A current assignment, nearing conclusion for Arras People, demonstrates the importance of buy-in by the Senior Management Team for our Third Sector client.

In his book "Fifth Discipline", Peter Senge stated that there are two main motivations for change: aspiration and desperation. The award of significant government funding (£10'sm) would cause feelings of angst in the best of us fundamentally challenged the way our client needed to work.

Arras People were approached to work on developing a Programme Structure to deliver a stream of the government's social agenda.

For the senior management team this posed a very different challenge to their role as champion of their target audience and distributor of donated funds.

Equally, they realised that such a massive undertaking would require a new type of organisational framework. But then the question becomes, 'How to achieve this?'

The response was to adopt a Programme Management approach headed by a charismatic and inspirational Programme Manager. The scale of the programme required someone who could instil confidence in the senior management team and the organisation as a whole that this was a manageable and achievable proposition.

For the programme to be successful it needs to ensure that activities are aligned to the needs of the clients. But who are the clients in this case?

• Is it the target audience for whom the service is being delivered?
  
• Or is it the funding body?

The truth is probably both. By meeting the needs of the target audience and demonstrating value for money to the funders, the programme will be judged a success.

The Senior Management Team is really driving this programme and see a fantastic opportunity to change the nature of their business as well as being a role model for the industry as a whole. The push by government to engage with the Third Sector in delivering the social agenda is a key part of the procurement strategy. Combining the passion of Third Sector organisations, with the resources to make a difference has the potential to change the way services are delivered.

But what sort of person would be suitable for this role? The ideal candidate they feel is a strong leader with excellent commercial skills used to driving change. The management of technological-rich solutions plays a large part in everyday business life that potential candidates have tended to have managed large scale IT transformations. The people they have spoken to have tended to come from the private sector as the senior management team feel they need to adopt a more enterprising approach if they are to flourish.

This is the first of an entire Programme Management structure that involves new roles and a change in attitude of the entire business. The senior management team are under no illusion that this transition will be quick or easy.

But their belief is that they have to rise to the challenge and as such they are totally committed to this path.

Will it be successful?

The simple answer is that it has to be and I have no doubt that the Programme Manager and his new team, supported by the senior management team will be the benchmark for Third Sector delivery for many years to come.

Previously clearly defined functions such as Programme, Project and Portfolio management appear to be evolving. Once upon a time, the programme management function was place to ensure the strategic goals of the business were met now elements of portfolio management merge into programme management, and project management is merging with both programme and portfolio management. Is this a conscious decision, a lack of understanding, or just the need to pick and choose what works?

As stated below (taken from the OGC website) programme management is surrounding changes to client services. However APM states programme management as coordinated management of related projects which may also include business as usual activities also stating programme management varies across industries and business sectors, leaving the function open to interpretation (or picking and choosing?).

OGC's definition of project management highlights a very interesting point in regards to the necessity for a project if, in the initial stages, a thorough investigation was instigated around "why, when, how and what", a clearer definition of function requirements would be apparent instead of jumping right into trying to resolve the issue. APM state a similar definition in regard to project management but also states projects bring about change - which is overlapping OGC's programme management description.

Portfolio management, according to APM and OGC definition, is very similar though it is described as running at a high level such as programme management.

The debate surrounding the characterisation of the discussed three areas could be deemed as infinite - there are a lot of courses, books, articles and blogs surrounding such issues. Having researched the trend to merge the roles, I have found there are many reasons behind such confusion as stated above, the need for a solution without clearly defining the problem is a large contributing factor. In addition to this, traditional business structures add confusion to where the functions should truly sit within an organisation, not to mention the increasing trend of businesses requiring more than is set out in the parameters of a single function.

All of these factors provoke more questions, but if we haven't got the functions clearly defined by our governance providers, how can we strive towards a more efficient business structure?

So if not Paradise Found, what is the next best thing? Paradise Average? A state where we hope we can reap the benefits of a Paradise Found, but with less hassle? Our programmes and projects are transient, not core to the business, so the function managing them should be the same. We are left to hope that, by relying on good programme managers, supported by good project managers (and, where appropriate, their project offices), we will maintain a linkage to the business strategy and deliver results. Our business unit leaders will bridge that gap between top level corporate strategy and the work carried out on the project shop floor. Hoping that the business unit leaders buy into a PMO function that at least knows the score across the business units because who else is going to?

Many requests for programme managers and PMO managers, where an organisation is trying to improve its programme and project outcomes, ask for candidates with skills and experiences that could take them to the Paradise Found. Unfortunately the remuneration and benefits often reflect the Paradise Lost.

2. You need the right Corporate PMO Manager. Again, this person needs to be a seasoned manager who relies on experience to implement solutions. They use communication tools first and foremost, above everything else, and they are not relying on the usual 'Me-too' tools (MSP, PRINCE2, etc.) to take the "we love this approach" to the "our business is successful due to our approach".