PMO crazy talk

In the past I may have occasionally ranted about PMOs.  I may even have said that I would not rant about PMOs ever again.  If I did say that; I LIED…

A PMO may mean:

• Project Management Office.  Sounds fine.
• Program Management Office.  Still fine; a program is a collection of projects.
• Portfolio Management Office.  OK, I’ll buy that; a portfolio is a collection of projects or programs.

Now, let me just refresh everyone’s memory with the definition (PMBOK) of project:

A temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.

I’m pretty sure that anyone involved in project management regardless of the certification body, framework, or methodology can agree to this definition or something close to it.

As I often do while driving around I was listening to podcasts.  Actually I was catching up on my listening when I heard 2 well know PM talking heads mention OPERATIONS PMO… 

I almost drove off a bridge at the first mention and I yelled at the top of my lungs at the second.  I checked the date on the podcast to see if it was an April Fool's prank.  I replayed both passages to check if I was not hallucinating.  Negative on both counts...

What the hell is wrong with these people?  Operations are continuing endeavors; they are not projects.  You can’t PMO them; stop the crazy talk.  What’s next; PMOs that run PMOs?  Do we really have to call a PMO any structure that holds 2 or more PMs?  Call I call the pub a PMO if I go there with another PM?  Again, stop the crazy talk.  Do it right now and I promise that I will not rant about PMOs ever again.

What do you think?  As always questions and comments are welcome.

Connect with me on LinkedIn.  I am a LinkedIn Open Networker (LION); you can use “Friend” to add me to your network, please mention the blog in your request.

Comments

[Mark]

Pat, I am unsure about what is meant by Operations PMO...I think this is the root to your dilemma and some clarifications by the 2 PMs or you could be useful before taking the final plunge off into a refreshing sea. Are these projects related to operations? If so, this terminology could be considered logical, if not,then this is more an issue of semantics - either way I would not sweat it! ;) More data is required though...

[Dave Gordon]

Great rant, Pat. A few weeks ago, I tried to define what I figure are the three basic models for a PMO, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

http://blog.practicingitpm.com/2011/03/05/pmo-models/

[Patrick Richard]

Hey Mark,

I’m 98% sure it’s the first time you comment on the blog, so thanks for doing so.

The two gentlemen were clearly talking of Operations PMOs as organizations that support day to day operations. For example a PMO that oversees operations of a call center and not a PMO that rolls out a new software package to a call center.

To me an Operations PMO is an attempt to legitimize an organization regardless of whether or not is has a purpose. I could also call it a solution to a non-existent problem. I’m not saying that projects and project delivery organizations don’t have problems. I’m not saying that operations don’t have problems. I’m saying that projects and operations are fundamentally not the same because projects have a beginning and an end while operations (hopefully) never end.

When I first heard of PMOs they were mostly auditing organizations within a company. These auditing organizations did not execute projects but were more of a project QA nature. That made for a less than compelling story and for a questionable ROI. What’s been witnessed for a while is a move to execution where all PMs become eventually part of a PMO. This is a sign or maturity as grouping people around a common purpose should promote communications, repeatability, etc. and should have a ROI.

I’m still on the fence about the multiple meanings associated to PMOs. To me Projects, Programs, and Portfolios are part of a continuum and probably so not require 3 structures that respond only to a scaling issue.

[Patrick Richard]

Dave,

Thanks for the comment. I did read your post and it talks to variations of the original incarnation of PMOs as internal standard and auditing bodies. Many have questioned the ROI of such bodies and to many PMs this could be seen as Big Brother. There is also the potential for the staff of the PMO to never execute projects and be seen as “those who can’t teach”.

To me, a PMO must be populated with an overwhelming majority of practicing PMs or it runs the risk of becoming disconnected from the organization’s day-to-day reality. It is fine and probable necessary to have staff members that do not execute projects but this staff should be kept to a minimum. I believe this is what your Center of Administration model depicts.

What I’d like to hear from you is what prompted the move from Center of Excellence to Center of Governance to (eventually) Center of Administration in your company? Was the original structure embattled and had to change or was the whole company re-organized in a way that mandated the PMO change? Also, this migration would appear to indicated a change from a mature, to an outsourced, and finally to an occasional or accidental PM environment. This is kind of scary, no?

[Dave Gordon]

Hi Pat,

One good cross-post deserves another! I can make a good case for the Center of Excellence as a PM-centric model, in that it provides a clear career path for project managers to advance through their own ranks, under the guidance of senior practitioners. I can also make a good case for the Center of Governance model as a portfolio manager-centric model, in that it provides a means to select the right projects for funding, and provides a venue to review those in-flight so the ones that need to be canceled can be identified. And I can make a case for the Center of Administration as a program-centric model that facilitates data collection and distribution across projects. But it's silly to have a PMO just because everyone else has one - you need a vision for how the organization should operate over time, and create a PMO that supports that vision.

Now, in our case, the transition from CoE to CoG to Coa was driven by transitions at the CIO level. Most recently (two weeks ago), our newest CIO has re-organized the department and eliminated both the PMO and the portfolio management positions, including mine. So these changes were less about the relative maturity of our processes than it was about the organizational vision of the person at the top.

The good news is, I start my new job on June 6.

[Patrick Richard]

Dave,

Congratulations on the new gig; your old employer's loss is your new master's gain!

You have good arguments for each of the 3 PMO models you described. I guess they all work as long as the PMs have solid backgrounds. I still see too many attempts at going top down and building on quick sand.