Construction Management and Economics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Project management offices in the construction

industry: a literature review and qualitative
synthesis of success variables

Mahmoud Ershadi, Marcus Jefferies, Peter Davis & Mohammad Mojtahedi

To cite this article: Mahmoud Ershadi, Marcus Jefferies, Peter Davis & Mohammad Mojtahedi
(2021) Project management offices in the construction industry: a literature review and qualitative
synthesis of success variables, Construction Management and Economics, 39:6, 493-512, DOI:
10.1080/01446193.2021.1916052

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2021.1916052

Published online: 26 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 419

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcme20
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS
2021, VOL. 39, NO. 6, 493–512
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2021.1916052

Project management offices in the construction industry: a literature review

and qualitative synthesis of success variables
Mahmoud Ershadia , Marcus Jefferiesa , Peter Davisa and Mohammad Mojtahedib
a
School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; bFaculty of Built Environment, University
of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Today’s project management offices (PMOs) in the construction sector need to be equipped Received 9 September 2020
with breakthrough capabilities necessary for making a difference in multi-project management. Accepted 8 April 2021
Although there is an upward trend in academic research on PMOs, a comprehensive framework
KEYWORDS
of potential success variables is still lacking in the literature. This research aims to assess the
Project Management Office;
extant literature from the perspective of the construction sector to provide a single consolidated success variables; systematic
overview of potential PMO success variables. A systematic search process was adopted to review; construction
retrieve publications and narrow them down to eligible studies followed by a qualitative synthe- industry
sis. A set of 32 success variables was synthesized and inductively categorized under four emerg-
ing themes of (1) establishing PM infrastructure, (2) promoting PM practices, (3) PMO
structuring, and (4) organizational support. This set of variables refers to three kinds of func-
tional, structural, and contextual variables characterizing potential features of successful con-
struction PMOs. These variables were compared between the construction industry and other
industries to reflect contextual contrasts and similarities. A research agenda was proposed to
encourage empirical studies on examining success variables. This study contributes to an
improved understanding of PMO success variables in the construction industry and directs
future research towards the most important topics.

Introduction The phenomenon of Project Management Office

Construction organizations constantly face the chal-
lenge of running more projects with fewer resources
to sustain their growth in light of today’s resource
constraints, as well as an ever-increasing competition
over market share (Jang et al. 2020). Considering
recent technology advancement in the construction
industry, there are still shortcomings such as disjointed
sequential project delivery system, inadequate coord-
ination mechanisms, adversary supplier relationship,
slow adoption of new technologies (Desta et al. 2006),
and inadequate innovation leadership throughout the
project life cycle (Sergeeva and Ali 2020). Previous
research blames this industry for inadequate focus on
systematic project management which is necessary for
reaping the maximum benefits of the PM practice
(Desta et al. 2006). Such drawbacks limit the capacity
of construction organizations in multi-project delivery,
which calls for employing contemporary PM philoso-
phies and systematic controls.
(PMO) has been proposed in academic literature
almost in the late 1990s towards achieving better out-
comes in the arrangement of resources and central-
ized oversight (Benjamin 2014). According to the
literature, PMO refers to an organizational entity for
centralized governance and coordination of projects
and its typical responsibilities encompass standardiz-
ing project management processes, enforcing project
controls, monitoring performance, managing interfaces
with stakeholders, training project teams, and main-
taining project management tools depending on the
context (Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha 2015,
Project Management Institute 2017). The most recent
research argues that such entities are becoming more
sophisticated since their activities are being expanded
from simple project administration to the implementa-
tion of modern project management systems (Paton
and Andrew 2019). Apart from basic project adminis-
tration functions, nowadays, PMOs serve as a hub for
nurturing innovation in projects (Sergeeva and Ali

CONTACT Mahmoud Ershadi Mahmoud.Ershadi@uon.edu.au School of Architecture and Built environment, University of Newcastle, University
Drive, Callaghan 2308, Australia
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
494 M. ERSHADI ET AL.
2020), establishing knowledge governance structures
(Martinez Sanz and Ortiz-Marcos 2019), managing stra-
tegic portfolio priorities (Paton and Andrew 2019),
leading changes in project management (Bredillet
et al. 2018), and benchmarking industry best practices
(Sandhu et al. 2019).
There are indications that PMO as a change agent
and catalyst for systematic multi-project management
is dedicated to improving PM tools, methods, and cul-
ture (Bredillet et al. 2018). This entity is used more
than before in the construction industry, which indi-
cates its ever-increasing importance (Ershadi and
Atashfaraz 2016). The underpinning value of PMOs in
the construction industry is not limited to reducing
project failure rates but also lies in nurturing a con-
tinuous improvement culture, integrated oversight,
and centralized resource allocation (Parchami Jalal and
Matin Koosha 2015). Evidence from empirical surveys
in the construction industry reveals that PMO contrib-
utes to improving performance in three ways includ-
ing (1) project delivery, (2) instilling PM culture and
practice, and (3) knowledge management (Desta et al.
2006). Such demonstrated values justify more investi-
gations into the characteristics necessary for the
higher performance of these units in improving
PM outcomes.
Today’s construction industry calls for employing
more productive and efficient PMOs to bring more
value and lead changes in the project management
environment (Bredillet et al. 2018). The extent to
which PMO entities provide value to construction
organizations is critical due to considerable costs and
efforts associated with their setup (Letavec 2006).
Achieving positive results from adopting some form of
PMO in construction organizations is dependent upon
capturing their inherent capabilities (Parchami Jalal
and Matin Koosha 2015). One attempt towards
encouraging higher productivity and effectiveness in
PMO practice is to define and continuously improve
their core capabilities (Schibi 2013).
Prior studies on such capabilities are dispersed and
inconclusive since each study tends to focus on lim-
ited aspects of functionality. A group of studies
focussed on how PMOs facilitate the cycle of project
management knowledge creation, acquisition, and
transfer (Pemsel and Wiewiora 2013, Martinez Sanz
and Ortiz-Marcos 2019). Other studies introduced
capabilities necessary for ensuring that an organiza-
tion is investing in the best set of projects by applying
project portfolio management techniques (Unger et al.
2012). Hurt and Thomas (2009) first adopted a com-
prehensive view of the value of this phenomenon by
introducing the concept of project management value
sustainability. As a result of analyzing three detailed
cases, they found how PMOs are linked to the value
chain of organizations by (1) building a core ideology,
(2) selecting the right leadership and staff, (3) con-
fronting challenges, and (4) creating a culture of dis-
cipline. In another endeavour, Aubry and Hobbs
(2011) proposed a framework for evaluating and
improving the contribution of PMO to the organiza-
tional performance based on 11 case studies from
telecommunication, financial, multimedia, and finan-
cial sectors.
Follow up studies attempted to use the set of crite-
ria in such frameworks to evaluate PMO performance
(Tales et al. 2016). Besides, theories from earlier studies
have been adopted in the construction sector for
examining the relationship between organizational
variables and PMO characteristics (Parchami Jalal and
Matin Koosha 2015), or examining main PMO func-
tions (Oliveira et al. 2017); but no study has exhaust-
ively conceptualized PMO success variables in the
construction industry. It was previously asserted that
there is no strong consensus among scholars on PMO
characteristics, which prevents the establishment of
holistic models on PMO success variables (Hobbs and
Aubry 2008). Most of the inconsistencies in their find-
ings are rooted in narrowing down the research focus
and scope rather than undertaking a systematic ana-
lysis of all possible factors.
According to previous review studies on PMO
knowledge management (Cunha et al. 2014), PMO
models (Monteiro et al. 2016b), and PMO evolution
(Darling and Whitty 2016), similarities can be traced
and contrasts can be captured in the findings of inde-
pendent studies to explore the broader PMO function-
ing pattern. It justifies an integrative literature review
to outline the principles governing the PMO perform-
ance. The current study contributes to providing an
integrated view of potential PMO success variables
that are driven from the features already established
in the construction context as well as those discussed
in other contexts. Expanding the scope of review
helps to adopt variables from well-established con-
texts in terms of PMO theories (such as Information
Technology) to enrich the findings of prior construc-
tion research (Table 1).
This effort draws consistent conclusions from the
available evidence by resolving partial overlaps in the
results of primary studies through retrieving variables,
comparing them, and putting them together into a
comprehensive framework uncovering the broader
theory behind PMO performance. This study contrasts
Table 1. Potential PMO success variables in the literature.
Lifecycle
2nd-order codes 1st-order codes Sa R/Da Analyzed references
Establishing PM Methodology   Dai and Wells (2004), Ayyagari et al. (2006), Desta et al. (2006), Singh et al. (2009), Aubry et al. (2010a), Spalek (2012), Unger et al. (2012), Arumugam et al.
Infrastructure Development (2013), Kiani et al. (2015), Kutsch et al. (2015), Phan (2015), Ershadi and Atashfaraz (2016), Philbin (2016), Barbalho et al. (2017), Szalay et al. (2017), and
Sandhu et al. (2019)
PM Training   Dai and Wells (2004), Ayyagari et al. (2006), Bourne (2006), Hurt and Thomas (2009), Aubry et al. (2010a), Aubry and Hobbs (2011), Zhang et al. (2011),
Arumugam et al. (2013), Haddad (2014), Kiani et al. (2015), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015), Tales et al. (2016), Barbalho et al. (2017), Oliveira
and Martins (2018), and Philbin (2018)
PM Tools   Ayyagari et al. (2006), Desta et al. (2006), Spalek (2012), M€
uller et al. (2013b), Schibi (2013), Qi et al. (2014), Kutsch et al. (2015), Widforss and Rosqvist
(2015), Van Der Linde and Steyn (2016), and Philbin (2018)
Benchmarking   Wood and Ma (2008), Abdi and Kaddoura (2011), Artto et al. (2011), Aubry and Hobbs (2011), and Do Valle and Soares (2014)
best practices
Project Archive   Dai and Wells (2004), Ayyagari et al. (2006), Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Spalek (2012), and Kiani et al. (2015)
Promoting Knowledge  Ayyagari et al. (2006), Wood and Ma (2008), Pellegrinelli and Garagna (2009), Aubry et al. (2010a, 2011a), Unger et al. (2012), M€ uller et al. (2013b), Schibi
PM Practices Management (2013), Do Valle and Soares (2014), Kutsch et al. (2015), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015), Santos and Varaj~ao (2015), de Nadae and de Carvalho
(2017), Braun (2018), Raharjo et al. (2018), and Martinez Sanz and Ortiz-Marcos (2019)
Project Performance  Ayyagari et al. (2006), Christie (2006), Jones and Lucey (2007), Carrillo et al. (2010), Abdi and Kaddoura (2011), M€
uller et al. (2013b), Ko et al. (2015), Parchami Jalal
Monitoring and Matin Koosha (2015), Barbalho et al. (2017), Amer and Elayoty (2018), Oliveira and Martins (2018), Philbin (2018), and Sandhu et al. (2019)
Project  Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Jones and Lucey (2007), Aubry et al. (2010a), Spalek (2012), Arumugam et al. (2013), Barbalho and De Toledo (2013), Qi et al.
portfolio (2014), Widforss and Rosqvist (2015), Barbalho et al. (2017), Bredillet et al. (2017), Oliveira and Martins (2018), and Ko and Kim (2019)
management
Post-delivery  Dai and Wells (2004), Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Hobbs and Aubry (2007), Liu and Yetton (2007), Hurt and Thomas (2009), Artto et al. (2011), Arumugam
Project Review et al. (2013), Pansini and Terzieva (2013), Wood et al. (2016), and Oliveira et al. (2017)
Continuous  Dai and Wells (2004), Walker and Christenson (2005), Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Liu and Yetton (2007), Julian (2008), Aubry et al. (2010a), Antonio
Improvement Martins and Ramos Martins (2012), Kaul and Joslin (2018), and Lacruz and Cunha (2018)
Resource Allocation  Ayyagari et al. (2006), Hobbs et al. (2008), Aubry et al. (2010a), Qi et al. (2014), Ko et al. (2015), Van Der Linde and Steyn (2016), and Paton and Andrew (2019)
PM Compliance  Ayyagari et al. (2006), Desta et al. (2006), Pellegrinelli and Garagna (2009), Arumugam et al. (2013), Widforss and Rosqvist (2015), Wood et al. (2016),
Oliveira et al. (2017), and Lavoie-Tremblay et al. (2018)
Project Reporting  Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Aubry et al. (2010a), Spalek (2012), Unger et al. (2012), Blazevic et al. (2014), Qi et al. (2014), Phan (2015), and Philbin (2018)
Risk Management  Dai and Wells (2004), Ayyagari et al. (2006), Pellegrinelli and Garagna (2009), Aubry and Hobbs (2011), Qi et al. (2014), and Tales et al. (2016)
Mentoring  Dai and Wells (2004), Hobbs et al. (2008), Singh et al. (2009), Kiani et al. (2015), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015)
Track Project Benefit  Artto et al. (2011), Aubry and Hobbs (2011), Ozguler and Yilmaz (2017), and Sandhu et al. (2019)
Resource Productivity  Aubry and Hobbs (2011), Pansini and Terzieva (2013), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015), Santos and Varaj~ao (2015), and Tales et al. (2016)
Problem Solving  Hurt and Thomas (2009), Singh et al. (2009), Artto et al. (2011), and Pansini and Terzieva (2013)
Project Governance  Pemsel and Wiewiora (2013), Kutsch et al. (2015), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015), Aubry and Brunet (2016), and Philbin (2018)
Interface Management  Artto et al. (2011), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015), and Braun (2018)
PMO Structuring PMO Alignment   Ayyagari et al. (2006), Bourne (2006), Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Andersen et al. (2007), Aubry et al. (2007), Wood and Ma (2008), Singh et al. (2009),
Aubry et al. (2010a), Carrillo et al. (2010), Wang and Liu (2010), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015), Phan (2015), Pinto (2015), Ferreira et al. (2016),
Oliveira et al. (2017), Lavoie-Tremblay et al. (2018), Raharjo et al. (2018), and Paton and Andrew (2019)
PMO Agility   Christie (2006), Aubry et al. (2008), Hurt and Thomas (2009), Pellegrinelli and Garagna (2009), Singh et al. (2009), Aubry et al. (2010b), Ward and Daniel
(2013), Bredillet et al. (2018), and Kaul and Joslin (2018)
PMO Authorization   Bourne (2006), Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Hobbs and Aubry (2008), Wood and Ma (2008), Singh et al. (2009), Do Valle and Soares, (2014), Phan (2015),
Ershadi and Atashfaraz (2016), and Lavoie-Tremblay et al. (2018)
PMO Visibility   Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Letavec (2007), Wood and Ma (2008), Hurt and Thomas (2009), Pellegrinelli and Garagna (2009), Singh et al. (2009), Aubry
et al. (2011b), Spalek (2013, 2014), Ershadi and Atashfaraz (2016), and Raharjo et al. (2018)
PMO Skill Set   Christie (2006), Andersen et al. (2007), Hurt and Thomas (2009), Singh et al. (2009), and Lavoie-Tremblay et al. (2018)
PM Competence   Hurt and Thomas (2009), Singh et al. (2009), Zhang et al. (2011), Ward and Daniel (2013), and Ershadi and Atashfaraz (2016)
PMO leadership   Hurt and Thomas (2009), Singh et al. (2009), M€ uller et al. (2013a), and Raharjo et al. (2018)
PMO Sponsorship   Andersen et al. (2007), Schibi (2013), and Spalek (2014)
Organizational Stakeholder
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS

  Ayyagari et al. (2006), Bourne (2006), Christie (2006), Desouza and Evaristo (2006), Andersen et al. (2007), Aubry et al. (2007), Hurt and Thomas (2009),
Support Engagement Singh et al. (2009), Aubry et al. (2010a), Aubry and Hobbs (2011), Arumugam et al. (2013), Haddad (2014), Wood et al. (2016), and Philbin (2018)
Management   Bourne (2006), Singh et al. (2009), Schibi (2013), Spalek (2013), Do Valle and Soares (2014), Spalek (2014), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015), Ershadi
Commitment and Atashfaraz (2016), Wood et al. (2016), and Lavoie-Tremblay et al. (2018)
495

Organizational   Bourne (2006), Aubry et al. (2010a), Wang and Liu (2010), Aubry et al. (2011a), Unger et al. (2012), Pemsel and Wiewiora (2013), Tsaturyan and M€uller
Communications (2015), and Oliveira et al. (2017)
PM Culture   Hurt and Thomas, (2009), Singh et al. (2009), Aubry et al. (2011a), Aubry (2015), Parchami Jalal and Matin Koosha (2015), and Phan (2015)
a
S: setup phase; R/D: running and development phase.
496 M. ERSHADI ET AL.
prior review studies on the topic by mapping out an
overview of success variables across multiple contexts
with a focus on the construction industry considering
the PMO lifecycle from the early stages of set-up to
operation and development. This study bridges the
research gap by addressing two fundamental
research questions:
RQ1: What are the potential PMO success variables
and corresponding categories that can be potentially
applied in the construction industry?
RQ2: What are the distinctions of theoretical PMO
success domains between the construction sector and
other industries?
To address these questions, the present study
retrieves and synthesizes potential success variables
from the extant literature. Towards the second ques-
tion, the focus of prior research on theoretical
domains of PMO success is compared across different
contexts. A research agenda is suggested based on
the insight gained through the review process to dir-
ect future research on unexplored areas critical for
achieving higher effectiveness in PMO practice. As
another implication, this study finds variables that
have not been previously discussed in the construc-
tion research but their application can bring higher
productivity and effectiveness in operating PMOs.
The concept of PMO value stream and success
The term success has been frequently discussed in PM
literature. Two distinct approaches to the study of suc-
cess variables can be traced in the literature: one view
concentrates on the operational level and sheds light
on potential success factors for completing a project
within time, cost, quality, and scope targets (Besteiro
et al. 2015, Radujkovic and Sjekavica 2017, Mavi and
Standing 2018); while the other approach focusses on
enterprise-wide factors and incorporates important
variables that lead to successful performance in deliv-
ering business outcomes via leveraging organizational
€ller et al. 2017, Ul Musawir et al. 2017).
capabilities (Mu
However, PMO success, as a multidimensional concept,
is defined in the intersection of project and business
environment and incorporates both project-oriented
and business-oriented outcomes (Kaul and Joslin
2018). Researchers argued that adopting a mere pro-
ject-centric view does not guarantee the successful
operation of PMOs (Kutsch et al. 2015) because they
are considered as complex organizational entities link-
ing the project and organizational environment. PMO
success depends on its ability to provide value to the
business by driving positive changes in project
management systems, methods, and governance
structures (Aubry et al. 2007). Letavec (2006) described
three areas of PMO value as follows:

Explicit value is explicitly created by time, cost, or
effort savings from reducing staff, eliminating
rework, and optimizing resources which directly
result in tangible outcomes.

Implicit value is achieved by standardization, men-
toring junior project managers, provision of tools
and systems, and coordination of involved parties
in projects. The outcomes of such efforts are not
directly measurable in terms of time or cost savings
but are manifested in the overall improvement of
workflows, productivity, and cross-functional
communications.

Intellectual capital refers to areas such as develop-
ing the organization’s PM knowledge base, enhanc-
ing the PM maturity level, and embedding
principles of sustainable construction, which shapes
the PM culture as the main source of competitive
advantage in the market.
From the perspective of the value stream, after the
setup process, PMO continuously evolves into a more
mature unit as its capabilities are developed.
Throughout this process, PMO performance targets are
tracked to ensure continuous improvement (Kaul and
Joslin 2018). Discrete implicit and explicit outcomes
are achieved as a result of delivering PMO services.
The value stream of PMO extends to a higher level
where the impact of discrete outcomes are accumu-
lated to shape long-term benefits (Letavec 2006).
Achievement of long-term benefits guarantees value
sustainability and introduces this entity as a centre for
driving organizational changes. PMO success is a
broad concept that is defined in the light of value sus-
tainability based on the performance outcomes,
internal development, the accomplishment of PM tar-
gets, and contribution to discrete success outcomes
(Figure 1) (Kaul and Joslin 2018). The contribution of
successful PMOs to construction projects is threefold
based on the stages of the lifecycle (Widforss and
Rosqvist 2015), which include (1) providing continual
support of managers during the tendering process (in
the pre-award stage), (2) making procurement deci-
sions and resource planning (in the post-award stage),
and (3) acting as an internal PM consultant for manag-
ing dependencies, uncertainties, and communications
(in the execution stage).
Several studies have discussed PMO variables in a
variety of contexts so far. The different perspective of
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 497

Sustainability of
PMO value

Accumulative impact of discrete

outcomes in the long run (e.g. PM
culture, process assets, maturity, and
knowledge base)

Intellectual capital

Discrete success outcomes

(e.g. on-target delivery, cost/time/resource saving,
reduce conflicts and operational issues, controlled risks)

Explicit Implicit
contribution contribution

Periodic performance measurement and taking initiatives

to ensure continuous improvement and meeting objectives

PMO
PMO internal development:
PMO Setup Closure /
(Enhance capabilities over time) Transition

Figure 1. PMO value stream: inspired by Kaul and Joslin (2018).

such studies has led to a fragmented body of know-
ledge across various contexts. Among these studies,
Raharjo et al. (2018) considered (1) the support from
top management, (2) clear directions including vision,
mission, roadmap, structure, and responsibility, and (3)
PMO leadership as the most effective factors for deliv-
ering PMOs in IT projects. Nevertheless, providing a
comprehensive overview of all success variables
requires following an integrative literature review. In
this review study, findings from various contexts are
brought together to capture their overlaps and iden-
tify the core capabilities of construction PMOs.
Methods
Extensive primary studies have been conducted so far
on PMO characteristics but there is still a paucity of
integrative studies to provide secondary evidence on
the taxonomy of potential success variables. This study
adopted a systematic literature review and qualitative
synthesis method to identify an exhaustive set of PMO
success variables applicable to the construction indus-
try. Even though the target scope of the review is the
construction industry, other contexts were included to
provide a more comprehensive overview of PMO fea-
tures. The steps of this systematic literature review
were adopted from Tranfield et al. (2003) and Lee
et al. (2015) and include (1) clarifying the scope of the
topic, (2) developing a systematic review protocol, (3)
systematic searching of online databases and screen-
ing the retrieved records based on the protocol, (4)
data extraction and qualitative synthesis of the eli-
gible studies.
Clarifying the scope of the topic
Initially, the outset of this study was the identification
of key concepts associated with the topic. The main
related topic areas were determined as illustrated in
overlapping domains in Figure 2. The three shaded
topic areas of ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ are covered in the scope
of literature search:

Studies on PMO success in the construction industry:
This area is represented by shaded area B and
includes 7% of the total retrieved records.

Studies on PMO success in all industries: This area is
represented by shaded area A and includes 72% of
the total retrieved records.

Studies on PMO characteristics in the construction
industry: This area is represented by shaded area C
and includes 21% of the total retrieved records.
498 M. ERSHADI ET AL.
Figure 2. Conceptualization of search domains.
The target of this literature review is the topic area
‘B’. However, the results of the literature search in the
topic area ‘C’ (21% of records) and ‘A’ (72% of records)
revealed that the inclusion of such domains would
extend the coverage of the relevant literature on
potential success variables since some PMO features
are universally applicable to all contexts. These two
areas are also necessary to answer the second
research question (RQ2) which focusses on providing a
cross-industry overview of success variables.
Developing a systematic review protocol
The review protocol includes a search strategy, index
engines, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The
search strategy defines keywords, synonyms, opera-
tors, as well as the databases to be searched. The
main index engines searched in this study include
Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost,
and ProQuest, in which records were searched from
the starting date of the database to February 2020.
Besides, the search field includes title, abstract, and
keywords. To maximize the precision while keeping
the results manageable, a list of alternative words was
selected which may be used interchangeably with the
major keywords. The operators used in the search for-
mula for searching the databases include AND, OR, ‘ ’,
and . To develop an effective search string, common
search keywords in previous studies were identified
based on an explorative literature search (Svejvig and
Andersen 2015).
The keywords for three separate elements of search
strategy were identified as follows: (1) the first
element of the search string is ‘project management
office’ and the alternative words include project sup-
port office, project office, program management office,
portfolio management office, project management
centre of excellence, PMCoE, and PMO (Darling and
Whitty 2016, Monteiro et al. 2016a). (2) The second
search element is ‘success’ which is associated with
alternative keywords of performance, value, capability,
competency, maturity, effectiveness, efficiency, prod-
uctivity, accomplishment, excellence, characteristics,
function, and structure. (3) The third search element is
‘construction’, and its alternative words consist of
building, civil, infrastructure, housing, architecture, and
contracting. The overall search string was formulated
by using the operator of ‘AND’ between the three
above-mentioned search elements and the operator of
‘OR’ between alternative words within each
search element.
In this protocol, the following criteria were defined
based upon research objectives to narrow down the
extracted records. The inclusion criteria include (1)
English language articles, (2) availability of full-text
records from the accessible databases, and (3) studies
aligning with keywords in the specified search
domains. The exclusion criteria include (1) duplicate
records which have been retrieved from different sour-
ces; (2) articles with irrelevant title, abstract and key-
words; and (3) articles which have not discussed PMO
success variable in their findings.
Systematic searching and screening
The systematic searching of databases was conducted
based on the developed review protocol and the
retrieved records were imported in Endnote X9 soft-
ware. The guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were
followed for the process of identification, screening,
eligibility, and inclusion (Stovold et al. 2014) as illus-
trated in the PRISMA diagram in Figure 3. A triangula-
tion review approach was adopted to ensure valid
results from systematic searching. Hence, the authors
separately evaluated the results of the screening pro-
cess against the developed protocol to ensure the
consistency of outcomes (Bryman 2016). As illustrated
in Figure 3, a systematic search of title, abstract, and
keywords based on three above inclusion criteria
retrieved 1820 records out of which a total of 391
duplicate records were removed using EndNote (the
first exclusion criterion) followed by eliminating 1339
irrelevant records as a result of reviewing the title,
abstract, and keywords (the second exclusion
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 499

ProQuest EBSCOhost Web of Scopus Google

87 156 Science 249 577 Scholar 751

Identification Inclusion 1820 records were retrieved

criteria through database searching

Exclusion 1820 records were screened in 391 duplicate records were

criterion 1 terms of duplicity using EndNote removed
Screening

Exclusion 1429 records were screened by 1339 irrelevant records were

criterion 2 title, abstract and keywords excluded
Eligibility

Exclusion 90 full-text records were assessed 5 full-text records were

criterion 3 for eligibility excluded

85 records were included in the

Included

qualitative synthesis (Full-text

records were imported to NVivo)

1st Order Coding: 32 codes

were extracted (axial and
emergent coding)
Qualitative Synthesis

2nd Order Coding: 4 main

categories for the codes were
identified (selective coding)

The node structure was tested

and confirmed by two
researchers

Figure 3. The process of literature searching, screening, and synthesis.

criterion). A more thorough analysis against the third
exclusion criterion was conducted thereafter, which
resulted in excluding five records.
Data extraction and qualitative synthesis
In the fourth step, a qualitative synthesis was con-
ducted to draw on a typology of variables contribu-
ting to PMO success. This synthesis involves bringing
results from individual studies together to organize
ideas around the topic to create a new knowledge
basis which is not apparent from individual studies
(Briner and Denyer 2012). The qualitative synthesis of
the selected literature followed four steps: first, the
full-text of the included articles from EndNote X9 was
imported to NVivo 12.4. Second, a flexible coding
method as introduced by Saldan ~a (2015) and adopted
in a related context (Love et al. 2019) was followed
that begins with axial coding using common terms
that were derived from the literature to construct pre-
liminary linkages between data. The articles were thor-
oughly reviewed and relevant chunks of text which
represent potential success variables were selected to
be coded in its source code. If the following text point
to a similar concept, they would be located in the
same code (O’Neill et al. 2018). Emergent coding was
also considered as the review of the selected articles
progressed. New nodes with proper labels were added
500 M. ERSHADI ET AL.

12

Number of publications
10
8
6
4
2
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year

All articles Construction industry

The trend of publications on the topic

Multi-country Multi-industry
IT
Europe Construction
Healthcare
North America
Banking
Regions

Industry
Asia Public Adminisration
Pharmaceutical
South America Defense Industry
Australia
Education
Hi-tech
Africa Non-profit organizations
Mining
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percentage of the selected studies
Percentage of the selected studies

Construction All industries

Study areas in empirical research Study context in field research

Figure 4. Descriptive analysis of the included studies.

in NVivo whenever additional distinct variables Results

emerged (Miles et al. 2014).
Descriptive analysis of the selected studies
Third, as the thematic analysis progressed, the
second cycle of coding based on a selective method The distribution of the included studies based on pub-
was conducted to explore a deeper structure by seek- lishing time, study area, study context, and publication
ing similarities among the germane codes and aggre- name is illustrated in Figure 4. The descriptive analysis
gating them into meaningful groups (Gioia et al. shows that publications on the topic have been
2013). Pooling items into groups helps to detect con- increased rapidly since 2006 with a majority of studies
sistent and overarching themes for the data conducted in a multi-industry or multi-country setting.
(Vaismoradi et al. 2013). Hence, nodes that contain Seventeenth records (20%) were theoretical and 68
similarly themed content were inductively merged records (80%) were field studies among which 36 sur-
into main categories (parent nodes). The references veys and 32 case studies were found. Across these 68
linked with child nodes determined the total number field studies, 62% were conducted based on qualita-
of references for each corresponding parent node. tive methods mostly using structured interviews, 22%
Finally, the coding structure was independently tested of researches was conducted based on quantitative
by two researchers, and reliability was established due methods, and the remaining 16% followed a mixed
to the achieved agreement (Zhu and Mostafavi 2017). approach. A closer look at the type of publications

Figure 5. The map of the synthesized nodes in NVivo 12.4.
revealed that records were distributed among 48 dif-
ferent journals and conferences. Sixty-two per cent of
records were published in journals among which the
Project Management Journal (14 records) and the
International Journal of Project Management (13
records) published the most relevant articles.
Altogether, a number of nine articles have been con-
ducted specifically in the construction sector.
The qualitative synthesis process in NVivo
The qualitative synthesis of the selected literature was
conducted based on the four steps explained in the
methods section. At the first round of coding, selected
articles were imported to NVivo 12.4 and the coding
process begins with axial coding using common key-
words derived from the literature to link between
data. Relevant chunks of text which represent success
variables were coded in its source code. Emergent
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 501
nodes with proper labels were added in NVivo and
resulted in a set of 32 variables. At the second round
of coding, a selective method was conducted to
explore a deeper structure by seeking similarities
among the codes elicited in the first round. After pool-
ing codes into groups, a structure of nodes in Nvivo
was developed. Figure 5 illustrates a map of child and
parent nodes, which summarizes potential features for
running successful PMOs. The two rounds of thematic
coding are explained in the following two sections.
The first round of thematic analysis
Although PMO is rather a new topic, many potential
variables related to its success, performance, and value
have been discussed in previous studies. The findings
and theoretical discussions around these themes were
thoroughly reviewed in the text of the eligible studies.
The corresponding variables were extracted and
502 M. ERSHADI ET AL.

PMO Alignment
Knowledge Management
Methodology Development
PM Training
Stakeholders Engagement
Project Performance Monitoring
Project Portfolio Management
PMO Visibility
Management Commitment
Post-delivery Project Review
PM Tools
PMO Authority
Continuous Improvement
Agility in response to changes
Organizational Communications
Variables

Project Reporting
PM Compliance
Resource Allocation
PM Culture
Risk Management
PM Competence
PMO Skillset
Project Governance
Resource Productivity
Track Project Benefits
Mentoring
Project Archive
Benchmarking best practices
PMO Leadership
Problem-solving
PMO Sponsorship
Interface Management
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Number of citations

Construction Research All References

(search domains B and C) (search domains A, B and C)
Figure 6. Importance of success variables in the construction research in comparison with all references.

qualitatively synthesized in certain codes using NVivo
12.4 that resulted in a set of 32 items. Regarding the
fact that this review considered a broad multi-
dimensional search domain, the frequency of the varia-
bles retrieved from target search domains of B and C
(construction research) were compared with the find-
ings from all search domains to give a cross-industry
overview (Figure 6). The three variables of PMO align-
ment, knowledge management, and methodology
development are among the most cited ones in the
selected literature. These three items play a prominent
role in fitting a PMO with corporate needs, standardiz-
ing the project management processes, and sharing the
lessons learned within an enterprise. On the one hand,
the most cited factors in construction research include
methodology development, project portfolio manage-
ment, management commitment, and PM compliance.
The content analysis revealed that a total of 8 out
of 32 variables (25%) have not been discussed in the
construction industry, indicating potential areas that
should receive more attention in construction PMOs.
These eight areas that need further discussion in
construction research towards achieving higher per-
formance include (1) benchmarking best practices, (2)
problem-solving techniques, (3) continuous improve-
ment in PM domains, (4) agility in response to
changes, (5) tracking project benefits, (6) PMO leader-
ship, (7) PMO skillset, and (8) PMO sponsorship.
Although these eight variables have not been
examined at a multi-project level as part of PMO capa-
bilities in the construction industry, recent studies in
this context have implied their importance. There is a
paucity of research on how PMOs should employ
these capabilities at the multi-project level to improve
organizational PM outcomes. Further study is required
to examine their application at the PMO level to sys-
tematically implement them across all projects. For
example, Tsolas (2020) asserted the importance of
benchmarking Engineering, Procurement and
Construction (EPC) power plant projects to capture
and share their best practices. Erdogan et al. (2017)
highlighted the role of decision-making in project
management and underlined the importance of
shared problem-solving in this industry. Omotayo

Temitope et al. (2019) asserted that continuous
improvement is a necessity in the construction indus-
try to be promoted through system thinking. Besides,
Leicht et al. (2020) discussed the predominant role of
agile-based project organizations and Goel et al.
(2020) posited that project benefits management
(PBM) facilitates social sustainability in construction
projects. Such variables need to be elaborated further
in the construction industry at the PMO level through
empirical research.
The second round of thematic analysis
To identify the underlying categories of the extracted
variables, they need to be grouped in terms of seman-
tic similarities in the second round of thematic ana-
lysis. Adopting broad classifications may lead to
overlapping groups while they should represent mutu-
ally exclusive, non-overlapping, and exhaustive sets
(Doty and Glick 1994) that reflect a phenomenon and
enforce stability of reference. Theories of classification
mainly focus on three principles of similarity, sharing
characteristics, and unity of knowledge to create such
themes (Jacob 2004). The term ‘overarching concept’
is frequently used to refer to the phenomenon
mapped out by elicited categories through a hierarch-
ical structure (Collier et al. 2008). In this paper, these
principles were taken into account for classifying the
variables into mutually exclusive categories. Applying
these principles, four major categories were identified
to classify variables as follows. The first and second
categories refer to functional features, the third cat-
egory indicates structural features and the fourth one
is related to organizational enablers.
1. Establishing PM infrastructure: PM infrastructure
points to adequate systems, processes, and com-
petencies (Kovacs and Paganelli 2003, Procca
2008) which should exist as preliminary arrange-
ments for embedding the PM practice. The corre-
sponding success variables are considered as a
pillar embedding other functional capabilities.
2. Promoting PM practices: As a backbone for creat-
ing positive outcomes from PM practices, it is
important that PMO continuously check the
results from the operational level and improve
controlling mechanisms. Also, a PMO entity
should be equipped with the capabilities required
for aligning operations with strategies and ensur-
ing effective surveillance of the PM environment.
This category refers to improving and embedding
project management in an enterprise.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 503
3. PMO structuring: As stressed by Aubry and Hobbs
(2010), adopting the right structural characteristics
is a basis for achieving an effective PMO. The
structure should be established based on the
characteristics of the host organization (Carrillo
et al. 2010) to ensure successful positioning. This
category represents different structural features
such as authority, leadership, skills, and staffing.
4. Organizational support: Variables in this category
focus on enablers facilitating PMO operation in an
organization. They enable a PMO to obtain the
requisite support and communicate effectively
with a wide range of different stakeholders from
project teams to executives (Parchami Jalal and
Matin Koosha 2015). These variables significantly
affect both structural enablers and functional
capabilities and should be proactively sought.
Mapping success variables across PMO lifecycle
This study also assesses these aspects and associated
variables based on the PMO lifecycle which goes from
setup via development to regular operations. A PMO
may be finally closed if it fails to meet the expecta-
tions of the sponsor and upper management in the
parent organization (Andersen et al. 2007). Regarding
the nature of synthezised variables, it is clear that a
majority of them apply to both the PMO setup and
running phases. Current literature does not reflect the
application of success factors to different phases of
the lifecycle. Therefore, this review assesses each vari-
able considering its applicability to phases of PMO life-
cycle including (1) setup and (2) running and
development.
Recent research revealed that PMO as a dynamic
structure is influenced by numerous contextual varia-
bles (Bredillet et al. 2018), which implies that this unit
is gradually evolved and transformed over time into a
more mature entity. In this process, a higher level of
authority, more sophisticated structure, skills, and
competencies may be required to meet the require-
ments for new PMO characteristics. During the evolu-
tion process, more sophisticated infrastructure is
needed to be provided and maintained (Ozguler and
Yilmaz 2017). Therefore, variables categorized under
‘PM infrastructure’ apply to the PMO setup phase for
introducing initial PM requisites, as well as the PMO
running phase for maintaining and advancing the
existing PM infrastructure. Similarly, variables in the
third group apply to the whole PMO lifecycle as they
refer to establishing the structure or reconfiguring an
existing unit. It is well acknowledged in the literature
504 M. ERSHADI ET AL.

Organizational Support

Development Phase
PMO Running and
Engagement Commitment
PMO Structuring
Staff
Arrangement Skills

Promoting PM Practices

Establishing PM Infrastructure
PMO Setup Phase

Industry Specifications

Resources Approach and strategy

Culture Communications

Figure 7. The interplay of potential PMO success variables.

that inappropriate structuring is a hindrance to the
proper functioning of PMO. Variables in this category
imply the importance of professional staff, skills, and
the approach which is adopted by this entity.
The same rule applies to the fourth category
‘organizational support’ because support and compan-
ionship are indispensable elements for implementing
or running a successful unit (Raharjo et al. 2018).
PMOs have to continuously interact with key stake-
holders and proactively seek their support during the
lifecycle. Variables in this category point to the signifi-
cance of engagement, commitment, communications,
and culture as pillars for gaining the requisite support.
It was also found that a number of 15 variables such
as continuous improvement in the second category
‘establish PM practices’ do not apply to the PMO
setup phase because they are associated with activ-
ities that need preliminary PM infrastructure to be
in place.
The review revealed that variables associated with
groups 1 and 2 are significantly affected by industry
specifications. These characteristics in the construction
sector mainly include capital-intensive (Vrijhoef and
Koskela 2005), complex long-term procurement pro-
cess (Arditi et al. 2008), high-risk, multiparty business
(Alarcon and Mesa 2012), cyclical industry, and intense
interactions with stakeholders and clients (Mokhtariani
et al. 2017). Such characteristics mainly affect the func-
tional capabilities in categories 1 and 2 since the pro-
cess and tools used for projects largely depends upon
the context. These specifications must be taken into
account both during the setup and running of PMOs
to ensure that effective practices and tools are in
place and fit the specific needs of the construction
projects. Functional capabilities can only perform
properly in light of strong PMO structuring in terms of
employing staff with high skills, arranging them cor-
rectly, allocating resources to PMO, and adopting opti-
mal approach and strategy in the PM environment
(Figure 7).
Cross-industry analysis
As discussed in the descriptive analysis section, 68
studies were conducted using a survey or case study
approach and 17 studies were theoretical. A total of
38 out of 269 relevant findings were extracted from
the text of the theoretical articles and 231 findings
were elicited from empirical studies, which can be col-
lectively analyzed to provide a cross-industry view.
The field studies reflect findings from multi-industry,
IT, construction, banking, defence, education, health-
care, pharmaceutical, hi-tech manufacturing, Mining,
the non-profit sector, and public administration.
Among these contexts, multi-industry context (38%)
and IT (20%) have the most contribution to the
research on the topic. To provide a comparative over-
view of previous research, the focus of capabilities in
the context of construction was compared to IT (as
the leading industry in PMO practice) and multi-indus-
try context (as a predominant context in previ-
ous research).
A 4-scale spider web diagram was used to compare
the focus of the extant literature on the dimensions of
success variables in terms of functional (1. Establish
PM infrastructure, 2. Promote PM practices), structural

(structuring PMO), and organizational capabilities
(organizational support). These four aspects reflect the
ability of PMO units to properly be established and
operated towards embedding organizational project
management throughout the organization. The scale
‘establishing PM infrastructure’ points to prerequisites
and process assets that need to be provided by PMO
for implementing the PM practice. The scale
‘promoting PM practices’ rely on the PM infrastructure
to implement and enforce PM tools and methods. The
scale ‘structuring PMO’ determines the centralized or
decentralized approach of this unit and relates to the
arrangement of PMO resources in an effective way to
embed the PM practice more effectively. The scale
‘organizational support’ refers to the commitment, col-
laboration, and shared values that support PMO initia-
tives to make a difference in managing projects and
advancing the maturity level of project management
in the organization.
The average number of citation per variable was
calculated. In the multi-industry context, it was found
that there is an approximate balance on all categories
of success variables with a slight focus on establishing
PM infrastructure especially on methodology develop-
ment, PM training, and benchmarking as illustrated in
Figure 8. In the IT sector, prior research focussed on
structural variables especially the PMO alignment,
authorization, and stakeholder engagement due to
their significance in enabling PMO functions. In con-
struction research, a similar focus has been placed on
functional and organizational variables (same pattern
as IT) and there is a need for more focus on the appli-
cation of structural variables. Structural characteristics
have received more attention in IT in comparison with
the construction industry. Besides, organizational con-
text enablers such as management commitment and
supportive culture have been always in the centre of
attention as major drivers of PMO success in
all contexts.
To provide deep insight into the contrast of PMO
success variables in the construction sector with other
industries, a further comparison was made specifically
with the IT sector which is characterized by a high
rate of PMO adoption. Variables associated with estab-
lishing PM infrastructure similarly apply to both IT and
construction companies since they deal with imple-
menting appropriate tools, methods, databases,
archives, and training programs that fit their PM needs
(Ko et al. 2015). PMOs in these two settings should
focus on PM training as a key enabler for promoting
the skills of project teams as well as the awareness of
stakeholders. From a functional perspective, in both
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 505
Promoting PM Practices
(15 drivers)
4
3
2
1
Organizational Support
Establishing PM
0 Infrastructure
(4 drivers)
(5 drivers)
Structuring PMO
(8 drivers)
Multi-industry IT construction
Figure 8. Average citation per variable in four theoret-
ical categories.
contexts, PMO should be equipped with capabilities
for project monitoring, reporting, mentoring, govern-
ance, risk management, knowledge sharing, and
resource management to ensure on-target delivery of
projects (Arumugam et al. 2013). However, different
methods may be adopted to approach each functional
area, which is driven by their diverse technical
specifications.
According to the literature, IT-based businesses are
more change-driven (Zhao and Chen 2015) and less
document-oriented (Dagnino 2002) whereas still, the
plan-driven approach is prevalent in construction
organizations. These approaches, as well as project
delivery based on different lifecycles, affect the
adopted PM practices and, therefore, the detailed
responsibilities of PMO to approach functional catego-
ries. IT companies follow agile PM practices such as
Scrum which require a higher level of flexibility in
tools and processes, while more standardized practices
are adopted in construction firms (Ko et al. 2015).
Hence, a higher level of PM compliance capability is
required for construction PMOs in contrast with IT
businesses. The higher level of volatility in the IT
industry serves as another cause of difference, which
necessitates higher capability for adapting the PMO
approach to business changes and new technologies.
Discussion
Theoretical implications
This paper contributes to an improved understanding of
the range of potential elements for achieving successful
outcomes considering PMO lifecycle in the construction
industry. The functional type of variables focusses on
the efforts to ensure appropriate arrangements for
506 M. ERSHADI ET AL.
managing projects are in place and are continuously
being improved. The importance of implementing and
maintaining PM infrastructure ranging from information
systems to methodologies has been asserted in previous
research (de Nadae and de Carvalho 2017). The findings
reinforced this principle and found differences between
construction and other contexts in terms of tracking
project benefits, benchmarking best practices, and prob-
lem-solving techniques that have been more discussed
in a multi-industry context (Artto et al. 2011, Aubry and
Hobbs 2011). This study introduced these variables to
enrich construction PMOs in support of effective initi-
ation, design, procurement, execution, and hand-over of
different projects.
From a structural perspective, the literature sug-
gested adopting robust structural features for estab-
lishing and running PMO entities (Raharjo et al. 2018).
The findings reinforce this principle and shed light on
specific variables that need more attention in con-
struction research, including agility in response to
changes, PMO leadership, skillset, and sponsorship
(Andersen et al. 2007, Spalek 2013). Appropriate struc-
ture in terms of strong leadership, well-defined
responsibilities, and competent staff support a PMO to
properly undertake its responsibilities. From the view
of organizational variables, it was found that they act
as enablers that facilitate PMO functioning and should
be proactively sought. They are among well-cited vari-
ables in previous construction research, which indi-
cates their significance (Parchami Jalal and Matin
Koosha 2015, Bredillet et al. 2018).
Managerial implications
In terms of empirical implications, this study offers
three practical suggestions for construction PM practi-
tioners. First, success variables can be used for defin-
ing specific PMO metrics and performance indicators
in construction organizations based on the approach
introduced by Tales et al. (2016). Adherence to success
variables helps to meet long-term targets and encour-
age higher productivity and return on investment in
the PMO practice. Second, the presented framework
of success variables guides practitioners in structuring
their PMOs properly so that higher performance can
be achieved without wasting organizational resources.
To achieve this goal, it was asserted that PMOs should
obtain stakeholder buy-in and continual support from
senior managers, functional managers, and project
directors (Raharjo et al. 2018). Third, this study pro-
vides construction practitioners with insight into areas
that should be benchmarked from other industries,
especially IT. The cross-industry comparison provided
an overview of neglected capabilities in construction
PMOs that need more attention both during the setup
and running/development phase. Thus, proper initia-
tives can be taken by experts to properly establish
mechanisms and structures that are needed for PMO
initial set up, as well as throughout the stages of PMO
development and reconfigurations.
Application of PMO success variables in the
construction industry
This study introduced four types of success variables
necessary for delivering PMOs in the construction
industry. Among the set of 32 variables, 24 variables
have been already discussed in construction research
and 8 variables are elicited from other contexts.
Regarding the specifications of the construction indus-
try, all four types of variables can be potentially
applied to the construction context through appropri-
ate arrangements. The first group refers to establishing
PM infrastructure. Since construction projects are mul-
tidiscipline and deal with the adoption of multiple
interrelated technologies (Qi et al. 2014), it is import-
ant that PMO establishes a consistent basis for manag-
ing different activities from design to delivery. The
complexity and number of activities in this industry
necessitate effective use of monitoring and control
tools to keep track of any deviation (Oliveira et al.
2017). The second group of variables relates to pro-
moting the PM practice via proper use of PM infra-
structure. Many stakeholders are involved in
construction projects (Parchami Jalal and Matin
Koosha 2015), which indicates that this context
requires capturing the generated knowledge from
technical teams, sharing information among them,
managing their interfaces, and supporting their activ-
ities. Thus, PMOs in the construction sector need
implementation of extensive PM functions to take con-
trol of intensive interactions in such a complex
environment.
In light of the multi-party essence of the construc-
tion industry (Keskin et al. 2020), variables associated
with the third group are necessary since PMO entities
can govern PM functions properly only if they are
structured properly and equipped with competent
staff, leadership, and decision-making power. All these
three types of capability can be effective in light of
organizational support and the commitment of senior
managers. Multiple technical disciplines and functional
teams within the organizational structure of construc-
tion organizations have diverse expectations and

Table 2. Proposed research directions in the construction sector.
Success domain
1. Establishing PM Highlight the role of PMO in PM
infrastructure infrastructure development
2. Promoting PM practices Improve the value-added of PMO to
the PM practice.
3. PMO structuring Capture best practices to address the

dynamic nature of PMOs.
4) Organizational support Investigate the PMO approach to
leverage organizational
context enablers
interests (Xue et al. 2020). In this setting, diverse
internal stakeholders can be aligned with PMO initia-
tives only if the fourth type of variables including cul-
ture, commitment, communications, and engagement
be taken into account.
Limitations and directions for future research
Similar to other literature reviews, this paper has limita-
tions in terms of relying on the cumulative findings of
other studies. Thus, the second phase of the research
would be to examine the theoretical findings derived
from the existing literature through an in-depth field
study in a generalizable sample of construction organi-
zations. Yet this review shed light on success variables,
future empirical research is also expected to develop
guidelines for their establishment in construction
organizations through empirical studies. Such context-
specific research provides evidence on which specific
efforts succeed in certain types of organizations but
fail in others. Furthermore, it proposes effective prac-
tical approaches to capture enablers and overcome
barriers in running and developing construction PMOs.
This common limitation of the review studies
should be also acknowledged that the authors relied
on the body of literature from all contexts to propose
a more comprehensive set of PMO success variables
to the construction industry. However, further empir-
ical research is needed to validate whether the synthe-
sized success variables from other contexts apply to
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 507
Research questions to be addressed in future research

What is the role of PMO in introducing new technologies such as Building
Information Modelling (BIM) towards higher productivity in
construction projects?

Which approach of PMO (formal, agile, or hybrid) in methodology development
is more effective in different types of construction projects?

Which approach is more effective in executing PMO functions in construction
organizations, centralized or decentralized?

What is the optimal level of PMO intervention in the execution of
construction projects?

How are PMO characteristics affected by the role of an organization in the
construction industry (general contractor, sub-contractor, designer, supplier,
construction manager, etc.)?

What is the relationship between the establishment of PMO and the level of
project complexity?
What are effective PMO strategies to deal with the transformative nature of
construction businesses?

What are the underpinning differences between virtual and in-house
PMO structures?

What are the key criteria for making decisions on insourcing or outsourcing the
PMO functions?

What is the relationship between PMO team size and its scope within an
organization?

How can PMOs apply their communication capacities to promote cross-
functional collaboration?

How to establish functional boundaries between PMO and other organizational
units to minimize organizational drag?

What are the effective strategies of PMO towards developing the PM culture?
the construction industry. The multidimensionality of
the phenomenon under study has been highlighted in
this review, which emphasizes the consideration of
multiple aspects to achieve successful PMO outcomes.
Therefore, applying more concepts from organizational
theory including corporate governance,
organizational change, stakeholder theory,
and organization structure to this research area can
help to more comprehensively elaborate on the
dynamic behaviour of PMO entities in the construc-
tion context.
As a result of the cross-industry comparison, ques-
tions may arise on how to properly design PMO to
deal with functional differences between construction
and other sectors. Thus, future research can further
contextualize the topic by exploring the impact of dif-
ferent industry specifications that were acknowledged
in this paper on the performance of PMOs. Overall,
research on the topic is still immature and needs
more elaboration on functional, structural, and organ-
izational features. According to the findings of this
review and the insight gained through this process,
suggestions for future research are provided based on
four categories of PMO success variables to bridge
existing gaps in the literature (Table 2).
Conclusion
In this study, the available scientific evidence on
potential variables of successful PMOs was
508 M. ERSHADI ET AL.
consolidated. A comparative cross-industry analysis of
the evidence revealed that previous research on con-
struction organizations has overlooked a number of
important variables which have been already acknowl-
edged in other contexts. These variables refer to the
importance of benchmarking best practices and apply
them to solving major problems of construction proj-
ects. It is also vital to pursue continuous improvement
in PM domains and to act agile in response to fre-
quent changes in the dynamic construction business
settings. Tracking project benefits, as another less
explored variable in construction PMO research, ena-
bles this organizational entity to ensure the realization
of business targets. Other areas that have been well-
established in the multi-industry and IT sector but
need more discussion in construction research
includes equipping PMOs with strong leaders, skillsets,
and sponsors.
Although these eight capabilities have been
employed at the project level, they need to be used
more extensively at the PMO level to increase their
span of influence in the construction industry. Their
proper application at the PMO level enrich the set of
capabilities and help to achieve higher performance in
establishing consistent PM practices in this context.
Accumulation of the evidence from a diverse body of
knowledge lead to the identification of four categories
of success variables necessary for achieving successful
outcomes. Two categories (1. establishing PM infra-
structure and 2. promoting PM practices) reflect func-
tional features that enable PMOs to maintain
effectiveness and efficiency in PM practices and estab-
lish necessary PM infrastructure in collaboration with
key parties involved in PM processes in construction
projects. Group three reflects structural features (3.
PMO structuring) that support functional features and
pave the way for establishing PM solutions to tackle
complexities.
As the PMO is evolved, structural features should
be adapted with new requirements as arise. Group 4
(4. organizational support) refers to organizational
characteristics as enablers that should be proactively
sought to facilitate activities and strengthen the pos-
ition of PMO in the organizational structure.
Altogether, 32 variables in these four categories are
closely related to each other and contribute to shap-
ing explicit and implicit values, as well as intellectual
capital in construction organizations. It can be con-
cluded that almost similar functioning pattern exists
for PMOs but their role and responsibilities in each
functional domain differ depending on their specific
objectives within an organization.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Mahmoud Ershadi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9886-6317
Marcus Jefferies http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2273-9511
Peter Davis http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0462-2942
Mohammad Mojtahedi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
6942-0650
References
Abdi, M.R. and Kaddoura, H.A., 2011. Projects management
office: A case study for best practices. In: International
conference on management and service science. Wuhan:
IEEE.
Alarcon, L.F. and Mesa, H., 2012. A modeling approach to
understand performance of lean project delivery system.
In: Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the inter-
national group for lean construction, IGLC, San Diego, CA.
Amer, M. and Elayoty, N., 2018. Roadmap to Project
Management Office (PMO) and automation using a multi-
stage fuzzy rules system. International journal of advanced
computer science and applications, 9, 500–505.
Andersen, B., Henriksen, B., and Aarseth, W., 2007.
Benchmarking of project management office establish-
ment: extracting best practices. Journal of management in
engineering, 23, 97–104.
Antonio Martins, V. and Ramos Martins, M., 2012.
Outsourcing operations in project management offices:
the reality of Brazilian companies. Project management
journal, 43, 68–83.
Arditi, D., Polat, G., and Makinde, S.A., 2008. Marketing prac-
tices of US contractors. Journal of management in engin-
eering, 24, 255–264.
Artto, K., et al., 2011. The integrative role of the project man-
agement office in the front end of innovation.
International journal of project management, 29, 408–421.
Arumugam, S., Mckay, J., and Grainger, N., 2013. Delivering
IT PMO value: understanding stakeholder perceptions &
expectations. In: 8th Pre-ICIS international research work-
shop on information technology project management,
Milan, Italy, 27.
Aubry, M., 2015. Project management office transformations:
direct and moderating effects that enhance performance
and maturity. Project management journal, 46, 19–45.
Aubry, M. and Brunet, M., 2016. Organizational design in
public administration: categorization of project manage-
ment offices. Project management journal, 47, 107–129.
Aubry, M. and Hobbs, B., 2010. Project Management Office
(PMO): a quest for understanding. Spain: Project
Management Institute.
Aubry, M. and Hobbs, B., 2011. A fresh look at the contribu-
tion of project management to organizational perform-
ance. Project management journal, 42, 3–16.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., and Thuillier, D., 2007. A new frame-
work for understanding organisational project manage-
ment through the PMO. International journal of project
management, 25, 328–336.

Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., and Thuillier, D., 2008. Organisational
project management: an historical approach to the study
of PMOs. International journal of project management, 26,
38–43.
Aubry, M., Mu €ller, R., and Glu
€ckler, J., 2011a. Exploring PMOs
through community of practice theory. Project manage-
ment journal, 42, 42–56.
Aubry, M., et al., 2010a. Identifying forces driving PMO
changes. Project management journal, 41, 30–45.
Aubry, M., et al., 2010b. Project management offices in tran-
sition. International journal of project management, 28,
766–778.
Aubry, M., et al., 2011b. Pluralism in PMO performance: the
case of a PMO dedicated to a major organizational trans-
formation. Project management journal, 42, 60–77.
Ayyagari, R., Henry, R., and Purvis, R., 2006. A conceptual
framework of the alignment of the Project Management
Office (PMO) with the organizational structure. In:
Americas conference on information Systems, Mexico,
Guerrero, 449.
Barbalho, S.C.M., Da Silva, G.L., and De Toledo, J.C., 2017.
The impact analysis of functions of Project Management
Office on performance of triple constraint of new-product
development projects. Direccion y Organizacion, 61, 19–31
Barbalho, S.C.M. and De Toledo, J.C., 2013. The role of pro-
ject management offices as performance drivers for new
product development in a Brazilian technology-based
company. In: 22nd International conference on production
research, ICPR 2013. International Foundation for
Production Research (IFPR).
Benjamin, N., 2014. An investigation into the efficiency &
effectiveness of Project Management Offices (PMOs). Cape
Town: University of Cape Town.
Besteiro, E., Pinto, J.D., and Novaski, O., 2015. Success factors
in project management. Business management dynamics,
4, 19–34.
Blazevic, G., Misic, S., and Simac, M., 2014. Importance of
managing PMO in Croatian PM market. Procedia-social
and behavioral sciences, 119, 949–956.
Bourne, L., 2006. Supersizing PMO Performance. In:
Proceedings of PMI global congress – Asia Pacific. Bangkok,
Thailand.
Braun, T., 2018. Configurations for interorganizational project
networks: the interplay of the PMO and network adminis-
trative organization. Project management journal, 49,
53–61.
Bredillet, C., Tywoniak, S., and Tootoonchy, M., 2017.
Exploring the dynamics of project management office and
portfolio management co-evolution: a routine lens.
International journal of project management, 36, 27–42.
Bredillet, C., Tywoniak, S., and Tootoonchy, M., 2018 . Why
and how do project management offices change? A struc-
tural analysis approach. International journal of project
management, 36, 744–761.
Briner, R.B. and Denyer, D., 2012. Systematic review and evi-
dence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In: The
Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 112–129.
Bryman, A., 2016. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Carrillo V.J., et al., 2010. Success factors for creating a PMO
aligned with the objectives and organizational strategy.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 509
In: 2010 IEEE ANDESCON conference, ANDESCON 2010,
Bogota.
Christie, A., 2006. Successes and challenges in maturing the
PMO. Madrid: PMIV global congress.
R
Collier, D., Lapote, J., and Seawright, J., 2008. Typologies:
forming concepts and creating categorical variables. In
The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cunha, J.A., et al., 2014. Knowledge management on PMO’s
perspective: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of the
15th European conference on knowledge management,
ECKM 2014. Santarem, Portugal: Academic Conferences
Limited, 233–241.
Dagnino, A., 2002. An Evolutionary lifecycle Model with Agile
practices for software development at ABB. In Eighth IEEE
international conference on engineering of complex com-
puter systems, 2002. Proceedings. New York, NY: IEEE,
215–223.
Dai, C.X., and Wells, W.G., 2004. An exploration of project
management office features and their relationship to pro-
ject performance. International journal of project manage-
ment, 22, 523–532.
Darling, E.J. and Whitty, S.J., 2016. The Project Management
Office: it’s just not what it used to be. International journal
of managing projects in business, 9, 282–308.
De Nadae, J. and De Carvalho, M.M., 2017. A knowledge
management perspective of the project management
office. Brazilian journal of operations & production manage-
ment, 14, 350–362.
Desouza, K.C. and Evaristo, J.R., 2006. Project management
offices: a case of knowledge-based archetypes.
International journal of information management, 26,
414–423.
Desta, S., Root, D. and Diederichs, C.J., 2006. The practice of
project management office (PMO) concept within the
German architect, engineer, contractor (AEC) sector.
Journal of engineering, design and technology, 4, 46–59.
Do Valle, JaS. and Soares, CaP., 2014. Effective implementa-
tion of project management offices (PMO) in organiza-
tions. In: 9th International Cost Engineering Council (ICEC)
world congress. Milan.
Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H., 1994. Typologies as a unique
form of theory building: toward improved understanding
and modeling. Academy of management review, 19,
230–251.
Erdogan, S.A., Saparauskas, J., and Turskis, Z., 2017. Decision
making in construction management: AHP and expert
choice approach. Procedia engineering, 172, 270–276.
Ershadi, M. and Atashfaraz, R., 2016. Improvement of project
management office performance: an empirical investiga-
tion of effective factors in Iranian construction industry.
Journal of industrial and systems engineering, 28, 146–164.
Ferreira, H., Tereso, A.P., and Fernandes, A.G.G., 2016.
Conceptualization of project management offices struc-
tures. In: ICOPEV 2016 – 3rd international conference on
project evaluation. Portugal: University of Minho, 261–266.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., and Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking
qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia
methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.
Goel, A., Ganesh, L., and Kaur, A., 2020. Benefits formulation
in construction projects: an exploratory study through a
510 M. ERSHADI ET AL.
social sustainability perspective. IIM Kozhikode society &
management review, 9, 162–176.
Haddad, R., 2014. Five ways to boost your and your PMO’s
value. Dubai: PMIV R global congress.
Hobbs, B. and Aubry, M., 2007. A multi-phase research pro-
gram investigating project management offices (PMOs):
the results of phase 1. Project management journal, 38,
74–86.
Hobbs, B. and Aubry, M., 2008. An empirically grounded
search for a typology of project management offices.
Project management journal, 39, S69–S82.
Hobbs, B., Aubry, M., and Thuillier, D., 2008. The project
management office as an organisational innovation.
International journal of project management, 26, 547–555.
Hurt, M. and Thomas, J.L., 2009. Building value through sus-
tainable project management offices. Project management
journal, 40, 55–72.
Jacob, E.K., 2004. Classification and categorization: a differ-
ence that makes a difference. Library trends, 52, 515–540.
Jang, Y., Jeong, I. and Cho, Y.K., 2020. Business failure predic-
tion of construction contractors using a LSTM RNN with
accounting, construction market, and macroeconomic var-
iables. Journal of management in engineering, 36,
04019039.
Jones, D. and Lucey, M., 2007. PMO success and value. In:
Australian Institute of Project Management conference.
Hobart: AIPM Conference, 33–43.
Julian, J., 2008. How project management office leaders
facilitate cross-project learning and continuous improve-
ment. Project management journal, 39, 43–58.
Kaul, P. and Joslin, R., 2018. Understanding PMO success. In:
European Academy of Management c, Reykjavık, Iceland:
European Academy of Management.
Keskin, B., Salman, B., and Ozorhon, B., 2020. Airport project
delivery within BIM-centric construction technology eco-
systems. Engineering, construction and architectural man-
agement, 28, 530–548.
Kiani, S., et al., 2015. Determining the role of project man-
agement office in the success of project-based organiza-
tions. Mediterranean journal of social sciences, 6, 325.
Ko, J.H. and Kim, D., 2019. The effects of maturity of project
portfolio management and business alignment on PMO
efficiency. Sustainability, 11, 238.
Ko, J.-H., Park, S.-H., and Kim, D.-C., 2015. Efficiency analysis
of project management offices for large-scale Information
System Projects: Insights for Construction Megaprojects.
Construction economics and building, 15, 34–47.
Kovacs, G.L. and Paganelli, P., 2003. A planning and manage-
ment infrastructure for large, complex, distributed proj-
ects—beyond ERP and SCM. Computers in industry, 51,
165–183.
Kutsch, E., et al., 2015. The contribution of the Project
Management Office: a balanced scorecard perspective.
Information systems management, 32, 105–118.
Lacruz, A. and Cunha, E., 2018. Project management office in
non-governmental organizations: an ex post facto study.
Revista de Gesta ~o, 25, 212–227.
Lavoie-Tremblay, M., et al., 2018. A health care project man-
agement office’s strategies for continual change and con-
tinuous improvement. Health care manager, 37, 4–10.
Lee, J., et al., 2015. Systematic review and meta-analysis of
studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical
review for clinical researchers – Part II. Statistical methods
of meta-analysis. Korean journal of radiology, 16,
1188–1196.
Leicht, D., et al., 2020. Multidimensional construction plan-
ning and agile organized project execution—the 5D-
PROMPT method. Sustainability, 12, 6340.
Letavec, C., 2006. The program management office: establish-
ing, managing and growing the value of a PMO.
Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing.
Letavec, C.J., 2007. Establishing the PMO value proposition.
Atlanta: PMIV R global congress.
Liu, L. and Yetton, P., 2007. The contingent effects on project
performance of conducting project reviews and deploying
project management offices. IEEE transactions on engineer-
ing management, 54, 789–799.
Love, P.E.D., et al., 2019. Making sense of rework and its
unintended consequence in projects: the emergence of
uncomfortable knowledge. International journal of project
management, 37, 501–516.
Martinez Sanz, M.M. and Ortiz-Marcos, I., 2019. Dimensions
of knowledge governance in a multi-PMO project context.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
Mavi, R.K. and Standing, C., 2018. Critical success factors of
sustainable project management in construction: A fuzzy
DEMATEL-ANP approach. Journal of cleaner production,
194, 751–765.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., and Saldan ~a, J., 2014.
Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mokhtariani, M., Sebt, M.H., and Davoudpour, H., 2017.
Characteristics of the construction industry from the mar-
keting viewpoint: challenges and solutions. Civil engineer-
ing journal, 3, 701–714.
Monteiro, A., Santos, V., and Varaj~ao, J., 2016a. Project man-
agement office models – a review. Procedıa computer sci-
ence, 100, 1085–1094.
Monteiro, A., Santos, V., and Varaj~ao, J., 2016b. Project
Management Office models – a review. Procedia computer
science, 100, 1085–1094.
M€uller, R., Gl€
uckler, J., and Aubry, M., 2013a. A relational typ-
ology of project management offices. Project management
journal, 44, 59–76.
Mu€ller, R., Zhai, L., and Wang, A., 2017. Governance and gov-
ernmentality in projects: profiles and relationships with
success. International journal of project management, 35,
378–392.
Mu€ller, R., et al., 2013b. Project management knowledge
flows in networks of project managers and project man-
agement offices: a case study in the pharmaceutical
industry. Project management journal, 44, 4–19.
Oliveira, C., Tereso, A., and Fernandes, G., 2017. PMO concep-
tualization for engineering and construction businesses.
Procedia computer science, 121, 592–599.
Oliveira, R.R. and Martins, H.C., 2018. Strategy, people and
operations as influencing agents of the Project
Management Office performance: an analysis through
structural equation modeling. Gesta ~o & Produça ~o, 25,
410–429.
Omotayo Temitope, S., et al., 2019. Systems thinking and
CMM for continuous improvement in the construction
industry. International journal of productivity and perform-
ance management, 69, 271–296.

O’neill, M., Booth, S., and Lamb, J., 2018. Using NVivoTM for
literature reviews: The eight step pedagogy (N7 þ 1). The
qualitative report, 23, 21–39.
Ozguler, I.S. and Yilmaz, S., 2017. Develop breakthrough
competence for managing change through strategic pro-
ject management office. In: 12th International scientific
and technical conference on computer sciences and infor-
mation technologies, CSIT 2017. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Inc., 83–86.
Pansini, F. and Terzieva, M., 2013. Challenges and benefits
on the path towards discovering PMO: cases from Italian
banking sector. Procedia technology, 9, 627–637.
Parchami Jalal, M. and Matin Koosha, S., 2015. Identifying
organizational variables affecting project management
office characteristics and analyzing their correlations in
the Iranian project-oriented organizations of the construc-
tion industry. International journal of project management,
33, 458–466.
Paton, S. and Andrew, B., 2019. The role of the Project
Management Office (PMO) in product lifecycle manage-
ment: a case study in the defence industry. International
journal of production economics, 208, 43–52.
Pellegrinelli, S. and Garagna, L., 2009. Towards a conceptual-
isation of PMOs as agents and subjects of change and
renewal. International journal of project management, 27,
649–656.
Pemsel, S. and Wiewiora, A., 2013. Project management
office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations.
International journal of project management, 31, 31–42.
Phan, J., 2015. Using the project management office to con-
nect the dots between projects and strategy. Healthcare
management forum, 28, 65–68.
Philbin, S.P., 2016. Exploring the project management office
(PMO)-role structure and processes. In: 2016 International
annual conference of the American Society for Engineering
Management, ASEM.
Philbin, S.P., 2018. PMO implementation for project manage-
ment in a collaborative research context. In 39th
International annual conference of the American Society for
Engineering Management, ASEM 2018: Bridging the Gap
Between Engineering and Business, 681–690.
Pinto, A., 2015. How to make your PMO survive. Orlando:
PMIV R global congress.
Procca, A.E., 2008. Development of a project management
model for a government research and development
organization. Project management journal, 39, 33–57.
Project Management Institute. 2017. A guide to the project
management body of knowledge (PMBOKV Guide), 6th
R
ed. USA: Project Management Institute.
Qi, S., et al., 2014. Study on the impact of PMO for multi-pro-
ject management of contracting construction enterprises
based on structural equation model. Applied mechanics
and materials, 584, 2239–2245.
Radujkovic, M. and Sjekavica, M., 2017. Project management
success factors. Procedia engineering, 196, 607–615.
Raharjo, T., Purwandari, B., Satria, R., and Solichah, I., 2018.
Critical success factors for project management office: an
insight from Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 3rd inter-
national conference on informatics and computing, ICIC
2018.
Saldan ~a, J., 2015. The coding manual for qualitative research-
ers. London: Sage.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 511
Sandhu, M.A., Al Ameri, T.Z., and Wikstro €m, K., 2019.
Benchmarking the strategic roles of the project manage-
ment office (PMO) when developing business ecosystems.
Benchmarking: an international journal, 26, 452–469.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2018-0058.
Santos, V. and Varaj~ao, J., 2015. PMO as a key ingredient of
public sector projects’ success–position paper. Procedia
Computer Science, 64, 1190–1199.
Schibi, O., 2013. Why PMOs do not deliver to their potential.
New Orleans: PMIV global congress.
R
Sergeeva, N. and Ali, S., 2020. The Role of the Project
Management Office (PMO) in stimulating innovation in
projects initiated by owner and operator organizations.
Project management journal, 51, 440–451.
Singh, R., Keil, M., and Kasi, V., 2009. Identifying and over-
coming the challenges of implementing a project man-
agement office. European journal of information systems,
18, 409–427.
Spalek, S., 2012. The role of project management office in
the multi-project environment. International journal of
management and enterprise development, 12, 172–188.
Spalek, S., 2013. Improving industrial engineering perform-
ance through a successful project management office.
Engineering economics, 24, 88–98.
Spalek, S., 2014. Do you really want your PMO to survive?
Dubai: PMIV Global Congress.
R
Stovold, E., et al., 2014. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane sys-
tematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram.
Systematic reviews, 3, 54.
Svejvig, P. and Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project man-
agement: a structured literature review with a critical look
at the brave new world. International journal of project
management, 33, 278–290.
 and Sebestyen, Z., 2017. Integrated
Szalay, I., Kovacs, A.,
framework for Project Management Office Evaluation.
Procedia engineering, 196, 578–584.
Tales, G.A.V., Jose Adson, O.G.C., and Hermano, P.M., 2016. A
performance evaluation model for Project Management
Office based on a multicriteria approach. Procedia com-
puter science, 100, 955–962.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., and Smart, P., 2003. Towards a
methodology for developing evidence-informed manage-
ment knowledge by means of systematic review. British
journal of management, 14, 207–222.
Tsaturyan, T. and M€ uller, R., 2015. Integration and govern-
ance of multiple project management offices (PMOs) at
large organizations. International journal of project man-
agement, 33, 1098–1110.
Tsolas, I.E., 2020. Benchmarking engineering, procurement
and construction (EPC) power plant projects by means of
series two-stage DEA. Electricity, 1, 1–11.
Ul Musawir, A., et al., 2017. Project governance, benefit man-
agement, and project success: towards a framework for
supporting organizational strategy implementation.
International journal of project management, 35,
1658–1672.
Unger, B.N., Gem€ unden, H.G., and Aubry, M., 2012. The three
roles of a project portfolio management office: their
impact on portfolio management execution and success.
International journal of project management, 30, 608–620.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., and Bondas, T., 2013. Content
analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting
512 M. ERSHADI ET AL.
a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & health sciences,
15, 398–405.
Van Der Linde, J. and Steyn, H., 2016. The effect of a Project
Management Office on project and organisational per-
formance: a case study. South African journal of industrial
engineering, 27, 151–161.
Vrijhoef, R. and Koskela, L., 2005. Structural and contextual
comparison of construction to other project-based indus-
tries. Proceedings IPRC, 2, 14.
Walker, D.H. and Christenson, D., 2005. Knowledge wisdom
and networks: a project management centre of excellence
example. The learning organization, 12, 275–291.
Wang, Y. and Liu, Y., 2010. Project Management Office – a
new organizational form of the multi-project management
in the real estate enterprises. In: 2010 International confer-
ence on e-product e-service and e-entertainment, ICEEE2010,
Henan.
Ward, J. and Daniel, E., 2013. The role of project manage-
ment offices (PMOs) in IS project success and manage-
ment satisfaction. Journal of enterprise information
management, 26, 316–336.
Widforss, G. and Rosqvist, M., 2015. The project office as pro-
ject management support in complex environments.
Procedia computer science, 64, 764–770.
Wood, A., Chileshe, N., and Shelbourn, M., 2016. The project
management office: Issues in deployment of PMOs in
Australia. Sydney, Australia: Australian Institute of Project
Management, 45–54.
Wood, A. and Ma, T., 2008. Does published theory add value
to the Project Management Office (PMO)? In: AIPM.
Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Project
Management, 1–9.
Xue, J., et al., 2020. Mapping the knowledge domain of
stakeholder perspective studies in construction projects: a
bibliometric approach. International journal of project man-
agement, 38, 313–326.
Zhang, J.W., Zhu, M.J., and Zhang, L.W., 2011. Research on
PMO construction of enterprise-level for the project gen-
eral contractor enterprise. Applied mechanics and materi-
als, 94–96, 2257.
Zhao, H. and Chen, X., 2015. The Method and its application
of project management modeling in whole life cycle. In:
International conference on logistics engineering, manage-
ment and computer science (LEMCS 2015), Atlantis Press,
France.
Zhu, J. and Mostafavi, A., 2017. Discovering complexity and
emergent properties in project systems: a new approach
to understanding project performance. International jour-
nal of project management, 35, 1–12.