Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

The project management oce as an organisational innovation

Brian Hobbs *, Monique Aubry, Denis Thuillier

University of Quebec at Montreal, Department of Management and Technology, PO Box 8888, Downtown Station, Montreal, Que, Canada H3C 3P8
Received 15 May 2008; accepted 20 May 2008

Abstract
The paper presents an investigation of the creation and the reconguration of project management oces (PMOs) as an organisa
tional innovation. The analysis of 11 organisational transformations centred on the implementation or reconguration of PMOs is pre
sented. The objective of the paper is to contribute to a better understanding of PMOs and of the dynamic relationship between project
management and the organisational context. The aim is also to integrate the examination of PMOs as an organisational innovation into
the mainstream of research on the place of project management in organisations and more widely to the rethinking of project
management.
2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project management oce (PMO); Organisation; Innovation

1. Introduction

2. Recent survey-based research on PMOs

Quite often over the last decade, the observation has

been made that organisations are facing a new context
characterized by increased competition, increased rates of
product, service and process innovation and an increasing
emphasis on time to market. Organisations have responded
to these challenges by developing new, more exible organ
isational forms [1] in which projects are both more numer
ous and more strategically important [2]. As part of the
response to these new challenges and as part of the move
ment to increase both the number and the strategic impor
tance of projects many organisations have implemented a
new organisational entity the most common name for
which is the project management oce or PMO. The
PMO has been addressed extensively in the professional lit
erature [35]. However, there has been very little theoretical
or empirical research on the topic. In addition, this organ
isational innovation has not been examined extensively
within the literature stream described above.

A recent survey-based on the synchronic description of a

large number of PMOs and their organisational contexts
has shown extreme variety in both the form and function
of PMOs [6]. Attempts to date to reduce this variety to a
limited number of models have failed. In addition, the
research showed that in the majority of cases PMOs are
unstable structures, organisations often recongure their
PMOs every few years. This instability can be interpreted
as both an illustration of structuring as an ongoing organ
isational process [1] and as an illustration of organisational
experimentation as organisations search for an adequate
structural arrangement [7]. Half of the respondents to the
survey report that the legitimacy of their PMO in its pres
ent form is being questioned. This is consistent with both
the interpretation in terms of experimentation and a search
for best practices and with the interpretation as an instance
of the inherent instability of an ongoing process of
structuring.
In the survey-based research cited above, correlation
analysis found no systematic relationships between the
external context in terms of economic sector or geographic
region or internal organisational context, on the one hand,

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: hobbs.brian@uqam.ca (B. Hobbs).

0263-7863/$34.00 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.008

548

B. Hobbs et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

and the structural characteristics of PMOs on the other.

None of the classic contingency factors from organisa
tional theory correlated strongly with the form or function
of the PMOs. A positivist, synchronic approach has pro
vided a rich description of the great variety found in the
population but has failed, so far, to provide an adequate
understanding of PMOs. The present paper reports the
result of an eort to come to a better understanding of
PMOs as an organisational innovation based on the indepth investigation of eleven cases.
3. The literature on organisational innovation
Four subsets of the literature on innovation are exam
ined to identify alternative approaches relevant to the
examination of PMOs as organisational innovations.
First, the general literature on innovation is examined. This
is followed by an examination of the literature based on
evolutionary, co-evolutionary and institutional isomor
phism approaches. All are sensitive to evolution over
time.
3.1. The general literature on innovation
Early research on innovation had operated mostly from
an economic perspective and a general assumption of
growth [8]. The interdisciplinary curriculum has developed
over time with the contribution of new knowledge stem
ming from a variety of sources: economics [911], organisa
tional management [12], sociology [13] and social ecology
[14]. Others provide a categorization of innovation based
on product, process or architecture [15,16]. In this perspec
tive, organisations are considered to be very similar,
responding to the same incentives. The objectives of
research are often to provide organisations with practical
solutions determining factors to innovative success.
Innovation theory is now shifting to a social innovation
approach, broadening the concept of technological innova
tion to a social system. [. . .] the sociological crucial point
is that organisations have not only become prominent
actors in society, they may have become the only kind of
actor with signicant cultural and political inuence. Yet,
recent organisation theory has surprisingly little to say
about how organisations aect the society. [13, p. 148]
New questions have emerged which lead to motivation the
ory and to the context of innovation that rehabilitates his
tory along with innovation, thus introducing the temporal
element to the social innovation system [17,18]. This histor
ical perspective was a natural step after the ecological
model which demonstrated the usefulness of the biological
metaphor with the concepts of evolution and co-evolution
[19]. This social approach paved the way for looking at
organisations as part of the social innovation system and
new forms of structure as innovations. Along this line of
thought, innovation is viewed as an art or, more exactly,
as a craft [18]. Innovation then becomes a creative act,

the dynamic construction of something new in which it

can be dicult to discern any regular pattern1 [20].
3.2. From evolutionary theory to co-evolution
The evolutionary theory was developed in the theory of
organisations based on a biological metaphor. A basic evo
lutionary model of an organisation envisions it as a collec
tion of routines or stable bundles of activities. With time,
variation occurs within these routines with the result that
any given set of routines evolves, whether intentionally or
not. A certain number of new routines are then adopted
as temporarily permanent practices. This simple varia
tionselectionretention repeats continuously [21, p. 76].
Evolutionary theories are made up of two major groups:
contingency theories and social theories. Contingency the
ories consider technological change as an exogenous phe
nomenon which triggers organisational evolution [8,22].
This deterministic approach makes structural arrangements
predictable from variables such as complexity, uncertainty
and interdependency, which can be integrated into a single
dimension the ability to treat information [23].
Social theories view organisations as technological
social constructions in which the community of organisa
tions determines the nature of technological evolution
[22]. In this approach, organisational structures are seen
as processes in action which are continuously built and
rebuilt [23]. Scott argues that these approaches are two
sides of the same coin [23]. On the one hand, technology
can be considered the causal agent which shapes the struc
ture of organisations; while on the other hand, to reverse
this causal eect, organisations inuence the innovation
process with either the creation of a new technology or
its early adoption [23].
This complementarity is recognized in the co-evolution
theory in which technological innovations are believed to
give the impetus that initiates new cycles of variationselec
tionretention and in which a dynamic process of evolution
with innovation constantly feeds organisation [22,24].
Massini et al. [19] conrm that evolutionary theory is
capable of explaining changes in organisational structures
and routines. They conclude that organisational adapta
tion is a consequence of changes related to the adoption
of technological innovations. Looking at large Western
and Japanese rms at two dierent periods in time (1992,
1996), their research conrms both the progressive adapta
tion over time and the tendency to adopt organisational
routines associated with a higher capacity for exibility.
This also conrms the selection and emergence of domi
nant routines suggested by the evolutionary theory. They
1
Dooley and Van de Ven have been working on what is called
complexity theory. This theory says that we need more complex tools to
understand the complex reality of todays organisation. Changes in
organisation could follow three dierent dynamic types (from less to more
complex): periodic, chaotic or random time series (colored noise: white,
pink or brown) [20].

B. Hobbs et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

also conrm that these changes are context-dependant: the

institutional context in which organisations are embedded
denes patterns of organisational structures and strategies.
3.3. Co-evolution
In biology, co-evolution is dened as evolution involv
ing successive changes in two or more ecologically interde
pendent species (as of a plant and its pollinators) that aect
their interactions. (Merriam-Webster, 11th Collegiate Dic
tionary) The relation could be of a predator-prey nature or
of a symbiotic nature. Co-evolution is also used in a nar
rower context when it refers to a specic form of relation
(inside or outside of a company) adopted for short term
results. Eisenhardt and Galunic [25] refer to co-evolution
(of a symbiotic nature) when they argue that multi-business
corporations are co-evolving ecosystems. From that view
point, collaboration occurs only when it gives a positive
performance result in terms of growth, shares and prots.
Co-evolution helps us understand the evolution of com
plex systems. At a macro-level2, Rosenkopf and Tushman
[22] propose a framework to examine various stages of
co-evolution of organisational and technological forms.
These authors argue that there are two dierent interlinked
processes the evolution of community organisation and
the evolution of technology within one cycle of variation
selectionretention. Organisations are part of their commu
nity and they contribute to the evolutionary process of
community organisation which simultaneously drives and
is driven by cyclical technological progress through eras
of ferment followed by eras of incremental change.
At a micro level, there are numerous technological (var
iation) events, rule-making (selection) events, and institu
tional rule-following (retention) events that occurred and
co-evolved over time to facilitate and to constrain the
development and commercialization of an innovation.
Van de Ven and Garud [24] analyzed the case of cochlear
implant development within this perspective. They scruti
nized this innovation for a period of 35 years to identify
events and found that they can be grouped in three time
periods: initiation, expansion and stabilization. The initia
tion period was marked by technological events originating
in basic research, while both rule-making and rule-follow
ing events were important in the expansion period. Not
surprisingly, during the stabilization period, rule-following
events were dominant.
It is also worthwhile noting that the evolutionary theory
suggests a progression towards some more evolved state.
Evolution provides regularity and a certain form of pre
dictability. In complexity theory, this could be associated
with random time series of longitudinal data in which there
is no pattern such as life cycle, but rather a tendency to
follow itself, to repeat a movement towards the same
2

Their level of analysis is the organisational community which they

dene as the set of organisations that are stakeholders for a particular
technology [22, p. 404].

549

direction, for example. This randomness is associated with

brown noise [20] and is dierent from a periodic pattern. In
conclusion, technology and organisation are parts of a
common social system in which innovation breaks a tem
porary equilibrium and launches an unpredictable journey
through a process of variationselectionretention.
Some criticisms have been aimed at the evolutionary
theory in relation to its inability to provide an appropriate
analysis of the context of technological evolution. De Bres
son [27] suggests we turn to the historical perspective in
order to get the broader picture of technological evolution.
This implies that researchers have to look at processes
rather than ad hoc events. One good example of looking
at the innovation process is Van de Ven [28] who concluded
that what is encountered in the life of an organisation does
not match any regular pattern.
3.4. Institutional isomorphism
Institutionalism theories propose to understand changes
at the organisational eld level where the evolution of a
population of organisations can be observe [29,30]. In this
perspective, organisational survival is based upon the
capacity to adapt to the environment through the evolu
tionary process of variationselectionretention forming
what has been called the Population Ecology of Organisa
tions [30]. Some authors have worked to explain the diver
sity of organisations and to identify criteria that make
some survive while others disappeared [1]. Based on this
biological metaphor, DiMaggio and Powell observe instead
a tendency toward greater homogeneity and ask a basic
question from this perspective: What makes organisations
so similar? [29, p. 147]. Their research leads to a question
ing of rationality in decision making process on organisa
tional structure. They argue that market competition and
eciency has not so much to do with the resulting organi
sational structure. They found instead that institutional
isomorphism can better explain the form organisations
take on. The level of analysis is situated at the organisa
tional eld dened as a dynamic network of organisations
that is recognised as having an institutional life. DiMaggio
and Powell [29] identied three mechanisms of institutional
isomorphic change: coercive isomorphism, mimetic pro
cesses and normative pressures. In their seminal work, they
also propose hypothesis to predict which organisational
elds will be most homogeneous in structure, process and
behaviour.
3.5. Organisational innovation in the project management
literature
Innovation in the project management literature refers
most often to product and process innovation and is often
classied using the bipolar model of radical and incremen
tal [31,32] using the typology from Nelson and Winter [33].
Turner and Keegan [34] suggest that product and process
innovations require a creative environment with specic

550

B. Hobbs et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

characteristics. Elsewhere, Duggal [35] proposes a next

generation PMO where a R&D function exists for specic
purposes of project management innovation.
We argue that organisation itself is worth considering as
the object of innovation and not only a means for product
or process innovation (Schumpeter 1934 cited in [36].
Organisational innovation has been explored in the eld
of project management [37]. Building on institutional iso
morphism, Martinsuo et al. [37] explore project-based
management as an organisational innovation. The aim of
their research was to understand the adoption of projectbased management as an organisational innovation. More
specically it aims to identify the drivers that lead to adop
tion of project-based management and the results from
adopting it in terms of changes and benets. Their research
on 111 companies from dierent industries reveals that
context-related elements, such as external pressure and
internal complexity, play a role as drivers for introducing
project-based management.
For the purpose of this research, organisational innova
tion is dened as a new, non-obvious and useful set of
rules, processes and structure that has found viable appli
cation in organisations.
4. Implementing or reconguring a PMO as an
organisational change
Implementing a PMO or reconguring an existing PMO
is an important organisational change. This change is often
part of a wider organisational reconguration. A method
ology and an interpretive framework is needed that can
capture the dynamic complexity of organisational change.
The approach that has been adopted investigates the
PMO embedded in its organisational context. The
approach can be related to a long tradition of contextual
studies in the literature on project organisations from Mid
ler [7] to Pellegrinelli et al. [38]. History and context are
essential to the understanding of what is observed at any
one point in space and time in complex systems such as
organisations [39]. The theoretical foundations of the social
innovation system framework take into account the con
text in which such organisational innovations take place
[40]. Social innovation builds also on a bi-directional rela
tion that conceives of organisational innovations as
socially-constructed and society-shaping [41]. Organisa
tional innovations are produced by the interplay between
actors in structures and the organisation as a whole. The
PMO is a socially constructed entity that in turn shapes
the organisation. The PMO and its host organisation coevolve.
Organisational change occurs in a political environment.
Changes to PMOs are both caused by political forces and
shape a new political environment. Tensions within the
organisation play an important role in determining the
path that an organisations development will follow. In
turn, each new structural arrangement realigns the power
structure and creates new tensions. The investigation of

the creation or restructuring of PMOs will need to integrate

the political dimension of organisational change.
5. The empirical study
The methodological strategy is based upon a construc
tivist epistemology. Just as organisations are complex
social entities, so too are the specic organisational project
management structures that encompass PMOs. Our meth
odological strategy is designed to understand such com
plexity. We draw on Van de Vens [42] engaged
scholarship, bringing together dierent points of view of
key people involved with PMOs, and using a combination
of qualitative and quantitative instruments.
Four organisations have participated in the research. All
have high levels of product innovation. All have at least
several thousand employees and have highly developed
project management methods and practices. They are from
dierent economic sectors. Both qualitative and quantita
tive data were gathered from company documents and sys
tems and from interviews. The data collection covered the
period from before the implementation of the rst PMO to
end of the study in 2006. It was important to cover a su
cient number of years for the history and the evolution of
the PMOs to be revealed. The time period under investiga
tion in each of the four organisations was respectively 12,
10, 8 and 4 years. As was expected from the survey results,
each organisation recongured its PMOs every 3 to 4 years
and sometimes sooner. The unit of analysis is the organisa
tional transformation around an implementation or a
reconguration of a PMO. The sample is made up of eleven
organisational transformations: four cases of implement
ing rst PMOs and seven cases of reconguring existing
PMOs.
The organisational transformations have been modelled
using a framework based on conditions, action/interaction
and consequences proposed by Strauss and Corbin [43].
These three elements form a process that repeats itself, con
sequences becoming the conditions for the next iteration.
In this approach, the PMO in one period is seen as a tem
porary state resulting from previous conditions and gener
ating new consequences. This sequence constitutes the
PMO structuring process, which is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The conditions that lead to an organisational transfor
mation have been grouped under four themes: events from
the surrounding social system, internal events, the philoso
phy of management and tensions to be resolved. The
action/interaction element corresponds to the structuring
itself. New tensions are among the consequences of the
restructuring. Other consequences exist but the focus here
is on the new tensions that are created.
5.1. Conditions
From, the four conditions that give rise to a specic
structure, the rst two, social system events and internal
events, are themes drawn from the social innovation frame

B. Hobbs et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

551

Fig. 1. The PMO structuring process based on strauss & corbin [43].

work. A good example of conditions related to the social

system can be found in the telecommunication case study
with the major turbulences caused by the bursting of the
dotcom bubble in 2001.
In ten of the eleven transformations under study,
changes in the PMO coincide with changes in senior man
agement. In all eleven transformations, changes in the
structure coincide with changes in the philosophy of man
agement, expression used by interviewees. The philosophy
of management can be relative that of one individual, of
the top management team or of the whole organisation.
A new philosophy of management usually initiates a new
restructuring process, the current structure not being
coherent with the new philosophy of management. For
example, in one of the transformations the philosophy
changed from one supporting entrepreneurship to one sup
porting tight controls and improved performance particu
larly on schedule. A new PMO manager with a vision of
the PMO as exercising strong centralized control was put
in place and project management was centralized from sev
eral decentralised PMOs into one PMO. This situation
imposes strict control in the management of projects where
project managers were playing the role of controller. A
high value is placed on transparency. Any deviation from
plans should be reported and corrective action immediately
identied and applied. The personal incentives of the PMO
manager are linked to this: no project is allowed to pass
directly from green to red!
Tensions (between individuals, between sub-structures,
etc.) emerge generally from discomforts that get con
structed over time within a specic structure. The word ten
sion is used here in its abstract sense to describe a dicult
situation that threatens to break apart (Robert Dictio
nary). Tensions often build up slowly until a breaking point
is reached at which time a change in the structure will take
place modifying or eliminating the source of tension. From
the previous example, one of the consequences of the
implementation of the new centralized PMO was the crea
tion of tension related to transparency and the information
provided by the product line manager:
It actually goes against the goals of most people in
positions of authority in the various product units

because they are held accountable for every decision,

all the time, all the projects. If youre comfortable with
that you have no ability to bend the truth or mask
any information or try to x something quietly for a
week or two. Now everything is always posted on the
website, its updated every week. The track of projects
is always there. (verbatim from an interview)
5.2. Resulting structure
The resulting PMOs have been described using variables
measuring their structures, the importance of functions
performed and their resulting contributions to organisa
tional performance. The object of this paper is not to focus
on PMO structures, but to examine the transition pro
cess that transforms them. It is noteworthy that detailed
examination of the PMOs in the study did not reveal any
pattern among the PMOs in the sample. This would be
expected given the great variety observed in the general
population.
5.3. Consequences
There are many consequences that can be identied
from organisational structure. The focus here is on the ten
sions that are created following a restructuring of a PMO.
Tensions are present at the two ends of the structuring pro
cess: they serve as a set of conditions and once a new struc
ture is put in place, new tensions emerge as consequences of
the new structure. As such, tensions present an opportunity
to understand the dynamics of co-evolution in the social
innovation system.
6. A typology of organisational tensions
An analysis of the eleven transformations revealed that
the organisational tensions contribute the most to making
sense of the transformations. Five categories of tensions
have been identied: economic, political, customer rela
tionship, standardisation versus exibility and controlling
the project machine.

552

B. Hobbs et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

6.1. Economic tension

The source of economic tension is double: project perfor
mance and PMO cost. Project performance is often ques
tioned inside organisations. Tensions emerge when
projects do not meet their objectives. This is true with or
without the presence of a PMO, but when a PMO exists it
is often recognised as having a role to play in project perfor
mance. The performance of projects is often used as a key
performance indicator for PMOs [5]. Several scenarios have
been observed. In some cases, project performance remains
poor bringing the PMOs legitimacy into question. In other
cases, project performance is seen as improving indepen
dently of the eorts by PMOs. In yet other cases, a cycle
was observed where an organisation implemented a PMO
to improve performance and when performance improved
the PMO was no longer seen as useful. Following the dis
mantlement of the PMO performance declined and a new
PMO was created in order to improve project performance
once again. More generally, those responsible of PMOs are
often under pressure to show value for money. This leads to
both eorts to document the value of PMOs and to PMOs
being the victims of frequent attacks on their legitimacy.

6.2. Political tension

Political tensions emerge around issues of power and
control. The power to manage projects seems to be the
most important tension, the one that gives rise to the most
important issues and the one that has the greatest inuence
on decisions related to organisational structure. Who is
going to manage projects? Answering this question deter
mines the location of project managers. Accountability is
closely related to the issue of control. Who in the organisa
tion will be accountable for project management results? If
the attainment of business objectives relies to a large extent
on projects, the key to power and inuence in the organisa
tion relates to having power and inuence on projects. If
senior managers are to be accountable for business results
they want to have the means to attain them; they want to
have control over project management.
Many PMOs have in their mandate to control projects
either managed internally or managed by other entities.
The situation is more conictual when a project is in di
culty; nobody appreciates diusion of bad news on his or
her project. Judgement on the projects health depends
upon the perception and the position of the individual.
People from the PMO or from the business unit do not
have the same point of view as they are not pursuing the
same objectives and do not have the same incentives. Each
may have his or her own criteria for reporting the project
status as green, yellow or red. Discussion on the colour
of the project status is a widespread phenomenon and
involves much debate and negotiation among people at
all levels of the organisation. These discussions come back
periodically, often monthly. They provide an opportunity

to observe the tensions that emerge around the manage

ment of the project and its status.
Another source of tension related to control of projects
is the issue of transparency. Discussions on the colour of
the project status may be avoided by giving inaccurate or
incomplete information. PMOs sometimes play a detective
role to make sure that no information is hidden by other
managers. In this situation, a climate of trust is dicult
to establish and tensions can become very apparent.
6.3. Client relationship tension
From the PMOs perspective there are two types of cli
ents: their own clients for their deliverables and the clients
of projects that are realised in the organisation. The ten
sions are related primarily to the second type of client usu
ally represented internally by an organisational entity. This
relationship seems sensitive as it provides legitimacy. Some
business and IT entities attempt to retain exclusive respon
sibility for customer relationships and to push the PMO
outside of this relationship. Not being in a close relation
ship with an internal client can have important conse
quences with respect to having knowledge of the projects.
A PMO can easily be discredited when it has the wrong
perception of projects. In one case in the research, a
PMO was dismantled because of its inability to help project
managers due to a misunderstanding of projects needs.
6.4. Standardisation/exibility tension or business versus
process orientation
The standardisation of project management methodol
ogy and process are often in opposition to the exibility
needed in the execution of a project in real life. On one side,
PMOs often have the responsibility for developing and
standardising methodologies. The development of these
tools is very often participative with contributions from
all entities involved in project deliverables. But when it is
time to put the methodology into application, confronta
tions are rather the norm. The tension between standardi
sation and exibility is closely related to issues of power
and control. Standards are followed or not, depending on
who has the power to decide.
Project owner and project sponsor roles are determinant
in project governance [44]. An opposition often emerges
between a business and a process orientation in decision
making. Tension is created between business managers
demanding exibility to meet business needs and those that
are responsible for the project management process. In cer
tain circumstances, business managers encourage delin
quency in the pursuit of business objectives, while in
others the emphasis is placed on respecting the project
management process. Tensions also emerge with respect
to the prole of the project manager, should he or she be
a process, a technical or a business manager. Changes in
structures often require project managers to develop new
competencies, which takes time.

B. Hobbs et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

6.5. Controlling the project machine tension

The expression controlling the project machine was
used by several interviewees. This expression is used to
evoke two versions of the same tension: either the machine
should be upgraded or it races out of control. Raising the
organisational capacity to deliver projects brings up prob
lems around resource allocation. But reducing this capacity
is more subtle and brings tension between PMOs and func
tional or business units. A good example can be drawn
from one of the case studies. One PMO was given the
responsibility to align projects to the business strategy
while project mangers were under the responsibility of busi
ness units. Managers in business units wanted their entity
to succeed and ourish. One way of doing this is to initiate
new projects and to increase human resources working on
them or at least to maintain them at present levels. Under
good portfolio management, such behaviour should not be
permitted if projects are not required to reach business
objectives. In this case, the PMO was at the heart of a con
ict resulting from an attempt to reduce the project portfolio
being opposed to business units that wanted to increase it.
In resolving one or several of these tensions a particular
structure emerges. The analysis shows that two key issues
are very often present: accountability and a focus on pro
cess versus business.
7. Two alternative interpretations
The great variety of PMOs found in organisations at the
present time and the frequent creation and restructuring of
PMOs can be interpreted in two ways. These observations
can be seen as illustrations of the early phase of an organ
isational innovation. This is the era of ferment, the varia
tion stage that will be followed by selection and
institutionalisation. Alternatively, these observations can
be seen as illustrations of the unstable nature of organisa
tions as they undergo continuous restructuring.
7.1. The PMO as an organisational innovation
The prevalence of PMOs is an important and relatively
recent phenomenon. The great variety and lack of any
obvious pattern can easily be interpreted as illustrating
the era of ferment. The selection process may have already
begun but it is not yet clearly visible. Ad hoc conversations
with many dierent people reveal that a considerable
amount of mimicry is taking place. The PMO has become
a very widespread and well known organisational phenom
enon. In many organisations, people are being given the
mandate to implement a PMO without a clear image of
what this might entail. The diculty stems from the great
variety of PMOs presently in place and the lack of consen
sus as to their value. In order for one organisation to mimic
another, there must be a relatively clear perception of the
phenomenon to be reproduced [29]. This is often lacking

553

with PMOs. Therefore, mimicry may partially explain the

initial drive to set up a PMO, but it does not provide an
adequate explanation of the structure that is implemented.
In addition, it cannot explain the instability observed
among the population of PMOs.
7.2. PMOs as manifestations of organisational instability
PMO structures alternate between periods of tension
and period of a relative stability. This alternating can be
interpreted as waves of rationality. Hatchuel and Weil
[45] depict the history of modern organisations as a cyclical
eort to rationalise. In their perspective, rationalisation is a
myth, a gure of progress; each new managerial technique
bringing a concrete portrait of rational management that is
valid for a limited time. Scientic management, operational
research, total quality management, business process reengineering and expert systems are all archetypes of a
rational wave. Their typical life cycle begins with a blend
of enthusiasm and reluctance that is fed with confused
images describing progress or calamities resulting from
them. After a few years, rst passions are followed by cau
tion and often disillusion. Elements of the new managerial
technique survive but are used much more selectively.
These authors interpret the history of changes in organisa
tions through the myth of rationality where actors play a
central role, the philosophy espoused by senior manage
ment playing a central role in shaping the evolution of
the organisation. The cases examined in the present study
provide many illustrations of the role played by the philos
ophy of management in regulating organisational
behaviour.
From this perspective, implementing a PMO can be seen
as a rational eort to implement new managerial tech
niques. The eleven examples of the structuring of PMOs
examined during this study can be interpreted as eleven
waves of rationality or attempts to introduce rationality
in the management of projects. Tensions emerging from
each new structure slowly erode the rationale upon which
the change was based leading to a new wave of rationality
implemented through a new organisational arrangement
including a new structure for the PMO.
Hatchuel and Weil [45] consider organisations as funda
mentally irrational. It is not necessary to adopt this point
of view in order to conceive of organisations as constantly
restructuring. Pettigrew [1] has proposed a conceptualisa
tion of organisations as continuously going through pro
cesses of strategizing and structuring. The constant
change is being driven in part by the internal political
dynamics of the organisations. It is also being driven by
the need to adapt to dynamic environments [46]. The cases
examined in this study provide many illustrations of con
stantly shifting structures driven both by organisational
politics and by adaptation to contextual changes.
The data analyzed in this study track the evolution of
PMOs in four organisations that are very mature in project
management. It is reasonable to think that the processes of

554

B. Hobbs et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

selection and retention of better PMO structures would be

more visible in organisations that have considerable exper
tise in project management. One of the organisations has
had four dierent PMOs over a twelve year period. Two
others have had three PMOs over eight and ten year peri
ods. Yet no discernable pattern was found. This may be
because the sample is small or because the processes of
selection and retention require more time. This may also
illustrate the unstable nature of organisational structures.
8. Conclusion
The analysis presented here makes several contributions
to the study of organisations and organisational innova
tion. It conrms that the PMO is deeply embedded in its
host organisation, and that the two co-evolve. The study
also shows that organisational tensions are among the pri
mary drivers behind the implementation and recongura
tion of PMOs. The playing out of these tensions brings
into focus the importance of organisational politics. The
analysis shows that PMOs and more generally the struc
tures put in place to manage multiple projects are part of
a political system that plays an important role in organisa
tions [47]. In the project management literature, power and
politics are often treated with an instrumental approach
through risk management and stakeholder management
[48]. The analysis here shows that power and politics
should be examined at the organisational level and inte
grated into organisational project management.
The PMO is an organisational innovation in the sense
that it is a recent and important phenomenon. But if it is
an innovation it is unstable and still evolving both in indi
vidual organisations and in the population of organisations
as a whole. If the institutionalisation process is at work, the
results are not yet visible. Given the ever-changing nature
of organisations, it may take considerable time before a
discernable pattern emerges, if it emerges at all.
Acknowledgement
The research upon which this paper is based was nanced
in part by a grant from the PMI Research Department.
References
[1] Pettigrew AM. Innovative forms of organizing: progress, perfor
mance, and process. In: Pettigrew AM, Whittington R, Melin L,
Sanchez-Runde C, Van den Bosch FAJ, Ruigrok W, Numagami T,
editors. Innovative forms of organizing. London, (UK): SAGE
Publications; 2003. p. 33151.
[2] Jamieson A, Morris PWG. Moving from corporate strategy to project
strategy. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken, (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2004. p.
177205.
[3] Crawford KJ. The strategic project oce. New York: Marcel Dekker;
2002.
[4] Englund RL, Graham RJ, Dinsmore PC. Creating the project oce: a
managers guide to leading organizational change. San Francisco,
(CA): Jossey-Bass; 2003.

[5] Kendall GI, Rollins SC. Advanced project portfolio management and
the PMO: multiplying ROI at warp speed. Florida: J. Ross Publish
ing; 2003.
[6] Hobbs B, Aubry M. A multi-phase research program investigating
project management oces (PMOs): the results of Phase 1. Project
Manage J 2007;38(1):7486.
ditions; 1994.
[7] Midler C. Lauto qui nexistait pas. Paris: InterE
[8] Chandler Jr AD. Strategy and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press;
1962.
[9] Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective
on learning and innovation. Admin Sci Quart 1990;35:12852.
[10] Penrose ET. The theory of the growth of the rm. 3rd ed. Oxford,
(NY): Oxford University Press; 1995.
[11] Schumpeter J. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers; 1950.
[12] Dougherty D. Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation
in large rms. Organ Sci 1992;3(2):179202.
[13] Robert NS, Barley SR. Organisations and social system: organization
theorys neglected mandate. Admin Sci Quat 1996;41(146):14662.
[14] Bijker WE. The social construction of bakelite: toward a theory of
invention. In: Bijker WE, Pinch TJ, Hughes PT, editors. The social
construction of technological system: new directions of in the
sociology and history of technology, 1989. p. 159-1.
[15] Abernathy W, Utterback J. Patterns of industrial innovation. In:
Tushman ML, Moore W, editors. Readings in the management of
innovation, 1988. p. 2536.
[16] Henderson RM, Clark KB. Architectural innovation: the recongu
ration of existing. Admin Sci Quart 1990;35(1):9.
[17] Barley SR. What can we learn from the history of technology? J Eng
Technol Manage 1998;15(4):23755.
[18] Graham MBW, Shuldiner AT. Corning and the craft of innovation.
Oxford, (England): Oxford University Press; 2001.
[19] Massini S, Lewin AY, Numagami T, Pettigrew AM. The evolution of
organizational routines among large Western and Japanese rms. Res
Policy 2002;31(89):133348.
[20] Dooley KJ, Van de Ven AH. Explaining complex organizational
dynamics. Organ Sci 1999;10(3):358.
[21] Miner AS. Seeking adaptive advantage: evolutionary theory and
managerial action. In: Baum JAC, Singh JV, editors. Evolutionary
dynamics of organizations. New York: Oxford University Press;
1994. p. 7689.
[22] Rosenkopf L, Tushman ML. The coevolution of technology and
organization. In: Baum JAC, Singh JV, editors. Evolutionary
dynamics or organizations. New York: Oxford University Press;
1994. p. 40324.
[23] Scott WR. Technology and structure: an organizational-level per
spective. In: Goodman PS, Sproull LS, editors. Technology and
organizations. Oxford: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1990. p. 10943.
[24] Van de Ven AH, Garud R. The coevolution of technical and
institutional events in the development of an innovation. In: Baum
JAC, Singh JV, editors. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations.
New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. p. 42543.
[25] Eisenhardt KM, Galunic CD. Coevolving: at last, a way to make
synergies work. Harvard Bus Rev 2000:91101.
[27] De Bresson C. The evolutionary paradigm and the economics of
technological change. J Econo Issues 1987;21(2):75162.
[28] Van de Ven AH. The innovation journey. New York: Oxford
University Press; 1999.
[29] DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational elds. Am
Sociol Rev 1983;48(April):14760.
[30] Hannan MT, Freeman J. The population ecology of organizations.
Am J Sociol 1977;82(5):92964.
[31] Kenny J. Eective project management for strategic innovation and
change in an organizational context. Project Manage J 2003;34(1):
43.
[32] Shenhar AJ, Dvir D. Toward a typological theory of project
management. Res Policy 1996;25(4):607.

B. Hobbs et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 547555

[33] Nelson RR, Winter SG. An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge: Belknap Press; 1982.
[34] Turner RJ, Keegan AE. Managing technology: innovation, learning,
and maturity. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken, (NJ): John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2004. p.
56790.
[35] Duggal JS. Building a Next Generation PMO. PMI 2001 First to the
Future. Nashville, (USA): PMI, 2001.
[36] Drejer I. Identifying innovation in surveys of services: a Schumpe
terian perspective. Res Policy 2004;33(3):55162.
[37] Martinsuo M, Hensman N, Artto KA, Kujala J, Jaafari A. Projectbased management as an organizational innovation: drivers, changes,
and benets of adopting project-based management. Project Manage
J 2006;37(3):8797.
[38] Pellegrinelli S, Partington D, Hemingway C, Mohdzain Z, Shah M.
The importance of context in programme management: an empirical
review of programme practices. Int J Project Manage 2007;25(1):
4155.
[39] Engwall M. No project is an Island: linking projects to history and
context. Res Policy 2003;32(5):789808.
[40] Hughes PT. The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker
WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ, editors. The social construction of
technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of
technology. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1987. p. 5181.

555

[41] Bresnen M, Goussevskaia A, Swan J. Organisational routines,

situated learning and processes of change in project-based organiza
tions. Project Manage J 2005;36(3):27.
[42] Van de Ven AH. Engaged scholarship: creating knowledge for science
and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
[43] Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: technics and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, (CA):
Sage; 1998.
[44] Cooke-Davies TJ. The executive sponsor hinge upon which
organisational project management maturity turns? In: PMI Global
Congress EUMEA, 2005.
[45] Hatchuel A, Weil B. Lexpert et le syste`me: gestion des savoirs et
con
metamorphose des acteurs dans lentreprise industrielle. Paris: E
omica; 1992.
[46] Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM. The art of continuous change: linking
complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting
organizations. Admin Sci Quart 1997;42(1):1.
[47] Morgan G. Images de lorganisation. Quebec: Presses de lUniversite
Laval; 1989.
[48] Magenau JM, Pinto JK. Power, inuence, and negotiation in
project management. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The
Wiley guide to managing projects. Hoboken, (NJ): Wiley; 2004. p.
103360.