Enterprise Navigator

Atlanta PMO 2.0 Leadership Forum

A few records were set last Wednesday at the 4th of our ongoing series of regional PMO events in Atlanta. First off, it was a balmy 104 degrees in Buckhead — just the ticket to help make us central Texans feel at home on Peachtree Street. Secondly, we had the largest turnout so far for any of the regional PMO events, with 48 people attending. In addition to those from the surrounding ATL area, a surprising number of people came in from Florida, the Carolinas and Virginia to be a part of this forum.

The third item is not so much a record as such a highly unusual event that I thought it worthy of note. Let me just share that for the first time in a good while, the nation's airline system worked flawlessly on this trip. It was like falling through an inter-concourse worm hole or freakish rip in the time-space-air traffic control continuum. I am just shy of the million mile mark with my preferred (a.k.a. least detested) carrier, and it has been a love-hate relationship much of that time. It reminds me of the joke about the various stages of a marriage, and for the last few years it has degraded to the point of hallway relations, if you know what I mean. Not only were all flights exactly on time, I had one hop with the middle seat empty in an exit row, AND (you had better brace yourself for this one) was even able to get a last-minute seat on an earlier flight into ATL, with an upgrade. No doubt this is merely a momentary reconciliation until the next time I am left stranded and cussing in who-knows-where, but at the risk of instilling false confidence, perhaps there is a shred of hope remaining for abused business travelers everywhere. Nonetheless, after the recent trauma of being repeatedly stuck on runways for hours and stranded in Newark for THREE days, I shall continue to pack for every flight like it was the Paris-Dakar Rally until further notice, with at least 2 extra changes of clothes, a pound of trail mix, and two liters of water — survival depends on it.

But, I digress. Back to the forum…

As always, the morning flew by, leaving us with much more to talk about than time permitted. Many thanks go out to Nancy D'Amico of Delta Technology, for kicking things off with her great presentation on their enterprise PMO. Also, thanks to Glenn Bunker of BearingPoint, and Dave Pendleton from TSYS for sitting with Nancy on the expert panel.

Congratulations to Pam Parmer at Harcourt for winning the drawing we held for the iPod Nano from among those who sent in a lot of *really good* questions. While there is no way we could have gotten to all that were submitted, we did go over several of them to jump start the interactive part of the forum.

I have offered thoughts on past forums via the PMO 2.0 Resource Center, and as anticipated, discussion at Atlanta followed along many of the same themes. But, if any one topic really stood out last week, we found ourselves repeatedly coming back to the subject of roles and responsibilities. Several questions and comments came up that seemed rooted in having a clear understanding of the PMO relative to other functions in the organization, as well as touching on the whole issue of holding the organization accountable to prescribed standards (see my entries from the past two weeks). Bottom line — write down and communicate roles & responsibilities in such a way that the interaction is laid out. Whether you use the PMO charter, swim lane process diagrams, wrist bands or tattoos, make sure everyone has a clear understanding of the position they play on the leadership team.

As the forum wrapped up, I broached the subject of hosting a longer event to gauge interest, and several hands shot up; perhaps a 2-day forum this spring to allow us a better explore various topics. Let me know if this appeals to you. Also, several people approached me to obtain copies of the slides we used. My introductory slides can be downloaded from the PMO 2.0 Resource Center and Nancy's presentation will be sent out to those who attended.

As always, I am humbled by those who come to these events to share and interact — I always learn more from your experience, wisdom and insights than any other mechanism. San Francisco, consider the gauntlet to have been thrown down with a rebel yell. We should be getting a date and venue set for this event soon. When it is finalized, call on your associates from the valley du' jour (Napa, Central or Silicon), LA, Portland, or wherever, and lets see if we can get over 50 PMO directors and managers in the room.

Next Port of Call: Proving the value of a PMO; this is another topic that always comes up in the forums and emails, so I will offer up a few thoughts on this.

Reining In -- Approaches for Getting Started with Process Adoption

In my last series of entries, we looked hard at improving accountability, standards and tolerance levels for non-compliance. But, how does one achieve process excellence when the current corporate culture isn't the least bit process-oriented? This is a common lament I hear from PMO managers, especially as they are just starting up. The PMO has been tasked to bring some sense of consistency and civility into daily business, but it's the wild, wild west out there. There are shoot-outs in the project corral, portfolios are selected via the faro table in the saloon, budgets are stampeding and it's general mayhem in the streets. What's a new sheriff to do?

Funny thing about processes - you can flowchart the epitome of process excellence, a veritable bulletproof workflow that exactly meets your needs, only to have it be completely ignored or fail miserably. Developing strong processes is relatively easy – getting the organization to assimilate them isn't. Why? Because learning to follow processes is no different than developing any other skill – the organization has to be taught good fundamentals, practice them, try them out, tweak them a bit, practice a whole lot more, and eventually develop more sophistication and capability on the way towards mastery.

Since I started off this off on a bizarre western theme, we might as well use riding a horse as an example. If someone had never ridden a horse, and was perhaps even a little scared of them, the last thing you would do would be to saddle them on a high-strung thoroughbred and enter them in a race; that's obviously a recipe for disaster.

Instead, you might first talk a bit about riding in general, and then put them on some old nag – on a lead. You would go for a walk and let them get comfortable in the saddle while figuring out the fundamentals of whoa and giddy-up. Slowly, you work you way up to leisurely rides in the south 40 as confidence grows, being careful to avoid loss of control. Admittedly, this isn't going to win any races, even though that may be your ultimate objective. It's a chance to first experience the benefits of riding versus walking as part of a low risk exercise - and to get used to that smell too. The next thing you know, they're sitting tall on a palomino, trotting along and waving to onlookers like the grand marshal of some Texas homecoming parade.

So it goes as well with an organization that is just transitioning from the cowboy way to learning processes. A process is simply a vehicle to guide the use of tools; just because you have the fastest horse and best saddle doesn't mean you are ready to rodeo. Better to start out with a gentle pony of a process and let everyone get used to following simple steps and being held accountable to them. Then you can begin to raise sophistication levels as well as standards and expectations (remember those?).

Maturing towards business process excellence follows along the lines of the basic CMMi ladder, and trying to skip any rungs along the climb is asking for a fall. I would rather see an organization strictly following basic processes than fail at deploying perfect ones. Learning adherence is the hardest part — once that is done, it simply becomes a matter of adjusting what they are adhering to.

So, the next time you find everyone bucking process adoption, consider whether they possibly exceed the abilities and skills of the rider. If you need to temporarily tame processes down a bit in the interest of winning hearts and minds, so be it. After all, if the organization gets thrown enough times, it's going to be awfully hard to convince them to get back in that saddle.

Next Port of Call: Notes on the Atlanta Regional PMO Leadership Forum

Improving Accountability through PMO Leadership

So, in my last entry, I waxed ad nauseum about the degraded state of accountability sometimes encountered in various organizations over the years. In keeping with the idiom that you shouldn't bring up an issue unless you have a fix for it, we will wrap this up with some things to consider. But first, since it is always prudent to diagnose before prescribing, I want share my hypothesis as to why accountability can be such a difficult element of management in the technology sector.

Fostering accountability and responsibility sounds good if you say it fast enough, but it's hard to achieve. While corporate communications can soften the beach head with inspirational statements of intent, ultimately all levels of management must agree upon and convey clear standards to their direct reports, and be brave enough to not tolerate the few who choose to disregard them. They must be able to do this consistently, tactfully, and fairly, and be equipped to follow through with appropriate incremental responses when needed. This is where the rubber meets the road to get any traction when changing a culture that suffers from indifference, lack of focus, or just plain lack of supervisory skills. For many IT departments, the latter is often the element most behind the curve, and is a precursor to the others. I have a theory about how this state of affairs could have emerged.

Now let's be honest — most technology workers don't go into IT because they are people persons. I doubt many computer engineering grads found themselves torn between MIS and a major in marketing or psychology, or mulled over used car sales as an alternative career path. Those who gravitate to the IT field tend to do so in large part because they find the unambiguous nature of technology attractive — it either works or it doesn't. Code, routers or servers never argue or talk about their feelings, nor do they judge you. There is no zero-ish or nearly one in a binary world; no muddy grayscale to interpret. Technology represents benign puzzles to be worked out — a virtual world sequel to the age-old man versus machine conundrum. And, far be it from me to propagate geek mythology (we do have a development staff), but I've been around enough tech staff to confirm that there is more than a shred of universal truth to the odd t-shirt collections, hermit-inspired office decor, proclivity towards trekkie tendencies, and similar attributes that most modern tech workers now embrace as a badge of honor. (Remember the gross generalizations I warned of last week? Well, we're here now, in case you weren't sure. The only way I remotely think I can get away with saying all this is to freely confess to using pocket protectors in my early engineering days.) The bottom line is everyone is a type, and most engineers — of any sort — tend to fall into a certain range on the human behavior spectrum that may not exactly coincide with being a prodigy at interpersonal interactions.

Yet historically, as IT organizations grew, many good technicians found themselves being promoted to be workforce leaders by virtue of their technical prowess. Of course, managing the human component is anything but benign or black and white — people do argue, question, and talk about their feelings, change their minds and most certainly judge you. My sense is that the level of subtle human interaction needed to be a good manager tends to push the comfort envelope for a many technologists, and is downright alien to a few. OK, so get to the point, right? Leadership is a skill that must be cultivated through learning and practice just like any other specialized capability, rather than expected as a result of bestowing a role and title. Unless taught necessary skills, given the proper tools, and properly coached, no one should be shocked nor surprised if some IT managers perceive themselves as lead techs rather than managers, and act accordingly.

Let me quickly say that I'm not talking about being a disciplinarian; that is a small and seldom used part of leadership. Nor am I confining this observation to first line mangers; it's gone on long enough that many tech leads went on to be department heads and CIO's. It's about all levels of management recognizing that enabling their direct staff to succeed is their number one priority, and that takes on many different forms. First is recognizing that you have a mandate and responsibility to ensure your staff is used as effectively as possible. A leader has to be comfortable with the idea that it's OK to direct people to what they need to be doing; no one else is going to do that. Being a good communicator and listener, as well as anticipating how messages will be received are all important if you are to be successful with that.

Setting up individuals and teams with viable goals is another great example. Only when managers work together with staff to lay out objectives that are reasonable and achievable can they then have any hope of holding them accountable to them. This is in part why taking a resource-centric approach to work management is so important. For instance, if a manager allows 120 hours worth of work on someone's plate for the week, not only did they just abdicate their primary duty to help them succeed, they ensured that person's failure. Furthermore, there is no way to come back later and complain if what was really needed didn't get accomplished.

The PMO and its stake in leadership and accountability

The PMO itself has little or no direct influence over the general workforce. It is highly reliant on group and department managers, directors and executives to be effective workforce leaders. The PMO is there to help good leaders be better, more effective and efficient, and do so as a cohesive team. The PMO *cannot* compensate for a lack of leadership on its own.

Accordingly, if you find yourself as a PMO manager in an organization where some of this discourse rings more true than you would like, here are but a few of many things you can and should consider. I'm sure readers can offer their own favorite ideas as well, and I invite you to share them.

Take ownership for leadership improvements

If a sober assessment of your state of accountability makes it apparent that this is the root cause to some of the symptoms you just can't seem to get straightened out, or it becomes a roadblock to meeting your charter, talk with your sponsor and show some initiative in this arena. Lay out a few things you can do to help, such as the items that follow.

Sponsor leadership development

While focus is intrinsically placed on maintaining technical skills with specialized training programs, developing effective leadership is every bit as important to achieving the overall mission. Too few technology organizations have a formal mechanism in place to train managers how to manage people. While this initiative might ideally come from the executive team or HR, there is no reason why the PMO can't help get the ball rolling. I have to give a facility I used to work at a huge amount of credit for recognizing they had some opportunities in this area, and then spending the necessary time, money and energy to develop and hone leadership and communications skills. It went a long way towards defining a new culture, set of standards and expectations we held in common.

Establish compliance measures

You can't manage what you aren't measuring — this is as true for accountability and process adherence as it is for system up time. Develop organizational and process compliance metrics as an integral part of your overall reporting package. Sometimes organizations aren't aware of accountability issues because no one is shedding light on them. One of the neatest things I like about our new Business Process Manager is its capabilities to report whether or not process checkpoints were done, and keep a record as to who, what and why.

Invite peer comparison

One of the most powerful tools I've ever used to help shift culture and foster compliance is team-level reports. Our PMO published 3-to-4 page reports every two weeks on how each group was doing to get their workload and workforce under control, levels of reporting compliance and meeting milestones. At the bottom of each cover page was the summary resource histogram graphic for that group, in vivid color. I distinctly recall laying these out down the board room table. It was pretty obvious which managers were taking the time to provide direction, balance workload and manage priorities, and who wasn't. Sometimes it became apparent that problems were rooted at the senior manager level when their direct reports showed common issues. At least as powerful an incentive is suffering comparison to your peers, especially when you end up on the low end. The goal isn't to humiliate, but to illustrate that certain managers are outside of the new norm — it is a highly effective source of motivation. All of this served to elicit appropriate tactical responses to move things along, whether it was additional assistance, training, coaching, re-education camps (kidding), or whatever.

OK, I think it's safe to say I have plundered this particular port of call of all its booty. Given that everything else hinges on the level of tolerance your organization displays for personal accountability and compliance, it is a great improvement initiative to consider for your portfolio sooner rather than later. Trust me, if you cannot set basic standards and hold yourself and the organization accountable to them, no software can save you. It can help you with it, but it can't do it for you.

Next Port of Call: Reining In — Adjusting processes and expectations to fit your culture

Observations on Accountability in the Corporate World

Since the late 90's, business consulting has allowed me in-depth access into many different corporate and private environments, often within IT departments. While it has been a fascinating opportunity, I was initially taken aback — no, I won't mince words; I was outright stunned — by the lack of accountability sometimes encountered in Technology America. I chalked up the first few to statistical aberration, combined with unfair comparisons to the admittedly rigorous circumstances to which I was more accustomed.

Had these situations turned out to be only a few isolated instances, or if the level of accountability could be simply characterized as casual atmospheres, I wouldn't feel compelled to air this out. However, after a few years and dozens of companies, it became inescapably clear that a crippling lack of accountability was endemic in a surprising number of organizations, regardless of vertical or size, while weak levels of accountability were even more common. Collective experience with over a hundred organizations only serves to strengthen the underlying conclusions, although an improving trend constitutes light in the tunnel. (Exploring this topic is just my way to try and expedite the hesitant.)

Bear in mind that my purpose for being there was usually to help these organizations define, integrate and automate work and resource management processes. The very concept hinges on directing individuals towards a common set of methods and objectives. In environments that lacked any real motivation or intent to establish definitive expectations, or interest in helping their staff achieve them, it was difficult to offer much by way of a rosy prognosis.

The recurring nightmare of my consulting years was varying degrees of an I'm OK, You're OK mentality encountered at all levels of management, manifested as a lack of serious interest in setting and holding the organization to a reasonable, consistent set of operational standards. While the recognition that their sometimes chaotic state of affairs needed improvement was evident by virtue of buying a business management solution in the first place, some were clearly banking on the mythical silver bullet effect attributed to acquiring new software. The sole purpose of any business application is to facilitate processes; in their absence, good software simply confuses the organization more efficiently.

I can categorize observations into five main headings below. Note that for safety's sake, accountability issues tend to travel in packs, so it was relatively rare that only one of them reared its head in a given organization.

Lack of direction

Individuals were pretty much self-directed, unencumbered by any consistent effort to steer them as a collective workforce. Line management felt no sense of duty to regulate how staff spent their time, and failure to lead extended up the org chart from there. It was almost as if a new generation of permissively-raised kids had been unleashed on the business world, and their disco-era managers couldn't provide a back beat. The result was mosh pit management; initiatives were shoved off the strategic stage into an incorrigible crowd, hoping to be caught. Projects were as likely to land bleeding on the sticky floor as they were to be happily passed back to the beer concession for a post-deployment celebration. Don't misinterpret this as an inference that people weren't well meaning, working hard or diligent in their efforts — it's just that there was no evidence of alignment or commonality of purpose.

Hypersensitivity

Attempts to resolve the current dilemma were beleaguered by a phobia over how the staff might react. The mere prospect of asking anyone to actually do anything different to achieve a different result, especially in the accountability arena, was often branded as boat rocking of the highest order. Avoiding any temporary employee anxiety as a result of imposing corporate change was placed at a premium over achieving long term improvements, no matter how dysfunctional the current scenario was. What's that definition of insanity again? Before you dismiss me as being too harsh or inflammatory, I want to point out it's not like we were suggesting anything too radical; it was pretty basic stuff. For example, recommending that staff report progress and time spent on assignments once a week was sometimes considered too much of a burden, cultural leap or risk to morale, even though it was critical to achieving stated objectives.

Fear and politics

In some organizations, potential to implement improvements was frozen right from the start by fear of taking personal responsibility for anything the least bit controversial. Other times the effort got bogged down by attempting to limit individual exposure through superfluous consensus building; they can't blame me if all of us agree to it. This generally led to dispersing political angst to participants with even less incentive to implicate themselves in the venture, so the accord most often reached was to do as little as possible to upset the status quo.

Sponsorship as a spectator sport

In cases where the team readily worked to effect change, they often found themselves in an untenable situation due to lack of leadership at the sponsor or stakeholder level — I don't care how good or motivated the project team is, they alone cannot generate sufficient force to sway an organization towards significant cultural change without some modicum of executive leadership and involvement (more on this subject another time…).

High tolerance for low standards

In much younger years, I often joked that it wasn't an issue of whether I had standards or not — it was simply a question of how low I had set them. There is nothing more disheartening than to see an organization get decent processes defined, the application suitably configured to support them, adequate training delivered and make it into production, only to have the effort generally go unnoticed. How does someone in a position of authority get by with unilaterally declaring a prescribed process or expectation as optional if a staff member didn't like it and was vocal enough? Not even so much as a, You Just Wait until Your Director Gets Home, Young Man. If compliance levels are less than 85% for a given expectation, you don't have workplace accountability — you are relying upon the workforce to make voluntary contributions to the bottom line.

So, why am I getting all misty-eyed reminiscing over this situation? Because to some degree, these same significant issues with accountability still exist. Overall, accountability levels have improved over the last few years. This is motivated no doubt by newfound regulatory and fiscal religion, along with a more process-oriented view of the business and the inevitable increase in maturity that comes with time. But, ample opportunity remains to improve both setting standards and elevating levels of accountability to them, from defining strategy to time reporting to configuration control. The problem hasn't been eradicated by any means in the corporate setting. Often times it has just reached more tolerable levels, or the condition has become so persistent that it escapes attention — much like a like a lingering odor in the room that's no longer offensive if you stay there long enough.

To avoid ending this entry on too bleak a note, I should point out that the majority of customers that I have had the honor of serving are successful with their initiatives; for every situation where I encountered major accountability issues, there are an equal number of organizations that I could hold up as poster children for compliance and drive. Perhaps of greatest interest though is the number of times where a good PMO was effectively leveraged as a newfound point of leadership to help overcome some of these issues. In fact, we identified that when a PMO acted as a clear point of ownership for tools and processes, source of internal consultancy, and as the driver of integration initiatives, it was a key success factor. As a result, it is now a core element of our PRISMS best practices. That's why we're all on this topic, right? We know a good PMO makes a significant difference in business performance.

Up Next: Improving Accountability through PMO Leadership

The Role, Influence and Placement of the PMO

Some twenty-odd years ago a single sheet of paper tacked to a divider caught my eye while maneuvering a maze of cubicles. Centered on the page in large type was, What You Tolerate Becomes Your Standard. This simple truth really struck a chord deep within and has served as a touchstone ever since.

Its underlying message is unambiguous — establish certain individual benchmarks for excellence and strive to attain them, or get comfortable with whatever haphazard results come your way. Consider it a less traveled variant of, If You're Not Part of the Solution, Then You Are Part of the Problem. While universally applicable on a personal level, the concept takes on added strategic and managerial dimensions when put in corporate context.

This topic is of interest to the PMO because of its role in the organization. As a point of integration, the PMO has a limited span of influence and even smaller span of actual control. While the PMO is there to assist the organization, collectively and individually, work smarter and more efficiently, it is wholly dependent upon the executive team and line management to actually accept its support. Too many PMOs are rendered irrelevant because they become victims of an environment that lacks accountability. Since the PMO cannot extricate itself from the organization, the standards it adopts, and the level of tolerance for adhering to them, it is incumbent upon the PMO to do everything it can to help elevate performance in this area. Eventually I'm going to get to ideas for what can be done, but first I want to share some observations, conclusions and theories as to why some issues exist.

Before I go much farther, I must disclose that I am the product of unique environments (aren't we all?!) and the very high standards they held that will forever color my perceptions on accountability. Between working summers with my grandfather, submarine service and almost two decades in the nuclear power industry, my tolerance level for non-compliance got ratcheted down pretty tight. While I have learned to loosen up a bit (or risk being run out of town), I fully realize my take on this subject may not align to your own thoughts or even represent mainstream values. Don't dismiss the underlying observations because of that — simply choose the gravity that you wish to attach to them.

The reason for this backdrop isn't to paint myself as holier than thou when it comes to personal standards (in certain situations I can roll in the mud with the best of snakes if needed — I've got photos). It is a preemptive defense against an anticipated onslaught of heated retorts. I'm going to make some sweeping, thus dangerous, generalizations that a few readers may take personally or find downright scandalous. Sure, I could have started this blog with feel-good soft ball subjects instead of tackling a 900 pound gorilla head-on. But, accountability is fundamental to all else, the problems around it are prevalent, and the implications are significant. So, if this particular port-of-call makes you squirm a bit or get introspective, then my work here is done. Besides, by getting this topic taken care of early, everything else will seem downright fluffy!

All of this leads back to the role of the enterprise PMO, ostensibly chartered to align objectives, set business standards, measure compliance, and evaluate results. What is the level of tolerance in your organization for process compliance? Is the leadership in place to help the organization understand expectations asked of them and sell the underlying reasons? More importantly, does the management team have the experience, skills, commitment and fortitude to first hold themselves up as examples and then venture to consistently hold their staff accountable?

Unlike a group of lemmings, bee hives or ant colonies, human collectives are not well equipped to self-align by osmosis, pheromones or other mystical forces of nature. Organizational alignment is achieved through a combination of communications, information sharing, developing common values, methods and processes, and leadership. In matrix knowledge worker environments, these elements are applied to fine tune organizational performance. Unlike organizational models with independent, self-contained units, matrix environments must collaborate since any one functional group in the matrix is wholly interdependent on others to accomplish anything of business value. To be aligned, there must be standards, compliance and accountability.

In lieu of these unifying forces, individuals or groups of individuals will fill the vacuum by doing the best they can to collaborate based on their own skills, understanding and vantage point. While admirable, it is highly unlikely they will independently achieve a level of cross-functional alignment necessary to efficiently operate.

Over the years I've been invited into a lot of organizations, thought a lot about the whole accountability situation and the underlying reasons behind issues I've seen. I fully expect this whole topic to take about three entries to cover, so consider this an introduction to the first in a 3-part series, as a set up to the observations and comments to follow.

Next: Observations on Accountability in the Corporate World

IQPC PMO Summit Notes

As a general rule, I know that when mixing a business trip with personal time off, you should always take care of business first. However, scheduling being what it was, I found myself in Coconut Grove the last week of July, trying desperately to shake off the low idle speed that had settled in after a week of goofing off in Key West. It's hard to find that mental first gear and focus back on all things PMO when just the thought of putting on socks seems downright criminal. Fortunately, the first morning presentations and discussions at the International Quality and Productivity Center (IQPC) 2007 PMO Summit made it easy to quickly reengage. Hmmm — should I hate them for that? With Jimmy Buffets' Margaritaville still echoing in my ears, I too realized it was my own damn fault.

I personally like IQPC events. I've done a few workshops at some of their previous soirees, and regularly attend their IT Financial Management conference. By conference standards, they aren't huge (I figure there were about 60 people at the PMO conference, while the financial management conference draws in about 150), but that isn't necessarily a bad thing when you are there to learn and interact. There is a certain camaraderie and openness that develops in these smaller groups over a few days that the mega-symposiums can't offer. What I like best is that IQPC seems to consistently attract a disproportionate percentage of experienced, senior-level professionals for clientele.

IQPC almost exclusively allows only corporate presentations for their sessions, so with no moderator, presentation or workshop duties to distract me, I had the opportunity to put exclusive focus on the speakers and topics, as well as engage in some great conversations during breaks.

Mark Perry, Senior VP at BOT International, moderated to kick off the first day. While everyone did a great job, the presentations that resonated for me included Mitchell Knecht of BankUnited FSB, discussing the evolution of their PMO as they take on enterprise responsibilities. In particular, their PMO has led the effort to manage their business applications as an integral part of their operations through their apSMART program. They are also active in leading process reviews for the business. Where have we heard those concepts before?

Dan Smith of Verizon gave a good overview of how to consolidate and integrate PMO operations when faced with M&E, and balance strategy with tactical functions along the way. I also got a chance to meet and talk with Germaine Overman of Resurgent, who is director of their PMO and a Planview customer. She offered some sage advice on selecting a software vendor, while giving a candid review of the successes and challenges they have faced as they enter into production. I'm going up to visit them in a few weeks to get a closer look at what they're doing.

Geoff Eccles directs the Global Program Office for Wrigleys. As an example of a more mature operating model, he offered a glimpse into their decision making process and IT project lifecycle. Jerry Julian wrapped up the first day with some insights into his doctoral studies on barriers and enablers to achieving an effective lessons learned program for project management. His observations on red light learning (oversight triggered when something goes afoul) and how it puts the team in a defensive posture, supports a compelling argument for why you should incorporate continuous improvement functions integral to the entire project lifecycle, rather than being perceived as a hunt for the guilty at the end.

Judy Balaban, coming off her stint as the PMO Director at Dow Jones, and VP of Marketing for the PMI New Jersey Chapter, was emcee for the second day. She also presented her views on how C-level executives think about risk and project leadership, and tips for interacting with them. Lisa DiTullio, of Harvard Pilgrim Health, who also presented on the first day, shared their amazing turnaround and how portfolio management helped enable it.

Courtland LeVallee of Genentech offered up a thoughtful and entertaining review of everything you need to know about Project Management leadership, as gleaned from Star Wars. Even with Darth Vader as a project manager, the Death Star was doomed by the low probability, high impact risk posed by the Rebel Alliance.

Patricia Sibinelli offered the most distant as well as sophisticated example of program management at the event. As PMO Coordinator for PROMON of Brazil, their operations are truly impressive. While you may not have heard of them, imagine Hallibuton, Bechtel, Cisco and ComEd all wrapped into one, and you get an idea of the scope of their organization; from major construction to IT and petrochem, to power production and infrastructure, they do it all, and do it in an integrated manner. I think us North Americans were left in a bit of portfolio management awe.

Austin's own Karl Popham, of Austin Energy, offered up his thoughts on developing and applying a PMO Scorecard, explaining the prioritization process they apply to their project portfolio in the process, which generated a period of widespread, furious note-taking. The system Karl described is very similar to a process I have used in the past for prioritizing all planned workload, and it works great. I will feature it soon in an upcoming whitepaper already in development, and let you know when it is available.

Finally, Steven Gonzales of the Deputy Advance Planning Office for the Johnson Space Center at NASA provided a perfect wrap up to the event. After revamping mission control infrastructure as his last project, Steve has taken on looking 25 years into the future and preparing for project management as we extend out past the pull of Earth's orbit (after all, as Steve pointed out, they no longer have the local space market sewn up - it's getting crowded up there with all the countries, farmers and private enterprises launching rockets, not to mention the zero-gravity vacationers!). He opened his session with a great video titled "Did You Know" that is out on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q) that really brings home one of my favorite topics; the exponential increase in change agents that act to reshape the business environment as we know it.  While this clip centers on globalization it includes other elements as well. If you haven't seen it, I encourage you to take six minutes and watch it.

So, thanks to all who put this event on and participated, and for letting me (almost) be a fly on the wall as the only vendor participating (intentions of staying under the radar was squashed when Mark Perry outed me early on). Reflecting on the summit in general, it continues to reinforce the theme that PMOs are definitely being asked to serve new roles and take on a broader mission. As importantly, today's PMO directors seem to be willing, up to the task, and anxious to share and learn from each other.

Hey all you all, take the time to get out from behind that desk and explore what's going on beyond your four walls. Whatever it is you are doing, you will benefit more from the ideas, learning and inspiration that these types of events offer well beyond the costs incurred. If you see me out there, stop me and say hello!

Business Integration Functions and the PMO

If you don't subscribe to Baseline Magazine (virtually or otherwise), you might want to check it out. I find it one of the better industry news sources out there. I really like their no-nonsense approach to product reviews, format, abundance of first-person quotes from users and experts, and general competence at looking at technology from a business perspective. Today is a good example of that. They have a decent article by Robert Hertzberg on 10 Best Practices for IT-Business Alignment that every PMO director should review. (http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1540,2164145,00.asp?kc=CIOMINEPNL081307)

While the actual best practices themselves aren't exactly hitherto unknown concepts, what I find interesting is that the PMO has a stake in executing or helping to facilitate virtually every one of them. Perhaps the issue isn't so much the lack of executives knowing that these things are important, but rather ensuring that the business integration organization (that would be you) has the mandate to make them so. As you read though the list, you might want to use it as a quick checklist about whether you are engaged in these activities and how well you are doing.

What's in a Name?

Why Enterprise Navigator? As we planned this initiative I mulled over how to title it, passing on a number of something-PMO-something ideas. While universally recognized, PMO is such a constraining tag, regardless of what you use for the P term. It has always seemed to fall well short of both what we will be discussing in this forum and what is really happening in many organizations.

It reminded me of the identity crisis that the Project Management Institute must be facing as it extends into Program Management. And, with its ranks swollen with technologists, I'm sure there are those in PMI that are also just dying to talk about ITSM but don't know how to reconcile broaching the topic. Meanwhile, ITIL becomes the new black. Lesson learned: avoid imposing unintended or artificial limitations or inferences on something by virtue of the name you give it.

Thus, while I will freely use the PMO acronym, just be aware that I do so as a pragmatic compromise to search engines everywhere and accepted business lexicon. I'm just not putting it in the name of this blog.

OK, but the question still remains — why Enterprise Navigator? Those who know me probably know I have a naval background and that I still tend to gravitate towards the sea. But no, I was never a navigator, on a warship nor a starship, then or now. Experience at sea however did impress upon me the importance of the role.

And, those who know me also know that I find it almost impossible to speak without use of analogies. One of many favorites is the comparison of an organization to a ship at sea; always on the move to the next destination. Ah, now we are getting to the heart of the matter, and to what I hope will set the tone going forward. An organization of any respectable tonnage needs a dedicated navigator — someone who can read the charts, track position and bearing, predict the winds and plot a safe, efficient course. The navigator doesn't set the destination, provision the hold or stoke the boilers. But, a good navigator is recognized as an essential role, respected and valued by both captain and crew.

As for the enterprise part of it, this reflects concepts put forth in our PMO 2.0 series. More and more, PMOs are being asked to extend their role beyond just managing the project portfolio for a particular department, group or program.

So, for me, Enterprise Navigator goes a long way towards describing the emerging role of the modern corporate PMO, or Management Integration Center (MIC), as I prefer to term it. It must help make sense of several complex variables, provide reliable information and recommendations, report progress and facilitate the journey on a strategic as well as tactical level — for the product and service provider as well as other stakeholders.

If you find this direction relevant and compelling, I hope you will join us as we embark on our own journey of discovery.

Next Port of Call: Notes from the IQPC PMO Summit