Background

First of all, I would like to define the word ‘project’ to know what we are talking about. In job titles sometimes it is short for “We do not really know what to do with this person who is on his way out anyway”, some other times it means “We do not really know what she does, but by defining the job this way we do not need to spend much time on the subject” or embarrassingly “By defining the job as temporary we circumvent our salary-house and can pay the individual less”. It may be obvious that the usage of project management tools in these cases is either only superfluous bureaucracy or providing transparency in cases where it is not desired.

Below I will use the more common(?) usage of a project as “a clearly defined change, implemented in a particular time period, with a specified cost”. The alert reader will recognize the fundamentals for the devil’s triangle here: the continuous balancing between scope, time and budget.

‘On-the-side’-projects

‘All’ line managers have responsibility to maintain the regular operation but also make improvements. The act of implementing the improvement can be seen as a point on a to-do list or as a project. Resources for the latter generally are not formally assigned, the time horizon will be limited, budgets and the scope are generally limited to the realm of the responsible person. The person responsible for this change generally is the line manager herself and not a separate project manager.

One will notice that the previous paragraph is fairly unspecific, which is caused by the influence of the industry in which one operates. A budget of $10,000 might be large for a local retailer, but peanuts for an investment banker.

The minimum requirement for these kind of projects is (“imho”) an Open Points List.

Smaller projects

The time horizon for smaller projects is generally weeks to months for achieving changes that affect the target agreement of the sponsor and with costs within her realm. Since she is directly involved in the management of the project, no extensive paperwork is required.

The main components are relevant though: the assignment (“Project Brief”), a Work Breakdown Structure , a Project Planning and of course a Status Report. The person performing the project might appropriately be called a ‘project manager’.

When there is a recurrence of particular kinds of projects like the implementation of new clients, it generally is possible to develop a standard Work Breakdown Structure (to make sure all relevant topics are covered) and a standardized Project Planning (to make sure appropriate time periods for these work packages are attributed) . Not only are these helpful tools for the project manager to develop a project plan quickly, in addition it allows to work in a standardized manner and transparency to upper management.

Bigger projects

For projects with time spans of months to years, budgets where the sponsor needs to obtain backing at least one level higher and that also affect the targets of the level above her, one could argue that the sponsor is too low in the organization to properly fulfill her role. However, if one were to award sponsorship one level higher in the organization, that would often result in insufficient sponsor time and attention for the project, which makes the practice very well defensible in my view. For these kinds of projects though, the full range of all project components as I described in https://peteralderliesten.com/2015/04/21/a-project-plan-for-dummies/ needs to be deployed.

To properly take and document all steps in such a project, generally a supporting cast is provided by a Project Management Office. Whether the usage of such a PMO is necessary given the inherent costs (“bureaucracy”) always will be a topic of debate. The fundamental underlying issue is not just efficiency and speed of project documentation but the need for Control: if the project is not important enough to control in a standardized manner then yes all of project management methodologies are superfluous in that case.

Programs

One highly cynical (and therefore highly appreciated) colleague of mine once said that the only difference between a Program Manager and a Project Manager is the pay scale. To a certain degree that becomes ever more true, since in our highly automated world salary surveys link the two elements of pay and job title, after which HR Departments (also)

look at one’s job title to assess the appropriate pay and possibilities for a raise. Where job titles were just a subject of ego in the past, they more and more seem to have a financial impact as well.

Wikipedia is a little more specific: “Program management or programme management is the process of managing several related projects, often with the intention of improving an organization’s performance.” Therefore Programs affect the targets of the complete company and in general report to the Board. Given their importance, supporting cast is usually delivered by one of the big consultancies, time spans are typically measured in years, and costs are commensurate.