Mark MullalyPresident| Interthink Consulting IncorporatedToronto, Ontario, Canada
I recently posed the question: if you could design your perfect PMO -- the PMO that you would want as a project manager -- what would that be?
Would you want a PMO that is an active supporter, advisor and coach? Or a passive source of information? Should the PMO be a laissez-faire source of information, to use as you will? Or an active influencer in ensuring projects are successful?
Weigh in and provide your perspective. Contribute to the design of the perfect PMO. Your input and comments will provide the basis for a continuing series of columns in the Program Management Office department.
I was moved from my project management role to involvement in implementing a PMO for our organisation. In this case, the change was driven from top-down, but I was also keen to see it happen since I saw it as an opportunity to address the problems I'd identified as a PM. Unfortunately, there was no attempt at change management, stakeholder input was not sought, the project had no real grounding in the existing process flows of the organisation, and as a result the project floundered.
What I saw as being an ideal PMO was a combination of standardised tools and processes, and a point of consultative contact for PMs to utilise - even if just to ask "any ideas on what's the most effective way to lay out this project plan?" I also knew that it was vital for upper management to have a more accurate picture of project status, especially with regard to enterprise-wide capacity planning - do we have the resources to take on this contract?
The company's approach to the PMO implementation was a large contributing factor to my resignation (as I saw the same approach being employed on the second attempt at a PMO). However, I would suggest that a PMO is not a special case - as Mark has suggested, it's like 'most organisational change'. I would hazard to suggest that the prevalence of successful PMO implementations would be roughly proportional to the prevalance of organisations with mature operations. That is, if the organisation has been successful in getting things right, they'll be more likely to get a PMO right. It's just another project, it's not rocket science... Saving Changes...
I am a firm believer in a PMO that is designed to support PMs and provide specialist skills in planning, project documentation and governance procedures. I believe that any attempt to make PMO into a Project police Force is doomed to failure they are simply not qualified for that role. Projects should be policed by the project board not an intermediary body. If management want to know what is going on they should read the updates provided. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
The PMO has developed from 2 distinct areas. 1) the admin need of the lazy or unskilled PM ( no sorry the PM's who fully understands their time constraints & skills gaps and manages accordingly) . 2)The Project Board who cannot trust individual PM's with various, inconsistent approches to visibility, delivery, issue management etc. or are just not skilled in Project Management. We have all recognised the need to enhance sponsor behaviour and capability. Lets not assume just because they are in that position, they are at the top of their PM game. Why would they be? The assumption presented assumes that the Board haven't read the updates ( which I would suggest would please a lot of PM's). Maybe they have read hundreds and the information provided just does not do it. With conflicting priorities, why should they focus on your project? What have you given them that would activiate them? I personally feel it is the projects responsibility to ensure the messages are delivered and understood. The question is why are the Board not reading updates? Then the PM should act accordingly and not abdicate the repsonsibility. This is where a an excelling PMO should play, always with the focus of deleivering the best outcome and ensuring they bridge these gaps. Ensuring that they de-risk anything that will de-rail a successful outcome. Project Police force sets up a binary relationship of offender and protection of law. We need to move away from this to where it is seen as an enabler to delivery. Its everyones within the project repsonsibility to help shape the PMO. It does not exist in isolation. Which is why I welcome the original question. If anyone is still rteading this and not asleep(?) I would suggest there isn't one and we need to differentiate Project Support from PMO. Saving Changes...
As a PM I would like the PMO to be an active supporter, advisor and coach as Mark has put it. But what would the PMO need to do to be so active? Would they have enough human as well as other resources to be actively communicating with all the 'formal' and 'informal' project managers in the organization on a day-to-day basis? Wouldn't it be simpler if they had access to project planning and performance data? However, sharing of project data outside of the project is always tricky business without the element of trust being there. Without the trust, the PMO would be considered 'Project Police'. The best way for a PMO to build trust is to get buy-in from the project managers and inspire a sense of ownership in them.
One of the things that I would do is to catch people doing things right, “Look Brad, what you’ve done in this project is just great. Let’s get together and look at how we can help others do the same thing in their projects?” The PMO can look for small best practices from different projects and give most if not all project managers a sense of ownership in the PMO. This will also help in leveraging the existing practices instead of imposing new ones from outside. I believe that from this foundation of trust and ownership, the PMO can build up their role of active supporter, advisor, and coach.
However, this is one side of the story. The PMO also needs to justify its existence to the senior management. What advantages are we getting out of the PMO’s function? Why establish a PMO in the first place? Aren’t our current project managers competent enough to take care of their projects? Why isn’t a central repository for policies, processes, templates, and guidelines enough to support the projects? The answers to most of these questions seem obvious and shouldn’t be a problem e.g., a central repository is normally forgotten overtime if no one is actively advocating and monitoring its use and updating the repository contents by way of improvement.
Though the answers to the above questions seem obvious, senior managers are mostly interested in business objective terms. The PMO must add value to the status reporting from the projects by aligning it to the business objectives of the organization. If the PMO exists in an intermediary role, where it receives the status information from the PM and then uses it to generate its own reports, it has the potential for kicking in the ‘project police’ syndrome. The PMs may feel that the information they submit is being modified and misrepresented. I believe that the PMO should coach and mentor the PMs in aligning their status reports with the business objectives of the organization and they must present this value addition to the senior management effectively.
This is my two cents.
...
1 reply by Gbadeyan Timothy
Apr 19, 2017 10:29 AM
Gbadeyan Timothy
...
Nice one Asif
Saving Changes...
Anonymous
As a PM Methodology consultant, I've instituted corporate-central PMOs into many organizations. The objectives of the newly established PMO has been consistent in one main point: "Define program/project management as a valued service to get top down support" and the project teams will invite the PMO in to guide them. Don't allow the team to view project management as an 'activity' performed by whoever is chosen to lead the team.
The mission of the PMOs I've insalled is usually:
*Develop a standard methodology for PM Services - Initiate through Close.
*Define the process to tailor the standard methods to ensure its relevance to the contract requirements and project objectives.
*Define the minimum requirements/skills of program/project leaders. (typically scaled to project sizing metrics). YMMV
*Operate a Training/Mentoring program for all PM leaders and teams.
*Define and operate an audit process to ensure the project continues to operate effectively after kickoff.
When all this is in place, C-Level support is nearly automatic because project services becomes a revenue generator, not a line item on the G&A, the BizDev team sees a near-tangible product that they will up-sell onto the contract and the customer demands that their project gets delivered using a measurable approach. Thus, the project team sees that project management is a true deliverable of contract scope, they realize their need to learn more about project management, and come knocking on the PMO door for training/mentoring support.
Saving Changes...
Our Organization is just now in the process of setting up a PMO. One of the dangers that we see is "too much, too quickly." In order for the PMO to be accepted readily and not have an antagonistic approach we need to go back to the old adage. "What's in it for me." Project Managers must see a benefit; Senior Managers must see benefits. This can be best accomplished if the right tools are selected for use in the PMO. Tools that makes it easier and support the project managers while giving senior managers the level of detail that they need to be confident that the project is meeting the ROI.
A PMO may have a "policing" connotation, but this can be well handled if the staff is aware that their primary function is successful delivery of projects on time and in budget.
A well published and easy to use methodology is key; processes are critical, but the balance must be there to prevent a process driven organization where the process becomes the deliverable.
Take it slowly with full participation of managers and project managers. Do not introduce everything at the same time; allow time for everyone to be comfortable at each phase before moving to the next one. Saving Changes...
Neville TurbitDirector| Project Perfect.com.auAbbotsford, Nsw, Australia
If you ask a PM what they want, it is probably for everyone to get out of my way, and let me do things my way. The reality of the business world is that there must be some control, authority levels and governance.
We have helped a number of organisations set up Project Offices and start by determining the mandate of the office. This is usually in a workshop situation with Senior Management and those who will be users of the PO. From a checklist we decide what will be included within the mandate of the PO (for example, will the PO be involved in recruiting project staff?). If the answer is yes, we look at the level of involvement as either "Responsible", "Influence" or "Monitor".
The outcome is a clear definition of the role of the PO which has been agreed between management and the people who will use the services. For more information we have a white paper available on the process at http://www.projectperfect.com.au/info_setup_po.php Saving Changes...
Having worked as an IT manager, a project manager and a consulting project manager, I was disappointed with the tools and processes supporting I.T PMs. So, I took on an assignment to provide support to a large development project. Five years later, most of my work is supporting large I.T. projects. I report to the project manager or program manager and give them the information they need to manage the project and report progress and issues to senior management.
Project Managers need to be able to delegate tasks to succeed. As a project manager I am able to offload most of the work for development of the project plans. As well, I can develop the plans so that they support weekly reporting of progress versus plan.
During heavy development I provide weekly progress reports organized to allow the PM's to quickly verify issues with the team and discuss resolutions with the team and other managers.
PMO's would be more accepted by PM's if they concentrated on such practical matters. Saving Changes...
Management of projects, project management and line management are three distinct functions; they have different purpose, they operate in different time frames and they require different knowledge, authority, skills, and tools. For the management of projects function this is to complete all projects to best achieve the business goals of the organization. For the project management function, the goal is to coordinate the work of a multidisciplinary team to produce a defined set of deliverables on-time and within budget. For the line management function, the goal is the timely provision of competent resources necessary to carry-on the planned projects.
Not all project offices are born equal. Their responsibilities can range, from serving as a repository of information for project management best practices to being in charge of all the organization’s projects and programs, this would be contingent on organizational needs, culture and governance realities.
In my book, Running The Successful High-Tech Project Office published by Artech in 2003, in describing the PMO context I state: “the execution of the projects is depicted external to the PMO to emphasize that the day to day decisions and the work of the project itself are outside the scope of control of the PMO; which only intervenes in case of issues that might affect other projects or to prevent irrecoverable deviations with respect to the plans. To do otherwise and involve the PMO in every single project decision would most likely result in the establishment of a grinding bureaucracy likely to kill any advantage that might be created by instituting a PMO”.
Saving Changes...
I am also a former PM, PMO implementer and Artech House author. As a PM, I agree with most here that the last thing I need is a PMO Nazi breathing down my neck to get project health ratings in weekly and to follow restrictive methodologies. But, I would appreciate some portfolio-level project support if the IT or Procurement department has been slow to provide it (e.g. architecture, asset, resource, vendor and knowledge management). Before I can find the time to input duplicate (I already have to do this for the project stakeholders) health ratings into the PMO’s Project Portfolio Software system, I need to be shown a greater value return to me. Training, methodologies (to be tailored somewhat to my project needs), knowledge/document management, standardized PM software packages, visibility to strategic shifts, inter-program communications, and (to satisfy Jim Walker’s idea - in good humor) a robot to write my status reports are all examples of PMO deliverables that would make me, the PM, happier. The easier answer would be to the question “What would make perfect PMOs from executive, IT architect, and business unit leader perspectives?” Saving Changes...
