MSP-Practitioner Questions and Answers

Programmes aimed at political and societal change face lower success probability when outcomes are vague or have long-term horizons that are difficult to define and measure. The MSP Practitioner explains:“Vaguely defined outcomes decrease probability of success.”Long-term societal effects are often uncertain and harder to control, thus reducing the clarity needed for successful programme management and delivery.

Designing the Projects Dossier is a key activity in the 'Defining a Programme' process. The Projects Dossier is a comprehensive document that defines all the projects within the programme, detailing their scope, objectives, interdependencies, and delivery approach.

The MSP Practitioner states:“Only project dossier is created in defining programme from available options,”emphasizing that managing transition, producing the Programme Brief, and aligning projects with benefits realization occur in later programme stages.

Developing a well-structured Projects Dossier is critical for effective programme planning, control, and coordination of project delivery to achieve overall programme benefits.

Although the Sponsoring Group formally gives the approval to proceed, the accountability for this approval rests with the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO). The MSP Practitioner notes:“Approval to proceed is always given by Sponsoring group on recommendation from SRO. SRO is accountable for it.”This means the SRO takes responsibility for ensuring the programme is ready to move forward and manages the formal approval process through the Sponsoring Group.

The process of how issues will be identified, captured, and assessed isnotrecorded in the Issue Register itself but is instead documented in the Issue Management Strategy.

The MSP Practitioner clarifies:“How to deal with issue is identified in issue management strategy,”meaning the register contains actual issues with details such as date raised, description, and categorization but not the procedural approach.

This distinction ensures that the register remains a real-time log of current issues while the management strategy defines policies and processes for consistent issue handling across the programme.

Maintaining this separation improves clarity and operational efficiency in issue management.

The false statement here is that the SRO acts as the Project Executive on all the Project Boards. The MSP Practitioner explicitly clarifies that the SRO does not take on this project-level responsibility. Instead, the SRO’s role is to provide overall accountability for the programme and to ensure the programme delivers its intended outcomes and benefits.

The SRO holds a senior position with enough authority to make decisions and secure resources and is typically a peer of the Sponsoring Group to ensure alignment with corporate strategy. The Sponsoring Group appoints the SRO to oversee the programme’s governance and delivery effectively.

Project Executives, in contrast, represent individual projects within the programme and report to the SRO via the programme governance structure. They focus on delivering specific project outputs, while the SRO’s responsibility is to coordinate these efforts to achieve strategic benefits.

This distinction is vital to MSP’s governance architecture: it prevents the SRO from being burdened with operational project detail, allowing focus on strategic oversight, stakeholder engagement, and benefit realization.

The MSP Practitioner states:“SRO doesn’t act as a project representative,”underscoring the clear division between programme and project governance to maintain effective control and leadership throughout the programme lifecycle.

The principle“Remaining aligned with corporate strategy”requires programmes to be both robust and flexible, enabling them to adapt to frequent and sometimes radical strategic shifts. The MSP Practitioner clarifies that“Programmes need to adjust to strategic changes of organization so they should be robust and flexible to achieve that.”This principle ensures programmes remain relevant and aligned throughout their lifecycle despite changes in organizational priorities or external conditions, enabling successful transformation delivery.

The critical organizational elements in MSP include Corporate strategy, Delivery mechanisms for change, and the Business as usual environment. Delivery mechanisms for change refer to the structures and processes organizations use to implement and manage changes introduced by programmes. These elements are foundational to effective governance and ensure alignment with strategic objectives. Other options like Leading change and Stakeholder engagement are important but classified differently within MSP's framework.

'Leading change' principle in MSP focuses on driving transformation through the right leadership, engaging stakeholders actively, and fostering innovative solutions. However, getting approval from the sponsoring group is not considered part of this principle but rather a responsibility addressed in programme organization under governance themes. Approval processes are formalized separately from the leadership approach.

One of the key outputs of the 'Defining the Programme' process is establishing the Governance Baseline. This baseline sets out the governance framework, including roles, responsibilities, controls, and decision-making structures that will apply throughout the programme lifecycle. Defining the governance baseline early ensures clear accountability and oversight, which is vital for managing complexity and risk in transformational change.

The MSP Practitioner explains that during 'Defining the Programme,'“Governance is baselined”to create a robust foundation for programme control. This process involves formalizing the authority of the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), the programme board, and other governance roles, ensuring they are empowered to manage and oversee programme activities effectively. It also includes establishing reporting lines, approval mechanisms, and quality assurance controls to maintain programme integrity.

Without a clearly defined governance baseline, programmes risk poor decision-making, ambiguity in responsibility, and inconsistent oversight, which can lead to scope creep, misalignment with strategic goals, and failure to realize benefits. The governance baseline serves as a reference point against which programme performance and compliance can be measured, enabling corrective action when deviations occur.

In summary, the Governance Baseline is a critical control output that defines how the programme will be directed and controlled, safeguarding successful delivery and alignment with corporate strategy throughout the programme’s life.

Levels of confidentiality and information security requirements are documented in the Information Management Strategy. This strategy sets out how information will be handled throughout the programme, covering aspects such as access rights, data classification, storage, and dissemination protocols to protect sensitive information.

The MSP Practitioner specifies:“Confidentiality details are defined in Information management strategy,”indicating that this document governs the secure management of programme data and communication. It is essential that confidentiality levels are clear to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive information, which could jeopardize the programme’s success or breach legal and regulatory obligations.

While Quality Management, Resource Management, and Benefits Management Strategies address different governance aspects such as assurance, resource allocation, and benefit realization, they do not primarily deal with confidentiality.

Information management is critical for stakeholder trust, compliance with legislation (e.g., GDPR), and safeguarding intellectual property or competitive advantage. Clear documentation in the Information Management Strategy ensures that all programme participants understand their responsibilities regarding confidentiality, promoting consistent and secure handling of data.

Approval to proceed at this stage authorizes work on all projects within the first tranche of the programme. The MSP Practitioner explains:"Approval to proceed is for first tranche, at end of that tranche, Go/No Go decision will be taken for next tranche,"meaning that the programme is phased with controlled progression through tranches rather than approval for the entire programme upfront.

Both the Business Change Manager (BCM) and the Programme Manager share responsibility for aligning projects with benefits realization. The MSP Practitioner highlights that“Both roles are responsible for this task as projects are overseen by programme manager, and benefits are under BCM supervision.”

The Programme Manager ensures that project outputs are delivered on time, within scope, and aligned to programme objectives, while the BCM ensures that these outputs translate into tangible benefits once transitioned into operational use.

This dual responsibility ensures seamless coordination between delivery and realization functions, bridging the gap between project outputs and strategic outcomes. Without this collaboration, there is a risk of projects delivering outputs that fail to produce the intended business improvements.

Together, the Programme Manager and BCM form a critical partnership in MSP’s approach to ensuring benefits are fully realized, tracked, and maximized throughout and beyond the programme lifecycle.

The Project Brief is a key document that describes the purpose, cost, time, performance requirements, and constraints of a specific project. It acts as the initial detailed definition of a project within the programme context. The MSP Practitioner states:“Project brief describes purpose, cost, time, performance requirements and constraints of a project,”highlighting its role in defining project scope and parameters, which supports effective project delivery aligned to the programme objectives.

In MSP, threats are negative risks that could impact the programme adversely. Valid responses to threats include Avoiding, Accepting, or Reducing the risk to mitigate potential harm. However, “Enhance” is not a valid response for a threat because it implies increasing the likelihood or impact, which is contrary to risk management objectives.

The MSP Practitioner states:“Threats should be minimized not enhanced,”reinforcing the principle that risk responses should focus on reducing negative effects or avoiding risks altogether. Accepting a risk might be chosen when mitigation is impractical or cost-prohibitive but still requires monitoring.

Understanding and applying appropriate risk responses is vital to effective programme risk management and maintaining control over uncertainties that could derail delivery.

The progression of stakeholder engagement levels, as a stakeholder’s influence increases, follows the sequence:“Keep informed, maintain interest, active consultation.”This reflects a growing degree of interaction and involvement.

Initially, stakeholders should be kept informed to maintain awareness. As their influence or importance increases, programmes must maintain their interest by involving them more proactively. Finally, for highly influential stakeholders, active consultation is required to ensure their views are heard, concerns addressed, and their support secured.

The MSP Practitioner explains:“This option signifies increasing interaction with stakeholder,”emphasizing that engagement strategies must be tailored according to stakeholder influence and interest to maximize positive impact and minimize resistance.

This graduated approach ensures resource-effective stakeholder management, helping to build trust and alignment throughout the programme lifecycle.

Learning from Experience isnotclassified as a Governance Theme but rather a Programme Management Principle in MSP.

The MSP Practitioner clarifies:“Learning from experience is Programme management principle,”which means it influences how programmes are managed but does not constitute a governance theme.

Governance Themes focus on structural elements such as Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement, Quality Management, and Organization, which provide the framework and controls for programme delivery.

Understanding this distinction aids in correctly applying MSP components to programme design and governance structures.

The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) is accountable for confirming programme closure. This responsibility involves assessing whether the programme’s Business Case objectives and benefits have been satisfactorily met or if the programme is no longer viable.

The MSP Practitioner states:“SRO will confirm programme closure if business case is satisfied or unviable.”The SRO ensures that all closure criteria, including benefit realization, risk mitigation, and stakeholder expectations, are addressed before formally closing the programme.

While the Programme Manager manages the operational closure tasks and the Sponsoring Group provides governance oversight, ultimate closure accountability rests with the SRO to ensure a controlled and successful programme conclusion aligned to strategic goals.

The Business Change Manager (BCM) supports by confirming benefits status but does not hold closure authority.

This clarity in accountability prevents premature or inappropriate programme termination and ensures a thorough and accountable close-out process.