introductioni abstract · pmo as: an organizational body or entity assigned various...

MA R C H 2007 PR O J E C T MA N A G E M E N T JO U R N A L74

Over the last decade, the project man-

agement office (PMO) has become a

prominent feature in many organiza-

tions. Despite the proliferation of PMOs

in practice, our understanding of this

phenomenon remains sketchy at best.

No consensus exists as to the way PMOs

are or should be structured nor as to the

functions they should or do fill in organi-

zations. In addition, there is no agree-

ment as to the value of PMOs. Despite

the importance of this phenomena and

the lack of understanding, there has

been very little research on this topic. A

three-phase research program has been

undertaken in order to develop a better

understand of PMOs. This paper pres-

ents the research strategy, the overall

program, and the results of the first

phase of the research.

Keywords: project management office

(PMO); survey results; research methods

©2007 by the Project Management Institute

Vol. 38, No. 1, 74-86, ISSN 8756-9728/03

Introduction

In recent years, many organizations have established PMOs. Dai and Wells(2004, p. 526) showed that PMOs first started to become popular in 1994 andthat their number has been growing significantly since. Many books and arti-

cles on PMOs have been published in recent years, with the vast majority of theliterature produced by practitioners and consultants promoting the implementa-tion of PMOs. This literature is rational, self-evidently correct and normative, asis much of the project management literature (Williams, 2005).

Observations of PMOs in organizations contrast quite sharply with the imageportrayed in the literature. The population of PMOs is characterized by very sig-nificant variation in:• The structure of PMOs• The roles assumed by PMOs• The perceived value of PMOs.

Prior to the undertaking of the present research program, a reliable portraitof the population of PMOs was not available. In addition, an adequate explana-tion of the great variety has yet to be found.

The Definition of a PMO

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

An organizational body or entity assigned various responsibilities related tothe centralized and coordinated management of those projects under itsdomain. The responsibilities of the PMO can range from providing projectmanagement support functions to actually being responsible for the directmanagement of a project. (PMI, 2004, p. 369)

This definition is very close to the definition the authors adopted during thisinvestigation. It highlights that PMOs are organizational entities and that theirmandates vary significantly from one organization to the next. However, thepresent study makes a distinction between the multi-project PMO and the sin-gle-project PMO or “project office,” which has responsibility for the manage-ment of one large project. The PMBOK® Guide definition and much of theliterature on PMOs include both, and both are important phenomena worthy of

ABSTRACT

A MULTI-PHASE RESEARCH

PROGRAM INVESTIGATING

PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICES (PMOS):THE RESULTS OF PHASE 1

BRIAN HOBBS, PMP, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada

MONIQUE AUBRY, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada

MA R C H 2007 PR O J E C T MA N A G E M E N T JO U R N A L

MA R C H 2007 PR O J E C T MA N A G E M E N T JO U R N A L 75

investigation. Multi-project PMOs andentities responsible for the manage-ment of a single project are quite dif-ferent and can best be investigatedseparately. The scope of the presentinvestigation includes only PMOs withmandates that cover many projects or“multi-project PMOs.”

In part because of the great varietyfound among PMOs in differentorganizations, and in part because ofthe lack of both a consensus amongpractitioners and adequate descrip-tions in the literature, discussions onthis topic tend to be characterized bydiversity of opinion and confusion.Many people have been exposed to alimited number of PMOs and haveconcluded inappropriately that allPMOs are similar to the ones they haveobserved. The lack of consensus isunderstandable given (1) that thePMO is a relatively recent phenome-non, (2) that PMOs take on a greatvariety of forms and functions, and (3)that there has been a lack of systematicinvestigation. The present investiga-tion employs a rather large definitionof the PMO in order to capture thevariety of form and function. For thepurposes of this investigation, it is notnecessary that the organizational unitybe called a PMO.

PMOs in the Literature

Several books and papers have beenpublished on PMOs in recent years.

The descriptions of PMOs in the litera-ture are often summarized in typolo-gies comprised of a small number ofmodels. Dinsmore (1999) introducedthe earliest typology of PMOs withfour types, starting with a single proj-ect entity in which project manage-ment services are developed and usedwithin this single project. The threeother models in Dinsmore’s typologyare multi-project entities: project sup-port office, project management centerof excellence, and program manage-ment office. The Gartner ResearchGroup’s 2000 study (cited in Kendall &Rollins, 2003) proposed one of themost influential typologies of PMOs.The Gartner Group typology is com-prised of three types of PMOs: (1)project repository, (2) coach, and (3)enterprise. Several authors have pro-posed typologies since the publicationof the Gartner report, some of whomexplicitly reference the earlier work.Within the space restrictions of thepresent paper, it is not possible to sum-marize these typologies. Table 1 pres-ents a listing of some of the types ofPMOs described in the literature, iden-tified only by their names.

Some of the typologies identifythe single-project entity of “projectoffice,” which is outside the scope ofthe present study. Each of the typolo-gies proposes two, three, or four multi-project PMOs, organized in anascending hierarchy. Different authors

use different properties to characterizethe passage from one level to the nextwithin their hierarchy. The followingare among these properties:• Staff functions or line functions with

project managers included withinthe PMO

• Organizational scope: covering largerportions of the organization

• Level within the organizational hier-archy: from the lower operationallevel to the top level

• Influence and authority: from pas-sive to supportive to enforcing stan-dards to empowered

• Operational issues to strategic issues,often associated with a progressionfrom project management to pro-gram and/or portfolio management

• Process-driven to business-driven• Project management maturity (culture)

within the organization: from non-sup-portive to fully-supportive culture.

Each type presented in thesetypologies is a model of a PMO. Anymodel is necessarily a simplificationand a reduction of the complexities oforganizational reality. Models are veryuseful, even necessary, to support bothresearch and practice. However, thereduction of all or even most multi-project PMOs to two, three, or fourtypes is a radical reduction. The pres-ent investigation does not use themodels found in the literature as astarting point. The authors believe that


Table 1: Typologies of PMOs in the literature


it is useful and necessary to put thesemodels aside and to investigate organi-zational reality directly in order to cap-ture the diversity and the complexity ofPMOs in practice.

The Multi-Phase, Multi-Method

Research Program

The objectives of the research programare two-fold. The first objective is to pro-duce a reliable description of the presentpopulation of PMOs. The second objec-tive is to develop a better understandingof PMOs, of why they take on such avariety of forms, and of the dynamicssurrounding their creation, transforma-tion, and action in organizations.

It would be difficult to start fromthe present state of knowledge in whichno reliable description of the phenom-ena is available to develop an adequateunderstanding of PMOs and their rolesin organizations. The investigation ofPMOs has, therefore, been organizedinto a three-phase research program.Each phase is a separate project with itsown methodological approach.Successive phases build upon the find-ings of previous phases. This approachis motivated by the present lack ofknowledge, by the great variety offorms and functions observed, and bythe complexity of the organizationalphenomena under investigation. Theauthors adopted the approach suggest-ed by Van de Ven (in press) on engagedscholarship, where the complexity ofthe subject merits looking at the prob-lem from various angles.

The program has been organizedinto the following phases:1. A descriptive survey of 500 PMOs

aimed at providing a realistic por-trait of the population of PMOs inorganizations (2005).

2. The development of a rich concep-tual model to guide further investi-gation (2006).

3. Four in-depth case studies aimed atunderstanding the dynamics sur-rounding PMOs in their organiza-tional context (2006).

4. A confirmatory study to validate theunderstanding that will emergefrom the previous two years workand modification of the model pro-duced in phase 2 (2007).

At the time of this writing, the sur-vey in phase one has been completed.The results are reported in the presentpaper. The conceptual model has beendeveloped (Aubry, Hobbs, & Thuillier,in press). Data collection for the fourcase studies has been completed and isin the early stages of analysis. The fol-lowing paragraphs present each phasein more detail.

Phase 1: A Descriptive Survey

of 500 PMOs

Each of the 500 survey responsesdescribes one PMO and its context.Each is a snapshot of a PMO as it wasat the time of the survey investigation.The 500 snapshots were analyzed to:1. Provides a description of the total

population and variations in PMOstructure, role, and perceived value.

2. To identify common configurationsor models that describe significantnumbers of PMOs.

3. To identify relationships betweenthe variability of PMOs and the vari-ability of their contexts.

4. To identify correlations between thecharacteristics of PMOs and theirperceived value.

A descriptive survey with a largesample is an adequate methodology fordescribing a population. The primaryresult of phase 1 was the production ofsuch a description of the population, adescription characterized by extremevariety. If the majority of the populationcan be described by a small number ofconfigurations or models, the analysisof survey data can identify these.However, the present investigation wasunable to reduce the population to asmall number of configurations.

The survey instrument collectedcontextual data, which was analyzed toidentify statistical associationsbetween PMO characteristics and con-textual variables. Intuitively, PMOs canbe thought to vary in different contextsand the context can provide at least apartial explanation for the variabilityfound within the population of PMOs.However, no such statistical associa-tions were found.

The survey data was largelydescriptive. However, the survey instru-

ment did include questions as to theperceived value of each PMO.Statistical analysis revealed that somecharacteristics of PMOs are associatedwith more highly valued entities. Thestatistical associations are quite strongand provide some insight into thedynamics surrounding highly valuedPMOs. However, they provide only apartial explanation of the performanceof PMOs and their contributions toorganizational performance.

There are advantages and incon-veniences with any methodologicalapproach. Several possible explana-tions can be provided as to why theanalysis of survey data does not providean adequate explanation of such phe-nomena, as is the case here. First, thesurvey data is limited to the questionson the survey instrument. It is possiblethat statistical associations existbetween PMO characteristics and con-textual variables not included in thesurvey instrument. Second, the surveyonly provides descriptive snapshots. Itdoes not reveal the dynamics surround-ing the PMO and its evolution overtime. The analysis of survey data gath-ered at one point in time is also limitedin that it is very difficult, if not impos-sible, to determine the underlyingcausal relationships. In the present sur-vey, it is not clear why PMOs with cer-tain characteristics are perceived betterthan others. Phases 2 and 3 weredesigned to improve our understand-ing of the PMO phenomenon.

Phase 2: The Development of a Rich

Conceptual Model to Guide Further

Investigation

Phase 1 provided a description of thepopulation of PMOs but did not pro-vide an adequate understanding of thedynamics surrounding the PMO nordid it identify the major sources ofvariability. Phases 2 and 3 of theresearch program are designed to over-come the shortcomings of a large sam-ple descriptive survey. Here, the PMOis not considered as a standalone enti-ty but rather as an important structuralelement of the organization in which itis implemented. The unit of analysispasses thus from the PMO to theorganization that encompasses it. In



this perspective, the PMO is seen as thegateway into the organization in orderto study the dynamics of project man-agement in the organizational contextand the role of the PMO in thesedynamics. “The critical task is to adoptand use the models, theories, andresearch methods that are appropriatefor the research problem and questionbeing address” (Van de Ven, in press).

Given the complexity and the rich-ness of the subject being studied andthe exploratory nature of the investiga-tion, a constructivist ontology inwhich the PMO is conceptualized as adynamic constructed entity has beenadopted for phases 2 and 3 of theresearch program. It is not the purposeof the present paper to provide a com-plete description of the rich conceptu-al model that has been developed(Aubry, Hobbs, & Thuillier, in press).However, it is important to understandthe basic premises upon which themodel is based, as these condition thebalance of the research program.

The conceptual model is based onthe following elements:• Organizational structures are con-

ceptualized as the result of a dynam-ic strategizing/structuring process(Pettigrew, 2003).

• An historical and contextual perspec-tive (Hughes, 1987) is adopted forthe examination of both:

° The host organization

° The PMO or PMOs.• The dynamic relationships between

the PMO and its host organizationare conceptualized as co-evolution-ary (Van de Ven & Garud, 1994).

• Network structure approach(Hagström & Hedlund, 1999) andactor network theory (ANT) (Callon& Law, 1989) are borrowed from thefield of sociology. Both are used todepict the PMO as a network, the for-mer in its structural aspect, and thelatter in examining the relationshipsamong the actors involved.

• The conceptualization of the organi-zational contribution of the PMO isbased on a “competing valuesapproach.” In this approach, organi-zational contribution is seen as asubjective construct rooted in valuesand preferences of stakeholders

(Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Morin,Savoie, & Beaudin, 1994; Pettigrew,2003). The model includes four rep-resentations intended to provide anoverall view of organizational projectmanagement performance. Therational goals representation integrateseconomic value to measure profit,project management efficiency, andreturn on investment. The open system

representation contains variables thatmeasure adaptation and growth. Thehuman relations representation intro-duces considerations of humanresource development, cohesion, andmorale that are almost invisible incorporate evaluation. The internal

process representation captures themeasures related to corporateprocesses linked to project manage-ment such as program and portfolioprocesses and knowledge manage-ment processes.

The theoretical model developedin phase 2 has been used as the basisfor phase 3.

Phase 3: In-Depth Case Studies Aimed

at Understanding the Dynamics

Surrounding PMOs in Their

Organizational Context

In-depth case studies are particularlywell adapted to subjects as complex asthe one under investigation here, espe-cially when the study is exploratory, asis the case here. Both the survey resultsfrom phase 1 and the conceptualmodel developed in phase 2 weredrawn upon in the design of theresearch instruments for phase 3.These included both interview guidesand questionnaires. Extensive data wasgathered in each of four organizationsin order to produce a rich descriptionof the organization, its PMO or PMOs,and their joint evolution. Three typesof data were gathered:1. Company documents were collected. 2. In-depth, semi-structured interviews

were conducted, recorded, and tran-scribed with multiple respondentswith different organizational roles.Each interview gathered both factualand perceptual information.

3. Two questionnaires were developedand used. These included a question-

naire based on the survey instrumentfrom phase 1 to which several ques-tions were added, and a questionnaireaddressing the issue of the organiza-tional contribution of PMOs.

The analysis of data from multiplesources provides a rich, detailed, andreliable description of each organizationand its PMO or PMOs in their specificcontext as they evolved together overtime. At the time of this writing, the datacollection activities have been complet-ed and the analysis is under way.

Phase 4: The Confirmatory Study to

Validate the Understanding That Will

Emerge From the Previous Two Years

Work and Modification of the Model

Produced in Phase 2

The rich data and in-depth analysis inphase 2 is expected to produce a betterunderstanding of PMOs in these fourorganizations. The strategy for phase 4is to draw upon the results of the firstthree phases and to conduct investiga-tions to both complete and to validatethe understanding that will emergefrom the analysis of both the surveyand case study results analyzed togeth-er. It is too early to be able to describein detail the exact nature of the confir-matory study that will be carried out in2007. The balance of the present paperis devoted to the presentation and dis-cussion of the methodology and theresults of the survey in phase 1. A morecomplete presentation of the resultscan be found in Hobbs (in press).

Detailed Methodology

for the Survey in Phase 1

Because there has been very littleempirical research on PMOs, a reliableportrait of the population of PMOs isnot available. The objective of thisresearch is to provide such a portrait.Providing a descriptive portrait is typi-cally an objective of exploratoryresearch into a previously unexploredtopic. In this sense, the presentresearch should be considered asdescriptive and exploratory. Phase 1 ofthe research program is a project inand of itself.

This project took place in foursteps over a two-year period.



Step 1 was to undertake a prelimi-nary and systematic investigation of 30PMOs in different organizations anddifferent industries. This was done in2004. The objective was to provide apreliminary validation of the hypothe-sis that the structures, roles, and legiti-macy of PMOs vary significantly fromone organization to the next, and togather data that would contribute tothe production of a richer and morereliable portrait of the reality of PMOs.To this end, a preliminary version ofthe survey questionnaire was devel-oped and tested. Feedback sessionswere held with informants from theorganizations to validate and discussthese preliminary results. The prelimi-nary investigations produced an imageof PMOs characterized by extreme vari-ety in structures, roles, and legitimacy,while at the same time validating andsignificantly enriching the question-naire, which became the survey instru-ment. The results from step 1 wereenlightening but the sample is small. Itdoes not lend itself to statistical analy-sis and it is impossible to judge howrepresentative this sample is of thegeneral population.

Step 2 was undertaken to validateand further enrich the preliminaryresults from step 1. A web-based surveyinstrument was designed and tested. Thequestionnaire had already been validat-ed and tested in step 1, however threerespondents from different industriestested the web-based version and a smallnumber of minor adjustments weremade. The instrument was designed sothat each respondent describes onePMO. The questions were descriptiveuntil the end of the instrument, where asmall number of more evaluative ques-tions completed the instrument.

Step 3 was the data collectionphase. The invitation to participatewas available on the ProjectManagement Institute (PMI) website.The authors solicited respondentsthrough several project managementnetworks including the PMI MontrealChapter’s Community of Practice onPMOs, the PMI Southern OntarioChapter, PMForum, the AmericanSociety for the Advancement ofProject Management, and the firms

Human Systems and Valence—andwith the collaboration of colleaguesfrom the University of Limerick,Athabasca University, University ofTechnology Sydney, and ESC-Lille.The authors wish to thank all of thosewhose collaboration made this proj-ect possible. A total of 500 usableresponses were received.

The respondents were distributedamong organizational roles as follows:• Project managers 38%• Managers of PMOs 23%• Professionals in PMOs 11%• Executives and other managers 10%• Consultants 8%• Others 10%

The geographical distribution ofrespondents was as follows:• Canada 43%• United States 26%• Europe 16%• Other 15%

The respondents work in a verywide variety of industries. The largestproportions came from the following:• IT/IS 14%• Financial services 14%• Telecommunications 10%

Step 4 consists of data analysisand presentation of results, of whichthis paper is a part.

The Survey Results

The Name of the Entity

The majority of entities described in thisstudy were called “project managementoffices.” However, many of these orga-nizational entities were given a greatvariety of other names. The distributionof names is presented in Table 2.

Some of the labels used todescribe these organizational entitiesdeserve comment. Interestingly, 2%of respondents described entities thatexist in their organizations but thathave no official label and, therefore,do not appear on the organizationalchart. It is quite plausible that theseentities have been created to fill a realneed, but that their existence has notyet been made official. It is also plau-sible that, because of a previousfailed attempt to implement a PMO,

or for some other reason, somePMOs are maintaining a low profile.

The number of entities bearing thetitle “project office” is certainly muchgreater than these results indicate. Thislabel is often used to name an entityresponsible for the management of asingle large project. The survey instruc-tions asked specifically that informantsnot refer to this type of unit in respond-ing to the questionnaire. An examina-tion of the 2% of responses describingentities with this label indicates thatthese were multi-project entities similarto those labeled PMO. They have,therefore, been included in the sample.

A total of 12% of responsesdescribed entities labeled as programmanagement offices. This group ofresponses was compared to thoselabeled as project management officesand no statistically significant differ-ences were found between the two. Theprogram management function ismore important for those labeled pro-gram management office, but the dif-ference is not statistically significant.Program management is, therefore,very often part of the role of the PMO,whether it is labeled a project or a pro-gram management office. The analysisthat follows is, therefore, based on theentire sample, including both labels.

One or Several PMOs

Each respondent to the surveydescribed one particular PMO.However, some organizations havemore than one. In 53% of the cases,the respondents indicated that thePMO described is the only one in theorganization. Of these, 30% weredescribed as central PMOs and 23% aslocated in a business, functional, orregional unit. Another 25% reportedthat other PMOs exist but have no rela-tionship with their PMO or its man-date. Finally, 22% described a PMOthat is related to at least one otherPMO in their organization.

The Age of PMOs

Most PMOs have two characteristics incommon; they tend to be young and tohave a small staff. Apart from these twopoints in common, PMOs vary enor-mously one from the other. PMOs have



been popular since the mid- to late-1990s. Surprisingly, 54% of PMOs inexistence today were created in the lasttwo years, according to data from 2005.The Interthink Consulting survey (2002,p. 12) showed the same result: half ofthe PMOs were less than two years oldin 2002. Two phenomena are at workproducing this result. First, new PMOsare being created at a relatively high rate.Second, PMOs are being shut down orradically reconfigured at almost as fast arate. The result is a population dominat-ed by PMOs that have only been in exis-tence in their present form for a fewyears, as shown in Figure 1.

PMO Staff

Most PMOs have very little in the wayof staffing. Figure 2 shows the staffinglevels of PMOs expressed in full-timeequivalents, including the personresponsible for the PMO, but exclud-ing the project managers. This staff isoverhead, and organizations are veryreluctant to create overhead expenses.The issue of the cost of overhead is akey issue for PMOs, creating a some-what paradoxical situation in whichthe PMO is asked to take on manyfunctions with few resources.

As this data shows, the vastmajority of PMOs have been recently

created or restructured. Most havevery little staff other than the proj-ect managers. PMOs have very littleelse in common. Quite to the con-trary, great variety characterizes thepopulation of PMOs described inthis survey. On some characteristics,the population displays distribu-tions that are close to being eithernormal or skewed toward oneextreme. In many cases the varianceis high. On other variables, the dis-tributions are almost bipolar, withmost PMOs at one extreme or theother of the distribution and few inthe middle ground.

The Decision-Making Authority

of the PMO

The distribution of decision-makingauthority is close to a normal distribu-tion, but with very high variance, asshown in Figure 3. PMOs in a passiveor supporting role with little or nodecision-making authority make up41% of the sample. At the otherextreme, 29% have considerable orvery significant authority to make deci-sions to allocate resources, set priori-ties, or initiate, change, or cancelprojects. This illustrates the great vari-ety of roles different organizationsassign to their PMOs.

The Allocation of Projects and Project

Managers to PMOs

The variation among PMOs as to the per-centage of projects and project managersfound within their structures is even moreextreme. These distributions, shown inFigures 4 and 5, respectively, show bipolardistributions with more PMOs at eachextreme than in the middle ground.

In different organizations, theanswer to the question “Are projectmanagers grouped within the PMO?”received radically different responses:31% of organizations reported thatthey group 100% of the project man-agers in the PMO, while 29% ofPMOs had no project managers.These two extremes corresponded toPMOs that are either strictly a stafffunction with no project managers,or a line function with responsibilityfor the active management of projectsin the hands of their project managers.


Table 2: Names of organizational entities

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1 year or less 1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years More than 5 years

Figure 1: Age distribution of PMOs


An alternative way of expressing thisextreme variation is to note that 46%of PMOs had less than 25% of theproject managers within their struc-ture, 40 % had more than 75%, andonly 14% had between 25% and 75%.

The percentage of projects that arewithin the PMO’s mandate is alsoextremely varied. Figures 4 and 5 showthe extreme variety in the way organiza-tions structure their PMOs. This varietycontrasts with the literature on PMOs

that tends to oversimplify reality. Giventhe extreme variety of forms that PMOstake on in reality, any general statementclaiming to describe the decision-mak-ing authority of PMOs or the allocationof project managers or projects toPMOs should be viewed critically.

The Organizational Roles of PMOs

PMOs fill many different roles or func-tions in different organizations. Theinterchangeable terms “role” and

“function” are used here to identify thecontent of the PMO’s mandate withinthe organization. A list of roles or func-tions that are part of the mandates ofPMOs was derived from preliminaryinvestigations of a smaller sample ofPMOs and from a review of the litera-ture. A large number of different func-tions were identified. The final listcontained 27 functions. Several ofthese functions were added during theprocess of pre-testing the question-naire. Within the survey, respondentswere asked if their PMO filled anyfunctions not included in this list. Ananalysis of the responses did not iden-tify any functions important for morethan a very small number of PMOs. Alarge number of respondents indicatedthat the list is complete, a result thatcan be seen as a validation of the list of27 functions of PMOs.

The respondents to the surveyreported the importance of each ofthese functions for their PMO using ascale ranging from 1 (not important at

all) to 5 (very important). Table 3shows the percentage of PMOs inwhich each function was scoredeither of considerable importance orvery important.

In the minds of many practitioners,PMOs were associated with particularroles or functions. It was not uncom-mon to hear statements such as, “APMO is an entity that develops andimplements a standardized projectmanagement methodology.” Table 3confirms that 76% of PMOs are heavilyinvolved in this function. But to definePMOs by associating them with a par-ticular function or group of functions isout of line with organizational reality.All 27 functions are important for sig-nificant numbers of PMOs, and 21 ofthe 27 are important for at least 40% ofPMOs. This result again illustrates theextreme variety found among differentPMOs in different organizations, andthe difficulty in providing a simple andaccurate description of what they areand what roles they fill.

It may seem surprising that 50%of PMOs consider monitoring andcontrolling the performance of thePMO itself as important. However, thisresult is consistent with, and likely a


Figure 2: Personnel of PMOs excluding project managers (full-time equivalents)

Figure 3: Decision-making authority of PMOs


consequence of, the fact that the valueof PMOs and the justification of theexpenses they generate are oftenbrought under scrutiny and ques-tioned. Many PMOs are under pressureto justify their expenses and showvalue for money.

Members of the project manage-ment community recognize most ofthe functions listed in Table 3 very eas-ily. However, some functions have only

recently come into prominence.Program management (48%) andportfolio management (49%) areshown as quite important despite thefact that they only recently became thefocus of much attention with thedevelopment of “enterprise or organi-zational project management.”Benefits management (28%) is an evenmore recent phenomenon in the proj-ect management community and liter-

ature. Many members of the commu-nity are as yet unfamiliar with thispractice, which may explain why it isconsidered relatively less important.

Groups of Functions

Analyzing 27 different functions is quite adetailed task. Identifying groups of func-tions greatly simplifies interpretation anduse of this data. This can be done con-ceptually by identifying practices that arelogically related. For example, reportingproject status to upper managementrequires that project performance bemonitored, which can best be done witha project information system and a proj-ect scorecard. These four functions arethus logically related. One would expectto find that PMOs that fill one of thesefunctions would also have a tendency tofill the others.

The tendency to fill functions ingroups can also be identified andmeasured through statistical associa-tions. Factorial analysis was used toidentify such groupings. Functions thatare grouped together through factorialanalysis are tightly associated statisti-cally with each other, and statisticallyindependent from the other functionsand groups of functions. These inde-pendent groups constitute the dimen-sions of the fundamental underlyingstructure. The factorial analysis identi-fied five groups of functions. Eachgroup was examined to ensure that itwas internally consistent in both con-ceptual and practical terms.

These groups show the structureunderlying the many roles filled byPMOs in organizations. Identifyinggroups of functions that are bothconceptually and statistically soundhas very practical consequences.The long and disorganized list offunctions is replaced by a simplestructure of underlying high-levelroles or functions. These are pre-sented next in decreasing order ofthe average importance of the func-tions included in the group, whichare indicated on a scale of 1 to 5.The average importance is indicatedin parentheses for each group.Within each group, the functionsare presented in decreasing order ofaverage importance.


Figure 4: Percentage of projects within the mandate of the PMO

Figure 5: Percentage of project managers within PMO


Group 1: Monitoring and Controlling

Project Performance (3.82)

The group of functions related to themonitoring and controlling of projectperformance is the most importantgroup. This group includes both themonitoring, controlling, and reportingof project performance and the man-agement of the computer-based toolsto do these tasks. PMOs with thesefunctions are providing for the infor-mation managers’ needs to maintainvisibility and control the performanceof projects for which they are responsi-ble. In so doing, the PMO is support-

ing project governance functions. Theinterrelatedness of these functions waspreviously discussed.• Report project status to upper man-

agement• Monitoring and control of project

performance• Implement and operate a project

information system• Develop and maintain a project

scoreboard.

Group 2: Development of Project

Management Competencies and

Methodologies (3.54)

The group of functions most tradition-ally associated with PMOs includesfunctions dealing with tools andmethodologies and with competencydevelopment. This group is composedof the following functions:• Develop and implement a standard

methodology• Promote project management within

the organization• Develop competency of personnel,

including training• Provide mentoring for project managers• Provide a set of tools without an

effort to standardize.

The development and implemen-tation of tools and methodology andthe provision of project managementtraining and mentoring are the func-tions most people associate withPMOs. The PMO with these functionsis often in the role of promoting theuse of the methodology, the develop-ment of competencies, and projectmanagement in general. This groupthus constitutes a coherent set of func-tions that reinforce one another. Thisreinforcement is the practical realitybehind the statistical phenomenonidentified by the factorial analysis.

Group 3: Multi-Project Management (3.23)

Some PMOs have mandates to man-age whole sets of projects in a coordi-nated fashion, which often involvesprogram or portfolio management.These have become important aspectsof project management, as signaledby PMI with the publication of theOrganizational Project Management

Maturity Model (OPM3®) (PMI, 2003)and the publication of standards onprogram and portfolio management(PMI, 2006a, 2006b). The coordina-tion of interdependences within pro-grams and portfolios is a centralissue in multi-project management,as can be seen from the functions inthis group:• Coordinate between projects• Identify, select, and prioritize

new projects• Manage one or more portfolios• Manage one or more programs• Allocate resources between

projects.


Table 3: PMO functions in decreasing order of importance


Group 4: Strategic Management (3.06)

There has been a tendency in recentyears for project management in gener-al, and PMOs in particular, to becomemore involved with issues of strategicalignment and to become more closelytied to upper management. The factoranalysis reveals that the followinggroup of functions related to strategicmanagement constitutes one of theunderlying dimensions of PMO roles:• Provide advice to upper management• Participate in strategic planning• Benefits management• Network and provide environmental

scanning.

Involvement in these functionsbrings project management and thePMO closer to upper management.Networking and providing environ-mental scanning are used to keepabreast of current development soas to give up-to-date advice toupper management. The surveyshowed that these functions aremore typical of central PMOs.

Group 5: Organizational Learning (3.00)

Organizational learning has been a veryimportant topic in the management lit-erature and practice in recent years. SomePMOs are actively involved in organiza-tional learning through the followinggroup of functions:• Monitor and control the perform-

ance of the PMO• Manage archives of project docu-

mentation• Conduct post-project reviews

• Conduct project audits• Implement and manage a database

of lessons learned• Implement and manage a risk database.

The last four functions in thisgroup are very directly related to orga-nizational learning. An examination ofTable 3 shows them to be among thefunctions viewed as least important.From this it can be seen that, althoughorganizational learning is of consider-able importance, it is often seen as lessimportant than other functions moredirectly related to operational or strate-gic issues.

The first two functions in thisgroup are related to organizationallearning, but can also be deployed inthe pursuit of other objectives.Archiving project documentation hasimportant operational aspects. Thefunction to “monitor and control theperformance of the PMO” can beseem as part of the learning feedbackloop, and thus as closely related tothe other organizational learningfunctions in this group. Recent inter-views with PMO personnel haverevealed that some PMOs specificallyuse the evaluation of the perform-ance of their PMO in an organiza-tional learning perspective. It is,however, conceivable that the meas-urement of PMO performance mayalso be done in response to question-ing of the expenses generated by thePMO. The overall average importanceof this group is influenced positivelyby the importance these first two

functions may have for objectives notdirectly related to organizationallearning. Thus, the average impor-tance of this group may overstate theoverall importance of organizationallearning for PMOs. Organizationallearning is, however, important for asignificant number of PMOs. Projectmanagement in general and PMOsin particular are participating in thegeneral trend toward the increasedimportance of organizational learn-ing in the knowledge economy.

Additional Functions Not Included in

the Groups of Functions

The factorial analysis produced the fivegroups of functions previously present-ed. Three functions not included inthese groups complete the list of 27functions identified in this study.These three functions are excludedfrom the groups previously listed, notbecause they are not important, butbecause their presence is neither statis-tically nor conceptually related tothese groups. The remaining functionsare presented here in decreasing orderof importance.

Execute Specialized Tasks for Project

Managers (e.g., Prepare Schedules)

(3.05)

Many PMOs provide specialized servic-es to project managers and projectteams. In order to execute these tasks,PMOs maintain specialized resourceson their staff. The preparation of sched-ules is a common example, but suchservices can include many other tasks,such as contract and risk management.

Manage Customer Interfaces (2.84)

Some PMOs have the responsibility formanaging customer interfaces.Responsibility for this activity dependsto a great extent on the type of customer.Not all PMOs are in a position to fill thisrole. On the average, managing the cus-tomer interface is more important forPMOs with customers that are externalto the organization. A PMO responsiblefor all the projects for a given customermay well have an important role to playin managing this customer interface. APMO responsible for an outsourcingcontract is an example of this.


Figure 6: “Has the relevance or even the existence of the PMO been seriously questioned in recent years?”


Recruit, Select, Evaluate, and Determine

Salaries for Project Managers (2.35)

This is the least important function forPMOs, but it remains important for22% of PMOs. The human resource(HR) department in most organiza-tions carries out these HR activities,but the involvement of a number ofPMOs in these activities is consideredimportant in some contexts. The PMOsfit into very different organizationalrealities regarding HR managementrelative to project managers.

Implications for Theory and Practice

The existence of a statistical and con-ceptual link between two or morefunctions does not mean that theyare, or should always be, implement-ed together. The statistical and con-ceptual links are too weak for this tobe the case. Organizations must useconsiderable judgment when decid-ing which functions the PMO is to bemandated to fill.

On average, the monitoring andcontrolling of project performance isthe most important group and the les-sons learned group the least important.The rank ordering of the groups of func-tions may be misleading. All are impor-tant, and the differences among themare small. In any particular context, anyone of them may be the most impor-tant. However, the number of func-tions in each group varies. In addition,the relative importance of the differentfunctions in each group varies consid-erably, as can be seen from Table 3.This reinforces the need to adapt to theorganizational and strategic contextwhen deciding which functions toinclude within the mandate of a par-ticular PMO.

The fact that the underlying high-level functions are statistically inde-pendent of each other is an indicationthat they identify a fundamental ordeep structure. The identification ofthis underlying structure among PMOfunctions has profound consequencesfor both theory and practice. Fromboth points of view, a few high-levelfunctions are much more manageablethan the long and unorganized list ofpossible functions. From the point ofview of theory building, the identifica-

tion of the structure that underlies therole of PMOs in organizations pro-vides a key to understanding the fun-damental roles of project managementand of PMOs in the creation of valuein organizational contexts. This ques-tion is at the heart of project manage-ment research at the present time.From the point of view of managersand practitioners, identifying theunderlying structure greatly simplifiesthe task of analyzing and understand-ing existing PMOs and the task ofdesigning or restructuring PMOs.

Legitimacy and Performance of PMOs

The data on the age of PMOs showedthat PMOs are being shut down or rad-ically restructured almost as fast asthey are being created. At the end ofthe survey instrument, after havingdescribed their PMO, respondentswere asked, “Has the relevance or eventhe existence of the PMO been serious-ly questioned in recent years?” Forty-two percent of the respondentsanswered “yes.” This data is illustratedin Figure 6. The reality of PMOs inorganizations is even darker than thisresult indicates. A survey of this typehas a positive bias, particularly on eval-uative questions such as this. Peoplewho are interested enough to respondto the invitation to participate in thesurvey tend to have a positive attitudeon the topic of the survey. Those unfa-vorable and strongly opposed tend notto respond. In this survey, there is anadditional positive bias created by thefact that organizations that have shutdown their PMO or have decided notto implement one have not respondedto this questionnaire in which respon-dents are asked to describe an existingPMO. The extent of the bias is difficultto estimate, but it is not unreasonableto think that about half of organiza-tions are critical enough of PMOs todecide not to implement one or toseriously consider shutting theirsdown if they already have one.

This result clearly identifies a lackof consensus in the project manage-ment community. About half ofPMOs are seen as legitimate withintheir organizational context. Thislevel of strong support for PMOs

combined with the large number ofPMOs currently in existence under-scores the importance of PMOs inproject management practice today.On the other hand, the very existenceof the other half of PMOs is beingquestioned. Other questions in thesurvey confirmed that the issues ofvalue for money and the contributionor lack of contribution to project andprogram performance are key to theperceived performance and ultimatelyto the legitimacy of the PMO. Poor-performing PMOs are seen as toocostly and as contributing little toproject and program performance,while highly valued PMOs are seen asmaking significant contributions toperformance. The ability to show con-tribution to performance at a reason-able cost is critical.

The survey results show thatPMOs are more legitimate in organi-zations with higher levels of organiza-tional project management maturity.The existence of a correlation betweenthese two variables, organizationalmaturity and PMO legitimacy, doesnot reveal the nature of the relation-ship between the two variables. It maywell be that the PMO is highly con-sidered in an organization that ismature in project managementbecause project management is val-ued in this organization. On the otherhand, it may be that a high-perform-ing PMO has raised the level of proj-ect management maturity in theorganization. The relation is likely tobe circular and self-reinforcing, withthe high-performing PMO contribut-ing to the level of project manage-ment maturity and to theorganizational context in which proj-ect management and the PMO are val-ued. The survey also showed that anorganizational culture that is support-ive of the implementation of thePMO is associated with the legitimacyof the PMO. This is indicative of thiscircular relationship.

Conclusion

The literature promoting PMOs pres-ents them as a best practice with obvi-ous positive effects on project,program, and organizational perform-



ance. The reality is quite different.Many PMOs are struggling to showvalue for money and some are failing,causing a very high mortality rateamong PMOs. Practitioners and organ-izations would be well advised not toimplement a PMO under naiveassumptions of value for money orbecause PMOs are popular.

The results of the survey haveshown the hypothesis that “the struc-tures, roles, and legitimacy of PMOsvary significantly from one organiza-tion to the next” to be true. The orga-nizational reality surrounding PMOsis complex and varied. Organizationsestablish a great variety of differentPMOs to deal with their reality.Organizations may decide to includesome or all of their project managerswithin the PMO or they may placethem elsewhere in their structures. ThePMO’s mandate may cover all theorganization’s projects or only a selectfew. Organizations choose fromamong a number of possible roles orfunctions when deciding upon themandate to give to a PMO. They alsochoose between a PMO in a supportrole with little or no authority and aPMO with considerable decision-mak-ing power. These organizationaldesign choices create PMOs of variedform and function.

Many different properties can beused to differentiate “types” of PMOs.The results presented here show thatPMOs do in fact vary considerably onefrom another and that the variation isnot limited to a small group of proper-ties or characteristics. The populationof PMOs shows considerable variationof not just a few, but of many charac-teristics, thus creating a myriad of pos-sible forms that PMOs can and do takeon. This creates a population that isdifficult to reduce to a small numberof models.

The Ongoing Program of Research

The survey that forms the basis of thispaper is the first phase of a three-yearresearch program to investigate PMOsand the dynamics through which theycontribute to organizational perform-ance. In collaboration with their col-league, Dr. Denis Thuillier, the authors

responded to PMI’s 2005 annual RFPfor research proposals and were award-ed a research grant, titled “ModelingOrganizational Project Managementand PMO Performance.”

The second phase of this researchprogram involves four in-depth casestudies of PMOs in their organiza-tional context. These commenced inlate 2005, and was completed in2006. The objective of the case studiesis to uncover the organizationaldynamics that lead to value creationthrough the use of project manage-ment. The PMO is seen as the point ofentry into the organization to studythe dynamics of value creation in con-text. The case studies draw upon theresults of the survey to establish a richand reliable representation of thereality of PMOs prior to the detailedinvestigations. The analysis of the casestudies is intended to produce amodel of value creation.

The third phase of the researchprogram will involve the validation ofthe findings from the in-depth casestudies using a survey of a larger sam-ple of organizations and PMOs. Thiswill be carried out in 2007. The objec-tive is to produce a conceptually richand empirically grounded model.

References

Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., & Thuillier, D.(in press). A new framework for under-standing organisational project manage-ment through PMO. International Journal

of Project Management.

Callon, M., & Law, J. (1989). La

proto-histoire d’un laboratoire ou le diffi-

cile mariage de la science et de l’économie.

Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E.

(1999). Diagnosing and changing organi-

zational culture: Based on the competing

values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Crawford, K. J. (2002). The strate-

gic project office. New York: MarcelDekker.

Dai, C. X. Y., & Wells, W. G.(2004). An exploration of project man-agement office features and their rela-tionship to project performance.International Journal of Project

Management, 22(7), 523–532.

Dinsmore, P. C. (1999). Winning

in business with enterprise project man-

agement. New York: AMACOM.Englund, R. L., Graham, R. J., &

Dinsmore, P. C. (2003). Creating the

project office: A manager’s guide to lead-

ing organizational change. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garfein, S. J. (2005). Strategic port-

folio management: A smart, realistic and

relatively fast way to gain sustainable com-

petitive advantage. Paper presented atthe PMI Global Congress NorthAmerica, Toronto, Canada.

Hagström, P. S. Ö., & Hedlund, G.(1999). A three-dimensional model ofchanging internal structure in the firm.In A. D. Chandler, Jr., P. S. Ö. Hagström,& O. Solvell (Eds.), The dynamic firm:

The role of technology, strategy, organiza-

tion, and regions (pp. 166–191). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Hobbs, B. (in press). The multi-

project PMO: A global analysis of the cur-

rent state of practice. White paper.Newtown Square, PA: ProjectManagement Institute.

Hughes, P. T. (1987). The evolu-tion of large technological systems. InW. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch(Eds.), The social construction of techno-

logical systems: New directions in the soci-

ology and history of technology (pp.51–81). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Interthink Consulting. (2002). Stateof the PMO 2002. Retrieved February 1,2004, from http://www.interthink.ca/research/home.html

Kendall, G. I., & Rollins, S. C.(2003). Advanced project portfolio man-

agement and the PMO: Multiplying ROI

at warp speed. Boca Raton, FL: J. RossPublishing.

Light, M. (1999). The enterprise

project office: Beyond 2000, strategic

analysis report. Stamford, CT: GartnerGroup.

Morin, E. M., Savoie, A., &Beaudin, G. (1994). L’efficacité de l’or-

ganisation: Théories, représentations et

mesures. Montréal, Québec: GaëtanMorin éditeur.

Pettigrew, A. M. (2003).Innovative forms of organizing:Progress, performance and process. InA. M. Pettigrew, R. Whittington, L.Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. A. J. Van



BRIAN HOBBS, PMP, holds an MBA and PhD in industrial engineering, and is a Project Management Professional (PMP)

certified by the Project Management Institute (PMI). He has been a professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal

(UQAM) in the Master’s Program in Project Management for more than 20 years. Dr. Hobbs is very active internationally

in both the project management professional and research communities. He served a three-year term on PMI’s Standards

Members Advisory Group (MAG) ending in 2002 and joined the Research MAG in July 2006. He is a reviewer for both the

Project Management Journal and the International Journal of Project Management. He has presented many papers at both

research and professional conferences worldwide.

MONIQUE AUBRY, MPM, is a professor at the Business School of Université du Québec à Montréal. She is finishing her

doctoral thesis working on PMOs and their relation to organizational performance. Her research project has been

sponsored within the PMI’s research program for its theoretical contribution in the field of organizational project

management. She has more than 20 years of experience in the management of major projects in the financial sector. She

is member of the board of the PMI Montreal Chapter.

den Bosch, W. Ruigrok, & T.Numagami (Eds.), Innovative forms of

organizing (pp. 331–351). London, UK:SAGE Publications.

Project Management Institute.(2003). Organizational project manage-

ment maturity model: OPM3 knowledge

foundation. Newtown Square, PA:Project Management Institute.

Project Management Institute.(2004). A guide to the project manage-

ment body of knowledge (3rd ed.).

Newtown Square, PA: PMI.Project Management Institute.

(2006a). The standard for program man-

agement. Newtown Square, PA: PMI.Project Management Institute.

(2006b). The standard for portfolio man-

agement. Newtown Square, PA: PMI.Van de Ven, A. H. (in press).

Engaged scholarship: Creating knowledge

for science and practice. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Garud, R.

(1994). The coevolution of technicaland institutional events in the develop-ment of an innovation. In J. A. C. Baum& J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynam-

ics of organizations (pp. 425–443). New-York: Oxford University Press.

Williams, T. (2005). Assessing andmoving on from the dominant projectmanagement discourse in the light ofproject overruns. IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management, 52(4),497–508.

introductioni abstract · pmo as: an organizational body or entity assigned various...

Documents