I manage a team of project managers for a large financial company. I have been trying to develop performance metrics on how many projects a single PM can coordinate at one time. Are there any sources for industry averages or best practice statistics I can use as a reference. I have been scouring the web and am coming up empty handed.
I have had several Dilbert-flavored conversatons about this topic in trying to implement some form of process management.
I too have not found any published metrics--lots of variables in project size that my make accurate data difficult.
Also, semantics: by "coordinating" projects do you actually mean project coordination or project management?
The former activity seems more administrative to me and entails more telephone and email keeping up on things. Using an enterprise resource/project management system, a project coordinator can effectively keep tabs on 10-12 medium sized (under 6 months) projects.
Real world project management is far more intensive, of course. Many of my betters can handle a maxiumum of 5-7 mixed size projects; 2-4 medium ones; and sometimes only 1 complex, large one.
There is probably a positive correlation between the number of projects effectively managed per individual PM and the maturity level of the organzation.
Good question to which I would also like to see more answers. Saving Changes...
A lot depends on project size and complexity, plus oraganization's processes, level of understandinhg of project management, and maturity. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Another spin on this topic... A lot depends on whether or not the PM is managing the project, or if the PM is functioning as the Lead Systems Analyst; i.e. gathering requirements, doing the analysis, making design decisions, etc. If the PM is doing the latter then it is difficult to take on more than 1 or 2 projects of any size. Don't get me wrong... I'm not advocating that a PM is just a project coordinator. The PM needs to stay focused on what needs to be done and when, and making sure it does.. and not spend much time on the "how". PM's who spend much of their time on the "how" issues will never be able to handle more than just 1 or 2 projects at a time. That's why you have a project team. Let them deal with the "how" issues. And yes... that means that you, as the PM, may not be able to answer every detailed question about your project that comes your way. Saving Changes...
Mike Cooper PMPPrincipal Project Manager (retired, sort of)| New England Project ServicesWestford, Ma, United States
One input I would give to this discussion based on my experiences is that if you have about 10 people full time on an IT project, you need a full-time project manager. That is, a PM who is the leader of the team, making sure the team has what it needs, tracking and reporting progress, monitoring and adjusting the plan as necessary, communicating with all stakeholders, etc.
It would be nice to be able to translate this into "one project manager can manage the equivalent of 10 full-time people regardless of how many projects they are doing", but I would not make this leap. It really does depend, as others have said, upon the circumstances.
It is really important to look at each project individually. One project may have stakeholders who require far more communication than another, and therefore put much higher demands on the PM's time. So if you do come across and use some standard formula, remember that all projects are unique and balance the formula with common sense and experience! Saving Changes...
I have been the PM on several large, complex IT projects. One project comes to mind regarding this discussion topic. Engaged in the Project from Scope and Charter through SOW and Award, and into Execution, I was well along in the Project as the PM, and things began to really hum, progress was exceeding expectations, quality was above standard, deliverables were all on time or ahead of schedule, meetings were effective and communications were clear and concise. The Project entailed two fortune 100 contractors, and no fewer than five business units in the organization. Perhaps seven contractor PMs, perhaps 70 people in all. Sr. Managment (sponsors) decided that the PM (me) should be assigned other projects in addition to this one, and that I should spend no more than 30% of my time on this Project. When I made it clear that such a transition would significantly detract from the project in my opinion, thereby contradicting my superiors, I was reassigned without discussion. The new PM was limited to a 30% time allocation to my prior project. The new PM had impecable creditials, board member in a PMI Chapter and so on, and was highly skilled as a PM but had no technical background. It did not turn out that well, but not that badly either. Rather than one Sr. Contractor (VP/Partner to Sponsor with Contracting Officer present) meeting being required per month, three weeks after this transition occured such meetings were happening weekly and sometimes multiple times during the week. The project has not yet been completed, and is presently more than 20% over budget and more than 25% past deadline (late). So, the proper questions, it seems to me, have to do with time / resource and risk. Whose time is better spent doing PM work - VPs and Sponsors, or PMs? What is the acceptable level of Risk, for your organization, your staff, your business, if an overloaded PM can not resolve and manage Project issues and activities? FWIW the Sr. Management has subsequently changed, as has most of the chain of command inside the organization. In other words, if it breaks, it percolates up the chain from the PM spot, and perhaps contrary to the intuitive or business school knee-jerk understanding this is a place where it does not roll downhill. Instead, my view is that the problems baloon, and roll both uphill and downhill at the same time. Just my 2 cents. You can find me at www.dbex.com or [email protected]. Thanks. Saving Changes...
