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?
Randy Bennettsr proj mgr| fiservCollegeville, Pa, United States
If any service organization does not deliver value to its clients, then it should not exist. That is as true for PMO's (or whatever it's called) as it is for other groups. I think we can all agree on that. Saving Changes...
James DugganLeader, Asset Management Systems| The City of CalgaryCalgary, Alberta, Canada
Another way of examining this question is by looking at organizations from an operations perspective.
While many would perhaps say that project management is not by definition considered part of business operations, it might be asked why not? Many organizations choose to organize around their operations, or functions (e.g. marketing, sales, manufacturing, etc.).
If it is accepted that one of the major functions within an organization is delivering projects, why would there not be a corresponding organizational unit responsible for projects (e.g. the PMO)?
Organization does not, by itself, solve problems. But, if a function within an organization is important enough, having a unit responsible for the function does encourage efficiency and effectiveness.
Is this not why many organizations organize around function or business operations in the first place?
Saving Changes...
Geoffrey KellySenior Project Manager| Aviva Investors London, United Kingdom
Reading the comments being generated from the various responses to the original question does shed light on peoples understanding and representation or misrepresentation of the PMO functions.
The last response underlines a concern that I have in that most organisations have people who are involved in the PMO who are not Project Managers. They have been placed into the PMO to get a "feel" of the business and what is going on and come from a Business Analysis role and were never quite good enough to become PM,s or are PM,s who have failed in that role. They then try to create an environment that they believe should work.
I do see a lot of advice being given by PMO's who have not been under pressure to deliver and yes, they create a bureaucracy that serves them to show that they have control.
The problem goes higher in organisations in that those at the top cannot relate to the project managers if they themselves have never ran a project from conception to delivery and beyond.
However, the role of the PMO should be responsible to encourage efficiency and effectiveness.
Saving Changes...
Randy Bennettsr proj mgr| fiservCollegeville, Pa, United States
Geoffrey -- Interesting point. I have not had expereicne with PMO's like you describe, but I do not doubt they exist. It reminds me of a time in the 1980's when newly minted MBAs were encouraged to get a job in MIS so they could look around for their perfect job. However, pointing out the situation is only part of the job.
So, what would any of you advise as requirements for someone to work in a PMO? Should they have a PMP, or should we start pushing the PgMP certification for PMO's? There is an organization that claims to offer a certification in PMO. Or is certification the wrong way to go, and should experience rule the day?
I am genuinely curious.
Saving Changes...
Anonymous
I've seen PMOs established by senior management, and led by a senior manager who knows nothing of project management. As small cog in a big machine, interacting with these types of PMOs completely sucks. Milestone lists become project plans, budgets become numbers, and the common language we all love to hold dear and argue about loses all relevance. Try communicating with a leader who knows nothing about project management... Saving Changes...
Anonymous
I don't think that a certification is a prerequisite for working in a PMO. A PMP doesn't make you a better PM. I've known PMPs who couldn't spell WBS let alone create one. I doubt that the PgMP will guarantee any better results.
I also agree with Geoffrey's comment that too often PMOs are staffed using the Peter Principle.
I think some of the criteria for being involved in a PMO are:
a) Broad experience in projects that the organization runs
b) Aptitude for analysis and process design
c) An understanding of the concept of following the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law
d) An aptitude for documentation/writing
When you have a couple of people with that experience you can create an effective PMO. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
A PMO that isn't?
I was speaking with some people last week. They said that they don't have a PMO, but:
- they have 11 PMs that are lead by manager(s)
- they have a common set of processes they follow
- they periodically review their processes to improve them
Sounds like a fairly mature PMO to me Saving Changes...
