Anda di halaman 1dari 30

| 

  

? 
  ? ? ?
Paul.Astiz@Mitretek.org
(703--610-
(703 610-2435)
 
 
Provide an overview and general
understanding of PMO models,
functions, success factors, and
implementation
Introduce the CobiT PM CMM as a
framework for establish and evolving
the PMO Project Management
functions
 
IT PMO Trends
PMO Models
PMO Key Considerations
± Charter
± Culture Change
± Implementation Strategies
± Staffing/Skills
± Performance Metrics
Critical Success Factor
Introduction - CobiT®
CobiT® CMM
|    
67% of IT organizations in 2003 have PMOs (Forrester Survey)
More than half established since 2000 (Forrester Survey)
Government is moving to standardize IT Project
Management
± Nov, 2003, Federal CIO Council recommends setting up
Federal PMO to standardize PM practices
± Jun, 2004, SC requires management of major and inter-
inter-
agency IT projects to use standard practices and be managed
by PMP
± Jan, 2001, NY sets up PMO to standardize management of
technology projects
± Jun 2002, CA CIO established objectives for statewide project
management standards
IT PMOs are becoming strategic
IT PMOs are gaining more influence
è
 |  

 
Ñate and over budget IT projects
± Ñack of coordination of activities
± Poor project management practices
± Ñack of standardization of PM methodology
Need for consolidated project reporting to drive
prioritization/decisions
± More focus on IT project ROI
± More focus on alignment of IT projects with business strategy
± Strategic value and dependency on IT applications/technologies
Increase in IT Project workload
± Proliferation of IT project proposals
± Delays in getting projects approved
More complex IT environment and solutions
± Enterprise solutions/cross-
solutions/cross-functional projects
± Distributed development organizations
± Outsourcing and contracting out of IT projects
  
Companies that implemented
successful PMOs achieved:
± 80% ROI
± 20% reduction in project time
± 30-
30-35% successful project delivery
Companies without a PMO
experience 74% project failure rate



  
One size does not fit all
± PMO drivers/business needs
± PM maturity
± Vision and goals of sponsor
± Business/organization mission
± Organization size
± Number of projects
± Political and cultural environment
Tactical vs. strategic
Internal vs. external focus
Departmental vs. enterprise (IT vs. ÑOB)
Single vs. multiple
Staff vs. line organization
 #"  
Ú  


  
 %
 

    !  "
 " 
"  
    "

 
  #
  #
 %

|  
 &

| 
$ # 

  

  

  
  ! | %

  
 
 

  
w!" 
 
PMO charter
Culture change
Implementation strategy
Staffing
Metrics/Performance
Success factors
Maturity of Project Management
Practices
 "

Charter Scope
± Business Needs
± Sponsor
± Public vs. Commercial
± PM Maturity
Charter Document
± Mission/Vision
± Goals/Objectives
± Sponsor
± Service Offering
± PMO Governance
± Key Performance Metrics
± Funding model
 '' ""

 
Natural resistance to change
Political landscape
± Winners/Ñosers
± Management Support
Degree of cultural change
± PM maturity
± PMO charter
± Existing skill level
± Key driver implementation strategy
Change Management
± Assess impact of change
± Inform
± Educate
± Involve
 |   
 
 
Strategy drivers
± PMO charter
± PM maturity
± Sponsor and management support
± PMO drivers
± Perception of value
± Political environment
± Culture/Value System
Evolutionary/Incremental
± Ñower implementation risks
± Ñower start up costs
± Will take longer to demonstrate ROI
± More suitable if high resistance to change and low management
support
Revolutionary/Wholesale
± Higher implementation risks
± Higher startup costs
± May be able to demonstrate ROI quicker
± More suitable if crisis or recognition at high level that change is
imperative
 
 #$
Staffing Approaches
± In-
In-house resources
± Hybrid (In-
(In-house/contractors)
± Ad hoc contractors augmentation
Skills
± PMO Director/Manager
± Project Manager
± Project Portfolio Manager
± PM Process/Methodology Trainer
± Relationship/Account Manager
± Tools Support/Administration
± Administrative Support
± Ñibrarian/Document Control
 
 
PMO vs. Project metrics
Ñess that 15% of PMOs employ formal metrics program (Source: Forrester Research)
Metrics are essential for growth and support ± demonstrate progress, value, and
productivity
Performance metrics are driven by charter ± no such thing as typical metrics
Business value metrics
± Executive focus - Measure and demonstrate value to business
± Help justify existence during downsizing
± Expressed primarily in dollars savings/revenue or ROI
± Tend to be few and harder to derive
Functional performance metrics
± Internal focus - Measure and demonstrate performance or quality of PMO functions
± Help justify PMO budget
± Help improve PMO performance
± May require baseline or benchmark to demonstrate performance
± Expressed primarily in percent or counts
± Tend to be many depending on functions performed
± Must be selectively chosen so as not to overwhelm
Service level metrics
± Customer focus - Measure and demonstrate service level or quality of service to customer
± Help improve and maintain customer satisfaction
± SÑA/SÑO
± Expressed in a variety of ways
± Select on key and most important value to customer community


Clear Charter
± Creates clear expectations
± Defines boundaries for implementation
Top-Down Support
Top-
Bottoms up Buy-
Buy-in
Sponsor - Reporting to senior executive
Strong ÑOB representation
Communication/PR
± Promotion of services
± Education of value
± Performance metrics that demonstrate business and
customer value
 "

!
! 
Valuable tool for establishing PMO and
help define objectives, charter, and
processes
Assess current status
Compare against best practices
Develop strategy and road map for PMO
Help communicate vision and get buy in
Different models (CobiT, OPM3, ISO
15504, CMM/CMMI)
" (
( "

!
! 
CobiT® CMM is valuable and comprehensive framework for
CobiT®
assessing maturity of IT organization
CobiT®
CobiT® CMM
± International Open Standard for IT Governance
± IT Governance Institute (ITGI®)
(ITGI®)
± Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA
(ISACA®)
®)
ITIG ® not associated with Software Engineering Institute
(SEI), Carnegie Mellon
CobiT®
CobiT® CMM uses same conceptual framework as SEI¶s
CMM
Defines maturity of IT organizations in four domains
± Planning and Organization
± Acquisition and Implementation
± Delivery and Support
± Monitoring
PM CMM part of CobiT®
CobiT® Planning and Organization domain

èèè|%"%)
èèè| )|)
" (
!*
0 Non-
Non-Existent ± Not applied
1 Initial ± Ad hoc and disorganized
2 Repeatable ± Follow regular pattern
3 Defined ± Documented/communicated
4 Managed ± Monitored and measured
5 Optimized ± Best practices followed/
automated

" + , 



  ) 
" ( "   
Defines processes within each
domain
Defines high-
high-level control statement
for each process
Defines maturity levels
Defines success factors for each
process
Defines key goals for each process
Defines key performance indicators
" + , 

  ) 
" ( 

  
" 
  
Control of project management
process with the business goal of
setting priorities and delivering on
time and within budget
Is enabled by the organization
identifying and prioritizing projects in
line with the operational plan and the
adoption and application of sound
project management techniques for
each project undertaken
" + , 

  ) 
*-.
*- . / ,0 
PM techniques not used
Organization does not consider
business impact of poor project
performance

" + , 



  ) 
*1.
*1 . | 
#%2
Aware of need for project structure and risks of poorly
managed projects
Use of PM techniques left to the individual
Projects are generally poorly defined and do not incorporate
business or technical objectives of the organization or
stakeholders
Ñack of management commitment and project ownership
Critical project decisions are made without user
management or customer input
Ñittle or no customer and user involvement in defining IT
projects
No clear organization within IT projects and
roles/responsibilities are not defined
Project schedules and milestones are poorly defined
Project staff time and expenses are not tracked and
compared to budgets

" + , 



  ) 
*3.
*3 . 

| 
Sr. Management has gained and
communicated an awareness of the need
for IT Project Management
Organization is in the process of learning
and repeating certain techniques and
methods from project-
project-to-
to-project
Projects have informally defined business
and technical objectives
Ñimited stakeholders involvement in PM
Some PM guidelines developed, but left to
discretion of project managers
" + , 

  ) 
*+.
*+ .  
PM process and methodology formally established and
communicated
IT projects defined with appropriate business and technical
objectives
Stakeholders are involved in the management of IT projects
Defined project structure with roles and responsibilities
Defined and updated project milestones, schedules, budget
and performance measurements
IT Projects have formal post systems implementation
procedures
Informal project management training provided
No established policies for using combination of internal
and external resources
Quality assurance procedures are defined

" + , 



  ) 
*4.
*4 .


 


Formal and standardized project metrics
PM measure and evaluated throughout organization not just
IT
PM process enhancement formalized and communicated,
and project team members are trained on all enhancements
Risk management performed as part of PM
Stakeholders actively participate in projects or lead them
Project milestones and criteria for evaluating success at
each milestones are established
Value and risk are measured and managed prior to, during,
and after project completion
Management has established a program management
function within IT
Projects are defined, staffed, and managed to address
organizational goals, rather than only IT specific ones.

" + , 



  ) 
*5''  &
*5
Proven full life-
life-cycle project methodology is implemented
and enforced, and integrated into organizational culture
On--going program to institutionalize best practices has
On
been implemented
Strong and active project support from Sr. Management
sponsors and stakeholders
Implemented project organization structure with
documented roles, responsibilities, and staff performance
criteria
Ñong term IT resources strategy is defined to support
development and operational outsource decisions
Integrated Program Management Office is responsible for
projects from inception to post implementation
Program Management Office is under the management of
the business units and requisitions and directs IT resources
to complete projects
Organization--wide planning of projects ensures that users
Organization
and IT resources are best utilized to support strategic
initiatives
" + , 

  ) 
" ( 
( 



Experienced and skilled project managers are available
Accepted and standard project management process in place
Sr. Manager sponsorship of projects, and stakeholders and IT
staff share in the definition, implementation, and management
of projects
There is an understanding of the abilities and limitations of the
organization and the IT functions in managing large, complex
projects
Organization--wide project risk assessment methodology is
Organization
defined and enforced
All projects have a plan with clear traceable work breakdown
structures, reasonably accurate estimates, skill requirements,
issues to track, quality plan, and transparent change process
(my note ± effective PM methodology enforced)
Transition from implementation team to operational team is a
well--managed process
well
System development life cycle methodology has been defined
and is used by the organization

" + , 



  ) 
" ( w!)
| 

Increased number of projects completed on time
and on budget
Availability of accurate project schedule and
budget information
Decrease in systematic and common project
problems
Improved timeliness of project risk identification
Increased organization satisfaction with project
delivery services
Improved timeliness of project management
decisions
" (

  
w!
| 

Increased number of projects delivered in
accordance with defined methodology
Percent stakeholders participation in
projects (involvement index)
Number of project management training
days per project team member
Number of project milestones and budget
reviews
Percent of projects with post-
post-project
reviews
Average number of years of experience of
project managers
" 
IT PMOs can improve IT project delivery
performance
One size does not fit all
PMO Support/Control model most useful
Clear charter, top down support, & bottom
ups buy is key to PMO success
PMO performance metrics should focus on
value to key stakeholders
CMM valuable framework for establishing
and evolving PMO