INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

A new framework for understanding organisational

project management through the PMO
Monique Aubry *, Brian Hobbs 1, Denis Thuillier 2

School of Business and Management, Department of Business and Technology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical contribution to the study of organisational project management and of the project management
office (PMO). The PMO should no longer be considered an isolated island within an organisation. It is our premise that the PMO is
part of a network of complex relations that links strategy, projects and structures and thus is a point of entry into the organisation
to study the foundations of organisational project management. We argue that the study of such complex relationships within an orga-
nisation should turn away from the traditional positivist approach to a new conceptual framework. The proposed theoretical framework
draws from three complementary fields – innovation, sociology and organisational theory – to form an innovative understanding of the
PMO and organisational project management.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: PMO; Organisational project management; Innovation; Organisation theory

1. Introduction
Innovation plays an important role in the place project
management now has in organisations. Growth of a firm
is associated with its capacity to constantly renew its prod-
uct portfolio. At the same time, there is economic pressure
to reduce the time to market. Both lead to a rise in the num-
ber of projects undertaken simultaneously within firms and
consequently to the complexity of managing them [1].
Innovative forms of organising are emerging [2] and not
surprisingly we see quite a few concepts related to multi-
project management emerging within the project manage-
ment literature: programme and portfolio management
[3,4], project-based or project-oriented organisation [5,6]
and project management office [7].
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 987 3000x4658; fax: +1 514 987
3343.
E-mail addresses: aubry.monique@uqam.ca (M. Aubry), hobbs.
brian@uqam.ca (B. Hobbs), thuillier.denis@uqam.ca (D. Thuillier).
1
Tel.: +1 514 987 3000x3721; fax: +1 514 987 3343.
2
Tel.: +1 514 987 3000x7783; fax: +1 514 987 3343.
The PMI and the IPMA have confirmed the expansion
of the field of project management beyond a focus on the
management of projects to embrace the management of
programs, portfolios and organisations that achieve their
strategic objectives through projects, programs, and port-
folios or ‘‘organisational project management’’. The goal
of organisational project management is not just to deliver
projects on time, on budget and in conformity with techni-
cal and quality specifications. The goal is to create value for
the business.
A review of the literature does not provide a clear con-
ceptualization or definition of organisational project man-
agement. What we observe globally is that the current
project management literature is lacking two elements: the-
oretical foundations and valid, verified empirical models.
The two are related. The current literature presents a major
professional tendency aimed at short-term results. Though
several models exist, the majority of them have yet to
undergo a solid empirical validation process. These ele-
ments lead to the need for research that is aimed at under-
standing organisational project management structures

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.01.004
 M. Aubry et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
and the dynamics through which project management con-
tributes to organisational performance.
We will review the current literature on related con-
cepts. We will then attempt to define the concept of organ-
isational project management and the place the PMO has
in it. Finally, we will propose a basic framework that will
support the exploration of organisational project manage-
ment using the PMO as the gateway into the organisation.
As suggested by Van de Ven in Engaged Scholarship, ‘‘the
critical task is to adopt and use the models, theories, and
research methods that are appropriate for the research
problem and question being address’’ [8, p. 7]. Our frame-
work is bold as it draws from three theoretical fields: inno-
vation theory, sociology and organisational theory. Using
innovation theories, we build on the concepts of social
innovation systems and co-evolution theory, taking into
account the history and context of the PMO at the organ-
isational level and at the micro-level. The network struc-
ture approach and actor network theory (ANT) are from
the field of sociology. Both will be used to depict the
PMO as a network, the former in its structural aspect,
and the latter in examining the relationships among the
actors involved. The conceptualisation of organisational
performance and of the value of the PMO is drawn from
the competing values model that allows for the coexistence
of a plurality of perspectives to evaluate organisational
performance. Together these concepts open up new ave-
nues for the study of organisational project management.
We think that this approach offers a new perspective con-
tributing to the revitalization of the field of project
management.
The model presented in this paper is being used as the
theoretical basis of an empirical investigation of organisa-
tional project management [9]. The research question of
the current empirical work is ‘‘How to understand the
PMO and its contribution to organisational performance?’’
This empirical work focuses on organisations that do pro-
jects for themselves rather than for external customers.
These organisations have implemented PMOs as part of
their strategy for managing projects and for dealing with
the issues relative to organisational project management.
The study of organisational project management is facili-
tated in these organisations because project management
activities tend to concentrated and more easily visible in
organisations that have implemented PMOs. The discus-
sion that follows and the theoretical model are relevant,
however, in other contexts.
2. Literature review
The literature review is intended to provide an under-
standing of the founding fields on which the conceptual
framework is based, and to identify it’s limitations as far
as providing satisfactory answers to current issues. Five
fields are discussed in the next sections: strategic alignment,
programme and portfolio management, project-based
organisation, PMO and organisational performance.
329
2.1. Strategic alignment: a need that becomes a function
The issue of alignment is associated with the need to join
together portfolios of disparate, proliferating projects into
an efficient, coherent whole [5]. This need for strategic
alignment becomes a function within the organisation.
Organisations must adapt their strategic processes in order
to face changes in their environment and they must adjust
themselves quickly [9]. Project management at the strategic
level (including programme and project portfolio) is con-
sidered a means to implement corporate strategy. The
translation of strategy into programs and projects is recog-
nised as a core process [11]. However, these authors recog-
nise that project strategy management is not sufficiently
explored in the business and project literature. Other recent
empirical research shows that not all organisations succeed
in the linkage between projects and strategy [12]. It seems
as if a paradox exists between, on the one hand, the organ-
isational desirability of linking strategy and projects, and
on the other, the concrete actions that organisations take
to achieve them [10].
A second facet of strategic alignment bears on the syn-
ergy created by the management of the relations between
projects. In other words, the performance related to the
management of the whole goes beyond the sum of the per-
formance of the individual projects. The identification of
benefits related to the management of these relations can
be found in the specific literature related to the platform
approach [1] and to programmes and project portfolios
[10,13,14]. For the moment, these benefits may well be
wishful thinking since they have not yet been verified by
solid empirical research.
A third facet focuses on preparation for the future and
rarely appears in a specific way in the strategic project man-
agement literature. The future is envisioned from an oper-
ational viewpoint rather than strategically, for example, in
relation to the evolution towards project management
maturity [15] and the development of resource competen-
cies in project management [16].
The current literature provides models for the link
between corporate strategy and projects. Some empirical
results confirm the role of project management in facilitat-
ing the implementation of corporate strategy. However, the
literature related to business and project management lacks
empirical studies to describe in detail the processes of strat-
egy translation from the corporate level down to the execu-
tion of the project. In summary, the current project
management literature only partially covers the breadth
of strategic alignment.
2.2. Programme and portfolio management
It is not surprising to note some confusion in the defini-
tion of new concepts, as is the case in most of the existing
studies of programme and project portfolios. The confu-
sion in this literature stems from a semantic gap between
the meanings given to the concepts of programme and
330 M. Aubry et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
project portfolio [10]. In the preceding sub-section, we saw
that strategic alignment is generally considered to be a
function within the organisation. The confusion is related
to the identification of processes responsible for this func-
tion, and whether they are programme or portfolio pro-
cesses. Consequently, their roles differ depending upon
the definitions adopted by each author.
Authors who place the project portfolio as the major
interface with corporate strategy propose a cascade from
global strategy down to portfolios, from portfolios down
to programs, and then from programs down to individual
projects [5,11]. In this sense, programs are at the heart of
the project portfolio.
Other authors who present programme management as
the major process linking strategy and individual projects
attribute a secondary role to project portfolio manage-
ment, namely that of project selection and support [3,4].
This approach to programme management covers a larger
reality than the more generalized definition of a pro-
gramme as ‘‘a group of related projects managed in a coor-
dinated way to obtain benefits and control not available
from managing them individually’’ [17, p. 16].
Portfolio management refers also to an instrumental
approach. Several methodologies have been proposed to
balance a portfolio of projects [18,19]. In this portfolio
management perspective, the project portfolio context con-
tains an essential structural component.
Doubtless, it is essential to link projects to organisa-
tional strategy and it is clear from the literature that pro-
cesses such as programme and portfolio management are
part of that picture. But, in looking for a new definition
of organisational project management, it will be necessary
to clarify the semantic context of programme and portfolio
management. Confusion between these concepts prevents
conceptual leadership from occurring and paving the way
towards solid foundations. Programme and portfolio man-
agement both have a role to play in strategising. Organising
them to play this role is a major issue that leads project
management to be firmly anchored in the organisation.
2.3. Project-based or project-oriented organisation
The terms project-oriented or project-based organisation
and the more generic term of managing by projects can be
applied to organisations whose strategic business objectives
rely on results from projects or programs [5]. This
approach goes beyond the classic view of project manage-
ment structures that answers the question, ‘‘How should
we manage this project within our organisation?’’ [20,21].
The classic project organisation literature proposes three
possibilities: functional organisation, matrix organisation,
and organisation by project [17,21].
A contrario, the concept of project-oriented organisation
relates to a global structural approach for more effective
project delivery. This question goes beyond the examina-
tion of the strict project structure and the position of a
given project in the organisation to address the structural
problem from the point of view of the organisational level.
This leads to research agendas that reflect different schools
of thought. Among others, Turner and Keegan [22] pro-
pose looking at the versatile project-oriented firm as a dual
set of functions, one of governance and one of operational
control.
Dinsmore [23] proposed a corporate view of project
management where the organisation is seen as a portfolio
of projects and introduced the idea of managing organisa-
tion by projects. In a more recent research, Lampel and Jha
[24] explore the relationship between projects and the cor-
porate environment using the construct of project orienta-
tion. Their initial findings conclude that this interface is a
locus of tension. The lack of understanding of the causes
and dynamics of tension between projects and organisa-
tions leads to friction and failure. This insight confirms
the necessity to shed light on the global organisation where
projects are realised in a dynamic environment alongside
operations.
The R&D literature also provides a complementary dis-
cussion on project-based organisations for dealing with the
development of complex products and services [25]. Case
studies presented by Hobday concluded that ‘‘one size does
not fit all’’. In certain circumstances functional or matrix
structures deliver better results than those of project-based
organisations, particularly in the coordination of resources
across projects and in organisation-wide learning. They
propose a new type, the project-led organisation, to over-
come the problems inherent to project-based organisation.
The literature on project-based organisation has two
limitations. First, there is a tendency to focus strictly on
the structural problem instead of seeing structure as part
of a global organisational process. Second, apart from
those adopting an economic perspective, many of the
papers on the subject propose models that lack theoretical
foundations.
The literature from innovation also describes new forms
of organisation that go beyond the hierarchical structure
and take various names such as networking [26], N-Form
[27], molecular [28] and cellular [29]. It recognises that
operations and projects coexist [30] thus adding to the com-
plexity of their dynamics. It is essential to go back to a
basic understanding of the nature of an organisation and
address the new issues related to strategic alignment, pro-
gramme and portfolio management and project-oriented
or project-based organisations. By doing so, new founda-
tions will emerge.
2.4. Description of the project management office
Treatment of the PMO is relatively plentiful in the pro-
fessional literature, but relatively absent in the scientific lit-
erature [7,13,31–34]. These texts deal principally with three
themes: the justification of the PMOs existence, its roles
and functions, and steps for its implementation.
Though the PMOs origin dates back to the 1950s [35], it
is not before the 1990s that this concept really took shape
 M. Aubry et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
and expanded into the forms we see today [40]. The emer-
gence of and the need for the PMO is associated with the
increasing number and complexity of projects throughout
the business world which led to a certain form of central-
ization [36]. However, the reality of PMOs is highly diver-
gent. Nearly 75 unique functions have been identified [37],
some traditional some innovative [34]. A recent empirical
study based on the description and analysis of 500 PMOs
documents this extreme variety but fails to find systematic
patterns or explanations [38].
In this context, we adopt the definition proposed by
PMI [17]: ‘‘An organisational body or entity assigned var-
ious responsibilities related to the centralized and coordi-
nated management of those projects under its domain.
The responsibilities of the PMO can range from providing
project management support functions to actually being
responsible for the direct management of a project’’.
This definition is rather broad but it is essential that it
cover all the realities found empirically. PMOs have many
facets and observation shows great heterogeneity among
them. Choices are made among several configurations of
structure. Which functions? Where in the organisation?
With what level of authority? [9,38] Current theoretical
foundations for the PMO do not answer these questions.
2.5. Organisational performance
Performance is nearly always the ultimate dependent
variable in the literature on organisations in general and
on the subject of project management in particular. The
problem is to establish a reliable relationship between per-
formance and other variables at a comparable level of anal-
ysis. It is essential to clarify the level of analysis.
The strategic alignment literature introduces the concept
of cascading levels of analysis of performance from the cor-
porate down through to the portfolio and programme levels,
and finally to the project level [11,12]. Project performance is
sometimes evaluated using success criteria. Project success is
measured by the business objectives, while the project man-
agement success is evaluated instead with traditional criteria
such as respect of costs, schedule and quality [39].
Performance has its origin in the old French parfournir
and is defined today as ‘‘what is accomplished’’. The ety-
mology brings us straight to the point, what indeed is
accomplished by project management and how should we
evaluate it?
There are two types of literature on the subject: eco-
nomic and pragmatic. In the first type, researchers try to
demonstrate the direct economic contribution of project
management to the bottom line [40,41]. Interestingly, none
of these researchers has been able to convincingly demon-
strate the economic value of investment in project manage-
ment. Results of the research by Ibbs et al. [41] are not
statistically significant [42]. The clear demonstration of
the direct influence of project management on ROI is not
easily accomplished. In addition, the reduction of project
management value exclusively to financial indicators
331
underestimates major contributions that project manage-
ment brings to organisational success, for example, innova-
tion [43], process [44], and people [45]. Furthermore, the
multifaceted concept of project success is acknowledged
by several authors [12,46].
The second type of literature is pragmatic. It focuses on
the global proposals issued by consultants aimed at indicat-
ing the way to succeed in the implementation and manage-
ment of the PMO [7,13,31]. Titles sometimes foster hope
for rapid economic results linked to the PMO, ‘‘Advanced
Project Portfolio Management and the PMO, Multiplying
ROI at Warp Speed’’ [31]. And yet it still seems difficult
to demonstrate the value of the PMO.
The balanced scorecard approach has been proposed to
assess project management performance [47,48]. It has the
advantage over the traditional economic vision of project
performance of encompassing four complementary per-
spectives. However, the foundations of this approach rest
on ROI. It structures the creation of value hierarchically
with financial value at the top [49,50].
Several authors have encompassed the problem of per-
formance in an approach that seeks to identify success fac-
tors. Cooke-Davies proposes a systematization of ‘‘real’’
success factors derived largely from empirical data
[15,39]. He suggests a set of twelve factors related to the
three distinct ways of looking at performance: project man-
agement success (time, cost, quality, etc.), project success
(benefits), and corporate success (processes and decisions
to translate strategy into programs and projects). Further-
more, Cooke-Davies [15] argues these three groups are inti-
mately linked; corporate project and programme practices
create the context for individual project and programme
practices. While success factors allow us to understand
the a priori conditions in organisational project manage-
ment, they do not allow us to appreciate concrete results,
in other words, performance.
There is no consensus on the way to assess the value of
performance in project management. The financial
approach alone cannot give a correct measure of the value
of project management for the organisation. Project suc-
cess is a vague approximation and, as such, a rather imper-
fect system for measuring results. New approaches are
needed in order to extricate ourselves from what looks like
a dead-end. Project management is a multidisciplinary field
leading to a variety of evaluation criteria.
From the review of the literature in this section it
appears that there is a need to renew the formalization of
our understanding of organisational project management.
The traditional positivist approach and the concentration
of research on project management tools and practices take
us down a path from which we must veer. In addition, the
few promising theoretical initiatives that can be found on
the subject must be integrated into a more holistic view
of the organisation. New paths for gaining information
and understanding must be opened up from other theoret-
ical fields. This is the object of our conceptual framework
that will be discussed in the next section.
332 M. Aubry et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
3. The definition of organisational project management
Innovation is essential to the survival of organisations
[51]. This means that the largest part of their strategy is
to develop new products, new services or new processes
[52]. Projects are more and more important in the quest
to reach ambitious strategic objectives [11]. Organisational
structures that were designed for regular operations are
unable to deliver project results in this turbulent context
[6,30]. In response to these unprecedented demands, new
forms of organisation emerged during the 1990s, among
them the project-based organisation [53]. The dynamic pro-
cesses of organising/strategising that can be found in the
new forms of organisation are those encountered in pro-
ject-oriented organisational forms [53]. A new order of
issues is thus emerging, namely organisational project
management.
3.1. Proposition for a definition
From what has been said in the review of literature,
none of the preceding themes provides a global approach
to the nature of organisational project management com-
parable to the scope of the existing literature on organisa-
tional management. If it is true that project management is
present at all levels of the organisation, then the definition
of organisational project management should reflect this
fact. We therefore propose the following definition:
‘‘Organisational project management is a new sphere of
management where dynamic structures in the firm are
articulated as means to implement corporate objectives
through projects in order to maximize value’’.
This definition can be explored in four parts. First,
organisational project management is a new sphere of man-
agement. It offers the opportunity to renew research
approaches by opening the door to organisational theory
and getting away from traditional research where project
management is treated in a positivist approach [54]. As
such, we propose that project management fully integrate
the field of management as has been suggested recently
[55]. To succeed in this journey, it is essential to consider
issues related to project management as management
issues. Until very recently, organisations where looking to
deliver projects more efficiently and the concept of pro-
ject-based organisation was sufficient to address this issue.
Now, organisations have to go further and take into
account structures, accountability and power to organise
the management of their projects. Organisational project
management refers to management decisions in complex
environments where multiple programmes and portfolios
are realised in parallel along with operational activities.
Second, organisational project management refers to
dynamic structures in the firm that are articulated. This is
based on the assumption that structures are constantly
questioned and modified over time to adapt to the strategy
in a changing environment. Strategising/structuring depict
the dynamic relationship between strategy and structure
[53]. These dynamic structures are considered at the level
of the firm. The articulation refers to the assembly of multi-
ple mobile structural entities such as PMO, portfolio and
programme management, project governance board, etc.
Together these entities form a complex web of relationships
working in a network-like form invisible on the organisa-
tion chart.
Third, dynamic structures are seen as means to imple-
ment corporate objectives through projects. The sphere of
organisational project management does not replace the
global organisational management. It rather represents
structures as a set of means anchored at the corporate level.
Implementation refers to the actions that are undertaken to
attain the corporate objectives. These actions are projects
that are aligned with the corporate strategy resulting in
implementing the right project, in other words being effec-
tive. The definition is inclusive as it covers all projects that
are realised in the firm, strategic and non-strategic.
Fourth, organisational project management delivers
value for the organisation. It addresses the issue of measure
of this value, should it be quantitative or qualitative or
both. The concept of value allows for multiple conceptuali-
sations of project and organisational performance.
Globally, the definition of organisational project man-
agement brings the project management field to be part
of big science. It recognises a certain convergence between
management and organisation theories and organisational
project management.
3.2. Boundaries of organisational project management
Other concepts from the project management literature
partially cover the definition of organisational project man-
agement but none offers the opportunity to position it as a
sphere of management. Organisational project manage-
ment has been previously looked at in the context of assess-
ing maturity of organisation [56] and developing project
management capability [57]. Both approaches aim at iden-
tifying capabilities related to project management at the
organisational level. While these are important contribu-
tions to the project management field our definition
extends the concept to the management field and not only
to issues of capability.
The concept of Project Business has emerged recently
and is define as: ‘‘the part of business that relates directly
or indirectly to projects, with a purpose to achieve objec-
tives of a firm or several firms.’’ [58]. Organisational project
management refers to the sphere of management and not a
part of the organisation itself; it is the management of it.
Organisational project management does not call to
transform organisations in adopting a management strat-
egy ‘‘by projects’’ as in the concept of enterprise project
management [23,33] or project-based organisation [5]. It
recognises rather that structures are changing as strategy
does and the important thing is that they are linked
together in a dynamic strategising/structuring process.
 M. Aubry et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
Organisational project management is distinct from pro-
ject governance defined as a set of formal principles, struc-
tures and processes for the undertaking and management
of projects [59]. Project governance in this sense is a set
of means (as organisational project management) but the
accent is placed on the respect of governance rules that
are essential in project management. But, it takes only a
partial view of organisational project management missing
the dynamics of strategising/structuring and the projects’
alignment with the corporate objectives.
It also takes a different perspective from the one of look-
ing at the synergy between multiple projects such as portfo-
lio [18,19], platform [60] or trajectory management [1].
Synergy adds value and in that sense all multi-project
approaches are taken in consideration in the organisational
project management. It participates to the decisions that
have to be made in structuring project management
entities.
So this definition is about management of organisation
and more precisely about organising. Structures are the
result of a dynamic strategising/structuring process [53].
The double-sided strategising/structuring indicates that a
tight relation exists between the two elements. But it should
not be interpreted to mean that organisational project
management is concerned with strategic projects only.
Almost all firms realised non-strategic projects such as
compulsory projects and maintenance.
Organisational project management is therefore a unique
and novel approach that may lead to a better integration of
the project management within the global management of
organisations. It may contribute to the recognition of project
management in the global management literature. The next
section describes the conceptual framework.
4. Conceptual framework
Organisational project management has been defined
and the related concepts such as strategic alignment, pro-
ject-based organisation, and PMO have been described.
We have explained our global approach of focusing on
the PMO. We are now looking for a theoretical framework
that has the potential to embrace the complexity and rich-
ness of the subject. We have adopted a constructivist ontol-
ogy where the PMO is a dynamic constructed entity. Three
theoretical fields have been mobilized to contribute to the
understanding of the PMO: social innovation system, net-
work theory and organisational performance (see Fig. 1).
4.1. Social innovation system
We have said earlier that innovation plays an important
role in the emergence of multi-project environments. Over
the last two decades innovation theorists have taken the
social system dimension of innovation into consideration
[61]. Organisations do not exist in a vacuum. They are part
of a large number of complex interrelated systems such as
the social system, the economic system, etc. in which
333
Fig. 1. Organisational project management: a conceptual framework.
history plays a dynamic role. The PMO is seen here as a
constructed entity that is part of a social innovation sys-
tem. Taking this approach will give a completely new
vision of the PMO. Instead of having an ad hoc picture
we will follow the evolution of this entity along with the
evolution of its mother organisation. Our study examines
innovation systems from three complementary perspec-
tives: the historical perspective, the co-evolutionary per-
spective, and the perspective of a typology of innovation.
The historical context is taken into account at two levels
of analysis: the organisation and the PMO. The history of
the organisation provides information about its origin, its
evolution in its specific economic sector, and the evolution
of its organisational structure. The history of the PMO
brings information on project management practices and
internal PMO structures. Globally, the history informs us
on how an organisation has adapted itself to changes in
the business environment.
Telling the PMOs history is not enough to bring a com-
prehensive understanding for why changes occur. We have
to look more specifically at the events that delimitate peri-
ods. Evolutionary theory would help understand the evolu-
tion of one entity, the PMO, while a co-evolutionary
perspective helps us understand the PMOs evolution within
the social system of an organisation [62]. This perspective
allows us to interconnect events that happen at different
levels in the organisation. Events are classified into three
types: technological, rule making, and rule-following [62].
Events occur and co-evolve over time to facilitate or to
constrain the development and commercialization of an
innovation that could be radical or incremental. In the
PMO context, events are related to it’s legitimacy to make
rules (methodology, standards, etc.) and having others to
follow them. Rule-making can give rise to situations of ten-
sion between the PMO and other functional units, or even
between the PMO and the project and programme manag-
ers. The issue is to determine who will impose the rules of
the game. Rule-following events confirm process standard-
ization. Indeed, if rules are followed and accepted, they
indicate a relative stability until a new event shatters them.
This process continues over and over again with the alter-
nation between initiation, expansion, and stabilization
periods.
334 M. Aubry et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
The third perspective relates to the type of innovation
undertaken in organisation. Classifying innovations under
scope is based on Schumpeter’s proposal (1934, cited in
[63]) and includes five areas: product, process, market,
input, and organisation. However, this first classification
must be completed with information on the source of inno-
vation: internal to the organisation or external [64].
Typologies of projects based upon innovation are
included in our conceptual framework in order to provide
a more rigorous analysis of the PMO. In addition, the con-
cept of a social system of innovation influences choices in
the methodological strategy that more accurately takes into
account the history of the organisation and the PMO. This
strategy results in a longitudinal study of the evolution of
dynamic structures as suggested by our definition of organ-
isational project management. Let’s turn now to the second
key concept, the PMO.
4.2. The place of the project management office in the
conceptual framework
The aim of the empirical research currently underway is
to better understand the PMO and its contribution to the
organisational performance. We have already situated the
PMO within the social innovation system without looking
at the PMO itself. This section intends to provide a theoret-
ical framework to describe the PMO. The PMO is treated
here as a concept that enables us to break down barriers
and boundaries existing in the actual perception of the real-
ity of the PMO, and to propose new avenues for looking at
this component within organisational project management.
Conceptually speaking, the PMO is one of the dynamic
structures within organisational project management. We
have seen earlier that current literature offers only few
models to describe the reality of PMOs while empirical
research shows variation that cannot be easily explained
by variables such as geographical region or industry type
[38]. We suggest taking the problem on the inverse way:
admit variety and try to understand it.
To better understand the PMO, we draw on two theoret-
ical fields in the literature related to innovation; both of
these are based on the concept of a network. The first
one is from Hagström and Hedlund [30] and proposes a
three-dimensional framework to understand the structure:
position, knowledge, and action. This framework formalizes
the multi-dimensional typology of the PMO and has the
potential to capture the dynamic and non-hierarchical
way in which the PMO works. Position refers to the struc-
tural organisation of people and units in terms of formal
status, situation, and authority. Knowledge includes knowl-
edge per se and competencies; both are distributed along
networks in the organisation like islands of an archipelago.
Actions refer to the way in which activities are accom-
plished. Are they accomplished in a hierarchical way or
in a team? Roles and functions of the PMO are subject
to various configurations established in order to ensure
the transmission of knowledge and the accomplishment
of goals and actions. This part of the framework sheds light
on the structural side of the PMO by breaking down the
complexity into three dimensions. But the PMO creates
relations among a great number of actors (some non-
human) involved in the management of projects.
The second field of theory brings this relationship aspect
to the forefront with the actor network theory (ANT) [65].
In this perspective, the PMO is a translation center where
information from projects originates from different sources
and is then integrated in intermediate deliverables to be dis-
seminated at different levels within the organisation. These
activities of translation give rise to debates between actors,
and result in successively strengthening some networks to
the detriment of others. This theory provides the opportu-
nity to identify different actor networks and their purpose
in the existence of the PMO. ANT is now easier to use as
a methodology has been formalized in 10 steps around
the translation issue [66].
Structural dimensions and the ANT are two sides of the
same coin; they are tightly interwoven with one comple-
menting the other. Together they provide new insight for
understanding the key concept of the PMO. The next key
concept is organisational performance, which we will now
develop.
4.3. Organisational contribution of the PMO
We have seen that the question of performance is of
great importance in the PMO professional literature. In a
positivist approach, performance is a dependant variable
resulting form the PMO structural choice [13]. It is based
on the assumption that one best PMO structure exists
and it leads to best results that can be assessed with ROI.
In a constructivist approach, the PMO and its organisa-
tional contribution are built up together during their evolu-
tion. We have chosen to include the organisational
contribution of the PMO as a concept describing the
PMO rather than considering it as a pure dependent
variable.
The conceptualization of the organisation contribution
in our conceptual framework is based on a ‘‘competing val-
ues approach’’. In this approach, organisational contribu-
tion is seen as a subjective construct rooted in values and
preferences of stakeholders [53,67,68]. The model includes
four representations intended to provide an overall view
of organisational project management performance. Thera-
tional goals representation integrates economic value to
measure profit, project management efficiency, and return
on investment. The open system representation contains
variables that measure growth and consider project bene-
fits. The human relations representation introduces consid-
erations of human resource development, cohesion, and
morale that are almost invisible in corporate evaluation.
The internal process representation captures the measures
related to corporate processes linked to project manage-
ment such as programme and portfolio processes and
knowledge management processes. This approach looks
 M. Aubry et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
directly at the performance aspect instead of approximat-
ing it with success factors.
The model of competing values is appropriate to describe
the contribution of the PMO as it participates to multiple
networks and is in contact with projects, programs, portfo-
lios, corporate strategy, and many functional units. It is ide-
ally placed to encompass multiple perspectives on
organisation contribution. This model captures internal par-
adoxes and sheds light on competing values around PMOs.
It makes it possible to highlight the predominant value
ascribed to each stakeholder within the PMO network
throughout the different periods of its evolution.
Is there an underlying pattern to this coevolution? The
conceptual framework using these three basic concepts
offers the potential to discover it and, in addition, to con-
struct a theory for understanding the PMO and its contri-
bution to organisational performance.
5. Conclusion
This paper provides a theoretical contribution that seeks
to renew the project management research field. It aims at
partially filling the missing link between the complexity of
the reality in organisational project management and the
current state of theoretical foundations on this filed. It
adopts a clear constructivist approach in an area where lit-
erature is mostly positivist and limited to professional
issues. We have first defined the organisational project
management concept of which the PMO is part. Organisa-
tional project management opens the way for project man-
agement to become a sphere within the fields of
management and organisation theory. We then propose a
conceptual framework that mobilizes different organisa-
tional and innovation theories in order to bring fresh con-
cepts that mirror the complexity of organisations where
projects are an important structuring component.
Both researchers and professionals should benefit from
this research, which may provide a stronger basis for
understanding the complex phenomena of structuring/
organising in large organisations. The framework is cur-
rently being used and tested in an empirical study aimed
at ‘‘understanding the PMO and its contributions to organ-
isational performance’’.
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank reviewers for their comments
that have allowed us to push our reflection on the PMO
and Organisational project management further. This re-
search is partly funded by the Project Management Insti-
tute Research Department.
References
[1] Fernez-Walch S, Triomphe C. Le management multi-projets, défini-
tions et enjeux. In: Garel G, Giard V, Midler C, editors. Faire de la
recherche en management de projet. Paris: Vuibert; 2004. p. 189–207.
335
[2] Pettigrew A, Massini S. Innovative forms of organizing: trends in
Europe, Japan and the USA in the 1990s. In: Pettigrew A,
Whittington R, Melin L, Sanchez-Runde C, Van den Bosch FA,
Ruigrok W, Numagami T, editors. Innovative forms of organizing.
London, UK: Sage; 2003. p. 1–33.
[3] Pellegrinelli S. Programme management: organising project-based
change. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(3):141–9.
[4] Thiry M. Program management: a strategic decision management
process. In: Morris PW, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
p. 257–87.
[5] Gareis R. Management of the project-oriented company. In: Morris
PW, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. p. 123–43.
[6] Turner JR, Keegan A. Mechanisms of governance in the project-
based organization: roles of the broker and steward. Eur Manage J
2001;19(3):254–67.
[7] Crawford KJ. The strategic project office. New York, NY: Marcel
Dekker; 2002.
[8] Van de Ven AH. Engaged Scholarship: creating knowledge for
science and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.
[9] Hobbs B, Aubry M. A research program investigating project
management offices (PMOs). Project Manage J, submitted for
publication.
[10] Van den broecke E, De Hertogh D, Vereecke A. Implementing
strategy in turbulent environments: a role for program and portfolio
management. In: Proceedings of annual conference of North Amer-
ica, Toronto, Canada; 2005.
[11] Jamieson A, Morris PWG. Moving from corporate strategy to project
strategy. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
p. 177–205.
[12] Dietrich P, Lehtonen P. Successful strategic management in multi-
project environment: reflections from empirical study. In: Proceedings
of 6th IRNOP conference, Turku, Finland; 2004.
[13] Kendall GI, Rollins SC. Advanced project portfolio management and
the PMO: multiplying ROI at warp speed. Florida: J. Ross Publish-
ing; 2003.
[14] Thiry M, Matthey A. Delivering business benefits through projects,
programs, portfolios and PMOs. In: Proceedings of PMI global
congress, Singapore; 2005.
[15] Cooke-Davies T. Project management maturity models. In:
Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to managing
projects. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. p.
1234–64.
[16] Crawford L. Developing individual and organizational project
management competence. In: Proceedings of annual conference of
PMI of South Africa, Johannesburg, SA; 2002.
[17] Project Management Institute. A guide to the project management
body of knowledge. 3rd ed. CD-ROM. Newton Square, OA: PMI;
2004.
[18] Cooper RG, Scott JE, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management in
new product development: lessons from the leaders – I. Res Technol
Manage 1997;40(5):16–28.
[19] Cooper RG, Scott JE, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management in
new product development: lessons from the leaders – II. Res Technol
Manage 1997;40(6):43–52.
[20] Hobbs B, Ménard PM. Organizational choices for project manage-
ment. In: Dinsmore PC, editor. The handbook of project manage-
ment. New York: Amacom; 1993. p. 81–108.
[21] Larson E. Project management structures. In: Morris PWG, Pinto
JK, editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. p. 48–66.
[22] Turner RJ, Keegan AE. The versatile project-based organization:
governance and operational control. Eur Manage J
1999;17(3):296–309.
[23] Dinsmore PC. Toward corporate project management: beefing up the
bottom line with MOBP. PM Network 1996(June):9–11.
336 M. Aubry et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 328–336
[24] Lampel J, Jha PP. Models of project orientation in multiproject
organizations. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
p. 223–36.
[25] Hobday M. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for
managing complex products and systems? Research Policy
2000;29(7–8):871–93.
[26] Powell WW. Neither market nor hierarchy: networks forms of
organizations. Res Organ Behav 1990;12:295–336.
[27] Hedlund G. A model of knowledge management and the N-Form
Corporation. Strategic Manage J 1994;15:73–90 [special issue].
[28] Morabito J, Sack I, Bhate A. Modeling organization: innovative
architectures for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall; 1999.
[29] Miles RE, Snow CC, Mathews JA, Miles G, Coleman HJ. Organizing
in the knowledge age: anticipating the cellular form. Acad Manage
Exec 1997;11(4):7–20.
[30] Hagström P, Hedlund G. A three-dimensional model of changing
internal structure in the firm. In: Chandler AD, Hagström P, Solvell
O, editors. The dynamic firm: the role of technology, strategy,
organization, and regions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.
p. 166–91.
[31] Benko C, McFarlan FW. Connecting the dots: aligning projects with
objectives in unpredictable times. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press; 2003.
[32] Bridges DN, Crawford KJ. A project office – where and what type. In:
Proceedings of PMI annual seminars and symposium, Nashville,
Tenn; 2001.
[33] Dinsmore PC. Winning in business with enterprise project manage-
ment. New York: AMACOM; 1999.
[34] Duggal JS. Building a next generation PMO. In: Proceedings of PMI
annual seminars and symposium, Nashville, Tenn; 2001.
[35] Wells W. From the editor. Project Manage J 1999;30(1):4–5.
[36] Marsh D. The programme and project support office. In: Turner RJ,
Simister SJ, editors. Handbook of project management. Aldershot,
England: Gower; 2000. p. 131–44.
[37] Crawford L. Patterns of support for corporate delivery capability. In:
Proceedings of annual conference of PMI of South Africa, Johan-
nesburg, SA; 2004.
[38] Hobbs B, Aubry M. Identifying the structure that underlies the
extreme variety found among PMOs. In: Proceedings of PMI research
conference, Montreal, Canada; 2006.
[39] Cooke-Davies T. The ‘‘Real’’ success factors on projects. Int J Project
Manage 2002;20(3):185–90.
[40] Dai CX, Wells WG. An exploration of project management office
features and their relationship to project performance. Int J Project
Manage 2004;22(7):523–32.
[41] Ibbs CW, Reginato J, Kwak YH. Developing project management
capability: benchmarking, maturity, modeling, gap analysis, and ROI
studies. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
p. 1214–33.
[42] Thomas J, Mullaly ME. Understanding the Value of Project
Management. In: Proceedings of Annual Conference of North
America, Toronto, Canada; 2005.
[43] Turner RJ, Keegan AE. Managing technology: innovation, learning,
and maturity. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
p. 567–90.
[44] Winch GM. Rethinking project management: project organizations
as information processing systems? In: Proceedings of PMI research
conference, London, UK; 2004.
[45] Thamhain HJ. Linkages of project environment to performance:
lessons for team leadership. Int J Project Manage 2004;22(7):533–44.
[46] Shenhar AJ, Dvir D, Levy O, Maltz AC. Project success: a multidi-
mensional strategic concept. Long Range Plann 2001;34(6):699–725.
[47] Norrie J, Walker DHT. A balanced scorecard approach to project
management leadership. Project Manage J 2004;35(4):47–56.
[48] Stewart WE. Balanced scorecard for projects. Project Manage J
2001;32(1):38–53.
[49] Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Using balanced scorecard as a strategic
management system. Harvard Business Rev 1996;74(1):75–85.
[50] Savoie A, Morin EM. Les représentations de l’efficacité organisa-
tionnelle: développements récents. In: Jacob R, Rondeau A, Luc D,
editors. Transformer l’organisation: La gestion stratégique du
changement. Montréal, Canada: Revue Gestion; 2002. p. 206–31.
[51] Schumpeter J. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers; 1950.
[52] Leonard-Barton D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in
managing new product development. Strategic Manage J
1992;13:111–26 [special issue].
[53] Pettigrew AM. Innovative forms of organizing: progress, perfor-
mance and process. In: Pettigrew AM, Whittington R, Melin L,
Sanchez-Runde C, Van den Bosch FAJ, Ruigrok W, Numagami T,
editors. Innovative forms of organizing. London, UK: Sage; 2003. p.
331–51.
[54] Bredillet CN. From the editor. Project Manage J 2004;35(2):3–4.
[55] William T. Assessing and moving on from the dominant project
management discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Trans
Eng Manage 2005;52(4):497–508.
[56] Project Management Institute. Organizational project management
maturity model (OPM3). Newtown Square, OA: PMI; 2004.
[57] Crawford L. Developing organizational project management capa-
bility: theory and practice. Project Manage J 2006;37(3):74–86.
[58] Artto KA, Wikstrom K. What is project business? Int J Project
Manage 2005;23(5):343–53.
[59] Crawford L, Cooke-Davies T. Project governance: the pivotal role of
the executive sponsor. In: Proceedings of annual conference of north
America, Toronto, Canada; 2005.
[60] Cusumano MA, Nobeoka K. Le management multiprojets: optimiser
le développement de produit. New York: Dunod; 1999.
[61] Hughes PT. The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker
WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ, editors. The social construction of
technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of
technology. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1987. p. 51–81.
[62] Van de Ven AH, Garud R. The coevolution of technical and
institutional events in the development of an innovation. In: Baum
JAC, Singh JV, editors. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations.
New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. p. 425–43.
[63] Drejer I. Identifying innovation in surveys of services: a Schumpe-
terian perspective. Res Policy 2004;33(3):551–62.
[64] Tether BS. Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the
European innobarometer survey. Ind Innovation 2005;12(2):153–84.
[65] Callon M, Law J. La proto-histoire d’un laboratoire ou le difficile
mariage de la science et de l’économie. Paris: Presses universitaires de
France; 1989.
[66] Amblard H, Bernoux P, Herreros G, Livian YF. Les nouvelles
approches sociologiques des organisations. Paris: Seuil; 2005.
[67] Cameron KS, Quinn RE. Diagnosing and changing organizational
culture: based on the competing values framework. Reading, Mas-
sachusetts: Addison-Wesley; 1999.
[68] Morin EM, Savoie A, Beaudin G. L’efficacité de l’organisation:
Théories, représentations et mesures, Montréal. Canada: Gaëtan
Morin; 1994.