Just-In-Time Training Project

Kick-off Meeting

Date

Meeting Objective: Get the project off to a great start by introducing key stakeholders, reviewing project goals, and discussing future plans

Agenda:

• Introductions of attendees
• Background of project
• Review of project-related documents (i.e. business case, project charter)
• Discussion of project organizational structure
• Discussion of project scope, time, and cost goals
• Discussion of other important topics
• List of action items from meeting

1. Overview
   We are going to deal with two topics, neither of which are new to us as we have covered
   them in previous weeks in this course. The two topics are:
2. Program Stakeholder Engagement
3. Governance and the PMO.
   As you might recall we covered Portfolio Stakeholder Engagement in Week 5, and Portfolio
   Governance in Week 4. Given the similarity in many of the definitions used, we will cover
   the base material with a ‘light touch’, and focus instead on the nuances, differences and
   implications of same when applied for the Program Management context. We will be
   referencing Chapters 5 and 6 of the PMI Standard for Program Management, 2017, p.57 to
   85 wherein all the definitions are listed should the detail be required.
   Something which is common to these two topics is the criticality of good communication to
   them both. However, it would be a mistake to believe that Communication is the only
   element involved, as will be explained in the following material as we explore other
   important elements such as Managing Change and how they might be applied at the
   Program level, which leads to the following question.
   You may be asking that if we have already covered these topics, then why are we reviewing
   them again? The answer to that question is simply that we need to examine these topics in
   the context of Program Management. Whereas previously we looked at these topics from
   the perspective of Portfolio Management, now we need to take a different viewpoint, in
   much the same way that the topic of Strategy is appropriate to Portfolio Management,
   Program Management, and Project Management, but can be viewed, and applied, differently
   for each. We have already covered the differences between Portfolio and Program levels,
   which in turn manifest themselves in differences in the type of stakeholders identified, how
   they are engaged and the governance processes employed, all of which we will cover.
4. Program Stakeholder Engagement
   In our previous studies we examined the importance of stakeholders, and why it is therefore
   so important that we are able to correctly identify them, manage them, and keep them
   informed appropriately. However, much as we may wish to be able to manage our
   stakeholders, the reality is that the Program Manager will have little or no direct influence
   over many of the individuals / stakeholders who have influence over the program being
   managed. As these stakeholders can easily resist direct management, the focus becomes
   more about Stakeholder Engagement and less about Stakeholder Management. This is no
   different to Portfolio Stakeholder Engagement, albeit the range of stakeholders, and their
   seniority is likely to be less. Nonetheless, the first critical step remains the same and that is
   Stakeholder Identification.
   A stakeholder has been identified in Week 5 as anyone who is impacted, or affected, by our
   Portfolio. In this case it’s anyone who is impacted by our Program, and critically, that list
   includes anyone who perceives themselves to be impacted by our Program. This can lead to
   a lengthy and expansive list of stakeholders, so before we examine this topic (in the next
   sub-section) let’s take a quick look at the environment within which programs operate, as
   illustrated by the PMI on p.58 of The Standard for Program Management, 2017.
   This illustration shows the proximity of the Program Manager to their components or
   projects, stakeholders, and the hierarchy upwards. What is not shown on this illustration is
   the Portfolio Management function (to which Program Management reports) and their
   stakeholders which generally, but not exclusively, are operating at the more senior /
   executive levels.
   2.1. Program Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
   Before we can engage with our stakeholders and understand their needs, we have to be
   able to identify them. We already know that a stakeholder is “an individual, group or
   organisation that may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision,
   activity, or outcome of a Project, Program or Portfolio” (PMI Standard for Program
   Management p.57).
   The PMI also informs us that Program Stakeholder Identification aims to systemically
   identify all the key stakeholders which should be listed in a stakeholder register which
   categorises their relationship to the program, their ability to influence, and any attributes
   that could influence the stakeholders perspective. Below is an illustration from the PMI
   standard (p60) showing what a Stakeholder Register might look like, but the important
   thing about the register is that it is created and maintained by the Program team. It should
   be the single source of truth that is referenced for reporting and communication purposes,
   both formal and informal.
   The reason I highlight the accessibility, and usability of the register by the team, is that
   there is a diverse range of stakeholders for most Programs, and a team view is almost
   certainly better, deeper and more detailed than the individual Program Manager as to who
   the stakeholders are and how they should be managed. The involvement of the Program
   Team in the use of the stakeholder register is also likely to be a good education /
   communication tool in terms of informing who the key stakeholders are, their influence
   potential and support level for the program…and any changes in same.
   It’s nearly impossible to list all the possible stakeholders pertinent for every program or
   associated eventuality, but the PMI does provide a long list of categories on page 61 of the
   Standard. Given what we already covered in Week 5, there are few surprises on the list, but
   it is notable that the categories are a little less expansive, less holistic in their view than
   that taken at the Portfolio level, and of course for the Program Manager, an extra key
   stakeholder is that of the Portfolio Management function. It is perhaps telling that the first
   ten key program stakeholders listed by the PMI are all internal (e.g. Program Sponsor,
   Steering Committee, Portfolio Manager, etc), which reflects a further subtlety between
   Stakeholder Identification at the Program level which is that it is also inclined to be a little
   more internal, more tactical, in it’s focus,…which is entirely in keeping with it’s nature.
   On the topic of tactical, I refer you to the Power (or Influence) / Interest matrix. This
   matrix or grid is very useful in Program Stakeholder Analysis, which is the step that takes
   place immediately after the Stakeholder Register has been created, and is the process of
   forming a prioritised list of stakeholders who have the most influence on the program and
   better understanding how negative influence can be mitigated and positive influence
   accentuated.
   The Power / Interest matrix (see example below) is a useful tool for assisting in the analysis
   as it groups stakeholders based on (the Program Manager and teams perception of) their
   level of authority (Power) and their level of concern (Interest) regarding the project and
   program outcomes. Those who are identified in the top right hand quadrant need to be
   managed closely (or as best possible given that they can’t often be managed) as they have
   High Power and High Interest. An obvious example of someone in this quadrant is the
   Portfolio Manager or Program Sponsor. Someone who has High Power or Influence over the
   Program, but is usually less interested or concerned is the Business Owner and therefore
   they could appear in the top left hand quadrant. Although it may sound harsh, those
   stakeholders who are identified in the Low Power / Low Interest quadrant will receive least
   attention from the Program Manager.
   A practitioner tip with regards to the Power / Interest matrix or grid is that it is only an
   illustration of the teams perception of the Power and Interest of stakeholders, and therefore
   should be reviewed critically, and periodically. Also be careful of relying on it too much for
   decision making, and be circumspect as to whom you show it to. A sure way of losing an
   important stakeholders support is for them to see the Power / Interest matrix and for them
   to be mistakenly listed as low Power or Low Interest. If you are to solicit advice from a
   senior stakeholder, be sure to tell them it’s a work in progress that needs their input, even
   going to the point of asking where they think they should be plotted.
   A final piece of advice on Program Stakeholder Identification and Engagement comes from
   LinkedIn Learning in this short two minute video of the same name, in which the presenter
   offers many useful Stakeholder Analysis insights including explaining how the use of the
   Power / Interest grid can backfire!
   https://www.linkedin.com/learning/learning-program-management/program-stakeholder-identific
   ation-planning-and-engagement?autoplay=true&u=58640609&auth=true
   2.2. Program Stakeholder Management / Engagement
   Although the reasons why it’s Program Stakeholder Engagement as opposed to Program
   Stakeholder Management have already been explored, many of the activities associated
   with the engagement could also be associated with management, and include involving the
   stakeholders in goal setting, communications and reviews. Nevertheless, because of the lack
   of control and authority over the stakeholders, they are best engaged rather than managed
   in an attempt to gain their buy-in and support for the programs objectives and outcomes.
   This stakeholder buy-in, and the Program Managers knowledge of stakeholder expectations,
   is crucial to the success of the program, especially in a high change environment where
   expectations may also change.
   Therefore the first step for the Program Manager as part of the Program Stakeholder
   Engagement phase is Engagement Planning which is the activity associated with
   determining how all program stakeholders will be engaged throughout the program and
   builds upon previously mentioned artefacts such as the Stakeholder Register, Program
   Charter and Program Business Case. In addition to documenting the guidelines for
   engagement with the individual stakeholders and the cadence and mechanisms for same,
   the Engagement Plan will also be used as input to the development of the Program
   Communication Plan and is therefore something to labour over and get right. From a
   practitioner perspective, in highly politically sensitive programs it is during the formulation
   of the Engagement Plan that key messaging is sometimes documented, and should
   therefore have senior level involvement, at a minimum that of the Portfolio Manager.
   A final point with regards to the Program Stakeholder Engagement planning phase is that
   the plan is an ongoing process. This is because stakeholders change. Suppliers get taken
   over, executive attitudes and beliefs alter, companies fold, people get transferred,
   promoted, retire, …in fact for any myriad of reasons program stakeholders will likely change
   over the life of the program and the Program Manager must plan accordingly in the
   knowledge that stakeholder engagement is a continuous activity which necessitates updates
   to the associated documentation such as the stakeholder register, stakeholder map and
   engagement plan.
   From a practitioner perspective this activity of engagement can be the most challenging
   activity associated with Program Stakeholder Engagement and I’ve heard it likened to
   ‘herding cats’. This is because the Program Manager has to work hard to establish common
   high-level expectations for the delivery of the Programs outcomes, and where appropriate,
   detail the Risks, Dependencies and Benefits. Just when the Program Manager has achieved
   stakeholder participation and buy-in, and has agreed the communication logistics (meetings
   scheduling, minute taking conventions, action items and owners) there can easily be a
   change in circumstance, direction or strategy resulting in a change of stakeholder, and so
   the planning and engagement cycle begins anew. In a moment of light relief, and to explain
   the analogy of ‘herding cats’ to those who don’t know, here’s a one minute Youtube video
   that might help to explain.
   https://youtu.be/m_MaJDK3VNE
   From the PMI perspective (The Standard for Program Management, 2017 p 64, 65), the
   major activities in stakeholder engagement are :
   ● Engaging with stakeholders as required to confirm continued commitment
   ● Managing stakeholder expectations through negotiation and communication to
   ensure that the program goals are achieved
   ● Addressing potential concerns before they become issues and anticipate future
   problems that may be raised
   ● Clarifying and resolving identified issues
   Critical to all of the above is that as the Program team engages with the stakeholders, they
   document the issues / concerns, and make use of tools such as issue logs to document,
   prioritise and track issue progress. A helpful practitioner maxim is that “if it isn’t
   documented, it didn’t happen” and in the real world where people can change their minds,
   and stakeholder issues and concerns can impact aspects of the program such as scope,
   benefits, costs, risks, etc it’s imperative to have good record of what was agreed and
   committed to. This material is an important input to the last sub section for Program
   Stakeholder Management, i.e. Program Stakeholder Communications.
   Before we leave this topic of Program Stakeholder Engagement, it’s important to stress that
   other models and perspectives exist. We have been examining the PMI perspective, but
   another model to consider is that of Thiry, in Program Management (2010) which highlights
   the iterative nature of stakeholder engagement throughout the life of the program. Note
   that Thiry refers to stakeholder engagement as stakeholder management, but the principles
   and outcomes are the same. Here is an illustration of Thiry’s model.