The ( dedicat ed) Proj ect Team lies at one ext rem e end of
t he cont inuum which st art s from undert aking proj ect s using t he ( pure) funct ional form of proj ect organizat ion.
A proj ect m anager is select ed t o head a core group of
personell assigned from t wo or m ore funct ional unit s of t he organizat ion and who are all required t o work full- t im e on t he proj ect in quest ion.
Proj ect Team s are usually „ cross- funct ional“ in nat ure and are a powerful m eans of dealing wit h com plex assignm ent s which m ay be difficult t o do using ot her proj ect organiza-t ion form s.
Corporation X
MA1 MA2 MA3 EN1 EN2 EN3 MF1 MF2 MF3 PR1 PR2
For m in g a ( D e dica t e d) Pr oj e ct Te a m
Staff are assigned away from various departments to work full-time on the project.
No st ruct ural im pact on t he funct ional organizat ion
occurs – only t he t em po-rary siphoning away of funct ional specialist s from t heir respect ive areas for t he durat ion of t he proj ect or for a phase of it when heir input is required in order t o com plet e
specialist t asks.
Proj ect com plet ion t im e is com parat ively sm aller due t o proj ect personell devot ing t heir effort s t o t he proj ect in quest ion full- t im e and also because t he flow of
inform at ion and decision-m aking is generally not
hindered by hierachies as it is in t he funct ional form of
organizing proj ect s.
Mot ivat ion, feeling of iden-t ificaiden-t ion and cohesiveness are st rong in t he proj ect .
Proj ect personell share a com m on goal and t hey also share a collect ive
responsibilit y for ensuring t he realizat ion of t his goal.
Cross- funct ional
cooperat ion is st rongly
encouraged and prom ot ed as a m eans of achieving t he proj ect goal.
Cross- funct ional t eam s creat e a synergy effect which can handle t asks charact erised by a high degree of com plexit y.
A m aj or crit icism of t he ( dedicat ed) proj ect t eam relat es t o t he cost fact or.
Norm ally, a larger expense is involved because
resources and facilit ies are assigned t o t he proj ect on a full- t im e basis. Across proj ect s, t his m ay result in a duplicat ion of
infrast ruct ure and work.
Proj ect it is – proj ect personell evolve a collect ive ident it y
encapsulat ing t hem selves from t he ent erprise, giving rise t o a
assim ilat ion of proj ect personell back int o t heir respect ive
funct ional areas.
The proj ect m ay becom e
over-dependent on t he gam ut of skills, expert ise and experience held by t he proj ect personell and m ay not seek t o incorporat e fresh skills, expert ise and experience which is held by individuals and
organiza-t ional enorganiza-t iorganiza-t ies which are ouorganiza-t side organiza-t he proj ect .
The assim ilat ion of proj ect personell back int o t heir respect ive funct ional unit s m ay prove difficult due t o t heir prolonged absence from t heir unit s and t he challenge of keeping up wit h t he developm ent s which have t aken place in t he funct ional unit s during t he proj ect period.
Pr oj e ct Or ga n iz a t ion For m s
a n d Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce
9 The proj ect ‘s size
9 The proj ect ‘s st rat egic im port ance
9 The proj ect ‘s innovat ion requirem ent
9 The proj ect ‘s level of required int egrat ion across funct ional delineat ions
9 The proj ect environm ent ‘s com plexit y
9 The proj ect budget and t im e const raint s
9 The proj ect resource requirem ent level of st abilit y
Em pirical research suggest s t hat t he „ Proj ect Mat rix“ and „ Proj ect - Based Organizat ion“ m odes are t he m ost effect ive m eans of undert aking proj ect s
Functional
Clifford F. Gray / Erik W. Larson, Project Management: The Managerial Process, 2. ed., 2003, p. 71
Em pir ica l Fin din gs:
Ca se St u dy: Pr odu ct D e ve lopm e n t Pr oj e ct s
Erik W. Larson & David H. Gobeli examined
the performance of different organizational
structures with regard to the schedule, cost and
technical performance of 540 development
projects in 1987-88. The industries represented
in the survey were pharmaceuticals,
aero-space, computer and data processing products,
telecommunications, medical instruments,
Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce a n d Or ga n iz a t ion a l For m
Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce a n d Or ga n iz a t ion a l For m
Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce a n d Or ga n iz a t ion a l For m
Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce a n d Or ga n iz a t ion a l For m
Som e t h in g t o Ke e p in M in d
An organization can be expected to apply different forms
of organization for its projects contained in its portfolio,
using the criteria which were considered in the previous
slide.
Pure Funct ional Form
Mat rix Form
Every organizat ion has it s ow n dist inct ive
cul-t ure w hich secul-t s icul-t aparcul-t from all ocul-t her
organi-zat ions, including t hose w hich are operat ing in
t he sam e field.
Organizat ional cult ure basically refers t o a
sys-t em of shared norm s, beliefs, values, assum
p-t ions, ap-t p-t ip-t udes and behaviours w hich bind p-t he
m em bers of t he organizat ion t oget her and
det erm ine ‚how w e do t hings around here‘.
Proj ect m anagers m ust cont end w it h several,
oft en diverse cult ures and subcult ures exist ing
w it hin t he diverse organizat ional spheres of
t heir organizat ions ( e.g. senior m anagem ent ,
funct ional areas, PMO) , and out side it ( e.g.
client s, cont ract ors, suppliers, governm ent
agencies and ot her st akeholders) .
A good ‚cult ural m anagem ent st rat egy‘ can be
crucial for successfully m anaging a proj ect .
Several research st udies have been conduct ed
over t he years in t he US and ot her count ries t o
det erm ine t he relat ionship bet w een
Organiza-t ional CulOrganiza-t ure and OrganizaOrganiza-t ional Perform ance.
Excercize caut ion in int erpret ing t he result s of
t hese researches because st udies undert aken
in one count ry reflect t he cult ural, social and
psychological cont ext of t hat count ry and m ay
not be valid for count ries like Pakist an.
Pr oj e ct X
Fu n ct ion a l Un it s
Ot h e r Ex t e r n a l St a k e h olde r s Pr oj e ct Cu st om e r s
Ex t . Pr oj e ct I n pu t Su pplie r s
Cu lt u r a l D im e n sion s of Pr oj e ct s
I nadequat e m anagem ent of ‚cult ural
conside-rat ions‘ m ay cause difficult ies for proj ect s.
Therefore, it is essent ial t o include t he cult ural
com ponent as an int egral and im port ant part
of m anaging t he overall proj ect .
The cult ure of an organizat ion det erm ines t he
infrast ruct ure and processes w hich it set s up
and t he support and encouragem ent w hich it
gives t o support proj ect s.
Gray and Larson have proposed t en cult ural fact ors t hat are
Means- Ends- Orient at ion
Open- Syst em Focus
Wit hout t he visible, st rong, act ive and sust ained support and com -m it -m ent of t op -m anage-m ent , it is not possible t o creat e an organi-zat ional cult ure which facilit at es proj ect s. Top m anagem ent m ust ensure t hat t he proj ect s being un-dert aken are aligned w it h t he m is-sion, goals and obj ect ives of t he organizat ion, t hat t he value of pro-j ect s is acknowledged t hroughout t he organizat ion and t hat it is pre-pared t o provide all form s of sup-port w hich proj ect s need in order t o be successfully undert aken.
Proj ect s need a st rong infrast ruc-t ure supporruc-t base if ruc-t hey are ruc-t o have a high chance of succeeding. Many organizat ions have set up Proj ect Managem ent Offices which perform a host of specific support -ing funct ions in connect ion wit h proj ect s. Organizat ions m ay have policies w hich require t he applica-t ion of sophisapplica-t icaapplica-t ed m eapplica-t hodolo-gies ( such as t he PMBOK) on t heir proj ect s, are following best pract i-ces, and have devised ways t o m inim ize frict ion bet w een int ernal proj ect st akeholders.
To undert ake proj ect s successfully, an organizat ion m ust equip it s
hum an resources w it h t he requi-sit e know ledge and com pet encies and fully ut ilize t heir experience accum ulat ed t hrough t heir involve-m ent in proj ect s. Organizat ions w it h a good ( proj ect m anagem ent ) cult ure invest subst ant ially in
t raining program m es for t heir pro-j ect m anagers and t eam m em bers, offer handsom e incent ives,
re-wards and prom ot ional opport uni-t ies for good perform ance, and accord due st at us.
All proj ect s are built on t he foun-dat ions of com m unicat ion, coope-rat ion and coordinat ion bet ween t heir st akeholders. Hence, it is im perat ive t hat t he cult ure of t he organizat ion support s t hese act ivi-t ies ivi-t o ivi-t he m axim um possible ex-t enex-t .
I n organizat ions wit h a good
( proj ect m anagem ent ) cult ure, silo m ent alit y is st rongly discouraged and ( form al and inform al) com m u-nicat ion, cooperat ion and coordi-nat ion across funct ional lines is endorsed.
Many organizat ions of all sizes across t he
globe have est ablished „ Proj ect
Manage-m ent Offices ( PMOs) “ t o serve as an
organizat ional focal point for t he effect ive
and efficient m anagem ent of t heir
pro-gram m es and proj ect s. PMOs can perform
m any im port ant funct ions and, if
con-ceived and m anaged properly, are a huge
asset for proj ect - driven organizat ions.
I n t e r n a l Pr oj e ct M a n a ge m e n t Su ppor t in g
I n st it u t ion s in Pa k ist a n
Several public and privat e- sect or
organizat ions which are operat ing in
Pakist an, as w ell as t he federal and
provincial governm ent s, have est ablished
st ruct ures ( Proj ect Managem ent Unit s,
Proj ect Monit oring Unit s) perform ing PMO
Som e Typica l Fu n ct ion s of a “M a t u r e ” PM O
• Alignm ent of Proj ect s wit h Organizat ion’s Mission, Goals, Obj ect ives
• Proj ect Port folio Managem ent
• Resource Planning and Managem ent
• Generat ing Aw areness in Organizat ion of Proj ect Managem ent
• St andardizat ion of Policies, Processes, Prot ocolls and Docum ent aion
• Recruit m ent and Select ion of Proj ect Managers and Team Mem bers
• Training in Proj ect Managem ent and Relat ed Com pet encies, Skills
• Monit oring, Evaluat ion and Audit ing of Proj ect s
• Maint aining a Proj ect Managem ent I nform at ion Syst em
• Conseling and Ment oring of Proj ect St aff
• Benchm arking Best Pract ices
• Archiving Docum ent at ion on Com plet ed Proj ect s
• Refining Proj ect Managem ent Met hodologies
Pr oj e ct M a n a ge m e n t Office s: Su r ve y Fin din gs
Dr. Brian Hobbs from the Department of Management and Technology at the School of Management Sciences at the University of Quebec, Canada, has undertaken an insightful empirical
research on PMOs entitled The Multi-Project PMO: A Global Analysis of the
Current State of Practice.
