Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Managing The PMO Lifecycle - 2nd Edition
Managing The PMO Lifecycle - 2nd Edition
Managing The PMO Lifecycle - 2nd Edition
PMO LIFECYCLE
A Step by Step Guide to PMO Set-up,
Build-out and Sustainability
Second Edition
ISBN
978-1-4602-7370-8 (Paperback)
978-1-4602-7371-5 (eBook)
Those who follow the Project Management Office (PMO) news in terms
of the evolution/revolution that PMOs are undergoing will attest that
PMOs are increasing in number and that they are on the rise in status
and influence in many organizations. Many academic and practical
studies show the vulnerability of some PMOs and the transformation
that other PMOs have undergone.
Some PMOs are being shut down while others are being rebuilt. Still
others are being transformed with new capabilities and functionalities.
Finally, virtual or outsourced PMOs offer a new concept in PMO trans-
formation. (This concept emerged a few years ago and continues to rise.)
All in all, the PMO function is undergoing a major transformation as
a result of both external and internal factors. External factors include
the economy, competition, and market demand. Internal factors include
organization restructuring, budget constraints, and time to market.
Dr. Waffa Karkukly (PMP, ACP, CMP) is the Principal and Managing
Director of Global PMO Solutions with over 20 years’ experience in
IT, project management, and PMO establishments. Waffa has extensive
experience in project management and particular expertise in establish-
ing practical PMOs and revitalizing and assessing the value propositions
of existing PMOs to ensure alignment with organizational strategy. She
has helped Fortune 100, midsize and, small-sized organizations improve
their project management practices and PMO establishments through
building scalable standards and proven solutions that improve their
delivery process.
DEDICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
PREFACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
KEY TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PMOs Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Virtual/Outsourced PMO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Agile PMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chapter Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CHAPTER 1:
THE PMO LIFECYCLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chapter Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
PMO Types and Roles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Understand the “P” in PMO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Project-based PMOs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Program-based PMOs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Portfolio-based PMOs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Identify the Right Level of PMO Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Correlation Between
Levels of Authority and
Different Types of PMO Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ ix ]
Project/Program Delivery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Project Manager Development vs. Project Manager
Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Project Repository. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Project Portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Common Functions to All Levels of PMO Authority. . . 28
Project Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Project Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Project Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Identify the Right PMO Scalability Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Organization Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
External Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Internal Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Business Process Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Strategic Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Reporting Line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Responsibility for Project Delivery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Number of Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Number of Project Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Global PMO vs. Enterprise PMO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Other PMO Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
PPM Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
QRM Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Overall PMO tips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Keep It Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Get Your Priorities Straight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Executive support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
CHAPTER 2:
PMO SETUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Chapter Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Newly Created PMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Existing PMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
[ x ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
CHAPTER 3:
PMO BUILD-OUT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Chapter Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Newly-created PMO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Existing PMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
CHAPTER 4:
SUSTAINABILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Chapter Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Sustainability Principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Human Resources Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Customer Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Risk Management Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
HR Risk Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Customer Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Risk Identification Triggers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Risk Undertaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
PMO Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Newly created PMOs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Existing PMOs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Sustainability Toolkit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
PMO Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
PMO Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
PMO Knowledge Repository. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
PMO Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
PMO Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Process and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Project Managers’ Skill Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Project and Portfolio Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Establish Best Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
CHAPTER 5:
PMO SURVEY RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ xi ]
CHAPTER 6:
CONTROVERSIAL PMO TRENDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Chapter Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
PMO or Project Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Temporary or Permanent?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Make It Temporary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Make It Permanent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Insource or Outsource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
PPM or PMO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
CHAPTER 7:
PMO CASE STUDIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Chapter Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
General Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Specific Case Studies Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
The Case Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Aviva Canada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
Invest&Wealth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Interac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 165
G&E—Game & Entertainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
[ xii ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
CHAPTER 8:
PMO TOOLKIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Chapter Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Template Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
PMO Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
PMO Assessment Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
PMO Job Family—Career Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
PMO Functional and Interaction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
PMO Roadmap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Template Details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
PMO Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
PMO Assessment Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
PMO Job Family—Career Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
PMO Functional and Interaction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
PMO Roadmap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
CHAPTER 9:
THE AGILE PMO,
A NEW AREA OF FOCUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Lean and Agile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
What is Lean, and Why Lean?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
What is Agile and Why Agile?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
HR Management in Agile Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
The Thesis of Leagility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Implementing Lean and Agile in Organizations. . . . 202
Sustaining PMO Performance by Achieving
Leagility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Case Study and Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
About the Case Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
The Organization’s Challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
The Role of the PMO as a Champion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Why Lean and Agile in Combination? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ xiii ]
CHAPTER 10:
PMOS WHERE TO?
GOING BACK TO BASICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Functional Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Matrix Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Projectized Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
PMOs and Organizational Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Going Back to Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
APPENDIX A:
WEB-BASED SURVEY LETTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
APPENDIX B:
WEB SURVEY QUESTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
APPENDIX C:
CASE STUDIES INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
LIST OF FIGURES
Finally, this book is a guide for students seeking a career in the project
management profession, allowing them to gain practical knowledge in
the domain, and for those writing their thesis, so they can leverage the
insights of the literature, surveys, and case studies.
If you are:
Background
The majority of PMO research thus far has focused on investigating
issues like: the PMO; understanding the PMO and its various functions,
structure, types, roles; the multi-structure of a PMO; and the PMO’s
performance (Aubry and Hobbs 2007, Crawford 2002, Karkukly 2010).
As PMOs evolve and the expectations for them increase in line with the
demand on organizations to do more with less, the need to understand
the PMO’s lifecycle and how it evolves allows organizations to maximize
the efficiencies gained from having a PMO.
The concept of a PMO originated in the 1950s, when its role was mainly
in the military or in delivering critical projects with specialized project
staff to ensure completion. Its purpose was to control specific projects
and be closer to the customer (Kerzner 2004).
The journey since 1960 has changed the PMO in terms of operation and
both user and management expectations. While project-based industries
(e.g. IT, construction, and defense), profited from project manage-
ment, they had a level of project maturity and were the first to establish
project offices to monitor their project progress. Industries that were not
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 3 ]
Perhaps the most important PMO benefit is the link it can provide
between corporate governance—connecting global strategy and goals—
project management/individual project success, and results through an
effective portfolio management process. In this form, a PMO is all about
results and securing project management as a realistic bridge between
strategy and success (eSilvia and Soares 2008, p.7).
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 7 ]
PMOs Today
The Virtual/Outsourced PMO
Information Technology (IT) executives have a growing concern about
project performance and PMO capabilities; hence, trends in project
management are moving toward more contracting and outsourcing. This
means more distributed development organizations and more business
dependence on applications. The drivers of these trends include project
criticality, problems with reliable project delivery, and the new account-
ing guidelines, which requires enterprises to capitalize costs of software
assets developed for internal use.
PMO numbers today, there is no doubt that PMOs add value. While
this is mainly true, the costs and the efforts associated with establish-
ing a PMO are being questioned due to increased expectations from
executives. A study by Hobbs (2007) points to the issues associated with
PMO creation, questioning the real value considering the time, effort,
and cost it takes to establish such a function.
Chapter Structure
This book is organized into ten chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 explains the various PMO types, the various PMO models
available, and offers the reader a project management office life cycle
(PMOLC) model to illustrate the steps taken during each phase of the
proposed PMOLC. The PMOLC consists of three PMO phases: setup,
build-out, and sustainability. The subsequent three chapters unfold each
phase of the PMOLC. Each phase explains the processes associated with
a newly established PMO as well as those processes associated with the
repurposing or repositioning of an existing function.
Chapter 2 takes readers through the PMOLC setup phase. The setup
outlines the seven-step process required to set up a PMO. It illustrates
what is involved internally and externally (in those cases where the orga-
nization may be outsourcing the setup).
Chapter 9 takes on the new Lean and Agile concepts and the role of the
PMO in supporting Lean and Agile culture and offers a case study on
how a PMO can lead a Lean and Agile transformation.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we presented the aim and objectives of this book. This
chapter also introduced the format and organization of the book, pro-
viding a summary for each chapter to allow the reader to follow the flow
as well as refer to the sections needed. The book can be read sequentially
or dipped into at random as a reference.
CHAPTER 1:
THE PMO LIFECYCLE
Chapter Overview
This chapter will explain the various PMO types, the models available,
and their functions. It introduces the reader to the PMO lifecycle and
its phases: setup, build-out, and sustainability. Figure 1.1 describes the
three phases at a high level, illustrating the main activities required to set
up, build out, and sustain PMOs. In subsequent chapters, the complete
PMO lifecycle will unfold, and every step in each phase of PMO setup,
PMO build-out, and PMO sustainability will be explained in detail. All
three major phases in the PMOLC are described and can be seen in
Figure 1.2.
The first two phases can be grouped together and treated as a single
project. In other words, the setup and build-out of the PMO can be
treated as a project within the delivery of a PMO roadmap, execution
plan, proposed functions, and so on. The sustainability phase may be
seen as the operationalization of the PMO (i.e. running the day-to-day
activities) and addressing continuous improvement.
authority and structure, and provide the various functions PMOs have
been tasked to do.
Letavec (2006) suggests that PMOs may work in any of the follow-
ing roles:
Light and Berg (2000) suggest that PMOs may have other roles:
(CoE) that deals with many projects. Table 1.1 below illustrates the
type of functions performed and the expectations based on each type of
PMO. Each author has defined the type of PMO and different functions
from the perspective of an organization’s needs.
PMO
Author Function/Role
Type
PMO
Author Function/Role
Type
Crawford Level 1 - PCO Typically handles large, complex single projects (such as the
(2002)w Y2K project). It is focused specifically on one project, but
that one project is so large and so complex that it requires
multiple schedules, which may need to be integrated into
an overall program schedule.
Project-based PMOs
The focus of a project-based PMO is on project-level deliverables: how
to initiate, plan, execute, monitor, control and close out a project.
Attention is paid to project details pertaining to specific project mile-
stones and deliverables. Areas of focus include:
Program-based PMOs
The focus of program-based PMOs is, as the title suggests, on program-
level outcomes, how to integrate projects and sequence them, resource
management, stakeholders change impact management, and rollup of
groups of projects. Attention is paid to program deliverables, including
business case and program base benefits. The areas of focus include:
These PMOs can be local but are more frequently national- or enter-
prise-level. They are most common in large organizations where various
projects are either cross-geographic or cross-departmental and there are
strong dependencies between these projects; including securing delivery
as part of a specific program. Hence, a PMO may run single or mul-
tiple programs.
[ 22 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Portfolio-based PMOs
Because of the way some organizations are structured politically, some
portfolio-based PMOs encompass a project and program delivery
component while others retain a portfolio function only. These kinds
of PMOs may have various names if they function separately from the
PMO (e.g. Enterprise Strategy, Corporate Strategy, Strategic Portfolio
Office, Corporate Portfolio Office, or Portfolio Management Office).
These PMOs focus on portfolio-level outcomes and how to align orga-
nizational strategic initiatives to realize benefits. Areas of focus include:
These levels of authority need to tie in with the PMO types outlined
in Table 1.1 (i.e. PO, basic PMO, advanced PMO, CoE). While all of
these authority types can share similar PMO models and create similar
functions, the level of authority a PMO has determines its ability to
influence change management and project management adoption
within an organization.
The author’s research indicates that PMOs given the level of authority
required to implement change management and encourage project man-
agement adoption within an organization have produced higher results
in encouraging project management adoption. In other words, the less
empowered the PMO, the less its influence it has on change manage-
ment and project management adoption. Table 5.7 in Chapter 5 shows
the results of the correlation of level of authority in project management
and change management adoption.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 25 ]
Project/Program Delivery
For the consultative- and knowledge-based PMOs, project delivery is
rarely a primary function (see Table 1.2.) While nothing prevents an
organization from creating any type of PMO under any level of author-
ity, the fact remains that there is a stronger correlation between some
types of PMOs and their level of authority (see Table 5.15, Table 5.16,
and Table 5.17 in Chapter 5). For example, enabling a project delivery
function in a consultative- or knowledge-based PMO without giving the
PMO the authority to run or kill projects will not work in the consult-
ing services context.
Project Repository
All PMOs, regardless of type, need to maintain project data for report-
ing and auditing purposes. While the project repository function is a
core function of knowledge management PMOs or compliance PMOs,
it is not a core function of consultative PMOs. Knowledge PMOs are
accountable for storing all sorts of project artifacts, such as project
schedule data, cost data, resource allocation, methods, KPIs, and lessons
learned, for the purpose of providing organizations with data that
turns into knowledge to assess and benchmark project performance.
Compliance PMOs are accountable for the delivery of projects. Hence,
understanding past performance and current project performance allows
the prediction of future performance, leveraging data from lessons
learned to improve project delivery time, quality, and expectations.
While consultative PMOs are accountable for providing project man-
agement standards, methodology, and templates for other departments
to use, this type of PMO is expected to maintain some data on which
decision-makers base their decisions.
Project Portfolio
The project portfolio function might exist within consultative PMOs,
but it is best suited in authoritative PMOs. Authoritative PMOs assume
ownership for organization projects selection criteria, priority, and
resources. They has the ability to audit practices based on suggested
benefit assurance, which no other type of PMO can perform due to the
[ 28 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
role these types of PMOs play, which includes no PPM oversight. Table
1.2 summarizes PMO authority, types, and functions.
Project Methodology
All PMOs are required to build methodology or methodologies based
on some industry standards. A common methodology is important,
since it provides a consistent method for performing the project work.
This, in turn, enables the PMO head to measure and benchmark success
and failure effectively and on an objective and shared basis. In North
America, PMI PMBOK is the most common methodology used to
manage projects. In the UK and Europe, PRINCE2 provides the most
common standard. Both methodologies have spread beyond their coun-
tries of origin to be used on projects around the world. Defining one
methodology might fit a small organization but may not fit a large one
that has various delivery standards. The support of multiple method-
ologies becomes crucial for flexibility and long-term sustainability. This
translates into a rapid execution of the strategy, where incremental wins
(deliverables) are released at least every quarter no matter how large of a
transformation program organizations are leading.
Project Reporting
Project reporting is an essential function that all PMOs share and must
undertake from the early stages of PMO implementation. Although the
details of what type of information is reported, the frequency of report-
ing, and how it is reported might differ, all project reporting reflects
project progress and highlights the parameters influencing project
success. For example, successful PMOs should implement some or all of
following set of reports:
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 29 ]
Project Tools
For some organizations, introducing project management tools is the
last step to address in the people-process-technology paradigm. Other
organizations use technology as an enabler to promote collaboration and
teamwork. To allow teams to collaborate in real time and share their
thoughts, recent tools enhance productivity and measure progress. These
tools are becoming sophisticated enough to be used on mobile devices
(e.g. smart phones and tablets) to allow employees flexibility regard-
ing when and how to provide project progress, resource updates, and
[ 30 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Table 1.2 Illustration of PMO authority and related types and functions
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 31 ]
Table 1.3, Table 1.4, and Table 1.5 show three examples of scalability
criteria and the sizing proposed to determine whether the PMO is large,
medium, or small and to help in the assessment and guide the scalability
ranking for a PMO within an organization.
Table 1.3 Illustration of PMO authority and related types and functions
After the three examples, each of the scalability categories will be defined
and explained separately. Note that none of these categories has meaning
in isolation. It is the combination of all these categories that determines
the PMO scalability model. A PMO identified as small may not stay
small. The guided scalability model needs to be revisited as part of PMO
sustainability to ensure that expansion of a PMO is portable into the
next levels. Below is a definition of each of the scalability categories.
Organization Resources
While the number of employees is not the only measure that deter-
mines how large or small an organization can be, it is certainly one of
the factors. Often, in demographic surveys that seek to find out where
participants come from and the size of the organization, a range is pro-
vided. For example, an organization with between 100–300 employees
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 35 ]
External Impact
The external impact refers to the impact on the organization’s clients
and how this affects the organization’s relationship with them. In some
cases, there may be a direct impact; such as when the client contrib-
utes directly to the product or services of the project organization. In
other cases, there may be an indirect impact, because the client is a con-
sumer of the organization’s products or services and thus benefits from
improvements to them. In other cases, the PMO may have no mate-
rial relevance to your working relationship. The scalability of a PMO is
dependent on this category and whether it will support external clients’
initiatives directly or indirectly. It does this directly by interacting with
a client’s PMO, if they have one, or working with the project teams in
collaboration. A PMO does this indirectly by supporting the projects for
its organization only, with other organizations providing updates.
Internal Impact
The introduction of a PMO may be designed to have a direct impact on
the organization’s bottom line, such as: performance, financials, brand,
and reputation. The scalability of a PMO is dependent on this category
and whether it will manage internal initiatives directly or indirectly. For
example, a PMO managing internal initiatives directly means the PMO
is employing project managers that report to the PMO and, as a result,
will have an impact on the way the projects are run internally. When
projects are managed indirectly, it means projects are managed by the
business units as they may have been before, and the PMO might have
less of an impact on internal project delivery.
[ 36 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
If the PMO is at the enterprise level, then the creation or the revitaliza-
tion of the PMO will impact the entire organization where the interac-
tion and functional model of the other functions will be influenced by
the type of work the PMO will carry out. If the PMO is at the depart-
mental or business unit level, then the creation or the revitalization of
this PMO might impact the particular business unit in which the PMO
resides with minimal impact on the overall organization, such as a large
organization with an enterprise PMO and a newly created business
unit PMO.
The enterprise PMO serves as the standard setter and the governance
monitor. The business unit will be delivery in nature supported by the
main enterprise standards, and whatever specific business unit changes
are required to run that particular business may be unique with minimal
impact on the overall organization. The enterprise PMO should assess
the degree of deviation from enterprise standards and advise the business
unit PMO with the required alignment if a misalignment exists.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 37 ]
Strategic Need
Organizations need to determine if the PMO is required to fulfill stra-
tegic directions or specific directions. Strategic PMOs include oversight
of portfolio management, strategic alignment across various business
units, and oversight regarding resource capacity. Specific PMOs can be
built around one project, for example, or to oversee and improve project
execution. In a small PMO, the need for strategic oversight is limited,
and the PMO may exist to solve delivery issues. In a large PMO, which
is targeted at the program or portfolio level, the strategic reach of the
PMO is high and is required to ensure a wide portfolio selection for the
organization and prioritization and alignment across all business units.
Geography
In terms of geographic reach, a PMO can be local, national, or interna-
tional. The geographic domain is an element of scalability that includes
a cultural complexity dimension that needs to be taken into account.
For example, a small PMO will support one department or a local office
within a company, while a national PMO will cross boundaries within
one country with oversight over all project work within the various
national branches of a company. International or global oversight can
happen only in large organizations where the PMO becomes the strate-
gic partner that goes across boundaries and influences the scalability of
a PMO. In some companies, the PMO starts as national, and then the
success is replicated and scaled up to a global level.
Reporting Line
Every organization needs to determine the PMO’s reporting line. A
PMO can report to a business unit lead, to a higher up executive, or to
a C-level executive, such as a CIO, CFO, or COO. The reporting line
reflects the PMO’s strategic reach and influence. For example, a small
PMO embedded in a business unit may have limited authority over or
[ 38 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Number of Projects
The number of projects within an organization signifies the size of that
PMO. While the number of projects is not the only measure that deter-
mines how large or small a PMO can be, it is certainly one of the factors.
In PMO surveys, a range of project numbers is provided to find out if a
PMO should classified as small, medium, or large. For example, a PMO
that handles anywhere between 1–20 projects is classified as small, while
a PMO that handles between 20–100 projects is considered medium.
Finally, at over a 100 projects, a PMO is considered to be large. The scal-
ability of a PMO is dependent on this category and how many projects
the PMO will deliver.
For example, a PMO that oversees anywhere between 1–10 project man-
agers is classified as small, while a PMO that handles between 11–25
project managers is considered medium. Finally, at over 25 project man-
agers, a PMO is considered large. The scalability of a PMO is dependent
on this category and how many projects managers to whom the PMO
needs to assign projects, support, and train.
Similarities
Global and enterprise PMOs are both large, which implies cross-
functionality, and are often compliance- or audit-driven. Project man-
agers report to the PMO directly or under a sub-function within the
PMO that may be called “resource management” or “resource CoE.”
The resource management function assigns project managers based on
project type, size, project manager skillset, workload, and availability.
Differences
PPM Function
Portfolio management is a dynamic process that involves an organization
identifying the development projects that need to be executed for the
benefit of the business. This includes selection, prioritization, monitor-
ing, and changes based on any unforeseen opportunities that may arise.
The process encompasses periodic reviews and comparisons of historical
projects and requires go/no go decisions on an ongoing basis to allow
businesses to achieve their strategic goals (Cooper et al. 2006).
QRM Function
The QRM or project audit is a function that assesses the quality of
project management deliverables and the processes, templates, and tools
used to secure these deliverables. It is an audit function involving the
content and the process that guided how the specific deliverable was
chosen or articulated. The QRM function often gets involved in the
lessons learned or performs quality checks based on the quality standards
that are already instituted.
Ideally, the audit function should be independent from the PMO so that
there is no conflict of interest in evaluating the PMO’s work. For smaller
organizations without an independent QRM function, the role may be
performed by an individual who is independent from the delivery func-
tion (i.e. someone who is not involved in the day-to-day project).
• Project delivery
• Project manager education, training, and development
• Establishment of methodologies, processes, and supporting tools
to facilitate training and development
• Linking strategy with execution through portfolio management
Some of the benefits of a PMO are also worth repeating and emphasizing:
• Predictability
• Repeatability
• Measurability to track project progress
• Realization of portfolio benefits
Keep It Simple
There is no harm in starting with a grand vision, but keep the execution
simple. In a number of cases, the PMO setup and build-out becomes
so complex that it is difficult to show immediate or incremental value.
If positive results take longer than executives expect, the PMO will
struggle to sustain the build-out. Aiming too high or building too fast
may prevent change from being instituted appropriately. Clearly, some
organizations will be able to take on more than others. Therefore, under-
standing the culture, environment, and success criteria of your organiza-
tion is key.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 43 ]
The human aspect (in terms of buy-in, education, and skillset at all levels
of the organization) is the primary key to a successful PMO setup and
build-out and ensures sustainability. The processes are the second key
element to successful build-out. Keep them small, and look for oppor-
tunities to grow and scale up. Tools are important to generate reports,
automate processes, ensure consistency, measure KPIs, track progress,
and collaborate on sets of templates and processes built. However, they
have limited value in managing the human factor and the early stages of
design and build-out.
Scalability
PMO creation should be scalable. Start small, but be alert to the need
to build on every component. Leverage the scalability model provided
earlier in this chapter as a guide to scalability criteria. The key to success
is to start small and keep building until the desired state is reached, start-
ing from PMO setup, PMO processes, tools, staffing needs, and ongoing
sustainability plans.
Executive support
Executive buy-in and ongoing support is pivotal to PMO longevity. The
survey in Chapter 5 shows how PMOs benefit from executive support.
In the survey, conducted as part of my Ph.D. study, one of the questions
was, “What are the reasons for PMO failures?” One of the top three
answers was “Lack of executive support.”
[ 44 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the reader was presented with the various types and
models of PMOs. Further, it covered the understanding between
project, program, and portfolio PMOs, the type of PMO authorities in
the industry, and the scalability models and their associated categories.
Other functions, such as PPM and QRM, were covered, and the overall
PMOLC was introduced. The chapter ended with some PMO tips for
the reader to consider.
CHAPTER 2:
PMO SETUP
Chapter Overview
The PMO setup phase involves a seven-step process. This chapter
explores the setup of a brand new PMO or the repurposing of an exist-
ing PMO, whether these are being completed as internal projects or with
the help of external consultants. The setup phase defines the organiza-
tion’s objectives in building a PMO, which are expressed as an approved
PMO roadmap that describe the activities and steps required to build
the PMO. This phase can be referred to as the “identification” or “assess-
ment” phase. The creation of a new PMO (e.g. in an organization that
does not have a PMO) requires that all PMO elements be identified
in order to establish the PMO roadmap. The assessment of an existing
PMO (e.g. in an organization that has a PMO but is looking to revital-
ize it) requires that all PMO elements be reevaluated to confirm current
elements or identify changes required by the organization’s leaders. Table
2.1 summarizes the steps required to set up a new PMO and an existing
PMO. Each of these steps will be discussed in depth.
[ 46 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Executives have several options for setting up and building a PMO. For
example, they may choose to hire a full-time team to create the PMO
with one internal executive champion to oversee the setup process.
Alternatively, they may invite a consultant to assess the PMO setup
and build-out or hire new, experienced PMO staff to build it. A third
option is to employ an external specialist company who can set up, build
out, and run the PMO as a virtual PMO. There is no right or wrong
approach. All are viable options, and it is important for the organization
creating a PMO or the external entity assessing the organization for a
PMO to understand the culture, the drivers for creating the PMO, the
expectations for it, and the elements of success required.
Internal Hire
Organizations may decide to hire a PMO expert as an internal resource
to establish the PMO function or promote some of the current project
managers to help run the PMO function. The advantage of this
approach is that an internal project manager promoted into the role can
help shorten the learning curve in terms of understanding the organiza-
tion’s culture and structure. The disadvantage is that the skillset of the
individual, who may be a high-performing project manager, might not
match that required to build a PMO. Even amongst those who build
PMOs, there are those who are builders by nature and those who are
operational. Ideally, the two skills of building and operating should be
combined. This comes through years of experience in building PMOs as
well as a personal interest in doing both jobs.
either hire someone with these skills to lead the PMO setup or engage
an external consulting firm that has the requisite experience.
External Consulting
Organizations might not have any experience in PMO setup or build-
out and be unsure of what they should expect out of a PMO at first.
Therefore, there is an advantage to inviting a consulting firm to assess the
needs of the organization and provide the organization with market per-
spective, education, and the requisite options. An organization can use
the assessment to better understand what benefits they can obtain from
having a PMO and hire someone to set up and build it, or they may
invite the consulting company to proceed with the setup and build-out.
A times, organizations need the rigor that a PMO can bring but have
neither the capacity nor the skillset (and possibly not even the interest)
to create a PMO. These organizations may opt for a virtual PMO (i.e.
outsourced PMO services), which is different from external consulting.
While in external consulting, final operationalization remains in the
[ 50 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Virtual PMO
A virtual PMO is what is referred to in the literature as the “outsourced
PMO.” Outsourcing is being employed increasingly to achieve perfor-
mance improvements across the entire business. For example, one par-
ticular growth area has been the externalization of information technol-
ogy, with a recent report showing companies outsourcing 38% of their
IT functions to external providers (McIvor 2005).
For every interaction, inputs and outputs are expected from each party.
These are summarized in Figure 2.2. For example, a PMO requires as
input the list of all initiatives from every business unit. In return, the
PMO outputs a consolidated list of all the organization’s initiatives.
Another example: business units input resources to staff a project, while
the output from the PMO is resource allocation and potential resource
constraint. The output from the PMO can be used as input to the busi-
ness units to reassign resources and reprioritize workload to achieve
resource allocation balance.
Existing PMO
Some PMOs grow stale and stop adding value, or the value declines over
time. If so, the PMO leaders or the PMO sponsor need to step back and
assess what went wrong and take corrective action. If assessment is done
frequently, organizations can avoid drastic overhauls to their PMO.
When these assessments are neglected, PMOs are often shut down,
transformed, or marginalized. Therefore, the steps for the existing PMO
are meant to go over the PMO authority, functions established, project
managers’ reporting structure, and the effectiveness of the current PMO
interaction with the organization. It can start by creating a survey to
get the pulse of the organization. If the feedback is marginal or people
are generally satisfied with the PMO, then no changes are required.
However, if the results are negative, the assessment is required. Checking
the pulse of the organization should be a structured, standard, and fre-
quent practice.
[ 56 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
the organization executives, those that the PMO supports, and to whom
it provides services.
The assessment can be internal, where the PMO lead plays a survey role
and gauges his audience to see if the PMO, as it is today, is still viable.
If changes need to be made, then the recommendations should indi-
cate what type of PMO the current PMO needs to transfer to and what
authority changes need to be made. For example, upon assessment, the
outcome might be that the authority given to the PMO is making the
PMO more like a policeman with the authority to scrutinize all work
efforts, which is creating animosity. If so, the PMO needs to look into
becoming more consultative or more like a coach. The opposite may be
true, and the results show the PMO is not enforcing some of the stan-
dards. This requires that the PMO take a more authoritative tone toward
enforcing standards through rewards or other measures.
One organization may have started with all project managers report-
ing to the PMO while another organization may have started with all
project managers reporting to their business units. Some organizations
have hybrid models, whereby some project managers report to the PMO
while others report to their business units.
Chapter Summary
This chapter explored the setup of a brand new PMO or the repurposing
of an existing PMO, whether these are being completed as internal proj-
ects or with the help of external consultants. The setup phase defines the
organization’s objectives in building a PMO, which are expressed as an
approved PMO roadmap that describe the activities and steps required
to build the PMO.
CHAPTER 3:
PMO BUILD-OUT
Chapter Overview
The build-out phase will, by definition, depend on the success of the
delivery of the setup phase. The setup phase can be treated as planning
the work, while the build-out phase is executing on the planned work.
Since the PMO helps the organization structure projects and deliver
them, the PMO build-out needs to be planned and executed as if it were
a project. The complexity of the PMO build-out is such that, although
it needs to be treated like a project, an operational plan as part of the
project plan will also be needed. In other words, as PMO functions are
rolled out, the organization should already have a plan and be taking
action to support its ongoing improvement, support, and sustainability.
Setup and build-out of the PMO are ongoing rather than discrete pro-
cesses. Table 3.1 summarizes the steps required to build out a new PMO
or reestablish an existing PMO. Each step will be explored further in
this chapter.
[ 62 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Newly-created PMO
plan needs to be in place to ensure what is being built can be used, con-
sumed, and measured. It is important to focus on the use of templates
and their contents and the quality and applicability of the templates
and their contents with frequent revisions for updates corresponding to
changes in processes and procedures.
Existing PMO
the head of the PMO must always confirm the validity of what is being
delivered with the PMO sponsor and the executive team that funded
and supported the existence of the PMO. The head of the PMO must
have insight into the changes occurring within his or her organization
and how they may impact the PMO implementation. He or she must
also be aware of any new industry trends and challenges that could affect
PMO implementation positively or negatively. For example, if the orga-
nization building a PMO has consolidated some business function as
part of an overall realignment and organization transformation, it will
impact the interaction model of the PMO, and the activities between
these functions and the PMO will need to be revisited to determine the
deviation from what was documented in the setup phase.
This first step ensures that the outputs from the PMO reassessment in
the setup phase have been approved and agreements on updates and
changes have been confirmed. A new implementation plan is needed to
carry out all approved activities. There is no difference in terms of the
structure and expectations from the execution plan perspective between
a newly established PMO and an existing one. While in the newly estab-
lished PMO the execution plan is laying the foundation and building
a function, in the existing PMO, it is changing a particular practice by
adding, changing, or eliminating a component.
and assess embedding the various methodologies and how will it support
them. For example, if Agile is requested but has not been implemented,
it is a bigger task. On the one hand, the PMO needs to look at imple-
menting the new methodology and follow the steps of a new build-out
of a methodology. On the other hand, the PMO still needs to assess how
to manage the suite of methodologies going forward and the mecha-
nisms in place to support each methodology. The outcome may result
in Agile SME resources building and supporting the new methodology,
training for IT staff on the new methodology, and expanding resources
to support and coach in Agile methods.
and weakness of each individual and provide the organization with the
necessary information to determine the areas for improvement and the
steps that need to be taken to increase each individual’s skill level so as to
improve project performance.
In either case, the assessment will determine how wide or narrow the
gap is between interaction flow and current inputs and outputs. If a gap
exists, then a plan is required to address the revitalization exercise, where
buy-in from other departments is vital. Approval on interactions and
commitments and accountability exchanges is crucial to the success of
the PMO and to a healthy relationship in an organization.
Chapter Summary
This chapter explored the build-out phase of a brand new PMO or the
rebuilding of an existing PMO, whether these are being completed as
internal projects or with the help of external consultants. While the
setup phase was to plan the PMO roadmap, the build-out phase executes
on the planned roadmap. The complexity of the PMO build-out is such
that, although it needs to be treated like a project, an operational plan as
part of the project plan will also be needed.
CHAPTER 4:
SUSTAINABILITY
Chapter Overview
The build-out phase depends on the success of the setup phase.
Similarly, the sustainability phase is dependent on the success of the
build-out phase. The success in creating a function or a department is in
the longevity of that function and the value this function adds through
day-to-day operation to ensure sustainability. The journey of setting up
and building a PMO is half of the work. The rest of the work is in opera-
tionalizing these functions with day-to-day work, ensuring continuous
improvement plans leading to sustainability of the PMO organization.
This chapter will explore what it means for a PMO to sustain opera-
tion and continue the improvement journey. PMOs are concerned with
delivering the right projects and delivering these projects correctly. For
that to happen, the PMO needs to have a plan demonstrating to its
executive sponsors and the broader organization that improvements are
throughout time.
[ 78 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Sustainability Principles
Sustainability principles call for social-oriented, economical, and eco-
logical systems. These systems can be for the midterm or the long term
and can span from local to global. The most notable is the notion of
value-based, which is considered the foundation for sustainable project
management (Gareis et. al 2011). Another definition for the PMO that
emphasizes value add is as follows: “The PMO is a critical organizational
entity that adopts a variety of roles and structures but should be focused
on adding value to an organization and its customers to achieve the
desired organizational performance” (Karkukly 2010, p. 55).
From the definition above, the PMO should be adding value to its orga-
nization and the organizations it services, i.e. customers’ organizations.
A more formal definition of value added is that: “Value added refers to
‘extra’ feature(s) of an item of interest (product, service, person, etc.)
that go beyond the standard expectations and provide something ‘more’
while adding little or nothing to its cost.”1
Delivery Factor
• Improve estimation through standardization
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 81 ]
Customer Value
(Hoque et al. 2005) introduced Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema who
have developed a model that defines leading companies and their rela-
tionship with their customers that focuses on three types of disciplines:
The PMO will need to align with its organization on the type of cus-
tomer value model the organization is required to satisfy. To measure
the value add, both quantitative and qualitative measures are required.
Quantitative measures can be achieved through customer relationships
and measuring their satisfaction through customer surveys, one-on-one
meetings, and town hall meetings that address wider customer needs.
Qualitative measures can be achieved through ensuring that the company
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 83 ]
Quality Factor
• Ensure delivery of product or service is error-free
• Ensure quality measures and improvements are in place
• Ensure commitment to quality when issues arise
Delivery Factor
• Receive product and service on time
• Submit requests to change on time
• Communicate delivery success criteria to set correct expectation
• Identify value add from delivery
Cost Factor
• Receive cost-effective product or service
• Ensure the cost of running product and service is competitive
• Value is demonstrated through cost but also by fixing errors or
improving current offering
• Assess cost of changes and improvement in product or service
[ 84 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
An example of combining the quality factor, the delivery factor, and the
cost factor leading to customer satisfaction starts with setting and com-
municating the right expectations to the customer. Over promising and
under delivering will impact the delivering organization’s reputation.
Delivering a product with errors and unavailability of timely support
will jeopardize the relationship and lead to unsatisfied clients. Being
competitive on cost and ensuring that the organization’s customers are
getting more value out of the product or service relative to the cost
will give customers a competitive edge in their market. The PMO that
understands how to improve its sustainability journey will understand
these three customer value factors and will ensure immediate focus on
them, whether the customer is internal to the organization, external, or
both. Improving timeliness and quality of delivery and monitoring and
controlling the costs are key areas that the PMO will help its organiza-
tion to achieve, a value-add service that reflects in customer satisfaction.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 85 ]
HR Risk Factors
• Business model risk: Ensure that the PMO model in place is
robust and addresses organizational needs.
• Alignment risk: Ensure alignment of project resources to the set
processes and standards regardless of whether employees or depart-
ments report to the PMO or not.
• Integration risk: Ensure integration of processes across the orga-
nization through understanding current interaction model.
• Governance risk: Ensure governance that guarantees a timely flow
of information and enables timely decision-making.
The second focus will be on the risk triggers that are associated with these
factors. These are summarized below in two categories: identification and
action taken. Regardless of risk factor, the risk identification and action
plan process will be similar.
Risk Undertaking
• Define alternatives to address the risks and their impact
• Define mechanisms for escalation and reporting
• Take action and execute to ensure there is minimal impact to HR
and customer value add
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 87 ]
PMO Sustainability
The sustainability phase involves a seven-step process from start to
completion. The process considers the sustainability after or during the
build-out of a brand new PMO or takes into consideration the sustain-
ability of an existing PMO. This phase can be referred to as the “opera-
tionalization phase,” “ongoing support,” or “continuous improvement.”
Table 4.1 summarizes the steps required to sustain a PMO. Each of these
steps will be discussed in depth.
Process
This includes how often and when reports are generated, what form they
take, who receives them, how the reports influence the organization’s
decision-making processes, and how they enable action. The focus is on
measuring the process itself and how it is being followed to achieve the
end result, assessing its level of complexity, and adapting the right action
to ensure its effectiveness.
Content
This includes what data is needed to be captured and why and how it is presented
Projects are notorious for the amount of data they generate, so it is
important to find ways to streamline information on the project statues
with an appropriate dashboard for executives and well-considered KPIs.
Since organizations and their requirements change, KPIs cannot be
“one-size-fits-all. Therefore, it is important to anticipate mechanisms for
changing and adapting the organization’s reporting function and plat-
forms, as required
Usability
The easier the tool is to use and navigate and the greater the availability
of guidance and support, the more often the tool will be used. In other
words, the tools should provide project managers, team members, and
PMO administrators with ease of use and the ability to interact with
these tools with minimal system issues. Tools usability is correlated with
the level of adoption of these tools. Successful PMOs know the key to
adoption of a particular tool is the ability of that tool to be user-friendly
and have simple interfaces that provide power users (project managers
and PMO administrators) and casual users (other project stakeholders
and project sponsors) with the ability to pull the right information,
interact and prioritize, and collaborate on all levels.
Stability
The ability to maximize a tool’s uptime and also to improve operational
support are two important elements to ensure stability. This includes:
hardware capacity, network bandwidth, security access, availability, and
so forth. Other components, such as scheduling system maintenance,
outages, and upgrades outside of core work hours, are needed to mini-
mize interruptions. Further, learning when to turn tool features on, as
users of the system mature in their practice, is a key to ensuring stability.
Just as organization reporting needs evolve, the need for robust tools also
increases in importance. For example, as the needs of analytical reporting
increase, the PMO will need a robust tool for gathering business intel-
ligence and trend data about the project and program function and the
general performance of the business over time. A key to success lies in
integrating current tools into a comprehensive delivery framework and
assessing additional tools, if needed, to improve project performance.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 91 ]
There are three parts to sustaining project managers’ skills. This process
starts in the setup phase after an assessment of a project manager’s skillset
takes place to understand the type of skill training, on-the-job training,
and career path growth.
The first part of an action plan allows project managers to train at the
basic level (organization methodology and process). By starting all levels
of manager training with the core basics, project managers become
[ 92 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
grounded with the required methods and procedures that their organiza-
tion considers critical for the successful delivery of a project. Specialized
training for the various levels of project management is essential to
expand their skills, develop their knowledge, and keep them challenged
for the next level of responsibility.
The second part of an action plan is to have a career path for the PMs
to increase their competencies, which will help ensure they progress to
more senior project management roles. This crucial step can be achieved
through working with the HR business unit and the PMO to set the
career levels, performance criteria, and so forth for all project managers.
then the support and commitment will grow stronger. If, on the other
hand, any management layer perceives the PMO as a burden or adding
more process work, the commitment will decline, and it may lead to
PMO failure.
Existing PMOs
Training does not have to take a “big bang” approach; it can be incre-
mental and ongoing to ensure it touches all levels of the organization.
Similarly, all material pertaining to process, methodology, and tools
needs to be kept current with evolving standards. There is a different
type of training that doesn’t pertain to an immediate need, such as tools
training or skills training. It contributes to the project manager’s career
path. The category is education; as in earning a degree to be a differen-
tiator that can be industry-based or a discipline-based to allow project
managers to navigate through the ranks in the organization.
[ 98 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Sustainability Toolkit
Whether you are setting up a new PMO or reestablishing an existing
function, it is vital that a PMO establish a means to demonstrate consis-
tently and appropriately (a) the value of the PMO and (b) the flexibility
and adaptability of the PMO in the face of ongoing business change.
Four elements have been defined to ensure the PMO’s sustainability
journey is successful.
PMO Communication
Well-balanced communication starts with transparency. This involves
defining a process to determine what information is communicated, the
media used, the frequency of the information flow, and the intended
audience. Communicating project progress, portfolio progress, and
PMO sustainability progress are important and discrete elements of any
communication plan. This may include summary reports describing the
KPI representing project, program, and portfolio health check. Other
reports might include detailed financial analysis or various representa-
tions of resource allocation broken down by project, department, and
title. Consideration of the planning media is important to determine
how much information may be delivered by a “push” medium (e.g.
newsletter, email, blog, or report) and how much may be delivered to
[ 100 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
PMO Governance
It is expected that a PMO will build a governance model, improve exist-
ing governance, and enforce the required gates to ensure compliance.
Well-structured governance will include the various levels of function
and define their roles, responsibilities, and what decisions they are able
to make. Governance ensures that the overall corporate standardization
and performance assessment and measurements are consistent. Figure
4.5 provides an example that shows organization structure that embeds
governance based on organization hierarchy. While the PMO reports to
the CEO in this example, the PMO is at the same level as other busi-
ness units in the organization. The project team at the work stream level
is comprised of the functions that report to these business units. It is
important to define the governance model based on organization culture
and depending on to whom the PMO reports. Furthermore, the gov-
ernance structure should be revisited as part of annual refinement and
realignment, if needed.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 101 ]
PMO Performance
One reason for creating a PMO is to guarantee consistency of approach
across projects. As an organization seeks more efficiencies and increased
performance from projects, it turns to establishing project management
offices (PMO) to instill the needed discipline of PM (Santosus 2003).
The PMO is a function within an organization that provides project
management services to support an organization’s project delivery and
contribute to the performance of the organization through standardized
processes and practices.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 103 ]
PMO Challenges
Just as there are four elements to ensure the PMO’s sustainability journey
is successful, four major challenges can impede a PMO’s sustainability
journey if not given careful consideration.
To overcome this challenge, the PMO needs to start small and focus on
the main areas. This is much more effective than building everything at
once and then tripping in the rollout due to the level of the maturity
of the organization, unless the organization, from the PMs up to the
leadership team, is ready to take on a large magnitude of change. It is
important to remember that, first and foremost, the reason for method-
ology and processes are to allow for improvements in both effectiveness
and efficiency, not to create bureaucracy for project managers and the
organization as a whole.
(people and process) in place is a recipe for failure. Even if the processes
are simple and the methodology is not completely polished, there should
be a process in place that governs the use of the tool and identifies the
outcome the PMO is trying to achieve. Any new PMO should be careful
about imposing a project and/or a portfolio tool set before having people
ready and processes established. The tools are far more sophisticated now
and don’t just serve the PMO. They are a complete platform of applica-
tions that will allow for project building, tracking, budget monitoring,
document collaboration, and analytics and reporting. It all goes back to
understanding the organization’s requirements and what is required of
the tool. Relying on a third party to tell the PMO what they will get out
of a tool is fatal. Being educated and understanding the organization’s
requirements when approaching a project or portfolio tool and treating
it as you would treat deploying any organizational system, such as CRM
(Customer Relationship Management) or ERP (Enterprise Resource
Planning), is critical.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the reader was presented with the PMO sustainability
steps, seven steps required to sustain a newly built or existing PMO.
The chapter also discussed sustainability principles and definitions, the
human resource value add, and the customer value add. The chapter
concluded with the sustainability toolkit, which is comprised of four
elements PMO communication, PMO governance, PMO knowledge
repository, and PMO performance.
CHAPTER 5:
PMO SURVEY RESULTS
Due to the evolution of the PMO, there is a need to cover the lifecycle
of the PMO in such a way that those interested in building PMOs can
learn what is required in each phase of the PMOLC, the complexi-
ties associated with each phase, the challenges, and the rewards. The
PMOLC has not been fully explored, nor has it been discussed in detail;
hence, this research makes valuable contributions to the practicality of
the project management field in general and sheds light on the PMO
practices in particular. Further, the research adds valuable insights to the
mechanics governing the establishment of PMOs. The results will lead
us to:
Survey Setup
A survey was conducted to collect data regarding the setup, build-out, and
sustainability of the PMO. The survey was web-based and used a 5-point
Likert-type scale. It was developed and made available online for PMO
leaders who set up, built, or supported a PMO. These volunteers were pro-
fessional PMO from across various regions and industries. There were 100
respondents to the survey, 67 of whom completed it.
Results from the web-based survey led to the finding that PMO setup
and build-out phases are more complex than the sustainability phase.
Additionally, the findings show the effect of executive leadership support
on an organization and the importance of the PMO leader’s skillset
and role.
Survey Sections
The survey instrument was divided into three sections. Before any sec-
tions, an introduction was provided that stated the purpose of the study,
set expectations, and provided guidance and the deadline to complete
the survey (see Appendix C).
Section One
The first 12 questions addressed PMO setup, build-out, and sustainabil-
ity. This section surveyed the type of PMO, where PMOs reported, the
type of executive level to which the PMO reported, and the skills it takes
to set up, build out, and sustain a PMO.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 109 ]
Section Two
Questions 13–21 addressed PMO organizational issues. This section
surveyed PMO change management, PMO leadership support, and
project managers’ reporting structure to PMOs.
Section Three
General categorical and demographic information (such as gender, age,
and geographic location) is included in this section. Because respon-
dents were required to conform to criteria (Cooper and Schindler 2003)
by not only possessing the specific knowledge of PMOs required but
also leading or having led PMO setup or build-out or supported PMO
initiatives (Biemer et al. 1991), a sampling frame (Simon and Burstein
1969) was created.
A simple convenience sample was taken from the sampling frame, allow-
ing each subject an equal chance of responding to the survey and being
included in the sample (Simon and Burstein 1969). Each group within
the sampling frame was solicited from March 2011 through June 2011.
A web-based tool was used to collect responses and store data (Sekaran
2003). The sampling frame included a total of 100 respondents who
logged on to the survey website from April 2011 to June 2011. Not all
[ 110 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
respondents who started the survey completed it. Eight were excluded,
because they did not complete the first question. All remaining respon-
dents who completed only part of the survey stopped at the start of the
second section. Of the 92 who took the survey, 67 completed the survey,
for a completion rate of 73%.
The survey was designed using closed questions (Wheater and Cook
2000) and survey questions for categorical items. Survey questions
for continuous variables were created using a 5-point Likert-type
scale (Likert 1967; Miller 1983). Each question began by presenting
an affirmative declaration of the variable items followed by a 5-point
Likert-type scale anchored on the far left with “Strongly Disagree” or
“Not Important” and on the far right with “Strongly Agree” or “Most
Important” (see Appendix D). N/A was included at the far right of
the scale.
The largest number of respondents (62%) was male, while 38% were
female. Results are shown in Graph 5.1 below
[ 112 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
“How many PMOs does your organization have?” The highest number
was 63% for the category “only one PMO,” followed by 28% for the
category “more than 3 PMO’s.” Table 5.3 shows detailed responses to
the question
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 113 ]
“Where does your PMO reside?” The highest rating (40%) was for
PMOs residing at the corporate level, followed by 31% residing in IT.
Table 5.4 shows the detailed response.
“Where does your PMO report to?” The highest rating (24%) was for
PMOs reporting to C-level in an organization, followed by 22% of
PMOs reporting to the CIO. Table 5.5 shows the detailed responses to
this question.
[ 114 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
executive, followed by 25% for the PMO being involved at the C-level
discussions. Table 5.7 shows the details to this question.
“The skills of a PMO head may differ depending on the phase required.
The skills required to build a PMO may differ from the skills required
to run a PMO.” The highest rating was 36%, stating that PMO leaders’
skillsets may differ between phases (setup and build-out) vs. sustainabil-
ity, followed by 24% who said that PMO leaders’ skills would not differ
regardless of the PMOLC phase. Table 5.8 provides detailed responses to
the question.
[ 116 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
“What is your role in the PMO setup and build-out?” The highest rating
(52%) was for those who built non-existing PMO. Table 5.9 provides
detailed responses to the question.
“What type of authority does your PMO have?” The highest rating
(56%) was for compliance/authoritative PMOs. Graph 5.2 provides
detailed answers to the question.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 119 ]
“What are the unique challenges in the setup and build-out phase?” The
highest rating (71%) was for buy-in, followed by 69% for leadership
support. Table 5.12 provides detailed answers to the question.
“What are the unique challenges in the sustainability phase?” The highest
rating (66%) was for continuous improvements, followed by 65% for
reports/KPI. Table 5.13 provides detailed responses to this question.
“How many Projects does your PMO manage in a year?” The highest
rating (34%) was for managing 1–20 projects. Table 5.16 provides a
detailed response to this question.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 123 ]
“Please select one of the maturity levels below that best describes your
PMO.” The highest rating (31%) was for “Level 3- Defined level.” Table
5.17 provides a detailed answer to the question.
“What functions does your PMO perform today?” The highest rating
(80%) was for project/program governance, followed by 71% for
methodology management. Table 5.18 provides a detailed response to
this question.
“What benefits does your executive get out of your PMO today?” The
highest rating (70%) was for consistent project method and delivery,
followed by 69% for improved project governance and change control.
Table 5.19 provides a detailed response to this question.
“What are the challenges that your PMO faces today?” The highest rating
(63%) was for project management maturity, followed by 59% portfo-
lio management alignment. Table 5.20 provides a detailed response to
this question.
[ 126 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Discussion
The survey‘s objective was to investigate the PMOLC, to discover the
phases in the lifecycle, and to provide information that helps PMO
leads, executives, and those internal to a PMO or external to a PMO
to maximize advantages and minimize disadvantages. Some of the ques-
tions that the survey sought to address are:
Research results from the web-based survey led to the finding that PMO
setup and build-out phases are more complex than the sustainability
phase. Additionally, the findings show the effect of executives’ leadership
support in an organization and the importance of the PMO’s skillset
and role.
The overall results show that the PMO continues to evolve and take
a prominent role in the organization hierarchy. As seen in the survey,
[ 128 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
the majority of PMO leaders are at the C-level or report to the C-level,
PMOs report to executive office, and that 34% of those surveyed
reported that projects are managed through their PMO.
PMOLC Complexity
The findings of this research describe the complexity of the PMOLC
and whether one or more of the three PMOLC phases (setup, build-out,
and sustainability) are more or less complex than the other. The survey
suggests that 44% of respondents found the build-out phase the most
complex, while 34% found sustainability to be the most complex, fol-
lowed by 32% for the setup.
PMOLC Challenges
The findings of this research describe the challenges of the PMOLC and
identify similarities and differences based on each phase. While funding,
leadership support, and governance were ranked high as challenges per-
taining to the setup and build-out phases, the survey found continuous
improvement, reporting/KPI, and quality management to be the highest
on the list of challenges pertaining to the sustainability phase. While
cost/value ranked closely as a challenge for all phases, ranging between
29% and 32%, the adoption of methods or tools ranked at the same
level independent of the PMOLC phase ranged from 34% to 36%.
Lastly, the survey shows that the reporting level of the PMO and the
PMO leaders’ title and position in the organization is on the rise. Forty
percent of PMOs reside at the corporate level, and 47% of PMO leaders
at the C or executive level.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented readers with the results of the PMO survey that
highlighted the complexity of the PMOLC and shed light on the nature
of each phase and the skills required to build each phase. It also illus-
trated similar and different challenges in each phase in the PMOLC.
CHAPTER 6:
CONTROVERSIAL
PMO TRENDS
Chapter Overview
Every discipline is riddled with controversy, and project management
and PMOs are no different. Many controversies surround project man-
agement. This chapter will focus on the following areas: insourcing
and outsourcing, the PMO as a temporary or permanent organization,
whether the PPM should be within the PMO or managed separately,
and whether project management precedes the PMO or if the PMO is
a catalyst to building project management. The objective of this chapter
is to provide insights into the different schools of thought surrounding
each of these areas, allowing readers to benefit from various points of
view and to incorporate what fits their culture, structure, and future
vision. Chapter 8 will present case studies presenting each organization
practice and how they have dealt with these areas to ensure the success of
their setup, build-out, and sustainability.
The advantages of having a PMO first are that project management will
be done based on best practices. Further, it will be based on industry
standards, such as PMI, to ensure availability of templates, processes,
and tools. The advantages of having a project management principles
first is the knowledge that project management is needed and practiced;
hence the PMO can be created with a definite mandate on what is being
practiced and what is being achieved.
The author’s objective is to stir the thinking and allow organizations and
individuals to evaluate the possibilities that will be highlighted further
and elaborated on in Chapter 7 regarding how organizations actually
deal with project management and PMOs.
Temporary or Permanent?
When looking into an organization’s requirements for the desired PMO,
it is important to understand the mandate and objectives of having a
PMO. The decision as to whether the PMO should perform a temporary
or permanent function depends on the organization’s culture, structure,
and future vision. Some think the smaller an organization, the more
temporary a PMO should be, and that only large companies have the
infrastructure to invest in a permanent PMO. The validity of these theo-
ries depends on organization culture, its ability to adopt project-based
processes and adapt to change, and its structure, starting from organiza-
tion structure to governance dynamics to the process of making deci-
sions. Future vision is important; whether the PMO is a core function
in an organization or an in-time function to deliver specific objectives.
Make It Temporary
Those who support this notion rely heavily on the premise that project
management is about temporary organization. The definition of project is
a temporary endeavor, as PMBOK suggests, so the organization govern-
ing projects should be dissolved as projects are dissolved. Proponents of
this view also believe that project management should grow organically,
and when it does, some discipline concentrated in a function can help
move project management adoption forward. Once this is established,
the function does not need to exist, and the practice can be carried along
and adopted.
Make It Permanent
Those who support this notion rely on the fact that to run continuous
projects and to support standards and project managers, you need the
support of an organization that provides guidelines and measures for fol-
lowing standards. How else will project management practice evolve and
improve? When the objective for a PMO is to become a CoE to oversee
delivery and project manager training and career path, then it might not
be feasible to have a temporary PMO.
Some questions organizations need to ask regarding the PMO’s state are:
Insource or Outsource
When looking at outsourcing and insourcing decisions, an organiza-
tion needs to consider its culture, structure, and vision. Some think
the smaller an organization, the more it will benefit from outsourcing a
PMO and that only large companies have the infrastructure to have an
internal PMO. Such theories depend on organization culture, its ability
to adopt project-based processes and adapt to changes, and its structure,
starting from organizational structure to governance dynamics, to the
process of making decisions. Future vision is important. It is not about
building a PMO today and not being able to sustain it or outsourcing
it and finding that it is not the best way to derives benefits from the
PMO. Insourcing and outsourcing decisions have been made in other
functions, such as IT, call centers, and so on. It should not be an unfa-
miliar phenomenon, and organizations should take advantage when it
complements their culture, structure, and vision.
PPM or PMO
Having portfolio management is a sign of organizational recognition
of linking strategy with execution. Some organizations link strategy
and execution under one function while others separate them into two
functions, one that’s concerned with strategy and the other with execu-
tion. When organizations decide their structure, they should look at
keeping groups close yet ensuring there is no conflict of interest between
these groups.
[ 138 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
In organizations that choose to separate the PPM from the PMO, the
focus might be different, and for mainly strategic reasons, such as the
size of the PPM, the focus required for the PPM and the PMO, and the
organization structure. In these organizations, the PPM size is a mul-
timillion dollar one that spans various organizational divisions across
geographical areas. In this case, the PPM must focus on strategy.
Some the questions organizations need to ask when linking the PMO to
the PPM are:
• What is the best strategy to link or unlink the PPM to the PMO?
• What are the short-term vs. the long-term benefits?
• How is handover planned between the two functions?
• Who is responsible for selection, execution, and closing of projects?
[ 140 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the reader was presented with some of the PMO contro-
versies: to outsource or insource, whether the PMO is a temporary or
permanent function, and whether the PPM function should reside with
the PMO or be kept separate. In the next chapter, these topics will be
used to illustrate further how organizations deal with these controversies
through case studies.
CHAPTER 7:
PMO CASE STUDIES
Chapter Overview
This chapter will introduce four case studies that will illustrate the points
that were covered in Chapter 6 and look at the practices of participants
in the case studies pertaining in particular to:
General Analysis
Semi-structured interviews were used to collect initial data on the type,
functions, and expected benefits of the model chosen. Three groups
of questions were included in the interview outline (see Appendix E
for details).
The second group of questions address the four practices and inquires
about whether the organization had project management practice before
the PMO or if the PMO created the project management practice,
whether the PMO was a temporary or a permanent function, whether
the PMO was insourced or outsourced, and whether the PPM practice
was part of the PMO or a separate function.
The third and last group of questions address the sustainability elements
and the impact on perceived value add.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 143 ]
The results, which are detailed in the next section, show that all case
studies demonstrate that project management must exist even in its
basic forms and can be informal practice prior to creating a PMO. The
case organizations differ in the status of their PMO. Some PMOs were
created to be temporary while others were created to be permanent.
Some organizations have both temporary and permanent PMOs while
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 145 ]
Table 7.2 summarizes the general findings described above. In the next
section, all case studies will be detailed in-depth, using a similar struc-
ture to detail the four practices for each.
[ 146 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Aviva Canada
At the time of the case study, Aviva Canada had multiple PMOs, with
each PMO potentially duplicating some efforts. Organization leaders
were seeking efficiencies and consolidation of efforts as well as stan-
dardization across all functions. Hence, the concept of the EPMO was
born to denote the start of the enterprise-wide PMO, one unit with one
standard for methodology-building and project delivery. The EPMO
sits under the IT department, reporting to the EVP and the CIO. The
EPMO is about 3 years old. Before the consolidation, they had 4 PMOs.
The EPMO consists of 60 people, including contractors.
Initially, the head of the EPMO for Aviva Canada was accountable for
portfolio management, planning, reporting, and delivery, in addition to
enterprise resource pool management, QA and compliance, and port-
folio risk management. All project managers, project coordinators, and
business analysts report to the head of the EPMO.
Ownership Public
Industry Insurance
2. Temporary or Permanent
The EPMO is a permanent function within the organization, as were the
four PMOs prior to it. The drivers for a permanent PMO are the size of
budget, resources, complexity, and ambiguity of indicators. Further, it
also allows Aviva Canada to tailor processes and governance to fit orga-
nization structure and culture. Although the EPMO is permanent, there
are specific PMO mandates around large and complex initiatives (i.e.
programs), where a PMO with the program structure can be required.
This setup also allows for tailoring enterprise assets and processes to fit
each need within agreed boundaries. Just like an initiative that has a start
and end date, the PMO within a program is dismantled once the initia-
tive is completed.
However, the model the EPMO uses to maximize benefits from various
resources and functions within the PMO led to a hybrid model. Project
resource load is assessed and assigned to projects, as required with con-
tractors. The PPM administration hybrid is an example where level 1
requests are outsourced and level 2 requests and above are insourced,
PPM tools are outsourced (SaaS), and contractor management and
sourcing is outsourced. Project managers are insourced, and others are
outsourced. Training and career development is outsourced to career
development as well as in-house on-the-job training programs. Everyone
has a 70/20/10 personal development plan. More precisely, when it
comes to learning, 70% is on-the-job-training through assignment and
involvement in other activities, 20% is provided externally, and 10%
is self-initiated.
1. Quantitative
• Portfolio is able to deliver around 10–15% below budget each
year because of strong financial management, status, and progress
visibility company-wide and reassign FT resources to contractors
(reducing the premium they need to pay as the result of using
a contractor)
• Contractor to FTE ratio is about 1:4, managing their corporate
knowledge as a critical asset (not to go beyond 30%)
• Delivering 35–40 change initiatives per year consistently for the
past three years (inclusive of present)
• Using one managed service provider for all contractor needs has
reduced Aviva Canada’s total contractor spending by 20%.
2. Qualitative
• Benefits realization embedded—on closeout activities, updates
shared with all respective business unit cost center
• Motivated staff, because everyone is aware of the change agenda
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 153 ]
Invest&Wealth
Invest&Wealth did not have a PMO until 5 years ago. Prior to that
time, project management was practiced informally and inconsistently.
Organization growth demanded efficiencies and standardization; hence,
the concept of a centralized PMO was born to centralize project man-
agement practices across all IT functions. Today, the Invest&Wealth
PMO has 10 projects managers and 2 project officers and reports to the
investment executive.
Ownership Public
Industry Investments
skillset. Then, five years ago, a formal ITPMO was created with the
mandate to set standards, build methodology, oversee delivery, provide
training and establish a formal project manager‘s career path, and to
promote the delivery of project management. It took two years for the
ITPMO to become stabilized.
2. Temporary or Permanent
The ITPMO was set up from the beginning to be a permanent function.
The intent of the leadership and the mandate that the PMO head carried
was to create a CoE in charge of standards, delivery, methodology, and
training. Project management was to become a core skill for IT, and
many other IT functions are encouraged to attend project management
training. Smaller projects, by ITPMO definitions, are those that are con-
tained within a business unit and are often run by the business unit itself,
in which they are expected to follow project management rigor without
having a project manager leading the project. While temporary PMOs
exist, some projects are run outside of the PMO, as mentioned above.
1. Quantitative:
• Improving portfolio planning 10–15% annually as a result of
strong resource management analysis, financial management, and
visibility of all projects company-wide
• Contractor to FTE ratio, with only 15% contractors. Managing
corporate knowledge as a critical asset (not to go beyond 15%)
• Delivering 35–40 initiatives per year consistently for the past four
years (inclusive of present)
[ 158 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
2. Qualitative:
• Benefits realization embedded on closeout activities, updates
shared with all respective business unit cost center
• Motivated staff throughout the organization, because people
wanted to be part of the success stories
• Able to attract talent, because the organization is investing in all
project managers through training and career path development
Interac
The PMO was set up and built out with the goal of being a centre for
project excellence and a permanent function to serve the Organization.
Prior to establishing the PMO, the Organization did not have formal
project management practices in place, although informal project man-
agement was visible. More specifically, some large impact initiatives were
run as projects and were complemented by consultants and internal
staff. Formalized project practices also existed in the client implementa-
tions area.
2. Temporary or Permanent
When the PMO was chartered, the vision was not to have a temporary
function surrounding a particular project but more of a strategic corpo-
rate function to oversee the delivery and alignment of executive initia-
tives based on board direction and internal capacity. The decision was to
have a permanent in-house department reporting to the enterprise strat-
egy department, which, in turn, reports to the CEO. The positioning of
the PMO and the permanent nature of it were the two elements that led
to the success of the Organization’s PMO. First, they ensured neutrality
and executive presence oversight in governance. Second, they ensured
adherence to set processes and standards. Finally, centralized ownership
allowed the PMO to drive and audit the performance of the project
portfolio assets and project delivery. In addition, some of the resistance
and challenges in introducing the PMO function would likely not have
been addressed unless appropriately there was a PMO on the ground
overseeing the project practices and ensuring value add. This resulted in
the Organization making the position permanent to continue with the
sustainability journey.
1. Quantitative:
• Improved PPM turnaround by a full quarter, closing on all
approved prioritized projects before the fiscal year kick-off
• Improved annual resource estimations and projections by 50%
through alignment of initiative and resources
• Improved project planning by 50% through standard project rigor.
All enterprise initiatives have a charter, project plan, resource plan,
resource planning, and standard report.
• Delivered (and will continue to deliver) 15–25 initiatives per year
with complete transparency to all initiatives
2. Qualitative:
• Improved morale as teams’ awareness of the big picture and proj-
ects continued to progress
• Improved alignment and quantification of business demands and
improved value add to the business
• Improved ability to track and understand the progress of projects
throughout the project life cycle, which resulted in complete trans-
parency into project reporting
Ownership Public
2. Temporary or Permanent
The PMO started out as temporary for a large organizational project,
and not until the success of the gift card implementation in 2006 did
the need for having a permanent function emerge. This temporary PMO
never faded after the project was delivered and became the first delivery
PMO. It resided in IT. The function has since moved from being tempo-
rary to permanent in nature.
centralizing the PPM under one governance structure and better col-
laboration on handover between the functions relating to projects.
1. HR factor: Full demand and supply view FTEs vs. contractors based
on the project demand. Bridging skillset gaps and looking to retain
FTEs for growth of skills and ensure continuity of key projects.
Tiered governance allows junior staff to be assigned to initiatives that
match their skillsets and experiences and enables their knowledge of
what, when, and to whom they should escalate. Supports career path
and promotes within.
2. Quality factor: Project progress and color status indication project
health have standard definitions. Transparent status reports are
refreshed each month. Simple metrics are put in place to ensure
projects deliver on the quality standards for which they have
been chartered.
3. Delivery factor: Because of transparency, and because of the PMO’s
ability to be involved in strategic planning and assigning PMs for
prioritized projects, there is a focus on employees who can’t work on
initiatives that are not approved. The delivery factor has increased
throughout as a result of having reduced unassigned projects.
[ 170 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
1. Quantitative:
• Portfolio is able to deliver within plan every year because of
strong financial management and status and progress visibil-
ity company-wide.
• Contractor to FTE ratio is about 1:4, managing corporate knowl-
edge as a critical asset.
• Delivering 12–18 medium to large initiatives consistently for the
past 5 years
2. Qualitative:
• Motivated staff, because everyone is aware of the change agenda
• Able to attract talent from throughout the organization, because
people want to be part of the success stories
• Global, countrywide, and regional portfolio roll-ups available, cre-
ating synergies across the globe on similar initiatives
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 171 ]
The head of the CGO was hired to run the PMO, and the PPM reported
to the C-level executives. Today, the CGO is a mature organization with
over 50 employees, including heads of the PMO and the PPM, project
managers, and project officers. The CGO is about two years old.
Ownership Public
Industry Entertainment
within the CGO focuses 75% on delivery and 25% on processes, which
provides the PMO the proper ratio to focus on delivery and utilize the
standard process to ensure consistency in measuring delivery success.
2. Temporary or Permanent
Throughout the PMOs’ journey at G&E, none of them were built on
the premise of being temporary or built around a specific project. There
were many PMOs and decentralization of delivery; hence, accountabil-
ity was an issue. The CGO is a CoE and a permanent function that
resides at the corporate level. The drivers for a permanent function are
the size of budget, resources, complexity, and ambiguity of indicators,
and further, to allow G&E to tailor processes and governance to fit the
organization’s structure and culture.
The main drivers for having the PPM separate from the PMO are based
on the strategic position of the CGO and in order to keep the account-
ability and focus for every area. Additionally, the CGO is set at the
C-level and ensures collaboration and synergy between the PMO and
the PPM functions. The benefit of centralizing the PPM and the PMO
under one governance structure is that it allows for better collaboration
on handover between the functions relating to projects evaluated and
prioritized at the PPM cycle and when they are handed over for execu-
tion and delivery.
organization are major wins and value adds. The EPMO value base was
visible in the human resources value and customer value as follows:
1. HR factor: Full demand and supply view FTEs vs. contractors based
on the project demand and supply. Tiered governance allows junior
staff to be assigned to initiatives that match their skillsets and experi-
ences. Support career path (i.e. PC to junior PM to PM to senior
PM to program manager). Allow resources to understand organiza-
tion project load through transparency in initiatives. Further, project
managers know who’s assigned to what and when and why initia-
tives should stop.
2. Quality factor: The PPM is fully visible and transparent and
updated monthly. Status and progress are rolled up monthly to a
portfolio view: “Step to Green” for Amber and Red initiatives are
published and visible. Budget (actual vs. forecast) is always available.
Hence, where resources (money, people, assets) are consumed is
always transparent.
3. Delivery factor: Because of transparency, and because employees
can’t work on initiatives that are not approved, the delivery factor
has increased throughout as a result of having reduced “work-in-the-
dark” projects. Further, with 75% emphasis on delivery and 25%
on process, the mantra for the CGO is to use the process, not just
follow the process. This has improved the visibility, accountability,
and the end result is that more projects are delivered.
4. Cost factor: Dollars in budget (actual vs. forecast) always available.
Hence, where resources (money, people, and assets) are consumed is
always transparent.
1. Quantitative
• Portfolio is able to deliver around 20% below budget each year
because of strong financial management, status, and progress vis-
ibility company-wide. It is also able to reassign FT resources to
work normally performed by outside contractors (reducing the
premium paid as a result of using a contractor).
• Delivered 35–40 change initiatives per year consistently for the
past 3 years (inclusive of present)
• Biggest win was the increased number of milestones in a 3-month
duration from 22% to 72%
2. Qualitative:
• Benefits realization embedded on closeout activities, finance busi-
ness partners update respective business unit cost center
• Motivated staff, because everyone is aware of the change agenda
• Portfolio roll-ups available; created synergies across the various
business units on similar initiatives
• Ability to improve accountability and focus across the PPM and
the PMO
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the reader was presented with five case studies that illus-
trate the results of the PMO survey that highlighted the complexity of
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 177 ]
the PMOLC and shed light on the nature of each phase and the skills
required to build each phase. Further illustrated were similar and differ-
ent challenges in each phase of the PMOLC.
All case studies have shown that project management must exist even in
its basic forms and can be informal in practice prior to having the need
to create a PMO, while the case organizations have differed in the status
of their PMO. Some PMOs were created to be temporary while others
were created to be permanent in nature. Some organizations have both
temporary and permanent PMOs while others have started as temporary
and moved to permanent. None of the cases were fully outsourced. They
ranged from hybrid to fully insourced models. As for the PPM, all but
one case has the PPM embedded in the PMO.
CHAPTER 8:
PMO TOOLKIT
Chapter Overview
This chapter will introduce popular PMO templates for PMO profes-
sionals’ use. The templates can be customized to every PMO’s need. The
first section contains a description of every template and its use. The
second section provides the actual templates.
Template Descriptions
PMO Checklist
The PMO checklist allows PMO heads and those who report to them
to check the PMO deliverables and questions to confirm against each
phase to ensure success in the PMO setup and implementation and to
serve as a measure of PMO deliverables and to set expectations.
PMO Roadmap
The roadmap template provides PMO management, organization man-
agement, and the sponsor of the PMO with a roadmap that results from
the survey assessment and analysis of organization gaps and opportu-
nities. The roadmap identifies the current state of affairs, opportuni-
ties and challenges, and proposes future states around methods, tools,
governance, standards, and methodologies. The roadmap should be
time-based and have a budget and resources required to achieve the
deliverables proposed.
[ 180 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Template Details
PMO Checklist
The PMO checklist allows the PMO heads and those who report to the
PMO to set expectations, to check the PMO deliverables and questions
to confirm against every phase to ensure success in the PMO setup and
implementation, and to serve as measure of the PMO deliverables.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 181 ]
Organizational
areas to be Deliverables Questions to confirm
checked
Competency
Responsibilities (Baseline
for all PMOs)
Qualifications
[ 187 ]
[ 188 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Instructions:
PMO Roadmap
Instructions
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the reader was presented with popular PMO templates
for PMO professionals’ use. The templates can be customized to every
PMO’s need. The first section contained a description of every template
and its use. The second section provided the actual templates.
CHAPTER 9:
THE AGILE PMO,
A NEW AREA OF FOCUS
Objectives
Recently, academic literature and practitioners have focused on seeking
answers pertaining to the performance of PMOs and what differenti-
ates high-performing PMOs from those that underperform. One critical
item in PMO performance, upon which most of the literature agrees, is
the notion of building value add through adopting sustainable practices.
Lean and Agile are two such prominent, sustainable practices that PMOs
can leverage to ensure success and longevity as well as the sustainability
of the organization they support.
Lean and Agile concepts, methods, and practices are not really new.
IT-focused organizations in particular have been implementing a
variety of standards for development, Agile being one of them, while
non-IT organizations have been practicing Lean for some time now.
Organizations in search of continuous improvement have learned to use
these two methods, though they were often spoken of separately.
There is a need to explain in more detail the adoption of Lean and Agile
and what each entails so as to allow students and practitioners to learn
[ 196 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
more about the applicability of Lean and Agile. Further, this will allow
IT managers or organizations interested in adopting Lean and Agile
to understand clearly what is required to implement Lean and Agile
approaches and thus achieve what is called “Leagility.” Understanding
the applicability of the Agile and Lean standards, as well as understand-
ing what results we can expect from them, will contribute to the practi-
cality of the project management field in general. It will also shed light
on how these standards can sustain PMO performance.
“Lean is doing more with less”. Use the least amount of effort, energy,
equipment, time, facility space, materials, and capital—while giving cus-
tomers exactly what they want (Womack and Jones 2003)
Origins of LEAN
Lean exists to simply get the best out of limited investments with the
understanding that you only build what is needed, eliminate anything
that does not add value, and stop if something goes wrong (Harvey
2004). (Womack and Jones 2003) distilled these Lean principles down
to five essentials:
Lean Today
Toyota, the leading Lean exemplar in the world, also stands poised to
become the largest automaker in the world in terms of overall sales. Its
dominant success in everything from rising sales and market share in
every global market stands as the strongest proof of the power of Lean
enterprise. Today, there is such a huge interest in Lean that there are
literally hundreds of books, articles and papers exploring Lean.
Origins of Agile
Agile started in the 1960s–1970s with the United States Department of
Defense (DoD) and NASA’s Iterative and Incremental Development. In
the 1980s, it evolved to include new product development. In the year
2000, the foundation of Scrum laid (Scrum is not an acrynoum, it refers
to a move in Rugby in which a team packs together and they all act
together to get the ball from one end of the field to another end of the
field.), and IBM Rational Unified Process (RUP) became more visible.
Finally, the Dynamic Systems Development Method became the catalyst
for the Agile Manifesto in 2001 (Sliger and Broderick 2008).
Benefits of Agile
Goncalves and Heda (2010) outline six main benefits of Agile
commonly argued that the two can be combined into “Leagility,” which
is the combination of Agility and Lean capabilities within one supply
chain. Based upon a one-year study of Agility in the supply chain, if the
Agility approach is to work, it is required to fit within a purely Agile
supply chain strategy rather than a purely Lean approach. Thus, it is
concluded that the Agility thesis does not fundamentally challenge the
Agility concept (Hoek 2000). The thesis of Leagility rests on four prin-
ciples: management framework for strategy, paradigm for business-IT
alignment, Agile processes and champions, and enabling technologies
and infrastructure (Forrester 2011).
In summary, the PMO can adopt the Lean and Agile principles and
further their adoption by their organizations in a number of ways. First,
by building people and then products by means of education and oppor-
tunities for people to put into practice and be supported in what they
have learned. Second, by building processes tailored to the organization
that encompass all delivery cycles monitored through gates and with a
focus on delivery flow, elimination of waste, and empowering teams.
[ 206 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
The PMO led the initiative as a major change to the organization and
structured the project in a manner that ensured governance at various
levels and an effective C-level steering committee that included the areas
that drive content (as in the product group and IT group), where ideas
translate into IT builds. The importance of having an effective C-level
steering committee played a huge role in removing roadblocks, since
they were at the center of the decision-making mechanism—a fact that
facilitated successful results.
[ 208 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
The Approach
The approach was a 3-step process that took into consideration people,
processes, and then technology. It consisted of:
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 209 ]
The Learning
The success of Interac’s PMO in leading the implementation of Lean
and Agile resulted in the following:
Chapter Summary
Lean and Agile are two of the many sustainable practices that PMOs
can leverage to ensure their own sustainability and the sustainability of
their organizations.
Lean and Agile are not new concepts. Organizations that seek con-
tinuous improvement have been using these methods for some time.
However, these two concepts are often thought of separately. Most
recently, there has been a huge buzz about Lean and Agile, to the point
that now one is not mentioned without the other. The Agile and Lean
journey requires structure, champions, processes, and a well thought-out
change management approach in order to ensure the success of the Lean
and Agile adoption.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 211 ]
This chapter explained what the Agile and Lean standards are, their
applicability, and the results that these standards can contribute to
organizations and their PMOs. Further, we have shown how PMOs that
adopt Lean and Agile sustain their performance.
Objectives
In the race for excellence and increased expectations of PMOs, some
organizations have been setting up their PMOs for failure either through
lack of understanding of what a PMO does or should do or by asking
too much of their PMOs to get from 0 to 100 based on the performance
of other PMOs. Prior to having PMOs, organizations tried to solve their
organizational challenges (e.g. lack of collaboration, lack of structure,
lack of delivery) through implementing various organizational structures
(e.g. functional, divisional, matrix, and projectized); a projectized struc-
ture is a great notion of a project base organization. These organizational
structures have an impact on how PMOs are setup and managed.
Organizational Structure
An overview of these organization structures and their advantages and
disadvantage will serve as a background to how organizations operate
and will help illustrate how PMOs fit into these structures.
Functional Structure
Figure 10.1 refers to the functional structure, where functions are cen-
tralized around their vertical strength, whether this is IT, finance, mar-
keting, and so forth. Advantages of such a structure include focusing on
the subject matter expertise in one area, providing economies of scale,
and ensuring a clear line of authority. Disadvantages of this structure lie
in its inflexibility, poor communication between functional areas, and
low decision making abilities.
[ 214 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Matrix Structure
Figure 10.2 refers to the matrix structure, where organizations have a
functional view as well as a product/project view. PMBOK (project
management body of knowledge) describes the matrix as weak matrix,
strong matrix, and balanced matrix (PMI, 2008). In all its varieties,
the differences between strong, weak, and balanced are where the scale
tips toward functional or projectized. Advantages of the matrix struc-
ture include increased flexibility and responsiveness, improved resource
sharing, and enhanced problem-solving, cooperation, communication,
and resource sharing. The disadvantage of this structure is that it may
create frustration among employees who have dual lines of authority,
increased coordination and communication, and conflicts of interest.
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 215 ]
Projectized Structure
Figure 10.3 refers to projectized structure, where team members are co-
located and most of the organization resources are involved in project
work and project managers exercise the highest level of authority.
Advantages of this structure include a focus on project delivery as the
way of the organization, increased level of decision-making at the project
team level, and authority for project managers to influence outcome.
Disadvantages include loss of control for some functional managers and
fear of being perceived as less valuable.
[ 216 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
check. This is true for executives looking to build a new PMO or refresh
an existing PMO, PMO heads looking to revitalize an existing PMO,
or consultants looking to assess whether an organization needs a PMO.
Chapter Summary
This chapter surveyed the various organizational models and explored
the impact of these organizational models on PMOs and which one of
these models might be better suited for PMOs, although PMOs have
existed in all types of models. It argued that two major challenges sur-
round PMOs and that going back to basics will assure that organizations
do not take on too much too soon. The chapter explained what it means
to go back to basics and offered five simple guiding principles to ensure
that organizations look into these principles before embarking on build-
ing or revitalizing a PMO.
REFERENCES
Dinsmore, Paul. “Project Office: Does one size fit all?” PM Network 14
(April 2000): 27–29.
Hoque, F., Samamurthy, V., Zmund, R., Trainer, T., and Wilson, C.
Winning The 3-Legged Race—When Business and Technology Run
Together. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005.
Light, M., Berg, T. The Project Office: Teams, Processes and Tools. USA:
Gartner Group RAS Services, 2000.
ESI International. “The State of the PMO”. US: ESI Report, 2012.
A
Agile
vii, 71, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204,
205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 223, 224, 227
align
alignment
22, 73, 95
assess
assessment
v
audit
27, 39, 41, 232
authority
authoritative, authorization
17, 24, 25, 30, 32, 114, 121, 127, 228, 231, 239
B
benchmark
benchmarking
vii
build-out
1, 12, 15, 42, 43, 77, 115, 116, 117, 119, 127, 228, 232, 238
C
case
case study, case organization
iv, 27, 182, 223, 238, 245
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 229 ]
categorical
109, 110
champion
48, 56, 159, 196, 203, 218, 219, 220
change management
24, 41, 121, 127, 232, 239
CoE
vi, 6, 24, 34
Compliance
16, 24, 184, 238
customer
2, 17, 245
D
delivery
deliverable
vii, 5, 15, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 38, 41, 42, 122, 125, 166, 239, 241
E
EPMO
144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176, 207
execute
20
Executive
29, 43, 63, 71, 91, 114, 125, 129, 147, 150, 156, 169,
174, 181, 183, 217, 220, 230, 231, 239, 240
F
factor
43, 81, 83, 84, 86, 151, 152, 156, 157, 164, 169,
170, 175, 201, 202, 203, 213, 245
finding
127
framework
40, 64, 90, 96, 162, 181, 201
[ 230 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
function
166
G
gaps
26, 55, 60, 72, 73, 97, 104, 169, 179
Global
vii, 39, 226
goal
64, 65, 67, 69, 139, 161
governance
vii, 20, 22, 36, 69, 75, 85, 86, 92, 94, 100, 106, 124, 125, 128, 131,
132, 135, 138, 149, 150, 151, 162, 163, 169, 170, 171, 173,
174, 175, 179, 181, 182, 185, 202, 207, 232, 240, 241
H
human
43, 68, 73, 79, 80, 81, 106, 151, 156, 163, 169, 175, 200
I
implementation
12, 15, 28, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 104, 168,
185, 196, 201, 202, 210, 211, 240
improve
improvement
vii
Insourcing
135, 149, 155, 162, 168, 173
interaction
interaction model
68, 74
L
Leagility
196, 200, 201, 203, 211
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 231 ]
Lean
195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 224
lesson
lesson learned, lesson learning
24, 184, 238
Lifecycle
v, 12
M
maintain
27
Matrix
144, 214, 215
methodology
16, 17, 20, 21, 27, 28, 51, 52, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 73, 91, 97,
103, 104, 105, 124, 147, 149, 154, 155, 163, 167, 207
methods
4, 26, 27, 64, 72, 91, 92, 128, 179, 195, 196, 198, 204, 210, 220, 225
O
Office
v, vi, 22, 222, 223, 225
Organizational Structure
213
outsource
245
Outsourcing
50, 135, 136, 137, 149, 155, 162, 168, 173, 222
P
performance
vii, 2, 4, 5, 12, 20, 21, 27, 31, 35, 50, 57, 58, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 79,
80, 81, 82, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100, 102, 103, 106, 107,
157, 162, 164, 195, 200, 203, 209, 224, 238, 241, 245
Permanent
[ 232 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Q
QRM
Quality, Quality Risk Management
vi, 40, 41, 44
qualitative
82, 164
Quality
vi, 40, 83, 94, 151, 156, 164, 169, 175, 182, 208, 238, 245
quantitative
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 233 ]
R
RACI
vi
repository
17, 27
revitalize
1
risk
risk management, risk analysis
16, 25
roadmap
12, 15
S
scalability
31, 37, 43, 44
set-up
1, 12, 15, 42, 43, 77, 115, 116, 117, 127, 228, 231, 232
sponsors
sponsorship
25, 77, 93
Stability
90
stakeholders
21, 90, 144, 163, 220
standards
RUP, COBIT, ITIL, agile
vii, 16, 22, 24, 26, 28, 41, 184, 185, 232, 238, 240
steps
step by step
45, 51, 55, 60, 61, 67, 68, 72, 74, 88, 91, 96, 97, 106, 197, 198
survey
web survey, survey results
[ 234 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
iv, v, 43, 55, 56, 93, 108, 109, 110, 112, 127, 128,
129, 176, 178, 179, 182, 228, 242
Sustain
sustainability
88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94
sustainability
1, 12, 15, 43, 77, 115, 117, 120, 127, 223, 228, 231, 232, 238, 245
T
templates
v, 16, 20, 26, 27, 41, 43, 64, 65, 72, 75, 98, 103, 131, 163, 178, 194, 205
Temporary
132, 149, 155, 162, 168, 173
tool
toolkit
30
U
Unified
199, 241
Usability,
90
V
value
value DD, value-add
vii, 4, 21, 42, 43, 55, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 92, 94,
98, 99, 103, 128, 134, 138, 151, 156, 163, 164, 169, 172,
175, 195, 196, 197, 204, 208, 209, 212, 217, 220, 245
virtual
virtualization
183, 230
volume
31, 49, 158, 206
APPENDIX A:
WEB-BASED
SURVEY LETTER
Dear Participant,
The survey will take about 15 minutes and must be completed in one
session. Upon survey completion, you will have the opportunity to
provide your e-mail address to receive the overall research summary
once it is complete. I wish to gather all survey responses prior to May
20, 2011.
[ 236 ] WAFFA KARKUKLY, PH.D.
Thank you in advance for your help. If you would like more informa-
tion, please contact me at info@globalpmosolutions.ca
Sincerely,
Waffa Karkukly, Ph.D.
APPENDIX B:
WEB SURVEY QUESTIONS
• Project recovery
• Tools adoption
• Others (please specify)
17. Please
select one of the maturity levels below that best describes
your PMO.
• Initial Level – Ad hoc and chaotic; relies on the competence of
individuals and no standards in place
• Repeatable Level – Systems and structures are in place based on
previous experience
• Defined Level – Standard system and structure organization wide
of performed activities
• Managed Level – Established and measured processes against orga-
nizational goals. Deviations are identified and managed.
• Optimizing Level – The entire organization is focused on continu-
ous improvement
18. What functions does your PMO perform today? (select all
that apply)
• Portfolio management
• Methodology management
• Tools implementation
• Project/program governance
• Project/program standards
• Project manager training
• Resource capacity planning
• KPI and reporting
• Project/program assessment and quality check
• Others (please specify)
19. What benefits does your executive get out of your PMO? (select all
that apply)
MANAGING THE PMO LIFECYCLE [ 243 ]
General Questions
Project Practices
12. Does your mandate change frequently? How do you describe your
function’s adaptability?
13. Would you be able to share some benefits, either quantitatively or
qualitatively?