Social media/networking is awesome. Here’s an example.
- Last week I received a question looking for PMO resource material, specifically PMO best practices.
- So I published a post called PMO Best Practices with some that I knew of and asked for more from the readers, which I got.
- Then today I see Ron Rosenhead on Twitter referring to a post on the Four Archetypes of a PMO by Glen Alleman. I re-tweet it because that’s what you do with stuff you like on Twitter, share it with others.
- I check it out and like it, and see he references this post by Mark Mullaly. It is one post among the multitude that I had suggested looking at in my original post at Gantthead.com.
- And now this process has spawned a new post by yours truly due to the questions it stimulated in my mind.
See? AWESOME.
Now here is my question for anyone reading this who has an opinion on the matter.
What Impact Do the “People In Charge” Have On the Archetype?
Looking at the four, I can identify with one of them in particular, but with some elements of another – perhaps even all four. This leads me to ask what kind of PMO I would establish had I the choice.
by Tambako the Jaguar via Flickr
Mark’s article speaks to the need for the archetype to be in alignment with the organization. While this seems like a reasonable goal to me, I am questioning it’s validity and perhaps you can help me think this through.
To some extent, the industry and organizational culture play a role. Certainly. If you are running projects in relation with the nuclear power industry you have a completely different set of processes that emphasize control and adherence to standards among other types of rigor. A company producing software may be completely different.
To me, the main driver for these archetypes is going to be those PEOPLE who have influence over the PMO. If this person (or small group of people) tend to be the quarterback, perfectionist, scorekeeper, or facilitator they will focus on the aspects and process that are important from the perspective of their world view.
For instance, when I look at those four archetypes the one I identify with is “facilitator” with a leaning towards “quarterback”. That’s how I manage projects and (of course) how I would like a PMO to run. As long as there are no external constraints (as in the nuclear example given above) I venture to hypothesize that the personality and approach of the PMO director (and higher management that enable it) will determine the archetype more than anything else. We’re talking about a matter of management style.
So, if I were an executive looking to hire someone to lead a PMO for my organization, an analysis of the best archetype for the organization is very useful. I argue however it’s not a matter of picking the best candidate in general to lead a prescribed PMO; I want someone who is qualified, experienced AND also has a management style and organizational process mindset that is in harmony with the PMO archetype that will best serve my company.
Thoughts? Comment, tweet, facebook, or whatever you like.
No related posts.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I think the model is wrong. Take a look at this cultural oriented model which suggests a different set of archetypes and comes with a new set of ideas and assumptions.
Hi Josh,
I think the archetype determines the type of person and while I can seem some overlap, I seriously doubt the same person could function effectively in all of them.
I think Craig's posting reinforces that, as I can appreciate how a mercenary would have a hard time transitioning to a Communal culture.
This phenomena can be seen in many of the reality shows such as Survivor, where there is tension between the need to collaborate and preference to go it alone.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
Thanks Craig!
The model is for the function of the PMO, not the people occupying the function.
Look again at the matrix:
http://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/0…
and imagine the capabilities provided by the “function” in each cell of the matrix. These define the business processes around the PMO and its relationship with the projects and the business consumers of those projects.
My problem with the model is that the axes don't make sense to me. What do we get by lying out a Control-Support spectrum? What do we get from Manage-Improve?
The framing of the model lays out a set of foundation assumptions that I don't buy.
For example; What does it mean to say that control is the opposite of support? What does support mean?
A shorthand answer may be that support is giving staff technical coaching when they need it, supporting their decisions as the expert on the task, ensuring the team get political support from stakeholders, and so on. How does this contradict control? What are Mark's assumptions here?
And the same can be said for manage versus improve. I get that some people see them as opposites – manage a status quo versus change things. But really – and especially in projects – management is about managing systems and people to achieve outcomes. Maintaining the status quo has nothing to do with management.
(As an aside; the original essay is on Gannthead which is mainly anecdotal, not an academic or professional journal. And I forgot my password so haven't checked the original article.)
So, while the model may feel right – it operates within a particular mental model.