I find the concept of positioning a Program Management Office under a single Program Manager to be outdated. In my view, a Program Management Office should be a team comprising all project managers, platform architects, and project management methodology experts. Their primary role should be to structure programs effectively, balance resources, and conduct professional multi-program management—helping with smart prioritization when plans deviate or resource bottlenecks occur. Projects shouldn't be running so poorly that you need a Program Management Office to solve the problems that projects create for each other in the first place.
Thank you for your thoughts, Uwe. I was surprised to see the 1:1 PgMO to program model concept, but I am largely unclear if it's outdated versus non-existent (at least from my non-profit world perspective). Still as I ponder how to advance the non-profit program management workforce, I don't want to leave that option off the table and instead think through what factors would demand more personalized PgMO attention. Experience of the program manager? Complexity of the program? Level of innovation required, etc? Fodder for a future article as I continue my research. Great thoughts and thank you for contributing.
I have learned that it makes a huge difference what kind of organization it is. There are organizations where projects are the foundation of the business. Then there are companies, like mine, where serial production of products is the actual business, but at the same time part of the organization is permanently working in projects to create new products. And then there are organizations where projects are the exception, occurring now and then, but the organization isn't really set up for them. The way projects run in these different environments is very different. What is it like in non-profit organizations?
I find the concept of positioning a Program Management Office under a single Program Manager to be outdated. In my view, a Program Management Office should be a team comprising all project managers, platform architects, and project management methodology experts. Their primary role should be to structure programs effectively, balance resources, and conduct professional multi-program management—helping with smart prioritization when plans deviate or resource bottlenecks occur. Projects shouldn't be running so poorly that you need a Program Management Office to solve the problems that projects create for each other in the first place.
Thank you for your thoughts, Uwe. I was surprised to see the 1:1 PgMO to program model concept, but I am largely unclear if it's outdated versus non-existent (at least from my non-profit world perspective). Still as I ponder how to advance the non-profit program management workforce, I don't want to leave that option off the table and instead think through what factors would demand more personalized PgMO attention. Experience of the program manager? Complexity of the program? Level of innovation required, etc? Fodder for a future article as I continue my research. Great thoughts and thank you for contributing.
I have learned that it makes a huge difference what kind of organization it is. There are organizations where projects are the foundation of the business. Then there are companies, like mine, where serial production of products is the actual business, but at the same time part of the organization is permanently working in projects to create new products. And then there are organizations where projects are the exception, occurring now and then, but the organization isn't really set up for them. The way projects run in these different environments is very different. What is it like in non-profit organizations?