STANDARD FOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 3RD EDITION PDF
Project Management InstituteThe Standard for Program DOWNLOAD PDF of The Standard for Program Management and PMBOK威 Guide— Third Edition. The standard is a companion for A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK威 Guide) – Third Edition and builds on work postulated in the. NOTICE. The Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI) standards and guideline publications, of which the document Development Framework – Third Edition.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||22.40 MB|
|PDF File Size:||16.63 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
INTRODUCTION. 1. Purpose of The Standard for Program Management. 2. What Is a Program? 4. The Relationships Among Portfolios, Programs. The Standard for Program. Management – Third Edition. Update. Ray Mead PMP MBA,. Director, PM-Partners group. “PMI” is a registered trade and service. This freeware, non-commercial mind map (aligned with the newest version of The Standard for Program Management was carefully hand crafted with passion.
Bamberger, M. Real world evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political Constraints. Bichelmeyer, B. Checklist for formatting checklists. Brinkerhoff, R. Telling training's story: Evaluation made simple, credible and effective - using the success case method to improve learning and performance.
Butler, J. Metaevaluation and implications for program improvement. Carmines, E. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Cook, T. The misutilization of evaluation research: some pitfalls of definition. Science Communication, 1, Davidson, J. Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Donaldson, S. Edwards, J. Fetterman, D. Wandersman Fitzpatrick, J.
Sanders, J. Pearson: New York, NY. Forss, K. Cracknell, B. Can evaluation help an organization to learn? Evaluation Review, 18, Frechtling, J. Logic Modeling Methods in Program Evaluation. Gajda, R. Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, Hale, J. San Francisco, CA. Josey-Bass Pfeiffer. Hunt, M. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs.
The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs, 2nd ed. The student evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. Kane, M. Keppel, G. Kirkpatrick D. Evaluating Training Programs. Knowlton, L. The Logic Model Guidebook. Kusek, J. Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system. Lawrenz, F. How can multi-site evaluations be participatory? American Journal of Evaluation, 24, Lipsey, M.
Littell, J. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Mathison, S. Encyclopedia of evaluation. Preskill, H. Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations.
Raupp, M. Evaluation management handbook. Andover, MA: Network, Inc. Reineke, R. Client centered metaevaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 7, Reeve, J. Evaluating the evaluation: Understanding the utility and limitations of evaluation as a tool for organizational learning.
Health Education Journal, 66, Renger, R. A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, Rist, R. From Studies to Streams: Managing evaluative systems.
Project Management Body of Knowledge
Rodriguez-Campos, L. Collaborative evaluations: A step-by-step model for the evaluator. Tamarac, FL: Llumina Press. Rosas, S. A methodological perspective on evaluator ethics. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, Rossi, P. Evaluation A Systematic Approach 7th Ed. Royse, D. Program Evaluation 4th Ed: An Introduction.
Ruhe, V. Evaluation in Distance Education and E-learning.
Schwandt, T. Linking auditing and metaevaluation: Enhancing quality. Applied Research, 10, Scriven, M. Evaluation thesaurus 4th ed. Shaw, I.
The Sage Handbook of Evaluation. Stevahn, L. Establishing essential competencies for program evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, Straw, J. Stufflebeam, D. Guidelines for developing evaluation checklists.
Evaluation checklists: Practical tools for guiding and judging evaluations. The metaevaluation imperative. Evaluation Models. Torres, R. Evaluation Strategies for Communicating and Reporting 2nd Ed. Witkin, B. Planning and Conducting Needs Assessment. Wolf, F. Yang, H. When is an external evaluator no longer external? Reflections on Some Ethical Issues. Information Systems Project Management. Bentley, C. Crowe, A. Kennesaw, GA: Velociteach, Inc.
Fabac, J. Project management for systematic training. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, Friedrich, R. The essence of OPM3. Graham, N. Heldman, K. Project management professional study guide 4th ed. Kerzner, H. Value-Driven Project Management. Kerzner, K. Layton, M. Llewellyn, R. Locke, L. Marsh, D. Health Informatics, 2, Middleton, C. How to set up a project organization. Harvard Business Review, March-April, Mulcahy, R.
Project Management Institute. Project manager competency development framework. Managing Successful Project with Prince2. Organizational project management maturity model OPM3 : Knowledge foundation. A guide to the project management body of knowledge 3rd Ed. Project Manager Competency Development Framework. The Standard for Program Management 2nd Ed.
Initiating Process Group 3. Initially, this concept may be inadequately defined and the purpose of Initiate Program is to provide a process that helps define the scope and benefit expectations of the program. Candidates for program status include project work as well as non-project work, such as new investments and ongoing operations.
Initiating a program can entail configuring or grouping proposed projects and existing projects into a program based on specific benefit delivery or other criteria. Initiate Program also requires formal acceptance of the program scope from the stakeholders. Formal acceptance usually means each stakeholder signs off on the scope document. Initiate Program generally calls for order-of-magnitude estimates of scope, effort, and cost. Such estimates are often called feasibility studies or concept development.
A feasibility study may or may not occur before a formal initiation of a program. This will depend on the culture of the organization and the type of program under consideration. In either case, the results of the activities are used as inputs to one or more of the Initiating and Planning Processes. The business case and investment analysis, then define the way in which those business needs will be achieved.
Programs are typically chartered and authorized by an organizational executive committee, steering committee, or a portfolio management body. Key outputs of this process include the program charter and preliminary scope statement.
The program charter links the program to the ongoing work of the organization. The charter often contains the vision statement that defines the desired organizational end state to follow for successful completion of the program, and is used as the vehicle to authorize the program.
The preliminary scope statement includes objectives and high-level deliverables of the program. Inputs and Outputs 3. This process can occur during any program phase except closing. The timing to initiate a project is usually controlled by the program management plan. In some cases, the program team may discover the need to initiate a project that was not previously planned.
The Authorize Projects Process at the program level includes: In some cases, the program manager will be the sponsor for the project. Authorize Projects may trigger the redeployment of human and other resources from one project or activity to another.
This is managed at the program level and may require other program process activity if the managers of the releasing project are unable or unwilling to release the resources required. Finally, all program-level documentation and records dealing with the project must be updated to reflect the new status of the projects in question. The program management team is responsible for ensuring that the human resources selected will be able to achieve the program requirements.
This responsibility typically involves designating personnel from within the organization to be assigned to the program team. However, other human resources may be obtained to augment the program, through recruiting new employees, retaining consulting staff to support the program or incorporating human resources from subcontractors and teaming partners.
Initiate Team commences in conjunction with the Initiate Program Process and kickoff meeting. The objective is to formalize the appointment of the program manager by the program sponsor and to put in place the key personnel who will comprise the core program team. At this point in the program life cycle, the role of the program manager and core program team is to accomplish the tasks necessary to position the program to commence the Planning Processes.
Some members of the core program team may be assigned to the program only to participate in the initiation or start-up of the program and may be replaced by permanent staff during the Resource Planning and Acquire Program Team Processes. The key program-level deliverable that is created by the Planning Processes is the program management plan, which defines the tactical means by which the program will be carried out.
Included in the program management plan, either as components within the document or as subsidiary plans, are the plans that drive the basic elements of managing the program. These plans include and address: During this iterative process, a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches may be the most suitable.
Interactions among the processes within the Planning Process Group can vary based on the nature and complexity of the program. The activities of the Planning Process Group include interaction with the portfolio domain. Planning is performed in the early phase of a program. However, because of both the extended length and the multi-project nature of programs, there are additional milestones where plans should be revisited and updated to ensure ongoing usefulness.
These milestones include, but are not limited to: This set of plans includes the following subsidiary plans: Develop Program Management Plan is an iterative process along with all of the other Planning Processes , as competing priorities, assumptions, and constraints are worked and resolved to address critical factors, such as business goals, deliverables, benefits, time, and cost.
Each of the other Planning Processes in the program Planning Process Group produces, at a minimum, a plan addressing a specific aspect of the program, such as communications or risks, and a set of supporting documents and detail. These other plans may be incorporated into the program management plan or they may serve as subsidiary plans to the program management plan.
It involves describing the characteristics of these interfaces and creating the plan to ensure that these interfaces are established and maintained. Often, representatives from all involved organizations comprise an integrated program team. Both internal and external interfaces must be addressed.
Primarily, interface plans will identify interdependencies; however, they will also support the program communications plan to set up formal communications channels and decision-making relationships. Whereas the staffing management plan must support the required interfaces in an efficient manner, the interface management plan must take into account existing organizational structures.
The risks involved with these interrelationships need to be identified during all phases of program management. This process is typically executed in conjunction with the Human Resource Planning and Communications Planning Processes. The purpose of Transition Planning is to ensure that program benefits are sustained once they are transferred to the organization.
Delivered with the transition are all pertinent documents, training and materials, and supporting systems, facilities, and personnel. Transition Planning ensures that the scope of the transition is defined, the stakeholders in the receiving organizations or functions are identified to participate in the planning, the program benefits are measured and sustainment plans exist, and the transition itself is eventually executed.
Transition Planning must acknowledge that, within the life of the program, there may be multiple transition events as individual projects close, as interdependent projects close, or as other work activity within the program closes.
The receiver in the transition process will vary depending on the event and on the program type. A product support organization could be the receiver for a product line that a company develops. For a service provided to customers, it could be the service management organization.
In some cases, the transition may be from one program to another. Transitions are often formal contract-based activities, but they can also be activities between functions in a single organization. The key to an effective transition plan is a clear understanding of what is to be handed off and the requirements made of the recipient in accepting the handoff. Program management processes must be complemented by similar processes within the receiving organization.
In other words, Transition Planning and the activities within the program are only one part of the complete transition process. The receiving organization or function is responsible for all preparation processes and activities within their domain to ensure that the product, service or result is received and incorporated into their domain. Priority should be given to those skills that are critical to the program but are not possessed by any current program team member.
Operational teams and subject matter experts should be actively involved in identifying candidates for the open positions. Resource Planning at the program level must pay careful attention to how common program resources are allocated across projects to ensure that they are not overcommitted.
Historical information regarding what types of resources were required for similar projects on previous programs should be used if available. Contracts awarded by organizations external to the program can be issued by the customer or sponsor. The product requirements, boundaries of the program, methods of acceptance, and high-level scope statement may be documented in the form of a contract, statement of work SOW , or program scope statement.
The objective of this process is to develop a detailed program scope statement. The primary outputs of this process are the program scope statement and scope management plan. The program scope statement becomes the basis for future program decisions and articulates the scope boundaries of the program.
The scope management plan identifies how the scope will be managed throughout the program.
Scope Definition: A PWBS is a deliverable-oriented hierarchical decomposition encompassing the total scope of the program, and includes the deliverables to be produced by the constituent components. Elements not in the PWBS are outside the scope of the program. The PWBS includes, but is not limited to, program management artifacts such as plans, procedures, standards and processes, the major milestones for the program, program management deliverables, and program office support deliverables.
The PWBS is a key to effective control and communication between the program manager and the managers of component projects: The decomposition should stop at the level of control required by the program manager. Typically, this will correspond to the first one or two levels of the WBS of each component project. It is also the place to capture all non-project work within the program. This includes program management artifacts developed for use within the program office, external deliverables such as public communications, and endsolution deliverables overarching the projects, such as facilities and infrastructure upgrades.
A program schedule is typically created using the program work breakdown structure PWBS as the starting point. The individual project managers build the detail for their specific project; this detail is rolled up at the management control points into program packages for the PWBS. The interdependencies between the constituent projects must also be reflected and managed in the program schedule. The schedule includes all of the program packages in the PWBS that produce the deliverables.
The program schedule will include timelines of various program packages and non-project program activities, and indicate significant milestones. An essential element of schedule development is determining timing of the program packages, which allows the scheduler to forecast the date on which the program will finish, as well as finish dates for the milestones within the program e.
In addition to producing the program schedule, this process normally creates a plan by which the schedule will be managed over the life of the program.
This schedule management plan becomes part of the program management plan. It will include all program activity and project and non-project activity. The estimates are either made by the program team for the entire program or aggregated based on individual estimates of projects and work packages.
Cost Budgeting is the process of establishing budgets for the program based on the budgets for the individual projects, the non-project activity and any financial constraints that impose boundaries on the budget.
The latter may be a consequence of fiscal year budgetary planning cycles or funding limits for particular periods. Since programs can span multiple planning periods, the program team may use different budget techniques over the program life cycle. Quality Planning and preparation must happen early in the program to ensure that the competency is available during the planning stages of critical program activities and processes.
If the latter are required but do not exist, then they should be implemented within the program. Internal organizational elements include the program management team, representatives from functional areas within the enterprise, such as finance and human resources, and key individuals in the project management teams that are under the jurisdiction of the program manager. External organizational entities may include external end-users of the solution s delivered by the program, as well as other organizations with a stake in the program and its successful outcome.
Adequate communications requirements must be conveyed as input to the projects in order to facilitate information capture from the projects to be fed back into the program. Risk Management Planning and Analysis consists of four steps: It is important that the program management involvement in risk should support the risk management activities of the program components. Program-specific risk activities include the following: This process precedes the Plan Program Contracting Process and generates several outputs that become inputs to contract planning.
A primary function of Plan Program Purchases and Acquisitions is to analyze the program scope statement, the product descriptions that define the deliverables, and the program work breakdown structure PWBS. Make-or-buy decision techniques are applied to the results of the analyses to determine which PWBS elements will be produced using internal resources available to the program and which will be obtained from outside suppliers. Once these determinations are made and approved, this information is passed to the Plan Program Contracting Process, where potential sources are identified and formal contracting documents are created.
For a program, the range and complexity of documentation for contracting will be far greater than for a project. For example, most often contracting at the program level needs to address legal issues and considerations. This process produces the foundation and guidelines on which an effective program-level contract administration process can be implemented.
These processes ensure that benefits management, stakeholder management, and program governance are executed in accordance with established policies and plans. Using these processes, the program team acquires and marshals the resources needed to accomplish the goals and benefits of the program, including internal program staff, contractors, and suppliers.
The Executing Process Group also ensures that all stakeholders receive necessary information in a timely manner. Executing Process Group 3. This process focuses specifically on those projects and program work packages currently in progress and integrates other Executing Processes.
Its purpose is to produce the cumulative deliverables and other work products of the program. It facilitates and resolves inter-project issues, risks, and constraints. Program management plan execution becomes the primary responsibility of the program manager and the program team once the initial planning activities are completed and execution of the program has begun although the other Process Groups remain active, particularly Planning and Monitoring and Controlling.
Progress of the work is tracked regularly via updates on individual projects, and is passed on to the Performance Reporting Process. In addition to producing deliverables, this process implements approved change requests, corrective actions, and preventive actions once they have been integrated with the relevant plans.
Finally, this process is responsible for ensuring that all transition plans are executed at both the project and program level. It is performed throughout the life cycle of the program. The Perform Quality Assurance Process, within and of a program, is not intended to replace component quality assurance efforts.
Rather, Perform Quality Assurance focuses on cross-program, inter-project and non-project activities, including the service management activities of the program and the overarching quality needs of the customer. Perform Quality Assurance: The decision to use internal versus external resources depends upon several factors.
These include the length of time that a particular skill set is needed, the availability of internal resources with the right skill sets, the cost of external resources, and the timing of the need. Negotiations involve the tradeoffs encountered when moving someone from an existing position, with its corresponding responsibilities and deliverables, to the program role in the most effective manner.
Staffing externally involves the process of identifying and evaluating external candidates and then selecting the best candidate for the position. Staffing externally can mean hiring a full-time employee or securing services on a contract or consulting basis. Consideration must be given to the long-term value of the hired skill to the organization, and whether intellectual property acquired by the person would be better retained in the organization by full-time employment.
Another consideration is the cost of recruiting and hiring external candidates as employees versus subcontracting, retaining consulting staff, or rescheduling activities based on the availability of internal staff.
Acquire Program Team: Typically, these are competencies specifically needed on the program team for the effective performance of the program.
Develop Program Team is an ongoing process throughout the program. In addition to developing personnel for current assignments and roles, personnel development needs to address succession planning, preparing individuals to assume different or larger roles within the program at some future date, and reassignment of personnel as the program concludes.
The process will support development of personnel by providing necessary knowledge and skills particular to the program or to relevant program management competencies. Develop Program Team: It includes administration of three major communications channels: Distributed information can include the following: Information Distribution: Request Seller Responses: The program-level responsibility is to negotiate and finalize program-wide policies and agreements such as basic order agreements and integrated volume discounts.
The activity of completing the contract between sellers and customer formally and legally is the responsibility of the Program Contract Administration Process. Select Sellers: Monitoring also entails interfacing with the program governance structure to ensure the organization has a clear picture of the current benefit delivery and expected future benefits. Effective program performance reporting supports appropriate preventive and corrective actions at the program level, especially during the delivering benefits phase of the program life cycle.
In addition, these corrective actions could also be a result of governance oversight, especially when programs require statutory compliance with external and governmental agencies. For programs, integrated change control involves redirecting or modifying the program as needed, based on feedback from individual projects or work packages.
In addition, changes could originate from interfaces with other subsystems of the program or factors external to the program. The latter could be due to government regulations, market changes, the economy, or political issues. This process controls the approval and refusal of requests for change, escalates requests in line with authority thresholds, determines when changes have occurred, influences factors that create changes, makes sure those changes are beneficial and agreed-upon, and manages how and when the approved changes are applied.
Analysis of the change request involves identifying, documenting, and estimating all of the work that the change would entail, including a list of all of the program management processes that need to be carried out again such as updating the program work breakdown structure PWBS , revising the program risk register, etc.
Integrated Change Control is performed throughout the entire program life cycle from initiation through closure. Inputs for this process include change requests from components and from program-level and non-project activities. The outputs from this process feed back to the component level and, as such, the process is iterative between the program and component domains.
Resource Control is the process of monitoring human resources to ensure that committed resources are made available to the program consistent with commitments, resources are allocated within the program according to the plan, and resources are released from the program as dictated by the plan.
Resource Control may include authorized cross-charging or other forms of allocation of expenses between the program, component, and contributing functions within the organization. Other resources include plants, test beds, laboratories, data centers, office space, and other facilities, including real estate leases or purchases, equipment of all types, software, vehicles, and office supplies.
Some resources, such as office supplies, are consumed by the program and must be managed as an expense. Integrated Change Control: Inputs and Outputs Purchased non-consumable resources must be tracked to ensure that they are returned for other use or made available for sale when they are no longer needed for the purposes of the program, and to allow accurate financial tracking and reporting.
Some resources e.
Leased resources must be tracked to ensure that they are returned at the expiration of the lease or when they are no longer required, to avoid penalties or the hidden expense of ongoing lease payments. Finally, Resource Control includes analysis of resource expenses assigned to the program to ensure correctness and completeness. Resource Control: This is similar to risk management; however, it is focused on performance as opposed to risks.
The consolidated information can be made available to stakeholders through the Information Distribution Process. Monitor and Control Program Work: This alignment can be accomplished by several approaches, including modification of requirements or the program scope, adjusting organizational policies, or changing stakeholder expectations.
Issue Management and Control at the program level can also include addressing the issues escalated from the constituent projects that could not be resolved at the project level. These unresolved project issues can impact the overall progress of the program and must be tracked. When an issue is identified, it is recorded in an issues register and subjected to analysis by a reviewing authority or body. Issue reviews should be conducted on a regular schedule to track the status of all open issues.
It is essential that each issue be associated with an owner who has the authority and means to resolve and close the issue; when an issue is unresolved, it is then escalated progressively higher on the authority scale until resolution can be achieved. There should be a governance process and procedures that selectively allow issues to receive appropriate visibility for possible impact across other portfolios within the organization.
The Issue Management and Control Process is carried out in parallel with controlling risk, especially those risks which do not get resolved at the project level. Issue Management and Control: This is a formal process for accomplishing the following tasks: Scope Control: The activities in this process include tracking the actual start and finish of activities and milestones against the planned timeline, and updating the plan so that the comparison to the plan is always current.
It involves identifying not only slippages, but also opportunities. Schedule Control: Cost Control is proactive, analyzing actual cost as incurred against the plan to identify variance from the plan, and, where possible, doing trend analysis to predict problem areas early.
Cost Control is also reactive, dealing with unanticipated events or necessary but unplanned activities that affect the budget either negatively or positively.
Cost Control is frequently thought of as merely holding down cost so that the program remains on budget, or bringing it back to budget when there is an overrun. However, of equal importance, cost control involves identifying opportunities to return funding from the program to the enterprise wherever possible. Cost Control: This process identifies faulty outcomes and allows the elimination of causes of unsatisfactory performance at all stages of the quality loop, from the identification of needs to the assessment of whether the identified needs have been satisfied or not.
The Perform Quality Control Process ensures that quality plans are executed at project levels, via quality reviews and project management health checks. Perform Quality Control is performed throughout the program. Program results include both products and services, such as deliverables, management results, and cost and schedule performance.
Perform Quality Control: The Communications Control Process ensures that policies and procedures are received, recorded, and routed to the intended recipients through the Information Distribution Process. The scope and extent of this process is much wider at the program level than at the project level.
Apart from the program sponsor, the other stakeholders involved in a program could include product managers, financial managers, and senior management personnel, especially those involved in strategic planning.
Furthermore, since programs tend to be of larger size, greater cost, and much longer in duration, proactive communication is required with the community at large. Such external communications will not only include addressing issues specific to a program, such as environmental issues, but also managing public and media relations at the social and political level as may be appropriate to the program.
Performance reporting aggregates all performance information across projects and non-project activity to provide a clear picture of the program performance as a whole. Communications Control: Inputs and Outputs This information is conveyed to the stakeholders by means of the Information Distribution process to provide them with needed status and deliverable information. Performance Reporting: They include oversight of risks and responses at the project level within the program.
Risk Monitoring and Control is an ongoing process. Risk monitoring involves tracking program-level risks currently identified in the risk response plan and identifying new risks that emerge during the execution of the program, for example, unresolved project-level risks that demand resolution at the program level. Risk control focuses on risks that threaten to develop into actual problems or have already done so.
Risk control involves implementing the response actions and contingency plans contained in the risk response plan. When risks remain unresolved, the program manager ensures that these risks are escalated progressively higher on the authority scale until resolution can be achieved. Governance process and procedures should be in place to allow risks to be assessed as necessary for possible impact across the organization. Program risk situations, plans, and the status and the effectiveness of ongoing or completed risk responses should be included in program management reviews.
All modifications resulting from reviews and other changes in risks should be entered in the risk response plan. Risk Monitoring and Control: The process includes purchases and procurement of outside resources that span the program domain and that are not covered by a specific project.
The program management team must be aware of the legal, political, and managerial implications during implementation, since contractual issues can affect deadlines, have legal and costly consequences, and can produce adverse publicity. The team must effectively communicate with sponsors, sellers, governing bodies, and the project and program management teams.
At the program level, program contract administration relies on the interaction of other program and project processes.
Log in to Wiley Online Library
Program Contract Administration: The Closing Process Group includes the processes required to terminate formally all the activities of a program, finalize closure of a project within the program and hand-off the completed product to others, or to close a cancelled program or project within the program. The purposes of the Closing Processes include the following: Program closure activities happen throughout the program, not just at program completion.
As specific projects and other activities are completed, closing activities must occur. Otherwise, valuable program information will be lost, and there is a potential that the program will not meet its closure obligations.
Closing Process Group 3. However, administrative closure should not wait until the program has completed the execution process. Projects under the program need to be closed before the program is closed. As each project or each non-project activity closes, the Close Program Process should be performed to capture information and records, archive them, communicate the closure event and status, and obtain sponsor or customer sign-off.
Once the review is complete, the sponsor or customer is asked to acknowledge a final acceptance by signing the closure documents. During this process, the lessons learned are input from other program management processes that created them as outputs. In this process, they are analyzed, significant lessons learned are incorporated into the closure report output, and all lessons learned are included in the program archives. Close Program: Program component closure deals with these closure issues at the program level, that is, it is informed by and performed at a higher level than normal project closure occurring at the project level.
This process involves validating and ensuring that the project closure has indeed taken place at the project level. The resources that become available may be reallocated to other components that are either active or awaiting activation within the program. Project records must be closed and archived as needed. Communications to a larger or different set of stakeholders than those at the project level may be needed, as well. The information required for this process is obtained from each of the projects or work packages.
For a program, component closure will normally be done at the end of the project life cycle. However, project closure may need to be done if a project is being terminated before the completion of its life cycle. This can be the result of a program benefits review or changes in the external environment.
Component Closure: This process also applies to cases of premature contract termination. Contract Closure involves both product verification i. In the case of premature termination, it involves documentation of actual work performed plus work not performed, the circumstances that caused termination, and the updating of all contract records.
Contract records are important and include the contract itself and other relevant documentation, such as progress reports, financial records, invoices, and payment records. These are often kept in a contract file, which should be part of the complete program file. Contract documentation is also important should a procurement audit or legal action be initiated. Such an audit is a structured review of the procurement process from procurement planning through contract administration.
In case of legal action, accurate and complete documentation is critical for swift resolution. Contract Closure: Processes receive inputs from processes that logically precede them and send outputs to successor processes. In some cases, an output from a process becomes an input to the same process, for example, when a Planning Process iteratively updates a plan over time. The complexity of the program management process model is increased when inputs and outputs flow between the project domain, the program domain and the portfolio domain.
This can be illustrated with a few examples: In the table below, the program management processes are associated with their respective Process Groups and correlated to the nine Knowledge Areas in which most of the activities associated with the program take place. Next, the PPMS Team looked at whether the two subjects should be combined as one standard or treated separately. A sub-team was formed to perform a literature survey and poll the PM community to determine the differences and similarities between program and portfolio management processes.
The research confirmed that while program management processes provide for the management of a group of interdependent projects, portfolio management comprises continuous, repeatable, and sustainable processes designed to map business requirements and objectives to projects and programs.
As a result of this investigation, the PPMS Team concluded that the profession would be best served with two standards. Despite the differences in these processes, the PPMS Team believed that because of the relationships between the two subjects and that these were first time standards, it would be best to manage them both under one program. The Core Team developed a program plan and general team orientation, which was mandatory, to help volunteers engage effectively. Development of both standards began in early The team recognized early that the processes for program management closely paralleled those of project management, but were larger in scope.
In addition, program management further distinguished itself by containing three broad themes that are common throughout each program: While most of the work was done virtually, the team gathered for a meeting in Philadelphia in October to finalize the document. This broader review emulated the eventual global exposure draft review that PMI would conduct. The overwhelming majority of those voting indicated acceptance of the proposed standard without reservation.
The SPT engaged independent subject matter experts to augment the review process. From there, minor refinements were made and the proposed standard went on to a day exposure draft process starting in June More than half of these comments were accepted, accepted with modification, or identified for review in the next version of the standard.
No simple list or even multiple lists can adequately portray all the contributions of those who have volunteered to develop The Standard for Program Management. Appendix B describes specific contributions of many of the individuals listed below and should be consulted for further information about individual contributions to the project.
The Project Management Institute is grateful to all of these individuals for their support and acknowledges their contributions to the project management profession. David W.
Kent Bettisworth Peggy J. Logan, PMP J. Aydemir Darwyn S. Bigness, Jr. Susan S. Bond, Ph. Bonk, PMP, P. This book did a great job of defining what a PgMP is.
The Standard for Program Management – 3rd Edition ... - PMI-NIC
It did a fair job of delineating differences between program and project management. Lacking in contextual real-life examples, as well as tables and figures. I gave it 4 stars because it is easy to understand and not a typical boring textbook.
As a program managers' guide this is an excellent book. Given a few hours of thought you can follow it along to a decent program office roll-out. As a study guide for the PGMP exam, which is supposed to be based on the standard, you're going to be pretty confused.
For the exam, the main take-aways from this standard are its constant references to: Those are the only parts you will recognize again on the exam. Of course you need to read the standard before taking the exam. Ironically, however, this standard is actually considerably more useful as an operational program management reference - which, of course, is what the standard is really meant for.
So kudos to the folks who put it together. Book arrived on time. PMI's books are very hard to read. It's like they are written to make the field look more like a 'science".
The Standard for Program Management
It is a science, but the book should be comprehensible to someone other than a professor that teaches it. Milosevec, Russ J. Martinelli, and James M. Waddell, ISBN: This is a decent reference to have around, but the book I just referenced is readble and much more comprehensive.
First, the general knowledge about defining a Program, Stakeholder management, and the Control and Governance of a Program was immediately useful. While not directed at the Security space specifically, I found it as easy to map to the needs of the Security space as any other type of ongoing Program. The general approach assumes that your Program has a Start and a defined End, where as security Programs tend to be more of an ongoing evolution.
But if you think of your Point of Current as your start, and your 3 to 5 year vision as your Point in Time target or your end, the processes outlined can serve you well. While it's still a good tool for attacking insomnia, in my opinion you won't find it wordy or too dry. I was pleasantly surprised at how easily I was able to identify the portions of the Standard that were directly relevant to my current Program needs, and how easy it was for me to lightly skim the sections that I felt less important, while still getting from it the basics out of even those parts.
Third, I found the diagrams and charts provided clear and easy to understand. Several of them were in fact better than ones I was already using as visuals of processes I didn't really need the "help" on, and I decided to use them as a basis for several key process slides when addressing stakeholders, sponsors and customers.
Again, a lot of these processes may not be new ideas if you've been managing a Security Program, or any sort of Program for that matter for a good amount of time.
I think what I found particularly helpful was that the language used was easily understood by most business oriented types. It can be difficult to convey some Security issues to non practitioners, and I found that adopting some of the verbiage used in the Standard helped me to bridge some of those gaps with business leaders and customers.
If you're a PMP or at least familiar with the content, processes and knowledge areas from the PMBOK version 4, then a lot of this may seem redundant at first glance.
Really though, the Standard does a pretty good job of adopting the same sort of current model and approach from the PMBOK version 4 to the Program space. It even does a better job in my opinion of explaining the relationship between Portfolios, Programs and Projects, and the scope of the organizations tasked with driving these beasts. If you work in an environment where the PMBOK processes aren't followed with the rigor that PMI insists is so very critical, you may understand how difficult it can be to convince nay sayers of the value of those practices.
But even in that case, I think the processes and knowledge contained in the Standard can still be used to the benefit of your Program. I think the book is worth a look, especially at Amazon or other online site discount prices, or if your company reimburses your costs. I think there's something in here that can help most any Program.
Contrary to my own belief, this is actually not bad of a guide for program management. I definitely used this book and some of the references to create a deck that I presented to senior managers. They found the content to be very useful. This book is well written and flows nicely. I didnt expect that I will actually like this book and use it for anything beyond just knowledge but I found that some of the graphics are helpful and can be used for presentations.The integrative nature of program management processes involves coordinating the processes for each of the projects or program packages.
The high-level plan should include a clear statement of the following program components: Improvement of the project controls 9. The SPT engaged independent subject matter experts to augment the review process. This process controls the approval and refusal of requests for change, escalates requests in line with authority thresholds, determines when changes have occurred, influences factors that create changes, makes sure those changes are beneficial and agreed-upon, and manages how and when the approved changes are applied.
This phase is therefore iterative and can be of unlimited duration, since the activities described below are repeated as often as required and the benefits are achieved in a cumulative manner.
The determining factors are agreed upon by the executive group and are based on the organization strategic plan. The rationale used could include considerations as: After the system implementation, a qualitative evaluation was carried out by a document analysis and questionnaire application.
- BOOKS FOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERING FILETYPE PDF
- FOCUS ON ACADEMIC SKILLS FOR IELTS PDF
- WEB MARKETING FOR DUMMIES PDF
- HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GARY DESSLER 11TH EDITION PDF
- PHP OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING BOOK
- RUBY ON RAILS TUTORIAL 2ND EDITION PDF
- EMPIRE ARMY BOOK 8TH EDITION PDF
- MERIAM DYNAMICS 6TH EDITION PDF
- SHIVA MANTRA PDF
- YOU CAN WORK YOUR OWN MIRACLES NAPOLEON HILL PDF
- MASTERING NETWORK SECURITY PDF
- THE RAKE MAGAZINE PDF
- YOCHUM AND ROWE PDF
- SOCIOLOGIA GERAL E DO DIREITO PDF