DTU ProjectLab - User contributions [en-gb]

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T20:13:25Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref> Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005. '' Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23
'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working.<ref> Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. '' '' Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 '' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref> Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. '' '' Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 '' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>'' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952'' '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>'' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>''Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T20:08:47Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref> Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005. '' Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23
'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working.<ref> Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. '' '' Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 '' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref> Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. '' '' Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 '' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>'' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952'' '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>'' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>''Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T20:08:31Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref> Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005. '' Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23
'' </ref>
and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working.<ref> Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. '' '' Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 '' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref> Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. '' '' Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 '' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>'' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952'' '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>'' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>''Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T20:05:30Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working.<ref> Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. '' '' Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 '' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref> Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. '' '' Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 '' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>'' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952'' '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>'' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>''Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T20:01:32Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref name=''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>'' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952'' '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>'' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>''Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T20:01:05Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref name=''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>'' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952'' '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>'' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T19:58:58Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref name=''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>'' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952'' '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>'' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>'' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006'' ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T19:58:06Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref name=''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>'' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952'' '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T19:55:59Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref name=''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-04T19:54:59Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>'' Gray, R.J., 1997. '' ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T12:18:02Z

Linus R.V: /* Review of content */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened. I dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.
see previous answer

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Thank you very much

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed. For keeping the attention on the distinction i chose to keep the focus on Programme and Project Portfolio Management

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
i changed some minor parts, i am not sure on which various points.
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T11:57:30Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own, as shown in figure 1 <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T11:56:10Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The differentiating factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:52:32Z

Linus R.V: /* Review of formal aspects */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened. I dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.
see previous answer

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Thank you very much

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
i changed some minor parts, i am not sure on which various points.
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:45:36Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:45:01Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name=" [ Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006] The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:43:16Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:42:06Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:40:51Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' [ Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006] The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:39:29Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.<ref>[''link/title''] '' The Standard for Program Management: Portfolio Management Process Overview '' </ref> This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:29:14Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.
''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The The Links between Portfolio Management and Program and Project Management '' </ref>

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:25:27Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:24:33Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz.<ref>['' Markowitz, H.M. J. Financ. 7 (1), 1952''] '' Portfolio selection 77–91 '' </ref>
<ref name="ref_name" />
The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:21:52Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects <ref>['' Gray, R.J., 1997. ''] ''Alternative approaches to programme management 5–9. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 15'' </ref>, implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:19:55Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects [8], implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.''] '' The Standard for Portfolio Management: The Portfolio Management Framework'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. <ref>['' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991''] '' Cooper et al., 1998a, b; Griffin, 1997; Graves et al., 2000; Ringuest et al., 1999; Roussel et al., 1991'' </ref> Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. <ref>['' Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006''] ''The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management'' </ref>

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. <ref name="The Standard for Program Management: The Relationship between Program Management and Portfolio Management" /> Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:05:08Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects [8], implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. [1] Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. [2] Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. [3]

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. [3] Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Programme and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Programme and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Programme) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Programme/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Programme and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Programme and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:03:38Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is, that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a programme. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects [8], implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. [1] Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. [2] Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. [3]

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. [3] Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Program and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Program and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Program) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Program and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Program and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T02:02:17Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is; that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a program. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects [8], implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programmes, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. [1] Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. [2] Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. [3]

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. [3] Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Program and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Program and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Program) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Program and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Program and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:55:26Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is; that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a program. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects [8], implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programs, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programs and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programmes of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. [1] Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. [2] Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. [3]

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. [3] Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Program and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Program and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Program) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Program and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Program and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:48:44Z

Linus R.V: /* Interface */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is; that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a program. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects [8], implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programs, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programs and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programs of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. [1] Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. [2] Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. [3]

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. [3] Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Program and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Program and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface.
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Program) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Program and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Program and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:31:25Z

Linus R.V: /* “Project Portfolio Management” */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened. I dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.
see previous answer

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Thank you very much

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:29:26Z

Linus R.V: /* “Program Management” */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened. I dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Thank you very much

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:27:43Z

Linus R.V: /* Feedback by Cruijff */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened, as i dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Thank you very much

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:26:18Z

Linus R.V: /* Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. '''

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened, as i dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Thank you very much

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:25:55Z

Linus R.V: /* Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

'''Thank you very much for a detailed review of the article, it helped me to improve the article further. Even there are some points, were we dont agree :) '''

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened, as i dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Thank you very much

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:23:52Z

Linus R.V: /* Feedback by Cruijff */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened, as i dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Thank you very much

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:22:56Z

Linus R.V: /* “Program Management” */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened, as i dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid.
I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T01:09:28Z

Linus R.V: /* “Program Management” */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened, as i dont fully understand : I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, '''so if you could just '''

*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:51:32Z

Linus R.V: /* Definition */

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is; that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a program. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects [8], implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programs, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programs and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programs of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. [1] Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. [2] Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. [3]

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. [3] Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that the Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Program and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Program and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Program) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Program and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Program and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:43:13Z

Linus R.V: /* Review of formal aspects */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.
agree and done

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.
as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article
* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.
Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

* Generel: Programme or Program?
Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
agree and changed
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
agree and changed
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
agree and changed
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"
agree and changed

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:39:54Z

Linus R.V: /* Review of content */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.
I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.
I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.
agree and done

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:36:57Z

Linus R.V: /* Introduction */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:35:45Z

Linus R.V: /* “Perspective” */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki ia the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.
I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:35:27Z

Linus R.V: /* “Perspective” */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki ia the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.

i agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:34:14Z

Linus R.V: /* “Interface” */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki ia the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:33:15Z

Linus R.V: /* “Interface” */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki ia the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific and give the reader the reader a wrong idea.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:12:11Z

Linus R.V: /* Introduction */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”
I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki ia the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:11:16Z

Linus R.V: /* Summary */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”.
I kept it as is, since the first section in a wiki is the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-02T00:09:52Z

Linus R.V:

As a consequence of globalisation of markets for goods, capital and labour, it became common to use internationally recognised terms in many companies and organisations. Especially in the field of project Management, it can be hard to understand the background and relevance of different methods and terms compared to each other. Additionaly Programme and Project Portfolio Management are often mentioned in the context of the overall topic of Project Management and thereby it can be confusing to understand the differences. The objective of this article is to clearly determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, by the determination of main differentiating factors, the interface and related responsibilities.

== What is a standard ==
This section seek to give the reader a understanding of what a standard is. Further it will explain the definition of a standard and how the numerous standard setting organizations (SSO) are related.
It is often mentioned that a certain project management method is a standard, which is developed by a specific organisation such as ISO, CCTA or PMI. The clarification of the meaning and relation of those terms can be crucial, in order to understand the overall topic of this article.

====Definition====

A standard is in general defined as something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model<ref name=''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard''> ''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard'' </ref>. According to the International Organisation for Standardization a standard is defined as a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. <ref name=''http://www.iso.org''> ''http://www.iso.org'' </ref>

====International Standards====

Internationally there are many standards organizations. The three mostly established and largest of them are the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Both ISO and IEC are composed of national standard bodies. ITU is a treaty based organisation established as permanent agency of the United Nations, were governments are the primary members.
In 2001 the World Standards Cooperation was established by the International Electrotechnical Comission (IEC), the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The aim of WSC is to strengthen and advance the voluntary consensus-based International standards systems of IEC, ISO and ITU<ref name=''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html''> ''http://www.worldstandardscooperation.org/newsletters/003/newsletter03.html'' </ref>.
*ISO promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards
*IEC promotes standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
*ITU promotes standards for the telecommunication sector

====National Standards====

National standard bodies are in general existent in each country or economy. These standard bodies may either be public or private sector organizations, or a combination of the two<ref name=''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm''> ''http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/iso-and-developing-countries.htm'' </ref>.

====Standard in the context of Programme Vs. Project Portfolio Management====

Todays most common standards of Programme Management are the approaches of MSP and PMI. In many markets there is a debate about which of the two programme management frameworks should be adopted.
An article written by Rod Sowden, lead author for MSP 2007 and 2011, compares MSP and PMI. Sowden concludes that these two methods are surprisingly compatible and build on the strengths and weaknesses of each other rather than proposing opposing approaches. <ref name=''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf''> ''https://aspireeurope.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/programme-management-msp-v-pmi-which-is-right-for-you.pdf'' </ref>
Further Sowden distinguish PMI and MSP as follows:

*PMI has its roots in project management and would be stronger in the specification led type of change.
*The MSP framework is built from the strategic management view and is intended to align with one or more corporate objectives, which are often more ambiguous, which is reflected in the way MSP approaches the challenges.

Since this article is focused on the field of Project Management, it is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI.

== Programme Management ==

==== Definition ====
[[File:BenefitProgram1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 1 - Program Benefit Management, Project Management Institute 2006]]

The definition of a Programme is; that a Programme contains a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control of the overall outcome. This approach would not be possible by managing these projects individually, without the umbrella of a program. Programmes may include elements of related work (e.g., ongoing operations) outside the scope of the discrete projects in a Programme. <ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> When a large project is split into multiple related projects with explicit management of the benefits, then the effort becomes a Programme.<ref name=''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program.''> '' Project Management Institute. ''The Standard for Program Management: What is a Program''. Project Management Institute, Inc, 2006.'' </ref> In General Programme Management is used for the creation of portfolios of projects [8], implementation of strategies <ref name=''''Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study 87–95''> '' Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., Young, M., 2005, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23'' </ref> and change generation in products, businesses or ways of working. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>
The distinction between a Project and a Programme is given by the benefits which a Programme provides over and above those that projects can achieve on their own. <ref name=''''Programme management: organising project-based change 141–149''. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15''> '' Pellegrinelli, S., 1997'' </ref>

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management:

*A Programme contains a group of related projects
*A Programme has a overall benefit which can be measured in terms of return of investments, new capabilities and/or benefit delivery
*Programmes have a Wide Scope which may change to meet benefit expectations of the organisation
*Programme Managers have to expect change
*Leadership style focuses on managing relationships and conflict resolution
*Programme Managers manage Project Managers
*Programme Managers create high level plans providing guidance to projects where detailed plans are created

== Project Portfolio Management ==

==== Definition ====

The term Portfolio is widely used throughout many different organisations and has come to represent different meanings. Thus the focus of this section lies on Project Portfolio Management.
[[File:HighLevel.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 2 - Portfolios, Programs, and Projects - High Level View, Project Management Institute 2006]]
The origins of Project Portfolio Management are found in the application of modern portfolio theory to the project selection problem first mentioned in the work of Markowitz [7]The definition of a Project Portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programs and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives. The Projects or Programs of the portfolio (components) may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related. [1] Project Portfolio Management is defined as a dynamic decision process, which constantly updates and revises active projects. [2] Project Portfolio Management enables the organization to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives, thereby approving only the components that directly support business objectives, and considering the portfolio risk as a result of the mix of components in a Project Portfolio at any time. [3]

It is stated that a Project Portfolio most likely is one of the most correct measures of an organisation´s intent, direction, and progress. Using this, an organisation can reasonably question components of a Project Portfolio when they are not aligned to the strategy. [3] Resultantly, Project Portfolio Management as a dynamic decision making process includes the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components according to the organisation´s specific key indicators and the strategic plan. Figure 2 visualise a High Level view of a example of a portfolio, it is shown that a Portfolio can contain projects, programs and other portfolios. For example can a portfolio of a Business Unit, contain a portfolio of the project department within the Business Unit.

==== Differentiating factors ====

The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Project Portfolio Management Vs Programme Management :

*A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or Programs and/or other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives
*The scope of a Portfolio is a business scope, that can change with the strategic goals of the organisation
*Succes is measured by the performance of Portfolio components
*The focus of the Portfolio Management results in the views of programs and projects in terms of priority for resource allocation
*The projects and/or programs may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related
*Project Portfolio Management is a dynamic decision process
*Project Portfolio Management enables the organisation to align the Project Portfolio to strategic objectives
*The portfolio risk is a result of the mix of the components

== Interface ==

This section seeks to define the interface between Program and Portfolio Management. The Interface and correlation between Program and Project Portfolio Management may be the reason for confusion when one is trying to understand the differences. The key factors stated in the previous sections should give the reader an idea of the distinction of the terms, which now will be more detailed by the definition of the interface
[[File:Cross1.png|400px|right|thumb| Figure 3 - Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, Project Management Institute 2006]]
It is important to understand the responsibilities in relation to the different components of a Project Portfolio. As described in the section above about Project Portfolio´s : The role of the Project Portfolio Management is the collection, identification, categorisation, evaluation, selection, balance and review of components. That means that once the components (Project and/or Program) are authorized for the perspective Project Portfolio, it becomes the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to take control of the components and apply the correct management processes to ensure that the work is done effectively and efficiently. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is then the responsibility of the Program/Project Management team to monitor planned-to-actual performance (time, budget, resources, quality, and scope) of the components and provide the Project Portfolio Management with consolidated information.[5] This information is used in Portfolio reviews to determine required actions. Program and Project Management may work together with Portfolio Management to determine "go/no go" criteria for proposed and current components, including "termination criteria" (phase gates). Program and Project Management may also work together with Portfolio Mangement in capacity planning by inputting resource requirements (e.g., human resources, financial and physical assets). [11]

== Discussion ==

Through the analysis of the article, it can be concluded that many factors have an influence on the understanding of the overall topic : Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management. The existence of numerous standardization organizations, standards and best practices make it even more complex and challenging to gain a coherent understanding of the terms and differences. Having said this, it is important to be critical and to question a general accepted standard, as projects, programs and portfolios clearly differ in complexity and uncertainty. The need of being adaptable and agile in terms of project management is of great importance, since the nature of projects evolve hand in hand with the growth of knowledge and technology.

==See also==

For further information according to the topic:

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Systems_Engineering_versus_Project_Management,_a_comparative_study

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/The_Role_of_Program_Management_in_an_Organisational_Change

http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Project_Evaluation_and_Selection_for_the_Formation_of_the_Optimal_Portfolio

== References ==

<references />

Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

2014-12-01T23:59:05Z

Linus R.V: /* Introduction */

= Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl =

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Thank you

== Formal aspects ==

*In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.
Yes i agree
*Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it
*The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that
*I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
I agree
*References to the figures should be made in the text.
Also agree
*References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
*Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake
*The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
*It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management
*The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
I agree and added the sections
*Links to topics (categories) are missing.
Not anymore
*“Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
*The article seems free of plagiarism.

== Section wise feedback ==

=== Summary ===
*It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.
Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to differentiate the distinctions

=== Introduction ===
*The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
Yes, i agree and changed the text
*I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”.
I kept it as is, since the first section in a wiki is the "introduction"
*You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?
Yes, i agree and changed the text

=== “Program Management” ===
*I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Project Portfolio Management” ===
*I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

=== “Interface” ===
*I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

=== “Perspective” ===
*I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
*The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.

= Feedback by Cruijff =

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

===Review of content===
* The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.
Thank you

* A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

* A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

* The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.
Thank you, and yes indeed

* I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

===Review of formal aspects===
* Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.
Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

* Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

* The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

* I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

* Generel: Programme or Program?
* Intro: Wrap up -> outline
* In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
* In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
* In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
* In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"