According to PMI 2012 research, it has been revealed that PMOs are having an identity crisis. There is a struggle to define their organizational role and showing their value. This problem is noted in “Transforming the Program Management Office into a Results Management Office” by Deloitte. The book argues that despite the importance of the post, they are limiting their effectiveness as a result of not breaking free from tradition.
The result of different types of PMOs with different strategy implementation and execution techniques, is that no two are exactly alike. PMI also found that in organizations where project management was undervalued, the success rate was very low. Thus, it is very important that PMOs are included in the businesses to successfully manage projects and programs. There has been a rise in their presence from 61 percent in 2006 to 70 percent currently.
PMO completed an average of US$100 million in 2012 in projects/programs in 2012 and delivered US$71 million in value by ways of revenue increases and or cost reductions. Based on this statistic alone, PMOs need to evolve. Regardless of the type of PMO within an organization, it is as well as high-performing PMOs which tend to add value to their organizations and increase financial success.
It is easier to align some types of PMOs with the strategy than others. Some influencing factors are whether or not the PMO’s report directly to the more strategic influential people, and attitudes towards the PMOs themselves.. These strategic PMOs are usually the high-performance PMOs which typically assess and report their performance, and gather feedback on a regular basis in order to continue improving their approach to ensure consistency. These high-performing PMOs score ratings four times that of low-performers in strategy execution. Companies’ financial performance is more likely to improve under 56% of high-performing PMOs as opposed to just 41% of low-performing PMO having a positive impact.
These high-performing PMOs have the most influence on strategy implementation. They are more project-specific and tend to have more support and learn from their mistakes to improve the project/program. They also have more direct access to the C-suite level thus equipping them with more resources to carry out their function. Organizations with PMOs reporting to c-levels are usually the most successful.
[by: PMI’s Pulse of the Profession Nov. 2013]