Transformation Doesn’t Require a Permanent PMO?
Normally I love what Strategy+Business, an excellent on-line publication, writes. But an article on transformational change titled “Exercising Common Sense”, while full of good, common sense experience, left me amazed at what was left out. A quote late in the article will reveal the source of my critique:
The “program office for transformation should not be dismantled too soon….”.
WHAT? The article makes an excellent case for on-going transformation. Now, I’m a big supporter of lean continuous improvement but on-going transformation at the strategic level requires an on-going entity, like a PMO or a program office. Who do they think is going to do the “detail plans” and “detail transformation maps” or the research required to find potential innovations? The establishment of a PMO shows the rest of the organization that executives are serious about on-going transformation; disbandment of a PMO shows that they are not serious about it- it’s that simple.
Just look at what the authors suggest that a CEO and high level executives do in a transformation environment:
1. Make the business case.
2. Market backed analysis to support the business case.
3. Cross organizational teams implement changes.
4. Focus on augmenting capabilities along with cost cutting.
If you are a reader of this blog you know how passionate I am about a PMO being the engine behind execution of strategies and innovation. What’s funny about this article is that it correctly suggests that on-going, continuous improvement transformation is necessary in today’s organizations but then suggests that the perfect vehicle for supporting this, a PMO or program office, be dismantled after “the change” occurs. Guess what- “the change” should always be occurring. It simply doesn’t make sense- at least if you understand the role of the PMO. Apparently, the authors believe that a PMO doesn’t play a vital on-going role in executing strategies and innovation.
Bottom line- these types of articles make me wonder how serious the consulting profession is about helping organizations wean themselves off of their services. Dismantling a program office that supports on-going transformation seems to guarantee more consulting. Look at the graphic supporting this post: the person painting the light bulb should be the top executive team or governance board; the person at the desk is the PMO supporting the governance board; the person with the briefcase walking away should be the consulting firm that has successfully empowered the organization. Have I misread this? Please share your thoughts?
Tags: collaboration, execute-strategy, executive, governance-board, innovation, investment, lean, PMO, portfolio-management, project, project-management, project-management-office, project-portfolio-management, selling-projects, strategy, theory-of-constraints, value, value-sellingRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Best of the Best Practices, PMOs and Portfolio Management
0 opinions for Transformation Doesn’t Require a Permanent PMO?
No one has left a comment yet. You know what this means, right? You could be first!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: