Imran AfzalAuthor| The Strategic PMOCary, NC, United States
One question has been on my mind lately.
Organizations spend a great deal of time evaluating PMOs based on execution outcomes.
Did projects finish on time?
Did governance mature?
Did reporting improve?
Did portfolio visibility increase?
Those are all worthwhile measures.
But I wonder if they're measuring the outcome rather than the contribution.
By the time a project slips, priorities change, or a major dependency emerges, many of the decisions that shaped those outcomes have already been made.
That makes me wonder whether the greatest value of a mature PMO isn't simply coordinating execution.
Perhaps it's improving the quality of the decisions that happen before execution begins.
Helping leaders surface tradeoffs.
Creating shared understanding.
Bringing the right information into the conversation at the right time.
Helping organizations make better prioritization decisions before resources are committed.
If that's true, perhaps one of the most meaningful questions we could ask isn't:
"Did the PMO improve project execution?"
But instead:
"Did the PMO improve the organization's ability to make better strategic decisions?"
I'm curious how others think about this.
For those leading PMOs, portfolios, or enterprise transformation efforts, what do you consider the most meaningful measure of a PMO's long-term impact?
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
This raises an important question.
I wonder whether the greatest contribution of a mature PMO is not improving individual decisions, but improving the organisational conditions from which consistently better decisions emerge.
When assumptions are made explicit, trade-offs are explored constructively, priorities are aligned and learning is carried across initiatives, better decisions become a natural consequence rather than an isolated achievement.
Perhaps the true measure of a PMO is not the quality of the decisions it influences, but the quality of the decision-making environment it helps create. That capability continues to generate value long after any single project has finished.
...
1 reply by Imran Afzal
Jun 29, 2026 1:03 PM
Imran Afzal
...
Luis, I really like the distinction you're making between improving individual decisions and improving the environment from which better decisions consistently emerge. That shifts the focus from isolated outcomes to organizational capability, which is arguably much more enduring. I also think it reinforces the idea that mature PMOs create conditions for better judgment rather than simply better governance. Thanks for adding another dimension to the discussion.
Saving Changes...
Imran AfzalAuthor| The Strategic PMOCary, NC, United States
Jun 29, 2026 11:14 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
This raises an important question.
I wonder whether the greatest contribution of a mature PMO is not improving individual decisions, but improving the organisational conditions from which consistently better decisions emerge.
When assumptions are made explicit, trade-offs are explored constructively, priorities are aligned and learning is carried across initiatives, better decisions become a natural consequence rather than an isolated achievement.
Perhaps the true measure of a PMO is not the quality of the decisions it influences, but the quality of the decision-making environment it helps create. That capability continues to generate value long after any single project has finished.
Luis, I really like the distinction you're making between improving individual decisions and improving the environment from which better decisions consistently emerge. That shifts the focus from isolated outcomes to organizational capability, which is arguably much more enduring. I also think it reinforces the idea that mature PMOs create conditions for better judgment rather than simply better governance. Thanks for adding another dimension to the discussion. Saving Changes...
I think it depends on the type of PMO/what the business expects from it (or allows) and how the organization is structured. Enterprise PMO? The should certainly ask the questions. That doesn't mean the business will listen. Other types of PMO may not have enough of a voice, or there may be another department (strategy?) filling that role.
Either way, somebody should be asking the questions - preferably before something major goes wrong.
...
1 reply by Imran Afzal
Jun 29, 2026 9:36 PM
Imran Afzal
...
Aaron, I think that's an important distinction. The PMO's ability to influence decision quality absolutely depends on its mandate, credibility, and where it sits within the organization.
That said, I also wonder whether the capability itself matters more than which function owns it. Whether it's an Enterprise PMO, Strategy, Transformation, or another leadership function, someone needs to help make assumptions explicit, surface trade-offs, and improve the quality of strategic conversations before execution begins.
As you said, those questions are most valuable before something goes wrong.
Saving Changes...
Imran AfzalAuthor| The Strategic PMOCary, NC, United States
Jun 29, 2026 1:08 PM
Replying to Aaron Porter
...
I think it depends on the type of PMO/what the business expects from it (or allows) and how the organization is structured. Enterprise PMO? The should certainly ask the questions. That doesn't mean the business will listen. Other types of PMO may not have enough of a voice, or there may be another department (strategy?) filling that role.
Either way, somebody should be asking the questions - preferably before something major goes wrong.
Aaron, I think that's an important distinction. The PMO's ability to influence decision quality absolutely depends on its mandate, credibility, and where it sits within the organization.
That said, I also wonder whether the capability itself matters more than which function owns it. Whether it's an Enterprise PMO, Strategy, Transformation, or another leadership function, someone needs to help make assumptions explicit, surface trade-offs, and improve the quality of strategic conversations before execution begins.
As you said, those questions are most valuable before something goes wrong. Saving Changes...
This is an important approach, since we often consider the main objective of PMO is tracking and measuring project execution, but there are other important characteristics that should be taken into account, like value delivered, risks overcome, project alignment to strategic objectives, team commitment, and client satisfaction.
These are additional metrics that complement the panorama, giving an integral view of the impact the project generates. Saving Changes...
Mark D'GabrielIT Project/Program/Portfolio Manager| RetiredWaterloo, Ontario, Canada
Measuring project success has always been difficult to frame and structure, as well as the actual measurement. Too many things can happen to impact the parameters to make the results "look" better than they are. In one organization, some PMs made a habit of submitting change requests just before closing the project to adjust their baselines to achieve the actuals. That makes the numbers look great, but at the costs of truth. Customers can also make mistakes estimating the potential benefits and often don't track them. It also usually takes 1-2 years to obtain accurate benefits realized. Each parameter can be manipulated one way or another.
Another aspect is that sometimes the best thing for a project is to advise it to be shut down. Conditions and legislation can change, market environment makes some projects untenable. In some cases, the hardest but best thing to do is to advise the customer that their project no longer makes sense to continue based on their success criteria, and they should save their time, money and resources from waste. I've done this a few times in my career, and the customer has always appreciated that I'm honest, transparent and looking out for their best interests.
Although it's at least partially subjective, I prefer using client satisfaction. That can usually apply no matter what the conditions or changes are. They make you focus on the most important aspects of a project: communications and appropriate direct ownership. If the customer feels that you've kept them informed all along, and that they have been involved in the correct way in the correct decisions, they should give you a good score. Using this method, I took one team from a customer satisfaction rating of around 20% up to 80%+ in just 6 months. That also made all aspects of managing projects so much smoother and easier and built solid trust in both directions. Saving Changes...
Robert SnyderFounder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLCChicago, Il, United States
I'm delighted to see "decisions" so frequently in this discussion. I think it's worth exploring how much standardization is possible with decisions.
I believe teams can feel they have an infinite number of decisions. But if a team likes the idea of bundling ideas, the number of decision bundles can be ... and should be ... finite.
A finite number of decision bundles is a powerful asset.
Finite = Explicit. Not rigid. Via Lessons Learned, the organization can and should fine-tune this finite number.
I like the idea of measuring a PMO according to 1) does it maintain a metric "Finite Decision Bundles" or "Finite Productivity?" 2) Does the PMO change this metric depending on Lessons Learned exercises?
The culture metaphors are Decision Traffic Jams and Decision Symphonies. If we gravitate toward standardization of Decision bundles, we can organize these via interdependencies. We can form a Decision Symphony.
Saving Changes...
Robert SnyderFounder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLCChicago, Il, United States
One culture trait that hurts decision quality is the decoupling of authority from accountability.
I'm confident that many of us have experienced occasions where we felt accountable for certain work without the corresponding authority. This means that someone else evidently had authority without accountability. This decoupling sets up teams and individuals for failure.
The RACI framework formalizes accountability without authority.
The Org Chart formalizes authority without accountability.
I don't see the Org Chart going away soon, but this decoupling is a compelling reason to discontinue using RACI and explore a replacement. For the replacement, I'm thinking verbs instead of adjectives. :-)
And this replacement for RACI must solve the problem of decoupling. It must fuse together authority and accountability. Fair?
Project & PMO Manager | Research & Enterprise Mentor| GFB HoldingSouth America, Brazil
In my opnion the PMI PMO Guide actually makes this distinction embedded in its own framework. The PMO Flywheel doesn't start with execution; it starts with understanding strategic context and defining value propositions, exactly the pre-execution decisions your post highlights. The Guide structures PMO value through five domains (Governance, Data, People, Process, Technology), but the flywheel logic reveals a deeper insight: a PMO's long-term impact is measured by how effectively it closes the loop between outcomes achieved and strategic decisions refined.
If the PMO only coordinates delivery, it's a gear in the execution engine,valuable, but replaceable. But if it actively shapes the quality of portfolio-level tradeoffs surfacing dependencies, forcing visibility on opportunity costs, bringing the right information into governance gates before commitments are locked, it becomes the flywheel's governor, not just its accelerator.
That shifts the most meaningful measure from "did projects finish on time?" to "over time, is the organization making fewer bad bets because the PMO's decision-support capabilities have permanently raised the floor on strategic conversations?" That's the transition from PMO as execution coordinator to PMO as strategic decision architect, and the PMO Guide already provides the structure to formalize that evaluation. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
