Act of Improvement
24 January 2017
Beca: Late last year, United States
President Barack Obama signed into law the Program Management
Improvement and Accountability Act (PMIAA). The bipartisan initiative
represents a major step forward for programme management, and got the
President’s full support despite the US’s tough political landscape.
So what does the Act dictate, and what is its relevance to New Zealand
and Australia?
The Act has four key goals:
-
Creating a formal career path for programme managers
-
Developing a standards-based programme management policy
-
Recognising the essential role of executive sponsorship and engagement by designating a senior executive to be responsible for programme management policy and strategy
-
Sharing knowledge of successful approaches to programme management through an interagency council on programme management
The Act is intended to cover all
Federal Government agencies after research showed that US government
entities waste 10% of funds spent on projects and programmes. Just 64%
of US government strategic initiatives ever meet their goals and
business intent.
From my perspective, I think we would find that we also reflect those
statistics in New Zealand and Australia, across both public and private
sector groups.
Delivery of business strategic initiatives and outcomes within a
well-considered and implemented delivery framework is something we have
been advocating with our clients. Promoting a programme management
approach is not just about saving cost, but entails high value delivery
which ultimately saves money.
Executive sponsorship and governance around a programmed approach
instils organisational buy-in to delivery from the top down. The US is
recognising this essential role in organisations because it helps to
firmly set direction and the activities that will be needed to achieve
desired changes or outcomes.
Programme management is about holistic delivery, a means of articulating
outcomes – what it is that needs doing and why? It also centralises
setting expectations around benefit outcomes, quality, time and cost.
The framework of prioritisation, risk assessment and allocation of
resources to get things done are all part and parcel of a programmed
approach, and they can be simplified to meet an organisation’s maturity
and complexity of the programme. The objectives and benefits aren’t
forgotten along the programme delivery journey, as they are captured as
part of the programme reporting and governance.
Do we need a government mandate in New Zealand and Australia?
Personally, I think we do see organisations acknowledge the essential
role of the programme manager at senior leadership level and provide a
good conduit into the senior leaders for reporting – but this is an area
we need to improve. If more organisations adopt a programme management
approach, the establishment costs are more than offset by improved
delivery quality with real savings.
Tracking programme outcomes better is a must, together with identifying
project and programme executive sponsors. If this is more widely
adopted, programmes and programme managers will be more effective and
our performance on delivering expected outcomes will improve.
Clearly the US Government believes in the value that programme
management brings to the delivery of capital spend and the realisation
of strategic initiatives – so do I!
--ENDS--
Source: Beca - www.beca.com
Contact: Greg Rozen | Principal - Programme Management
External Links: N/A
Recent news by: Beca