Mel Bost – PMO Expert

Under the leadership of founder Mark Price Perry, BOT International, the company in which I am a Principal, PMO Practice, has assembled subject matter experts in PMO Setup, Project/Portfolio Management (PPM), Governance, and Project Closeout/Lessons Learned to create an integrated project and program management consulting group.

This team recently assembled in Orlando, Florida at the 2011 PMO Symposium to demonstrate their process assets “Processes on Demand” to Symposium participants and to discuss their expertise in any field of PMO maturity and development.

The principal subject matter experts and their fields are:

Mark Price Perry:  PMO Setup and Maturity

Terry Doerscher:  Project and Portfolio Management (PPM)

Steve Romero:  Governance

and me, Mel Bost:  Project Closeout and Lessons Learned

Another BOT International consultant and facilitator, Cornelius Fichtner, interviewed the four subject matter experts during the 2011 PMO Symposium to provide his PM Podcast and PREPCAST listeners with the latest news on the BOT International talents.  Check out his podcast here.

BOT International is a global firm specializing in Project and Program Management Office (PMO) competencies.  Contact me to find out more about how BOT International can help you.

Readers of this blog will know that I talk about behaviors of PMO project managers, team members, stakeholders, and others in the project community.  These are real behaviors that I have seen in my experiences working in and setting up several PMOs.

Much has been written in recent years about strategic partnerships in project management.  The idea is for parties to collaborate to ensure success of an organization such as a PMO long-term as projects are executed in support of strategic directions.

Consider the following scenario.  A PMO initiates a systems project in support of a major business/functional group in the organization known as the Commercial Group.  The Commercial Group is engaged in activities ancillary to the firm’s core businesses, and in order to achieve its returns, it operates in markets focusing on short-term, day-to-day operations.  The PMO systems project is designed to use a vendor-developed application, and its supporting systems, to provide the Commercial Group’s day-to-day operational and transactional focus.   The Commercial Group identifies a number of potential vendors and evaluates which vendor could supply the systems requirements on an on ongoing basis.  It then selects a vendor and development work proceeds until the system is in production.

Over the next several years the Commercial Group’s activities and returns flourish, and the vendor makes a  number of requested improvements.  Every time a new and updated system and application requirement was identified by the Commercial Group in response to the market, the vendor delivered.  

Switch gears for a moment….

A number of years ago while working for Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in California, I had the opportunity to serve on the Board of Advisors for the University of California–Irvine Science Education Advisory Board.   The Board advised the professors and administrators in the School of Physical Sciences on their K-12 development programs for students and teachers.  Funding for the work was provided through contributions from local corporations to the Board.  Each year the professors and administrators solicited the corporations for funding based on the premise that the K-12 programs would remain the same quality and scope as in previous years.  After a few years, it was almost a foregone conclusion that the budget would be the same or perhaps increased slightly from the previous year because additional corporate contributors were identified.  An annual report of the Board to the contributing corporations provided details of the K-12 programs and the breadth of participation among K-12 teachers and students.

After serving on the Board for several years, I was summoned one day by two professors who were instrumental as leaders of the program.  Since I had background in strategic planning and analysis, they asked if I would take on a small project in support of the Board activities.  They were concerned that funding for the program seemed to be on the decline.  Over the past three years the funding had decreased by $20,000 each year so that the quality of the programs was in jeopardy.  They were at a loss to explain why the sudden decrease in funding over the three year period, and asked if I would undertake some analysis to assist in their planning.

I was glad to assist in this effort and studied the scenario from various perspectives for a month or so.  I interviewed corporate contributors, the teachers involved in the K-12 programs, the professors and other community groups.   I looked at other University groups who approached their funding in a similar way and others who approached funding from alternative means.

Here were my findings:

1.  The business climate in California had changed over the last three years.  Whereas aerospace and petroleum companies dominated the corporate giving scene three years earlier, biotech and medical device companies were beginning to emerge to take their place.

2.  An individual corporate contributor had many more choices in making contributions because many other groups in that California community were doing similar work with schools.

3.  Other University groups had emerged as new curricula developed and these groups increased the number of total University groups seeking corporate contributions.

4.  The methods of solicitation of corporate funding were changing.  Many groups partnered with the stakeholders in the K-12 schools who received the benefits of the programs to provide a brochure to corporate contributors that tied real benefits to both the provider and the receiver.  This method was unlike the solicitation method of the School of Physical Sciences, which relied on its past work to carry the story.

The real themes from this analysis were:

1.  Don’t rely on “static” data to tell a “dynamic” story.  Look at the dynamics of the situation rather than a point in time.

2.  Don’t consider yourself to be the “Center of the Universe” when it comes to activity.   Look at the Corporate contributors as the “Center of the Universe” and map the interactions they have with the groups requesting funding.  This tells two things.  There are more requests than in previous years and many of the requests tell a story that clearly ties in the end result with the level of contribution.

So the real story of the fall-off in corporate contributions was in the dynamics of the business climate and the solicitation model.  Never look statically when you should be looking dynamically.  Never consider yourself to be the “Center of the Universe” around which other activities revolve.   It is a recipe for disaster.

Now, what does this have to do with our scenario of the PMO group and the systems application supporting the Commercial Group?  Over time, as the Commercial Group grew and its business grew, more and more was asked of the vendor who supplied and supported the systems application which facilitated the transactions enabling the Commercial Group to flourish. 

But, there came a time when a new business requirement relayed to the vendor was met with the response “We don’t have any more resources to do this enhancement.   All our resources are fully employed to support the day-to-day operations.” 

The PMO was incredulous.  It had created a strategic partner without really trying.  But it had failed to plan for the development of its partner to support new development work.  Why?  The PMO focused on the static scenario, rather than on the dynamic scenario.  They felt they were the “Center of the Universe” when it came to that vendor’s support.  In actuality, the vendor’s business had grown to support other major companies as well.

This is a good example of how companies can put strategic vendors in place without really trying.  It sounds rather farfetched.  But it really happened to a major PMO organization.  Is your PMO ready to define the capabilities it needs both internally and with external vendors to support the growth that it desires?  Is your PMO looking at static conditions rather than on dynamic conditions for its decision making framework?  Does your PMO consider itself the “Center of the Universe” when it comes to dealing with other key groups and vendors?

I would be interested in your feedback.  Thanks for your time.

“We had everything to gain by planning and working closely together to advance the development and maturity of our new IT Project Office, but it seemed that every time we would take a step together in the right direction, one of us would sideswipe the accomplishment by acting irrationally or in what seemed like an irrational manner.”

Those were the words of my former manager in an IT Project Office (a predecessor to the modern PMO).  It is an often-repeated statement, but one which does not get much scrutiny from a root cause analysis format.

Here was the scenario:

A major energy company acquired the downstream assets of another energy company, and integrated the functional groups, including the Information Technology groups.  At the start of this scenario, I was a Project and Planning Consultant in the IT Planning Group.  The Information Technology group decided to form an IT Project Office (ITPO), and it hired an experienced manager from a major Fortune 500 Company whose expertise was in forming and maturing PMO-type organizations.  Prior to that point, each IT Applications Development, Systems, and Infrastructure Group had planned and executed projects within their own groups with limited collaboration across groups.

A major consulting firm had facilitated the merger of the two energy companies, and Management of the merged company strongly recommended that the Information Technology group use the consulting firm as a “guide” in forming the IT Project Office.  The consulting firm had an excellent reputation for internal project management capability, and it utilized a methodology which I will refer to here as “THE METHOD.”  So, Information Technology Management was pleased at the outset that they not only had an experienced PMO-type Manager, but also a strong consulting group direction.

The “vision” and directions given by the IT Project Office Management to the consulting firm were that the ITPO wanted to instill its own “trademark” and “business context” in the new project group. 

While the consulting firm heard this “firm” direction,” it internally recognized that the firm had made a great investment in “THE METHOD” and that it would exploit “THE METHOD” at every opportunity.

The IT Project Office utilized the SEI Capability Maturity Model as a framework for planning its path of evolution to a mature state.  However, whenever a new process or procedure was developed in concert with the consulting group, the outcome had a strong flavor of “THE METHOD.”  So, whenever the IT Project Office mapped its systems projects to follow the business processes with which it was trying to align, it conveniently left the consulting group out of the process until some redefinition of an omitted process was imminent.

This recurring pattern of behavior was subtle but highly visible to those of us living the daily ITPO experience.

This is an example of a “systems archetype” at work. 

Peter Senge has written extensively about organizational dynamics and behavior and systems archetypes identifiable from events and patterns of behavior.

William Braun has also written extensively about systems archetypes.  System Archetypes are highly effective tools for gaining insight into patterns of behavior, themselves reflective of the underlying “structure” of the system being studied. The archetypes can be applied in two ways – diagnostically and prospectively.

Diagnostically, archetypes help managers recognize patterns of behavior that are already present in their organizations. They serve as the means for gaining insight into the underlying systems structures from which the archetypal behavior emerges. This is the most common use of the archetype.

Archetypes are effective tools for beginning to answer the question, “Why do we keep seeing the same problems recur over time?”

Prospectively, archetypes are useful for planning. As managers formulate the means by which they expect to accomplish their organizational ends, the archetypes can be applied to test whether policies and structures under consideration may be altering the organizational structure in such manner as to produce the archetypal behavior. If managers find this to be the case, they can take remedial action before the changes are adopted and embedded in the organization’s structure. 

From my experience, archetypes can be highly effective when examining PMO and IT Project Office organizational structure.

The particular ”systems archetype” described above is called “accidental adversaries” because it explains how groups of people who ought to be in partnership with each other, and who want to be in partnership with each other (or at least state that they do), end up bitterly opposed.  It applies to teams working across functions, to joint ventures between organizations, to union-management battles, to suppliers and manufacturers, to family disputes, and even to civil wars.

The classic case where this “accidental adversaries” structure was first articulated and  recognized was a scenario involving Procter and Gamble (P&G) and Walmart.  Both had the same goals–improving the effectiveness and profitability of their production/distribution system–but they each felt that the other was acting in self-serving ways that damaged the industry. 

Wal-Mart learned throughout the 1970′s and 1980′s that heavy discounting and price promotion of goods could boost market share, value, and improve profits.  But price promotions created extra costs and difficulties for distributors like P&G.  The Wal-Mart practice undermined P&G manufacturing, creating great swings in P&G’s manufacturing volumes.  The practices of each firm were intended to meet each firm’s internal objectives but, as a partnership, each was always pointing a finger at the other claiming undermining practices.  In responding more attentively to their internal objectives, the partnership fell short of optimizing its combined operational effectiveness.

While this pattern of behavior continued for years, attempts to reconcile and elaborate exactly what was happening was a difficult, if not impossible, order.

And so, this same pattern existed in the newly formed and maturing IT Project Office, among seemingly cooperative and optimization-oriented managers, who did not recognize the future implications of their antagonistic conduct.  It is often not easy to discern or to admit that these behaviors take place among rational and intelligent groups who join their efforts to make a better condition within their groups.

But, as William Braun has suggested, the potential exists for  archetypes to be applied to test whether the policies and structures under consideration may be altering the organizational structure in such manner as to produce the archetypal behavior. If PMO managers find this to be the case, they can take remedial action before the changes are adopted and embedded in the organization’s structure. 

Have you identified some recurring behaviors in relationships between your key PMO suppliers, vendors, partners, or other support groups which can be limiting your attainment of PMO Excellence?  

Here are some prescriptive actions and seven action steps from William Braun in case you find candidates for “Accidental Adversaries”:

Prescriptive Action

• Revisit the original opportunity that brought the PMO parties together into a collaborative relationship.

• Use the archetype to identify the origins of adversarial attitudes.

• Renew the Shared Vision of the collaborative effort and commit to Team Learning.

Seven Action Steps

• Reconstruct the conditions that were the catalyst for collaboration and PMO success.

• Review the original understandings and expected mutual benefits.

• Identify conflicting incentives that may be driving adversarial behavior.

• Map the unintended side effects of each party’s actions.

• Develop overarching PMO goals that align the efforts of the parties.

• Establish metrics to monitor collaborative behavior.

• Establish routine communication.

I don’t want to leave you with the impression that this IT Project Office archetype produced a highly dysfunctional organization as it matured.  Over a two or three year period, the management of the IT Project Office and the consulting firm realized and recognized the internal objectives of the other party, and actually began to discuss how they could support their own internal objectives while creating the fully functional IT Project Office that everyone envisioned at the beginning.   Dialogue and continual realignment of values and vision were effective over time.

As project managers and PMO practitioners, we continually strive to improve our performance by reflecting on those areas where we excel, and critically reviewing areas where we could create more desirable outcomes when faced with similar circumstances.  

“Dilemmas” are one area of conflict where we can all improve our performance. 

Dilemmas arise from internal or external conflicts between goals, values, perspectives, and points of view.  In this post, let’s examine some elements of the conflicts that give rise to dilemmas for project managers.  As you will see, dilemmas provide learning and growth opportunities for project managers to review and choose a course of action.  John C. Maxwell, who is known as a present day guru of leadership, has often been quoted as saying that “leaders have choices and when they make those choices, the choices in turn make them.”  As leaders, project managers are often faced with those same choices in the form of dilemmas.

Here is a story from my life that may provide a helpful illustration of a dilemma:

During the summer between my freshman and sophomore years in high school, I collected insects.  Not because I had a great interest in insects, but because several rising juniors had informed me that the sophomore biology courses required a leaf collection one term, and an insect collection the next term.  Those students who were unlucky enough to get the insect collection assignment in the winter months often could not find good specimens of the most common insects in our geographical area.  Hence, in order to get good marks in the course, we needed to start a collection as soon as possible so that we could be assured of getting a good representative cross-section of insect types.

I rigged up an insect net by bending a wire coat hanger for a frame and using an old sheer curtain my mother had discarded from a window treatment.  The mesh was sheer enough not to let out any insects but transparent enough that you could clearly see your catch.  So, armed with my handy insect manual and my rigged net, I was the “scourge” of the neighborhood and nearby streams and ponds looking for specimens. 

I was lucky that my family took a driving vacation trip from our home in North Carolina to Florida’s Gulf coast during that summer because I was able to find several varieties of Gulf Fritillary butterflies that were native only to that area.  I thought that would give me a decided advantage with the judges of the insect collections.  Several people had also informed me that bright lights would attract insects during the evening hours, and under a lighted sign I was lucky to snare a rhinoceros beetle on that trip. 

When I returned home, I made the trek early each morning to an all night laundromat about a mile from my home to see what moths and other nocturnal insects might be left over from the night before.  Most of these treks yielded very little except for an occasional small moth like a sphinx moth, which has a bright colored pattern on its wings.  Then, one morning as I walked up to a large screen at one end of the laundromat where the exhaust fans seemed to roar on incessantly.  I stopped in my tracks when I saw something at the corner of the screen which was both large and very colorful.  I had never seen anything like it, and I had poured through that insect manual dreaming of catching something exotic which would really “wow” the judges.

It was a greenish-blue color with a wingspan that must have been at least four inches from side to side, and it had curved tails on its wings which extended back from the body and were symmetrical about the centerline of its body.  It must have been six inches long from top to bottom.  What was it?  So, I pulled out my handy-dandy insect manual and I started to leaf through the pages.  It only took me three or four minutes to realize that I was looking squarely at a “Luna Moth.”

Now, if you have ever seen a Luna Moth, you will know that its beauty and sheer size are the most distinct characteristics.  Why do they call it a Luna Moth?   Naturally, because it is out when the moon is out!

A million thoughts ran through my head.  I did not have much time to think about the consequences of my find.  Any time now the sun would be high enough that the Luna Moth would loosen its grip on the screen and be gone. My first reaction was that this was going to be the greatest insect specimen that the school had ever seen, and I was thrilled to think that I would be applauded as the student who uncovered the specimen. 

But, then a second thought ran through my mind.  What right did I have to capture this beautiful creature and inject it with alcohol to preserve it for my collection?

I had to hurry and decide.  On the one side my mind argued that since I had devoted so much time and effort to this project, I needed to achieve the best possible outcome and to share it with everyone.  On the opposite side, my mind argued that my collection with its smaller moths, butterflies, beetles, dragonflies would do just fine without it. 

Looking back on that moment today, I really did not have the option to take a picture.  Digital cameras didn’t exist.  Back then, pictures were taken when there was a deliberate need to take pictures, and disposable cameras were not available in every drug store.  Spur of the moment yielded no camera readily available for a picture.  The only camera I could hope to put my hands on was a clunky camera my family used on vacation and it was in our house a mile or so away.  So technology was clearly a variable that I was not fully aware of at the time.

I faced a dilemma.  My decision was to capture this insect for my collection.  The Luna Moth was clearly an example of an insect in the insect manual and qualified as a specimen acceptable to the teacher in satisfaction of this assignment. To this day, however, I often rationalize my decision to capture this Luna Moth because I had no idea if the biology teacher would even have accepted a “picture” in place of a real specimen.  From what I heard from those juniors, the assignment was to collect specimens—not take pictures of them.

We are faced with dilemmas in our work and our personal lives every day.  How we resolve them is a very personal matter.  But we should all consider that everyone faces dilemmas, many of which are never revealed to anyone else.

Cordell Parvin, my good friend and colleague, provides training and coaching for lawyers.  When we discussed “dilemmas” one day, he said that, in the legal context, one dilemma he faced was “whether to take a client/case when I knew I would be paid a lot of money but I did not like what the client was trying to accomplish.  Another dilemma is when I have had a client who only wanted a lawyer who would agree with him.  I call it a ‘yes’ man.  In both instances, I resolved the dilemma by not taking the matter or client.  I know that lawyers are supposed to represent clients who are bad people or who have done bad things.  But, for me I could not totally separate my feelings from our concept that even the worst of us is entitled to a lawyer.”

Project managers are no exception—you have probably faced dilemmas on several occasions. 

Have you ever stopped to think about the crucial decision elements and the choices that help you resolve dilemmas?  Consider the following dilemmas which project managers may face:

Scenario One:  An SAP project manager is planning his budget for the next SAP project.  He knows that other SAP projects have typically overrun their budgets because of the need for additional resources and project work in the “data conversion” phase.  He also knows that the PMO is controlling budgets closely for upcoming projects so he is reluctant to include a full amount for any data conversion resources which may cause the budget to seem inflated versus previous SAP budgets.  How is his planning for the project affected by these different perspectives?

Scenario Two:  A project manager who is in charge of a design team to provide a major component for a larger assembly has identified a risk in the use of the component, namely, at lower temperatures than the assembly has been subjected to thus far, and which are not normally encountered by the assembly in its usage pattern, the component may lose its elasticity and become more rigid, thus potentially compromising the performance of the assembly.  He knows that the next proposed application for this assembly will likely be in that lower temperature range.  He has alerted the Design Manager, but the Design Manager refuses to inform the contractor of the potential flaw.  His rationale is that every assembly to that point in time has performed flawlessly and there is no need to think that the major contractor would desire a redesign if the risk of a failure were very low.  He asks the project manager to confirm his analysis regarding the identified risk.  Does the project manager confirm that low risk or continue to raise a red flag about a potential failure?

When facing project dilemmas such as the above sample scenarios, what are some key conflict and decision elements which project managers should consider? 

1.  Timing

In the case of the Luna Moth, since I had a limited time in which I could capture the moth, “timing” was of the essence in forcing a resolution to the dilemma.

2.  Goal or Outcome

Often, conflicting goals are an issue.  There may be, for example, conflicts between personal goals and organizational goals, between the goals of two individuals, and between internal personal goals and externally defined peer group goals.  The experience of the individual project manager frames the project manager’s determination as to what are possible choices.  For example, in the case of the Luna Moth, having only the input from former students, I believed that the only way to fulfill the assignment was to actually collect (rather than photograph) the insects. 

3.  Perspective or Frame

We have often stated in this blog that people act in accordance with the truth as they perceive it to be.  Right versus wrong is often based on the truth that an individual defines for himself in the world.  Choices are then defined by those “truths.”

4.  Technology

In the case of the Luna Moth story, did I really at that time believe there was a technology choice to be made between taking a picture and harvesting the specimen?  Or, did I inject that into my story I told myself many years later as I recalled the incident based on my years of experience in facing other dilemmas and choices that had a variety of technologies available for deployment?

5.  Interpretation of the Facts

Two individuals experiencing the same scenario may view the events and actions of the participants in entirely different ways based on their experiences, value systems, and what they consider the “truth.” 

6.  Reality or Wishful Thinking

When reflecting on past events or experiences, we often inject our own stories into the scenarios because we are continually telling ourselves stories based on our observations, biases, values, and what we each consider reality.

Dilemmas provide us with a playground for testing our viewpoints versus others’ viewpoints. 

Roger Martin, Dean of The Rotman School of Management at The University of Toronto, has written a great deal on the topic of “Integrative Thinking.”  Integrative Thinking is a framework for evaluating conflict in scenarios.  I encourage project managers, when faced with new dilemmas, to look upon them as opportunities to grow and develop their own “integrative thinking” framework.  Think of some dilemmas you have faced in projects and share your experiences with others who have faced similar dilemmas.  You will be surprised by how many different viewpoints and interpretations will surface when you discuss your past dilemmas with others.

As I have alluded to before, John C. Maxwell has outlined the impact that “choices” make on leadership development.  The choices that project managers make in the course of their projects, in turn, make them.  Choices like responsibility, accountability, integrity, compassion, and values-based decision making can impact not only other project managers and PMO practitioners around them, but also other individuals in the organization, the organization itself, and those with whom the organization interacts.

Thank you for your attention.

Last week another PMO practitioner in a related industry asked me the question “How do you know how mature your PMO is at any given time?  Is there a measure or gauge for maturity that you can use to determine your current state?”

This is an extremely timely question in today’s project and program management environment.  And I am sure there are many different answers to this question that might address some or most aspects of maturity. 

Before we tackle this question, however, let’s ask another question:  “Why does it matter?”

Those of you who work in software and hardware development organizations that supply the Government with products and services know that the standards established by the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model (SEI CMM) are used by the Government procurement functions to gauge maturity of the project management processes in those supplier firms.  So, in that context, maturity is relevant, adds value, and has a recognized measurement standard.

To those organizations who are not suppliers to Government, and therefore not subject to the application of SEI CMM standards, a slightly different measurement process is applicable.  In some cases, your PMO organizations may have chosen to use the SEI CMM framework as a “guideline” for gauging maturity.  And, if so, it is really up to the individual PMO to decide whether to implement plans to move up the maturity ladder a certain distance.  Indeed, it is really up to each individual PMO to decide whether it wants to move all the way to Level Five.  Business context and cost/benefit for improvements should be the gauge here.

Several years ago, PMI launched a survey study addressing the question “Is Project Management relevant or a Worthwhile Discipline for organizations to invest in along with their other business processes?”  After a great deal of study and review, the answer was that Project Management is worthwhile as long as it adds “value” in the business context in which it is applied.   This issue of “value” is key when determining maturity, and your organization’s pace of development as well.

There are many ways to address maturity.  The Software Engineering Institute, working with PMI, has developed an Organization Maturity Model (OMM) which uses the five stage SEI CMM model as a framework, and Categories of metrics such as People, PPM Processes, Technology, Financial Management, and Relationships.  Many companies have chosen to define a plan for improving their maturity level using the “typical behaviors and characteristics” in the matrix formed by the SEI CMM five stages and the Categories above.  This is an entirely acceptable method to use.

I would propose a slightly different method which can be tailored more to your organizational context and to your interpretation of activities and behaviors within your own project management processes.

Suppose, for example, that we define a very basic project management process as having four phases:  Initiation, Planning, Execution, and Close.  Compare your PMO organization’s PM process to this very basic model and make sure that it includes each phase.  Obviously, if you have a PMO in place, your organization has advanced its project processes to a point where there is probably a lot more detail than just these four phases.

Now, give your assessment of the “value” provided by your current PMO process, and gauge it by the value provided by the four step or phase process given above.  Think about how the performance of the process is measured, and the various portions of PMBOK that are included in your process.  Ask yourself the question “Is there any one area of PMBOK that is not providing the expected value?  If there is more than one area, then prioritize the work, giving highest priority to a plan to improve the PMBOK area most in need of upgrading.

Recall that the PMBOK Management areas are:

Integration

Time (Performance vs. Schedule)

Cost (Performance vs. Budget)

Quality

Human Resource

Communications

Risk, and

Procurement (including materials and vendor services).

For example, Project Controls usually encompasses such PMBOK Management areas as Time, Cost and Quality.  If the Project Controls aspect of the PMO project performance is not meeting expectations, then changes to the Project Controls area can be made to upgrade the maturity.  If the vendor services portion of Procurement is lacking, it can be addressed with initiatives focusing on the Vendor Management Process.  Signs for the need for upgrade often appear in Audits and Control Reviews of projects.  Stakeholder surveys are also another good source of feedback concerning what is going well and not so well with project execution, planning and delivery.

This type of maturity assessment and plan is more actionable than one derived from using the Organizational Maturity Model cited above.  Usually an organization will use benchmarking to assess its processes versus other recognized or accepted processes from other authoritative project references.  Also, organizations such as Gartner, Forrester or the Corporate Executive Board are excellent resources for determining Best Practices which can be applied the business context of a specific PMO.

If you apply this technique in your PMO, you will be adding more “depth” or layers of project management “processes” to your PMO PM process.  This “depth” can be added until you feel that the full “value” of the PM process has been reached.  From a continuous improvement perspective, every organization should continually be asking itself the question “What do I need to address to improve overall PM value to the organization and to the stakeholders?”

Where does this type of maturity assessment and plan come from?  It comes from my observations of a number of PMOs at various stages of maturity, each trying a different process of asssessing its maturity and then moving forward with appropriate plans.  What I have done here is synthesize a process whereby easy steps can be taken by most PMO members to move the PMO forward in maturity.

Try this assessment on your PMO either informally or formally and give me some feedback on its merits.