Chapter 2

FITTING PROJECT MANAGEMENT INTO THE ORGANIZATION

Successful project management in federal agencies must address project management across three organizational dimensions: culture, systems, and structure:

   •   Culture refers to the behaviors, attitudes and beliefs, language, and organizational rituals in place within a work setting. Culture describes the human environment, which may enhance or inhibit the success of project management.

   •   Systems connotes a related set of activities, processes, technologies, and supporting materials organized around a specific objective or desired outcome.

   •   Structure refers to the configuration of business units, divisions, directorates, and other constructs that make up an organization.

These three dimensions collectively define the environment within which project management will either thrive or wane.

When one or more of these dimensions is ignored, unintended consequences can result (see Table 2-1). For example, if the organizational structure is not in alignment with the supporting systems, informal processes and “back channels” may be relied on to get work done. When the organizational structure is misaligned with the culture, the environment may favor loud personalities rather than sound thinking. Likewise, a lack of systems may lead to unclear roles and responsibilities across units: The culture may reward heroic individual or team contributions rather than the steady individual or team that is consistently on time and on budget. Finally, if the culture is not properly aligned toward a project management environment, project management may not be recognized as a legitimate function and significant organizational resistance may arise.

CULTURE

Project management is a discipline that naturally reflects the culture of the organization. Projects leverage the people, processes, and systems within the organization, all of which are imbued with facets of the culture. Culture can be defined as the confluence of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs, language, and rituals that form the basis for a “normal” experience in an organization.

How can understanding culture help a project management practice? An effective project management practice must align itself culturally within its environment. This does not mean that it can never impose change or go against the grain; projects are often at the forefront of change. To be successful in the federal environment, a project management orientation must be absorbed into the culture and adopted. It must operate within the normative ranges behaviorally, in its underlying attitude, in its language, and in its adherence to ritual.

SYSTEMS

Systems is a broad-based term that connotes a related set of activities, processes, technologies, and supporting materials organized around a specific objective or desired outcome. Examples of systems in an organization include resource management, service delivery, contract management, and communication.

Organizational systems can be documented, formal processes or age-old methods for getting things done. Regardless, projects must be able to access and use the various technical and process-based systems that enable an organization to function. To be successful, project management must access these systems and be able to interact with them in ways that support the organization.

As a relatively new arrival in many agency hierarchies, project management faces the challenge of integrating with long-held anchor systems such as human resources, finance, contracts, and operations. Project managers must be able to leverage human resource processes in hiring staff, assigning project resources, or providing support for necessary training. In the federal sector, there is no best practice for how a project management practice should integrate within these systems. Yet projects must operate across existing systems and silos to retain resources and achieve results (see Figure 2-1).

Organizational units are vertically focused on their functional mission. However, the typical project runs horizontally across the organization to access resources from a number of areas. For project management to succeed, it must have access to systems within the organizational units. These systems include processes, core operations, and technology—any type of common workflow that results in a standard organizational deliverable or result. Successful agencies in the federal sector have defined clear boundaries and processes for using existing systems. PMO directors have established relationships with their counterparts in human resources, finance, and contracts to ensure that requests are handled properly.

STRUCTURE

Structure represents the most formal connection between project management and the organization (think of an organization chart). The structure of an organization should reflect long-term goals as well as recognition of services, delivery models, and alignment of staff. While structure is often difficult to establish initially, it may be the easiest organizational dimension to change.

Unlike culture and systems, changing structure is a matter of moving reporting responsibilities, staffing, and physical space to accommodate a new set of priorities. This is no small feat and should not be minimized by suggesting it is simple. Yet, structure is one area where relatively fast changes can be made to accommodate a function like project management.

Project management must be anchored appropriately to the organization. Federal agencies display a wide range of organizational configurations of project management. All project managers are part of some type of reporting structure, although the details will vary from agency to agency and department to department. In some cases, projects report through a chief information officer (CIO). Other organizations have projects reporting up through the administrative function or chief administrative officer (CAO) or across a variety of executive lines. This variation is a natural result of the influences and forces that project management must address in becoming established and growing within an organization, including economics, intra-agency politics, external politics (i.e., dealing with elected officials), physical space, alignment with mission, and the sense of criticality of project management.

Where the project management practice developed naturally in an organization, it often evolves as shadow processes with no clear lines of authority. While a bottom-up approach serves early project management practices well, these practices must eventually become properly linked to the organization or risk being seen as an intrusion and disruption. Once established within the structure of the organization, project management can operate legitimately and projects can be properly sponsored and staffed. Ideally, a way will be found to combine the entrepreneurial spirit with the organizational strength of an established project management system.¹

The project management office and the program management office are the mainstay business structures through which projects are channeled in the federal government. (Keep in mind that the term program in federal parlance often represents an ongoing operation that is legislatively mandated, such as Medicare. The traditional project management definition of program is a series of projects or related subprojects.)

The PMO typically is a permanent organizational unit chartered to coordinate project resources and improve overall project success. Three general models are commonly found in the federal environment:

   •   Center of excellence. This type of organization is typically a support unit, providing information, best practices, mentoring, and coordination services. A center of excellence has no direct authority for projects and does not maintain direct responsibility for the organization’s project managers. The focus of this model is to provide the framework and increase the opportunity for project success, with an emphasis on methodology and competency development.

   •   Functional or delivery-oriented PMO. Many PMOs are created within a division or directorate to satisfy that particular area’s project needs. In an IT PMO, for example, the information technology organization maintains a PMO to plan and deploy its projects effectively. This PMO type may also be charged with ensuring adherence to organizational standards, policies, and procedures, with an emphasis on compliance and audits. This model focuses on ensuring that projects are “done right.”

   •   Strategic PMO. With time and success, PMOs can contribute to the formation and execution of an organization’s strategy. The strategic PMO implements the activities associated with most or all of the elements on each tier. Overall, the focus of this PMO is to initiate projects and programs that are aligned with the organization’s mission and strategy. Strategic PMOs require close collaboration and strong engagement with executives and are oriented toward investment decision-making, determining where the organization’s limited resources will be focused, and which projects and programs will contribute to mission realization. This PMO type is focused on getting the “right projects” done.

The program management office (PgMO) is often established to meet a specific program’s objectives. For example, in replacing a legacy system over a period of five years, the PgMO is a useful organizational construct that provides a legitimate home for the various projects that fall under this initiative. Once the program objectives are met, the office is disbanded.

For all but a few mission-focused organizations like NASA and parts of DoD, program management practices have not yet been fully integrated. Owing in part to the disparate definitions of the term program, there is no standard configuration for a PgMO within the federal government. Each federal department or agency defines its own configuration of program management as a function within the organization.

NOTE

1.    See Paul Roberts, Guide to Project Management (London: The Economist and Profile Books, 2007), pp. 42–69; and Rick A. Morris, The Everything Project Management Book (Avon, MA: Avon Media, 2002), pp. 101–108.