بررسی ویژگی های محل کار مدیریت پروژه و ارتباط آنها با عملکرد پروژه

The advantages of project management have been well documented, but project failure rates still remain high. This suggests continued exploration of new process models and organization structures to nurture strong project performance. One important candidate for improvement in this ongoing journey is the project management office (PMO). This paper is based on a two-year empirical study that investigated the establishment and use of PMOs and the environmental conditions in which they operated. It also identified and assessed an array of PMO functions and services and their influence on reported project performance. The core results were generally favorable toward the utilization of such features, with project standards and methods showing the highest correlation to performance in each of the two distinct populations.

Projects have become important instruments for change and development in organizations [1]. Gareis [2] and Lundin [3] suggest that the broader utilization of projects requires a new orientation in project management (PM) and a new model for more effective operations in project-driven organizations. Munns and Bjeirmi [4] showed that more effective PM offers great potential for improving overall organizational performance by enhancing the prospects for project performance and minimizing the likelihood of failure. In spite of the advantages of using the project approach, however, Jessen [5] suggests that there is also a significant problem. Because of the one-time nature of projects, an organization may often derive little benefit from previous successes and failures due to a lack of effective knowledge transfer. The study reported in this paper examined the question of what measures organizations have taken to enhance transferability of lessons learned from previous projects, and how these measures have influenced project outcomes. There are many dimensions for evaluating project performance [6] and [7], while it appears to be easier to develop consensus on determining project failure. The documentary record is replete with reports of high rates of project failures across all industries, government agencies and national boundaries [8], [9] and [10]. One approach to studying project performance has been through the investigation of critical success factors (CSFs) as predictors of performance. For example, Pintos [11] identified 10 CSFs, ranging from project mission, top management support, project schedule/plan, client consultation, technical tasks, communication to personnel recruitment/selection and training. A natural next-step would be to determine how organizations could systematically foster CSFs on an ongoing basis. Another conceptual guideline was provided by Might and Fischer [12], who examined how project organizational structure interrelated with outcomes. They observed structures ranging from functional design at one extreme to a dedicated project team at the other, with a matrix format somewhere in between. Their results suggest that while neither extreme showed any notable degree of association with performance, the intermediate forms did possess some positive relationship to performance. Their study pointed to the potential of a broader inquiry into alternatives at the organizational level of analysis.

The results from this research support several conclusions in terms of the stated research question. They also point to a number of practical guidelines for organizations already operating a PMO and for those considering a move in this direction. Among the specific ways in which the results might be practically applied are the following: • Many organizations are moving in the direction of establishing PMOs or have already done so, demonstrating a high level of management confidence in the utility of this innovation. • There is strong evidence that PM standards and methods are most highly correlated with project performance. This PMO feature should take priority over the others studied, whether a formal PMO entity is being established or not. • The use of project historical archives also showed a significant correlation with project performance. • Pioneers in establishing PMOs are providing information and advice on essential policies and documents that should accompany the establishment and use of a PMO (see [22] for examples of such documents currently in use). Several areas where additional research in the future might be worthwhile include: • There were indications that PMOs have been adopted more rapidly in the newer technological areas (e.g., IT) than in the older, more mature industries. This phenomenon requires further inquiry to determine its validity and whether the source is simply an artifact of the research design or the nature of the survey populations. • PMOs in early stages of their use may not be fully representative of what will finally unfold in later years. It may be necessary to design a research protocol that is based on the examination of PMOs after they have been in operation for some considerable period of time and accumulated a significant data base. Moreover, the use of detailed case studies would complement the broader survey approach used in this study. • A number of disparities emerged in the findings when comparing the different populations. The major one was with respect to the value of a PMO in contributing to project performance as seen by organizations that have PMOs and those that do not. Additional research may help illuminate further correlates with these reported performance differences.