Print Email Download Reference This Send to Kindle Reddit This
submit to reddit

Critical Evaluation Of Group Presentation Management Essay

During the course of this module students were introduced to new topics like Programme management, Portfolio management, and Multi-Project environment. There were different views about when to use these different management practices and what the benefits of using them are. These concepts are emerged as a result of managing the complex jobs and complex working environment where there are considerable changes. These concepts are important as they are good in managing the changing environment. Applying these concepts in real time depends on the nature of the working environment and complex nature of work and also depends on the Stakeholder objectives. In order to discuss this in detail a clear definition of different terms like Programme management, Portfolio management and Multi project environment is necessary.

MSP defines Programme Management as “The action of carrying out the coordinated organisation, direction and implementation of dossier of projects and transformational activities (i.e. the programme) to achieve outcomes and realise benefits of strategic importance to the business” [9]

According to APM Body of Knowledge, the definition for Portfolio management

“Portfolio Management is the selection and management of all of an organisation’s projects, programmes and related business-as-usual activities taking into account resource constraints. A portfolio is a group of projects and programmes carried out under the sponsorship of an organisation. Portfolios can be managed at an organisational, programme or functional level.”[1]

Multi-Project environment is managing a number of projects in an organisation, where the projects run simultaneously, the projects may or may not have a logical link and they share the same resources. The projects run to achieve the corporate goals of the organisation. Delay in one project will not affect other project.

This assignment discusses about the group presentation and it is critically evaluated and compared with OGC’s approach to programme management and alternate best practices. It also discusses about when to use the different aspects of management in real time scenario to achieve benefits from it.

2. An overview of The Vancouver 2010 Olympics

Image courtesy [2]

The 2010 Winter Olympics is the 21st Winter Olympics was hosted by Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada. It was held during February 12 to 28 2010. Around 2600 Athletes from 82 countries participated in 86 events in fifteen disciplines. Some of the events took place in Richmond, Whistler, University Endowment Lands and West Vancouver. The main stakeholders for 2010 Winter Olympics are VANOC, 2010 Legacies Now, City of Vancouver, International Olympic Committee IOC, and Residents of Vancouver. There were different competitive venues and Non competitive venues which are used for hosting the games, some of them are Vancouver Olympic Centre, Pacific Coliseum, The Whistler sliding centre, Richmond Olympic oval, and Cypress Mountain. [11, 12]

3. Critical Evaluation of Group presentation

A case study was given to students during the course of the module and the students were split into different groups. The groups have analysed the Vancouver 2010 Olympics case study and each group had different views on managing it. Three questions have to be answered by the groups.

Groups

Management

Alignment of Objectives

Risk management practices

Programme

Portfolio of Programmes and Projects

Aligned

Partially aligned

Risks identified

Mitigation/ Practices

1

Not Clear

2

3

4

5

6

X

7

X

8

X

9

X

X

10

Not Clear

11

Not Clear

X

12

Table 3.1

The above table clearly explains the different views of groups on three questions. The first and second question views are clearly mentioned, third question column explains about the groups who have mentioned about the risks and the mitigation practices to be implemented by 2010 Legacies Now to ensure benefit realisation.

First question is about how Vancouver Olympics can be managed, i.e., Programme, Multi-project environment or Portfolio of projects and programmes. Most of the groups have suggested that the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games should be managed as a Portfolio of programmes and projects, and two groups has suggested managing it as a Programme. Author says that Vancouver 2010 Olympics to be managed as a Portfolio of Projects and Programmes. As Portfolio management is good, when it has different strategic objectives (i.e., objectives of City of Vancouver, Legacies Now 2010, Residents of Vancouver and VANOC). As the Vancouver 2010 Olympics have different programmes like Venues, Legacy and Infrastructure. Each of these programmes has different projects. So it can be managed as a Portfolio of programmes and projects. It cannot be managed as a Multi- Project environment because in this approach the projects are managed individually and runs simultaneously. This management approach is suitable when the projects in a programme or portfolio are independent, and delay in one project does not affect the other. It cannot be managed as a programme because in this scenario there are four different strategic objectives from four stakeholders, and it has to be grouped as projects and programmes to achieve those objectives, so it cannot be managed as a Programme. Programme management is good when there is a logical link between the projects. Programme management has been used as a way of producing the essential framework for the projects to operate. [8] According to PMBOK “if the relationship between the projects is only that shared client, seller, technology, or resource, the effort should be managed as a portfolio of projects rather than as a program”. So Vancouver Olympics has to be managed as a Portfolio of projects and programmes. [1, 4, 6]

Figure 3.2

Figure.1 explains the different level of management and the grouping of projects and programmes in a portfolio.

Second question is about the alignment of objectives of the stakeholder. Most of the groups have answered this except a couple of groups who have not answered it clearly. Most of the groups have answered that the objectives of stakeholder are in alignment and few groups have said that the objectives of stakeholder are partially aligned. There is a great degree of alignment in some of the key objectives of the stakeholders. Some of the aligned objectives include the agreement to host the games, using the game as a vehicle to make better living condition in the city of Vancouver, solving the problem of homelessness, the stakeholders focus towards sustainability programme, encouraging the tourism. Though some of the objectives are aligned in key areas like legacy, community development and tourism, the stakeholders have their own individual goals and objectives. The alignment of objectives is evidenced by signing a multiparty agreement among stakeholders and by the residents of Vancouver voting in favour of stakeholder’s different initiatives. As the objectives of the stakeholders are common in certain areas and each has their individual goals, thus the objectives are not fully aligned, it is partially aligned.

Third question is about the risk management practices of 2010 legacies Now, should implement to ensure benefit realisation. Most of the groups mentioned about the general risk management practices and had a view at risk in tactical level, some groups have also mentioned about risks at strategic level, but some groups didn’t mention about the risk management practices that the 2010 legacies Now should implement to ensure benefit realisation and mitigate the risk which are clearly given in table 3.1. The possible risks mentioned by the groups are lack of forward planning for the community to engage after the Olympic Games, funding, high tourism estimate, predicted income not met, benefits of taxes not realised, not getting enough volunteers, completion time of infrastructure. The above mentioned risks individually will affect at programme level and as a whole it will affect the portfolio. Some of the risk management practices mentioned in the groups to mitigate risks are to arrange the funding from both public and private sectors, in order to get sufficient volunteers, youngsters has to be encouraged by planning and implementing early events. Author feels that, as 2010 winter Olympics is managed as a Portfolio of Projects and Programmes, risks has to be looked on in a broader view considering the risks at business case level. In Portfolio management risks are aggregated and they are managed as whole. In Portfolio management risks are identified all over the portfolio, which may not be identified as a single initiative, and it balances the organization’s overall exposure to risk [7].

4. Comparison of Group presentation & OGC’s approach to Programme Management

OGC’s approach towards Programme management is based on the publication of “Managing successful Programmes” in which the framework for Programme Management is clearly explained. MSP addresses the three different types of programmes they are Vision led programmes, Emergent programmes and Compliance programmes. Each programme has to be managed by focussing the intensity of resources and control. The Managing successful Programme framework has 3 main sections which are Introduction, the Governance Themes and Transformational Flow. [9]

The first section introduces the principles of Programme Management, which says about the leading change, aligning towards corporate strategy, learning from experience and adding value etc... The Governance theme says about how the key elements of the programme which has to be delivered during its delivery lifecycle. The governance theme gives guidance on the roles and responsibilities of the Organisation’s Programme manager, business change manager, senior responsible owner and other roles. Vision is necessary for the delivery of any programme, stakeholder engagement and leadership is vital for any programme, as change is more prevalent in any programme and MSP highlights the importance of communicating with the stakeholders. Effective stakeholder management is necessary for the success of the programme. Benefits realisation management has to be performed throughout the programme according to James Allen benefits realisation management is “It is a process of diverting one’s scattered forces into one powerful channel” [3]. Benefits realisation management is the core process of any change initiative and backbone of any programme which has more than a few benefit events during the early stages of the process. [9]

Every programme has a business case and it gives the rationale for the existence of the programme, business case is unique for every programme. Business case gives the clear information required to support the decisions that are made by the organisation to invest on business to achieve certain outcomes or benefits. Risk management and Issue management has to be done as it gives the guidance on how to avoid the events that can affect the success of programme. It also explores the opportunities from the identified risks and good management practice is trying to get the maximum benefits by using the opportunities. MSP gives a guideline about the planning and control of programme, it describes how a programme plan can be developed and controlled. [5, 9]

The third section explains about the Transformational flow i.e. the lifecycle of the programme. The lifecycle of a programme has six stages and they are, identifying a programme, defining the programme, managing the tranches, delivering the capability, realising the benefits and closing the programme. [9]

In the group presentation most of the groups have chosen Portfolio of Projects and Programmes and only two groups have suggested Programme management. The groups mentioned about the stakeholder management for the alignment of the objective which is also suggested in the MSP framework for Programme management. Some risk management practices mentioned by the groups are of similar to OGC’s approach towards risk management in a programme.

5. Alternate Best practices

The alternate best practice of OGC is the P3O (Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices). According to OGC P3O is defined as “The P3O model will provide a focal point for defining a balanced portfolio of change and ensuring consistent delivery of programmes and projects across an organization or department”. The P3O model helps to develop, establish and maintain appropriate support structure that will ease the process involving in the senior management’s decision making on risk management, prioritisation, and deployment of resources across the organization to successfully deliver their business objectives. It helps to identify and realize the benefits and outcomes through projects and programmes. It helps to deliver the projects and programmes within the time, cost and quality constraints and other organizational constraints. [10]

The P3O model is explained in three different stages or offices, they are (i) Portfolio office, (ii) Centre of Excellence (CoE) (iii) Programme and Project Offices

Portfolio Office is the key component of the P3O model which gives a realistic view of the overall picture of the organization’s portfolio, which is supported by standardised reporting. Centre of Excellence supports the improvement P3RM process (Portfolio, Programme, Projects and Risk Management) capability across the organisation through the education, staff competency, standards, knowledge management and assurance. Programme and Project Offices are formed to support the specific projects and programmes, and they will be dissolved once they are delivered successfully. [10]

The benefits of using this P3O model are that the organisation’s management team can focus more on the alignment of portfolio towards the strategy. The progress can be easily monitored by presenting the report in a summary, which allows the senior managers to save time, and it helps in early identification of the bottlenecks, delays and troubles in projects. It gives more certainty toward the delivery (i.e., in terms of time and cost) which helps in improving the return on investment. It helps to save the time by reducing the start up time and saves money. As it reduces the mobilisation period it helps to maintain the interest of stakeholder. It helps to form uniform approach and delivery by ensuring that time isn’t wasted in the process. P3O is good in aligning when there is a change in the organisation’s governance, which avoids the unnecessary conflict among the boards or groups in an organisation. It gives clarity on the issues, risks and changes which helps to take suitable decisions quickly. It helps to utilise the available resource effectively by planning effectively and resource management. It gives integrated assurance for the projects and portfolio of programmes. It performs a good stakeholder engagement and keeps the stakeholder informed about the progress of the project. It helps to build a depository of information for stakeholders to access information regarding different projects and programmes. It also has a good Information management through which the information for different projects and programmes can be easily is accessed by the corresponding stakeholders. It balances the financial flow in the portfolio by ensuring that the money is effectively spent across a portfolio which is likely to change during the life of the portfolio. This is a best practice which is suggested by OGC apart from Project management (PRINCE 2), Programme management (MSP) and Risk management – Management of Risk (MoR). [10]

6. Conclusion

The different views of groups about managing Vancouver 2010 Olympics was analysed and critically evaluated by contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of different management techniques and the author suggested choosing Portfolio of projects and programmes as the suitable type of management to manage it. Similarly the views about the alignment of objectives and risk management practices were critically evaluated and Author expressed his views on it.

In the next part, OGC’s approach towards Programme management was discussed and it was further discussed by explaining the framework of Programme Management (MSP) suggested by OGC for the successful management of programmes. Then in the alternate best practices, P3O (Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices) was discussed in detail and the benefits of implementing P3O is also explained. Thus in this assignment the importance of the different management type was identified and found that they should be used accordingly so that the required goals and objectives can be achieved

Print Email Download Reference This Send to Kindle Reddit This

Share This Essay

To share this essay on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or Google+ just click on the buttons below:

Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:

Request the removal of this essay.


More from UK Essays