Mel Bost – PMO Expert

In recent blog posts,  I have discussed how individual project and program managers can improve their capabilities and performance through some simple, yet very tangible and actionable, everyday tasks in the project process. 

I want to turn now to “benchmarking”, an area which can be applied to improve performance on several “scales”, whether it be overall performance of a PMO group, of an individual group within a PMO, or a single person’s performance.

Benchmarking is the comparison of a known state or condition of a group or process to another “defined standard” group or process which, in the eyes of  the benchmarker, represents a level of performance or activity that is desired in one’s own group, process or person. 

Benchmarking also introduces “innovation” into your organization.

Now what does this really mean?

In order to have a meaningful “benchmarking” exercise, you must first define an “as is” base case that describes the current situation with regard to a process, group, or person, and which adequately describes the level of performance.

Next, you must seek another “reference” group which, in your eyes, represents a “to be” state of performance which you seek to emulate within your own group  or process.

Where can you locate such a “reference” group?  Outside organization such as Gartner, Forrester, or the Corporate Executive Board  can provide a good starting point in terms of processes, the expected behavior and activities of these processes, and ways in which you could measure the performance of these processes.

If you are examining actual PMO processes, look at the standard-bearer companies like American Express, Marriott and Eli Lilly & Company   for your reference group benchmark.  Similarly,  if you want to benchmark in other processes, such as Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, look at the titans–Motorola, HP, and Deere & Co.

You can readily see the power of this approach–it can be applied at the total PMO organization level, an individual internal PMO group level, or even at the individual person contributor level within the PMO.

Benchmarking has been successfully employed by thousands of organizations, even when they had little benchmarking experience when they began the process.  The key to a successful benchmarking exercise is a desire to improve.  Once an individual or a group decides to get better at whatever the process or task of the group might be, the wheels of successful benchmarking are put in place.

You can be a leader in the benchmarking effort of your PMO.  It takes a desire to contribute to the improved performance of the group and a “capability” to perform.  As we have seen in previous blog posts, capability is enhanced with “education and training.”  You should seek out knowledgeable references on “benchmarking”, and other companies in the PMO field who exhibit good PMO performance characteristics.  Talk to your local PMI Chapter, or to a local PMOSIG group.  They can assist in your selection of appropriate PMO performance measures.

Good luck–I look forward to your feedback!

“The mastery of risk is the foundation of modern life, from insurance to the stock market to engineering, science, and medicine.  We cannot see the future, but by calculating probabilities, we can do the next best thing:  make intelligent decisions–and take control of our lives–on the basis of scientific forecasts.”  Peter Bernstein, Against the Gods:  The Remarkable Story of Risk.

“I am used to thinking three or four months in advance about what I must do, and I calculate on the worst.  If I take so many precautions, it is because it is my custom to leave nothing to chance.”  Napoleon I, in a conversation with Marshall Murat, March 14, 1808. 

With the current deepwater oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico occupying much of the news lately, we have heard a lot of rhetoric about “risk” and how BP and the United States should have developed a risk management plan as a contingency in case such an event were to occur.  It is obvious that many people feel that the principal parties involved in the exploration, drilling, and production had no risk management plan in place. 

I suspect that is far from the truth. 

Modern project management practices include risk analysis and risk management as key and integral components of any operating and business plan involving assets and resources. 

Deepwater Horizon Fire--courtesy of the U.S. Coast Guard

Every operational move in the portfolio of projects has key risk management activities that are focused on the two key aspects of risk:

1.  The probability of an event occurring.

2.  The impact of that event if it should occur.

These aspects are then analyzed based on prior information, other incidents, and events, in order to determine a four-quadrant layout of potential risk outcomes.  Typically, companies place the most emphasis on the quadrant of high probability of occurrence and high impact when developing their mitigation and contingency plans. 

The truth is that most mitigation plans and contingency plans are never revealed to the public by project teams unless an event sparks a response.  But that does not mean that the mitigation and contingency plans don’t exist.

Even prior to the project being initiated, most larger companies employ a risk analysis in their overall Internal Audit plan in order to identify risks involving the geopolitical climate for projects, the resource risk, the technology risk, etc.  The Audit universe of projects is then subject to scrutiny as to which possible risks present the greatest exposure to the company.  In other words, which possible risks represent the greatest adverse implications for revenue and profit generation (and possibly, environmental outcomes). 

This analysis, in turn, identifies whether the company should focus additional key resources on areas of high potential for risk events.   For example, if software or hardware development or new technology is considered a high-risk component of a project, then the Internal Audit staff usually provides key IT or other technology resources to guide the project team development in that area.

At the planning stage of major projects, risk is analyzed as an integral part of the Project Charter and Business Case development to alert the Authorizing Leadership Group of potential upside and downsides from project activities.  Indeed, a key and integral part of the decision to pursue the project often focuses on “risk.”

Throughout the project, risk is monitored closely.  Adjustments are made when new risks emerge, and some risks are moderated by project activities.  For example, if the project involves the proveout of new technology during the course of the project, the new technology development is monitored throughout the project so that mitigation plans can be employed at a moment’s notice. 

As part of the Lessons Learned exercise at the completion of a project, the risk management plan is reviewed for its completeness and accuracy of depiction of the events of the project.

So far my discussion has been somewhat “textbook” in nature following the usual Planning, Execution, Close and Lessons Learned aspects of any well defined process.

But, if we examine the reality of the risk management process with actual practice, you will see that there are two aspects of risk analysis and risk management that we have not introduced to this point–the concepts of interpretation and judgment. 

These concepts are concerned with the Leadership aspects of projects.  The actual application of interpretation and judgment to real life risk cases can vary all over the board based on the corporate culture and the context and climate within which risk is defined and managed. 

The aspects of “good interpretation” and “good judgment” should be emphasized more in our understanding of risk in projects.  Noel Tichy and Warren Bennis in their book “Judgment:  How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls” emphasize that judgment is the core–the nucleus–of Leadership.  With good judgment, little else matters.   Without it, nothing else matters.  Risk analysis and risk management without good interpretation and good judgment are devoid of the key elements of Project Leadership.

In your PMO, do you have a well defined risk analysis and risk management plan in place for your programs?  How are the concepts of interpretation and judgment carried out?  Who carries them out?  Top management?  Or the engineers and planners at the heart of the project details? 

If your overall approach to “risk” in your PMO needs examination and updating, take this opportunity to boldly propose new approaches and new viewpoints.  The value addition from such exercises can be enormous.

As usual, your comments are welcome.

Recently I collaborated on a podcast with Wayne Thompson, the host of the very popular blog “Project Management War Stories.” 

Wayne wanted a topic that would continue the theme of PMO structure, organization, and function within a larger enterprise.  We decided to revisit the topic of building a PMO from the “grass roots level”, which many of you will recognize from my previous posts as taking a clean sheet of paper as the starting point.

In this podcast, you’ll learn about:

1.  The importance of  “commitment” vs. “compliance” in the design and success of a PMO.

2.  Issues of  “accountability” vs. “authority” in PMO organizations.

3.  Designing a PMO for a small entrepreneurial organization vs. designing a PMO for a larger, more disciplined, bureaucratic organization.

4.  The importance of including all Stakeholder voices to the design and success of a PMO.

5.  Building “capability” as a critical success factor in the design of a PMO.

Thanks to Wayne for directing this effort–the resulting podcast is now ready for your listening enjoyment on the “Project Management War Stories” blog site.   

Thanks so much for your attention.  As always, your comments are welcome.

There seems to be an abundance of recent research and published information on leadership in organizations these days.  Ironically, however, during the same time that the old method of listing and evaluating “attributes” of leadership has yielded to the critical examination of actual behavior in significant leadership scenarios, there have been fundamental breakdowns in basic leadership in some highly respected public and private organizations.  Much of the recent research and writing has focused on these breakdowns and their underlying causes.

Many of us have observed both good and bad leadership in evolving PMO settings and I am sure we have stopped to think “Now, what could have caused that particular outcome……especially when it seemed that everything was moving according to plan for that project or program?”  In order to avoid such breakdowns in your PMO, let’s consider which criterion contribute to the emergence of key leaders in the Program Management Office (PMO).  In particular, in this blog I want to address how, in the evolutionary stages of your PMO, you can identify the leaders who will ensure the success of the PMO at steady state. 

Now, please understand that achieving a ”steady state“, in the sense of systems and process, may be an ideal situation that each of us hopes to achieve for their PMO.  In actual fact, “change” will always be the norm and leaders will have to respond to “change” in innovative and insightful ways.

In my experience working in an IT Project Office, and in a PMO and helping develop several other PMOs from “grass roots,” I have had the opportunity to work with some remarkable Project Managers and PMO Infrastructure Managers at the inception stage, the developing stage, at partial maturity, and at full blown maturity.  As a result, I have had a chance to compare my observations with the emerging leadership literature.  Make no mistake….these observations are not intended to be exhaustive and complete.  But they should help us to develop a PMO Leadership Model which we can continue to build on as we collectively view more behaviors in PMO settings.

Here is a list of characteristics for emerging leaders in a PMO:

1.  Calculated Risk Taking Attitude:  In my experience working with PMOs, those project managers and project team members who displayed a risk-taking attitude in two key areas were most often the individuals who rose to leadership positions.  First, those project managers who volunteered for the high risk projects because of a “can do” attitude were often the emerging leaders.  Second, when I was directing the development of project lessons learned for a Breakfast Forum in which the project manager addressed the PMO project community about some key lessons from his or her project, those project managers who stepped forward and volunteered for the Breakfast Forums were most likely the ones to rise to leadership positions.  In fact, the first five project manager volunteers became leaders and formal group managers.  So, if you are a PMO developer, look for the “risk takers,” while recognizing that I am talking exclusively about calculated risk taking.

2.  “Commitment” vs. “Compliance” Perspective:  In every PMO, and especially in those that are in the start-up mode, there is a range of attitudes toward the mission, vision, and values of the PMO organization.  At one end of the spectrum is “compliance,” the condition in which a person complies with the processes, standards, and procedures of the PMO, but doesn’t really buy into the overall mission.  These individuals most often come from “operationally” oriented positions which relied on “making a daily list of things to do”.  They often developed a work plan for a certain period of time which was rather inflexible in its components.  On the opposite extreme of the spectrum is “commitment,” a condition in which a person is totally committed to the mission, vision, and values of the PMO even though he or she might not be the most competent project manager in the organization, and even if the direction of the PMO has not yet been established with much certainty.  In my experience working with an IT Project Office and several PMOs, those persons who were “committed” and who demonstrated that “commitment” were most often the individuals who rose to leadership positions.

3.  Effectiveness Through Dialogue and Influence:  In every organization–at all levels of the organization–there are individuals who distinguish themselves by being extremely effective at getting things done through Dialogue and Influence.  These are exactly the people who were the object of research by VitalSmarts (which resulted in such books as Crucial Conversations, Crucial Confrontations and Influencer.)  They are the same people that William Bridges talked about in his book Job Shift who, when faced with rapid or unrelenting change in their organizations, developed the ability to successfully take on the roles requiring negotiations, brokering, translating, collaborating, facilitating, etc.

4.  Performance Focus:  In every organization, there are individuals at all levels whose attention to management of their own performance–and that of their teams–goes beyond what is required of their individual organization’s formal Performance Management Process.  These individuals typically set realistic goals and objectives and measure the outcomes at intervals, making course corrections where necessary based upon feedback and metrics.   These people are conspicuous and stick out in every organization.  They are “authentic” and “genuine” about their beliefs in performance management.  And they rise to leadership roles in a PMO setting.

5.  Formal vs. Informal:  We have all recognized for years that the most visible structures in organizations are those organization’s ”formal” structures.  Organizations are made up of organization charts, processes, standards, and procedures, as well as the underlying principles of efficiency, scalability, predictability, controlling influences; clear, disciplined, hierarchies; and rationality.  But some recent research by Jon Katzenbach and Zia Khan, entitled Leading Outside the Lines , has identified an “informal” character of organizations that may be just as powerful at influencing organizational performance as the “formal” aspects.   The ”informal” consists of loosely defined networks, communities of individuals with like interests.  These communication and information flow mechanisms are far from formal; rather, they are adaptable, local, innovative, ambiguous, spontaneous, collaborative, and emotional.  Individuals who know how to tap into the “informal” structures in the organizations can be leaders too.  In another blog post, I mentioned a very successful project manager of a very large SAP project who recognized that his project was “integrated” tightly with two or three other projects which were scheduled to complete just before his project.  He spent a considerable amount of time ensuring that those other projects had the resources and guidance necessary for their completion because he recognized the invaluable nature of their input and information  flow to his own project.  Now, he could have relied on formal Project Review Meetings to stress to all concerned the importance of their delivery, but he instead he focused on the “informal networks” of cooperation and collaboration to gain “commitment” from everyone that all projects would be successfully delivered.   That effort showed true leadership skills.

You will immediately notice that some of these characteristics pertain to project competency, and some pertain to business and personal competencies.  This is consistent with those Project Management Competency models such as the Boston University PM Competency Model, which stresses not only PMBOK competencies but also Personal and Business leadership attributes.

As you look around your PMO, notice the behaviors of project managers and team members who are  “authentic” and “genuine” and who live the values of the PMO every day.  Through good project experiences and difficult project experiences, there will be many who stand out in the crowd and become the ongoing leaders of the PMO. 

Your comments to this post are welcome.

The usual way that Program Management Offices (PMO) impact the firm’s strategy is through the execution of their “value proposition.”  The execution of projects yields tangible, concrete assets; new processes; or principles of operation that guide the firm and add long term value to the shareholders.  This blog post addresses how PMOs can more effectively deliver long term value and create a competitive advantage for the company. 

In recent blog posts, I have discussed:

o  “Best practices” in a project context

o  “Evolution” of PMOs from a “cost center” IT PMO perspective to enterprise PMOs to specialized PMOs to satisfy specific special business/functional needs in an organization

o  “Reframing” project scenarios to ensure we are tackling the right problem with a project; and

o  Design of PMO structures and functions using a “clean sheet of paper” approach

In this post, I want to leverage the insights of Professor C.K. Prahalad, a management and strategy guru who was recognized worldwide for his strategic intent, core competency and “bottom of the pyramid” theories, who died suddenly on April 16th.  He was a university professor in the Ross School of Business at The University of Michigan (which was my MBA program). 

In an April 2010 article/column entitled “Best Practices Get You Only So Far,” Prahalad discussed “innovation” in corporations from the perspective of looking beyond “best practices” to find what he termed ”next practices,” those cutting edge initiatives that will lead to sustained competitive advantage in a changing world and marketplace. 

This blog is in a sense a tribute to his contribution to strategy and management practice as I apply his principles to the Program Management Office (PMO).

Prahalad argued in this HBR column that today’s top management is too narrow in its focus to see “best practices” and must refocus their initiatives to uncover “next practices.”

He advocates that top management ask six questions in this search for “next practices:”

1.  Is the problem widely recognized?

2.  Does the problem affect other industries?

3.  Are radical innovations needed to tackle the problem?

4.  Can tackling the problem change the industry’s economics?

5.  Will addressing this issue give us a fresh source of competitive advantage?

6.  Would tackling this problem create a big opportunity for us?

In an earlier blog post, we cited the fact that Progress Energy–the utility that serves portions of North Carolina and Florida–had launched a Smart Grid Program Management Office (SGPMO). 

Why did they do this?

The logical answer was that they anticipated that the interest in Smart Grid would result in major project initiatives, not only for their own organization but for other contributing and supporting organizations such as General Electric.   Smart Grid would touch the lives of not only the electricity community but the customers and all stakeholders who have an interest in the application of SG technology.  Smart Grid would be an “evolving” concept because “the more you learn about what you don’t know about it, the more inclined you are to change direction with regard to subsequent actions.”

In other words, the six questions that Prahalad proposed we ask of a “problem” facing an industry and its stakeholders would surely lead to competitive advantage for someone–why not Progress Energy?

So defining a Smart Grid Program Management Office (PMO) was a very “smart” thing to do when faced with all the unknowns about how Smart Grid would play out.

The same could be said of Apple creating a PMO for its financial organization, reporting to its CFO.  The rapid product development that Apple has undertaken in recent years, including the recent introduction of the iPad, meant that the “problem” was how to mass produce sophisticated products that could still meet low cost requirements and a margin that would sustain Apple’s viability.

Many organizations engaging in a ”next practice” analysis will find that establishing a PMO will provide them with a long term competitive advantage.

So what are we saying here? 

Those of you who would seek to plan the next generation of PMO need to look to the six questions that Prahalad succinctly stated in his HBR column.  Finding that “NEXT PRACTICE” will become standard management practice if companies want to succeed.

Your comments are welcome.

While researching and writing this PMO blog, I have observed that, in the last several years, project-focused organizations have increasingly expanded the use of (or created) Program Management Offices within their organizations. 

Historically, the PMO concept first appeared in Information Technology or Information Services organizations, principally because those structures advocated and sponsored more disciplined and consistent/repeatable processes including change management, applications development, and project management processes.  From IT and IS organizations, the PMO then became more widespread in Shared Services organizations which served the larger corporate environment by handling common functions such as Procurement, Financial Services, Facilities Management, etc.  Next, the Enterprise Program Management Offices (EPMO) appeared to serve the entire business organization, or some major business/functional portion of a very large organization.

Most recently I have observed that:

1.  Both Home Depot and Lowe’s, two major Fortune 100 home building supply organizations, have formed IT PMOs.

2.  The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has expanded its IT organization to handle projects through a new IT PMO structure.

3.  Progress Energy, the electric utility serving portions of North Carolina and Florida, has recently introduced a Smart Grid Program Management Office (SG PMO) to handle all projects related to its Smart Grid business.

4.  Apple has introduced a PMO in its financial operations, reporting to the CFO.

5.  Cisco, ADP, Sirius/XM, Microsoft, Time Warner Cable, BP, and many many other major firms have employed variations of PMOs to serve portions of their businesses.

The list goes on and on.

It would be very easy to say that this proliferation of PMOs is simply due to organizations “maturing” to recognizing the “value” added by the PMO structure to the organization.  But, my background in science and engineering led me to search for the underlying issues and ask several knowledgeable people who have studied PMOs from within and without for years.

I spoke with Rich Maltzman (who writes a great blog about project management entitled “Scope Crepe” and who also works in a PMO of a major telecom company) and asked him about his impressions of PMO proliferation.  Likewise, I asked Wayne Thompson (author of the well known Project Management War Stories blog) for input on this subject.  Over the last several years, Wayne has interviewed a number of successful PMO managers for a series of podcasts about the functioning of their PMOs in small to large corporate settings. 

Rich Maltzman said:  “From my Scope Crepe and consulting work, I see that PMOs have long been the bastion–not only of IT–but also of enterprise-level project organizations.  I think, in fact, there’s a danger in not trying to build a community that goes beyond the IT or customer-facing PMs in an enterprise.  The overriding PM discipline and the community of PMs in an enterprise should be respected as a community and there should – even MUST – be sharing between the IT PMs and those who run the enterprises’ projects with customers (i.e. deploying a network, introducing a new pharma product).  So, a PMO at the enterprise level has value in that it builds a strong sense of community for PMs, honors the discipline, shares artifacts, and allows for the career growth of project managers – including job paths that may intertwine between IT and other enterprise functions.”

Wayne Thompson remarked:  “PMOs originated in IT and since IT was traditionally looked upon as a ‘cost center,’ the same view of that role carried over to the IT PMO.  But clearly, moving to the enterprise level with the PMO, organizations have recognized that the real takeaway in employing a PMO at that level is that it clearly adds value (rather than merely incur cost) to the enterprise’s strategies and should be evaluated as such.  Enterprise PMOs deliver concrete results in a disciplined manner.  In my blog work, I have found that PMOs have been deployed for any number of reasons depending on the business and industry context for that company.   And their scope is still expanding.”

This same reasoning applies to organizations just entering the project management discipline area as well.  A recent article “Dechert Puts Every Project Manager Through Project Management Training” (from The Legal Intelligencer) outlined the fact that law firms are now embracing project management as well.  Traditionally, many law firms felt that they were different, and that the work they did was somewhat unique and could not be managed using a discipline such as project management.  Pamela Woldow, a lawyer with the legal management consultant firm, Altman Weil, gathered feedback from general counsels and in-house counsels that they wanted their law firms to operate more like businesses and deliver their services more efficiently and cost effectively.  Consequently, Pamela has been developing and delivering project management training to partners as well as to associates. 

More and more law firms are seeking training in basic project management principles, and Pamela believes this trend will continue as legal firms seek to satisfy the needs of their clients. 

Once again, ”value addition” from a consistent, repeatable process is the key–just as it has been in the ramp-up of PMO structures in major project-focused firms.

So what does this all mean?

In William Bridges’ ground breaking 1994 book Job Shift:  How to Prosper in a Workplace Without Jobs, in which he summarizes the evolution and transition taking place in the traditional notions of work, jobs, and careers, Bridges states that:

“The single organization pattern that is free from this built-in bias (toward maintaining the status quo in organizations) is the project cluster.  Project oriented structures offer the important advantages of tailor-made design to fit unique tasks, flexible resource commitments, defined termination points, and an absence of enduring commitment that encourages a resistance to innovation.”

In the years since this statement was made, I believe that these “project clusters” have taken on the new structure of PMOs, and that PMOs have been deployed in organizations wherever a “cluster” of projects has been the norm.  The expectation is that PMOs will add lasting and strategic value to the organization. 

We are going to see more and more specialized PMOs in organizational settings as time goes on.

I would welcome some comments on these observations as well as supporting or alternative reasoning for the sudden proliferation of PMO structures in organizations.  Your comments are welcome.

Do you remember how Rod Serling started the “Twilight Zone” TV series each week?   He would say “For Your Consideration.”  That is exactly what I request of you in this blog entry.

An article entitled  ”Case Study:  Design in Cost Reduction“, which was cited in one of the Group Discussions on LinkedIn, caught my eye the other day.  The article’s author discussed how Motorola University (MU) was working with engineers, designers, marketers, supply chain stakeholders and clients, in what they termed Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA).  

Basically, Motorola University draws on the “Cause” and “Effect” principle that fewer parts in a design will lead to less material and less labor cost in the finished product.  A colloborated and integrated effort in the Design Process, followed by a Manufacturing Process which closely follows the Design, will result in lower product cost and lower overall manufacturing cost. 

The article cited an example in which a top electronic device manufacturer used the Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) process, enabling it to complete 12 product redesign projects over a four month period, resulting in savings of $6.8 million.

The key for us, as project managers, is to recognize that the same principles can be applied in project planning and execution. 

A Design for Project Execution and Delivery (DFPED) could be developed whereby the “Cause” and “Effect” principle might read: 

Lower project cost, with increased quality of final deliverables, can be achieved by collaborated and integrated project planning and execution, which includes the project team, key designers, marketers, end user stakeholders and process/project engineers.

This is very similar to having a Balanced Scorecard concept for projects.  If you design the underlying organizational and human resource performance processes correctly, this will lead to improved overall project processes which will, in turn, lead to better customer satisfaction with the process and the deliverables, and which will ultimately lead to the project’s financial success.

Many of you will say “Yes, but.  It takes a very mature project management process and organization to fully collaborate and integrate these teams and processes such that they may fully realize this cause and effect result in the final project delivery.” 

While that may be the case, every project organization has the capability and the desire to do a better job than they are doing today in delivering projects and value to their organizations.  That desire should be enough to motivate the project organization to start an evaluation of their own Design for Manufacturing and Assembly process or, as I have defined it here,a  DFPED process.

I would like to hear some comments from some project organizations who have undertaken such process improvement initiatives, and may have even applied the DFMA framework.  Please comment if you have done so and let us know the results of such initiative.

In Session I, we talked about the PMO Author taking a clean sheet of paper and developing a Funding Authorization Statement or Summary for a project which would include information and details concerning supporting documentation for the justification and approval process. 

Here is the example we used:

“This funding authorization seeks $37.5 million (capital and expense) from the IT Executive Board to deliver the IT Marketing Apps Development Project for new Stores by December 2011. The Business Case is defined as follows…..The economics and payback are defined as follows….The risks to the project completion are defined as follows…..The proposed project team will consist of the following from IT and/or functional business units. The external consultants proposed for this project are ………Authorization of this project is part of a larger portfolio of projects which have been addressed by the IT Executive Board in its meeting of August 21, 2009.”

Every one of the Bolded Words (Information) in this Authorization statement need to be addressed including the following:

1.  Definition of the Bolded Word (Information).

2.  Location of the Bolded Word (Information), i.e. inside the PMO, supporting Corporate group, functional business group.  This detail will provide the PMO Author with decision points for various pieces of information. 

For example, the Business Case will contain financial/economic analyses which will need to be developed by someone or some group.  Wherever that someone or some group resides sets up a decision point for the PMO Author.

3.  At this point, I recommend that the PMO Author actually draw lines from the Bolded Word (Information) named in the Authorization Statement to a white space in the margin where the PMO Author will begin to fill in the details of what, where, when and how for each piece of information.

4.  It is important that every Bolded Word (Information) in the Authorization Statement be addressed by the PMO Author at this point so that the next stage of maturation in the process will flow smoothly.  Those of you familiar with David Allen’s Getting Things Done will recognize this as the next action.

5.  Once all the information and locations are defined for one project’s Authorization Statement, then additional Authorization Statements can be added for additional projects until a Portfolio of Projects is included.  At this point, an Information piece needs to be added to describe how the Portfolio will be handled.

6.  Obviously each Bolded Word (Information) will include human resource as well as physical and financial resource materials so that a Budget of human resources and physical and financial resources can be developed.

7.  Timing will also be a consideration after all Bolded Words (Information) and Resources have been defined.  Now the “process” is beginning to look like a  “Funding Authorization Process” and a flow of information to support the “Process.”

In the next Session, we will look at some other considerations such as ancillary or support processes for Control and Reporting.

You might want to revisit Session I again now that you have read Session II so that you get a complete picture of the “Process” and its inputs.  As we develop more detail and more information, we are beginning to define what is termed a “Well Define Process” which includes entry and exit information and flow as well as criteria for moving the process from one stage to the next in a controlled fashion.

Suppose you are a member of a successful IT or other business functional group whose members have successfully delivered “value” to their larger organizations/corporations through successful project implementation. Inevitably, this success brings additional requirements from the corporation to deliver more “value” through more projects over time. You begin to feel the pressure because resources may not be readily available or accessible in the timeframe you are asked to deliver, teams may not be prepared and, in general, although you saw it coming, your best efforts just to deliver the last increment of “value” was enough to keep you occupied.

So what’s a body to do?

This is exactly what faces every organization who decides to ramp up to a Program Management Office (PMO). But the question remains “how do I define just what I need in the timeframe I have been given to be successful?”

My answer which I have leveraged in several situations before is to take a blank sheet of paper and write a “funding authorization statement” for a single project just as if you were seeking funding today.

An example:

“This funding authorization seeks $37.5 million (capital and expense) from the IT Executive Board to deliver the IT Marketing Apps Development Project for new Stores by December 2011. The Business Case is defined as follows…..The economics and payback are defined as follows….The risks to the project completion are defined as follows…..The proposed project team will consist of the following from IT and/or functional business units. The external consultants proposed for this project are ………Authorization of this project is part of a larger portfolio of projects which have been addressed by the IT Executive Board in its meeting of August 21, 2009.”

Now, such a simple statement defines many things. It defines what project, what funding group, what business case, what risks, etc.

Every one of these details must be provided by resources which reside in the PMO or functional business units interfacing with the PMO.

When the PMO has a number of these Authorization Statments, it can begin to decide if a Methodology of handliing the Portfolio of projects and the LifeCycle of the Project Management Process needs revamping to facilitate consistency in the way all the projects are evaluated and authorized.

What does your “clean sheet of paper” look like? Have you given it some thought lately? If you are an organization looking to move to that next level of superior project service and “value addition” to your Corporation, think about that “blank sheet of paper.” Your business context will determine what elements need a place in the PMO and what must come from the business functional areas and perhaps even what must come from external stakeholders.