I wanted to ask this question to provoke a little debate, but it is a serious question:
Are PMOs really a good idea? Is there a better way bring project management to a company? Is there a better way to meet organizational goals? Are there situations where PMOs are a bad idea?
I am sure many of the people here will post saying "Yes, they are valuable!" After all, the people in this group are PMO supporters. I would ask everyone to think seriously about the question, though.
Personally, I was part of a "Strategic Planning Office" (SPO) at MSIG USA, and I found that it was much more useful than most PMOs. I was in charge of project management standards, but I was also working for the Chief Planning Officer, who was responsible for overall strategy at the insurance company. My role was to help him use project management to implement and execute the strategies.
Personally, I strongly recommend companies not to create PMOs, but instead to align PMO-like groups to specific functions within the company, and not to call them "Project Management Offices". After all, a PMO can be a target for head-count reductions, or it can get out of control with its PM-only focus, losing sight of the organization's goals. I like to see project management contained in an "office of the CIO" or "office of the President" or even better, aligned with the strategists and business planners in the organization.
Also, Michel Thiry did an interesting speech at the 2007 PMI North America Congress, challenging the idea that PMOs are really the final, ultimate goal. He characterized them as a "stepping stone" to greater strategic alignment with the organization. He suggested that the next step after the PMO is for project management to become so much a part of the fabric of the company that no special "Project Management Office" is even required. The title was "From PMO to PBO: The PMO as a Vehicle for Organizational Change". He talked about the short life-span of many PMOs, but offered hope that they can lead companies to become "Project Based Organizations (PBO)" even as they are closed down.
What do you think? Should PMOs be established? Should they be short-lived? Is there another step that we should all be working towards?
This is cool! You beat me in posting this question.. hahaha.. just kidding :-). Actually, I am in the opinion that a PMO may not be necessary in an organization. What is important is the organization knows why it has no PMO or on the other side, why it has a PMO. What is sad is that companies on the outset create a PMO without really identifying business goals aligned with the creation of the office. Sometimes, the primary objective is to just make the PMO "oversee" the company's projects without specifying what is "overseeing projects" mean. Saving Changes...
Geoffrey KellySenior Project Manager| Aviva Investors London, United Kingdom
An interesting question but I must counter it by asking:
What is a PMO? as I have read so many views on what it does, how it should do it, why it should do it and now should they do it all!
Once you have established the criteria for the PMO and ensured that it has performed to those criteria then if it does not work, you can then look at alternatives.
I find that people look at alternatives as a tactic the old adage explains, “a bad worker always blames his tools" this is no different.
Erick is correct when he says, “What is sad is that companies on the outset create a PMO without really identifying business goals aligned with the creation of the office"
PMOs to me do not manage projects if they did I for one would be out of a job.
Alex has been mixed up between the PMO and a strategy group both are different and have different goals a pity.
PMOs are more involved with Tactical solutions dealing with issues affecting the business today whereas the strategy group should be looking at what is going to impact tomorrow.
Alex puts Michel Thiry speech at the 2007 PMI North America Congress, challenging the idea that PMOs are really the final, ultimate goal as a potential model for the future.
I am aghast at the thought it is not a stepping-stone to the future but a backward step as most people at a strategy level are looking to create / develop but the PMO should remain the flagpole and allows others to rally around and to provide answers and solutions for the future.
Remember that your past dictates your future
Saving Changes...
Richard HowProgramme Management Consultant| How Associates LtdHarthill, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Interesting question, I have to say I was a little intrigued by this bit
"I was in charge of project management standards, but I was also working for the Chief Planning Officer, who was responsible for overall strategy at the insurance company. My role was to help him use project management to implement and execute the strategies."
I would have said that setting the project management standards and helping people to use Project management to implement things was one of the Key functions of the PMO. Saving Changes...
Mark HipwellSr. Project Manager| Jaguar Land RoverAshby De La Zouch, Leicestershire, United Kingdom
this thread has predictably uncovered the different meanings we all take from the shared terminology we use (project management office, program management office, and portfolio management office). One of the best explanations I've seen is by George Hunte (posted on cio update: http://www.cioupdate.com/insights/article.php/3722191). Using George's definitions, which PMO are we discussing here? Saving Changes...
Debbie Clemons, PMPEnterprise Application Project Manager| AvailityJacksonville, Fl, United States
We have both the SPO and the PMO. The SPO does the strategic planning and controls which projects fits those plans. This group consist of a higher level of management than the PMO.
The PMO provides the standards that all projects are to follow once approved. Standard templates, tracks the project progress and reports status to management.
PMO has a different meaning to many and the greatest error most make is not defining the roles and responsibilities prior to creating one. While they could be combined into one group the two serve a different purpose.
Debbie
Saving Changes...
John ReilingSeeking new opportunities | AcroVision Business Systems, Inc.Mendham, Nj, United States
I agree that PM, and therefore PMO, is tactical and implementation oriented. Strategy comes from elsewhere, and PM is driven by that strategy. Without the strategic component in place, PM will not be effective.
I do not think an organization should consider setting up a PMO without a clear goal for what it wants to achieve, and clear metrics for measuring success. Saving Changes...
Jaime TaylorSenior Project Manager| Navitor Inc.Saint Peter, Mn, United States
Answering the original post and question; yes we all should be striving for more. PMO is certainly a step in the right direction but is not necessarily the final destination. The PBO is what we are striving for as organizations move from burning platform to stability to continuous improvement. Organizations will likely move through stages of sophistication in its ability to manage inputs and outputs. Organizations that are enlightened will understand and build through these stages with intent. That is to say that a PMO without context and organizational strategy is hardly a PMO. But is instead a well intended structure with little respect from the organization and therefore little impact relative to the organization as a whole.
This question is also dependant on the type of organization. PM is difficult enough as a concept in a Functional Organization (an organization at the lowest level of PM sophistication) and therefore a PMO there will be more difficult. PM can and will provide value here with strong-willed PMs, but PMO requires much more. Having said that, a performing Functional Organization may never have a need to evolve much past the PMO. For example, a highly functioning manufacturing organization that requires more traditional functional areas (sales, warehouse, production, customer service, shipping, finance) may not be well suited for a PBO were as a consultancy would be much more suited as they are in the business of managing projects.
It is more likely as organizations develop and grow that they will become more sophisticated. These more sophisticated organizations are more likely to develop areas of the organization that would be appropriately structured as a Projectized Organization (PBO) like R&D and CI. Where as for the other functional areas, a PMO is as good as it ever needs to get. So what I see more and more are these hybrid organizations which contain much of the PM spectrum rather then one of the possible structures.
Saving Changes...
Randy Bennettsr proj mgr| fiservCollegeville, Pa, United States
I think PMO's are necessary for organizations that rely on projects as a way of operating. PMO's are important for organizations where the PM maturity is fairly low, becaue a PMO can lead the improvement in maturity. PMO's are also important for organizations with higher levles of PM maturity because the PMO can help align projects with strategy.
My present employer has a PMO, where I am located. Before that it was called the "Strategic Project Office" (SPO). Based on my understanding the SPO operated as a lower-maturity PMO and provided very little of strategic importance.
The PMO, regardless of the name change, is far more involved in strategy. We are involved in product management through to operations. It probably helps that we are a software developer. The difference between the two organizations is leadership. We defined the benefits for other departments of collaborating with a PMO and started a non-stop communication program. A part of our communications program is to break through the silos that exist in the company. We also have leadership who thinks strategically and leads operations in a similar manner.
So, PMOs are a good idea, but they are an even better idea if the PMO staff focuses on it ROI -- Relationships, Outcomes, and Interest. Saving Changes...
Joe MooneySenior Technology Project Manager| Independent ConsultantOviedo, Fl, United States
I don't know if a "PMO" itself is always needed, but following the best practices of project management are. I look at the PMO as an enabler more than a PM Police Force, helping project managers to contain the can of worms that a complex project can become.
It really depends on the organization, but if a small organization is very good at managing their projects, a PMO may just add an unnecessary layer of administration. My firm has existed for many, many years without a PMO, and they have been profitable. But they have come to the realization that in this day an age of needing instantaneous information a PMO can facilitate improved control and reporting.
So the political answer is that for some a PMO is a good idea, but for others it may be overkill. Saving Changes...
James DugganLeader, Asset Management Systems| The City of CalgaryCalgary, Alberta, Canada
I wonder if we need to back up even further and ask the fundamental question; "What business problem are we trying to solve?" by creating PMOs.
I guess I can't help but reflect on my experience in seeing PMOs or PMO-like groups being set up to solve project problems, without really taking some time to clearly understand what the problem is. This invariably results in questions being asked as to what value the PMO is providing.
It is only by clearly understanding the problems that a clear link to benefits and value may be established.
It is sometimes important to ask different questions in order to not predetermine the solution.
The problem will differ from organization to organization. It is a clearly defined problem that will ultimately drive what the PMO function and structure should be, and, what value will realized.
Saving Changes...
