Skip to content

Should major programmes have a ‘single controlling mind’?

Every orchestra needs a conductor, every battle a commander. Who plays that role on your programme?

At the heart of today’s major programmes, regardless of type or sector, typically lies a Programme Management Office (PMO).

The PMO sits across the programme, often comprising workstreams or functions that organise the delivery of the projects within the programme. PMO’s can take various forms, from a basic governance role with guidance and assurance provided for project, programme and portfolio management, to a more controlling and responsible role where aspects of planning and delivery are undertaken from within.

Direction is set for the programme by the PMO and / or Programme Executive Leadership team through: delivery strategy, programme execution planning and subsequent tactical adjustment based on performance.

Two questions I have been grappling with are: should major programmes have a ‘single controlling mind’ and could it work?

A single controlling mind doesn’t necessarily mean a single individual, more realistically it is a small group of experts working as an integrated planning team. As with the human mind, a programme organisation has the need to integrate data from various sources and stimuli, process this into information, make decisions to take actions, analyse issues in order to solve problems, react quickly when necessary as well as plan for the long term. And this is just the start...

In my opinion, due to its complex responsibilities a ‘single controlling mind’ can form part of the PMO, or the Programme Executive Leadership team – but the role needs to be formalised, clearly defined, resourced and empowered to make the appropriate decisions.

Some programmes de-centralise this role, with each work stream or function undertaking these planning activities at the local level with the central PMO responsible for integrating inputs.

There is a compelling military analogy here for the use of a ‘single controlling mind’. Military campaign strategy and mission command and control is undertaken centrally by teams with situational awareness from across the battle space – making decisions based on ‘campaign first’ criteria i.e. decisions consider the impact across the overall military strategic plan of inter-related military operations. The troops out in the field are then empowered to work within the boundaries set by the central command team.

The key attribute of the centralised command structure is the authority to instruct. The central team makes decisions for the good of the programme based on having visibility across the portfolio of inter-related projects being delivered. This could include: concentrating scarce shared resources in the right areas of the overall programme at the right time, co-ordinating the logistics and materials supply, and designing / evolving the overall delivery model for the programme.

Key to the ‘single controlling mind’ is that it should:

  • Comprise deep subject matter experts, who have experience of the domain and programme type – lieutenants who have earned their stripes from previous battles; both from a planning and delivery perspective
  • Be dynamic; capable of anticipating and reacting to emerging situations and making decisions at short notice, as well as analysing the long term strategic needs of the programme to put in place the actions required to ensure success.Examples include; identifying consents required for listed structures, identifying long lead scarce resources or establishing supply chain capability gaps that need to be fulfilled to deliver the programme.

But can a major programme of tens of thousands of people, 1000’s of suppliers, and billions of pounds in spend really be planned and managed this way?

My contention is that they can. Every orchestra needs a conductor, every battle a commander. They have the full picture upon which to make decisions and to provide clear direction and instruction.

Using the conductor analogy, they set the direction and boundaries within which the orchestra works, crucially allowing the members of the orchestra thresholds of freedom within which to play and to be creative. Major programmes can also work this way: with the single controlling mind setting boundaries for the work streams and / or functions of the programme to work within.

Food for thought…
As with all programme delivery models and methodologies, you need to assess what is right for you and your circumstances. But for me, situational awareness at programme level and being able to orchestrate and instruct from the centre is a compelling characteristic for being able to make the best decisions for the benefit of the overall programme.

Ask yourselves what is right for you. How is your programme structured, and who orchestrates the master plan? Is this the most effective way to deliver the outputs and customer benefits required?

I look forward to your feedback.

3 comments

Join the conversation!

Log in to post a comment, or create an account if you don't have one already.

  1. Richard Renshaw
    Richard Renshaw 22 October 2016, 03:36 PM

    Suggestion

    Hi Neil, good post.

    In my opinion for a future programme there should be articulated a Vision. This document could be a single sheet and in some cases a single paragraph. Supporting the Vision I suggestion there be developed a number of policies or strategic initiatives.

    What may prove beneficial is to consider in the early stage of development an adaptation of:

    - SMO (Strategic Initiatives Office)

    - PgMO (Delivery Office).

    Helpful publications: MSP, P3O and the  current 2nd edition of the Programme Management Handbook (publisher, Gower) add value for providing frameworks and case studies.

    Likely training and qualifications from APM Group on Programme Management and hopefully PgMO shall become available and aligned to future ISO 21504 - Programme Management.

    The use of Organization Maturity Models (such as P3M3), Competency Frameworks,  Risk and opportunity management - ISO 31000, add value together with Learning Legacy initiatives for good practice.

    I hope this is of help.

    Richard

    Sunny Qatar

  2. Adrian Pyne
    Adrian Pyne 04 November 2016, 03:38 PM

    Well yes, obviously and..........

    An intriguing Blog this. Best practice - and it is exactly that - says there should be an overall Sponsor (SRO etc.), for whom the "buck stops here". Albeit a difficult concept for some organisations, not least the public sector. Then is it controlling or guiding? Probably both. The notion of a set of experts is good; if [a] there is overall leadership (i.e. Sponsor) and [b] there is some sort of overall solution leadership, e.g. a Design Authority. Which may also be the Sponsor, often not. The risk otherwise is that you end up with a camel (i.e. a horse designed by committee - old joke). We are all human and the more people involved the more they may tend to bend the major programme - or their bit of it - to their view. So the leadership - both Sponsor and Design - need to keep everyone focused - not so much on OUTCOMES, which we have a habit of doing, but on VALUE - why the programme is being done. This by the way.....is AGILE.

  3. xiangwan yu
    xiangwan yu 13 February 2017, 10:32 AM

    I am an editor of Chinese magazine which named Project Management Review. After reading this paper ,we want to translate it into Chinese and publish on our magazine. We believe that your opinion of the article can cause Chinese readers to resonate.I can not find any other way to contact you but leave a message here. Could you authorize us to reprint your article? If you want to know more information of PMR magazine,please contact with my e-mail yxw0428@163.com. Hope you can read it and response soon.