See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/220393284

Identifying and overcoming the challenges of implementing a project

management office

Article  in  European Journal of Information Systems · October 2009

DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2009.29 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

132 18,370

3 authors:

Rajendra Singh Mark Keil

University of Oklahoma Georgia State University
14 PUBLICATIONS   465 CITATIONS    206 PUBLICATIONS   16,566 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vijay Kasi
Georgia State University
9 PUBLICATIONS   341 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reverse Auctions View project

2015 International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) Best Paper Proceedings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajendra Singh on 31 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Identifying and overcoming the challenges of
implementing a project management office
Rajendra Singh1,
Mark Keil2 and
Vijay Kasi3
1
Center for Process Innovation, J. Mack Robinson
College of Business, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA, USA; 2Department of Computer
Information Systems, J. Mack Robinson College
of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
GA, USA; 3Georgia-Pacific LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA
Correspondence: Rajendra Singh,
Center for Process Innovation,
J. Mack Robinson College of Business,
Georgia State University, P.O. Box 5029,
Atlanta, GA 30302-5029, USA.
Tel: þ 1 (404) 413-7850;
Fax: þ 1 (404) 413-7867;
E-mail: rsingh@ceprin.org
Received: 22 November 2007
Revised: 27 April 2009
Accepted: 5 June 2009
European Journal of Information Systems (2009) 18, 409–427
& 2009 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/09
www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/
Abstract
With the ongoing challenge of successfully managing information technology
(IT) projects, organizations are recognizing the need for greater project
management discipline. For many organizations, this has meant ratcheting up
project management skills, processes, and governance structures by imple-
menting a project management office (PMO). While anecdotal evidence
suggests that implementing a PMO can be quite difficult, few studies discuss
the specific challenges involved, and how organizations can overcome them.
To address this gap in existing knowledge, we conducted a Delphi study to (1)
identify the challenges of implementing a PMO for managing IT projects, (2)
rank these challenges in order of importance, (3) discover ways in which some
organizations have overcome the top-ranked challenges, and (4) understand
the role of PMO structure, metrics, and tools in the implementation of a PMO.
We identified 34 unique challenges to implementing a PMO and refined
this list to 13 challenges that our Delphi panelists considered most
important. The top-three challenges were (1) rigid corporate culture and
failure to manage organizational resistance to change, (2) lack of
experienced project managers (PMs) and PMO leadership, and (3) lack of
appropriate change management strategy. Through follow-up interviews
with selected panelists, we identified a series of actions that can be taken to
overcome these challenges including having a strong PMO champion,
starting small and demonstrating the value of the PMO, obtaining support
from opinion leaders, hiring an experienced program manager who
understands the organization, bringing the most talented PMs into the
PMO implementation team, adopting a flexible change management
strategy, and standardizing processes prior to PMO implementation. The
interviews were also used to better understand the role of PMO structure,
metrics, and tools. In terms of PMO structure, we found that ‘light’ PMOs
were more likely to be implemented successfully. Most organizations
eschew formal metrics, instead relying on subjective indicators of PMO
success. Lastly, it appears that PMO tools are difficult to implement unless
a project management culture has been established.
European Journal of Information Systems (2009) 18, 409–427.
doi:10.1057/ejis.2009.29; published online 6 October 2009
Keywords: project management office; PMO; project management; implementing PMO
Introduction
As information technology (IT)-enabled innovation has taken center stage
in organizations, the focus on successful execution of IT projects has
increased tremendously. While there is some evidence that IT project
management may be improving over time, success remains elusive for a
significant proportion of IT projects. In 1994, the Standish Group reported
that only 16% of IT projects were successful (i.e., delivered the desired
410 Challenges of implementing a PMO
functionality, completed on time, and within budget). In
recent years, the success rate of IT projects has been more
encouraging, with estimates of successful projects varying
from 35% in the 2006 Standish Report (Rubinstein, 2007)
to 67% in a survey of over 400 project managers (PMs)
(Sauer et al., 2007). Still, this suggests that between 33
and 65% of all IT projects are, in some ways, less
successful than we would like them to be, resulting in
cost and time overruns, deficiencies in features and
functions, or falling short of customer expectations (Keil
et al., 2000; Keil & Robey, 2001).
The challenges of managing IT projects have increased
as organizational and technological complexity, and
the size of projects, have grown (Xia & Lee, 2004;
Martin et al., 2007; Sauer et al., 2007). While there are
undoubtedly many reasons for the relatively high
incidence of IT project failure, research suggests that
inadequate project management discipline and knowl-
edge are among the key contributing factors. In a study of
information system (IS) project risks, lack of project
management skills was ranked among the top-five risks
by a panel of experts (Schmidt et al., 2001). In recent
years, organizations have begun to recognize the need for
greater discipline in managing IT projects. Organizations
can take numerous approaches, which are not mutually
exclusive, to address this problem. One approach calls for
assessing the organization’s current software development
capability and embarking on a program to move the
organization to a higher level on the Software Engineering
Institute’s Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
(Chrissis et al., 2003, p. 3). The underlying assumption
here is that higher CMMI levels will yield more successful
project outcomes. Another approach is the Organizational
Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), which was
released by the Project Management Institute (PMI) in
2003 (Crawford, 2006). Modeled after the CMMI, the
OPM3 approach focuses on the maturity of processes
involved in project management.
A third approach to improve the management of IT
projects is the establishment of an organizational entity
called PMO (Rad & Levin, 2002; Richardson & Ives, 2004).
In a survey of 500 PMOs, Hobbs & Aubry (2007) found
that these entities are identified by several names:
Program Management Office, Project Management Over-
sight (Christiansen & Sherry, 1992), Project Management
Center of Excellence (Rad & Levin, 2002), Directorate of
Project Management (Rad & Levin, 2002), Strategic
Project Office (Crawford, 2001), and Enterprise Project
Office (Englund et al., 2003). In this research, we use the
term Project Management Office (PMO) as this is the
most commonly used label (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007). We
focus on the role of the PMO in establishing IT project
management discipline within an organization, as this
appears to be the most popular approach (Richardson &
Ives, 2004).
Previous research has advocated implementing PMOs
to improve IT project performance. Frequently cited
benefits of PMOs include training and mentoring PMs,
European Journal of Information Systems
Rajendra Singh et al
developing project management standards, establishing
project management discipline and oversight within an
organization, facilitating knowledge management, lever-
aging previous solutions, sharing good practices and
delivering project objectives (Dai & Wells, 2004; Hill,
2004; Desouza & Evaristo, 2006; Liu & Yetton, 2007).
However, it is unclear how to implement a PMO
successfully, for anecdotal evidence suggests that many
PMO initiatives are eventually abandoned or fail to
produce the improvements that were originally hoped
for (Kendall & Rollins, 2003, p. 8). Unfortunately, we
know very little about the challenges that represent the
most serious threats to the successful implementation of
a PMO. As a result, managers lack any guidance in
overcoming the challenges they are likely to encounter.
Clearly, we need further research to understand these
challenges, and to find ways to address them.
We have organized the remainder of the paper into four
major sections. First, we review the relevant literature
relating to PMOs and introduce the research questions
that we seek to address. Next, we discuss the research
approach and then present and discuss our results for
each research question. We conclude with the implica-
tions of our findings for both research and practice.
Background and research questions
We conducted a systematic and rigorous literature review
of both project management and IS journals in order to
determine the current level of knowledge associated with
PMOs. Based on this review, we now briefly discuss the
definition, history, role, configuration, and implementa-
tion challenges associated with PMOs.
Definition and history of the PMO
A project office has been defined in two ways: (1) an
organizational entity established to manage a specific
project, or a related series of projects, usually headed by a
project manager, and (2) an organizational entity estab-
lished to assist PMs and teams throughout the organiza-
tion in implementing project management principles,
practices, methodologies, tools, and techniques (Ward,
2000). The latter entity, referred to as PMO, is the focus of
our study. A PMO is a formal, centralized layer of control
between senior management and project management
(Liu & Yetton, 2007; Martin et al., 2007). Some research-
ers have described the PMO as a source of centralized
integration and a repository of knowledge that can be
used to inform more effective and efficient IT project
management (Desouza & Evaristo, 2006). Other research-
ers have defined it as the administrative mechanism by
which project management activities and procedures are
integrated into the enterprise policies and culture (Rad &
Levin, 2002). In this research, we use the Project
Management Institute’s definition of a PMO: ‘an organi-
zational body or entity assigned various responsibilities
related to the centralized and coordinated management
of those projects under its domain’ (PMI, 2004, p. 369).
Underlying all these definitions is the growing realization
 Challenges of implementing a PMO
that PMOs can play an important role in organizational
management (Aubry et al., 2008). Thus, the PMO is an
organizational innovation (Hobbs et al., 2008) that can
not only improve IT project management practices, but
also facilitate organizational transformation (Aubry et al.,
2008).
The use of some kind of PMO has a long history dating
back to the 1930s (Dai, 2001). PMOs have been reported
in the telecom, aerospace, and defense industries for a
long time (Desouza & Evaristo, 2006). It has only been in
the last decade, however, that widespread interest
emerged in establishing a PMO as a means of improving
IT project performance and reducing the incidence of
project failures (Dai, 2001, p. 5). Many organizations
began to establish PMOs in the mid-1990s (Dai & Wells,
2004), primarily to oversee Y2K-related IT projects. Some
organizations disbanded their PMOs after the Y2K
remediation and transition work was completed. How-
ever, in many other organizations, the PMOs evolved and
expanded in scope to take on other types of projects
(Desouza & Evaristo, 2006). In a survey of 704 North
American IT decision-makers in 2003, Forrester Research
found that 67% of respondents had established one or
more PMOs in their organizations (Pohlmann, 2003).
Role of PMO and PMO configurations
A PMO helps both the IT project manager and the
relevant organization to ‘understand and apply profes-
sional practices of project management, as well as to
adapt and integrate business interests into the project
management efforts’ (Hill, 2004). A PMO may perform
one or more of the following four roles in an organiza-
tion: consulting, knowledge management, standard set-
ting, and hands-on program implementation (Desouza &
Evaristo, 2006; Letavec, 2006; Liu & Yetton, 2007). The
different roles that a PMO can play have led to a wide
spectrum of different PMO configurations. At one end of
the spectrum, a PMO can have minimal staff and no
direct control over the management of individual
projects. In this configuration, commonly referred to as
PMO-light, the PMO plays a relatively passive, supporting
role to IT PMs by creating standards for project imple-
mentation and acting as a project information repository.
At the other end of the spectrum, a PMO can have a large
complement of full time PMs and direct control over
individual projects. In this configuration, commonly
referred to as PMO-heavy, the PMO plays a more proactive
role and is responsible for the outcome of IT projects.
Thus, there are two basic configurations of a PMO: one
that acts in a consulting capacity, providing PMs with
training, guidance, and best practices; and a centralized
Figure 1 The changing role of a PMO – adapted from Hill (2004).
Rajendra Singh et al 411
version, with PMS on staff who are loaned out to business
units to execute their various IT projects (Santosus, 2003).
The roles, responsibility, and functioning of a PMO in
an organization will vary depending upon which config-
uration (PMO-heavy, PMO-light, or a hybrid) is adopted.
In addition, the structure and function of the PMO
continuously evolves, based on the changing context,
needs, and capability maturity of the organization (Aubry
et al., 2008). A continuum of PMO competency, with
associated capabilities and roles, has been suggested by
Hill (2004), and is represented in Figure 1. According to
this continuum, as the organization (and PMO) achieves
greater maturity, the PMO roles and responsibilities
change from basic project oversight to a center of
excellence closely aligned to the strategic business goals
of the organization. Rad & Levin (2003) have suggested a
similar five-level PMO Maturity Model based on organi-
zational competency and role of the PMO.
PMO implementation challenges
Anecdotal evidence reported in practitioner-oriented
publications suggests that the failure rate of PMO
implementations is very high. Based on a survey of 750
companies, Stanleigh (2006) asserts that ‘over 75% of
organizations that set up a PMO shut it down within
three years because it didn’t demonstrate any added
value’. Similarly, based on a survey of 500 PMs, Hobbs &
Aubry (2007) reported that nearly half of all PMOs were
seen as ‘too costly and as contributing little to project and
program performance’. In fact, research has showed that
in the majority of cases, PMOs are unstable structures
with organizations often reconfiguring their PMOs every
few years (Hobbs et al., 2008). These findings suggest that
the implementation of a PMO is a difficult challenge for
most organizations.
There appear to be a number of factors that bear
heavily upon the success of a PMO implementation,
including a clear mission, an agreed-upon structure and
scope of governance, and whether the corporate culture
is conducive to a PMO (Santosus, 2003; Wren, 2005).
Wren (2005) advises that without a culture of govern-
ance, the PMO is likely to fail. Leemann (2002) also
suggests that ‘to be successful, project management must
be part of a company’s culture’. Kendall & Rollins (2003)
suggest seven factors that may lead to failure of a PMO.
These include (1) not defining the PMO value proposi-
tion, (2) lack of perceived impact of PMO on project
delivery abilities, (3) PMO becoming too authoritative,
(4) low position of PMO in management reporting
structure, (5) no buy-in from senior functional managers,
(6) PMO creating unnecessary overhead, and (7) PMO
trying to micromanage projects. This research aims to
European Journal of Information Systems
412 Challenges of implementing a PMO
provide a rigorous and comprehensive list of challenges
involved in implementing a PMO for IT projects in an
organization.
The lack of empirical research on the challenges of
implementing a PMO, and the fact that there is no
uniform recipe for success (Santosus, 2003), suggests that
there is a need for research in this area. Moreover, there is
no clear understanding of the actions that organizations
can take to overcome these challenges, and of the role of
PMO structures, metrics, and tools in these implementa-
tions. The first objective of this research was to move
beyond anecdotal data, and to conduct a scientifically
rigorous investigation that would allow us to identify and
rank order the critical challenges associated with im-
plementing a PMO. The second objective of this research
was to provide insights into strategies employed to
overcome the top-ranked challenges. The third objective
was to explore the role of PMO structure, metrics, and
tools in implementing a PMO. PMO structure relates to
the configuration (PMO-light or PMO-heavy) preferred in
PMO implementations. PMO metrics refers to the
measures that organizations use during a PMO imple-
mentation to assess its success and organizational impact.
PMO tools refer to the software applications used for
project portfolio management. Accordingly, we sought to
address four basic research questions:
RQ1 What are the challenges in implement-
ing a PMO in an IT organization?
RQ2 What is the relative importance of these
challenges?
RQ3 How can organizations overcome the
top challenges?
RQ4 What is the role of PMO structure, metrics,
and tools in a PMO implementation?
In order to address these research questions, we
organized a panel of 22 IT project managers with
experience of implementing PMOs, and conducted a
Delphi study. The study contributes valuable insights for
both research and practice as it represents the first
systematic attempt to identify and rank PMO implemen-
tation challenges, and to explore ways to overcome some
of the top challenges.
Research approach
We selected the Delphi method as our primary research
approach as it was particularly well suited for addressing
our first-two research questions, RQ1 and RQ2. We used
semi-structured interviews with selected Delphi panelists
to address research questions RQ3 and RQ4.
The Delphi method was developed by researchers at the
RAND Corporation in the 1950s with the objective of
defining important issues and reaching consensus among
a panel of experts through an iterative process of
controlled feedback (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). In recent
years, researchers have extensively used the Delphi
method in IS research (e.g., Brancheau & Wetherbe,
European Journal of Information Systems
Rajendra Singh et al
1987; Brancheau et al., 1996; Dekleva & Zupancic, 1996;
Schmidt, 1997; Chang & Gable, 2000; Schmidt et al.,
2001; Holsapple & Joshi, 2002). The Delphi method is
recommended when ‘the problem does not lend itself to
precise analytical techniques but can benefit from
subjective judgments on a collective basis’ (Linstone &
Turoff, 1975). Since our study focuses on understanding
the challenges faced by IT project managers in imple-
menting a PMO, the Delphi method was an appropriate
choice because it allowed us to gain insights from the
collective experience and understanding of our expert
panel. Delphi panel size requirements are modest (Pali-
woda, 1983; Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004) and panels can
vary from small to large (Linstone & Turoff, 1975).
Another advantage of the Delphi method is that it allows
follow-up interviews with panel members for deeper
understanding of the fundamental research questions
(Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004).
We followed the Delphi procedure outlined by Schmidt
(1997) to brainstorm, select, and rank the challenges to
implementing a PMO in IT projects. This Delphi
procedure uses a structured, anonymous, multi-pass
process to establish group consensus. Each panelist is
asked to independently record what s/he thinks is
important in dealing with the given problem. The
researcher collects and aggregates the individual re-
sponses from the panel, and removes the duplicate items.
The resulting refined list of items is collectively exhaus-
tive of all panelists’ responses. The researcher presents
this list back to the panelists – requesting that they
validate the list, and then narrow it down by selecting the
items they consider most important. In the next step, the
panelists rank the narrowed list of items. The researcher
collates the individual item rankings from each panelist,
and computes an overall rank for each item. Next, the
researcher presents this ranked list to panelists, inviting
them to review their earlier ranking (of each item) while
considering the aggregated group response. This ranking
continues until the panel reaches a consensus (as
determined by Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, W).
Figure 2 shows the Delphi procedure used in this study.
Rowe & Wright (1999) have suggested a four-fold criteria
of a Delphi study: anonymity of panelists, iteration,
controlled feedback, and statistical aggregation of group
response. This study meets all these criteria.
Panel selection
Our Delphi panel included 22 experienced IT project
managers. As the primary aim of our research was to
identify and prioritize the challenges of implementing a
PMO, experience with at least one PMO implementation
(either as an employee or as a consultant) was required in
order to serve on the Delphi panel. Using this predeter-
mined criterion to select the panel of domain experts
(Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004), the initial set of IT project
managers with PMO experience was recruited through
the researchers’ personal contacts. After the initial group
agreed to participate, their help was sought to recruit
 Challenges of implementing a PMO Rajendra Singh et al 413

Phase I -Brainstorming

* Each panelist provides at least six challenges that s/he faced during a PMO
implementation. This brainstorming yields 88 challenges.
* The researchers consolidate the individual lists into one, matching duplicate
items, and grouping similar items together.
* This phase yields 34 discrete challenges, grouped into 10 meta-categories.

Phase II -Selection

* The panelists narrow down the consolidated list of 34 challenges by selecting

the top 20 challenges that they consider most important.
* The researchers reduce the size of the list, retaining the items selected by a
majority of the panelists.
* This phase yields 13 un-ranked challenges.

Phase III -Ranking

* Each panelist ranks the randomized list of 13 challenges in order of priority.

* The researchers calculate the degree of consensus for the panel using Kendall's
coefficient of concordance (W)
* The researchers share controlled feedback with panelists.
* Iterative ranking until the panelists reach an acceptable degree of consensus.

Stopping rule End

Yes
(W>0.50) met? Delphi

Figure 2 Delphi process – adapted from Schmidt (1997).

additional panelists who also met the criteria (of
experience with at least one PMO implementation) using
the snowball sampling technique (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,
p. 233; Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28; Trochim, 2001,
p. 58). IT project managers with experience of managing
PMO implementations were difficult to find. Therefore,
snowball sampling proved to be particularly useful in
expanding our expert panel by putting us in touch with
experienced professionals who might otherwise be in-
accessible. For the interview phase, we asked all panelists
if they would like to participate. Six of them agreed, and
we conducted follow-up interviews with these panelists.
Table 1 shows the demographic data for the panel. The
panelists had diverse backgrounds, with some holding
advanced degrees in IT-related disciplines. They worked
for both small and large organizations. While some of the
panelists were involved with PMO implementation in
their organization as an employee, others served as
consultants and were involved with PMO implementa-
tion in their clients’ organization. The panelists had an
average of 11 years of IT project management experience,
and an average of 4.3 years of PMO implementation
experience. Most panelists had been involved in multiple
PMO implementations (mean ¼ 3). The majority of the
panelists (17 out of 22) were located in the U.S. However,
the panel also included PMs based outside the U.S. (one
in the U.K. and four in India). As Table 1 indicates, the
panel profile indicates considerable IT project manage-
ment and PMO implementation experience, thus estab-
lishing the credibility of the panel.
Data collection and analysis method
Phase I involved brainstorming to generate the initial list
of PMO implementation challenges. Due to the logistics
and impracticality of bringing the panelists together for
successive rounds of face-to-face meetings, we conducted
the Delphi study over the internet. One of the researchers
created a web-based interface for conducting this study.
This custom interface also allowed us to capture the data
directly into an Access database. Before emailing the web-
link to the panelists, we validated the instrument using
three Ph.D. students as volunteers. Similar electronic

European Journal of Information Systems

414 Challenges of implementing a PMO
Table 1 Demographic data for the Delphi panel
Characteristic
Number of years of IT project management experience
Number of years of experience in PMO implementations
Number of PMO implementations involved with
Nature of involvement with the organization in which
PMO was implemented
PMO implementation carried out at a single division,
or across multiple divisions
Educational qualifications of panelists
Geographic location of panelists
instruments have been shown to provide a number of
benefits (Weible & Wallace, 1998), including decreased
data collection time vis-à-vis a paper-based survey
process. At the same time, the response rate to such
electronic instruments has been similar to traditional
paper-based instruments (Boyer et al., 2002).
To begin the process, we asked each of the 22 panelists
to provide six or more items that s/he considered major
challenges to implementing a PMO. Our objective in
seeking six items from each panelist in the brainstorming
phase was to ensure that we achieved reasonable coverage
of the domain without making the process too time-
consuming for the panelists. This was an open-ended
solicitation of ideas (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004), and
therefore, the items did not have to be in any particular
order of importance. We also asked the panelists to
provide a brief description of each item. These descrip-
tions helped us to (1) understand the various challenges,
(2) remove duplicates by consolidating items with the
same underlying meaning, and (3) categorize the chal-
lenges into meta-categories in a subsequent phase of the
Delphi process. By the end of Phase I, 20 panel members
had provided a list of 88 PMO implementation chal-
lenges. Each panelist provided between three and nine
PMO implementation challenges. Two panelists did not
European Journal of Information Systems
Rajendra Singh et al
Panel profile (N ¼ 22)
Mean: 11 years [Range: 3–22]
1–5 years: 18%
6–10 years: 35%
11–15 years: 29%
16 or more years: 18%
Mean: 4.3 years [Range: 1–10]
1–3 years: 35%
4–6 years: 47%
7 or more years: 18%
Mean: 3 implementations [Range: 1–8]
1–2 implementations: 41%
3–4 implementations: 47%
5 or more implementations: 12%
As consultant: 47%
As employee: 53%
Single division: 37%
Across multiple divisions: 63%
Masters degree: 75%
Bachelors degree: 19%
Technical degree: 6%
Within U.S.: 77%
Outside U.S.: 23%
participate in the brainstorming phase, but participated
in the subsequent selection and ranking phases. We
believed that their absence in the brainstorming phase
would not make a material difference in later stages as we
already had a large pool of challenges. Hence, we retained
both these panelists in the Delphi panel.
Two researchers worked together to consolidate and
refine this list by removing duplicates, grouping similar
items together, and sharpening some item descriptions to
improve clarity. This process yielded a consolidated list of
34 challenges, grouped into 10 conceptual meta-cate-
gories. The third researcher reviewed the consolidated
list, independently verified that the panelists’ descrip-
tions of challenges were accurately reflected, and further
refined the list. This iterative process of refinement (by
eliminating duplicates and grouping similar items into
meta-categories) continued until all three researchers
arrived at a consensus. Then, following Schmidt (1997),
we circulated the consolidated list to all respondents,
sought their feedback, and revised our mapping of the
challenges accordingly.
In Phase II, we narrowed the consolidated list into a
more manageable set for the ranking phase. Following
Schmidt’s (1997) suggestion, we presented the panel with
a randomized list of the 34 challenges from Phase I, and
 Challenges of implementing a PMO
asked each panelist to select (not rank) his/her top-20
challenges to implementing a PMO (i.e., those challenges
that they considered to be the most important). All 22
panelists responded in this selection phase. We then
reviewed this selection of top-20 challenges from each
respondent and retained only those challenges selected
by an overwhelming majority of the panel. We chose a
cut-off value of 70%, as this gave us our target range of
12–15 items for the subsequent ranking phase. Using this
process, the initial list of 34 challenges became a more
manageable, reduced list of 13 items at the end of Phase II.
Phase III involved ranking the 13 top challenges from
Phase II. We asked each panelist to review the list and
rank the items in order of priority (i.e., rank the challenge
that they consider the most important as first, and so on).
We also provided controlled feedback in the form of the
percentage of panelists that had selected a given
challenge to be among their top-20 challenges in Phase
II. As part of the ranking exercise, we also asked the
panelists to explain the rationale for selecting their top-
ranked challenge. Following Schmidt (1997), we used
Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) to measure the
degree of consensus among the panelists. The values of W
range from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no consensus, and 1
indicating perfect consensus. When Kendall’s W is greater
than 0.70, it signifies strong consensus; when the value is
between 0.50 and 0.70, it signifies moderate consensus;
and if the value is less than 0.50, it signifies that there is
little consensus among the panel members (Schmidt,
1997). Seventeen panelists participated in the first round
of ranking in Phase III, yielding a Kendall’s W of 0.28,
which suggested a weak level of consensus among the
panelists.
Following Schmidt’s (1997) recommendation, we
decided to continue the ranking process until either: (1)
the coefficient of concordance indicated good consensus,
or (2) the level of consensus for the panel leveled-off in
two successive rounds. Therefore, we conducted a second
round of ranking in Phase III where we once again asked
the panelists to review and rank-order the list of
challenges. This time, we provided the following infor-
mation to each panelist as controlled feedback: (1) the
average rank of each PMO challenge, (2) the ranking by
that panelist for each challenge in the first round of
ranking, and (3) the panelist’s deviation from the group’s
mean ranking for each challenge. As a second form of
feedback, we also provided the panelists with a summar-
ized list of comments collected in the first round,
explaining why the panelists considered a particular
challenge as their top-ranked challenge. We believed that
this additional information would help the panel mem-
bers to consider their own ranking in light of the group’s
ranking and give them an opportunity to adjust their
ranking where it made sense to do so. Twenty panelists
participated in this second round of ranking, yielding a
Kendall’s W of 0.54, which suggested that a moderate
level of consensus had been reached and that we could
have a reasonable degree of confidence in the rankings.
Rajendra Singh et al 415
Following Kasi et al. (2008), we also calculated the
standard deviations associated with the mean rankings
in Round 2 to determine if there were any items that
stood out as being particularly controversial (and there-
fore weighing down the concordance). All the standard
deviations ranged between 1.30 and 4.22. This suggests
that the moderate level of consensus was not the result of a
few items that exhibited greater variance in terms of their
ranking. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis in which
we dropped each of the 13 challenges, one at a time, and re-
computed Kendall’s W. The consensus levels did not change
significantly (W ranged between 0.41 and 0.56).
At this stage, we discussed whether we should conduct
another round of ranking to obtain a greater level of
panel consensus. In making such decisions, the trade-off
between feasibility (the indulgence of the panelists, the
researcher’s resources, and the additional time required),
and potential gain to be achieved must be considered
(Nelms & Porter, 1985; Schmidt, 1997). We felt that some
fatigue had set in among our panel members (reflected in
the increased number of reminders required to get them
to respond). Since Round 2 had met one of the stopping
rules suggested by Schmidt (1997), we decided against a
third round of ranking.
In order to address the research questions RQ3 and
RQ4, we conducted telephone interviews with six of the
panel members who agreed to participate. The purpose of
these semi-structured interviews was to understand how
some of the organizations successfully addressed the
challenges to PMO implementation. Specifically we asked
our panelists to elaborate on (1) how the top-ranked
challenges were overcome, (2) the role of PMO structure
(PMO-heavy vs PMO-light), (3) whether any metrics were
used to measure the success of the PMO implementa-
tions, (4) what role, if any, was played by PMO tools in
these implementations. We conducted the interviews
between May and June 2007, and each interview lasted
between 30 and 45 m. A semi-structured interview
protocol (Appendix C) guided the interview process.
Two researchers were present for each of these interviews.
The researchers took notes, and also recorded and
transcribed the interviews for subsequent analysis.
Results
In this section, we present the results of our study,
organized according to each of the four underlying research
questions.
RQ1: Identification of PMO implementation challenges
Phase I of the study resulted in a list of 34 unique PMO
implementation challenges, which we grouped into 10
conceptual meta-categories. These meta-categories (iden-
tified by the letters A through J) and their associated
PMO implementation challenges (identified with alpha-
numeric character combinations A1, B1, etc.) are shown
in Appendix A. The meta-categories and challenges
(Appendix A) do not represent any particular order of
importance.
European Journal of Information Systems
416 Challenges of implementing a PMO Rajendra Singh et al

RQ2: Relative importance of PMO implementation
challenges
As described earlier, in Phase II of the study, the panelists
narrowed the list of 34 challenges to retain only the most
important challenges. This allowed us to narrow the list
to a manageable number of 13 challenges that could be
rank ordered in Phase III of the study. Table 2 shows the
results of these two phases of the study. We used the
average rank given to each challenge in Round 2 of Phase
III to determine the final ranking of the 13 PMO
implementation challenges (shown in the right-most
column of Table 2). We discuss the top-three challenges
in more detail below.
Rigid corporate culture and failure to manage organiza-
tional resistance to change According to our panel
rankings, organizational culture and resistance to change
is the most important challenge that managers need to
consider. As one panelist said, ‘Culture here represents
probably about 95% of consideration of what decisions
are taken and how we move forward’. Another panelist
also discussed rigid culture and resistance to change in
their organization, and noted, ‘It is very difficult to
change the way people are used to doing things in an
organization [and] this places an almost insurmountable
road block to establishing an effective PMO’. As these
comments suggest, it is critical for organizations to
manage resistance to change. Successfully implementing
a PMO often requires a change in mindset and a shift
towards a more project-centered organization. Interest-
ingly, the resistance to change may not be reflected
consistently across the entire organization, and may
manifest itself only in certain groups within the organi-
zation, as the following comment suggests, ‘A system
which one group considers ‘‘golden’’ is considered ‘‘crap’’
by another’.
Lack of experienced PMs and PMO leadership Many of
the current PMO initiatives do not have experienced PMs
who understand the challenges of a PMO implementation

Table 2 Results of Phase II and Phase III (sorted by final ranking)

# Challenge to PMO implementation Phase II – selection phase Phase III – Ranking phase Final ranking

% of panelists who selected this Round 1 Round 2 Based on Round 2

item (cut-off ¼ 70%) average rank average rank average rank

G1 Rigid corporate culture and failure to 82 4.59 2.65 1

manage organizational resistance to
change
B2 Lack of experienced project 94 5.06 4.45 2
managers and PMO leadership
H3 Lack of appropriate change 88 5.12 4.70 3
management strategy
E4 Failure to design a PMO around a 82 6.00 4.80 4
company’s specific needs
C2 Lack of stakeholder commitment to 82 5.12 5.25 5
common methodology and tools for the
PMO
D1 Poor definition and communication of 82 6.12 5.95 6
PMO goals and purpose
C1 Lack of full support of the senior 76 6.24 6.30 7
management and various
stakeholders to the PMO
D2 Role, authority, and responsibility of the 82 6.06 6.50 8
PMO is poorly defined or
understood
E1 Lack of defined scope and size of PMO 76 7.82 7.65 9
implementation
H5 Failure to align PMO implementation 70 9.00 9.65 10
strategy to organizational strategy
J1 Difficulty in evaluating the effectiveness 76 9.35 10.00 11
of PMO in the organization
F4 Lack of training and communication on 70 9.71 11.05 12
PMO implementation to all
stakeholders
B4 Difficulty in staffing PMO with most 70 10.82 12.00 13
experienced personnel
Kendall’s Coefficient W — 0.28 0.54

European Journal of Information Systems

 Challenges of implementing a PMO
and who are aware of the political terrain of the
organization. Comments from our panelists suggest that
organizations do not always staff the PMO with the most
experienced project managers or with people who have
played lead roles in large PMO implementations. The
qualities that make for an effective PMO director may be
quite different from the qualities that make someone an
excellent PM. As one panelist noted, PMs are ‘better at
coordinating and influencing the work within the team,
but much less effective in managing the client’s require-
ments and expectations at a strategic level’. Another
panelist noted, ‘Many project managers do not under-
stand the scope of work involved in a PMO implementa-
tion, and fail to correctly estimate the resources required
for the PMO implementation, or to analyze the impact of
any scope change on the budget and schedule of the
implementation. They fail to understand project risk and,
consequently, fail to put in place a risk mitigation plan’.
These create problems in effective implementation of the
PMO. One panelist highlighted the need for PMO-related
experience in very clear terms, ‘The PMO is an office
which can be stronger with real experienced staff’.
Lack of appropriate change management strategy Any
PMO implementation involves managing all aspects of
change – including people, process, and structure issues.
One of the most challenging aspects of establishing a
PMO is to evolve and implement a clear change manage-
ment strategy that looks beyond the immediate needs of
the PMO project. As one panelist commented, ‘Most
[PMO] projects focus strictly on the goal and the means
without addressing the related impacts which have long
lasting consequences and unseen and untracked addi-
tions to the scope and cost of projects. Serious considera-
tion and planning of organizational development
impacts, and observation of indirect effects, need to take
place in order to account for, and mitigate these as
necessary’. This commitment to an appropriate change
management strategy needs to occur at all levels in the
organization – operational, as well as strategic.
RQ3: Overcoming the top-ranked challenges to PMO
implementation
As indicated earlier, following the Delphi ranking
exercise, we conducted telephone interviews with se-
lected panelists to determine ways in which their
organizations tried to overcome the top-ranked chal-
lenges to implementing a PMO. We focused only on the
top-three challenges in order to keep the interview
process manageable, and to allow the panelists to
elaborate how their organization succeeded in over-
coming those challenges.
Overcoming rigid corporate culture and resistance to
change The panelists offered several suggestions for
overcoming resistance to change. The first was to make
sure there is a strong PMO champion. As one panelist put
it, ‘The only real way to overcome that resistance is to
Rajendra Singh et al 417
have a strong champion up there who really evangelizes
the value of the PMO’. Another panelist mentioned the
need for a ‘high level management mandate’ to overcome
organizational resistance to change. Another strategy for
dealing with a rigid corporate culture and overcoming
resistance to change is to start small and to demonstrate
the value of the PMO with some early successes. As one
panelist explained, ‘On most successful [PMO] imple-
mentations we start small with pilots or pathfinders
where you can get people excited about the value and
personal benefit from following these processes. And
then they become additional champions for your orga-
nization to help you with rest of the implementation’. A
third strategy is to identify the opinion leaders in an
organization and to assess their attitudes towards the
PMO concept. Those who are favorably inclined towards
PMO could help in promoting the PMO implementation.
This strategy also involves isolating the ‘naysayers’, and
addressing their concerns on an individual basis. One
panelist, a PMO consultant with experience of multiple
implementations, explained in detail how this approach
has worked:
You y start by mapping the organizational culture. In every
organization, there are two kinds of people. One group, of
what I call the real leaders of the organization, who are not
necessarily the leaders because of their job description. They
are the ones [who], when [any] change comes sweeping
through, everybody looks up to and says, ‘If they like it, I’ll
like it, if they do not like it; I’m not going to like it either.’
What I found is that I can take the people who are being
positive into a big conference room, and bring them into
the loop early. And [then] they go out and help me y The
other guys who are negative most of the time ... You can’t
stop them from not liking the change, but you can start
working with them to explain why this [PMO implementa-
tion] is a good change and ask them to at least give it a
chance.
Overcoming lack of experienced project managers and PMO
leadership The panelists suggested two approaches to
overcome the challenge of lack of experienced PMs and
PMO leaders. The first approach is to bring in a credible
program manager to oversee the PMO implementation.
As one panelist explained, ‘[You need] a program
manager who is trusted and accepted by the key
stakeholders y [someone who can] understand the
culture and power relationships within the client orga-
nization, and who can successfully direct the PMO
implementation’. Another panelist shared his experience
of how their organization found a PMO program
manager ‘who was trusted and accepted by the key
stakeholders’. This organization chose a program man-
ager who had prior employment with that organization.
As this panelist suggested, it was a useful approach, as the
prior relationship helped the program manager to under-
stand the culture and power relationships within the
client organization, and successfully direct the PMO
implementation. Another approach is to bring the most
European Journal of Information Systems
418 Challenges of implementing a PMO
talented and experienced PMs into the PMO implemen-
tation process. There is simply no substitute for bringing
on board an experienced team of PMs, as one panelist
observed:
What works, in my experience, is to structure the PMO team
in such a way that people who are most experienced in
project management have operational roles and responsi-
bilities that require these skills on a day-to-day basis. In
situations requiring a lot of interaction with various
stakeholders, one of the most experienced persons – not
necessarily well versed in PMO implementations, but who
has been around in organization for many years – should
take on the role of program management to guide the
program in consultation with the stakeholder.
Overcoming lack of appropriate change management
strategy Organizations need to tailor their change
management strategy according to the situation at hand.
PMO implementations often get into trouble when there
is a lack of understanding and participation by some
stakeholders. Frequently, some of these stakeholders view
the PMO as an extra layer of bureaucracy that does not
add value, and end up disliking this more disciplined
approach to project management. One panelist recom-
mended flexibility: ‘One size didn’t fit all very well, and
people were just choosing not to use any of it y people
were facing mind-numbing bureaucracy. [You] have to
engage the people that are involved [and] get their buy-in
through participation’. Some of the other panelists we
interviewed felt that it was important to move towards
some form of process standardization before implement-
ing the PMO. The following remark was typical:
We first pushed towards CMM in some of the groups where
we wanted to rollout the PMO first. This involved designing
a repeatable process – like scheduled releases in the case of
one of the IT management groups – before implementing
the PMO. We looked at their workflow and tried to make
incremental changes in definable segments of work. We
designed, what we called, an agile process, in which we took
small chunks of critical tasks, and used CMM methodolo-
gies to improve them. You need a consistent process before
you start automating it. Once the processes were somewhat
standardized, we brought in the PMO.
Table 3 summarizes some of the ways in which the
organizations represented in our panel tried to overcome
the top-ranked PMO implementation challenges.
RQ4: Role of PMO structure, metrics, and tools
As part of our interview protocol (refer Appendix C), we
also explored the role of PMO structure, metrics, and
tools. Regarding PMO structure, we found that PMO-light
implementations were significantly easier to manage
than PMO-heavy implementations. Considering the fact
that rigid corporate culture and organizational resistance
to change was our top challenge, it was not surprising
that our panelists shared the view that PMO-light
implementations face lower resistance as they involve a
European Journal of Information Systems
Rajendra Singh et al
lesser degree of change in comparison to PMO-heavy
implementations. Nevertheless, as one of our panelists
remarked, even with PMO-light implementations, ‘you
can still run into the problem of managing bureaucracy’.
One of our panelists shared his experience thus:
We have had both PMO-light and PMO-heavy structure in
different implementation projects. We noticed predomi-
nantly greater success in PMO-light projects – in which the
assistance to various project teams from the PMO group was
‘voluntary.’ PMO-heavy implementations needed more
convincing of all the stakeholders involved, and generally
ran into more problems.
Interviews with panelists indicated that there were no
formal metrics in place to assess PMOs. Instead, there was
considerable reliance on subjective indicators of success.
As one panelist put it, ‘Overall, hard metrics were less
important, and soft metrics were given more impor-
tance’. Another panelist indicated, ‘The only metrics we
have is the feedback from managers about their pain
points today, as compared to the pain points before the
PMO implementation’. One approach to evaluating the
impact of a PMO was to canvass different stakeholders –
including senior management, PMs, and project teams –
in order to gauge the impact of the PMO and their
satisfaction with it. PMO managers can seek this
information through both formal and informal feedback,
using questions like ‘Are the projects implemented better
now, than a year ago? Is planning better? Is the
communication better now when a project is kicked
off?’ Another panelist, a PMO program manager, had a
similar approach in assessing the feedback from the
perspective of senior management:
You look back upstairs at the people in the executive suite
y are they feeling more empowered or less empowered by
the kind of reports that they are getting from the PMO? Are
they more actively engaged in capturing value, or benefit
from the project? Has the level of sponsorship – the level of
active engagement in championing activities, team build-
ing, participating in actual execution or delivery of projects
– gone up? If the executives are becoming more involved
and more engaged, then you know that the PMO is
effective. If you see them disengaged from the project team,
then you know that the PMO has become just another piece
of cartilage in between the bones.
Another panelist’s comment illustrates the use of a
similar approach in seeking informal feedback from the
project teams, ‘We would ask if they [project teams] were
satisfied. We would seek feedback from the project teams
[during and after the PMO implementation], and this
feedback, if positive, told us that the PMO implementa-
tion was on track’. These subjective metrics were not only
useful in assessing the value of a PMO, but were also
helpful in establishing the credibility of the PMO.
Our panelists indicated that PMO tools (such as
sophisticated project management software and portfolio
management applications), although useful, were diffi-
cult to implement unless a project management culture
 Challenges of implementing a PMO Rajendra Singh et al 419

Table 3 Tactics for overcoming the top PMO implementation challenges

Top challenges Overcoming the challenges – a summary

Rigid corporate culture and failure to manage  Have a strong PMO champion who evangelizes the value of PMO
organizational resistance to change  Start small and demonstrate the value of the PMO with some early successes
 Identify and seek support from opinion leaders within the organization who
favor the PMO implementation

Lack of experienced project managers and  Hire an experienced program manager who understands the culture and power
PMO leadership relationships within the client organization
 Bring the most talented project managers into the PMO implementation team

Lack of appropriate change management  Adopt a flexible change management strategy that fits the organizational needs
strategy  Employ process standardization prior to PMO implementation

has previously been established within an organization
and processes have been defined. As one panelist
observed, ‘Basically when they see the requirements for
the tool implementation, a lot of organizations panic
because they know they are not mature enough in their
processes to actually get any value-add out of that
implementation. They run away’. Another reason for
not rushing to buy PMO tools is that they vary greatly in
terms of functionality and, until the structure of the PMO
is decided, there is a risk of buying into a toolset that is a
poor fit for the type of PMO envisioned. As one panelist
noted:
You will see that a number of PMO tools are like PMO-light
and others are like PMO-heavy. Some have all kinds of
functionality that most people will never use. Others are
light on functionality, but they are easy to implement.
Therefore, you are back into that light vs. heavy balancing
act even with the toolset. I think the first order of it is
to define the work, and then we can tell what the level
of effort it is going to be, and what kind [of tools] we
should use.
Overall, we found that using PMO tools alone might
not help organizations to overcome the challenges they
face in implementing a PMO. The organizations must
address the challenges to PMO implementation indepen-
dent of the tool, and should be cognizant of this before
they shop for PMO tools in the marketplace.
Discussion
As noted earlier, organizations can pursue several
approaches to improve project management practices.
Many organizations are using PMOs to manage multiple
IT projects, and to align them with the organization’s
strategy and goals (Thiry & Deguire, 2007). While PMOs
can be beneficial, evidence suggests that many organiza-
tions struggle with PMO implementation. Based on the
results of this study, we offer the following key findings:
(a) Resistance to change represents the chief obstacle to
implementing a PMO. A conducive corporate culture is
critical to implementing a PMO (Santosus, 2003; Wren,
2005) as it can reduce the organizational resistance to
change (Rad & Levin, 2002). Our panelists reported that
to overcome this challenge, it helps to have a strong
PMO champion who can identify, and influence,
opinion leaders within the organization.
(b) Experienced project management leadership plays a
key role in PMO implementation. The program
managers often need to work in complex, multi-
stakeholder projects. In such situations, lessons
learned and project experience from prior engage-
ments is often critical (Dinsmore, 2005, p. 110). As
our panelists suggested, an understanding of the
corporate culture and power relationships within the
client organization is also helpful.
(c) Organizations need to employ an appropriate change
management strategy. Norrie (2008) refers to the
process of assessing the extent of change due to PMO
implementation, and managing it, as ‘change dy-
namics’. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all change
dynamics strategy: each organization must adopt a
flexible strategy that fits the organizational needs. For
example, some of our panelists reported that their
organizations instituted process standardization prior
to PMO implementation. In other cases, however,
process standardization followed the PMO imple-
mentation.
(d) Some organizations have favored the PMO-light
model, while others have favored the PMO-heavy
model. The panelists reported lower resistance to
change in the case of PMO-light, which is under-
standable as this configuration has only a supporting
role of PMO, with limited direct responsibility
for project execution. The downside of this
approach, however, is that the PMO-light model
almost certainly has less influence on project
execution.
(e) One of the more surprising findings emerging from
our study was the heavy reliance on ‘soft’ metrics to
assess the impact of PMOs. These metrics reveal
stakeholder feelings towards a project, and are useful
qualitative indicators that should be tracked over
time (Reuvid, 2005). However, organizations must
complement these soft metrics with ‘hard’ statistics to

European Journal of Information Systems

420 Challenges of implementing a PMO
evaluate the impact of PMOs on project and organi-
zational performance. None of the panelists reported
the use of hard metrics.
(f) Finally, organizations need to evaluate the role of
PMO tools (such as project management software and
portfolio management applications). Although some
organizations rushed to acquire the most potent PMO
tools available in the market, such an approach may be
counterproductive if the organization lacks the project
management maturity needed to utilize the tools.
The results of our study also offer two tools for practice
that managers may find useful. First, the full list of 34
PMO challenges identified by our expert panel (Appendix
A) can serve as a comprehensive checklist of challenges
that IT project managers can use to prepare themselves
before they undertake a PMO implementation in their
organization. This identification of challenges is critical
to designing strategies to overcome them. There is,
however, a cost associated with relying on a list that
contains 34 discrete challenges. Such a list may prove too
cumbersome to use in practice. The ranked list of 13
challenges provides a more compact list that contains
only the most important challenges (as determined by
more than a two-thirds majority of our panelists).
Managers can use the rankings to direct their limited
resources towards addressing the most critical PMO
implementation challenges. The results of the interviews
with selected panelists offer the second tool for practice –
actionable advice on how to overcome the top-ranked
PMO implementation challenges (Table 3).
Finally, our study provides three practical implications
regarding PMO structure, metrics, and PMO tools. First,
we identify a weak spot in many PMO implementations –
the failure to obtain hard metrics on the impact of the
investment. Most IT project managers appear to be
Table 4 Kendall’s coefficient (W) of selected IS-related Delphi studies
Delphi study Focus of study
(Kasi et al., 2008), EJIS IT specialists’ perceptions of
post-mortem paradox
(Mursu et al., 2003), EJIS Identifying software project
risks in Nigeria
(Keil et al., 2002), ISJ Reconciling user and PM
perceptions of IT project risk
(Schmidt, 1997), Decision Ranking of issues by IS
Sciences managers
Ranking of issues by human
resource managers
(Doke & Swanson, 1995), Decision variables for
Information & Management selecting prototyping in
IS development
NR ¼ not reported.
European Journal of Information Systems
Rajendra Singh et al
relying heavily on soft metrics to assess the impact of
the PMO. To ensure the continued investment and senior
leadership’s support to the PMO, managers should
consider collecting baseline data on the status of their
project portfolio before the PMO, as well as performance
data on all projects carried out after the PMO is
implemented. By collecting hard data on cost, schedule,
functionality (in terms of meeting customer require-
ments), and quality of project deliverables, managers will
be in a better position to justify the cost associated with
maintaining a PMO. Second, this study suggests that IT
project managers and senior leadership must carefully
consider the desired PMO structure – whether to choose a
PMO-heavy or a PMO-light configuration. Such an
analysis must take into account the culture of the
organization, and its ability to move towards more
disciplined project management structures and processes.
On a speculative note, we believe that organizations are
more likely to succeed if they implement a PMO-light
structure to start with, and subsequently move towards a
PMO-heavy structure after realizing the initial value and
benefits of PMO-light structure. Third, this study suggests
that managers should avoid the temptation of taking a
‘tools-first’ approach in driving the PMO implementation
forward.
Limitations and directions for future research
Before turning to directions for future research, it is
appropriate to point out the limitations associated with
the present study. First, we base our results on a limited
number of subjects. Our study had 22 panelists, a
number that is consistent with other recent IS-related
Delphi studies (refer Table 4). It is important to note that
the Delphi methodology does not require the panel to
be a representative sample in a statistical sense (Powell,
2003). Nevertheless, given the nature and size of our
‘W’ in Round ‘W’ in Round ‘W’ in Round 3
1 (Number of 2 (Number of (Number of panelists)
panelists) panelists)
0.26 (23) 0.33 (NR) 0.52 (NR)
0.14 (11) 0.26 (5) Study stopped as majority of panelists
dropped out after Round 1
0.50 (15) 0.24 (10) Study stopped due to significant drop
in response rate and Kendall’s W after
Round 1
0.195 (57) 0.33 (43) 0.57 (43)
0.51 (21) 0.48 (19) 0.62 (19)
NR NR 0.54
 Challenges of implementing a PMO
sample, one must be cautious in generalizing. Having
said this, the sample is relatively diverse in terms of
IT project management and PMO implementation
experience (see demographic data for panelists in
Table 1).
A second limitation relates to the moderate level of
consensus among the panelists after Round 2 of ranking
in Phase III, as suggested by Kendall’s W of 0.54. This level
of consensus may reflect the diverse organizational
settings and the nature of the PMO implementations
that each panelist represented. While another round of
ranking might have resulted in a greater level of
consensus, we felt that some degree of panel fatigue
had set in. During the second ranking round, the
researchers had to send increased number of email
reminders and make multiple phone calls to coax the
panelists to continue their participation. Rather than risk
a drop-off in participation (Mursu et al., 2003) we elected
to stop at this point, having already reached a moderate
level of consensus (Schmidt, 1997). Several researchers
have halted Delphi studies when their panel reached a
similar level of consensus (Brancheau & Wetherbe, 1987;
Couger, 1988; Doke & Swanson, 1995; Keil et al., 2002;
Kasi et al., 2008). The Kendall’s W value that we obtained
after two rounds of ranking is comparable to the values
reported after three rounds of ranking in other Delphi
studies, as shown in Table 4.
Future research should focus on the key PMO imple-
mentation challenges identified in Table 2. While we
have gathered some input on how organizations can
overcome the top-three challenges, future research
should investigate and identify strategies and tactics for
overcoming the other ten challenges. Future research
should also investigate both successful and unsuccessful
PMO implementations through in-depth case studies in
order to understand, from a process perspective, how and
why these efforts succeed in some instances and fail in
others. Further, researchers could examine PMO imple-
mentations in various industries to understand domain-
specific differences in terms of the challenges, and the
various approaches employed by organizations to over-
come them. For instance, a newspaper organization may
respond differently to PMO implementation challenges
than a financial services firm or an IT services provider.
We also suggest further research to gather ‘hard’ statistics
on the impact of PMOs on project and organizational
performance. This would complement the ‘soft’ metrics
that most organizations use to evaluate the PMO.
Another area of future research could include investigat-
ing the relative costs and benefits of PMO-heavy vs PMO-
light configurations.
This study also offers guidance to future IS researchers
on conducting a Delphi study. We want to emphasize
choosing a topic that will resonate with expert panelists,
as it is critical to capture and maintain their interest
throughout the Delphi process. We suggest sending a
summary or an extended abstract of the study to the
panel members before they sign up for the study – this
Rajendra Singh et al 421
allows them an opportunity to assess their interest in the
subject. Sending frequent updates to the panelists about
the progress of the study, and using multiple means of
communication (mail, email, phone, and personal con-
tact, if possible) also help to keep the panelists engaged
with the Delphi process. Future researchers also need to
manage the duration of the Delphi process by keeping it
short, as it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain
interest among the panelists when the process stretches
too long.
Conclusions
The growing popularity of PMOs is a relatively recent
phenomenon that represents a significant step in the
evolution of IT project management (Rad & Raghavan,
2000; Aubry et al., 2007; Letavec, 2006; Aubry et al., 2008;
Hobbs et al., 2008). However, there has been little or no
research to guide researchers and practitioners in identi-
fying and overcoming the challenges of implementing a
PMO. The potential of the PMO remains unfulfilled, in
large part, because these initiatives have proven to be
more challenging to implement than many believed they
would be. This study represents the first rigorous attempt
to identify PMO implementation challenges. It identifies
a comprehensive list of 34 challenges that organizations
face during PMO implementation, ranks a list of 13
challenges that our panelists considered most important,
and presents some of the actions that organizations can
take to overcome the top-ranked challenges. Thus, the
study contributes to the broader body of literature on IT
project governance by highlighting the challenges in-
volved in optimizing project management and establish-
ing repeatable processes and procedures (Thiry &
Deguire, 2007).
The top-three challenges identified were (1) rigid
corporate culture and failure to manage organizational
resistance to change, (2) lack of experienced PMs and
PMO leadership, and (3) lack of appropriate change
management strategy. In order to overcome these
challenges, organizations need to have a strong PMO
champion, start small and demonstrate the value of the
PMO, obtain support from opinion leaders, hire an
experienced program manager who understands the
organization, bring he most talented PMs into the PMO
implementation team, adopt a flexible change manage-
ment strategy, and standardize PM processes prior to
PMO implementation. Managers should carefully con-
sider the tradeoffs between ‘light’ vs ‘heavy’ PMO
structures, recognizing that while ‘light’ PMOs may not
have the same impact on the organization, they have a
greater likelihood of being implemented successfully.
Managers should consider obtaining baseline data on
project performance so that they can put objective
measures in place to assess the impact of the PMO.
Finally, managers should avoid the temptation to
embrace PMO tools until a project management culture
has been established.
European Journal of Information Systems
422 Challenges of implementing a PMO
About the author
Rajendra Singh is a doctoral candidate at the Center for
Process Innovation in the J. Mack Robinson College of
Business at Georgia State University. His research interests
include IT project management and technology-enabled
innovations in healthcare delivery systems. His disserta-
tion investigates the complexity of information proces-
sing in hospitals.
Mark Keil is the board of advisors professor of Computer
Information Systems in the J. Mack Robinson College of
Business at Georgia State University. His research focuses
References
AUBRY M, HOBBS B and THUILLIER D (2007) A new framework for
understanding organisational project management through the
PMO. International Journal of Project Management 25(4), 328–336.
AUBRY M, HOBBS B and THUILLIER D (2008) Organisational project
management: an historical approach to the study of PMOs. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management 26(1), 38–43.
BOYER KK, OLSON JR, CALANTONE RJ and JACKSON EC (2002) Print versus
electronic surveys: a comparison of two data collection methodolo-
gies. Journal of Operations Management 20(4), 357–373.
BRANCHEAU JC, JANZ BD and WETHERBE JC (1996) Key issues in information
systems management: 1994-95 sim Delphi results. MIS Quarterly 20(2).
BRANCHEAU JC and WETHERBE JC (1987) Key issues in information systems
management. MIS Quarterly 11(1), 22–45.
CHANG SI and GABLE G (2000) Major issues with SAP financials in
Queensland government. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on
Information Systems, (CHUNG HM, Ed) pp 972–976, Long Beach,
California, USA.
CHRISSIS MB, KONRAD M and SHRUM S (2003) CMMI: Guidelines for Process
Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley Professional,
Boston, MA.
CHRISTIANSEN JC and SHERRY TC (1992) Project management oversight: a
partnership in mass transit projects. Transaction of American Association
of Cost Engineers 2, M.4.1–M.4.6.
COUGER JD (1988) Key human resource issues in IS in the 1990s: views of
IS executives versus human resource executives. Information &
Management 14, 161–174.
CRAWFORD JK (2001) The Strategic Project Office: A Guide to Improving
Organizational Performance. Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, NY.
CRAWFORD L (2006) Developing organizational project management
capability: theory and practice. Project Management Journal 37(3), 74–86.
DAI CX (2001) The Role of Project Management Office in Achieving Project
Success. George Washington University, Washington, DC.
DAI CX and WELLS WG (2004) An exploration of project management
office features and their relationship to project performance. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management 22(7), 523–532.
DALKEY N and HELMER O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi
method to the use of experts. Management Science 9(3), 458–467.
DEKLEVA S and ZUPANCIC J (1996) Key issue in information systems
management: a Delphi study in Slovenia. Information and Manage-
ment 31(1), 1–11.
DESOUZA KC and EVARISTO JR (2006) Project management offices: a case of
knowledge-based archetypes. International Journal of Information
Management 26, 414–423.
DINSMORE P (2005) The Right Projects Done Right!: From Business Strategy
to Successful Project Implementation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
DOKE ER and SWANSON NE (1995) Decision variables for selecting
prototyping in information systems development: a Delphi study of
MIS managers. Information and Management 29, 173–182.
ENGLUND RL, GRAHAM RJ and DINSMORE PC (2003) Creating the Project
Office: A Manager’s Guide to Leading Organizational Change. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., San Francisco.
HILL GM (2004) Evolving the project management office: a competency
continuum. Information Systems Management 21(4), 45–51.
European Journal of Information Systems
Rajendra Singh et al
on IT project management. He holds B.S.E., S.M., and
D.B.A. degrees from Princeton University, M.I.T. Sloan
School, and Harvard Business School, respectively.
Vijay Kasi is a strategic sourcing consultant at Georgia-
Pacific LLC. He also serves as Research Associate at Center
for Process Innovation at Georgia State University
by doing joint research between Georgia-Pacific and
Georgia State University. He holds a doctoral degree from
the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State
University.
HOBBS B and AUBRY M (2007) A multi-phase research program
investigating project management offices (PMOS): the results of phase
1. Project Management Journal 38(1), 74.
HOBBS B, AUBRY M and THUILLIER D (2008) The project management office
as an organisational innovation. International Journal of Project
Management 26(5), 547–555.
HOLSAPPLE P and JOSHI K (2002) Knowledge manipulation: results of a
Delphi study. Information and Management 39, 477–490.
KASI V, KEIL M, MATHIASSEN L and PEDERSEN K (2008) The post mortem
paradox: a Delphi study of it specialist perceptions. European Journal of
Information Systems 17(1), 62.
KEIL M, MANN J and RAI A (2000) Why software projects escalate: an
empirical analysis and test of four theoretical models. MIS Quarterly
24(4), 631–664.
KEIL M and ROBEY D (2001) Blowing the whistle on troubled software
projects. Communications of the ACM 44(4), 87–93.
KEIL M, TIWANA A and BUSH A (2002) Reconciling user and project
manager perceptions of it project risk: a Delphi study 1. Information
Systems Journal 12(2), 103–119.
KENDALL GI and ROLLINS SC (2003) Advanced Project Portfolio Management
and the PMO: Multiplying ROI at Warp Speed. J. Ross Publishing, Boca
Raton, FL.
LEEMANN T (2002) Managing the chaos of change. Journal of Business
Strategy 23(5), 11–16.
LETAVEC CJ (2006) The Program Management Office: Establishing, Managing
and Growing the Value of a PMO. J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
LINCOLN YS and GUBA EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications Inc.,
Newbury Park, CA.
LINSTONE HA and TUROFF M (1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and
Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
LIU LL and YETTON PY (2007) The contingent effects on project performance
of conducting project reviews and deploying project management
offices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(4), 789–799.
MARTIN NL, PEARSON JM and FURUMO K (2007) Is project management:
size, practices and the project management office. Journal of Computer
Information Systems 47(4), 52.
MILES MB and HUBERMAN AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
MURSU A, LYYTINEN K, SORIYAN HA and KORPELA M (2003) Identifying
software project risks in Nigeria: an international comparative study.
European Journal of Information Systems 12(3), 182–194.
NELMS KR and PORTER AL (1985) EFTE: an interactive Delphi method.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 28, 43–61.
NORRIE J (2008) Breaking Through the Project Fog: How Smart Organiza-
tions Achieve Success by Creating, Selecting and Executing On-strategy
Projects. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
OKOLI C and PAWLOWSKI SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool:
an example, design considerations and applications. Information &
Management 42(1), 15–29.
PALIWODA SJ (1983) Predicting the future using Delphi. Management
Decision 21(1), 31–37.
PMI (2004) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Project
Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
 Challenges of implementing a PMO Rajendra Singh et al 423

POHLMANN T (2003) How Companies Govern Their IT Spending. Forrester
Research, Cambridge, MA.
POWELL C (2003) The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 41(4), 376–382.
RAD PF and LEVIN G (2002) The Advanced Project Management Office: A
Comprehensive Look at Function and Implementation. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
RAD PF and LEVIN G (2003) Is your organization friendly to projects? AACE
International Transactions 47, PM.04.1–PM.04.6.
RAD PF and RAGHAVAN A (2000) Establishing an organizational project
office. AACE International Transactions 44, PM.13.1–PM.13.9.
REUVID J (2005) Managing Business Risk: A Practical Guide to Protecting
Your Business. Kogan Page, Philadelphia, PA.
RICHARDSON G and IVES B (2004) Systems development processes.
Computer 37(5), 84–86.
ROWE G and WRIGHT G (1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting
tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15,
353–375.
RUBINSTEIN D (2007) Standish group report: there’s less development
chaos today. SD Times: Software Development Times on the Web, BZ
Media LLC, Huntington, NY.
SANTOSUS M (2003) Office discipline: why you need a project management
office. CIO Magazine, International Data Group, Framingham, MA.
SAUER C, GEMINO A and REICH B (2007) The impact of size and volatility on it
project performance: Studying the factors influencing project risk.
Communications of the ACM 50(11), 79–84.
SCHMIDT RC (1997) Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric
statistical techniques. Decision Sciences 28(3), 763–774.
SCHMIDT RC, LYYTINEN K, KEIL M and CULE PE (2001) Identifying software
project risks: an international Delphi study. Journal of Management
Information Systems 17(4), 5–36.
STANLEIGH M (2006) From crisis to control: new standards for project
management. Ivey Business Journal (March/April), 1–4.
THIRY M and DEGUIRE M (2007) Recent developments in project-based
organisations. International Journal of Project Management 25(7),
649–658.
TROCHIM WMK (2001) The Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog
Publishing, Cincinnati.
WARD JL (2000) Project Management Terms: A Working Glossary. ESI
International, Arlington, VA.
WEIBLE R and WALLACE J (1998) Cyber research: the impact of the internet
on data collection. Marketing Research 10(3), 19–24.
WREN J (2005) A culture of governance. Ziff Davis Enterprise, New York,
NY. eWeek.com.
XIA W and LEE G (2004) Grasping the complexity of is development
projects. Communications of the ACM 47(5), 68–74.

Appendix A
See Table A1.

Table A1 Comprehensive list of PMO implementation challenges (from Phase I)

# Challenge Description

A PMO tools
A1 Lack of inter-operability between Multiple IT project management and time-tracking systems are in use in various
multiple tools used for PM activities organizational divisions. Lack of inter-operability between these systems causes problems in
capturing actual cost and effort, and decision-making.
A2 Lack of required functionality in PMO Limited functionality of PMO tools limits their usability, and creates inefficiencies, resulting
tools in disuse or misuse of the tools. In addition, most PMO tools offer limited customizability.
Even if the customization is possible, it is often not simple and requires lots of time and
effort to implement.

B PMO resources (including human and financial)

B1 Failure to recognize the soft skills needed Implementing a PMO is more than creating templates and structures for projects. A
during PMO implementation
B2 Lack of experienced project managers
and PMO leadership
B3 Lack of dedicated resources in the PMO
implementation team
B4 Difficulty in staffing PMO with most
experienced personnel
B5 Lack of stability and continuity of PMO
resources and stakeholders
B6 Increased administrative workload
placed on project managers
B7 Lack of defined funding and chargeback
model for PMO implementation
common problem is focusing on these elements and failing to recognize the importance of
the soft skills needed to implement a PMO in an organization.
Many PMO initiatives do not have experienced project managers and leaders who
understand the challenges of a PMO implementation and who are aware of the political
terrain in the organization.
In most PMO projects, the team members are shared resources, often pulled into other
non-PMO projects. Typically, the PMO resources have regular (non-PMO) support tasks
that preempt PMO project work, making scheduling and commitment difficult.
The most effective resources for staffing the PMO are those that understand the project and
the current environment. Unfortunately, these folks are also the ones most valuable to the
legacy organization and are hardest to free up for working in the PMO.
There are various instances in which the key PMO resources change midway or at some
point in the project. This may turn out to be a major risk if it happens at a critical time in the
project. Sometimes, even the stakeholders change, putting the whole implementation at
risk.
PMO implementations typically generate additional administrative tasks. The project
managers have to perform these tasks, which takes up an inordinate amount of time. This
increased workload leaves little time to work on improving processes, project closure,
lessons learned, and other activities between projects.
The PMO implementation requires adequate financial resources. Without defined funding
and an adequate chargeback model for the resources who work directly on projects, the
PMO cannot be successful.

European Journal of Information Systems

424 Challenges of implementing a PMO
Table A1 Continued
# Challenge
C PMO sponsorship/stakeholder commitment
C1 Lack of full support of the senior
management and various
stakeholders to the PMO
C2 Lack of stakeholder commitment to
common methodology and tools for
the PMO
D PMO role/charter/definition
D1 Poor definition and communication of
PMO goals and purpose
D2 Role, authority, and responsibility of the
PMO is poorly defined or understood
D3 Lack of a governance model
E PMO design/scope
E1 Lack of defined scope and size of PMO
implementation
E2 Design and implementation problems
due to complexity of organizations
E3 Unclear reporting needs across the
organization
E4 Failure to design a PMO around a
company’s specific needs
F PMO Implementation process
F1 Lack of clearly defined organizational
processes and workflows
F2 Lack of knowledge management during
PMO implementation
F3 Not managing the implementation of
the PMO like a project
F4 Lack of training and communication on
PMO implementation to all
stakeholders
F5 Failure to capture lessons learned during
PMO supported projects
European Journal of Information Systems
Rajendra Singh et al
Description
Executive and stakeholder buy-in and active sponsorship are necessary for any PMO
implementation. This is often difficult to achieve with the executives’ busy schedules and
competing priorities. Many times the PMO stakeholders (including end-users) do not see
the need for the PMO and therefore do not wholeheartedly support it.
Many projects suffer from inadequate acceptance and commitment of the stakeholders
(including project managers, end-users, and executive management) to common PM tools
and implementation methodology. Getting project managers to follow a common
methodology can be difficult given wide variances in interpretation of the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) and because they are used to their own
techniques.
Most organizations do not devote sufficient time and attention to define the goals and
purpose of a PMO. In addition, some organizations fail to communicate the PMO mission/
charter to the entire organization, leading to reluctance in accepting the PMO initiative.
Many organizations fail to specify the role of the PMO. Along the spectrum of PMO-light
(i.e., no direct authority over projects) to PMO-heavy (i.e., direct authority over projects),
organizations do not clearly specify what the role of the PMO is.
A governance model with defined relationships between PMO and project teams, such as
escalation procedures and hand-off points, is often not well defined.
There is a constant struggle to manage demand for additional functionality and changing
business requirements in any PMO implementation. This failure to ‘freeze’ the scope of
PMO implementation creates difficulties in sizing the work effort, and project planning.
Implementing a PMO has its challenges even for one organization at a single site. Multiple
sites, multiple divisions, and different functional processes require more complex PMO
design and implementation. Addition of new organizational units (due to mergers,
acquisitions, etc.) adds to this complexity. Organizations need to consider the impact of
resultant design changes.
Most organizations have different reporting needs across various divisions. Reporting to
whom and what and at what frequency has always been a challenge in implementing a
PMO. Difficulties in standardizing reporting for executives at different levels lead to a lot of
rework.
Some PMO leaders think that there is only one correct way to build a PMO – they tend to
treat all projects and programs as if they are the same, without regard to differences in size,
scope, value, or organizational culture. A PMO that excels in one company may fail
miserably in another. Many PMO initiatives fail to accommodate specific needs of the
organization.
In many organizations, the processes and workflows remain poorly defined. This results in
difficulty in mapping the existing processes and workflows to those dictated by the PMO.
The PMO often lacks a library of prior projects to analyze and aid in handling different
situations. Additionally, common access to methodologies, case studies, lessons learned,
and challenges faced during any project implementation are not available.
The implementation of a PMO is often done without adhering to basic project
management procedures such as work breakdown structures, milestones and deliverables,
risk analysis, etc.
With all the change required from a process definition/implementation/improvement
perspective, there has to be a certain amount of training commensurate with the change
ushered in by the PMO. A formal training and communication plan is often missing.
Some organizations do not conduct any introspective analysis and post-mortems on PMO
support to individuals, teams, project, and program delivery. There is no formal process to
report the findings to all stakeholders in order to capture lessons learned. This would
facilitate continuous improvement to processes and procedures. Unfortunately, such ability
is often missing.
 Challenges of implementing a PMO
Table A1 Continued
# Challenge
G Organizational culture
G1 Rigid corporate culture and failure to
manage organizational resistance to
change
G2 Failure to manage negative perception of
PMO
H PMO implementation strategy
H1 Lack of prioritization and sequencing of
projects across organizational units
H2 Failure to manage expectations of PMO
implementation among stakeholders
H3 Lack of appropriate change management
strategy
H4 Failure to manage interpersonal
relationships
H5 Failure to align PMO implementation
strategy to organizational strategy
I Organizational structure and strategy
I1 Failure to align organizational structure
to support PMO implementation
I2 Problems due to complexities of onsite–
offshore coordination
J PMO evaluation and recognition
J1 Difficulty in evaluating the effectiveness
of PMO in the organization
J2 Lack of recognition of value of PMO to
the organization
Rajendra Singh et al 425
Description
Changing the culture of an organization to ‘think differently’ is always a challenge. A
successful PMO requires a change in mindset, centered on a ‘projectized’ organization. This
is not something that most organizations are used to, or know how to handle.
Businesses view PMOs as a threat instead of an enabler to the business. When a company
announces the creation of a PMO, many employees start thinking that the idea is to police
or control them. They also see the PMO as another layer of management that they have to
navigate around to get anything done.
Implementation of a PMO competes (in terms of time and resources) with other portfolio
projects within the business. Portfolio balance is always a challenge. It is difficult to get the
right mix of resource support, training, and coaching while maintaining other projects/
baseline activities to run the business. A defined process for cross-organizational project
prioritization is often missing.
An organization will have several, often conflicting, expectations of a PMO. The PMO must
first identify the intentions of the organization’s leadership, and then address these
expectations within the organization.
Any PMO implementation involves managing all aspects of change – including people
issues, process issues, structure issues, and compliance issues. The most obvious, but
surprisingly among the most challenging part of establishing a PMO is evolving and
implementing a clear change management strategy.
Success of PMO depends on developing healthy relationships with cross-functional teams
in a project as well as across divisional boundaries. Avoiding an ‘Us’ (project teams/end
users) vs ‘Them’ (PMO team members) conflict is essential to a successful PMO. This is
especially true in multi-vendor situations (cross-functional teams and the PMO team
representing different organizational units/vendors).
The original objectives of establishing a PMO can lose relevance when there are changes in
the organizational strategy. It is essential to maintain strategic alignment to ensure
leadership focus and support. Failure to achieve this will decrease the value of PMO to the
organization.
PMO teams need to have a defined hierarchy within the organizational structure –
preferably a dotted parallel line relationship with the project sponsor, which ensures that
various cross-functional teams have an indirect reporting relationship to the PMO. Many
times the PMO is placed at the same level as the cross functional teams in a project, which
hampers efficient working of the PMO.
Many PMO projects now use the onsite–offshore model. This creates co-ordination
problems within the PMO team, as well as between the PMO team and other project
teams.
It is easier to make a business case for implementing a PMO; it is much more difficult to
measure the success of the implementation. The metrics remain skewed, non-quantifiable,
and not always collected at the point of origin. This makes it difficult to evaluate the cost-
to-value ratio of the PMO to the organization.
Many project teams view a PMO as just another reporting mechanism for senior
management, offering little ‘real assistance’ to the project teams. The challenge is getting
the business units to recognize the value/efforts of a PMO.
European Journal of Information Systems
426 Challenges of implementing a PMO Rajendra Singh et al

Appendix B

See Figure B1.

Figure B1 Screenshot of web-interface used for Delphi study (Phase III, after ranking Round 1).
Note: University logo and website address masked to maintain anonymity.

Appendix C
Semi-structured interview protocol
(1) Overcoming the challenges to PMO
 How did your organization respond to the top-three
challenges to PMO implementation? What worked, or
did not work?
(2) PMO structure
 What was the nature of PMO structure in your
organization (PMO-light/PMO-heavy/any other)?
 Do you think it was an appropriate governance
structure? In hindsight, would you recommend any
changes to this structure? Is there a governance
structure that is more likely to be successful, and where
would that be on the PMO-light, PMO-heavy scale?
(3) Metrics for PMO evaluation
 Has your organization successfully implemented a
PMO? Did the organization meet the original objec-
tives of establishing the PMO?

European Journal of Information Systems

 Challenges of implementing a PMO
 Did the implementation of PMO have measurable
impacts in terms of project success? How did you
measure the impact? What metrics did you use?
(4) PMO tools
 What project management software or portfolio manage-
ment applications did you use for PMO implementation?
View publication stats
Rajendra Singh et al 427
How satisfied are you with those applications in terms of
ease of use, functionality, and customizability?
 Do you consider the PMO tools to be useful devices in
pushing change related to PMO implementation?
 If an organization wants to maximize its chances of
success in a PMO implementation, is it better to
standardize its processes first before buying one of
these tool sets, or after procuring them?
European Journal of Information Systems