ABSTRACT
This chapter is built on the results of research undertaken since 2004 at the University of Quebec at Montreal (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010; Aubry et al, 2011). The results are presented in a practical format so they can be useful in answering various questions on PMOs, more specifically in the context of implementing a PMO or reviewing its mandate. We have adopted a very generic approach to PMOs where they could be dedicated to multiple independent projects, programs or portfolios. PMOs dealing with a single project were excluded from our research. The first part of our research on PMOs involved a survey for which we received more than 500 responses (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010). This provided evidence-based results on the diversity of PMOs and the difficulty in finding a typology to classify them. Given the wide variety of PMOs found in reality, we adopted the generic definition from the Project Management Institute (2008):
492 G o w e r H a n d b o o k o f P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t
[A PMO is] an organizational body or entity assigned various responsibilities related to the centralised and coordinated management of those projects under its domain. The responsibilities of the PMO can range from providing project management support functions to actually being responsible for the direct management of a project. (p. 443)
It is not essential that this entity be called a ‘PMO’. In our survey, 41% used a different name. The Office of Government Commerce (2008) in its name emphasizes that the offices have project, program and portfolio roles. However, what is essential is that activities that deal with multiple projects in organizations are carried out in a coherent way.
