on The Program-Level Breakdown Structure
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Ref: Devaux, S. (2024). The Program-Level Value Breakdown Structure: How It Can Revolutionize Program Scheduling; featured paper, PM World Journal, Vol. XIII, Issue VI, June. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/pmwj142-Jun2024-Devaux-program-level-value-breadkown-structure-can-revolutionize-program-scheduling.pdf
Dear Editor and PMWJ Readers,[1]
I did enjoy reading Stephen Devaux’s paper and feel that some of the work I have carried out in the same area can usefully complement his ideas.
I will roughly follow the order of ideas as presented in the paper, giving each one a short title.
Terms
I am not as unhappy with the standard definition of a program as Stephen Devaux, however I fully agree with him on the ever-present confusion around the use of the word “project”. This issue probably originates from the fact the idea of structuring the discipline of project management into three main categories came relatively recently. This would not have been a problem if more thought had been given to naming the categories. I have no issue with “program” and “portfolio” but reusing the term “project” for the name of one category as well as for the whole discipline has been a recipe for confusion[2].
Is it too late to solve this issue? Would the Editor like to sponsor a competition to find a generic term for the whole discipline that would encompass projects, programs and, possibly, portfolios?[3]
The Program Schedule
I think that my approach as outlined in a series of articles in PM World Journal[4] is similar to the description in the paper, although I address the challenge of actual scheduling much later in the planning process than suggested by Stephen.
I do not completely agree with him when he writes “All this starts with the estimation of the value to be generated for each scope item in a program-level value breakdown structure (PgVBS)”. Although the need for these values is unarguable, this is not the first step that I recommend. My first step is to define the overall objective of the program as a whole, including constraints, with a statement of the corresponding benefits in monetary or other quantifiable terms. The necessary set of components can then be identified, and the way in which they can deliver this objective can then be planned. This set of components is the basis of the PgVBS. In my approach, this information provided in the initial (skeleton) map is then progressively complemented with information on benefits contributions, cost allocations, dates and lead-times.
More…
To read entire Letter to the Editor, click here
How to cite this work: Piney, C. (2024). Comments on Stephen Devaux’s Paper on The Program-Level Breakdown Structure, Letter to the Editor, PM World Journal, Vol. XIII, Issue VIII, August. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/pmwj144-Aug2024-Piney-Comments-on-Devaux-paper-Letter-to-Editor.pdf
[1] Note: Before I had completed this document, David Pells put me in touch was Stephen Devaux and this document has been able to benefit from insightful feedback from Stephen, as we have found that we are broadly thinking along the same lines.
[2] We see similar category errors in many other domains. For example, although the human race does not only include men, up until fairly recently, individuals or any gender were referred to as “men” (e.g., chairman) and there is no incontestable set of gender-neutral pronouns.
[3] I will start this off by proposing: Projam management.
[4] Piney, C. (2019). Benefits Realization Compendium: Benefits Integration Techniques for Tracking, Execution and Realization; Series on Applying Earned Benefit Management. PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue IV (May). Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/pmwj81-May2019-Piney-Benefits-series-part-9-Benefits-Compendium.pdf
