The Problem With PMOs

While PMOs are formed with the best intentions, over time they frequently lose their value to their sponsoring organisation through the same generic factors that dilute the value of any business unit. These may be the loss of expertise over time as staff move on, changes in leadership or organisational restructures.

However the more serious problem is both overlooked yet surprisingly obvious.

Every organisation grows, adapts and evolves in response to (or ideally leading) market trends. Strategic priorities change; so do the structures, mandates, operating models and controls. Yet through all this the PMO is frequently stagnant – same team, same structure, same services. This means that what met the organisation’s needs three or even two years ago may deliver minimal to no value today. It then comes as a surprise when the question is asked “Why do we have the PMO, anyway?” The PMO is then shut down – by failing to evolve with its sponsoring organisation it signs its own death warrant.

A more dynamic and agile approach is required by today’s PMOs to not just survive, but to deliver exponential value to its organisation to ensure it provides the right services to the right people at the right times.

Consider the design of a PMO as a Rubik’s Cube:

• On the X axis are the disciplines supported: In the diagram below are Project & Program Management, Change Management and Business Process Management.
  • Obviously each organisation has its own unique needs, in reality this list may be shorter or longer.
• On the Y axis is the PMO’s level of accountability.
  • Monitoring: In which the PMO is simply a centralised reporting unit.
  • Enabling: The PMO has the mandate to promote, facilitate and enforce the use of the methods associated with its disciplines. Examples include a methodology, stage gate reviews, and minimum governance structure requirements.
  • Controlling: In which the PMO hold full delivery accountability for all projects and their expected benefits. This usually entails all Project and Program Managers being part of (or reporting directly into) the PMO.
• On the Z axis is the scope of the PMO throughout the organisation.
  • The PMO may cover a specific program, a business unit, or the entire organisation.

As a PMO is established the specific combination of interlocking factors should be considered within the context of the organisation’s needs, though the story does not end there. The above should be reconsidered annually in light of the changing environment to ensure that as the organisation evolves, the PMO evolves with it. Only then can a PMO continually increase the business value of the service it delivers.

While the above describes the considerations and complexities of calibrating a PMO, the same applies to TMOs (Transition Management Offices). TMOs are usually established to govern large scale changes to operating models, and focus on OKRs (Outcomes & Key Results). Management Consultants and other generalists frequently lack the hands on delivery experience required to secure the right balance between transparency and controls Vs. pragmatic and workable. With significant global experience on both sides of the Consulting/Delivery fence Jim brings realistic and workable solutions underpinned by sound thinking to measure what matters.