Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
As part of our PMO (large government department), but relatively small staff, we have been developing templates for the following:
3. Governance roadmaps (very complicated in our scenario - project are 10 years plus)
4. WBS/ schedule
5. Project staff sizing tool (again, some of our larger projects have over one hundred staff)
We are now in the process of developing project performance reporting templates, but none of this can even be considered without first having projects build a detailed and comprehensive WBS and then schedule. If a schedule is risk, cost, and resource loaded, it is the only "tool" needed to measure project performance, but how many people really do it?
What will your project management process be, and what type(s) of projects will you be managing? Predictive, iterative, hybrid...? Manufacturing, hardware deployments, software deployments, software development, business process improvements...?
The process(es) your teams will follow will have an impact on the templates/policies/procedures you'll need. You also need to consider the needs of those you will be serving. What does the business need from a PMO?
Some form of proposal/charter will likely be needed, but don't make the process so difficult that the PMO is perceived as an obstacle.
You should also identify who needs to know about the PMO and if any training is needed, across the organization.
These are just a few basic considerations. Look into "Business Driven PMO".
May I ask you what type of PMO you are running in your organization ? I mean if it is Supportive / Controlling or Directive ?
since we are a small compony which has been started his job recently . I decided to setup a supportive PMO . so I have to issue OPA documents at first step .
Can I consider Organization numbering document as a OPA document ? or some forms ( RFQ , TBE , CBE , … ) as OPA documents ?
the type of projects they are ruining mostly are procurements and drilling services .
I am going to issue some forms for TBE , CBE , RFQ , TR , Numbering procedure , …
Am I right ?
We are a supportive PMO.
Sorry, I didn't notice your question. Yes, I would consider an organizational numbering document within the category of an OPA.
First thing to do is to define your project governance process. That will determine the minumun deliverables. Project governance is defined by the organizational governance, I mean, things like SOX controls to fullfil or at list organizational high level risks that could jeopardize organizational stability. So, with that said, what I saw in most of the business are about high organizational risks are:
-Lack of strategy alignement. To solve it you have to have a proposal and the derivated business case approved.
-Lack of funding of resources. To solve it you have to have a project charter approved.
-Lack of requirements definition and understanding. To solve it you have to have something similar to a solution (project+product) requirements specification document approved.
-Lack of solution design alignement to requirements. To solve that you have to have a to have something similar to a solution (project+product) design specification document approved.
-Lack of solution acceptance. To solve that you have to have a to have something similar to a solution (project+product) acceptance document approved.
-Lack of organizational readiness to implement the solution. To solve that you have to have something similar to a solution (project+product) organizational readiness checklist document approved.
-Lack of organizational agreed to close the project. To solve that you have to have something similar to a project close approval document.
Just to remember, there are two key roles that wok in creating a solution: business analyst (basically in charge of all related before a project exists and when the project ends and the solution is in place) and the project manager (in charge of the activities to create the defined solution).
Sergio makes a very important point with respective to strategic alignment. "We" as an organization only really realigned our governance processes with our strategic objectives within the last 5 yrs or so. So now, only projects that are aligned with our strategic objectives can move forward. Furthermore, even in our annual employee objectives, we must align them with the departmental strategic objectives. When you create such a governance framework, it makes things so much easier because everything is much clearer (less ambiguity) for all concerned.
I posted the link to our defence policy before in other threads, but will so again here. Link below, but of interest as it pertains to what I said above regarding personal learning objectives, is the following:
Grow and professionalize the defence procurement
workforce in order to strengthen the capacity
to manage the acquisition and support of today’s
complex military capabilities. This includes the
addition of new procurement specialists and
enhanced training and professional accreditation
for defence procurement personnel.
This is just one of several that I directly reference in employee performance objectives, but with specific tasks.
Strong, Secure, Engaged Defence Policy.
thank you very much for your reply in detail. I will go through in detail in the link u sent and will come back to you if any question raised .
Please login or join to reply