Most organisations are in a continual state of change, whether that relates to corporate strategy, competitive position or shifts in legislation, technology or performance. Not surprisingly, finance directors will play a large part in ensuring that their enterprises get the most from their investments in strategic change programmes.

Strategic changes are usually addressed through focused programmes - a series of projects, each having a set of closely linked initiatives to be completed within specific time scales to achieve the overall objective. A programme will usually involve a significant alteration to a major business process; the replacement of more than one technology; a pan-company profit improvement plan; or a business turnaround programme. They have five common components:

• A set of interdependent projects;
• Results that affect more than one function or business unit;
• A number of project managers who report to a programme manager;
• A common control infrastructure;
• Objectives that are likely to be met only if all of the projects are completed as planned.

• The existence of objectives, policies and constraints that are unclear or inconsistent;
• Underdeveloped budgetary controls and management information;
• Insufficient management attention;
• Shortfalls in funding;
• Too many diverse technologies, terminologies and control processes;
• Poorly understood benefits, costs, issues and risks.

Traditional approaches - computerised project management tools, steering committees and the project life cycle approach, for instance - have not proved overly successful. Consider the questions in Panel 2: most firms would not be able to answer "yes" to more than four or five of them. Even if you can answer all of these, you still might not feel confident that the sum of all the programmes would deliver the strategic outcomes you want.

The key question for the organisation remains: will the sum of all the current and planned change programmes produce the required strategic effect? In addition, there are managerial issues. These are the difficulty of co-ordinating many programmes simultaneously, the need to avoid high consultancy fees and the desire to do as much project work as possible internally. Too many organisations also suffer "death by 1,000 initiatives". This is where those who undertake a large number of significant programmes are faced with a vicious circle of unanswerable questions. And, when a firm fails to deliver effective programmes, it may start to take short-term corrective measures that can make it uncompetitive and lead to funding problems. From here, the business loses shareholder value and may mortgage its future.

Many firms simply are not organised and skilled enough to deliver programmes successfully. Programme management may not be recognised in the organisational structure, meaning that the skills required are not continually developed in the workforce. It is unlikely that standardised control procedures and delivery methods will be in place. And, most important of all, it is unlikely that adequate control procedures exist to ensure that the impact of the inevitable midstream changes on one programme will be properly reflected in changes needed by other programmes.

Most programme management methods stress the process of running individual programmes, but you also need to put effort into matching business needs to the total portfolio of programmes. It is also important to see that all roles and responsibilities are covered. This can be helped by arranging for routine changes, such as new product launches, to be handled by those line managers who are responsible for their success.

To deliver many programmes simultaneously, an organisation needs a methodology that gives managers effective and timely control over the key planning and decision-making processes for all programmes, across key parameters of time, cost, resources and benefits. Then it will be in a position to turn vision into reality, simply and consistently, with the following valuable benefits:

• No unnecessary programmes will be started;
• The board retains complete control;
• Managers and their staff will be able to perform well;
• The benefit / cost ratio is maximised;
• Programmes are delivered on time;
• A standardised basis for decision-making by the board is developed;
• The use of expensive management consultants is minimised;
• On-going investor confidence is assured.

There are readily available products that can make these things happen. The most promising ones are those that can be licensed to clients, allowing them to take control of the process, rather than leaving matters with consultants who may not deliver.

It is important that programme management packages cover all aspects of a programme. Often, they take care of the "hard" changes while topics such as culture, employee development and communications are neglected. It is also necessary to ensure that there is an appropriate structure for the size and complexity of each programme, and that all roles and responsibilities are organised for the overall benefit of the programme.

Successful change programmes require all these aspects to be managed so that their benefits are both timely and lasting. A good programme management tool will take care of these matters, ensuring (other things being equal) that the combination of projects is managed to deliver the required strategic outcome, on time and to budget – every time.