International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 245252

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

For DAD: a programme management life-cycle process

Michel Thiry*
Bld Guillaume Van Haelen, 193 Bruxelles 1190, Belgium
Received 17 April 2003; accepted 16 May 2003

Abstract
This paper intends to demonstrate the need for a specic programme rhetoric and life cycle, distinct from that of project management. Grounded in strategic concepts, rather than project concepts, and addressing strategic level stakeholders, both the rhetoric
of programme management processes and its structures must reect the complexity, iterative and changing nature of programmes,
as well as address executives and senior management, which are its key stakeholders. Programmes display both high uncertainty
and ambiguity and programme management phases must be structured in such a way that they address both. The author has chosen words to describe this programme life cycle that clearly establish its relationship with strategy; they are formulation; organisation; deployment; appraisal and dissolution. All these terms reect a strategic, long-term endeavour, representative of programmes
nature. The formulation and appraisal phases, especially are close to strategy development concepts, whilst the organisation and
deployment phases insist on a systemic an learning view of management.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Programme; Value management; Strategy; Project; Life-cycle

1. Introduction
The author has already demonstrated in prior papers
the need to adopt a dierent paradigm for projects and
programmes [1]. A number of textbooks and papers
[26] have suggested programme phases which, albeit
their dierent names, are, in most instances, just transpositions of the project paradigm into programme
management. Although it is now universally agreed that
programmes need to produce business level benets and
are a link between the strategy and projects, little management rhetoric has made its way into the programme
management literature and practice.
KPMGs [7] survey of over 1400 senior organisations
found the lack of top management commitment to be a
key factor in failed projects. Thomas et al. [8] have
argued, in their research on Selling project Management to Executives, that successful messages reect
the buyers needs as the buyer understands them. This

Presented at the Fifth European Project Management Conference, PMI Europe 2002, Cannes France, 1920 June 2002. Organised by the PMI France Sud.
* Tel.: +32-2-344-9415; fax: +32-495-504-550.
E-mail address: mthiry@pmp.uk.com (M. Thiry).

0263-7863/03/$30.00 # 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00064-4

paper therefore argues that programme management

needs to reect the rhetoric and concepts of strategic
long-term management, rather than the tactical shortterm view of project management in order to gain
executive management support and truly be able to support strategic decision management. This paper intends
to present a life-cycle process that reects the complexity
of the programme context, as well as its learning and
formative nature and distinguish it from the uncertainty,
performing and controlling nature of projects.
Although number of projects start with unclear objectives, especially if they are complex, projects, as currently
dened by recognised standards, [9,10] are time-framed
and require clear objectives. Project management, as
dened in these standards, is based on a performance
paradigm [11] embedded in an uncertainty-reduction
process [12]. It is generally recognized by most authors
that uncertainty is high at beginning (high assumptions/
facts ratio) and that project processes are aimed at
reducing this uncertainty through work breakdown; risk
analysis and planning, followed by quality, time and
cost control. Following the concept of discourse as
developed by Foucault [13], This paper will argue that
programme management rhetoric needs to be dierent
from the current project management rhetoric, in order

246

M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 245252

to convey the right message concerning their reliance on

dierent paradigms.
The rationale for programme management lies in
strategic management rather than the technical level; the
focus is on the organisation rather than the team and
instead of talking about deliverables, one talks about
benets. In addition, the programme environment is
complex: there are multiple stakeholders with diering
and often conicting needs, emergent inputs are always
aecting the process, and ambiguity is high. Because of
the fact that programmes are typically of a longer
duration than projects, needs and expectations will
evolve, intermediate results will aect the nal output
and interdependencies will further complicate matters.
Processes that are applicable to project management
cannot be readily applied to programme management as
programmes have an uncertain nality, which requires
processes that are both cyclic and aimed at reducing
ambiguity; typically: identication of needs and expectations, value management, ongoing negotiation and
group decision-making.
There are two characteristics, already identied by
other authors [3], that would make programme management the most suitable methodology to ensure successful implementation of strategies; they are:
1. The concept of a cyclic process, which enable
regular assessment of benets, evaluation of
emergent opportunities and pacing of the
process.
2. An emphasis on the interdependability of projects, which ensures strategic alignment.
In order to make the most of those characteristics a
programme life cycle must be iterative, rather than linear, include periods of stability and it must have a
learning and systems perspective.
It is to be noted that multi-project management and
sometimes portfolio management do not take those two
characteristics fully into account; they typically concentrate on human resources and cost and seldom have
a systemic view of the programme.

2. Strategy and programmes

Strategic management is typically divided into three
areas: analysis, choice and implementation. Analysis
seeks to understand the strategic position of the
organisation (environment, capability and purpose);
choice is the formulation of possible courses of action
and implementation is the planning and management of
those actions [14]. These three areas are interlinked in
an iterative and cyclic process. Typically, programme
management follows strategic analysis, although some
authors [4,15,16] have suggested that early stages of

programme management can be considered as a strategic analysis process.

In project management the rst phase or process is
called initiation; the project manager is typically not
involved and receives clear objectives from a sponsor; it
is more a milestone than a process. The formulation of
programmes, on the other hand, is a proper decisionmaking process that is linked to strategic analysis. It is
the stage where purpose is dened, stakeholders, their
needs and expectations are identied; it is also the stage
where programme benets are determined. Contrarily
to project initiation, it is a complex process, where
ambiguity is high. The programme manager should be
involved in this process, which is the initial learning
cycle of the programme life-cycle, where sensemaking,
ideation and evaluation of alternatives take place [17] to
formulate possible courses of action and which ends
with the decision to undertake a programme, or to pursue it.
Planning is the second phase of projects, it is a
rational and analytical process, based on the concept
that the project plan is an integrative process and that
resources and organisation are subsidiary to the plan. In
programmes, the organisation phase is the process of
selecting and prioritising the projects and other actions
required to deliver the benets and setting up the programme team and structures. The plan is a subsidiary
of this process and it should be open and exible to
allow for emergent change. The key elements of
organisation revolve around the installation of operational procedures that will enable prioritisation of
actions, management of interdependencies and interrelationships, as well as pacing of the programme to
ensure ongoing benets delivery. Because resource
management is key to the process and interdependencies are more complex, it is much more like
structuring an organisation.
Project execution is, literally, coordinating resources
and carrying out the plan [9], again, the plan is the key
element of the process and the control process is based
on assessment against this baseline. Alternatively programme management consists of initiating a number of
actions at a controlled pace and managing a web of
interdependencies and resources, which need to be constantly reviewed in regards of outputs, emergent changes and benets delivery. It must be open to change and
include realignment and reprioritising of actions in
regards of benets appraisal. By its amplitude, its complexity and its consequences on the business, it is much
more associated to the deployment of a strategy, than a
simple execution of tasks.
Appraisal is distinctly dierent from control in the
sense that it does not rely solely on a baseline to assess
progress, but rather on a formative type of control,
which is forward looking. It is constituted by the ongoing analysis of the benets of the programme and of the

M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 245252

need to realign it in regards of emergent inputs: threats

or opportunities. This is also the period when benets
can be reaped and the process requires constant reevaluation of the programmes circumstances and critical success factors.
In programmes, these four phases are iterated until
the rationale for the programme no longer exists.
Whereas closing of projects is a rather short administrative and legal process that concludes a fairly linear process, a programme does not have a dened end and will go
through a phased process rather than a quick close. Dissolution is the process by which uncompleted work, projects and resources are re-allocated to other programmes,
which are then reformulated as needed, a post-programme
feedback is carried out and knowledge is recycled.
The programme life-cycle strategy, as described
above, is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The programme life cycle

3. The programme life-cycle

3.1. The formulation phase
The formulation phase aims to identify internal or
external pressures to change and determine the best way
to address them to add value for the stakeholders. In
programmes, it is crucial to take a value perspective to
formulation, seeking the best balance between the purpose and the capability.
During formulation, benets management [3,18]
includes the identication of the expected benets and
the assessment of their achievability. The author has
suggested, in a number of previous papers [11,17,19,20]
that a sensemaking process will achieve this. Sense-

247

making is the process by which needs and expectations

of the stakeholders will be identied and prioritised; it
generally includes the development of a function breakdown structure (FBS) [1,11], which becomes a key element in the structuring of the programme organisation.
Critical success factors must be identied and expected
benets agreed before any action can be initiated. The
key point in the sensemaking process is to allow the
necessary time for all the stakeholders to understand all
the issues involved and to agree on a shared denition
of the needs and expectations.
Once these have been agreed, an ideation process
should be initiated to actively and creatively seek alternative courses of actions. The use of creativity and lateral thinking are crucial in this part of the process. The
evaluation process examines suitability (t with overall
strategy), achievability (expected long term benets) and
feasibility (availability and capability of resources) [14]
of alternatives, or combinations of alternatives in order
to identify the most promising ones. When evaluating
an alternative, one must distinguish between direct and
indirect values. Direct values are nancial impacts
directly related to the choice of the alternative. Indirect
values are elements valued by stakeholders, and especially decision makers that have may have an economic
outcome beyond direct economic value. These indirect
values could include positive or negative impact on customers, sta or on reputation. While some of these
indirect values are intangible, others are tangible but
dicult to measure. Often decision makers will also have
to take into account value other than economic, and in
this case they will have to make trade-os, which are
judgments about how much they are willing to sacrice
on one element of the value equation to receive more of
another.

Fig. 1. The programme life cycle (# Thiry, 20002002).

248

M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 245252

The alternatives that are not acceptable are rejected;

accepted alternatives are then assessed qualitatively and
quantitatively and further developed or combined to
form options, which must include risk responses. An
option is an alternative, or combination of alternatives
that, following compilation of information, makes a
decision feasible. All options derive from alternatives,
but not all alternatives will become options.
Following this process, all the options that are
clearly acceptable are then ranked in order of their
contribution to the critical success factors of the
programme.
Deciding the best course (or courses) of action is the
last step of this phase; a decision will be made, based on
the purpose, critical success factors and key performance indicators of the programme, as well as on its
expected benets. It is also the stage where t with
the strategy is conrmed; priorities are set between different programmes within the organisation and business
cases are compiled. The decision will seek to secure
approval and support for the programme and allocation
of funding and authority to undertake it.
Especially in programmes, decisions must be based on
the basis of alternatives, available information, and
expressed value at the time of the decision. As these
may evolve during the course of the whole programme,
they must be reassessed regularly; this is the main purpose of the appraisal stage.
3.2. The organisation phase
Once funds are allocated to a programme, or to the
rst cycle of a programme, and the authority of the
programme manager is acquired, the programmes
planning phase can begin. In programmes, the planning
phase essentially consists of a strategic level planning for
the programme; the strategic plan; and of the selection
of actions, which will constitute it.
3.2.1. Strategic plan
The rst step is to create and plan the organisation
that will be put in place to implement the programme;
this consists essentially of the allocation of roles and
responsibilities and the control of interactions between
the projects within the programme as well as the
communication systems to be put in place. The programme manager should ensure that a responsible party
is appointed to manage each critical success factor of
the programme. If a function breakdown structure (FBS)
has been developed as a means to identify and prioritise
the needs and expectations, as suggested by MurrayWebster and Thiry [4], the programme organisation
should be based on it. The FBS should be to the programme what the WBS is to the projects.
The programme organisation structure should also
identify the communication channels for the programme;

how information should be ltered and sorted to suit

dierent organisational levels and how access to systems
should be allowed or restricted.
The ecient management of resources across the
organisation is a key component of programme management; but this process must also foster the eective
use of resources in each project. Knowledge resource
planning (KRP) [21] essentially consists of matching
demand with supply; it is a value-based concept.
Demand consists of the prioritisation of the workload
required to implement the programme, whereas supply
consists of the evaluation of the capacity, capability and
availability of resources to match the demand. Matching demand and supply allows for use of the best
resources for the most signicant assignments, it provides enhanced exibility through regular reprioritisation and re-evaluation, as well as proactive, rather that
reactive resource allocation. The concepts developed in
the Critical Chain [23] like the holistic view, sequential
tasking, the focus on a drum resource and the use of
buers, must also be applied to programme planning.
Another major issue of the strategic plan is the pacing
of the programme. Periods of stability, during which
benets are allowed to impact the organisation, should
be spread signicantly throughout the programme to
pace it. Their distribution depends on benets sought
and the signicance of these benets for the business.
The key concept behind the duration of cycles and the
interval between periods of stability is based on a minimum acceptable level of performance, which cannot be
crossed (see Fig. 2). Financial issues such as cash ow,
funding, and human resource issues like the organisations culture (e.g. risk seeking or risk averse), resistance to/acceptance of change, determine this
minimum. Programme planning must focus on early
benets, positive cash ow and maintenance of the
motivation of stakeholders. The programme appraisal
process is also build around the programme cycles (see
Fig. 1).
Major project changes and benets appraisal, both of
which involve the programme manager in their sponsor
role, are usually planned around the gateways of projects; they must be signicantly spread to correspond
both to major project deliverables and to expected benets delivery for the programme. They are not related to
the programme cycles, but rather to project milestones.
The last element of the programmes strategic plan is
the change management system. In programmes, the
change process must be value-based. This signies that,
because the programmes critical success factors and
objectives are very likely to be modied as it progresses, opportunities and threats are to be evaluated
on a regular basis, as well as the capacity and capability of the programme organisation to respond to
them. This system has to be clearly established from
the beginning.

M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 245252

249

Fig. 2. The planning of programme cycles.

3.2.2. Selection of actions

The selection of actions consists of identifying and
prioritising projects and operational actions required to
support it; and of developing the project initiation
documents, if possible, in collaboration with the project
managers. During this phase and the appraisal, the
programme manager acts as the sponsor of projects.
The selection of actions will take into account the
interdependability of projects, in terms of eects on
each other, and in terms of their combined contribution
to the benets sought by the organisation. The programme team must undertake a thorough analysis of
the interactions or interfaces between the project and
other actions that are part of the programme. The decision to implement must not be made solely on the individual value of each project, but also on their capability
to contribute to the programme as a whole, and to align
with the strategy
The prioritisation of actions in the overall programme
must ensure that synergies between projects are taken
into account, that there are no overlapping or conicting actions and that benet delivery is optimised. The
criteria against which projects will be prioritised should
include the critical success factors of the programme,
but also take into account elements discussed in the
pacing. Financial factors include payback period, cash
ow, cost-benet and risk elements; the objective being
to make early gains to fund the rest of the programme and reassure stakeholders, especially investors.
Concerning human resources issues, the programme
team must take into account the responsiveness to
change of the organisation in which the programme is
implemented; the demonstration of benets for the
users; the assessment of expectations of those aected
by the change; and the measures put in place to support
smooth transition from the original situation to the
target situation. Interdependability issues should also be

part of the prioritisation of projects. Finally, the prioritisation plan should be exible enough to allow regular
re-prioritisation as the programme progresses and priorities or objectives change; if the initial plan has been
well documented, this should pose no problem.
The last point requires the identication of constraints
and assumptions and their documentation. It is crucial
that the constraints and other factors on which the
assumptions have been based are well identied,
because they will evolve and change as the programme
progresses and will need to be reassessed regularly. This
should be an integral part of the risk management process of the programme.
3.3. The deployment phase
In the case of programmes, the implementation phase
includes the actual initiation of actions, as well as the
continuous reassessment of project benets and priorities. Once actions are initiated, the programme manager needs to manage and prioritise resource and
exercise formative evaluation of deliverables.
The theory of constraints [23] should be a key principle
of the programme deployment process. It states that one
must:
1. Identify the systems constraints.
2. Prioritise constraints according to their impact
on goal achievement.
3. Concentrate resources on areas of high constraints.
4. Reduce the constraints limiting impact by taking
a higher level view.
5. Reiterate continually.
The key elements of its application being to view the
programme as a system and to concentrate on only one

250

M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 245252

constraint at a time, as its resolution will aect the

whole (domino eect) and possibly modify the impact
of other constraints on the achievement of benets.
The implementation process itself essentially consists
of the execution of actions and of their control.
3.3.1. Execution of actions
During this phase of the programme, the main task of
the programme manager is to act as the sponsor of
projects and allocate or reallocate funds and other
resources according to priorities. In developing and
approving project management plans, the programme
manager will authorize or conrm the allocation of
resources to undertake the detailed planning of projects
and the working of this plan.
The programme managers role also requires the continuous assessment and management the programme
environment; particularly stakeholders needs and
expectations. They must also manage the communications to and from project managers and especially act
as a buer to control senior managements direct inuence of the projects. It is not reasonable to expect project managers and project teams to, at the same time,
focus on delivering specic project objectives within a
performance paradigm and develop eective responses
to emergent change, which require a learning paradigm;
the latter is clearly the role of the programme team. The
identication of emergent (unplanned) inputs on the
programme, which could trigger the need for changes,
also needs to be monitored and managed in an orderly
way. This is where the use of risk and value management techniques becomes essential.
This role requires the programme manager to concentrate on project interdependencies, rather than on
project activities; even in terms of the project product,
the programme level intervention should only consist of
assessing benets of major project deliverables and outputinput relationships between projects; not solving
the technical or operational level problems. Programme
management requires that the projects review/approval
process be put in place to regularly assess benets and
deliverables of projects at the major milestones; these
correspond to the gateways of the project management process.
3.3.2. Control
In programmes, control is not only a simple deductive
(comparison to set parameters) and summative
(assessment perspective) type of control, based on performance criteria, but rather a continuous re-evaluation
or re-formulation of the programme, in regards of the
achievement of organisational benets, an inductive
(based on emergent inputs) and formative (improvement perspective) type of control. Programme level control
of projects concentrates on the impact of deliverables on
the overall programme benets and strategic alignment;

the need to adjust the programme to respond to results

that do not correspond to the plan, rather than a simple
assessment of cost and schedule; or even earned value.
All these measures become valid only as a means to
make the necessary adjustments to achieve overall
objectives.
One of the roles of the programme manager is to
assess the need for project plan review or readjustment;
propose or implement changes in projects and assess
their impact on the critical success factors. The programme manager will consider project deliverables
against key performance indicators and analyse project
outputs, like schedule, budget or earned value results
with a view to the reallocation or reprioritisation of
resources and contingencies amongst projects, as well as
the decision to continue, realign or stop the individual
projects. Because of this, a sound aggregated information management system should be put in place both at
project level and at programme level. The programme
level information management will address both the
information between project and programme level stakeholders, especially the reporting system, but also all
the information circulating between projects that need
to be managed at programme level.
3.4. The appraisal phase
The periods of stability, which mark the end of each
cycle, are the ideal period to appraise the programme.
This is the period when the organisation, whether the
programme is internal or undertaken for an external customer, must evaluate the need to carry on with the programme, review its purpose, or stop it. The programme
team should ask itself a number of questions like:
 Have the expected benets for this cycle been
achieved?
 Have the programme or business circumstances
changed?
 Have stakeholders needs or expectations changed?
 Does the rationale for the programme still exist?
 If not, should the programme be reviewed;
should it be stopped?
The appraisal process itself requires the programme
team to loop back to the formulation and plan of the
programme, in order to reassess the validity of the original needs in regards of external or internal developments since the programme was started, including
positive or negative impact on the business of outcomes
from previous cycles. Any changes in the critical success
factors must be identied and examined to understand
how they could modify the expected benets of the
programme. Following that exercise, the actual benets
of the cycle are evaluated against the expected benets
and a gap analysis is performed. If gaps are identied,

M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 245252

the team needs to dene how the programme plan

should be modied to take them into account; alternatives are examined and options evaluated; nally a
decision is made on how to modify the plan for the next
cycle; this is again a learning loop where value and risks
must be assessed. If everything has gone as planned and
nothing has changed in the expected benets, then the
decision is made to carry on according to the original plan.
When assessing the delivery of benets from a programme management point of view, the team must have
a broad perspective and look at two dierent levels:
At the organisational level, the team needs to feedback
against the eective delivery of expected benets and
satisfaction of critical success factors. Specically it must
assess the continuous and eective management of:
Changing corporate or client objectives.
Shared and/or limited resources.
Interface between function and project managers
Clear denition of roles and responsibilities and
mutual support to achieve corporate goals.
 Project review and approval process.
 Project managers focus on key business issues.





At the project level, the programme team needs to

review relevance of projects that are spanning over a
number of cycles and the aggregated benets of all the
projects that are part of the cycle. In particular:
 Assess overall performance of projects against
business benets, including emergent factors.
 Identify new threats and opportunities and
implement changes, if required.
 Re-plan work and relative priorities, at business
level, for next projects or phases or projects.
 Loop back to project denitions and readjust, if
required (learning loop).
 Ensure information is recycled into a feedback
loop, for next phases or future programmes.
In summary, this learning/improvement process needs
to outline and feedback the programme teams success
in achieving expected benets; response to emergent
change in business environment, including changing
needs and to bottom-up initiatives; the overall performance against CSFs, including identication of threats
and opportunities; the management of resources in general and of line and project managers complementary
roles, in particular; and nally, knowledge management.
It is on these elements that the justication for continuation will be demonstrated.
3.5. Programme dissolution
A programme typically extends over a period many
months, (IT supported change programmes, Business

251

Process Reengineering, etc.) or many years (Drug

development, transportation infrastructure refurbishment, etc.); some programmestypically portfolio or
incremental(account
management,
continuous
improvement, etc.) are even ongoing. Even in the ongoing programmes, the appraisal process must be carried
out on a regular basis and, every time the programme
team must ask itself: Should the programme be stopped?
A programme should be stopped if the rationale for
its existence is no longer defensible: when the initial
benets have been achieved; when the cost of the programme is greater than the benets it is bringing to the
organisation; but also, when the environment or context
have changed and the benets that the programme was
seeking to achieve are no longer required, or when the
implementation of the rst cycle(s) has demonstrated
that the programmes ultimate purpose cannot be
achieved. The rst two are typical examples of performance-based decisions; the latter two, of learning- or
value-based decisions.
Like for projects, the closing, or dissolution, of the
programme is not an easy task; when a decision to stop
a programme is made, a number of people and funds
will be reallocated to other ventures and therefore there
is likely to be resistance from the team to let go. For
this reason, some organisations even choose to involve a
team external to the programme in the closing phase, to
make it more ecient. There will always be some
uncompleted work that needs to be either completed
within a reasonable period of time, or re-allocated to
other programmes, which are then re-formulated as
required. All the documentation must be updated and
led and a post programme review is conducted, these
are then fed back into the organisation through a
learning/innovation loop such as the one recommended
in the EFQM1 Business Excellence Model.
Once all this has been accomplished, the programme
dissolution team is disbanded and re-assigned.

4. Conclusion
Project and programme management depend on different paradigms; whereas project management is subjected to a performance paradigm, based in short-term
tactical deliverables, and has proven ecient for portfolio management or multi-project management, it has
not proven its ability to deliver strategic change or
improvement programmes. My own experience with a
number of strategic programmes or soft organisational
change programmes has demonstrated that programmes
need to take into account a learning paradigm that
comes from strategic management and value.
Based on organisational psychology theory and own
experience, the author has argued that programme
management requires a dierent rhetoric than that of

252

M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 245252

project management in order to convey this dierent

approach to all stakeholders, especially members of
management. This paper is suggesting that programme
management practitioners develop their own rhetoric in
order to recognise these dierences and has suggested
and described ve programme phases that, together,
constitute the programme life cycle. This life cycle is
both iterative and based on learning in order to address
multiple stakeholders, pacing, changing context and
interdependencies, which are essential characteristics of
programmes and uses strategic long-term management
rhetoric, rather than project rhetoric.
I am therefore, in this paper, suggesting that Programme Management adopts ve phases as its life cycle:
1. Formulation (sensemaking, seeking of alternatives, evaluation of options, and choice).
2. Organisation (strategy planning and selection of
actions).
3. Deployment (execution of actionsprojects and
support operational activities, and control).
4. Appraisal (assessment of benets, review of purpose and capability, and repacing, if required).
5. Dissolution (reallocation of people and funds,
knowledge management and feedback).
I suggest using the acronym FOrDAD for this life
cycle.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]
[14]
[15]

Acknowledgements
[16]

This paper has made use of extracts of the Programme Management Chapter of Project Management Pathwaysa Guide to Project and Programme
Management Practice recently published by The
Association for Project Management, UK, which has
been written by the author.

[17]

[18]

[19]

References
[20]
[1] Thiry M. Value management practice. Sylva NC: Project
Management Institute; 1997.
[2] Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA).
Programme management case studies: vol. 1. London: Stationery
Oce; 1994.
[3] Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA).

[21]
[23]

Managing successful programmes. London: Stationery Oce;

1999.
Murray-Webster R, Thiry M. Managing programmes of projects
Gower handbook of project management, 3rd ed. In: Turner,
Simister, editors. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing, 2000,
chapter 3.
Gareis R. Programme management and project portfolio management: new competences of project-oriented organisations. In:
Project Management Institute 31st Annual Seminars & Symposium Proceedings. Drexel Hill, PA: PMI Communications.
NASA. 1998. NPG 7120. 5A: Program and Project Management
Processes and Requirements. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/
display.
KPMG. What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology
projects. http://audit.kpmg.ca/vl/surveys/it_wrong.htm. 1997.
Thomas J, Delisle C, Jugdev K, Buckle P. Selling project
management to senior executives: whats the hook? In: Project
Management Institute 1st Research Conference Proceedings,
Drexel Hill, PA: PMI Communications; 2000.
Project Management Institute (PMI). Guide to the project management body of knowledge. Sylva, NC: PMI Communications;
2000.
APM. 2000. The Association for Project Management Body of
Knowledge, APM, High Wycombe, UK.
Thiry M. Sensemaking in value management practice. International Journal of Project Management, 2001a.
Winch G, Usmani A, Edkins A. Towards total project quality: a
gap analysis approach. Construction Management and Economics 1998;16:193207.
Foucault M. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock;
1972.
Johnson G, Scholes K. Exploring corporate strategy (4th ed.).
Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall Europe; 1997.
Partington D. Implementing strategy through programmes of
projects Gower handbook of project management, 3rd ed. In:
Turner, Simister, editors. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing;
2000 [chapter 2].
Wijnen G, Kor R. Managing unique assignments. Aldershot,
UK: Gower Publishing; 2000.
Thiry M. Combining value and project management into an
eective programme management model. In: Proceedings of the
4th Annual PMI-Europe Conference, London. 2001b.
Ward J, Murray P. Benets management: best practice guidelines. The Information Systems Research Centre, Craneld
School of Management. 1997.
Thiry M. Would you tell me please which way I ought to go from
here? Is change a threat or an opportunity? In: Project Management Institute 30th Annual Seminars & Symposium Proceedings,
Drexel Hill, PA: PMI Communications; 1999.
Thiry M. 2000. A learning loop for successful programme
management. In: Proceedings of the 31st PMI Seminars and
Symposium. Newton Square, PA: PMI; 2000.
ONeill J. Short-staed? Maximise scarce resources with knowledge resource planning. PM Network 1999;February:3741.
Goldratt E. Critical chain. Great Barrington, MA: North River
Press; 1997.