Comments on: Meet Claude Emond http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/12/151/ The magazine for the project age Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:42:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Claude Emond http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/12/151/#comment-331 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/12/151/#comment-331 Thanks very much for the topo, Hal. Quite faithful to our exchanges to this day. Two small comments to keep the record straight: a) I am a chemical engineer, not a mechanical engineer (must be my funny accent when I speak English). Not a big issue anyway wrt my project management vision. b) For the PMOs, the 'fad' comment needs a little clarification. The fad is in putting an official box in the organizational structure BEFORE understanding what has to be done to deploy better project management in an organization. Many organizations put into place physical PMOs (desks with people)with no clear mandate and now official authority on anything. It is a top-down approach that just does not work, because deploying project management implies important cultural-organizational changes with many new roles and responsibilities. Even with formal authority, the work of these PMOs is often viewed as interference to business-as-usual (there has not been any cultural change coming simultaneously), is opposed and sabotaged, any of their directives are just not listened to and bypassed. After a few months, upper management just questions the use of this NEW BOX than does not seem to get along with anybody and has no measurable results for its justification. THEY then just close the PMO (the box) and project management as a core business process will have to wait the next crisis and the coming of a new upper management team. What is important, while evolving towards a project management culture, is to put in place facilitating tools, training, internal consulting, to SUPPORT people in their projects and help them to see by themselves the advantage of applying project management principles and putting in place true project teams working together. And if the organization has the resources, why not provide a 'clearing house' for this facilitating work in the form of a PSO supporting project management rather than that of a PMO taking over (only in its mind) the management of projects. Thanks very much for the topo, Hal. Quite faithful to our exchanges to this day.

Two small comments to keep the record straight:

a) I am a chemical engineer, not a mechanical engineer (must be my funny accent when I speak English). Not a big issue anyway wrt my project management vision.

b) For the PMOs, the ‘fad’ comment needs a little clarification. The fad is in putting an official box in the organizational structure BEFORE understanding what has to be done to deploy better project management in an organization. Many organizations put into place physical PMOs (desks with people)with no clear mandate and now official authority on anything. It is a top-down approach that just does not work, because deploying project management implies important cultural-organizational changes with many new roles and responsibilities. Even with formal authority, the work of these PMOs is often viewed as interference to business-as-usual (there has not been any cultural change coming simultaneously), is opposed and sabotaged, any of their directives are just not listened to and bypassed. After a few months, upper management just questions the use of this NEW BOX than does not seem to get along with anybody and has no measurable results for its justification. THEY then just close the PMO (the box) and project management as a core business process will have to wait the next crisis and the coming of a new upper management team. What is important, while evolving towards a project management culture, is to put in place facilitating tools, training, internal consulting, to SUPPORT people in their projects and help them to see by themselves the advantage of applying project management principles and putting in place true project teams working together. And if the organization has the resources, why not provide a ‘clearing house’ for this facilitating work in the form of a PSO supporting project management rather than that of a PMO taking over (only in its mind) the management of projects.

]]> by: Hal http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/12/151/#comment-332 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/12/151/#comment-332 Bonjour Claude, Thanks for the clarifications. The interview was fun for me. I hope you enjoy my next little project on TOC with two bloggers. One I met in this forum, Frank Patrick. The other, Joe Ely, is a past client and now a good friend. This whole blogging scene has been wonderful for my professional development. A bientot! Bonjour Claude,

Thanks for the clarifications. The interview was fun for me.

I hope you enjoy my next little project on TOC with two bloggers. One I met in this forum, Frank Patrick. The other, Joe Ely, is a past client and now a good friend.

This whole blogging scene has been wonderful for my professional development.

A bientot!

]]> by: Frank Winters http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/12/151/#comment-333 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/12/151/#comment-333 PMO, PSO ... Are we talking about Programs? If so I think the PMO's time will come, allbeit with a different name. Programs are business initiatives -- if they are concieved correctly. If an organization wants to control corporate development, a PMO is needed. Wouldn't be nice if companies could control how the money was being spent from the top down. Projects that don't fit into a busines initiative, aka program, could be summerially canceled (off with their heads!) and costs controlled. This instead of the runnaway spending and projects with no business purpose that we see in major corporations today. But I guess I'm just a dreamer....... PMO, PSO …
Are we talking about Programs? If so I think the PMO’s time will come, allbeit with a different name. Programs are business initiatives — if they are concieved correctly. If an organization wants to control corporate development, a PMO is needed. Wouldn’t be nice if companies could control how the money was being spent from the top down. Projects that don’t fit into a busines initiative, aka program, could be summerially canceled (off with their heads!) and costs controlled. This instead of the runnaway spending and projects with no business purpose that we see in major corporations today. But I guess I’m just a dreamer…….

]]>