Project management offices: A case of knowledge-based archetypes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.07.002Get rights and content

Abstract

While Project Management Offices (PMOs) have become a mainstay in organizations, systematic research has not yet been undertaken to study their intricacies. In this paper, we conduct an exploratory and descriptive case study of PMOs, based on our interviews with senior managers and directors of PMOs in 32 IT organizations. The objectives are to: (1) outline the nature and characteristics of PMOs; (2) classify and derive archetypes of PMOs; and (3) enumerate critical success factors of PMOs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically investigate PMOs from a knowledge archetype perspective. A novel and significant contribution of this paper is the case description of four PMO archetypes, which clearly delineate PMOs based on their knowledge management functions and capabilities.

Introduction

Much of the work conducted in organizations occurs as projects (Keil, Mixon, Saarinen, & Tuunainen, 1995). Project-based work is especially popular in the information technology domain. Statistics indicate that between 50% and 80% of IT projects are unsuccessful—they either fail to deliver on time, overstep budgeted estimates of resources and time, do not meet customer requirements, or fall short of customer expectations (Keil & Robey, 2001; Keil et al., 2000). This alarming scenario is hardly surprising—too many organizations tend to repeat the same mistakes too often, particularly in terms of knowledge transfer and reuse of the information derived from past projects (Collier, De Marco, & Fearey, 1996; Desouza, Dingsøyr, & Awazu, 2005). Some of the primary reasons for project failures are a result of poor knowledge management: lack of effective project estimation and budgeting, poor communication and information sharing practices, inadequate reuse of past experiences and lessons learned, and insufficient understanding of the technology, particularly its limitations. Other typical reasons are lack of consistency in management, lack of formal tracking, and lack of functional user involvement. The end result is overruns in cost and time through restarts or projects routinely abandoned before completion.

Establishing a Project Management Office (PMO) is one strategy that can be used to resolve these persistent problems—it is a source of centralized integration and a repository of knowledge which can be used to inform more effective and efficient IT project management. A well-implemented PMO can resolve the most challenging project management issues by capturing and transferring knowledge, maximizing the power of cross-functional teams, regulating the demand of integrated technologies, and providing ownership and accountability for key efforts. Moreover, it can fully assess the impact and risk of change and provide projects with guidance on best practices and standards.

PMOs have been common in the telecom, aerospace, and defense industries for decades now. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that in the life-blood of work in such organizations occurs in the form of multi-million (or billion) dollar projects. IT organizations began to develop PMOs in the pre-2000 era to oversee projects involved with Y2K transitions. PMOs were originally conceived as a means of capturing and disseminating good project management practices and project knowledge throughout the organization. Due to the success rate of Y2K transitions, many organizations continued with PMOs and extended their scope of activity to include analysis, communication, and decision support. The newer objectives were to improve Project Management (PM) skills and communication, follow a standardized and consistent methodology, and monitor projects for progress within time and budget.

In recent years, many organizations have implemented PMOs to help lower the typical risks facing projects. Whether implementing a one-time project with a defined start and end, or running an ongoing program with several projects, experienced project and program management are essential for successful, on-time, within-budget delivery. A PMO is seen to combine the deliverable and focused discipline of project management with the conceptual and analytical strengths of business consultancy. CIO Magazine and the Project Management Institute (PMI) surveyed 450 managers and found that 67% of their organizations had a PMO in place. The same survey concluded that the longer a PMO was operative, the higher was its impact on improving project success. The findings conclusively indicate that PMOs can instill project management discipline and align project management processes with an organization's overall strategic objectives.

The objective of this paper is to describe PMOs and outline the major knowledge-based archetypes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically investigate PMOs from a knowledge archetype perspective. We conducted semi-structured interviews with PMO managers or directors in 32 IT organizations.

Section snippets

Research methodology

We conducted semi-structured interviews with PMO managers or directors in 32 IT organizations. This research methodology is an interview protocol where the researcher has pre-set questions to ensure that the same information is elicited from respondents, but will occasionally ask some spontaneous ones. However, since the order of the questions is not pre-determined, the researcher is free to pursue certain questions at greater length. The advantage of this approach is that it makes interviewing

Definition of a PMO

A universal definition of a PMO is not possible, because developing a PMO that works for an organization is an exercise in both customization and sustained effort. PMOs can vary widely in terms of size, structure, and accountability. There are no blueprints to establish a PMO. The only criterion for success is that the PMO structure be closely aligned to the organization's corporate culture. The most effective PMOs are those that yield improvements in due course, and continuously drive project

Roles and functions of PMOs

We can segment the roles of PMOs into three levels: strategic, tactical, and operational. Knowledge management remains one of the primary functions of the PMO at all levels.

PMO knowledge-archetypes

We have been able to classify PMOs on two dimensions: administrative and knowledge-intensive. Administrative PMOs provide project managers with administrative support. The focus of these PMOs is on managing information about projects, tasks, resources, and the like, and in reporting such information. As their name suggests, their function is administrative support.

Knowledge-intensive PMOs, on the other hand, take an active role in managing best practices of project management, learning from

Lessons learned

In this section we will highlight critical success factors gleaned out of our exploratory study of PMOs.

Concluding comments

The primary purpose of a PMO is to centralize information in order to create a knowledge base. An organization would profit from the time and effort it takes to define the right PMO archetype to match its corporate culture and goals. A well-defined, effective PMO can be an important step to greater success for the organization.

Administrative PMOs typically document and disseminate project reports, lessons learned and best practices, but here tacit knowledge from projects is difficult to

Dr. Kevin C. Desouza is on the faculty of the Information School at the University of Washington. He is a founding faculty member of the Institute for Innovation Management (I 3M) and is an affiliate faculty member of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy, both housed at the University of Washington. His immediate past position was the Director of the Institute for Engaged Business Research, a think-tank of the Engaged Enterprise, a strategy consulting firm with expertise in the

References (6)

  • B. Collier et al.

    A defined process for project post mortem review

    IEEE Software

    (1996)
  • K. Desouza et al.

    Experiences with conducting project postmortems: Reports vs. stories

    Software Process: Improvement and Practice

    (2005)
  • M. Keil et al.

    Understanding runaway IT projects: Results from an international research program based on escalation theory

    Journal of Management Information Systems

    (1995)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (126)

  • Transcending the silos through project management office: Knowledge transactions, brokerage roles, and enabling factors

    2022, International Journal of Project Management
    Citation Excerpt :

    On the other hand, top-down learning strategy can be explained as the spread of the procedural knowledge of how to do things more efficiently (Newell et al., 2006) to enhance future performance (Julian, 2008; Pemsel & Wiewiora, 2013) building primarily on previous project experiences (Eriksson & Leiringer, 2015). For knowledge brokering techniques, a body of research (Curlee, 2008; Desouza & Evaristo, 2006; Eriksson & Leiringer, 2015; Julian, 2008; Pemsel & Wiewiora, 2013; Sergeeva & Ali, 2020) considers two categories of knowledge brokering techniques the PMO utilises to facilitate different knowledge transactions. This includes interactive techniques, such as face-to-face talks and phone calls, and systematic techniques such as emails and status reports.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Dr. Kevin C. Desouza is on the faculty of the Information School at the University of Washington. He is a founding faculty member of the Institute for Innovation Management (I 3M) and is an affiliate faculty member of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy, both housed at the University of Washington. His immediate past position was the Director of the Institute for Engaged Business Research, a think-tank of the Engaged Enterprise, a strategy consulting firm with expertise in the areas of knowledge management, crisis management, strategic deployment of information systems, and government and competitive intelligence assignments. He has authored Managing Knowledge with Artificial Intelligence (Quorum Books, 2002), co-authored The Outsourcing Handbook (Kogan Page, 2006), Managing Information in Complex Organizations (M.E. Sharpe, 2005) and Engaged Knowledge Management (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), and edited New Frontiers of Knowledge Management (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). His most recent book is currently in press—Agile Information Systems—to be published by Butterworth Heinemann (2006). In addition, he has published over 100 articles in prestigious practitioner and academic journals. His work has also been featured by a number of publications such as the Washington Internet Daily, Computerworld, KM Review, and Human Resource Management International Digest. Dr. Desouza has advised major international corporations and government organizations on strategic management issues ranging from knowledge management, to competitive intelligence, and crisis management. He is frequently an invited speaker on a number of cutting-edge business and technology topics for national and international, industry and academic audiences. Dr. Desouza is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Dr. Roberto Evaristo is a faculty member at the University of Illinois, Chicago. He holds a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, a Master's degree in Transportation Engineering from Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and a Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from the University of Minnesota, USA. He has consulted extensively with organizations in the USA and South America on knowledge management and competitive intelligence. He is currently involved in several projects related to the management of distributed projects in virtual organizations, with work done in Japan, USA and Europe. He has published extensively in outlets such as Communications of the ACM, European Journal of Management, IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, The International Journal of Project Management, Database, Information Technology and People, Journal of the Association for Global Strategic Information, Journal of International Information Management, International Information Systems, and Competitive Intelligence Review. He guest co-edited a special issue of Information Technology and People on cross-cultural research in Information Systems and is currently editing another special issue for the Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM).

View full text