The concept of programme management is relatively new in the built environment. Its need, and continued growth, arises from the expectation that benefits obtained through coordinated management of multiple linked projects are greater than the sum of the individual project benefits. Therefore, programme management provides a systemic approach to achieve common goals and overall benefits.

Having started its life as a public sector tool, programme management has been gaining popularity in the private sector. There are now a significant number of organisations in both sectors, which are involved in the practice of programme management either in the capacity of client, programme manager, or both.

There are a number of documents and publications currently available for the general discipline of programme management. However, when it comes to the specific nature of the built environment – in which there are growing numbers of large and significant programmes – this new Code of Practice leads the way in being an authoritative document for both public and private sector practitioners.

Developed by representatives from the major professional institutions associated with construction and real estate, and from the key public sector organisations, practices and corporations involved with our industry, this document sets out best practice for programme management in the built environment.

I strongly commend the effort by this cross-institutional, public and private practice working group, in leading the way to produce this excellent Code of Practice for our industry. This will be of great value to all the associated clients, programme managers and supply chain professionals, as well as all students of the subject and their mentors. The benefits should be felt by not only those practising in the United Kingdom but also those globally, wherever programme management is gaining in importance as a delivery tool for programmes within the built environment.

This Code of Practice for Programme Management represents a continued effort over a sustained period of time, under the stewardship of Roger Waterhouse FCIOB and David Woolven FCIOB, to produce a practical document for a discipline which spans many industries. Programme management has no single universal definition or accepted standards, it aims to achieve benefits instead of just being time, cost and quality efficient; there are various types and a plethora of associated procedures and processes.

When the CIOB published the first edition of the Code of Practice for Project Management for construction and development in 1992, it was unique in many ways and has since found its place within our industry as an authoritative document. Its popularity has led to successive editions. Now into its fifth iteration, this pioneering document, I believe, will continue to serve the industry well.

This new Code of Practice for Programme Management, has similarly been prepared by a broad representation of the industry, with contributions from built environment specialists and interdisciplinary cooperation between professional institutions which represent our industry. I congratulate their perseverance and persistence in producing this excellent document and thank them all for their valued assistance in the process. A list of participants and the organisations represented is included in this book.

I would take this opportunity to extend a special note of thanks to Arnab Mukherjee FCIOB, for giving the document its final shape and coordinating the editing process.

The interpretations of the key terminologies are based on the current definitions and usage across a number of industries and current good practice. Some of the interpretations are specific to this document. Further references are includes in the Bibliography.

This is the first edition of Code of Practice for Programme Management in the Built Environment. It is a natural development from the highly successful Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development, now in its fifth edition, having been published initially in 1992. It, too, was the first Code of Practice for our industry for project management.

Both codes of practice were developed by representatives from the major professional Institutions associated with the built environment, the Chartered Institute of Building CIOB), Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), Association for Project Management (APM) and from key government departments, industry practices and corporations, both domestic and international.

Just like project management, programme management is not unique to construction and real estate or the built environment, and there are many generic publications on programme management, not least those prepared by government. However, the term ‘programme’ has been used generically across many industries for decades, often in relation to extended projects or activity and time-related undertakings. We have researched many such publications on the way to achieving our aim of delivering a code of best practice for programme management for the built environment.

It is perhaps true to say that the earliest programmes of any strategic significance were those sponsored by government. Hence, much of the early research was focussed predominantly upon publicly funded programmes. This was not dissimilar to the situation for projects in the early days of project management, although privately funded projects were not far behind. However, today the term ‘programme management’ is still not fully understood by many professionals in the built environment. Many think of a programme as just a collection of projects. This Code of Practice is more specific and describes a programme as a collective of related projects coordinated to achieve desired benefits more effectively than when managing them as a group of individual projects.

Why did we choose ‘for the built environment’ and not ‘for construction and development’ as we did for the project management Code of Practice? Well, one of the key differences is that within the built environment there are many projects which are not construction or development related. For example, if we consider some of the client sectors involved in creating new facilities and/or infrastructure such as highways, rail, airports, shipping or nuclear and so on, all of these are likely to incorporate projects which are not related to construction. These may include disciplines such as information technology, human resources management (HRM), transportation, marketing and so on. Indeed, even mainstream construction developments may include similar disciplines as self-contained projects within their own programme.

There is another difference between ‘project’ and ‘programme’. Whereas traditionally the former is measured by the criteria of time, cost and quality, the latter is determined and measured by the strategic objectives and the benefits to the client organisation which might otherwise not have been realisable had the projects been managed independently.

Furthermore, time has shown that where there are multiple (related) projects within a parent organisation which are being independently managed, issues such as the lack of coordination and overall control can arise. This can affect efficiency and effectiveness, which would lead to confusion over the responsibility and control of these projects.

From a stakeholder prospective, programmes can create value by improving the management of projects in isolation. This is particularly true where the working environment involves multiple small projects, where project integration, in terms of both development and deliverable benefits, is crucial for competitive success.

The need for programme management in the UK construction sector has probably arisen due to a number of factors: (i) The size of projects has generally increased in scope and expected benefits, and we expect more, sooner. (ii) Competition has increased. Just look at how the Olympics have developed from major projects to programmes, with each one trying to equal the previous country`s output/benefits. (iii) There is an increase in desired benefits due to growing ambition and availability of funding. Together, clients see a programme of related projects as posing less risk than a number of individual projects when considered alone.

The fifth edition for Project Management continues to provide the relevant guidance and procedural requirements for the successful management of individual projects. We have now developed the client-led single project into a group of related projects, the programme, for the corporate client. This Code of Practice, therefore, brings together the elements of functionality and procedures specific to the coordinated management and successful delivery of a number of related projects within the built environment focussed at the programme level.

The ‘programme’ is approached stage by stage, where the fundamental benefits cycle is identified (Figure 0.1). This is central to the drivers of the programme, with key functions and outputs (Figure 0.2) being highlighted in every stage and with clear ownership allocation for each output (Figure 0.3). Given the scope for variations in terminology and approaches that are possible within the practices of programme management, this code establishes a clear and consistent process for managing programmes, regardless of their size, nature or complexity.

Building information modelling (BIM) and programme management

BIM is a collaborative way of working, underpinned by the digital technologies which unlock more efficient methods of designing, delivering and maintaining physical built assets. BIM both embeds and links key product and asset data in a series of domain and collaborative federated models, consisting of both 3D geometrical and non-graphical data. These models are prepared by different disciplines during the project life cycle within the context of a common data environment. The project participants provide defined, validated outputs via digital data transactions using proprietary information exchanges between various systems in a structured and reusable form. These digital computer models can be used for effective management of information throughout an asset’s life cycle, from earliest concept through to operation. BIM has been described as a game-changing information and communications technology (ICT) and cultural process for the construction sector. A number of countries globally are starting to realise the opportunities BIM brings and are now investing heavily to develop their own capability. BIM processes are now mainstream to both new buildings and infrastructure and have great value in retrofit and refurbishment projects where complimentary technologies such as laser survey techniques and rapid energy analysis are employed.

At the heart of successful programme management is communication, information exchange and integration. BIM, as a management tool, has the ability to influence successful programme management, particularly in context of programmes involving capital assets.

The UK Government’s Digital Built Britain (DBB¹) strategy, built around the comprehensive utilisation of BIM tools, asset telemetry and real-time performance data, uses advanced computer systems to build 3D models of infrastructure and hold large amounts of information about its design, operation and current condition. At the planning stage, it enables designers, owners and users to work together in an integrated and concurrent manner to produce the best possible designs and to test them in the computer before they are built. In construction it enables engineers, contractors and suppliers to integrate complex components, cutting out waste and reducing the risk of errors. In operation it provides customers with real-time information about available services and maintainers with accurate assessments of the condition of assets.

In context of programme management, BIM can prove to be a vital management tool, utilised both at project level and at the programme level, to become a critical and necessary part of the data and information exchange, as well as the delivery of the programme and the benefits envisaged.

The decision to utilise BIM may be taken at the initiation stage and should form part of the programme business case.