PMO/CMO ... separate or as one?

PMO/CMO ... separate or as one?

Initial thoughts on Amalgamating PMO and CMO

Amalgamating a Project Management Office (PMO) and Change Management Office (CMO) into a single support function can be a strategic move for organizations that recognize the intertwined nature of project and change management. Given that all projects inherently bring about change, whether in processes, systems, or organizational structures, having a unified approach can lead to more cohesive and successful outcomes.

Let's first have a quick view of their key roles and responsibilities:

PMO:

  • Providing support, training, and resources to project managers.
  • Defining and enforcing project management standards and processes.
  • Directly managing and execute projects, ensuring alignment with organizational goals.

?CMO:

  • Developing and implementing change management strategies.
  • Communicating changes effectively across the organization.
  • Providing training and support to ensure smooth transitions.

OK that looks like their roles and responsibilities are quite different so next we'll have a look at arguments for and against amalgamation:

Arguments for Amalgamation

Arguments Against Amalgamation

Mandatory or Advisory

I have always been somewhat wary of a PMO (never had the chance to work with a CMO) because I believe they are sometimes too rigid in their requirements for reporting or the need to stick to a specific approach or methodology. Sometimes the reporting requirements are so over-egged they allow little time for actually getting work done. So what suits who:

The effectiveness of these support functions and whether they should mandate or advise depends on the organization's culture, maturity, and strategic needs. A balanced approach often works best, where certain functions may mandate standards to ensure alignment and consistency, while others advise and support to foster innovation and adaptability.

SO WHAT IS IT TO BE?

The decision to amalgamate the PMO and CMO should be based on the organization's specific needs, culture, and maturity. While there are clear advantages in terms of integration and efficiency, careful consideration must be given to maintaining the specialized focus and avoiding unnecessary complexity.

IF YOU DO DECIDE TO AMALGAMATE WHAT'S IN A NAME

There are plenty to choose from that are already in existence:

TMO (Transformation Management Office):

  • Aligns transformation initiatives with strategic objectives.
  • Coordinates cross-functional teams and resources.
  • Monitors and reports on transformation progress and outcomes.

SRO (Strategy Realisation Office):

  • Translates strategic plans into actionable projects.
  • Aligns resources and monitors the execution of strategic initiatives.
  • Measures and reports on the success of strategy implementation.

Can you think of a better name?

And now for a quick bit of marketing ...



Carsten Ley

Strategy & OKR Coach ??Transformation, PMO & CX Leader??Ex Deloitte | Citi | Lazada ??TedX Speaker & Podcast Host ?? Lego Innovation & Play Coach ??Uni Lecturer & Mentor

6 个月

Let's call it Chief of Staff ????

回复
Al Polito

Change Leader at NW Natural

7 个月

Interesting article. For a regulated industry such as utilities, there's no better place for the CMO to live than within the PMO. There are many reasons for this, and many complexities that don't hit other industries, but they mostly have to do with having to make rate cases for any new assets such as software. The money we spend has to be very trackable, which goes into our rate case narrative. Feel free to reach out if you want to know more.

Thomas Martin

Program manager and transformation catalyst from insight to impact shaping the path to sustainability.

7 个月

Thanks, Ron Leeman, the relationship between change and project is more complex than we might think at first. Especially, if the topics have been claimed. Ie. there is an organizational Change Management Office or an organizational PMO. In this case, the project manager must include them as key stakeholders and consider their requirements/guidance.

Matt Cinelli, EdM, SAFe POPM, PROSCI

Change Management Strategy | Stakeholder Engagement | Trusted Advisor | Relationship Builder | Organizational Alignment | Helping people be comfortable with technological change.

7 个月

The success of either depends on the structure of roles between them, how decisions are made, how information and power are shared, and more importantly the relationships between members of each group.

Back in the 1990s I established a PMO to provide administrative support to PMs. We had a business led steering group that approved projects and ensure both business and IT resources were available. The executive management team defined the strategy. There was independent assessment and reporting on the true state of a project. Reports were weekly and went to project steering groups and the CEO, who took action if there was slippage. Looking at the responsibilities outlined it looks very much like far too much power has been devolved and I fail to understand how these bodies really help PMs do what is a tough job.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Ron Leeman的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了