PMO Type Framework v1.03

8/11/2019 PMO Type Framework v1.03

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pmo-type-framework-v103 1/21

A Framework for Describing

Project Management Office (PMO) Functions and Types

SOMOS Consulting Group Ltd.

4019 Carling Avenue, Suite 100

Ottawa, ON

K2K 2A3

Author: Alan R. Boyce

Telephone: 613-592-5050

Facsimile: 613-592-7002

Website: http://www.somos.com

Document: PMO Type Framework v1.03.doc

May 10, 2010

Copyright © 2009, 2010 SOMOS Consulting Group Ltd.

http://www.somos.com/

http://www.somos.com/





SOMOS A Framework for Describing PMO Functions and Types

Version 1.03

May 10, 2010 Copyright © 2009, 2010 SOMOS Consulting Group Ltd. Page 2

meanings across the industry. Standardization

in terms can only help.

2.3 Approach

To untangle this confusion, we will begin bylooking at some recent PMI-sponsored research

into the current state of PMOs. From the

observed patterns, we will create a framework

that includes several standard PMO types or

designs, differentiated by the functions

performed (and consequently by the services

delivered and the needs addressed). Next, we

will extend the framework to include functions

and PMO designs that are not covered by the

referenced research, but which have been

observed in several industries and organizations.

3 Basis of the Framework

Between 2004 and 2007, the Project

Management Institute (PMI) sponsored Dr.

Brian Hobbs of the University of Québec at

Montréal, Canada to research the current state

of practice for the Project Management Office1.

A survey collected the description of 500 PMOs

and the data was analyzed extensively, resulting

in a report containing 17 key findings.

One of the findings (Key Finding 11) involvedthe functions performed by PMOs. Specifically,

the survey inquired about 27 functions and

whether or not each was performed by the

respondent’s PMO. Using factorial analysis,

these 27 functions were found to be statistically

associated in five groups of functions. In other

words, given the list of 27 functions to choose

from, the PMOs observed by the respondents

were reported to perform functions in five broad

groups, with three functions not part of a group.

1 Hobbs, Brian. The Multi-Project PMO: A Global

Analysis of the Current State of Practice.

The five groups are:

Group 1 – Monitoring and Controlling

Project Performance;

Group 2 – Development of Project

Management Competencies and

Methodologies;

Group 3 – Multi-Project Management;

Group 4 – Strategic Management;

Group 5 – Organizational Learning.

These are also illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – PMO Function Groups Identified in

the Research

While the incidence of encountering a practice

does not necessarily mean that the practice isgood (think of lemmings), this consolidation of

functions from a list of 27 to a list of 5 is a relief

to anyone seeking a more accessible explanation

of what a PMO does.

Hobbs describes the Monitor and Control

functions in Group 1 as “the most important”

because they directly support project

1: Monitoring and Control-

ling Project Performance

2: Dev. of PM Competen-

cies and Methodologies

3: Multi-Project

Management

Execute Special Tasks for

Project Managers

Manage Customer Interfaces

4: Strategic Mana gement

5: Organizational Learning

Recruit, Select, Eva luate,

Determine Salaries for PMs

PMO

Functions




Version 1.03


governance by providing the information that

managers need to make decisions and control

the project.

The Competencies and Methodologies functions

in Group 2, however, are described by Hobbs as

those “most traditionally associated with

PMOs” by the greatest number of people. These

functions are not directly involved with project

performance, but rather involve promotion of

PM, definition of methods, and delivery of

training to those who manage the projects.

Group 3 includes Multi-Project Management ,

which is defined to be very broad. It includes

direct management at the level of project

strategy (project selection), of program and

portfolio management, and of inter-project

management (allocation of resources and

coordination between projects).

Group 4 – Strategic Management – involves

functions that “ bring project management and

the PMO closer to upper management.” It

includes environmental scanning, strategic

planning, and advising upper management.

The Organizational Learning functions in

Group 5 focus on information transfer from the project to the organization for the benefit of

future projects. This group includes many of

the audit, review, and lessons-learned tasks that

are often skipped by the delivery team in the

exhaustion at the end of a project. Archiving of

project documents and evaluation of PMO

performance are also part of the group.

Finally, three functions – Execution of special

tasks for PMs, Managing customer interfaces,

and Recruit, select, evaluate, and determine

salaries for PMs – were included in the surveyas possible functions, but were not found to

occur with any statistically significant relation

to other functions.

4 Building the Framework

4.1 Core of the Framework

In section 3 above, “Basis of the Framework ,”

we examined some PMI-sponsored research

which outlined a structure for groups of PMOfunctions.

In this section we will develop our framework of

PMO types by building on that structure. We

have extended and expanded the structure to

include direct management of projects,

management of single projects, and other

functions not covered by the survey.

The five groups of statistically-related PMO

functions observed in the research are a credible

starting point for the delineation of types of

Project Management Offices. Within the con-

straints of the survey questions, the clustering

has the added benefit of being fairly intuitive.

Consequently, we will define the first five types

of PMOs in our framework to parallel the five

groups of functions identified in the research:

Type 1 PMO – Performance Monitoring

and Reporting;

Type 2 PMO – Tools, Methods, and

Training;

Type 3 PMO – Project Direction and

Control;

Type 4 PMO – Strategic Advisors;

Type 5 PMO – Organizational Learning.

In the next sections, we will broaden this basic

structure and clarify some of the muddy areas.

4.2

Broader Scope

To start, certain choices were made during the

research design that need not constrain our

framework to describe PMO types.

First, the study “exclusively focused on multi-

project PMOs” and did not include single-

project PMOs. This surprised us, since we have

observed many single-project PMOs (particu-

larly for large projects) which are otherwise

indistinguishable from a multi-project PMO.

We believe that a framework can be designed to




Version 1.03


apply equally well for PMOs serving single and

multiple projects.

More importantly, our experience suggests that

the defining characteristic of a PMO is its use of

a team rather than an individual to perform the

management function – it a secondary issue

whether a PMO serves a single project or many.

A second design choice in the survey instrument

explicitly excluded the role of “managing

projects,” yet we have encountered many PMOs

that do exactly that: manage projects.

Consequently, we will extend the basic

framework to allow for PMOs that do provide

active management and direction of projects.

These two enhancements are achieved through

our definition of the Type 3 PMO, which has

been framed to include Project Direction and

Control, and which includes sub-types for

Direction and Control of Projects, Programs,

Portfolios, and Single Projects.

4.3

Additional Types

Another extension to the framework will allow

us to include a sixth type of PMO – one which

performs Project Support functions. We have

seen many such PMOs and the survey indicatedthat these functions occurred frequently, but

were not associated with one of the basic five

functional groups. The first additional PMO

type is:

Type 6 PMO – Project Support.

Our last extension to the framework creates a

seventh type of PMO – the Pool of Project

Managers. As will be explained, we do not

consider this a good practice and therefore do

not recommend it. However, it is surprisingly

common, and should be identified so that it may

be avoided more readily. The second additional

type is:

Type 7 PMO – Project Managers Pool.

The basic framework illustrating the different

types of PMOs is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Types of PMOs

4.4

Differentiation Within Monitoring &

Reporting PMOs

As indicated above, one PMO type that would

benefit from further analysis and differentiation

is Type 1 – Performance Monitoring and

Reporting.

We make the distinction between two types.

Type 1a – Project Monitoring and Reporting, is

concerned with the monitoring, analysis, and

reporting of detailed performance information

for the PM to use in managing the project. Type

1b – External Project Reporting, is concerned

with summary-level and exception reporting to

the external stakeholders, typically to support

oversight by the Sponsor or Project Board.

A project may be successful at meeting its

scope, cost, and schedule objectives with only

Type 1a information requirements being

provided. However, Type 1b information

typically must be provided to the sponsors in

order to obtain project approval and continued

funding. Furthermore, meaningful performance

information at the Type 1b or oversight level

PMO Types

1: Performance Monitoring

and Reporting

2: Tools, Methods, and

Training

3: Project Direction and

Control

6: Project Support

4: Strategic Advisors

5: Organizational Learning

7: Project Managers Pool




Version 1.03


can only be achieved with a good foundation of

Type 1a information to build on.

Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 3 below, the

Type 1 PMO: Performance Monitoring and

Reporting has been subdivided into:

Type 1a PMO – Project Monitoring and

Reporting;

Type 1b PMO – External Project

Reporting.

Figure 3 – Types of Performance Monitoring

and Reporting PMOs

4.5

Differentiation Within Tools, Methods,

and Training PMOs

The Type 2 PMO is not directly involved with

performance of any project, but is defined to

include functions that build the project

management capability of the organization.

These functions typically bring the greatest

benefits to an individual project if performed in

the early stages of the project, and include

Type 2a PMO – Implementation of PM

Tools and Systems;

Type 2b PMO – Development of PM

Processes and Methods;

Type 2c PMO – Development and

Delivery of PM Training and

Mentoring.

Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 4 below, the

Type 2 PMO: Tools, Methods, and Trainingmay be subdivided into these three types, each

of which will involve promotion of PM

practices.

Figure 4 – Types of Tools, Methods, and

Training PMOs

4.6 Differentiation Within Directing and

Controlling PMOs

Another candidate for increasing clarity is the

group of functions under Type 3 PMO – Project

Direction and Control.

The functions included in this area include

management and direction functions at every

level:

Strategic Management – Identify, select,

and prioritize new projects;

Portfolio Management – Manage one or

more portfolios;

Program Management – Manage one or

more programs;

Project Management – Allocate re-

sources between projects and coordi-

nate between projects.

On the one hand, these are all real management

control functions, so it is appropriate to group

the Single-Project Direction and Management

function with them. (See section 4.2 above).

On the other hand, there are significant

differences in the way management is performed

at each level, so it is important for us to

emphasize the distinction between the levels ofType 3 PMO.

For example, the Strategic activities of project

selection and prioritization are performed at the

Executive or Sponsor level. The process

involves major decisions that approve or cancel

entire projects, based on match with the

1: Performance Moni-

toring & Reporting

1a :Project Monitoring

and Reporting

1b:External Project

Reporting


Training

2a:PM Tools

Implementation

2b:PM Process

Development

2c:PM Training




Version 1.03


organization’s strategic goals and funding

priorities.

The Portfolio and Program Management

activities, however, typically involve senior

managers rather than the corporate Executive or

Sponsor level. Portfolio Managers will manage

an investment portfolio including Projects,

Programs, and on-going Operations, but will

typically focus on the investment issues rather

than the technical decisions or delivery issues.

Program Managers manage groups of related

Projects. They will be involved in the technical

decisions at a high level, as well as resource

allocation and managing performance to achieve

the program and individual project objectives.

Project Managers, on the other hand, must

manage the resources and budget assigned to

their project to achieve the project goals. They

will be involved daily in detailed decisions

within their project and between projects.

Figure 5 – Project Direction and Control PMOs

As shown in Figure 5, therefore, our framework

will be extended to include six subtypes for the

different functions identified within Type 3,

Project Direction and Control:

Type 3a PMO – Single Project

Direction and Control;

Type 3b PMO – Project Selection and

Ranking;

Type 3c PMO – Portfolio Management;

Type 3d PMO – Program Management;

Type 3e PMO – Inter-Project

Coordination;

Type 3f PMO – Multi-Project Resource

Allocation.

Once again, what defines the Type 3 PMO is the

application of management control – these

PMOs make decisions on application of

resources and expenditure of funds. The

differences between the subtypes are differences

of level of authority or span of control.

4.7

Summary of the Framework

Our resulting framework for describing PMOs

includes seven major types (see Figure 2 above).

Five of the types of PMOs are aligned with the

five groups of functions described by Hobbs,

with two additional types identified to address

PMOs that we have frequently observed. Some

functions have been simplified, streamlined, or

subdivided into components for consistency and

clarity.

Specifically, the Performance Monitoring and

Reporting PMO type is subdivided into two sub-

types (see Figure 3 above); the Tools, Methods,

and Training PMO type is subdivided into three

sub-types (see Figure 4 above); and the Project

Direction and Control PMO type is subdivided

into six sub-types (see Figure 5 above).

The types identified in the framework are not

mutually exclusive and it is possible for a given

PMO to perform the functions of more than one

type. In this case the PMO would be identified

by a composite label indicating all of the

component types.

This framework is presented more fully in

section 7 through 13 below.

3: Project Direction

and Control3d:Program

Management

3f: Multi-Project

Resource Allocation

3b:Project Selectionand Ranking

3c:Portfolio

Management

3e:Inter-Project

Coordination

3a:Single Project

Direction & Control








Version 1.03


This model of Project Management Control

describes the process for small projects. It is

also the foundation for the management of

larger projects. With larger projects and

programs, the volume of activity increases the

demand on management to the point that the

management tasks themselves must be

distributed and delegated to specialists.3 These

specialists are often organized in a Project

Management Office or PMO.

5.4 The Project Management Office

(PMO)

The simplest Project Management Office

(PMO) exists within a single project. In this

case, the management of the project and the

liaison with the Executive is distributed across ateam of specialists within the PMO as shown in

Figure 9. The number of true decision-makers is

typically limited4 and most of the members of

the PMO have analytical or administrative roles

in support of the management function.

As indicated above, it is typically larger projects

that involve sufficient complexity or volume of

work to warrant hiring extra people to perform

specialist tasks within a PMO.

Alternatively, if the organization has manysmaller projects, then economies often may be

gained by sharing the PMO across several

projects as shown in Figure 10. The PMO

becomes a service to individual projects.

3 Unfortunately for those of us who crave clarity,

these specialists are typically called Project Managers

even though each is performing only a part of the

management process.4 Some would say that ideally there is only one

decision maker – the PM.

Figure 9 – Single-Project PMO

Figure 10 – Multi-Project PMO

Project

PMO

Parent

Organization

Parent

Organization

P1 P2 Pn

PMO




Version 1.03


At this point, several opportunities arise and

certain constraints emerge. Most obvious is the

opportunity for standardization of such things as

management process, reports, and toolset. In

fact, the desired economies typically cannot be

achieved without some standardization.

On the other hand, projects are – by definition –

unique. They are created because a special

result is needed and because the regular

operational processes are insufficient to get the

job done. Projects also attract individualists,

and often require a certain entrepreneurial spirit

to succeed.

As well, projects are often used in many areas of

the organization. What is appropriate for a

construction project may not be appropriate for

a software development project. All-in-all,

there is a natural incompatibility between

projects and corporate standardization.

Consequently, to require compliance with stan-

dards from a shared PMO may elicit resistance

from a Project Manager or team. Worse,

resistance may come in many forms from many

projects and PMs simultaneously, increasing the

challenge to implementation of a shared PMO.

Organizations wishing to obtain the benefitsfrom PMOs will forever be faced with these

challenges.

6 The Framework for PMO Types

As discussed, PMOs may be considered as

fitting in one or more of seven basic types based

on the functions that they perform. Within these

seven types, some further subdivision is useful

to identify a given PMO’s function within Type

1 – Performance Monitoring and Reporting,

Type 2 – Tools, Methods, and Training, and

Type 3 – Project Direction and Control.

The complete framework is illustrated in Figure

11 below.

The next sections will expand on the specific

types of PMOs identified in our framework.

Figure 11 – Framework of PMO Types

1: Performance Mon-

itoring & Reporting


Training

3: Project Direction

and Control

6: Project Support

4: Strategic Advisors

5: Organizational

Learning

7: Project Managers

Pool

1a:Project Monitoring

and Reporting

1b:External ProjectReporting

2a:PM Tools

Implementation

2b:PM Process

Development

2c:PM Training

3d:Program

Management

3f: Multi-Project

Resource Allocation

3b:Project Selection

and Ranking

3c:Portfolio

Management

3e:Inter-Project

Coordination

3a:Single ProjectDirection & Control




Version 1.03


7 Type 1 PMO – Performance

Monitoring and Reporting

The Type 1 Project Management Office

manages information. Specifically, the Type 1

PMO collects, analyzes, develops reports on,and distributes project performance information

for use by decision-makers. Referring to Figure

6 – General Model of Management Control

above, the functions of the Type 1 PMO

include:

Monitoring,

Analysis,

Planning, and

Reporting.

The role of the Type 1 PMO in the Project

Management Control process is shown in Figure12 below. The PMO collects information at

lower levels and provides analysis and reports

upwards to support decisions by Project

Managers (arrow 1a) and Sponsors (arrow 1b).

The Project Direction and Control functions

(shown by arrows 3a and 3b in Figure 12) are

performed by either the Project Manager or by a

Type 3 PMO organization. (The Type 3 PMO is

described in section 9 below.)

Figure 12 – PMOs in the PM Control Loop

A Type 1 PMO is a staff management or support

function that is one level removed from the line

management functions of Decision and

Direction. Since the line managers’ decisions

should be made based on good information, the

objectives of a Type 1 PMO are obvious: to

ensure that the decision-makers have complete,

accurate, and up-to-date information at all times.

Specific functions of a Type 1 PMO include:

Development and maintenance of

project plan documentation;

Development and maintenance of

project schedules, budget, expenditures,

progress, or resource information;

Update of information within project

scoreboards;

Operation of the project information

systems;

Monitoring and analysis of project

performance;

Reporting project status to different

levels of management.

Our framework for PMO types includes two

types of Performance Monitoring and Reporting

PMOs, depending on whether the prime

recipient for the information is inside the projector outside, such as a sponsor, customer or

similar. The Type 1 therefore has two variants:

Type 1a PMO – Project Monitoring and

Reporting;


Reporting.

This differentiation within Type 1 Performance

Monitoring and Reporting PMOs is illustrated in

Figure 3.

In addition, since higher level decisions should be based on operational information and lower

level data, it is common for a Type 1 PMO to

perform information management functions as a

service to more than one level of management

(for example: both the Project Manager and the

Sponsor).

Project

1b

1a

3b

3a






Version 1.03


Within the Type 2 PMO for Tools, Methods,

and Training, we have identified three

subdivisions, as shown in Figure 4 above.

A Type 2a PMO produces the most tangible

result of the Type 2 PMOs – project systems and

tools. These are often information systems to

support the control process of the Project

Managers, but also may include information

repositories and systems needed by the delivery

team.

In this case the PMO members usually have

specific technical expertise with one or more

Project Management system or suite of tools.

A Type 2b PMO will lead development of the

processes and methods for the organization.

These processes may range from high level

methodologies to detailed processes and

practices, as dictated by the business needs.

The ideal members of a Type 2b PMO are

seasoned Project Managers with experience as

Business Analysts.

In addition, the design of methods and practices

will be tightly coupled with the capability and

constraints of the organization’s PM systems.Consequently, it is common for a Type 2 PMO

to perform both Type 2a and 2b functions, and

for the PMO to be staffed with a combination of

systems and process people.

The third variant – the Type 2c PMO – develops

and delivers training, mentoring, and other

documentation to the active Project Managers.

When Training (Type 2c) functions are incorpo-

rated into a PMO with Systems (Type 2a) and

Methods (Type 2b) responsibilities, the

initiative can be very successful. The designerswill be motivated to produce practical, useful,

results, since they will be in extended contact

with the target users. The recipients of the

training, in turn, will be able to draw upon the

knowledge of the people who actually designed

the processes and configured the systems.

The Type 2c PMOs often draw their members

from staff organizations, analytical groups, and

training groups. It can be more difficult for a

Type 2c PMO to recruit managers with line

experience because such managers typically

would rather be out dealing with real business

problems and challenges.5 This can prove an

obstacle to credibility and acceptance of a Type

2c PMO in organizations.

Nevertheless, the Type 2c PMO is one of the

most common types, possibly because it is the

easiest to establish even in the absence of

organizational support for changes or for stan-

dardization in Project Management practices.

By contrast, a Type 1 PMO (Monitoring and

Reporting) requires an increased investment in

overhead; it can cause embarrassment by

making poor performance visible; and managers

often do not enjoy doing the extra analysis that

is expected of them. (Let’s face it – the

drudgery of analysis is not nearly as much fun

as jumping in and giving directions.) Similarly,

establishing a Type 3 PMO (Directing and

Controlling) involves a shift in power away

from the traditional power base, which may not

be popular. Consequently these alternatives

often elicit resistance from within the organiza-tion, leading executives to establish a Type 2c

PMO in order that some initiative towards

achieving greater PM maturity may be claimed.

A Type 2 PMO will bring the greatest benefit

early in the initiative to increase the

organization’s Project Management maturity.

Ideally, its activity will peak as the PM

Processes and Systems are being implemented

and then effort will taper off as the organization

incorporates the Processes and Systems into its

practices.

The Type 2 PMO often promotes the adoption

of Project Management practices, methods, and

5 As Harold Geneen said: “Only performance is

reality.”




Version 1.03


systems as part of its other activities. However,

if after several years a Type 2 PMO finds itself

solely in the role of promoting PM to the

management community (“teachers and

preachers”), then it probably should be

disbanded and another approach tried.

The success of a Tools, Methods, and Training

PMO is typically measured by documents

produced, courses delivered, and the number of

managers who have been through the

indoctrination process. Unfortunately, it is not

uncommon for the line management to ignore a

Type 2 PMO and carry on with its historical

management practices. The ultimate measures,

therefore, are increased PM maturity and

success of the projects.

9 Type 3 PMO – Project Direction and

Control

The Type 3 PMO has the role of the front-line

manager – directing and leading the project

efforts. Referring to Figure 6 – General Model

of Management Control, the Type 3 PMO

functions include:

Decision and

Direction.

The Type 3 PMO relies on the information

provided by the Monitoring, Analysis, Planning,

and Reporting functions to support its decisions.

Figure 12 above shows the role of the Type 3

PMO in the Project Management Control

process, making decisions and directing the

execution at the Project level (arrow 3a) or at

the Sponsor level (arrow 3b). Its decisions are

made based on information and reports provided

by the Type 1 PMO (arrows 1a and 1b in Figure

12 above). (The Type 1 PMO is described insection 7 above.)

A Type 3 PMO may also be set up to perform

the direction and control in a multi-project

environment. As shown in Figure 14 below, a

Type 3 PMO might be established to perform

Sponsor-level Project Selection (arrow 3b), in

Portfolio Management (arrow 3c), in Program

Management (arrow 3d), in Inter-Project

Coordination (arrow 3e), or in Multi-Project

Resource Management (arrow 3f).

Figure 14 – Direction and Control in Multi-

Project Management

The Type 3 PMO performs direct, front-line

management of Projects, Portfolios, or

Programs. It has authority for project perform-

ance and is held accountable for delivery.

Specific functions of a Type 3 PMO include:

Identify, select and prioritize new

projects;

Manage one or more projects;

Manage one or more portfolios;

Manage one or more programs;

Allocate resources between projects;

Coordinate between projects.

Our framework for PMO types includes six

types of Direction and Control PMOs,

depending on the level of decision being made

and the span of responsibility of the manager:

Type 3a PMO – Single Project Direc-

tion and Control;

Type 3b PMO – Project Selection and

Ranking;

P2 P3 PnP1

Executive

Management

Program or

Portfolio

3e,f

3b

3c,d






Version 1.03


11 Type 5 PMO – Organizational

Learning

The Type 5 PMO is involved with transfer of

certain information from the project to the

organization. Specifically, it is responsible forreviewing performance at the end of projects

and transferring the project documentation and

lessons learned to the organization. The

intention is that these archives will be used on

subsequent projects to make them more

successful.

The functions of the Type 5 PMO do not appear

in Figure 6 – General Model of Management

Control above because it is not involved in

managing or delivering the project results.

This is illustrated in different terms in Figure 13

above, where the Type 5 PMO is a pure staff

organization operating outside the project, for

the benefit of the organization at large.

The Type 5 PMO may perform the following

functions:

Conduct post-project reviews;

Conduct project audits;

Implement and manage database of

lessons learned;

Implement and manage risk database; Manage archives of project

documentation;

Monitor and control performance of

PMO.

In some organizations, the requirements for

independent quality assurance dictate setting up

a separate group for process monitoring or audit.

This role is often labeled the Project Audit

Group, or Quality Assurance Group. It is likely

that such a group is not considered a PMO, but

rather is associated with the organization’s

governance or quality management function.

The Audit Group may even report to the

corporate board of directors.

While the Type 5 PMO is not common, there is

some justification for its use. Once a project is

over, the management team is often exhausted

and has been so close to the project that it no

longer views the project’s problems objectively.

Consequently, most project teams never do a

review or lessons learned exercise. Establishing

a central resource to perform these tasks will

mean that they are more likely to be performed.

12 Type 6 PMO – Project Support

A Type 6 PMO may be set up to perform any

function in support of Project Management or

Delivery.

Organizations often seek to concentrate certain

functions in a central group, staffed by specialist

resources, and where the expertise and costs

might be spread over several projects. Other

benefits of this approach include economies ofscale, quality control, process control, and

workload balancing between projects.

A Type 6 PMO may be established to contribute

to any of the functions in Figure 6 – General

Model of Management Control above. In the

Project context of Figure 15 below, the Type 6

PMO is shown within the project rather than

being associated with the organization.

Examples of functions performed by Type 6

PMOs include:

Customer Liaison;

Administration and Secretarial Tasks;

Preparation of Presentations;

Repository Management;

Stakeholder Communications.

An alternative Project Support focus of a Type 6

PMO is to support some (possibly critical)

project delivery function. In this case, the PMO

may be described by the technical function that

it provides, for example:

Architecture,

Technical Support, or

Systems Administration.

Type 6 PMOs are usually manned by analysts or

technical specialists, often with extensive

experience in their specialty area.




Version 1.03


The Type 6 PMO is common in mature project

organizations that have refined their operations

and consolidated key functions for economy,

quality, and effectiveness.

Figure 15 – Direct Project Management

Functions

13

Type 7 PMO –

Project ManagersPool

Finally, some organizations will set up a Type 7

PMO to create a pool of project management

professionals. Ironically, this form of PMO has

no role in the management control loop

illustrated in Figure 6 above and is not even

involved in a project’s activities as shown in

Figure 13 above.

Reasons for creating a pool such as this include:

To enable the organization to respond if

project needs do arise;

To provide peer support to a function;

To allow specialists to report to a

manager with the same specialty

background.

Many organizations that set up a Type 7 PMO

do so because the pool’s functional orientation

is comfortingly similar to the functional

structure of their larger organization. It often

surprises them to find out that the pool is one of

the least useful bases for a PMO. It is a

structure that seldom lasts.

Consider this: if the organization has projects

that are without skilled project managers, then

the good PMs in the pool will quickly be

recruited by the projects and put to work; the

pool is dispersed. Conversely, if there are not

enough projects to engage all the PMs in the

pool, or if the PMs in the pool are not wanted by

the projects, then the unassigned PMs will drive

up the organization’s overhead costs. Because

this situation is not financially sustainable, the

surplus PMs will be laid off and the pool will be

dispersed. Either way, the shelf life of a PM

sitting on the bench in a Type 7 PMO is very

short.

As a result, the Type 7 PMO is an

organizational structure that is destined to be

short-lived.

14 Summary of the Framework

This white paper presents a framework for

understanding and describing different types of

Project Management Offices, based on functions

performed. The framework identifies seven

types of PMOs, with three PMO types further

subdivided into sub-types. They are listed here:

Type 1 PMO – Performance Monitoring

and Reporting

Type 1a PMO – Project Monitoring

and Reporting


Reporting

Type 2 PMO – Tools, Methods, and

Training

Type 2a PMO – PM Tools

Implementation

Type 2b PMO – PM Process

Development

Type 2c PMO – PM Training

Project

6

Executive

Management

3e,f

3c,d

3b

3a

1b

1a




Version 1.03


Type 3 PMOs – Project Direction and

Control

Type 3a PMO – Single Project

Direction and Control

Type 3b PMO – Project Selection

and Ranking

Type 3c PMO – Portfolio

Management

Type 3d PMO – Program

Management

Type 3e PMO – Inter-Project

Coordination

Type 3f PMO – Multi-Project

Resource Allocation

Type 4 PMO – Strategic Advisors

Type 5 PMO – Organizational Learning

Type 6 PMO – Project Support

Type 7 PMO – Project Managers Pool

This framework is also illustrated above in

Figure 11.

Note that it is possible for a single PMO to

perform the functions of more than one type.

For example, a specific Project Management

Office might be identified as a Type 1a/3a,

because it performs both Project Monitoring and

Reporting functions and Single Project

Direction and Control functions. And, if thesame PMO were also providing performance

reports to executive and corporate management,

then it would be identified as Type 1a/1c/3a.

15 Determining the Required PMO

Type

15.1

Individual PM vs. PMO

It should be stressed that any of the functions

identified with PMO types might be performed

by an individual, depending on the scale of the

project and the capability of the individual. It isnot necessary to create a Project Management

Office for every function. However, if an

organization has enough projects of sufficient

scope and value, then it may be economically

beneficial to establish one or more PMOs to

perform certain functions.

With this awareness, if an organization suspects

that there is value in setting up a PMO, this

section can be used to help it select the type of

PMO and functions it should perform.

15.2

Ensuring Effective Performance

Reporting and Control

The management functions described in Type 1

(see section 7) and Type 3 PMOs (see section 9)

must be performed – either by individuals or by

a team – if an organization is to succeed with

projects. Therefore the organization should ask

itself if management control is being applied in

the right amount and at the right levels, and if

the information necessary to support good

decisions is available to the decision-makers.

If the Performance Monitoring and Reporting

function or the Project Direction and Control

function are not being performed, then

management should strive to understand the

gap, and consider setting up a Type 1 or a Type

3 PMO. If these functions are lacking,

establishing a Type 2, Type 5, or Type 7 PMO

would not likely yield useful results.

If the need is for external visibility into the

project and the Type 1a functions are already

being performed, then it is sufficient to initiatethe Type 1b functions. On the other hand, if

there is no source of detailed project

performance data on which to build the external

reports, then both Type 1a and 1b functions

must be initiated.

If there is a control problem, then it should be

determined at what level the control function is

lacking – Executive or Sponsor, Portfolio,

Program, Project, or Inter-Project. The

appropriate Type 3 PMO (or Individual Project

Manager) can be assigned.

15.3

Developing Organizational PM

Capabilities

If an organization has committed to

institutionalizing effective Project Management

Control processes, then establishing an effective




Version 1.03


Type 2 PMO (see section 8) as part of the larger

initiative will likely assist in adoption.

On the other hand, if the organization does not

commit to PM Control, then expending effort on

a Type 2 PMO will likely create the illusion of

benefits without actually producing any – akin

to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

It should also be remembered that the Type 2

PMO is really a design and implementation

team for PM systems and processes. Therefore

when those systems and processes are in place,

the Type 2 PMO should be disbanded or transi-

tioned to a reduced role of support and

maintenance.

15.4

Gaining Process Economies

A Type 6 PMO (see section 12) may be

established to perform or support any

management task in order to achieve some

economies, quality control, or process

enforcement. Typically, however, an organiza-

tion has its Project Management culture and

infrastructure well established and polished

before it is apparent where the economies are

possible through a Type 6 PMO.

15.5

Building the Corporate Knowledge

Base

Assuming all of the more urgent Project

Management needs are being addressed, a Type

5 PMO (see section 11) can benefit the

organization by ensuring that lessons learned on

a project are captured for use by the rest of the

organization.

15.6 Supporting the Organizational

Executive

The PMO types described to this point (types 1,

2, 3, 5, 6) perform functions primarily at some

level of operations. In another situation, an

executive may seek broad-based information

and advice on trends, opportunities, and threats

to the business. In this case, he could consider

establishing a Type 4 PMO to provide strategic

advice (see section 10).

It is critical that the people staffing the Type 4

PMO have the requisite strategic outlook and

yet have sufficient experience in practical

Project Management that their advice will

reflect the necessary balance of the ideal and the

pragmatic.

15.7 Creating a Reserve of PMs

The only justification for creating a Type 7

PMO (see section 13) pool of Project Managers

is if the organization expects an increase in

demand for PMs in the near term. Once the

expected demand occurs or is cancelled, then

the pool should be eliminated.

16 Conclusion

We have observed several organizations that

began their quest for a Project Management

Office with a very fixed idea of how the PMO

must be organized and what it must do. These

organizations then charged off to set up the

PMO in that image.

This approach may have had some success if the

organizers were lucky enough to have fixed on a

solution that matched their needs. However, if

their underlying problems really necessitated a

different type of PMO, then the managementfunction was often less effective than needed;

the project(s) were later, more expensive, and

less successful than expected. On more than

one occasion this has tainted the organization’s

perception of the PMO, of project management,

and in some cases of management in general.

SOMOS consultants have designed, imple-

mented, worked within, and repaired a variety of

projects and PMOs in a range of environments.

In the course of our work, we have developed a

framework for describing PMOs and theirfunctions.

We believe that there is no single best design for

all PMOs. However significant gains can be

achieved by using the framework described here

and by establishing the type of PMO whose

functions address the organization’s needs.




Version 1.03


We believe that this framework supports the

ideal stated by Dr. Hobbs in his white paper The

Multi-Project PMO: A Global Analysis of the

Current State of Practice – that is “…to provide

the profession with guidance in the

establishment and maintenance of successful

PMOs.”

17 References

Dinsmore, Paul C., Cooke-Davies, Terence J.

(2006). The Right Projects Done Right!, San

Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Englund, Randall L., Bucero, Alfonso. (2006). Project Sponsorship, San Francisco, USA:

Jossey-Bass.

Graham, Robert J., Englund, Randall L.

(1997). Creating an Environment For

Successful Projects: The Quest to Manage

Project Management , San Francisco, USA:

Jossey-Bass.

Hobbs, B. (2007). The multi-project PMO: A

global analysis of the current state of practice.

Newtown Square, PA: Project Management

Institute.

Hobbs, B., Aubry, M. (2008). An Empirically

Grounded Search for a Typology of Project

Management Offices. Project Management

Journal, Vol. 39, Supplement S69-S82.

Kerzner, Harold. (1992). Project Management

A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling

and Controlling Fourth Edition, New York,

USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Office of Government Commerce. (2005), Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2,

London, UK: The Stationery Office.

Project Management Institute. (2008). A

Guide to the Project Management Body of

Knowledge-Fourth Edition, Newtown Square,

PA: Project Management Institute.

About the author

Alan Boyce, B.A.Sc., MBA, P. Eng., PMP,

CMC has worked in engineering and project

management for over 30 years. He has performed many roles in projects and

management: engineer, designer, developer,

tester, implementer, scheduler, project analyst,

advisor, PMO manager, project manager,

general manager, and corporate executive. He

has worked extensively with the design and

setup of Project Management Offices, PM

systems, and PM processes.

He is president of SOMOS Consulting Group,

which provides customers with services,

systems, and solutions in management and project management. SOMOS’s customers

range from information technology

organizations, product development and

manufacturing companies, aerospace and

defense companies, and government.

SOMOS provides training and consulting based

on the PMBOK from the Project Management

Institute (PMI), as well as on PRINCE2 from the

UK Office of Government Commerce.

Documents

PMO Type Framework v1.03