4.3 KiB
Research ledger
Accessed: 2026-09-05
This skill is an original synthesis. Sources ground the distinctions and practices below, but do not endorse this exact workflow or guarantee program success.
| ID | Source | Supported finding | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | PMI, The Standard for Program Management, Fifth Edition | Programs coordinate related projects from initiation through benefits realization; the 2024 standard is principle-led and adds collaboration as a performance domain. | PMI product page, not a reproduction of the standard; professional guidance, not causal proof. |
| S02 | UK Government Project Delivery, programme/project governance | Governance establishes accountable senior ownership and the framework for managing programmes and projects. | UK government context; this application is an inference. |
| S03 | UK Government Project Delivery, managing a programme or project | Initiation follows authorization and includes a confirmed vision, justification, outcomes, and benefits. | Jurisdiction-specific standard. |
| S04 | UK Government Project Delivery, transition into use | Transition into use includes moving a solution into its intended environment and formal handover of accountability. | Government delivery context; not a universal release gate. |
| S05 | Local Government Association, manage dependencies | Dependency management links programmes, projects, tasks, and resources so changes can be impact-assessed and managed. | Public-sector capability guidance, not independent outcome evidence. |
| S06 | NASA, Risk Management | NASA treats risk management as a formal program/project discipline under agency governance and mission-success policy. | NASA-specific requirements; practices here are adapted, not NASA compliance. |
| S07 | NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Handbook | The requested handbook is a primary candidate for program-level objectives, architecture, technical performance, schedule, cost, safety/risk, and agreements. | The GroktoCrawl run could not extract the PDF, so no handbook-specific claim is treated as verified in this revision. |
Gap map against technical-project-management
The companion project skill owns one bounded project's mandate, method, milestones, risks, dependencies, forecast, change, acceptance, and closure. This skill adds the coordination layer: program mandate and component topology; cross-project dependency and shared-capacity trade-offs; benefit and disbenefit realization; integrated governance; transformation/adoption; program-level escalation; assurance; tranche decisions; and stakeholder views that reconcile local delivery with the shared outcome.
Research findings versus proposed practice
Source findings: programs coordinate related work toward benefits; authorization, accountable ownership, dependencies, risk, and transition matter. Our inference: a technical program needs a causal benefits map, explicit tranche gates, and an assurance path because component outputs are not sufficient evidence of the integrated outcome. Proposed practice: use the new benefits/tranche and assurance templates, adapting their fields to the governing organization and risk class.
Integrity limits
The deep GroktoCrawl artifact (retained as a session-side research record) consulted three sources and produced a useful synthesis, but source completeness was not achieved: the NASA PDF and some UK pages were inaccessible to the crawler. Do not describe those unverified documents as having supplied detailed requirements. Preserve uncertainty rather than filling the gap with plausible program-management doctrine.