The Arc Of The PMO?

 

In their excellent book The Fourth Turning (New York, Three Rivers Press, 1997), authors William Strauss and Neil Howe point out that our concept of time and progress has changed since ancient times. In prehistorical societies, the view was (probably) of events occurring somewhat randomly with respect to when their tribe might interact with food, or changing weather, or conflicts with other tribes, or reality in general. As humans moved towards a more structured societal setting, we began to observe (and count on) the cyclical nature of events in order to predict when the phases of the moon would occur, or the optimal time to plow, or plant, or harvest, or set up the lottery season for allocating deer-hunting licenses. Some cyclically-based projections, like the best time to launch a Mars probe, represent the best approach to the problems before us. Others, like having formally dressed men pull a groundhog out of a burrow every February 2^nd  in rural Pennsylvania, well, ummm, not so much.

The third concept for interpreting unfolding events mentioned in the book, that of a progressive world view, is a fairly recent phenomenon. This is the idea that things will progress steadily in an upward trajectory, towards an optimal environment for economic, personal, or even managerial success. I believe that this take on how the future can be expected to unfold is both inaccurate and dangerous; inaccurate because Metcalf’s Law (aka the Butterfly Effect) renders such rosy projections hopelessly unquantifiable, and dangerous because it leads to a sense that committing serious resources to attain robustness in our personal lives and organizations represents a waste of time and energy. Why brace for disaster, when the most likely, if not near-certain outcome is going to be beneficial?

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management (Office) World…

Nobody launches a Project Management Office (PMO) with the idea that it will eventually crash and burn. But I’m sure GTIM Nation is familiar with the “Six Phases of a Project[i],”

• Enthusiasm
• Disillusionment
• Panic
• Search for the guilty
• Punishment of the innocent
• Praise and honors for the non-participants

While originally intended to describe the six phases of a project, I’m not so sure that it isn’t an accurate description of the phases of many a PMO. While these “phases” describe a cyclical (and cynical) view of how events unfold, I think that many PMO start-ups operate under the assumption that the superior expected structure is the constantly-improving one. But in order for that to be true, a few elemental features must be in place, specifically:

• The head of the PMO must have, if not the optimal technical approach, at least a workable one in mind,
• …and must be able to articulate a practical implementation strategy.
• The PMO head also must have manageable talent as the technical agenda/implementation strategy is pursued.

The alert reader will recognize that the word “must” appeared in each of the previous bulleted assertions, and there’s a reason for this. If any of these features is ignored or abandoned, ultimate PMO failure is virtually guaranteed, and no amount of pointing to the “proper” way of conducting business in a project-oriented organization will save it.

So, what’s the best strategy for keeping your PMO from following those Six Phases? I think it’s largely contingent on the Maccoby Archetype that’s heading it. Consider:

• A Company Man will only proceed with a technical approach that’s completely consistent with the organization’s norms, as documented in policy and procedure – in other words, a familiar, template-like method. This raises the question: if the template approach works, why does anybody need a manager to implement it?
• To a lesser extent this problem will also afflict the Craftsman. This person will seek to produce a high-quality product/service, which is all well and good, save for those instances where an affordable, available product/service is called for. In that case, we’re probably headed back to the Six Phases cycle.
• A Jungle Fighter is incapable of developing (or even recognizing) the optimal technical approach, and is only in a PMO leadership position due to their ability to influence the higher-ups. Interestingly, they will recognize their deficiency, and will find a Craftsman (or, more rarely, a Gamesman) to develop the tech approach/implementation strategy for them, by showering the Craftsman with attention and promises of promotions. But make no mistake: if this PMO happens upon some level of success, the Jungle Fighter will betray the experts who made it happen. They can’t help it. They simply can’t have the true source of the PMO’s success correctly identified, leaving the JFs on the outside looking in.

GTIM Nation knows where this is headed: your best bet for having your PMO escape the Six Phases cycle, and placed on a trajectory consistent with the progressive model, is to have a Gamesman (or Gamesman-esque) director leading, or at least setting the technical agenda for, the PMO. It’s the only archetype known for being both a master of the “rules” of the “game” being played, and be willing to risk deviating from a formulaic technical approach.

The PMO that believes its fate is entirely driven by random, external forces won’t last long, leaving the successful ones seeing their fates as either consistent with a cycle, or on a long trajectory upward. You want the long upward trajectory for your PMO? Break out of the cycle.

[i] Retrieved from https://www.smart-jokes.org/six-phases-project.html on March 3, 2022, 21:49 MST.