CORPORATE DOWNSIZING AND business process reengineering have influenced many companies to investigate the concept of “Managing by Projects (MBP).” A move to MBP typically requires significant changes in business processes. Integration of Modern Project Management (MPM) practices throughout all areas of the business is the best way to accomplish this objective, yet implementing MPM practices into daily business functions requires the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques that are often new and foreign concepts in an organization's environment.
Having been involved in applying or providing project management techniques and practices in several industries over the past 25 years, it is gratifying for me to see project management finally becoming recognized as a professional discipline that can contribute significant competitive advantages to any business. Project management is at last beginning to be understood as something more than just a process for controlling a project's cost and timing. Most industries outside of the aerospace, construction and engineering sectors have only in recent years become more aware of the effectiveness of MPM's processes and the extent of the body of knowledge pertaining to MPM.
What Is Modern Project Management? The term “project management” can be interpreted many different ways. If you ask 10 people what project management means you will likely get as many different answers. Project management as defined by the Project Management Institute (PMI) is “…the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities in order to meet or exceed stakeholder needs and expectations from a project.” The discipline of project management can be described in terms of its component processes, defined by PMI in the nine Project Management Knowledge Areas contained in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). “Modern Project Management” is the application of those principles, practices and processes on an enterprise-wide basis.
What is the best way to acquire project management skills and how can these unique competencies be effectively spread throughout an organization to achieve maximum benefit? The process begins by first developing the “big picture,” establishing the extent to which project management practices will be integrated into the business. Will MPM be an isolated tool, applied only to really big projects? Will it be limited to certain functional departments of the corporation that are more project-oriented? Or is it management's desire to proliferate the knowledge, skills, techniques and tools of the project management professional throughout all areas of the organization?
An effective corporate-wide implementation of MPM will require a greater effort and will encounter greater resistance in those companies with a low level of project management maturity. Regardless of the extent of the role project management will play within the organization, it will change the way work is currently managed. Change of any kind is typically met with resistance, and MPM is no different. However, the amount of resistance will be in proportion to how much people are kept informed about and involved in the process.
Six Key Factors. Six key factors influence the successful implementation of MPM. Less than complete support of any of these commitments will create or foster adverse conditions and attitudes that will affect the degree of success in achieving a total integration of MPM into an organization's corporate culture.
Total Commitment and Support From Top Executive Management Down. If corporate leaders are not totally convinced that integrating Modern Project Management is the right thing to do, how can the staff reporting to them—the people who will be most affected by the change—be convinced it is? Lukewarm support will not get the job done either. Total and enthusiastic support is needed to convince workers to accept the proposed changes. In many cases even this level of support is met with skepticism. Acceptance by edict is one way to make sure everyone gets the message to cooperate. Issuing decrees and proclamations may not be the most democratic way but it usually has the best short-term results. Possibly the most successful way to show commitment is to combine cheerleading with a clear message that 100 percent cooperation and participation is needed to make the transition work to everyone's benefit.
Reader Service Number 5010
Why is it important to gain top executive management support? So that:
■ MPM implementation can be identified as a key company initiative that supports strategic objectives.
■ Financial and human resource commitments can be made by top management at the start.
■ MPM can be presented for the value it can add to improving business processes.
How can this level of support be obtained?
■ By clearly establishing the need by identifying the current problems that can be solved by MPM.
■ By finding an MPM champion who can help sell and continually support the initiative.
■ By selling the value of MPM from the top (CEO) down to the functional managers.
■ By preparing a proposal with a plan and a budget (be prepared!).
Selection of an Executive-Level MPM Cham pion. It is critical that the project management champion be an executive-level manager who is typically not a direct stakeholder in the implementation of the initiative, but at the same time is a very strong proponent of it. The MPM champion serves as the primary liaison between the person(s) responsible for implementating MPM and the corporate policymakers. Thus, the champion must be someone who is well respected and has political clout in the organization. The champion must be able to get things done when the normal channels of protocol become clogged or break down; this ability will play a key role in supporting the progress of a smooth MPM implementation process.
Recognition That MPM Requires the Full-Time Dedication of Experienced Resources. Modern Project Management is a professional discipline that employs specific knowledge, skills, tools, techniques and principles unique to the process of planning, organizing, implementing and controlling projects of various sizes and complexities. Managing projects and providing supporting services is a full-time job requiring specialized skills and experience.
Strict Adherence to Documented MPM Processes and Procedures. Documented corporate policies that support project management processes and procedures are critical to the successful application of MPM practices throughout an organization. Adherence to a standardized set of project management processes and procedures provides a consistent approach to managing all projects across the organization and facilitates education and training of MPM skills.
Development and Consistent Use of Standardized Tools. Designating specific project management tools (purchased or developed) as the standard will facilitate the creation of common reporting formats and also improve user skills. Uniformity of output allows easier comparisons between projects and improves communications between project teams and management.
Absolute Commitment to Ongoing Project Management Skills Development and Training. Project management education and training is a key element in the initial and ongoing MPM integration process. Project management education and training will improve the general management skills of the organization as an added benefit. Project management education and training can also be used as a means to select and advance staff members along a career path.
Fully integrating the principles of MPM throughout an organization takes time and a commitment to providing the means and methods to develop the skills and knowledge required to become proficient in their application. Failure to deal with the six factors outlined above encumbers the degree of acceptance and hinders the successful implementation of MPM practices within the organization. Conversely, if these resolutions are carefully met, a multitude of benefits will be realized by those organizations that are willing to make such long-term commitments to ensure future growth and prosperity.
Now that we have discussed MPM and its importance in an organization, let's examine how to implement MPM. In my experience a Project Support Office is the best way to implement MPM into an organization.
Exhibit 1. Here are the functional roles typically found in a Project Support Office. Because each organization is different, these roles are intended only as examples. The size of the staff is typically determined by the number of concurrent projects and the workload capability of the personnel.
What Is a Project Support Office? A PSO is a centralized group that provides MPM support services. The PSO is staffed with experts skilled in providing MPM support services, and:
■ Reports to a corporate executive management-level position independent of other functional groups
■ Provides support directly to project managers or is supported through a PSO staff liaison called a “project coordinator” (assigned by the PSO manager)
■ Is responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring the consistent application of a corporate MPM methodology across the organization
■ Integrates the application of MPM practices throughout the enterprise by coaching, mentoring and training.
What factors affect the structuring of the PSO and its positioning in the organization? Size of the company, type of business, number of locations, quantity and complexity of projects, and functional positioning in the organization are all factors that affect how the PSO is configured and the degree of political autonomy it has within the organization. Very few companies are organized and operated in the same fashion unless they have the same ownership. Even then the management styles of executives can affect how each individual company is operated. There is no cookbook approach to how a Project Support Office should be structured or positioned in an organization.
Answering the question of what a Project Support Office is typically leads to the next question:Why should it be created? I believe there are three primary objectives that provide sufficient reasons for creating a Project Support Office:
■ Institutionalization of project management. The PSO becomes the functional owner of project management development, implementation, monitoring, and continuous improvement of the policies, processes, and practices across the organization.
Exhibit 2. In this scenario, the project managers are “direct reports” to a functional manager and dotted-line “indirect reports” to the PSO manager who controls the processes and methods used to manage projects.
■ Provide a global view. A PSO provides an environment where all projects can easily be summarized and rolled up across the enterprise to provide a single global view. Having a global view of the status of projects in progress is critical to the strategic planning process.
■ Optimization of resources. Having in-depth familiarity of all projects, a global view, is necessary before efficient enterprise-wide resource leveling and optimization can occur. A PSO has this capability because it is the focal point that gathers, analyzes, and reports the current status on all projects on a regular basis.
In addition to meeting these three objectives a PSO can provide a multitude of benefits for the entire organization. For instance, a PSO:
■ Improves delivery times (time-to-market)
■ Results in a systematic product development approach
■ Creates a results focus (vs. a task focus)
■ Reinforces continuous improvement through consistent repeatable processes
■ Facilitates proactive management
■ Improves communications throughout the organization
■ Clearly identifies, minimizes or mitigates risks
■ Simplifies resource planning across multiple projects
■ Enables managers to anticipate problems rather than reacting to them
■ Enhances “what if” analysis and corrective action planning
■ Defines resource and timing requirements for strategic business plan initiatives
■ Improves business management skills throughout the organization.
It can be difficult to quantify many of these benefits, especially in the short term. Metrics can be developed to measure improvements once the processes have been established, but initially it will be difficult to categorically predict the specific value or worth of improvements that will be gained by incorporating the PSO structure into the organization.
In a September 1996 PM Network article, “Teamocracy and Project Management: A Conundrum (A Case for the Project Office),” Harvey Levine captured the essence behind the argument for the creation of a PSO: “Where do we get off expecting that all engineers, or programmers, or marketing specialists will possess skills in project management, or in operating a project management software program? Would we likewise put accounting software on each employee's desk, ask them to perform accounting for their area, and then eliminate the corporate accounting function? We don't ask engineers to do marketing. We don't ask programmers to pour cement. Why do we ask them to fill a role for which they are not trained (and which probably isn't in their job description)? This is truly absurd. And it will produce regrettable consequences.” Levine further states “…the role of the project office to successful project management is more important than ever.”
Creation of PSOs has become a hot topic in the marketplace, as evidenced by the numerous articles published in PM Network in 1997, and by the number of project management professionals who have attended PSO seminars sponsored by PMI over the past year. There are already many organizations in most industries and governmental agencies who have created or are in the process of developing their own Project Support Office, all of them being unique in their structure and position within their respective organizations. For those of you who have not yet started the process and are interested in finding out how a typical PSO might be organized, I have provided a model (see Exhibit 1).
The diagram in Exhibit 1 depicts the various roles that can be included in a typical Project Support Office. This scenario shows that the primary connection to the project team is through a project coordinator who is assigned to each project being supported by the PSO. The number of PSO roles should not be misconstrued as head count, but rather as assigned responsibilities that would be accomplished by one or more people, depending upon the workload. The skill requirements, core capabilities and responsibilities need to be documented for each role. The staff numbers serving in specific roles can fluctuate to keep pace with the needs as the number and size of projects change. It is not unusual for one person to fulfill the responsibilities of more than one role.
Where does the PSO fit in the corporate organization chart? The PSO can fit into almost any organization structure; however, the strong matrix organization structure provides the best environment. There are two important elements shown in Exhibit 2 that are significant factors affecting the role of the project manager and the project manager's relationship to the PSO.
■ In many companies project managers are not assigned as part of the PSO staff, but continue to report to a functional manager. This direct reporting relationship remains intact in this configuration because of the project manager's technical subject matter expertise. The project manager's project-related activities, however, are directed and supervised by the PSO manager.
■ The interface between most projects and the PSO is coordinated by a PSO staff position called a project coordinator, whose primary job is to provide project management skills expertise by mentoring and coaching the project manager and project team members. The project coordinator acts as the primary liaison between the project team and the PSO, coordinating communications between the two groups.
Some might argue that in a true projectoriented matrix organization the project managers would report only to the PSO manager. This argument is based on a concern for the loss of political autonomy, which serves to insulate the project manager from undue influences being applied by a functional group that may wish to compromise decisions or disposition actions. There is some legitimacy to this concern. However, I believe there are greater benefits gained in having the project manager remain in his or her functional organization, where his or her sphere of influence and knowledge is the greatest. I suggest that this arrangement is the best approach, especially in the initial stages of implementing MPM and the PSO organization.
Change of any kind is typically met with some level of resistance—the amount of resistance will be in proportion to how much people are kept informed about and involved in the process.
This scenario also eliminates a major element of the change process that probably has the greatest impact on most workers—that of changing bosses. More important, the distribution of Modern Project Management knowledge, skills and experience is the main objective, and moving the project managers under new organization leadership will not in and of itself ensure the objective will be met. Neither will a corporate-wide education and training program on its own achieve the goals. It may make sense to move the project managers under the direct supervision of the PSO manager after a period of one to two years of experience with the PSO in place.
The most important component missing in the quest to fully integrate MPM is experience, which is why I believe so strongly that the PSO is the best means to implement MPM into a corporation's culture. The PSO becomes the organization's project management “center of expertise,” a core support group of experts who are trained, educated and experienced in implementing and managing the processes associated with managing projects. This core group can then provide key project management support services for all projects, while at the same time training and educating the functional group project managers by mentoring, coaching and demonstrating the correct application of MPM principles.
A few experienced individuals can provide adequate resources to begin the process of MPM integration. The length of time it will take for full integration is dependent upon the organization's project management maturity level (i.e., general project management capability across the population), organization size and number of locations, typical project size and complexity, and number of qualified staff available or amount of outsourcing done.
In order to experience the benefits derived from an effective integration of MPM methodologies, they must become integrated as a customary part of the work culture, to the extent they are taken for granted as a natural part of the business process. Implementing technological improvements is a relatively easy task; forging cultural changes that affect the way business is done is far more arduous. Typically, true acceptance and personal ownership of MPM concepts is brought about only after an individual experiences or observes first-hand the real value that can be achieved by correctly applying them. This takes time, because cultivating MPM skills is best achieved through personal experience and the best lessons are learned by a successful repetitive accomplishment of the work. My experience has shown that the development and documentation of a MPM methodology can typically be accomplished in three to six months, whereas the successful integration of MPM into business processes can typically require from one to three years. It is important to note, however, that improvements can be realized almost immediately.
Reader Service Number 5097
Project management concepts and techniques taken one at a time are not particularly complicated. What is challenging is their effective implementation and integration into business processes. The functions and elements of MPM are intended to be the foundation of an organization's program management and control solution, which become documented as policies and procedures. When developed, these policies and procedures include local standards that address the unique requirements of the organization that are the result of variations in product, organizational structure, maturity, and corporate culture.
THERE IS NO COOKBOOK APPROACH to implementing Modern Project Management into the culture of an organization. That is not to say that the process itself is not well defined, but rather that the application of the concepts and techniques is unique to each environment, especially when the process is guided by experienced professionals from start to finish … the key to doing it right the first time. ■
Dennis Bolles, PMP, a senior project management consultant with The PCI Group in Troy, Mich., has 30 years experience in applying project management practices and developing formalized project management systems in multiple industries. He wrote and presented the PMI ’97 seminar “Project Support Office: A Framework for Development.”