Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328336
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
School of Business and Management, Department of Business and Technology, Universite du Quebec a` Montreal, Canada
Abstract
This paper presents a theoretical contribution to the study of organisational project management and of the project management
oce (PMO). The PMO should no longer be considered an isolated island within an organisation. It is our premise that the PMO is
part of a network of complex relations that links strategy, projects and structures and thus is a point of entry into the organisation
to study the foundations of organisational project management. We argue that the study of such complex relationships within an organisation should turn away from the traditional positivist approach to a new conceptual framework. The proposed theoretical framework
draws from three complementary elds innovation, sociology and organisational theory to form an innovative understanding of the
PMO and organisational project management.
2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: PMO; Organisational project management; Innovation; Organisation theory
1. Introduction
Innovation plays an important role in the place project
management now has in organisations. Growth of a rm
is associated with its capacity to constantly renew its product portfolio. At the same time, there is economic pressure
to reduce the time to market. Both lead to a rise in the number of projects undertaken simultaneously within rms and
consequently to the complexity of managing them [1].
Innovative forms of organising are emerging [2] and not
surprisingly we see quite a few concepts related to multiproject management emerging within the project management literature: programme and portfolio management
[3,4], project-based or project-oriented organisation [5,6]
and project management oce [7].
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 987 3000x4658; fax: +1 514 987
3343.
E-mail addresses: aubry.monique@uqam.ca (M. Aubry), hobbs.
brian@uqam.ca (B. Hobbs), thuillier.denis@uqam.ca (D. Thuillier).
1
Tel.: +1 514 987 3000x3721; fax: +1 514 987 3343.
2
Tel.: +1 514 987 3000x7783; fax: +1 514 987 3343.
and the dynamics through which project management contributes to organisational performance.
We will review the current literature on related concepts. We will then attempt to dene the concept of organisational project management and the place the PMO has
in it. Finally, we will propose a basic framework that will
support the exploration of organisational project management using the PMO as the gateway into the organisation.
As suggested by Van de Ven in Engaged Scholarship, the
critical task is to adopt and use the models, theories, and
research methods that are appropriate for the research
problem and question being address [8, p. 7]. Our framework is bold as it draws from three theoretical elds: innovation theory, sociology and organisational theory. Using
innovation theories, we build on the concepts of social
innovation systems and co-evolution theory, taking into
account the history and context of the PMO at the organisational level and at the micro-level. The network structure approach and actor network theory (ANT) are from
the eld of sociology. Both will be used to depict the
PMO as a network, the former in its structural aspect,
and the latter in examining the relationships among the
actors involved. The conceptualisation of organisational
performance and of the value of the PMO is drawn from
the competing values model that allows for the coexistence
of a plurality of perspectives to evaluate organisational
performance. Together these concepts open up new avenues for the study of organisational project management.
We think that this approach oers a new perspective contributing to the revitalization of the eld of project
management.
The model presented in this paper is being used as the
theoretical basis of an empirical investigation of organisational project management [9]. The research question of
the current empirical work is How to understand the
PMO and its contribution to organisational performance?
This empirical work focuses on organisations that do projects for themselves rather than for external customers.
These organisations have implemented PMOs as part of
their strategy for managing projects and for dealing with
the issues relative to organisational project management.
The study of organisational project management is facilitated in these organisations because project management
activities tend to concentrated and more easily visible in
organisations that have implemented PMOs. The discussion that follows and the theoretical model are relevant,
however, in other contexts.
2. Literature review
The literature review is intended to provide an understanding of the founding elds on which the conceptual
framework is based, and to identify its limitations as far
as providing satisfactory answers to current issues. Five
elds are discussed in the next sections: strategic alignment,
programme and portfolio management, project-based
organisation, PMO and organisational performance.
329
330
and expanded into the forms we see today [40]. The emergence of and the need for the PMO is associated with the
increasing number and complexity of projects throughout
the business world which led to a certain form of centralization [36]. However, the reality of PMOs is highly divergent. Nearly 75 unique functions have been identied [37],
some traditional some innovative [34]. A recent empirical
study based on the description and analysis of 500 PMOs
documents this extreme variety but fails to nd systematic
patterns or explanations [38].
In this context, we adopt the denition proposed by
PMI [17]: An organisational body or entity assigned various responsibilities related to the centralized and coordinated management of those projects under its domain.
The responsibilities of the PMO can range from providing
project management support functions to actually being
responsible for the direct management of a project.
This denition is rather broad but it is essential that it
cover all the realities found empirically. PMOs have many
facets and observation shows great heterogeneity among
them. Choices are made among several congurations of
structure. Which functions? Where in the organisation?
With what level of authority? [9,38] Current theoretical
foundations for the PMO do not answer these questions.
2.5. Organisational performance
Performance is nearly always the ultimate dependent
variable in the literature on organisations in general and
on the subject of project management in particular. The
problem is to establish a reliable relationship between performance and other variables at a comparable level of analysis. It is essential to clarify the level of analysis.
The strategic alignment literature introduces the concept
of cascading levels of analysis of performance from the corporate down through to the portfolio and programme levels,
and nally to the project level [11,12]. Project performance is
sometimes evaluated using success criteria. Project success is
measured by the business objectives, while the project management success is evaluated instead with traditional criteria
such as respect of costs, schedule and quality [39].
Performance has its origin in the old French parfournir
and is dened today as what is accomplished. The etymology brings us straight to the point, what indeed is
accomplished by project management and how should we
evaluate it?
There are two types of literature on the subject: economic and pragmatic. In the rst type, researchers try to
demonstrate the direct economic contribution of project
management to the bottom line [40,41]. Interestingly, none
of these researchers has been able to convincingly demonstrate the economic value of investment in project management. Results of the research by Ibbs et al. [41] are not
statistically signicant [42]. The clear demonstration of
the direct inuence of project management on ROI is not
easily accomplished. In addition, the reduction of project
management value exclusively to nancial indicators
331
underestimates major contributions that project management brings to organisational success, for example, innovation [43], process [44], and people [45]. Furthermore, the
multifaceted concept of project success is acknowledged
by several authors [12,46].
The second type of literature is pragmatic. It focuses on
the global proposals issued by consultants aimed at indicating the way to succeed in the implementation and management of the PMO [7,13,31]. Titles sometimes foster hope
for rapid economic results linked to the PMO, Advanced
Project Portfolio Management and the PMO, Multiplying
ROI at Warp Speed [31]. And yet it still seems dicult
to demonstrate the value of the PMO.
The balanced scorecard approach has been proposed to
assess project management performance [47,48]. It has the
advantage over the traditional economic vision of project
performance of encompassing four complementary perspectives. However, the foundations of this approach rest
on ROI. It structures the creation of value hierarchically
with nancial value at the top [49,50].
Several authors have encompassed the problem of performance in an approach that seeks to identify success factors. Cooke-Davies proposes a systematization of real
success factors derived largely from empirical data
[15,39]. He suggests a set of twelve factors related to the
three distinct ways of looking at performance: project management success (time, cost, quality, etc.), project success
(benets), and corporate success (processes and decisions
to translate strategy into programs and projects). Furthermore, Cooke-Davies [15] argues these three groups are intimately linked; corporate project and programme practices
create the context for individual project and programme
practices. While success factors allow us to understand
the a priori conditions in organisational project management, they do not allow us to appreciate concrete results,
in other words, performance.
There is no consensus on the way to assess the value of
performance in project management. The nancial
approach alone cannot give a correct measure of the value
of project management for the organisation. Project success is a vague approximation and, as such, a rather imperfect system for measuring results. New approaches are
needed in order to extricate ourselves from what looks like
a dead-end. Project management is a multidisciplinary eld
leading to a variety of evaluation criteria.
From the review of the literature in this section it
appears that there is a need to renew the formalization of
our understanding of organisational project management.
The traditional positivist approach and the concentration
of research on project management tools and practices take
us down a path from which we must veer. In addition, the
few promising theoretical initiatives that can be found on
the subject must be integrated into a more holistic view
of the organisation. New paths for gaining information
and understanding must be opened up from other theoretical elds. This is the object of our conceptual framework
that will be discussed in the next section.
332
Organisational project management is distinct from project governance dened as a set of formal principles, structures and processes for the undertaking and management
of projects [59]. Project governance in this sense is a set
of means (as organisational project management) but the
accent is placed on the respect of governance rules that
are essential in project management. But, it takes only a
partial view of organisational project management missing
the dynamics of strategising/structuring and the projects
alignment with the corporate objectives.
It also takes a dierent perspective from the one of looking at the synergy between multiple projects such as portfolio [18,19], platform [60] or trajectory management [1].
Synergy adds value and in that sense all multi-project
approaches are taken in consideration in the organisational
project management. It participates to the decisions that
have to be made in structuring project management
entities.
So this denition is about management of organisation
and more precisely about organising. Structures are the
result of a dynamic strategising/structuring process [53].
The double-sided strategising/structuring indicates that a
tight relation exists between the two elements. But it should
not be interpreted to mean that organisational project
management is concerned with strategic projects only.
Almost all rms realised non-strategic projects such as
compulsory projects and maintenance.
Organisational project management is therefore a unique
and novel approach that may lead to a better integration of
the project management within the global management of
organisations. It may contribute to the recognition of project
management in the global management literature. The next
section describes the conceptual framework.
4. Conceptual framework
Organisational project management has been dened
and the related concepts such as strategic alignment, project-based organisation, and PMO have been described.
We have explained our global approach of focusing on
the PMO. We are now looking for a theoretical framework
that has the potential to embrace the complexity and richness of the subject. We have adopted a constructivist ontology where the PMO is a dynamic constructed entity. Three
theoretical elds have been mobilized to contribute to the
understanding of the PMO: social innovation system, network theory and organisational performance (see Fig. 1).
4.1. Social innovation system
We have said earlier that innovation plays an important
role in the emergence of multi-project environments. Over
the last two decades innovation theorists have taken the
social system dimension of innovation into consideration
[61]. Organisations do not exist in a vacuum. They are part
of a large number of complex interrelated systems such as
the social system, the economic system, etc. in which
333
334
335
336