According to a 2011 global survey conducted by ESI International, a majority of organisations really do not measure the business impact of their learning initiatives. One-third of respondents (32.8 percent) do not have a formal process or system for ensuring that training is applied successfully within the organisation. Although 67.2 percent indicate that they do have a formal process, subsequent answers cast doubt on that figure. Many organisations rely on informal processes such as anecdotal feedback to ensure learning is being transferred back to the job. In other words, they are not really ensuring learning is being sustained at all.

Yet the value of transferring that knowledge back on the job cannot be underestimated. According to ESI International’s most recent survey on the global state of the Project Management Office (PMO), transfer of learning, or so-called learning sustainment, had a vast impact on the perceived value, maturity and overall business mindset of the PMO.

PMOs that engaged in learning sustainment (so-called active PMOs) showed a significant improvement in project success (73 percent) versus only 63 percent of those PMOs that were not engaged in learning sustainment beyond the classroom (so-called inactive PMOs). Active PMOs are also twice as likely than inactive PMOs to use return on investment (ROI) to gauge their own effectiveness. Two out of three active PMOs also placed an emphasis on customer satisfaction as a method of measuring their own effectiveness, compared to only about one in two inactive PMOs.

Learning sustainment also has a significant impact on how the PMO is viewed by the organisation. While the survey showed that the level of executive scrutiny remains the same for both active and inactive PMOs, active participation in improving job performance has a positive impact on staff perceptions about their PMO’s maturity. Three out of four surveyed with PMOs who are active in learning sustainment said processes, methodologies and standards have improved as a result of the PMO’s involvement.

Can you guess which two countries had the highest level of learning sustainment? If you guessed China and India, you were right! 35 percent of Chinese respondents and 34 percent of Indian respondents said their PMOs were actively involved in reinforcing what was learned in the classroom back to the job, while only 16 percent of Canadian respondents claimed the same. Only 18 percent of those surveyed from Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the UK said their PMOs were active in learning sustainment. 23 percent of US respondents claimed their PMOs were active ones.

Does your PMO get involved with on-the-job training, coaching, mentoring and other methods to ensure training actually gets adopted to the job? If you don’t know where to start, consider what Matthew Ferguson says about the roadblocks to coaching programmes.

Learning sustainment can make all the difference between an investment well made and one that goes down the drain. In today’s environment, no one can afford that to happen.
Can you?

Based on responses from over 3,000 respondents in more than 17 industries on six continents, ESI’s global survey revealed that Next-Gen PMOs:

• actively engage in helping employees apply what they’ve learned in training back on the job
• are more business-oriented,
• are considered more developed (so-called “maturity”),
• have a stronger customer focus, and
• are more valued than those that don’t assist in applying training back on the job.

Even though more PMOs are exhibiting a higher level of maturity this year (18 percent) compared to last (15 percent), many are still struggling to find ways to prove their value. ESI’s PMO survey points out the challenges that still face today’s PMOs:

• In general, PMOs still rely heavily on standard definitions of success such as on time, to-budget project delivery to measure their worth.
• Unlike last year (30 percent), return on investment (ROI) is being used less this year to measure training impact (25 percent).
• Three out of five PMOs are actively engaged in selecting collaboration software. Most regions have a high adoption rate, with the exception of parts of Asia.
• Around 55 percent claimed the value of their PMO was indeed called into question by key stakeholders, a move up from about 40 percent in 2011. Executive scrutiny plagues two out of every three PMOs that are called into question.
• This year even fewer PMOs (70.4 percent) are measuring the actual impact of their training compared to last year (75.7 percent).

“While many organisations may aspire to build the Next-Gen PMO, the majority of PMOs have a long way to go before reaching that status,” claims J. LeRoy Ward, PMP, PgMP, Executive Vice President, Product Strategy & Management, ESI International and lead researcher in the study. “The Next-Gen PMO is a business-minded one that utilises ROI for its training impact and effectiveness measurement along with active engagement in learning sustainment.”

Try this 5 question ‘acid’ tests and see how you score?

Who

‘Call up your CEO and then count the number of seconds before he recognizes your name…’

If you are really connected to the business, at the right level and with the right profile, then your CEO will know you and your PMOs work.

You don’t have to start with the CEO, you can try this out moving up the organisation level by level – who at two levels above you knows you and the PMOs work? For those that do say ‘thanks’ and for those that don’t; well tell them about it.

What

‘What happens when you call up a project manager do you get straight through or do they adopt an avoidance strategy…’

A call from any member of the PMO should be a welcome event and not something to hide from or fear.

Consider if there are certain individuals or teams or departments that are resistant to what the PMO is trying to achieve. Ask yourself why this is and plan a charm offensive to demonstrate that the PMO is their friend.

When

‘When was the last time that a project manager contacted your PMO asking for some form of help? …’

If this has not happened in some time then perhaps your PMO is not as accessible and open as you may wish it to be?

Run a survey or open session to gain some insight in to the reasons for non-contact with the PMO. It may link to the ‘what’ question above i.e. fear of the PMO, or it may be just a lack of awareness. Go out of your way to help key people, regardless of if it isn’t really in your PMO remit – by winning influential supporters the word will spread about the PMO being a ‘go to’ group.

Where

‘Do people ask many times over where they should go for project information or project help…’

The PMO should be the automatic first call for anything project related when project managers or others need some guidance, make sure yours is easy to access and quick to respond.

Market what the PMO does, create a menu of service items that the PMO can deliver ‘off the shelf’ and advertise this tirelessly.

Why

‘Do people ask why they should use the PMO and do they know what your PMO does…’

You should have marketed the value of your PMO throughout the organization and people should easily access a ‘service menu’ or what the PMO can do to help them.

Success stories really help here with proven benefits of PMO involvement, invest your time in developing some and get people outside the PMO to write them or at least validate them.

How

And finally question number six – the ‘how’ – how can you improve the PMOs’ work and profile, its performance, its acceptance and its role in your company?

How can you do this?

You need to think and plan and act.

You need to lead.

Answer: ‘a PMO’
Question: (and therefore actually the correct answer; that is just the way it works on the game show trust me – or look it up) ‘What is the department or group that defines and maintains the standards of process, generally related to project management, within an organization?’

Applause from the audience and smiles all round.

Yes, the Project Management Office (PMO) in a business or professional enterprise is typically the department or group that defines and maintains the standards of process, that are generally related to project management, within the organization.

But I am afraid it is not that simple.

The abbreviation, PMO, can stand for Program Management Office (confusingly also a PMO) or Portfolio Management Office (increasingly confusingly also a PMO). There is even talk of a Project Office (PO), a Project Control Office (PCO), a Central Project Office (CPO), and a Project Support Office (PSO). Up to you to choose – what do you have in your company? What are you leading? What are you part of? What is it that you are currently planning?
You may well have a completely different flavour of PMO from the above.

The PMO strives to standardize and introduce economies of repetition in the execution of projects and is the source of documentation, guidance and metrics on the practice of project management and project execution.
It is also the body that links business strategy to the projects that such strategies require.
Organizations around the globe are defining, borrowing and collecting best practices in process and project management and are increasingly assigning the PMO to exert overall influence and evolution of thought to continual organizational improvement. Many PMOs will base project management principles on accepted industry standard methodologies such as the PMBOK  or PRINCE2 .
There are as many variances in the structure, format and focus of PMOs as there are definitions of the term.

PMO Types

Typically there are five basic types of PMO:

• A Departmental PMO
• A Special–purpose PMO
• An Outreaching PMO
• An External PMO
• An Enterprise PMO

It should also be noted:  the ‘enterprise’ structure can apply in more than one of the first four categories.
Type definition aside, a PMO is a group or department within a business, agency or enterprise that ‘owns’ the kind of project based activity that cuts across the operational activity. The primary goal of a PMO is to achieve benefits from standardizing and following project management policies, processes, and methods. Over time, a PMO will become the source for guidance, documentation, and metrics related to the practices involved in managing and implementing projects within that organization.

Why Invest

Why do businesses invest in a PMO?

On the one hand, companies of all kinds face the continued fallout from the most recent global recession which has placed an added burden on projects and project managers delivering expected benefits.

On the other, we are part of a dynamic, resourceful and ever-evolving commercial world that demands change as part of its survival; change demands projects, and projects demand project managers.

 History is littered with significant project failures (witness some of the statistics of the CHAOS  report analysis of IT project success, and more often failure ), yet there are also spectacular project success stories linked to the maturing practice of project management.

Those projects that will be commissioned in the future, as well as the ones that are allowed to continue in the current challenging climate, will be expected to deliver greater business benefits, endure closer scrutiny from senior management and are likely to face far more pressures to deliver. There is no longer any room for project failure; projects that are approved need to succeed.

And who will be under the most pressure? You guessed it, the managers responsible for those projects.
Right now our projects, and our project managers, need the help, support and guidance of a good PMO and a ‘good’ PMO has to be led by a ‘good’ PMO leader.

The good news is that PMOs are in demand.

In their ‘The State of the PMO 2010’  report PM Solutions stated that “The upward trend is unmistakable, both in sheer numbers of PMOs and in the rising organizational clout. In our 2000 research on ‘The Value of Project Management’, only 47% of companies had a project office. In 2006, our research on ‘Project Management: The State of the Industry’ showed that 77% of companies had PMOs; ‘The State of the PMO 2010’ research shows that 84% of companies have PMOs”

This is excellent news; it suggests the battle to establish the value of the PMO has, for the most part, been won.

This book is therefore less about the business justification of a PMO and more about being the very best that you can be as a leader and a contributor to a successful PMO; making your PMO the one that really delivers.

Projects, programmes and PMOs.

 To avoid confusion, it is important that we all have a common understanding of project and PMO terminology.
To that end we should all align our language when it comes to Projects and Programs , Portfolios and PMOs.
It can be a very confusing world when we talk of projects and programs and portfolios and project management offices so I am going to open with the simplest of explanations which I am hoping you will accept for the purposes of this discussion.
I call this ‘the PMO declaration’

Project Management is all about doing something (a project) in the right way and the ‘right way’ is all about method and discipline and quality and control.

Program Management is all about doing those things (the projects) in the right sequence or order.

Portfolio Management is about doing the right things.

Which leaves the PMO; and which I think of as doing all the above but with the right team (the right things, in the right way, in the right order).

Hopefully that helps?
If you prefer a more detailed explanation:

Project Management

Project management is the discipline of planning, organizing, securing and managing resources to bring about the successful completion of specific project goals and objectives. It is sometimes confused with program management, however technically that is actually a higher level construction: a group of related and interdependent projects.

 A project is a temporary endeavour, having a defined beginning and end (usually constrained by date, but can be by funding or deliverables), undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives, usually to bring about beneficial change or added value. The temporary nature of projects stands in contrast to business as usual (or operations), which are repetitive, permanent or semi-permanent functional work to produce products or services. In practice, the management of these two systems is often found to be quite different, and as such requires the development of distinct technical skills and the adoption of separate management.

The primary challenge of project management is to achieve all of the project goals and objectives while honouring the preconceived project constraints, or at least in managing the adjustments of these constraints through a disciplined process. Typical constraints are scope, time, and budget together with an over-arching consideration of quality.

Program Management

Program management is the process of managing several related projects, often with the intention of improving an organization’s performance. A program of projects can help a company achieve one or more of its strategies. The individual projects within it have varying end dates but the program ends when the strategy has been reached.

There are two different views of how programs differ from projects.

In one view, projects deliver outputs, discrete parcels or “chunks” of change; programs create outcomes. Thus, a project might deliver a new factory, hospital or IT system. By combining these projects with other deliverables and changes, the associated program might deliver increased income from a new product, shorter waiting lists at the hospital or reduced operating costs due to improved technology.

The alternative view is that a program is nothing more than either a large project or a set of projects. In this second view, the point of a program is to exploit economies of scale and to reduce coordination costs and risks. The project manager’s job is to ensure that their project succeeds. The program manager, on the other hand, may not care about individual projects, but is concerned with the aggregate result or end-state. For example, in a financial institution a program may include one project that is designed to take advantage of a rising market, and another to protect against the downside of a falling market. These apparently opposing projects fit together in the same program.

Portfolio Management

Project Portfolio Management (sometimes referred to as PPM) is a management process designed to help an organization to register and view information about all of its projects. Once it has the visibility (you can’t manage what you don’t measure) then this allows such organizations to sort and prioritize each project according to certain criteria, such as:

• strategic value
• cost
• impact on resources
• tactical need

A PPM driven organization will have, typically, a portfolio/project dashboard representing the overall health and status of each project.

It should be noted that the projects and/or programs within a given portfolio may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related to each other. For example, in a services supplying company the portfolio will mainly record customer project activity with little relationship between the individual projects.

PMOs

The Project Management Office (PMO) in a business or professional enterprise is the department or group that defines and maintains the standards of the business processes, generally related to project management. The PMO strives to standardize and introduce economies of repetition in the execution of projects. The PMO is the source of documentation, guidance and metrics on the practice of project management and execution.
A good PMO will base project management principles on accepted, industry standard methodologies, as well as government regulatory requirements as applicable. Organizations around the globe are defining, borrowing and collecting best practices in process and project management and are increasingly assigning the PMO to exert overall influence and evolution of thought to continual organizational improvement.

Establishing a PMO group is not a short term strategy to lower costs. Recent surveys indicate that the longer organisations have an operating PMO group the better the results achieved to accomplish project goals (which might lead to eventually lowering costs).

PMOs may take other functions beyond standards and methodology, and participate in Strategic Project Management either as facilitator or actively as owner of the Portfolio Management process. Tasks may include Monitoring and Reporting on active projects (following up project until completion), and reporting progress to top management for strategic decisions on what projects to continue or cancel.

So there you have it – personally I like my simple model better so let’s stick to that shall we?

A simple Guide

Copy the PMO declaration and put it up on your office wall – it will help.

The PMO is all about doing it all but with the right team but as there is no one model for a PMO you’ll not be surprised that there is no one ‘right’ team to make up the PMO.

Being a successful PMO leader is all about delivering the ‘right stuff’ and putting together the right team to do this. There is a lot more to this as just having the ‘right team’ doing ‘the right job’ is no guarantee of success. But we will explore this idea a lot more later on in the book.

And being part of a PMO team is all about supporting the ‘right stuff’ delivery by best practice and professionalism.

You can read a lot more about PMOs and PMO leadership in my book ‘Leading Successful PMOs’ (Gower).

Process design can fall flat on its face when sponsors forget two very important principles: First, the ‘want’ has to be clearly distinguished from the ‘need.’

Second, one needs to evaluate what employee/stakeholder capabilities are required and what employee-centric benefits can be derived.  In other words, what about the people? 

Buyer’s remorse in action

Let’s take the example of my friend Rob who spends four hours a day commuting. To help make his drive more pleasurable, Rob bought his first luxury vehicle with all the bells and whistles: heating/cooling seats, touch-screen navigation, voice-activated climate control, satellite radio, wireless connectivity, heads-up display, self-parking, run-flat tires and even an environmentally friendly, DVD-based owner’s manual.  Despite all this, Rob hated it. 

Prior to this purchase, Rob drove a practical vehicle that got him to and from work with an AM/FM radio.  When he bought the luxury car, he was convinced he needed the added functionality. However, once he departed the dealer ‘safe-zone,’ he was completely lost. Rob was overwhelmed and frustrated with all the new technology. The hype ended and reality set in.

Eventually, Rob became accustomed to all of the “benefits” of the new technology.  Yet he still only uses 50 percent of the functionality and, at times, still misses the days when he drove a car, which was simpler and easier to use. In short, what started out as an investment with defined returns became a headache with buyer’s remorse.

Fundamentally, this same dynamic is at work when you fail to put people as the centerpiece of your process design efforts.

Evaluate feasibility of use, employee ability

Let’s look at some ways to avoid the ‘process before the people’ design approach.  In my observation, most organizations approach process design in much the same way Rob went about selecting a car. Usually a small committee, not involved in the day-to-day implementation, develops a list of wants and needs, performs a gap analysis to current state and sets out to design a flow that is all encompassing.

This could be viewed as analogous to our car example in which Rob makes a list of all of his wants (gap analysis), takes the list to the dealership (engaging a third party advisor) and designs a car (process) based on his desires. There are three critical flaws with this approach.

First, without categorizing the results of the gap analysis into wants versus needs, organizations often fail to identify the right balance between increased function and overwhelming complexity. 

Second, without using a technique such as customer value analysis, organizations stand to create something that delivers a plethora of benefits to the wrong stakeholder community.

Finally, without understanding the barriers to process utilization (potentially through force field analysis), the organization runs the risk of having a host of new capabilities without the requisite abilities to make use of them.  By changing the focus of design efforts from function to feasibility, organizations can better assess the true value of their efforts and the reasonable expectation of return.

Appeal to human nature

If the aforementioned scenario sounds familiar, think about the root cause of the issue.

While creating the right balance between wants and needs is important, the most critical aspect of process design is evaluating the likelihood of adoption.  Any discussion of process adoption must consider motivation. While behavioral psychology is a topic for another time, in its most basic form, behavioral change comes down to two factors: ability and desire.

I have noticed most organizations focus on influencing the latter half of the equation: desire.  And, dependent on management philosophy and leadership bandwidth, influencing desire is usually achieved through one of two ways: “mandate and measure” or “monitor and reward.”  These methods of positive or negative reinforcement may influence in the short-term, but do little to affect sustainable change.

The second but more effective means of influencing results is looking at employee ability.  Ability is woefully undervalued when evaluating feasibility. Much like the earlier analogy, if your stakeholders do not have the requisite knowledge and skills to execute the process, all the change management in the world will not increase adoption.

Regardless of how you identify these concerns, there are some fundamental questions to consider:

1. Do my stakeholders believe there is a “better way” to do their job, and can I make the case that the new process helps them? 
2. Will improvements be realized at the expense of “extra work?”
3. Do my stakeholders have the required knowledge to operate within the new construct?
4. Does the experience level of my stakeholders match the complexity of the process?

Consider ripple effect through the organization

In my estimate, organizations fully reach only 65 percent of a process’s intended benefits, leaving 35 percent of expected value at risk to exceptions and failed measures.  Similar to evaluating stakeholder abilities, organizations must also analyze the business architecture to which this new process will be applied. Considerations such as organizational design, communication channels, reporting rules and concurrent processes must be evaluated in order to define feasibility.

While there are several modeling techniques available to assist in this analysis, there are again key questions that should serve as the backdrop:

1. Are there organizational dynamics at play that could negatively affect adoption?
2. Am I structured in a way that allows me to measure the effectiveness of the process?
3. Does the leadership level have the knowledge to coach and measure effectiveness?
4. Does the process require governance mechanisms that are not currently aligned to reporting structures?

While many process design efforts are conducted with a small group of sponsors and stakeholders, the implementation of these efforts will have a ripple effect throughout the organization.  Identifying these impacts in advance will not only make your change management efforts more effective, but will also help determine what tangential changes to structure may be required to have any success at all.

Focus on the driver first

Success in the design effort has less to do with the process and more to do with the community who must interact with it and adopt it.  Let’s revisit Rob and his luxury car again.  The fundamental problem with the car was not what it did but rather who was driving it.  Had Rob understood how the enhancements would impact his commute, perhaps he would have chosen a less complex vehicle.

Process development is no different. Failed processes are rarely a product of elegance or functionality.  It usually comes down to people being people:  hesitant to learn, resistant to change and always looking for the shortest path from A to B.  By admitting this and shifting your focus to evaluate feasibility based on your people, you stand a much better chance of realizing success. Otherwise, like Rob, your employees will want to trade in the new luxury car (your new process) for an older but comfortable clunker (the old process).

About the author:

Matt J. Ferguson, Practice Manager, ESI Consulting Services, ESI International, is a respected expert in project management and business analysis capability assessment and learning adoption. At ESI he designs and implements their “outside the classroom” tools and activities to reinforce learning and encourage on-the-job adoption of new knowledge and skills with a special focus on the areas of process revision and organisational development.

Through downsizing efforts, many organisations released the “mighty middle” manager layer leaving the tenured, crème de la crème experts and the less expensive, early-career population to complete a wide variety and increasing amount of work.  With more diverse workloads, yet less diverse skills sets, organisations are once again looking to coaching programmes to help bridge the ”experience” gap between these two populations.

Set the right foundation

Before addressing specific best practices, we need to establish some overarching principles on coaching.  First, know the difference between coaching and mentoring.  Coaching employees understand “how they do it here.”  Mentors, on the other hand, help an employee learn the soft skills associated with how to be a business professional.  They are an employee’s champion.

Second, acknowledge and address generational differences.  The younger generation is accustomed to immediate and more informal communications. Anticipate and prepare for these differences, as they will shape your communication strategies.

Finally, set the interaction dynamics but leave room for spontaneity.  For example, give general guidance (meet three times a quarter to talk about successes, challenges and next steps) but allow the relationship to dictate interpretation.  With these basic principles in mind, let’s look at specific tactics.

Look for more than technical expertise

While technical expertise is certainly important, it is at best only half the battle. Great coaches are empathetic, patient, good listeners and teachers.

Post mortems from failed programmes reveal that many coaches feel frustrated that participants “couldn’t catch on to what they were describing,” while the participants reported that coaches “couldn’t explain how to do something.”  If you make sure coaches are more than just technical experts, you stand a good chance of avoiding the frustration and failures that come from poor communications.

Reinforce company standards, not shortcuts

While on the topic of “what makes a good coach,” it is important to realize that effective programmes enable participants to be just like their assigned coach-even if that means picking up some bad behaviors.  Remember, the coaches you select will most likely be the most tenured, knowledgeable and respected employees you have.  As such, they will know all the loopholes and ways around the system and they could easily pass these shortcuts along to the participants.

Make it clear that the goal of the programme is not simply to model how the coach realizes success, but also to teach and reinforce company standards and policies.

Coaching is a job, in and of itself

Without a doubt, the most common complaint I hear when evaluating failed coaching programmes is that coaches and participants didn’t have enough time for meaningful engagements.

If the organisation believes in the benefits of coaching, then they must give coaches the latitude to apply the time necessary to ensure success. If the thought of giving a coach a two-week extension on a deadline so s/he may help a participant plan for an upcoming presentation seems inconceivable, you are probably not invested enough in the programme.

Coaching is a business relationship

Coaching takes a focused allocation of time from both parties.  The question is, “to do what?” The answer: Plan, Agree, Act and Measure (PAAM).

If we can agree that coaching relationships are business endeavors, they demand the same amount of rigor you would expect in any business arrangement. Discussions should be based on mutually agreed upon objectives, aligned to a mutually accepted plan of action, which demonstrates observable and measurable results.  Failing to effectively PAAM within the coaching construct is the quickest way to develop really great relationships, but really poor results.

Support the coach

Being a coach is tough. It is for this reason that many successful programmes implement a coach’s coach.  The coach’s coach is someone who has prior experience on both sides of the relationship, has proven that his or her coaching ability delivers results and has the emotional intelligence to help coaches work through the frustrations and conflicts that will inevitably arise.

If done right, coaching creates a flexible learning path for both the seasoned and novice employee.  In the end, this will help organisations prepare for the looming Baby Boomer black hole and the loss of the mighty middle by developing future leaders today. 

About the author:

Matt J. Ferguson, Practice Manager, ESI Consulting Services, ESI International, is a respected expert in project management and business analysis capability assessment and learning adoption. At ESI he designs and implements their “outside the classroom” tools and activities to reinforce learning and encourage on-the-job adoption of new knowledge and skills with a special focus on the areas of process revision and organisational development.

Some of the highlights of the PMBR include:

• The number of unemployed PPM Practitioners dropped year on year by 5%, though it would appear that self-employment appears to be the driver, not increased employment opportunities.
• The anticipated increase in unemployment amongst Public sector practitioners anticipated in last year’s survey did not materialise during 2011.
• 58% of respondents working in the Public sector are anticipating Programme and Project Management job losses in their organisations during 2012, a figure that reduces to 39% for the Private sector; this rise being a worrying 4% increase on last year’s response.
• The contract market is still tough for many practitioners in both the Public and Private sectors with day rates and opportunities being squeezed, whilst at the same time increased competition makes it harder to differentiate oneself in the market place.
• 42% of respondents reported that they and their family unit are worse off than at the same time last year, whilst 9% say they are much better off.
• 42% of respondents saw no move in their remuneration levels during 2011, whilst a whopping 83% saw their remuneration move by less than inflation.
• 95% of Public sector employees expect to see their salary fall in real terms during 2012.
• LinkedIn is the professional networking tool for 92% of our respondents; it is also increasingly becoming a primary channel to the next work opportunity, a change that not all users were aware of nor necessarily approve.
• The long hours culture remains a feature of the Programme and Project Management domain with 14% of respondents working on average more than 48 hours per week.
•  Recruiters and practitioners agree that PPM experience, specifically the ability to show a track record of delivery is #1 when it comes to candidate selection.

To download the full version of the report, go to the Arras People Website:

 http://www.arraspeople.co.uk/benchmark-report-2012-media-download/

In the past decade, businesses have entered the age of collaboration on a magnanimous scale. Information exchange has never been easier and while organisations used to compartmentalise their workflow into silos, this type of thinking is giving way to interdepartmental knowledge sharing. This is most visibly expressed in the global rise of collaboration software. Solutions such as Sharepoint® and even social media tools are being used as pivotal methods to exchange cross-team ideas. The McKinsey Global Institute has coined companies that have adopted such web technology tools The Networked Enterprise.

According to the McKinsey Quarterly, “Falling communications costs, globalization, and the increasing specialisation of knowledge-based work have made collaboration within and among organisations more important than ever. As ‘tacit’ interactions replace more routine economic activity and the scale and complexity of many corporations creep upward, the need to manage collaboration is growing.”[1]

In light of this growing complexity, companies are responding to the increasing need to make information available to team members worldwide by putting their money where their mouth is. In December 2011 McKinsey issued the results of a study that said a bigger portion of IT budgets will be dedicated to end-user communications and collaboration, innovation, and analytics capabilities than in the past. Survey respondents reported that approximately 46 percent of their IT budgets would be spent on investments of that nature in 2012 compared with budget allocations of 35 percent in 2011.[2]

Adjusting budgets to address the rise in knowledge sharing is one thing. Creating a culture that sustains it is another. What can organisations do to build a collaborative culture?

It comes down to engaging the workforce and ensuring their interests are represented. In their new release, Beyond Performance Management, Jeremy Hope and Steve Player propose that knowledge sharing cannot be forced, claiming that “the most successful collaborations between multiple business units within firms occur not when they are mandated by management, but when self-interested managers spot opportunities to collaborate and share resources with one another.”[3] Removing that element of competition by rewarding collaboration is a key factor in developing an environment that supports it.

And it’s not as hard as you might think. According to self-determination theory, led by University of Rochester psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, human beings around the globe are essentially motivated by three psychological needs: competence, relatedness and autonomy. Leaders can foster a culture of collaboration in which these overlapping needs are met.

Competence refers to the need to demonstrate skill, knowledge and experience. Whether it’s technical or interpersonal, competence is informed by internal motivators to exhibit implicit value. To do: A leader can encourage workers to hone their skills and demonstrate their abilities within a team setting.

Relatedness drives to the very heart of collaboration. It refers to the need to work with others in a collaborative setting. Studies have shown that the intrinsic need to collaborate overrides external rewards or punishment avoidance. To do: A leader can recognize the human need to bond with others by offering opportunities to work as a team instead of as an individual contributor.

Autonomy is the desire to shape one’s own work to support the work of others within set parameters. Even with workplace guidelines, workers thrive when they are able to exercise self-regulation and flexibility within established processes and rules. To do: A leader can encourage independent thinking by listening closely to each person’s contribution. Listening is a leader’s best tool.

A culture of collaboration requires an understanding of what motivates people to continue to work toward business goals. Drawing the best out of workers involves filling their psychological needs, which impacts not only a happier workforce, but better business results too.

[2] Clancy, Heather. “CarouselConnect.” Last modified December 13, 2011. Accessed March 14, 2012. http://blogs.carouselindustries.com/unified-communications/mckinsey-survey-finds-innovation-collaboration-garnering-more-it-budget/

[3] J Hope, and S. Player, Beyond Performance Management, (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012), 81.

Standing under a microscope isn’t the best position to be in order to thrive. Like cells in a Petri dish, PMOs need certain conditions to not only survive, but also flourish. It goes without saying that executive support is one of the key factors for PMO success.

What is a project or programme management office really for? According to J. LeRoy Ward’s Dictionary of Project Management Terms, 3^rd edition, a PMO can be defined as an “[o]rganizational entity established to assist project managers through the organization in implementing project management principles, practices, methodologies, tools, and techniques. In most implementations, the project management office is a support function and is not responsible for project execution [p. 349].” In other words, the PMO is to any organisation what a good conscience is to a person. It keeps people on track to do the right thing.

However, what is the ‘right thing’? It can have several definitions, depending on your vantage point.

On the most basic level, a PMO is a tactical body within the enterprise that ensures its day-to-day operations by offering provisions and guide maps to success. It entertains the language of tactics: how do we get from A to B. Oftentimes, the PMO staff takes a granular view of what needs to  get done. Why stop a project that’s running so well, they argue. But the executive standpoint, however, is a much different one. The C-suite takes a strategic look at just about everything. It is obliged to ask whether the project itself will actually make the enterprise any money. Even if Product A is being produced under cost, perhaps the key stakeholders have realised Product B will make them even more competitive. In other words, while the PMO is on the front line, the C-suite looks to the bottom line.

Many issues could be resolved through two simple steps: better executive communication and the PMO’s improved business mindset.

In order to untangle the complicated executive-PMO relationship, a common language must be formed to understand each entity’s perspective. A simple explanation from senior management as to why certain projects will continue to be funded while others will not would increase the likelihood of worker engagement. Faltering executive communication can have severe consequences for the PMO, which is then viewed as wasteful and irrelevant.

It is not enough to be good at something if that something isn’t serving a business need. The clue is to know what that business need is. That’s senior management’s job to determine. The PMO’s job is to ensure processes are in place to make the necessary happen to fulfill that need.

How does a PMO know whether it is effective or not? An astounding one in four PMOs does not engage in any type of effectiveness measurement whatsoever. A lack of effectiveness measurement exposes the PMO to unduly executive critique, while using metrics such as a return on investment would place the PMO in a stronger position. If the PMO were to adopt a business mindset, it would strengthen executive perception that the PMO is a worthwhile endeavor. At the same time, senior management can do its part through better change management strategies, communication and a common understanding that good projects make great business sense.

 Pre-Workshop: 25. June.2012

Conference: 26.-27. June 2012

Hotel Pullman Berlin Schweizerhof

Berlin, GERMANY

www.pmo-symposium.com

A wide range of external and internal factors are forcing corporations to take strategic decisions. Enterprises must react to the volatility of global markets with foresight and need the capability of strategic positioning. The Project Management Office (PMO) plays a key role in this change by acting as an organizational hub for the efficient direction and implementation of corporate projects. 

• How are today’s PMOs situated and positioned?
• Is an institutionalized PMO the indispensable foundation for successful corporate and innovation projects?
• How does a PMO support innovation and drive change?
• How can PMOs position project management and particularly project portfolio management in a strategic as well as agile way?
• Which benefits result from agility?
• Which role does management and leadership play?

This two-day conference, supported by ESI International, will bring together practitioners and industry leaders to discuss project, program and portfolio management best practices and strategies for PMOs.

Listen to business leaders from various industries, organizations and countries when they present their insights and stories about how PMOs support their organizations. A World Café, panel session and several workshops will allow attendees to have focused discussions with practitioners and practice leaders, going beyond the superficial and focusing on solution oriented approaches and best practices.

Keynote Highlights Include:

Avoiding Pitfalls in Mega Projects

Dr Patrick O’Connell, President, Major Government Programs, CH2M HILL, Chairman, Advisory Board, Major Programme Management, Said Business School, Oxford University, Founding Practitioner Director, BT Centre for Major Programme Management

Global State of the PMO

J. LeRoy Ward, Executive Vice President, Product Strategy & Management, ESI International

Practitioners Include:

Christian Buch, Director IT Service Management & PMO, Merck

John Donohoe, Director of Project Management Office, Star Alliance Services

Wolfgang Frank, Senior Project Manager, Member of the Management Team, Volkswagen

Dr David Hancock, Head of Project Risk, Transport for London

Antonio Nietro-Rodriguez, Head of Transversal Portfolio Management, BNP Paribas Fortis

Robert Rausch, PMO Director, DELL Healthcare Services

Peter Taylor, Author and PMO Consultant; Director EPMO, Infor

Visit www.pmo-symposium.com for more information on the agenda!