an external reference.

There are thousands and thousands of books on Project Management. Every author has his or her own ideas. If you don’t have some reference point for your organisation, every Project Manager will have his or her own ideas.

Prince2 has condensed a huge diversity of opinion into one book, which covers a major part of Project Management . That means that an organisation which adopts Prince2 has started to simplify its Project Management problem. With Prince2, you start to introduce a single vocabulary, a single point of view, a single intellectual framework. That’s significant added value, and a second key to success.

3) Improve and innovate

Don’t be worried by Prince2’s apparent complexity. Treat it like a supermarket which stocks 10,000 items, but you only need a week’s groceries. It up to you to choose. You can adapt Prince2 to your needs. This is what Prince2 calls “tailoring”.

If you tailor Prince2 with intelligence, it becomes a springboard to innovation. It becomes easier to implement, easier to use, and easier to adapt to your business needs.

You should start with the standard framework of Prince2, then simplify in order to implement it. If you hit barriers to implementation, then simplify it further. (That’s quite normal - the first simplification is never quite enough!). This simple core is your starting point. It’s your foundation for building team-wide high performance.

As you continue, you can build on this foundation. You have focussed on the essentials of your project management problem. You have a basis for continuous improvement, for further innovation. And that’s your third key to success.

That’s three keys to success to building in-depth strength, and a high performance team. You need to aim high to increase your project capacity, and to meet the challenge of delivering an ambitious change agenda. Aim high, deliver high performance.

Four profiles of programme management actors

Win-win with MSP in Madrid

I’ve spent the week in Madrid training people from a telecoms company on Programme Management.

The company has four types of people it needs to train.

The training is based on MSP, the Programme Management framework from OGC. In broad terms, MSP targets transformational programmes. These deliver change. They change the way an organisation works, or deliver change in a social or public service environment.

The first profile at the training was the programme manager, running internal transformation programmes. That’s the “typical” MSP programme, an internal transformation programme which drives business change inside an organisation.

The second profile is an upcoming role, namely people from the Programme Office. The company has a permanent programme office, to support the internal transformation work. I trained the Programme Office manager and a team member. They will help roll out and sustain MSP for the internal transformation programmes, for example by providing templates and guidance. And also more actively, they should play the Programme Office role within the programmes, to facilitate monitoring and control, and to act as the Programme information hub.

The third profile and fourth profiles take MSP into the client – supplier world. The company provides complex business solutions to its customers. While these are broadly technical – for example, providing a major upgrade to the client’s telephone system – there are benefits from using MSP to widen the focus from “simple” technical deliverable to the wider added-value outcome.

So the third profile is the Programme Manager of the client-facing programme. S/he benefits from MSP training by managing programmes differently. This will come from understanding the difference between technical outputs (e.g. the new proxy server) and the client’s business benefits (e.g. improved telecoms, enhanced videoconferencing, lower telecoms costs). With MSP, you recognise the overall value proposition in the programme, not just the technical deliverables.

The fourth profile is perhaps the most interesting, as it’s the client support role. Today this role takes over where the projects finish, to make sure that the client can use what the projects have delivered. Using an MSP approach, this role becomes the BCM (business change manager) and works actively with the project teams to ensure they think beyond technical deliverables. As BCM, s/he will prepare for business change and then drive it through; and work proactively with the client to ensure benefit realisation.

These latter two roles focus on the overall value chain. That includes client benefits, not just supplier profitability. That’s a change of mindset. And it’s not at the expense of the supplier business case – using an MSP approach, the Programme manager will get visibility of all the supplier work within the wider programme, and can also see the customer value proposition. This is a “win-win” approach, to replace the current “lose-lose” solution where the supplier projects seem profitable, but the profits disappear in costly post-project support to resolve customer issues (and a dissatisfied customer is often a lost customer).

To sum up: looking at the overall value proposition of the programme generates both supplier profits and customer satisfaction. Win-win with MSP.

Focus on transformation not PMOs

How a focus on business transformation programme gave the right PMO solution

I recently spent a couple of days with a fast growing hi-tech company in snowy Stockholm.
I was invited to help them with their PMO deployment, but it soon became clear that their urgent needs were based on an upcoming business change. They needed to shift focus.

They were looking at their PMO needs because their business is growing FAST and they are running more and more projects, so they had identified the need for a PMO solution. However, the company founder has recently announced a new organisation structure. The business is expanding worldwide, and the company needs regional operations. It can’t operate only out of Stockholm any more.

We started out as planned, working on the PMO agenda. I took the team through the basic P3O guidance. P3O is the OGC guidance about Projects, Programmes and Portfolios (that’s the P3); and specifically, on the “Office” structure needed to support the P3. Just to be clear, “P3” plus “O” gives P3O. The offices are commonly called PMOs, but the guidance is called P3O.

During day one, the picture became clear. The new organisation chart announced by the boss was going to transform their portfolio structure. So indeed P3O could help. However, faced with business transformation, P3O is not enough.

The P3O guidance does explain that a transformation programme based on MSP is a good way to roll out your new PMO solution. However, in the context of imminent business change, what’s the way forward?

According to the P3O best practice, the best way to add a PMO solution to your existing business is by running a transformation programme. So it became clear to me that the way forward was to wrap the two initiatives together, both the business reorganisation AND the PMO solution, all in one transformation programme. The programme should address the immediate business reorganisation first; and postpone some of the less urgent PMO work to later.

So here is what we did in the remaining time. We covered a lot of ground!

Step 1: Make sure everyone understands the basics of Portfolio Management as the business reorganisation will create new portfolios. For this, I used the new Management of Portfolios guidance from OGC, which is called MoP

Step 2: Focus on the business transformation programme. As a meeting room exercise, we drafted some of the key documents of the early MSP processes, notably
- Vision statement
- Blueprint after business transformation, including some basic PMO elements

Step 3: Focus on the final goal, including additional PMO elements. We drafted more MSP documents
- Final blueprint
- Project dossier
- Risks

This leads to a two-tranche programme which should deliver short and medium term solutions. Tranche 1 is business reorganisation, supported by the basic PMO structure; tranche 2 adds a full-strength PMO solution.

This has to be two tranches. The major change of reorganisation will be a big effort for this company. The second tranche will consolidate the work of the first tranche; and drive out more benefits.

So the lesson is this. Don’t focus on PMOs when you need wider business change. The business change is the priority, and your PMO structure should come out of that change programme.

A long term vision for PMOs

A bonus for a Danish public sector organisation

In November, I was in Copenhagen to work with people from the IT side of a large Danish public sector organisation

The plan was to focus on training about PMOs, but we went much further. They got their training but they also got a bonus.

The training was loosely based on P3O. The Danish team uses Prince2 for Project Management, and MSP for Programme Management. These are the existing cornerstones of the OGC guidance, so quite logically they are now looking at P3O, which is the OGC guidance on PMOs.

The P3O guidance for OGC is about Projects, Programmes and Portfolios (that’s the P3); and about how to support the P3 with an “Office” structure. That’s where the acronym comes from: “P3” plus “O” gives P3O.

In the first half of my visit, we covered all the P3O basics, of how to justify a PMO solution (that’s called the P3O value model) and how to design a PMO solution (that’s the P3O model itself).

In the second half, I expected to explain how to roll out a PMO solution (that’s called deploying the P3O model). But I spotted an opportunity. As the Danish team are skilled users of MSP best practice on programme management, we could do more than training. I put away my training material and all my prepared case studies, and focussed on the one case study which really interested my client – their own organisation.

So we started work on designing and implementing the client’s own PMO solution. That’s better than training. As the Chinese proverb says, “Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand.”

We drafted several MSP documents
- Vision statement
- 5 year blueprint
- Risk analysis
- Project dossier

This went fast, and was very productive. As the Chinese proverb says, the Danes were involved, and they understood. But they didn’t only learn. They also concretely started work on their future P3O programme. That’s a bonus.