Analyze how an organization can maximize and sustain value from having a project management office (PMO) in place.
Evaluate practices and strategies of programs and portfolios.
With the tumble of time, the business tasks are going more complex and competitive. In this context, the organizations are preparing the business plans based on projects or programs to perform the management tasks reliably. (Hyvari, 2006) The projects are indirectly the demonstration of business strategies in a systematic way. (Andersen et. al. 2007) Most of the organizations are hiring Project Management Offices (PMOs) to minimize the business risk associated with executing the projects. The succession rate of the projects executed by the PMOs is far higher than the execution result derived by the organizations without having PMOs at the place. The research studies commenced by several researchers on the succession rate of PMOs are clearly indicating the consecutive achievement results. (Ward and Daniel, 2012)
The effectiveness and success rate of PMOs depend upon the strategy and formulation structure they are inputting in the execution of the projects. The PMOs have the formulation tactics that they can use effectively in commencing the projects than the organizations. (Hill, 2004) Among the number of strategies and tactics used by the PMOs, the focal justifications have influenced the decision of organizations to have a PMO in their place. A PMO can be communicated for a single project or more as per the cognitive need of the organization. Researched by Peppard et. al. (2007) some practices of PMOs can be demonstrated as below:-
Detection and record of the invested benefits to utilizing the outcomes extensively.
Organizing and planning to implement the strategies at the right place at the right time.
Planning business modification and advantages analysis
Post- execution analysis quality, cost and time
Post-completion evaluation of the modification and the assistances derived from it.
Drafted by Desouza and Evaristo (2006), the influential actions of PMOs with the organizations can be related to three functional consequences; strategic, tactical and operational. The value pattern supplied by the PMOs in executing the programs and projects can be fluctuated as per the functional consequences delivered. Many authors conducted several types of research to map the value derived through having PMO in place. The points can be illustrated as below:-
scrutinizing and regulating project presentation
improvement of project execution competencies and strategies
Managing multi-projects at same time
Strategic management of business operational activities
Setting platform for organizational learning
Improve and stabilize customer interfaces
(Hurt and Thomas, 2009)
Marsh (2001) proposed that the typical functions manipulated by the PMOs support the organization not only maximizing the business values but also facilitates to sustain it. The Project Management Offices performs several tasks associated with the project including defining the project and its formulation; cost & benefit analysis of the project works; observing and direct, risk management, and providing information and knowledge.
Muller et. al. (2013) researched the project situations given by the organizations to the PMOs and derived that, the organizations are looking after commencing the projects in a concurrent manner by communicating with more than one PMOs. The authors also defined three roles of PMOs to materialize the projects as serving, controlling and partnering. These three roles are commenced at the same time the project gets executed till it gets finished. The importance of the three functions in the project implementation depends upon the project nature. (Hubbs and Aubry, 2008) These all strategic implementations in association with Project Management Offices have improved the operational performance of an organization in maximizing and sustaining the value effectively.
Reference List
Andersen, B., Henriksen, B. and Aarseh, W. (2007), “Benchmarking of project management office establishment: extracting best practice,” Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(2), 97-104.
Desouza, K.C., and Evaristo, J.R. (2006), “Project management offices: a case of knowledge-based archetypes,” International Journal of Information Management, 26(5), 414-423.
Hill, G. M. (2004). Evolving the project management office: A competency continuum. Information Systems Management, 21(4), 45–51.
Hobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2008). An empirically grounded search for a typology of project management offices. Project Management Journal, 39(Supplement), S69–S82.
Hurt. M. and Thomas. J. L. (2009). Building value through sustainable project management offices. Project Management Journal. 40(1), 55-72.
Hyvari, I. (2006). ‘Success of project in different organizational conditions,’ Project Management Journal, 37(4), 31-41.
Müller, R., Glückler, J. & Aubry, M. (2013) ‘A relational typology of project management offices,’ Project Management Journal, 44 (1), 59-76.
Marsh D.(2001). The project and program support office handbook. UK, Project Manager Today Publications.
Peppard, J., Ward, J.M. and Daniel, E.M. (2007), “Managing the realization of business benefits from IT investments,” MIS Quarterly Executive, 6(1), 1-11.
Ward, J. & Daniel, E.M. (2013) ‘The role of Project Management Offices (PMOs) in IS project success and management satisfaction,’ Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 26 (3), pp.316-336.