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.
Tuesday 15 March 2011
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.
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.
Monday 14 March 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)