Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2214091.2214101acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescprConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The role of informal control in PMO lite environments

Published: 31 May 2012 Publication History

Abstract

The Corporate Executive Board Company PMO (Project Management Office) Executive Council's report on the State of the PMO: 2010 identified six key findings, one of which was: "A Trend Toward Reduced Methodology." In line with this trend, 47% of the PMOs in the CEBC study indicated "Establishing a 'PMO Lite' function" as a top priority for 2010. PMO Lite is a configuration that has minimal staff and no direct control over the management of individual projects, but supports project managers by creating standards and serving as a project information repository.
Viewed through the theoretical lens of control theory, the recently reported trend of cutting mandatory deliverables, making some of them optional deliverables, and moving toward a standards and repository type of PMO implies a reduction of formal controls. If organizations aim to maintain or continue to improve project management outcomes while shrinking formal controls, control theory suggests informal controls will play a vital role in achieving desired outcomes.
This in-progress research involves a quantitative field study to examine the extent and nature of informal controls in PMO Lite environments. To ascertain whether informal controls play a more significant role in PMO Lite environments, we also will collect data from project managers in "PMO Heavy" organizations. Participating companies will be drawn from our School's Project Management Advisory Board and a web-based survey will be administered to 200-300 project managers.
Data will be analyzed using structural equation modeling. We will relate insights gleaned on informal controls present in PMO Lite environments to the extent to which their organization meets key project management goals. We will also examine antecedents to informal controls in these organizations, to gain insights into how managers can spark and nurture informal controls that contribute to the achievement of organizational project management goals.

References

[1]
Aubry, M., Muller, R., Hobbs, B., and Blomquist, T. (2010). Project management offices in transition. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 766--778.
[2]
Choudhury, V. and Sabherwal, R. (2003). Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 291--314.
[3]
Dai, C.X., and Wells, W.G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 523--532.
[4]
Gopal, A. and Gosain, S. (2010). The role of organizational controls and boundary spanning in software development outsourcing: Implications for project performance. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 960--982.
[5]
Harris, M.L., Collins, R.W., and Hevner, A.R. (2009). Control of Flexible Software Development Under Uncertainty. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 400--419.
[6]
Hobbs, B., and Aubry, M. (2007). A multi-phase research program investigating project management offices (PMOs): The results of phase 1. Project Management Journal, 38(1), 74--86.
[7]
Jaworski, B. J., Stathakopoulos, V., and Krishnan, H.S. (1993). Control combinations in marketing: Conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 57, 57--69.
[8]
Kirsch, L.J. (1996). The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process. Organization Science, 7(1), 1--21.
[9]
Kirsch, L.J. (1997). Portfolios of Control Modes and IS Project Management. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 215--239.
[10]
Kirsch, L.J., Ko, D.G., and Haney, M.H. (2010). Investigating the Antecedents of Team-Based Clan Control. Organization Science, 21(2), 469--489.
[11]
Light, M. (2000). The project office: Teams, processes, and tools. Stamford, CT: Gartner Research.
[12]
Martin, N.L., Pearson, J.M., and Furumo, K. (2007). IS project management: Size, practices, and the project management office. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(4), 52--60.
[13]
Maruping, L.M., Venkatesh, V., and Agarwal, R. (2009). A Control Theory Perspective on Agile Methodology Use and Changing User Requirements. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 377--399.
[14]
Ouchi, W.G. (1979). A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833--848.
[15]
Pellegrinelli, S., and Garagna, L. (2009). Towards a conceptualization of PMOs as agents and subjects of change and renewal. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 649--656.
[16]
PMI (2008a). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 4th Edition. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
[17]
PMI (2008b). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model: OPM3 Knowledge Foundation. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
[18]
Project Management Solutions (2010). The State of the PMO 2010: A PM Solutions Research Report. Glen Mills, PA: PM Solutions.
[19]
Singh, R., Keil, M, and Kasi, V. (2009). Identifying and overcoming the challenges of implementing a project management office. European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 409--427.

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Research Findings in the Domain of Agile MethodologiesStrategic Approaches to Digital Platform Security Assurance10.4018/978-1-7998-7367-9.ch005(214-243)Online publication date: 2021

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGMIS-CPR '12: Proceedings of the 50th annual conference on Computers and People Research
May 2012
224 pages
ISBN:9781450311106
DOI:10.1145/2214091
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 31 May 2012

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. PMO
  2. control theory
  3. informal control
  4. managerial behavior
  5. project managers

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SIGMIS-CPR '12
Sponsor:
SIGMIS-CPR '12: 2012 Computers and People Research Conference
May 31 - June 2, 2012
Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 300 of 480 submissions, 63%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Research Findings in the Domain of Agile MethodologiesStrategic Approaches to Digital Platform Security Assurance10.4018/978-1-7998-7367-9.ch005(214-243)Online publication date: 2021

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media