Identifying the Forces Driving Frequent Change in PMOs

Monique Aubry, Brian Hobbs, Ralf Müller, Tomas Blomquist

• Publisher: Project Management Institute
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN:
  9781935589310
• eBook ISBN:
  9781628250220
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Management
• Index: Business

Project Management Offices (PMOs) are not etched in stone. They are complex entities which go through frequent transformations during their average two-year life span. So, what does that mean to project professionals? Identifying the Forces Driving Frequent Change in PMOs answers this question for both researchers and practitioners based on a three-year research effort focused on the organizational change process surrounding the transformation of a PMO. Seventeen case studies and 184 responses to a questionnaire provide the foundation. Results show the temporary nature of PMOs and reveal that significant changes in PMOs can be associated with an organization's internal and external environment.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context of this Research

Project management has come to play a central role in the management of organizations in almost all fields of human activity. Bredillet, Ruiz, and Yatim (2008) reported from World Bank data that 21% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP) is gross capital formation, which is tightly related to project activities. This is also reflected within organizations where a greater portion of their activities is organized by projects. Over the last decade, many organizations have implemented one or more Project Management Offices (PMOs) as part of organizational project management, attributing a variety of both operational and strategic roles to their PMOs (Dai & Wells, 2004). While PMOs are now a prominent feature of organizational project management, the underlying logical argument that leads to their implementation or renewal is still not fully understood.

People responsible for establishing or managing a PMO have a great variety of options with respect to both the organizational structures and the functions within the mandate of the PMO. In addition, executives ask for value from these structures and PMO managers are often hard-pressed to show value for money. The current state of knowledge of PMOs and how they contribute to value creation provides PMO managers with very few resources. The practitioner community is looking for standards, or at least guidelines, to help them and their executives to be more successful in establishing and managing PMOs. On the other hand, the project management research community is looking for recognition of its theoretical base within the larger management research community. An international effort has been made recently to formalize theoretical knowledge in the field of project management with the identification of nine schools of thought (Bredillet, 2007). Research on PMOs relates more specifically to the Governance School (Bredillet, 2008). The research presented in this paper will contribute to theoretical knowledge not only on the PMO but more largely to organizational project management and its dynamic context.

Many consultants and some researchers have written on PMOs in recent years. The focus of the vast majority of this work has been on identifying the characteristics of PMOs and a limited number of variables that would drive the configurations of new or existing PMOs. The implicit underlying assumptions in the current literature are that there are a limited number of variations of PMOs and that PMOs are relatively stable structural entities. However, results of a survey of 500 PMOs documented a great variety and lack of consensus on their value, their structure, and the functions included in their mandate (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007).

On the other hand, at least three independent surveys have shown that the average age of PMOs is approximately two years (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007; Interthink Consulting, 2002; Stanleigh, 2005). This has not changed in recent years. The authors know of no research results that are inconsistent with these observations. Therefore, PMOs are often not stable structures but temporary arrangements with a rather short life expectancy.

In the same vein, the case studies conducted by Dr. Aubry as part of her doctoral thesis (Aubry, 2007) illustrated the temporary nature of PMOs. This case study research revealed that significant changes in PMOs can be associated with changes in senior management personnel, their organizational or strategic vision, or both. The case study results indicate that a more fruitful approach for future research would be to focus on the organizational change process surrounding the implementation or the transformation of a PMO, rather than focusing on the characteristics of the PMO as a static organizational entity. The pertinence of this process approach to a better understanding of PMOs has been validated in the context of executive workshops held in Canada, the United States, Australia and Europe.

Following recommendation for future research, the present research addresses the organizational change process surrounding the transformation of a PMO. Results presented in this monograph come from two sources of data: 17 case studies and 184 responses to a questionnaire. Both have been orchestrated in a global methodological strategy. Results illustrate the temporary nature of PMOs and reveal that significant changes in PMOs can be associated with the organization's internal or external environment.

In light of the current organizational context described above, the high-level objective of this research is to understand the forces that are driving the frequent reconfigurations of PMOs. More specifically, this research intends to answer these questions:

• Why do PMOs change? What are the drivers?
• How does the change happen? Is there a dynamic change process?
• What is changing? What are the characteristics or functions that are changing?
• Is there any pattern of change?

Results from this research should contribute to building the theoretical foundations of project management more specifically in the Governance School. It should also provide guidance to project management practitioners and upper management executives in the implementation, remodeling and management of PMOs.

1.2 The Origin of this Research

This monograph aims at providing an in-depth understanding of the PMO transformation process. It delivers the results from a three-year research project specifically dedicated to changes affecting PMOs. This research was undertaken as a continuous effort from the earlier stages of a research program on PMOs within the Project Management Research Chair at the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM; www.pmchair.uqam.ca). In 2003 and 2004, this research program was launched in order to develop a better understanding of this important phenomenon.

The objectives of the research program are twofold. The first objective is to produce a reliable description of the present population of PMOs. The second objective is to develop a better understanding of PMOs, why they take on such a variety of forms, and the dynamics surrounding their creation, transformation, and action in organizations. As shown in Table 1.1, the research program includes six phases, with this specific research corresponding to Phase V.

Table 1.1. Research Program on PMOs at UQAM

Phase of the Research Program	Period	Description
1	2005-2006	Two descriptive surveys of 500 PMOs aimed at providing a realistic portrait of the population of PMOs.
2	2006	The development of a rich conceptual model to guide further investigation.
3	2006-2007	In-depth case studies of 12 PMOs in 4 organizations aimed at understanding the dynamics surrounding PMOs in their organizational context.
4	2008	Analysis of the data from phases I, II & III and production of a monograph published by PMI
5	2008-2010	Identifying the forces driving the frequent changes in PMOs
6	2009-2011	Governance and communities of PMOs

Over the last several years, many conversations at professional congresses and workshops have revealed a negative interpretation of frequent PMO transformations. A PMO change is often considered the result of a failure or a deficiency in the PMO. Thus, a new configuration of the PMO, one may think, should correct the fault and last forever, though this is rarely the case. From this perspective, multiple failures lead to a loss of legitimacy and confidence in the PMO and sometimes in the global project management approach.

During the in-depth case studies of 12 PMOs in Phase III of the research program, the idea of a process of PMO transformation came up prominently in interviews (see Aubry, 2007). While the questionnaire for semi-structured interviews asked for a description of the evolution of the PMO structure, respondents’ replies described how they have understood the transformation of their PMO. In-depth analysis of interview transcripts in a grounded theory approach offered a first understanding of PMO transformation in terms of a continuous process.

This research has emerged from divergent perspectives on the reasons why PMOs are changing so often. On one side, changes are seen as the result of a failure on the part of the PMO. On the other side, change is seen as simply a natural periodic phenomenon.

This research has the particularity of being realized in collaboration with Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Sweden. Aubry was a post-doctoral researcher at Umeå School of Business. This collaboration translated into rich case studies and, more significantly, cross-fertilization of ideas throughout the research.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

“The organization that never changes eventually loses synchronization with its environment, while the one that never stabilizes can produce no product or service efficiently. Accordingly, there is always change embedded in the stability of an organization, just as there is always stability embedded in its change. Some things must remain fixed as other things shift.” (Mintzberg & Westley, 1992, p. 46)

It is not difficult to capture the PMO's reality in a snapshot. What is difficult is to make sense of the pace of its transformation. As Mintzberg and Westley (1992) suggest, organizational change is a necessary feature in every organization. The PMO is no exception to this rule. In this context, we intend to review the literature on PMOs and organizational change and to propose a conceptual framework that will help make sense of the PMO's transformation process. Change is defined as the act, process or result of changing. Similarly, transformation is defined as an act, process or instance of transforming or being transformed (Merriam-Webster, 2007). In this monograph we use the terms change and transformation interchangeably.

In the first section, the authors explore the PMO in the current literature and end with a proposal for an empirically-validated PMO model. In the second section, the authors delve into the organizational structure. In the third section, they address organizational change. Finally, based on this review, the authors propose in the fourth section a conceptual framework for understanding the PMO's transformation process.

2.1 The PMO in the Literature

2.1.1 Definition of the PMO and Standardization

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) defines a PMO as:

An organizational body or entity assigned various responsibilities related to the centralized and coordinated management of those projects under its domain. The responsibilities of the PMO can range from providing project management support functions to actually being responsible for the direct management of a project. (Project Management Institute, 2008a, p. 435)

This definition is very close to the definition the authors adopted for this investigation in that it highlights the fact that PMOs are organizational entities and that their mandates vary significantly from one organization to another. However, the present study makes a distinction between the multi-project PMO and the single-project PMO or “project office,” which is responsible for the management of one large project. The PMBOK® Guide definition and much of the literature on PMOs include both, and both are important phenomena worthy of investigation. However, the two are also quite different and can best be investigated separately. The scope of the present investigation includes only PMOs with mandates that cover many projects, or multi-project PMOs.

In part because of the great variety found among PMOs in different organizations, and in part because of the lack of a consensus among practitioners and adequate descriptions in the literature, discussions on this topic tend to be characterized by diversity of opinion and confusion. Many people have been exposed to a limited number of PMOs and have concluded inappropriately that all PMOs are similar to the ones they have observed. The lack of consensus is understandable given (1) that the PMO is a relatively recent phenomenon, (2) that PMOs take on a great variety of forms and functions, and (3) that there has been a lack of systematic investigation. The present study uses a rather broad definition of the PMO in order to capture the variety of form and function. For the purposes of this study, it is not necessary for the organizational unit to be called a PMO.

The emergence of and the need for the PMO are associated with the increasing number and complexity of projects throughout the business world, which have led to a certain form of centralization (Dai & Wells, 2004; Marsh, 2000). Nearly 75 unique functions have been identified (Crawford, 2004). Some authors see PMOs playing an active role in specific functions. Huemann and Anbari (2007) stated that PMOs should be more involved in audit functions, particularly in what is learned from audits, and Hueman, Keegan and Turner (2007) identified the PMO as a key factor in human resources management in project-oriented organizations. However, the reality of PMOs is highly divergent.

References to PMOs are relatively plentiful in the professional literature (Benko & McFarlan, 2003; Bridges & Crawford, 2001; Crawford, 2002; Crawford & Cabanis-Brewin, 2006; Dinsmore, 1999; Duggal, 2001; Goncalves, 2006; Hatfield, 2008; Kendall & Rollins, 2003; Perry, 2009) but limited in the scientific literature. Texts from the professional literature deal principally with three themes: the justification of the PMO's existence, its roles or functions, and steps for its implementation. The descriptions of PMOs in this literature are often summarized in typologies comprised of a small number of models. The most common types of PMOs described in the literature proposed three or four models (see Table 2.1). The Gartner Research Group's study (cited in Kendall & Rollins, 2003) proposed one of the most influential typologies of PMOs. The Gartner Group typology is comprised of three types of PMOs: (1) project repository, (2) coach, and (3) enterprise.

Some of the typologies identify the single-project entity of “project office,” which is outside the scope of the present study. Each of the typologies proposes two, three, or four multi-project PMOs, organized in an ascending hierarchy. The PMO progression is intended to follow an incremental path from a low-level to a high-level model. Some authors proposed a maturity model specific for PMOs (Kendall & Rollins, 2003) where the same assumption of progression is taken for granted. The picture that emerges from our case studies does not support a regular progression toward a better PMO.

Recent research on PMOs looks at perform...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgments
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Executive Summary
• Chapter One: Introduction
• Chapter Two: Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
• Chapter Three: Methodology
• Chapter Four: Description of Case Studies
• Chapter Five: Results from Case Studies
• Chapter Six: Survey Results: Descriptive Statistics
• Chapter Seven: Survey Results: Factor and Correlation Analyses
• Chapter Eight: Survey Results: Mediating and Moderating Effects
• Chapter Nine: Discussion
• Chapter 10: Conclusion
• Appendices
• References