PMO Implementation and Integration with Focus on

PMOs AND LONGEVITY ISSUES: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE MGMT 6332 – Supervised by Joo Jung – PhD, PMP

Abstract This exploratory research uncovers an organic path to implementing PMOs for sustained strategic relevance and proposes a generic conceptual framework for PMO-Operations Management integration (POMi)

Taiwo Abraham – [email protected]

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE ABSTRACT This paper reports a part of an exploratory research on the design and implementation of Project Management Offices (PMO) for sustained productivity enhancement of operations management. While more organizations are implementing PMOs for efficient channeling of resources towards strategic goals realization, many organizations with existing PMOs are rethinking the merits of theirs. This research explores a likely explanation for the typical short life span of PMOs by scrutinizing some processes of the pre-implementation phase of PMOs. The current work looks at component processes of the preimplementation phase such as implementation team composition, PMO initiative championship, organization change readiness management, organization PM maturity management, organization-PMO strategic goals alignment, PMO situation/domiciliation and project governance mechanism. While some research authors seem to favor the idea that PMOs by nature are meant to keep evolving if at all they must live long (Pellegrinelli and Garagna, 2009), this research adopts a skeptical alternate view that is premised on the existing findings on organizational knowledge management, competence retention and perhaps the popular learning curve theory. This research contributes a unique shift in research paradigm and proposes a generic conceptual framework for PMO-Operations Management integration (POMi). The researcher hopes to draw attention of other researchers to scrutinizing what components of the pre-implementation phase of PMOs possess strong positive correlation with the longevity of PMOs and consequently, sustained benefits realization. The research combines qualitative methods such as focus groups comprising of various PMO stakeholders, depth interviews and case studies with secondary data from existing pieces of literature. While this research follows the works of the likes of Aubry et al., 2010 and C. Bredillet et al. 2017 adopting a broader view of the PMO in an organizational context, this research uniquely opens doors for further studies on topics relating to longevity of the PMO using operation management tools. INTRODUCTION On one end of strategy is the vision of the organization and on the other end is the accomplishment of that vision. What wearies most troubled organizations is not the lack of a vision but accomplishing it. The difficulty associated with the journey of an organization from the outset to the accomplishment of its vision is often attributed to the complex matrix of systems, processes, stakeholders and many other elements of organizational success (Artto et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2009). However, the likely challenge is that organizations often ignore the simplistic path of carefully cascading complex strategy goals into simpler components for easy management (Morris and Jamieson, 2005 and Loch, 2008). Most organizations that would attempt to decompose the seeming complex matrix into smaller components often realize that at the core of each smaller component are the connecting units of operations called projects. Hence, the extent of an organization’s project management maturity becomes vital to the successful management of these projects (Turner et al., 2015; doValle et al., 2008). Ultimately, the aggregation of the successes from managing the various component projects of the organizational strategy is what sums up into strategic opportunities and competitive advantages (Crawford, 2005). Authors from among both professionals and academics have produced articles centered on PMO and its organizational relevance as it relates to organizational project management capability (B. Ekrot et al. 2016). For the purpose of this research, PMO would be used a broad term encompassing all forms of mechanisms that organizations use to address their project, program and portfolio management concerns. Whereas universally agreeable measures of quantification are still much under research (C. Bredillet et al. 2017), there is an apparent agreement among scholars that PMOs, in their various forms, add value to their respective organizations (B. Ekrot et al. 2016; Bourgeois, 1981; Godbole, 2014). However, many of these researchers, also go on to, agree on a common thread that the PMOs are generally short-lived (Aubry et Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

1|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE al., 2010a; Singh et al., 2009) which raises the question – if it is so good, why short-lived? The extent of divergence of views expressed by these authors in addressing PMO longevity issues paves the way for efforts to continue the exploration of various concepts around the establishment of PMOs and keeping them relevant. Some authors suggest that PMOs in their various forms are simply destined to be shortlived (Pellegrinelli and Garagna, 2009) and some others believe in the continued reinvention or evolution of the PMO for continued relevance (Aubry et al., 2010). These differences in opinion do emerge in the attempt to explain how organizations may respond to the usual diminishing relevance that characterizes PMOs shortly after they might have solved the problem that necessitated their creation. A study of five hundred (500) PMOs reported average lifespan of two years for PMOs in their current forms in their respective organizations (Hobbs, & Aubry, 2008). This trend is quite understandable given that the PMO concept is a relatively innovative approach towards addressing a broad range of organizational concerns (Artto et al., 2011). Hence, the merits of keeping PMOs soon become fuzzy after the initial appetites for creating them have been satisfied (Pellegrinelli and Garagna, 2009) and much more doomed when they fail to meet expectations. As reported by one of the respondents in the work of Pellegrinelli and Garagna (2009), even when it might make quantitative economic sense to cut PMO overheads as soon as there is a perception of PM capability establishment, organizations need to exercise caution to avoid sending their hard-earned capability into a possible death spiral. Already, many researchers have supported the views that the longevity of PMOs positively correlates with organizations’ overall project management capability (B. Ekrot et al. 2016). This is buttressed by the works of Chandler, 1992; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Teece and Pisano, 1994; Zollo and Winter, 2002 on the importance of human competencies and organizational capabilities on the long-term business success. Scholars do recognize Project Managers as key personnel in project management, whose competence are vital to the success of projects within their respective organization (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995; Crawford, 2005; Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008; Katz and Allen, 1985). B. Ekrot et al. 2016 went on to argue that project management competence retention positively influences average project success, which is a precursor of overall business success in project-oriented organizations (Crawford, 2005). Crawford’s idea of project-oriented organizations now appears to be broader than just the definition of an organization whose business is purely project management. Over the past three decades, researchers and practitioners have been witnessing the accelerating adoption of project management as the basis for achieving the needed flexibility and dynamic environments within which businesses can favorably compete (Midler, 1995; Söderlund, 2005). With more organizations adopting projects as the units of operation, project management competence and retention of it become factors of competitive advantage (Hölzle, 2010; Söderlund, 2005). While project management competence retention appears strongly tied to the retention of project managers, the typical short-lived structures within which projects are managed predisposes project managers to a highly mobile career life. Many organizations lack well described job role for project managers and neither do the organizations have defined career paths for project managers (Hölzle, 2010; Pinto and Kharbanda, 1995). Hence, the implementation and sustenance of PMOs within organizations provides a first attraction for project managers. The PMO is likely to be a base for human resources with core project management competence. The continued participation of these project managers in the various units of SBU operations extends such a highly valuable competence across the organization. In addition to the PM competency being distributed throughout the organizations’ SBUs, the lessons learned by the project managers across board becomes a valuable repository and a channel through which future projects may continue to learn from the organizations’ past. This level of involvement and relevance to organizations’ success alongside Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

2|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE having PMO as a primary domain of function may as well induce a developmental perspective among the project managers and hence improve their retention (Zollo and Winter, 2002; Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995). Furthermore, the existence of a PMO as a functional operational unit easily breeds such developmental opportunities as promotion systems and formal training which provides typical employees long term perspectives that Hausknecht et al., 2009 suggests may yield an improved employee retention. While projects are typically considered as sources of learning and creation of new knowledge (Bartsch et al., 2013; Söderlund and Bredin, 2006), this perception of opportunity to learn and develop, according to Smith et al., 2011 is likely to improve the retention of employees. It therefore appears that too frequent reinvention of the PMO or the complete termination of its existence is likely to create unintended effects (C. Bredillet et al. 2017), the perception of uncertainty (Hausknecht et al., 2009) and other situations contrary to the ones necessary for the retention of project managers and consequently their competences. Where high turnover rate exists, it becomes unlikely that the organization is able to accumulate and distribute individual project manager’s knowledge enough to actualize organizational learning (Zollo and Winter, 2002; Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995). Hence, outright termination or frequent re-invention of such PMOaided capabilities, spawned out of goal congruence between operation’s project units and the entire organization management, may be tantamount to sending such desired capability down the drain. Another objective approach is to liken the diminishing impact of PMOs to that of organizational learning rate. Operations in both service and manufacturing organizations acknowledge the concept of the learning curve. Learning curve describes the path organizations journey through to achieve steady and efficient operational systems. For instance, high volume manufacturing companies at the commencement of their operations typically take longer time and require more resources to complete product cycles than industry averages. However, it is generally assumed that as these nascent companies continue to learn the ropes, they become more efficient with time and resources at a fairly predictable rate. While the learning rate may be consistent, the impact of the efficiency improvement diminishes as organizations mature towards perfection. This scenario depicts PMOs in many ways. Given the reputation of the PMO as an innovative ways of addressing organizational concerns (Artto, et al., 2011), the need to create one often stems from identifiable gaps in organizations’ capabilities. Consequently, the impact of PMOs at the onset are relatively significant (Pellegrinelli and Garagna, 2009) and easily justifies all the dimensions of cost economic, risk, social, emotional, etc. Meanwhile, as PMOs continue to thrive, they gradually close the gap that necessitated their implementation but at a diminishing rate too. As PMOs mature the organizational project management process, a time comes when the envisioned PM capabilities appear to have been established and hence the justification for the overhead costs of autonomous PMOs come under scrutiny. Whereas, most organizations seek to keep the operational process assets they derive from their PMO-aided learning curve, they seem to have a contrasting approach to keeping the PMO alive. This research seeks a likely explanation for this contrasting behavior by studying component processes of the preimplementation phase of the PMO. Such processes include but not limited to implementation team composition, PMO initiative championship, organization’s change readiness management, organization’s PM maturity management, organization-PMO strategic goals alignment, PMO situation/domiciliation and proposed project governance mechanism. This study combines exploratory methods such as focus groups comprising of PMO stakeholders, depth interviews and case studies of failed PMOs, fledgling PMOs and thriving PMOs with secondary data carefully obtained from existing pieces of literature. The objective of this study is to explore the possibility of building PMOs that share the resilience of other entities of organizational operations management as the PMOs continue to enhance organizational productivity through alignment of strategic and project management goals. This possibility is sought in two ways: Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

3|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE making PMOs organic component of operations management and running the PMOs using carefully tailored collaborative organizational project governance mechanism. This work only addresses the first, the possibility of making PMOs organic part of operations management. The inspiration for this research came from a consulting experience on an Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) establishment project in 2016. The EPMO establishment mandate was second to an initial failed attempt. The client organization is an apex bank of a country with a population size about two third of United States’. The organization is a government agency with strategic objectives that are key to the development of the country in many ways but most importantly, economically. It has about twenty-nine departments and a staff population of about ten thousand. Given the history of the failed first attempt, the second attempt adopted a process somewhat different from the first attempt. The first step on the second attempt was an assessment of the organization’s project management maturity. This process yielded quite a number of useful information with which the EPMO implementation team was able to get a fair second run. The maturity assessment required setting up focus group and depth interviews in the various departments of the organizations. The focus group in each department consisted of quite a homogenous group of people that included Project Management stakeholders with designations ranging from Assistant Manager to Senior Manager. Instead of having members of executive/top management in the focus groups, the consulting team conducted depth interviews with them, asking similar questions asked in the focus group sessions. The team created discussions around a large number of the sample topics below. At the end of the focus group sessions and depth interviews, the team used a survey to draw more information similar to what was collected during the focus groups to control for possible interviewer or respondent biases. Among many things, the team found two key findings that are material to this current study, which largely made the first attempt to fail and a number of contributing factors that may not have been as dominant as the first two: 1. The composition of the implementation team 2. The decision of EPMO domiciliation which by extension influenced the proposed collaborative framework between the general operations of the organization and the EPMO 3. Organization PM maturity management, PMO initiative championship, organization change readiness management, organization-PMO strategic goals alignment, and proposed project governance mechanism. A majority, as much as 90% of all interviewees, expressed the views that the composition of the first EPMO implementation team, above all other factors, killed the EPMO. The same majority thought that the EPMO establishment could have taken a somewhat different approach as regards the collaborative framework with which it would relate to other operational entities of the organization. When asked, most of the respondents could not pinpoint what the implementation should have done, but they all thought a better PMO-Operations integration framework could have guaranteed some level of resilience for the EPMO. However, the consulting team was able to gather some useful enterprise environmental information that the respondents thought could yield a PMO that would add value and exist on an on-going basis. The current research seeks to explore the universality of these findings through the eye of the existing scholastic works, case studies of successful PMOs and more primary data from a wider group of respondents.

Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

4|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH This research work is unique as it scrutinizes the pre-implementation processes of PMOs in organizations. It dwells more on laying the foundation on which PMOs may be able to thrive and continuously deliver value to justify their existence. The present study seeks to:

1.

Draw attention of both the community of practice and research scholars to the preimplementation phase processes of the PMO that may have strong predictive effects on the longevity of PMOs and ultimately, continued organizational productivity enhancement and

2.

Propose a generic conceptual framework for PMO-Operations Management integration (POMi) which ultimately should influence the design of organizations’ project management governance mechanism. Perhaps, by constituting PMO implementation teams consisting of operations and project stakeholders who share aligned stance on building PMOs that pervade organizational operations management structure, the need to justify PMOs as autonomous entities will diminish or become voided. This approach lays the foundation for PMOs that may enjoy the economic and socio-political immunity that other entities of operation management do thrive on. The sense of duty that is likely to accompany the ownership of PMOs among operational stakeholders presents a natural bias. This bias creates a scenario whereby PMOs get fed with all necessary operational inputs they need to thrive. When PMOs are this organically embedded in the management of operations, they become “operationalized” and the need to justify their existence as autonomous organization entities atrophies. LITERATURE REVIEW Seeing the volume of articles and conversations around the concept of PMO today, one does not have to be curious-minded to begin to wonder why. However, it seems that these PMO conversations fail to address the breadth of challenges that the project management community still has to overcome to maximize benefit delivery (Müller, et al., 2013). Existing works on PMO primarily centers around three subjects: the justification of the PMO's existence, its roles and functions, and its implementation steps (Aubry, Hobbs, & Thuillier, 2006). While the rapid evolution of PMO (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992) creates intense debate among scholars and professionals, the generalization that the PMO creates a positive net impact on organization’s success (B. Ekrot et al. 2016; Godbole, 2014), easily explains its popularity. What follows is that many organizations receive advice from professional consultants and bet their resources on the implementation of a PMO before being confronted with some rather esoteric issues. One of such issues is the continuity of the PMO. Typically, organizations do implement PMOs to solve a particular problem or many problems and sometimes, to take an opportunity (Pellegrinelli and Garagna, 2009). Whatever the reasons may be, the desired result is some sort of improved capability within the organization, which creates the kind of organizational slack advantage described by Bourgeois (1981). When this capability becomes established, continued justification of the existence of the PMO becomes an arduous task for the PMO enthusiasts. Meanwhile, according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PwC) publication in 2012: Insights and Trends: Current Program and Project Management Practices, there is a positive relationship between the length of existence of a PMO and its contribution to the organization’s successful project completion rate. Report showed that 68% of organizations where a PMO has existed for six years or more have disseminated the standards for project management across all business units while organizations with shorter term PMOs have only 47% dissemination rate (Godbole, 2014). PwC’s claim aligns with some of the findings of the research in a case study of 27 organizations from the Hall of Fame of PMO of the year award by the Project Management Institute from 2006 to 2015. Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley 5|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE While there are many articles on why PMOs fail, none has explicitly scrutinized the PMO preimplementation phase component processes seeking likely explanations for the PMO longevity issues. While these component processes are mentioned in almost every good handbook for PMO implementation, the authors mostly just relate them to the overall success of the PMO. Adding to that, the existing pieces of literature inadequately guides PMO implementers on the degree of correlation between these preimplementation phase components and the longevity of the intended PMO. Consequently, typically optimistic PMO implementation teams lack the needed parameters for determining what extent of success on each of the pre-implementation process is minimum requirement for a PMO that is intended to live long. Furthermore, there seems to be insufficient investigation on how a likely contrast in the views of PMO implementers and that of operation managers whose buy-in is critical to the continued existence of PMO can influence the length of PMO’s existence. However, the PMO subject should continue to dominate the conversations among management executives as project management success continues to drive strategy success (Papke-Shields, & Boyer-Wright, 2017) While projects are now generally being accepted as driving tools for strategic changes (Jamieson and Morris, 2007; Kwak and Anbari, 2009; Ward and Daniel, 2012), operations management has traditionally been considered the organization’s path to strategy execution (Grant, 2005; Kaplan & Norton, 2008). So it is, also, that projects are considered temporary and undertaken to provide specific objectives (PMI, 2013) whereas operations is generally thought of as a collection of broader and continuous interactions of organizational units to deliver varying objectives and value. However, as operations expand, complexities increase and this necessitates the adoption of project management approach as seen in all the 27 companies studied. Managing multiple projects then comes with its own challenges such as resource sharing and allocation, strategy alignment, efforts duplication, etc. (Gustavsson and Jerbrant, 2012; Martinsuo and Lehtonen, 2007) hence, the emergence of Portfolio Management. Portfolio management, according to Müller et al., 2008 , is “a dynamic decision process where a list of active projects is constantly updated and revised” which drives the creation of project portfolios giving decision makers a holistic view of all the organization’s strategically aligned projects (Jerbrant and Gustavsson, 2013; Sanchez et al., 2009). Although the grouping of strategically aligned projects into portfolios seems like a step towards strategy realization, program-based coordination of multiple projects, prioritization of projects, sharing of resources, management of knowledge, etc. (Thiry, 2002) remain daunting (Artto et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2009). These challenges are the principal drivers of the creation of an innovative organizational entity generally called the Project Management Office (PMO), which, according to Andersen et al., (2007) was created to systematically coordinate project-related tasks. Aubry and Hobbs (2011), in furtherance to their work in 2007 and 2008, reported that more organizations were implementing PMOs as these innovative entities increasingly appeared to be adequately addressing the challenges of portfolio management. Since the main goal of PMOs have been the improvement of organizations’ project management maturity (Stanleigh, 2006), one is then prompted to begin exploring the integration of PMO and operations management for enhanced organizational productivity. This integration may be pivotal to longevity of PMOs as a successful integration might then mitigate the autonomy-induced pressure that typically suffocates PMOs. Aubry et al., (2010a) approximated the average life expectancy of PMOs to two years with three of four shutting down in the first three years of their establishment (Singh et al., 2009). While many researchers have investigated and suggested various reasons for the short PMO life span (Pellegrinelli and Garagna, 2009), none is yet to dive deeply into investigating how the activities and decisions made in pre-implementation phase of the PMO might be Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

6|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE contributing to the short life span. The researchers who came close are those who addressed implementation issues relating to PMO. However, this research approaches the pre-implementation phase with the future longevity challenges of PMO in mind. Given that operations management thrives on the collective successes of its component projects and PMOs provide the capability for improved project management results, this research suggests the usual attempt to separate the functions and management of PMOs from that of operations might offer an explanation to why PMOs soon face an uphill task of justifying their existence. And given the traditional role of operations management in strategy execution it is very likely that the existence of PMOs lies in the hand of managers of operations as all the necessary information required by the PMO to add any value are mostly statutory properties of operations management. The question now is not if PMOs can be integrated with operations management but if longevity and sustained productivity enhancement can be achieved by integrating them. Hence, this research proposes a generic conceptual framework for the domiciliation of the PMO at the heart of operations management. While the proposed framework assumes an enterprise wide level of influence for the PMO, it is scalable enough to fit in organizations with varying level of acceptance for PMO/PM maturity. The research argues that even though the PMO typically manages projects that should be managed by resources with PM core competence, the ownership of the PMO does not have to lie in the hands of project managers. However, as organizations mature in project management and project managers are being retained enough to climb their career path ladder, it may be possible to have PMO owners with core PM competence but who perfectly understands the PMO’s relationship with operations management. The components of the preimplementation phase of the PMO considered in this research cut across both the soft and hard elements of organizational management (Söderlund and Maylor, 2012; Crawford and Pollack, 2004; Liu et al. 2011; Karrbom, Gustavsson and Hallin, 2014) necessary for the successful integration of PMO. They include implementation team composition, PMO initiative championship, organization change readiness management, organization PM maturity management, organization-PMO strategic goals alignment, PMO situation/domiciliation and project governance mechanism. 1. Implementation team composition Pellegrinelli and Garagna (2009), mentioned that the PMO can be a battle ground between empowerment and control, between people and processes and between political factions. This description gives a hint to the mindsets of the various participants in the implementation of a PMO. An implementation team comprised of mostly Project Managers is soon overbearing for the operations stakeholders and a team comprised mostly of functional employees soon takes away the highly cherished autonomy of Project Managers. Besides this dimension of conflict is the need for various other considerations of skills, competencies, etc. While a set stakeholder carefully drawn from various functional areas to collaborate with the PMO’s implementation team might be its biggest headache, the sense of ownership drawn from participating in set up might as well have far-reaching effects on the longevity of the PMO. 2. Organization PM maturity management The PMO in itself is transformative (C. Bredillet et al. 2017) and is usually introduced to bolster the PM capability in organizations. Hence, the following line of thought is easily that the PM maturity of the organization at the time of implementation should have little to no effect. However, this research seeks to identify if the degree of differences project management processes usually proposed by the implementation team does have any implication on the acceptance and longevity of the PMO. For instance, if a PMO established to introduce a level 2 maturity has a higher likelihood of thriving and evolving through higher stages of maturity (Hobbs et al, 2008; Aubry et al, 2010), then implementers might begin to answer a Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

7|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE different set of questions around shortening the amount of time it takes PMOs to evolve to a desired stage rather than creating a PMO that is perceived to be more disruptive than supportive. 3. PMO initiative championship and organization change readiness management Organization change readiness here describes the appetite an organization has for the PMO. The PMO is still to a large extent a recent innovation in organization strategy management (Hobbs et al, 2008; C. Bredillet et al. 2017). Hence, the appreciation of the PMO is likely to be subject to the knowledge of the supposed champions and other relevant stakeholders. While a complete absence of PMO appreciation may spell a greater level of difficulty for the implementation team, deliberate efforts towards managing the expectation of stakeholders can minimize frictions. In some instances, the top management raises the need for a PMO and champions it, and in some other instances, the mid-level manager are the ones pushing for some disciplined coordination of project management effort. When the desire of the top management meets with the frustration of the functional managers at the status quo, a PMO might have a better chance of gaining necessary grounds for continued strategic relevance. 4. Organization-PMO strategic goals alignment A PMO that has no direct bearing on strategy is, at best, likely to be a temporary tool in the hands of executives for fixing a problem. However, a direct bearing on strategy may not necessarily sustain a PMO if substitutes exists (Barney, 1991). Given that the PMO is a non-traditional organizational component, one must question its ability to integrate with other organizational components to aid strategy delivery. 5. PMO situation/domiciliation and project governance mechanism Many practitioners have mentioned that the proximity of the PMO to the top management is crucial to its success (Muller, et al., 2014). Following the suggestion, many organizations have implemented PMOs that reported directly to as high as the CEO level. However, there is yet to be a fail-proof suggestion as per where a PMO can perform the most with the traditional organizational structure. One can thus continue to explore the likely impact of integrating the PMO at the heart of Operations Management. Perhaps, embedding the PMO into such a traditional component of organizational strategy management can rid the PMO the burden of having to self-sustain. In addition, it might foster better intimacy between the PMO and other areas of the organization with which it must interact if it must continue to add value. RESEARCH DESIGN This research relies on a combined use of qualitative research and secondary data research methods. The qualitative research feeds from focus group and depth interviews. A qualitative method like the focus group discussion among PMO stakeholders is especially useful because the research is perhaps able to uncover subjective contexts that are typically lost to the blind spots in most quantitative methods of research (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). For instance, a survey respondent in a descriptive research might indicate a degree of preference for a particular competence on her/his team. This may be an important information for the research but the context, the why, what and how explanation about why the individual prefers the competence is missing. Focus groups also tap into subjective experiences and are an efficient way to collect a large amount of data that describes, compares, or explains a social phenomenon (Fink, 2006) because they allow participants to interact with one another and build on one another’s comments, and they allow the facilitators to probe for details. The secondary data research rests on the study of the literature pieces on relevant subjects available on the internet. The research studied 28 cases of selected companies and client organizations with PMO experiences. Qualitative Research Focus Groups interviews involved four to ten homogenous discussants per session, in sessions of about an hour during which a moderator asked questions and guided the discussion. Three other engaged research assistants took notes of the sessions. This study matched the focus group members on a regional or Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

8|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE continental basis. The research team tried as much as it is safe for the research purpose to select the best sample units possible from among available volunteers in selected organizations. Given the anticipation of dispersed the focus group discussants regions, the research team asked the participants in each focus group session to form a virtual community where follow-up questions may be asked by the research team until research analyses and interpretations are completed. The research team conducted depth interviews in a timeline parallel to that of the focus group interviews in order to cross-compare the information being gathered from the various stakeholders when respondents were still available. Surveys with open questions similar to the interview questions were sent to PMO stakeholders who may find it difficult to be part of a focus group discussion some of whom were later followed up for clarification via emails and interviews. The depth interviews sourced information similar to what the focus group sessions collected. DISCUSSION GUIDE • Introduction 1. An introduction of each focus group members, name, department/functional unit, job designation, etc.

2. Explanation of the session objectives 3. Why the discussants are chosen 4. What the research team expects from them 5. What the team intends to do with the information 6. The rights of the discussants 7. The purpose and medium of recordings for the session 8. The limitations of the research team in the use of the recordings and collected data 9. Duration estimate for the session 

Discussion Topics: 1. Operations management - What operations management mean to the participants, how involved they are with operations management in their respective organizations, what component units/areas of operations management exist in their organizations. 2. Project management - What project management is to the participants, how involved they are with project management in their organizations, what units of their organizations currently has some sort of project management capabilities. 3. Relating operations management with project management – What relationships participants think exist, if any, between operations and project management and how they would describe it. 4. The existence or identified need of a PMO or a parallel organizational unit – If and what unit of participants’ organizations, as a whole or departmental unit, is dedicated to some kind of support, coordination, or oversight function for project related activities. Where none exists, any such idea in the pipeline and why. Where one exists, its length of existence 5. Interaction with the PMO 6. Discussion about each of the PMO pre-implementation phase components: a. What implementation team composition is right for PMO in terms of organizational role, career profile and leadership skill?


9|Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE b. How critical is the existing organization PM maturity to the design of PMO? What extent of consideration is advised when designing a new PMO and it governance structure? c. If considered vital, what are the requisite organizational change-readiness management measures? d. How important is organization-PMO strategic goals alignment to PMO relevance and how can it be built into a new PMO? e. Is PMO situation/domiciliation and project governance mechanism necessary for proper functioning of the PMO? please suggest a place in the general organizational structure where the PMO may thrive the most and continue to be relevant to the overall organization’s success f. How important is the PMO initiative champion to the eventual organization-wide adoption of the PMO 7. General thoughts on the longevity of the PMO, if at all PMO should be built to last and how longevity can be achieved 8. Creating a new PMO – Thoughts on the proposed conceptual framework - POMi – can and

Figure 1. Proposed PMO-Operations Management integration Model (POMi) should the PMO be embedded into operations strategy execution level where IT, General Admin and Supports, HR, R&D, etc. typically occupy? If no, why and what are the viable alternatives? If yes, what are the pros and cons? The topics above served as a guide for the interviews while the moderator made the most of probing opportunities. The sessions typically ended with appreciation of every group participant. Secondary Research and Case Study The research sourced secondary data to complement the data gathered from the focus groups, interviews and interview surveys. Quite a number of professional articles are available on the internet with contents that educate the readers of the trends in the industry. The potential connections between the lengths of existence of PMOs, the factors that affect their resilience and where successful PMOs are domiciled in their respective organizations formed the core of the secondary research. The study anticipated the secondary research to serve as likely windows into an understanding of how organizations can begin to create resilient PMOs. SAMPLE DESIGN The focus groups and interview sessions in this study consisted only experienced organization employees in areas such as PMO implementation, PM practices, various areas of Operations management, etc.


10 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE DATA GATHERING For data gathering, the research support designed and used a note-taking template tested through a focus group session and peer review. The essence of the template was to make the recording of the focus group sessions less cumbersome. Where the participants gave consent, the research support team recorded audio from the sessions. This research gathered primary data from organizations from United States, New Zealand, Italy, London, Mexico, and Nigeria. While the research favored focus group session, more geographic spread was achieved using open-ended surveys. There were a couple of remote interviews with individuals in Africa, Asia and Europe. The research did collect secondary data from existing sources for case study purposes. The research attempted to study PMOs, their implementation process, the build-up to formal launch of the PMOs and the domiciliation of the PMOs within their respective organizational structures. Two of the factors that determined the selection of the organizations that made up the case studies, apart from availability of information, is the category their PMOs is perceived to be part of on the continuum of doomed, fledgling, nascent, thriving and length of existence. DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS Data and responses were gathered, and vetted for possible errors from entry, classification, misinterpretation, etc. The team juxtaposed cleaned organized data and extrapolated the results. The report, alongside texts used graphical illustrations for easy read. The research attempted to report overarching patterns and themes in formats that can help communicate the research report in a simple and productive way. Furthermore, the analysis resulted in a number of suggestions as per testable hypotheses for future research. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Case Studies The case studied consists of thirty-seven, one categorized as doomed, two fledgling, three nascent and thirty-one thriving PMOs. The definitions for these categorizations are nothing different from dictionary meaning. The doomed PMO is one identified marked for cessation at the time of this study. The fledgling PMO is one in its formative stage, inexperienced and with little/no records of successes as at the time of this study. The nascent PMO is one formed recently but still carving itself into the organization’s mainstream through early value deliveries or transiting from a previous less matured state to a new state with greater potentials. The thriving PMO is a flourishing and matured PMO that has an organization-wide acknowledgement of its value and support for continuity as at the time of this research. The research spent more time studying PMOs in the thriving category because organizations with such PMOs are more willing to speak about their success and more so there is probably more to learn. Below are some generalized observations from the organizations studied. Please see details in tables 1-3 in the appendix.


11 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE Category

Organization

Doomed - 1 Organization

Fledgling - 2 Organizations

Nascent - 3 Organizations

1. An apex bank of a country of population size about 1. A private enterprise with two third of United States' with about 10,000 merchandise and engineering employees across 27 departments. 2. One of the most businesses, present in 1 country rekoned credit union globally, with over 5 million and with roughly 500 employees. members with 13,000 employees and highly ranked Public/Private Financial Firm 2. A private consulting firm with among America's best employer on Forbes. 3. A 2 year with about 2,500 employees and Project Management as one of its old construction company with PMO as one of the present in about 5 countries. B2B products. foundational business units.

Length of PMO Existence 3 years

About 2 years in both organizations

PMO Domiciliation

Autonomous Unit

Meshed with strategy and operations

Formation Period

-

Formation period averaged 2 years in both organizations

Thriving - 31 Organizations A wide range of profiles from a public/private highly ranked health insurance companies with over 50,000 employees and more than $80 billion in revenue to a government-funded not-for-profit corporation with somewhat developmental and sector coordination responsibility over the a country's health portfolio in excess of $2 billion dollars as at 2013

Average of 11 years in the 31 organizations including an outlier with 21 years of existence. The PMO are mostly domiciled at the heart of the In one case, domiciled under the line of operations business division that is driving the strategy in the managed by the organization's overall Chief Operating respective organizations. In one of the organizations, Officer and in the two other cases, somewhere at the the PMO is domiciled in a division that generates the center of IT Governance and Strategy with activities highest share of the organization's revenue (more than regularly revolving round senior executives. 45% of the company's total revenue in 2014) Formation period averaged 3.5 years in two of the three firms where the PMO was added in response to About 60% of these organizations had their formative organizational growth years spanning an average of about 3-4 years. The PMOs here are mostly sponsored by top management. In one of the cases, the PMO is being sponsored by an executive vice president who is also the president of the the business division where the PMO resides. In another case, the PMO is being championed by the Chief Operating Officer while a Strong executive ownership of the PMOs Group Director is directly responsible for the PMO. The evolution path of this PMOs forged an irrestible organization readiness for their activities and continued In one of these cases, the community of practice contributions to the organization's strategic goals. The generally had frustration about the overwhelming identified need of the PMOs mostly rested on the number of projects without any orgnaization-wide recognition of their capability to help their respective standards, they pushed for an enterprise-wide PMO organizations make the most of industry opportunities. while the management as well identified the need for They seem to show a clear instance of how ownership a system improve efficiency in project management of the PMO may reduce the burden of change which accounts for a huge chunk of the organization's management on the implementation team. Here, the budget. In the other two cases, the evolution path and PMO being implemented at the heart of the the merit-based recognition of the PM team over the organization's operation aided an easy diffussion of the years earned the eventual PMOs a somewhat easy PMO into the other component functions of the acceptance organization-wide. organization. Average of 1.7 years in the three organizations

Visible executive support with PMO ownership somewhere Not visible and the PMO head is between the CEO and the Executive distant from the Senior Enterprise Operating Officer in Championship Executives one of the two organizations. Fast-paced growth appeared to be the driver of PMO establishement in the two organizations here. The growth puts almost every employee on the edge where any form of support or skill addition to the team is appreciated. Also, in There is a very low organization one of the cases, the CEO made readiness for the PMO. There is the project audit (PMO) his sole low level perceived needs for communication path with projects the PMO and there are no across the enterprise in its first Organization incentives for SBU-PMO year making the PMO largely Readiness collaborations. unavoidable Highly functional organization. The organizations appear Most SBUs will rather engage transitioning from highly external consultants rather than functional organizations to use internal capabilities such as somewhat balanced matrix The PM maturity typically is low at the onset of the PM Maturity the PMO. organizations. PMOs The PMO strives to approach initiatives from strategic perspective when carried along but the distance between the PMO and those responsible for strategy implementation stifles the efforts and perhaps A clear driver of success of these PMOs is strategy Strategy competencies that the PMO Strategy drives the efforts of the alignment and the domiciliation of the PMO at the Alignment could bring to the table. PMO in both organizations. heart of Operations and IT Governance.

Except for one of the cases where a strong PMO and Project Management culture was in inherited as part of an acquired organization, all others developed from low PM maturity.

The PMOs were created mostly as a strategic initiative and they appeared to remain strategic units as they are typically led by top management members with strategy focus.

The research found average of 4.5 years of existence with the thirty-one organizations that were studied based on their selection as the winner or finalists for the PMO of the year award. However, these PMOs have an estimated average of 11 years of existence at the time this research. The PMOs in these organizations all had some common traits, strategic alignment, domiciliation, and executive backing. It appears there is a strong connection between these three parameters. While difficult to determine causality among the three, it should be logical to think that the proximity of the PMO to the top management in the structure of the organization, termed as domiciliation in this research, served a good purpose at helping the PMOs gain clear perspective of strategy in their respective organizations. In addition, domiciling the PMOs at the heart of main operations and backed visibly by top executives, aided the diffusion of the PMO impact through almost every cell of other business units in the respective organizations in this study. This extent of diffusion of the impact of the PMOs appeared to have a strong connection with their continued relevance and increasing responsibilities in all the organizations studied. Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley 12 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE Organization readiness pattern varied across the organizations studied. However, there was a likely common thread around the pain level of the organization with their existing practice. It appeared that stakeholders more frustrated their traditional practice favored an innovative idea like the PMO than other organizations where everyone seemed fine with their processes. In addition, more than two thirds of the organizations studied identified some strategic opportunities to explore or a gap to close, which their existing system lacked capability to manage. Organization change readiness appeared strongest in about 10% of the organization studied, where this strategic view of top management about taking opportunities or closing gaps met with the frustration of the mid-level management as regards the existing practice. The level of readiness shown by these type of organizations might have helped the PMO implementation team in their respective organizations to domicile their PMO in a position that could earn the PMO continued relevance and strategy delivery. An interesting find in this research could is how evolving the PMO organically over a lengthy period could be affecting the perception of stakeholders and hence the acceptance and longevity of such PMOs. In about two-thirds the organizations studied, the implementation of the PMOs took a different path from the popular implementation route where an implementation team involving external consultants and internal stakeholders synergize to implement one over a specified period. These PMOs evolved through a somewhat organic path where an internal team charged with project management responsibilities grew from an unstructured team to a structured team and ultimately to a PMO. The evolution of these PMOs rested largely on an increasing recognition of the impacts of the organization’s project management team on the rest of the organization. Organizations who grew there PMOs through this path appeared to have minimal resistance for their PMOs and benign longevity challenge as well. Organization profile and Project Management maturity did not seem to predict any major success that may be linked to the longevity of the PMOs. There were inconsistent patterns regarding these two attributes among the organizations studied, hence there may be a need to study these on a broader context. Primary Data The primary data gathered provided information quite similar to what the research sought in the case studies. However, there were a few questions the research was able to ask respondents in the focus group sessions, interviews and surveys for which answers would be a difficult find in the secondary data used for majority of the organizations in the case study. The two are question 6a – what respondents thought about the right composition of implementation team for the PMO in terms of organizational role, career profile and leadership skill and question 8 - what respondents had to say about the POMi model and the idea of integrating the PMO into the center of operations management. As per team composition, the best response that adequately represented all other response is: “Implementation team must include a consultant (internal or external) with a deep familiarity -- based on significant past experience -- with the implementation of PMOs. Exceptionally engaged governance (sponsors / oversight committee / et al) is also a requisite. High-level leadership support is critical for success”. While this resonated across the responses from all the other respondents to the primary data collection avenues, this present study is unable to establish what blend of internal and external consultants is good enough and the definition of depth in experience that maybe requisite. However, it should be logical, following the findings from the case studies, that a more experienced team drawn from various stakeholder interest groups would be more familiar with the nuances that often complicate the implementation process for rookies. In addition, the respect for a team of experts usually will earn them better negotiation power Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

13 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE across the different strata of the organization structure, which might aid the team’s effort in finding the most viable home to domicile the PMO. As regards, the proposed PMO-Operations Management integration (POMi) model (please see figure 1), this study adopted a very simplistic view of organization’s operations management. The research proposed a model that, although maybe subject to some tailoring effort with respect to the sizes of various organizations, may guide PMO implementers on how to domicile a PMO at the heart of operation’s management. While majority of the respondents mentioned that the POMi model did not address the wide variation, and sometimes complexity, in the structure of organizations, the model is simple enough to give an idea of embedding a PMO in organization’s operations management. Many also favored the idea that the PMO domiciled at the heart of operations management should bolster the needed interaction with all the internal customers of operations management within the organization, which the PMO direly needs to thrive on an on-going basis. The research also found that majority of the organizations with the thriving PMOs domiciled their PMOs within Operation functions or Business Divisions managed by the Head of Operations. The most striking find in this regard is that these PMOs within Operation function tend to report higher project portfolio value with much less number of full-time employees when compared with organizations where PMOs are somewhat autonomous. The resulting marginal PMO overhead engenders high productivity ratio, a performance metric that may keep the PMO existing longer than expensive autonomous PMOs. A limitation of this research is the lack of the means to determine the impact that changes in PMO leadership or Champion could have on PMO longevity. In addition, the research was able to obtain primary data directly from only six of the thirty-seven organizations studied. Most importantly, this study is largely explorative and as such, the findings here are only meant to inspire thoughts among organization leaders and researchers. CONCLUSION A system such as the PMO appeared to aid the retention of Project Managers as the PMOs give them the perception of stability and career growth opportunity. However, the majority of the organizations studied also showed that when organizations retain their Project Managers, they tend to evolve a more resilient PMO that is rightly fit for continued contribution to strategy delivery. This co-evolution effect aligns with the work of Bredillet, et al., (2017), and alongside many other reasons, provides a good justification for sustaining the PMOs in the organization. Therefore, the longevity of the PMOs as co-drivers of strategy delivery (Jamieson and Morris, 2007; Kwak and Anbari, 2009) should continue to draw attention of researchers and practitioners as a means of keeping organization’s competitive advantage. Moving away from the existing approach of trying to fix a broken PMO or re-inventing one, organizations may begin to plan longevity into the implementation of their PMOs right from the scratch. The POMi model, although still in its conceptual stage may be used to communicate the idea of domiciling the PMO within operations functions of organizations. Further study areas would include a more detailed study of each of the component processes of the pre-implementation phase of PMOs. Furthermore, it might be worth the effort of researchers to study how a more organic evolution of simple project management team into formal PMOs might benefit the organizations and the PMOs towards achieving sustainability.


14 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE REFERENCES A system, B., Henriksen, B., and Aarseth, W.,“Benchmarking of project management office establishment: Extracting best practices”, Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(2), 2007, pp. 97-104. Artto, K., Kulvik, I., Poskela, J., & Turkulainen, V. (2011). The integrative role of the project management office in the front end of innovation. International Journal Of Project Management, 29(4), 408-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.008 Aubry, M., Müller, R., Hobbs, B., & Blomquist, T. (2010). Project management offices in transition. International Journal Of Project Management, 28(8), 766-778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.05.006 Aubry, M., Hobbs, J. B., & Thuillier, D. (2006). Project management office: a framework to understand organizational project management. Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference: New Directions in Project Management, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17, 99–120. Bartsch, V., Ebers, M., Maurer, I., 2013. Learning in project-based organizations: the role of project teams' social capital for overcoming barriers to learning. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 239–251. Bourgeois, L. J., III. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. The Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39. Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1995. Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 343–378 Chandler, A.D., 1992. Organizational capabilities and the economic history of the industrial enterprise. J. Econ. Perspect. 6, 79–100. Crawford, L., 2005. Senior management perceptions of project management competence. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 7–16. Crawford, L., Pollack, J., 2004. “Hard” and “soft” project: a framework for analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 645–653. doValle, J.A., da Silviera, W., Soares, C.A.P., 2008. Project management office (PMO)—principles in practice. ACE Int. Trans. PM 07, 1–9. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.


15 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE Ekrot, B., Kock, A. and Gemünden, H. (2016). Retaining project management competence — Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), pp.145-157. Fink AS. The role of the researcher in the qualitative research process: a potential barrier to archiving qualitative data. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2006;1(3):4. Geoghegan, L., Dulewicz, V., 2008. Do project managers' leadership competencies contribute to project success? Proj. Manag. J. 39, 58–67 Godbole, S. (2014). PMO: Its Impact on Project Success and Measuring Its Performance. Retrieved from http://cd14.ijme.us/papers/061__Saurabh%20Godbole.pdf Grant, R. (2005). Cases to accompany Contemporary strategy analysis, fifth edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Gustavsson, T.K., Jerbrant, A., 2012. Task lists as infrastructure: an empirical study of multi project work. Int. J. Proj. Organ. Manag. 4 (3), 272–285. Guthrie, J.P., 2001. High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: evidence from New Zealand. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 180–190. Hausknecht, J.P., Rodda, J., Howard, M.J., 2009. Targeted employee retention: performance-based and job-related differences in reported reasons for staying. Hum. Resour. Manag. 48, 269–288. Hobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2008). An empirically grounded search for a typology of project management offices. Project Management Journal, 39(S1), S69-S82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20061 Hölzle, K., 2010. Designing and implementing a career path for project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 779–786. Huselid, M.A., 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Acad. Manag. J. 38, 635–672. Jamieson, A., Morris, P.W.G., 2007. Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. The Wiley Guide to Project, Program, and Portfolio Management, vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 34–62. Jerbrant, A., Gustavsson, T.K., 2013. Managing project portfolios: balancing flexibility and structure by improvising. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 152–172. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2008). Mastering the Management System. Harvard Business Review, (January 2008). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/01/mastering-the-management-system


16 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE Karrbom Gustavsson, T. and Hallin, A. (2014). Rethinking dichotomization: A critical perspective on the use of “hard” and “soft” in project management research. International Journal of Project Management, 32(4), pp.568-577. Katz, R., Allen, T.J., 1985. Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Acad. Manag. J. 28, 67–87. Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T., 2009. Analyzing project management research: perspectives from top management journals. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (5), 435–446. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications Inc. Liu, J.Y.-C., Chen, H.-G., Chen, C.C., Sheu, T.S., 2011. Relationships among interpersonal conflict, requirement uncertainty, and software project performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 547–556. Loch, C.H., 2008. Mobilizing an R&D organization through strategy cascading. Res. Technol. Manag. 51 (5), 18–26. Martinsuo, M., Lehtonen, P., 2007. Role of single-project management in achieving portfolio management efficiency. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25 (1), 56–65. Midler, C., 1995. “Projectification” of the firm: the Renault case. Scand. J. Manag. 11, 363–375. Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (1992, Winter). Cycles of organizational changes. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 39–59. Morris, P.W.G., Jamieson, A., 2005. Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (4), 5–18 Müller, R., Glückler, J., & Aubry, M. (2013). A relational typology of project management offices. Project Management Journal, 44(1), 59–76. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21321. Müller, R., Pemsel, S., Shao, J., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: a literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (8), 1309–1320. Papke-Shields, K., & Boyer-Wright, K. (2017). Strategic planning characteristics applied to project management. International Journal Of Project Management, 35(2), 169-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.015 PwC. (2012). Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices. New York: PwC.


17 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE Pellegrinelli, S. and Garagna, L. (2009). Towards a conceptualisation of PMOs as agents and subjects of change and renewal. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), pp.649-656. Pinto, J.K., Kharbanda, O.P., 1995. Lessons for an accidental profession. Bus. Horiz. 38, 41–50 PMI, 2013a. The Standard for Portfolio Management. third ed Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA. PMI, 2013b. The View From Above: the Power of Portfolio Management White Paper. Project Management Institute. Pollack, J., Adler, D., 2014. Does project management affect business productivity? Evidence from Australian small to medium enterprises. Proj. Manag. J. 45, 17–24 Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 68, 79–91. Sanchez, H., Robert, B., Bourgault, M., Pellerin, R., 2009. Risk management applied to projects, programs, and portfolios. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2 (1), 14–35. Singh, R., Keil, M., Kasi, V., 2009. Identifying and overcoming the challenges of implementing a project management office. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 18, 409–427. Söderlund, J., 2005. Developing project competence: empirical regularities in competitive project operations. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 9, 451–480. Söderlund, J., Bredin, K., 2006. HRM in project-intensive firms: changes and challenges. Hum. Resour. Manag. 45, 249–265. Söderlund, J., Maylor, H., 2012. Project management scholarship: relevance, impact and five integrative challenges for business and management schools. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 686–696. Stanleigh, M., 2006. From crisis to control: new standards for project management. Ivey Bus. J. Online 1– 4. Teece, D., Pisano, G., 1994. The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Ind. Corp. Chang. 3, 537– 556. Thiry, M., 2002. Combining value and project management into an effective project management model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 221–227 Turner, N., Maylor, H. and Swart, J. (2015). Ambidexterity in projects: An intellectual capital perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), pp.177-188. Taiwo Abraham – [email protected] - University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

18 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE Ward, J.L., Daniel, E.M., 2012. The role of project management offices (PMOs) in IS project success and management satisfaction. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 26 (3), 316–336 Zollo, M., Winter, S.G., 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ. Sci. 13, 339–351. APPENDIX

Category Organization Profile Length of PMO Existence

Doomed

Fledgling

Public/Private Financial Firm with about 2,500 employees and present in about 5 countries

A private enterprise with merchandise and engineering businesses. Present in 1 country with roughly 500 employees

3 years

Been in formative stage for almost 2 years Domiciled in the CEO's office in its first year as project audits. Later rebranded as Project Planning and Supports and now restructured as a unit of operations referred to a Strategy and Projects Been in formation for almost 2 years, the management are still undecided about its permanent structure given the Enterprise' growth outlook With little or no more visible supports from the executive, the unit is easily reckoned as the CEO's oversight tool although now managed by the Head of Enterprise Operations The organization is growing at fast pace that puts almost every employee on the edge where any form of support or skill addition to the team is appreciated. Also, the CEO made the project audit (PMO) his sole communication path with projects across the enterprise in its first year making the PMO largely unavoidable The organization has shifted from a highly functional organization to a somewhat balanced matrix organization and it appears the management is aim a very strong matrix structure where the eventual PMO will run projects for every of the enterprise' BU

PMO Domiciliation

Autonomous Unit

Formation Period

-

Executive Not visible and the PMO head is Championship distant from the Senior Executives

Organization Readiness

There is a very low organization readiness for the PMO. There is lowlevel perceived needs for the PMO and there are no incentives for SBUPMO collaborations. Due to a highly functional environment, a lot happen without the PMO's involvement

PM Maturity

Highly functional organization. Most SBUs will rather engage external consultants rather than use internal capabilities such as the PMO collaborating with internal resources


19 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE The PMO strives to approach initiatives from strategic perspective when carried along but the distance between the PMO and those responsible for strategy implementation makes the PMO Strategy is at the core of the PMO's successes go unnoticed. Especially consideration of every initiative when advising that the functional unit responsible go/no-go to the respective SBU and for the initiative takes absolute management and of course remains all through Strategy responsibility for the success or failure the monitoring and evaluation of the initiative Alignment for their initiative execution Table 1. Doomed and Fledgling PMOs against the parameters of study

Category Organization Profile Length of PMO Existence

Nascent An apex bank of a country of population size about two third of United States'. About 10,000 employees across 27 departments/Bus.

About 1 year Domiciled under the line of operations PMO managed by the organization's overall Domiciliation chief About 3 years. First initiated in 2011, implemented, ran for about a year, and sidetracked. Then a second attempt initiated in 2014, commenced Formation implementation in late 2015 and ran till Period late 2016 Executive Somewhat apparent in communications Championship but not seen as absolute in practice The community of practice generally agrees to the need for an enterprisewide PMO and longs for a PMO that will solve their respective problems. The management as well identifies the need for a PMO to improve efficiency in project management which accounts for Organization a huge chunk of the organization's Readiness budget

One of the most reckoned credit union globally with over 5 million members. With 13,000 strong employees, it is highly ranked among America's best employer of Forbes

About 3 years Somewhere at the center of IT Governance and Strategy with activities regularly revolving round senior executives

About 4 years Appears quite strong The evolution path and the merit-based recognition of the PM team over the years earned the eventual PMO a somewhat easy acceptance organizationwide. The identified capability need by senior management, the history-based trust in the PMO and proximity of the PMO to the highest level of the organization all appeared to have earned it some level of visibility needed in the organization


20 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE At the outset in 2010 when the organization first formed its PM team, the PM maturity would not be anything more than what is obtainable in a typical Some units already have unit PMOs but functional organization or at best, a weak matrix the maturity is very low at the organization. At the point of formalizing the PMO in organization level being a highly 2014 and with the size of project portfolio the PMO bureaucratic and functional public then handled, one would expect a maturity that is PM Maturity organization typical of a balanced-strong matrix organization A clear driver of success of this PMO is strategy The majority of the PMO staff are alignment and the domiciliation of the PMO at the primarily from the organization's heart of IT Governance and the organization's Strategy area of function and that strategy planning group seems to be an apparent Strategy remains the top mandate to the PMO guarantee of continued relevance and perhaps, Alignment from the senior management existence Table 2. Nascent PMOs against the parameters of study

Category

Organization Profile Length of PMO Existence

PMO Domiciliation Formation Period

Executive Championship

Organization Readiness

Thriving A public/private highly ranked health insurance companies with over 50,000 employees and more than $80 billion in revenue About 7 years The PMO is domiciled at the heart of the business division that generates the highest share of the organization's revenue (more than 45% of the company's total revenue in 2014) About 3 years. Started as an identified need in 2007, was formalized in 2008 but the evolution continued until 2010 An executive vice president who is also the president of the business division where the PMO resides is sponsoring this PMO. The head of the PMO happens to report directly to the vice president of the division where the PMO resides The evolution path of this PMO forged an irresistible organization readiness for its activities and continued contributions to the organization's strategic goals. The identified need of the PMO lies in the recognition of its capability to help the organization make the most of industry opportunities.

A government-funded not-for-profit corporation with somewhat developmental and sector coordination responsibility over the a country's health portfolio in excess of $2 billion dollars as at 2013 About 13 years

Somewhere under the jurisdiction of the Chief Operating Officer and liaising with Finance and Information Management

Not Available

The PMO is being championed by the Chief Operating Officer while a Group Director is directly responsible for the PMO This is one clear instance of how ownership of the PMO may reduce the burden of change management on the implementation team. Implemented at the heart of the organization’s operation, there was an easy diffusion of the PMO into the other component functions of the organization.


21 | Page

PMO LONGEVITY: A STUDY OF THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PROCESSES AND DOMICILATION OF PMOs FOR CONTINUED STRATEGIC RELEVANCE The organization today inherited PMO as part of an acquired organization where the PMO had matured over a period of 4 years after its formal launch. The maturity consideration here may yield very different Maturity at the point of PMO implementation ideas from what obtains in typical would be typical of a government organization, circumstances where organizations initiate highly functional and with multifaceted PM Maturity the PMO from the scratch. stakeholders. Created as a strategic initiative, the PMO This PMO continues to be seen a strategy driver appeared to retain its reputation after it without necessarily being considered as a nonbecame part of a division of new parent traditional unit operation. The question of its company in 2012. As at 2014, PMO continued existence is easily answered when one framework created in 2010 remained largely listens to what many of the PMO stakeholders a reference guide as at 2014 when the PMO have to say about its operation and where it has Strategy earned the organization PMO of the Year helped the organization position itself in the Alignment Award. heart of external stakeholders. Table 3. Thriving PMOs against the parameters of study


22 | Page

PMO Implementation and Integration with Focus on

PMO Implementation and Integration with Focus on

Suggest Documents