When we launched our Project Management Benchmark Report back in February 2009 we included a section in our findings about the role PMOs play in our respondant’s organisations. We especially wanted to include this section because of the launch of P3O (the Portfolio, Programme and Project Office guidance) in November last year.
The findings from our own survey showed that 60% of respondants were working in organisations where PMO functions were deployed. The latest edition of PM Today, also carries a PMO based survey with similar findings from ESI. Although the ESI survey is only based on 60 respondants (the Arras benchmark is based on 1200) they too found that 66% of respondants worked within organisations with PMOs. 47% of ESI surveyed PMOs reported into a senior level, Arras surveyed PMOs 41%. This is interesting stuff because of course two surveys reporting the same responses adds much more weight to the outcomes and conclusions.
In the ESI survey, 33% of organisations had no PMO at all but didn’t draw on any conclusions about why that is – and I think that’s an important question to ask. In the Benchmark Report from Arras, 21% of respondants said they didn’t have a PMO because the project team (or project function) is not large enough, coupled with a group of 15% who said their projects weren’t large enough. In the middle ground – at 15% – said that they could not get senior management to buy into the concept.
The ESI survey goes on to breakdown the types of PMOs currently being run in organisations:
41% were a controlling PMO, 34% were a “supportive type” and 25% were a “directive” type i.e., project managers sit within the function and deliver projects
In the Arras Survey, 35% were PMOs that lead and enforce best practice, standards and methodology (a centre of excellence model), 21% used the PMO to provide organisational support or to provide value added services and 16% used it predominantly for administrative support.
The benefits that the PMO provides to any business are of course the most important factors to understand and consider; 46% of respondants in the Arras Survey said their PMOs main benefit is that it provides a common consistent approach to delivery and management whilst 22% believed the independant view the PMO has over programme and project delivery activity within the organisation is the most important benefit to them. Only 6% felt that the PMO delivered no benefits at all.
I’m happy to see more and more surveys coming through on PMOs, it’s a subject that I’m passionate about and would like to see come on leaps and bounds. I’ll be keeping an eye on PMO surveys, mainly because I’d like to see rankings improve – especially that organisations are seeing real value and return on investment in their implementation and use. Just one final stat from the ESI survey, 92% felt that their PMOs were unsuccessful, and 34% felt that was down to executive support (or lack of), 20% due to lack of responsibility (which surely is the knock on effect of lack of executive support?), 20% due to lack of facilities, infrastructure (ditto!) and 12% lack of corporate goal alignment (ditto again!). So it looks like it’s down to that lack of executive support. Without it, the knock on effects can be felt right across the PMO and ultimately the PMO is onto a losing battle.
Interesting topic and research.
I’ve seen a number of PMOs form and evolve over 15 years and it’s interesting for me that every single one has gone through tremendous change.
What I have discovered is that in almost all instances, a PMO is formed from ‘experts’ in the market who configure the function without learning from existing operations. What happens is that an ‘ideal world’ is designed, only for it to face resistance and conflict due to reality.
Organizations don’t intentionally behave sub-optimally, I believe, and there are always plausible reasons why ideal is not reality. Idiosyncracies form due to personalities, legacy, vendor relationships, informal management, etc and when a PMO comes along and attempts to swipe its hand across the corporate desk, battle ensues!
In my opinion, a PMO should undergo a phase of learning and reviewing before it forms structure or policy. It should work a roadmap to get to ideal instead of sparking a big bang. Otherwise, it will start with its criticizers, attackers, saboteurs and guerrillas facing it from the outset.