Position PMO Metrics in Organization

The original title of this section (in our paper) was “Position Metrics to PMO Levels.”  We had a difficult time with labelling it because it isn’t a simple concept, so I’ll let the original paper explaining

Metrics need to be planted in the right organizational unit(s).  Some metrics may not apply to every level of the PMO structure and should be collected by a particular PMO level.  In addition, metrics may be available at one level, but it would be meaningless if decomposed or rolled up to the next. 

Finally, budget and execution responsibility ownership at an organizational level should imply metrics responsibility at that same level,  If a measure is not useful at a particular PMO level – e.g., trends or issues are hard to determine – it may be a symptom that [it will] prove difficult to hold that organization accountable for poor budget or execution.

This last point took a while to become clear.  We realized that trying to hold the regions responsible for what they couldn’t [mostly] control would be counterproductive…

At SAP, project profitability and schedule performance are driven by project performance, so local and regional PMOs are closer to the data.  The Global PMO drives rollout and execution of the PM Maturity and Project Controlling initiatives, so it reports against these metrics.

While PM Maturity measured regional performance, it was clear that it was a global responsibility (with regions accountable for the result).  Assigning responsibility (FYI, we use RACI) for something like Project Controlling was more challenging.  The budget, systems, resources, etc. sat in global organizations, though not all were owned by the Global PMO.   The change management and adoption took place in the regions. 

Table reflects SAP PMO Metrics after review, re-alignment, and positioning in the organization (note some company-confidential measures are excluded).

Perspective

Current Metric

Global or Regional Ownership

Notes

Financial
Project Profitability
Regional
Clearly regional, they are accountable for the numbers
Customer
Customer References (tangible Success Stories)
Regional
Regions typically resisted, but peer pressure — when regions published success stories — prompted compliance.
Internal Stakeholder Satisfaction
Regional
Employee
PM Training Coverage
Regional
PMP Certification Success
Regional
Project/ Process
Organizational PM Maturity
Global
Again, regions we clearly accountable for performance, though global is becoming more accountable for generating recommendations, developing action items, and measuring progress w/r/t those follow-up items.
Project Schedule Performance
Regional
Project Controlling
Global
Unfortunately, we never resolved the issue.  The Project Controlling RACI was not clear enough, for some regions held themselves ACCOUNTABLE for the rollout, while others thought they were only RESPONSIBLE.
This difference held “R” regions to magnify feature/function gaps to justify building stand-alone systems (to report the schedule and profit numbers they clearly were responsible for).
Also, global found itself accountable, without having insisted upon the control it needed to make the approach work (at least not fully).
Advertisements

One Response

  1. […] Position PMO Metrics in Organization […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: