1. Program Management – Top-down/Bottom-up?
There is often a gap between the strategic vision and plans of a corporate
executive/board and the immediate needs experienced by staff “at the coal-
face”. Responding to the latter is generally a more tactical focus, possibly
consuming resources that might otherwise be directed at addressing the
corporate strategies. Likewise, without comprehensive communication and
engagement, grass-roots tactical solutions may take portions of the company
down a path that doesn’t synchronise well with longer term strategies,
potentially making future changes more difficult. This article presents some
thoughts on the creative tension between that top-down vs bottom-up focus in
program management, with some examples that have helped build a greater
sense of engagement for the customers involved in these programs.
The January 2010 AIPM PM-Select article: “Projects – Real, Virtual or What?”
(Blomquist & Lundin), had an interesting reference to a book (published only
in Denmark?): “Project Management in Loosely Coupled Systems” by
Christensen and Kreiner (1991) which espoused the view that project
managers should not follow the most common advice given to project
managers, and that trying to be rational by sticking to the plan will have you
lose sight of the changing world and come up with something that no one
really wants any longer. This certainly was a good primer for thinking “out of
the box”!
A key customer/manager (let’s call him Max – not his real name) on a recent
project management assignment had a keen desire to counter the negative
experiences and perceptions of recent projects/implementations. These
projects have unfortunately increased the workload for his team, with little
perception of a “wider” benefit to the rest of the organisation to make it seem
worthwhile. The work environment for these guys has seen their current tools
getting old and less reliable, with a wider scope of work expected of them,
increased number of jobs per day, and a more complex infrastructure being
managed which is also old and under progressively more load (an all too
familiar litany in many organisations!). With further significant changes due to
be delivered to this part of the organisation, Max wanted to deliver small,
beneficial changes for his group as a means of not only helping them
overcome business problems but to give them some positive experiences of
change. One where the WHOLE change is something that gives them
something valuable, something they will appreciate.
An example is where Max arranged for a small database application to
replace four essentially identical hand-written forms, each of which went to
different parts of the organisation. While a planned major (strategic)
replacement of systems for this group would probably replace these manual
forms, this implementation was still some time off. The new (interim) system
was implemented with wide consultation, incorporated feedback from that
consultation, and included training for all directly affected stakeholders. It was
largely accepted with enthusiasm, with the exception of a few older staff who
still found that the pen is less frightening than the keyboard! The salient
lessons: 1) Responding to end-user pain points; 2) Engagement of all
relevant stakeholder groups; 3) Regular, relevant communication; 4) Making

2. modifications in response to feedback; 5) creation & execution of a training
package; and 6) knowing that you can’t always make everyone happy!
“Progressive small wins” as a concept has periodically came into focus, for
example coming to the fore in a discussion with one of the project team
members who happened to be making a comment about lack of cooperation
from Max’s group. Given the work pressures mentioned above it is not
surprising for them to respond negatively to new initiatives that even hint at
more work! Responding to this project team colleague’s comment with a
paraphrasing of Max’s previous observation/desire: “For these guys, change
has always meant pain!” he pondered that for a moment and agreed. The
following observations about end-user engagement and incorporating bottom-
up elements to a program are approaches to help reduce that pain.
Note/Caveat: The buy-in that can be won with the implementation of
progressive mini-projects as responses to bottom-up initiatives can be LOST if
the bigger project is then done “from on high” (ie with minimal end-
user/customer engagement). This customer engagement is crucial, but it is
tragic how often this is done poorly. It is not exceptionally difficult to engage
end-users, though it does take a commitment to listening, comprehensive
dialogue, empathy and a range of other emotional intelligence skills – the soft-
skills increasingly recognised as being at least as important as the technical
project management skills. And it means being vigilant in watching for, and
countering as best we are able, an apparently easy assumption that “we know
what the customer wants/needs”, or the notion that “we are just implementing
a bit of technology”. Hearing comments like “the guys will really love this”
should ring alarm bells, unless genuinely being said as a response to seeing
that user-defined requirements are being comprehensively met.
Responding to Max’s clarion call (though that’s not what he’d have called it)
for regular small benefits being delivered, a Program Management Group was
established, combining this area of the business together with selected
members of the relevant delivery section of the organisation. While the notion
of Program Management certainly exists within the overall company and
within this delivery branch, this particular customer area felt it had minimal
connection with the Program – also a common experience in many
organisations. They are now delighted to have this vehicle that both keeps
them informed of wider activities as well as streamlining the process of
requesting new initiatives.
Essentially, this Program Management Group becomes a sub-group of the
wider “Official” program. It does raise the intriguing challenge: Are we, in our
focus on Project/Program/Portfolio possibly neglecting some areas of the
business in our attempts to ensure broad corporate and strategic alignment?
This question was reinforced during the question time after a recent Women
In Project Management seminar, presented by Lynn Crawford – “Speaking the
right language: getting buy-in for PPPM”, where Lynn discussed the
importance of engaging with the senior executives against a recognition that
there is a significant gulf in understanding and terminology between the
executive and project stream, with a clear challenge for us in the project
stream to learn to speak the language of the executive – especially outcomes
and governance. In a slightly contrary position, one of the attendees spoke of

3. her experience in facilitating change, largely informally, throughout many parts
of her organisation. This ground-up approach she took felt remarkably similar
to what Max was after!
There is a need to combine both bottom-up with top-down focus on programs,
paying adequate attention to the small, bottom-up initiatives that can be fairly
quickly implemented and can be integrated and interspersed within the wider
program of more major works. (Note that a streamlined system for
generating, approving and funding these small business cases will be
required.) These initiatives will give gratification to the initiators, morale
improvement to the group, and, crucially, facilitate an interest, even a keen-
ness, to be involved and engaged in the larger, strategic top-down projects.
Change is inevitable, and the rate of change is accelerating. It is also
generally acknowledged that almost all of us are resistant to change, with the
main exception being the person who is trying to effect the change!
(Intriguingly, while we only have the power to change ourselves, we have a
predilection for wanting to change others!) The key of course is to get the
group to come as close as possible to being the instigators, and owners, of
the change in their environment. Based on this writer’s experience, the best
way to do that is to actively engage those people, as comprehensively and as
early as possible, in the change process within a project. Yes, this applies
more to business projects than it might to construction and
public/infrastructure projects, but where there are many impacted
stakeholders the same principles would apply. Getting stakeholders on-board
and integral to the decision-making process will help make the difference
between a satisfied stakeholder community that is ready to engage in the next
proposal and a disaffected and resentful one. Some specific examples (far
from exhaustive) of approaches that have been effective:
 Formal forums for engagement – ensuring all affected stakeholder
groups have been identified
 Actively following up on suggestions and recommendations, bringing
them to a close (even if no action to be taken, but at least clearly
communicating back that it was considered, and why it is not suitable
to act on at this time)
 Keeping the core team informed – formal communications
supplemented by water-cooler/corridor discussions
 Real acknowledgement of issues, problems and risks
 Investing significant time in dialogue with end-users / customers, not
just management-level stakeholders.
Caring about the people involved in and impacted by a project is a core
dimension of what helps foster the engagement of especially end-user
stakeholders/customers of change. Embrace them as valued individuals and
be prepared to be warmed and amazed by the way these potentially
adversarial characters will join you on the change journey – even if the
“outcome” is less than perfect, as we all know it usually will be.
In summary: Find out who the actual customers and relevant stakeholders
are, and spend time with them in mutual dialogue. Agitate for formal

4. stakeholder forums. Be part of the bridge that connects the customers with
the project team. Rarely can we expect to see a utopian outcome from our
projects. But as it turns out, the smaller, simpler, bottom-up ones that can
easily be overlooked can often come closest to those ideals of perfection!
Peter Reefman is a Project Manager who at the time was working at an Australian
Utility Organisation.