When major programmes consistently overrun their budgets by nearly a third, it’s time to examine our approach. Ville Helenius, a programme management practitioner with experience at Deutsche Bank, ING, and Royal Bank of Canada, has completed research at Oxford University that sheds new light on an old problem.
His study, part of the MSc in Major Programme Management at Oxford’s Saïd Business School, found that programmes over £50 million experience average cost overruns of 29% and schedule delays of 33.5%. More importantly, it reveals why traditional approaches to selecting between Agile and Waterfall methodologies may be contributing to these failures.
Background / Context
The scale of the challenge is significant. McKinsey estimates that $57 trillion in infrastructure investment will be needed globally by 2030 just to keep pace with GDP growth. With such enormous sums at stake, even modest improvements in programme performance could yield substantial benefits.
Currently, organisations often select programme management methods based on institutional preferences or industry trends rather than objective criteria. As one study participant noted, method selection can resemble what academics call a “garbage can model” – essentially random choice-making rather than strategic decision-making.
The ongoing debate between Agile and Waterfall methodologies has created camps within the programme management community, but Helenius’ research suggests this binary thinking may be missing the point entirely.
Research Findings Point to Context-Dependent Success
Helenius studied 46 programme managers overseeing 230 programmes across various industries. The participants, averaging 9.2 years of experience, provided insights into both successful and unsuccessful programmes.
The key finding was deceptively straightforward: successful programmes tended to match their management method to the nature of their deliverables. Agile methods worked well for non-physical deliverables like software, where iteration is relatively inexpensive. Waterfall proved more effective for physical construction, where changes during implementation carry high costs.
“Cost of rework means that it is impossible to experiment and iterate,” one participant explained, referring to physical construction projects. Another noted that “Agile works with software as the work is not irreversible.”
Introducing the ProMeSe Framework
The Programme Method Selection (ProMeSe) framework emerged from these insights. It provides guidance based on two key factors: the programme phase and the nature of deliverables.
During initial planning and design phases, where outputs are typically documents and plans, Agile methods allow for beneficial iteration without excessive costs. However, when moving to implementation of physical components, the framework recommends transitioning to Waterfall approaches to minimise expensive rework.
The framework also identifies “irreversible moments of truth” – critical decision points where reversal becomes prohibitively costly. These include safety-critical design decisions, regulatory compliance milestones, and high-visibility public commitments.
The Knowledge-Practice Gap
An intriguing finding was the disconnect between what programme managers know and what they do. When presented with hypothetical scenarios, participants consistently chose appropriate methods: Waterfall for a bridge construction (33 out of 46) and Agile for software development (42 out of 46).
However, analysis of historical programmes revealed that these same principles weren’t consistently applied in practice. This suggests organisational factors may override individual judgment in real-world situations.
Analysis / Discussion
The research challenges the notion that one methodology is inherently superior to another. Instead, it demonstrates that both Agile and Waterfall have their place, with effectiveness dependent on context.
For practitioners, the implications are clear. Rather than adhering rigidly to a single methodology, programmes benefit from a more nuanced approach. Major programmes might use Agile methods for requirements gathering and design, then transition to Waterfall for physical implementation.
The economic implications are noteworthy. With major programmes representing such significant investments, even modest improvements in success rates could generate substantial savings. The research suggests that better method selection could be one accessible route to such improvements.
Several participants highlighted additional factors affecting method choice, including regulatory requirements, safety considerations, and the critical nature of deliverables. One noted that “it is also important to consider… that work is divided into small enough modular pieces” to enable appropriate method application.
Conclusion
Ville Helenius’s research offers a practical framework for improving programme performance through better method selection. The ProMeSe framework provides evidence-based guidance that moves beyond ideological preferences to focus on what works in specific contexts.
The Programme Method Selection (ProMeSe) framework
(c) 2018-2025 Ville-Valtteri Helenius
The core principle is straightforward: use Agile methods where iteration provides value without excessive cost, and Waterfall where the cost of rework is prohibitive. This approach allows programmes to leverage the strengths of both methodologies.
As organisations continue to invest in major programmes, from infrastructure to digital transformation, the ProMeSe framework offers a tool for improving outcomes. The research suggests that success lies not in choosing the “right” methodology, but in choosing the right methodology for each component of a programme.
The challenge now is implementation. Will organisations embrace a more flexible, context-dependent approach to programme management, or will institutional inertia prevail? The evidence suggests that those willing to adapt their methods to match their deliverables may find themselves with a competitive advantage in programme delivery.
About the Researcher
Ville Helenius is a Strategic Programme Leader with over 20 years of experience in senior strategy and transformational change delivery. He holds an MEng in Electronic Engineering from University College London, dual MBA degrees from London Business School and Columbia Graduate School of Business, and completed his MSc in Major Programme Management at Oxford University with Distinction. Ville has led strategic change initiatives at organisations including Deutsche Bank, ING, Royal Bank of Canada, and Deloitte. His expertise spans banking, wealth management, asset management, and energy transition initiatives.