Case

Study : Project Management Methodology

Background
Tom Walker, the president of ABC company, expressed his concern at the executive staff
meeting that ‘ We are no longer competitive in the market. All of the RFP that we want to
bid has a requirement that we must identify the PM methodology we will use if we get the
contract. The reality is that we do not have a project management methodology but we only
have a few templates. This deficiency can make us lose the contract.

I have been emphasizing the development of methodology but it was always delayed.
People had been showing their fears about power, authority and politicking. This is now
impacting the business and we might lose the potential contracts if we do not act now. Let
us take the initiative now, develop and implement the PM methodology in next 3 months.
We will subsequently use that methodology in all the projects with our clients.

Impediments
The managers, though trying to push back the change, knew that it is the need of time. They
called in a Project Management Consultant to develop a plan and switch to a PM
Methodology. After a 4 hour meeting, the consultant explained that it can save time and
money to implement a methodology if a Project Management Office (PMO) is established to
take a lead role. The consultant also advised to name a leader of PMO who would have
more authorities and thus should be selected based upon the qualification, skills and
experience. Seeing this, the managers became more reluctant to this initiative and wanted
to see first as to how it can affect their organization. However, upon push from the
president, the PMO was established after 2 months.

The PMO comprised 3 experienced Project managers who could hopefully take the lead in
the development of a methodology. PMO concluded that there were 5 steps that had to be
done initially. After all the steps were done, the executive committee would receive a final
briefing, in addition to the monthly updates and progress reports, on what had been
accomplished. The PMO believed that it might take time to convince the executive
committee on the results and progresses however the 5 steps were planned to begin.

The first step was to identify the number of life-cycle phases. Some managers proposed to
have up to 10 life cycle phases. PMO knew that more life cycle phases would mean more
phase gate review meetings and more planning. He wanted to keep only right number of
life cycle phases. Thus, life cycle phases were kept to 5 in order to keep them to optimum.

The second step was to decide whether the methodology should be designed around rigid
policies and procedures or be kept informal by using checklist, forms, template and
guidelines. PMO preferred to have the informal approach and allow flexibility to the clients.

The third step was to see what could be salvaged from the existing templates and
checklists. Since most of the managers were not using the existing templates so it was
decided to develop a standardized set of documents in accordance with the information in
the PMBoK Guide. The project managers could then select from that selection whichever
form, guideline or template is more suitable to their client.

The fourth step would be to develop a means for capturing best practices using the EPM
system. Clients were now asking to include in the RFP about the best practices to be used
on a project and shared with the client. There was a difference in opinion on this step
within the team of managers.

The fifth step involved learning and training. The functional and project managers need to
be trained in the use of new methodology. The PMO believed that a 2 days workshop would
suffice to train and help them to apply new methodologies in practice.

Deep Insights
1. Why did the managers waited this long to consider the development of an EPM
system?
2. How can a PMO accelerate this process?
3. How many project life cycles are best to have?
4. Is it best to design the enterprise project management methodology around flexible
or inflexible elements? When do companies prefer flexible over inflexible?