There are some sceptics within the programme and project management (PPM) community, who don't really believe that there is much difference between a programme and a project. Are they just being deliberately controversial, are they not really aware of the differences, or are they really just plain sceptical? Often people tend to pose the question, 'Aren't programmes just really big projects?' and they suspect that a lot of fuss has been created about essentially nothing, to provide status, promotion opportunities and a career paths for ambitious PPM professionals.

When you consider the separate development paths of project and programme management and their practice, and the relative immaturity around the latter's definition, professional standing and practice compared with the former, such cynicism or confusion is understandable. But make no mistake, programme management is a strong and separate discipline in its own right, and it's something that many organisations are seeing as mission-critical, in mastering the realisation of tangible business benefits and return on investment (ROI) through well-planned and structured business change. The time has finally come to de-bunk the myths and confusion…

1. So, what is the difference between a programme and a project?

There are many differences between a programme and a project, and 'size' is immaterial. Put simply, a project is about delivering outputs which help to improve capability – perhaps a new IT system, a new organisation or a new way of working– to quality, on time and on budget, whereas a programme seeks to orchestrate business change in a much more encompassing way, delivering outcomes - usually benefits such as cost savings, reduced head count or increased efficiency, gained as a result of newly delivered capability. Programmes and projects aim to do different things for the business and they require different skills to realise as a result.

The easiest way of putting programmes and projects into their context is by looking at the entire continuum of change activities that are initiated to help an organisation to achieve its strategic goals.

Figure 1 shows a simple 'layer cake' view, which we at Moorhouse often use as a starting point for client discussions. Assuming that the company has a developed strategy, there is always a need to interpret the associated strategic goals into a portfolio of activities that will deliver those goals (strategy translation). The way in which that portfolio is designed and kept in alignment with the organisation's capability and capacity to deliver it, is a whole subject in itself – 'Portfolio Management' - and one which is rapidly becoming the 'new' focus for PPM professionals, as programme management becomes better defined and supported.

But for the purpose of our consideration of programmes and projects, it is sufficient to say that the management of the strategic portfolio should result in an approved and coherent set of programmes, projects and 'business as usual' (operational) activities that together are resourced, have executive sponsorship, ownership and funding, and are designed to achieve the organisation's strategy (strategy implementation).

2. Where did the confusion begin?

The maturity of thinking on the subject has historically been tuned to projects, first and foremost. Bodies such as Association of Project Management (APM) and Project Management Institute (PMI) have been key drivers of the programme and project management (PPM) profession, but based on an initial focus on projects. Bodies of knowledge, methods, standards, tools and techniques for project management have existed and been continuously developed for many years whilst those for programme management have tended to be a lower priority. Even though notable work has now been done, the development of professional programme management standards have generally lagged behind those of projects – allowing confusion to remain. A common language does exist among many professionals, but the challenge is to promote its understanding and use.

The myriad of job roles and titles surrounding the profession hasn't helped resolve the confusion either: project managers, programme managers, project portfolio managers, strategic portfolio managers, it's often difficult to tell one apart from the other. There is also the temptation for some people to call themselves by job titles that are not linked to the actual role that they play – i.e. someone who may be running a project, prefers to call him/herself a 'Programme Manager', due to some perceived greater seniority and/or importance.

In addition, it is quite common to collect a number of disparate projects together under one 'programme manager' and governance structure, and call it a programme. It happens all the time, in many organisations. However, since a programme seeks to achieve an outcome, or set of outcomes, it must ensure that the grouping of projects within it (confusingly called a portfolio, although a project portfolio, rather than a strategic one) all contribute in a coherent way, to those outcomes. Any projects that do not should not be in the programme. Conversely, there may be missing projects that will be needed to deliver the outcomes as planned.

Therefore, programmes are almost always constructed by defining the outcomes that are desired, and the blueprint to enable the outcomes i.e. the definition of the overall new capability that will be required. This ensures that the right project portfolio is set up, and the programme 'is' a programme.

3. What's the easiest way of defining a programme and project?

The 'right' way to think of programmes and projects is to bear in mind their technical differences. These are summarised in Table 1, and in essence this conforms to the 'professional wisdom' that projects deliver outputs whilst programmes deliver outcomes from changed and new capabilities. This summary also puts programmes and projects into the context of change management and portfolio management, for completeness. With this view, it is clear that programmes really are not 'just big projects'.

4. How do programmes and projects work together to effectively deliver change?

The important thing to realise is that organisations must find a way to manage so that the 'top down' need of strategy formulation, translation and implementation can harmoniously co-exist with the 'bottom up' practice and capability within the organisation.

The situation that really exists in most organisations is something that looks more like Figure 2 than the simple structure in Figure 1. This double helix characterises the realities of driving organisational change, i.e. the need to manage both top down need and bottom up practice, set against the backdrop of business as usual and each organisation's unique culture and politics.

At Moorhouse, we see that it is a 'programme leadership' approach that is required in these circumstances, irrespective of the programme/project structure that is settled on. Both programme and project management techniques are almost always required for organisations to achieve the outcomes they desire, so the technical debate on projects versus programmes is important, but somewhat subsidiary.

What makes programme management and its techniques so crucial, is its focus on benefits management and the associated responsibility for operational managers (those in business as usual), to define, plan for and realise those benefits. Programme management thereby forces the delivery of outputs (via projects) to be tightly coupled with the transition of those outputs into operations, the embedding of resultant change and the realisation of the planned outcomes.

5. But how should an organisation develop its PPM capability to assure its future effectiveness in managing change?

Having established that programmes and projects need to work together, and therefore that both programme and project management skills are essential, focus needs to be on the development of overall professional skills and capability to manage change. There is a way of looking at this 'PPM capability development journey' – which is a four-stage roadmap:

Stage 1 – training and accreditation activities, which help to drive basic capability improvements, focused on key skills, processes and tools. This is often a starting point for individuals and organisations who are looking for early wins.
Stage 2 – individual, personal learning improve learning and development. Organisations often find that they fail to reap the rewards of investments in training and accreditation, without the ensuing activities to improve learning retention and transference of learned skills to the programmes and projects which are in-flight.

Increasingly, PPM mentoring and coaching are being utilised to help programme and project managers apply their new skills and rapidly develop in the profession. We at Moorhouse have developed a PPM mentoring service, called compass, which is designed specifically for this purpose – and this aims to match very experienced programme and project management practitioners with people who seek to take control of their learning and development into the future.

Stage 3 – PPM community development. Organisations often invest in mentoring and coaching of 'future leaders' of the internal PPM profession, and look to these people to drive PPM capability developments over time. These people can often be at the core of an emerging community which transcends organisational barriers, provides a focal point and unites practitioners behind a professional development ethos.
Stage 4 – culture change. Real performance improvements in programmes and projects rely on people continuously developing their PPM skills, learning and never looking back. Consistency and sustainability are crucial, and organisations and individuals who go through a PPM capability development roadmap like the one outlined here are likely to see a significant cultural shift towards a more PPM-centred way of working.

6. As a 'jobbing' PPM professional, how do you rise above the debate and do the best for your business?

It is often said that programme managers and project managers look at business change from different points of view, coloured by the results that they are required to achieve – with project managers tending to need (and preferring) clearly defined, well thought-out and relatively unchanging requirements to deliver against, whilst programme managers thrive on working in uncertainty and on building change-resilient approaches. This is an over-simplification. In reality, both roles require a deep understanding of what makes businesses work, how to work with the business to manage change, and how to manage risk. Programmes and projects work in concert to deliver that change effectively, and neither one is 'more important' than the other. PPM practitioners need to drive their personal and professional development with that in mind.

A last thought for you…in many organisations, people become 'project managers' or 'programme managers' almost as a consequence of the business job they do, and the need for them to manage new initiatives within the organisation as part of that job. Often, these key people wouldn't recognise themselves as project or programme managers, they may not want to be known as such, and they are often not adequately prepared or trained in the required management techniques. For these people, it's about creating and delivering value for their business and the niceties of whether they are running a 'project' or a 'programme' are not high on their list of worries. Maybe that's not a bad perspective!