Preface

When I was asked to be lead editor on the fifth edition of Managing Successful Programmes, I was both honoured to be asked, and intrigued to learn how this tried and tested product could be improved.

One of the things the team discussed as we began the work was the ‘definitions debate’ that has consumed our profession over the years. There have been some excellent attempts to try to put clear blue water between projects, programmes, and portfolios, and a guide such as Managing Successful Programmes must, of course, continue to be clear. However, the world of practice (the people who are taking investment decisions to attempt to create a strategic advantage for their organization, and the people who are tasked with leading the delivery of those investments and their associated outcomes and benefits) cares much less about definitions. For certain, job titles do not reflect strict demarcation between projects, programmes, and portfolios, and the leadership of planned change can take many forms. We noticed that much planned change work that could benefit from a programmatic approach was not called a programme; strategic projects or major projects were two examples.

Accordingly, one of the changes you will see in this edition is that the core guidance (the principles, themes, and processes) is applied to four scenarios that reflect examples of how programme management is used in practice. We have been careful to not call these ‘types’ of programme because a typology aims to make things distinct. We have instead referred to different reasons for using programme management to reflect the fact that in practice, there may be many reasons for investing, and multiple ways to configure a programme to achieve the desired goals.

We also took the decision early in the process that Managing Successful Programmes was not the place to delve deeply into the ‘how to’ of some of the essential elements in programme management (e.g. stakeholder engagement or the sizing of financial contingency). Other AXELOS publications fulfil this purpose. As a result, you will see that this fifth edition is shorter, making the ‘essential’ elements of the guidance very clear and leaving more scope for practitioners to tailor the actual programme governance and plans to meet the needs of the investing organization. We believe that this balance of clear advice and scope to tailor gives the guide a renewed relevance in a fast-changing world where the ability to reliably deliver complex change is a vital organizational capability.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the team I have worked with closely over the past months: AXELOS employees, MSP examiners, and my team of authors, notably Penny Pullan, Andrew Schuster, and Sue Taylor. Finally, it only remains for me to wish you, the readers, every success with creating value through the use of MSP in programme management.

Dr Ruth Murray-Webster

Director, Potentiality UK