pmjfeb2011 org

PA

PE

RS

■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 1

INTRODUCTION ■

The aim of this article is to enrich the current discussion on the valueof project management by presenting empirical results from aresearch on the performance of project management offices (PMOs).It proposes a novel approach to performance inspired by the

Competing Values Framework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).Performance is often identified as the ultimate dependent variable in the

literature on organizations. It is currently the focus of much attention in the project management literature (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). The currentfocus on the topic seems to be driven by the belief that organizations willadopt project management only if it can be shown to generate value. Aftermore than a half-century of history in the management of projects, its con-tribution to performance is still not acknowledged outside the group of professionals who believe in project management. The community of pro-fessionals and academics within project management associations aremostly preaching to the converted. However, outside of this community, thevalue of project management is not generally recognized, particularly at sen-ior levels (Thomas, Delisle, Jugdev, & Buckle, 2002).

A major piece of research on the value of project management led byThomas and Mullaly has recently been completed (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008).They propose a framework where project management implementation and thevalue of project management are aligned within the organizational contextthrough the notion of “fit.” The notion of value has been used to focus onwhat project management is worth to different stakeholders. The level ofanalysis is the organization in both Thomas and Mullaly (2008) and the pres-ent article. A major part of the research presented in this article was realizedprior to the publication of papers and the monograph by Thomas andMullaly (2008). However, efforts have been made to acknowledge theirresults.

The empirical work reported in the present article centers around PMOs.Centering the investigation on the PMO facilitates the empirical study of dif-ferent means of contributing to organizational performance and differentperceptions of the value of these contributions. In brief, it increases the like-lihood of producing good results for several reasons. First, organizations thathave PMOs have chosen to centralize several aspects of project management inand around these organizational entities, making project management morevisible in the organization and easier to study. Studying the role of PMOs is,therefore, a practical means for studying project management as it is prac-ticed in these organizations. Second, PMOs are small units that are oftenlocated outside the major organizational units. They are thus in a position to beappraised by stakeholders in many other units. This improves the likelihood of

A Fresh Look at the Contribution ofProject Management to OrganizationalPerformanceMonique Aubry, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, CanadaBrian Hobbs, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Canada

ABSTRACT ■

A better understanding of organizational per-formance and the contribution that projectmanagement can make is the aim. The articleadopts the “Competing Values Framework,” arich framework that is well established boththeoretically and empirically but is not wellknown in the field of project management. Theframework is summarized and applied in anempirical investigation of the contribution ofproject management in general and projectmanagement offices (PMOs) in particular toorganizational performance. The examination of11 case studies revealed multiple concurrentand sometimes paradoxical perspectives. Thecriteria proposed by the framework have beenfurther developed through the identification of apreliminary set of empirically grounded per-formance indicators. The empirical results con-tribute to a better understanding of the role ofproject management generally and PMOsspecifically. They also demonstrate the useful-ness of this framework for the study of projectmanagement’s contribution to organizationalperformance.

KEYWORDS: organizational performance;competing values framework; PMO; value ofproject management

Project Management Journal

© 2010 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20213

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM

2 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

A Fresh Look at the Contribution of Project Management

PA

PE

RS

capturing multiple conceptions of theircontribution to the performance of theorganization. Third, research by Hobbsand Aubry (2007) has shown that thelegitimacy of PMOs is being challengedin approximately 50% of organizations.The discourse that surrounds PMOs isthus often charged with tensions thatmake differing points of view more vis-ible and more easily captured in empir-ical studies. Fourth, Hobbs and Aubry(2007) have shown that PMOs fill manydifferent organizational roles. In doingso, they potentially contribute to theorganization in many different ways,making the diverse contributions morevisible and easier to study. In additionto facilitating the study of the contribu-tion of project management to organi-zational performance generally, thePMO is a legitimate object of study inits own right.

Organizational performance is a sub-jective construct. This construct is subjec-tive because it exists in the minds ofthose who are evaluating. The organi-zational performance of PMOs will varydepending on who the evaluator is.Most of these stakeholders belong todifferent units that have different cul-tures and different values.

A construct is not directly observ-able. In order to evaluate it, the vari-ables that form it must be identified andexamined. Justification of the PMOremains a recurring problem in organi-zations, with almost 50% reporting thatthe existence of their PMO has beenrecently questioned (Hobbs & Aubry,2007). A PMO would be legitimate if itcould convincingly demonstrate itscontribution to organizational perform-ance. However, the evaluation of itscontribution to organizational perform-ance is a complex question that mayhave as many variations as the PMOitself. This highlights the subjective sideof organizational performance.

PMOs are performing many differ-ent functions (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007). Arethese different functions regarded withthe same value by different stakehold-ers? The contribution to organizational

performance by the PMO seems to takedifferent forms. And it should be distin-guished from the contribution of proj-ects. The PMO’s contribution is, at leastpotentially, behind the performance ofeach individual project.

The context of diversity supportsthe definition proposed here for organi-zational performance based upon thecompeting values framework. There aretwo problems: the first one is to establisha clear definition as to what constitutesorganizational performance, and thesecond is to propose a realistic and reli-able approach to its measurement. Thisleads to the research questions: What isorganizational performance in the con-text of project management and howcan it be assessed?

The next section of the articleexplores the literature on performance.This is followed by a presentation of thecompeting values framework, an inte-grative model that has the ability tocapture the diversity of conceptualiza-tions of organizational performancefound within organizations. Empiricalresults will then be presented, whichillustrate the usefulness of this frame-work. The empirical portion of the arti-cle concludes with the presentation of aset of practical indicators that providesa more concrete representation of orga-nizational performance and facilitatesthe construction of metrics. Finally, aconclusion closes the article.

Organizational Performance inthe Project ManagementLiteratureTwo conceptions of performance dom-inate the project management litera-ture: economic and pragmatic. In theformer, researchers try to demonstratethe direct economic contribution ofproject management to the bottom line(Dai & Wells, 2004; Ibbs, Reginato, &Kwak, 2004). Interestingly, none ofthese researchers have been able toconvincingly demonstrate the econom-ic value of investment in project man-agement. The results of the research by Ibbs et al. (2004) are not statistically

significant (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008).The clear demonstration of the directinfluence of project management onreturn on investment (ROI) is not easilyaccomplished, as explained by Thomasand Mullaly (2008). In addition, thereduction of project management valueexclusively to financial indicatorsunderestimates major contributionsthat project management brings toorganizational success—for example,innovation (Turner & Keegan, 2004),process (Winch, 2004), and people(Thamhain, 2004). Furthermore, themultifaceted concept of project per-formance is acknowledged by severalauthors (Dietrich & Lehtonen, 2004;Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001). Thebalanced scorecard is based on the eco-nomic conception. The balanced score-card approach has been proposed toassess project management perfor-mance (Norrie & Walker, 2004; Stewart,2001). It has the advantage over the traditional economic vision of projectperformance in encompassing fourcomplementary perspectives. However,the foundation of this approach restson ROI. It structures the creation ofvalue hierarchically with financial valueat the top (Kaplan & Norton, 1996;Savoie & Morin, 2002).

The second conception of perfor-mance in the literature on project per-formance is pragmatic. Several authorshave encompassed the problem of per-formance in an approach that seeks toidentify success factors (Jugdev &Müller, 2005). A clarification should bemade here to distinguish between suc-cess factors and success criteria.Success factors refer to a priori condi-tions that contribute to positive results,while success criteria are used to assessa concrete and measurable result a pos-teriori (Cooke-Davies, 2002). Cooke-Davies (2000, 2004) has examined the empirical evidence supporting themany best practices and success factorsfound in the literature. He concludesthat most of the contributions havebeen based on the opinion of membersof the project management community

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM


and that only a small number havebeen empirically validated. Based onthe empirically validated data, Cooke-Davies (2004) proposes a set of 12 fac-tors related to three distinct ways oflooking at performance: project man-agement success (time, cost, quality,etc.), project success (benefits), andcorporate success (processes and deci-sions that translate strategy into pro-grams and projects). It is noteworthythat the success factors are different ateach level of analysis. Cooke-Davies(2004) argues these three groups areintimately linked; corporate projectand program practices create the con-text for individual project and programpractices. While the research on successfactors has identified some conditionsin organizational project managementthat are associated with performance atdifferent levels of analysis, the under-standing of performance and the a priori conditions that contribute toperformance remains limited.

There is no consensus on the way toassess either performance or the valueof project management. The financialapproach alone cannot give a correctmeasure of the value of project man-agement for the organization. Projectsuccess is a vague approximation and,as such, a rather imperfect system formeasuring results. New approaches areneeded in order to extricate ourselvesfrom what looks like a dead end.Organizations are multifaceted, leadingto a variety of perspectives and evalua-tion criteria. The international researchon the value of project managementdraws similar conclusions (Thomas &Mullaly, 2008).

What Is OrganizationalPerformance?Performance has its origin in the oldFrench parfournir and is defined todayas “something accomplished” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 2007).The etymology brings us straight to thepoint: what indeed is accomplished byproject management, and how should itbe evaluated?

How to Define OrganizationalPerformance?The concept of organizational perfor-mance is not new. At the end of the 1950sand in the early 1960s, sustained effortswere made notably to understand thesuccess of organizations. This literaturedeveloped in the 1960s and 1970s, andafter 1980 narrowed down to conceptslike quality (Boyne, 2003). Several wordsare used almost as synonyms to organi-zational performance—for example,efficiency, output, productivity, effec-tiveness, health, success, accomplish-ment, and organizational excellence(Savoie & Morin, 2002). The concept oforganizational performance has beenadopted in this research because it ismore appropriate in the context oforganizational project management.

Trying to give a clear definition oforganizational performance is not aneasy task. Attempts made to clarify it bydefinition have not led to an acceptableresult. Two alternative approaches areexplored: (1) a definition of the conceptby the identification of its characteris-tics and (2) a definition of the conceptby the identification of its limits/borders. The definition by its character-istics is called a definition of com-ponents, where a term (in this case,organizational performance) is given inreference to its constituent parts or itscharacteristics (Van de Ven, 2007).Organizational performance has beenapproached in the literature using dif-ferent sets of characteristics or vari-ables. A first difficulty with this type ofdefinition is the uniformity of the levelsboth conceptual and operationalamong the characteristics (Cameron &Whetten, 1983; Quinn & Rohrbaugh,1983; Van de Ven, 2007). There are otherdifficulties with this type of definition. Itis inherently subjective (Cameron, 1981).It can be difficult—even impossible—toreconcile the multiplicity of points ofview from different stakeholders. It canbe difficult even for individuals to iden-tify their own preferences for an orga-nization. Preferences change over time,in keeping with social values and the

life cycle of the organization or of theunit. There exists simultaneously in thesame organization a variety of contra-dictory preferences that this type ofdefinition cannot capture.

The second approach to a defini-tion is based on the identification oflimits/borders, which is a semantic def-inition. A semantic definition describesthe meaning of a term by its similarities(positive semantic definition) or by itsdifferences (negative semantic defini-tion) with other terms (Van de Ven,2007). Addressing the question “What isorganizational performance?” alsocomes back to trying to define thescope of the total construct by delimit-ing the components located inside andoutside its borders. Cameron (1981)discusses this question from two view-points: the theoretical borders and theempirical borders. Practically speaking,the theoretical borders of organization-al performance do not exist. No theoryis completely satisfying, and theresearch undertaken so far is made upof a collection of individual essays thatlack integration (Cameron, 1981). It isdifficult to grasp the construct whenapproaching it theoretically, and stilltoday, there is no clear definition of the-oretical borders (Savoie & Morin, 2002).A few authors have tried instead todefine an empirical border. Moreover,this inductive approach is appropriatewhen there is a high level of complexity,which is the case here (Patton, 2002).This being the case, each study hasbeen done as in a “silo,” each authorobserving in an isolated fashion a par-ticular type of organization (Cameron,1981). Therefore, approaching a defini-tion of organizational performance bythe identification of a border does notallow us to determine what is inside theborder, because theoretical research isinsufficient and empirical studies arevaried and lack integration.

To overcome the problem of defini-tion, Cameron (1981) suggests that orga-nizational performance be defined as asubjective construct anchored in valuesand preferences of the stakeholders.

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM



PA

PE

RS

This definition offers significant poten-tial for adaptation to organizational sit-uations and offers the possibility ofacknowledging that a variety of per-formance evaluation models may existsimultaneously. This construct is alsocoherent with the constructivist per-spective, which recognizes the exis-tence of several competing logics.

In this perspective, organizationalperformance is anchored in the valuesand preferences of the stakeholders. Inthe context of project management ingeneral and PMOs in particular, stake-holders are individuals and groups whohave a substantial interest in the man-agement of the projects of the organiza-tion. The stakeholders could includethe project governance board, the busi-ness unit managers, the customers ofthe projects, the users, the PMO man-ager, the project portfolio managers,the functional managers, project man-agers, project controllers, and so on.

The Competing ValuesFrameworkOrigin and Development of theCompeting Values FrameworkOrganizational performance was theobject of a worldwide study for a nucle-us of researchers (Cameron & Whetten,1983; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983)toward the end of the 1970s and thebeginning of the 1980s. Quinn andRohrbaugh (1983) were, however, thefirst to have proposed the competingvalues approach. This approach cameout of a research program over a periodof several years at the Institute forGovernment and Policy Studies, intend-ed to evaluate performance in the pub-lic sector. This sector is enormouslycomplex, and at a time when the econ-omy was affected by high inflation, itwas important to ensure the best possi-ble use of public funds in all publicinstitutions (Rohrbaugh, 1981).

The theoretical basis of the compet-ing values approach rests on the fol-lowing assumption: tensions exist in allorganizations where needs, tasks, val-ues, and perceptions must compete

(Thompson, McGrath, & Whorton,1981). Rather than imagine a newmodel, Quinn and Rohrbaughapproached the problem in a highlyoriginal way by undertaking researchbased on criteria already identified byCampbell (1976, cited in Quinn &Rohrbaugh, 1983). They treated thesecriteria using a combination of theDelphi approach and statistical model-ing with the participation of a group ofvery reputable researchers on two pan-els. The research led to a set of 17 uniquecriteria grouped into three significantdimensions: the structure dimension(paradox between flexibility and con-trol), the focus dimension (paradoxbetween internal and external), and thedimension of purpose and orientation.

These dimensions formed three setsof values that explicitly expressed thedilemmas or paradoxes present inorganizations. These values are in con-stant competition in organizations, andto succeed, organizations must reachgood overall results, without necessari-ly seeking a balance. In this context,organizational performance depends

on the values of those who are evaluat-ing (Cameron, 1986).

The third dimension (orientationand purpose) was not often used inempirical research based on the com-peting values approach, includingresearch by Cameron and Quinn(1999). In a fashion consistent with thisstream of research, only the structuredimension (paradox between flexibilityand control) and the focus dimension(paradox between internal and external)have been employed in the presentresearch (see Figure 1).

The research of Quinn andRohrbaugh (1983) thus led to the for-mulation of a framework that presents17 criteria and their dimensions in fourquadrants, each associated with a spe-cific preexisting model of organizationalperformance: the open system model,the human relations model, the internalprocess model, and the rational goalsmodel. Sixteen of the seventeen criteriaare associated with one of the four models, each representing a differentconception of organizational perfor-mance. The 17th criterion, output quality,

HUMAN RELATIONS MODEL

INTERNAL PROCESS MODEL

Flexibility

17. OUTPUT QUALITY

Control

Internal External

OPEN SYSTEM MODEL

RATIONAL GOAL MODEL

1. Value of human resources working in project 2. Training and development emphasis3. Moral of project personal4. Conflict resolution and search for cohesion

12. Growth13. Flexibility/adaptation/innovation in project management14. Evaluation by external entities (audit, benchmarking, etc.)15. Links with external environment (PMI, IPMA, etc.)16. Readiness

8. Profit9. Productivity10. Planning goals11. Efficiency

5. Information mangement and communications6. Processes stability7. Control

Note. The 17 elements listed in the figure are the criteria associated with each conception.

Figure 1: Models of organizational performance and their associated criteria.

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM


was not associated specifically with anyof the models.

A precision must be made to differ-entiate between open systems andrational goal models. The open systemsmodel values effectiveness. On theother hand, the rational goal model val-ues efficiency, profitability, and ROI.

The competing values approachhas been applied in a variety of areas.Originally, it emerged in the public sec-tor (Rohrbaugh, 1981), but several sectors have been studied since: highereducation (Pounder, 2002), manufactur-ing (McDermott & Stock, 1999), researchand development (Jordan, Streit, &Binkley, 2003), and banking (Dwyer,Richard, & Chadwick, 2003), as well as across-sector study (Stinglhamber,Bentein, & Vandenberghe, 2004). More-over, Cameron and Quinn (1999)account for more than a thousand inter-ventions in organizations from severalindustrial sectors as diversified as agri-culture, insurance, and construction.This wide empirical base confirms theapplicability of this approach in variousorganizational contexts.

This approach has two importantstrengths: the values underlying the eval-uation become obvious and the changesin the way these values are exerted arealso identified (Morin, Savoie, &Beaudin, 1994; Quinn & Rohrbaugh,1983). In conclusion, the competing val-ues approach has the potential to graspthe dynamic of organizations by creat-ing a dialogue between people havingdifferent, sometimes opposite, valuesthat underlie their evaluation of organi-zational performance.

The Competing Values Framework inthe Context of PMOsBecause the empirical portion of thisresearch is centered on the PMO, thetwo dimensions and the paradoxes thatthese dimensions give rise to are exam-ined in the context of the PMO.

The Structure Dimension: ParadoxBetween Flexibility and ControlThe PMO usually belongs to the hierarchyand, as such, participates in maintaining

stability. One of the most importantroles for the PMO is to monitor andcontrol the performance of projects.Another important role is the standard-ization of methods and processes. Atthe same time, the PMO is part of mul-tiple project management networkswhere projects and ad hoc committeesare created, dissolved, and re-createdaccording to project managementneeds. Projects are temporary organiza-tions often associated with innovationand change, disruptive or incremental,as each project brings a new andunique solution to a particular prob-lem. In this context, the PMO supportscreativity and innovation, or at the veryleast should not impede it. The PMOparticipates in the line of control, givingthe necessary stability while at thesame time encouraging innovation andchange with flexibility. In this sense, aPMO can be said to be an ambidextrousentity in developing ability in both con-trol and flexibility (Tushman & O’Reilly,1996). These examples illustrate theparadox between control and flexibilityas it applies in the context of PMOs.

The Focus Dimension: Paradox BetweenInternal and ExternalThe PMO adopts an outright externalfocus when, to measure project andproject management results, it looks atquantitative financial indicators andcompares itself to other organizationsor industries. Kendall and Rollins (2003)suggest that the main indicators formeasuring the value added of a PMOare related to three major elements:• reduction of the life cycle of projects;• completion of more projects during

the fiscal year with the sameresources; and

• tangible contribution for reachingorganizational goals in terms of costreduction, revenue increase, and abetter return on investment.

The professionalization of projectmanagement also contributes to thefact that organizations want to compareand share their best practices. On the

one hand, the PMO has an active role toplay relative to the internal focusthrough the development and dissemi-nation of project management metho-dology, the fostering of internal com-munication including the presentationof project results to upper manage-ment, and the development of compe-tencies. A PMO is often responsible forcreating the common language relativeto project management. At the sametime, the PMO is connected to the exter-nal world by means of consultant firmsand project management associations.When a PMO is asked to benchmark theinternal project management process-es, the internal common language mustbe translated to a universal commonlanguage. The PMO is an entity in whichthere exists a permanent arbitragebetween internal and external focuses.

The examination of the two dimen-sions in the specific context of the PMOconfirms the existence of paradoxesidentified by the competing valuesframework within a project manage-ment context. The evaluation of theorganizational performance of thePMO can shed light on the differentperspectives from which organizationalperformance can be examined basedon the values of those evaluating. Thecompeting values framework repre-sents a means to make these valuesexplicit, which will then lead to anunderstanding of what constitutes acontribution to the performance of thePMO and of the entire organization.

MethodologyThe methodological framework for thisresearch is based upon a constructivistepistemology. In this epistemology, the phenomenon is in the reality and theresearcher in part of the interactionthat takes place between the researcherand the object of study. Knowledge cre-ation is the ultimate objective (Allard-Poesi & Maréchal, 1999). It modifies themore traditional researcher role by “lis-tening” to the reality (Midler, 1994). Inthe case of PMOs, this position isappropriate, as theories are almost

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM



PA

PE

RS

nonexistent and the complexity foundin the reality cannot be explained usingexisting simple models and a positivistapproach (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007). Justas organizations are complex socialentities, so too are the specific organi-zational project management struc-tures that encompass PMOs. Themethodological strategy is designed tounderstand such complexity.

Drawing on Van de Ven’s (2007)engaged scholarship brings togetherdifferent points of view of key peopleinvolved with PMOs, using a combina-tion of qualitative and quantitativeinstruments. PMOs represent a com-plex phenomenon not only by the vari-ety of their expressions, but also by thenumber of entities they relate to in asingle organization. In matrix organiza-tions, projects naturally form networks,which converge in one or more PMOs.Yet, within a single organization thereare multiple managers and profession-als in relationships with the PMO. Howdo they value the PMO’s contribution toorganizational performance? Itdepends on the perspective of each ofthese stakeholders. In the quest for abetter understanding of the PMO’s con-tribution to organizational perfor-mance, a global methodological strategy

is proposed that can capture these per-spectives and tensions.

This research is part of a mixed-method program of research built forrobustness (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997).In this specific research project, a case-study approach has been used toexplore and better understand the con-tribution of PMOs to organizationalperformance (Yin, 1989). Four organi-zations participated in this research. Aretrospective historical approach cov-ering the period since before the imple-mentation of the first PMO was adopt-ed. The periods covered ranged from 2to 13 years, with an average of 7.24years. As is common among PMOsglobally, the PMOs in these organiza-tions were restructured every few years(Hobbs & Aubry, 2007). A total of 11 dif-ferent PMOs were analyzed, each con-stituting a case study.

Two types of data were collected:interviews and a questionnaire. Themost important data came from inter-views where open-ended questions wereasked specifically on the performance ofthe PMO. Interviews were codified andanalyzed in a grounded theory approach(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Transcriptswere coded using the 17 criteria from thecompeting values framework grouped

into the four conceptions (Quinn &Rohrbaugh, 1983) adapted for use withPMOs (see Figure 1). Respondents werechosen to represent different roles,potentially leading to different concep-tions of the PMO’s contribution to orga-nizational performance (see Table 1).

In addition to interviews, a ques-tionnaire was built with the objective of capturing the different conceptions ofthe PMO’s contribution and their under-lying values. The questionnaire containsthe same 17 criteria. Respondents wereasked to assess the importance of eachof the criteria in their current contextusing a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 wasnot important at all and 5 was veryimportant. Criteria with a score of 4 or 5were considered important.

Empirical ResultsA Typology of PMOs Based onOrganizational Performance CriteriaAs mentioned previously, the compet-ing values framework takes intoaccount the values within organiza-tions, and it provides an instrumentthat helps highlight paradoxes betweenvalues. The diagram shown in Figure 1forms a typology based upon the fourdifferent conceptions of organizationalperformance. Each PMO from the case

Industrial Sector Telecommunication Financial Multimedia Financial

Years since implementation of first PMO 13 9 5 2

Number of PMOs (n � 11) 4 3 3 1

Number of interviewees (n � 49) 13 16 15 5

Interviewees by role

Project manager 3 3 1 1

PMO director 0 5 2 1

Manager in PMO 4 2 0 0

Executives 2 1 1 1

HR 1 0 2 0

Financial 1 1 1 0

Other manager 2 1 1 1

PMO staff 0 3 7 1

Table 1: Profile of respondents.

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM


studies has been assigned a positionwithin this framework so that they canbe compared more easily with eachother (see Table 2).

Each of these case studies has itsown dynamics. Space restrictions pre-vent these from being explored here. Inall, the results are coherent with theproposals from the competing valuesframework. There is no such thing as aperfect balance, but rather different val-ues underlie what organizational per-formance represents in organizations(Cameron, 1986). A plurality of perspec-tives on the contribution to organiza-tional performance is observed. Theresults show that certain perspectivesprevail at certain times and evolve withthe context. One problem when try-ing to understand the contribution ofPMOs to organizational performance isrelated to the fleetingness of the PMOitself (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007). Assessingsomething that is fast-moving containsin itself a major limitation. In thisresearch, the evolution of the PMO andthe evolution of the perception of itscontribution to organizational per-formance were tracked. Results fromthe pre-PMO period have been intro-duced in this analysis. However, no pattern resembling a predeterminedlife cycle in the evolution of their con-tribution to organizational perfor-mance was found.

The Actor’s View of the PMO’sContribution to OrganizationalPerformanceAs discussed earlier, the competing val-ues framework is based upon theassumption that many conceptions oforganizational performance coexist in a

single organization. This should trans-late in this research into different pat-terns for different stakeholders in theirevaluation of the importance of organi-zational performance criteria. Figure 2illustrates this phenomenon within oneorganization from the case studies. Itpertains to the evaluation of the existingPMO at the time of interviews. As can beobserved, differences exist betweenactors in their assessment of the impor-tance of the performance criteria.

Globally, results confirm the posi-tive contribution of PMOs to organiza-tional performance. The Likert scaleoffers the choices of low values ofimportance, but no criteria falls underthe middle position, which indicatesthat all criteria are of at least someimportance. The results of one casewith 15 respondents are illustrative butcannot be generalized.

An examination of the variations inresponses between stakeholders in dif-ferent roles is informative. In Figure 2, it

can be observed that project managersdo recognize the importance of thePMO’s contribution in the human rela-tions and rational goals criteria. In thisparticular case, the PMO is active inhuman resource functions participat-ing in the career path of people workingin projects. However, project managersdo not recognize that internal process-es are as important. This may bebecause project managers perceivethese processes to be a constraint ontheir freedom to act. The PMO directorconsiders all criteria as important. Thissituation is not specific to this case—the same result was observed in almostall cases. This confirms the positive biasof PMO managers when asked to assessthe PMO’s contribution to organiza-tional performance. Other managerswithin the PMO are more criticalspecifically of human resource criteria.Otherwise, these managers recognizethe importance to other groups of crite-ria. Executives recognize some impor-tance for all groups of criteria, but nonereach the level of significant impor-tance. This is consistent with the poorperception of project management’sability to contribute to organizationalperformance reported by Thomas et al.(2002). Curiously, the human resourcemanager does not attribute that muchimportance to the PMO’s contributionto human resource performance. Thismay be a reflection of issues related to

Equilibrium Internal Focus Internal/External External Focus

Flexibility 1 1 3

Equilibrium 1 0 2flexibility/control

Control 2 1 0

Table 2: Number of PMOs classified by the importance of their organizational performance criteria.

5

4

3

2

1

Project Manager PMO Director

HR Manager

PMO Employee

Manager within PMO

Financial ManagerExecutive

Manager Elsewhere

Human relations Internal processes Rational goals Open systems

Imp

ort

ance

of

crit

eria

(mea

ns)

Groups of criteria

Figure 2: Importance of organizational performance criteria by role.

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM



PA

PE

RS

jurisdiction over human resourceissues. The human resource managersdo recognize the PMO within the inter-nal processes and rational goals crite-ria. PMO employees are of particularinterest; they attribute significantimportance to human resource andopen system criteria but not that muchto internal process and rational goalcriteria.

These results also show some of theparadoxes in the expectations relativeto the PMO’s contribution to perfor-mance. For example, the financial man-ager considers the internal processescriteria to be the PMO’s most importantcontribution to organizational per-formance. However, project managersconsider these to be the least impor-tant. When it comes time for the PMOmanager to discuss the contribution ofhis/her unit with the financial manager,arguments concerning internalprocesses will probably be important,but the same arguments are not as like-ly to convince the project managers. Itis easy to see how these differences inperceptions and appreciations can leadto tensions and even to conflicts.Results from the competing valuesframework may also offer the opportu-nity to open up discussion between dif-ferent and sometimes opposite ways ofunderstanding the PMO’s contributionto organizational performance.

The Development of IndicatorsSpecific to the Evaluation of the PMO’s Contribution to Organi-zational PerformanceThe four conceptions and the 17 gener-ic criteria initially proposed within thecompeting values framework (Quinn &Rohrbaugh, 1983) can be applied in dif-ferent contexts. For this reason they areat a more abstract level. Cameron andQuinn (1999) recognize that the fourmodels and the 17 criteria are quiteabstract and recommend that sets ofcriteria be developed that are specificto a particular use. In a manner consis-tent with this recommendation, specificsets of indicators were developed for

each of the four models and the 17 cri-teria. The sets of indicators create valuein two ways. First, they enrich theunderstanding of the PMO’s contribu-tion to organizational performance by providing detail that is meaningful in this context. Second, they providethe basis for instruments to measure thepresence of the models in real organiza-tional settings.

The goal here is to be more specificand to identify relevant concrete indica-tors in the context of PMOs. Transcriptsof the interviews have first been codedusing the 17 criteria. Then, excerptshave been scrutinized for their meaningin order to group multiple variationsunder a common indicator. From thissecond step, a list of 79 unique indica-tors was produced.

Indicators inform us about the vari-ety of possible ways the models mani-fest themselves and the different waysthat measurements can be made in thedifferent PMOs. An advantage of thisexercise is to render explicit and opera-tional notions about the contribution ofthe PMO to organizational perfor-mance that until now may haveremained abstract. See Appendix A forthe complete list of indicators.

Indicators Within the Human Resources ConceptionThe indicators related to human re-sources foster a clearer understandingof the role that the PMO can play in thisarea. Indicators vary greatly from oneorganization to the next. It appears thateach of the four organizations has a dif-ferent flavor in the way the humanresource contribution of the PMO isvalued. For example, the organizationin the multimedia industry stands outwith the largest number of indicators inhuman resources. The scope of theseindicators often covers all of theresources working on projects ratherthan only PMO employees or projectmanagers. In this case, the PMO plays adirect role in the development of com-petencies for personnel, according tothe needs of upcoming projects, and

according to employee wishes. It isunusual that an organization structuredby project (which is the case here)stresses the contribution that personnelmake to projects and intensifies therole of the PMO in human resourcesmanagement. But management ofhuman resources, in this organizationalcontext, is a particularly critical func-tion. The personnel are exceedinglyyoung: the average age is less than 30years old. This fact accounts for thestrength of the company at the sametime as it produces its own nightmares.These “teenagers” require a consider-able amount of supervision in order torespect the project constraints and thenever-ending challenges. There is animportant shortage in qualified person-nel in this high-technology sector. Thiscompany has invested extensively intraining in conjunction with local gov-ernments. It has also implemented aninternal school to provide skilled work-ers for its own development needs.Furthermore, personnel turnover is sig-nificant. In summary, the managementof human resources is an importantfunction in which the PMO plays anactive role.

The significant number of indica-tors identified within the human rela-tion conception shows that underlyingvalues exist in organizations to assess thecontribution of the PMO to organiza-tional performance regarding the humanresources. A PMO manager confirms theimpact of his entity on the degree of sat-isfaction of project managers:

Well, we took it all [multiple PMOs]and centralized it; it [the degree ofsatisfaction of the employee] wentfrom 0 to 24 in 12 months. The ener-gy, the empowerment—there was ahuge improvement.

It is also notable that the PMO playsa social role and that it has an influenceon the work-family balance. Analysisalso revealed that the capacity for nego-tiation is a competence essential to theresolution of conflicts surrounding the state of advancement of projects.

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM


The role of PMOs within humanresource management is often neglectedin the literature on PMOs with the excep-tion of a few authors that dedicated theirefforts to emphasizing this role(Crawford & Cabanis-Brewin, 2006;Huemann, Keegan, & Turner, 2007).From the qualitative analysis, it can beseen that the PMO can make a signifi-cant contribution to organizationalperformance regarding humanresources and that concrete indicatorscan be used to assess this.

Indicators Within the Internal Processes ConceptionThe internal processes conception oforganizational performance shows thelargest number of individual indicatorsof the four conceptions. This empha-sizes the position of project manage-ment and the PMO in their traditionalroles of process management.

Many indicators bear on the criteriaof information and communicationmanagement. The PMO seems to col-laborate in many networks and play acentral role in the circulation of infor-mation. A respondent emphasizes thisrole when saying:

I think that the PMO has an impor-tant role in the sense that they havea vision of what is going on else-where in the organization. . . .Normally, the PMO has antennae ineach portfolio. . . . I think it couldhave a unifying role.

Indicators also reflect both the qual-ity of information and the ease of its flowthroughout the organization. The crite-ria dedicated to the stability of processespinpoints more specifically the tradi-tional role of PMOs in standardization ofproject management. The criteria ofcontrol included of course meetingcosts, deadlines, and project scope.However, PMO control is becomingincreasingly diversified and is oftenexercised on the processes themselves.

Of particular interest is the situationwith multiple PMOs where the valuesgiven to indicators are quite different.

One of the financial services caseorganizations had two interrelatedPMOs: a central one and one in a busi-ness unit. These two PMOs don’t valuethe same elements as far as the qualityof deliverables and communicationsmanagement is concerned. This isunderstandable in complementary but paradoxical terms: the business-unit PMO values product quality andbusiness results, while the central PMOvalues process maturity and projectperformance in terms of cost, schedule,and the project requirements. As can beseen from this example, two PMOs inthe same organization may have com-plementary but conflicting priorities.

Indicators Within the Rational GoalsConceptionThe indicators for the rational goals orefficiency conception are less numer-ous but are the most frequently cited.Indicators included the profit criterion,which is not surprising; they reflect theinterest in selecting the right projects—the ones that contribute to the busi-ness’s bottom line. The contribution of the PMO to organizational per-formance is recognized through itsinvolvement in portfolio and programmanagement. Regarding the productiv-ity criterion, the contribution of PMOscan be significant, particularly in theallocation and efficient use ofresources. This point highlights animportant issue for organizations hav-ing multiple highly specialized expertprofiles working on multiple projects.From the case studies, this issue was ofprime importance in two organizationshaving projects where 200 to 300employees work in parallel. In thosetwo organizations, PMOs centralize theallocation of human resources. The ideahere is to not leave anyone “on thebench.” The director of a PMO pin-pointed his role in the allocation ofproject managers:

We wanted to use project manage-ment resources in a better way sothat, for example, if a project man-ager was freed up in one product

line, and there was a need in anoth-er product line, we could move thatperson over if the competence andthe profile both matched therequirements.

Productivity in project managementis a constant challenge. The challenge iseven more evident in internationalorganizations where there is competi-tion between different units in differentlocations. Productivity in project man-agement becomes an important factorfor decisions as to where projects will beexecuted. The role of PMOs in projectproductivity is often recognized in theliterature (Kendall & Rollins, 2003).These authors link the PMO’s productiv-ity directly to its legitimacy.

The criterion of planning in thePMO context mostly refers to theirstrategic and multiproject functions.Indicators proposed by respondentsgive some idea of the concrete out-comes that relate to the strategic actionof PMOs in selecting the right projects.Indicators also emphasize the role ofthe PMO in the portfolio equilibriumregarding their risks and their short-and long-term benefits. Capacity plan-ning indicators recognize the PMO’srole in the allocation of resources onthe long run, the capacity to deliver,and the capacity for internal resourcesto absorb changes from projects. Thealignment of employees’ objectiveswith organizational objectives was alsofound under the planning criteria. Thisindicator recognized that PMOs areinvolved in the appraisal process ofindividuals working on projects.

There are two indicators related toefficiency criterion. The first one refersto the relationship that a PMO has withother parts of the organization. Frominterviewees, this refers to numerousinefficient meetings with PMO employ-ees or managers. PMOs often perform amonitoring and controlling function onproject performance. In order toaccomplish this mission, additionalinformation to that available on reportsor Web sites is needed. Different com-mittees or meetings are called to share

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM



PA

PE

RS

information. People working on proj-ects repeat the same information inseveral different meetings, resulting ininefficiency and frustration. At thesame time, the role of the PMO in nego-tiation when it comes time to decide onthe status report color is recognized.The second indicator mentioned isproject success and, more specifically,the role of the PMO in fostering projectsuccess.

Indicators Within the Open SystemConceptionIndicators within the open systems oreffectiveness conception are the fewestin number. These mostly deal with flex-ibility, adaptation, and innovation inproject management. The first criteri-on, growth of the organization, refersdirectly to the business side of theorganization, taking into account sales,qualitative results, and effectiveness.These elements relate to the benefitsfrom projects. It emphasizes that thePMO could be involved in a wider proj-ect life cycle, covering the benefits fromprojects. This stretches project man-agement toward the product life cycle(Jugdev & Müller, 2005).

The criterion of flexibility, adapta-tion, and innovation show numerousindicators, few of which are sharedfrom one case to another, except fordelinquency, with respect to projectmethodology. One respondent stated:“A lot of flexibility, what matters to me isthe result; I couldn’t care less if we useda saw or a screwdriver to get there.” Thishighlights the fact that the contributionof the PMO to organizational perfor-mance is not limited to the establishmentof a methodology in project manage-ment (from the internal processes con-ception), but also the flexibility withwhich the PMO encourages its use.While no indicators were mentioned inthe evaluation by the external entitiescriterion, respondents mentioned somefor the criteria of having links with theexternal environment. Benchmarkingwas mentioned often in a context of jus-tification of the PMO, particularly to

justify the number of staff working in it.The criterion of responsiveness includ-ed two indicators that were mentionedquite often by respondents: (1) thePMO should be able to respond quicklyin order to make projects succeed and(2) the PMO should be able to adapt todifferent situations.

Indicators in this open system con-ception contrast with the ones includedin the internal processes conception.This confirms that paradoxes exist. Thereare individuals that value the respect ofproject management processes, while atthe same time in the same organization,others value exactly the opposite andencourage delinquency. The competingvalues framework offers an opportunityto acknowledge these paradoxes and,from there, to open up a dialogue todevelop a common basis and under-standing of organizational performance.This work supports the recognition of thediversity of the contributions a PMO canmake to an organization. And also itshould help to develop the awareness ofPMO managers and their employees ofthe paradoxes that are at work in theirorganizations regarding their perform-ance. This approach can be a valuableinstrument to initiate a dialogue andcome to a common understanding ofwhat is valued. PMO actions could thenbe aligned on this common understand-ing of organizational performance.

Indicators of Output QualityThe quality criteria include three indi-cators. First, the quality of the producthas been included here, as many inter-viewees mentioned this element inrelation with the PMO’s contribution tothe overall quality performance. Thesecond and third are indicators of satis-faction of the PMO sponsor and clientsof the PMO. These indicators are quitecommon when assessing quality.

ConclusionThe aim of this study is to understand the contribution of the PMO to organi-zational performance with a view tounderstanding project management’scontribution to organizational per-

formance. Research on organizationalperformance in project managementdoes not produce entirely satisfactoryresults. Each piece of research bringsimportant contributions—but consid-ered all together, a global vision of proj-ect management performance at theorganizational level is still lacking.

The competing values frameworkhas the advantage of integrating thefinancial perspective of performancewith the other conceptions in order toform a multidimensional perspective.Indeed, the four conceptions of theframework give us a multifaceted repre-sentation of the performance of organi-zational project management. Therational goals and efficiency conceptionintegrates the economic values of prof-itability, project management efficiency,and return on investment. The open sys-tems and effectiveness conceptionincludes variables that measure growthand take into consideration innovationand project effectiveness. The humanrelations conception emphasizes thedevelopment of human resources, cohe-sion, and personnel morale. All of theseelements are often absent from the eval-uation of organizational performance.The internal processes conception captures measurements related to cor-porate processes tied to project manage-ment such as project delivery method-ologies, communication processes, andknowledge management processes.Overall, the competing values modelbears directly on performance (objectivevariable) instead of bearing on successfactors (explanatory variables).

Organizational performance mustbe examined from different viewpointsand be scrutinized at several loci ofanalysis. PMOs are positioned at theinterface of several entities, some ofwhich belong to project networks andothers to operational organizations(Lampel & Jha, 2004). They are in touchwith the projects, programs, project port-folios, corporate strategy, and functionaland business units. The PMO is there-fore at the center of numerous perspec-tives on organizational performance. ■

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM


ReferencesAllard-Poesi, F., & Maréchal, C. (1999).Construction de l’objet de recherche[Construction of the research object].In R.-A. Thiétart (Ed.), Méthodes derecherche en management [Researchmethods in management] (pp. 34–56).Paris: Dunod.

Boyne, G. A. (2003). What is publicservice improvement? PublicAdministration, 81, 211–227.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M.(1997). The art of continuous change:Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shiftingorganizations. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 42, 1–34.

Cameron, K. S. (1981). Construct spaceand subjectivity problems in organiza-tional effectiveness. Public ProductivityReview, 5(2), 105–121.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness asparadox: Consensus and conflict inconceptions of organizational effective-ness. Management Science, 32, 539–553.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999).Diagnosing and changing organiza-tional culture: Based on the competingvalues framework. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A.(1983). Organizational effectiveness: Acomparison of multiple models. NewYork: Academic Press.

Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2000). Towardsimproved project management prac-tice: Uncovering the evidence for effec-tive practices through empiricalresearch. Unpublished doctoral thesis,Metropolitan University, Leeds, UnitedKingdom.

Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The “real”success factors on projects.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 20(3), 185–190.

Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2004). Projectmanagement maturity models. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects(pp. 1234–1264). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Crawford, K. J., & Cabanis-Brewin, J.(2006). Optimizing human capital

with a strategic project office: Select,train, measure, and reward people fororganization success. Boca Raton, FL:Auerbach.

Dai, C. X. Y., & Wells, W. G. (2004). Anexploration of project managementoffice features and their relationship toproject performance. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 22,523–532.

Dietrich, P., & Lehtonen, P. (2004).Successful strategic management inmulti-project environment: Reflectionsfrom empirical study. Paper presentedat the IRNOP VI Conference, Turku,Finland.

Dwyer, S., Richard, O. C., & Chadwick, K.(2003). Gender diversity in manage-ment and firm performance: The influ-ence of growth orientation and organi-zational culture. Journal of BusinessResearch, 56, 1009–1019.

Hobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2007). A multi-phase research program investigatingproject management offices (PMOs):The results of phase 1. ProjectManagement Journal, 38(1), 74–86.

Huemann, M., Keegan, A., & Turner, R. J.(2007). Human resource managementin the project-oriented company: Areview. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 315–329.

Ibbs, C. W., Reginato, J., & Kwak, Y. H.(2004). Developing project manage-ment capability: Benchmarking, matu-rity, modeling, gap analysis, and ROIstudies. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managingprojects (pp. 1214–1233). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Jordan, G. B., Streit, D., & Binkley, S. J.(2003). Assessing and improving theeffectiveness of national research labora-tories. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 50(2), 228–235.

Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A ret-rospective look at our evolving under-standing of project success. ProjectManagement Journal, 36(4), 19–31.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996).Using balanced scorecard as a strategic

management system. Harvard BusinessReview, 74(1), 75–85.

Kendall, G. I., & Rollins. S. C. (2003).Advanced project portfolio manage-ment and the PMO: Multiplying ROI atwarp speed. Boca Raton, FL: J. RossPublishing.

Lampel, J., & Jha, P. J. (2004). Models ofproject orientation in multiprojectorganizations. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K.Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to manag-ing projects (pp. 223–236). Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.

McDermott, C. M., & Stock, G. N.(1999). Organizational culture andadvanced manufacturing technologyimplementation. Journal of OperationsManagement, 17, 521–533.

Merriam-Webster’s collegiate diction-ary (11th ed.). (2007). Springfield, MA:Merriam-Webster.

Midler, C. (1994). L’auto qui n’existaitpas [The car that didn’t exist]. Paris:InterÉditions.

Morin, E. M., Savoie, A., & Beaudin, G.(1994). L’efficacité de l’organisation:Théories, représentations et mesures[Effectiveness of the organization:Theories, representation and measures].Montréal, Québec: Gaëtan Morin éditeur.

Norrie, J., & Walker, D. H. T. (2004).A balanced scorecard approach to proj-ect management leadership. ProjectManagement Journal, 35(4), 47–56.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitativeresearch & evaluation methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pounder, J. S. (2002). Public accounta-bility in Hong Kong higher education:Human resource management implica-tions of assessing organizational effec-tiveness. International Journal of PublicSector Management, 15, 458–474.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983).A spatial model of effectiveness crite-ria: Towards a competing valuesapproach to organizational analysis.Management Science, 29, 363–377.

Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). Operationalizingthe competing values approach: Mea-suring performance in the employment

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM



PA

PE

RS

service. Public Productivity Review,5(2), 141–159.

Savoie, A., & Morin, E. M. (2002). Lesreprésentations de l’efficacité organisa-tionnelle: Développements récents[Representations of the organizationaleffectiveness: Recent developments]. InR. Jacob, A. Rondeau, & D. Luc (Eds.),Transformer l’organisation: La gestionstratégique du changement [Transfor-ming the organization: The strategicmanagement of change] (pp. 206–231).Montréal, Québec: Revue Gestion.

Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., &Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept.Long Range Planning, 34, 699–725.

Stewart, W. E. (2001). Balanced score-card for projects. Project ManagementJournal, 32(1), 38–53.

Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., &Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Congruencede valeurs et engagement envers l’or-ganisation et le groupe de travail[Values congruence and engagementtowards the organization and workinggroup]. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 10(2), 165–187.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics ofqualitative research: Techniques andprocedures for developing grounded the-ory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Linkages ofproject environment to performance:

Lessons for team leadership.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 22, 533–544.

Thomas, J. L., Delisle, C., Jugdev, K., &Buckle, P. (2002). Selling project man-agement to senior executives: Framingthe moves that matter. Newtown Square,PA: Project Management Institute.

Thomas, J. L., & Mullaly, M. E. (Eds.).(2008). Researching the value of project management. Newtown Square, PA: Project ManagementInstitute.

Thompson, M. P., McGrath, M. R., &Whorton, J. (1981). The competing values approach: Its application andutility. Public Productivity Review, 5(2),188–200.

Turner, R. J., & Keegan, A. E. (2004).Managing technology: Innovation,learning, and maturity. In P. W. G.Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wileyguide to managing projects (pp.567–590). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III.(1996). Ambidextrous organizations:Managing evolutionary and revolu-tionary change. California Manage-ment Review, 38(4), 8–30.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engagedscholarship: Creating knowledge for science and practice. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Winch, G. M. (2004, July). Rethinkingproject management: Project

organisations as information pro-cessing systems? Paper presented at the PMI Research Conference,London.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research:Design and methods. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Monique Aubry, PhD, is a professor in the grad-uate programs in project management at theSchool of Business and Management at theUniversité du Québec à Montréal. She is anactive researcher within the ProjectManagement Research Chair under the aegis ofproject governance. Before her academiccareer, she worked for more than 20 years inthe management of major projects in the finan-cial sector. She is a member of the ProjectManagement Institute’s Standards MemberAdvisory Group.

Brian Hobbs, PhD, PMP, Project ManagementResearch Chair (www.pmchair.uqam.ca), hasbeen a professor at the Université du Québec àMontréal in the Master’s Program in ProjectManagement for 25 years, a program accreditedby the Project Management Institute’s GlobalAccreditation Center. He has been a member ofPMI’s Standards and Research Member AdvisoryGroups. He has presented many papers at bothresearch and professional conferences world-wide.

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM


Appendix: List of IndicatorsThis Appendix presents the list of all 79unique indicators that were identifiedfrom the four case studies. Indicatorsprovide an explicit element to assess the

contribution of PMOs to organizationalperformance. Indicators have been clas-sified using the conceptions on per-formance from the competing valuesframework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).

Table A1 presents indicators within con-ceptions of human resources, outputquality, and internal processes. Table A2presents indicators within rational goalsand open systems conceptions.

CRITERIA INDICATORS CRITERIA INDICATORS

Indicators Within Human Resources Conception Indicators Within Internal Processes Conception

1. Value of human 1. Empowerment 6. Information and 1. Accuracy of information in progressresources working 2. Stimulating projects (participate to communication reportin project something big) management 2. Transparency of information in

3. Visibility for good work in projects progress report4. Individual assessment 3. Circulation of the information on 5. Internal recruitment privileged projects (transverse role)6. Team work valued 4. Keeping the memory of projects for7. Trust in PMO forecasting (historical statistics)

5. Existence of project documentation2. Training and 8. Training in project management 6. Capacity to absorb a lot of infor-

emphasis on 9. Level of experience of the personnel mation (project managers and development working in PMO coordinators)

10. Encouragement for PMP 7. Creation of open places for people 11. Individual development plan for project to discuss

management competencies 8. Politics—visibility of the CEO12. Diversity in competencies 9. Learning from errors13. Coaching14. Organization of events—knowledge 7. Stability in 10. Standardization in the way things

transfer processes are done15. Change management in project 11. Importance of the resource

management appointment process12. Existence and stability of project

3. Moral on project 16. Pleasure in working management processespersonal 17. Career job security

18. Employee satisfaction in project 8. Control 13. Rigor in the project management 19. Work-family equilibrium process20. Number of overtime hours 14. Control of the appointment process

to avoid thieving4. Conflict 21. Conflict prevention 15. Capacity to act (difference between

resolution and 22. Resolution of conflict in HR management monitoring and controlling)search for 23. Negotiation on progress report 16. Control of project delivery datecohesion (e.g., color code) 17. Control of costs

24. Negotiation on actions to be taken from 18. Control of scopeprogress report 19. Control of earned value

25. Negotiation on project selection in portfolio 20. Ratio number of changes/respectof costIndicators Within Output Quality

21. Equilibrium between time and5. Output quality 1. Quality of the product budget

2. Satisfaction of the sponsor 22. Control of risks3. Satisfaction of clients 23. Percent of precision in control data

Table A1: List of indicators within conceptions: Human resources, output quality, and internal processes.

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM



PA

PE

RS

CRITERIA INDICATORS CRITERIA INDICATORS

Indicators Within Rational Goals Indicators Within Open System

9. Profit 1. Profit from projects 13. Growth 1. Sales results2. Benefits planning within 2. Qualitative element from busi-

project business case ness case (business positioning)3. Effectiveness

10. Productivity 3. Order in productivity4. Best utilization of resources in 14. Flexibility/ 4. Innovator, creator, and good at

project management (leave less adaptation/ conflict or problem resolutionpeople on the bench) innovation in 5. Hiring of project management

5. Index of productivity project personnel having creative skills6. Bureaucracy management 6. Existence of initiatives in project7. Internal competition (e.g., between management methodology

units in different countries) (sometimes being delinquent)8. Existence of an organizational 7. PMO product a variety of reports

structure to deliver projects 8. Hiring of external consultants toknow the best practices in project

11. Planning in 9. Importance of the strategic dimension in managementgoals to reach the selection of the “good” projects 9. Evolution in project management

10. Equilibrium in projects of a portfolio process and tools(risk, benefits on the short-, medium-, 10. Participation of stakeholders in and long-term value) the development and evolution of

11. Prediction of the delivery capabilities project management processes(resource allocation)

12. Alignment of enterprise objectives with 15. Assessment by nonethe employees’ objectives external entities

12. Efficiency 13. Efficiency in the relations between 16. Links with 11. Link with the local PMI (some-PMO and functional or business units— external times too much!)negotiation on projects environment 12. Benchmarking

14. Project success (PMO impacts onprojects) 17. Readiness 13. Being agile

14. Responsiveness in appointmentwhen urgent need

Table A2: List of indicators within conceptions: Rational goals and open system.

PMJ_20213.qxd 12/4/10 11:40 AM

pmjfeb2011 org

Documents