Does your PMO see what has not yet reached the dashboard?
 One of the strategic projects is green. Schedule performance is within tolerance. Costs are under control. The main risks have been identified. Expected benefits remain valid, and there is no material change in the value case. Two weeks later, a dependency with another initiative becomes visible. That dependency requires an executive decision. The decision takes longer than expected because ownership was unclear. A key deliverable slips. The next portfolio review shows the project in yellow. The dependency did not appear two weeks earlier. It was already there. What changed was the organization’s ability to see it. That distinction is central to Paul W. M. Cuypers’ book Mastering Project Uncertainty: A Systems Thinking Approach. Cuypers treats project uncertainty as something broader than risk. In his model, uncertainty is also related to information awareness and information availability. A project team may know something, know that information is missing, fail to notice information that already exists, or be completely unaware that relevant information should be sought at all. For a PMO or VMO, that is a useful perspective because it adds another layer to governance. A mature office already looks at delivery, benefits, value, strategic alignment, capacity, dependencies, risk, performance, and portfolio balance. Cuypers’ model does not replace any of those disciplines. It helps examine the quality and completeness of the information behind them. Five places where uncertainty can sitCuypers structures project uncertainty around five dimensions: Assignment, Context, Decisions, Method, and Scenarios. The model is systemic. A weakness in one dimension can propagate into another. An overlooked stakeholder may create a new requirement. That requirement may require another deliverable. The deliverable adds work. More work consumes resources, affects the schedule, and may reduce the expected value of the initiative. The visible delay is only the final symptom. Assignment: Are we still working on the right definition of the project?The assignment dimension covers stakeholders, benefits, deliverables, activities, and resources. That gives a PMO a broader review lens than simple plan compliance. A project may be delivering on time while an important stakeholder has not been properly engaged. Benefits may still appear in the business case even though the causal link between the deliverables and those benefits has weakened. Resource estimates may remain formally approved even though the underlying assumptions are no longer valid. A useful governance discussion can therefore include questions such as:
Context: What is happening outside the project?Projects do not operate in isolation. Cuypers includes prerequisites, constraints, interdependencies, threats, and opportunities in the context dimension. This is where an enterprise PMO has an advantage over an individual project team. A project manager sees one initiative in depth. The PMO can see the system. Two projects may depend on the same specialist. A regulatory approval may affect several initiatives. One programme may be consuming capacity needed by a more valuable investment. A supplier delay in one project may create an indirect dependency elsewhere. Each project can look healthy on its own while the portfolio accumulates exposure. The governance conversation then becomes less about isolated status and more about relationships across the system.
Decisions: What needs to be decided, including what we have not yet noticed?Cuypers gives decision uncertainty much more attention than most project reporting systems do. He separates decision-making into qualifiers, alternatives, rationale, effects, and confirmation. The uncertainty is not limited to choosing between option A and option B. There may be an option C that nobody has identified. The decision criteria may be wrong. The information supporting the decision may be incomplete. The consequences may not be fully understood. And sometimes the most dangerous situation is that an important decision has not yet been recognized as a decision. For a PMO, this suggests treating critical decisions as governed information, not just as meeting minutes. A decision register could include the decision owner, deadline, alternatives, missing information, expected effects, and the future evidence needed to confirm whether the choice was sound. That creates a useful distinction between a risk and an overdue decision. They may affect the same project, but they are not the same management problem. Method: Are we executing the right approach well?Cuypers also treats the project method itself as a source of uncertainty. The method dimension includes approach, techniques, tools, communication, and coordination. That has a direct implication for PMOs that manage corporate methodologies. A project can comply perfectly with the approved methodology and still be using the wrong approach for the work. A highly exploratory initiative may need more adaptation than the corporate standard allows. A project that started in discovery mode may later need stronger control, documentation, and decision gates. A team may be using an agile framework competently while the broader governance mechanism remains inappropriate for the assignment. The governance question is no longer only: Is the project compliant with the method? It also becomes: Is the method still appropriate for the project? That is a more useful question. Scenarios: risk, problem, and crisis require different responsesCuypers also separates plan, risk, problem, crisis, and measures.A risk is a possible future event. A problem already exists. A crisis is a state in which solving the original problem may no longer be realistic and attention shifts toward limiting damage. The book associates different responses with each condition: preemptive measures for risks, countermeasures for problems, and contingency measures for crises. That distinction can improve PMO reporting immediately. Many organizations still use risk registers as repositories for almost every type of adverse information. The result is a mixture of possible events, existing issues, decisions, constraints, dependencies, and assumptions. The label may be convenient. The response is often weaker because of it. How I would apply the model in a PMOI would not create another heavy governance process. I would add an uncertainty review to the existing portfolio or project governance cycle. The review would use Cuypers’ five dimensions as a structured lens:
They can feed the PMO’s existing governance system. Cuypers goes further in Chapter 9 with the Project Meta-Data Technique (PMDT). The technique structures information such as decisions, prerequisites, constraints, dependencies, risks, problems, crises, assumptions, and open questions instead of leaving them scattered across emails, meeting minutes, and personal notes. The model also supports a shared working log and dashboards by information type. That makes the idea particularly useful at the PMO level. A dashboard could track not only cost, schedule, benefits, and value, but also indicators such as:
They help explain what may affect them next. A green project can still carry significant uncertaintyDashboards are good at displaying what has already been identified, classified, and measured. They are much less effective at showing a stakeholder nobody has identified, a dependency nobody has noticed, a decision nobody realizes is required, or an assumption everyone has quietly accepted as fact. That is where Cuypers’ model adds something useful to PMO and VMO thinking. The office can continue to manage delivery, benefits, value, risk, capacity, and strategic alignment while deliberately building another capability: systematically looking for relevant information that has not yet entered the governance system. Risk management asks what uncertain events we have identified. Uncertainty management adds another question: What do we still need to discover before we can make a better decision? Cuypers’ model is primarily project-centred. For a PMO or VMO, I would extend it by connecting uncertainty directly to value, interdependencies and decision-making. A simple Uncertainty and Value Review can be added to existing governance meetings. For each relevant uncertainty, capture:
This adds an organizational layer to Cuypers’ model. The PMO does not merely consolidate uncertainty across projects; it can identify where uncertainty propagates across the portfolio, where value is exposed, and where delayed decisions require executive attention. A useful governance question then becomes: What do we still have to discover? How much value could it affect? Who needs to act or decide, and how long can we wait for the answer? Reference CUYPERS, Paul W. M. Mastering Project Uncertainty: A Systems Thinking Approach. Routledge, 2024. |
Posted on: September 12, 2026 11:28 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (0)
Is the PMO governing projects, or trying to control complexity with inadequate tools?
Categories:
PMO
Categories: PMO
| Few PMO heads openly admit this. However, there is a significant difference between controlling projects and improving the organization's ability to deliver value. Many PMOs confuse these things.
At some point, it is worth asking an uncomfortable question: Is the PMO solving the problem, or merely organizing the chaos in a visually elegant way? The book Doing the Right Project: Using a Systems Thinking Approach to Select Successful Projects raises precisely this type of question. Most PMOs still operate according to a linear logic:
Often, the attempt to increase control begins to reinforce the problem itself. Tools such as Causal Loop Diagrams help to make this behavior visible.
The system then enters a loop. The PMO begins to act as an administrative stabilizer while the organization loses its adaptive capacity. This may be one of the most uncomfortable conclusions: A PMO can increase operational maturity while simultaneously reducing organizational viability. Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model addresses precisely this imbalance between:
Yet many PMOs remain designed to preserve stability in environments that change too quickly. There is another issue. The organizational chart rarely explains how decisions are actually made. Projects may follow the formal governance structure, but influence, priority, and decision-making speed usually circulate through informal networks. Tools such as:
Almost no PMO measures this. Perhaps because it is more comfortable to measure:
Many PMOs believe that the portfolio problem is prioritisation. This is not always the case. Sometimes, the real problem is the organization's inability to stop initiatives. The system continues absorbing demand until it reaches saturation. The Stock and Flow Model helps to reveal precisely this dynamic: the invisible accumulation of work that gradually degrades capacity, collaboration, and delivery speed. This rarely appears in traditional reports. Another relevant issue is that different business areas often interpret the same problem in entirely different ways. While one area perceives “governance,” another perceives “bureaucracy”. While leadership understands “control,” teams experience “delay”. Tools such as: Cognitive Mapping; CATWOE; help reveal these differences in perception before they develop into organizational conflict. Perhaps the most difficult conclusion for many PMO heads is this: A PMO can be highly competent at governing projects and still contribute to the exhaustion of the organizational system. This type of discussion has appeared increasingly frequently in PMO assessments conducted by AIPMO recently. Often, the problem was not:
The problem was the system’s inability to:
Tier 1 assessment helps initiate this type of analysis. It is not merely an operational questionnaire. It is a diagnostic mechanism designed to identify patterns that normally remain invisible in the PMO’s day-to-day activities. Many organizations discover, for example:
The discussion becomes: “How can we increase the organization's capacity to generate value without degrading the system itself?” You can run a masterclass with your team that examines this change in perspective in greater depth. It is not intended to introduce another methodology. Instead, it discusses:
The modern PMO challenge no longer appears to be limited to project execution. The challenge lies in understanding how decisions, governance, and control structures influence organizational capacity, speed, collaboration, adaptation, and perceived value within the system itself. In some cases, this discussion naturally evolves into more extensive PMO transformation initiatives. Not necessarily because the organization wants more governance, but because it begins to recognize that some portfolio problems do not originate within projects. They originate within the organizational system that produces those projects. Nelson Rosamilha,PhD [email protected] |
Posted on: July 15, 2026 01:59 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
From Governance to Execution Intelligence: How PMOs Navigate Complexity
| The traditional PMO toolkit is well known. Governance. Planning. Monitoring. Dependency management. Performance tracking. Decision-making support. All of these remain important. However, there are environments where these mechanisms are no longer sufficient to explain the challenges being faced. Even with more meetings, more metrics, more governance forums, and more controls, organizations continue to struggle with:
A common trap for PMOs is assuming that similar problems require similar responses. When something deviates from expectations, organizations often react in predictable ways:
So..... Are we facing an execution problem or an interpretation problem? Several signals can help answer this.
The PMO moves beyond being merely a coordination mechanism and starts acting as a layer of organizational intelligence. This means observing how different capabilities and services interact to produce outcomes. Because governance alone rarely creates impact. Integration does. Not every organizational tension falls under the PMO's direct responsibility. A useful distinction is to separate three domains:
This perspective prevents the PMO from becoming the owner of every organizational problem. Another important consideration: Having data is no longer the differentiator. The challenge now is transforming information into meaningful interpretation that supports decision-making. One simple practice is reviewing the questions asked during meetings. Instead of asking: Are we on schedule? Consider asking:
This requires triangulation. Combining operational evidence, stakeholder perceptions, and existing organizational capabilities. Complex environments rarely reveal their challenges through a single source of information. Alignment also changes in nature. It becomes a continuous process rather than a one-time event. Some practices that can strengthen the PMO include:
Waiting for complete certainty before communicating often produces:
What we know. What is still evolving. What we will do now. Five Questions for Your Next Meeting
However, some environments require an additional capability. For the PMO, this means complementing discipline with interpretation, connecting organizational capabilities, sustaining decisions under incomplete information, and transforming information into execution intelligence. In complex environments, competitive advantage does not emerge from the quantity of metrics. It emerges from the ability to understand what those metrics are actually saying, to develop the capability to interpret context, connect services, make decisions under uncertainty, and transform governance into measurable impact. This is one of the themes explored in the IPMO Practitioner program, which approaches the PMO not merely as a coordination structure, but as a capability-based system focused on value generation in increasingly complex organizational environments. Nelson Rosamilha [email protected] |
Posted on: June 23, 2026 04:15 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
PMOs Navigating Complexity: From Coordination to Sensemaking
PMOs typically operate through a familiar set of mechanisms:
But there is a type of environment that challenges this operating model. Even with:
The challenge becomes less about controlling execution and more about interpreting context. Not every problem requires the same responseA common trap in PMO environments is assuming that problems that look similar require the same treatment. When something is not working, typical responses often emerge:
A more useful question may be: Are we dealing with an execution problem or an interpretation problem? Some signals can help.
Decisions do not always arrive completeProjects frequently receive decisions accompanied by:
Turning interpretation into certainty. One practical alternative for PMOs is to structure conversations across three levels. What is definedAvailable facts, decisions already made, and current direction.What remains under analysisImpacts, dependencies, validations, and assumptions.What happens nextImmediate actions, follow-up activities, and review points.This separation reduces noise without requiring absolute predictability. Data does not replace understandingMany PMOs already have enough information. The challenge has changed.
Are we on schedule? With questions such as:
The goal is to complement indicators with interpretation. Alignment becomes a process rather than an eventIn more dynamic environments, alignment does not happen only at formal milestones. It needs to be rebuilt continuously. Some practices that PMOs can apply:
It is to prevent different areas from operating with different versions of reality. Communication also changesAnother recurring issue is waiting for complete certainty before communicating. In practice, this often creates:
What we knowWhat is still evolvingWhat we will do nowThis approach improves alignment without creating false predictability. Five questions for PMOs to bring into the next meeting
ClosingGovernance remains necessary. But some environments require an additional capability. For PMOs, this means complementing discipline with interpretation, expanding contextual awareness, and maintaining direction while understanding continues to evolve. |
Posted on: May 23, 2026 11:30 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
How to Measure PMO Impact Practically, Based on Evidence Rather Than Perception
Categories:
pmo
Categories: pmo
| Most PMOs do not measure impact. They measure activity. And they often treat both as if they were the same thing. The problem is not conceptual. It is structural. Impact is not something a PMO “declares.” It must be derived from organized evidence, and that evidence does not emerge from isolated indicators. It emerges from a system. The PMO-Mi Model framework addresses this explicitly: Measurement does not start with impact. It starts with the structure that allows impact to be observed. This implies three distinct layers that most PMOs tend to mix.
The first mistake is using progress as evidence. Common examples include:
These indicators demonstrate execution, not effect. They answer: “What was done?” But they do not answer: “What changed because of it?” This distinction is fundamental. Impact only exists when there is an observable change in the organizational system.
The second mistake is using maturity as a proxy for impact. More structured PMOs often assume: “We have capability, therefore we generate impact.” The data suggests otherwise. Organizations continue investing in delivery capability while still showing significant gaps in converting those investments into business outcomes. Capability measures potential. Impact measures realization. Without evidence of realization, maturity is merely infrastructure.
The PMO-MI model is explicit: Impact is not attributed to the PMO as an entity. It is attributed to the services the PMO performs. This entirely changes how measurement should be approached. The question is not: “PMO impact” The question becomes: “What is the impact of service X within domain Y?” Without this linkage, there is no traceability. And without traceability, there is no evidence.
Another recurring mistake is treating indicators as proof. Isolated indicators do not demonstrate impact. They must be integrated into a coherent interpretation logic. Within the AIPMO perspective, measurement maturity requires moving from data to decisions. This implies:
Without this, the PMO accumulates data but does not generate evidence.
Impact does not appear directly. It must be inferred through observable patterns. For example: Not: “The PMO improved decision-making.” But rather:
And most importantly: A clear connection with the service that generated the effect. Without this structured inference, the PMO remains trapped in perception. The central point If impact cannot be traced, connected to services, and observed in organizational behavior, then it is not being measured. It is being assumed. |
Posted on: May 15, 2026 10:01 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
