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?
Richard HowProgramme Management Consultant| How Associates LtdHarthill, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Have to agree with you on that Jim if a company sets up a PMO without a clear remit it will most likely not solve their problems and may well cause more. For a PMO to work it must have a clear remit and the backing of senior management so that when the PMO sets the rules and processes in place the senior management provide the required backing to ensure adoption and adherence.
Saving Changes...
Randy Bennettsr proj mgr| fiservCollegeville, Pa, United States
Jim, you raise a good point. Many studies have pointed to the ROI of a PMO based on more effecient completion of projects. While i haven't taken part in any studies like that, my feeling is that they have the ring of truth.
In my post below I mentioned linking projects to organizational strategy. As reasonable as that sounds, it has been pretty rare in my experience. It's all too easy for projects, which are a tactical approch to solving specific problems, to take on a life of their own. PMI has built an entire standard, OPM3, to combat this situation.
Or, to tie it back to your question, is the problem we are trying to solve the problem right in front of us or is it the root problem the organization's strategy is intended to solve? If we are going for root problems the strategy addresses, a PMO is probably the way to go. Saving Changes...
Terry TannerProject Manager| Dept.of Veterans AffairsDenver, Co, United States
Perhaps the answer to the question lies in the lack of a systematic approach to the analysis of the business. If you view the business as a system, with a "PMO like" org structure as a system component, the where and how of its integration can be deduced. But before you get to that stage, an understanding of the business problem to be solved and breadth/scope of the activities needed to solve it are required. The standard PMO organization fits well with many IT centric projectized organizations, but I don't believe it is a "one size fits all" solution. Project management can be used on many different types of projects (business; marketing; etc.) and must be tailored to those needs.
Is it required in all organizations? Not necessarily. You have to identify the need, figure out where it gets integrated if needed, and what its going to do to provide value. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
To Randy's comment about "..linking projects to organizational strategy..." we come need to question of what P means in PMO. Portfolio management is supposed to align projects with the organization's strategic goals and so a PfMO (?) or SPO should be responsible for that.
Project management (PMO) should ensure that best practices are being followed, provide support for PMs, etc. I don't think you can have a single xMO that does all of those things well. The focus is on different aspects.
Do organizations need one or both or none, can only be determined if the organization has, or recognizes it has, problems that one or the other, or both can address.
If you have a small shop of quality PMs that do their job well you may not need a PMO. If the organization likes that result and they don't care/know that the projects don't align with their strategic vision, then the organization doesn't need a PfMO/SPO. I think this fits in with Terry's last paragraph Saving Changes...
Robert ProlProject Manager| KPMG LLPEast Sandwich, Ma, United States
In my view, a PMO's goal should be to institutionalize project management rigor, with the goal of making the PMO role obsolete.
I know; that's scary. But let's face it, PMO is at its root an agent of change in an organization, and as such eventually reaches the point of diminishing returns. The key is to know when this is happening, and work toward finding a way to morph to a new role/organization.
But I think that what happens, is that the PMO transitions from driving change into a self-serving part of an organization that publishes bloated reams of process documents.
My opinion is free, and worth what you pay for it. Saving Changes...
John ReilingSeeking new opportunities | AcroVision Business Systems, Inc.Mendham, Nj, United States
Agreed, Robert. The PMO. like many other support organizations, should essentially be on trial for its life...but I think its life will be reasonably lengthy. Saving Changes...
Randy Bennettsr proj mgr| fiservCollegeville, Pa, United States
Taras --
You raise some good points and generally I do not disagree. However this runs the risk of becoming a matter of sematics rather than of what is actually happening. My primary example is my current PMO. When it was actually called a SPO it did only what you describe as a PMO's functions: stnadardizing methodology, support, running projects, etc. However now that it is called a PMO it is actively engaged in the strategic direction-setting for the company. As I wrote earlier, no doubt it helps that we are a software company.
My opinion, which may be worth everything you are paying for it, is that for a PMO to have an extended life it needs to move beyond project managemenIie; tactical) and into the organization (ie; strategic). Saving Changes...
Randy Bennettsr proj mgr| fiservCollegeville, Pa, United States
John and Robert offer good reminders that capitalism is a process of creative destruction, while bureaucracy is the mindless preservation of the old.
When I was learning COBOL (yeah, back when we chipped 1's and 0's into card-shapped stone tablets), it was often said that nobody knew what the predominate business coding language would in 50 years, but they knew it would be called COBOL.
I think the same is likely to be true for PMO's. I have no idea what they will actrually be doing in xx years time, but it will probably be called a PMO. And the letters PMO will probably stand for different things than they do now. Saving Changes...
Geoffrey KellySenior Project Manager| Aviva Investors London, United Kingdom
What is apparent is that there is no agreement on what the PMO should or should not do and what its actual name should be and now I read that it is being called Portfolio Management Office.
The XXX (or whatever you want to call it) is different in all occupations in the software industry SPO seams the best approach, in a pure project related environment such as mine (Asset Management) then PMO would suffice.
What has not been explained is do you really need a dedicated group of people to direct / dictate to Project Managers (who are normally employed because of their knowledge and management skills) what they perceive is wrong with their projects? Alternatively, to enact a strategy that is created around how to manage projects and the resulting documentation?
Saving Changes...
Robert ProlProject Manager| KPMG LLPEast Sandwich, Ma, United States
Like all things in life, one size does not fit all. We all must have a contingency-based approach for anything we become involved in.
So there is no answer to what an appropriate name should be. I recently worked for Gartner, and they called the group I was in the Business Transformation Office. What the heck is that? It was dissolved last month. No one could figure out what its role was, and they were the process cops and project prevention group.
If a PMO focuses primarily on documentation, there job is never done because they become a bureaucracy. That's why I believe a PMO should focus on driving common language, common process, and support the PMs. Too often the PMO focuses on showing that the PMs need more training, developing very detailed process documents that don't survive past one iteration (more work for the PMO, resulting in more documents), and forcing PMs to fill out forms that provide metrics to the PMO to make the PMO look good, but add no value to the PM who must fill them out.
The perfect and difficult balance to achieve as a successful PMO is to build valuable tools for the PMs, where the use of the tools generates the metrics needed to measure change. When you are able to meet this need, the PMs will support the PMO and trumpet its value. That's a service-focused PMO. Saving Changes...
