Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Construction programme management theory and practice:

Contextual and pragmatic approach
Zayyana Shehu a,*, Akintola Akintoye b
a
School of Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK
b
School of Built and Natural Environment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK

Received 17 October 2008; received in revised form 10 February 2009; accepted 10 February 2009

Abstract

The combination of the economic pressures, maturity and limitations of project management and the dynamic nature of the construc-
tion industry clients’ requirements has triggered the need for the adoption and implementation of programme management as a de facto
means of aligning, coordinating and managing a portfolio of construction projects to deliver benefits that would not be achievable if the
projects were managed independently. Despite the benefits achievable in the practice of programme management, the awareness and
understanding of its practice in the construction industry remains vague as a result of a lack of clarity and inconsistencies associated
with its definitions. To fully understand the core essence of programme management, it is imperative that its quintessential definition,
practice and context are clearly understood and documented. This research is based on a pragmatic synthesis of literature review and
industrial questionnaire survey which establishes the relationship, similarities and differences between programme management and pro-
ject management and subsequently draws comparisons of the practices relevant to programmes between programme and non-pro-
gramme organisations. The research further highlights the implications of unawareness and lack of understanding that can affect the
effective implementation and practice of programme management in the UK construction environment.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Definitional issues; Project and programme management; Relationships

1. Introduction 1.1. Research background

Programme management is not the same as project
management [1], but rather an integrated approach that
can streamline the effective delivery of projects [2]. Lycett
et al. [3] observe that the former has its roots in the latter
and the two concepts are often confused. A fair amount
of confusion exists among organisations regarding the def-
inition of programme management [4]; it has been synony-
mously described as multi-project, portfolio of projects,
new business approach [5] and mega-projects [6]. Com-
pared to matured disciplines like project management;
there is little literature available to accurately describe pro-
gramme management, its nature and practice [5].
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 7729355179.
E-mail address: zayyana.shehu@gmail.com (Z. Shehu).
In addition to the lack of universal and consistent defi-
nition of programme management, Pellegrinelli et al. [7]
observe that perhaps unsurprisingly, that when individuals
involved in programmes meet one another they very often
spend time trying to understand what the other’s view of
programme management is. GAPPS [8] also highlights that
there is lack of clarity and understanding of what consti-
tutes a programme. These ambiguities surrounding the nat-
ure and practice remain in the programme management
environment, despite over a decade of academic and prac-
titioner interests [7]. On the other hand, it has been
observed that it is not unusual to find that in the construc-
tion industry, organisations confuse programme manage-
ment with ‘schedule management’ [1] (construction
programme – Gantt charts) or computer programming

0263-7863/$36.00 Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.02.005
704 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
(programming languages such as Java, php etc.) [9]. The
no-one-knows-what-happens-next state of global economy
has contributed in forcing organisations into major
changes in a way that has never been greater; this further
calls for more effective management of construction pro-
jects. Gareis [10] and De Maio et al. [11] highlight the
increase in fierce competition and change in business mod-
els. According to OGC [12], those changes make pro-
gramme manage one of the available vehicles to achieve
efficiency in project delivery.
This research approaches programme management from
the construction industry’s contractors’ perspective and
mapped out to progressively take the reader through the
inconsistencies associated with definitional issues of pro-
gramme management relative to project management,
compare the practices of the organisations that are practic-
ing and those that are not practicing programme manage-
ment. The first section highlights the definitional issues,
which according to Milosevic et al. [4] and Ferns [5] have
contributed to the general lack of interest in practicing pro-
gramme management. Having explored and discussed the
definitional issues in the initial sections, the last section dis-
cusses on how the awareness and information affect the
implementation and practice of programme management
in the UK construction environment.
2. Definitional issues in programme management
This research observes that programme management is
currently suffering from an identity crisis. The crisis might
have contributed to the general misunderstanding of what
the term stands for. Ferns [5] believes that the term ‘pro-
gramme’ is in common use, but precise definitions would
be inconsistent with the way in which the word is used.
He further explains that the loose definitions of ‘pro-
gramme’ have contributed to general lack of understanding
of the benefits achievable in its practice, but believes that if
properly implemented, the construction industry will
achieve efficient delivery of projects. Hence, this study con-
ducts a critical review of what constitutes programme and
programme management.
Across the industry literature, the term ‘programme
management’ is both loosely and poorly defined and often
used interchangeably with ‘project management’ [5] to
describe the specific delivery of large projects [4,5]. To high-
light and address the inconsistencies in the understanding,
this research initially explores the definitional issues and
characteristics of the terms ‘programme’ and ‘programme
management’. There are many definitions for programme
and programme management, each of them offers a differ-
ent perspective on a similar theme. Ferns [5] and Reiss [6]
define a programme as group projects or portfolio of pro-
jects [13] that are managed in a coordinated manner to pro-
vide benefits that would not be possible had the projects
been managed independently. Bartlett [14] explains that
programme management was at a somewhat fluid state,
but expressed no surprise that even more mature disciplines
like project management have many definitions. Milosevic
et al. [4] highlight that there is no universally accepted def-
inition of programme management. E-programme [15]
explains that programme management has a number of
meanings which are clearly connected to the management
of a portfolio of projects and often, but not always, leading
to organisational changes.
Among the series of inconsistent definitions, PMI [16]
defines programme management as the centralised coordi-
nated management of a group of projects to achieve the
programme’s strategic benefits and objectives. Programme
management is the selection and planning of a portfolio of
projects to achieve a set of business objectives; and the effi-
cient execution of those projects within a controlled envi-
ronment, so that they realise maximum benefits for the
resulting business operation [13,17]. Lycett et al. [3] and
Burke [18] define programme management as the integra-
tion and management of a group of related projects with
the intention of achieving benefits that would not be rea-
lised if the projects were managed independently. Reiss
et al. [19] define programme management as the manage-
ment of a portfolio of projects which call upon the same
resources, and concentrates on the next stage of
development.
It has been seen that programme management involves
aligning and coordinating a group of related projects to
achieve benefits that are not possible when projects are
managed individually [3,4,7,14,19]. Having established the
inconsistencies surrounding the various definitions of the
term ‘programme management’, this research incorporates
a working definition from the existing multiple perspec-
tives. This research defines programme management as
an integrated, structured-framework that co-ordinates,
aligns and allocates resources, and plans, executes and
manages a number of related construction projects to
achieve optimum benefits that cannot be realised if the pro-
jects are managed separately. The working definition of
programme management has provided a context and para-
digm in their programmes.
Having developed a working definition of programme
management for this research, project management is also
be defined to give the reader a clear understanding of the
difference between the two related terms. Project is defined
as an endeavour (temporary [20]) in which human, (or
machine) material and financial resources are organised
in a novel way to undertake a unique scope of work, of
given specification, within the constraints of cost, quality
and time, so as to deliver beneficial change defined by
quantitative or qualitative objectives [21]. Pellegrinelli [1]
describes project management as a well-established
approach for affecting a wide range of changes in different
human endeavours. OGC [22] defines a project as a unique
set of coordinated activities, with definite starting and fin-
ishing points, undertaken by an individual or team to meet
specific objectives within defined time, cost and perfor-
mance parameters as specified in the business case. This
research integrates the meaning of a project as a human
 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
endeavour which consists of activities and utilises organisa-
tional resources (financial and human) towards the organ-
isational goal(s) within the constraint of cost, quality, time
and health and safety.
Project management can be defined as the management
of project(s) from start to completion. In addition, OGC
[22] describes project management as much more than
the tasks carried out by a project manager, it is a combina-
tion of the roles and responsibilities of individuals assigned
to the project, the organisational structure that sets out
clear reporting arrangements and the set of processes to
deliver the required outcome. It ensures that everyone
involved knows what is expected of them and helps to keep
cost, time and risk under control. Due to the significance
and dominance of project management, Maylor et al. [23]
conclude that it is hard to imagine an organisation that is
not engaged in some kind of project activity. It can be
observed that while the essence of project management is
the timely delivery of projects with the budgeted cost, qual-
ity [18] and health and safety, programme management
involves effective coordination of those projects and the
benefits they deliver to organisations. From the under-
standing of the multiple existing definitions of the two
approaches (programme management and project manage-
ment), it can be observed that the two are interrelated
where programme management cannot do without project
management and the existence of the former improves the
latter.
3. Why does the UK construction industry need programme
management?
The need for programme management in the UK con-
struction industry has never been stronger and more rele-
vant considering the need for improved services to the
industry’s clients, and in order to survive the difficult eco-
nomic times. The industry has been under constant review
and pressure from the government and stakeholders to
improve [13]. These reviews include Banwell [24] Latham
[25], Egan [26] and Fairclough [27]. In addition, Kangari
and Riggs [28] observe that when a construction company
invests in many projects, a diversified portfolio of projects
poses less risk than the average of individual projects con-
sidered alone. Bartlett [14] and Reiss [6] consider pro-
gramme management as the management of a portfolio
of related projects, hence making Kangari and Riggs’s
[28] proclamation relevant to construction programme
management. Pellegrinelli [1] highlights that programmes
create value by improving the management of projects in
isolation, especially where the working environment is
not only made up of a myriad of small projects, but also
where projects integration, in terms of both development
and deliverables, is crucial to competitive success. De Maio
et al. [11] advanced the idea that today’s competitive con-
text is changing, and that there is a requirement for fre-
quent and more effective management of products and
innovation to gain a competitive advantage.
705
According to Partington et al. [29], during the last
50 years, application of the principles and techniques of
modern project management have spread from their origins
in major projects to an ever-widening variety of corporate
endeavours. From its origin in civil engineering and aero-
space industries, it has become the chosen vehicle for well-
defined system changes and increasingly for carrying out a
broad spectrum of human endeavours [7,30,31]. The matu-
rity of project management and its limitations, gave birth to
programme management as a de facto means of aligning,
coordinating and managing a portfolio of projects to deliver
benefits which would not have been possible had the projects
been managed independently [23,29]. Lycett et al. [3]
strengthened the need for programme management by indi-
cating that, over time, issues have arisen where multiple pro-
jects within organisations face certain problems, like risk in
the lack of coordination and overall control, which nega-
tively affects efficiency and effectiveness and leads to confu-
sion over the responsibility of multiple projects.
4. Research methods
The findings in this research are based on a critical
review of existing literature in programme management
and an industrial questionnaire survey. The questionnaire
survey was conducted in the UK construction industry to
determine the level of awareness and practice of pro-
gramme management. Responses have been collected by
the construction companies that practice and those that
do not practice programme management, hence Pearson’s
Chi-Square test was conducted to compare the practice of
the organisations. One thousand three hundred and eighty
(1380) postal questionnaires were sent to the construction
industry, using a convenience sampling, as the target pop-
ulation was not known by the researcher [32,33]. A total of
119 usable questionnaires were received and analysed, the
number implies that 9% of the total sample contacted has
participated in the study. According to Denscombe [32],
a survey rarely achieves a response from every contact
made. Fellows and Liu [34] explain that given the increas-
ing number of research projects, collecting data is becom-
ing progressively more difficult. The respondents are
being targeted with many requests for data and they are
subsequently becoming unwilling to spend a lot of time
on them and ultimately refusing to participate in academic
surveys. Pathirage et al. [35] assert that the dichotomy in
allocating the blame for the poor responses in academic
surveys appears to be cyclic and continuum between the
academia and the industry. Olomolaiye [36] highlights the
lack of understanding of the research area can also lead
to poor participation. This however indicates that there
may be a lack of deeper understanding of the term ‘pro-
gramme management’, its principles and relationship with
project management in the construction industry, hence
may justify the low response. See Appendix A for the posi-
tions and nature of business, and Appendix B for the expe-
rience and annual turnover of the respondents.
706 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
Responses in relation to the awareness, practice, infor-
mation and implementation of programme management
are presented as Appendix C. The first six questions were
extracted from the characteristics of programme manage-
ment highlighted in the various definitions and literature
review (see Appendix C). These characteristics relate to
multiple projects, planning those projects using common
tools and techniques, concurrency of the execution of those
projects, relationships of the projects, the centrality of con-
trol, and sharing common resources. The answers provided
a yardstick to compare the responses of the organisations
practicing and those that do not practice programme man-
agement in order to highlight the differences in the practice
of project management and programme management.
5. First stage discussion
The presentation and discussion of the data in this
research is carried out in two stages, at the first stage, the
data is presented and discussed using the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ques-
tion, while the second stage conducts deeper analysis using
Chi-Square test. The results (in Appendix C) were analysed
using percentage index. The first stage of data analysis and
presentation conducts simple descriptive and exploratory
analysis of the data using simple percentile approach. This
approach is quite basic and may not be sufficient in identi-
fying the complex underlying behaviour of the data. How-
ever, this approach can provide a summary and an avenue
for critique of the data. The details on the descriptive and
exploratory data are discussed in synthesis with existing
related literature to relate theoretical and practical pro-
gramme management.
5.1. Discussion on the characteristics, awareness and
practices of programme and project management
The data collected provided a deeper insight on the
characteristics, awareness and practice of programme man-
agement. This section provides the exploratory and confir-
matory data analysis in line with some discussions to justify
the conclusions reached. According to Hussey and Hussey
[37], exploratory data analysis or descriptive statistics are
used to summarise or display data, while confirmatory data
analysis involves using the data collected from a sample to
draw a conclusion.
5.2. Handling more than one project and using the same
planning tools and techniques
A question was asked ‘Do you handle more than one pro-
ject in your company?’ and ‘Are these projects planned using
the same tools and techniques?’ These questions seek to con-
firm whether the companies were managing more than one
project at the time of participating in this research, and to
assess existing practice in project planning, as project plan-
ning is important to the effective practice programme man-
agement [19]. Based on the responses on handling more
than one project, it has been observed that 97.5% of the
respondents handled more than one project, the sample is
therefore more inclined towards more than one project.
The data on planning tools and techniques indicates that
85.7% used the same planning tools and techniques. This
proves that the sample was more inclined towards more
than one project, and there was a negligible deviation from
using the same tools and techniques of project planning at
that point. Reiss et al. [19] state that in some programmes,
the projects involved may be located in different geograph-
ical zones as a result, there is a need to use the same plan-
ning (software) tools to avoid any incompatibility issues
when accessing the planning documents from a remote
location to avoid any implication that the incompatibility
can cause.
According to Reiss et al. [19], it is advisable to plan mul-
tiple organisational projects using the same tools and tech-
niques (software tools and techniques inclusive) to avoid
any incompatibility issues when accessing a programme’s
documents (drawings, designs, plans, schedules etc.) from
a remote location. In this regard, they proposed using a
central and compatible computer system to store all the
documents that can be accessed by the programme team
(programme and project managers). Incompatibility can
constitute a barrier where a project team in a programme
is not able to access helpful information regarding another
project in the programme at the right time.
5.3. Relation and concurrent projects execution
‘Are the projects related?’ and ‘Are these projects exe-
cuted concurrently?’ These questions seek to confirm
whether the multiple projects are related and executed con-
currently. Most definitions of programme management
indicate that programmes bring together a group of related
projects in order to gain certain benefits [3,5,7,14,19]. The
question also seeks to check the ease at which companies
can be good candidates for implementing programme man-
agement. Milosevic et al. [4] highlight level of synergy of
projects in programmes; Lycett et al. [3] indicated that an
action of one project can easily affect the other projects
in a programme. The responses on the relation of projects
indicated that 66.4% of the projects were not related (this
can be an issue regarding the limitation of the explanation
on the relationship). The relationship of projects can be
any connection that was created by the planners and pro-
gramme team at the point of collecting projects together
and initiating the programme. The relationships of the pro-
ject involve sharing resources, planning, phasing, and any
other parameter as agreed by the programme leadership.
The most significant difference between programme and
project management lies in the coherence and the efficiency
in the projects relationship [38]. However, it would be
impossible to find any programme where the projects were
not related in any sense, and it would also be difficult to
establish similar relationships between all the projects in
the programme.
 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
The responses on concurrent execution indicate that
94.1% of the projects were executed in a concurrent man-
ner, while the data (descriptive) is inclined towards concur-
rent execution of the projects, and there is a negligible
deviation from the non-concurrency of the project at that
point. Morton [39] highlights that, in most cases, construc-
tion companies in the UK manage and execute multiple
projects simultaneously. Thus, the research seeks to explore
how the management of multiple concurrent projects will
fit into the practice of programme management in the
UK construction industry.
5.4. Projects centrality of control and sharing common
resources
The question: ‘Are the projects centrally controlled?’ was
asked in order to confirm whether the multiple projects
were being controlled from a defined centre. It has been
explained that the programme has the characteristic of cen-
tral control of projects [3,5,7,19]. The question also aims at
checking the ease at which companies are able to imple-
ment programme management; since all the projects in a
programme are being centrally controlled.
The analysis of the responses to the question indicates
that 68.9% of the projects are being controlled centrally
by management or a senior individual member of the orga-
nisation. If the projects were not being controlled centrally,
the implication is that the companies would find it difficult
to operate programme management, as it calls upon the
central control of projects towards the organisational
goals.
Another question was asked: ‘Do the projects share com-
mon resources (e.g. personnel, infrastructure, equipments
etc)?’ to confirm whether the multiple projects shared com-
mon resources. It has also been explained that each pro-
gramme has the characteristic of sharing (revolving)
resources from one project to another in a programme.
The need for this is to maintain quality, ensure a steady
supply of workforce, and make knowledge management
more effective [3,14,19]. The question also aims at checking
the ease at which companies can implement programme
management.
Construction programmes can benefit immensely from
sharing the same resources on the projects. This will help
to improve the accuracy and efficiency of executing the pro-
jects, as the same resources are already aware of the mis-
sion and the nature of the projects being delivered. From
the point of view of personnel, it will exert pressure on
the programme to train the human resources, and disen-
gage them and employ another group of resources [19]. It
will also work out cheaper if the projects in a programme
re-use equipment and facilities around the programme
(assuming they can be used again) instead of procuring
new ones. In this regard, the infrastructure can be seen as
the management, communication and information technol-
ogy. If the projects are linked on the common network,
information can be easily shared, transferred and managed.
707
According to Olomolaiye [36], sharing and revolving the
same resources through different projects makes knowl-
edge-sharing more effective and thereby helps to save
money and time because it does not involve re-employing
and training new resources. It can be observed that
83.2% of the sample shared common resources, which
may represent a good indication that the sample was more
inclined towards sharing resources.
5.5. Definition of programme and project management
‘Do you consider the term Programme Management as
aligning, planning coordination and execution of a group of
related projects to realise benefits that is not possible if the
projects are managed individually?’ and ‘Do you consider
the term Project Management as the planning, coordination
and execution of a single project from inception to comple-
tion?’ These questions sought to create awareness of the dif-
ference between programme management and project
management, in order to give the respondents an indication
of the context within which answers to Sections 2.1.2–2.1.4
of the questionnaire are expected (see Appendix C). The
question was designed to provide an integrated working
definition from the various definitions of programme man-
agement that exist.
Around seventy eight percent (78.2%) of the respon-
dents accepted the working definition, whereas 86.6%
accepted the definition of the term ‘project management’.
Definition of programme management is in a fluid stage
at the moment [14]. Milosevic et al. [4] believe that the cur-
rent lack of clarity and understanding can be associated
with its origin (US military intelligence and Aerospace
agency). They believe that a proper definition and informa-
tion may help organisations to understand and practice
programme management. Pellegrinelli et al. [7] also empha-
sise the importance of contextualising the practice of pro-
gramme management, whereas this research observed
that, for any context to reflect the reality of programme
management, a sound definition is essential. As important
as the working definition is to the context and practice of
programme management, it is also very important to
clearly differentiate between programme and project
management.
5.6. Information and awareness about programme
management
The question was asked ‘Prior to this survey, were you
aware of the term Programme Management?’ and ‘Have
you ever received any information about the benefits associ-
ated with Programme Management?’ These questions
sought to confirm whether the respondents were aware of
the definitions of programme and project management,
or had ever received any information or guide on the ben-
efits and implementation of programme management. The
thinking behind the question was to compare their lack of
awareness and the information available to the industry
708 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
sector, income, years of experience or positions. Rayner
[39] highlights the lack of awareness, or, rather, the lack
of practice of programme management in the UK con-
struction industry. IT programmes constitute 54% against
8% of civil engineering. Civil engineering cannot solely rep-
resent the UK construction industry, as there are other sec-
tors, such as residential construction, and construction
services (mechanical, electrical, information technology
and specialists).
Awareness is a form of primary consciousness: it con-
sists in the capacity to generate emotions and an awareness
of one’s surroundings, but not the ability to talk about
what one has experienced [40]. The Merriam-Webster Dic-
tionary [41] defines awareness as having or showing realisa-
tion, perception, or knowledge. Olomolaiye [36] asserts
that awareness comprises a human’s perception and cogni-
tive reaction to a condition or event. Awareness does not
necessarily imply understanding, just the ability to be con-
scious of surroundings, and to be able to feel or perceive.
Therefore, a lack of awareness of programme management
can constitute a huge obstacle to its implementation and
practice. The analysis of the responses on awareness indi-
cates that 81.5% were aware, and descriptive data was
inclined to be aware, and there was a slight deviation from
the awareness.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary [42], the
earliest historical meaning in English of the word informa-
tion was the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the
mind, as in education, instruction, or training. Merriam-
Webster [41] explains information as the communication
or reception of knowledge or intelligence, i.e. knowledge
obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. Accord-
ing to Losee [43], one of the most common ways of defining
information is to describe it as one or more statements or
facts that are received by a human that have some form
of worth to the recipient. The first definition in the Ran-
dom Merriam-Webster [41] suggests that information is a
form of knowledge communicated or received concerning
a particular fact or circumstance. The descriptive analysis
of the question on receipt of information indicates that
64.7% have never received any information about pro-
gramme management; whereas 35.3% have received some
information about programme management.
5.7. Interest in implementing programme management
The question was asked ‘Would you consider implement-
ing programme management if you were provided with the
detailed information about awareness and benefits?’ The
aim of this question was to confirm whether the respon-
dents had any interest in implementing programme man-
agement if the information on practices and benefits was
provided to them.
The analysis indicates that 79.8% would be interested in
implementing programme management if the information
was available to them. The figure indicates that the popu-
lation mode was more inclined towards implementing pro-
gramme management if information was provided, and
there was a slight deviation from implementation even if
the information was available.
5.8. The practice of programme and project management
A question was asked ‘Indicate if you practice pro-
gramme management” and ‘Indicate if you practice project
management’. The aim of these questions was to confirm
whether the respondents’ companies had already imple-
mented and were practicing programme management, or
if they were only practicing project management. The anal-
ysis on the practice of programme management indicates
that 58.0% were not practicing programme management,
whereas 89.1% were practicing project management. The
data here is relatively ambiguous; the fact that an organisa-
tion can practice programme and project management at
the same time makes the data a bit delicate, hence there
can be intersection of the two groups (programme and pro-
ject) at this point.
6. Second stage discussion
At this stage, a deeper analysis is conducted using Pear-
son’s Chi-Square to explore some of the underlying charac-
teristics/relationships that cannot be seen using percentile
system as conducted at the first stage of the data analysis.
6.1. Chi-Square test
Having seen the descriptive analysis of the data on the
practice, awareness and information on programme man-
agement above, this section presents a deeper inferential
analysis of the data. The test used is a Chi-Square test to
examine the relationships of the variable. Chi-Square tests
are conducted to examine the deeper relationships between
the responses provided by the participants practicing pro-
gramme management and those who are not. Details of
their understanding and practices of programme manage-
ment were analysed using SPSS 15. The variables assessed
are the practices of programme and project management
against the question ‘Indicate if you practice programme
management’. A summary and discussion of the results is
presented in Table 1.
Pearson’s Chi-Square test is used to assess two types of
comparison: tests of goodness of fit, and tests of indepen-
dence. A test of goodness of fit establishes whether or not
an observed frequency distribution differs from a theoreti-
cal distribution. A test of independence assesses whether
paired observations on two variables, expressed in a con-
tingency table, are independent of each other [44,45]. In
Pearson’s Chi-Square test, the most significant values to
consider, in addition to the frequencies, are the Pearson
Chi-Square and Significance value (p). Any variable with
(Sig.) p = 0.05 or less indicates that there is significant sta-
tistical variations between the two groups (practicing and
not practicing programme management), whereas a higher
 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716 709

Table 1
Chi-Square test on variable against programme management practice.
Programme management awareness and practice Practice Total Pearson Chi- Sig.
Square
No Yes
A. Do you handle more than one project in your company? No 0 1 1
Yes 68 46 114 1.459 0.227
Total 68 47 115
B. Are these projects planned using the same tools and techniques? No 9 6 15
Yes 60 40 100 0.000 1.000
Total 69 46 115
C. Are these projects executed concurrently? No 4 1 5
Yes 65 45 110 0.871 0.351
Total 69 46 115
D. Are the projects related? No 52 26 78
Yes 17 20 37 4.489 *0.034
Total 69 46 115
E. Are the projects centrally controlled? No 18 12 30
Yes 49 32 81 0.002 0.962
Total 67 44 111
F. Do the projects share common resources (e.g. personnel, infrastructure, equipments etc)? No 10 4 14
Yes 56 41 97 0.925 0.329
Total 66 45 111
G. Do you consider the term Programme Management as aligning, planning coordination and No 15 9 24
execution of a group of related projects to realise benefits that is not possible if the projects are Yes 53 38 91 0.142 0.706
managed individually?
Total 68 47 115
H. Prior to this survey, were you aware of the term programme management? No 18 2 20
Yes 51 45 96 9.338 *0.002
Total 69 47 116
I. Do you consider the term Project Management as the planning, coordination and execution of a No 3 12 15
single project from inception to completion? Yes 66 35 101 11.143 *0.001
Total 69 47 116
J. Have you ever received any information about the benefits associated with programme management? No 55 20 75
Yes 13 27 40 17.999 *0.000
Total 68 47 115
K. Would you consider implementing programme management if you are provided with the detailed No 12 3 15
information about awareness and benefits? Yes 53 42 95 3.141 0.076
Total 65 45 110
M. Indicate if you practice project management No 7 4 11
Yes 61 43 104 0.102 0.749
Total 68 47 115
*
Significant statistical variation in responses between organisations that practice and those that do not practice programme management.

p (Sig.) value means there is insignificant variation between
the responses of the organisations not practicing and those
organisations practicing programme management, as dis-
cussed by [44,46].
As the questions were constructed to be answered in
‘Yes’ or ‘No’ format, and that the respondents consist of
the organisations that practice and those that do not prac-
tice programme management, Pearson’s Chi-Square test
appears to be suitable for the analysis of this kind of data,
hence reference is made to the test results. The results are
based on comparing any underlying differences in the
responses to the questions on awareness, practice and can-
didature of construction organisations in the implementa-
tion and practice of programme management. The
outputs generated were presented using contingency tables,
which are collected together into a single table of data.
According to QMSS [45], there are many ways that infor-
mation can be presented, but perhaps the most frequent
and easiest method to comprehend is a table. Discussions
of the items in the table are presented below.
6.2. Handling more than one project
In order to establish respective differences in the respon-
sibilities of participants, the question was asked ‘Do you
handle more than one project in your company?’ The data
presented in the first three columns of Table 1 were rela-
tively straightforward and showed that 68 organisations
710 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
were managing multiple projects, but not practicing pro-
gramme management, whereas 46 organisations handle
more than one project at any single time and are practicing
programme management. However, to reframe the issue, a
test was conducted to investigate the hypothesis that there
are differences between the responses of the organisations
managing multiple projects, in terms of those who are prac-
ticing and those who are not practicing programme man-
agement. The above figures (frequencies) provide a good
point in which to start examining that hypothesis, but they
are only descriptive. To examine the hypothesis, there is a
need to employ a Chi-Square test.
The Pearson’s Chi-Square results indicate that there was
no statistical difference between the responses of the
respondents practicing programme management in manag-
ing multiple projects. The p = 0.227 is higher than 0.05,
which implies that no significant statistical variation exists
in the responses. The results indicate that the construction
companies in the UK, regardless of whether they practice
programme management or not, managed more than one
project at the same time. If an organisation manages more
than one project, programme management can provide an
avenue for efficient delivery and improve quality and per-
formance. It is, however, unexpected that any company
that manages only one project at a time would implement
a programme approach towards the single project.
6.3. Projects planning tools and techniques
In the aspect of managing more than one project it was
concluded that there was no significant variations in the
responses between the organisations practicing programme
management and those who are not. Planning a group of
projects with common tools and techniques is another
important aspect of any effective programme management
[19].
Another question was asked to establish the way pro-
jects are planned in the organisations. ‘Are these projects
planned using the same tools and techniques?’ The question
sought to check whether the multiple projects discussed
in the above section are planned using the same tools and
techniques. The data presented in the first three columns
of Table 1 shows that 60 organisations plan their multiple
projects with the same tools and techniques but do not
practice programme management. Whereas 40 organisa-
tions plan their multiple projects and practice programme
management. On the other hand, there are nine organisa-
tions that do not practice programme management and
do not plan their projects with the same tools and tech-
niques. There are also six organisations that practice pro-
gramme management but do not plan their projects using
the same tools and techniques.
The Pearson’s Chi-Square test statistics established that
there is no statistical difference between the responses of
the respondents practicing programme management in
managing multiple projects. The p (Sig.) value is 1.000
which is higher than 0.05, which implies that no significant
statistical variation exists in the responses. Hence, it can be
concluded that both the organisations practicing and those
that were not practicing programme management used the
same planning tools and techniques to plan their multiple
projects.
6.4. Concurrent execution of projects
The aspect management of concurrent projects is
another area where programme management can be impor-
tant. Although there is no indication in the literature on the
bearing of this aspect on the effectiveness of programme
management, it is not uncommon for construction organi-
sations to handle a number of projects simultaneously.
The question was asked to establish the way projects are
executed in the organisations: ‘Are these projects executed
concurrently?’ The question aims to check whether the mul-
tiple projects discussed in the above sections are being exe-
cuted concurrently. Sixty five (65) organisations execute
their multiple projects concurrently, but do not practice
programme management. Forty five (45) organisations,
who executed multiple projects concurrently, also practice
programme management. On the other hand, there are
four organisations that do not practice programme man-
agement and who do not execute their projects concur-
rently. There is also one organisation that practices
programme management but does not execute its projects
concurrently.
The p (Sig.) value is 0.351, which is higher than 0.05,
which implies that no significant statistical variation exists
in the responses. Programmes coordinate, align and exe-
cute multiple related projects [36]. These projects can be
taking place at the same time. The results indicate that both
the organisations practicing and those that are not practic-
ing programme management manage projects that are run-
ning side-by-side with one another.
6.5. Projects relationships
This section sought to discuss the relationships between
the multiple projects. This aspect is also one of the most
important areas where programme management is essen-
tial, and will help combine projects together and operate
as a programme. There is no indication in the literature
on how to relate projects beyond sharing resources,
planned using the same planning tools and techniques
[12]. However, it is essential to identify how the projects
relate to one another at the planning stage.
The question was asked to establish the construction
organisations’ candidature to the practice of programme
management and the way projects are related in the organ-
isations: ‘Are the projects related?’ The question aims to
check whether the multiple projects discussed in the above
sections are related and the ease at which they can be
grouped into programmes. Seventeen organisations that
were not practicing programme management confirmed
that their projects were not related. Twenty (20) organisa-
 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
tions that are practicing programme management indicated
that their projects were related. On the other hand, there
are 52 organisations that do not practice programme man-
agement and do not relate their projects concurrently.
There are also 26 organisations that practice programme
management, but their projects are related.
The p = 0.034, which is lower than 0.05 signifies that sig-
nificant statistical variations exist in the responses. The
result is, however, not surprising, as interaction with the
programme managers in a related the semi-structured
interviews revealed that many types of relationships can
exist. This research contends that the best relationships
are the ones created by the programme management team
in bringing the projects together. The Pearson’s Chi-Square
test statistics on the relationship of projects established that
there was a significant statistical difference between the
responses of the respondents practicing programme man-
agement in relationships of multiple projects.
6.6. Projects central control
This section discusses the centrality of controlling multi-
ple projects. This aspect is also one of the areas where pro-
gramme management will help combine projects together
and operate as a programme. There is an indication in
the literature on centralising controls to give management
a clear visibility of projects [19,22,47]. It is essential to pro-
vide central and a common centre of control of the projects
to facilitate the harmony, uniformity and consistency of
projects.
The question was asked to establish the construction
organisations’ candidature to the practice of programme
management, and the way projects are controlled in the
organisations. ‘Are the projects centrally controlled?’ The
question aims to check whether the multiple projects dis-
cussed above are controlled and the ease at which they
can be grouped into programmes. According to the figures,
49 organisations that are not practicing programme man-
agement confirmed that their projects are not controlled
centrally, 32 organisations that are practicing programme
management indicated that their projects are controlled
centrally. On the other hand, there are 18 organisations
that do not practice programme management who do not
control their projects centrally. There are also 12 organisa-
tions that practice programme management but their pro-
jects are controlled centrally.
The p (Sig.) value is 0.962, which is higher than 0.05,
which signifies that there is no significant statistical varia-
tion in the responses. The result is, however, not surprising
as organisation in the UK construction industry exhibits
certain characteristics which are somehow related to pro-
gramme management practice. This characteristic entails
grouping a few projects and having them managed by a
senior individual in that organisation, as can be seen from
the responses regarding the central control of projects.
However, grouping projects and controlling them from a
central management does not always represent programme,
711
but indicates the ease at which programme management
can be implemented.
6.7. Sharing common resources
Sharing common resources is an important aspect of
programme management and may help in effective alloca-
tion and levelling resources in programmes [48] and knowl-
edge-sharing [28]. For the implementation of programme
management to be successful, appropriate resources would
have to be allocated and levelled. In certain situations,
sharing proves to be more cost effective and efficient. There
is an indication in the literature that centralising effective
resources management is one of the driving forces of effec-
tive programme management [19,49,50] To be efficient,
resources, infrastructure and equipment should be pro-
vided. Programmes tend to share some common resources.
The question was asked to establish the construction
organisations’ candidature to the practice of programme
management and the way projects are controlled in the
organisations. ‘Do the projects share common resources
(e.g. personnel, infrastructure, equipments etc)?’ The ques-
tion aims to check whether the multiple projects discussed
above share common resources which will make it easier
for the potential programme management organisation to
implement and practice.
According to the figures, 49 organisations that are not
practicing programme management confirmed that their
projects are not controlled centrally. Thirty two (32) organ-
isations that are practicing programme management indi-
cated that their projects are controlled centrally. On the
other hand, there are 56 organisations that do not practice
programme management and do not share common
resources. There are also 41 organisations that practice
programme management but who share common
resources.
The p (Sig.) value is 0.329, which is higher than 0.050,
which signifies that there is no significant statistical varia-
tion in the responses. The result, however, provides a win-
dow into the level that resources are shared among the
projects in programme management. The Pearson’s Chi-
Square test statistics on sharing resources in projects in
programmes established that there is no significant statisti-
cal difference between the responses of the respondents
practicing programme management in relationships of
multiple projects.
6.8. Definition of programme and project management
This section analyses both the descriptive and inferential
data concerning the definition of programme management
in the UK construction industry. For implementation of
programme management to be successful, an appropriate
understanding of the term ‘programme management’ is
essential.
However, Milosevic et al. [4] explain that the current
lack of understanding about programme management can-
712 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
not be dissociated from its evolution; they explain that the
approach was kept a secret among the US military and
aerospace intelligence from the early 1950s until the late
1970s, when the US was losing global economic competi-
tion. The situation forced the sources of programme man-
agement to divulge it to non-military sectors in order to
gain – or rather recover – their competitive advantage over
the Japanese economy. In another discussion by Ferns [5],
he explains that in the context of projects management, the
word ‘programme’ is rarely well defined. Many terms are in
common use, but precise definitions would be inconsistent
with the loose way in which the words are used. The loose
definition of the term ‘programme’ has contributed to a
general lack of understanding of the benefits that pro-
gramme management can provide. Hence, this research
developed a working definition relative to project manage-
ment and presented it to the respondents in view of rein-
forcing the working definition for this research, which
helped to provide a sense of clarity and differentiation from
project management.
According to the figures in Table 1, 53 organisations
that are not practicing programme management accepted
the working definition of programme management;
whereas 38 organisations that are practicing programme
management accepted the working definition. On the other
hand, there are 15 organisations that do not practice pro-
gramme management and do not accept the working defi-
nition. There are also nine organisations that practice
programme management but who did not accept the defini-
tion of programme management.
The description of the data presented on the definition
of project management frequencies indicate that, 66 organ-
isations that are not practicing programme management
accepted the working definition of project management.
It also indicated that 35 organisations that are practicing
programme management accepted the working definition
of project management. There are three organisations that
do not practice programme management and do not accept
the definition of project management, while there are also
12 organisations that practice programme management,
but do not accept the working definition of project
management.
On definition of programme management, there is no
significant statistical variation between the respondents
practicing programme management in relationships of
multiple projects. The p (Sig.) value is 0.706 which is higher
than 0.05 which signifies that there is no significant statis-
tical variation in the responses, the result, however, pro-
vides information on the respondents’ awareness of the
definition of programme management. In the effort to high-
light the difference in definitions between project manage-
ment and programme management yields different results.
The p (Sig.) value is 0.001, which indicates significant statis-
tical variation in the responses; despite the statistical vari-
ation in the definition of project management, this
research further aligned the definition of project manage-
ment to a construction projects context.
6.9. Information and implementation of programme
management
This section explores and discusses the information
received and the willingness to implement programme
management, if information on programme management
and its benefits are provided to UK construction organisa-
tions. This, calls for further analysis of the data relative to
years of experience, annual turnover, sectors and posts (see
Appendix D). These aspects are also important areas of the
analysis of data in this research. For implementation and
practice of programme management to be successful, there
has to be appropriate quality of information, and a willing-
ness to translate that information into action.
The questions seek to establish whether those construc-
tion organisations not practicing programme management,
and those practicing programme management, had ever
received any information on programme management, and
the willingness of non-practicing organisations to implement
programme management if appropriate information is pro-
vided. Thirteen (13) organisations that are not practicing
programme management have received information on pro-
gramme management; whereas 27 organisations that are
practicing programme management have received informa-
tion on it. On the other hand, there are 55 organisations that
do not practice programme management and have not
received any information. There are also 20 organisations
that practice programme management but have not received
any information about programme management.
The descriptive data presented on the interest to imple-
mentation of programme management frequencies indi-
cates that 53 organisations that are not practicing have
received information on programme management, whereas
42 organisations that are practicing and have received
information on programme management. There are 12
organisations that do not practice programme manage-
ment, and which have never received any information
about programme management. Also there are three
organisations that practice programme management, but
have never received any information on it.
The responses (Table 1) of the organisations that
received information on programme management estab-
lished that there is a significant statistical difference
between the responses of the respondents practicing pro-
gramme management about multiple projects. The p
(Sig.) value is 0.000, which is lower than 0.05, which signi-
fies that there is significant statistical variation in the
responses. The attempt to explore the interest of construc-
tion organisations to implement programme management
when appropriate information is provided reveals that both
those organisations not practicing programme manage-
ment would be willing to implement programme manage-
ment should the appropriate information be provided.
The p = 0.706, indicates there is no significant statistical
variation in the responses. However, based on the data,
the organisations practicing programme management also
require more information.
 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
From the data gathered (Appendices C and D), on the
awareness and the receipt of information on programme
management, it can be observed that the construction
industry is relatively aware of the term, and would perhaps
be interested in getting more information on the critical
success factors, major challenges, skills and competencies
for effective programme management. The analysis was
conducted based on the questions that asked whether the
companies were aware of the term ‘programme manage-
ment’ prior to the industrial questionnaire survey and the
question inquiring about the availability of information
to the respondents (Appendix C, item 10). Although the
data collection was undertaken based on the assumption
that the UK construction industry was not aware of the
definition and practice of programme management, the
responses provided a deeper insight, and hence useful
details were extracted.
The level of awareness can be limited to the definitional
issues, as the analysis based on ‘information received’ pro-
vided a low level of responses. The highest information
received was from those respondents with 11–15 years of
experience, where 55% acknowledged receiving informa-
tion; while the lowest information was from those with
1–5 years experience, with 14.3% in the latter group. The
low information level may be associated with their level
of experience or limited involvement with the strategic
management of their organisations (see Appendix D).
The analysis of awareness, based on the respondents’
years of experience, revealed that there is a relatively high
level of awareness across the years of experience. This
can be associated with the information received at CPD
sessions, workshops, information in professional maga-
zines, journals, and interaction with colleagues. However,
this awareness may be shallow – possibly related to defini-
tional issues. Similarly, there was a high level of awareness
at various posts among the respondents, while the level of
information received remains low in comparison to the
awareness. The highest awareness was among programme
directors and programme managers; they had also received
the highest level of information about programme
management.
The level of awareness and information based on the
sectors of the respondents shows that the general construc-
tion group had the highest percentage; while the construc-
tion services group (mechanical and electrical) had the
lowest percentage of awareness of programme manage-
ment. The level of information remains relatively low in
all sectors of the respondents. Based on annual turnover,
the £1–£100m group had the highest percentage, with
awareness level of 78.7%, whereas £301–£400m had the
lowest respondents, with a 66.7% level of awareness. From
the result, we can see that the level of awareness is reason-
ably high, but the information is comparatively low. The
level of information received by the group with an annual
turnover of over £400m was the highest.
The conclusion one could draw from the results of the
analysis is that there is an awareness of programme man-
713
agement among respondents across all levels and group-
ings, regardless of their years of experience, post, sector
and annual turnover. What is not indicated is the depth
of awareness to warrant successful implementation and
practice of programme management. On the other hand,
the level of information received revealed that the construc-
tion industry is still lacking detailed information on pro-
gramme management.
In an attempt to establish the level of interest of organ-
isations to implement programme management, another
analysis was conducted based on the sector and annual
turnover, to check whether the annual turnover had any
effect on the interest of implementing programme manage-
ment. The analysis of results on the practice and consider-
ation implementing programme management among the
different annual turnover bands and sectors of the con-
struction revealed that 100% of the companies with an
annual turnover between £301–£400m were practicing pro-
gramme management. The construction services sector had
the highest practice of programme management. The
answer to the question on whether the companies would
consider implementing programme management if infor-
mation was provided indicated that the construction ser-
vices sector is more willing to implement programme
management (see Appendix D).
7. Implication and the way forward
Lack of clarity of context and definition of programme
management may contribute to lack of understanding of
the benefits involved and therefore discourage organisa-
tions from implementing programme management. A con-
sistent and contextual definition and proper understanding
of programme management would no doubt clarify the
nature and benefits of programme management [4,5], hence
developing into a mature and advance programme man-
agement practice is a gradual process [1], which is linked
to understanding and definition [19].
The results on ‘awareness and interest’ in programme
management indicate that the interest in programme man-
agement has gone beyond the industrial sectors, incomes,
posts, and years of experience, but is now considered as
an industry-wide phenomenon. However, it should be
observed that differences in programme management prac-
tice exist between organisations. It is therefore essential for
a potential programme management organisation to view
and review the nature of their business and to establish
the realisable benefits of implementing and practicing of
the discipline. Any implementation or practice of pro-
gramme management without proper assessment and
establishment of benefits can lead into unnecessary
complications.
8. Conclusion
The series of reviews conducted on the UK construction
industry by the government and its stakeholders, have con-
714 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716

Table A1
Positions of the respondents and nature of business.
Position of respondents Nature of business of respondents
Position n (%) Business n (%)
Programme managers 3 2.6 General construction (residential & commercial) 62 52.1
Programme directors 4 3.4 General civil engineering (road & others) 16 13.4
Project managers 12 10.3 Non-construction programme management organisations 2 1.7
Directors 58 49.6 Any other construction business & services 39 32.8
Contracts managers 4 3.4 Total 119 100
Construction managers 2 1.7
Managing director 2 1.7
Other 32 27.4
Total 119 100

stantly provided guide and established the need and the struction industry is not aware or practicing programme
room for improvement of service to its clients and stake- management, but there is a general indication that if aware-
holders. Programme management is a highly effective vehi- ness and information on nature and benefits are provided,
cle for organisations handling more than one project to use the industry will embrace the concept of programme
in grouping related projects together, but a lack of clarity management.
and awareness seems to constitute a barrier toward its It is apparent that there are similarities in the practices
understanding and implementation in the UK construction of the organisations practicing and not practicing pro-
industry. The study observes the need to understand that gramme management. The efforts required to implement
programme management is not an alternative to project a structured programme management may not be too
management, but the former is rather an approach that much for potential organisations. However, adequate cau-
streamlines the latter in a multi-project environment. The tion must be exercised not to treat programme manage-
two disciplines exist side-by-side and in constant interac- ment as project management to avoid derailing the set
tion with one another. The lack of clarity of what pro- objectives. To bring the theoretical and practical pro-
gramme management stands for may be associated with gramme management together, the interaction with the
its roots, clarity, understanding and nature of evolution. construction industry has made it apparent that the organ-
Although programme management has reached a signifi- isations are keen to understand and even implement pro-
cant level of success and acceptance in other sectors of gramme management. However, inconsistencies in terms
the economy, its theory and practice in the construction of awareness, understanding and definitions of what it
industry are still at an embryonic stage and yet to meet means make that possibility slightly discouraging.
one another, hence there is need to really understand its
Table A2
underlying characteristics.
Years of experience and annual turnover.
There are many conflicting definitions currently existing
Years of experience Annual turnover
for programme management, this research has provided an
effective contextual working definition (with strong bias Years n (%) Turnover n (%)
towards the construction industry) to eliminate those ambi- 1–5 Years 7 5.9 £1–100m 75 63.0
guities to the potential organisations. The importance of 6–10 Years 13 11.0 £101–200m 7 5.9
11–15 Years 9 7.6 £201–300m 9 7.6
context cannot be over-emphasised to create a room for
16–20 Years 11 9.3 £301–400m 3 2.5
implementation and practice. From the understanding of Over 20 years 78 66.1 Over £400m 19 16.0
the multiple existing definitions of the two approaches Missing data 1 0.01 Missing data 6 5.0
(programme management and project management), it Total 119 100 Total 119 100
can be observed that the two are interrelated where pro-
gramme management cannot do without project manage- Table B1
ment and the existence of the former improves the latter. Years of experience and annual turnover.
The data analysed in this research was acquired through Years of experience Annual turnover
convenience sampling from the construction industry. The
Years n (%) Turnover n (%)
data gathered was analysed using a statistical approach to
1–5 Years 7 5.9 £1–100m 75 63.0
explore any variation in opinion between the organisations
6–10 Years 13 11.0 £101–200m 7 5.9
operating and not operating programme management, but 11–15 Years 9 7.6 £201–300m 9 7.6
the results proved that data can be analysed as homoge- 16–20 Years 11 9.3 £301–400m 3 2.5
neous due to the fact that there are no significant statistical Over 20 years 78 66.1 Over £400m 19 16.0
variations in the responses. The homogeneous data was Missing data 1 0.01 Missing data 6 5.0
Total 119 100 Total 119 100
analysed to confirm the awareness and practice of pro-
gramme management. A significant part of the UK con- Where: n, the frequency of responses; %, percentage of the responses.
 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716 715

Table C1
Practice and awareness of programme and project management.
Programme management awareness and practice Yes No Missing
(%) (%) (%)
1. Do you handle more than one project in your company? 97.479 0.840 1.681
2. Are these projects planned using the same tools and techniques? 85.714 12.605 1.681
3. Are these projects executed concurrently? 94.118 4.202 1.681
4. Are the projects related? 31.933 66.387 1.681
5. Are the projects centrally controlled? 68.908 26.050 5.042
6. Do the projects share common resources (e.g. personnel, infrastructure, equipments etc)? 83.193 11.765 5.042
7. Do you consider the term Programme Management as aligning, planning coordination and execution of a group of related 78.151 20.168 1.681
projects to realise benefits that is not possible if the projects are managed individually?
8. * Prior to this survey, were you aware of the term programme management? 81.513 17.647 0.840
9. Do you consider the term Project Management as the planning, coordination and execution of a single project from 86.555 12.605 0.840
inception to completion?
10. * Have you ever received any information about the benefits associated with programme management? 33.613 64.706 1.681
11. * Would you consider implementing programme management if you are provided with the detailed information about 79.832 13.445 6.723
awareness and benefits?
12. Indicate if you practice programme management 39.496 57.983 2.521
13. Indicate if you practice project management 89.076 9.244 1.681

Table D1
Respondents interests against awareness and information.
Category N Awareness Information
Aware (%) Not aware (%) Missing (%) Received (%) Not received (%) M (%)
Experience 1–5 years 7 100.00 – – 14.300 85.700 –
6–10 years 13 84.615 15.385 – 46.200 53.800 –
11–15 years 9 77.778 22.222 – 55.600 44.400 –
16–20 years 11 90.909 9.091 – 36.400 63.600 –
Over 20 years 78 78.205 20.513 1.282 30.800 66.700 2.600
Post Programme managers 3 100.00 – – 100.00 – –
Programme directors 4 100.00 – – 100.00 – –
Project managers 12 91.667 8.333 – 41.700 58.300 –
Directors 58 75.862 22.414 1.724 24.100 74.100 1.700
Contracts managers 4 50.000 50.000 25.000 50.000 25.000
Construction managers 2 100.00 – – – 100.000 –
Managing director 2 100.00 – – – 100.000 –
Other 32 87.500 12.500 – 59.400 40.600 –
Sector General construction 62 79.000 19.400 1.600 27.400 69.400 3.200
Civil engineering 16 87.500 12.500 – 37.500 62.500 –
Construction services 2 100.00 – – 100.00 – –
Other construction business 37 81.100 18.900 – 37.800 62.200 –
Turnover £1–£100m 75 78.700 21.300 – 28.000 72.000 –
£101–£200m 7 57.100 28.600 14.300 14.300 71.400 14.300
£201–£300m 9 100.00 – – 33.300 66.700 –
£301–£400m 3 66.700 33.300 – 33.300 66.700
Turnover over £400m 19 94.700 5.300 – 57.900 36.800 5.300

Appendix A Appendix D

See Appendix Tables A1 and A2. See Appendix Table D1.

Appendix B References

See Appendix Table B1. [1] Pellegrinelli S. Programme management: organising project-based
change. Internat J Project Manage 1997;20(3):229–33.
[2] Gray RJ. Alternative approaches to programme management.
Appendix C Internat J Project Manage 1997;15(1):5–9.
[3] Lycett M, Rassau A, Danson J. Programme management: a critical
See Appendix Table C1. review. Internat J Project Manage 2004;22:289–99.
716 Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 703–716
[4] Milosevic DZ, Martinelli RJ, Waddell JM. Program management for
improved business results. John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2007.
[5] Ferns DC. Developments in programme management. Internat J
Project Manage 1991;9(3):148–56.
[6] Reiss G. Programme management demystified: managing multiple
projects successfully. Spon Press; 2003.
[7] Pellegrinelli S, Partington D, Hemingway C, Mohdzain Z, Shah M.
The importance of context in programme management: an empirical
review of programme practices. Internat J Project Manage
2007;25(1):41–55.
[8] GAPPS. Defining programme types. Available from: <http://
www.globalpmstandards.org/program-manager-standards/general/
defining-program-types/>; 2008 [accessed 09.10.08].
[9] Shehu Z, Egbu C. The nature of programme management and how
they differ from project management. In: PRoBE conference. Scot-
land, UK: Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow; 2007.
[10] Gareis R. Projektmanagement im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau,
Manzsche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung. Wien; 1991.
[11] De Maio A, Verganti R, Corso M. A multi-project management
framework for new product development. Europ J Operat Res
1994;78:178–91.
[12] OGC. Managing successful programmes. TSO; 2003.
[13] Turner JR, Speiser A. Programme management and its information
systems requirements. Internat J Project Manage 1992;10(4):196–206.
[14] Bartlett J. Managing programmes of business change. 1st ed. Project
Manager Today; 2002.
[15] E-programme. Programme Management. Available from: <http://
www.e-programme.com/>; 2007 [accessed 06.05.07].
[16] PMI. The standard for Program Management. Project Management
Institute; 2006.
[17] CCTA. Management of programme risk. HSMO; 1995.
[18] Burke R. Project management planning and control techniques.
Wiley; 2003.
[19] Reiss G, Anthony M, Chapman J, Leigh G, Payne A, Rayner P.
Gower handbook of programme management. Gower Publications;
2006.
[20] PMBOK. A guide to project management body of knowledge. PMI;
2006.
[21] Turner R. Handbook of project-based management. McGraw-Hill;
1993.
[22] OGC. Managing successful programmes. TSO; 2007.
[23] Maylor H, Brady T, Cooke-Davies T, Hodgson D. From projecti-
fication to programmification. Internat J Project Manage
2006;24:663–74.
[24] Banwell H. The placing and management of contracts for building
and civil engineering work. HMSO; 1964.
[25] Latham M. Constructing the team: the final report of the Govern-
ment/Industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements
in the UK construction industry. Berlin: HMSO; 1994.
[26] Egan J. Rethinking construction: the report of the construction task
force. HMSO; 1998.
[27] Fairclough SJ. Rethinking construction innovation and research: a
review of Government R&D policies and practices. London Depart-
ment of Trade and Industry; 2002.
[28] Kangari R, Riggs LS. Portfolio management in construction.
Construct Manage Econom 1988;6:161–9.
[29] Partington D, Pellegrenelli S, Young M. Attributes and levels of
programme management competence: an interpretive study. Internat
J Project Manage 2005;23:87–95.
[30] De Reyck B, Grushka-Cockayne Y, Lockett M, Ricardo Calderini S,
Moura M, Sloper A. The impact of project portfolio management on
information technology projects. Internat J Project Manage
2005;23:524–37.
[31] Platje A, Seidel H. Breakthrough in multiproject management: how to
escape the vicious cycle of planning and control. Internat J Project
Manage 1993;11(4):209–13.
[32] Denscombe M. The good research guide for small-scale social
research projects. Open University Press; 2007.
[33] Leedy PD, Ormrod JE. Practical research: planning and designing.
Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall; 2005.
[34] Fellows R, Liu A. Research methods for construction. Blackwell
Science; 1997.
[35] Pathirage CP, Amaratunga RDG, Haigh RP. The role of philosoph-
ical context in the development of theory: towards methodological
pluralism. Built Human Environ Rev 2008;1(1):1–10.
[36] Olomolaiye A. The impact of human resource management on
knowledge management for performance improvements in construc-
tion organisations. In: Built and natural environment. Glasgow: PhD
Thesis, Glasgow Caledonian University; 2007.
[37] Hussey J, Hussey R. Business research: a practical guide for graduate
and postgraduate students. Palgrave publications; 1997.
[38] Shehu Z. The framework for effective adoption and implementation
of programme management in the UK construction industry. In:
Built and natural environment. Glasgow: PhD Thesis, Glasgow
Caledonian University; 2008.
[39] Morton R. Construction UK: introduction to the industry. Blackwell
Publications; 2002.
[40] Izard CE. Translating emotion theory and research into preventative
interventions. Psycholog Bullet 2002;128:796–824.
[41] Merriam-Webster. Awareness. Available from: <http://www.mer-
riam-webster.com/dictionary/awareness>; 2008 [accessed 22.08.07].
[42] Oxford, English, and Dictionary. Information. Oxford University
Press; 1994.
[43] Losee RM. A discipline independent definition of information. J Am
Soc Informat Sci 1998;48(3):254–69.
[44] Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. John Wiley Publications; 2001.
[45] QMSS. The Chi-Square tests. Available from: <http://ccnmtl.colum-
bia.edu/projects/qmss/chi_intro.html>; 2008 [accessed 29.02.08].
[46] Kinnear PR, Gray CD. SPSS for Windows made simple: release 10.
Psychology Press; 2000.
[47] OGC. Project Management. Available from: <http://www.ogc.go-
v.uk/delivery_lifecycle_project_management.asp>; 2007 [accessed
10.06.07].
[48] Thomsen C. Program management: concepts and strategies for
managing capital building programs. Construction Management
Association of America Foundation; 2008.
[49] OGC. Programme and project management and careers. Available
from: <http://www.ogc.gov.uk/programme_and_project_manage-
ment_and_careers.asp>; 2007 [accessed 04.06.07].
[50] Williams D, Parr T. Enterprise programme management: delivering
value. Pelgrave MacMillan; 2006.