The need for program management: Lessons from a war-zone

Project managers could learn a thing or two about program management from the relief and rehabilitation efforts that began in fall 2002 in post-war Iraq . What happened with the constantly changing reality on the ground, and huge funding coming in, was that disparate government agencies started off optimistically chartering reconstruction projects all across the country.

Working independently from each other in ‘classified environments’ (secrecy was preserved to prevent speculation about war plans), the people in charge soon found their expectations about a linear outcome to the war thwarted. With hundreds of contractors waiting to execute thousands of projects, the US military finally decided that their plans needed to be integrated into a single operational strategy. The lack of coordination made every decision taken by program managers there useless. That’s when they decided to establish the ORHA (Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance) and change their approach to solving problems in Iraq. The ORHA comprised interdependent efforts from multiple agencies focused on projects related to what they then called the three pillars:

•  Humanitarian assistance
•  Civil administration
•  Reconstruction

In an organizational context, you can view these pillars as programs or practices. A single program would constitute up to 2300 projects. Imagine the effort required to rebuild an entire nation. But systematic and integrated program management was the only solution to this dilemma.

Project managers working in the mundane corporate world often forget the larger efforts and developments happening behind project management. When a project is suddenly cancelled, we take it personally and tend to be discouraged, not seeing the changing nature of the project’s relevance to the larger stream of projects within the pipeline.

To work successfully with program managers, project managers should

• Learn to adapt: Learning is the key to adaptation. This means keeping an eye on changing business conditions and steering clear of conflicts where larger program stakes are involved.

• Establish a project culture: Program managers have direct organizational authority over establishing a project framework. Project managers can create the groundwork for a dynamic project management culture by aligning project goals with the organization’s strategic objectives. PMs can do this by being delivery and execution focused and convincing program managers about the health and viability of their projects.

• Provide good metrics: Projects that merely support cost-cutting measures will soon fall on the sidelines. Projects cannot be judged on internal criteria such as performance alone. Their potential ROIs need to be reported to stakeholders to be evaluated realistically against expectations. Having a consistent good record with customer satisfaction also counts.

• Support policy and processes: Project managers often fail to strategically absorb centralized process assets in their projects. This is a major point of conflict with program managers who are directly responsible for adherence to policies. But if current policy positions are counterproductive to project execution standards, PMs need to communicate with program managers to create a sustainable environment for their projects.

http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/Lessons_Learned_March21.pdf