What Came First, the Process or the Tool

I have an idea for a consulting business; assessing a company's project management processes and helping them determine if they really NEED a tool, or really WANT a tool (actually, those consulting firms already exist).

Daily I'm seeing professionals, from junior PM's to PMO managers, asking what tool would be best for their organization.  Usually the question is around what others use and what they like.  There is very little detail about processes they have today, if there's already a tool in place and where there are gaps.  It's hard to make recommendations without knowing what is truly needed.  They're also missing what I believe to be the real goal of wanting to implement a tool; consistency in process and control in execution.

Having been through a few Project Portfolio Management (PPM) tool implementations in my time, processes and tools need to work together in harmony to be effective.  That said, I truly believe organizations need to develop processes first, then implement a tool second.  You can't use a tool unless you know the processes it guides you through.  

Let me give you an example.  There was a newly formed PMO at a manufacturing company tasked with aligning their processes globally across all functional areas.  They found IT was using one set of templates and processes, HR another, and manufacturing something different.  No one measured progress the same and status reports rolled in different directions and there was no consistency.

The PMO inventoried what all groups did and developed a standard set of templates for some things (i.e. Charter & Scope Statement) and variations for others (Schedule, Budget Estimation).  All status reports used a common template and rolled up to a governance committee so there was full transparency.  Though the path was bumpy some days, for the most part processes were living in harmony and projects done consistently.

Months later, the PMO decided to invest in a tool to not only assist with the process, but also ensure PM’s were using it consistently and kept plans current (to date most things lived in C: drives).  The PMO launched a project to document the as-is process, get PM and resource manager’s “wish lists”, and identify gaps.  After some research, they found a vendor with a cloud-based solution that everyone felt would support processes and allow them to grow.  Even though there were some go-live pains, the PMO found value and not only was there consistency and control, but resource allocation was more advanced and allowed them to better plan ahead. 

Not all tool implementations go this way, but this one was deemed successful by the organization.  The focus started with processes first, then spun up a project to select and implement a tool second.  Start with consistency in process and control in execution, and then mature to the next level.