Chapter 13. The governance and management of programmes and projects

The purpose of governing and managing programmes and projects is to increase the likelihood of the respective objectives being achieved at an acceptable level of risk.

Chapter 4 describes the overall governance of project delivery. This should be integrated through the sponsoring body (and, where relevant, the delivery body) with the governance and management arrangements of the sponsoring organisation. Without this, a programme or project team can become disconnected from the policy owner or whoever has commissioned the work,whose policies or strategic objectives the work is delivering.

When issues arise that the senior responsible owner cannot resolve, the sponsoring body’s leadership may need to step in. Good governance and management practices give those leaders assurance they need that the programme or project is highly likely to achieve its objectives.

Everyone involved in the delivery of a programme or project has a responsibility towards and an impact on its governance and management. In particular:

• the sponsoring body acts as the higher-level authority for a programme or project, providing oversight and acting as the driving force for the work (see 3.2 on the sponsoring body)
• the senior responsible owner is accountable to the Accounting Officer, for seeing the programme or project is being governed and managed effectively and efficiently (see 13.3.3 on the senior responsible owner). Senior responsible owners of programmes and projects on the Government or Departmental Major Projects also have a personal accountability to Parliament.  
• the programme or project team is responsible for using the defined management framework (see 3.7 on work package or team manager and 13.3.8 on team members)

The Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery requires that roles are defined and assigned to people with appropriate seniority, skills and experience. An organisational structure for a programme or project  supports this by making clear how roles relate to each other and where accountability sits.

Role descriptions should include at least the activities, outputs or outcomes each person is responsible for, and who they are accountable to. Without this clarity, people cannot be held to account, or know who to take direction from or escalate issues to. Programmes and projects often operate in a matrix structure, so explicit accountability is particularly important to avoid confusion. Regardless of structure, everyone is ultimately accountable to the senior responsible owner.

Figure 13.1 shows an example organisation structure for a programme and for a project, highlighting the relationship between the different roles. The roles are described more fully in the sections below, and the responsibilities listed are expanded on in more detail in Part E: Planning and control and Part F: Solution delivery. These descriptions should be used  alongside the Project delivery capability framework which includes the professional standards for a range of project delivery jobs operating at different levels of capability and covers both leadership behaviours and technical skills.

The sponsoring body acts as the higher-level authority for a programme or project, providing oversight and acting as the driving force for the work. Where the work takes place in an arm’s length body, this role can be combined with the wider organisational sponsorship responsibilities for the arm’s length body (see the Arm’s length body sponsorship code of practice). The sponsoring body is accountable to a defined higher-level authority, usually the accounting officer of a government department, and through them to ministers and Parliament. 

The make-up of a sponsoring body can be an individual, a group or a board and depends on the programme’s or project’s context. For example, for a programme or standalone project in a portfolio, the sponsoring body could be the portfolio board, or its director; for a portfolio, it could be the senior official overseeing the policy area, or at organisational level, the executive or departmental management board.

Responsibilities usually include:

• providing top-level endorsement for the programme or project’s rationale and objectives
• appointing or recommending the appointment of the senior responsible owner 
• giving direction to the senior responsible owner and addressing escalated risks and issues
• assessing initial and ongoing viability and fit with the organisation’s strategic aims and needs
• ensuring that the organisational environment is supportive of the senior responsible owner and team, enabling them to achieve the programme or project’s objectives
• overseeing the work to assure it is being directed and managed effectively and is still viable
• taking key decisions or delegating them, as appropriate, depending on the level of risk and impact
• reviewing the outcome and benefits resulting from the programme or project, once completed
• overseeing the application of organisational constraints, such as policies and standards

See also 15.5 on overseeing a programme or project.

Government and Departmental Major Projects Portfolios and the obligations and expectations of senior responsible owners

Senior responsible owners of programmes and projects in the Government or Departmental Major Projects Portfolios have particular obligations and expectations including on their appointment. See guidance on The role of the senior responsible owner for more information.

The senior responsible owner is accountable to the sponsoring body for a programme or project meeting its objectives, delivering the required outcomes and realising the required benefits. There should only be one senior responsible owner for a programme or standalone project. Individual projects that form part of a programme should not have their own senior responsible owner, but should fall within the responsibility of the programme senior responsible owner (other than in exceptional circumstances, see below).

Note that the senior responsible owner should not also be the programme or project director or manager for a programme or project they oversee, because of the conflict of interest that this creates.

If the programme or project is jointly sponsored by more than one organisation, there should still only be a single senior responsible owner, but the governance arrangements and board membership and terms of reference document should be defined to reflect the legitimate interests of the participating organisations. For example, certain decisions might require agreement from specific board members, or individual organisations might appoint a senior responsible owner for an organisational project with overall leadership from the senior responsible owner of the programme the project is a part of.

Government and Departmental Major Projects Portfolio and accountability to Parliament

Senior responsible owners of programme and projects in the Government and Departmental Major Projects Portfolio are personally accountable to Parliament as set out in Managing public money and guidance on The role of the senior responsible owner (requires sign in).

The senior responsible owner is the owner of the business case and the governance and management framework. Their responsibilities include:

• defining and communicating the vision and objectives in line with policy or strategic intent
• ensuring a real policy or business need is being addressed
• assuring ongoing viability, including defining the risk tolerance for the work and ensuring risks are identified and managed (see Chapter 20: Risk management)
• engaging key stakeholders (see Chapter 26: Stakeholder engagement and Chapter 27: Communications)
• providing the team with leadership, decisions and direction (see Chapter 15: Managing a programme or project and Chapter 39: Project delivery team induction and training)
• ensuring the delivered solution meets the needs of the organisation and stakeholders (see Chapter 31: User need and requirements)

For all but the simplest programmes or projects, the senior responsible owner role should be supported by a programme or project board. The term ‘senior responsible owner’ is used as standard to designate the accountable leader for a programme or project within government and is associated with specific obligations, particularly for programmes or projects in the Government Major Projects Portfolio. Outside government, the term ‘sponsor’ is sometimes used in instead but its use is often ambiguous and it should not therefore be used for a government programme or project.  

The senior responsible owner appoints the programme or project manager and they both have a crucial role in setting a safe and collaborative environment for each other and their teams.

See also 15.6 on directing a programme or project and The role of the senior responsible owner.

For government programmes and projects, a board is typically established that supports the senior responsible owner in undertaking their responsibilities. The board’s purpose should be clear and set out in a terms of reference document, which forms part of the governance and management framework  and should be accessible to the team members and those who interact with the board.

The design of the board is a critical consideration. Achieving the right mix of roles, experience and skills determines its effectiveness, and its definition is essential to deciding its membership and ways of working. While the board is there to support the senior responsible owner, a decision should be taken as to whether it is purely advisory, with the final decision being taken by the senior responsible owner as chair, or whether some decisions require a consensus, majority vote, quorum or other arrangement for decision-making.

The board should not be too large as it is a governing body, not a means of stakeholder engagement. The membership should include some people who are independent to the delivery of the work to provide a degree of assurance to the senior responsible owner, for example providing independent functional expertise, representing the interests of users, or a non-executive director to strengthen organisational oversight. 

Subsidiary boards may be created focused on specific activities, such as change control or architectural or solution integrity, or for specific periods, for example through transition.

The programme or project manager is accountable to the senior responsible owner for establishing the governance and management framework and for managing the programme or project on a day-to-day basis to deliver the outputs and outcomes and realise the required benefits. Whilst this role is referred to as a ‘programme manager’ or ‘project manager’ in the Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery and The Teal Book, in larger programmes and projects, the role may be called ‘programme director’ or ‘project director’.

It is the programme or project manager that will be leading the team day-to-day and they play an important part in setting the tone and a culture of resilience, safety and openness for the individuals involved in the work.

Where a project is part of a programme, the project manager might be accountable to the programme manager for the above.

Responsibilities include:

• ensuring the solution is designed and business case and plans prepared
• defining the approach, accountabilities, work scope and targets for the team
• planning and controlling the work and reporting overall progress against the delivery plan
• resolving risks and issues and controlling change 
• delivering the required outputs, outcomes and, where relevant, benefits
• monitoring and managing supplier performance
• engaging and communicating with stakeholders

See also Chapter 15: Managing a programme or project.

The management team should be supported in the effective and efficient undertaking of their roles, led by a support office manager. Support may be provided by single or multiple physical or virtual teams or offices (permanent and/or temporary), which may be centralised or distributed. Services provided can include:

• providing support to the management practices in Part D: Managing programmes and projects
• providing specialist services on the support practices in Part E: Planning and control and Part F: Solution delivery
• managing assurance activities
• developing, procuring, selecting and managing management support tools and systems
• consolidating and analysing reporting 
• monitoring resource usage across the organisation
• coaching and advising staff and providing specialist project delivery advice, for example on risks, benefits, finance and change management
• maintaining standards for recruitment and development of project delivery staff

A support office is often named to reflect the people or entity it is supporting and the scope of its responsibilities: for example, portfolio management office, programme management office, project management office, or ‘PMO’. The scope of a support office is very much dependent on the needs of the team members and the complexity and scale of the work. The variation means that it is difficult to define a standard support office, although the definition of the individual services provided can be standardised. For efficiency and consistency, higher-level support offices often provide wider support. For example, a programme support office could provide services to all the projects in the programme, rather than each project having its own support office.

The work package or team manager is accountable to the project manager the day-to-day management of their assigned work package, delivering the services, products and outcomes allocated to them to an appropriate quality, timescale and at an acceptable cost. 

The title for a work package manager usually reflects the role they are undertaking: for example, chief engineer, commercial manager, digital delivery lead, transformation manager, environmental manager or policy lead.

Responsibilities include:

• ensuring the work package is defined and completed to the required quality, on time and to budget, involving stakeholders as appropriate
• ensuring traceability to and from the outputs of their work package
• contributing to and reviewing significant management documentation, ensuring compliance with relevant statutory, security and other requirements
• planning, monitoring, forecasting and reporting overall progress against the work plan
• procuring goods and services required as part of the assigned work package and managing the resultant contracts
• managing the resolution of risks and issues, escalating any they cannot deal with
• controlling changes to their work scope, highlighting approvals requiring by higher level authorities
• developing, verifying and validating the required outputs using appropriate and proportionate methods and techniques
• keeping the project (or other) manager informed of progress, escalating risks, issues and requesting decisions and direction when needed
• capturing and applying lessons learned
• maintaining records of the work undertaken

A work package or team manager may be accountable to a higher-level team manager when there is a hierarchy of work packages in a project, or accountable to a programme where they are leading other work which is not a project in a programme (see 13.3.9 on the management of other related work in programmes).

In a non-project context a work package manager is accountable to the manager of other related work (see 13.3.9 on the management of other related work in programmes).

See also 15.9 on managing a work package.

Other management and team roles should be defined to suit the needs of the work required, for example those undertaking specialist roles, or managing the development of specialist outputs. Examples include roles relating to benefits management, agile delivery, service and operations management, business change, communications and various engineering disciplines. The team member is accountable to the work package manager for the production of those deliverables defined in the assigned work package to the required quality, within a defined schedule and cost constraints. This includes:

• contributing to planning the work package
• delivery of required outputs and, where relevant, outcomes
• escalation of risks and issues affecting the work
• proposing change requests
• contributing to the work package report
• identifying improvements to working practices

Not all work undertaken in an organisation, portfolio or programme needs to be managed as a project but it is, nevertheless, essential to the delivery of outcomes and realisation of benefits. For example, in a programme, related work which is better not managed as a project can include:

• support services, solution architecture, finance and human resources services
• ongoing improvement initiatives using a defined process, such as platform-based upgrades delivered using agile approaches, and techniques such as Six Sigma and Lean
• service delivery or business as usual operations

In practice, other work can be managed as a work package (see 13.3.7 on work package or team manager), with subsidiary work packages if needed, using the same, but tailored planning, control and solution delivery practices.

Every chapter in The Teal Book is a part of and relevant to the governance and management of programmes and projects. However, viewed from a governance viewpoint, 6 aspects are particularly relevant:

• behaviours and leadership
• the Government and Departmental Major Projects Portfolio
• the governance and management framework
• assurance
• decision-making
• programme and project life cycles

Programme and project management is a team undertaking, and effective team working needs appropriate behaviours and working styles. In addition, the Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery requires that all public service codes of conduct and ethics are upheld, including those of the associated professions. Project delivery can be challenging and therefore maintaining the right behaviours and creating an environment of psychological safety is critical. Chapter 4: Governance and management includes a list of desired behaviours from the .

The Project delivery glossary defines a governance and management framework as:

A governance and management framework sets out the authority limits, decision-making roles and rules, degrees of autonomy, assurance needs, reporting structure, accountabilities and roles, together with the appropriate management practices and associated documentation needed to meet this standard.

The Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery requires that each programme or project has a defined governance and management framework which should align to, and work with:

• the sponsoring organisation’s project delivery governance and management framework (see Chapter 4: Governance and management)
• the portfolio’s governance and management framework (see Part C: Managing portfolios)
• other organisational processes and practices, such as those for finance, procurement, human resource management, performance reporting, capability and capacity management, risk management, and communications

In many cases the governance and management framework for an individual programme or project should be tailored from the sponsoring organisation’s (and, where relevant, the delivery organisation’s) project delivery approach which should already be aligned with other organisational processes and practices. In such a case, the task of the programme or project manager is simplified and documentation requirements reduced considerably. 

Where there is no organisational project delivery approach, or for a very large programme which is managed as a separate entity, the governance and management framework needs to be defined in full, conforming to the Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery. The Teal Book and its supporting documentation should provide a good basis for a suitable structure and for the content.

At the start of a programme or project it might not be obvious whether the work should be managed as a programme or as a project. The most appropriate approach could emerge during the investigative phases. This can result, for example, in the early phases being managed as a project and then transforming into a programme later. Having common planning, control and solution delivery practices makes such changes much easier. See Chapter 3 for more information on the difference between programmes and projects.

The governance and management framework should be maintained and updated as work proceeds to reflect the phase of the work, changes to the scope and plan, and improvements from any lessons learned from using it (see Chapter 38: Learning from experience). The framework therefore needs to be version controlled (see Chapter 22: Change control; Chapter 23: Traceability management; Chapter 24: Information and data management).

Each programme and project should have a defined and integrated plan for undertaking assurance based on a least 3 levels (see Chapter 4 for an overview of assurance):

• the development and use of the governance and management framework for a programme or project fulfils the requirement for the first level of assurance and supports the second level, being the definition and use of working practices. 
• the third level, independent assurance, is primarily fulfilled by formal assurance reviews.

The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority provides the Government project delivery assurance toolkit (collection) which references a set of requirements, guidance and assurance review templates that can be used for portfolios, programmes and projects. The assurance reviews provide decision makers with an assessment of the status and outlook of the work before significant decisions or in response to an issue or to verify delivery. There are different types of review for portfolios, programmes and projects which can be tailored to their current context. Specific assurance reviews also exist for digital projects, called service assessments, that support decision makers when authorising the start of alpha, private beta, public beta and live delivery environments. See the GOV.UK Service manual for more on running digital services.

Government and Departmental Major Projects Portfolios and the Integrated assurance strategy

The Integrated assurance strategy provides a strategic overview of the assurance regime required for all programmes and projects on the Government and Departmental Major Projects Portfolios within an organisation’s portfolio. It provides guidance to teams, with the aim of them all applying a consistent quality standard and approach, which meets organisational, project delivery function, National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority and other HM Treasury requirements for assurance planning and implementation. In the absence of a corporate level plan, it is recommended that the manager of a mega or major project should develop their own specific strategy.

Government and Departmental Major Projects and the Integrated approvals and assurance plan

Programmes and projects in the Government or Departmental Major Projects Portfolios are required to have an agreed Integrated assurance and approvals plan by HM Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority as part of HM Treasury’s Treasury approval process for programmes and projects (requires sign in).

While mandatory for government major projects, the use of an integrated assurance and approval plan is also recommended for work not in the Government Major Projects Portfolio. Assurance and approvals are closely related as assurance reviews are required by the Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery to be scheduled before significant decisions such as major contractual commitments and the start of a stage of a project or tranche of a programme (see 13.4.6 on decision-making on programmes and projects) to provide decision makers with an assessment of the status and outlook for the work. The time lapse between assurance reviews for the entire programme or project should not usually be scheduled to exceed one year. Assurance reviews may also be undertaken in response to an issue or to verify delivery. 

Assurance reviews, if not planned properly, can be disruptive and so the work of internal and external assurance providers should be scheduled to minimise disruption to work. This could be, for example, by combining programme and project reviews, avoiding overlaps with other assurance activities and duplication of effort, whilst remaining rigorous and meeting the needs of stakeholders. For formal assurance reviews, the customer for the review should be clearly identified. Recommendations resulting from the reviews should be documented, agreed and acted on. Disputes should be escalated to next level of management if necessary (see 13.3.1 on who is involved in governing and managing programmes and projects).

Chapter 14 describes the programme and project life cycles, defining the timing and relationship of assurance reviews with respect to the phases, and the gates and decision points.

Decisions relating to the delivery of a programme or project should be made in a way that is timely, communicated and in consultation with stakeholders and subject matter experts. The Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery also requires that options are assessed in accordance with the Government Functional Standard for Analysis.

It is important that decision-making rights and rules are defined in the governance and management framework so that everyone on the team understands who can make decisions on what and when, who should be consulted and who needs to be informed of the decision. Leaving all decisions with the senior responsible owner is not an effective approach to decision-making. Decisions should be delegated to those members of the team best placed to make them, while at the same time ensuring those decisions are visible to those in higher authority, and in accordance with the organisation’s delegated authority arrangements.

Decisions relating to starting a new programme or project or a new phase should be made in accordance with the sponsoring organisation’s authorities as delegated by HM Treasury.

Government and Departmental Major Projects Portfolio and HM Treasury approval

Programmes and projects in the Government or Departmental Major Projects Portfolio require HM Treasury approvals preceding decision points. See the Treasury Approval Process for Projects and Programmes (requires sign in) for more information .

Government Major Projects Portfolio and mandatory assurance preceding significant decisions

Programmes and projects in the Government Major Projects Portfolio are required to have an  an independent assurance review, under the direction of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority preceding each decision point supported by Treasury approval process for projects and programmes (requires sign in) (see 13.4.4 on governance and management frameworks).

Government Major Projects Portfolio and publishing business cases

Programmes and projects in the Government Major Projects Portfolio must publish business cases within 4 months of the programme or project receiving HM Treasury approval via the Treasury approval process for projects and programmes (requires sign in).

Effective systems and processes need to be in place to ensure there is an efficient flow of information to the decision makers. This need not mean setting up separate processes, but ensuring that information, data, reporting and communication are built into the working approaches for managing the programme or project.

Decisions which require formal authorisation or approval include:

• approving vision and strategy
• authorising the initiation of a programme or project
• approving programme and project business cases
• approving planning, solution and management documentation baselines
• setting risk appetite and tolerance 
• authorising the start of a new project stage, for example, at a gate or decision point or for a new tranche of a programme 
• approving a procurement strategy and selecting suppliers
• approving options for further study
• selecting a solution or element of a solution
• pausing, terminating or closing a programme or project

Chapter 14: Programme and project lifes cycles describes programme and project life cycle, showing the timing and relationship of decisions with respect to the phases and preceding assurance reviews.

The Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery requires that each programme or project is phased. This phasing is referred to as the life cycle and is fundamental for effective governance of a programme or project by reflecting the risks and limiting the amount of funding released at any one time to that needed for the next phase of work. The way a programme or project is broken down into phases needs to reflect the risks. Generally, the more predictable the work is, the fewer phases are needed. Phasing also provides the basis for the delivery plan. At the highest level, each phase set out when work is done, costs, resources, when the solution comes into use and outcomes can be recognised, and when benefits are realised.

Chapter 14: Programme and project life cycles explores the features and details of programme and project life cycles.

• Cabinet Office, Arm’s length body sponsorship code of good practice
• GOV. UK, Service Manual
• Government Project Delivery, Project delivery capability framework
• Government Project Delivery, The role of the senior responsible owner
• HM Government, GovS: 002 Government Standard for Project Delivery
• HM Treasury, Treasury approval process for projects and programmes (requires sign in)
• Infrastructure and Projects Authority, Major project management (collection)
• Infrastructure and Projects Authority, Major projects data – Information on the progress of projects in the Government Major Projects Portfolio (collection)
• Infrastructure and Projects Authority, The project set up toolkit (collection)
• Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street, Plan for change