The Newsletter of ProgM
The Programme Management Specific Interest Group
October 2009
The ProgM newsletter contains interesting information about events and other areas of interest in Programme Management. This month we feature:
Not yet the end of the Peer show
By Adrian Pyne
As you read above, the APM decided that it would not publish the “Introduction to Portfolio Management” paper in time for this year’s APM conference. This follows a “Peer Review process”. Some of the peer reviewers were extremely positive, whilst the comments of others suggested that they were reviewing a totally different document. In the light of this divergence, the APM decided not to go ahead with publication at this time. We don’t know who the reviewers were, nor what their terms of reference were, nor what the criteria are by which the document was judged – so it is difficult for us to know how valid their comments are. Meeting them would require a great deal of work and would involve undoing some of the changes that resulted from the members review, in which so many of you took part. This prompted me to make the observations in this article for our members and to ask for your views.
Your own feedback was very positive, while providing critical input which led to improvements in the document prior to its submission to the APM. Had the Peer Review not had such a negative result, I would probably not have started thinking about how such reviews work within the APM. I look on Peer Reviews as the process of subjecting an author's work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Given this I would expect most of the review to come from the ProgM community, although there must also be some who look for consistency across APM guidance.
So the next question has to be how is the review panel chosen? Is there just an APM review panel who review everything, I hope not as this would place them as a very small, undemocratic and unrepresentative group in a position of considerable influence.
There is a genuine dilemma for APM here – the SIGs are the research and development heart of APM and both are and should be seen by APM as the thought leaders for APM and so produce new works. This suggests that the peer group should come from the SIG that produced the work. However, reliance on the SIG also carries the risk that the SIG is both gamekeeper and poacher for the new guidance. However, there are people enough active within the SIGs from which to draw impartial and true peer reviewers.
If APM considers that the experts for the peer review group are not within the SIG that produced the work that begs the question – if they claim to be an expert in “X” why are they not actively involved in the SIG that produced a work on “X”? At best this suggests that their thinking in this subject could be well out of date. Now I do not believe the situation is one of “where old men of failing ability sit in positions of power like toads on lily pads, protecting their achievements by suppressing new ideas in print” But the peer group must have credibility if not gravitas in the field.
But what else should drive the need for a true peer review group mostly taken from the originating SIG? For me the quality of the review was poor and if APM bases its decision to ask for significant re-work on the peer review results then the peer review itself also has to have credibility. Do not get me wrong many valid critical points were made, and should be used to add to the value of the document. I also do not criticise the messenger, rather I thank David West at APM for the manner in which he has managed responses and feedback to ProgM. However, aside from the good quality aspects of the review the following was not acceptable:
The misinterpretations go to the heart of a peer review which is that it must be a review by peers and they must be chosen with care to ensure they have some standing in the field that the document being reviewed falls under. There is too little real understanding of programme management in the APM so the peer group being drawn outside of ProgM is not a sustainable position.
I was not dismayed by the many contradictory comments, which were quite frankly to be expected. After all, get 20 economists in a room discussing a problem and you will end up with 20 different solutions. At this stage in the maturity of understanding portfolio management I am not surprised about differences in opinion. Most were concerned with boundaries of responsibility.
There were lots of comments about consistency, especially in terms of variations of portfolio management from the initial definition given. Two answers to that, firstly, try mapping all the ways of managing a project to a simple definition of project management. Secondly, and in respect of the many minor “inconsistencies” raised I quote Emerson; “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. (see end note)
I do not forget that the reviewer is an important person. Reviewers should have protection from harassment by an aggressive author tiresomely seeking self-justification. However, I know that this does not apply in this case.
The reviews are anonymous so we have even less evidence as to the competence of the review group. As it happens I know who one of the reviewers was, and have spotted some of their comments as discussed with me – a valid reviewer and surprise suprise, valid comments.
So, where do we go from here? Firstly committee will persevere and drive for publication of a document that is the product of your inputs and Paul Rayner’s hard and excellent work. Secondly, I would ask ProgM’s members, and especially its APM members to provide their views on how peer reviews should work within APM. It would be useful to put that particular spoon into the treacle that is so often, and so sadly, APM.
Update on Portfolio Management
By Paul Rayner
We have now completed the revision of ProgM's "Introduction to Portfolio Management" and have what is widely praised as a great introductory paper. Thanks to the eagerness of ProgM's membership to take part in this initiative, the resultant document lists 48 different contributors from all parts of the World - UK, Europe, the USA, Australia, the Middle East and South Africa. Review comments included:
"It’s an excellent document, and well-presented"
"I applaud a great introduction to the subject. Well done!"
"Was very impressed"
"Clear and insightful view into the world that is Portfolio Mgt"
"An excellent overview! Well done"
"Read this last night and was very impressed"
"Well done for pulling it all together"
"Nice piece of work. well balanced"
"Really like this. Well done"
So we think that together we have created something of real value.
We had hoped to have the document published by the APM (Association for Project Management) in time for the Annual Conference being held on 21st October. It would thus have been a companion volume to the "APM Introduction to Programme Management", which was published for the APM's 2006 Annual Conference. However, this publication plan has hit a snag and has had to be delayed. In the meantime, we are exploring alternative routes to ensuring publication.
The one thing your committee is adamant about is that the paper will be published in a form that does justice to all the splendid input that has been provided by ProgM members. We will keep you up to date on the progress of this important ProgM initiative.
Can you Help a colleague?
London Underground is investing in significant capital projects to improve and upgrade the Underground (TfL Business Plan 2009 - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/tfl-business-plan-09-10-to-17-18.pdf). This is a £12 billion pound programme.
The projects that make up this programme are organised into programmes (approx 30) and portfolios and supporting these portfolios, programmes and projects is a Programme Management Office (PMO).
The PMO has an emerging need to improve Resource Planning/Demand Forecasting. Currently detailed resource plans are generated and managed at project and programme level and we are in the process of improving resource planning at a cross programme and portfolio level.
They are looking to understand how other organisations manage resources and resource demands at a corporate level. For example:
If you are able to help please contact Nick Haylett at London Underground - 020 7027 8331 - nick.haylett@metronetrail.com
Upcoming events:
APM Wessex Branch: 19 October
Venue: The Victoria Club, 8 Beresford Street, St Helier, Jersey JE2 4WN
Programmes, Projects, Portfolios - What is the difference? 19Oct
Speaker: Adrian Pyne
Link: http://www.apm.org.uk/wessex/eventProgramm5.asp?pdate=0-0&branch=-101
IV International PMI Poland Congress: Warsaw 5-6 November 2009
Hidden projects - how to gain control of your organisation's investment in projects
Speaker: Adrian Pyne
Link: http://www.pmi.org.pl/congress/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
Reminder: November Event
Programmes of Change and PMOs - making them work successfully
Don't forget about the ProgM evening event and AGM on 10th November.
Time: 18.00
Address: Logica Offices
7th Floor Kings Place, 90 York Way London, N1 9AG
RSVP: Friday 30 October 2009
Guest Speaker: Professor John Ward of Cranfield University, School of Management
Please refer to the mailer sent to you on 10 October for further details or contact Tanya Durlen.
Your feedback is important to us
If you have any feedback on either wanting to participate in events or have views on which of these types of events would be most beneficial for you then can you please inform our Communications Officer, Tanya Durlen.