September 4, 2014 For Immediate Release

Comment on
PMIs Pulse of the Profession: PMO Frameworks
Prepared by: Jeff Welch, Vice President & Strategic Project Manager

PMI conducted a study (PMIs Pulse of the Profession: PMO Frameworks; November 2013)
recently that I have found incredibly revealing. This two-phase study first tackled defining PMOs,
describing them as foundational frameworks, and then collected data to provide statistical
relevance on the form, function, capabilities, and performance for each framework.
Without giving you the names of the frameworks, which were honestly too heavy/long/nondescriptive to be of use, Im going to describe them as I understand them and provide the
percentage of survey respondents who reported they have this type of framework. There are 5
distinct PMO frameworks; some companies may have multiple.
The PMI PMO frameworks provide:
1. Operational project related services and support (54%)
a. might also include organizational change management and communications
2. Admin or IT personnel that help manage project data (31%)
3. Governance, processes, practices, and tools (44%)
a. might also include knowledge management
b. might also include talent management
4. Portfolio management (39%)
a. might also include strategic management
5. Methodologies, standards, and tools for project managers (35%)
So, what do we do with this information? The first stark realization is that nearly half of PMOs do
not provide operational support to projects; the very thing that can generate the biggest positive
impact on projects. The second is that methodologies are apparently too difficult to implement or
are undervalued by organizations. Why else would it come in at only 35%? Then again, it could be
that many organizations have seen through the vail of what many consultants offer as a
methodology, but is nothing more than a one-size-fits-all governance process.
In my opinion, this is so upside-down its almost tragic. Because of the work Ive been doing lately
with companies that have/had established PMOs, Ive come to realize that many PMOs have
missed the mark. There is no doubt that any company who has put the time and resources into
establishing a PMO is getting something out of it. The issue is that most PMOs have to work from
the point of view of the Greatest Common Denominator (GCD), meaning that the processes and
rules they implement must be able to handle the largest, most complicated, projects they
encounter. These must also work for smaller projects, but lets face it, this almost always results in
overly burdensome requirements. As soon as a PM determines that the effort to work around the
requirements is less than it is to comply with it, they will follow the path of least resistance.
I keep coming back to the fact that there has been a great deal of training, certification, and tool
development over the past 10 years for PMs, but there has been no meaningful increase in the
percentage of successful projects (Chaos Report; Standish Group 2013). The conclusion is
obvious; many PMOs are not achieving what they were supposed to achieve. All of the tools and
process they mandate are missing the mark somehow.

So how do you develop a PMO that does fulfill its promise? If you havent already established one,
the answer is that you start building it from the bottom up, not the top down. Once you have a solid
foundation of a high-performing project management culture, you can start building up to deal with
enterprise considerations. Even then, you must not adversely impact the high-performing culture at
the project level. At this stage of development, the PMO evolves from middle out. Meaning that
the PMO develops to provide services and information that are needed at enterprise levels, while
very delicately and always with recognized value, it passes additional requirements down to the
project managers.
Ive recently been working with some of the best and brightest project managers Ive seen in my
25+ years of technical project work. I have seen how teaching PMs to think differently can have a
tremendous impact on how well they perform. The secret here is in the methodology that they
learn to use, share, and value. In Thinks methodology, BKPM, everything must pass the litmus
test of simple, direct, and effective. If that test is passed, then whatever the PMO is asking for will
have value to the PM. Question, when was the last time youve heard of a PMO described as
simple, direct, and effective? It is possible.
Typical PMOs are:
Self-reinforcing by the rules and processes they mandate.
Susceptible to being written in and out of existence with little residual positive effect on
project management.
At Think, we have begun to describe PMOs somewhat differently. From a project management
performance point of view, we prefer to think about Bare Knuckled Organizations (BKOs).
BKOs are:
Culturally self-reinforcing by the no-nonsense value they provide
Made of effective PMs who provide high value.
Simple, direct, and effective; whose processes and tools would continue to be used even if
the BKO was not managed as an organized entity.
At some point, a PMOs focus needs to evolve beyond just project performance and consider more
enterprise-wide factors. At that point, they become BKPMOs. Like a BKO, everything that that they
implement should be simple, direct, and effective; whose processes and tools would continue to be
used even if the BKO was not managed as an organized entity. This would likely mean that the
PMO would have its own staff to coordinate the collection and dissemination of information. It is
imperative not to force project managers to expend energy on things that do not have a direct
positive impact on their ability to manage a project.
Remember:
BKO Not pretending to be a PMO; just getting the job done.
BKPMO The evolution of high-value PMOs.
2014 Think Systems, Inc.

3100 Elm Ave.,1st Floor West

#END#

Baltimore, MD 21211