I’m really pleased you’ve kicked off the discussion. You may be right by focusing the discussion around ‘Investments’. My only reservation is that in my mind a discussion of investments conjures up the idea of selecting the right investments and delegating the execution to someone else.

If we were to steer the discussion towards ‘execution of strategy through programmes of work’, it seems to me that the concept is less passive with the suggestion that senior managers have a strong role in monitoring and actively interceding as necessary.

I would agree with your comments on “Project” Portfolio Managment, I think the correct level and language at which to consider Portoflio Management is Investments. So think in terms of an Investment Portfolio not a Project Portfolio. Investments will result in Programmes or Projects, depending on their size, complexity, etc. The language of investments is then the right one to engage senior exectuives.

Following some of your earlier articles and blogs I have been reading the State of Victoria’s Investment Management Standard Overview (http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/pages/gateway-reviews-and-best-practice-guidelines-investment-management-investment-management-standard). It seems to me that if you took the guidelines and approach documented here and then manage the full portfolio of investments using portfolio managment techniques you have the right approach.

While I see your point about Programme Management vs Project Management as indeed the OGC MSP standard is all about delivering benefits etc. while PRINCE2 is about delivering an output. I would argue that Programme Management is still the wrong language to use with top managers and one should focus on Investment Management. If really practiced, the process that the State of Victoria Guidelines document surelly give you exactly the right means of engageing senior managers.