Review of Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) 5th Edition

I’ve belatedly got to grips with Managing Successful Programmes (MSPⓇ) 5th Edition. I’m late to the party – my book was delivered several weeks late, thanks to Brexit.

The new MSP 5th Edition replaces the 2011 4th Edition, one of the most successful books produced by the team at OGC/Cabinet Office. The 4th Edition had its strengths and weaknesses, but overall was liked for its simplicity (not packed full of rules like Prince2) and utility (good practical guidance for Programme teams).

How does the 5th Edition stack up compared its predecessor?

First, the Good News

The new guide has some strong points, for example:

• The concept and application of VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity)
• Design and planning are now separate activities (as I have espoused in my new book)
• Recognition that some projects will use Agile or Hybrid methods (read my book)
• Communities of Practice (read my recent blog)
• Use of Retrospectives (read my book)
• Some clarification of the role of Programme and Portfolio Offices
• Removal of some poor material (e.g. the weak material on Quality)

Additionally, there is continuity with many of the key documents previously used in previous versions, such as the Programme Brief, Vision Statement, Business Case, Benefits Map, etc.

The Themes are prisoner of the 777 gimmick

The new book has a structural problem, which seems to be self-imposed. It has adopted the infantile Prince2Ⓡ gimmick of having 7 principles, 7 themes and 7 processes.

The artificial limit of 7 themes has meant a savaging of the themes from the 4th Edition, with the disappearance of some key subjects of prime importance to programme teams.

If you ask a programme manager for his or her main areas of concern, you will probably get a list something like this:

• Benefits
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Risk / Issues
• Planning
• Business Case

In the new book, only two of these survive

• Business Case, which is renamed Justification (and is now overly focussed on financial benefits, to the exclusion of non-financial and intangible benefits)
• Planning, which is renamed Structure (a bizarre choice of name, which only serves to confuse).

The new themes of Design, Knowledge and Assurance make sense (unlike the new Decision theme, which is full of fine words about decision-making, but lacks practicality). What doesn’t make sense is the arbitrary limit of 7 themes. The authors are trapped in a prison of their own making.

The resulting 7 themes are overloaded, and the absence of key chapters such as Risk, Benefits and Stakeholder Management is a serious weakness. In previous versions of the book, several key concepts of Change Management were introduced in the chapter on Stakeholder Management – that chapter has now gone. The new book is weaker as a result.

In general, a programme team using the 5th Edition book as a resource during a programme will struggle to find the practical information they need.

The Processes are adrift

The new book starts with VUCA. It’s on the first page of the introduction: we are in a new world of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity.

To respond, the new book has a new process model or Programme lifecycle, influenced by VUCA and inspired by Agile iterative delivery. The old approach of a master plan, carefully worked out in advance, then delivered in tranches has gone. In a VUCA world of volatility, there must be frequent assessment of new information and consequent redesign and replanning.

But the new process model has two major weaknesses

Weakness 1: The new process model is wrong

The new  process model is presented as an iterative loop.

This is highly misleading, as the first time round the loop, the Design and Plan processes are heavy – they initiate all sorts of work; whereas on subsequent iterations, these two processes are light – they revise existing documents.

So the model should be like this

Weakness 2: The gate process has gone

Since its inception in 1999, MSP has never used the word “gate”, but it has always been a gate process. (The same is true for Prince2.)

Gates are good for governance: In most cases, at the end of a tranche, there should be a go/no-go gate; by default, the gate is closed; when the gate is opened, the team can start the next tranche. If there is no clear gate, then the programme can too easily drift along from one tranche to another…

The new version is unclear about gates. Instead it has multiple “formal approval” points (five per tranche). This is not a basis for good governance.

Gates support Management by Exception: In a gate process, the gate meeting occurs to take a go/no-go decision and to delegate work to the programme team.

That’s a key element of Management by Exception

• Gate meetings are decision meetings
• Don’t have a meeting if there is nothing to decide

Management by Exception has disappeared from the new 5th Edition. That’s a mistake.

With no clarity on gates, and with 5 decision points per tranche, the 5th Edition process opens the door to Management by Meeting.

To sum up: the process model needs clear gates, possibly like this:

Will 12 approaches be used… or sidelined?

The new 5th Edition has 12 approaches. Unlike the themes which have been limited in number, the approaches have multiplied. The 8 strategies in the 2011 version have become 12 approaches in the new edition.

The previous 8 strategies were hard to digest. As a trainer, I too often saw blank incomprehension when I patiently explained the 8 strategies in the classroom. I always suspected that these strategies would be remembered in the exam room, then rapidly sidelined and forgotten.

In the new book, there are 12 approaches, scattered around the book in 7 themes, and not even collated together in the important appendix A, Programme Documentation. They remain important in the exam room, but will they be used in real-world programmes? I suspect not.

Tinkering but not adding value

Programme Management is about Change Management and adding value.

In this new book, there is a lot of low-level change which adds no clear value (“planning“ becomes “structure”, “strategy“ becomes “approach”, etc.)

And there’s a lot of new consultancy jargon using word-pairs which will confuse rather than clarify, especially for non-native speakers of English. (Note that only 2 of the following 9 words are in the glossary)

• affordability vs achievability

• pace vs velocity

• capacity vs capability (or ability)

• efficient vs effective

Worth the bother?

So, is the new MSP 5th Edition worth the bother? The book has been modernised, but has it been improved? Is this really the new best practice? As I wrote in an earlier blog, the term “Best Practice” has become very popular. Too often, it is overused. At worst, it is pure marketing-speak.

Axelos are a sales and marketing company (unlike their OGC/Cabinet Office predecessors who worked for the UK government). As ever, Axelos assure everyone that the new MSP 5th Edition is best practice. But that’s what they said about the old MSP. Yesterday’s best practice is suddenly declared to be obsolete. As the saying goes, Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi (the King is dead, long live the King!). And Axelos are the king makers.

The 4th Edition from 2011 was fairly easy to learn, and fairly easy to apply. It served as a practical reference guide. The new 5th Edition is harder to learn. It’s much more conceptual; and consequently less practical.

Indeed the guide has been modernised, but it has also been rewritten, not always successfully. And a good many changes are questionable. They add confusion, not value.

This is not a success in terms of Change Management. Any mixed teams, where some people use the 4th Edition and others the new 5th Edition will face issues. Corporate PMOs will also face issues. They might be reassured that most of the key documents are unchanged (the templates), but should be concerned about the gap between the two editions; and that the 5th Edition is less practical, harder to apply.

So if you already know MSP, don’t rush to migrate to the 5th Edition. It’s a big change, requiring too much effort, with not enough added value.

If you are new to MSP, then take the plunge. This new edition is not easy to digest, but MSP will inspire you and guide your programme management. At least that is unchanged.

___ 

Prince2Ⓡ and MSPⓇ are registered trademarks of Axelos Ltd

Learn from Lean: use Collaborative Design for faster and cheaper projects

 When should a project manager plan to use the project budget? Should you keep a lot of budget in reserve for the last part of the project, to fire-fight problems? Intuitively, the answer is YES.

But the answer from Lean is NO. You should invest up-front in Collaborative Design. You will have fewer fires to fight. This article explains why.

Collaborative Design in Lean Manufacturing

Lean Project Management is based on Lean Manufacturing. Lean Manufacturing was pioneered in Japan by Toyota and Honda. Collaborative design was an integral part of the success of Lean Manufacturing.

It’s often hard to transfer concepts from Lean Manufacturing to Lean Project Manufacturing. But in this case it’s easy, because Collaborative Design comes from Lean’s new product introduction: for automobile manufacturers, introducing a new car is a project. Toyota and Honda pioneered Collaborative Design to optimise their project success.

It’s explained in the excellent book The Machine that Changed the World : the Story of Lean Production by James Womack et al.

In the best lean projects, the numbers of people involved are highest at the very outset. All the relevant specialities are present, and the project manager’s job is to force the group to confront all the difficult trade-offs they’ll have to make to agree on the project. As development proceeds, the number of people involved drops…

In many mass production design exercises, the number of people involved is very small at the outset but grows to a peak very close to time of launch… to resolve problems that should have been cleared up in the beginning.

The budget is spent very differently in Lean: it’s spent upfront. Whereas in Mass Production, it’s saved for downstream trouble-shooting.

Let’s draw this as a graph. Let’s compare two projects which have the same budget in man-days (effort). We see that the two graphs of effort against time are very different.

Collaborative Design drives project success. The authors quote some figures:

• cheaper: a nearly two-to-one reduction in effort
• faster: a saving of one-third in time

Collaborative Design in Project Management

Let’s bring this back from automobiles to project management.

A lot of projects follow the same curve as Mass Production. Planning is largely a solitary activity, mostly done by the project manager. Resources are added down-stream to firefight problems late in the project.

Collaborative Design brings together the key stakeholders (such as work package owners, subject matter experts and users) ...

Read the rest of the article here

•  to see other comparative graphs 
•  understand the three features of Collaborative Design
  

Use recipes to bake better projects

Are your projects unpredictable? Maybe they are a bit like my mother’s cakes!

Better cakes, better projects

My mother wasn’t a great fan of recipes. She had some cookery books, but didn’t always use them. She often baked a cake without using a recipe. Consequently, our family had some great cakes, but also a lot of middling cakes, and a few disasters. Unpredictable.

Does that sound familiar to project managers? Your projects may be a similar mix - few great projects, a lot of middling projects and some disasters.

If your baking was unpredictable, how would you improve it? You would need to start using recipes. And start taking notes on each recipe: “the oven should be at 200°C not 180°C”; or, “this recipe would be better with two eggs". Those notes help you tweak the recipe to improve the result. So next time you bake, try using two eggs. Or try baking at 200°C

To improve your projects, you need the same approach. But we’ll talk about processes instead of cake recipes. And we’ll need continuous improvement, instead of tweaks.

The objective is to get your projects under control. You need defined project management processes (your recipes), and you need feedback from real-world projects (that’s your notes suggesting tweaks). Then test out the revised processes in the next projects. That’s a cycle of continuous improvement.

click here to continue reading about 

• Donald J. Wheeler's Four States of Control

• W. Edwards Deming's SDCA cycle

• My recipe for baking better projects

When standard Project Management life-cycles are surprising

A few years ago, I created a project management software package called TrioProject. The package was quite good, but it had a major flaw. It used a Gate process approach, which was good. But it standardised the Gate processes… and to my great surprise, that proved to be a weakness. The standardised life-cycle was the flaw.

It came as a surprise to me, because I've been working on project management standards for decades. It was clear to me that, to improve project management, you need standards. But you have to standardise the right thing. If you over-standardise life-cycles, you are in trouble. I was in trouble.

I'm not the only person to make this mistake. Often, when I talk to PMOs, I discover that they've made the same mistake. I learn that they have a standard life-cycle such as 

• Charter
• Initiate
• Build
• Test
• Deliver and Deploy
• Close

So let's unravel this problem. Where did I go wrong?

A mixture of good and bad ideas

My first good idea was to use a Gate process. The Project is structured as a series of Stages, each separated by a Gate. This is a proven way of working. It splits the project into manageable chunks of work (stages). It allows the project board to control progress (gates).

My second good idea was to standardise the process. In this way, all projects follow the same path. This standardisation enables repetition, which is the basis for continuous improvement.

The flaw - my bad idea - was to over-standardise the process. Every project is different. So a standard life-cycle is overkill. It's a bad idea. The diversity of projects is enormous. In reality, many projects cannot and should not follow a standard process.

When standards become a problem not a solution.

Once you start down the wrong path, standards become a problem not the solution. If every project has to use a standard process then people hit problems:

• The process doesn't fit the project (square peg in a round hole)
• The project manager applies the process blindly, without enough thought

Some companies address these problems by multiplying the number of standards.

• One company used different life-cycles for different sized projects (small, medium, large).
• A building company used 3 standard processes, for construction, renovation and maintenance projects.

But multiple standards only complicate the problem, they don't solve the problem.

Faced with these problems, other companies give up on standard life-cycles.

How to ensure that standards are good news

The answer is not to reject standardisation. Standardisation is the foundation of continuous improvement and better project management.

But standardisation must recognise that each project is different:

• Yes, it's a good idea is to use a Gate process.
• Yes, it's a good idea to standardise the OVERALL process
• BUT it's vital to understand that each project is DIFFERENT

The way to achieve this is to use project design. For each project, the delivery must be designed, not standardised.

Delivery needs to be designed (not standardised)

Each project is different, and each project needs to be designed.

Project design is an early project activity which works out how to deliver the project. The project team works out how many stages are needed, and what those stages are.

That's the big challenge: every project must deliver differently.

During project design, the project team analyses project delivery and structures it appropriately. They understand their unique challenge, and design their unique solution.

So that's the source of the flaw in TrioProject. It was a mistake to over-standardise project delivery. You cannot decide in advance. Delivery should be DESIGNED and NOT STANDARDISED.

A sandwich of standardisation

The resulting standard project management life-cycle is a sandwich

• standardise the early parts of the project
• design delivery (recognising that each project is different)
• standardise the final parts of the project

This still provides the basis for a repeatable life-cycle. It allows for enough standardisation to enable continuous improvement.

Read my recent book to find out more about Project Design; and learn how to design your next project.

Traps to avoid

Before we finish, here is a reminder of the traps to avoid:

• don't standardise the number of delivery stages (for example 3 delivery stages)
• don't standardise the names of delivery stages (for example analysis, build, deployment)

A small project might need only one delivery stage. A larger project might need five delivery stages. A second large project might need five completely different delivery stages.

Build the Project Factory

To sum up, we standardise project management to give a basis of repetition. Standards provide the foundation for continuous improvement and for building a project factory.

But we also recognise that each project is different. We need to reconcile standards and flexibility.

In a forthcoming blog, I'll say more about the Project Factory. Watch this space.

Why Lean PMOs use CoPs not policemen

How do you improve project management in an organisation? The "classical" solution was to create a PMO (a project management office). The PMO published standards, then told everyone to use their new standards.

That approach often failed for two reasons. Firstly, the standards were heavy and impractical, written by PMO "experts". And secondly, the PMO became the enforcer of standards. They became the Project Police.

There is a Lean alternative. The way forward is to use CoPs, not policemen.

A CoP is a community of practice

A CoP is a community of practice. It brings together practitioners to share knowledge, problems and ideas. Many organisations in various areas (government, education, web content, ...) have started to use communities of practice. They recognise that more and more people are knowledge workers; and that sharing knowledge adds value.

Knowledge is not centralised. It is spread around the organisation. Many people have knowledge, not just the "experts". The community of practice brings together practitioners to harvest knowledge. The CoP is linked to a domain (such as Project Management). For example, at Stanford University, there are about 50 CoPs, each working on one domain.

Feedback from practitioners is new knowledge

The old top-down model for project management assumed that the PMO were the "experts". The experts had a monopoly of knowledge, so they published the standards. In practice, the standards weren't always great - they were too complex, and heavy to use in practice.

An organisation that values its knowledge workers uses a different approach. It uses a collaborative model, rather than a top-down model.

The CoP is the heart of this collaborative model. It creates a feedback loop on project management standards. The practitioners who work in real-world projects provide feedback (what works? what needs improvement?) Their feedback creates new knowledge. And when that knowledge is used to improve the standards, it adds value. The CoP becomes part of a value chain.

Iterate to improve

The modern organisation wants to be more agile. People now recognise that project management is a complex problem. Faced with such complexity, the agile approach is to discover the solution over a period of time, iteratively. There is no perfect solution that an expert can specify at their desk.

Finding a solution requires feedback: the early solution is tested in use, and then refined. The solution emerges iteratively, over a period of time.

The community of practice is the perfect tool for getting feedback. The CoP provides the feedback from project managers who are trying to use the standards.

In this context, the Lean PMO has a new role to play. They are no longer the "experts". The PMO may propose some standards (draft versions or prototypes). But their key role is to stimulate iterative improvement, driven by the community. This results in practical, workable standards that project teams will use.

Create a community of practice (CoP) to drive improvements

The CoP must be focussed. It's not a talking shop, to swap stories or moan about problems. The CoP engages project managers in the creation and evolution of standards. This ensures that the standards are practical and applicable to real-world projects.

The focus is on continuous improvement:

• what works?
• what is broken?
• how can we improve things?

Here are some examples

• A template that is too complex and hard to use
• A reporting requirement that generates hours of work each week
• A procedure that no longer works
• A great new tool for tracking issues

To maintain focus, the PMO commits to listening to the CoP, and taking on board their ideas. It's the feedback from the community of practice that drives the new versions of the standards and adds value.

How does the Lean PMO set up a community of practice?

• Define your starting point. Pull together your current good practice into one place. Collate everything into a document or a website (your procedures, processes, tools, templates, etc.). This is your draft standard, version 0.1.
• Find some good people. Find project management practitioners who want to get things done better.
• Get your CoP moving. Set up a simple, light process for discussing and sharing. Add a simple tool (e.g. Slack or a micro-website).
• Keep the CoP focussed. The focus is continual improvement. Keep things light and lean. Avoid long meetings - project managers are busy people.
• Add value. Use the feedback from the CoP to improve your standards. Publish new versions of standards (templates version 2.0, procedures version 1.1, and so on).
• Communicate. Tell everyone how that the CoP is driving improvement, and how the process is adding value.
• Iterate. Keep going. Improvement is an ongoing, long-term process.

Other benefits of CoPs in the Project Management domain

The community of practice is especially useful in the project management domain

• Many projects span organisational and geographic boundaries. In the same way, the CoP goes beyond the silo organisation. It is a community of project managers, regardless of organisational and geographic boundaries.
• Many project managers start their careers as subject matter experts. As the years go by, they become project management experts. The CoP helps this transition. It boosts the visibility of the project management domain. Thereby, it helps professionalise project management.

Read more about CoPs here

CoPs not police

The bottom line is that if you are a PMO struggling to impose your standards, then stop trying to be a policeman. Think CoPs not police.

This blog is part of a series about the Lean PMO, which will form the basis of a new Lean3 book. Find out more at LeanPub