Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 649–656

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Towards a conceptualisation of PMOs as agents and subjects

of change and renewal
Sergio Pellegrinelli a,*, Luciano Garagna b
a
SP Associates, 20 Templars Crescent, London N3 3QS, UK
b
Into Consulting, Verona, Italy

Received 22 July 2008; received in revised form 23 October 2008; accepted 8 December 2008

Abstract

Many writers on Project and Programme Management Offices (PMOs), whose remit covers a range of projects and programmes
undertaken, suggest that they are valued by, and are enduring features of organisations. However, these descriptions neither resonate
well with the experiences of practising managers nor with the limited empirical research available [1]. This paper proposes a re-concep-
tualisation of a PMO as an organisational construct, created in response to a perceived need, and as that need is progressively addressed,
the relevance and value of the PMO decreases – the dissemination of tools, expertise and insights ultimately leads to its existence being
questioned. PMOs evolve or risk being disbanded. Leaders of PMOs can generate new value by redefining the purpose and activities of
the PMO.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project and programme management offices (PMOs); Organisational construct; Project/programme management maturity; Agent of change
and renewal

1. Introduction: a forum to understand PMOs
In October 2007, a forum was convened at which seven
senior managers from large organisations participated. It
had taken over a year to come to fruition, but the breadth
and depth of experience of the participants boded well. The
forum was hosted by Tetra Pak (www.tetrapak.com). The
other organisations represented were: GlaxoSmithKlein
(R&D) (pharmaceuticals: www.gsk.com), ARM (processor
technology and IP: www.arm.com), two major European
financial services groups, a networked IT services provider,
and a semi-conductors business. The latter four organisa-
tions asked to remain anonymous, and the networked IT
services provider is referred to as Netprogram in this paper.
In addition, the authors participated, one as the forum
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sergio.pellegrinelli@sp-associates.com (S. Pellegrinelli),
luciano@intoconsulting.it (L. Garagna).
facilitator, the other contributing to the discussions by syn-
thesising the concepts and research in the project manage-
ment literature as well drawing upon personal experiences.
The aim of the forum was to share experiences and
insights, and to reflect on implications for practice. In
essence, the forum was a form of participatory inquiry
[2], guided by the authors, with the purpose of co-produc-
ing management knowledge [3] distilled from and grounded
in collective experience. The participating managers either
had responsibilities related to their organisation’s PMO,
or were trying to understand whether their organisations
should create or re-create a PMO. All had considerable
experience in the field of project and programme manage-
ment. For most, the conventional wisdom and pre-pack-
aged solution offered by some consultancies were
unappealing. Some had already questioned the implied per-
manence of PMOs in some texts. Others had raised ques-
tions about the future of their own PMOs. All had
insights to contribute and pressing managerial challenges
to address with any new knowledge produced.

0263-7863/$34.00 Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.12.001
650 S. Pellegrinelli, L. Garagna / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 649–656
A further person was present, but did not actively partic-
ipate in the forum discussions. His role was to take notes and
photographs which were used to create a photo-reportage
journal for the participants. The plenary presentations and
discussions were recorded and transcribed (group work dis-
cussions were omitted), and were subsequently re-analysed
in the development of this paper. Extracts from these tran-
scripts appear in this paper as italicised quotes to give voice
to the experiences and insights of those present at the forum.
The participants responded to a brief presentation of the
literature and research on PMOs, as summarised below, by
sharing their personal experiences and views. Individuals’
comments combined into a richer collective narrative,
through an iterative process of reflection, direction and syn-
thesis. The intent was to generate some meaning and
develop some practical constructs beyond individual
accounts or explanations. The authors, throughout the
unfolding of the forum and in subsequent analyses of the
individual accounts and collective narrative, adopted an
abductive research strategy [4] to generate conceptions (the-
ory). Our facilitation valued everyone’s experience while
promoting a process akin to disciplined imagination [5] to
enable us to transcend specific instances and begin the jour-
ney to a more generalisable view of PMOs. Our facilitation
was also informed by the works of Fritz [6] and Bohm [7].
The shared view that emerged quickly was that PMOs
are organisational constructs, intimately embedded within
their organisations. They, as senior managers within their
organisations, shaped (or had disbanded) their PMOs in
collaboration with others as part of ongoing organisational
adjustments and re-structuring. Rational technical consid-
erations informed the choices and outcomes, but were nei-
ther the only nor the dominant considerations. Rather the
decision to establish a PMO, and in what form, or to dis-
band it reflected the outcome of organisational commit-
ments, agenda and tensions [8].
This paper thus reflects a social constructionist ontology
and interpretive epistemology [5,9] and its contribution is
in organisation theory building [10] as well as project man-
agement practices and organisational project management
[11]. The resulting synthesis and conceptualisation of
PMOs has been reviewed by the forum participants, and
their comments have been incorporated.
The next sections of this paper provide a brief summary
of the literature on PMOs followed by a synthesis of the
unfolding narrative from the forum, drawing on and quot-
ing extensively the experiences of the participants, and the
debates and views within their organisations. A re-concep-
tualisation of PMO is proposed and then discussed.
2. PMOs: normative descriptions and empirical research
PMOs, in the guise of departments consisting of sched-
ulers (planners), cost engineers and estimators providing
central services to projects, have existed for many decades
in certain sectors, such as engineering, construction, and oil
and gas. Along with the increasing use of project manage-
ment in other sectors, PMOs started to become more wide-
spread in the mid 1990s and their numbers have grown
significantly since. Their proponents have typically been
practitioners and consultants. The prevailing argument
has been that projects are non-routine, transitory and insu-
lar by nature, yet have become the principal method for
effecting change in large organizations. The need for and
value offered by some form of coordination, presumed most
effectively provided by a dedicated, enduring organisational
entity, has been taken for granted by many advocates of
PMOs. PMOs create value by facilitating control: e.g.
supervising funding submission; ensuring mandated pro-
cesses are followed; collating, summarising and reporting
on the progress and status of projects and programmes,
and by extracting synergies: e.g. leveraging economies of
scale and scope (e.g. deployment of specialist skills, shared
tools); transferring knowledge; facilitating re-use (e.g. tem-
plates, software modules, development protocols).
The Project Management Institute (PMI) [12] defines a
PMO as:
‘‘An organizational body or entity assigned various
responsibilities related to the centralized and coordi-
nated management of those projects under its domain.
The responsibilities of the PMO can range from provid-
ing project management support functions to actually
being responsible for the direct management of a pro-
ject.” PMBOKÓ Guide, PMI, 2004, page 369
According to Marsh [13], PMOs typically perform a
number of functions: project definition and planning;
cost/benefit analysis of projects; risk management; moni-
toring and control; supply of experience and knowledge;
support in undertaking PM processes and procedures;
knowledge capture and dissemination; provision of special-
ist skills; maintenance of projects tools; standards and pro-
cesses. For most commentators, a PMO is an
organisational entity comprising a group of people and
resources, though Marsh does acknowledge that the func-
tions of a PMO may be performed virtually. Various prac-
titioners and consultants [14,15] have offered PMO
categorisations, mainly based on their experiences, as sum-
marised in Table 1.
While these categorisations and the roles attributed to
PMOs have rational underpinning and prima facie validity,
actual PMOs exhibit considerable more variety in terms of
their roles and primary functions. Also, multi-project
PMOs, whose remit covers a range of projects and pro-
grammes undertaken by an organisation, appear to be tran-
sitory rather than permanent organisational entities. The
research by Hobbs and Aubry [1] suggests that the popula-
tion of (multi-project) PMOs shows considerable variation
of not just a few, but many characteristics, thus creating
myriad possible forms that PMOs can and do take on:
‘‘Organizations establish a great variety of different
PMOs to deal with their reality. . .include some or all
of their project managers or place them elsewhere in
 S. Pellegrinelli, L. Garagna / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 649–656
Table 1
Categorisation of PMOs
Single-Project Multi-Project Entities
Entities
Type Project Office Project Support
Office
Principal Focus Co-ordination and Operational ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
of Activities support of project Process driven ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ! Business-driven
(programme) Narrow scope ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
Supportive ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ! Standards ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ! Direction
their structure. . .mandate may cover all the organiza-
tion’s projects or only a select few. . .number of possible
roles or functions. . . support role with little or no
authority. . . considerable decision-making power.”
Hobbs & Aubry, 2007, page 85
Hobbs and Aubry also found that PMOs are relatively
young, with over half (53%) being less than 2 years old,
findings that they state are consistent with earlier research.
PMOs emerge and are shut down, and then potentially re-
emerge. The relevance, or even the existence, of PMOs was
seriously questioned (in the previous 12 months) in 42% of
the organisations in Hobbs’ and Aubry’s survey. As Hobbs
and Aubry point out: ‘‘practitioners and organizations
would be well advised not to implement a PMO under
the naı̈ve assumptions of value for money or because
PMOs are popular” (page 85). PMOs have to show, on a
continual basis, that they are making a substantial contri-
bution to organisational performance at a reasonable cost.
The principal themes from the Hobbs and Aubry
research are that PMOs: (1) are diverse; (2) are expected
to justify their value added; (3) are formed, disbanded
and then potentially re-formed; and (4) should be expected
to go through change.
As Hobbs and Aubry acknowledge, our knowledge of
PMOs is sketchy. The normative presumptions of longevity
and obvious value creation, and the descriptions of PMO
generic types appear at odds with actual practice, thus
offering neither sound theory nor pragmatic guidance to
managers investigating the merits of (re)establishing a
PMO or leaders of PMOs wanting to add sustainable value
to their organisations.
3. Our narrative
The forum participants were not surprised by the diver-
sity of PMO forms, nor their emergence and disappearance
from the organisational landscape.
3.1. PMO purpose and tensions
PMOs are organisations’ responses to their needs and
environments – unique structural arrangements designed
to fulfil a specific purpose. As such, PMOs are unlikely
to fall neatly into generic types and would tend to have less
in common across organisations than might project man-
651
Project Management Programme (Portfolio)
Centre of Excellence Management Office
ƒ ƒ! Strategic
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ! Enterprise-wide
agement processes. Relevant questions when examining a
PMO, or exploring its formation appear to be: what is
the nature of the business? What is the role of projects
and programmes in the realisation of its business goals?
How mature are the organisation’s people and processes?
What is the organisation trying to achieve in establishing
or dissolving a PMO? There is unlikely to be easily
(unthinking) transferable ‘best practice’, and benchmark-
ing comparisons need to take into consideration the partic-
ular purposes and contexts of the PMOs.
The ARM experience reflects the view that PMOs are
created for a specific purpose and then disbanded, poten-
tially being re-established to address a new requirement
or make a step-change in the maturity of project or pro-
gramme management within the organisation:
‘‘We put a PMO in for one reason – nobody understood in
the company what project management was. So, we estab-
lished a PMO and put in project management processes.
Once they were established and everybody had gone
through that change, the question arose: What does the
PMO do? Part of the organisational development was that
projects aren’t unique entities – they are part of the oper-
ations of the whole business. So, where we didn’t have pro-
ject management, we needed to get everybody along into
the concept project management. But, the problem with
centralising it was that we then had to make it standard
operating practice to use projects. That’s why we got rid
of the PMO, because we wanted to force it into the oper-
ational business. We perform all the functions that are
typically associated with a PMO, but we do it as part of
our standard project management. Our project managers
do that as part of their job. It’s part of the process. It’s
part of the procedures. We’ve got a lot of infrastructure
in place, we’ve got a lot of tools in place, we’ve got a lot
of processes in place. But, what we’ve done is as much
as possible is to push it down, to make it the operational
practice of the business so that everybody naturally works
in project management mode.”
Now we’re faced with massive programmes and nobody
knows really what programme management is about.
We’re starting to ask: How are we going to educate the
whole company in programme management? We need to
take it to another level of maturity within the operation
of the business. I’ve got to move these guys a step forward.
652 S. Pellegrinelli, L. Garagna / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 649–656
That’s why we’re starting to think - actually now it makes
sense to create a PMO. We encourage our project manag-
ers to think global, act local. So, we’re trying to get all of
them to think about the implications of their project at the
divisional level but within their project to act within that
entity. We’re struggling at the moment with the idea of
reinstating a PMO just to do what we’ve come to do rou-
tinely, but we’re struggling to take the operation to the
next level of maturity.
The rapid birth and death of PMOs – with an average
life span of 3–4 years – and the need to justify themselves
[1] was deemed to reflect inherent tensions within the orga-
nisation. PMOs are the fulcrum between forces for central-
isation – the tendency for decision and policy making,
executive powers and resources allocation to reside in a
dedicated (line of) business unit or corporate function –
and decentralisation – the tendency for decision and policy
making, executive powers and resources allocation to be
devolved throughout the organisation to individuals or
operating unit. The PMO can be the battle ground between
empowerments and control, between people and processes,
and between political factions. As new forms of organising
gain the ascendancy or the balance of power shifts, which
seems to happen periodically in most organisations, the
PMO falls under the spotlight.
Creating a PMO takes away a degree of autonomy from
project managers and some power from the sponsors and
line managers, by bringing some decisions to a centre. That
stirs up political debates. The experience of some forum
participants was that project managers are individuals
who typically value autonomy and dislike standardisation,
and might well be expected to resist the discipline and
‘interference’ imposed by a PMO. Unless the PMO adds
considerable value it may find itself under pressure from
its own community, especially if the PMO is seen as an
‘ivory tower’, deciding upon things that it knows little
about or coming up with solutions and standards that ‘can-
not’ be used by project managers. PMOs can easily trans-
gress into doing work that is considered by others,
including project managers, as their role and so provoke
protectionist reactions and calls for their dissolution. If
the costs associated with central control, which may
include the loss of autonomy, creativity, entrepreneurship
and ownership, are too much to bear, then the PMO is
likely to be disbanded.
The disbanding of the PMO may, though, present the
organisation with a challenge, one being grappled by Tetra
Pak which is contemplating the future of its PMO:
When we reach a state of really mature project managers
and get the community, then they can self-manage. But
how do we manage the continuous improvement? How will
we ensure that we keep on fostering professionalism? Peo-
ple will be leaving and new people will be joining: Who will
ensure that project management will still be at the state of
the art? These are questions we haven’t answered yet.
3.2. Virtual PMOs
As a physical reality, the PMO is a point of contact,
whether it is high profile or low profile, and a repository
for processes, tools and expertise. It is a powerful manifes-
tation of the importance attached to (aspects of) project
and programme management. Nonetheless, a virtual
PMO [13], namely the discharge of the functions associated
with a PMO in the absence of an organisational entity, is a
viable option. ARM has created coordinating mechanisms
to take on some of the roles previously undertaken by the
PMO:
In terms of creating a virtual PMO, we’ve used the con-
cept of Steering Groups to re-create the functions of the
PMO. So, for example, we’ve transferred all the infra-
structures to the IT guys, but the way we define specifica-
tions across the Divisions is we have a Steering Group
made up of representatives of all the Divisions. They
determine the specification of any changes in the underly-
ing infrastructure. So, we’ve used Steering Groups as a
physical representation of what we’re doing within the
PMO at the end. We do it for the tools. We also do it
for the underlying project lifecycle framework. In a sense
that’s what we’ve used as a way to replace that PMO.
We’ve measured our success by how well has the PMO
actually managed to transfer all its knowledge, basically
how much has it made itself redundant.
The Steering Groups developed out of a need. We didn’t sit
down and think how are we going to create a virtual PMO?
We didn’t think that at all. It just evolved, because we sud-
denly realised we had thrown away something of value.
When we actually blew away the PMO, we went off in the
Divisions and we all did our own thing. The Operations guys
suddenly realised that they had actually thrown away some
value in this ‘practice stuff’. There was nobody who really
owned it. So, we got together and said: How do we do this,
how do we resolve this problem? And then the steering com-
mittees came in. What we essentially did was delegate and
certain project managers have got the responsibility of rep-
resenting Divisions across the company in those Steering
Groups and sorting out priorities and so on.
The Steering Groups have been very good at evolving what
exists. But like any committee it takes a long time to do
anything. Our thinking is that there is a value in a small
but unique entity which is prepared to break the existing
structures and create something. You need something to
break them and remake them again, which is where a
PMO comes in. Three, four, five years down the road you
come back and you say; ‘Right I’ve got to move the whole
organisation, not just simply add to it and therefore this
evolutionary change doesn’t work’.
Virtual PMOs may be unable to bring about step-
changes in the capabilities within the organisation, either
 S. Pellegrinelli, L. Garagna / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 649–656 653

in response to organisational needs or developments within The PMO would not be limited to purely administrative
the wider project and programme management commu- tasks.
nity. The risk to the organisation of a virtual PMO is very
slow evolution or relative decline, as the organisation fails
3.4. Re-conceptualising PMOs
to keep up with and exploit the latest tools, techniques and/
or technology.
PMOs, as organisational entities appearing on formal
organisational charts and endowed with dedicated
3.3. PMO re-emergence as an organisational entity
resources, might better be conceived as agents and subjects
of change and renewal rather than stable, enduring entities.
The debates within GlaxoSmithKline, Research and
Their creation or re-configuration is a major symbolic
Development (GSK R&D) suggest that PMO may re-
act and it signals a prospective change to some aspects of
emerge with fundamentally different roles:
organisational life. It says that a scope of work or set of
responsibilities is important enough to be pulled out from
In GSK R&D project managers are working more or less
the existing routines and handled separately or differently.
in the same way. Standardization isn’t a major issue. But,
PMOs take on responsibilities and powers that might
GSK R&D needs a PMO, but a different form of PMO,
otherwise reside in other parts of the organisation. In some
one more focused on providing administrative support.
instances, they set themselves up on the organisation chart,
We started with a group of project planners. We gave
almost like a target to be shot at. From a senior manage-
up this as the organisation developed. Portfolio manage-
ment perspective, it must be worth the organisational
ment and project management are now established, in
debate, haggling and upheaval. Arguably, a PMO’s value
terms of the project manager’s role and project manage-
lies in fighting battles that make a major difference in the
ment tools and approaches. We have had a centralised
performance of the organisation, establishing core disci-
PMO function at different points in time, sometimes with,
plines or prioritising longer terms objectives over quarterly
sometimes without the PMs in it. Now, after several years
results. Wider organisational change processes play a key
we are discussing the potential benefit of again having a
part in determining the opportunities and timings for the
centralised PMO. In terms of the PMI definition of a
creation, disbanding or re-creation of PMOs. Advocates
PMO, our current PM organisation is a PMO, so we
or leaders of PMOs need to tap into these organisational
already have one, with the activities normally associated
shifts and tensions, and to (re)shape their PMOs’ roles
with a PMO distributed across the site directors, portfolio
and activities accordingly.
management and capabilities. What we don’t currently
PMOs bring about change in an organisation and in the
have in our PMO is the role described in the texts, i.e. a
process, if they are successful, can make themselves redun-
planner/planning specialist - this role could be part of a
dant, or at least unable to justify their continued existence
PMO, but is not the totality of it. Our vision of the
in the face of political pressures, strategic priorities or eco-
PMO is a group of planners or analysts working across
nomic cost/benefit analysis.
the project management organisation, supporting and
The process can be conceived as a transfer of value from
relieving the project managers, with some of the project
the PMO to the rest of the organisation. For instance, once
management skills but not necessarily all of them. A
the PMO puts methods, standards and tools in place, and
PMO person can come from a Masters programme in
these become embedded in the organisation’s routines
Project Management for example, not necessarily having
and processes, then the contribution is made. As the
a drug development or a scientific background, but this is
PMO fosters professionalism in project and programme
not true for the other roles.
management and establishes a thriving community, its
once unique expertise now permeates throughout the orga-
This shift is being driven by a need to do more with less.
nisation. The PMO ‘empties’ itself in ‘enlightening’ the rest
We have to decide what kind of professionalism we are
of the organisation. PMO managers and staff may feel they
looking for, how many people we need, how costly is it
have more to give. But, other members of the organisation
to have people in different roles. That’s the level of analy-
may feel they have learned (enough) and know how to suc-
sis. The other key question is who is the project owner?
ceed on their own. Influential individuals may feel that a
The project managers need to be the owner, and have to
PMO, at least in its existing configuration, is no longer
be supported in providing the necessary levels of quality.
needed. In some instances the process of emptying is accel-
Today project managers in GSK R&D can have from
erated or forced upon the PMO by other functions within
one to seven projects. A project manager has one project
the organisation, as illustrated by the Tetra Pak experience:
if it’s a very big project – for instance, when the product
is approaching commercial launch, which has a high
degree of complexity. But with seven projects, for exam- When we started, we implemented and hosted within
ple, at the early stages of development, a person cannot PMO some IT tools, solutions for planning and managing
manage without any support. That’s the level of support projects. At the early stage we owned the tools in PMO.
we envisage, as well as some form of career development. Now we plan to transfer the tools to IT from an ownership
654 S. Pellegrinelli, L. Garagna / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 649–656
perspective, but we have still kept the functional responsi-
bilities. So we are still the ones ordering changes and
improvements to the tool. This is to ensure sustainability.
We are definitely transferring a big chunk of what we did
but we still maintain something to ensure this continues -
expertise overview. The responsibilities change from deliv-
ery to strategic value added.
And the same might happen in relationship to the profes-
sionalism of project managers. Today, we are performing
the interviews directly, so we are involved heavily in the
recruitment of project managers. But, HR will soon be
knocking at our door telling us: ‘OK, could you transfer
this knowledge because we are the ones performing inter-
views’. But we will not transfer it fully, we will keep a
small piece.
The PMO may ‘empty’ itself, but a ‘shell’ may remain,
maintaining coherence and providing strategic input.
One outcome is the virtual PMO, maintained and
evolved in the collective memory of people within the orga-
nisation, or through more structured processes such as
steering groups, or through sharing responsibilities across
nominated individuals. There may be many arrangements
that can sustain a necessary, continued ‘strategic’ overview
and gradual development of project and programme man-
agement practices within an organisation. Another out-
come is for the PMO to evolve, relinquishing many of
the operational tasks and generating novel forms of value
which it can transfer to the organisation. The oversight,
coherence, development elements of the old roles are com-
bined with more operational tasks of a new role.
A PMO’s precise roles and emphasis, and scope to
evolve, reflects the organisation’s unique needs and
priorities.
Organisations for whom projects and programmes sup-
plement or are peripheral to their core business might find
that their PMOs do not take one roles beyond the develop-
ment and introduction of systematic project management
(e.g. processes, methodologies, templates, support, exper-
tise, tools) and the professionalisation of project manage-
ment (e.g. creation of competence models and
frameworks for selecting, assessing, developing, appraising
and promoting project managers, communities of practice,
knowledge generation and sharing). These activities are
widely advocated and performed by PMOs [13,14]. In
organisations that are more project-based there is a need
to co-ordinate and extract the most benefits from projects
and programmes since they represent a significant propor-
tion of the resources available. Senior management then
wants to know: What is being done? What are the benefits?
Is the organisation getting value for money? Where is the
work taking the organisation from a strategic perspective?
These represent logical questions of corporate level control
and governance, and hence create a role for the PMO. For
some organisations projects and programmes are the busi-
ness, and the project/programme management culture is
embedded. Senior management and others in the organisa-
tion understand the project and programme management
intimately, and conduct the business through projects and
programmes.
Organisational change that increases the importance
and centrality of project and programme management
may trigger the development of new roles and competen-
cies or the re-establishment of a PMO. Changes and stres-
ses may also trigger the re-establishment of a PMO to
bolster or deepen existing (but possibly fading) competen-
cies. Greater complexity within and/or surrounding pro-
jects and programmes undertaken by the organisation
may see a PMO (re)created to increase professionalism.
A radical shift in strategy may see a PMO (re)created to
marshal resources and development efforts.
On the outside two PMOs may undertake similar activ-
ities, but may be performing quite different roles. One
PMO may be compiling status reports as a way of dissem-
inating best practices through role modelling what should
be done and how – a part of developing and introducing
systematic project management. Another PMO may be
doing the same work because it is the cost effective solution
– a shared services role.
In summary, PMOs are best conceived as agents and
subjects of change – formed, shaped, disbanded and re-
formed through the efforts of their leaders and wider
organisational undercurrents, strategic shifts and political
tensions.
4. Discussion
The conceptualisation posited in this paper has much in
common with the concepts of Aubry, Hobbs and Thuillier
[16], who offer a contextual, historical approach to the
study of PMOs. Their work transcends the boundaries of
positivist project management theory in building theory
on PMOs, incorporating the dynamic relationships
between organisational structure, strategy and organisa-
tional politics. By studying the development of PMOs in
four organisations, they suggest that the changes to PMOs’
form and function ‘‘can fruitfully be seen as an historical
process of creative destruction and co-evolution. (page
43)” Their concept of ‘‘bi-directional” (page 42) influence
is echoed in the narrative of the forum participants, as is
the need to ask: what purpose the PMO should serve? in
designing its roles and activities.
The conceptualisation derived from the forum narrative
complements and builds upon the work of Aubry, Hobbs
and Thuillier. It reinforced the notion of the PMO
responding to shifts in direction and supporting new strate-
gic directions, priorities and policies. It emphasises the
dynamic nature of PMO. It also adds a number of dimen-
sions to theory building on PMOs in the literature.
First, an explanation is offered on how PMOs might,
through the diffusion of methods, tools or expertise, cease
to generate sustainable value and be disbanded, even in
the absence of significant evolution or shifts in their organ-
 S. Pellegrinelli, L. Garagna / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 649–656
isational context. The notion of creative destruction implies
that one economic/organisational form is replaced by
another, rather than disappearing or taking on a virtual
existence. Moreover, organisational change is characterised
by periods of gradual or evolutionary change punctuated
by occasional periods of rapid, discontinuous or revolu-
tionary change [17]. The intervals between revolutionary
changes are generally much longer than the 3–4 years aver-
age life span of a PMO, even if we believe that the rate of
change is accelerating. In two of the case studies of Aubry,
Hobbs and Thuillier [14] there were long periods of relative
stability. The transfer of expertise and value from the PMO
to the rest of the organisation may also shed light on find-
ings of Dai and Wells [15]: ‘‘reported project performance
is higher in organizations that have a PMO in comparison
with organizations that do not, but not high enough to
merit statistical significance.” (page 531). The prevalence
of PMOs being disbanded and taking on a virtual existence
requires more empirical research, but the ARM case evi-
dences this possibility, along with the debates surrounding
the possible re-forming of a PMO. The forum participant
from one of the financial services groups was, in essence,
acting as a virtual PMO leader and trying to understand
whether to recommend to senior management the forma-
tion of a physical PMO.
Second, the narrative reflects that (these) leaders of
PMOs considered themselves part of the organisational
debate on their PMOs and instigators of purposeful change
and development. In essence, we propose that PMOs are
not merely buffeted or dispersed by the winds of (exoge-
nous) organisational change. Rather an agency role is
ascribed to leaders and advocates of PMOs. Forum mem-
bers held and shared views on development, learning and
progression, and espoused their commitment to add value
to their organisations. They held, and were enacting, con-
ceptions on how to advance their organisation’s capability
and maturity in project and programme management.
PMOs, though, are shaped by the interaction of functional
considerations as well as contextual (from a PMO perspec-
tive) factors, both internal and external to the organisation
and the agendas and aspirations of their leaders and advo-
cates. Whether there is a ‘rational’ development path that
leaders of PMOs should, do or can pursue, as posited or
implied in some texts [13,14,18], is yet to be determined.
But, our re-conceptualisation provides another source of
influence on the changing configurations of PMOs. The
pattern of change reported by Aubry, Hobbs and Thuillier
[14] resembles more a series of collages of activities rather
than a form of logical development. Our argument is that
the configurations of the PMO are better regarded as an
outcome shaped by debate between parties with different
knowledge, power and priorities.
Third, the notion that PMOs may relinquish the direct
performance of some tasks while retaining a degree of over-
sight for them is novel. It offers some insight into how
much seems to be done by so few [1]. It also indicates that
some of the work performed by a PMO may not be obvi-
655
ous nor declared. The oversight role, performed virtually
or alongside more tangible activities, warrants further
research, especially its relationship with other managerial
functions and formal or implicit knowledge management
practices.
5. Limitations
The conceptualisation offered has been distilled from,
and grounded in, the experiences of a group of experienced
practitioners. It appears consistent with the limited empir-
ical findings and resonates with other work in the field. It
offers some novel, and hopefully interesting, concepts on
an organisational phenomenon which is relatively under-
researched and poorly understood.
However, it is only a step in the journey of building
robust theory on PMOs. While the conception has plausi-
bility and consensual validity amongst the forum partici-
pants, its generalisability and relevance have yet to be
determined. In particular the range, influence and manifes-
tations of contextual factors are under-explored. It is
impossible to claim that the organisations represented at
the were representative of organisation that have or are
contemplating establishing a PMO, nor that the individuals
present know or shared the totality of the views, debates
and tensions within their respective organisations. Repre-
sentatives of organisations in other sectors where project
management is the deeply rooted way of working might
have generated more or different insights.
6. Conclusion
The deliberations of the forum have led to a re-concep-
tualisation of the PMO. Rather than a static, enduring
entity as portrayed in many texts, the PMO is re-conceived
as an agent and subject of change or renewal. It transforms
aspects of the organisations processes, routines and culture
and in so doing may undermine its very reason for being.
The fate of PMOs is determined through the interplay of
the intentions of its leaders and advocates and wider organ-
isational changes and tensions. PMOs are simultaneously
aspects of project and programme management practice
and organisational constructions.
Our aim in this paper has been to provide a richer
insight into a complex phenomenon, in part through the
narrative with its cameos of the deliberations, questions,
challenges and dilemmas experienced by various organisa-
tions, and in part through the resulting conceptualisation
of PMOs. We hope the paper has stimulated your thinking.
We also hope it will inspire further research, more diverse
in terms of perspectives and more informed in terms of
theory.
References
[1] Hobbs B, Aubry M. A multi-phase research program investigating
project management office (PMOs). Project Manage J 2007:74–86.
656 S. Pellegrinelli, L. Garagna / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 649–656
[2] Reason P. Human inquiry as discipline and practice. In: Reason P,
editor. Participation in human inquiry. UK: Sage Publications; 1994.
[3] Tranfield D, Denyer D, Marcos J, Burr M. Co-producing manage-
ment knowledge. Manage Decis 2004;42(3–4):375–86.
[4] Blaikie N. Approaches to social enquiry. UK: Polity Press; 1993.
[5] Weick KE. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad
Manage Rev 1989;14(4):515–31.
[6] Fritz R. The path of least resistance. New York: Fawcett Books; 1989
(Revised edition).
[7] Bohm D. On dialogue. New York: Routledge; 2004.
[8] Giddens A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of
structuration. UK: Polity Press; 1984.
[9] Berger PL, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality. New
York: Garden City; 1966.
[10] Hatch MJ. Organization theory: modern, symbolic-interpretive and
postmodern perspectives. UK: Oxford University Press; 1997.
[11] Aubry M, Hobbs B, Thuillier D. A new framework for understanding
organisational project management through the PMO. Int J Project
Manage 2007;25:328–36.
[12] Project Management Institute. PMBOK: a guide to the project
management body of knowledge. 3rd ed. PMI, Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute; 2004.
[13] Marsh D. The project and programme support office handbook. UK:
Project Manager Today Publications; 2001.
[14] Dinsmore PC. Winning in business with enterprise project manage-
ment. New York: AMACOM; 1999.
[15] Englund RL, Graham RJ, Dinsmore PC. Creating the project office.
A manager’s guide to leading organizational change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass; 2003.
[16] Aubry M, Hobbs B, Thuillier D. Organisational project management:
an historical approach to the study of PMOs. Int J Project Manage
2008;26:38–43.
[17] Miller D, Friesen PH. Momentum and revolution in organizational
adaptation. Acad Manage Rev 1984;23(4):591–614.
[18] Hill GM. Evolving the project management office: a competency
continuum. Inform Syst Manage 2004;21(4):45–51 (Fall 2004).