دفاتر مدیریت پروژه در حال تغییر
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3292||2010||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9260 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 28, Issue 8, December 2010, Pages 766–778
This paper presents empirical results from a research on Project Management Offices (PMO) in transition. While PMOs are now a prominent feature of organizational project management, the underlying logic that leads to their implementation or renewal is still not understood. This research adopted a process view of PMOs in transition. Descriptive data from 17 case studies was primarily obtained through interviews and analyzed using qualitative text analysis methods. Thirty-five factors of change have been grouped in six categories forming a typology of drivers of PMO change. In addition, three patterns of PMO change are presented. The major contribution of this research is to gain a better understanding of the dynamic evolution of PMOs. For researchers, these findings contribute to the project management theoretical development within the field of organizational change. For practitioners, it challenges the paradigm of considering the PMO change as a sign of failure.
Project management has come to play a central role in the management of organizations in almost all fields of human activity. Bredillet et al. (2008) report from World Bank data that 21% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP) is gross capital formation, which is tightly related to project activities. This is also reflected within organizations where a greater portion of their activities is organized by projects. Over the last decade, many organizations have implemented one or more Project Management Offices (PMOs) as part of organizational project management attributing a variety of both operational and strategic roles to their PMOs (Dai and Wells, 2004). While PMOs are now a prominent feature of organizational project management, the underlying logic that leads to their implementation or renewal is still not understood. The results of a survey of 500 PMOs documented the great variety and lack of consensus on the value of PMOs, the structure of PMOs and the functions included in their mandates (Hobbs and Aubry, 2007). People responsible for establishing or managing a PMO have a great variety of options to choose from with respect to both the organizational structures to put in place and the functions to include within the mandate of the PMO. In addition, executives ask for value from these structures and PMO managers are often hard pressed to show value for money. The current state of knowledge of PMOs and how they contribute to value creation provides PMO managers with very few resources. The practitioner community is looking, therefore, for standards or at least guidelines to help them and their executives to be more successful in establishing and managing PMOs. On the other hand, the research project management community is looking for recognition of its theoretical base within the larger management research community. An international effort has been made recently to formalize theoretical knowledge in the field of project management (Andersen, 2006, Bredillet, 2007 and Turner, 2006). Many consultants and some researchers have written on PMOs in recent years. The focus of the vast majority of this work has been on identifying the characteristics of PMOs and a limited number of variables that would drive the choice of configurations of new or existing PMOs. The implicit underlying assumptions in the current literature are that there are a limited number of variations of PMOs and that PMOs are relatively stable structural entities. At least three independent surveys have shown that the average age of PMOs is approximately two years (Hobbs and Aubry, 2007, Interthink, 2002 and Stanleigh, 2005). This has not changed in recent years. The authors know of no research results that are inconsistent with these observations. PMOs are, therefore, often not stable structures but temporary arrangements with a rather short life expectancy. The 17 case studies conducted in this research illustrate the temporary nature of PMOs. This case study work also revealed that significant changes in PMOs can be associated with the organization's internal or external environment. The case study results indicate that focusing on the organizational change process surrounding the implementation or the transformation of a PMO, rather than focusing on the characteristics of the PMO as a static organizational entity can be a fruitful approach. The pertinence of this process approach to better understand PMOs has been validated recently during executive workshops that have been held in Europe, USA, Australia and Canada. In light of the current organizational context described above, the high level objective of this research is to understand the forces that are driving the frequent reconfigurations of PMOs. More specifically, this research intends to answer these questions: • Why do PMOs change? What are the drivers? • How does the change happen? Is there a dynamic change process? • What is changing? What are the characteristics or functions that are changing? • Is there any pattern of change? Results from this research should contribute to building the theoretical foundations of project management more specifically in the Governance school of thought (Bredillet, 2008). It should also provide guidance to project management practitioners and upper management in the implementation, remodeling and management of PMOs. The article is structured as follows. The first section draws an overall portrait of the current literature in relation with the research objective. The second section proposes a conceptual model to explore the process of PMO transformation. Methodology is presented in Section 3 followed by empirical results that are delivered in Section 4. Finally, discussion and conclusion provide insights into PMO transformations and also identify limits of this research as well as new paths for future research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The analysis presented here makes several contributions to the study of organizations and organizational innovation. It confirms that the PMO is deeply embedded in its host organization, and that the two actively take part in the transforming process. This result is in line with the research on the value of project management where a “fit” should exist with the organizational context (Thomas and Mullaly, 2008). The study also shows that internal events and tensions are among the primary drivers behind the reconfiguration of PMOs. The playing out of these drivers brings into focus the importance of organizational politics. The analysis shows that PMOs and more generally the structures put in place to manage multiple projects are part of a political system that plays an important role in organizations (Morgan, 1989). In the project management literature, power and politics are often treated with an instrumental approach through risk management and stakeholder management (Magenau and Pinto, 2004). The analysis here shows that power and politics should be examined at the organizational level and integrated into organizational project management. Theories that seem to be most relevant to explain PMO transformations are associated with the constructive mode of change rather than prescriptive. The PMO could be considered as an organizational innovation in the sense that it is a recent and important phenomenon. But if it is an innovation, it is unstable and still evolving both in individual organizations and in the population of organizations as a whole. If the institutionalization process is at work, the results are not yet visible. Seeing the PMO transformation as a life cycle didn't fit with what has been observed in our case studies as the changes unfold. PMO transformations happen rather as an answer to drivers coming from external and internal contexts. Only three patterns have been identified in their dynamics of evolution. These patterns do not identify the specific configuration of each PMO involved in the change. Results from these 17 case studies face the limits associated with generalization to a larger population. For this reason, a second phase of this research is going on based upon survey data. It is also suggested that other research be undertaken to solidify the theory foundation of the project management governance school of thought.