Mark Mullaly’s latest article on Gantthead: “PMO: Seeing Double” indicates that he is seeing more organizations with multiple project offices – an initiative based programs office and an organizational or enterprise project office with general responsibility for projects, methods and management. Mark does his usual fine job with assessment and offering suggestions about how these offices must respect their individual mandates at the same time as working together for the common good.
I’m curious if this occurs elsewhere in organizations? Why do multiple groups ostensibly with the same project management functions co-exist? Or a better question, why do we not have multiple groups within other disciplines – e.g. why don't we have separate purchasing department for projects separate from purchasing for the rest of the organization? Or why not have different HR policies for those in the PM matrix and the rest of the company that gets to report to just one person or group? Is the creation of multiple project-oriented groups significant of a trend we will see expanding to other departments within an organization as project work begins to define organizations? Or is just a symptom of an organization’s inability to reconcile a specific project’s objective from the general practice of using project management principles that leads to this situation?
I’m not suggesting that this is bad or good, rather it is curious. I can’t remember any specific experience where other disciplines have created multiple groups to handle project work differently than the balance of the company’s work.
Saving Changes...
