The question is also interesting from an organizational perspective. Almost every senior management team I have worked with that has implemented a PMO has absolutely viewed its establishment as a means of creating better accountability for project results. In other words, they hold the PMO accountable for whether projects succeed and fail--and their actions often reflect this.

Most PMOs that I have worked with, however, have most often viewed their role as a facilitator to the projects, but with no real accountability for results. Just like a mountain-climbing guide they are there to help, but whether you get to the top or not is pretty much up to you. Most importantly, these different perspectives are being held by staff within the same organization.

Rather than posing an answer to the question--in part because I genuinely haven't found one yet--I thought it would be of greater value to share the positions I've come up with so you, the faithful readers of gantthead, can weigh in with your views.

In favor of PMOs being accountable for project results:

The PMO is the only organization that has a full perspective of projects and the ability to view all dependencies, issues and risks. As such they are best positioned to intervene to address risks or issues as the projects proceed to best ensure the delivery of all of the projects collectively, rather than just each one individually.

The PMO creates a single point of focus and accountability to senior management for all projects. Senior management has one point of contact for all things project-related, and one voice of accountability to identify where the portfolio of projects is, how it is doing and what decisions senior management needs to make to support it.

The PMO is better positioned to make changes to better align strategy and outcomes. In looking at how projects are to be accomplished, the PMO has a view of the overall strategy and goals. Much like an architecture function in an IT organization, the PMO is in a position to be able to make recommendations and suggest changes to better align projects and ensure consistency of approach. This enables more of a focus on successfully delivering all projects collectively, rather than each project individually.

The PMO has the perspective to fully manage resource availability and allocation. Because they maintain a consolidated view of projects, the PMO is also able to establish a consolidated view of resources. They are also best positioned to manage adjustments and changes to staff allocations and assignments in order to best optimize the use of the organization's resources.

Making the PMO accountable for project results elevates project management to a corporate-level function. By establishing accountability, the PMO also emerges as a more visible entity that sits side-by-side with the operational functions as a legitimate focus of senior management and with a better ability to ensure focus, attention, resources and investment in the projects of the organization.

The PMO is able to better rationalize priorities based upon what is important to the organization as a whole. The accountability and perspective implied by the above points means that a more corporate perspective can be adopted in setting priorities. The mandate for ensuring delivery of the outcomes has to start with making sure that the right projects are being undertaken in the first place, and guiding the definition of projects to ensure they best meet priorities is the essential first step.

In opposition to the PMO being accountable for project results:

Accountability belongs to the business. Making the PMO accountable would be like saying accounting is responsible for bottom line profit. The business units, particularly the profit centers, are responsible for setting strategy, execution and managing costs and revenues to ensure profit, while accounting simply reflects the results. To make the PMO accountable would be to make them answerable for someone else's actions for whom they have no control.

Resources aren't owned by the PMO, they are managed within their business units. Even with access to information about resource assignments and allocations, a PMO cannot reasonably make resourcing decisions because they are not responsible for the staff--the business units to whom staff report have that responsibility. Giving the PMO control over these decisions would rob the business units of control over their staff, who have other responsibilities than just projects.

Giving accountability to the PMO deflects the accountability of sponsors and project owners for ensuring attainment of project outcomes. Just as the business units own the projects, the project sponsors and business owners are the executives that have bottom-line responsibility for their project investments and ensuring that they realize a return. Projects are business decisions, and the business has to own the execution and the outcome.

Lack of accountability creates opportunities for political influence at cross-purposes to the projects. Attributing accountability to the PMO risks removing accountability of the rest of the management team, freeing them to focus on their political agendas regardless of whether those agendas are in the best interests of projects that purport to assist them. Keeping accountability in the business where it belongs makes sure that everyone has to pull together to realize project results.

PMO accountability reduces business unit control over the projects that are important to them. Most projects are done by and for the benefit of business units, not the organization as a whole. Business units need to be able to prioritize their own projects and manage their execution without interference or competition externally. They need their own resources and funding, and the freedom to use that investment in the best interests of the business unit in meeting its strategic goals.

So what are your thoughts? Does your organization today appear to favor one side of the debate or the other? Do the words of senior management say one thing, while the actions suggest another? Or is there clear alignment on where accountability should lie and what that accountability represents?

In the final analysis, these arguments may well define the two extremes of pendulum, with organizations oscillating between them. Just like the ongoing debate about the merits of outsourcing vs. in-sourcing, each choice represents gains and each offers risk. Making a decision requires being able to balance these views and come down in favour of a solution that best works for your organization. Or maybe not. As F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, "The test of a first-class mind is the ability to hold two opposing views at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

Next Column: PMO Accountability--Comments, Kudos and Brickbats?

Mark Mullaly is president of Interthink Consulting Incorporated, an organizational development and change firm specializing in the creation of effective organizational project management solutions. Since 1990, it has worked with companies throughoutNorth America to develop, enhance and implement effective project management tools, processes, structures and capabilities. Mark is also the author of Interthink's Project Management Process Model (PM2), a maturity model that has been used to assess over 550 companies worldwide.