| |
Project management professionals, can't seem
to stop talking about the project office (PO). It was the hot
topic at both the, Nashville PMI symposium and the Australian
lnstitute of Project Management (AIPM) conference in Sydney, both
in the fourth quarter of 2001. Although pushers of this organizational
twist abound, project-office bashers are also out there sowing
seeds of dissent about the PO.
The controversial organization design raises eyebrows both in
the project arena and in executive suites. Some of the heat generated
by the simmering topic may stem from inflamed tempers irked by
misguided initiatives masquerading as quick fixes for companies'
project woes. Is this questioning of the PO justified? Should
the PO indeed be banned from the list of viable options for making
organizations more effective?
Three powerful drawbacks stand out against making changes in organizations,
including the implementation of project offices. These classic
barriers are drawn from organizational change theory:
Lack of External Pressure. Change is generally
set off by a power beyond then organization - things like market
turmoil and the throbbing demand for things "faster, cheaper and
better." If that pressure doesn't exist and the company finds
itself successfully cruising along at ' a stable pace, then trying
to "projectize" activities through a PO will prove futile.
Internal Dissatisfaction. If external pressure
is sufficient, people in organizations become queasy and restless,
as the old way of doing things ceases to work. That degree of
unhappiness is the linchpin for change, because without it, proposals
for new solutions fall on deaf ears.
Lack a Feasible Plan. Project offices come in
sundry sizes and shapes, from staff-oriented project support offices
(PSOs) and project management centers of excellence (PMCOEs) to
more powerful line-driven program management offices (PMOs) all
the way up to the kryptonite-powered chief project officer (CPO).
If the PO isn't customized to fit the company's profile, it simply
won't work.
A host of reasons bolster the PO, in spite of the barrage
of factors opposing the initiative.
Here's yet more ammo for shooting down the project office. These
13 additional bullets come from a workshop that followed last
October's AIPM conference in Sydney, but the views of the Australians
are in line with trends in other parts of the world. A project
office:
- Can provide no hard evidence to prove that it improves project
success
- Concentrates power in parts of the organization
- Hinders project managers' initiatives
- Increases overhead, so may not be worth the investment
- Stimulates bureaucracy
- Diffuses responsibility of project managers
- Dilutes the ability of project managers to direct activities
- Diverts good project staff from managing projects
- May multiply mistakes if it's not on cue
- May cause distractions from delivery
- Tends to be process-driven, not project-driven
- Creates resentment among project managers
- Stimulates power struggles within the organization.
This avalanche of "no-noes" ought to be more
than enough to crush even the most fanatic project office proponent.
Why then would anyone be dumb enough to champion the cause? Perhaps
there's another side to the PO coin..
...0n the Other Hand The same group of Aussies
brainstormed a list of countermanding arguments, this time in
favor of the PO. Husky justifications favor the PO such as: consistency
of approach, a home for project management, economies of scale,
learning from experience, common control and reporting procedures,
ownership and accountability of data, reduction in the risk of
failure, and promotion of repeatability and reusability. The list
goes on: greater consistency of outcomes, platform for improvement,
review and maintenance of standards, consistent training, auditing
criteria, development of priorities and strategies, alignment
to business and corporate goals, links to best practices, maintenance
of a knowledge base, and quality tracking.
A host of reasons bolster the PO, in spite of the barrage of factors
opposing the initiative. So who's right: The flag wavers or the
nay-sayers? Is the issue black or white, or is it another case
of "it all depends?"
Well, Maybe It's a Good Idea But..The Australian
benchmarking group was biased toward the project office, since
most of the participants (about 70) hailed from some form of corporate
project management. Yet, when asked, they readily threw rocks
at the concept and ultimately showed just cause for snuffing out
any PO proposal. In spite of the favorable undercurrent, the negative
arguments, once put on a flip chart and articulated to the group,
were perceived as being strikingly real and thus demanding very
respectful consideration.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle - found piecemeal in the brainstormed
listing of "why nots" - is the monumental task of divining the
pathway to political consensus and actually getting the go-ahead
to implement the project office. Even when the logic is irrefutable,
and it is "obvious" that the PO is the way to go, substantial
high-level synergy must be marshaled for the PO to sustain itself.
Proponents of the project office can take heart in both the "whys"
and in the "why nots." The favorable views can lend motivation
to the effort, and the down side can act as a series of warming
banners along the often treacherous route and ultimately boost
the odds for successful implementation.
Hula Hoop Is the project office perhaps destined
to go the way of the hula hoop? Once the hype from the PO pushers
subsides, will it fade away like "management by objectives" and
"reengineering" and some of the quality movements? There's some
reason to suspect that the PO may be just a fad, and that the
opposing forces may be too powerful to overcome.
So if you contemplate implementing a project office in your organization,
remember the 16 reasons against making such a move. In spite of
counterbalancing favorable arguments, be sure to carefully size
up the potential barriers before placing all your chips on the
project office.
Paul C. Dinsmore,
PMP, PMI Fellow, is the author of seven books including the AMA
Handbook of Project Management [AMACOM, 1993] and Winning in Business
with Enterprise Project Management [AMACOM, 1998]. He is president
of Dinsmore Associates, with world headquarters based in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. Reach him by e-mail at
dinsmore@dinsmore.com.br.
Originally published in the
PM Network
|
|
