Enterprise project management methodology

CREATING A METHODOLOGY1

Background

John Compton, The president of the company, expressed his feelings

quite bluntly at the executive staff meeting;

We are no longer competitive in the marketplace. Almost all of the

Requests for Proposal (RFP) that we want to bid on have a requirement

that we must identify in the proposal the project management

methodology we will use on the contract should we be awarded the

contract. We have no project management methodology. We have just a

few templates we use based upon the PMBOK® Guide. All of our

competitors have methodologies, but not us.

I have been asking for a methodology to be developed for more than a

year now, and all I get are excuses. Some of you are obviously afraid

that you might lose power and authority once the methodology is up and

running. That may be true, but losing some power and authority is

obviously better than losing your job. In six months I want to see a

methodology in use on all projects or I will handle the situation myself.

I simply cannot believe that my executive staff is afraid to develop a

project management methodology.

Critical Issues

The executive staff knew this day was inevitable; they had to take the

initiative in the implementation of a project management methodology.

Last year, a consultant was brought in to conduct a morning three-hour

session on the benefits of project management and the value of an

enterprise project management methodology (EPM). As part of the

session, the consultant explained that the time needed to develop and

implement an EPM system can be shortened if the company has a

189

project management office (PMO) in place to take the lead role. The

consultant also explained that whichever executive gets control of the

PMO may become more powerful than other executives because he or

she now controls all of the project management intellectual property.

The executive staff fully understood the implication of this and

therefore became reluctant to visibly support project management until

they could see how their organization would be affected. In the

meantime, project management suffered.

Reluctantly, a PMO was formed reporting to the chief information

officer. The PMO was comprised of a handful of experienced project

managers that could hopefully take the lead in the development of a

methodology. The PMO concluded that there were five steps that had to

be done initially. After the five steps were done, the executive

committee would receive a final briefing on what had been

accomplished. The final briefing would be in addition to the monthly

updates and progress reports. The PMO believed that getting executive

support and signoffs in a timely manner would be difficult.

The first step that needed to be done was the establishment of the

number of life-cycle phases. Some people interviewed wanted ten to

twelve life-cycle phases. That meant that there would be ten to twelve

gate review meetings and the project managers would spend a great

deal of time preparing paperwork for the gate review meetings rather

than managing the project. The decision was then made to have no more

than six life-cycle phases.

The second step was to decide whether the methodology should be

designed around rigid policies and procedures or go the more informal

route of using forms, guidelines, checklists, and templates. The PMO

felt that project managers needed some degree of freedom in dealing

with clients and therefore the more informal approach would work

best. Also, clients were asking to have the methodology designed

around the client’s business needs and the more informal approach

would provide the flexibility to do this.